Quotes of the week: hate as a weapon in the climate wars, RICO madness, losers, and all that

Normally, we have just one “Quote of the Week” here at WUWT, but this week has been a particularly target rich environment. It seems that the announcement by the Associated Press two weeks ago that they’d removed the term “climate denier” from the AP Stylebook, covered here on WUWT, has done little more than cause the usual suspects to ramp up their own hateful rhetoric.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse leads the charge this week in that department with two quotes from a Huffington Post piece, then there’s Salon Magazine’s Paul Rosenberg in this article that loses the argument in the headline, because he had to resort to a bleeped expletive:

salon-rosenburg

He goes on to say:

‘Climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial’

Really, do you see dead people from “climate change”? Are their squads of “Denier Schutzstaffel” that go around dragging people out of their homes, shooting them, and burying them in unmarked mass graves all because they hold a different viewpoint?

According to his byline, Rosenburg is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera English. 

Being an activist, I think Rosenberg doesn’t really understand that his own ugly prose is helping skeptics when he writes a screed like that. I also think he doesn’t realize he’s come off looking very bad with this piece, though that may sink in soon.

Then there’s Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who has doubled down on using “The RICO Act” against climate skeptics this week, while saying some of the most idiotic things in the process: (bold mine)

This week, the Wall Street Journal joined the fray, writing that “[a]dvocates of climate regulation are urging the Obama Administration to investigate people who don’t share their views… they want the feds to use a law created to prosecute the mafia against lawful businesses and scientists.”

As the Wall Street Journal and others have noted, and as the scientists’ letter acknowledges, I myself raised the possibility of an investigation along these lines in a Washington Post op-ed earlier this year. The connection prompted the Journal to quote Georgia Tech’s Judith Curry – a prominent climate denier – attacking both me and the scientists. “The demand by Senator Whitehouse and the 20 climate scientists for legal persecution of people whose research on science and policy they disagree with represents a new low in the politicization of science,” she said.

Oy! Whitehouse calling Dr. Judith Curry “a prominent climate denier” is a serious mistake on his part, and just demonstrates how clueless he really is about her background and work. But wait, there’s more!

The Wall Street Journal piece also notes that my previous Washington Post op-ed “cited Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who has published politically inconvenient research on changes in solar radiation.” Not noted by the Journal: Dr. Soon reportedly received more than half of his funding from big fossil fuel interests like Exxon-Mobile and the Charles G. Koch Foundation, to the tune of $1.2 million. Some of Dr. Soon’s research contracts gave his industry backers a chance to see what he was doing “for comment and input” before he published it. The New York Times reported that in correspondence with his fossil fuel funders, Dr. Soon referred to the scientific papers he produced as “deliverables.” And he apparently failed to note his funding sources — which constitute a clear conflict of interest — when publishing his research, prompting his employers at the Smithsonian to conduct an internal review of his conduct.

Of course, none of that seems to matter to the Wall Street Journal. They’d rather believe that Dr. Soon is being attacked for espousing “politically inconvenient” views. Please.

Sadly, Dr. Soon is just a small cog in a massive climate-denial machine, which rivals that of the tobacco industry in size, scope, and complexity. Its purpose is to cast doubt about the reality of climate change in order to forestall a move toward cleaner fuels and allow the Kochs and Exxons of the world to continue reaping profits at our expense.

This sounds to me exactly like the kind of raving conspiracy theory that nutters like Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky investigate. It also sounds like a typical day of yelling on Facebook and Twitter by Dr. Michael Mann.

In response to this sort of libelous labeling against Curry and Soon, in private email correspondence, Dr. Richard Lindzen summed up the use of the “d-word” succinctly:

FWIW, when it comes to alarmism, we’re all deniers; when it comes to climate change, none of us are.

By their words, both Rosenberg and Whitehouse essentially admitted they’ve lost the debate. This has long been known by men far wiser than Rosenberg, Whitehouse, Lindzen, and I:

Socrates“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” ― Socrates

Clearly, Rosenberg and Whitehouse have lost with such juvenile antics. I ask, ‘where are the adults on their side of the debate’?


Note: immediately after publication, a spelling error was corrected in the first sentence hear > here, and a second word ‘becuase’ was spell-corrected and a link added in the same paragraph, along with the name Rosenburg >Rosenberg.

Advertisements

147 thoughts on “Quotes of the week: hate as a weapon in the climate wars, RICO madness, losers, and all that

    • Can someone explain to me why the oil companies just don’t open up their books and show the world this pervasive belief concerning the massive funding of skeptics is nothing but propaganda? Can’t they publish the amounts given to “greens” alongside what they might give to groups like HI? I don’t get why they’re so passive about this stuff.

