Editor, Times-Dispatch, Richmaond, VA
Napoleon Bonaparte’s quote, “In politics stupidity is not a handicap,” survives since politicians continue to validate the observation.
On March 29, New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Al Gore and other states’ attorneys general announced a legal process claiming to combat climate change.
Schneiderman wrote: “Our offices are seriously examining the potential of working together on high-impact, state-level initiatives . . . whether fossil fuel companies have misled investors about how climate change impacts their investments and business decisions.”
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring stated: “Hampton Roads is the second most vulnerable area in the entire country as climate change drives continued sea-level rise.”
Behind these claims is the unsubstantiated assertion global climate change is driven primarily by manmade CO2, and that there is a magic CO2 knob to set climate to a Utopian level. The fact is atmospheric water vapor drives about 90 percent of the greenhouse gas effect. Scientists cannot differentiate natural from manmade climate change.
Schneiderman insults the intelligence of investors by suggesting they are unaware that climate change is the norm for all of geological time. Climate change reality was the impetus for commodity futures hedging by providing financial cushions for unexpected crop failures.
Herring’s claims disregard sea-level expert Dr. J. Boon of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, who has concluded: “The good news is that absolute sea level in Chesapeake Bay is rising only about half as fast as the global average rise rate. The bad news is that local subsidence more than makes up for it.” Hampton Roads is sinking irrespective of climate change.
While supporting plans to lower CO2 emissions, Herring neglects the CO2 emitted by Virginia’s beer and wine industries.
Recently in the New York Times, a report by Seth Borenstein was titled, “We all lie, scientists say, but politicians even more so.” Whether it’s lying or stupidity, we suffer under the current ruling class.
Charles G. Battig.
Charlottesville, VA
“Hampton Roads is sinking irrespective of climate change.” No no it is all CO2 evil! ;(
Warmist are the newest incarnation of the Mafia, silk suits and all!
So who drove up insurance rates based on the “new normal” of atlantic hurricane activity due to global warming/climate change? Who lied there and hid all of the uncertainies? When are those officials going to be prosecuted?
Rates went up because of two really bad hurricane years in a row in 2004 and 2005.
Insurance rates are based on an evaluation of risk and cost, and costs had increased dramatically when insurable losses skyrocketed.
Besides, proposed changes in insurance rates must be approved by regulators, and they were, so the insurers have complete cover.
Not saying that the scientists did anyone any favors by immediately declaring the amounts and severity of the storms during those two outlier years to be the new normal.
I am still not over what Judith Curry did to Dr. Grey, although at least she has since made some attempts at making amends for past wrongs committed. It is also worth noting she has had little company amongst her peers in doing so, so her willingness to change her mind is doubly to her credit.
But back to insurance rates, the only thing insurers have to go on is risk based on past losses, and those past losses became much larger all of a sudden-like. No one knows how many or how few storms there will be in the future, or how severe they may be, or where they will hit.
But the fact that all of the damaged areas were built up bigger and more expensively than ever as quickly as possible, and that coastal building has exploded in recent years, means that insurers still have to face the prospects of daunting losses.
And on top of everything else, the cost of homes and real estate in general has skyrocketed since that time…after a dip during the downturn, prices are now higher than ever in most areas.
And it may well be that the law of averages will mean that over the coming years and decades, we will see more storms and more damage than most people alive have ever witnessed. In fact, with la nina conditions predicted by sometime this summer, I would almost bet that a lot of people are going to have a bad year somewhere or other. I plan to buy a new garage door and a whole house generator before August, when the tropics typically begin to ramp up if they are going to.
Fingers crossed.
Hey, as an aside…if you think insurance companies are cleaning up, do what I did when fuel and materials went through the roof…buy stock in those companies. It may be the wrong year to buy an insurance company though.
Yeah, that sounds pretty serious to me! Think of all those poor people paying outrageous rates for nothing!
The insurance companies say: “Never mind.”
“While supporting plans to lower CO2 emissions, Herring neglects the CO2 emitted by Virginia’s beer and wine industries.”
