Climate Science Turned Monster

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The public just doesn't seem to be afraid of the Global Warming scare tactics
The public just doesn’t seem to be afraid of the Global Warming scare tactics

Promoters of ‘official’ climate, which is defined as the works of the UN IPCC, are desperate. Twenty of them, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) members like Kevin Trenberth, asked the Obama administration to file Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges against climate deniers. All but two of the twenty are at Universities, and the two are career bureaucrats associated with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They all live off the public purse, but somehow in the weird world of climate science that is untainted money. The RICO charge is ad hominem, not about the science. If Virtually all the research funding for global warming comes from government and goes to those supporting the unproven hypothesis. There is no comparison between the amounts of government money going to the ‘official’ side of the science and that going to skeptics.

Their RICO charge is so ridiculous it hardly warrants a response, but it does require scientific perspective. It is important to note that none of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books, they claim provide the evidence for their charge, signed the letter. It is likely that most, if not all of them or their institutes, receive funding from a government beyond their academic or government salaries.

The RICO charge is a particularly nasty form of ad hominem attack. By applying it in the global warming case, it tries to make criminals out of people doing their job properly. The real criminal part of their enterprise is that skeptics are doing what scientists are supposed to do, that is disproving the AGW hypothesis. They accuse these properly named scientific skeptics of performing the scientific method, either through ignorance of the method or to silence them. The twenty, like the IPCC and its supporters, directly or indirectly thwart the scientific method by accepting the hypothesis as proven. They then deflect or ignore overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis is wrong including failed predictions (projections). They consistently refuse to consider the null hypothesis.

The attack is not surprising because the IPCC created a monster and were driven to keep it alive. Once you create the monster it becomes uncontrollable and even if it becomes a threat to society, the creator will resist its destruction; worse, you have to keep feeding the monster and will take extreme measures if necessary. This inevitability is the moral message of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

Establishment of the IPCC through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) put national weather office bureaucrats in control of national climate policy and most of the research funding. They appointed the members of the IPCC and used their offices to promote and perpetuate the unproven hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Extreme measures taken to keep the monster alive included adjusting the record to eliminate previous warm periods and lowering the historic instrumental record to increase the slope of the curve to create or accentuate warming. More recently it was the adjustments designed to offset the pause they directly contradicted the hypothesis. They were on a treadmill for two main reasons. By accepting the IPCC AGW hypothesis as proved, required ignoring or diverting from evidence. It was the destructive effect T.H. Huxley identified when he wrote,

“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

By convincing politicians to establish policy based on their information, it became difficult to admit they were wrong.

The natural tendency of any bureaucracy is to perpetuate its existence. This includes expanding the scope and scale of the work, promoting speculative dangers and threats to society, emphasizing the urgency to resolve the problem, and involving as many other public and private agencies as possible. This list summarizes the claims of those making the RICO charge. The structure and involvement of people and agencies has become so large that reduction or elimination is virtually impossible. It parallels the idea of “too big to fail” but becomes, “too important to fail”.

Another challenge is that the numbers of people involved, directly or indirectly, becomes large enough to influence votes and keep the monster alive. For example, how many tax accountants, tax lawyers, IRS employees or anyone else in the taxation industry would vote for a flat tax? Other than those with a vested interest there are many others who Niccolo Machiavelli identified when he said,


One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.

It is also why Upton Sinclair said,

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”


There is also the problem of admitting error that many find difficult. Tolstoi summarized their plight.

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

In The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, I identified some of the groups and agencies across the world involved in the promotion and opportunities that the global warming deception offered. They include

· Members of the cabal who chose climate and environment as vehicles for their political agenda.

· Academics attracted by the significant amounts of funding offered.

· Academics with political sympathies for the cabal’s objectives.

· Bureaucrats employed by the national weather offices that comprise the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) chosen as the vehicle for controlling the IPCC.

· Bureaucrats with political sympathies with the cabal objectives.

· Bureaucrats in other government agencies, such as Agriculture or Transport that are secondarily affected by weather and climate issues.

· Departments of Education who directed unbalanced teaching of only the ‘official’ science as Justice Burton UK court ruled.

· Politicians who saw an opportunity to “be green.”

· Politicians who saw an opportunity for more taxation.

· Businesses that saw an opportunity for a profitable business guaranteed by government policy and funding.

· Individuals who saw a career or business opportunity.

· Environmental groups who supported the political objectives of blaming humans for the world’s ills.

· Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). Maurice Strong reconstituted the term coined by the UN in 1945 for the Rio 1992 conference. It purportedly gave voice to organizations not part of a government or conventional for-profit businesses. At Conference of the Parties (COP) climate meetings, they constitute at least half of the attendees.

· Most of the media who actively supported the AGW hypothesis.

· National science academies persuaded by the British Royal Society to support the IPCC position.

There is one thing likely about most of these people, 97 percent of them know little or nothing about climate change.

The Climate Conference of the Parties (COP21) scheduled for Paris is clearly facing failure, which is pushing IPCC defenders, such as the twenty making the RICO request, to extremes. Their comparison of scientists trying to perform proper science to organized crime leaders is beyond outrageous. It is especially egregious because the people making the charges are guilty of scientific malfeasance. While not necessarily criminal, it is worse in the damage it has and will do to everyone. The monster they created using incorrect science became the justification for imposing destructive, expensive, and completely unnecessary policies on the world. These policies will do far more damage to the poor and the environment they claim to protect. As it was anonymously said,

If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Coppin
September 19, 2015 3:33 pm

The global warming/climate change adherents need to understand the RICO barrel points back at them with a far, far more convincing case.

Reply to  Paul Coppin
September 19, 2015 4:36 pm

The high priests of global warming could demand an inquisition to root out the heretics. Torture will reveal the possessed. The head of their order is coming for a visit.

Reply to  BenM
September 20, 2015 3:31 am

Maybe in a RICO court case evidence such as this might be produced. How would a jury see this? Would a judge laugh hysterically to within an inch of his or her life? You decide.

Reply to  BenM
September 20, 2015 3:34 am


Climate Research Unit (CRU)
…From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice concerning their exploration operations in the Arctic marginal seas. Working closely with BP’s Cold Regions Group, CRU staff developed a set of detailed sea-ice atlases,…
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Petroleum…Greenpeace International…Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates…Sultanate of OmanShell……
Sierra Club
TIME – 2 February 2012
Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry
TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…..
Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
[Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC until Feb. 2015]
2011: Star Partner – Rockefeller Foundation
2007: Partners – BP
2006: Co-Associates – NTPC [coal and gas power generation] | Function Hosts – BP
2005: Associate – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
Berkeley Earth team members include: Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director……Steven Mosher, Scientist…
Financial Support First Phase (2010)
…Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Second Phase (2011)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Third Phase (2012)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…Anonymous Foundation ($250,000)…
Fourth Phase (2013)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($100,000)…
—– caught up in fossil fuel ‘divestment’ hypocrisy
[Rockefellers Brothers Fund] RBF has given $800,000 in recent years and almost $2 million to the 1Sky Education Fund, now part of, according to foundation records.
Union of Concerned Scientists
The 2013 Annual Report PDF
UCS thanks the following companies that matched members’ gifts at a level of $1,000 or more….Chevron Corporation…..
Annual Report 2002 PDF
The Union of Concerned Scientists gratefully acknowledges the following individuals and foundations for their generous contributions of at least $500 during our fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001–September 30, 2002)….
Friends of UCS
The Friends of UCS provide substantial support for the ongoing work of the organization…Larry Rockefeller…Matching Gift Companies…BP Amoco Matching Gift Program…Philip Morris Companies, Inc….
University of California, Berkeley
Cal Climate Action Partnership
What is CalCAP?
The Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) is a collaboration of faculty, administration, staff, and students working to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at UC Berkeley.
University of California, Berkeley
UC Berkeley News – 1 February 2007
BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois
Climate Institute
About Us
The Climate Institute has been in a unique position to inform key decision-makers, heighten international awareness of climate change, and identify practical ways of achieving significant emissions reductions…
American Gas FoundationBP…NASA….PG&E Corporation [natural gas & electricity]Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Shell Foundation…The Rockefeller Foundation…UNDP, UNEP…
…EcoLiving provides events and hands-on workshops to teach Albertans about ways to reduce our collective ecological footprint, create more sustainable and energy efficient buildings, and share information about local environmental initiatives and services….
2008 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips…Shell 2009 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips Canada…2013 Sponsors:…Shell FuellingChange…
Nature Conservancy
Climate Change Threats and Impacts
Climate change is already beginning to transform life on Earth. Around the globe, seasons are shifting, temperatures are climbing and sea levels are rising…… If we don’t act now, climate change will rapidly alter the lands and waters we all depend upon for survival, leaving our children and grandchildren with a very different world….
Washington Post – 24 May 2010
…What De Leon didn’t know was that the Nature Conservancy lists BP as one of its business partners. The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years….The Conservancy, already scrambling to shield oyster beds from the spill, now faces a different problem: a potential backlash….
America’s WETLAND Foundation
Restore-Adapt-Mitigate: Responding To Climate Change Through Coastal Habitat Restoration
Coastal habitats are being subjected to a range of stresses from climate change; many of these stresses are predicted to increase over the next century The most significant effects are likely to be from sea-level rise, increased storm and wave intensity, temperature increases, carbon dioxide concentration increases, and changes in precipitation that will alter freshwater delivery…..
World Sponsor: Shell
Sustainability Sponsors: Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil
National Sponsors: British Petroleum
Green Energy Futures
About Us
Green Energy Futures is a multi-media storytelling project that is documenting the clean energy revolution that’s already underway. It tells the stories of green energy pioneers who are moving forward in their homes, businesses and communities.
Gold Sponsor: Shell
World Resources Institute
WRI engages businesses, policymakers, and civil society at the local, national, and international levels to advance transformative solutions that mitigate climate change and help communities adapt to its impacts.
ACKNOWLEDGING OUR DONORS (January 1, 2011 – August 1, 2012 PDF 5MB
Shell and Shell Foundation…ConocoPhillips Company…
Purdue Solar
Navitas Takes 1st at SEMA 2013
Last week, Purdue Solar Racing took home first place in the Battery Electric division at the 2013 Shell Eco-marathon. The winning run reached an efficiency of 78.1 m/kWh (a miles per gallon equivalency of approximate 2,630MPGe)….
AGU Fall Meeting
9-13 December 2013
Thank You to Our Sponsors
The AGU would like to take the time to thank all of our generous sponsors who support the
2013 Fall Meeting and the events at the meeting.
ExxonMobil…….BP, Chevron…..Mineralogical Society of America…
Science Museum – Atmosphere
About our funders
…exploring climate science gallery and the three-year Climate Changing… programme. Through these ground-breaking projects we invite all our visitors to deepen their understanding of the science behind our changing climate.
We believe that working together with such a wide range of sectors is something that we’ll all need to be able to do in our climate-changing world….
Principal Sponsors: Shell…Siemens…
Dr. Michael Mann
WUWT – October 15, 2013
…it is enlightening to learn that his current employer, Penn State, gets funds from Koch, and so does where Dr. Mann did his thesis from, the University of Virginia. Those darn facts, they are stubborn things. See the list that follows….
Jimbo October 16, 2013 at 11:49 am
Why stop at Koch funding?
Exxon Mobil Corporation
2012 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments
…..Pennsylvania State University [$] 258,230…..
Stanford University
New York Times – 21 November 2002
Exxon-Led Group Is Giving A Climate Grant to Stanford
Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming….In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program….
National Science Teachers Association – Jun 11, 2012
by Wendi Liles
You are invited this summer to the 4th Annual CSI: Climate Status Investigations free climate change educator professional development in Wilmington, DE…. You will also get to participate in a climate change lesson with the staff from Delaware Nature Society to investigate the effect of climate change on their urban watershed…..a few fun giveaways thanks to our sponsors-DuPont, Agilent Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Chevron, Delaware Nature Society….
Duke University
ConocoPhillips Pledges $1 Million to Climate Change Policy Partnership at Duke 2007
ConocoPhillips, the third-largest integrated energy company in the United States, has pledged $1 million to support an industry-university collaboration working to develop policies that address global climate change, Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead announced Wednesday.
Alberta Water Council PDF
Growing demands from an increasing population, economic development, and climate change are the realities impacting our water allocation system.
…Breakfast Sponsor: ConocoPhillips Canada…River Level Sponsors….ConocoPhillips Canada
University of California, Davis
Institute of Transportation Studies PDF
10th Biennial Conference on Transportation and Energy Policy
Toward a Policy Agenda For Climate Change
Asilomar Transport & Energy Conferences
VIII. Managing Transitions in the Transport Sector: How Fast and How Far?
September 11-14, 2001. Sponsored by US DOE, US EPA, Natural Resources Canada, ExxonMobil, and Chevron (Chair: D. Sperling)…
Washington Free Beacon – 27 January 2015
Foreign Firm Funding U.S. Green Groups Tied to State-Owned Russian Oil Company
Executives at a Bermudan firm funneling money to U.S. environmentalists run investment funds with Russian tycoons
A shadowy Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle……The Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011….“None of this foreign corporation’s funding is disclosed in any way,” the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee wrote of the company in a report last year…..