      • The oil companies have no incentive to do any such thing.
        No matter who says what, they know they have a product that everyone needs, and will continue to need far into the future.
        Meanwhile, they are among the big gainers in this whole debacle.
        And it is a debacle…but not for them. They are making money on both sides of the fence, even as their competition is being sidelined by the warmistas.
        On top of that, I am pretty certain that the whole idea of oil interests paying people to refute climate alarmism is very questionable at best, for all of the above reasons and many more.
        They have as much reason to open their books as a bookie or casino does.

      • The “oil companies” are actually energy companies. They would like to exist and flourish no matter how the energy landscape looks 10, 20, 40, 60 years from now. As a result they are busy buttering both sides of as many slices as possible.

      • The nut cases wouldn’t believe it, even if the oil companies were to do such a thing.
        They’ll just claim that the funding is either off the books, or coming through shell organizations.

      • aneipris
        Nice pipe dream, but…
        As an newly retired CFO, I’d guess a “big oil company” probably has a couple billion accounting entries in a given year (perhaps substantially more). “Opening up” is a warm and fuzzy concept, but actually doing it would be a mess. First of all, no activist worth their salt would accept anything less than full disclosure of all of the billions of entries (hiding stuff, don’t you know…). No credible intelligence could be made of this pile of data, regardless how good your search engine is, because nobody will accept that that “big oil” properly recorded the fundamental accounting entries to begin with.
        Just saying.

      • Carbon pricing would be a bonanza for oil companies.
        Carbon pricing would allow oil companies to profit from worthless, depleted oil wells, by redefining them as “carbon sequestration facilities”.
        People would still need their oil, so they would still sell a lot of oil regardless of the price.
        Their gigantic cash reserves would also allow them to play games with the carbon market – since they would effectively control both the supply and demand of carbon credits, they could fix the price to whatever yielded the highest profit.

      • The biggest big oil of all funds every AGW and “Sustainability” organisation in the world and funds cities and governments.
        I talk of the Rockefeller organisations.
        See my blog http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
        Pick any “green initiative” organisation and Rockefeller will be among the top donors.
        Some say the Rockefellers are OK because they are now going into renewables.
        Quite likely as they have spent a lot of cash to decrease the demand for fossil fuels, now is the time to go into renewables where whole governments can be farmed and subsidies abound
        Cheers
        Roger

      • The Rockefellers are a big clan now so it takes a lot more money to support the lifestyle they have become accustomed to. If oil won’t support their lifestyle then renewables will or so they think.

      • Aren’t the issues Rosenberg and Whitehouse and their opinions about skeptics? Are oil companies an issue here?

      • In cost and managerial accounting, the numbers are rounded to at least six figures. I can see why the books aren’t opened. The debate and accusations would go on forever. It’s hard enough to get CAGW to admit that they might be wrong. It’s a moving target. Drought, no drought, biggest ever, warmest year on record, record snows, the Arctic is melting, Antarctic is melting… you can always find something. They just move onto the next thing. Much like when the US is warm… global warming, when it gets fridged, it’s only 2% . The dexterity with numbers is alarming.

      • How about the “greens” like the Sierra Club, WWF and others of their ilk disclosing their financial backing for imaginary climate change propaganda that distorts the true state of nature? There has been no warming whatsoever for the last 18 years but they pretend it either does not exist or try to make it disappear by changing existing temperature records. And how about disappearing an entire eighteen year stretch of no-warming in the eighties and nineties and replacing it with a non-existent “late twentieth century” warming? Now that is a real scientific crime that calls for an investigation under the RICO statutes and appropriate punishments as needed.

      • agreed,i would never tire of slapping some of these people about the head. the sheer ignorance and spite directed to anyone with a difference of opinion is astounding.

  1. Re: Dr. Soon referred to the scientific papers he produced as “deliverables.”
    Um, yes. The results of most contract work is called a ‘deliverable’. Is this somehow a crime?

    • The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) refers to manuals and reports as “deliverables.” Even little Mikey Mann has deliverable requirements on his grant contracts

    • And the EPA uses the term “deliverables” for any and all reports that are the result of their contract funding.
      It’s amusing to see that many of the activists and journalists, (sic), in this world have no idea how anything gets done. In many cases you “hire” someone to do the work, and they deliver the finished product, a “deliverable.” But don’t expect journalists and activists to understand this, most of them couldn’t deliver a pizza.

    • Agreed. It is quite telling (and humorous if not so hurtful) that the alarmists’ have used the word “deliverable” assome sort of smoking gun of dishonest skeptical research. It is the common parlance of nearly every funding agency. I suspect if we researched the grants from Trenberth and Mann and everyone else, they would also find the term “deliverables”.

