Document suggests that a Climate activist shadow organization was behind the #RICO20 allegations

This is in the news today via “Climate NEXUS”, which is a Madison Ave. PR firm:

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that he is launching a legal probe into Exxon’s climate denial. The inquiry will look into both consumer and investor protection laws, covering the oil giant’s activity dating back to the 1970s. Schneiderman’s investigation could open “a sweeping new legal front in the battle over climate change,” says the New York Times, which broke the story. Two separate reports by InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times uncovered that Exxon has known about the dangers of climate change since the 1970s but sowed doubt by funding climate change skeptics to preserve its business. Exxon has been compared extensively to the tobacco industry, which was convicted of racketeering in 2000 for deliberately deceiving the public about the dangers of its products.

It seems all this is part of an orchestrated plan:

RICO-TEERING: HOW CLIMATE ACTIVISTS ‘KNEW’ THEY WERE GOING TO PIN THE BLAME ON EXXON

Guest opinion by Shub Niggurath

Picture this.

You are a scientist. You wake up one morning and go:

“Why don’t I write a letter to the US Attorney General asking her to throw fossil fuel companies in jail under the RICO act?

It would be my civic deed for the day”.

Sounds plausible?

No it doesn’t. Climate scientists have a penchant for signing activist letters. But letters pushing legal advice to an Attorney General recommending prosecution of opponents?

So where do these strange ideas come from?

Step forward ‘Climate Accountability Institute’

The Climate Accountability Institute (CAI) is a small front attempting to marry ‘climate concerns’ to environmentalism and tobacco prohibitionist tactics. But ‘small’ is a relative term in the climate activist world.

In 2012 the CAI held a ‘workshop’ in La Jolla California. It was ‘conceived’ by Naomi Oreskes and others, and called ‘Establishing Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Lessons from Tobacco Control.’ Stanton Glantz, a prominent tobacco control activist scientist was present as were a clutch of lawyers, climate scientists, communication professionals, PR agency heads, bloggers and journalists.

They released a report (pdf):

CAI report

The workshop was an ‘exploratory, open-ended dialogue’ on the use of  ‘lessons from tobacco-related education, laws, and litigation to address climate change.’

The headline conclusion was essentially conspiracy theory. Here it is, verbatim (emphasis mine):

A key breakthrough in the public and legal case for tobacco control came when internal documents came to light showing the tobacco industry had knowingly misled the public.Similar documents may well exist in the vaults of the fossil fuel industry and their trade associations and front groups…

Why do these mythical documents needed to be ‘unearthed’?

While we currently lack a compelling public narrative about climate change in the United States, we may be close to coalescing around one. Furthermore, climate change may loom larger today in the public mind than tobacco did when public health advocates began winning policy victories.

The reader should take a moment to grasp the momentous logic: We know legally ‘incriminating documents’ (their choice of words) ‘may’ exist, because tobacco activists had a breakthrough with such documents. They need to be found in order to make climate change a ‘looming threat’ in the public mind.

Try thinking of a more reverse-engineered form of activism.

The first chapter in the report is ‘Lessons from Tobacco Control’. It is mainly one section called ‘The Importance of Documents in Tobacco Litigation’

importance tobacco

We learn next to nothing about these supposed ‘documents’ from the report. After all, they haven’t been released or even found.

But ‘the documents’ were very valuable:

says ‘one of the most important lessons to emerge from the history of tobacco litigation’ was the ‘value of bringing internal industry documents to light’.

There was little doubt about their existence:

… many participants suggested that incriminating documents may exist that demonstrate collusion among the major fossil fuel companies …

Since they were so sure they exist, careful plotting was needed on companies whose vaults to raid

He [Glantz] stressed the need to think carefully about which companies and which trade groups might have documents that could be especially useful.

Stanton Glantz was a vocal workshop participant:exciting

Glantz was so excited he proposed using the tobacco archives platform at the University of California San Francisco for climate documents (which were yet to be found)

Because the Legacy Collection’s software and infrastructure is already in place, Glantz suggested it could be a possible home for a parallel collection of documents from the fossil fuel industry pertaining to climate change.

In what mode were the documents to be used?

establish

Most importantly, the release of these documents meant that charges of conspiracy or racketeering could become a crucial component of tobacco litigation

Having firmly established that documents convenient to their strategy existed, the delegates moved on to discussing how to obtain them

.strategies

The answer was once again clear: ‘lawsuits’. It was not just lawsuits, it was ‘Congressional hearings’, ‘sympathetic state attorney generals’ and ‘false advertising claims’.

State attorneys general can also subpoena documents, raising the possibility that a single sympathetic state attorney general might have substantial success in bringing key internal documents to light

Oreskes had a bunch of advertisements with her:

Oreskes noted that she has some of the public relations memos from the group and asked whether a false advertising claim could be brought in such a case.

Even libel suits were deemed useful:

Roberta Walburn noted that libel suits can also serve to obtain documents that might shed light on industry tactics.

Once the documents were in the bag, a story needed to be spun. :

In lawsuits targeting carbon producers, lawyers at the workshop agreed, plaintiffs need

to make evidence of a conspiracy a prominent part of their case.

Now you know where the line on how ‘fossil fuel companies ‘knew’ they were doing wrong but yet did it’ comes from. The cries of ‘it’s a conspiracy!’ are planned and pre-meditated, on lawyers’ advice.

This is where RICO came in:

Richard Ayres, an experienced environmental attorney, suggested that the RICO Act, which had been used effectively against the tobacco industry, could similarly be used to bring a lawsuit against carbon producers.

Richard Ayres is no slouch. A prominent environmental lawyer, he is co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

Ayres knew starting lawsuits against productive companies wouldn’t look good. They needed to be spun:

It has to be something positive

How? By dressing it up as injury ‘compensation’

Even if your ultimate goal might be to shut down a company, you still might be wise to start out by asking for compensation for injured parties.”

The suggestions appeared to grow outlandish at every turn. Richard Heede, one of CAI’s members, had come up with a system for blaming individual companies:

Heede is working to derive the proportion of the planet’s atmospheric carbon load that is traceable to the fossil fuels produced and marketed by each of these companies

Heede’s bizarre formulas, we learn, were received ‘positively’ by ‘most of the workshop’s participants’. One UCS participant felt that ‘it could potentially be useful as part of a coordinated campaign to identify key climate “wrongdoers.” Another felt it was useful in blaming faceless corporate entities instead of countries thereby bypassing provoking patriotic impulses in international negotiations.

Heede’s work was funded by Greenpeace. Of note, Greenpeace counsel Jasper Teulings was present at the meeting.

An inspired Oreskes then appears to have proposed blaming sea level rise on corporations:

Picking up on this notion, Naomi Oreskes suggested that some portion of sea level rise could be attributed to the emissions caused by a single carbon-producing company

The oil company Exxon made its appearance in her example:

She suggested, “You might be able to say, ‘Here’s Exxon’s contribution to what’s happening to Key West or Venice.’”

This was a strategy Glantz liked:

…Stanton Glantz expressed some enthusiasm about such a strategy, based on his experience with tobacco litigation. As he put it, “I would be surprised if the industry chose to attack the calculation that one foot of flooding in Key West could be attributed to ExxonMobil.

The conspiratorial tide did not recede. Former computer scientist John Mashey claimed collusion between ‘climate change deniers’ and fossil fuel companies:

[Mashey] presented a brief overview of some of his research, which traces funding, personnel, and messaging connections between roughly 600 individuals …

The penultimate section in the report is on how delegates planned to win ‘public opinion’. Even with RICO, some felt it was ‘not easy’ (‘RICO is not easy. It is certainly not a sure win’ – Ayres) and others were wary of drawing the attention of “hostile legislators who might seek to undermine them”.

With public opinion, the delegates were clearly divided. PR mavens, lawyers and activists wanted to cry fraud, paint up villains and create outrage:

To mobilize, people often need to be outraged.

Daniel Yankelovich a ‘public opinion researcher’ involved in ‘citizen education’ appears to have balked at the ‘sue, sue, sue’ chanting. Court cases are useful only after the public had been won over, he said.

daniel

It is not clear he grasped the activists and lawyers aimed for the same with a spectacular legal victory or headlines generated by court cases and bypass the whole issue of ‘citizen education’ .

The workshop ended and there was ‘agreement’. ‘Documents’ needed to be obtained. Legal action was needed both for ‘wresting potentially useful internal documents’ and ‘maintaining pressure on the industry’.

A consensus had emerged

… an emerging consensus on a strategy that incorporates legal action with a narrative that creates public outrage.

The participants, we learn

…made commitments to try to coordinate future efforts, continue discussing strategies for gaining access to internal documents from the fossil fuel industry and its affiliated climate denial network…

group

Photo (c) Brenda Ekwurzel, from the report

Postscript:

Why is the report important? Because climate activists have done everything the delegates said they wanted done, in the report.

Everyone from climate skeptics like Roy Spencer, columnists like Holman Jenkins Jr and even aconsensusist like William Connolley has been left scratching their head. However, from RICO to ‘Exxon knew’ — the twin defibrillator paddles in use to reanimate a moribund climate Frankenstein — thepresent actions of climate activists have been none but the pre-meditated ones presented in the report.

These include the latest letter from US Senators to Exxon, the conspiratorial ‘Exxon Knew’ campaign with the portrayal of old Exxon reports by InsideClimateNews as ‘internal documents’, the RICO letter from scientists and much more. Particularly, with the pathetic ‘journalism’ of InsideClimateNews it is almost as if climate activists have willed these ‘documents’ into existence – just as they were advised.

The CAI are free to plot the downfall of their opponents. But it is somewhat of a surprise to see theentirety of their ideas to be picked up and translated into action by the intellectually bankrupt climate activist movement.

Advertisements

283 thoughts on “Document suggests that a Climate activist shadow organization was behind the #RICO20 allegations

  1. Do we get a chance to sue them with RICO after the AMO continues to roll over and it gets a lot lot colder?

  2. My feelings about Naomi Orestes are precisely the feelings I have toward the unnamed forger who wrote “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

    It’s a pity she chose to irrationally hate the people who make civilization possible over other things that might annoy her to the point of irrationality, like dog walkers, or lingerie companies, or her neighbors who barbecue.

    • Acknowledging the existence of a forgery by definition acknowledges the existence of the original, commissioned by Meyer Amschel Rothschild, composed by Aron Weishaupt, also known as the Illuminati Code.

      • Bull…t. The “Protocols” are not forgery of anything, it’s a hoax based on satire written by Frenchman Maurice Joly’s Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (1864) and created in Russia. It has nothing to do with anything real.

      • “Acknowledging the existence of a forgery by definition acknowledges the existence of the original”

        Actually no, it doesn’t. Many art forgeries are made “in the style of”, that is to look like something a famous artist would have created. Not just simply copies from books. With these works “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, as well as the documents made to prove “big oil” knew about global warming, my suggestion is that they were made up from beginning to end.

        The purpose is to confirm the beliefs of the principles, as well as to sway the easily impressed, that don’t think beyond what they are given, to see who is giving them the poison.

    • Lest anyone forget, all it will take is ONE Republican president to stop these shenanigans and totally reverse course including the EPA regs.

      • Doesn’t even have to be Republican…. they just have to have an IQ above 80. Unfortunately that rules out pretty much every candidate for the dems.

      • But is there a Republican who actually stands a cat in hell chance of winning? This is just wishful thinking.

      • Not just a President though. It will take getting rid of people like Sen. McConnell. House Speaker Boehner is gone though I’m not sure his replacement is much better. Anyone who’s been an enabler of the emperor must be replaced.

      • A reply to hivemind: Emulating an artist’s style isn’t a forgery, per se; it’s closer to impersonation. Henry Ford, in the 20s, is one of the well-known people who acknowledged that the Protocols of the Illuminati were commonly followed at that time. If you read them, you’ll see that they still are. The term “stupid cattle” used in them, was used by one of the bankers at the 4th World Wilderness Conference in 1987, and was recorded by George Hunt. His videos and audio recordings are on many sites.

    • As a smoker in the 90’s, I was similarly astonished at the tactics used by the anti-smokers to lie about and demonise second-hand smoke. No statistic, survey or inference was safe from being twisted, tortured and manhandled into a conclusion that SHS was deadly to even the casual passer-by.

      I still firmly believe that the anti-smokers’ playbook was adopted holus bolus by the AGWers, and it’s why I was immediately dubious of the proposition that a tiny, extra amount of an essential trace element was going to cause climate carnage.

      • And yet I have asthma and my skin breaks out around second-hand smoke. Ah well. I guess you’d be interested in buying some homes around a decomissioned depleted uranium mill then?

      • Patrick November 6, 2015 at 10:17 pm

        Roy Castle (Trumpeter) died of cancer of the larynx. Was it a smoky place he played in or the trumpet?

        And his diet was not a factor?

      • prjindigo, it’s more about how some results and happenings were blown out of proportion and rationality.

        A 25 year veteran bus driver gets lung cancer. Was it really the SHS smoke, or did 25 years of constantly breathing diesel fumes have something to do with it?

        Even non smokers cannot see the logic of banning smoking in footpath cafes. Seriously, the SMS is dangerous but the black cloud of exhaust from the bus is not? You’re seated next to a busy road ffs.

      • Cancer is a random event. Of course, smoking or drinking or diet can increase the odds. But picking any random person does not prove much. Diana Reeves (Superman’s wife) died of lung cancer and never smoked a day in her life or was around second hand smoke as far as I know.

      • “M Simon

        November 7, 2015 at 3:14 am”

        Good question, and I don’t know. We could assume a typical British diet in post war England. What I do know is that during his time, before he went on to be the presenter of the TV show “Record Breakers”, he played trumpet in venues across the UK, for decades. This was well before smoking was banned in places like that. I also know a trumpet is a wind instrument requiring lots and lots of air to be forced through it to make a note. So Roy had to inhale and exhale lots and lots of smoky air, hour after hour, day after day, year after year. I am not suggesting causation here however, the probability seems reasonable given we know smoke *IS* real pollution.

      • “JohnB

        November 7, 2015 at 5:34 am

        A 25 year veteran bus driver gets lung cancer. Was it really the SHS smoke, or did 25 years of constantly breathing diesel fumes have something to do with it?”

        I would say most likely diesel fumes and particulate emissions.

    • “Even if your ultimate goal might be to shut down a company, you still might be wise to start out by asking for compensation for injured parties.”

      Can’t think of a better way to stop these nincompoops and the globull warming fakes than for them to have success in shutting down/bankrupting oil companies and as a consequence the economy. May the idiots wildly succeed.

      • We could even acknowledge the fact, supported by statements made by heads of state and others at the Rio Conference, that the science has always been lousy and has since then been promoted using sophisticated marketing techniques and media control and diversions and character assassination of opponents, and that this particular diversion was created to distract attention from the nonexistent scientific support for AGW prior to the Parisite meeting; an efficient means of protecting alarmists from accusations of fraud and bad science and putting honest climate scientists on the defensive. This isn’t science; it’s politics and the wrong kind of green – and Orestes’ parasitism will be threatened at Paris.

  3. But the tobacco companies WERE UNDENIABLY suppressing proof that tobacco REALLY caused cancer and other serious diseases (based on real human studies, not computer models). To win against Exxon, the Climo-Nazis will first have to show in court that human carbon production CAUSES real damage to someone in some way, and then that Exxon “covered it up”–merely spouting theory based on computer models just ain’t going to cut it. Correlation is not causation in a US court–in the words of the that great HypocRAT, Walter Mondale, where’s the beef (proof)? Still waiting (even longer than the current pause in alleged global temperature increases)!!

    • P Maximus – yes, the two cases are qualitatively different : no amount of wishful, irrational thinking from the climate activists will change that fact. Their case will not stand up in court. Let us just watch it all with amusement.

      • You have that much faith in courts? After all, the second-hand smoke effects were [and are] equally tenuous and declared so by the first judge. So they got another judge and….

      • It would be the equivalent of a tobacco case being tried in a courtroom full of chain-smoking public with the lawyers on both sides chewing on stogies while the judge lights up a huge havana.

      • The Courts are not stupid.

        If the ‘pause’ continues, one only has to show them the growing discrepancy between model output and observation, and the fact that the IPCC does not know what it is doing since there are some 90 models all projecting different things and not one of these models tallies with observation.

        Then just list the failed predictions. the only prediction that is panning out is Arctic ice decline but the significance of this appears tenuous since globally ice is at ‘record’ highs, and it appears that Arctic ice may be staging a recovery.

        No court case will come for years, and even ardent warmists like Julia Slingo (chief scientist at the UK Met Office and whose Climate Model is running at the top of the warm league) has stated that there may be no return to warming before 2030. Ocean cycles 9and indeed solar activity) may well take its toll.

        So imagine a Court case in say 2023 with the ‘pause’ over 25 years in duration, and longer than the period when there was some warming in the late 1970s through to early/mid 1990s, and with a plethora of recent papers putting Climate Sensitivity at or below 1.3, and well below the scary 2 degC let alone the alarmists 4.5degC plus. So imagine the few mm rise in sea level, not the metres being screamed.

        I think that a Court would easily conclude that the science is not settled and that matters have not panned out as the alarmists predicted.

