…
But the situation is more delicate for those who gained their notoriety, made their reputations, and received their government funding on the old “sky is falling” model. For them acknowledging new facts means admitting the major possibility they were wrong. This includes conceding policy prescriptions based on their work may be draconian, counterproductive, and in the end vastly harmful to poorest of the world’s population. The ethanol disaster is but one example of “consensus” science taking food off the table for no discernible reason. These admissions would be a tough pill to swallow but ones a true scientist would embrace.
Watchdog.org reports:
Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe and three top GreenTech advisers met with the key White House aide responsible for helping bankrupt solar-panel maker Solyndra win federal loans and high-profile presidential support, a Watchdog investigation has revealed.
What they discussed in the Oct. 12, 2010, meeting with Obama “green energy” aide Greg Nelson is a mystery – the White House visitors log offers no details. But the confab came seven months after a stock transfer made McAuliffe a GreenTech majority owner and company chairman.
h/t to Junkscience.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/14/McAuliffe-Founded-Company-Long-After-It-Existed
“But the whole story is falling apart on examination, beginning with the fact that McAuliffe didn’t “found” GreenTech. Michael Patrick Leahy did the legwork to track down the whole history. The GreenTech project was founded in 2008 under the name Hybrid Kinetics by Benjamin Yeung, an exiled Chinese businessman known for, er, questionable business practices, and his partner Charles Wang. The company was originally started in Alabama, with lavish promises to bring a giant, multi-billion-dollar factory to an impoverished part of the state. Wang then started a Mississippi branch of Hybrid Kinetics, presumably with the idea of shopping around for additional subsidies in a different state. When Yeung and Wang’s partnership fell apart, Wang changed the name of Hybrid Kinetics to GreenTech, but kept the same basic business plan, in competition with Yeung’s Alabama version (which we will return to in a moment).
In December 2008, Hybrid Kinetics paid former president Clinton $300,000 to give a speech, putting its principals in contact with Clinton’s political circle, of which McAuliffe is a very prominent member. By the following June, McAuliffe had flunked out of the Virginia Democratic primary and was casting about for outside-the-beltway credentials. In August, Wang incorporated GreenTech in Mississippi as the new name for Hybrid Kinetics. In October, McAuliffe “founded” GreenTech as a Virginia corporation, and the following March Wang merged his Mississippi version into McAuliffe’s Virginia version. So if you’re keeping track of the shell game, what you really have is a company founded by Chinese businessmen in Alabama in 2008—being “founded” by Terry McAuliffe in Virginia about two years later. The name is changed and the headquarters have been moved, but under the hood it’s the same entity.
Why would a Chinese businessman go through so much trouble to select a politically connected front man?”
Lady in Red says:
“I cannot abide *his feeling* that [Cuccinelli] has the right to force all women at all times to birth…” “…forced incubating ovens…”&blah, blah, etc.
I see that Lady in Red has caved in to an emotional extreme. If the typical female voter is affected in the same emo way, then Cuccinelli will have a hard time.
Voting based on ‘feeling’ — and projecting her own ‘feelings’ onto someone else, no less — is why the country is in such sad shape. Does she really believe what she wrote? Really? That Cuccinelli is going to force all women to give birth??
The Dems have tapped into “feelings” pretty effectively, as the emotional Lady in Red demonstrates. Facts and laws mean nothing to voters like that. “Feelings” are everything. And if you can project your own feelings onto the good guy, then so much the better for those who have made the country what it is today. Thanks a lot, L-I-R, for putting your feelings and emotions above rational thought.
I am a mean machine, Mr. Stealey. I don’t play with dummies. These folk are going for all the marbles…. today, tomorrow, ….in ten years? All the marbles.
They are smarter than the Social Nationalists running our government, present bureaucrats, etc now..
This is the American Taliban and, my twitching elbow says, there will be a holy war with Islam, soon.
I don’t like any of it. ….Lady in Red
Lady in Red says:
“These folk are going for all the marbles”
Who might you be referring to?
Hell’s bells. It’s getting late. Truth is a lie and lies are truth. Climate science is not the only venue.
Try this:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/08/07/the-fraud-that-is-cnn-through-the-lies-within-the-truth-about-benghazi-updating-the-previous-expose/
Exhale, get a beer and watch the remarkable interview with Amber Lyon.
Climate science was not my first experience with intellectual dissonance. …Lady in Red
Huh?
Was that a response to my question?
Who, exactly, is ‘going for all the marbles’? That’s all I was asking.
[If your reply was to someone/something else, please disregard this comment.]
I mucked up: The Amber Lyon interview is here:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/08/07/cnn-airs-the-truth-about-benghazi-but-fills-the-story-with-lies-and-deception-we-explain-why/
(…on InfoWars…. with Alex Jones…sigh. Just watch. sigh….)
The link, in the message above, is too hard for a first sky jump. ….Lady in Red
…but, why would anyone call Mann a charlatan?
Because it’s more polite than calling him a cranky crank, or adding the honorific, “Piltdownn”.
IANAL but this case (which was dismissed before trial) might be brought to the attention of NR/Steyn’s lawyers, since it may not come up for them in a search of precedents since it did not go to trial. (Can a “case dismissed” be a kind of negative precedent in libel law?? Anyone know??)
So the original creator of DOS, Tim Patterson, was basically accused (many years later) of copying or plagiarism. He sued for libel and defamation, but the case was dismissed before trial because the judge deemed him to be a “limited purpose public figure” (although Paterson has always been far more obscure to the public and news media than is Michael Mann):
http://dosmandrivel.blogspot.com/2007/08/is-dos-rip-off-of-cpm.html
Just something I noticed in reading up on the origins of the PC, not on any climate issue. But this might be of interest to lawyers and journalists trying to judge whether Mann is any kind of “public figure” and whether that should bear upon the legal proceedings.
P.s. Nothing against Tim Patterson, who seems like a good guy, and whose explanation of the origins of DOS seems plausible to me….. I simply mention the case as an example of the high hurdle faced by even a “limited purpose public figure” under US defamation law, unless the DC political correctness mafia rules again.