      • “assome”
        I assume this was unintentional, but it made me chuckle. I hope you don’t mind if I use this unintentional moment of creativity elsewhere.

      • Correct, all US Federal Government agencies are required to issue contracts in accordance with the requirements specified in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). Thus, EPA, NASA, NOAA, DOE, and all the rest have deliverable requirements on their contracts… and reports, books, databases, etc., are all considered deliverables.

      • “deliverables”.
        The problem, Doc, (jim Steele) is the term is meant to poison the views of the run of the mill joe/jane Doe.
        Using the term “deliverables” creates the image of a “bag-man” in the public’s eye.
        They are using the public’s lack familiarity and knowledge against it. People such as Rosenburg and Whitehouse know the proper meaning of the term, that just makes what they are doing worst.
        michael

  2. It was entirely predictable that the word would continue to be used, as it is now firmly established in the lexicon, and this new usage is far more widespread than the original context of the word ever was.
    Trying to regulate speech, at least in this country, is doomed to fail.
    I also seem to recall that the AP did not actually ban the word…the message was more subtle than that.
    I think the best course of action on this is no action…words have no power except what our minds create for them. If someone insults me, all I need to do is refuse to be offended in order to render their words meaningless, except that they have labelled themselves by doing so.
    I decline to let other persons, who wish me ill will, dictate my mental state by doing exactly what they want to happen with their words…get myself upset.
    Whitehouse’s and Rosenberg’s use of what many consider to be inappropriate language has done nothing more than identify them as unkind person of a pusillanimous nature.
    Rosenberg’s pronouncements do far more though, in that they trivialize that which should not be trivialized, and reveal him to be not simply callow, shallow, unthoughtful, and fatuous, but dismissive of the suffering and sensibilities of other human beings.

      • About the author: “Paul Rosenberg is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera English.”
        Kind of says it all…

      • Al Gore sold his defunct TV station to Al Jazeera for $500 million.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_TV
        This after he refused to sell out to Glenn Beck’s company The Blaze. But of course we all know the American leftists think Middle Eastern radicals are less of a threat than their fellow American conservatives.
        Eventually Al and Al both launched lawsuits against each other, which are still dragging through the courts.

    • In the Salon rant, they actually said that “denier” is an accepted scientific term in the social sciences, therefore the AP is being anti-science by eliminating it.
      They claim the climate change is based on “hard physics”, then use the terminology of soft “social science”, and proselytize like a religion. Real scientists don’t behave this way, they want their professional work to have nothing to do with the pseudo-sciences or religion, these guys have fully embraced them.

  3. W
    “Being an activist, I think Rosenberg doesn’t really understand that his own ugly prose is helping skeptics when he writes a screed like that. I also think he doesn’t realize he’s come off looking very bad with this piece, though that may sink in soon.”
    The above is an example of how the slanderer loses credibility among the fencesitters. It’s what I mean by letting them froth by maintaining your boundaries. Doesn’t happen often enough, but is very effective because it scares the fencesitter.

    • According to his byline, Rosenburg is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera English.
      The original Al Jazeera channel was launched 1 November 1996 by an emiri decree with a loan of 500 million Qatari riyals (US$137 million) from the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa.
      Due to billions of dollars in surpluses from the oil and gas industry, the Qatari government has directed investments into United States, Europe, and Asia Pacific.

      Wiki ref:
      Hey Rosy, you work for a CO2 polluting OIL COUNTRY.

    • The question is why is Rosenberg so angry? Does he really need to become a frothing imbecile because there are people who disagree with him?
      I know why I am angry, it’s because of miscreants like Rosenberg who seem to think the way to promote their view requires shutting down opposing views. That makes me very angry.

      • He is frothing because his base whipped him into a frenzy. He needs to validate himself in his tribe.
        If you think this is nonsense, try an experiment. Go to any protest and engage the leader in a calm discussion where you CALMLY counter fallacies. Do it in front of his tribe.
        You’ll first notice the shallow breathing.
        Then the tensing of the muscles.
        They’ll briefly observe if they are losing their audience.
        If they suspect you are making a dent in their place in the tribe, they will fly off the handle.
        Warning
        Don’t conduct this experiment on your own and have an exit plan.

      • Conservatives think liberals are wrong…liberals think conservatives are evil. Understand that, everything else falls into place.

    • Barbara – Anthony, like the rest of the science minded populace is looking for adults on both sides that conduct legitimate debates to both inform us and push science forward, that only one side has them has stunted the growth of science and our general understanding of our world all for the sake of an agenda. I pray that this is remedied post-haste.