      • richard verney November 7, 2015 at 4:16 am
        The Courts are not stupid.

        If the ‘pause’ continues, one only has to show them the growing discrepancy between model output and observation, and the fact that the IPCC does not know what it is doing since there are some 90 models all projecting different things and not one of these models tallies with observation.

        No richard they don’t; as ristvan shows the case is built around misleading statements to shareholders, The issue will be were they aware of AGW and did they inform shareholders to the financial risks, or did they with hold the information. Whether or not the science was correct or not may not matter, its the requirement of informing of risks, that their going after EXXON for. Pretty far fetched, first create the risk to a company’s stock prices by orchestrating alarmist claims of impending doom, then drag them into court for not advertising said risks that the alarmist themselves created.

        ristvan November 6, 2015 at 10:17 am
        K in S. The New York attorney general subpoenaed Exxon under a New York State law called the Martin Act of 1921. This involves making misleading statements to shareholders.

        BTY what the alarmists are doing, is exacting what RICO was created to deal with. The main issue with this avenue of attack is who are the injured parties? It would be interesting to see what the input of shareholders will ultimately be.

        But when this is not the real “case” that the alarmists want. Their on a quest for some smoking gun, to show that EXXON knew more than anyone else at the time, and/or anything they can spin.
        michael

      • “richard verney

        November 7, 2015 at 4:16 am

        The Courts are not stupid.”

        May be, may be not. I know the law is an a$$ though. Certainly in Australia where someone can sue you for damages after they have caused, YES CAUSED, a traffic incident.

      • From UAH, here is a graph of 102 climate model calculations vs. the satelite and radiosonde balloon observations. The models demonstrate no predictive ability.
        “The crux of the matter is that their research, using satellite data to measure temperatures in the atmosphere, disagrees with climate models they say that overstates the earth’s warming.”

        http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/04/7_questions_with_john_christy.html

        How do they prove injury from something (CO2) that is unproven by the science?

    • Well, the tobacco companies were may have been trying, but the evidence was there for anyone to see. I did, and quit. They may have “poo-pooed” them, and claimed they were wrong, poorly done, etc., but they didn’t actively suppress them in any real sense. That whole business was just a giant (successful) extortion attempt to enrich trial lawyers and AGs.

    • They may settle out of court though just to avoid the headaches and long-term drain on their business and reputation.

    • Whats laughable is that climate science research funding from government is many multiples greater than industrial funding of climate research.

      A clarification. There is no proof that tobacco causes cancer, because we do not know how people who do not smoke get lung cancer, never mind how smokers get lung cancer. We know there is a statistical probability that the chance of getting cancer is higher among smokers. Technically that is proof by correlation and not causation, which I believe was the tobaccos industries position.

      The unfortunate result (unfortunate except the lawyers) of the tobacco lawsuits is that it opened up a cornucopia of correlation lawsuits, where almost any illness could be blamed on something or someone without needing to prove causation. Examples are frivolous second hand smoke lawsuits and Californian residents seeking lawsuits because just about any illness they may be suffering from was due to the Fukushima nuclear crisis.

  4. Thanks Anthony for taking this subject.

    The idea of scapegoating one oil company and using it to affect public opinion or Overton windows is rather disgusting, but might work to some extent. Sadly people would be ready to believe Exxon ‘knew’ even Exxon is not and can not be responsible of world CO2 nor we know now how much the bloody sensitivity is.

    • many participants suggested that incriminating documents may exist that demonstrate collusion“.

      Hold on a minute .. those documents do exist! We have already seen them. Someone please remind these people of the documents’ existence so that they can go through them and get all the proof they need.

      The documents are known as “Climategate“.

    • Al Gore set up an aerosol credit trading scheme working for Exxon in the late 70s or early 80s; I read about it on Appinsys.com, excellent references, but I don’t remember any details about scientific knowledge then, and it’s not on the website now.

      It’s not about the environment, though, its the effect of the environment on the share price, and whether shareholders were informed of the anticipated financial impact of AGW, real or imagined.

  5. So Exxon “knew” about the CO2-Temperature link back in 1981? Seven years before the Gore-Wirth-Hansen Senate hot-room charade? And Exxon has secretly been funding CO2-Temp skeptics for 34 years?
    OK, all of you skeptics that gotten rich off of Exxon, it’s time to come clean now and share with the world the size of your bounties!

    Only in the twisted world of the Leftist-Warmist does this story have anything resembling legs (toothpick legs, at best). If we are to investigate the realm of hidden documents, maybe it’s time to re-visit the Climate Gate e-mails. (Not that the MSM would pay any attention this time, either.)

    • Exxon has known about the dangers of climate change since the 1970s…..

      When CO2 was supposed to make another ice age

    • This is the thing to nail them on. Their lack of any sense of reality could be a fuse to hoist them with their own petard. Ridicule should also be part of the push-back against these idiots.

      • That’s the thing about psychopaths, though; they don’t care. They live in a different reality. No shame, no remorse, no acknowledgement of wrongdoing, ever, just what’s good for them. They own everything; this program is run by the wealthiest people in the world. They push back with food and prescription prices, interest rates, stock market manipulation, etc.

  6. I worked for ESSO in the 1970’s when they had a big drive on Marine Safety. One of the brilliant ideas they had was writing “Think Safety” in red letters 2 feet high on the bridge front 30 feet above the deck. The only way to achieve this was to hang men off the bridge wings on wooden stages with rope ladders up the front whilst the ships were at sea between ports. I really don’t believe that the thinkers and strategists in ESSO/EXXON are much better today.

    • I worked for ESSO in the 1970’s when they had a big drive on Marine Safety. One of the brilliant ideas they had was writing “Think Safety” in red letters 2 feet high on the bridge front 30 feet above the deck. ….I really don’t believe that the thinkers and strategists in ESSO/EXXON are much better today.

      And yet a mere 45 years later you are still “thinking safety.”

      • I think ESSO did a really good range of “soccer” badges to collect… was it the ad dom dom dom esso blu? for house/space heating?

  7. Could someone please explain to me what Exxon supposedly did which might have contravened any laws?
    Shouldn’t there be a minimum of evidence of LAW-BREAKING in order to justify opening an investigation by an Attorney-General?

      • Then the government should be investigated for breaking the law. They are constantly funding climate change research that gets the answers wrong.

    • K in S. The New York attorney general subpoenaed Exxon under a New York State law called the Martin Act of 1921. This involves making misleading statements to shareholders. Nothing to do with RICO, which is federal and where Schneiderman has no authority.. Presumably Schneiderman’s theory follows the ridiculously bad Inside Climate story (already debunked elsewhere simply by citing more fully the supposedly imcriminating documents) that EXXON research ‘showed’ CAGW in 1977 but did not reveal this to its shareholders to protect its oil business and stock price. As Exxon has already pointed out yesterday, there is no there there to this conspiracy theory hatched by Oreskes and her ilk, via “Merchants of Doubt”. Schneiderman is just following the script this post explains. This will end in popcorn when his probe fizzles. But it shows once again how desperately dangerous the warmunists have become. Grijvala, Whitehouse, now this. And NOAA will be in contempt of congress at 5 pm EST today if they have not complied with Rep. Smith’s subpoena for emails relating to the dubious Karl pausebusting paper. See Judith Curry’s op ed (posted at Climate Etc) for more on that. Smith apparently knows generally what he will find, and where to find it.

      • It doesn’t matter whether the probe fizzles, the process itself is the punishment.
        Force Exxon to defend itself both in court and in the press. Enough torture and even if they do win, Exxon and the other oil companies will think twice before ever going against the green mafia again.

      • Suggested reply by Exxon: “We stand behind our scientists who conduct their work in an objective manner. It is the end product of exchanges between scientists — the detailed publication of scientific work and the data that underpins the authors’ findings — that are key to understanding the conclusions reached.”

        (Yes, it’s the NOAA reply to Senate subpoena)

      • … And, “why should we provide you our data, all you want to do is find something wrong with it”.

      • Anonymize… I have an alternate idea for Exxons reply. They take selective emails from Climategate, change the names etc to make it look like Exxon emails and provide them. After the sentencing they can then reveal the con.

      • As a 30 year Exxon employee, half of it in research and research management I gotta tell ya that this is the most ludicrous accusation that I have ever seen. Orestes and her ilk are in need of some woodshedding.

        I hope that Lamar Smith nails the idiots at NOAA who thought they could get away with fudging the data in such an obviously biased and dishonest way. Thank goodness for the whistle blowers, and for Judith Curry for standing up to the AMS.

    • They heavily funded AGW groups including East Anglia. Either it is the typical arm twisting Obama uses with his DOJ when seeking more campaign donations….or Exxon is already hated in the green groups so its an easy brand garget.

      • +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
        Bill must have told Obama to pull Joe back…It’s Hillary’s turn.
        You don’t mess with the Clintons.

  8. Dr. Peter Gleick’s mistake was he operated alone. Learning from this, the alarmists are employing the Climate Accountability Institute. They are using the rallying call:

    “The proletariat needs to get organized and stand up to the MAN!”

    .

  9. Naomi Oreskes is a buffoon who is openly mocked by the very people she attempts to defend. Her lawyer pals are concerned about AGW at a level commensurate with an ambulance chaser’s concern for the welfare of his client.

    As with useful idiots everywhere, the lawyers will get the goldmine and Oreskes will get the shaft. Follow the money, these shysters do not work for free and even a small percentage of damages will bulk quite large if they win or are bought off.

  10. This honestly makes me sick. Just look at CNN’s article about this too, playing exactly along these lines to a T. How can anyone win against this fearmongering, clever litigation spinning, and irrationality?

    What is there end goal in all this? To destroy the use of oil and thus our entire infrastructure and economy? I’m afraid this is exactly what is going to happen to us.

  11. This not funny.

    Hillary gets to hump her way into The Rose Law firm by boinking Web Hubbell then getting pregnant with Webster Hubbell’s child. (Chelsea’s paternity is unknown)

    http://starcasm.net/archives/321645

    Then she is involved with scam after corrupt scam, lying to congress, influence peddling money into her foundation, which will employ her when she gets out of jail, responsible for the death of 4 people in Benghazi, lying about during an election that brought in Obama’s second term, as well as periferrally involved with the deaths of many…

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html

    And she thinks she doesn’t have to answer to the American people…

    Meanwhile

    Schniederman opens a RICO investigation into Exxon’s activities 45 years ago. You have got to be kidding me.

    This ain’t bean bag.

      • Well, there you go, add another straw to the haystck of corruption.
        …now you know how Hit1er was brought into power… principle-less journalists, a dumb electorate and a psychopathic megalomaniac who has no moral restraints.

      • November 16 is Klinton IRS D-Day
        Clinton, a Clinton Foundation Director Klinton Inc has until November 16 to file all revised IRS forms.
        Form 990 is the annual review of nonprofit’s activities along with detailed information about donors. IRS then determines whether they keep their status.
        .
        Klinton Inc did NOT report donations from governments for 2010, 2011 and 2012….the years Klinton was secretary of state.)
        .
        Klinton, a Klinton Inc Foundation Director, sucked up money into her personal accounts from governments and special interests up until the day she declared she was running for office.
        .
        We shall see if IRS holds her to the date and requirements the same as anyone else, which government funded her activities, or if she is the Protected class.

    • Wrt Chelsea’s paternity, you only have to look at her close resemblance to her father to figure he’s Dad. Not quite so obvious with Hillary though.

  12. “Oreskes noted that she has some of the public relations memos from the group and asked whether a false advertising claim could be brought in such a case.”

    This has been tried numerous times against firearms manufacturers, with very little success. Damages for false advertising claims are predicated on the notion of “knowingly deceive.” It’s a pretty tough standard, since most people already know that driving a car pollutes, and they don’t care.

    The fact that an elected AG in a liberal state says that they are investigating isn’t surprising, but they won’t get very far, it would tie up too many resources, and next week the narrative will change to fit the topic-du-jour

    • Nice summation Mark. However, dropping a criminal case would set the stage for a civil lawsuit capable of bilking Exxon out of millions. If Exxon settles, they will squeeze each oil company in turn until they follow suit.

      Perhaps we should call this sham; “no lawyer left behind”.

      • But Mass vs EPA was collusion, and the EPA “settled” with Mass, as they had agreed to beforehand. It may actually setup some EPA administrators for …. wait for it …. a RICO action.

    • They’ll free up the needed resources by ending the investigation of real criminals. Especially if they happen to be minority, or socialist.

  13. Scary on so many levels. But, in order for them to be right, they need to be right about the science. They need to prove Exxon was right about the science, that Exxon knew they were right about the science and that the science is in fact showing man made global warming.

    But the science doesn’t show that – at all. On the contrary, the science, even empirical data, show no influence by man, CO2 or man made CO2.

    This is the best evidence we can hope for to show they actually don’t know (understand) the science.

    This graph is further evidence they don’t understand the science; https://geoethicdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/christy.png
    If they did understand the science, their models wouldn’t be wrong.

    Here’s the science they in fact don’t understand; http://climatenerd.blogspot.no/

    And here is how they have been fooled; https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/
    Sweet irony .. They have been fooled by the fake data and data adjustments done by other dishonest, “green” activists. Seem they forgot to tell them :)

    • They need to prove Exxon was right about the science, that Exxon knew they were right about the science and that the science is in fact showing man made global warming.

      They don’t care if they loose, because they plan to use the legal fight itself as a weapon. This is not about breaking law, this is about trying to force Exxon give their internal communications and then using them a bit like climate gate emails. Really nasty. They know who to blame, now they are trying to invent the crime.

    • The courts usually do not rule regarding science. They just get some expert to stipulate that the science is settled, and then go with that.

  14. Drilling for oil and making gasoline does not create the supposed CO2 problem…Driving cars and running power plants might…Exxon is not responsible for what people use their product for !!!

    • You could say so. You could also say a lot of other things, but I don’t think sueing Exxon is about a known or suspected crime Exxon has done, but rather goldmining something useful change public opinion.

      This is a political trial.

  15. Drudge reported this am a Washington Free Beacon article where Hillary is calling for the investigation
    into Exxon, and, that not long ago Exxon ceased its donations to the Clinton Global Foundation. Sounds
    like Exxon stopped the protection and blackmail payments and now Hillary wants to persecute — opps —
    she said words more like prosecute — but hey — in this case, whats the difference — maybe the RICO
    should look much more in her direction. Just thinking here — i think.

  16. Yes, the industrial era is mostly powered by fossil fuels. Diesel fuel for agricultural equipment on farms that grow food. The industrial fertilizers that are applied to the crops. The diesel that powers the trains loaded with harvested grain that goes to food processing plants. The diesel that transports the wheaties and refrigerated bacon to the supermarkets. The gasoline that powers the cars that people drive to get to the supermarket. The coal fired electric power to run the freezer compressors that keep the frozen foods from spoiling. The gasoline powered refuse trucks that haul away the garbage to dumps. The jet fuel that transported those people to La Jolla. The emergency vehicle that takes the heart attack victim to the hospital from eating too much bacon. etc. etc.
    Carbon dioxide in the air provides the basic building block of all photosynthesis produced food. We should be putting more in the air, not less.

  17. Hate to say it, but I see signs with this activist effort of someone smoking waaay too much
    Ganja… They are at the paranoid stage….

  18. This really looks, smells and tastes like a “conspiracy” to me!

    It’s nice that they documented it so well!

  19. Hey, this is advanced think tank scheming that no ordinary nut jobs can craft and undertake. It’s the DARPA of climate policy and legal weapons development. Missiles are away!

  20. Counter sue. It’s factual that the removal of CO2 threatens all of life itself. Certainly these maggots know this and, yet, continue to conspire. Their true motives need exposure.

  21. Me thinks there’s a little bit of a problem with their argument. Last time I checked Exxon wasn’t in the spacecraft business. So, their CEOs, CFOs, COOs, board members, shareholders, and so on, are stuck on the same planet we are with no more chance to get off it than we have (except for Jerry Brown). And, if their product indisputably causes CAGW as our insufferable climate warriors proclaim; and CAGW is going to utterly destroy the planet that we live on; well, won’t it destroy the planet those greedy capitalists at Exxon live on too? One could make a logical argument that a greedy capitalist, forever in search of profits, would be willing to destroy someone else’s life if that was necessitated in the pursuit of those profits. But, I think we can all agree that a greedy capitalist is unlikely to destroy their own life in pursuit of profit. It’s not much fun to have money if you’re not alive, or can exist on a planet, to enjoy it. And, it’s very difficult to make money if you’re not alive; in fact, except for Elvis, I don’t know anybody who’s done so.

    Again, I think we can all agree that whatever shortcomings greedy capitalists may have self immolation is not one of them. I don’t think the same thing can be said of ideologues. Thus, the RICO arguments violate simple logic. I think the New York taxpayers should demand their AG get replaced by someone who’s brain actually functions.

  22. I’m surprised that the animal welfare organisations don’t sue them for inciting people to ‘put a tiger in their tank’ back in the days when those in the know were inciting us that an iceage was about to begin.