Reply to  BenM
September 20, 2015 7:12 am

@ jumbo you realize that only IPCC sanctioned graphs would be allowed in court. That graph would not be allowed (or aloud as one ph.d guy stated). Hearsay is not allowed in a court of law. Being right doesn’t matter. They control the information. The IPCC puts out a 2 sentence line proving AGW without evidence, and skeptics have to provide hundreds of pages proving otherwise. We look like idiots. Looking like and are, are two different things.

Reply to  BenM
September 21, 2015 10:46 am

Jimbo, your list was spectacular.
I’ve been pointing out for some time now that if one follows the money, the US Energy industry is arguably the single greatest recipient of money public and private that has been generated by this “crisis” from day one. And that’s a lot of money.

Duke Energy is investing $500 million to expand solar energy in North Carolina. That commitment includes building, owning and operating three facilities that will be among the largest in the state.

In general, the following credits are available for eligible systems placed in service on or before December 31, 2016*:
Solar. The credit is equal to 30% of expenditures, with no maximum credit. Eligible solar energy property includes equipment that uses solar energy to generate electricity, to heat or cool (or provide hot water for use in) a structure, or to provide solar process heat. Hybrid solar lighting systems, which use solar energy to illuminate the inside of a structure using fiber-optic distributed sunlight, are eligible. Passive solar systems and solar pool-heating systems are not eligible.

Even with the 30% credit, even with economy of scale on the installation price, the levelized cost of PV solar is estimated to be a decade or so away from matching coal or nuclear, and longer than that for matching natural gas. That also includes using a definition of “levelized cost” that deliberately ignores the hidden costs of maintaining a normal fuel-based generation grid capable of carrying the entire load because PV and wind (however cheap or expensive they might be when they are working) are literally incapable of working 24×7 and at best reduce the rate at which conventional plants consume fuel without reducing or eliminating the need for conventional plants.
This means that as Duke Energy and other providers that are doing the same thing — building generation facilities with high capital costs relative to their probable return using our tax dollars, more or less directly transporting those dollars into their pockets — sell the electricity built with the resources we helped them build, they will charge us more money for all the electricity they sell. Since they make a marginal profit at a rate that they cannot easily vary (as a public utility) this is one of the only ways they have of increasing their profitability. Anything that raises the cost of electricity makes all of the companies that sell electricity higher profits. Furthermore, it differentially increases their profits on electricity generated the cheaper ways (that is, using fuel). By installing a large PV solar nameplate capacity, using the need to pay off this (subsidized) investment as the rationale for approved rate increases, and then selling us (mostly) the cheaper electricity they make from coal and uranium, they actually increase the profitability of coal and uranium more than PV solar.
If Hansen and others hadn’t invented AGW, the power utilities would have. Once it was invented, they are the last group in the world to object to it. They know perfectly well that what they sell is critical to the function of modern civilization, the very foundation of wealth and health and peace on earth. AGW is simply an open invitation to increase both the value of their capital investments and their absolute profitability while maintaining the same (high!) marginal profitability. Of course they are going to quietly fund the groups that promote AGW while allowing those same groups to publicly excoriate them.
This isn’t all about global eco-communism and so on as many on this list assert. Who do you think will benefit the most if Obama’s current plan is implemented, if Hillary’s (still in flux) plan is implemented? Who will get hurt? Energy companies will across the board get the greatest benefit. The poorest Americans will be hurt, although the pain will certainly extend up through the middle class.
Note well that gas prices are the lowest today that they have been for a decade, and will probably go lower still, and it isn’t even the election year yet. Obama has been a lot more sound and fury regarding energy and climate than substance, correctly assessing the fact that high real-dollar energy prices (and the consequent economic stagnation) equal lost elections.
The earliest that there will be any real pain for the consumer — and matching persistent profits for the energy industry — will be right after the next election, especially if the democrats win. Timing is everything.
In the meantime, the use of RICO to (try to) whack skeptics could be the straw that even the most corrupt of camels won’t support upon its back. It would be mainlined straight through to the supreme court, and it would be thrown out so hard that it bounced several times along the way. That, in turn, would become deadly fodder in the next election. Which is why nobody is going to touch this one with a ten foot pole. I can just see Dick Lindzen — or for that matter, myself — in court being tried on racketeering charges for exercising our academic and political freedom. Backfire doesn’t begin to describe it.

Reply to  Paul Coppin
September 19, 2015 9:43 pm

You’ve got to understand what they’re up to here. This letter has no purpose other than to intimidate those who might speak out against THE CONSENSUS. If there is even the remotest chance that skepticism will result in jail time, people will self-censor. Capiche?

Reply to  adam
September 20, 2015 9:32 am

Exactly, it’s a play for media coverage and a PR intimidation tool.
RICO doesn’t apply to opinion. Opinion is guaranteed by 1st amendment rights in the USA. RICO is USA only?
Cook et al would be an interesting suit. Does collusion with intent to defraud qualify for a suit? Probably not.

Reply to  adam
September 20, 2015 9:57 am

Actually, these deceptive attacks may be of interest to the Federal Trade Commission and Congess as they are a perfect example of deceptive advertising. Protecting consumers from false claims is an interesting approach to end the Alarmist nonsense.

Reply to  Paul Coppin
September 19, 2015 10:32 pm

Perfect Paul!
Who fits this scenario?
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961–1968), commonly referred to as the “RICO Act”,
became United StateRICO (
Racket (crime
A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a
problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that
will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the
racket did not exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering.[1]
Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same
party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed,
with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this
party. An archetype is the protection racket, wherein a person or
group indicates that they could protect a store from potential
damage, damage that the same person or group would
otherwise inflict, while the correlation of threat and protection
may be more or less deniably veiled, distinguishing it from the
more direct act of extortion.
Racketeering is often associated with organized crime, and the
term was coined by the Employers’ Association of Chicago in
June 1927 in a statement about the influence of organized crime
in the Teamsters union.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 RICO Act

Robert B
Reply to  Athena
September 20, 2015 3:07 am
James Francisco
Reply to  Athena
September 20, 2015 6:54 am

Sounds like the actions of the IPCC. Maybe RICO is how the IPCC can be shut down.

Reply to  Athena
September 20, 2015 2:27 pm

I once had to advise a client regarding RICO. Long time ago, and I suspect the phraseology has since been clarified by legislation and court decisions, but it was almost impossible to understand the limitations (if any) on applicability of the act. And don’t get me started on the regulations defining fair hiring practices.

Reply to  Paul Coppin
September 19, 2015 10:45 pm

Perfect Paul!
Who fits this scenario?
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961–1968), commonly referred to as the “RICO Act”,
became United StateRICO (
Racket (crime
A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a
problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that
will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the
racket did not exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering.[1]
Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same
party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed,
with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this
party. An archetype is the protection racket, wherein a person or
group indicates that they could protect a store from potential
damage, damage that the same person or group would
otherwise inflict, while the correlation of threat and protection
may be more or less deniably veiled, distinguishing it from the
more direct act of extortion.
Racketeering is often associated with organized crime, and the
term was coined by the Employers’ Association of Chicago in
June 1927 in a statement about the influence of organized crime
in the Teamsters union.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 RICO Act

Reply to  wealthandhealthcenter
September 21, 2015 11:30 am

If I didn’t know better, I’d say that the RICO Act was written with AGW in mind.

September 19, 2015 3:37 pm

Your quotes by Huxley, Machiavelli, Sinclair and Tolstoi are GEMS!
Add John 8:32 “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Thank you, Tim Ball, for helping set the World Free!!!

Reply to  tomwys1
September 19, 2015 5:08 pm

The world will be more free if the plan to hold the World’s Biggest Lesson financed by the Gates Foundation, HuffPo, and UNDP among others this September 23, 2015 gets more attention.
Especially with this as the video.

What our children are to be manipulated into believing and valuing in K-12. Plus they will be subjected to constant erroneous images of what is to happen via digital learning.
I wish I was Guessing, not quoting.

Reply to  Robin
September 19, 2015 5:10 pm

That should be September 25, 2015.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  tomwys1
September 19, 2015 11:06 pm

And Isaiah 5:20. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
Know that the woe will indeed come someday.
I add my thanks, Tim.

Robert B
Reply to  Leonard Lane
September 20, 2015 3:15 am

A few reasons that the scam must continue but this is the scariest one. A lot of power to those who can get away with claiming black is white.

Bert Walker
Reply to  tomwys1
September 21, 2015 1:00 am

tomwys1, thanks for applying John 8:32. Many people know this verse, but are unaware of the actual sentence it was uttered in, or the context of the statement. The immediate context are verses 31 and 32, but the full discourse is revealed in verses 12-58.
Here is the context, New International Version translated form the Greek:
John Ch 8, verse 12-58
Setting: the Jerusalem, inner courtyard of the second Temple ca. 33 CE, at Hanukkah
“12When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
13The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”
14Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”
19Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”
“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” 20He spoke these words while teaching in the temple courts near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come.
Dispute Over Who Jesus Is
21Once more Jesus said to them, “I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.”
22This made the Jews ask, “Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, ‘Where I go, you cannot come’?”
23But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”
25“Who are you?” they asked.
“Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied. 26“I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”
27They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28So Jesus said, “When you have lifted upa the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” 30Even as he spoke, many believed in him.
Dispute Over Whose Children Jesus’ Opponents Are
31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
33They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”
34Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.b ”
39“Abraham is our father,” they answered.
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you wouldc do what Abraham did. 40As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the works of your own father.”
“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
Jesus’ Claims About Himself
48The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”
49“I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”
52At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”
54Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
57“You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”

September 19, 2015 3:40 pm

good point, paul

September 19, 2015 3:46 pm

Perversely, this desperate attempt to vilify formally all climate sceptics, particularly our foremost sceptics, indicates to me that an endgame is approaching. It’s just a long, drawn out fight, with two years or so to run. But the truth will triumph; we just have to keep up what we’re doing, in every honest way we can.

Reply to  peterkemmis
September 19, 2015 5:33 pm

The endgame comes when one of the current front-runners in the Republican primary gets elected president. Then the climate con comes to an abrupt end and those like Trenberth find themselves on the wrong end of federal trials. They know it’s coming soon and are trying to deflect all the wrongdoing onto the skeptics.
I think they finally realize the outcome will be very bad for them and are filling up their pants daily.

Reply to  nigelf
September 19, 2015 6:17 pm

You didn’t listen to the most recent Republican debate.
Those pantywaists would never stand up to the global warming cabal.

Reply to  nigelf
September 19, 2015 8:36 pm

I listened to it, and what I heard was that they don’t give a rat’s ass about them. Let them piss in the wind.

Smart Rock
Reply to  peterkemmis
September 19, 2015 5:59 pm

Endgame is right. I do sense that a change is coming.
In Canada, we’ve just been treated to a remarkable document called the “Leap Manifesto” apparently authored by Naomi Klein and David Suzuki, and a group of fellow travellers, mostly musicians and singers. In their view, we will all be living in harmony with nature, growing our own food in a sort of mega-kibbutz environment, and eschewing things like cars. All energy will be renewable, we can ride our bikes or our horses to the train station when we want to go somewhere. Climate activism is conflated with a sort of naively idealistic socialism where nobody ever wants to get richer than anybody else. You can read about it here:
OTOH – Today’s National Post (a slightly right-of-centre paper that irritates me by being a bit too pro-Israel) has two side-by-side opinion pieces pointing out the flaws in the AGW hype as well as the absurd impracticality of this sort of rosy-tinted idealism. Both very literate, very articulate and well worth reading:
When I see stuff like this in the mainstream media, maybe the tide is starting to turn. It surely wouldn’t have happened a couple of years ago.
Conrad Black used to own the National Post, but that was before he went to jail. He has mellowed since then. Both of these guys think, and they probably dream, in complete sentences, subordinate clauses and all. Wish I could write like that.

Reply to  Smart Rock
September 19, 2015 6:28 pm

Thanks, Smart Rock.
Both pieces are very good.

Reply to  Smart Rock
September 19, 2015 7:54 pm

Thanks for sharing and it’s nice to know there are still some mainstream media that have a clue perhaps as you suggest things are starting to turn. I have a feeling Paris is the make or break point for this whole charade.

Christopher Hanley
Reply to  Smart Rock
September 19, 2015 9:56 pm

“… living in harmony with nature, growing our own food in a sort of mega-kibbutz environment, and eschewing things like cars. All energy will be renewable, we can ride our bikes or our horses to the train station when we want to go somewhere …”.
There’s nothing stopping globetrotting Klein and Suzuki and fellow travellers from taking their own advice right now — today.

Reply to  Smart Rock
September 20, 2015 1:54 am

Yes leap from the front so I can judge their lemmingmanifesto.

Reply to  Smart Rock
September 20, 2015 3:29 am

Black speaks of “The bone-crushing defeat of international communism” I’m not sure that happened, it is alive and well and known as the United (Socialist) Nations:

Terry G
Reply to  Smart Rock
September 20, 2015 9:47 am

One would think they would be embarrassed. Have they never heard of China’s “Great leap forward”? The results would likely be similar.