It’s a great post and makes some very important points but for the sake of accuracy, we should make a distinction between surface emissions and fossil fuel emissions because AGW is a theory that fossil fuel emissions have introduced an “extraneous” source of carbon that was deep below the ground and sequestered from the surface-atmosphere carbon cycle. this argument cannot be applied to the current account of the carbon cycle such as emissions from beer and wine fermentation and those from burning wood. or even to the man-made forest fires in indonesia because these are purely surface phenomena.
but of course i very strongly agree with his statement that the alleged relationship between fossil fuel emissions and climate change presented by climate science is spurious.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743
Leaving aside the particulars of where and by how much sea level is rising, or how much more or less the climate is changing in recent years than versus the historical norm, the headline question is a very important one: Are these people and other of their ilk lying or simply mistaken in their beliefs re CAGW?
Yet another important question is how the hell these people think that, whatever the actual case may be, people who hold differing opinions on a scientific question are somehow committing a crime?
No matter how you slice it, this is some f*cked up sh*t.
Menicholas wrote: “Yet another important question is how the hell these people think that, whatever the actual case may be, people who hold differing opinions on a scientific question are somehow committing a crime?”
Well, some of them, are true believers, who are convinced that the home planet and everyone living on it is in imminent danger from CO2 unless we do something immediately and they see those who disagree with this theory as obstructionists, and in this case their obstructionism will lead to countless human deaths in the near future. It scares them so bad they want to throw dissenters in jail.
I can see how they can be caught up in the CAGW scam. They have NASA and NOAA telling them so. NASA and NOAA wouldn’t lie. Especially about something as important as this. So who are these skeptics that are attacking the good folks at NASA and NOAA who are only doing their job and trying to save the Earth and the children.
I think that is how a sincere but uninformed/deluded person would look at it.
The non-True Believers, the ones who know it is a scam or don’t care, just use the CAGW scam as a way to forward their political or personal agenda, at the expense of the people living on this planet.
I just really found out what Forrest Gump really meant when he kept saying ” Stupid is as stupid does”
These guys actually do “stupid does”…
I propose the creation of a new logical test, in the similar vein to Occam’s Razor. It is:
The di Caprio – Baldwin Razor: It’s defines the likelihood of a given view of a topic being correct as the inverse of the number of celebrities such Leonardo di Caprio and Alec Baldwin agreeing with it.
Trick question?
The legal action proposed appears to arise from a sense of frustration among some people that , despite numerous international conferences , thousands of papers , the pleading of celebrated scientists and even more celebrated theatrical performers , over more than 30 years , nothing much seems to have happened.
That is revealing.
I remember how , during the period of atmospheric bomb tests in the 50s worry grew about a rise in radioactive fallout. It led in just a few years to a ban on atmospheric tests, directed by agreement between the 2 main global powers , USA and USSR who had no great love for each other to put it mildly.
Similarly the scare about ozone depletion , whether or not justified in retrospect , led very quickly to a global ban on the use and manufacture of certain halogenated hydrocarbons (except in China) .
The fact that despite all the well orchestrated hysteria about climate change the people of the world and their leaders have only slowly introduced changes in the use of fossil fuels shows how little we all really believe in the dangers from the use of these materials , compared to the problems that result from banning them.
When there is a real perceived problem the world reacts quite quickly.
When there is no real perceived problem the world does not and that must infuriate some fanatics.
Tough.
People do not need nuclear tests to survive.
People can easily find substitutes for chloroflourocarbons…hell a pump sprayer bottle of Nice-N-Easy holds my hair in place just as well as an aerosol can of it does, and the air conditioner people made out quite well indeed on the transitions to other refrigerants…they laughed all the way to the bank and it is no surprise they were on board.
But when you talk about fossil fuels and CO2, you are talking about the lifeblood of the entire world economy and the prosperity of every human on the planet, and about the molecule that, along with water, makes life itself possible.
So that those comparisons fall flat…there is absolutely no equivalence.
Mods., I posted two comments last night, including a reply here, that seemed to have disappeared as soon as I hit the send button. Anything stuck in moderation?
Thanks!
You have made one point very clearly. Bloggers lie too, as does anyone who remains steadfastly ignorant of vast scientific community concurrence that global warming IS real and IS caused by CO2 emissions and IS being corraborated by ever more observable FACTS. Citing localized sea level changes affected by subsidence must be your new pet red herring. However it ignores the much more pervasive effects and growing theat of documented global ocean warming.
Wow! Seems likely this will get lost among the tangentials, but that fits too. Idle conversation in the kitchen while your house is burning down.
I hear lots of ranting and raging, but you did not provide even one proven FACT !
Lpalmer is completely wrong that there is any evidence of an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.
I am at work though and will not have time to refute this posted comment until later.