  23. Don’t for a minute think Exxon and their peer companies are going to take this lying down – witness Chevron and the Ecuador debacle. I do find it rather interesting to ponder the fact that the oil companies have been funding the very groups that theoretically could/would eventually try to take them down. Why would they do that? Well perhaps some fossil fuel futurists predicted this with some rather stunning clarity. The only way to truly debunk the frenetic babble the issues from the doom and death AGW cult is to actually get the whole thing in front of a judge. They will never win a Public Relations war. They (AGW’s) will then be forced to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the science supports their contentions. As of today I don’t think they could do that based on science. If they can’t, it does not matter what Exxon or any other company said in their internal correspondence about the potential for fossil fuel derived CO2 to cause temperatures to increase and adversely impact the earths biosphere in any meaningful and more importantly quantifiable way.

    • BP for ages was promoting global warming/climate change in full page newspaper ads. What is there to make me think that the likes of the Rockefellers and Buffet who own (or at least did own) hunks of shares in Exxon might not be behind this PR stunt?… and even behind the the whole global warming racket? What will they get out of any treaty in Paris?

      • Imoira
        Let’s see now: The tobacco thing ended up in multibillion fine$ against Liggett & Myers, which were paid for by consumers (smokers) to the benefit of the Govt. taxman; BP went green in the 90s switching from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum, had an accident in the Gulf and STILL got hammered to the tune of $40billion to date; VW’s “Sins of Emission” ( NOxes) never mind the fact that Lightning outdoes VW diesels in NOx production by orders of magnitude, is likely to pay their pound of flesh in Kilograms (being metric), again in Billion$…….do I detect a pattern here? Exxon/Mobil it would seem have already been declared sinners, guilty of keeping secrets from us. Imagine how many Billion$ could be milked from that CA$H cow?!
        It would seems that Sin, even if not Original is still very popular.

  24. A key breakthrough in the public and legal case for tobacco control came when internal documents came to light showing the tobacco industry had knowingly misled the public. Similar documents may well exist in the vaults of the climate change scientists and their journalistic associations and environmentalist front groups…

    Goose. Gander.

  25. A big Thank You! to Anthony for reading through that summary of their “workshop” so I don’t have to. I think my brain would have crashed before I reached page 10.

    (A lot of white privilege on display in that photograph.)

    • Yes and a massive amount of ‘White Guilt”. White guilt is the new business model of the Ponzi Scam Legal industry. They have to keep on inventing new wrongs so they can step in and ‘Right it”. for a fee of course.
      regards

  26. EVERYONE: PLEASE READ THIS.

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/exxon-feeding-the-crocodile/

    Basically, in the 1970s scientists thought that global COOLING was causing havoc on the Earth’s climate!

    Case closed. Score one for Exxon.

    (By the way, is someone going to argue that ALL products produced by the refining of oil and gas were harmful to humans?? REALLY?? Plastics and other synthetic materials, fuel for reliable transportation, electricity. These were all bad?? Really??? )

  27. So Exxon et al should have stopped producing oil and sent us into the dark ages several decades ago instead of in the future as these idiotic activists desire. Yeah. Nice. Why does insanity even get a hearing? Western culture has a bigger problem than climate alarmism, it’s the institutionalized insanity that gives a hearing to climate alarmism.

  28. “To mobilize, people often need to be outraged.” People on the skeptic side are getting pretty outraged at all this heavy-handed anti-CO2 facism, I know I am….

  29. If the court is honest and impartial then Exxon has nothing to be concerned about. That is, though, a pretty freaking big “If”.

  30. This drive to find ‘incriminating documents’ is what motivated Peter Gleick to purloin documents from Heartland Inst . See http://fakegate.org/ .

    What the documents showed was what fantastic influence Joe Bast has managed on a well under 10e6$ shoestring budget .

    Truth , it turns out , is a lot cheaper to spread than delusion .

  31. I wonder what evidence the prosecution will use to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Exxon was willfully wrong about the climate – modeled output, perhaps? This should be a good read. Invest in popcorn and let the party begin.

  32. So Exxon already knew that Catastrophic CO2-Climate Change is wrong and didn’t tell us? There’s got to be loads of money for me us in there somewhere!

  33. Never stop your enemy when they are making a mistake.

    Way too funny.
    If Exxon can get these extortionists before a court, they will have the exquisite pleasure of discovery.
    Define your terms.
    Show your damages.
    Show your evidence.

    The very things the CCC has refused to do.

    This whole scheme is built on half truths,suppositions and manufactured hearsay.

    The surest sign of completely gullible people, is that believe their own BS.
    What is this Climate Change of which they speak so shrilly?
    If the court abides by our laws, the extortion ends right there.

  34. What Exxon knew was meticulously spelled out in the articles below. They knew more than anyone of today’s crop about climate right from the 1970s. What is most remarkable is that 100,000 scientists today have advanced this knowledge hardly at all. They also published this stuff in peer reviewed literature along with prominent academics. No secret there. Indeed, it can be said that Exxon created the whole thing before the clisci community of today had been born.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/exxon-hits-back-on-ridiculous-rico-allegations-when-it-comes-to-climate-change-read-the-documents/

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/what-did-exxonmobil-know-and-when-did-they-know-it-part-1/

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/23/what-did-exxonmobil-know-and-when-did-they-know-it-part-deux-same-as-it-ever-was/

  35. Initially a mechanical engineer, Stanton Glantz became professor of medicine and was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the UCSF http://tobacco.ucsf.edu/users/sglantz. His main – or sole – activity was advocating against the tobacco industry, He earned quite some money through his involvement in litigation cases in tobacco matters.
    .

  36. It seems that because these activists are basically moochers (in that they never spend their own money), “following the money” of all this astroturfing will eventually lead to someone who has their hands in the “sustainable energy” sector.

    Bam. Pow. Instant conflict of interest.

    Of course:

    1) this means nothing to the public, or at least the loud and vocal minority who give a crap. Its war; and,
    2) politically, this will go nowhere because the very politicians who can do anything about it think conflict of interest is for other people

  37. When this topic came up here last month

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/exxon-hits-back-on-ridiculous-rico-allegations-when-it-comes-to-climate-change-read-the-documents/

    ken Cohen provided a link to a 10 page document of peer reviewed articles co authored by Exxon staff , usually with distinguished members of climate science academia.

    http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/energy-and-environment/climate_peer_reviewed_publications_1980s_forward.pdf

    I noticed that one name , a Exxon staffer, was prominent in many of the papers , H S Khesghi, and it turned out that he was actually at one time on one of the IPCC working parties.
    This whole business is ridiculous.
    Since Exxon , along with BP , have been funding climate academics and Greenpeace very handsomely over the years , they might , in justifiable annoyance , decide to stop all that funding and tell Greenpeace and others to seek their further funding from Oreskes and the Clintons.

  38. On the other hand, a bit of digging in oil & gas company archives might uncover some discussion of how to manipulate the anti-CO2 arguments to eradicate competition from coal.

    • Ya think. Exxon is officially in favor of a revenue neutral US carbon tax. Why? 1. Gasoline and diesel are inelastic, so wont matter much to their oil revenues. Hits coal worst and natural gas least, so accelerates the transition from coal to natural gas fired CCGT for electricity. Not for nothing did they spend $32 billion on XTO to get into US shale gas big time.

  39. This is a travesty of justice which will hopefully backfire on the New York Attorney General.

    The Attorney General will have to prove that human-caused global warming/climate change actually exists, before he can successfully claim Exxon was obscuring the facts. The facts, as of today, is there is no evidence that humans have caused any climate change. And that is not dependent on what Exxon does, or does not do, now or in the past.

    This attack on free speech shouldn’t be taken lightly though. This is the State coming down hard on private individuals for partisan political reasons. Fortunately, not all Attorney Generals are partisan political hacks like the NY Attorney General, so maybe he will be the only one bold enough to press such charges, and when the charges fall flat on their face, maybe that will discourage others from pursuing this course in the future.

    TA

  40. Which outfit, do you suppose, has the most genuine cut- throat, first- rate lawyers on it’s payroll, NY State AG, or Exxon?
    This might be akin to a cock- sure teenager sneaking into a sleeping tiger’s cage for a selfie and then yelling out to his friends for a high- five.

  41. I am put in mind of a famous line from a movie.
    “Never bring a knife to a gun fight”
    I would suspect Exxon is not just bringing a gun, they will carpet bomb these activists into a thin red paste.
    If it were me, my first order of business would be a full investigation of the links and financing of the activists .
    Followed by letting them know that the RICO laws work both ways.

    • At least with respect to near bankrupt LAT and whoever is responsible for the Inside Climate website and its misleading information, they probably have a cause of action for reputational damage plus costs of complying with the resulting NYAG subpoena.

    • My thoughts exactly, Exxon should do a, ‘Mark Steyn’ on them and sue them for everything under the sun, mentality.

      Regards
      Climate Heretic

  42. It’s obvious the extremists in the CAGW movement have found a new Emanuel Goldstein for their 2 Minute Hate. This amounts to nothing more than a propaganda campaign.

    • As many have noted before, 1984 is not an instructional book. Some people seem to think it is, though.

  43. “.. the New York Times, which broke the story.”

    Jeez, gimme a break. Nobody broke the story. It came from Madison Avenue. It’s who made up the story.

    And the NYT was probably in the thick of it from the get go.

  44. I can’t help but notice in that group photo that most of the participants seem to be consuming more than their fair share of resources, especially around the mid-section! No wonder they are so clueless as to how nature works. Most need to put down the fork, get out of their office chairs and get some exercise out in nature.

    Less time staring at a computer screen and more time observing how nature actually operates would trim so much fanaticism from the environmental movement. In my experience, few so-called lovers of the environment get away from the interpretive park trail, or wander more than a day from the car and see nature as it really is: A realm of great power dwarfing the efforts of man. A changing, dynamic world that contradicts our deep, human desire for predictability and stasis. A world that is indifferent to our wishes and desires. What I see at the heart of fanatical environmentalists is a deeply human-centred universe. Great egos pretending to be selfless. Great egos pretending they are heros to a natural world that in fact, doesn’t care about their efforts.

    In all their bleating about putting nature first, their deep ignorance of the natural world demonstrates the exact opposite.

    • Who ‘stole’ the Climategate emails? Or is it “guilty until proven innocent” now?

      It’s obvious to the most casual obaserver that someone on the inside did the email dump. They were careful to redact sensitive information. A hacker would have just put it all online.

      Anyway, it’s what’s in the emails that’s incriminating. I agree with ‘what’s the world coming to?’

      It’s being hijacked by pseudo-science and scientists who are bought and paid for. That’s what the emails clearly prove.

    • Where is the evidence to support the emails were stolen, or even hacked (Recall the police investigated this)? Yeah! Just like there is no evidence to support CAGW.

  45. This is nothing less than a climate jihad; an attempt at using the force of law to bully and intimidate for propagandistic reasons. It is sickening. These folks have no moral standing. They are depraved. I hope Exxon hits them hard.

  46. My reading of facts at this point suggests this is not just an attack on free speech, but rather a bizarre attack on freedom of thought–freedom to pursue examination of unproven hypotheses and conjecture. Surely a successful outcome here would provide inducement to examine decades old research and studies of other corporate entities to see if any wild ideas should have been disclosed to shareholders; and, worse still, would just about stop human progress.

    I recognize that we try to keep this blog as non-partisan as possible; but Democrats have veered onto a bizarre path. While they universally see all despoiling of the natural environment as a moral issue. They are blind to their own despoiling of the business, industrial and commercial “environment” that not only sustains the livelihood of 80% of the human race, but also supplies the tax receipts to sustain their beloved and increasingly unsustainable welfare state.

    • Or Hillary’s emails or that IRS gal’s emails or, for that matter, Michael Mann’s emails.
      To these people “transparency” means “Move along. Nothing to see here.”
      Or, in this case, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

  47. Logic 101… Just HOW could EXXON have KNOWN that CO2 was going to be a catastrophic warming gas back in the 1980s we even to this day after spending 100s of billions of dollars the warmists STILL cannot produce the data that shows that CO2 cause catastrophic warming….. just asking.

  48. If Exxon can’t find any incriminating documents in their files I’m sure Peter Gleick could write something suitable for them.

  49. read through briefly…

    Didn’t see anyone question why they decided to start in the 1970’s…..should be obvious

    “dating back to the 1970s.”

  50. Well, the post’s title ‘Document suggests that a Climate activist shadow organization was behind the #RICO20 allegations’ certainly is supported by the photo. Because we see in the photo none other than the CAGW crusade’s own maleficent con$piracy queen; we see the keeper of the knowledge of all things related to evil fossil con$piracies (ie book ‘Merchants of Doubt’); we see Naomi Orestes of Harvard University.

    She seems to be around a lot in situations where intimidation and smearing is needed. Coincidence? No and non and nyet and bu-shieh and nein and etcetera etcetera etcetera . . . .

    John

  51. Perhaps the oil and coal industry should pull the plug on the State of New York. If their product does irreparable harm as claimed in the law suit, don’t they have a legal obligation to stop until the lawsuit is settled?
    Such action would very quickly show the consequences of extreme environmental policy. However, the chances are that they are not really interested in a shutdown, but more interested in a shakedown.

  52. judging from the photo of the CAI attendees, most would appear to fit the definition of baby boomers:

    “Baby boomers are people born during the demographic post–World War II baby boom approximately between the years 1946 and 1964, currently ages 50 to 69” – Wikipedia

    according to WaPo/Tankersley, the baby boomers are responsible for CAGW, and should pay up, tho the CAI lot would probably claim they are ***atoning for their sins!

    5 Nov: WaPo: Jim Tankersley: Baby boomers are what’s wrong with America’s economy
    They chewed up resources, ran up the debt and escaped responsibility.
    Boomers soaked up a lot of economic opportunity without bothering to preserve much for the generations to come. They burned a lot of cheap fossil fuels, filled the atmosphere with heat-trapping gases, and will probably never pay the costs of averting catastrophic climate change or helping their grandchildren adapt to a warmer world…
    If anyone deserves to pay more to shore up the federal safety net, either through higher taxes or lower benefits, it’s boomers — the generation that was born into some of the strongest job growth in the history of America, gobbled up the best parts, and left its children and grandchildren with some bones to pick through and a big bill to pay. Politicians shouldn’t be talking about holding that generation harmless. They should be asking how future workers can claw back some of the spoils that the “Me Generation” hoarded for itself…
    Meanwhile, future generations will have to pay the costs of weaning the world from fossil fuels and/or adapting to warmer temperatures, rising seas and more extreme weather. (Estimates vary, but some projections suggests they could total trillions of dollars for America alone.) …
    ***They should take steps, right now, to reduce carbon emissions and head off a debt crisis. They should pay higher taxes or accept slimmer retirement benefits, and they should tell lawmakers to make cleaner energy a top priority…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/05/baby-boomers-are-whats-wrong-with-americas-economy/

    • So, is the inference that baby-boomers in their youth should have voluntarily left jobs unfilled and chosen the austere life of a priest?

  53. Partying in La Jolla instead of a carbon-saving teleconference while planning to tell the world they need to cut down.

    Liberals are so pure.

  54. The energy companies should be advised not to let any of these activists have access to their archives.
    There was an incident in 1985 where Stanton Friedman was performing research in the National Archives and ‘found’ the Cutler/Twining memo which ‘proved’ the existence of the Majestic 12.
    With accomplices like Peter Gleick on their team, they could recover remarkably incriminating memos.

  55. The document was released in June 2012, have they been digging for treasure for over three years?

    If someone makes a movie of this, it would be good to make a farce like It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World Perhaps they could pit two teams against each other – this CAI group and Shukla’s IGES group. Peter Gleick could be the referee.

    BTW guys, I have it on good authority that the secret documents are buried just outside of Paris.

  56. I hope they are able to find my cheque. I wonder what big oil cheques look like? Maybe I’ll get mine in time for the holidays. Let me know when you guys get yours and we’ll plan a hedonistic extravaganza in, say, Paris or someplace nice like that.

    • “but sowed doubt by funding climate change skeptics to preserve its business.”

      It honestly amazes me that these alarmist ‘think tanks’ such as the NRDC and 350_dot_org etc. can make these claims, when ALL of them are part funded (by the tune of multi-million dollars) by the largest of all ‘big oil companies’ …. the Rockefellers;

      450,000 (2015)
      35,000 (2014)
      650,000 (2013)
      180,000 (2011)
      200,000 (2010)
      25,000 (2010)
      200,000 (2009)
      20,000 (2009)
      300,000 (2007)
      50,000 (2004)
      —————
      $2,110,000

      http://www.rbf.org/grantees/natural-resources-defense-council-inc

    • My state employee pension pays for me to be a skeptic, that’s why they want to do away with it and distribute among those who refuse to work.

  57. I love that photo of them all there, with the tropical background, how many gallons of EXXON did it take to jet them there and drive them and besides they all drive cars at home, WTF??

    • Al Gore bought 15 drilling rigs after he made Inconvenient Truth. Maurice Strong is a Rockefeller/ Rothschild oil billionaire who tried to destroy the environment at his Baca Ranch by draining an enormous aquifer, destroying the envirornment of the his neighbors’ water source, the entire San Luis River Valley and that of a National Monument with former EPA Director Rucksehouse. Jerry Brown has been looking for oil on his family’s farmland in Norcal. You don’t think this is real, do you? Resources are being snapped up by private parties left and right, with no option to revert to the public under the TPP. The UN/NWO global warming farce attracts scam artists like this because it’s an evil, psychopathic scam.