Reply to  Smart Rock
September 21, 2015 11:07 am

So will this be the Pope’s next leap also, to kiss the ring of a manifesto and make offerings to the omnipotent greenhouse in carbon? (With Evangelicals and Muslims in tow)

September 19, 2015 3:47 pm

Great cartoon, I’m loving it.

September 19, 2015 3:58 pm

But why are 7 IPCC authors so confused about what they really believe? Point 20 of the Royal Society and NAS report tells us there is nothing we can do to change temp or co2 levels for thousands of years.
So why doesn’t Trenberth and Solomons etc tell the public that they also believe that we should spend trillions of $ for a zero return? How many contrary positions can these people hold and retain any credibility? Here’s their point 20 AGAIN.
20. If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?
Climate change: evidence and causes
No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature would not cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era for thousands of years.
Figure 9. If global emissions were to suddenly stop, it would take a long time for surface air temperatures and the ocean to begin to cool, because the excess CO2 in the atmosphere would remain there for a long time and would continue to exert a warming effect. Model projections show how atmospheric CO2 concentration (a), surface air temperature (b), and ocean thermal expansion (c) would respond following a scenario of business-as-usual emissions ceasing in 2300 (red), a scenario of aggressive emission reductions, falling close to zero 50 years from now (orange), and two intermediate emissions scenarios (green and blue). The small downward tick in temperature at 2300 is caused by the elimination of emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases, including methane. Source: Zickfeld et al., 2013 (larger version)
If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to ‘pre-industrial’ levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying extremely long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions, and sea level would likely continue to rise for many centuries even after temperature stopped increasing (see Figure 9). Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates. The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales. The amount and rate of further warming will depend almost entirely on how much more CO2 humankind emits.

Dave Wendt
Reply to  Neville
September 19, 2015 11:27 pm

It strikes me that the real relevant question is why on Earth would anyone be stupid enough to think that returning the planet to pre-industrial climate conditions would be in any way advisable. Admittedly what data that exists regarding the pre-industrial climate is not exactly of dazzling quality but, to the extent that it approaches the level of evidence, it seems to me to be almost unanimous in indicating that the pre-industrial climate was almost universally worse than the present climate. Pre-industrial times were very near to the absolute depths of the Little Ice Age. Despite all the desperately hysterical propagandizing about “increasing” weather extremes, actual observational data suggest that over the last century or more the trends for all forms of weather extremes have been down to, at worst, flatlined.
The world has built up at least a half a Trillion$ in opportunity costs ( the price of all the much more desirable and productive things we could have spent the money on) ratholing funds on biofuels, wind turbines, solar systems and all those garden spot climate confabs for overpaid climate bureaucrats. Because of the way opportunity costs compound over time the world at the turn of the next century will be poorer by the equivalent of $Quadrillions and I suspect, if we could send a probe to our future descendants to ask if they would prefer a little less CO2 or an extra $500,000 each for everyone on Earth, the answer we get back would not be congratulatory for surrendering to these brain dead mooks.

John Peter
Reply to  Dave Wendt
September 20, 2015 12:39 am

I put my faith in Willis Eschenbach’s theory that any extra warming that CO2 may create will be counteracted by increased cloud formation and precipitation. Furthermore recent papers have shown that doubling of CO2 may lead to a temperature increase of approximately 1.2C or thereabouts. So the burning of all the fossil fuels we may be able to extract might not increase global temperatures by more than 2C, which should keep Merkel and Obama happy. By the time we will have doubled CO2 residence again to 1100ppm we might be heading for the next ice age and be happy with whatever CO2 we can add to the atmosphere in the hope it will create at least a modicum of warming.

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  Dave Wendt
September 20, 2015 5:17 am

Dave Wendt it is simply untrue to state that
“pre-industrial climate was almost universally worse than the present climate”
We know that in preindustrial times there were long periods when the climate was WARMER than at present and until it became politically incorrect the usual term for the last such period was ‘The Mediaeval Climate Optimum’
The simple reality is that climate changes. What climate scientists SHOULD be doing is trying to understand the natural processes that make this happen. This is however expressly excluded from their role under the aegis of the IPCC.
That is the aspect of this whole farce that will have future historians most puzzled about the Great Global Warming hysteria.

Henry Galt
Reply to  Dave Wendt
September 20, 2015 11:19 am

1996 1.08 0.07
1997 1.97 0.07
1998 2.84 0.10
1999 1.34 0.07
2000 1.24 0.10
2001 1.82 0.10
2002 2.38 0.07
2003 2.25 0.10
2004 1.61 0.05
2005 2.43 0.07
2006 1.74 0.06
2007 2.09 0.07
2008 1.77 0.05
2009 1.69 0.10
2010 2.39 0.06
2011 1.71 0.09
2012 2.37 0.09
2013 2.54 0.09
2014 1.85 0.09
CO2 record – (it’s mostly global SST related to these mk1 eyeballs 🙂 , highest is ’98 recently.

Reply to  Neville
September 20, 2015 7:28 am

Has anybody looked at the amount of co2 being released and the amount that is ending up in the atmosphere? Those two statements would be wrong. The rate at which co2 is currently being sunk, co2 would be completely gone (plant life would die at 150 ppm) in less than 100 years. By NOAA own records clearly 50% of the co2 in the last 5 years has disappeared. ( 70 to 80% by mine). Look at the amount of increase in co2 production and the number of co2 molecules that make it into the atmosphere. 1998 is still the year with the greatest increase. How is it possible that co2 is going to remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years at this rate? Of course this year I expect to see a rise of 4 or 5 molecules ppm simply because I’m making an issue.

Reply to  rishrac
September 20, 2015 10:13 am

You are correct. There is a great deal of disagreement over the residence time of CO2 added into the atmosphere, with some analysis suggesting that it is on the order of decades, rather than centuries or millennia, and some of the opinion that the increase we have seen recently is not related to human emissions at all.
It does appear that the majority of human emissions does not show up in the atmosphere, and the annual cycle up and down seen in the CO2 graph speaks quite clearly to the greater influence of natural inputs and sinks.

Reply to  Menicholas
September 20, 2015 3:57 pm

The connection is a virtuous circle or evil. The IPCC needs the centuries to decrease co2 levels because without it the argument falls apart. About 10 years ago the certainly over the anthropogenic carbon dioxide was firmly fixed by isotope ratios. That is also beginning to have a lot of problems. Hence the satellite to measure co2 in the atmosphere. The uptake or disappearance of co2 cannot be ignored. So has the increase in co2 expanded the carbon sink or has man actually saved the world as we know it producing co2? Without the additional input of co2 and the growing sink co2 levels would fall drastically leading to wide spread plant death or in the view of the IPCC, because co2 is so important in temp control, a very new and deep ice age. If on balance, the input of man made carbon was taken out of the equation, the net co2 would be negative. In 100 years or less the amount remaining would be close to zero. The industrial Revolution may have saved the world.

Reply to  rishrac
September 20, 2015 10:51 am

Yes, there is a great deal of disagreement: the IPCC greatly disagrees with everyone else on residence times:
Note that all the peer reviewed papers cited contradict the IPCC’s century-long CO2 residence times.
That is because if the IPCC admitted to a short residence time, who would worry much about human emissions?
As technology brings down human CO2 emissions (which is already happening in the U.S. without any law, treaty, or protocol required), with a short residence time the extra CO2 will quickly go away. But if as the IPCC claims, CO2 remains on a century time scale, then (IF CO2 was a problem), it would keep building up for decades.
So, who should we believe? Dozens of peer reviewed scientific papers? Or a self-serving political organization that never hesitates to misrepresent the real world in favor of its remit: to blame human industrial activity for imaginary problems?
The public is deciding, but from the polls it looks like the public isn’t very concerned about “climate change” hoax.

Reply to  dbstealey
September 25, 2015 8:18 am

You forgot the S.. centurieS, not century

Reply to  rishrac
September 20, 2015 11:30 am

I agree that all of the polls indicate that the entire topic is far down the list of concerns for the majority of people.
Unfortunately, as I am sure you are even more aware than me, the damage to our infrastructure, or fiscal situation, and to the reputation of science in general continues to worsen.
So, in my view anyway, the problem continues to fester while few are paying any attention.

Reply to  rishrac
September 20, 2015 11:47 am

Oh yes, I agree. Very much. What underlies the entire so-called ‘debate’ over what is claimed to be ‘dangerous AGW’ is in reality an attack on the West, and specifically, an attack on the U.S.
The climate scare is their means of dragging down a free market society. It may have even had some serious consideration in the late ’90’s, when global T rose unexpectedly fast. But that was an unusual anomaly. Nothing unusual has happened since — unless you consider the unusually flat global T over the past century to be unusual. Really a 0.7º wiggle is as flat as anything seen in the geological record.
So the ‘global warming’ concern became the ‘runaway global warming’ scare, and that morphed into the totally ambiguous “climate change” alarmism.
Now it has become a 100% pure HOAX. It is a means to an end, and honest science has nothing to do with it. The ‘carbon’ scare is a deliberate scam.
The climate alarm continues to fester, as you say, for only one reason: money, and lots of it. If the money wasted on “climate change studies” was reduced by even one-half, and was split fairly between scientists who believed there is a problem, and scientists skeptical of the ‘carbon’ scare, then in no time at all the public’s concern about ‘climate change’ would drop from the current #10 out of ten, to completely out of sight.
Money props up the climate alarm hoax. I am very angry that the promoters of that false alarm never use their own money. Instead, they divert our tax money into the UN’s propaganda machine — money that could do a lot of good in many other places, rather than enriching a small clique of self-serving rent seekers at the public’s expense.
( /rant, gotta go…)

Jim Watson
September 19, 2015 3:59 pm

The Roman Catholic Church tried for centuries to destroy Science. All they had to do was wait for the global warming crowd to come along and do it for them.

Reply to  Jim Watson
September 19, 2015 6:18 pm

Apparently there are idiots and bigots on both sides of the global warming debate.

Reply to  MarkW
September 19, 2015 7:58 pm

Are there only two sides?

Reply to  MarkW
September 19, 2015 11:23 pm

are you of the opinion that the Roman Church was not responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people during it’s centuries long “Inquisitions” and the “crusades” and such? If so, please explain why it was not responsible . . If not, please explain why you believe it would not have attempted to “control” science, when it was responsible for such gruesome attempts to control people’s thoughts on things like the Divinity of a series of men in Rome, essentially?
I’m a Christian, the kind that tries to do as Jesus instructs in a certain Book . . and what the Pope has done in effectively doctrinizing the CAWG, and global governance, etc, is perfectly in keeping with what I perceive the RC leadership to be. Certainly not all Catholics, just a few elite types, so bigotry by default seems rather a stretch to me . . like saying that believing there are corrupt politicians in high office makes one a bigot.
And if you really think it makes one a bigot by default to accuse a small group of humans of unethical behavior, I suggest you take a look in the mirror as the saying goes, cause you just did. And I for one say; No thanks, I’ll pass on the man-worship, altogether.

Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2015 10:05 am

John, the number of deaths in the various inquisitions was in the 10’s, not 10’s of millions.
The crusades were the justifiable reaction to muslims invading and conquering Christian lands.
Please try to learn a little bit of actual history, not the brain dead slogans of those that hate the church.

Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2015 10:07 am

PS, the crusades, including all the battles killed in the 10’s of thousands. 10’s of millions would have meant pretty much everyone in Europe and the Middle East had been killed.
Sheesh, not only do you prefer to believe nonsense, you are also innumerate to boot.

Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2015 4:54 pm

I will not bow to any man-gods, or accept your charges of bigotry for daring to see things differently than you. Get over it, I suggest, or put something on the screen that can somehow prove the RC elites did not routinely stifle beliefs not in accord with their doctrines, across the board. It will be rather easy for me to put plenty of things on the screen that prove they claimed a Divine right, even duty, to do just that, don’t you think?
Please explain why that self professed “Divine” right/duty did not extend to the scientific realms, or I really don’t see why anyone ought to believe it didn’t. Again, I’m not speaking of Catholics in general . . but you’re not helping me in that regard, as I see this matter.

Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2015 6:31 pm

Bigots prefer to believe lies over truth.
As do you.

Reply to  MarkW
September 21, 2015 12:37 am

Bigoted to not accept whatever you declare to be true, sir? . . You don’t happen to work in the climate science field by any chance? ; )

Reply to  MarkW
September 21, 2015 11:33 am

It is my hunch that if Jesus went incognito into most of the churches today and tried to tell them what is wrong in them, they would kick him out.

Reply to  Jim Watson
September 19, 2015 11:52 pm

Jim, I thought this website was for the intelligent and informed. Neither of those qualities is evident in that nonsense post you published here. Believing the RCC tried to ‘destroy science’ is like believing that the world is going to heat by by 20C within a decade and 97% of scientists hold that that is an incontrovertible scientific fact.

Reply to  Hoplite
September 20, 2015 7:35 am

The church never burned anybody at the stake for having a view that the sun revolved around the earth. Neither will the religious church of AGW faithful try anybody of crimes against humanity as long as they work towards destroying the western world.

Jan Christoffersen
Reply to  Hoplite
September 20, 2015 10:02 am

If you really want to understand what the Roman Catholic church is all about, read “God’s Bankers” by Gerald Posner, published earlier in 2015. Outstanding investigative reporting.