L Palmer commented: “… vast scientific community concurrence that global warming IS real and IS caused by CO2 emissions and IS being corraborated by ever more observable FACTS. …”
Concurrence is not proof. Name one “observable fact”.
@markl
“Concurrence is not proof.”
Of course not. The words “concurrence” and “proof” have different meanings. The concurrence is on the body of evidence, which is not proof, per se. “Proof” is difficult to establish in natural science, which is normally about estimates of uncertainty or confidence intervals. Even when scientists are quite sure of something, they couch it carefully in terms of confidence.
“Name one “observable fact”.”
You want facts? I can give you several Theories, which is a science word for a hypothesis about which there is strong agreement, like plate tectonics, evolution, or general relativity. Since some uncertainty is inevitable, strong theories are the best one can do.
CO2 concentration is now at 400 ppm (measured accurately) vs. 280 ppm, the value at several interglacial peaks (reconstructed with ice cores) over 700,000 years or more. Not proof, but strong theory. The recent difference, 120 ppm (a 40% increase from the interglacial values), is man made. Also strong theory.
CO2 causes warming via the greenhouse effect, which is based on old and accepted physics. Other gases and various feedbacks such as the water vapor feedback (a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2) are a part of the greenhouse effect. Strong theory.
The earth would be around 33C colder now (an ice ball) if it were not for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Strong theory. Proof that the greenhouse effect works.
The surface temperature record shows that the temperature anomaly now is about 1.2 C above the 20th century average, and it is rising steeply now. Surface temperatures are more accurate than satellite temperatures. Strong theory.
Calculations with many climate models show that natural effects alone cannot explain the global warming that has occurred, but natural plus human effects can. There is a strong consensus among scientists that this is true with 95%confidence. Check this 26 minute video from the National Academies of Science, “Climate Change: Lines of Evidence.”
See also this news article based on the IPCC AR5 reports that explains the relative contributions of various human and other factors.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans
Peter Smith commented:
“The words “concurrence” and “proof” have different meanings. The concurrence is on the body of evidence, which is not proof, per se.
Correct, what’s your “evidence”?
“You want facts? I can give you several Theories….”
Theories are not facts by definition.
“CO2 concentration…Strong theory.”
Just as I thought, you have no empirical evidence that CAGW will be caused by using fossil fuels. Historical climate records and reconstruction prove the current climate is all part of natural variability…..that’s proof/evidence/fact.
“The surface temperature record shows that the temperature anomaly now is about 1.2 C above the 20th century average, and it is rising steeply now.”
Not true, just repeating misinformation like that doesn’t make it true. No statistical rise in global temperature for the last twenty years. In fact there’s a discernible drop from norm. You can’t ignore it.
“Calculations with many climate models .”
The models have consistently proven to be inaccurate yet you cling to them. Why?
When it comes to “climate change”, the primary thing to remember is that all of the argument concerns MATHEMATICAL MODELS, which are of only limited utility. All of the argument concerns how closely we expect the models to follow actual conditions in the future.
The problem is that the models don’t do a particularly good job of predicting the future. We keep discovering that there is some factor or another that wasn’t included in the model, and which turns out to have been important, and THAT’S why the model didn’t “work”. The main fact is that none of the current models can “predict” the current conditions when programmed with historical data.
It doesn’t help the cause any when the proponents of “anthropogenic climate change” are hiding their source data and then lying about it. And then when the raw data turns out not to support their theories, they jump on to some different theory.
“Just as I thought, you have no empirical evidence”
I laid it out for you, step by step, in my previous post. Since you made no comment on any of my scientific points or either of the two videos, I assume that you either did not read / watch them or you did not understand them. If you choose to ignore the information I give you, that is your business, but don’t make false claims about me.
“Theories are not facts by definition.”
I already explained to you the science terminology of “theory” vs. “fact.” In science, theory is a strong consensus on a hypothesis, confirmed by evidence, with no substantial arguments against it. If you chose to ignore science terminology, that is your business, and I can’t help you. Your previous post was also based on inaccurate language, as I tried to explain, but it fell on deaf ears.
Before you get started on it again, I am well aware of the anti-science argument that works as follows:
“You have no empirical evidence”
“Models are wrong. They are unacceptable as evidence.”
and then, since models are disallowed,
“Correlations do not prove anything. There could be other causes.”
“Since no models and no correlations are allowed, no evidence is acceptable.”