  58. Hm. Greenpeace currently enjoys 501(c)(3) status as an “educational, public-interest-oriented” entity.

    Haven’t they now forfeited any claim to that status, and made themselves eminently taxable?

    Hey, Obozo and his fellow National Socialists NEED that revenue.

    Or so they keep yammering.

    …there was a part of him that loved power, and at the same time it conflicted with his ideals. There are a great many liberals in the world who have a power agenda that’s so large it’s unbeknown to themselves.</b?

    — Norman Mailer (interview on The Naked and the Dead [1948])

  59. The problem with these activists (CAI) is the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.
    I have a evil mind, this could be a wonderful opportunity to dump all sorts of embarrassing documents on Mr Schneiderman’s desk and then leak said documents themselves, making it look like the leak came from the A.G’s office. Who knows what weasel deals between Alarmist and their congress friends have been made over the years with fossil fuel companies. When you fish in the big ocean remember you can also catch a shark.
    Okay I can dream.
    michael

  60. Watch Thom Hartmann, the most arrogant idiot on planet earth as he pretends to be allowing Paul Driessen to discuss the proposition that people such as Paul Driessen should be put in jail.
    This is extremely painful to witness.
    However the comments thread gave me hope.
    P.S. the 2014 solar and wind grid contribution in Germany was 5.8% and 8.6% – not over HALF, as claimed initially by Hartmann the clown.

    • Writes indefatigablefrog:

      Watch Thom Hartmann, the most arrogant idiot on planet earth as he pretends to be allowing Paul Driessen to discuss the proposition that people such as Paul Driessen should be put in jail.
      This is extremely painful to witness.
      However the comments thread gave me hope.

      Have you the URL to that “comments thread”? I don’t frequent the Web presence of this “arrogant idiot” Hartmann (whom, it is to be hoped, in his next train trip across Germany, will be encountering a squad or two of those “unaccompanied minor” Muslim refugees displacing the Germans Hartmann claims to know).

      • Hi. Yes thanks for asking. Just click on the “Youtube” logo. It appears when you mouse over the bottom right of the on-screen video. It will take you to the original youtube location where many people have been thoroughly derisive about the behaviour witnessed. I’m not sure that even leftist Hartmann fans can have enjoyed this. It is quite repulsive.
        A previous performance on the same topic is discuss at Breitbart.
        This article also links back to WUWT on the topic of those 50 million climate refugees. It’s a small world when you are a skeptic:
        http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/30/shock-jock-thom-hartmann-climate-change-deniers-prison/

  61. I would just like to summarize the historical meeting for the benefit of clarity.
    A large number of enterprising people have created a system by which vast numbers of customers can be provided with something which they need – energy, in return for money.
    Those enterprising people achieved this by doing a thing called work and also by taking risks.
    Another group of people, those mentioned in the article – “lawyers, climate scientists, communication professionals, PR agency heads”, also like to have lots of money. They really really like money and the nice things that it can buy,
    BUT – they do not plan to do any real work, make anything of real value or involve themselves in providing customers with anything whatsoever.
    They have decided to take part in a massive scheme by which those who created wealth through providing people with things that they needed are turned upside down and shaken vigorously, so that all the lovely money falls out of their pockets.
    Whilst the scheme artists (above), escape with most of the lovely money thus obtained.
    I did leave out some minor details.

  62. You’ve got to understand that for a certain group of people the word Exxon encompasses all evil. The same people often use it alongside other talismanic words like Monsanto!

  63. Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
    Well that’s only part of the story. Heard more than whispers long before the obscure people officially started. It goes back to a book edited in 70’s of Galtung and half-political people, leftwingers, not in US but in Europe trying to gain back control their families (and countries) won during Colonialist time up to 1900 but had lost since. Please observe people on mainland Europe. England seems to have had a better sense than to retro 1800’s days.

    Follow the money.

  64. What’s sauce for the goose…

    Climate hysteric says demanding documents can be seen as intimidation

    “…Smith issued subpoenas demanding e-mails, correspondence and other records of internal deliberations from NOAA scientists who participated in a study refuting claims that global warming had “paused” or slowed over the last decade…

    “…The country’s chief society of meteorologists weighed in this week with a letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), warning the prominent congressional skeptic on climate change that his demands for internal communications and documents from NOAA “can be viewed as a form of intimidation” that could thwart federally funded research…

    “…the American Meteorological Society told Smith Wednesday that his subpoena of NOAA correspondence sets a dangerous precedent for interference with independent scientific research.

    “Singling out specific research studies, and implicitly questioning the integrity of the researchers conducting those studies, can be viewed as a form of intimidation that could deter scientists from freely carrying out research on important national challenges,” wrote Keith L. Seitter, executive director of the Boston-based scientific group.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/06/as-scientists-warn-of-chilling-effect-on-research-congressman-doubles-down-on-noaa-to-release-deliberations-on-climate-study/

  65. In the seventies Exxon scientists predicted the effects of global warming would be minimal. Now data shows they were right. That should make a good lawsuit.

  66. Are government activists the only major players who can have opinions, without getting sued?

    That is the issue to me, not whether Exxon tried to influence public opinion, or tried to state the best case for going slow on climate issues.

    Government activists try to use government policies to make the world a better place, in their view, in their understanding. Conservative government activists are the same, except that their view of how government should make the world a better place is to have less government.

    So let’s agree, for the sake of argument, that the climate change activists in the US government are passionate in their conviction that we really need to rid the world of fossil fuels, especially rid the US of fossil fuels, for the good of humanity.

    Are they right?

    No one will know if they are right, if entities with money cannot put forward differing views. Universities dependent on federal grants won’t say anything. No one else will have much money, except corporations. You need the money to do research, to fund researchers, etc.

    So what this lawsuit essentially does is to leave the government in control of discussion of any important topic with major implications for people across the US. They seem to be saying, if we can’t defeat you in the realm of public opinion, we will shut you up with the legal system.

    Yes, it is beginning to sound a bit like Russia. Sorry if some people don’t like that comparison. Once you start abridging free speech in the name of one impassionate, oh-so-crucial-for-humanity cause, it will be easier to do so for the next one.

  67. I didn’t know I was part of the fossil fuel industry climate denial network. Even just yesterday I filled my car with gasoline and today I am charging my cell phone with electricity primarily produced from coal.

    I have to face facts, I am either a criminal or just lucky not to live in a state where a moron like Eric Schneiderman is Attorney General.

  68. In many ways I would love to see Exxon internal communications. Exxon has been nicely profiting off the climate scare. The move from coal to gas. The suppression of drilling in places like ANWR and offshore has helped reduced supply for years (until the frackers ruined it). We might actually find out Exxon has been actively supporting the AGW promoters. This could also mean Exxon is not in a hurry to fight the AGW myth.

    OTOH, a real lawsuit could end up demanding criminal prosecution of the executives. I have a feeling they would want to present this from happening. That could mean Exxon will fight this with all their might. And, all their might would be pretty impressive.

    This could be the greatest thing that ever happened for skeptics. Can you imagine what the best lawyers could do with the climategate emails if they really wanted to? Throw in Gleick, the RICO20, awards to the likes of Hansen and Mann being portrayed as pay-offs for their science and you have even more ammunition. They would also have 1000s of skeptics more than willing to help out pro bono (we’ve been doing it for years anyway).

    Do environmentalists really want to wake the sleeping bear? Have they really thought this through?

    More popcorn, please.

  69. These people have way too much extra time on their hands! They could be of far better service to the world doing something productive like flipping burgers at McDonalds and helping feed the hungry.

    • These are the sort who spit in the food of those they dislike for any reason.
      I would not eat anything that had been within a country mile of their filthy paws.

  70. “‘Most importantly, the release of these documents meant that charges of conspiracy or racketeering could become a crucial component of tobacco litigation’

    Having firmly established that documents convenient to their strategy existed, the delegates moved on to discussing how to obtain them [from Exxon for the purpose of environmental litigation].”

    This is an absolutely brilliant piece of investigative journalism.

  71. “… many participants suggested that incriminating documents may exist that demonstrate collusion among the major fossil fuel companies …”

    I have been purchasing diesel and gas from all of the major fossil fuel companies in this nation for the last two and a half decades. I was aware that environmentalists did not like exhaust from trucks, and I continued my purchase and use patterns of gas and diesel despite this knowledge.

    Please, sue me too. I used approximately 150,000 gals of diesel during the 90’s. Also, virtually everything I purchased was delivered by an 18-wheeler.

    • Plus I personally profited by doing so. I bought houses and cars, and traveled with a camper trailer to distant locations for vacations.

      Although the houses have been powered by hydroelectric dams and not coal, without the treatments of the wood and the various coal tar products, the houses would have dissolved and rotted long ago. I should be sued for complicity.

  72. If Germany or Russia or China were bombing our coal and oil and agricultural sectors — that would be preferable to witnessing these environmental groups and aggressive litigators dismantling it with their spoiled brat hands. But both equally destructive.

  73. Darwin was right, adapt or die, the species will live on in one form or another. Let’s face it even the Greenie braindead live on.

  74. My proposal since some time: being an industry under permanent attack, i would stop my output for a month or so. So the idiots may experience a world without fossil fuels. Ideally beginning with not serving any private jets bound for Paris soon.
    Otherwise this industry will be pushed around and broken down, as happening with Germany’s former energy giants already.

  75. One of the people in this scheme, John Mashey, was a bane of my existence when I worked in the mini-supercomputer industry.

    Then, he was a system architect at MIPS with a very good grasp of what one needed to do to make a supercomputer out many “Killer microprocessors,” which were about to squish most of the functions of a supercomputer into a single chip. He was also quite willing to tell everyone how good he and his systems were. (They weren’t as great as he said, but certainly better than most.)

    When the field contracted, SGI bought MIPs in 1992, and Mashey continued on there. My activity within the supercomputer field faded after my employer failed in 1992 and at my new job I worked mostly on networked file systems until 2007. That year seems to be when Mashey got interested in climate change. In a document about the Wegman report, http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/plagiarism%20conspiracies%20felonies%20v1%200%201.pdf , he notes at the end:

    I thank Naomi Oreskes for her talks at Stanford, which first got me really interested in GMI, and to her and Erik Conway for letting me read drafts of their excellent forthcoming book. I thank James Hansen. Stephen Schneider. Chris Field and other IPCC authors for enlightening talks. Thanks to Stanford for offering repeated public seminars from world-class people.

    That’s a good list of people to provide one point of view, but I’m surprised he has so completely become one of them that he can’t see their failings and can’t see anything that might be correct in the papers and people he investigates.

    Lately he seems to be doing little more than retweeting other warmists, see https://twitter.com/johnmashey

  76. «A key breakthrough in the public and legal case for tobacco control came when internal documents came to light showing the tobacco industry had knowingly misled the public.
    Similar documents may well exist in the vaults of the fossil fuel industry and their trade associations and front groups…»

    I would say similar documents already exists and are available to the public. Documents showing that United Nations and IPCC by gross negligence about scientific methods is responsible for wasting vast amount of resources on a theory which is not corroborated by objective, empirical scientific results.

    United Nations created a body called Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC. IPCC was extremely biased from the very beginning. This should be evident from the: Report of the second session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 28June1989. https://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session02/second-session-report.pdf

    “In welcoming the delegates to the UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) Headquarters … The Executive Director of UNEP, hailed the fruitful alliance between WMO (World Meteorological Organization) and UNEP. The firm commitment of prof. Obasi, the Secretary-General of WMO, coupled with the determination of UNEP leadership, has resulted in a partnership which is helping to unify the scientific and policy-making communities of the world to lay the foundation for effective, realistic and equitable action on climate change.”

    “The Executive director stated that the impacts of climate change and global warming would have serious consequences for humanity. In Egypt alone, global warming could flood much of the Nile Delta and Drown 70 centuries of civilization in less than one, and could inundate one fifth of the nations arable land.”

    “It would be desirable for the Panel´s report to be ready by august 1990 for presentation to the Second World Climate Conference and to the United Nations General Assembly. It should be born in mind that both the governing council of UNEP and the executive Council of WMO expected the first report of IPCC to form the basis for international negotiations on a global convention on climate change. The report can also play a valuable guiding role for the large number of conferences, meetings and symposia on climate change being held all over the world. For all of these reasons, the report should be completed in good time.”

    “The issuance of the report would only be the beginning of a far more arduous task. To tackle the problem of climate warming effectively, radical changes would be necessary in international relations, trade, technology transfer, and bilateral and multilateral strategies. The panel´s continued work would be the only guarantee of the concerted response to the global threat of climate change”

    “In his opening remarks , Prof. Bolin said that the primary objective of IPCC, in making its first assessment, is to produce a document which could provide guidelines for the formulation of global policy and which would enable the nations of the world to contribute to this task”

    “IPCC´s first report will contain the 20-page summaries for policy-makers to be produced by the working groups and an overall integrated summary of these placed in perspective. Professor Bolin suggested that the integrated summary be written by a drafting group consisting of the officers of IPCC and the chairmen of the Working Groups. He asked that this plan of his be enforced by the panel.”

    “The panel invited interested UN organizations, regional or global intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and private institutions that wish to to contribute in the matter, to collaborate with appropriate analyses. …. The panel invited the contribution from these organizations in order that its own work may be improved.”

    Imagine the pressure to conform with the prejudice of the leaders.

    United Nations Environmental Program and World Meteorological Organization created Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC is by no means an independent scientific body. This should also be evident from the Principles Governing the Works by IPCC:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

    United Nations has demonstrated gross negligence by creating a biased organisation, a political organisation which by its principles must be unable to provide scientifically balanced product. By its principles:
    – United Nations enforced a mission on IPCC §1
    – United Nations let IPCC operate by the unscientifically principle to strive for consensus §10
    – United Nations let IPCC establish an organization structure and approval process which by its nature was bound to diminish dissenting views. §11

    United Nations – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change went on in unscientific ways and has even made an internal guideline for expression of uncertainty in their writings. A guideline which is in breach with expression of objective scientific findings and also in breach with international guidelines for quantitative expression of uncertainty:

    Their guideline is called: “Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties”.
    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf

    IPCC makes 2 gross mistakes in this guideline:
    – 1´st mistake is the failure to use the “Guide to the expression of uncertainty”
    The 1´st mistake leaves the quantification of uncertainty by IPCC more or less useless
    See: “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement” how it should have been done:
    https://www.oiml.org/en/files/pdf_g/g001-100-e08.pdf

    – 2´nd mistake is to express subjective probabilities.
    The 2´nd mistake is a huge scientific mistake.
    See Karl Popper – The logic of scientific discovery – for a take an subjective probabilities:
    http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
    Ref – section 8 Scientific objectivity and subjective conviction
    (Karl Popper was The mastermind behind the modern scientific method – the hypotetico-deductive method)

    United Nations has operated way out of line with its charter and created an unscientific and political body called Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    IPCC need to be abolished – it is not an independent scientific body – IPCC is a biased beast.

  77. So let me see if I’ve got this straight.

    1) A group of “activists” held a conference over three years ago.
    2) At this conference, they discussed going after big oil in the same ways that were used against big tobacco.
    3) They published a thoughtful and intelligent report that outlined how this could be done.
    4) All the above was done in the open and with full disclosure.
    5) Three years later, someone has discovered that Exxon has sinned and Exxon is finding itself in the same pickle as big tobacco.

    Now you’re whining about the fact that this effort has borne fruit, and talking about some sort of “orchestrated” conspiracy and a small “shadow organization” being behind it all?. Guess what, Anthony? UCS, Greenpeace, Climate Central, Scripps, Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard are NOT “shadow organizations”, even though it suits your purposes to try to ignore their involvement. And the real conspiracy is the one you and the deniers are engaged in—attempts to obfuscate the truth about AGW.

    I sincerely hope that once they are finished with Exxon, the RICO prosecutions will reach down to the level of the denier blogosphere and sweep you and the rest into the AGW denial conspiracy net. [trimmed. .mod]

    • Your screen along with your comment name indicates why there’s such a big problem in society…

      …unless you’re not being a hypocrite and don’t use fossil fuels.

      • Yes, unlike you, I don’t take myself too seriously, and that’s why I am able to catch fish like you so easily. (And I go by DOG for short).

        The real big problem in society is people like you and Watts who refuse to understand that we have ALL become unknowingly trapped into using fossil fuels to excess over the past 50 or 60 years and that AGW is the result. The hypocrisy is in not accepting that truth and instead bringing up the very lame “stop using fossil fuels and go back and live like a cave man” argument.

      • …I go by DOG for short.

        Hi, short dog. I’ve always said that teaching alarmists good science is harder than teaching a dog trigonometry.

        Next, the short dog sez:

        The real big problem in society is people like you and Watts who refuse to understand that we have ALL become unknowingly trapped into using fossil fuels to excess over the past 50 or 60 years and that AGW is the result.

        1. You are not the arbiter of who is or isn’t a big problem. I happen to think that Anthony Watts is on the right track, and that your train as derailed. So speak for yourself, and not for ‘society’. Thanx. And until you can produce a verifiable, testable measurement quantifying AGW, all you’ve got are your assertions. IOW: your opinion.