Reply to  Hoplite
September 20, 2015 10:22 am

Ah, yes…Posner.
That great paragon of unbiased journalism that he is.

Reply to  Hoplite
September 20, 2015 4:33 pm

It would seem rather absurd for Jim to silence people for daring to think some people who think that people in power might stifle scientific inquiry . . and allow them to be called bigots for their “heresy”.
“Believing the RCC tried to ‘destroy science’ is like believing that the world is going to heat by by 20C within a decade and 97% of scientists hold that that is an incontrovertible scientific fact”
That’s a very odd switcheroo to my mind, using the current “persecution” (as I see it) of those who dare question the CAWG cult, to justify this (to me) utterly bizarre notion that it couldn’t have happened at the hands of previous groups of elites in power. This is contra-logical thinking to my mind.
It would seem one would have to believe those men in Rome really were Divine in some sense, to accept such a strange disregard for the very evidence that one refers to himself, that science is being stifled even now . . Worship men all you wish, but please don’t act like it’s some sort of scientific given that those who don’t are being irrational, or mean, by default. .

Reply to  Jim Watson
September 20, 2015 10:20 am

It seems some people are in the habit of just throwing out statistics without having any idea of the actual truth, and also of repeating the talking points of those with some particular agenda, or the slogans of actual haters.
Knowing the truth often means one must abandon or at least modify the biases that are held so dearly.
But many liberals cling to their biases and hatreds, perhaps because their bitterness and frustrations towards those they wish to demonize cannot be reconciled with a rational and truthful world view.

Reply to  Jim Watson
September 20, 2015 2:36 pm

I suspect that the Pope will have a negative effect on the Catholic Church. He already is getting snickers (laughs, not candy bars) for the comparison with Galileo travails. But maybe the anti-skeptic forces will bring back the auto de fe.

Reply to  JimB
September 23, 2015 8:24 pm

Already brought back indulgences so history offers some support for your thesis.

Reply to  Jim Watson
September 21, 2015 11:21 am

Sigh. To me the really interesting thing is that climate science is often called a religion on this list in a strictly pejorative sense, frequently by the very same people that then assert that the bible is some sort of standard for truth.
Science and religion are diametrically opposed, and will remain so unless and until God can be empirically demonstrated to be something other than a figment of human imagination, invented to explain gaps in human understanding, to provide some basis for the equally unsupportable expressions of wishful thinking known as “life after death” or “perfect justice”, and to give the unscrupulous both political and economic power that utterly short-circuits critical thinking and hence can inspire the masses to make (or follow) truly stupid decisions without any real hesitation or doubt.
As far as climate science is concerned — neither side of this debate is proven. The best that can be stated so far for the skeptical side is that the actual data-supported evidence for an anthropogenic climate catastrophe past, present, or future is weak, not that “CO2 has no effect” or “we’re about to start catastrophically cooling”. The best that can be said for the catastrophist side is that there is at least some evidence that future warming or changes in sea level or ocean chemistry could be catastrophic, even though this evidence is far from conclusive and is actively contradicting most models that predict catastrophe at present.
Science, of course, doesn’t care and doesn’t take either of these obviously political stances. It patiently waits to accumulate more evidence and better evidence, and to improve our theoretical understanding of the climate. Since modeling “the climate” is a Grand Challenge Problem:
in three subjects — computation, mathematics and physics (and I mean this literally — it is listed twice in this page devoted primarily to computational physics grand challenges, Navier-Stokes is one of the grand challenges in mathematics with a substantial prize, and both classical and quantum chaos, self-organizing phenomena and complexity in general are grand challenges in physics (all present in the single problem of understanding the climate well enough to compute meaningful predictions of future climate) — it seems both unlikely that this science will be “settled” soon, nor is it at all unreasonable that it is not settled at this point in time.
At this instant in time, the best that can be said is that it is reasonably likely that humans have caused some fraction of the non-catastrophic, indeed mostly beneficial, warming of the planet that has occurred over the last 165 years. It is almost impossible to quantify that fraction, however, because of the large uncertainties in the data and the lack of a useful computable theory. This is the one conclusion that nobody wants to hear, of course. We live in an insane age that punishes null results — all scientific research is currently geared towards three year renewable grant cycles so the entire concept of longer term research projects or goals is vanishing from science. The only way to ensure support that can span a career is to have some major issue — like climate disaster or the existence of the Higgs boson — that has enough “crowd appeal” to have a chance for multidecadal big science funding, at which point it grows coattails that reach far and wide.
But much as I’m tempted, I’m going to stop short of an essay on the general corruption of science and its causes, aside from affirming your implicit assertion that some part of this comes from allowing religious thinking to interfere with rational and objective thought and the objective and unbiased appraisal of evidence.

Reply to  rgbatduke
September 22, 2015 4:40 pm

“Science and religion are diametrically opposed, and will remain so unless and until God can be empirically demonstrated to be something other than a figment of human imagination …”
That makes exactly as much sense to me as saying;
*Science and atheism are diametrically opposed, and will remain so unless and until the absence of God can be empirically demonstrated to be something other than a figment of human imagination …”
How do you think Mr. Newton (as but one glaringly notable example among many) overcame your proposed diametric opposition between belief in God and the employment of the scientific method? What’s your “theory” on how he (and many others) managed to overcome this supposed compulsion to “fill in the gaps with God” so consistently?
To me, you are an occultist, who believes that there is a magicalistic force which infuses the human mind with special truth and wisdom vibes, if we will but accept without question that God does not exist. It childishly silly to me, sir.

September 19, 2015 4:18 pm

Clearly the mitigation of their so called CAGW is the greatest con and fraud for 100 years. The EIA forecasts that over 90% of new co2 emissions until 2040 will come from the developing world like China, India etc.
The OECD developed world will add little to emissions until that time.

September 19, 2015 4:23 pm

Can hardly wait for the Donald to weigh in on this one….

September 19, 2015 5:06 pm

Great essay Dr. Ball. I always enjoy your writings here the most. Thanks for all you do.

William Astley
September 19, 2015 5:11 pm

Those pushing the CAGW ‘science’ will not participate in a formal written debate where both sides must respond to all facts and analysis results each side presents, as they would lose.
That is the reason they why they are attempting to use desperate, pathetic methods to silence those scientists who continue to do normal science where the conclusion is determined based on an independent unbiased analysis of the data, where theories can be proven incorrect. That is why they do not even acknowledge the logical difference between lukewarm warming and catastrophic warming. That is why they must use the phrase ‘climate change’.
The fact that they are attempting to shut down and silence legitimate science is unequivocal evidence that they believe their primary task is to push an agenda and hence that they believe fudging data, fudging models, and fudging analysis is OK if it supports their agenda.
It is a fact there are dozens of independent observations and analysis results, in over a hundred peer that support the assertion that there is no CAGW issue. It is a fact that there has been no increase in warming in the last 18 years, almost no tropical warming over the entire period which is not discussed as it is paradox, and there was been almost no tropical troposphere warming at 8km which is the signature of greenhouse gas warming.
The problem is the cult of CAGW started with a conclusion and then manipulated the data, the analysis, and the models to support that conclusion.
Latitudinal Warming Paradox: The majority of greenhouse gas warming should have occurred in the tropics where there is the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space. The observed patter of warming is primarily at high latitudes, with more warming in the Northern hemisphere. There is almost no warming in the tropics during the entire period.
The paleo record shows the same pattern of warming which we are now experiencing has occurred cyclically and correlates with solar cycle changes. The past cycles of warming and cooling were not caused by CO2 changes.

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
The atmospheric CO2 is slowly increasing with time [Keeling et al. (2004)]. The climate forcing according to the IPCC varies as ln (CO2) [IPCC (2001)] (The mathematical expression is given in section 4 below). The ΔT response would be expected to follow this function. A plot of ln (CO2) is found to be nearly linear in time over the interval 1979-2004. Thus ΔT from CO2 forcing should be nearly linear in time also.
The atmospheric CO2 is well mixed and shows a variation with latitude which is less than 4% from pole to pole [Earth System Research Laboratory. 2008]. Thus one would expect that the latitude variation of ΔT from CO2 forcing to be also small. It is noted that low variability of trends with latitude is a result in some coupled atmosphere-ocean models. For example, the zonal-mean profiles of atmospheric temperature changes in models subject to “20CEN” forcing ( includes CO2 forcing) over 1979-1999 are discussed in Chap 5 of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program [Karl et al.2006]. The PCM model in Fig 5.7 shows little pole to pole variation in trends below altitudes corresponding to atmospheric pressures of 500hPa.
If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing. These non-CO2 effects include: land use [Peilke et al. 2007]; industrialization [McKitrick and Michaels (2007), Kalnay and Cai (2003), DeLaat and Maurellis (2006)]; high natural variability, and daily nocturnal effects [Walters et al. (2007)].
An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010ºK/decade was estimated from data in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value. The trend expected from CO2 climate forcing is 0.070g ºC/decade, where g is the gain due to any feedback. If the underlying trend is due to CO2 then g~1. Models giving values of g greater than 1 would need a negative climate forcing to partially cancel that from CO2. This negative forcing cannot be from aerosols.
These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

“Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. …The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature, 2012,doi:10.1038/nature11391), reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD (William: Same periodicity of cyclic warming and cooling in the Northern hemisphere), measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

September 19, 2015 5:20 pm

“They then deflect or ignore overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis is wrong including failed predictions (projections).”
Nice try.
But you must pick one, I think.
Are all of the alarmist warmistas in a world-at-risk tizzy over projections of catastrophe by computer models, or are they engaged in making predictions of impending doom, based on models and all manner of other misinterpreted evidence and made up nonsense?

Reply to  Menicholas
September 20, 2015 1:56 am

Yes, Menicholas, most of those we read about are making such predictions based on misinterpreted evidence, or none at all. You might care to look at a recent analysis of climate models on this site by Mike Jonas: “How reliable are the climate models?” When you’ve read that, please get back to us with your comments. And you are as able as any of us to search for those failed predictions, and presumably as able as any intelligent person to draw an objective conclusion about each. It’s up to you.

Reply to  Menicholas
September 20, 2015 10:26 am

Okay Peter,
And perhaps you can take your own advice, and read it yourself. This time, read the comments, where you will find quite a few from me.
Once you have done that, get back to me with a comment that does not assume, falsely, that I am somehow unobjective, or unaware of the filed predictions.
Pay special attention to some of the back and forth regarding the two words I am referring to here.

Reply to  Menicholas
September 20, 2015 11:32 am

…failed predictions….

Reply to  Menicholas
September 20, 2015 1:55 pm

Either the models make predictions or they are not scientific models. Those who tout the models proclaim them to be scientific models and, therefore, sophistry about the meanings of “predictions” and “projections” are irrelevant.
And the climate models do make predictions (a wide range of them) e.g. see the temperature predictions of the CMP5 models posted by Jimbo in this thread here.
Importantly, to date their predictions have all been wrong. If you disagree then please cite one correct climate prediction that the models have made.

Reply to  Menicholas
September 20, 2015 2:31 pm

On the other thread you asked where the oil companies would get the co2 for enhanced oil recovery.
a) They get it mostly from the underground co2 domes.
The reason why I said they are licking their lips over co2 reduction schemes is
b) Co2 capture (power stations) deliver to oil fields.
PS ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY using co2 has been with us since at least 1972. I hope we don’t pay big oil to do something they do already!

World Oil; (United States); Journal Volume: 175:4
Shell starts CO/sub 2/ injection project in west texas
A full-scale carbon dioxide (COD2U) injection secondary recovery project using 4 injection wells in an inverted 9-spot pattern has been started by Shell Oil Co., operator of the North Cross unit of the Crossett field, 50 miles south of Odessa, Tex. Unit co-owners are Texaco Inc. and Atlantic Richfield Co. COD2U was selected for this 1,120-acre field, currently producing 1,600 bopd from 18 wells, because up to 20 MMcfd will be available from the nearby Canyon Reef Carrier pipeline that transports gas to the large SACROC project is Scurry County. Also, the COD2U has better overall injectivity, miscibility, and displacement properties in this low permeability, high porosity reservoir, than other available injection fluids. The North Cross unit reservoir is an eastward dipping strat-trap with 55-ft average net pay. Four COD2U injection wells above the gas/oil contact help maintain reservoir pressure for GOR control. A cross section from west to east shows how the Devonian oil pay is limited by oil/water and gas/oil contacts. Porosity formed by leaching in siliceous carbonate rocks gives the reservoir low permeablity, but relatively homogeneous composition for miscible displacement.
Abstract – 1976
Status of CO2 and Hydrocarbon Miscible Oil Recovery Methods
In this state-of-the-art review, the basic procedures for applying CO2 and hydrocarbon miscible oil recovery, processes are explained. Some principal field tests and commercial applications of the processes are presented with a current assessment of the miscible flooding techniques.

Reply to  Menicholas
September 21, 2015 7:34 am

Jimbo, I did not ask that question.
All I did was point out that oil companies are profiting from CAGW. Someone in the ensuing conversation brought up those other points.
I happen to know quite a bit about CO2 enhanced recovery. But never asked about it.
When I seek information, I do not demand that other commented do my homework for me.