The fact is that the body of evidence is very strong in several self-consistent areas. Models are used in all science. What you are missing completely is a rigorous assessment of uncertainty. Without that, your argument basically says that all science is wrong, which is ridiculous.
The bottom line is, you are only mincing words. You have no scientific argument, and I gather you never will have one. End of discussion for me.
Peter Smith commented : “…. End of discussion for me….”
There was a discussion? LOL
Peter Smith says:
I can give you several Theories, which is a science word for a hypothesis about which there is strong agreement, like plate tectonics, evolution, or general relativity.
You misunderstand what a theory is. Your definition makes it a consensus (“strong agreement”).
There is a hierarchy in science: Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law.
They all have one thing in common: they must be capable of making repeated, accurate predictions. If they can’t repeatedly and accurately predict, then that (conjecture, or hypothesis, theory, etc.) must be discarded; it was falsified by its failure to accurately predict.
That requirement doesn’t mean a ‘theory’ is valid, it only means it is not summarily rejected because of its inability to make accurate, repeated predictions.
Being capable of making repeated, accurate predictions is essential. But it isn’t enough. ‘Epicycles’ was a widely accepted theory that worked. It explained the retrograde motion of the planets. Very accurately, too. But Kepler falsified the theory of epicycles.
The so-called ‘theory’ that CO2=cAGW is really only a conjecture, and a shaky one at that. It cannot accurately predict. No one was able to predict the most significant global temperature event of the past century; the fact that global warming stopped for almost 20 years, while CO2 continued to steadily rise.
AGW may well exist. But if so, it is simply too minuscule to measure; there are no verified, empirical, testable measurements that quantify AGW. Therefore, AGW is a non-problem. It is too small to matter, because it is too small to measure.
@dbstealey
“There is a hierarchy in science: Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law. ”
Not at all. Laws are simple relationships, like Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. Theories are more complex and often encompass Laws. The Theory of General Relativity encompasses and supersedes Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation and is much more powerful, predicting all manner of things for which Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation fails. You may appreciate this (or not):
“Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated.”
“… it is simply too minuscule to measure; there are no verified, empirical, testable measurements that quantify AGW.”
AGW is a complicated theory, not a Law. It cannot be proven or disproved by a simple measurement. It is the body of evidence that counts, not a measurement. I posted a video, “Climate Change: Lines of Evidence” in another post. Play it. Your empty assertions do not discredit the evidence.
Also, on the question of “miniscule”, if you think that 2 C is miniscule, consider this. It is not a few balmy days we are talking about. It is the fact that the earth and its climate are not uniform. It is extreme conditions of all kinds that arise from small changes in the global average temperature.
Over 10,000 climate scientists, nearly 200 science societies world wide, and 195 countries think that AGW is significant, it will be much more significant by the end of this century, and we must reduce CO2 emissions. So, basically, it is the world against you.
Peter Smith says:
End of discussion for me.
Then I guess there must be two Peter Smiths. They’re both wrong, so I’ll treat them as the same.
Smith says:
AGW is a complicated theory, not a Law.
Ho-hum. Wrong. AGW is only a conjecture. It cannot make accurate predictions, therefore it is a failed conjecture. And there’s nothing complicated about it. Your problem is that you cannot produce any verifiable, empirical, testable measurements quantifying AGW. But don’t feel bad, no one else can, either.
Next:
…if you think that 2 C is miniscule…
Pure deflection. The ‘minuscule’ refers to the effect of human CO2 emissions.
And:
Over 10,000 climate scientists…&etc.
I doubt if there are 10,000 climate scientists on the planet. If there are, do you have a roster, with CV’s?
No? I didn’t think so. You were just winging it, and got caught.
However, there are more than 30,000 professionals, all with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s, who say that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. That Trumps your imaginary “10,000 climate scientists”.
And unlike your imaginary number, I can name all 31,000.
Finally, you end with the old ‘appeal to corrupted authorities’ fallacy, and follow it with a non sequitur:
“we must reduce CO2 emissions.”
Why? You cannot produce a single example of any global damage, or harm, caused by the rise in CO2. But I can produce solid evidence showing that more CO2 is beneficial. CO2 is “harmless” (QED), and it is beneficial. Thus, your argument fails.
@dbsdtealey
You said:
“However, there are more than 30,000 professionals, all with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s, who say that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. That Trumps your imaginary “10,000 climate scientists”.
And unlike your imaginary number, I can name all 31,000.”