        2. You may be acting “unknowingly”, but don’t assign skeptics your personal failings. We know what we’re doing: debunking your pseudo-science. And that is what you really don’t like.

        3. You say: The hypocrisy is in not accepting that truth and instead bringing up the very lame “stop using fossil fuels and go back and live like a cave man” argument.

        Huh?? That’s the choice the green contingent wants to foist on people. How many quotes would you like, from your pals who say exactly that? I’ve got lots of ’em.

        And don’t tell us we can live just as well by doing without fossil fuels. That isn’t possible. Not in the real world, anyway. Maybe in your bubble.

        Finally, stop with your hypocrisy. If you want to do without fossil fuels, go right ahead. Me, I’m using all I can pay for, because I know for a fact that it’s beneficial for the biosphere, and that there’s no global harm or damage as a result. Therefore, it’s ‘harmless’, see?

        Harmless and beneficial, and it makes life immensely better. And you want us to stop using it? But you won’t stop using it yourself??

        I guess there are no mirrors in your apartment, or you’d see a hypocrite every day.

      • Actually, Bruce, if any piece of inanimate hardware could “thank” anyone (which is not possible), it would be MY keyboard, which, if I did drool, would be the target. MY monitor IS the recipient of an occasional uncontrolled sneeze, but YOUR monitor has nothing to fear from either my sneezes or drools. You DO understand that the internet is a bit more advanced than tin cans connected by pieces of string, don’t you?

      • “dumboldguy

        November 8, 2015 at 8:52 am

        You DO understand that the internet is a bit more advanced than tin cans connected by pieces of string, don’t you?”

        You haven’t been to Australia then I would suggest.

  78. I sincerely hope someone adds up the of carbon knowingly produced by individuals such as Al Gore and Naomi Oreskes who, more so than the average Joe, continued to burn fossil fuels to travel to their climate hate fests, used plastics, consumed food dependent on fossil fuels for sowing, fertilizing, harvesting and then transported. These climate high priests are among the fattest pigs at the carbon trough.

    • Speaking of bringing up “lame” arguments, here’s andersmo with the “climate priests and fattest pigs at the carbon trough” argument. andersmo apparently likes to set up irrelevant straw men (and take the obligatory mindless swipe at Al Gore) rather than look at the real culprits, who are virtually every last human on the planet. Maybe andersmo really does understand what the planet’s problem is but just needs to express his anger. Perhaps it made him feel better, but it is no real argument. I’m angry too, but prefer to look at the science. To wit:

      There were only about 1 billion of us on the planet in 1800, when coal began to be widely used. It took 130 years for the human population to hit 2 billion around 1930, when the age of oil was beginning to really take off, but only 30 years to add the next billion by 1959. We are now adding another billion humans every 13 or so years, and we are at 7+billion right now. And all of those “new” people want to take advantage of cheap and powerful fossil fuels just as we in the West did for decades and centuries.

      For those with a partially open mind, take a look at the graphs of human population, fossil fuel use,
      atmospheric CO2 concentration, global temperature rise, sea level rise, ocean acidification, frequency of extreme weather events, and the decline in arctic sea ice, to name just a few things that run parallel with AGW. Some clear trends and even a few exponential hockey sticks are evident, and talking about “climate hate fests” and “climate high priests” is just an attempt to distract us from the truth. But that’s what WUWT is all about, isn’t it?

      • dumbo says:

        … the real culprits, who are virtually every last human on the planet.

        “Culprits”?? There’s a solution, you know. You could set the example.

        I just love how dumb old guys totally ignore the fact that due primarily to the discovery of ample fossil fuels, humans are living much longer, healthier lives. And except for him and his eco-ilk, no doubt much happier lives. Dumbo doesn’t understamd that people like it when they can watch their grand kids grow up warm and healthy, instead of being decimated by smallpox, freezing, and all the other scourges that modern science and technology have conquered.

        There is never any cost/benefit analysis in the eco-fringe. They never have better answers, but they criticize endlessly.

        It’s all hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of the anti-fossil fuel complainers is so thick you could cut it with a plastic knife: dumbo won’t demonstrate how to get rid of even one person from the planet — but he wants the human population reduced (or the “culprits” maybe even eliminated). And there’s no doubt that he uses fossil fuels just like anyone else. Is he really that blind to his hypocrisy?

      • DBS suggests that a “solution” to AGW is my doing away with myself. What a clever rejoinder! (Or it would be if DBS was a third-grader).

        Humans are NOT living “much longer, healthier lives due primarily to the discovery of ample fossil fuels”, They are living “much longer, healthier lives” due to improvements in public water supplies, general sanitation, public health, and medicine. “Ample”, energy-rich, and relatively cheap fossil fuels have allowed the exponential human population growth that has fueled AGW.

        DBS is perfectly willing to “get his now” and indulge in the delusion that his grandkids will be “happy, warm, and healthy”. If DBS had any moral or ethical grounding at all, he would realize that his denialism pretty much guarantees that his grandkids (and surely his great-grand-kids) will suffer for our mistakes..

        As for “cost/benefit analysis”, it is becoming more obvious that delay in dealing with AGW is going to be far more expensive than taking measures now. That comes not from the “eco-fringe”, but from insurance companies, economists, scientists, and governments.

        To paraphrase a bit—-“People like DBS never show ANY real understanding of the problem or answers, but they endlessly spout inane OPINIONS and clever bon mots devoid of any factual support or real meaning”. The only hypocrisy here is DBS’s pretending he is engaging in a “discussion” here when he refuses to look at FACTS.

        And I myself don’t intend to “demonstrate how to get rid of even one person from the planet” and don’t want “the human population reduced or the ‘culprits’ maybe even eliminated”. The laws of nature will sooner or later take care of that if we don’t get moving on AGW. There is no hypocrisy in my use of fossil fuels either—-I am an American living a “Western” life-style in 2015 just like DBS—-the difference is that I understand what that means and he doesn’t.

      • Writes dumboldguy:

        DBS is perfectly willing to “get his now” and indulge in the delusion that his grandkids will be “happy, warm, and healthy”. If DBS had any moral or ethical grounding at all, he would realize that his denialism pretty much guarantees that his grandkids (and surely his great-grand-kids) will suffer for our mistakes..

        Hm. Gives me to think about my own grandfathers, both of whom came over to these United States from il Mezzogiorno toward the end of the 19th Century – and what actions they might’ve taken in forethought about how I myself might have been kept “happy, warm, and healthy” in the 21st Century.

        They couldn’t have done much more than deal with the problems before them, and taken such reasonable actions as were guided by what they could with some reliability know.

        So what does DBS – or anybody else – really know that could ensure the health and comfort of his grandchildren through the rest of the 21st Century and into the 22nd?

        Contrary to the smug arrogance of dumboldguy, the validity of what is claimed by the hysterical (and duplicitous) AGW alarmists is non-existent, as the application of rigorous scientific method – an error-checking mechanism the “climate consensus” is yet continuing to evade – keeps proving.

        So how is DBS to be chided for not taking actions which are more and more demonstrably UNNECESSARY – and which are, indeed, perniciously costly and utterly wasteful – to serve the good of succeeding generations of people who will have to meet, evaluate, and address the changing conditions that dumboldguy and his ilk keep proving that they’ve no friggin’ idea of how to accurately anticipate?

        Climate science today is a veritable cornucopia of unanswered questions. Why did the warming trend between 1978 and 1998 cease, although computer climate models predict steady warming? How sensitive is the climate to increased carbon-dioxide levels? What feedback mechanisms are there that would increase or decrease that sensitivity? Why did episodes of high carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere earlier in Earth’s history have temperature levels both above and below the average?

        With so many questions still unanswered, why are many climate scientists, politicians — and the left generally — so anxious to lock down the science of climatology and engage in protracted name-calling? Well, one powerful explanation for the politicians is obvious: self-interest.

        If anthropogenic climate change is a reality, then that would be a huge problem only government could deal with. It would be a heaven-sent opportunity for the left to vastly increase government control over the economy and the personal lives of citizens.

        — John Steele Gordon, The Wall Street Journal, 30 July 2015

      • Why do so many commenters on WUWT seem to be so in love with meaningless straw men and non sequiturs? My grandfathers “came over” about the same time as yours and it’s pure nonsense to talk of them as you do. Things were far simpler around 1900, and science and our understanding of AGW have come a long way since (and AGW wasn’t really an issue until 50 years ago). Our grandfathers had NO idea that AGW was going to be a problem, or that many of the other problems the human race faces would occur. We DO know these things now, or at least those of us who don’t deny science know them, and you, I, and DBS can most certainly help insure the future health of the planet and our far-off progeny.

        Talking about “smug arrogance”, you demonstrate it in spades when you spout such opinionated BS as “,,,the validity of what is claimed by the hysterical (and duplicitous) AGW alarmists is non-existent, as the application of rigorous scientific method – an error-checking mechanism the “climate consensus” is yet continuing to evade – keeps proving”.

        You are guilty of one of the major logic fails there—-the bald assertion—stating something because you WANT it to be true without offering any evidence but your cockeyed BELIEF to back it up. And you just don’t quit, following that with “…actions which are more and more demonstrably UNNECESSARY – and which are, indeed, perniciously costly and utterly wasteful”. Says who?

        And the ultimate in “arrogance” is quoting a meaningless Wall Street Journal opinion article written by someone who has NO business talking about climate change. Why can you not quote someone among the 99.99% of climate scientists who are concerned about AGW. Oh, I forgot, you are not interested in truth. but merely in continuing to spread and reinforce ignorant AGW denialist BS.

      • dumb-old says:

        Why do so many commenters on WUWT seem to be so in love with meaningless straw men and non sequiturs?

        You presume to judge people after commenting here for the first time today??

        I suppose you’ve never read the scientifically illiterate logic fails constantly found throughout alarmist blogs. By contrast, readers here are extremely rational, and oriented toward the hard sciences.

        Next, you say:

        …AGW wasn’t really an issue until 50 years ago

        The only reason it’s an ‘issue’ now is due to the immense piles of government loot shoveled into that hoax. Money and useful idiots keep it going, when something with no verifiable measurements like AGW would have died a deserved death long ago. You mention the Scientific Method, when you have zero understanding of how it works: The ‘GW’ in AGW means ‘global warming’, but there has been NO global warming for many years now. So that scare is debunked.

        Finally, now you’re asserting that “99.99%” of scientists are “concerned” with AGW?

        FYI: John Cook’s “97%” nonsense has been so thoroughly debunked that even mainstream scientists are avoiding it. So now you’re doubling down with “99.99%”?? You had a credibility problem with 97%. Now you’re off the rails.

        Prof Richard Lindzen, M.I.T.’s head of their atmospheric sciences department (and the author of twenty dozen published, peer reviewed papers on the atmosphere), had this to say:

        The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.

        Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.

        Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages, and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in 100,000 year cycles for the last 700,000 years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present, despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now.

        More recently, we have had the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced, to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

        For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

        When Lindzen writes about ‘scientific illiteracy’, he’s talking about you, old & dumb.

        Instead of talking down to readers here and presuming to instruct us on logic and grammar, you could learn a lot — if you just opened your mind, instead of parroting the alarmist nonsense you’ve been programmed to repeat. In case you don’t know, the term is ‘useful fool’.

      • Dumbold says:

        Humans are NOT living “much longer, healthier lives due primarily to the discovery of ample fossil fuels”, They are living “much longer, healthier lives” due to improvements in public water supplies, general sanitation, public health, and medicine.

        Of course we’re living longer, better lives because of fossil fuels. But you’ve bought into the “carbon” hoax, so you have to demonize what you’re told to. That includes fossil fuels and the mis-named “carbon”.

        Next:

        …it is becoming more obvious that delay in dealing with AGW is going to be far more expensive than taking measures now.

        More ‘obvious’ to you, you mean. It’s not obvious to normal folks, and in particular to the well educated readers here. First off, you don’t even have a measurement of man-made global warming (MMGW). If you can’t measurem something, how do you know it’s there? (I shouldn’t have to say this, but I think AGW exists. The reason it has never been quantified is because it’s so tiny; the minuscule effect is lost in the noise). So you’re worried about something that is too small to matter. Thus, your rejection of any cost/benefit analysis. Your mind is already made up.

        Finally, dumb-old says he is:

        …living a “Western” life-style in 2015 just like DBS—-the difference is that I understand what that means and he doesn’t.

        What it means is you’re a hypocrite and I’m not, because I think fossil fuels are, on balance, greatly beneficial. Just like more CO2 is. But if I really believed otherwise, I would stop, or greatly curtail my use of them. That’s the difference between us.

      • dunboldguy

        For those with a partially open mind, take a look at the graphs of human population, fossil fuel use,
        atmospheric CO2 concentration, global temperature rise, sea level rise, ocean acidification, frequency of extreme weather events, and the decline in arctic sea ice, to name just a few things that run parallel with AGW. Some clear trends and even a few exponential hockey sticks are evident, and talking about “climate hate fests” and “climate high priests” is just an attempt to distract us from the truth. But that’s what WUWT is all about, isn’t it?

        Odd statement. So you do concede – even boast! – that the lives of 6 billion humans of the 7 billion living on this planet right now are due to the BENEFITS of fossil fuel use? So you concede that EVERY human now living is living better, healthier, more productive lives in more comfort than in 1810? (After all, you will be very, very hard-pressed to find anybody now living who is worse than in 1810 – living in unheated houses drinking dirty water and dumping her sewage out the back window into the manure-filled streets filled to overflowing with horses bringing in contaminated and rotting food from the nearby farms before it decayed, right?)

        Is it your goal to kill 6 billion innocents so the arctic sea ice goes back to some arbitrary “normal” – when you cannot even establish what that “normal arctic sea ice” is? OK, OK. I am exaggerating. You really don’t want to kill 6 billion innocents.

        How many do you want killed to obtain your Utopia? How many do you want condemned to hard lives in poverty and cold drinkning contaminated water and washing in their neighbor’s sewage just so you can feel good about your air-conditioning and heating and clean water and refrigerator and computer and TV and microwave and cell phone and streets and roads?

        The other so-called “problems” of global warming are …. what? Benefits all, are they not? Loss of Arctic sea ice means …. what? A symptom of global warming? Or a cause of global warming? Just how does arctic sea ice increase global warming of the arctic ocean when the sun is low and below below the horizon from late September to the middle of March? Less arctic sea ice 7 months of the year means more cooling up north, not more heating.

      • What is “odd” is this agglomeration of straw men and non sequiturs. I’ll try to make some sense of it it, but you need to do a serious review in your “Logic for Dummies” book.

        I did not “concede or boast” that the lives of 6 billion of the 7 billion humans living on this planet right now are due to the BENEFITS of fossil fuel use. If you were not such a motivated reasoner, you would understand that I was simply saying that fossil fuels and technology have allowed human population growth to get out of hand, and the concomitant negative impacts of AGW are a result. Also, the “benefits” of fossil fuel use are now largely part of our past, not our future

        I wouldn’t want to guess at the proportionate number of humans who are now alive that are living “better, healthier, more productive lives in more comfort than in 1810”? I would think that many in the third world are living much as they did in 1810, no better, and your little soliloquy speaks only to city life in places like London. If you want to really get educated on that, read “Dirty Old London—The Victorian Fight Against Filth” by Lee Jackson.

        “Is it your goal to kill 6 billion innocents so the arctic sea ice goes back to some arbitrary “normal” – when you cannot even establish what that “normal arctic sea ice” is?”, you ask? No, you are not exaggerating—-wrong word—-what you’re doing goes beyond that to hyperbole—-at any rate, you ARE showing the need for more time in the Logic for Dummies book.

        And not to be outdone, you offer this outrageously over-the-top bit of hyperbole—-“How many do you want killed to obtain your Utopia? How many do you want condemned to hard lives in poverty and cold drinking contaminated water and washing in their neighbor’s sewage just so you can feel good about your air-conditioning and heating and clean water and refrigerator and computer and TV and microwave and cell phone and streets and roads?” WOW! That’s beyond responding to, other than to say that you need to look in a mirror, because “utopia” is something we both share as Americans (and purely by luck of birth) and is something that many are being denied in the third world. And I don’t want anyone “killed”, but I am not so cognitively dissonant and science ignorant that I will deny what will come if it’s BAU with fossil fuels.

        “The other so-called “problems” of global warming are …. what? Benefits all, are they not?”, you ask. I listed “atmospheric CO2 concentration, global temperature rise, sea level rise, ocean acidification, frequency of extreme weather events” along with the decline in arctic sea ice, and NONE of them are “benefits”. I suspect that you don’t have much of a background in science, and suggest you spend less time on propaganda sites like WUWT and more on sites where you might learn some science—-Skeptical Science and Climate Denial Crock of the Week are two. Here’s some science for you in answer to your final questions.

        Loss of Arctic sea ice is both a symptom of global warming and a cause of global warming. The loss of Arctic sea ice contributes to local warming because the ocean absorbs more heat when less of it it is ice-covered in summer—-look up “albedo”, and look up “positive feedback loop” as it pertains to the decline of multiyear ice. In winter when the sun is low and below below the horizon, of course ice forms in the arctic (just as it’s cold and snows in DC in winter so that moron Sen. Inhofe can make a snowball).