Reply to  Menicholas
September 21, 2015 7:35 am

Sorry, other commenters.

Reply to  Menicholas
September 21, 2015 7:45 am

Did you not ask about how oil companies were going to get co2? You say you know about EOR yet you asked the question. CCS is all the rage. Be more grateful next time I do you homework for you. Grrrrr!

Reply to  Menicholas
September 21, 2015 7:58 am

OK, there seems to be some misunderstandin’ of just what I was getting at.
Richard, I agree with you, that the climate modeler cadre make predictions.
Some are of the opinion that we must be careful to differentiate a prediction from a projection, lest we skeptics ourselves be taken in by the dreaded equivocation fallacy.
I see no need to differentiate that which the alarmists rarely if ever bother to do…that seems to me like skeptics would be helping them to clean up their own faulty logic and sloppy reasoning and, in general, bad science.
I am disinclined to assist warmistas in any way.
My comment above, was almost but not quite tongue in cheek, as it just seemed to me that attaching the word (projection) in parenthesis was perhaps an afterthought, and a nod to those who think, and made a fuss on that other thread, there is no confusion over these terms in the minds of those who use and misuse them.
(It is my opinion that warmista alarmists are in general sloppy in their science, as they are in their writing, as they are in their warnings and supposed confidence in what they think will happen.)
In fact, it seems to me, adding an extra word in that manner seems more like a footnote to onesself in a draft, as it does not clearly communicate what the thought is behind adding it thusly.
Projection, prediction prognostication, forecast…all have overlapping meanings and all are used in a context of believing that one knows, or can know, the future.
And they are also used by those who do not pretend to be taking more than a wild stab at a guess.
I do not pretend to know what the future holds, and in fact it may not be set, having at least some elements of randomness.
I also try to remember to state so when I am drawing questionable inferences or simply offering my own opinion.
Warmistas make predictions, whatever they want to call them.
No one predicts the end of the world or civilization based on what they know to be dubious constructs, unless they are completely insane.
Which, in some cases, cannot be ruled out.
And no one should advocate destructive and costly policies based on handwaving and guesswork…but they do. Go figure.
Are they sociopaths?

Reply to  Menicholas
September 21, 2015 8:03 am

BTW, and to be clear, I know as well as anyone here how bad the climate models are, and in fact why they have no chance of getting anything right,vexceot by random chance perhaps.
But they are incorrect close to, if not right at, 100% of the time, thus being worse at guessing that a blind and inebriated baboon throwing darts at a dart board, or even at the side of a barn.

Reply to  Menicholas
September 21, 2015 9:34 am

Jimbo, I will have to go back and check now, but I do not think I asked. My role is to inform. Most times when I ask something, it us for someone’s opinion, or a rhetorical response.
Do you have the link or time stamp of the comment…it takes forever to search these threads with my phone.
I do recall pointing out to someone what I said above here, and I also read a back and forth that ensued. I recall someone asking.Just spent half an hour searching…you will have to tell me where and when I said it.

Reply to  Menicholas
September 21, 2015 9:39 am

Re what I think of IPCC…they are smarmy ideologues.
Who want our money.

Reply to  Menicholas
September 21, 2015 1:54 pm

I am glad I am not completely senile, but you had me wondering for a second.
It was Mark W who asked…actually, he said he did not know where they got it, and you answered with the same response as here.
Someone else said something about them getting it from chemical reactions.
Here is Mark W’s comment with the question:
I am sorry I had not remembered that it was you I was responding to, and you who made the original point…I was just tossing in my two cents.
Anyway, I do recall hearing previously that some CO2 is extracted with the brine which accompanies much of the oil pumped up from salt domes.
I have commented in the past quite a few times about oil recovery…noting that even after tertiary recovery steps, some 50% of oil in a formation remains…which bears on the related question of the recharge time of oil wells.
Which is another topic I have commented on, when some made the observation that once oil is exhausted, it will be hundreds of millions of years before any more is available…but I pointed out that some wells capped a few decades ago are already able to produce again…and some wells seem to recharge as fast as the oil is pumped out.
Geology was the first degree I sought in college, before I switched to physical geography…then finally chemistry.
Plus, as an investor, I have made it a point to understand as much as I can learn about the assets of various energy companies…and all that can be learned about future prospects

Reply to  Menicholas
September 20, 2015 2:19 pm

Menicholas, can you really pick one? On predictions or projections it’s not as clear as you might think. I wrote a post on WUWT covering this very issue here. It is a LONG thread of comments! If you don’t have time to read them all then read my summary of the issue here.
Here is what the IPCC says on projections. You have to wonder whether the IPCC is deliberately trying to spread confusion.

IPCC – Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
3.1. Definitions and Role of Scenarios 3.1.1. Introduction
Forecast/Prediction. When a projection is branded “most likely,” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained by using deterministic models—possibly a set of such models—outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections.

Reply to  Jimbo
September 20, 2015 2:25 pm

Menicholas, tell me what you think of this from the IPCC?

“Based on current model results, we predict: • under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century […] ”

Reply to  Jimbo
September 21, 2015 9:37 am

Thanks for the link. Incredible.
Did not know there were so many sophists in the world, let alone here.
I will finish the comment thread later.
My summary:
I agree with you and Richard Courtney.

Reply to  Jimbo
September 21, 2015 6:53 pm

Jimbo, are you still here? Or you, Richard?

Reply to  Jimbo
September 25, 2015 1:56 pm

I have personal reasons why I am often not “here”. In this case I made my point and saw no reason to add to it.

Reply to  Jimbo
October 2, 2015 2:58 pm

No Problem. I do the same. I stop checking old posts after a few days, and just saw this just now.

John Smith
September 19, 2015 5:24 pm

I don’t even care anymore if they are right
I refuse to associate myself with the sort of thinking that would criminalize disagreement
to Hades with the lot of them
surely their downfall looms

September 19, 2015 5:24 pm

Dr Indur Goklany’s reply to the Pope’s ridiculous nonsense about the use of fossil fuels and the impact on human health and wellbeing can be found at this link. The full PDF link is at the bottom.
The planet is greening and everybody enjoys a much longer life expectancy than a mere 100 years ago. All because of the increased use of fossil fuels. And Dr Goklany has been an IPCC author and worked on behalf of the USA govt.

Reply to  Neville
September 20, 2015 10:09 am

Today Castro gave a speech praising the Pope for his courageous stand against global capitalism.
In order to avoid embarrasing his good friends in the Cuban govt, the Pope has agreed to not meet with any critics of the Cuban govt.

Reply to  Neville
September 20, 2015 4:47 pm

Neville, the Popeye Francis is a religious person. Facts don’t matter, belief does. Faith does. I have faith that I will become the richest man in the world tomorrow. The fact is today I am flat broke and I will not be the richest man in the world tomorrow. Go figure.
Religion is very often separated from the state. Science is very often separated from religion. Why????

Reply to  Jimbo
September 20, 2015 8:53 pm

” …is a religious person. Facts don’t matter, belief does. Faith does”
Who told you that? What God? Mr. Dawkins? Mr Hitchens?
‘Belief’ and ‘faith’ mean exactly the same thing in the Book as they do in a modern laboratory, I am quite sure. That’s why a host of “believers” (like Mr. Newton for instance) were quite capable of doing some of the best science ever done . . and arguably invented science as we know it. I suggest you quit believing things without actually checking into them yourself.
A few proverbs you might wish to think about;
Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Reply to  Jimbo
September 20, 2015 11:16 pm

Are we agreeing to agree?

……‘Belief’ and ‘faith’ mean exactly the same thing in the Book as they do in a modern laboratory, I am quite sure….

…Neville, the Popeye Francis is a religious person. Facts don’t matter, belief does. Faith does….

If we still disagree then I can see where this is headed, a never ending argument – now that would be folly and foolish for me. A waste of my time.

Reply to  Jimbo
September 21, 2015 2:11 am

No, sir, I’m not agreeing, I’m saying belief is essential to science, and I’d love to hear your explanation off how anyone could do science without belief.
Now, some very simplistic folks think everything they believe is absolute truth, but I happen to be familiar to some extent with the scientific method, and that’s a big no no, is it not? One is duty bound to call what they believe, what they believe, right?
And please realize that faith is something we all act upon every day . . you drive down the road a few feet from traffic gong the opposite way, based on faith, right? It’s not like you know the people zipping paste you will not suddenly swerve into you, is it? You have that faith for good reasons no doubt, but it’s still acting on faith, right?
That’s what faith and belief mean in the lingo of the Book, there is no demand to believe or have faith based on anything else, that I have seen anyway.
Now, you can call your every belief absolute fact if you like, and claim that you somehow lost all confidence in anything you can’t actually see . . but color me skeptical, please ; )

September 19, 2015 5:33 pm

What will be interesting is for them to define “skeptic”. What line of evidence or facts will be the litmus showing one to be a skeptic. It is a very dangerous slope they are approaching if they wish to take this course. My experience has been that most people that would have an opinion are rather in the middle. Not taking either extreme. How far from the middle towards the extreme view must one be to not be a skeptic? Already the IPCC reports themselves say there is no conclusive evidence that extreme weather will result from increasing concentrations of CO2, yet that is one of the pillars of their RICO case. Will those authors who support the IPCC be labeled a skeptic?

Reply to  Aussiebear
September 19, 2015 5:43 pm

Thats a very good point Aussiebear. If they try to define the threshold of climate “denial” as say belief in a particular climate sensitivity, they’ll make a complete laughing stock of themselves.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 19, 2015 6:41 pm

Eric in fact deaths from extreme events are at a 100 year low point. Death rates are down to zip today. Just proves that another one of their CAGW icons is total BS. Here is more of Goklany’s work to prove the point.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 19, 2015 7:40 pm

Eric, thanks for your comment. Threshold is a very good word, one I neglected to use in my previous post. More interestingly, having had time to think, even Trenberth as an IPCC author could be accused of being a skeptic, even a denier. Its all in the threshold and whom and what is used to establish it. I see unintended consequences all over this…

September 19, 2015 5:43 pm

I thought for a RICO action to make sense there had to be money involved. If investigators “follow the money” I can’t see alarmists looking too good… unless the skeptics have been VERY good at hiding it.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Slywolfe
September 19, 2015 6:03 pm

For a RICO action to even be legal it has to point to a statute, it cannot be used in the context of civil law. Find me a statute that could be used against skeptics, you won’t find any.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
September 19, 2015 7:40 pm

“…RICO action to even be legal it has to point to a statute, it cannot be used in the context of civil law…” — Mark from the Midwest
Legal? Statute? Law? Ha-ha-ha! This is Öbama we’re talking about here.
“What line of evidence or facts will be the litmus showing one to be a skeptic.” –Aussiebear.
The evidence will be that Öbama has put them on his list of enemies.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
September 19, 2015 8:14 pm

What about the statute creating, or allowing the funding of, the EPA?

September 19, 2015 6:18 pm

They’re really retro types, all stuck in stage 2. Everyone else is transitioning or has already between stages 4 and 5.

Jeff Stanley
September 19, 2015 6:33 pm

Given that science requires rigorous honesty for success and politics require rigorous dishonesty for success, what will be the result when the latter funds the former?
Will a scientific form of politics emerge that displaces the former dishonesty in politics with honesty? Or will a politicized form of science emerge that displaces the former honesty in science with dishonesty?
Well, I’d say all the data needed for that little experiment is in.

Reply to  Jeff Stanley
September 19, 2015 7:41 pm

The result will be what Lysenko spawned.

Reply to  Jeff Stanley
September 19, 2015 7:55 pm

Excellent, Jeff.

F. Ross
September 19, 2015 6:34 pm

Great post.
The quote “…The natural tendency of any bureaucracy is to perpetuate its existence. …”
Should be taught in all grades of all schools. Should chiseled in stone letters ten feet tall and placed in the entrances of all government buildings.

September 19, 2015 6:37 pm

Thanks, Dr. Ball. This is an excellent essay.
Recalling those crazy prophets of doom, that failed, should warn AGW proponents to stop, observe and re-think their positions.

September 19, 2015 7:02 pm

Seems they’re as incompetent as lawyers as they are as scientists.
To apply RICO they must define the unis as criminal organisations. (the clue is the “CO”). Good luck with the unintended consequences of declaring UAH a criminal organisation, or NASA that launched RSS (and then forgot it exists).

Reply to  Andrew
September 19, 2015 7:43 pm

Unintended consequences. +10

Reply to  Andrew
September 20, 2015 10:11 am

Leftists have a tendency to define any opposition to themselves as at a minimum immoral. When they have actual political power, it quickly becomes illegal.

Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2015 5:40 pm

And when they have absolute power it becomes a death sentence.

September 19, 2015 7:13 pm

What’s up with the cartoon mentioning an autumn snowstorm in the Rockies, as if that’s a sign of no warming? Nearby parts of the Great Plains (for example Denver) have a history of occaisionally getting a 1-foot-deep snowstorm as early as mid-September before the equinox or as late as mid-May. A warming of 1.4 C would move this rate of such-season snow happenings merely uphill to the 6,000 foot level assuming the usual wet adiabatic lapse rate. It would take 3.3 degrees C of warming to merely move this sort of out-of-season major snowstorms uphill to the 7,000 foot level.