      • For a U.S. Senator to suggest that RICO be used on those who don’t agree with his/her views on scientific issues should call for a Censure by the Senate, IMO.
        This is a scientific discussion and not criminal activity. Maybe Sen. Whitehouse doesn’t know the difference?

        • And a good spanking.
          The US political parties throw little jabs at each other but when it comes to criminal prosecution, it’s kind of the no no place to go.
          If you remember back when Obama got elected there was a mighty big wave of “let’s bring the warmongers to trial”. Weeeellll that would be ugly, too ugly so one side backs down in agreement that the other side won’t do it to them.
          So, when RICO gets waved around underwear gets tight and the atmosphere gets tense because that just not what congressmen do to each other. There are rare cases, but its not regular practice.
          Think of it like insider trading. There ain’t a major successful investment house that doesn’t capitalize on inside information. Folks like Martha Stewart go down because they don’t share well and pissed off the bigger players above them.
          It’s all a little dirty under the rug.

      • AND THAT…
        Is why there aren’t more Judith Currys. i.e. academics willing to speak their mind.
        AND THAT…
        Is why when someone conducts a survey 10,257 scientists, only 3,146 respond, even when the basic question is posed in such an innocuous manner that most skeptics would more or less agree with it’s premise.
        AND THAT…
        Is how an illusion of consensus is formed, finally…
        First they told you the ordinary man that he was not an expert…and you said nothing.
        then they told you that non-climatologist scientists in other fields were not experts…and you said nothing.
        Finally..they excluded lifelong and committed climatologists, and you might have muttered something.
        Only then did you realize that the only remaining experts were, the Pope, President Obama, Mike Mann, Naomi Oreskes/Klein, John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky.
        i would have preferred global annihilation.

        • Several factors come to mind :
          1. Science has lowered the bar about who could be a scientist for over 50 years.
          2. After the 50s public money began to dry up allowing the creep of for profit science.
          3. Corporations were the first to hone the special interest techniques. It was just a matter of time before science allowed themselves to be abused.
          4. CAGW was a curiosity at first and its groundswell caught many well meaning scientists off guard.
          5. The reawakening of science is a slow wave. Little by little the field is objecting.
          Look for little signs. When you see the reestablishment of a gold standard for peer review it will be a big step. When you see science embracing experiments that “fail” you’ll see more signs of the remergence.
          And finally, when you see science again become a field populated by really smart poor dudes you’ll know the light is at the end of the tunnel.

      • There has always been for profit science.
        The idea that public money for science has dried up is one of the more ridiculous claims I’ve heard in awhile.

        • MW
          Always, never and without doubt ?
          How about more or less so than before ?
          If science is to place itself on a pedestal of objectivity, it will also have to figure out how to prove the experiment was above reproach.
          (see Daubert Factors)
          The common point used by both sides in the current CAGW debate is that none of the data or even the design of the experiment is independent or can be independently verified because profit and power have corrupted the objectivity.
          Trust but verify … but who to trust to verify ?
          A true Gordian knot.
          Again, I would like to see science rise above the fray because the fundemental process of science can work, but if science ascribes to science for profit, it has an sisyphian challenge ahead of it.

      • Knute,
        Part of the problem IS public funding. When true believers took over the funding agencies, all that federal grant money was directed in ONE direction to the detriment of all other lines of research. This led directly to the “must show rising trend at all costs” mindset in the grant recipient organizations. Thus, the worst examples of illogical data manipulation have come about not because of an absence of public money, but because of the existence of that money and the strings attached.

        • Agreed
          That is an accurate description of current public funding. It’s also an accurate description of current private funding.
          Didn’t used to be that way for public funding (pre 60s) …. was some but not as bad. You can see that in the types of journal articles that got reported. Failure was as important as success.
          Science cannot sustain its shield of objectivity under the current funding options. It will wither as just another corrupt special interest group. Perhaps the shrinking of the profession is part of the solution. Perhaps a set aside foundation that actually promotes the fundamentals of science will arise.
          What is evident is that science is having an identity and credibility crisis.

  4. The only Climate Change Deniers are the ones who deny the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Dust Bowl decade, the cooling of the 1960s, and the “Pause” by selecting, adjusting, and fabricating records and suppressing data to the contrary.

      • mp,
        Sadly, we can’t say it all in one sentence. They also hide the global decline of hurricane and tornado activity, the increasing severity of winters, the overall moderation of weather related disasters, the importance of the Atlantic and Pacific Oscillations, and the role of the sun, volcanoes, black asphalt runways, unpainted thermometer shelters, and data voids on global “climate change”.
        Even two sentences won’t cover it.