        I don’t know what you’re trying to say with “Less arctic sea ice 7 months of the year means more cooling up north, not more heating”—-maybe you got your “lesses and mores” confused. Try again.

      • dumb&old says:

        I wouldn’t want to guess at the proportionate number of humans who are now alive that are living “better, healthier, more productive lives in more comfort than in 1810”? I would think that many in the third world are living much as they did in 1810, no better, and your little soliloquy speaks only to city life in places like London.

        Yep. And the immense progress is due to fossil fuel use, which has saved the whales, rescued cities from the horse manure crisis, and made everyone much healtier, with warm homes in winter and cool summers. That hasn’t made you any happier, but that’s a small price to pay, no?

        (R. Cook’s sea ice/utopia/arctic ice quotes weren’t mine. But they’re correct.)

        Next, you say:

        I listed “atmospheric CO2 concentration, global temperature rise, sea level rise, ocean acidification, frequency of extreme weather events” along with the decline in arctic sea ice, and NONE of them are “benefits”.

        OK, by the numbers:

        1. The rise in atmospheric CO2 has been entirely beneficial, with no verified downside. Agricultural productivity has risen in lockstep with rising CO2, and the one-third of the people you couldn’t care less about, the world’s poorest subsisting on less than $2 a day, have not seen food costs rise like they would have without the extra CO2.

        2. Sea level rise is the same as it’s been for the past couple hundred years. It is certainly not accelerating; if anything, it is de-celerating.

        3. Ocean “acidification” is nonsense. That bogus scare has been throughly deconstructed here, time after time. Just do a search using keyword: acidification.

        4. The global temperature rise has been ≈0.7ºC, over the past century and a half. FYI, that is nothing. It is as close to flat as anything found in the geologic record. Just prior to our current Holocene, temperatures fluctuated by TENS of degrees — within only a decade or two — and without any human industrial emissions. If you don’t know the facts, naturally you’re going to scare yourself.

        5. Extreme weather events have been declining for decades. Where do you get your misinformation? From some thinly-trafficked alarmist blog? Because everything you’ve written is wrong.

        6. Arctic ice declined from about 2006 to 2012. For the past decade Arctic ice has been rising. As a typical climate alarmist, all you do is try to find the negative side of any curve, and hide the upside. But during the time Arctic ice was naturally dipping, global ice cover was flat, neither rising nor declining. As an alarmist, you ignore that pesky global ice cover. But the central issue is global warming. Or really, the lack of any global warming for almost twenty years now.

        Your greenie ilk has been flat wrong about everything for at least that long. Rational folks see that, and change their minds. But not you, which means the “climate change” scare is your religion. Science has nothing to do with what you believe.

      • I hope you feel cleansed after that rant. Your arguments are old and tired and wrong in relation to the drivers of climate.

      • Actually, the term “rant” is far more applicable to your original statement (and all those who replied to me after I commented on what you said). I tried to inject a little science into the thread and open minds, but didn’t get far because of the incredible level of willful ignorance on the part of you and your fellow “ranters”.

        The arguments that are really “old and tired and wrong” are the ones that are repeated endlessly on WUWT in spite of having been disproved and debunked countless times by the real climate scientists. (PS Coming on this site and commenting is by no means “cleansing”—-it is really a rather “dirty” place to visit).

      • Dumboldguy, I wouldn’t worry too much about trying to inject a little science into the discussion. Most of the commentary here on WUWT is from people with strong science understanding AND who are highly capable of detecting BS when they smell it. Myself, I have a degree in chemical engineering that includes advanced thermo and fluid dynamics. Things like mass and energy balances, heat transfer, heat capacities…you know, all those areas of technical learning on which climate science depends.

      • Another engineer who thinks he’s a “scientist”. Lord love a duck! Did you sign the Oregon Petition along with all those others—doctors, veterinarians, chemists, and oh-so-many engineers—-who have studied SOME science but have no real business commenting on climate change.

        Since we’re comparing CV’s, my undergraduate degree is in Physics, my Master’s is in Biology, and I taught both for several years before going into school administration, where I supervised teachers of all sciences for 20+ years. I have more than the equivalent of another master’s in Administration, Curriculum, and Supervision, and have taken many courses in psychology, group dynamics, communication, and organization development. I have highly developed and well-used “crap detectors”—policemen, judges, and school administrators all develop them—-and I’m telling YOU that WUWT is mainly about things OTHER than the science of AGW.

        I’m glad that your studies in certain areas of physics (advanced thermo and fluid dynamics, mass and energy balances, heat transfer, heat capacities, etc) have made it possible for you to understand part of the AGW problem, but that is far from a “strong science understanding that makes you highly capable of detecting BS when you smell it”, and that’s particularly so when so much of the AGW problem is intertwined with human psychology, politics, economics, and societal structures.

        I’m 75 years old and have been deeply interested in science since I was a child. I have been involved in environmental activism of one sort or another since before Earth Day, and have read extensively in science (with emphasis on AGW) and the other fields I mentioned above, particularly during the 20+ years since I retired. Would you like a suggested reading list?

        What is obvious in the short time I’ve been visiting WUWT is that I have seen little evidence of “strong science understanding” but much evidence of behaviors and attitudes that would make a psychologist or social scientist drool. You, for instance, with your comment here about having knowledge in “all those areas of technical learning on which climate science depends” makes you sound like a Dunning-Kruger sufferer—look it up (but don’t worry, you have plenty of company among the WUWT-ers).

      • dumboldguy
        November 9, 2015 at 3:01 pm

        Are you aware that, among the 9029 PhDs in scientific disciplines (2365 of whom are physicists) who signed the Oregon Petition, is Freeman Dyson, probably the most famous living physicist, and Princeton’s Will Happer?

        http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

        Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever isn’t a signer, since he came to “climate change” skepticism only after studying the issue. Although your qualifications pale in comparison to his, you too could benefit from skeptically, ie scientifically, examining the actual lack of science behind this hoax.

      • I am aware of many things about the Oregon Petition, having spent many hours on the Petition Project website and reading what others have had to say about it (both “warmists” and that word I am not allowed to use on WUWT because it is a “pejorative” LMAO).

        Freeman Dyson may be the most famous living physicist, and Will Happer is notorious for other reasons, but neither of them is qualified to speak on climate science. Dyson’s expertise is in the area of quantum physics, and neither he nor Happer have published peer-reviewed papers on climate science.

        First understand that it is a lie to say 31,000+ “scientists” have signed the Petition, when just about half the signatories are engineers of one sort or another. Engineers are not scientists, and you can access science and engineering websites that will explain the difference if you want to become educated.. Look up what different types of engineers do—-for example, “environmental engineers” have virtually nothing to do with climate science.

        Go to your link and add up the numbers with an open mind. http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

        You will find that only 39 are climatologists, 113 are atmospheric scientists and the rest are farther and farther removed from expertise on climate change. Even if we add in the 83 oceanographers and a couple of hundred math-computer science and biochem-earth-agriculture types who may have specialized knowledge that relates to climate change, the number of valid signatures on the Petition is maybe 500 at most . The Petition has been so thoroughly discredited in so many ways for so many years that it’s ludicrous that anyone still brings it up. It is something that the (word I am not allowed to use) keep bringing up because it’s in their talking points playbook, but it’s no longer effective.

        MY qualifications DO pale in comparison to Giaever’s in the area where he won his Nobel Prize, electron tunneling in superconductors, but my background in science is broader, and I am probably more qualified to examine AGW evidence than he is.

        As for—-“You too could benefit from skeptically, ie scientifically, examining the actual lack of science behind this hoax”, all I can say is that is also from the playbook used in the echo chamber of the (pejorative deleted). I have examined the science behind AGW for years, and it’s simply not a hoax. YOU yourself could benefit from examining the lack of science behind those who say it’s a hoax. If you do, you will find cherry-picking, distortion, and misinformation. The evidence for AGW is everywhere, 99.99% of climate scientists can’t be wrong, and Occam’s Razor rules.

      • dumboldguy, how little you know about engineering. Or at least engineering as taught in Canadian universities. I studied every one of the physics courses you listed plus quantum mechanics, interfacial phenomena, organic and inorganic chemistry, physical chemistry, thermodynamics (heats of reaction, heat capacity, mass and heat transfer, transport phenomena and diffusional operations. While learning all these concepts, I was working in engineering laboratories applying all this knowledge to build and operate a myriad of machines and processes, including those used in hospitals. But enough. As much as you want to flaunt what a learned man you are, here you’re just another one of the rabble with an opinion, same as me. We do not have to agree, but abusing people with different opinions doesn’t make them change their minds. In fact, it chases them in the opposite direction.

      • How little I know about engineering? Or at least engineering as taught in Canadian universities?

        Yes, the quality of “teaching” about engineering in any country that thinks tar sands are worth exploiting does raise some serious questions, but I neglected to inform you that I began my higher education at an engineering school, so I may know more than you are aware of—-Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, NJ—-I was recruited by the school based on my SAT’s and HS record and guaranteed acceptance. As my freshman year wore on, I discovered why some undergrads called the school Stevens Hoboken Institute of Technology and abbreviated that to “S.H.I.T.”. (You could buy T-shirts off-campus with that printed on them, and if you dared to wear one to class, the humanities-type profs would smile and the tech-type profs would get upset and berate you).

        I left the school because I wanted to participate in science in a way that was fun, not the drudgery and “dweebiness” I found among the future engineers. One had a hard time finding anyone who wanted to talk about cars, girls, sports, auto racing, or fishing—-it was all about the calculus homework or what was going to be on the chemistry quiz, I did greatly enjoy my descriptive geometry class and the “make the engineers human” class on the Greeks taught by a flamingly gay (for 1958-59 anyway) professor. It was perhaps the best class I ever took in college (and it was universally detested by the future engineers, who thought reading Edith Hamilton and Lysistrata got in the way of the calculus homework and studying for the chem quiz). They told us at the opening convocation to “look at the guy next to you—one of you will be gone by next year”. They were right, and people actually began leaving within the first month, including a guy across the dorm hall that I talked girls-sports-cars-fishing with—-from upstate NY, and he transferred to Syracuse and then studied science just as I did. His parting words were “If I stay here, I’m going to go crazy and maybe kill someone”.. The Lacrosse coaches cried when he and I left, because we were both slotted to play—-since we were both 210 pound 6’1″ former football players (and linebackers), the coaches spotted us early on—-the game is a lot of fun, and my biggest regret about leaving Stevens was not playing.

        My crap detectors are still vibrating about your “I studied every one of the physics courses you listed plus…” statement. What school did you attend? Even MIT doesn’t seem to offer as broad a science education in their chemical engineering program as you say you got—-look it up. Or are you saying that a three week unit on sound or optics in a general physics survey course is the equivalent of the full semester courses we science majors took?

        I am not “flaunting what a learned man I am”, and neither you nor I are “just another one of the rabble with an opinion”, as those here who appear to be science ignorant are. You DO have some science training, if not in areas that make you an expert on AGW and its impacts. My point in “flaunting” was simply that I DO have a broad science background that DOES make me better qualified to detect AGW BS than you.

        I agree that we do not have to agree, and I am NOT “abusing people with different opinions”, merely pointing out that their opinions are just that, opinions (everyone has them), and are NOT based on scientific fact but on emotions and beliefs. If you want to base your understanding of AGW on opinions and beliefs (and that’s what a lot of WUWT-ers apparently do), feel free—-just don’t expect those of us who rely on rational analysis of facts to ever agree with you.

        I’m glad that you understand psychology enough to say “….doesn’t make them change their minds. In fact, it chases them in the opposite direction”. That’s called the “backfire effect” by psychologists, and it IS a serious problem with AGW, politics, and government, I recommend The Republican Brain, by Chris Mooney, as a good read on understanding the psychology that oozes off nearly every page of WUWT—-Mooney discusses the backfire effect.

        .

      • DOG,

        Let me suggest this since you say you’ll be hanging around for awhile.

        In general WUWT welcomes those with differing points of view. So at some appropriate point , why don’t you single out an area you feel that skeptics are wrong on and explain why you think we are wrong and you are right. You might be surprised at the extent of agreement you find.

        Few here “D” that there is a climate or that we have an impact on it. Most here do “D” that we have a significant impact on it that will result in catastrophe if we don’t curb emissions. Most here would likely “D” that climate models should be the basis of any policy until they do a better job of projecting/predicting than they do now.

        These are just two areas you could have chosen to engage on and received a far less hostile reception.

        Your experience here on WUWT may be unfortunate but is not undeserved. For all of your focus on your perceived “lack of science” discussed here you came in apparently intent on telling us how stupid we all must be, rather than providing any science to intelligently debate/discuss. Then you seem surprised when others fire back in kind.

        So try being a bit more cordial and provide some tidbit of science to discuss and see if what happens. Unless your only reason for being here is to ruffle feathers…

        __________________________ Ty Hallsted Objective Systems Lead Analyst 410-984-8155

      • DOG,

        Let me suggest this since you say you’ll be hanging around for awhile.

        In general WUWT welcomes those with differing points of view. So at some appropriate point , why don’t you single out an area you feel that skeptics are wrong on and explain why you think we are wrong and you are right. You might be surprised at the extent of agreement you find.

        Few here “D” that there is a climate or that we have an impact on it. Most here do “D” that we have a significant impact on it that will result in catastrophe if we don’t curb emissions. Most here would likely “D” that climate models should be the basis of any policy until they do a better job of projecting/predicting than they do now.

        These are just two areas you could have chosen to engage on and received a far less hostile reception.

        Your experience here on WUWT is not undeserved. For all of your focus on your perceived “lack of science” discussed here you came in apparently intent on telling us how stupid we all must be, rather than providing any science to intelligently debate/discuss. Then you seem surprised when others fire back in kind.

        So try being a bit more cordial and provide some tidbit of science to discuss and see what happens. Unless your only reason for being here is to flaunt your perceived superiority and ruffle feathers…

      • Dumbguy,

        Please state why you imagine that Freeman Dyson and Will Happer are not qualified to comment on “climate science”?

        Yet you suppose that you are?

        What a hoot!

    • dumboldguy – degree in physics, eh? That’s pretty narrow. Engineers have to be fluent in all the physical sciences.

      • Now you’ve set off my crap detectors.

        Physics is “narrow”, you say? Physics is pretty broad, actually, and as an undergraduate I had to take courses in sound, light, heat, mechanics, dynamics, electricity & magnetism, and atomic and nuclear physics, among others.

        “Engineers have to be fluent in ALL the physical sciences”, you say? I call BS on you. Engineers are at best “applied scientists”, and are “fluent” only in narrow areas relevant to their engineering specialty.

        You are either testing my crap detectors or you are really not an engineer. Which is it?

  79. The weirdest part about the tobacco industry trials were that we have almost no science on tobacco itself. Several entire nations of heavy smokers show no signs of the issues associated with tobacco use. Before you insist we do have said studies go look, the studies are not on tobacco they are on cigarettes. Which includes a wide range of chemicals not just tobacco sometimes no tobacco at all but rather a type of tobacco paper soaked in various chemicals. Dig deep enough into this and we have every reason to think tobacco itself is much less dangerous then the current consensus. Theoretically the tobacco industry might have been held accountable for making their product much more of a health hazard, instead they continue to make a very dangerous product and never had to explain themselves on this point whatsoever.

  80. From the Nation Cancer Institute in a reply to my email asking for the name of somebody famous that had died from SHS;
    “Thank you for your follow-up e-mail to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) regarding deaths attributable to secondhand smoke exposure. In your e-mail, you asked for the name of one famous individual who died from secondhand smoke. Please note the NCI does not collect mortality data, and cannot provide the names of any patients, including public figures and celebrities.”
    Of course you can’t…

  81. It is hard to know where to begin in the face of such mindless ignorance and cognitive dissonance. DBS knows what he WANTS to believe, and won’t be swayed. It apears that he spends most of his time here on WUWT and on other denier sites sucking up denialist propaganda. He quotes liberally from the “Handbook of Discredited BS for AGW Deniers” and seems to believe that his PHD will somehow carry the day—-that’s not a degree but Piled Higher and Deeper.

    Fossil fuels have saved the whales? And rescued cities from the “horse manure crisis”? And made everyone “much healthier”? The whales are NOT “saved” by any means, the HM “crisis” never killed as many at the 1.7 million Chinese that die each year from air pollution due to fossil fuels, and the worldwide health costs from air pollution are too big a price to pay.

    DBS shows his paucity of science knowledge with his “by the numbers” PHD exercise. He quotes from the denier’s BS manual on many of these points, and needs to do some real study. I will comment only briefly on each.

    1. EVERYTHING he says here is WRONG. ALL four statements.
    2. WRONG. Sea level rise is NOT the same as it’s been for the past couple hundred years, nor is it decelerating. Latest research findings say that it is accelerating.
    3. WRONG. Ocean “acidification” is a serious and worsening concern. It has been “thoroughly deconstructed here, time after time” because WUWT is a bogus site that is only interested in AGW denial, not scientific truth.
    4. WRONG. GLOBAL temperatures ARE rising, period. And citing that graph of “no change in middle troposphere” won’t change that. And the global temperatures fluctuated by TENS of degrees — within only a decade or two?. Really? Where did you get that “fact”?
    5. WRONG. Extreme weather events have NOT been declining for decades, and some new records have been set this year for tropical cyclones. I get my information from NOAA, NASA, and other credible sources, not some heavily trafficked propaganda blog like WUWT
    6. And last but not least, WRONG-WRONG-WRONG on all counts. Arctic sea ice has been in steady decline from 1979. Perhaps you are confused about the difference between extent and volume—it wouldn’t surprise me, but the long-term trend for both is decline. “For the past decade Arctic ice has been rising” is totally ignorant, in that the record lows have occurred in the past decade. As a typical climate change denialist, all you do is make stuff up and try to say it’s true. Like saying “global ice cover was flat, neither rising nor declining”. It’s actually declining everywhere, the Arctic, the Antarctic, and the Mountain Glaciers. We again get into questions of “extent”, or surface spread, but th only valid measure of ice is volume, and that’s in decline.

    You finish this load of WRONG horsepucky with a bald assertion that the “greenie ilk has been flat wrong about everything”, and lecture us about “rational folks”? You haven’t even a nodding acquaintance with “rational”—deluded is what you are, and if anyone has a religion (cliché) here, it’s you and the deniers, because “Science has nothing to do with what you believe”..

    (Reply: you are new here, so we would like to point out that labeling those who simply have a different scientific point of view than yours as “deniers”, “denialists”, and similar pejoratives, is not allowed on this site. Future posts containing those insults will be deleted. -mod)

  82. How many times do you have to post the same message? You can post it 100 times and it will still not be true. Why do deniers think that endlessly repeating the same discredited horsepucky and unfounded opinions will somehow magically make them true? I’m busy with real life—need to watch Madam Secretary and The Good Wife—maybe I’ll respond to this latest delusional stuff after that.

    [REPLY: Please stop calling people here ‘deniers’, or anything similar. Thanks. ~mod.]

    • How many time are you going to repeat the mindless phrase “fossil fuels”?
      Does violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics not bother you at all?
      http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.long

      Does it bother you that marine organisms consume more hydrocarbons each year than we do?

      Iceworms (Hesiocaeca methanicola) infest a solid piece of orange methane ice at 540m depth in the Gulf of Mexico. – NOAA

      During my phone conversation with the Australian Greens (Adam Bandt’s staff), I was told that the reason the Greens don’t care is because, quote:
      You can’t tax a marine organism

      I had to call them because they wouldn’t respond to any of my emails.
      When I asked, “Will you put that answer in writing” the call was abruptly terminated by the unaccountable, undemocratic, greedy, taxpayer-funded control-freaks.

      What is your reason for not caring about marine organisms burning more precious “fossil fuels” each year that we currently do?

      • Rather “fractured” comment. Or maybe it the fractured thinking that leads to a fractured comment?

        Since marine organisms do NOT “burn more precious fossil fuels each year that we currently do”, there is nothing to care about. Unless there are marine organisms eating a lot of coal, sucking up a lot of natural gas, or eating lots of crude oil that we don’t know about—-care to tell us about some so we can “care” about them? And technically, your iceworm example is not a good one—-don’t they feed on bacteria that utilize the methane? That means they’re consumers of the critters that “eat” the methane, and not methane eaters—-get your food chains in order.

  83. I now have a couple of comments “awaiting moderation”. Apparently if one doesn’t toe the company line on WUWT, one can be “moderated” into silence. Pretty good—I’ve only been a subscriber for a few hours and I’m being “eliminated”? The Gestapo and the KGB didn’t work that fast.

    (Reply: your continued use of pejorative labels directed at readers who only have a different scientific point of view than yours has resulted in your comments being held in moderation for approval. -mod)

  84. Observes dumboldguy:

    Our grandfathers had NO idea that AGW was going to be a problem, or that many of the other problems the human race faces would occur.

    Well, there’s a “stopped clock” moment for dumboldguy. In that, “Our grandfathers” proved a helluva lot smarter than these religious whackjobs pushing the CO2-demonizing “man-made climate change” fraud.

    The point that this arrogant putz is evading is that of the perennial knowledge problem. Those of statist inclinations (doubtless including dumboldguy, for only government-as-god idiots presume that the police power in civil society has some greater fund of knowledge and superior wisdom in all regards to undertake the foreclosure of individual human rights in pursuit of what they conjure to be “the greater good”) scrabble and squeal about how only THEY have the key to all that is of vital importance in the affairs of man, and the rest of us should just shut up and acquiesce.

    The “Liberal” with political power is not only just as tyrannical as any other species of authoritarian, but far more arrogant in his willful ignorance and stupidity. ‘Cause his FEELINGS

    Just as my grandfathers did not have the knowledge to anticipate the problems my generation would face in a future decades beyond their own experience, we (and I disgustedly include this dumboldguy schmuck in that “we”) don’t have the knowledge to match what our grandchildren are almost certain to acquire in the decades to come.

    And yet this arrogant boob – dumboldguy – presumes to berate sensible men and women for failing to undertake the catastrophically costly and almost certainly WORTHLESS actions this ignorant putz presumes (on the basis of no argument supported by methodologically scientific validation) to be urgently necessary.

    Hm. He doesn’t like Mr. Gordon’s lucidly reasoned article in The Wall Street Journal, and therefore dismisses it argumentum ad hominem, condemning Mr. Gordon as “…someone who has NO business talking about climate change,” when Mr. Gordon – as yet another human being whose rights to life, liberty, and property are under attack by dumboldguy and the other climate catastrophe quacks pushing the AGW fraud – has at least as much “skin in the game” as dumboldguy has.

    And is there any indication that dumboldguy – the blathering nincompoop – any academic qualifications to be “talking about climate change”?

    Not the shadow of a hint of a ghost of an intimation. And therefore to hell with him.

    The easiest way to distinguish between a critical thinker and an ideological one is this.

    When a critical thinker disagrees with you, he or she thinks you’re wrong.

    When an ideologue disagrees with you, he or she thinks you’re evil.

    — Lorrie Goldstein, “Climate of intimidation: The idea only so-called ‘experts’ can debate global warming policies is an attack on free speech,” Toronto Sun, 31 October 2015

    • In our grandfathers’ and great-grandfathers’ time we had Callendar and Arrhenius, both of whom imagined AGW and thought it would be a good thing, not a problem.

      Callendar lived long enough to admit that the frigid 1960s showed his hypothesis of AGW from 1938 to be false. Being a genuine scientist, he recognized when his guess had been falsified by Mother Nature.

      They were however right that more CO2 is indeed a good thing, but for its fertilizing effect on plants, not from any measurable warmth.

      • Gloateus Maximus discusses Arrhenius and Callendar – the latter having “… lived long enough to admit that the frigid 1960s showed his hypothesis of AGW from 1938 to be false. Being a genuine scientist, he recognized when his guess had been falsified by Mother Nature.”

        This is the essence of scientific method. To quote from Robert A. Heinlein’s first published story, “Life-Line” (1939):

        There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science. One is the scientific method; the other, the scholastic. One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority.

        Callendar’s comportment was that of a scrupulously honest scientist. Nothing in that regard can be said for dumboldguy, the arrogant idiot who “outed” himself in an earlier post trying to play pecker games against andersm0 (who claims “… a degree in chemical engineering that includes advanced thermo and fluid dynamics. Things like mass and energy balances, heat transfer, heat capacities…you know, all those areas of technical learning on which climate science depends.”) by posting something of his own CV:

        …my undergraduate degree is in Physics, my Master’s is in Biology, and I taught both for several years before going into school administration, where I supervised teachers of all sciences for 20+ years. I have more than the equivalent of another master’s in Administration, Curriculum, and Supervision, and have taken many courses in psychology, group dynamics, communication, and organization development.

        In other words, dumboldguy is a 75+-year-old government education system bureaucrat (“educrat”) who had been one of the parasites professionally responsible for the abysmal quality of STEM instruction in the taxpayer-funded politically leftist indoctrination systems masquerading as “schools” in our republic, of which has been observed: “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.” (A Nation At Risk – April 1983)

        Setting aside the plain fact that there is no validly supported factual basis for anything he holds with regard to the abject fraud that is the whole of the anthropogenic CO2 “global warming” premise, what are we supposed to think of dumboldguy the man? Is it argumentum ad hominem to observe – independent of the issues of substance he’s failing to address and the arrant idiocy of what he keeps fantastically asserting – that as a career educrat long past his sell-by date on any scientific study, training, or experience he’s ever had (vide his noise about how he’s been “…deeply interested in science since I was a child. I have been involved in environmental activism of one sort or another since before Earth Day,” [i.e., he’s a self-admitted Watermelon ‘viro; and ain’t that unsurprising?] and have read extensively in science (with emphasis on AGW) and the other fields I mentioned above, particularly during the 20+ years since I retired” meaning that he’s one-sidedly sucked up enough alarmist propaganda to have begun composting where he sits) – this guy is himself bereft of any qualifications to speak authoritatively on any aspect of scientific investigation in any discipline whatsoever?

        Oh, this is all just too rich. Scientific method – as everyone familiar with Mr. Monckton’s explanations repeatedly appearing on WUWT knows – is, above all else, an error-checking mechanism.

        For getting us the closest idea of what occurs in the phenomenal universe, how it happens and why, the rigorous application of scientific method is the single most robust approach, and nothing – most emphatically not this “Liberal” fascist retired government thug’s FEELINGS – has yet been implemented to supplant it.

        Which is why the conscientiously skeptical application of scientific method to the assertions of the “climate catastrophe” charlatans has been like hydrofluouric acid applied to any other sort of pond scum.

        What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history” — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

        — Robert A. Heinlein

      • Here we go again. Goateus misinterprets and misinforms us about what Arrhenius and Callendar said to us, but that’s irrelevant anyway since they died in 1927 and 1964. It would be interesting to hear their views if they were alive in 2015 and had seen what happened over the past 90 and 50 years regarding their theories. It is wishful thinking and even delusional to say that they would consider CO2 in 2015 to be “a good thing”. Methinks the Big Goat has been reading too much Idso.

        Not to be outdone, Tucci mutters something in agreement and quotes from Heinlein. Heinlein and Asimov were my heroes back when I was a kid, and Heinlein must be spinning in his grave over how Gushi is misusing his thoughts. There is no doubt in my mind that Heinlein would not approve of Dushi or WUWT (and that is proven by his admonition to “… shun wishful thinking, avoid divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, and care not what the neighbors think…”, all of which seem to be more important to some WUWT-er’s than “fact”. He is also deluded enough to mention Monckton, another science-ignorant charlatan who has no business commenting on AGW.

        I thought I read on another WUWT thread that we tried to not overly politicize the discussion here, but I guess Fushi didn’t get that memo. Just as he didn’t get the memo about using “pejoratives”. The rest of his comment is nothing but politics and “pejoratives”, and HE has the balls to say that I “fail to address issues of substance” when all he does is spout this kind of stuff?

        dumboldguy, the arrogant idiot
        government education system bureaucrat
        one of the parasites professionally responsible for the abysmal quality of STEM
        the taxpayer-funded politically leftist indoctrination systems masquerading as “schools”
        “Liberal” fascist retired government thug (that’s the best one—-LMAO)
        the “climate catastrophe” charlatans
        trying to play pecker games against andersm0:
        the abject fraud that is the whole of the anthropogenic CO2 “global warming” premise
        watermelon ‘viro

        I said somewhere else on WUWT that psychologists and social scientists would have a field day trying to explain what goes on here. Tucci is actually a psychologist’s wet dream—-if there are any mental health professionals out there reading his rants, I’m sure they are saying “WOW” to themselves. I certainly do.

        In closing, let me point out a few of Mushi’s logic fails. He talks of my being beyond my “sell date” on scientific study, training or experience. Does he not understand that since I have been retired I now have the time to study even MORE? Is he that stupid? I read fast, and go through two or three books a week, about 1/3 of them fiction to take the edge off the “heavy” stuff. Do you read, Lucci? Do you know what a BOOK is? Do you want a recommended reading list? Or do you get all your “science” in bits and pieces from the talking point echo chambers of the right wing (D-word pejorative deleted) blogosphere? You certainly haven’t shown any science knowledge here—what’s your CV?—where did you go to school?—what did you study? The only talent I’ve seen you display here is one for slinging demented BS (and I am now measuring you for a demented rooster suit too).

        As for reading only “alarmist propaganda”, I have also read books by many of the people that you worship (have you?) In fact, I became so incensed over what I read in books by Singer, Spencer, and Lomborg among others that I asked the librarian why they carried books that were scientifically incorrect. We had a heated debate in which she defended “free speech” and I defended science. I ended up telling her that these books belonged on the “politics and opinion” shelves and not in the science section. I later checked out a half dozen of the worst offenders and kept renewing them for 6 months. I was able to do so because NO ONE else wanted these books and put in a request for them.

        Regarding my “activism”, yes, I have been and continue to be involved, from being the faculty sponsor for the campus chapter of the Students For Environmental Action on Earth Day One to being a signatory of an anti-nuclear power letter (from UCS, I believe) that appeared as a full page ad in the Washington Post back in the 70’s—it was signed by many Nobel Prize winners—I made it on there probably because they needed to fill the page—I was listed as “educator” and was a bit embarrassed to see my name in such company. I still belong to and contribute $$$ to many “green” organizations, sign many petitions, make many public comments to government agencies, call and write my Congressman and Senators, and many of my local government folks know who I am. What do you do by way of “activism”, Nushi, besides spout BS on WUWT?

        PS If anyone is “…bereft of any qualifications to speak authoritatively on any aspect of scientific investigation in any discipline whatsoever” here, it’s not me. In my short time here, I HAVE identified some candidates that fit that description, and you’re on the top of the list..

      • By his own admission dumbo is a political extremist. And I know why he is so upset: he has no solid evidence to support the “dangerous AGW” (DAGW) scare. And like any other ‘fellow traveler’, he is all for censorship. When the librarian refused to pull the books he didn’t like, he did his own censoring.

        It’s been a long time sine we’ve had anyone as despicable as dumbo preaching here. He would be much more at home in Venezuela or Cuba. They don’t allow free speech either.

      • I said that WUWT was fertile ground for anyone wanting to observe some folks who display other-than-normal psychology. Here’s DBS to prove my point.

        “By his own admission dumbo is a political extremist” is a classic demonstration of “confirmation bias”—look it up. Nowhere did I “self admit” to being an “political extremist”. That’s what DBS WANTS to believe.

        “I know why he is so upset” is simply projection. I am not “upset” at all. Actually I’m having a weird kind of fun here.

        “he has no solid evidence to support the “dangerous AGW” (DAGW) scare. Stage one of Kubler-Ross. DBS himself doesn’t want to face the CAGW truth and is in a state of (D-word).

        “And like any other ‘fellow traveler’…” more confirmation bias.

        And it’s too bad GBS doesn’t really understand the concept of “censorship” and how it relates to free speech. No one is allowed to shout “FIRE” in a dark and crowded movie theater when there’s no fire just because he has a “right ” to do so and in his “opinion” it would be a fun thing to do—anyone who does that is breaking the law and their subsequent arrest does not constitute “censorship”.

        Considering the seriousness of the AGW threat, charlatans like Fred, Roy, and Bjorn should not be allowed to spout bad science in the science section of the library. Those books were available to anyone who wanted to put a request on them, and I would have returned them quickly if that had happened. I DID print up a little “bad science warning” insert and tucked it in each of the books when I returned them. I asked Tutti-Frucci if he read and I’ll ask GBS the same. Here are some of the books I “censored”—have you read any of them?:
        Cool It by Lomborg
        Unstoppable Global Warming by Singer
        Climate Confusion and Global Warming Blunder by Spencer
        (The preface to the paperback edition of Blunder alone is worth the read—several jaw-dropping pages of self-serving whining by Roy about how everyone picks on him)

        And “It’s been a long time since we’ve had anyone as despicable as dumbo preaching here. He would be much more at home in Venezuela or Cuba. They don’t allow free speech either”. Despicable? Venezuela or CUBA? LOL. And did you know that my mother wears combat boots?

      • The truth hurts, doesn’t it, dumbo?

        If the library wanted to censor its books, they are the ones to decide. Not you. Because what are you, besides a failed old anarchist?

      • It’s a waste of time to attempt to have an intelligent conversation with DBS. His psychological handicaps are too extreme, as he proves once again with the mindless cliche “The truth hurts, doesn’t it?”, and the moronic “failed old anarchist”. And that’s on top of his previous mention of “political extremist”, “fellow traveler”, and “Venezuela-Cuba”.

        I am concerned that if GBS keeps pulling stuff like that out of his anal orifice and posting it here, he is going to hurt himself. Preparation H will only go so far, DBS, and you are overdoing it. You can have the last words now—-if you ever want to talk with me about anything of substance, I’ll be waiting..

      • Dumbo, every label applied to you is based upon what you yourself admitted here, no more and no less. I have nothing else to go on.

        And your response (Preparation H, anal orifice) is just a bunch of insulting words that mean nothing to me. Pejoratives run off my back here; they have no more effect than a rainstorm to a duck). But that’s all you’ve got. You don’t deny those labels because they’re based on what you have already admitted.

        As a climate activist, I would prefer to discuss whatever ‘science’ you might believe. Because I don’t think you can make a case here. If you could, you would have.

        But feel free to try. I’m always willing to discuss facts and evidence.

      • From the ever-more-contemptible dumboldguy – who recapitulates from my earlier post a litany of his character traits and qualifications:

        · the arrogant idiot
        · government education system bureaucrat
        · one of the parasites professionally responsible for the abysmal quality of STEM
        the taxpayer-funded politically leftist indoctrination systems masquerading as “schools”
        · “Liberal” fascist retired government thug
        · [accessory after the fact in the fraudulence of] the “climate catastrophe” charlatans
        · trying to play pecker games against andersm0:
        · [pushing] the abject fraud that is the whole of the anthropogenic CO2 “global warming” premise
        · watermelon ‘viro

        …in a sort of parody gnothi seauton exercise – we get a welter of spew that (like we should be surprised?) skids all over its vomitous viscosity without even skipping past a few points remotely pertinent to either the particular issue at hand or the noise about putatively adverse increases in global atmospheric temperatures as the result of the anthropogenic increase in a trace gas, carbon dioxide.

        Proving that he is way the hell beyond his “sell date” on scientific study, training or experience, dumboldguy also demonstrates that if he’d ever had any instruction in formal logic or lucid reasoning, such capacities as that education had been meant to foster long ago died of disuse. F’rinstance, the frabjous idiot blathers that:

        …since I have been retired I now have the time to study even MORE…. I read fast, and go through two or three books a week.

        …failing to comprehend that it’s not what (or how much) one claims to have eyetracked but what one takes from the reading accomplished. It’s not what you read, dumboldguy, but what you can cite (always attributing quotations to permit your reader to follow for the sake of context and completeness).

        dumboldguy, have you ever written for publication in a referee’d (“peer-reviewed”) periodical? Had you defended a thesis in pursuit of your claimed Master’s degree in Biology? Or otherwise brought a monograph or research report – or heck, a review paper – through editorial challenge?

        Echo answereth not, and were we to get some claim of such work back from this ijjit, it really wouldn’t tell us anything. The habits of thought needed to meet such standards in reasoned dispute are without evidence in anything this flaming putz has posted on this Web site.

        Egad, have you ever engaged in competitive debate? In my high school National Forensic League days, I would’ve drooled over the prospect of getting a mental train wreck like you on the opposing side.

        That brief quotation from Heinlein’s “Life-Line” (1939) regarding the difference between the scientific and the scholastic – not to mention his later Get the facts! admonition – went over your echoing skull like escaping steam, for all your burble about how Heinlein had been one of “…my heroes back when I was a kid.” Not surprising that you learned nothing from reading him, thereby proving that it’s not what one reads, but what one takes away from it.

        (By the bye, Heinlein’s grave is the Pacific Ocean. He was cremated, and the remains were scattered at sea. Same for Ginny when she passed away in 2003.)

        He admits:

        Regarding my “activism”, yes, I have been and continue to be involved, from being the faculty sponsor for the campus chapter of the Students For Environmental Action on Earth Day One to being a signatory of an anti-nuclear power letter (from UCS, I believe) that appeared as a full page ad in the Washington Post back in the 70’s—it was signed by many Nobel Prize winners—I made it on there probably because they needed to fill the page—I was listed as “educator” and was a bit embarrassed to see my name in such company. I still belong to and contribute $$$ to many “green” organizations, sign many petitions, make many public comments to government agencies, call and write my Congressman and Senators, and many of my local government folks know who I am.

        Well, well. Have we any doubt that dumboldguy has long since earned himself a special place in the pantheon of leftard ‘viro whackjobbery?

        Just as an interesting aside, I was first alerted to the whole preposterous “man-made global warming” bogosity in 1981, while I was corresponding with retired engineering professor Petr Beckmann, author of The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear (1977), an analysis which makes the case for nuclear fission as the safest and most reliable category of large-scale electrical power generation systems required to sustain an industrial civilization. Dr. Beckmann sent me some clippings about AGW that he’d photocopied, and he asked me what I thought of the notion.

        On the basis of nothing more than what any other country G.P. might know of chemistry and physics, I wrote back: “I think these guys have overestimated the potential greenhouse gas effect of CO2 on the Earth’s atmosphere by at least three orders of magnitude.” I then dismissed it as yet another blunder being hyped by the ex-Journalism majors over whose drunken bodies I’d had to step on Sunday mornings, getting out of the dormitory to tend my projects in the science building.

        Beckmann’s Health Hazards is yet another book dumboldguy shows no indication of having read. But would it do this head-wedged schmuck any good if he had?

        Even more damning, we get from this arrogant ignoramus his prideful squeal:

        I became so incensed over what I read in books by Singer, Spencer, and Lomborg among others that I asked the librarian why they carried books that were scientifically incorrect. We had a heated debate in which she defended “free speech” and I defended science. I ended up telling her that these books belonged on the “politics and opinion” shelves and not in the science section. I later checked out a half dozen of the worst offenders and kept renewing them for 6 months.

        Ah, the voice of the Caliph Omar in that apocryphal account of how the Library of Alexandria came to its final immolation (“If these agree with the One Book, they are unnecessary. If they are contrary to the One Book, they are harmful. In either case therefore, let them be burned.”)

        The religious impulse in the fanatic Watermelon. How “Liberal.” Indeed, how fascist.

        Modern liberalism is best understood as a movement of would-be believers in search of true faith. For much of the 20th century it was faith in History, especially in its Marxist interpretation. Now it’s faith in the environment. Each is a comprehensive belief system, an instruction sheet on how to live, eat and reproduce, a story of how man fell and how he might be redeemed, a tale of impending crisis that’s also a moral crucible.

        In short, a religion without God. I sometimes wonder whether the journalists now writing about the failure of the one-child policy [in Communist China] ever note the similarities with today’s climate “crisis.” That the fears are largely the same. And the political prescriptions are almost identical. And the leaders of the movement are cut from the same cloth. And the confidence with which the alarmists prescribe radical cures, their intolerance for dissenting views, their insistence on “global solutions,” their disdain for democratic input or technological adaptations — that everything is just as it was when bell-bottoms were in vogue.

        — Bret Stephens, “The Tyranny of a Big Idea” The Wall Street Journal (2 November 2015)

      • dumboldguy
        November 10, 2015 at 9:05 am

        How exactly do you imagine that I misinformed anyone about Arrhenius and Callendar? And how does there being dead make them irrelevant?

        Please state how you suppose I misinformed. Did both scientists not regard putative AGW as beneficial? Did Callendar not consider his hypothesis falsified by the extreme winters of the early 1960s?

        I didn’t even bother to mention how Arrhenius got the GHE wrong.

      • GM,

        Yes, I’d thought of some of those replies, too. Arrhenius recanted his earlier estimates of the sensitivity number. Now even the IPCC’s low end guestimate is pretty close to Arrhenius’ final calculation.

        But dumb-old isn’t interested in discussing science. He’s a political activist, that’s all.

  85. It’s been quite a while since we’ve seen such a seriously delusional, hopelessly brainwashed troll like Dumbo come here to spout off what he thinks he “knows” about climate. No amount of reason or rational discussion can get through such a thick layer of Warmist ideology. It is at times amusing, always fascinating, and sad to see. By now, I imagine he has scuttled back to his favorite Warmist echo-chambers like Pseudo- Science and Climate Cluck Every Week, to lick his wounds and re-arm himself with more Alarmist tripe. Because, who knows, if he stuck around here, he might actually learn something.

    • Yes, I can imagine the intervals between visits to WUWT by “people like me” are quite long. If my experience on this thread is any indication, coming to WUWT can be compared to following the white rabbit and Alice into Wonderland, and is decidedly unpleasant for normal people

      Let me introduce you to a character I’ve invented to describe people like you and many of the others I’ve met here. He is the “demented rooster who struts blindly around the barnyard crowing about his imagined intellectual superiority and his imagined victories in argument”. I am measuring you for your rooster suit right now. You have your choice of colors—-white, red, or black, and on the front will be embroidered “I Am A Dunning-Kruger Sufferer”.

      The reason for awarding you a demented rooster suit is your maundering about “It’s been quite a while since we’ve seen such a seriously delusional, hopelessly brainwashed troll like Dumbo come here to spout off…”, and “…No amount of reason or rational discussion can get through such a thick layer of Warmist ideology. It is at times amusing, always fascinating, and sad to see”, and “…he has scuttled back to his favorite Warmist echo-chambers like Pseudo- Science and Climate Cluck Every Week, to lick his wounds and re-arm himself with more Alarmist tripe”.

      I have listed out some of my background in a reply to andersmO earlier today on this thread—go look at it. I know what I know about climate, and am waiting to hear from you what YOU know. If I stick around, will I learn something from you other than how to be a good “demented rooster? So far, you have said nothing of substance, and have just smugly patted yourself on the back because you think you’re so clever with the slick ad hominem-type BS. As the little old lady said at Wendys, “Where’s the beef”?

  86. Reminds me of the premise of the book entitled “Disinformation” written by Lt. Gen Ion Mihai Pacepa with Prof. Ronald J. Rychlak.

    I would be curious what the actual vehicle for suit would be. Do you suppose that the “rise in sea level” would fly for a lawsuit?

  87. TO THE MODERATOR:
    It has been a most interesting 48 hours since I subscribed to WUWT. I had visited before to look at specific posts, but never stayed around long or commented before. I was surprised when some of my comments got moderated almost immediately, to wit:

    dumboldguy Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    November 8, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    I now have a couple of comments “awaiting moderation”. Apparently if one doesn’t toe the company line on WUWT, one can be “moderated” into silence. Pretty good—I’ve only been a subscriber for a few hours and I’m being “eliminated”? The Gestapo and the KGB didn’t work that fast.

    In response to that message and the two that were moderated, the following was posted:

    [REPLY: Please stop calling people here ‘deniers’, or anything similar. Thanks. ~mod.]

    (Reply: you are new here, so we would like to point out that labeling those who simply have a different scientific point of view than yours as “deniers”, “denialists”, and similar pejoratives, is not allowed on this site. Future posts containing those insults will be deleted. -mod)

    (Reply: your continued use of pejorative labels directed at readers who only have a different scientific point of view than yours has resulted in your comments being held in moderation for approval. -mod)

    Having a fairly decent acquaintance with the English language, both spoken and written, I was a bit taken aback by these three replies from the moderator. I am getting old, but I’m not senile yet. So, I went to an on-line dictionary and found this definition:

    “Adjective: pejorative—-expressing contempt or disapproval. SYNONYMS: disparaging, deprecatory, defamatory, abusive, insulting; Noun: pejorative—-a word expressing contempt or disapproval.”

    Then I looked at some of the comments made in response to mine and found:

    (from Tucci78)
    these religious whackjobs pushing the CO2-demonizing “man-made climate change” fraud.
    dumboldguy schmuck
    arrogant boob – dumboldguy –
    this ignorant putz
    dumboldguy – the blathering nincompoop
    climate catastrophe quacks pushing the AGW fraud
    Obozo and his fellow National Socialists
    the validity of what is claimed by the hysterical (and duplicitous) AGW alarmists is non-existent

    (from Bruce Cobb)
    seriously delusional, hopelessly brainwashed troll like Dumbo

    To say nothing of the constant use of “warmist”, “alarmists”, and similar “pejoratives” by many commenters.

    If these comments from Tucci and Bruce are not “pejorative”, the moderator and I inhabit different planets. So, while I was there, I looked up another definition.

    “Noun: Hypocrisy—the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform.
    SYNONYMS: posturing, empty talk, insincerity, falseness, sanctimoniousness”

    I fail to see how people who are so damned sure of their BELIEFS about AGW can be so highly insulted by the “D” word that they collapse into blubbering, insanity-sputtering heaps like Tucci every time it’s uttered. I also fail to see how a site that claims as high a position in the world as WUWT can be so hypocritical. If you and the folks who worship you are right, Anthony, you should be able to deal with the “D” word honestly. Man up!

    I would like to do so, and have some more definitions I’d like to share with the group, but don’t dare do so in this comment. I would hate to be “disappeared” so early in my WUWT career. BTW, if I should be “disappeared”, all will know it happened—-I intend to stick around for a while and if I do decide to stop subscribing to WUWT, I will announce that fact in my final comment.

    • Whines dumboldguy:

      Then I looked at some of the comments made in response to mine and found:

      (from Tucci78)
      · these religious whackjobs pushing the CO2-demonizing “man-made climate change” fraud.
      · dumboldguy schmuck
      · arrogant boob – dumboldguy –
      · this ignorant putz
      · dumboldguy – the blathering nincompoop
      · climate catastrophe quacks pushing the AGW fraud
      · Obozo and his fellow National Socialists
      · the validity of what is claimed by the hysterical (and duplicitous) AGW alarmists is non-existent…

      …as the application of rigorous scientific method – an error-checking mechanism the “climate consensus” is yet continuing to evade – keeps proving.

      My remarks in assessment of dumboldguy himself are not “pejorative” so much as diagnostic, serving as they do to point out this dumboldguy ‘viro’s characteristics of comportment in an online forum such as this one. I just deal with the pathology as it presents, no?

      As for my assessments of our Indonesian-in-Chief and his correspondents in felony malfeasance, well…. One must wipe the “Liberal” fascist ideology out of ones metaphorical eyes to gain an accurate appreciation of just how viciously these goons have acted to the concerted and unremitting violation of individual human rights in general and to the detriment of our republic in particular, mustn’t one? This dumboldguy – by admitted personal history and present blathering – is not likely to do. He’s got his head wedged all the way up there, hasn’t he?

      How else can dumboldguy‘s “environmentalist” Watermelon politics (“green on the outside, but red to the core!“) be explained – without assuming him to be either criminal or nihilist in his desires?

      It’s only charitable to classify this hapless bozo as a “religious whackjob,” thereby ceding the possibility that his intentions – no matter how harrowingly horrible, indefensibly unsupported, fatuously stupid, and reekingly contemptible – are driven by some sick and twisted contrafactual vision of a “greater good” on the same plane of ineffability as Huitzilopochtli and Urcuchillay.

      Y’know. Just like those Dominican Order stalwarts of the Inquisition who had been driven to censor and torture and kill for the “good” of men’s souls.

      How “scientific.” How dumboldguy.

      School teachers, taking them by and large, are probably the most ignorant and stupid class of men in the whole group of mental workers.

      — H.L. Mencken

  88. Posted a comment about being moderated TO THE MODERATOR at 5:34. It is “awaiting moderation”. Don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    [when you use the word MODERATOR, it flags the comment to be held for attention. You certainly are living up to your name. -mod]

    • I “am certainly living up to my name” says the M-word? Another pejorative appears on WUWT, and delivered by the person who lectures us about them. Hypocrisy much? I think I’ll laugh now (and begin measuring the M-word for his demented rooster suit).

  89. So, the CAI is supposed to be a “climate activist shadow organization” (ooooh, spooky!), yet you’ve manage to expose the conspiracy by…downloading their publicly available workshop report from their publicly accessible website? And you’ve managed to reveal the membership of this sinister cabal because…they included a group photo, complete with names in the caption, in said public report?

    I think you might be misreading the scene. Have you considered the possibility that you’re a paranoid nutcase?

    • Right. Commenter “Mark” might also want to stop and consider that the original RICO 20 letter to President Obama was also on a publicly accessible website …. until it was scrubbed out of existence there. Meanwhile, this CAI workshop was – in their own words – “conceived by Naomi Oreskes”. I would politely suggest that she is an individual who doesn’t exactly exercise good judgement on when to keep her mouth shut ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AMS-Archivist.jpg ) in other public places. A woman, it should also be noted, who has not yet provided the public with a shred of evidence proving skeptic climate scientists operate under industry instructions to lie in a pay-for-performance arrangement with them.

      So, if I may also politely suggest it, commenter “Mark” might want to re-examine whether the collective efforts behind the push to accuse skeptic climate scientists, WUWT, etc as being industry crooks isn’t itself a politically-driven enslavement to paranoid nutcase conspiracy theory hardly better than what’s pushed by 911Truthers and ChemTrail believers.

  90. And why does this new “dumb old guy” commenter suddenly bless us with his presence here? To quote from his ClimateCrocks comment Nov 12 ( http://climatecrocks.com/2015/11/10/richard-alley-why-climate-scientists-arent-conspiring-to-fool-you/comment-page-1/#comment-77965 ): “I went over to WUWT to check out a link that the lying POS denier Russell Cook posted here, and was appalled by what I saw there. I engaged some of the morons in discussion and was banned after only 4 days and 15 or 20 comments. Anthony Watts has a VERY thin skin.”

    He was speaking of another ClimateCrocks blog post where I had linked to this WUWT Shub Niggurath guest post. “Dumb old guy” is a most amusing fellow – ask him to provide evidence proving there is a parallel between ‘fossil fuel industry tactics’ and ‘tobacco industry tactics’ and he will hurl the same kind of name calling he’s done here, but he never can deliver on the basic level challenge. https://www.google.com/#q=%22russell+cook%22+dumboldguy+site:climatecrocks.com

Comments are closed.