Jeff Stanley
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 19, 2015 7:35 pm

One of the biggest PR mistakes the climate change alarmists made was pointing to weather events as evidence when they knew better. Doing so, they opened the door for grandma to come to her own conclusions.

Reply to  Jeff Stanley
September 19, 2015 7:50 pm

Jeff, even better. Claiming that any sort of cooling is pawned off as unforeseen internal natural variability. Then turning around and proclaiming any hint of warming as proof of CO2 induced CAGW. Can’t unforeseen internal natural variability also cause warming? It boggles the mind.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 20, 2015 4:38 am

Donald L. Klipstein, they gave us the go ahead. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and all that.

The Evening Independent – 24 November 1928
Weather Is Climate Only Under Exceptional Circumstances
But It’s Always Good for Conversation
Guardian – 20 December 2010
George Monbiot
That snow outside is what global warming looks like
Unusually cold winters may make you think scientists have got it all wrong. But the data reveal a chilling truth
…..So why wasn’t this predicted by climate scientists? Actually it was, and we missed it……
Independent – 7 August 2012
Recent extreme heatwaves ‘a result of global warming’
…Dr Hansen said that at least three extreme summers over the past decade, the 2003 heatwave in Europe which killed more than 50,000 people, the 2010 hot summer in Moscow and last year’s droughts in Texas and Oklahoma, were almost certainly the result of man-made climate change rather than natural events….
Yahoo News – February 18, 2013
Global warming could lead to more blizzards but less overall snow.
With scant snowfall and barren ski slopes in parts of the Midwest and Northeast the past couple of years, some scientists have pointed to global warming as the culprit.
Then when a whopper of a blizzard smacked the Northeast with more than 2 feet of snow in some places earlier this month, some of the same people again blamed global warming…..
VOA – 12 November 2013
Climate Change Linked to Typhoon Haiyan
…Some experts say man-made climate change is to blame.
Bob Ward is from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics.
“There’s certainly strong circumstantial evidence because we know that the strength of tropical cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons depends very much on sea surface temperatures. They act as the fuel. And we’ve got very warm waters in the Pacific at the moment, which have been increasing because of climate change,” said Ward….
Daily Telegraph – 8 Feb 2014
Climate change is to blame, says Met Office scientist
Flooding like that in Somerset may become more frequent
Climate change is behind the storms that have struck Britain this winter, according to the Met Office.
Dame Julia Slingo, the Met Office’s chief scientist, said while there was not yet “definitive” proof, “all the evidence” supported the theory that climate change had played a role.
Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat Climate Change Secretary, warned….“There is clear scientific evidence that climate change has led to sea levels rising and that extreme weather events will become more frequent and more intense,” Mr Davey said….
National Geographic – 26 January 2015
Blizzard of Nor’Easters No Surprise, Thanks to Climate Change
…They call it completely predictable.
“Big snowfall, big rainstorms, we’ve been saying this for years,” says climate scientist Don Wuebbles of the University of Illinois in Urbana. “More very large events becoming more common is what you would expect with climate change, particularly in the Northeast.”…

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 20, 2015 10:12 am

Didn’t they assure us a few years ago, that children wouldn’t even know what snow was by now?

Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2015 11:55 am

It was in the Independent in March 2000.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
…According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event“.
Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said….

Today we know that snow in south east England is a sure sign of global warming.

Christopher Hanley
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
September 20, 2015 2:10 pm

“What’s up with the cartoon mentioning an autumn snowstorm in the Rockies, as if that’s a sign of no warming?”
Donald L. Klipstein’s comment is a neat example the equivocation that is so important to the strategy.
The cartoon is not a comment on whether autumn snow in the Rockies (or anywhere else) is or isn’t a sign of — not “warming” — but Global Warming™.
It is a comment on the fact that despite the monstrous Global Warming™ scare campaign, the general public remain stubbornly rational calm and unmoved.

September 19, 2015 7:28 pm

Interesting (to me anyway) thought. I think the RICO gambit is indeed an attempt to silence those who are making legitmate arguments in opposition to the so-called settled science. Wouldn’t it be interesting to actually litigate CAGW? Does anyone know if it has been done yet?

Reply to  Doug
September 19, 2015 9:39 pm

Litigation as to whether or not it is acceptable to call, in public, Michael Mann’s “work product” a scientific fr@ud is currently in progress.
…. the depositions are going to be fun too. If only these clowns knew what being taken apart in a deposition will feel like.
Meanwhile, I won’t lose any sleep waiting for the process server that these dweebs couldn’t even afford anyway.

September 19, 2015 7:54 pm

“It is important to note that none of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books, they claim provide the evidence for their charge, signed the letter.”
That sentence is a monster as well. It makes no sense as it stands. To make it comprehensible I have to, first, remove the commas, and, second, to guess that “they” refers to the writers of the letter and not the authors of the book. Even then, that excessively long subject clause is still clumsy.
Don’t you have an editor, Anthony, to help your writers?
[It can be changed, but what version would be clearer? More clear? .mod]

Alan Robertson
Reply to  RoHa
September 19, 2015 8:58 pm

Are you volunteering to be an editor for submissions to these pages?

Reply to  Alan Robertson
September 19, 2015 11:10 pm

Here are two clearer versions.
1. The writers of the letter claim various academic peer-reviewed papers and books provide the evidence for their charge. It is important to note that none of the authors of those papers and books signed the letter.
Less felicitously:
2. It is important to note that the letter was not signed by any of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books which, the letter claimed, provide the evidence for their charge.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
September 19, 2015 11:23 pm

@Alan Robertson
I’ll do it for large sums of money, though I think Anthony would be better advised to hire a very old-fashioned professional editor. (Since, as we all know, he is being paid trillions by Exxon, Shell, BP, and the Koch brothers, he can well afford it.) Writers sometimes get carried away by their enthusiasm,, and need an editor to sort out the resulting tangled prose.
(I know this from experience. I have, at various times, produced, not just sentences, but whole paragraphs which I thought were perfectly clear, but which readers denounced as hopelessly obscure.)

Reply to  Alan Robertson
September 19, 2015 11:25 pm

And perhaps a second editor to remove doubled commas.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Alan Robertson
September 20, 2015 4:44 am

It’s been over four and a half decades since my sole required course in English composition was successfully completed, so being mindful of time’s erosive effects, it would be hopeless for me to compete with you for the position. Any number of my past writings here would also expose such an effort as laughable, so go ahead and get rich, unencumbered by any guilt for having taken away meaningful employment from this viewer who sits catcalling from the peanut gallery.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
September 20, 2015 7:10 am

“It is important to note that none of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books (which supposedly provide the evidence for their charge) signed the letter.”

Reply to  Alan Robertson
September 20, 2015 7:44 pm

That’s a good one, BallBounces. However, as with my second version, the reference of “their” in “their charge” is still ambiguous. The context of the sentence leads us to hope the reference is to the writers of the letter, whereas the structure of the sentence makes it the authors of the books.
Alan, I am waiting for a six-figure offer from Anthony, and hoping that the the zeroes follow, rather than precede, the other digits.

Reply to  RoHa
September 20, 2015 7:52 pm

It is important to note that none of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books, whom they claim provided the evidence for their charge, signed the letter.”

Bernie Hutchins
September 19, 2015 7:58 pm

The earlier post said ” A group of climate scientists, including Professor Kevin Trenberth,….”
Is it not telling, that, I believe, if we remove Trenberth, of the 20 or so signers, most of us would have a hard time telling the remaining list from a list of students from your local junior high. Or – Are they well-known?

Reply to  Bernie Hutchins
September 19, 2015 8:51 pm

….. is Travesty Trenberth still purporting to have a Nobel Prize ?
That episode tells you all you want to know about honesty in climate science.

Reply to  philincalifornia
September 20, 2015 2:10 am

This is enlightening. Sorry mods for using word fraud…

A RICO suit like the one we propose would be very narrowly focussed on whether companies were engaged in fraud in order to continue selling a product which threatens to do harm.

Nice. So I read they want to use RICO against oil companies. Merchants of Doubt swallowed to line and rod.
But oil companies are not afraid of climate science anymore. They have understood that all these measures taken to reduce coal and oil dependency are very much in vain, and, not only that but they provide lots of new opportunities for oil companies. Biofuels, for example, are potentially very good source of income to oil companies which have the refineries, storage and sales network already set up. CO2 panic does not lessen the income of oil companies, because it will give them a good reason to raise end user product prices. Oil companies are ready to offer new products, which are more expensive or government-subsidised. They will not deny ‘climate change’ or whatever. They will, as mentioned earlier, happily kowtow to the greenish customers by selling you some good consciousness.
If they take part in a fraud, it is a green fraud, not a global warming denial fraud.

Reply to  philincalifornia
September 20, 2015 4:30 am

The travesty has been found.

Koch and George Mason University
Funding and Connections
From 2005-2013, George Mason University (GMU) Foundation, and its associated institutes and centers, has received over $35 million from the Koch Family Charitable Foundations. This represent over half of the $68 million total that Koch foundations have sent to over 300 universities since 2005.
Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 01:08 PM PDT
George Mason University President to Charles Koch: “I am nothing but incredibly grateful”
….Over half of that $68 million went to George Mason University alone. GMU easily clocks in as the top university recipient of Koch cash, taking $34.6 million since 2005. That is separate from another $10 million to GMU’s Mercatus Center–which Mr. Koch founded and remains a director of–and another $18 million to GMU’s Institute for Humane Studies–of which Charles Koch is the chairman–since 2005…..

Reply to  Bernie Hutchins
September 20, 2015 1:13 am

Are they well-known?

Yes. Not well known by laymen, but Judith Curry says:

I am familiar with all of these names, and know a few of them fairly well. The list includes several members of the National Academy of Science, and numerous IPCC authors. Apart from Trenberth and Robock, as far as I know, none of these individuals have made previous public/political statements about climate change.

So, it is telling. Most of us readers are laymen. Engineers, MSc’s, doctors of pretty much unrelated sciences etc, but laymen related to climate related sciences, or simply mostly non-scientists with some scientific education.
Frankly when Trenberth wants to use RICO against – well I’m guessing – against Anthony Watts, Willie Soon, Christopher Monckton, or possily, Judith Curry and Roy Spencer, it appears he has lost his marbles. Science is not about suing your sad opponents, but about doing good, reproducible, and open science well. There is no Big Oil money here. Rather, there is the Big Green funding on the other side, but Trenberth might have difficulties seeing forest behind the Big Green trees.
There are good reasons to believe the world might have been, and will be warming 0.15 C/decade – given no major volcanic event changes the direction. However, the idea that this would be a reason to panic and destroy world economy is the dangerous one. That would have casualties. Millions.
It is now very important to create economic structures, that is, insurances and derivative papers, around climate change such that those who suffered get compensation in case of disaster, and those who don’t think disaster is coming get money from those who panic in case of no disaster.
After creating a derivative market the people will happily pay the money needed, because they think they’ll win. Using this market the money can be directed to where it is needed – drought adaptation, sea level adaptation, giant mosquito prevention, flood protection and so on. The list of scares is longer than the space available. This way the market will decide how much money should be invested and everyone is happier with outcomes, whatever they are.

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  Hugs
September 20, 2015 5:34 am

All such insurances and derivative papers achieve are to make the lawyers and traders rich. Governments should simply adopt their traditional role of funding tangible assets that can be used during emergencies and putting in place measures to prevent flooding by maintaining levees and drainage ditches.
The UK government in the form of the Environment agency has largely walked away from these traditional roles as we saw in the case of the Somerset floods when we found they had stopped maintaining the flood defences.
Prior to 1995 the UK government had 67 depots that held 200,000 tons of food as a strategic food reserve. These were all shut down in 1995 and the stocks disposed of.

Reply to  Hugs
September 20, 2015 12:28 pm

“All such insurances and derivative papers achieve are to make the lawyers and traders rich.”
You need a market for derivatives in order to have insurances based on them. Somebody has to buy the risk that climate warms / does not warm, in order someone to get money from their insurance. I’m sorry I called it ‘derivative’, it is a naughty word after all.

September 19, 2015 9:36 pm

@ Dr Tim Ball, I heard to part of your program on Ian Jessop’s radio show ( Sept 17th) regarding comments you made about he University system. Is there a transcript available? Although I only caught part of I fully agreed with you at the time but would like to read the whole thing, thanks.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  asybot
September 19, 2015 10:16 pm

Listen here:
Go to the 17 Sep 1 PM audio clip, starting about 7 minutes in.

Reply to  Gary Hladik
September 20, 2015 4:37 am
Reply to  asybot
September 20, 2015 3:20 pm

Thanks guys great!

September 19, 2015 9:42 pm

Warmists stopped doing science, and now they want to criminalize science so nobody can do it?

Eugene WR Gallun
September 19, 2015 10:03 pm

Dr. Tim Ball — Exactly — Eugene WR Gallun

September 19, 2015 11:45 pm

According to the letter these scientists all signed off on, one of the things Global Warming is supposed to cause is “increasing ocean acidity”. Do they not know that the oceans aren’t acidic, and so they cannot become “increasingly” acidic?
In addition to that error, it’s impossible for the oceans to become acidic because there isn’t enough carbon atoms in the atmosphere to convert 300 million cubic miles of sea water into an acid. So, the oceans will remain alkaline, and in fact warming would cause them to become even more alkaline.
Dr. Eastbrook deals with this at about the one hour mark in this Congressional hearing.