      • Don’t forget that they also deny, that money and ideological agendas may have influence over both the “interpretation” of raw historical data and over the interpretation of the new data sets thus manufactured.
        In other words they seem to wish to deny that scientists are prone to bias. And that that bias can be uni-directional and cumulative. So they seem to be bias deniers.
        A scientist who fails to admit his own tendency to introduce bias is a scientist who is prone to introducing bias. In fact, without a strict consideration of the potential for such bias, the end result has ceased to be good science.
        Always investigate your own motives and then do your best to eliminate their influence.

      • If you take a deep breathe first, and skip the punctuation, you may be able to get it all out in one go.

    • You said it Richard.
      There was a considerable period of time where I knew the whole meme was BS, but I tended to thin that those on the alarmist side were simply mistaken.
      But at a certain point, upon reexamining the totality of the evidence…the whole picture…I was forced to the incredible (to me, at the time) conclusion that it was no mistake.
      This entire “crisis” had been manufactured out of whole clothe to suit a political agenda, and not a benevolent one at that.
      Becoming aware of the massive data manipulations that have taken place was the beginning of my awakening to the scope of the whole thing. It was then that the various pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fell into place.
      At this point, the harder I look, the worse it very clearly is.
      And has been.

  5. They’re starting to make that squealing noise.
    It reminds me of the time as a boy I heard the pigs in an abattoir.
    They ‘know’.

  6. It is that these lunatic wack jobs promoting the climate consensus are opinion leaders and not laughable fringe kooks that makes this post so disturbing.

    • Mumbles McGuirck
      October 13, 2015 at 12:22 pm
      Socrates needs to update his Profile picture.
      ——————————
      You sound right, but have to consider what the power of CONSENSUS AT HIS TIME might have meant for the outcome of his well been if he could not even conform at least by having an overgrown beard.
      Still I wonder if he could agree to be portrayed without one such a beard even at this present “modern time” without taking in account the consequences befalling him and his legacy due to the old ideology of the barbarian consensus force which still persist as ever before…:-)
      cheers

    • What do you mean? The climate industry has resulted in the promotion of dozens of designs for “game changing” wind turbines.
      And yet – strangely – after all this time, wind turbines still operate according to same principle as the first commercially available model in 1927(ish).
      Meanwhile massive subsidies for Solar PV have lead to an exponential fall in prices.
      Even though this price trend can be observed since before the subsidies were introduced.
      And even though a similar technology such as LED lighting has followed an almost identical trend without massive subsidies.
      Well, at least we have felled massive areas of forest and burned them in DRAX power station…etc

      • Indefatigable writes “Only then did you realize that the only remaining experts were, the Pope, President Obama, Mike Mann, Naomi Oreskes/Klein, John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky.”
        It is interesting to note that most of these people on your list have recently been appointed to Skeptical Inquirer whose non-skepticism now includes catastrophic anthropogenic global warming:
        http://www.csicop.org/si/show/ten_distinguished_scientists_and_scholars_named_fellows_of_committee_for_sk
        John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, John R. Mashey (computer scientist/executive analyst of climate-change denial, contributor to DeSmogBlog) and others.
        The Quorum of the Twelve or something like that. they even call themselves a “pantheon”:
        The Pantheon of Skeptics http://www.csicop.org/about/the_pantheon_of_skeptics/
        “Since the founding of CSICOP in 1976, and with the growing number of localized skeptical groups, the skeptic finds more ways to state his or her case.”
        http://www.csicop.org/si/show/proper_criticism/
        The skeptic isn’t suppose to have a case. The idea of skepticism is to doubt YOUR case.
        “…the common cause of explaining the skeptical agenda.”
        What skeptical agenda? I can see where people are seriously confused about “skeptic”.
        “Do not try to get someone fired from his or her job. Do not try to have courses dropped or otherwise be put in the position of advocating censorship.”
        Obviously someone didn’t get the memo!

      • Well, Skeptical Inquirer has definitely gone over to the Dark Side. I wouldn’t even want to be in the same room as those people.

      • It’s pretty pathetic.
        I’ve read Shermer, and I agreed with most of what he had to say about most topics.
        Something went wrong with the skeptics organization. Certainly if they tolerate the company of Cook.
        The Cook survey was possibly one of the most shambolic shameful ideologically motivated pieces of non-science to ever published in a scientific journal. With perhaps Lew pulling in as a close tie.
        Jose Duarte is not an AGW denier. But his take-down of the Cook paper shows it up as what it is.
        Whether or not people support AGW alarmism, I do not know why a reasonable skeptical person would wish to be in the company of this scurrilous moron, Cook. A man who has intentionally cheated millions with manufactured disinformation and willful deceit.
        Duarte has now taken a personal interest in the Cook debacle, and has written several essays on it’s overall shoddiness and the potential wider philosophical implications and the implications for the progress of modern “science”. Look them up and read them. This article links to several others:
        http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/ignore-climate-consensus-studies-based-on-random-people-rating-journal-article-abstracts

      • Michael 2 October 13, 2015 at 1:59 pm
        Indefatigable writes “Only then did you realize that the only remaining experts were, the Pope, President Obama, Mike Mann, Naomi Oreskes/Klein, John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky.”
        It is interesting to note that most of these people on your list have recently been appointed to Skeptical Inquirer whose non-skepticism now includes catastrophic anthropogenic global warming:
        http://www.csicop.org/si/show/ten_distinguished_scientists_and_scholars_named_fellows_of_committee_for_sk
        John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, John R. Mashey (computer scientist/executive analyst of climate-change denial, contributor to DeSmogBlog) and others.

        Two of the four others are James Powell, who did a Cook-like survey that I critiqued at length online, and Donald Prothero, a sneering, know-it-all warmist.

    • After you have already wasted billions fighting an imaginary climate monster, it’s a piece of cake to waste millions more going after an imaginary conspiracy.

      • Well, it’s an improvement on the days when Germany set about trying to defeat the conspiracy of international Judaism. And in the process killed tens of millions of innocent people, most of whom were not even Jewish.
        But, I notice that Germany is leading the way again. This time leading the fight against this new imaginary conspiracy.
        If history is anything thing to go by, Then they will suck the whole world into a maelstrom of chaos and ultimately end up inflicting long-term damage upon themselves.
        They have already managed to lumber themselves with the highest electricity prices in the world.
        And ban fracking and advance their heavy dependence on Putin’s gas supply.
        That’s the trouble with declaring war on an imaginary conspiracy. You can never defeat an imaginary enemy, but you CAN destroy yourself in the process of trying.

    • Tony Heller is a man on mission. I was sort of on the fence about how deep lies went in government science agencies until recently. But after the Karl 2015 Science paper, I realized the depth of the deceeption includes the Editoral and leadership staff at AAAS too. We’ve seen the abandonement of science where climate is concerned also by the APS.

  7. I can think of two reasons off the top of my head :
    1. Major oil companies are so huge that they are engaged in both fossil fuel and alt energy businesses. Much like Soros who just bought coal, they are diversified and look for undervalued assets. In fact, give it a few more years and you’ll see supposedly green foundations also increasingly invested in classic commodities. We are currently at the bottom wave of the cycle.
    2. If EXXON opened their books to show you who they’ve funded, would you believe them ? Who is credible to audit them ? Counter that with would you believe the Sierra Club if they told you they only funded “x” ? How about Merck … would you believe them if they told you they had a hands off policy concerning drug research ?
    The independent nature of scientific research suffered tremendously after the 1950s. Some of this is attributed to diminished public funding. Some is also attributed to scientists who sought to be profitable.
    It’s a mess.

  8. An irrational pattern in mental processing could be either the result of avoiding reality or could be an inability to focus. I think the alarming sect of AGW crusaders are irrational their public statements because they have a little bit of avoiding reality and a little bit of an inability to focus. Purposeful avoiding reality involves some denying. N’est ce pas?
    Once again, as he has done over many years, we see Lindzen’s low key and clear way of treating the exaggeration and alarm of the alarming sect of AGW crusaders. He makes those name callers who use the word ‘denier’ seem trivial and puerile. I love it.
    John

  9. There is a comment link under the Salon article:
    http://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/wrong_wrong_wrong_the_anti_science_bullsht_which_explains_why_the_right_gets_away_with_lies_and_why_the_mainstream_media_lets_them/#comments
    [If that doesn’t work, look for the little square cartoon-type dialogue balloon (by the red “+” sign).] Comments are easy to make, and I notice that most of them ridicule the author’s screed. Ridicule is a potent weapon, and this is an opportunity.
    The author is trying to justify his vicious name-calling. That’s because he doesn’t have sufficient scientific facts to make a convincing argument. If he had credible facts, they would be enough by themselves.
    Salon’s Paul Rosenberg feels it’s necesary to say skeptics are “wrong, wrong, wrong”, but if we’re wrong, once would be enough. Really, it’s Rosenburg who needs to be told

    • The “debate” there is shockingly shallow to the point of being juvenile, and that’s for both sides.
      I was going to jump in for funsies but you need a google or facebook account to comment, and alas, social pariah that I am, I’ve chosen to not share my personal info with either of them.

    • Loke
      True for the dramatist (aka bull____, storyteller). They want to be loved by their followers.
      Not true for the bully. The bully uses rudeness to bulldoze thru you. Get their way. Be done with you. Not love in that case.

    • The phrase itself is completely nonsensical.
      What, she denies there is a climate?
      Obviously, no one denies that there are climates, least of all people who are atmospheric scientists.
      And almost no one denies climate change…that is where the wheels start to fall off the wagon for people like Rosenberg, and for anyone who uses his articles as a guide for informed criticism.
      They do not even know who they are arguing with, or what they are criticizing.

  10. I love it when fruitcakes like Rosenburg and Whitehouse go completely off the rails. Well …. since they have been way off the rails for quite some time I love it when they announce it so loud and clear.

  11. Climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial’-Rosenburger (ie meat-head)

    Well of course it is worse than a potential World War III, worse than another genocidal maniac acquiring vast military power, worse than a stock market crash that cripples the world economy for decades, causing mass poverty and despair, worse than a highly contagious virus that lays waste to half of the worlds population.
    But wait that not how bad Climate Change really is, it’s even wore than Jesus himself dropping from the heavens and announcing to the world. “I am thru with you bunch of f**kups and you can all go to hell.” Yes climate change is even worse than an eternity in hell. Thank you Mr Rosenberg for bringing insight and perspective to the religion of climate change.

    • Add a word and he might be right.

      NATURAL ‘Climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial’

      Denying people affordable, reliable energy in the name of CAGW will harm and kill more people for political reasons than the Holocaust ever did.

  12. What’s the latest on RICO Shukla drama? Was he not supposed to have handed in all the relevant docs to the Congress by the 8th? October

    • I suggest getting on senator Smith’s twitter feed and asking him personally. That is what I am doing. If a bunch of questions on the topic come in perhaps it will motivate him to keep moving this forward. I suspect things are happening but not being made public, maybe obama intervened.

  13. I am skeptical. Did Socrates really say “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser”? Which of the Greek writers reported this?

  14. Another quote of the week:

    Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

    Napoleon Bonaparte.
    Let them rant and rave in their echo chambers.
    Everyone can see that the world isn’t ending.
    And no-one can see why anyone would seek that end anyway.

    • LOL.
      I doubt Napoleon actually said that, but a different (unfortunately, probably also incorrectly) attributed quote is “never interrupt your enemies when they are killing each other”.

  15. Aren’t all studies that are paid for someone technically “deliverables”? Doesn’t matter who is doing the funding, a private organization or the govt.

    • Regardless of the payment structure, items of any kind (apparatus, reports, designs, test plans, software, invention prototypes…) generated as a result of a contract or statement of work (SOW), are deliverables of that contact or SOW. The documents that define the work will also define the deliverables. That is what we do all the time in IT consulting.

  16. As far as dragging people out of their homes and shooting them, the warmista camp hasn’t suggested exactly that, but they are getting pretty close.

  17. Have to agree with Charles Nelson. This increasingly hysterical ranting and foaming at the mouth is a sure sign that ‘they’ know the game is nearly up.

  18. “[a]dvocates of climate regulation are urging the Obama Administration to investigate people who don’t share their views

    My brain spell corrected this to “[a]dvocates of climate religion…”. I had to read that part twice.

    • Yeah good. Good, let them come and investigate WUWT, Judith Curry, and the weblinks down the right hand side of this page. They may learn some stuff that quite surprises them. Especially, if any of them know how to read a graph. Or at least – how to read.

  19. It is just a theory. It could be wrong you know.
    It is based on CO2 intercepting IR photons emitted by the surface, causing a temperature increase, which causes another (11) rounds of water vapor feedbacks and cloud feedbacks which then results in a temperature increase of 3.0C per doubling of CO2.
    I am a convinceable-type. Some evidence, some steps 1 through 12, showing me exactly how it works. I am actually very good with being convinced. I like to know this is how this situation actually works.
    But climate science never gives me an authentic evidence/explanation trail.
    I am just supposed to believe.
    Its not right. The theory could still be wrong. I like to be convinced instead of just believing. That makes me a child of the scientific method. Not a denier.

    • Bill,
      You sound like a Missourian…SHOW ME! I can remember when that was the standard all science had to stand up to. Propose a theory. Devise ingenious sets of measurements to try to get a result inconsistent with theory predictions. Keep testing the far edges of the predictions until an inconsistent result is found. Go back to theoretical drawing board.

  20. Would that be the Qatari State/Royal family funded Al Jazeera or some other kind of “carbon-free” Al Jazeera…….
    Hypocrite….

  21. There is no such person as a clime science denier. Climate science like sewage is provably real and like sewage is full of bugs that have proved fatal to many.

  22. Reproducibility is a defining feature of science. No matter who funds it. Skeptics or believers.
    On the other hand: if you bend science towards a desired conclusion, for example climate science supported by the IPPC, and don’t want to debate it, it is no longer science. It’s just politics.

  23. At a thanksgiving dinner CAGW came up in conversation, much to my displeasure. My uncle is very much in the CAGW camp and he is a food scientist…so he’s a scientist and I’m not…so he’s right and I’m not. I tried to deflect the discussion to tools of abuse by my diametrical, when their arguments fail. To which he easily quipped, “they’re probably just frustrated” it was infered that they are frustrated with my denial. In fact, they are frustrated that all of their arguments hinge on climate models which have little skill. They are frustrated that observations seemingly falsify their doctrine, and that I can defeat their dogma without breaking a sweat. When they lose, they break out the tools of abuse.

    • OvG
      “They are frustrated that observations seemingly falsify their doctrine, and that I can defeat their dogma without breaking a sweat. When they lose, they break out the tools of abuse.”
      Bravo.
      You don’t have to be a scientist to apply critical thinking skills. You don’t even have to be an expert in identifying classic latin fallacies. Just learn a few like ad hom, cherry picking, correlation is not causation. There are even a few very helpful cartoon based books on bad arguments.
      Be patient, don’t be baited and the bad arguer will become abusive … self destruct.
      Besides, this isn’t the last bit of nonsense life will throw your way. Consider it practice.

  24. Hate?
    A good tactic to deal with hate is unflattering humor.
    Try a couple of jokes on Pseudo-Science.

    Mother GAIA walks into a bar carrying a well-known hockey stick fabricating scientist under her arm and she says to the bartender, “Two shots of whiskey.”
    The bartender says, “We don’t serve whores here”
    Mother GAIA says angrily, “I am not a whore.”
    The bartender answers, “I wasn’t talking to you.”

    &

    Scantily clad Mother GAIA walked into a stripper bar and said to the bartender, “I’m hot, give me a cold beer” as she began to remove the rest of her clothes.
    The Bartender said, “Lady, give it a rest. Try GISS down the street, I hear they are hiring. ”

    John

  25. Oh, my, this is fertile ground.
    Okay, I wanted to set a few of you up before I take my turn.
    Please complete one or more of the following:
    Svante Arrhenius, Albert Einstein and Mikey Mann walk into a bar…
    Al Gore, Mark Lewandowski, and Jagdash Shukla walk into Charlie Manson’s Lunatic Emporium.
    The proprietor walks over…
    Moe Howard , Larry Fine, and James Hansen open a thermostat repair service…
    Paul Rosenberg, Adolph Hitler, and Simon Wiesenthal are standing outside the Pearly Gates.
    Adolph looks over at the DOWN elevator nearby…
    The Devil, Eve, and Barrack Obama are waiting in line to visit the confessional booth…

    • Oops, forgot one:
      John Cook, Kevin Trenberth, and Mofo the chimp walk into Mama Gaia’s Jackasseria…

      • Chirp.
        (I shut off my PC not long my last comment.
        As a consolation …
        What did Mann get when he “Cooked” a lake core?
        A turnover!
        [Confusus say: “Better to turn off after last comment than in middle of current comment.” .mod]

      • [Confusus say: “Better to turn off after last comment than in middle of current comment.” .mod]

        A pause? What pause?

    • 😎
      What did Mann’s allies say in support of him and his stick in his Steyn lawsuit?
      (Just go to the end of the clip if you don’t want to watch the whole thing.)

      • I fell asleep after work.
        Hey, Bill O’Reilly finally mentioned the subject of the email I sent him…named Jagadish Shukla, on the show!
        h/t to Stuart Varney

        • Nice feeling huh ?
          To be heard, to get on the in …
          So now your on the “list”. They track such things and your name will circulate in a leads base for awhile. Make use of it.
          They are still a news organization and all news organizations still want the viewer’s attention. If you turn then onto something that resonates with their core audience you rise on that list.
          Right now they too are prepping for how to cover Paris. Mr Fair and Balanced wants to be able to show that this malarkey is starting to hurt folks. If you have GOOD info on how this is hurting the English commoner they will hear it and run with it.
          It’s England, close to Paris (you laughed but sometimes it’s that simple). A large Anglo base to the Mr Fair and Balanced show.

Comments are closed.