To which I respond:
LOL. The Oregon Petition Project is possibly the most dishonest “poll” ever conducted. First, the only requirement to respond was a BS. No expertise in climate science was needed or wanted. The were only 39 Climate scientists out of 31,487 signatories. Second, climate science skeptics / deniers were self-selected as the only ones who *could* respond. There was no place to voice a pro-AGW opinion. Look at the Petition Project web site to see how it is worded. It is disgraceful.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
They could have obtained a million signatures by this obviously biased method, and it would still have been meaningless.
See also this article debunking the Oregon Petition. Unfortunately it does not address the self-selection issue, which is the most important nail in its coffin.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-basic.htm
There is also this, a 2016 paper “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming” by 16 authors. This is a journal article that reinforces all of the prior scientifically-conducted consensus estimates and refutes Tol’s arguments against them.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Yes, yes, I know. Your next step will be to refer to attempted debunking of Cook’s 2013 paper. There is not one such attempt that does not rely in elementary errors in arithmetic or logic. Don’t bother. I have seen them all.
You quibble about the number 10,000 (which I think is about correct), but it doesn’t really matter what the number is. I don’t care. You fail to address the main part of my argument, which is that virtually all science societies and countries in the world support AGW and think it is a problem that needs to be solved, per COP21. You are merely deflecting and twisting words.
Peter Smith,
Of course you would deflect to your baseless assertions regarding the OISM co-signers. Thanx for your opinion, but in fact, every co-signer was vetted. They had to have a degree in the hard sciences. You avoided that, because your bogus “10,000 climatologists” don’t exist. Not even close. (Name a thousand — if you can).
I challenge you to post the names of even ten percent of the OISM co-signers’ numbers, who contradict or dispute the OISM statement.
Of course, you’ll fail that challenge. So I’ll make it ten times easier: post the names of only one percent of the OISM numbers; scientists and/or engineers who have contradicted the OISM statement. They don’t have to be climatologists, because there aren’t that many climatologists in the entire world. Anyone with a degree in the hard sciences will do.
So, can you name them? If so, I concede. If not, you lose. And since you’re getting your misinformation from ‘skepticalscience’, there’s no way you can win based on honest science.
Next, I don’t have to debunk Cook, he’s done it to himself. Peer reviewed papers have been published debunking his ridiculous “97%” claim, and those papers have never been refuted. That’s good enough for me, and you’ll understand why I don’t read any links from that neo-Nazi’s blog.
Finally, all the alarmist cult has is their constant ‘appeal to corrupt authorities’ logical fallacies. That fallacy works on weak minds; on people who don’t think for themselves. It’s just another form of the ‘scientific consensus’ fallacy. I’ve shown that the true ‘consensus’, for whatever that’s worth in science (nothing), is heavily on the side of skeptics of the “dangerous man-made global warming” scare. If I’m wrong, you will have no problem posting more than 31,000 names. If you can, you’ve got the consensus on your side.
So you have your challenge: post the names of more than 310 scientists (1% of 31,000) who contradict what the OISM statement says.
I don’t think you can do it. Prove me wrong.
You are repeating yourself. Vetted? LOL. The only vetting was the ability of the signatories to check a box. Regardless of that utterly irrelevant point, you can’t deny that this set of signers was culled, by the wording of the petition, to consist only of “skeptics.” The list of them is, by definition, a list of 31,000 skeptics. That proves nothing. Turn it around, and you could just as easily come up with a list of 31,000 “warmists.” That list would be equally meaningless. You have nothing to offer. Give it up.
“So you have your challenge: post the names of more than 310 scientists (1% of 31,000) who contradict what the OISM statement says.
I don’t think you can do it. Prove me wrong.”
LOL! Why would anybody be interested in doing that? I have an idea: why don’t you do it? Then you could submit a paper to Nature Climate offering a proof that there are 100 times as many skeptics as there are warmists. You
Peter Smith failed my challenge by tucking tail and running from it. He got so flustered he couldn’t even finish a thought! ☺
I have to LOL at the impotent raving of someone who doesn’t have any credible facts to support his assertions. Yes, the 31,000+ co-signers were vetted, every one of them, and they had to voluntarily download the OISM statement, sign it, affix postage, and mail it in — no emails accepted.
More than 31,000 scientists had to go out of their way to express their opinion. How does that compare with the un-named, mythical “consensus” that Smith hangs his hat on? Smith can’t even name 300 scientists who dispute the OISM statement.
Every claim by the alarmist crowd has been so thoroughly debunked that all they have left are baseless assertions; opinions that don’t hold water.
Skeptics of the falsified “dangerous AGW” narrative have won every argument, based on verified observations, and on the failure of the alarmist cult to produce any credible measurements quantifying AGW.
Finally: alarmists are not scientific skeptics. Not one of them has any skepticism. They all insist that everyone should believe their talking points, and they get upset when skeptics question them.
Tough noogies. Either you go by the rules of the Scientific Method, or you don’t. Complaining that people are skeptical of your conjecture is a waste of time.
You have made one point very clearly. Posters lie too, as does anyone who remains steadfastly ignorant of vast scientific community concurrence that localized subsidence IS real and IS NOT caused by CO2 emissions and IS being corraborated by ever more observable FACTS.
Sea levels have been rising for 22,000 yrs. Land masses have gone up, down, or stayed the same, depending on location. These need to be taken into account when discussing and quantifying sea level rise.
You seem not to be aware of this, nor do you seem to know what a red herring is. So what subjects do they teach you at Troll University?
“Idle conversation while your house is burning down….”
My house seems to be just fine … leave me and my house alone.
It seems as though you want me to take the garden hose into the house and soak everything, so as avoid the possibility of flare-ups in the immediate future … and if I don’t then you or your friends will do it for me.
Temperatures rising 0.7C over the last 150 years, is the equivalent to your house burning down?????
PS: Most scientists agree that at least half of that warming is caused by things not known as CO2.
L Palmer
Wow. About time somebody showed up here who obviously knows everything.
Please give us some testable (you know, with “real” Mother Nature type data) predictions so that those of us blinded by your brilliance can actually measure & track these “observable FACTS” (i.e.: exactly when do I need to sell my beachfront property?).
PS: We promise not to ask philosophical questions like:
1) Why can’t you guys ever get the data “right”, even after n-number of revisions?
2) Why isn’t it OK for the world to warm up a little bit after the last little ice age?
3) Why don’t your grad student’s models ever get more accurate?
4) If CO2 really is the primary predictor of earth temp increases, why don’t your grad student’s models do a better job of forecasting?
5) When you guys change/revise/clean/homogenize temp data without changing CO2 data, what does that do to CO2 sensitivity in grad student models?
6) What happened to the guy who claimed polar bears are endangered when real experts say there are twice as many as there were in 1950? Did he get tenure yet?
7) What’s the status of the Jagadish Shula climate audit at George Mason U? This guy isn’t stealing from us taxpayers, is he?
Basically this amounts to a secular Inquisition. “Anybody who disagrees with us is a lying heretic, and should be punished.” The punishment – forfeiture of freedom of speech – is totally autocratic and medieval.
Again: “The difference between Progressivism and Tyranny is Marketing.”
And in the spirit of the Catholic Inquisition…I wondering when someone will suggest that the only suitable punishment for the climate change deniers is burning at the stake?
Seriously speaking…did anyone ever envision a day, when challenging the climate change trope would lead to demands that deniers be imprisoned?
“Are these politicians lying or just stupid?”
They’re lying AND they’re stupid.
Most of the leaders of the global warming movement are rich and getting richer. Some are very rich. I can’t think of a single “poor” leader of AGW. I don’t think that stupid people can achieve this.
Personally, I think lawsuits against the oil and gas industries would be a good thing. The defendants would have broad subpoena and discovery powers, they could cross examine the states’ expert witnesses, they could subpoena the alarmist scientists and put them under oath, etc. Truth would out. The trouble with the M. Mann vs. M. Steyn case is that Mann was able to stall the process. But a high profile, high stakes State of New York vs Exxon type case would be more visible and Exxon could afford (well, maybe not gladly) an army of lawyers, an advantage that Mark Steyn does not have. I do not know New York’s rules of civil procedure regarding what the court can accept in terms of judicial notice, but it is something that a big company can afford to take on. I say “Bring ’em on!”
+1 That’s why it will never get to the discovery phase. I’m betting the litigants will be encouraged by the Alarmists to drop the case because it would expose their subterfuge at the least and their downright lies at the most.
Of course the oil industry relies on geological knowledge and every geologist knows that Climate Change IS the status quo throughout earth history.
Sadly l, I know a number of geologist that have partaken of that Kool
aid !
“Are these politicians lying or just stupid?”
Wrong question, should be “Are these politicians lying AND just stupid?”, answer is yes.