Reply to  LarryFine
September 20, 2015 3:08 am

Well worth a look at this video.
An interesting presentation.

Reply to  LarryFine
September 20, 2015 3:15 am

And don’t forget “The Climate Swindle”.
Would you believe that this was a 2007 program – and yet the Global Warming bandwagon rolled on regardless…..

Reply to  LarryFine
September 20, 2015 5:10 am

That video is wonderful. Best quote “you’ll never see this on TV.”

September 19, 2015 11:55 pm

These scientists also mentioned the supposed “stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years”. What stability? Proxy data, archeology and historical records prove that there was a Roman Warming Period, a Medieval Warming Period, and a Little Ice Age, none of which were caused by man.
In any case, it’s too little late for Obama’s injustice department to get any such convictions, but perhaps President Trump or Cruz should use RICO to go after radical Warmists all over the world. Hoisting them on their own petards, as it were.

Reply to  LarryFine
September 20, 2015 10:19 am

Don’t forget the Minoan Warm period from about 3000 years ago. It was warmer than both the Roman and Midieval Warm periods.

Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2015 10:21 am

The modern warm period is cooler than the Midieval warm period of 1000 years ago.
The Midieval warm period is cooler than the Roman warm period of 2000 years ago.
The Roman warm period is cooler than the Minoan warm period of 3000 years ago.
Anyone else noticing a pattern?

Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2015 12:47 pm

People who learned Math the Common Core way will never spot the pattern because they learned to count like a carnival horse, by stomping their feet.

Nik Marshall-Blank
September 20, 2015 12:39 am

How pathetic to try to associate challenging AGW with the Tobacco industry. It’s like saying anybody who paints pictures of architecture is a Nazi because Hitlers main painting subject was architecture.

September 20, 2015 1:02 am

Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
“If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.”

David Cage
September 20, 2015 1:24 am

They achieved the same result here in the UK by making false accusations of hacking against those who released the data proving at the very least an element of corruption and dishonesty by climate scientists.
the really damning evidence never got to the public thanks to this threat.
Even it you can readily prove you are innocent of the charges the legal fees will financially destroy an ordinary person beyond any hope of recovery.

Reply to  David Cage
September 20, 2015 10:22 am

They have even coined a term for the tactic: lawfare.

September 20, 2015 1:27 am

This includes expanding the scope and scale of the work, promoting speculative dangers and threats to society, emphasizing the urgency to resolve the problem, and involving as many other public and private agencies as possible.
And covering up any defects in their scam.
I blogged on the UKs Grauniad newspaper about this recently, and ran rings around their Warmist bloggers, because they did not seem to know any of the contrarian data in this field. So what did the Grauniad do? — They closed the thread and deleted all my comments.
Its no wonder these people are so ignorant about climate science, they live in a Warmist bubble created and promoted by the likes of the Grauniad and the BBC.

September 20, 2015 1:57 am

Climate science is a cancer that eats away all the funds from regular science.

Dodgy Geezer
September 20, 2015 2:26 am

…The natural tendency of any bureaucracy is to perpetuate its existence….
This was, of course, specifically noted by Parkinson in his famous book: ‘Parkinson’s Law’…

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
September 20, 2015 10:23 am

I’m pretty sure Murphy covered it as well.

Rainer Bensch
September 20, 2015 2:27 am

Isn’t it time to start libel lawsuits against all of the signers?

September 20, 2015 2:36 am

Oh my goodness gracious me – we must be doing something about the global warming deniers. Are we not scientists! We are scientists and we must be acting before the world is being destroyed.
Come Mahendra- you too must be acting for saving the world.

September 20, 2015 2:38 am

Is it a criminal offence in the United States to engage in a conspiracy to subvert democracy and suppress freedom of speech? If so, when will the plotters who wrote the letter face charges?

Reply to  Roy
September 20, 2015 10:24 am

When we have an honest govt.
Drudgereport has a poll that finds that 75% of Americans believe that govt is corrupt.

Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2015 1:01 pm

Who the heck are these 25% who think differently?

Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2015 6:34 pm

They are the ones who work for the corrupt govt.

September 20, 2015 3:09 am

I am not a lawyer, especially not a US lawyer, but this actually seems to me to be prima facie case of a criminal conspiracy to defraud and to oppose freedom of speech.
I wonder if a charge could be brought against Trenberth et al?

September 20, 2015 3:42 am

Richard Feynman:
“In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
Do ANY of the projections by climate scientists match the unadulterated data collected over the last one and a half centuries?

Reply to  old44
September 20, 2015 2:50 pm

I was intending a short reply, but I just couldn’t stop. Thanks for the quote by Richard Feynman. This clearly shows that he had adopted Popper´s empirical method, commonly known as the hypothetic-deductive method, simply put:
1 A hypothesis is proposed. This is not justified and is tentative.
2 Testable predictions are deduced from the hypothesis and previously accepted statements.
3 We observe whether the predictions are true.
4 If the predictions are false, we conclude the theory is false.
5 If the predictions are true, that doesn’t show the theory is true, or even probably true. All we can say is that the theory has so far passed the tests of it.
As phrased by Karl Popper i The logic of scientific discovery:
“According to my proposal, what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but … exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival.”
Clearly, a skeptical attitude is valuable to the method, as a theory is corroborated and merited by the severity of the tests it has been exposed to and survived. A skeptical attitude is required to design and conduct proper tests. Any proponents of the IPCC climate theory who calls their opponents “skeptics” demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the scientific method.
Popper also states:
“But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of demarcation. In other words: I shall not require of a scientific system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.»
One problem with the IPCC climate theory is that the theory allows everything. It allows: Increasing temperature, non-increasing temperature (hiatus), decreasing temperature, more ice, less ice, more rain, less rain, more snow, less snow, more drought, less drought, more wind, less wind. And – the sea level is rising anyhow. A theory which allows everything explains nothing.
Ref. Contribution from working group I to the fifth assessment report by IPCC
TS.5.4.1 Projected Near-term Changes in Climate
Projections of near-term climate show small sensitivity to Green House Gas scenarios compared to model spread, but substantial sensitivity to uncertainties in aerosol emissions, especially on regional scales and for hydrological cycle variables. In some regions, the local and regional responses in precipitation and in mean and extreme temperature to land use change will be larger than those due to large-scale GHGs and aerosol forcing. These scenarios presume that there are no major volcanic eruptions and that anthropogenic aerosol emissions are rapidly reduced during the near term.
TS.5.4.2 Projected Near-term Changes in Temperature
In the absence of major volcanic eruptions—which would cause significant but temporary cooling—and, assuming no significant future long-term changes in solar irradiance, it is likely that the Global Mean Surface Temperature anomaly for the period 2016–2035, relative to the reference period of 1986–2005 will be in the range 0.3°C to 0.7°C (medium confidence).
Taking into account that the Global Mean Surface Temperature is already roughly about 0.3°C above the reference period of 1986-2005 (Not sure, but I was told so) The hiatus could last to 2035 without falsifying the theory. It could even go down a bit since they use the terms likely and medium confidence. Hence I cannot see that the theory is falsifiable in the near-term. As the climate theory by IPCC isn´t falsifiable in the near term, I guess it shouldn´t either be regarded as empirical or scientific in the near-term.

Erik Christensen
September 20, 2015 4:40 am

Great post by Dr. Tim Ball – bravo!

September 20, 2015 4:47 am

Nice post but useless we need this as posted above and it has be lawyers not bloggers anymore…
“I am not a lawyer, especially not a US lawyer, but this actually seems to me to be prima facie case of a criminal conspiracy to defraud and to oppose freedom of speech.
I wonder if a charge could be brought against Trenberth et al?”
They HAVE to be charged

Coeur de Lion
September 20, 2015 4:49 am

What about the 31000 named American sceptical scientists in Are they all to be imprisoned?

Bruce Cobb
September 20, 2015 5:44 am

The Frankenstein monster depicted in the cartoon (which I printed out when it first appeared, and put it on the refrigerator, where it remains) was meant as a humorous way of showing people’s general response to the fake manmade warming scare. An apt monster for the multi-faceted, and incredibly difficult to dispatch Climate Cabal though would be the Hydra, of Greek mythology:
comment image

Gerald Machnee
September 20, 2015 6:17 am

You have to note that Obama is gullible enough to accept or believe what that bunch has to say since it fits in with his plans.

Paul Coppin
September 20, 2015 6:52 am

It would be interesting to know how many of that List of 20 have failed grant applications (or successful ones, for that matter) with foundations heavily supported by the petrochemical industry. How many have their knickers in a knot because they didn’t get the grant money they believed they deserved. In fact, how many looked for funds via the very industry they seek to punish…?
As for Trenberth – he needs to spend less time looking for the missing heat, and more time spent looking for his missing common sense.

September 20, 2015 7:42 am

I already think there will be a day (if it doesn’t get omg is it cold soon) that most of us will be put on trail for crimes against humanity. All those island nations are now under water and canal st in NYC is under 20 feet of water. To think I am a deiner! Both poles have melted, hurricanes are stronger and more frequent than ever and large swaths of the Midwest US are still in an epic drought. Just as predicted.

September 20, 2015 8:16 am

I think this RICO idea is going to come back and bite them in the @ss in the next few years !!!! Hopefully, a little jail time will do wonders to wake these Eco-terrorists to the world of reality !!

September 20, 2015 8:32 am

Keep in mind that most people have never heard anything that conflicts with the “official” version of climate change. They don’t seek out or research matters, and believe what is shouted at them a hundred time per day. Unless there is a well-funded counter argument made to the people at large (and not simply those of us who are truth junkies), the “official” version will remain official. I see this in so many, many areas, not just climate change.

September 20, 2015 8:36 am

So on a perfect sunday morning with resort weather to enjoy here in the corn belt, while catching up with Joe Bastardi’s weekly summary, it occurs to me that nothing about this whole climate change thing is unprecedented, except for the extent and speed of the viral spreading of anti-human sentimentality and fear mongering that today’s tech facilitates for opportunists of ill intent.
The envelope of science has been stretched by having been used to enclose a political agenda, giving it a philanthropic appearance based on a gross overestimation of a theoretical process in nature, and has begun to tear from the stress. It has become necessary to place the scientific envelope inside the envelope of religion to keep it away from honest scrutiny.
As the envelope of religion already contains many holes, mostly due it’s deterioration with age, it will be necessary to apply the ‘camo duck tape’ of the law to sufficiently obscure the contents and damage that has occurred.

September 20, 2015 8:36 am

What an excellent post!
Well done Dr. Tim Ball. So many great points that I – oh so wholeheartedly – agree with. Great to see this hosted on WUWT.

September 20, 2015 8:37 am

A Dutch court recently ruled that greenhouse gas reduction is a state obligation. Here’s what that could mean for the rest of the world.

Reply to  herkimer
September 20, 2015 8:52 am

Maybe they’ll declare it a “Dutch treat” and every country pays for their own…

September 20, 2015 10:30 am

The RICO Act cannot be used against people exercising their free speech right to disagree with mainstream science. It can be applied to for-profit companies using dishonest information to mislead the public. Medical science was not damaged by the RICO Act convictions against the tobacco industry and no one was jailed for disagreeing that tobacco is harmful. But just as companies cannot legally engage in false advertising, there are limits on deceptive lobbying.

Reply to  Felix
September 20, 2015 11:26 am

Perhaps you could provide an example of a statement on climate which merits imprisoning someone under RICO. Thanks.

Reply to  freedomfan
September 20, 2015 7:07 pm

What about a court ruling short of imprisonment of persons named to spend time in prison? Such as a settlement that involves paying a fine, signing a commitment to not continue such wrongdoing (or maybe “wrongdoing” or whatever), stuff like that?

September 20, 2015 10:50 am

I have been unable to find decent words for an adequate response to what these 20 persons have done. I just hope that their superiors in their respective organizations can give them appropriate lessons about scientific theory, history and humanity.

September 20, 2015 11:24 am

The last time we tried a ‘flat tax’ was during the Reagan administration. They compromised by creating a two-tier tax in exchange for eliminating or reducing most deductions in exchange for lower rates. The economy took off.
However, today the high rates are back and so are the multiple progressive tax brackets. But surprise: The deductions they once eliminated, in exchange for temporarily lower rates, are still gone. The economy is stagnant.
This is what I remember when dreamers talk about a ‘flat tax’.

Reply to  freedomfan
September 20, 2015 7:24 pm

The high rates of taxation are not back here again. None of the rates of personal taxation are higher than they were in 1998, or higher than Reagan said he would go along with.
Furthermore, two important taxation rates plunged to a new low level after Clinton left office, and they remain at such a low level now. They are the rates of taxation of long-term capital gains, and the newly post-Clinton distinction of “qualified dividends”. Both of these are on income that is gained and enjoyed mostly by “corporate fat cats”.
I oppose these tax cuts, while I favor less taxation of corporation income. Corporate taxation appears to me as not so good for targeting “corporate fat cats”; instead that appears to me as casting a broader net that impacts corporations’ employees, suppliers, and shareholders such as those with IRAs and 401Ks. Isn’t America supposed to be a place with a middle class that includes a large majority of Americans, mainly ones who work for a living?

Reply to  freedomfan
September 20, 2015 10:10 pm

The United States greatest period of sustained economic growth was in the 1950s, when corporate tax rates were much, much higher, as well as individual tax rates (which were up to 90%). There are still lots of deductions – for example, many corporations pay nearly 0% of their earnings in taxes due to write-offs, and many wealthy people have low effective rates. Warren Buffet provided one of the best examples when he stated that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, because nearly all of his income comes as capital gains, which are taxed at a low rate.

September 20, 2015 11:50 am

Dr Ball,
Well said.

Gil Dewart
September 20, 2015 11:54 am

Hey, this observer brought up the RICO issue a long time ago, hypothetically, in regard to the corrupt character of many of the government members of the IPCC. Interesting that, as with the “d-words” this is warped into a “stop thief” type of evasion.

September 20, 2015 1:25 pm

If only we might see CAGW claims adjudicated by a court, with experts on both sides giving testimony, counsel from both sides allowed to cross examine, and a jury needed to give a unanimous verdict. That is the debate all the honest thinkers of the world have been asking for these many years. An honest debate on the science, without fear or favor. Unfortunately, that is not what is on offer here.

Mike the Morlock
September 20, 2015 1:55 pm
Gosh darn when Volkswagen lies to the EPA and public .. well my faith is just crushed. You don’t suppose its Volkswagen that the “Noble ones” were referring to when they brought up the idea of RICO prosecution (persecution)?

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
September 21, 2015 1:08 am

Nah, it’s more that you either get out of business or you cheat. When the restrictions objectively are nonsense anyway…

Jeff id
September 20, 2015 2:10 pm

Liberals are for freedom!

Matt Maschinot
September 20, 2015 6:44 pm

It amazes me, that someone could so accurately describe what is happening today, over 50 years ago. These people clearly represent the “scientific technological elite” that Eisenhower was speaking about in his farewell address.

September 20, 2015 7:48 pm

Tim, you w\rite that
“..The structure and involvement of people and agencies has become so large that reduction or elimination is virtually impossible. It parallels the idea of “too big to fail” but becomes, “too important to fail”.
I agree with your reasoning but historically this is not true. The unthinkable was done to terminate our moon landing program. When Nixon won his second election he found to his annoyance that the lunar landing program started by his nemesis from 1960 was planning to send 20 lunar landing vehicles to the surface of the moon. His response was to cancel work on the last three vehicles that had not yet been started. This is why Apollo 17 and not Apollo 20 became our last lunar landing vehicle. I was then with Grumman, the prime contractor for LM, and know what happened. Grumman had already done advance planning and had the personnel lined up to handle the technical aspects. Nixon just told them to fire them all. Grumman had no choice and in the month of January 1970 they laid off ten thousand highly qualified people. I was one of these ten thousand. There were no similar jobs elsewhere on Long Island and the large majority of those laid off had to sell their homes and find work in other parts of the country. Luckily my wife had urged me to take education courses which I never used but which now allowed me to find a teaching job instead of transferring to Cape Canaveral. To lay off ten thousand in a month is drastic and I don’t advocate it except as a last resort. Clearly a phased drawdown of undesired work force is preferable. But however it is done, the entire global warming operation is a cancer that must be destroyed. As Cato the Elder would have put it, “Cancrum delenda est.”

Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
September 21, 2015 8:26 am

I’ve had many members of my family that worked for NASA and I remember the cuts. However, to your point I believe this drastic action is fairly rare. The only thing I can remember in the last thirty years is Reagan firing the striking air traffic controllers. Can you cite other instances?

September 20, 2015 7:53 pm

[snip -hate speech -mod]

September 21, 2015 3:11 am

The longer the time to follow the main efforts of science and policy to define and determine the cause of climate change and the consequences in terms of global warming. But, unfortunately, I have not seen anything logical in many stories, especially those that support the policy and not a science that studies and respecting the laws of nature.
In many places I have called attention to the fact that climate change on the planet, not only on nšoj planet, depend on the relationships of the planets and the sun.
In what way can this be proved? It depends on the interests and moods of powerful circles and when they realize that the progress of science can not be achieved with a profit interest in this field.
Today they all run and rush headlong into the unknown, only if they consider that there can be realized a personal profit.
These all who read this, I can not ignore this, as they wish, because nobody can forbid you, but remember, that I have the obvious idea that these ENIGMA successfully complete !!.
Offering up with his idea, but now I stand by that, that NASA and the Government of the United States if they have this interest, can be a little “lowered down” and to accept the offer with a contractual obligation to perform it in detail.
Read this and think there is no need to be making fun of this, but to try to solve.
I can not wait to fall soon many false theories about climate change.

September 21, 2015 3:49 am

This all reminds me, in an admittedly macabre and over the top way, of an account by Christopher Hitchens about Saddam Hussein’s silencing of the Iraqi parliament.
During a parliamentary session, Saddam appeared and took the podium to speak. From one of the side doors a disheveled and broken man was dragged in and installed next to him. The man had obviously been tortured mercilessly. The man began to denounce a large number of parliamentarians present as traitors. Armed police then came in from every door and dragged away the named individuals kicking and screaming their innocence. The parliament erupted and the remaining delegates swarmed around the podium professing undying loyalty to Saddam in abject terror. Saddam then declared that he would only trust them if they went outside and executed the traitors at once with rifles provided by the police.
The delegates rushed out to comply.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  amoorhouse
September 21, 2015 6:59 am

I saw that on tv at the time.
Hitchens version here, the action starts around 1:35

September 21, 2015 7:30 am

Why not have a RICO investigation of the promoters of CAGW? I won’t list them here for fear of legal action, but there are many who have a vested interest in promoting their theme.
“All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”
Friedrich Nietzsche

September 21, 2015 8:39 am

The Coming Climate Change Catastrophe Cult does not care about climate science.
There are few science debates on climate change.
Skeptics are countered with ridicule and character attacks.
This is the Alinsky method to gain political power.
Scaring people is a political tool used to gain political power.
Character attacking people who object, creates a (false) reason to avoid debating them … and is also effective in silencing dissent from others who may have been thinking about making skeptical statements.
Recent calls for a RICO investigation of “climate deniers” are just an unusually harsh form of a character attack.
The odd thing about climate change is most skeptics get involved with temperature minutia and miss many opportunities to ridicule 40+ years of grossly inaccurate computer game climate predictions.
Real climate scientists are rarely able to communicate effectively — they tend to get bogged down with math, science, and charts that few laymen will understand.
Anyone who is an expert in a subject ought to be able to teach an overview of the subject in simple words, and short sentences, that a high school student could understand.
The problem with climate change science is there are no experts.
There are so many unknowns about climate change that it’s impossible to know if a climate scientist is really an expert, or whether his current theories will be proven completely wrong in the future.
What real climate scientists (not smarmy climate modelers) forget is the climate change cult is almost entirely interested in the FUTURE climate, which they “predict” with computer games.
Predictions of the future are real science.
Humans are so inaccurate when predicting the future.
“Experts” are actually less accurate then laymen.
Predictions resemble astrology.
Real science resembles astronomy.
Computer models are not science — they are not data, and without data there is no science.
The communication of basic climate change knowledge has to be very simple to influence the average person.
Simple words.
Short sentences.
No math.
Few numbers.
Here’s a first draft of my attempt to summarize climate “science” in simple language:
There were quite a few cool centuries from 1300 to 1850.
The slight warming since 1850 is good news for people and green plants.
The increase of CO2 in the air since 1850 is good news for green plants.
There has never been a correlation between CO2 levels and average temperature.
There is no scientific proof CO2 is more than a minor factor in climate change.
Climate model games have been predicting global warming doom for over 40 years.
How many decades do the models have to be wrong before people stop listening?
Real scientists know Earth is always warming or cooling.
In the past, based on written anecdotal evidence, most people liked warm centuries, and hated cool centuries.
Global warming is something to celebrate.
Don’t people often travel to warm climates for vacations?
If warming stops, there can only be global cooling.
Global cooling is something to fear.
15,000 years ago Manhattan was under miles of ice.
No one knows why that happened.
No one knows why the ice melted.
No one knows if it will happen again.
Climate change is not something that started 50 years ago.
It has been happening for all 4.5 billion years of earth’s existence.
Be thankful for a degree or two of warming since 1850.
Hope for more warming in the future.
And speaking for the green plants, more CO2 (plant food) in the air would be great too.
There are many things in the world to worry about.
Often not the things politicians tell you to worry about.
Climate change is something to celebrate — not worry about.
But you can start worrying if the climate starts getting colder.
Climate blog for non-scientists:
No ads.
No money for me.
A public service.

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 21, 2015 8:44 am

In my prior post,
“Predictions of the future are real science”
should have been typed as:
“Predictions of the future are NOT real science.”
That typing error was not my fault.
I was distracted by knee pain caused by climate change.
For which I have written the UN demanding climate reparations to ease my pain and suffering.

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 21, 2015 11:27 am

Three days ago the local weatherman predicted 96 F for Sunday. The high was 87 F. I want reparations for bringing my shot sleeve shirt.

September 21, 2015 9:11 am

The past president of the National Academy of Sciences dos not think there is a current global warming threat

Reply to  herkimer
September 21, 2015 9:51 am

That proves he is a “denier”,
paid off by the Koch Brothers,
owns ExxonMobil stock,
is too old and feeble-minded to express a scientific opinion (like Al Bore said about Roger Revelle),
is consulting for fossil fuel companies,
is being misinterpreted by you,
is angry he is no longer President of the NAS, and is trying to get back at them,
and/or he is really the “passed” President, not “past” President, and since he is no longer alive, his climate change opinion no longer counts.
Perhaps he really meant the climate is fine TODAY — there’s no current threat — but in the FUTURE life on Earth will end as we know it from climate change?
When life on Earth ends, however, no one will know what caused it — the cause could have been ANY of the MANY environmental threats we were told were going to end life on Earth as we knew it, starting in the 1960s with DDT … then other pesticides, acid rain, hole in the ozone layer, global warming, global cooling, climate change, etc.
Did I miss a few ?

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 22, 2015 12:55 am

Or the latest fashion:

September 21, 2015 10:06 am

The libcultists have never had a problem with arrogating whatever POWER they can to try and destroy their enemies, especially if that power is governmental in nature. The IRS attacks against Tea Party and other conservative orgs are well known now and fairly well understood, yet NO ONE has been held accountable. Nor will they be.
This latest group of Klimate Kultists demand that government yet again intercede on the behalf of their “bigger truth” is just a logical extension of those Tea Party attacks. Success breeds success.
Since the GOPe and the demonRATs actively conspired to eliminate their hated mutual enemy, the Tea Party, the temptation to employ the same tactics in every area is irresistible to those who are fundamentally totalitarians at heart.
I guess what I’m really saying is this: Ya ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

September 21, 2015 11:26 am

“Research” from GreenPeace said “jump!” and almost everyone jumped. The few that did not jump were labeled deniers and hounded by the Administration, media groups, advocacy groups, and message managers under contract. “Research” from EPA screamed “jump!” and the few that did not jump were fined at a rate of $24,000 per day. Thus, there is great incentive to stretch the enforcement cost onto more victims and into more venues.

Joel Snider
September 21, 2015 2:04 pm

When ‘Godzilla’ came out last year (and of course all the warmists jumped on it as a global warming metaphor even though the director pointedly debunked this, indicating it was more of a ‘nature bats last’ story), I thought it was actually a pretty good analogy going back the other way – the Big Green Industry can easily be seen as an unstoppable green monster that wants to destroy humanity and that no one can stop.

Bob Kutz
September 22, 2015 7:04 am

If ever in the course of history there has been a more poetic symbol of dogma over science than the Pope coming to visit our current president, I have yet to find it.
The actual head of the organization that imprisoned Galileo Galilei is coming to the U.S. to confer his blessing on our federal government’s ordination of the doctrine of CAGW.
Nevermind that the left has absolutely no use for Christianity whatsoever. This Pope is clearly a marxist, and what’s more; he agrees with them on their single most important scientific pronouncement; that man is an evil danger to the world and must be stopped. So, for at least the time being, he is their hero.
And never mind the “optics” of the situation.
Somewhere in heaven or hell, depending on your particular faith tradition, there is a room. A room with a table around which are seated Socrates, Galileo and Saint Thomas Aquinas. They are either collectively laughing their hind-ends off about the comedy of it all, or face palming at the lack of progress humanity has made in the advancement and proliferation of understanding of scientific knowledge.
Either way, future generations will hopefully see this as the high water mark for the political high jacking of science.

September 28, 2015 8:55 am

Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
Dr. Tim Ball’s perspective on the RICO letter: “Their RICO charge is so ridiculous it hardly warrants a response, but it does require scientific perspective. It is important to note that none of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books, they claim provide the evidence for their charge, signed the letter. It is likely that most, if not all of them or their institutes, receive funding from a government beyond their academic or government salaries.”

%d bloggers like this: