Senator Whitehouse goes Full Conspiracy Theory on "Climate Denial"


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Senator Whitehouse has unveiled his “web of denial”, a vast conspiracy theory about why his side is losing the climate debate.

US senators detail a climate science ‘web of denial’ but the impacts go well beyond their borders

By the middle of this week, about 20 Democratic senators in the US will have stood up before their Congress to talk about the fossil fuelled machinery of climate science denial.

The senators are naming the fossil fuel funders, describing the machinery and calling out the characters that make up a “web of denial”.

“The web is so big, because it has so much to protect,” said the Rhode Island senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who bookended the first evening of speeches.

The Senate heard how fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy and the billionaire oil brothers Charles and David Koch had funnelled millions into groups that had spread doubt about the causes of climate change.

Read more:

The following is a video of Senator Whitehouse’s presentation on July 7th;

Whitehouse’s conspiracy theory reminds me of some of the worst excesses of the anti-communist era, in which fantasies about shadowy conspiracies were used to ruin the lives of political opponents and innocent bystanders. But Whitehouse appears to mean every word of it. The Attorneys for Clean Energy effort appears to have faltered, for now, but who knows what the future holds? We can only imagine what will happen if people like Whitehouse win control of the US government, and are put in charge of a new era of “Unamerican Activities” style witch hunts.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gunga Din
July 12, 2016 8:36 pm

Wait till Dr. Lew gets a load of this!

Reply to  Gunga Din
July 13, 2016 3:44 am

[snip – mostly an ad hom rant – policy .mod]

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  mike
July 13, 2016 10:46 pm

I think you mean “double dog dare you”.

Michael 2
Reply to  Gunga Din
July 13, 2016 7:23 am

That was also my first and immediate thought: Conspiracy Ideation.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Michael 2
July 14, 2016 1:32 pm

… and I used to think Joe Biden was the dumbest guy in the Senate.

george e. smith
Reply to  Gunga Din
July 13, 2016 7:49 am

So Sen. Sheldon Talkeenada, thinks we’re all in on this.
Well I’m on public record as having embraced climate change almost on a daily basis; pretty much ever since I discovered that simply by driving to Los Gatos for a morning 75 cent McDonalds senior coffee (plus two free refills), I can change my climate du jour back to what it was in 1852 in downtown Sunnyvale.
So Shelly old chap; it wasn’t me, who started this uproar that has you all bamboozled.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
July 13, 2016 7:59 am

Also for public record; be it noted that I do NOT drive to Los Gatos (or Saratoga) for my el cheapo coffee and egg McMuffin.
I do my part for the amelioration of automobile exhaust water vapor effluenza, by dining at the closest McDs, where I can actually walk to. Yeah, I know that spreads my lungaceous CO2 excrement over about a mile back and forth, and also scrapes off a lot of Chinese cheap shoe sole composite, on the pristine pavement, but City of Sunnyvale road crew will be along tomorrow to dig that road back up again since they haven’t done it for a week or two.
So no I do my part for the cause.

Reply to  Gunga Din
July 16, 2016 4:53 pm

He is not satisfied with just doing little boys in his home district?

Walter Sobchak
July 12, 2016 8:47 pm

Bring them on. I relish the fight.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
July 12, 2016 9:41 pm

I agree and would like nothing more than to see them compelled to justify their broken science in light of all we know about data manipulation, model fudging, their denial of basic physical laws, the conflict of interest resulting from the IPCC being the gatekeeper of climate science and the demonstrably dishonest regime of climate science research, funding, peer review and publishing.
I dare them to go after anyone who understands the scientific facts, for if they did, it’s almost certain that the house of cards called CAGW will collapse and take the Greens and the Progressive Left with it. If this were to happen, I hope it would be televised, so I can DVR it and watch them squirm as the truth comes into focus.

ferd berple
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
July 13, 2016 6:03 am

when called before the senate you will have both hands tied behind your back and your opponent will have a horseshoe hidden inside each glove. your water bottle will be laced with knock-out drops, and your family will be threatened with dire consequences if you win. other than that the fight will be fair.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  ferd berple
July 13, 2016 7:32 am

I would go before the US Senate, for which I have nothing but contempt, with both hands tied behind my back, my eyes blind folded, my mouth gagged, and my ears stoppered, and I would cause their ridiculous little heads to explode.

george e. smith
Reply to  ferd berple
July 13, 2016 8:15 am

Well we now know that you don’t even have to answer hypothetical questions, before the Congress; such as: :Do you know the law on murder ?? Is it illegal to murder somebody ?? No I’m not talking about a hypothetical “somebody” I just mean a person.
Well how about just : Is murder illegal ?? Is it illegal to NOT stop at a stop sign ?? No I’m not talking about a hypothetical stop sign, I just mean any stop sign; can you just drive on through without stopping ??
Well can you tell me, just where did you get your law degree, and did you get a passing grade or not. No I’m not asking what the hypothetical passing grade might be at the hypothetical educational establishment where they printed your shingle that hangs up in your office.
And no I was not asking hypothetically what the meaning of IS is, I was just asking if you know the law; yes or no; or just ‘ it all deepends ‘.
Is lying to Congress a crime; not a hypothetical crime but an actual punishable offense ??
Did Martha Stewart get shafted ?? Well either in fact, or in hypothecary ?? yesornoormebbe !

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  ferd berple
July 13, 2016 9:55 am

“Is lying to Congress a crime; not a hypothetical crime but an actual punishable offense ??”
Ask Roger Clemens.

July 12, 2016 8:53 pm

I realize that this is standard practice in Washington DC, but it is just too funny that this guy is speaking to an essentially vacant chamber – – he’s only performing for the videocam. Yawn.
How morally corrupt does one have to be to rail against a few million dollars support [over decades, mind you] to skeptical science organizations, in the face of literally trillions of government [i.e., taxpayer funded] lavishment on the climate-change-global-warming-we’re-all-gonna-die industry/cabal??
Sen. Whitehouse is an enemy of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech
Sen. Whitehouse should be referred for mental-illness counselling.
Lord help us.

Reply to  GeologyJim
July 13, 2016 5:28 am

Why trillions when we could have (pinky to corner of mouth) . . . MILLIONS!

Doug Bunge
Reply to  GeologyJim
July 13, 2016 6:24 am

You may know this, but most of the other Congressmen/women are (or can be) watching TVs in their offices, they just aren’t sitting in the room.

Reply to  Doug Bunge
July 13, 2016 7:38 am

Doug, do you actually believe what you just posted or did you forget to put the sarc tag at the end?

Paul Coppin
Reply to  Doug Bunge
July 13, 2016 9:16 am

Nah, being Democrats, they take their lead from the puppet-in-chief and will read about it tomorrow in the NYT or hear about it on ESPN.

Reply to  Doug Bunge
July 13, 2016 2:47 pm

U r truly stupid if you actually believe that is what they were doing.

Reply to  GeologyJim
July 13, 2016 7:29 am

GeologyJim July 12, 2016 at 8:53 pm
“it is just too funny that this guy is speaking to an essentially vacant chamber”
If it’s nearly totally vacant, it’s probably what’s called “Special Orders”, where members get to practice their debate techniques and messages, even against each other…or create PR media spots, sometimes standing there totally alone. Back when CSPAN 1 first formed specifically to televise all House Sessions, they televised these sessions but showed only the debaters and the person officially running the Session, giving the false impression that it was happening during a regular House meeting. Then under a lot of criticism CSPAN put in some wider shots and CSPAN 2 for the Senate.

george e. smith
Reply to  GeologyJim
July 13, 2016 8:17 am

He sees Gremlins under his bed.

john harmsworth
Reply to  GeologyJim
July 13, 2016 12:09 pm

Who is running against this idiot and what can be done to help him? that is the only question worth asking.

Reply to  john harmsworth
July 13, 2016 12:53 pm

Not up for re-election for about 2 more years as I can recall.

Richard Keen
July 12, 2016 8:54 pm

Hey you whitehouse ha ha charade you are …
A true Pig!

The song is about a different Whitehouse, but it sure fits Sheldon to a T.

James Bull
Reply to  Richard Keen
July 12, 2016 11:32 pm

The sad thing about that picture is that Battersea power station is no longer in use (it provided heating for many blocks of flats in the area with it’s waste heat) and it’s chimneys have been cut down.
James Bull

Mr Green Genes
Reply to  James Bull
July 13, 2016 1:34 am

The chimneys have not been cut down. They are being restored.!/go/view/app/chimney?view=updates

george e. smith
Reply to  James Bull
July 13, 2016 8:26 am

Does the restoration include putting big windmills up on top of the chiminees ??
Would be a good place to whack birds passing by, now that there is no smoke.
Where Battersea ? UK. Make sure you get it out of Euro quick(ly).

July 12, 2016 8:57 pm

This will have interesting repercussions. Things sure are getting interesting nowadays. Good thing I have heaps of popcorn.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 13, 2016 12:49 am

Careful with history, can be a

July 12, 2016 8:58 pm

Considering that declassified Soviet and FBI documents have subsequently demonstrated that there were many Soviet spies infiltrating our government during the investigations by the House Committee on Unamerican Activities as well as Sen. McCarthy’s hearings in the Senate, you may want to use a different analogy for witch hunts.
There are very few, if any, targets of McCarthy that have turned out to be innocent.
This information is generally suppressed by the current crop of leftist historians that rule the profession and academia. Which is why most of you are generally unaware. It has not made it into text books. McCarthy is still the ultimate villain of US history despite have been completely vindicated.

Reply to  Charles Rotter
July 12, 2016 9:04 pm

Charles, very good point. Infiltration then, infiltration now. Lies and deceit too. The alarmists don’t want any of it known. As far as I’m concerned all of it should be exposed, too much has been swept under the rug for too long.

tony mcleod
Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 13, 2016 1:14 am

What should be exposed is exactly how much the fossil fuel lobby has pumped into creating doubt. Follow the real money fellas. You want real money? take a look at the biggest global companies and the threat mitigating carbon emissions would have on their profits and in some cases existence. There’s your conspiracy.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 13, 2016 1:45 am

Tony~ am I right to think your last name is pronoucned Mc CLOD?

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 13, 2016 3:25 am

Tony, contrast that imaginary number with the very real number spent by governments and greenies on their side of the scam.

David A
Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 13, 2016 4:15 am

Tony, why don’t you show us exactly how much money from fossil fuels has gone into skeptic coffers.
Let us start with four prominent skeptic sites. (among many good ones)
CO2 Science
Climate Audit
I am waiting for you to put dollar amounts next to these names. The truth is that climate skeptics are a true grass roots movement by very educated individuals, and CAGW is statist government funded, large environmental watermelon (WWW, Greenpeace) funded, and crony capitalist industry funded movement of trillions of dollars, magnitudes larger then any fossil fuel funding to ANY skeptics, let alone those grass roots skeptics most responsible for the successes of CAGW skeptics.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 13, 2016 5:57 am

McLeod, the money is orders of magnitude larger on the “green” side. To say otherwise is willful ignorance. Look at the number of heavily funded ad campaigns, international conferences, and massive government initiatives on the greens. Compared to the what exactly? The Heartland institute? The accounts for that were stolen last year and published publically, and the numbers were entirely underwhelming. They couldn’t hold a candle to Greenpeace alone, much less the other massive green groups, and certainly not the numerous governments. Just adding up the numbers quickly shows at most a few million annually for the anti and billions annually for the pro.
Secondly, the “manufacture doubt” statement concerns me. Belief that action is needed on global warming is at its heart a political opinion. While the various items have degrees of facts in them, the final decision that we should massively cut fossil fuel use is a conclusion. A conclusion that includes a balancing of multiple factors, including costs measured in human lives. It is quite reasonable to agree with every single green conclusion up and down the chain until you get to the end and say that the cost to humanity from cutting fossil fuels is too high.
Declaring that supporting a political opinion that disagrees with yours is inherently bad displays a concerning disdain for the basic function of democracy, disagreement.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 13, 2016 6:40 am

Let me see if I have this right tony.
According to you, Having an interest in defeating the global warming cabal is all the proof that you need that a great conspiracy is in operation?
As always, to the alarmist, facts aren’t necessary.

george e. smith
Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 13, 2016 8:43 am

Well Tony; you seem to have your GI tract malconnected, as the fossil fuel lobby, is pumping orders of magnitude more money; that is real money; as in could/would be corporate profits, into the Federal Treasury; which uses it to subsidize all these whacko energy wasting schemes like Solyndra; which was a total scientific scam, long before it became a political and fraudulent funding scam.
But then I’m assuming that you are ignorant of the science of solid state physics of radiant energy to direct electricity conversion; let alone the optics of cylindrical non-imaging optics. But if I’m wrong on that and you are indeed an expert, then my apologies.
But for a real scam; you should research the vast natural gas fired reflector farm at Ivanpah in California.
All those millenials with their hands out for free stuff, when they are not playing with their finger toys, are direct beneficiaries of the “donations” by the fossil fuel lobby to the Federal Money sink.
So if you are looking for the real money put a mirror on your bathroom floor.

john harmsworth
Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 13, 2016 12:15 pm

Any amounts paid by public companies is already public and well known. It is peanuts! Apparently the science of global warming is settled. So why is the U.S. spending 7 billion per year on research/ Why is there a proposal out to improve satellite monitoring of earth’s energy balance because it is not not known to a limit of error that exceeds the amount used to calculate any warming whatsoever? Grow up and think for yourself, man!

Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 13, 2016 4:42 pm

tony mcleod July 13, 2016 at 1:14 am: “What should be exposed is exactly how much the fossil fuel lobby has pumped into creating doubt.”
Tony, the doubt is created when the dire predictions of Alarmists don’t come true, and the climate computer models predicting CAGW don’t reflect reality.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 13, 2016 4:52 pm

The real story is the failure of the so-called climate models to make valid predictions. Their solution is to move out the predictions to 100 years so that all those guilty of fraud will be dead…and no one will care.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 13, 2016 8:20 pm

David A Said: “I am waiting for you to put dollar amounts next to these names. The truth is that climate skeptics are a true grass roots movement by very educated individuals, and CAGW is statist government funded, large environmental watermelon (WWW, Greenpeace) funded, and crony capitalist industry funded movement of trillions of dollars, magnitudes larger then any fossil fuel funding to ANY skeptics, let alone those grass roots skeptics most responsible for the successes of CAGW skeptics.”
At yet somehow the Heartland Institute just happened to be there to provide some money to get WUWT up and running…. Now, I’m not having a go at WUWT or Anthony, but this has become the MO of many large lobby groups who understand that lobbyists are on the nose and people are suspicious. Much better to find a community of people who’s ideology suits your cause, and encourage them whilst keeping your name out of it as far as possible to reduce the risk of blowback due to people asking whether they should trust an organization that receives so much money from people who have a financial dog in the game.
Anthony seems to me to be a decent person, and I don’t condemn him or his site for accepting their assistance, but if you believe that the heartland institute got involved purely out of a desire to further our understanding of science and improve the human condition, then I’ve got a bride to sell you.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Charles Rotter
July 12, 2016 9:05 pm

Perhaps he became the villain because of his stinking personality. OTOH, you are quite right about his findings. He got bad press partly because he attacked leftist Hollywood.

Cold in Wisconsin
Reply to  Ernest Bush
July 12, 2016 9:43 pm

Great friend of Joe and Bobby Kennedy. Joe McCarthy is the Godfather of at least one of Bobby Kennedy’s kids. Too bad he didn’t have a bit of the ole Kennedy Teflon.

Reply to  Ernest Bush
July 12, 2016 10:05 pm

No. HUAC became a permanent House comm. in 1945. Sen. McCarthy had little or nothing to do with the Hollywood inquiries which had begun by the Dies committee back in 1938.

Reply to  Ernest Bush
July 13, 2016 6:38 am

I have a friend who had to move with his family to Mexico to survive the HUAC Hollywood inquisition. He also states that it was HUAC, and not McCarthy at the heart of the very un-American character slaughters. That does not reduce the need for vigilance and energy in defending against the Whitehouse / RICO20 attacks on freedom.

Reply to  Ernest Bush
July 13, 2016 8:22 am

What caused his demise was when he started attacking the army, which upset Eisenhower who until then had left him alone. The Army-McCarthy hearings were televised and McCarthy’s behavior led to a steep decline in his popularity and ultimately his censure by the senate.

Reply to  Ernest Bush
July 13, 2016 11:30 am

The definitive account on McCarthy and his campaign is M. Stanton Evans’ “Blacklisted by History” – a must read. The Army-McCarthy hearings were important because thousands of documents were being passed from an army research center (in NJ I think) over to Soviet agents; some of them have since been recovered in Eastern Europe. McCarthy got Eisenhower upset because he went after George Marshall (prior to the Army hearings), and this was unwarranted. As far as I can tell Marshall simply didn’t know enough about the State Dept. to realize what was going on. The censure, incidently, was a joke, but I’ll let people read about that in Evans’ book.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Charles Rotter
July 13, 2016 12:21 am

A different analogy for witch hunts or us nazi activisms –…66431.87336.0.91790.….0…
– you never walk alone.

Reply to  Charles Rotter
July 13, 2016 5:26 am

“The portrayal of Senator Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren’t cowering in fear during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation’s ability to defend itself while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy’s name. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis.” – Ann Coulter

george e. smith
Reply to  Charles Rotter
July 13, 2016 8:28 am

Good morning Chasmod. Glad to see you working the strings there. Thanx for that.

Paul of Alexandria
Reply to  Charles Rotter
July 14, 2016 4:41 pm

The Venona intercepts. One also can’t confuse Senator McCarthy with the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, which was, shall we say, less stringent.

Reply to  Charles Rotter
July 14, 2016 6:18 pm

Even the guilty are supposed to be provided due process of law. A vigilante does not get off the hook for being right.
And that’s what McCarthy’s actions were: a campaign of political vigilantism.

July 12, 2016 9:02 pm

The Democrats are on a baby hunt.

July 12, 2016 9:02 pm

Both Whitehouses have no shame.

Bryan A
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
July 12, 2016 9:21 pm

Couldn’t imagine him as president. Could you imagine a Whitehouse in the White House?

Bryan A
July 12, 2016 9:18 pm

It takes a genuine Conspiracy Ideationist to put together such an intricate web of illogical reasoning and say It’s a “Web of Denial” then characterizing it as

the web is so big, because it has so much to protect

It takes so much hubris to infer that your opposition is so well funded by the Koch Brothers et al. when your side is funded at a rate that outspends climate realists by at least 50 to 1
Stating that climate realists (Deni…sts) are funded by some conspiratorial group is just an excuse for the losses that the AGW group has suffered at their own hands
A teacher of mine once accurately defined an excuse:
“An excuse is nothing but the skin of a lie that has been stuffed with reason”

Tim Hammond
Reply to  Bryan A
July 13, 2016 1:56 am

It is a classic case of begging the question. It is interesting that Alarmism in many places has slid into logical fallacies. I take that as a sign that the argument is being lost.

Reply to  Tim Hammond
July 13, 2016 6:04 am

One of the many signs.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Bryan A
July 13, 2016 6:10 am

Reason=persuasion in that definition.

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve Fraser
July 13, 2016 9:59 am

a 5 pound sausage skin stuffed with 10 pounds of Cr#p

July 12, 2016 9:19 pm

I wonder how much funding these people are getting from Elon Musk and the other members of the Renewables Cartel?

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
July 13, 2016 2:40 am

Perhaps a few FOIA requests and some tracing of funding…
Might put Whitehouse in the big house.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
July 13, 2016 3:29 am

Beat me to it, Wayne. In Whitehouse’s pitch he was pushing for a particular solution: ‘Clean energy’. That leads me to suspect that the axe he is grinding has been paid for by someone else – to his benefit.

David A
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
July 13, 2016 4:24 am

The funding of CAGW proponents is primarily three fold.
1. Statist Governments desiring more money and power.
2. Watermelon organizations such as Greenpeace and the WWW.
3. Crony Capitalists such as Elon Musk and all the failed and existing alternative energy producers that contribute millions to Statist Governments and receive billions in tax payer dollars.
The funding of skeptics of CAGW is primarily grass roots. The skeptics are primarily voluntary, poorly paid, non government, highly educated, and in many cases retired with no axe to grind.

Mario Lento
July 12, 2016 9:19 pm

I listened for the first couple of minutes and thought he was talking about climate denial warmists. Actually I know Whitehouse well. He is an ignorant scum.

July 12, 2016 9:34 pm

…. and there are still sheepleparrots who believe this shit.

Th3o Moore
July 12, 2016 9:44 pm

The scariest part is what would these people do if they found out for sure they were wrong but thought they could suppress it for twenty years.

Wim Röst
Reply to  Th3o Moore
July 13, 2016 1:06 am

Please check: how often did you hear alarmists say (or saw them write): “Sorry, I alarmed you, but I was [completely] wrong”.

Reply to  Th3o Moore
July 13, 2016 4:56 am

I think that might already have happened.

July 12, 2016 9:45 pm

The wording reminds me of Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy,” complete with charts.

D Long
July 12, 2016 9:47 pm

So McCarthy’s tactics were ok because there were some spies? Never thought I’d read that here. And he was right about almost everything? I guess the Army was full of communists after all.

Reply to  D Long
July 12, 2016 10:05 pm

McCarthy’s “tactics” as you phrase it, have been presented to you with the assumption that everything he said were made up falsehoods, and thus those “tactics’ were all lies, bluster, and bullshit. In fact, the accusations he threw about came from the FBI and were probably 90% correct, if not completely correct, and were backed up by facts and domestic intelligence services.
It’s not that there were “some” spies. There were hundreds.

Reply to  Charles Rotter
July 12, 2016 10:36 pm

McCarthy was not after spies he went after communists and their friends. Which is unconstitional since the bill of rights guarantees freedom of speech and of association. In addition to which the
people accused were denied a fair trial and simplely put on a “black list” and prohibited from working in various jobs. Virtually none of them were accused of being spies.

David A
Reply to  Charles Rotter
July 13, 2016 4:31 am

Geronimo is somewhat correct, if missing the Irony that the very bill of rights and freedom of speech of the US would disappear under communist government. Also many of those accused were working to make this happen, thus likely guilty of sedition. Yes, this should have been the approach taken, just as now much of fundamentalist Islam is indeed sedition against the founding freedoms of the US.

Reply to  Charles Rotter
July 13, 2016 4:35 am

So how many spies were prosecuted and convicted in the courts?

David A
Reply to  Charles Rotter
July 13, 2016 4:48 am

McCarthy’s methods of prosecution were not constitutional, thus the process was stopped.

Ian W
Reply to  Charles Rotter
July 13, 2016 7:20 am

Geronimo – look up the context of the phrase ‘enemies both foreign and domestic’ – Upholding The Constitution against internal attack is a duty.

Reply to  D Long
July 13, 2016 6:44 am

Exposing spies is wrong?

Reply to  MarkW
July 13, 2016 11:04 am

No. But does belonging to the Communist Party USA make someone, ipso facto, a spy? How about merely socializing with an avowed communist? Or merely having a CPUSA pamphlet in your home? Or producing films which might just possibly be regarded, with enough imagination, as sympathetic to communism?
Joe McCarthy was a sad, power-drunken clown, who saw a communist hiding behind every tree. Yes, there were (and still are) communist sympathizers in our government and in Hollywood, and there were very many of them right after WW II (after all, the Soviet Union was our ally in the war, and suffered horribly in fighting Nazi Germany) but that didn’t make them all spies. Some undoubtedly were spies, and some were exposed and prosecuted – with full due process under law.

Reply to  MarkW
July 16, 2016 7:39 am

By and large what was at issue is application of the law via a group or label. Congress passed, during that period, multiple bills to attempt to deprive those accused of ‘Communism’ of their rights, including the right to free travel, and the simple right to be paid for work already performed. The court cases on the subject were quite telling. Aptheker v. Secretary of state, and US v Brown (1957) as an example.
Bills of this sort are called bills of attainder. They are a lesser version, attaching pains and penalties to perceived acts, where the congress sets itself up as a judge and jury, rather than engaging in its role of general law, identifies the target, then sets the deprivations that they must live under. (A finding of ‘danger’ is often attached).
The courts found in such cases that while Congress may have full legislative power, they had no power to target the law in any form, i.e. that all their enactments must be general save in specific legal circumstances (such as impeachment or treason) where they were permitted to be a trial court.
This is a doctrine largely ignored these days. Congress, in essence, could not decide those upon whom the law was to be applied. It had to, at state and federal level, be applied equally to congress, its friends, and the whole of society. The federalist 57’s guarantee of this, written by Madison himself, would seem to support the view.
The methods used were not constitutional, nor were they proper methods supported by law. They were a declaration of guilt, and for that guilt, the deprivation of rights, and immunities supported by the constitution for a perceived act or potential act.
Further, there were other methods that could have been lawfully used to the same end, far more effectively, via investigation and arrest without the grandstanding or laws that were void from their inception as being without basis in the constitution.
As in US v. Brown, simply belonging to an organization or group is no proof of criminal intent, nor is it any proof of misbehavior. While some bad actors may be in the group, the entire group is not responsible for their ill intent.
Congress has no authority to target either side of the debate, as to do so would trigger this (long abandoned) protection. It is one of the few things that even the states cannot amend out of the constitution, as it is prohibited to all state actions reaching that end, including the amendment process. (Cummings v. Missouri, should I remember right).
Had this doctrine been strictly applied, slavery itself would have died in 1808 at its sunset. Slavery could not be supported without separate laws for classes of persons (hence why up until recent memory, there were arguments that those of African descent were not ‘people’)
Nor could the Jim Crow era have occurred as it did.
But yet, here we are.

July 12, 2016 9:51 pm

Lemme get this straight: We, who do not believe in a vast “conspiracy theory”, but simply point out that the data does not support the theory, get told “So you think all those scientists are in a great big conspiracy?” We say no, it’s just that the data disproves the theory. Yada yada, nothing we say changes anything, we get labelled crank conspiracy theorists (and the vilest alarmists write phych papers about it).
OTOH, despite the provable fact that the lot of us are on our own, often retired, or fired for speaking out, somehow get labelled as part of a vast Big Something plot – on NO evidence! And that nutcase who says it is NOT a conspiracy theorist, the worst of the crackpots? Sheesh!

July 12, 2016 10:02 pm

Incredible, when we have Agenda 21 and ICLEI infitrating our local governments and the Rockefellers funding both Agenda 21 and every green ïnitiative there, is that Whitehouse can even conceive that we are part of a conspiracy. Where is my cash then? Surely I deserve some small measure of support from the Head Conspirators of Climate Realists and UN critics.

Ray Boorman
July 12, 2016 10:07 pm

This guy is so dumb that he doesn’t realise he is describing pretty much exactly what the AGW cartel have been doing for over 20 years.

Reply to  Ray Boorman
July 12, 2016 10:43 pm

It is only fitting, don’t you think, that the smallest state has sent the smallest mind to the Senate? Have any of his accusations been backed by anything more tangible than his febrile imagination?

george e. smith
Reply to  gary turner
July 13, 2016 12:44 pm

Don’t give up hope yet Gary. A news item concurrent with tis story has listed Rhode Island, as the State with the fastest exiting disillusioned populace, in the entire USA; and here I thought it was California.
And you can’t blame it on them losing the Americas Cup from its NYYC Newport hangout; that is so last Century worries.
But Rhode Island does have its distinctiveness.
For example the entire State of Rhode Island can be fitted in 20 different, non-overlapping locations in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, so Shelly old man could choose his own climate to suit him, in 20 different places, all of which I am sure have their own distinctive climate.
Delaware; the Veep’s home, can only be put in 12 different non overlapping places in ANWR. And Delaware can also fit nicely between Anchorage (down town) and Wasilla, so Gov. Sarah Palin could see across the entire State of D from her front porch to see what is happening in Anchorage downtown.

Another Ian
Reply to  Ray Boorman
July 13, 2016 1:05 am

When I read the title the first thought was “Has he finally found the climategate files”?
Obviously not

Reply to  Ray Boorman
July 13, 2016 6:17 am

That seems to be a common trait. Alarmists, eco-activists, whatever you want to call them, frequently accuse skeptics of what they themselves are doing. They might seem to be getting away with it, they certainly think they are getting away with it, but more and more regular ordinary people are waking up to the fact that the truth is the exact opposite of what is being preached and screeched to them. As the alarmists grow louder, they are drawing attention – just not necessarily the attention they want to draw.

Ian W
Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 13, 2016 7:24 am

You are right their ‘projection’ ( ) will actually initiate a Streisand Effect that they may come to regret.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 13, 2016 9:52 am

…more and more regular ordinary people are waking up to the fact that the truth is the exact opposite of what is being preached and screeched to them.
I wish I saw that in my day-to-day life, but I don’t. Instead I see people simply accepting the AGW premise and calling me a D***** if I say otherwise.

Reply to  TonyG
July 13, 2016 9:56 am

@Tony G – I see the same thing. However I also see those same people then go about their business, not doing a thing (according to the leaders of what they should be doing) to change it. In otherwords, they go along to get along. But they are not willing to sacrifice.

Reply to  philjourdan
July 13, 2016 10:19 am

Yes, there is that, at least.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
July 13, 2016 2:42 pm

TonyG, what I see is people getting more dissatisfied with the lies they get fed. The majority of people who are now skeptical used to be believers – including Anthony W (of this site) and Jo Nova (who runs an excellent site based in Australia – she used to donate her time and efforts to the Green party).
Every now and then a thread gets going where everyone puts in what it was that made them change their mind about what they were being told, what it was that triggered them to look into it themselves. That’s happening to a greater and greater degree.
I also see it in how there is pushback against wind-monstrosities in just about every country that has them. This isn’t because some group has organized them or because anyone has offered them money to protest, it’s because they see for themselves what its doing to their beautiful countryside and the wildlife that lives there.
I also see it in what the younger generation says – to me personally – when they know their school marks don’t rely on my approval and that they’ll not be judged harshly for going against the accepted politically correct meme.
I see it in the polls and in the failed green-rallies where people have lost interest in going along with the lies.
It’s true not many are angry about what they’ve been told and for how long they’ve been lied to, but that’s building too. Everywhere people are waking up and as the numbers grow, they realize they are not one of the few, but one of the many and it gives them confidence to speak up.

July 12, 2016 10:39 pm

Does anyone have an actual diagram of this so-called “web of denial”, with details of the purported “millions” that they claim have been paid to “denialists”?

Another Ian
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 13, 2016 1:08 am

Maybe it is the climategate files but they’re doing 1984 on them?

Bryan A
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 13, 2016 10:03 am

Probably the Cobbers floating around in the vast vacuous dark recesses of the mind of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse

Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 13, 2016 1:21 pm

Not under your bed, Eric? There’s this thing called the “interwebs” that is your research friend. It’s astounding that you and Willis seem incapable of finding reams of information on the subject. Whitehouse points you to several university research references in his presentation, fer-Sol-Invictus’-sake.
Talk about frosting bananas … {rolls eyes, shakes head}

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 13, 2016 6:04 am

Why would they show you any data or a chart, when you’d just try to d3ny it.
Not only that, but what difference, at this point, does it make?
The treason against future generations must be stopped.
Your leaders have spoken clearly. You have been warned.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 13, 2016 6:18 am

Willis, I’m sure there is a computer model of it somewhere…

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 13, 2016 7:56 am

That’s why they have to subpoena 40 years of everybody’s correspondence — to divine and extract the web . Luckily I’m safe never having gotten more that travel expenses for one trip to Vegas from anybody .
When government employees become so intransigently ignorant as these people , it becomes an issue of criminal malfeasance . I expect at some point for either this or some other corruption a number of these people will be indicted and hopefully convicted .
I see the Democrats as the openly criminal anti-reality party . It would be a joy to see the vote for the sane Libertarian governors reduce them to the 3rd party .

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 13, 2016 12:13 pm

It is in the same vault as Sen. Joe’s list of commies in government.

george e. smith
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 13, 2016 12:48 pm

Willis the “Web of denial” just consists of holes (in the theory), tied together with strings (of post publishment readjustments(downwards) of the early data) !

July 12, 2016 10:51 pm

I find the Senate Resolution, which make the following bogus claims:

LEW16099 S.L.C.
S. CON. RES. ll
Expressing the sense of Congress relating to the disapproval of certain activities of certain companies, trade associations, foundations, and organizations.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. SCHATZ, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. MERKLEY, Ms. WARREN, Mr. SANDERS, and Mr. FRANKEN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on llllllllll
Expressing the sense of Congress relating to the disapproval of certain activities of certain companies, trade associations, foundations, and organizations.
Whereas in the case of tobacco companies and allied organizations—
(1) according to peer-reviewed scientific research and Federal court findings, tobacco companies knew about the harmful health effects of their products; and
(2) contrary to the scientific findings of the tobacco companies and of others about the danger tobacco poses to human health, tobacco companies, directly and through their trade associations, and foundations—
(A) developed a sophisticated and deceitful campaign that funded think tanks and front groups, and paid public relations firms to deny, counter, and obfuscate peer-reviewed science; and
(B) used that misinformation campaign to mislead the public and cast doubt in order to protect their financial interest;
Whereas in the case of lead-related manufacturers and allied organizations—
(1) according to peer-reviewed scientific research and State court findings, the paint industry, gasoline manufacturers, and lead producers knew about the harmful health effects of lead in paint and other products throughout the 20th century; and
(2) contrary to the scientific findings of the paint industry, gasoline manufacturers, lead producers, and others about the danger lead poses to human health, those companies, directly and through their trade associations, and foundations—
(A) developed a sophisticated and deceitful campaign that funded think tanks and front groups, and paid public relations firms to deny, counter, and obfuscate peer-reviewed research; and
(B) used that misinformation campaign to mislead the public and cast doubt in order to protect their financial interest; and
Whereas in the case of fossil fuel companies and allied organizations—
(1) according to peer-reviewed scientific research and investigative reporting, fossil fuel companies have long known about climate change and the harmful climate effects of their products; and
(2) contrary to the scientific findings of the fossil fuel companies and of others about the danger fossil fuels pose to the climate, fossil fuel companies, directly and through their trade associations, and foundations—
(A) developed a sophisticated and deceitful campaign that funded think tanks and front groups, and paid public relations firms to deny, counter, and obfuscate peer-reviewed research; and
(B) used that misinformation campaign to mislead the public and cast doubt in order to protect their financial interest:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress—
(1) disapproves of activities by certain corporations, trade associations, foundations, and organizations funded by those corporations—
(A) to deliberately mislead the public and undermine peer-reviewed scientific research about the dangers of their products; and
(B) to deliberately cast doubt on science in order to protect their financial interests; and
(2) urges fossil fuel companies and allied organizations to cooperate with active or future investigations into—
(A) their climate-change related activities;
(B) what they knew about climate change and when they knew that information;
(C) what they knew about the harmful effects of fossil fuels on the climate; and
(D) any activities to mislead the public about climate change.

Man, that frosts my bananas. They are making a pack of ugly allegations against “certain corporations, trade associations, foundations, and organizations funded by those corporations” without having the balls or even the common courtesy to name one single guilty company or organization, or pointing to one single thing that that company did wrong.
Remember the names of the scumballs making these nasty underhanded accusations:
and my personal favorites

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 12, 2016 11:17 pm

I agree with you totally, Willis-san.
This is a very dark chapter in US history when honest, brave, ethical, virtuous and principled men of science were attacked by feckless political hacks for exposing the truth about the failures of the CAGW hypothesis.
This certainly wasn’t the first time this has occurred, nor will it be the last….
“Those who do not know history’s mistakes are doomed to repeat them.” ~ George Santayana

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 13, 2016 4:49 am

I see more similarity between United Nations and the tobacco industry than between skeptics and the tobacco industry.
Whereas in the case of United Nations and the climate industry—

(1) according to peer-reviewed scientific research and investigative reporting, United Nations should long have known about discrepancies, exaggerations in the climate change theory they propound, the harmful energy poverty effects of their politics and the risks by bringing about tremendous economical burdens and tremendous changes to the economic development models societies are built on; and

(2) contrary to the findings of the United Nations and of others about the danger energy poverty pose to the poor, United Nations, directly and through their foundations—

(A) by inductivism developed a sophisticated and deceitful pseudo-scientific campaign that through the government they strongly influenced, funded scientific organizations, activist organizations and front groups, and paid public relations firms to propound their mission and obfuscate the science; and

(B) used that misinformation campaign to mislead the public – in order to protect their own power to pursue their corrupted ideas, while causing a misallocation of enormous amount of resources which could have been used so much more wisely

Reply to  Science or Fiction
July 14, 2016 7:50 am

Actually, Willis, they go on to name names in some 20 floor speeches. Their targets are exactly who you’d expect: ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers, other fossil fuel majors, and about 30 skeptical/free-market non-profits.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
July 14, 2016 8:00 am

I develop a similar argument in “How to Hoist Sen. Whitehouse and Rep. Lieu on their own Petards” ( Also, check out my colleague Sam Kazman’s post on “The Climate Change Debate and the Alarmist Addiction to Tobacco Analogies” (

Science or Fiction
Reply to  marlolewisjr
July 15, 2016 2:14 pm

Thanks for the link – an excellent piece with many good takeaways. Keep on telling about it.
“So, what Exxon “knew” in the ’70s and ’80s was not the state of the climate but the state of climate modeling.”
“Time to restate the obvious. Democracy is an adversarial process. Interests that disagree on policy will inevitably challenge the certitude or accuracy of claims made by their opponents. Free societies rely on the marketplace of ideas to sort out the claims and counterclaims of rival interest groups, parties, and political movements. But those of authoritarian bent easily lose patience with a democratic process that does not guarantee them victory in advance.”
It´s amazing to me how the Main Stream Media has miserably failed in performing watchdog journalism. Luckily we got dedicated people like you and others taking over that role. An excellent piece.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Science or Fiction
July 14, 2016 10:31 pm

Science or Fiction, you should google “heartland institute tobacco” and have a look at what you find.
[Mr. Schaeffer, that’s a pointless exercise, all you’ll find is hateful rants from activists and activist organizations. I’ve even had people try to link me with tobacco, even though both my parents died from smoking related illnesses. I find the whole attempt to link climate and tobacco issues not just stupid, but reprehensible. But, apparently such things are good enough for your razor sharp mind. No further duiscussion on the issue, and please, feel free to be as upset as you wish. – Anthony]

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Science or Fiction
July 15, 2016 7:37 pm

Nah, it’s all smiles here Anthony 🙂 I’m sure that Science or Fiction is capable of looking at what he finds skeptically, and making his own mind up.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
July 16, 2016 10:27 am

Have a look at this comment to see what I think about c0nspiracy theories:
Science or Fiction>July 16, 2016 at 2:38 am
There are all kinds of reasons behind a defective result. Regarding funding there is no doubt in my mind that the majority of funding has gone into pursuing the ideas propounded by United Nations.
Do you happen to think that IPCC is by no means defective?
Luckily for myself, I´m independent and unfunded, this is my hobby, I have a profession which is not within this issue. As I´m by no means depending on funding or goodwill from governments or any other organization or persons, I´m free to pursue any thought I might have and I´m free to think and write whatever I might like. Have a look at my site if you are interested in what I think about IPCC.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 13, 2016 6:48 am

They also make sure to do it from the floor of the House and Senate where they are immune from charges of libel.

george e. smith
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 13, 2016 9:02 am

Willis I think you have a typo in there somewhere.
As I recall there is NO Mrs. Boxer, or even a Madam Boxer (Maam) I think she said it is correctly spelt “Senator” and she said (in effect) that she worked her Arse off getting that Title. I thought Titles of (s)Nobility, like “Senator” were prohibited by the US Constitution.
But I think you spelt the rest of it Ok Willis.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 13, 2016 9:54 am

..according to peer-reviewed scientific research and investigative reporting..

This is what I find disturbing, that a book by Naomi Oreskes is being put forward as evidence for the need of a Senate investigation. This, obliquely, refers to the “evidence” presented in the RICO 20 letter. Specifically:

…peer-reviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in several recent books: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015).

That’s the “evidence”, in its entirety, given in the RICO 20 letter.

4 eyes
Reply to  TomB
July 13, 2016 4:15 pm

Tom, It’s disturbing but if this gets really dirty and ends up in court somewhere this circular referencing by the good senators and their cohorts will be torn apart by a junior counsel.

Reply to  TomB
July 14, 2016 7:35 am

Judith Curry has a fine post on Merchants of Doubt ( and recommends Dagfinn Reiersol’s six-part review of Oreskes’s book (

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
July 13, 2016 10:31 am

Sen Merkely could drive 60 miles from his home and still see the last melting remnants of the 3″ of snow that fell a few days ago. (it is in the Cascades … but snow seldom falls there in mid July).
If it had been warmer lightening/thunderstorm weather, resulting in “climate related wildfires”, it would have have shown up on the national radar, and Merkely could/would have used it for his twisted goal(s).
To those that don’t know of him: Merkely is indeed just as big of a lying scumbag as the others, he just hasn’t been on the scene as long.

July 12, 2016 10:56 pm

The only lies, disinformation, obfuscation and fraud are from the pro-CAGW advocates.
The ONLY thing CAGW alarmists need to do is show CAGW’s hypothetical global warming projections match reality in a statistically significant manner. They have failed miserably to do so:
Already, CAGW projections have been off by 2 standard deviations off from reality for 20 years, which is sufficient disparity and duration to effectively disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis.
All the physics and empirical evidence show the earth will ENJOY about 0.5C~1C of beneficial CO2 warming recovery (most likely closer to 0.5C) by 2100 per CO2 doubling (aka ECS). It is now IMPOSSIBLE for CAGW’s ECS projections to be anywhere near 3C~5C, which means the CAGW hypothesis is ALREADY a disconfirmed hypothesis….
There is no grand “right-wing conspiracy”, there is only the Scientific Method, and CAGW advocates’ abject failure to adhere to its rules.
All the other CAGW catastrophic projections have also been proven to be laughably wrong: catastrophic global increases of severe weather incidence/intensity, rapid ocean “acidification”, accelerating Antarctic land-ice loss, catastrophic sea level rise, rapid increase of atmospheric CH4 concentrations, mass global-warming induced species extinctions, rapid increase in communicable diseases, falling crop yields, etc.. etc., etc.,…….
Senator Whitehouse did get one thing right when he said, “Historians will look back at this time in history and wonder why we acted as we did.”
Yes, historians will be flabbergasted and appalled on how world governments could have wasted $TRILLIONS on this CAGW fraud, when ALL the physics and empirical evidence so clearly showed CAGW was a totally disconfirmed and untenable hypothesis. Historians will also wonder why CAGW skeptics were so brutally attacked by Leftist politicians and the media when skeptics were merely pointing the empirical evidence and the truth.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  SAMURAI
July 13, 2016 9:04 am

The saddest thing to think of is all the good that those $TRILLIONS could have done.
It is estimated that to get clean drinking water for everyone on earth (who doesn’t have it now) is $10 billion.
It is estimated that the cost of fixing 3rd world starvation is $30 billion/year
The list of low cost solutions that could fix the misery of millions of people goes on and on.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
July 14, 2016 12:37 am

Leftists all need to read Bastiat’s “Broken Window Fallacy”…
The unseen damage done to peoples’ lives by the government wasting $trillions on meaningless scams like CAGW is astounding.
It’s estimated that US government rules and regulation compliance costs are $1.9 trillion per year… That’s almost the entire GDP of India, a land of 1 billion souls. Imagine what the US could do if regulation costs were cut $1 trillion/yr..
Total US federal, state and local government spending used to only account for 7% of GDP… Now it’s closer to 40%…
When will people learn Leftist ideology of ever-growing government control and power is a failed construct?

Reply to  SAMURAI
July 13, 2016 1:28 pm

All those model runs were run on 1368 to 1370 w/m^2 for TSI. The real number is 1360 to 1362 w/m^2. That thick black line declines by a third. And the effect of the TSI fluctuating 2 w/m^2 affects the temperature by 0.25 C. And that’s according to CAGW math.
So where’s the warming if they used 1370, which I think they did, and the real number is 1360? ( or 1362) ..????

July 12, 2016 11:18 pm

So, who are these groups that have received “millions” from fossil fuel companies? How can you know how much money is involved without knowing who got the money? But I don’t see any names in the Senate resolution other than general references to “certain companies,” “associations,” “foundations,” and “organizations.” If their accusations are based on facts, they should be able to name names and how much each group received. Otherwise, it appears they are just trying to plant the impression of guilt in the minds of the public without actually having to produce any evidence to prove their assertions.

John Silver
Reply to  Louis
July 12, 2016 11:50 pm

And a certain lady, La Niña.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  John Silver
July 13, 2016 6:22 am

Or, ‘little Cool-baby’!

July 12, 2016 11:26 pm

I urge all fossil fuel companies to immediately stop selling their products until congress addresses this resolution.

July 12, 2016 11:49 pm

In all his ramblings, Mr. Whitehouse offered not one shred of hard evidence that Exxon or the Koch brothers are funding a huge network (including academics) to the tune of 100’s of billions of dollars, specifically to mislead the public about the supposed dangers of CO2. All he offered were statements of opinion, not fact, from individuals who get paid by the government and billionaires like Soros and Steyer to support the CAGW meme. It was a hollow bluster of “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Reply to  Willigan
July 13, 2016 6:49 am

I’d show you my data, but all you would do is try to disprove it.

Reply to  MarkW
July 13, 2016 11:54 am

I’m all ears. Show me the 100’s of billions of dollars they have used specifically to tell the public that CO2 is no big deal, when they actually know it is. Besides showing that that amount of money was actually used specifically for that purpose, you must also show intent to deceive. That’s required to prove fraud. And not just a few hundred million (with an “m”) dollars here and there. 100’s of billions of dollars earmarked for that purpose.
WUWT is arguably the most potent weapon in the world to derail the narrative of CAGW. Surely you can demonstrate that Anthony has received at least multiple millions from them. I don’t think you can. But I’m waiting with baited breath to see your proof of fraud to the tune of hundreds of billions (with a “b”).

Reply to  MarkW
July 13, 2016 3:07 pm

I believe MarkW’s comment is missing quotation marks and a sarc tag, courtesy of Climategate.

Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2016 5:14 pm

Ah yes. I see it now. I tend to have a rather linear, analytical mind that takes statements on their face value unless the sarcasm is dripping. Sorry about my misplaced, curt response.

george e. smith
Reply to  Willigan
July 13, 2016 9:18 am

Well they are; sure as night follows day (or verse vicea). Follow the money. Exxon / Koch send BILLIONS with a B to the US Federal Treasury, which then feeds that out in a continuous stream (to academics) merely for the asking, and to organizations like Greenpiece and such, to keep such people from becoming indigent and a drain on the US economy.
The flow of money from big oil and big ag (no not big gag) as in “We are Koch” through the Federal Treasury to Academia, is powered by a thermohaline circulation (the salt goes in the taxpayer’s wounds), and the heat goes into the Senate Chamber (no NOT the chamber pot, silly), and that stream leaves clipped wing birds, and roasted birds littered about windmills and mirror farms, so it is hard to not notice.
Just think how far they have to pipe natural gas to power those hemostats; excuse me that’s heliostats. (hemostats are for stemming the blood flow (from the taxpayers, including big oil and big Koch/ag))

Science or Fiction
July 13, 2016 12:09 am

How silly – how can he be blind to the enormous amount of government spending in inductive science propounding the alarmism generaled by United Nations.
Senator Whitehouse is another domestic enemy of the constitution. A man evading his oath:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Senator Whitehouse is a dangerous man for science, for free enquiry and for free exchange of thought.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
July 13, 2016 6:50 am

He’s not blind. He’s a man on a mission. Saving the world means that lying is OK.

July 13, 2016 12:11 am

What Senator Whitehouse argues against is simply the 1st Amendment right of free speech. We know that, I’m almost certain even he knows that. He argues for prior restraint; we are not shouting fire in the theater, we should be by the lights of Senator Whitehouse. All good Americans should be. It’s a peculiar approach.
It seems to me the Senator would like to make free speech, intelligent debate and science itself, crimes against the State. I’d say he’s made that pretty clear.
I’d counsel just ignoring him, but keeping his philosophies close to your heart. He represents a very serious illness in the American body politic and he can’t be ignored, at the same time an overzealous response only serves to legitimize him.
He’s a loon, but not a loon that can be safely ignored. A close watch needs to be kept on him.

Reply to  Bartleby
July 13, 2016 6:51 am

Check any college campus. Left wingers only believe in free speech, when what you are speaking has been pre-approved by them.

Reply to  MarkW
July 13, 2016 6:53 am

On Drudge this morning, there’s a story about a Perdue student who is facing expulsion because he criticized the “Black Lives Matters” movement on a Facebook post.

July 13, 2016 12:21 am

One more thing:
Everyone makes jokes about “not getting paid by Exxon”, and some go so far as to ask “how can I get on the list”.
So here’s the procedure. You wait for a good opportunity in the market when XOM is selling at some absurdly low price due to some absurd international situation. That happened last February. XOM was selling at around $74/share, a 15 year low as I recall. Now it’s at $94/share. Big payback.
When that happens, you take every last dime you have in the cookie jar and by every share of XOM you can afford. Rinse and repeat.
At $74, Exxon pays a pretty darned good dividend. Forever. Or until Oil runs out.
So that’s how you get paid by Exxon. Remember it. I won’t say it again.
Disclosure: I have no position in Exxon (XOM) and have no intention of taking one in the next 72 hours.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Bartleby
July 13, 2016 9:10 am

I always use that same logic when some millennial or socialist complains that this company or that is ‘making too much money… it’s not fair”. Easy fix, it’s a publicly traded company, buy shares. Now it’s you making too much money. That seems more fare doesn’t it?

July 13, 2016 12:34 am

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
The very fact Democrat senators and climate zealots alike, repeatedly trot out the “denier” meme speaks volumes about the perilous state of Climate Crisis Incorporated and the subsequent methods used to combat the barrage of real-world observations that increasingly and thoroughly refute the man-made catastrophic global warming theory.
The Leftist fix – when your argument is weak, default to ‘othering’ and smear.
Those who rely on ‘othering’ and groupthink clickbait as their go-to, should be aware that “belief” and “denial” are the words of zealots, not scientists.
Excellent WUWT post on ‘Othering’ here:

Steve Case
July 13, 2016 12:42 am

Senator Whitehouse et al. know exactly what they are doing and they are betting the farm they can get away with it.

Reply to  Steve Case
July 13, 2016 2:49 am

They should be careful where they step, some of the stuff produced on farms can be very… “fragrant” if you step in it, and the smell lingers.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Steve Case
July 13, 2016 9:11 am

They may end up ‘buying the farm’ if they aren’t careful.

July 13, 2016 1:01 am

‘Anything my side says or does is OK, but anything the other lot says or does is material to put them in jail……’

July 13, 2016 1:03 am

Look at the mess the EU has made of our continent with their redgreen anti-oil and -coal policies.
Don’t let it happen to the US.
You can still stop the madness.
Unfortunately, we can’t.

July 13, 2016 1:14 am

As I said previously, this is not really about conspiracies this is about bandwagons.
Back in the 90s the CO2 bandwagon came along, and they were playing a tune that resonated with many people’s world-view. And so they all jumped on, and the bandwagon gained momentum and influence, and became self-sustaining.
But after playing the same old tune for 25 years, people have noticed that the old bandwagon is out of tune with the modern world. They promised many things, and none of them have come true. Dissolusionment is setting in, and people are looking for a new direction, a new influence on their lives that conforms to their newly revised world-view.
And suddenly, over the horizon comes the the new WUWT non-Co2 banwagon, playing a new melodious tune that explains why the old bandwagon is badly out of tune. So people are voluntarily jumping bandwagons and the old bandwagon is losing folowers, power and influence.
Conspiracies are about positive control over people. There is no control here, just a platform or wagon that you can chose to jump upon if that suits you. Bandwagons are voluntary, but no less influential because of that.
This is what I said about bandwagons previously:

July 13, 2016 1:18 am

I am never going to be beaten by any man called Sheldon. I’d rather go down to an Aubrey or even a Percy.

David A
Reply to  mosomoso
July 13, 2016 4:36 am

That is like losing a drag race to a Pious, um, I mean Prius.

george e. smith
Reply to  mosomoso
July 13, 2016 12:53 pm

Or Algernon !

brightman oldcity
July 13, 2016 1:27 am

“Attorneys for Clean Energy”? I got so tired of the lawyer jokes during my time as a lawyer I probably would have joined just to be a good guy for a while. Well, to some people, anyway.

David A
Reply to  brightman oldcity
July 13, 2016 4:40 am

Attorney Jokes? It is my understanding that they do not exist as they are all true stories!

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  brightman oldcity
July 13, 2016 5:07 am

When I worked for an electric utility, the lawyers ere salivating at big paydays to put us out of business because power lines cause cancer. It was a huge effort, national meetings and everything. Had to speak on the phone many times with concerned parents. When I ‘splained that all our linemen were daily in close contact to EMFs without any increased incidence of cancer, they usually relaxed a bit. There are so many non-productive people in our society, looking for some excuse to exist, that they are attracted to these scams ike bugs to a fire.

george e. smith
Reply to  brightman oldcity
July 13, 2016 12:56 pm

Well when you get to hell, you won’t need any clean energy; or any energy. You can just join the throng of other lawyers sitting closest to the fire.

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 13, 2016 2:12 am

Not only the senators but also the Guardian have finally gone crackpot.

July 13, 2016 2:20 am

1. a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

There’s no denier conspiracy and there’s no alarmist conspiracy. Nobody is getting together in back rooms planning to do anything. What we have is something like Adam Smith’s invisible hand.
Some of us have been looking for an alarmist conspiracy for a long time. It doesn’t exist per se. What we have mostly is individuals and organizations doing their own thing for their own reasons. There are pockets of conspiracy such as we saw with the Climategate emails but there’s no overarching organization.
I suppose we could talk about a Web of Alarmism. In fact, every point made by the good senator could be equally applied to the alarmists. Maybe some other senators will notice that fact and act accordingly.

Michael 2
Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2016 9:56 am

Agreed, that is my sense of both sides. There is no umbrella organization behind all alarmists or all deniers. But then, it hardly matters whether there is or is not. What seems important is that some people *wish* for such a thing and would being it into existence were it possible (with each such person as the architect and maybe the leader of it).

July 13, 2016 2:29 am

Madness knows it’s own.
Look into the eyes of Senator Whitehouse they are identical to the Grand and evil Inquisitor Tomas De Torquemada both are full of vermin, hate, bigotry, and cruel fanaticism. The only difference is the time in between then and know!

July 13, 2016 2:38 am

“All the physics and empirical evidence show the earth will ENJOY about 0.5C~1C of beneficial CO2 warming recovery (most likely closer to 0.5C) by 2100 per CO2 doubling (aka ECS).”…
Again, there is NO proven link to CO2 causing/increasing temp/warming. Increase in CO2 follows increase in temp, does not cause it.
CO2 is insignificant in the warming issue.
400 ppm, 0.04%, that’s 4/10,000, 4 in 10,000.
The physics and empirical evidence does NOT show it.
Here we have a claim/admission that CO2 can cause 0.5C~1C in ~95yrs.
I know its a well meant comment but it subtly works against the truth, what we really know.

Reply to  Neillusion
July 13, 2016 8:06 am

It’s known that CO2 absorbs LWIR in the 15 micron range, which does cause a small amount of downwelling LWIR.
It’s my understanding that CO2’s logarithmic forcing effect per doubling is approximately: 5.35watts/M^2*ln(560ppm/280ppm)*(.31 Stefan-Boltzmann Constant)*(0.5 negative cloud feedback)= about 0.5C potential ECS.
Actual negative cloud feedback is not known for sure, but even if there wasn’t any (highly unlikely) the maximum ECS would be around 1.2C, which is 3~4 TIMES less than CAGW’s projections of 3C~5C ECS.
Regardless, there is already sufficient evidence to show CAGW is a disconfirmed hypothesis..

Greg Woods
July 13, 2016 3:12 am

yes, scientists have truly mucked up climate science, so it is time for the politicians to have a go at it…

July 13, 2016 4:22 am

The scary thing here is that these ‘idiot’ Senators are in a position to make really bad laws!

Reply to  ScienceABC123
July 13, 2016 6:56 am

Heck, that’s just about all they do.

July 13, 2016 4:39 am

Whitehouse’s conspiracy theory reminds me of some of the worst excesses of the anti-communist era, in which fantasies about shadowy conspiracies were used to ruin the lives of political opponents and innocent bystanders. But Whitehouse appears to mean every word of it.

So did the anti-communist. It was not a game to them.

Bruce Cobb
July 13, 2016 4:46 am

They have lost the Climate War which is essentially a war on truth and now, all they can think to do is to hurl more and more outrageous lies, like monkeys at the zoo hurling their feces. The end of the CAGW memeplex is nigh. Here’s another of Whitehouse’s fellow feces-hurlers.

July 13, 2016 5:23 am

Poor Senator Whitehouse. He is seriously butthurt that when he and is ilk attempted to railroad people and deprive them of their rights, the people pushed back hard.

July 13, 2016 5:31 am

This idiot senator Whitehouse should be spending his time helping his state become more attractive for business instead of scaring companies away due to charlatans like him. Rhode Island came in last (50th) in the recent cnbc “top states for business”.

Reply to  BobM
July 13, 2016 6:11 am

Here’s a link to the to the Top 5 industries in Rhode Island, Bob.
Scroll down a little and you’ll find that they are very proud to have added 2.5 healthcare workers for every 1 new resident in the state. Which brings to mind the topic of sustainability…

July 13, 2016 6:10 am

I wonder how many nearly worthless carbon credits Sen. Whitehouse is sitting on.

Reply to  John
July 13, 2016 6:22 am

You might want to investigate how much Sen. Whitehouse has invested in the Deepwind project off Rhode Island, or perhaps how much Deepwind has contributed to his campaign funds.

george e. smith
Reply to  H.R.
July 13, 2016 1:00 pm

Well when they used to hold the NYYC rigged Americas Cup races at Newport, they always had problems getting the wind to blow enough to keep those yachts on a course, so I doubt that an offshore seabird clobberfarm will pay off.

Reply to  John
July 13, 2016 8:29 am

– the real crime is that Congress is exempt from insider trading laws,

July 13, 2016 6:23 am

Has anyone ever seen Dan Matheson (ex-CTV “news” anchor) and Sheldon Whitehouse in the same room?

Bob Meyer
Reply to  PiperPaul
July 13, 2016 8:51 am

Possibly they were in the same bathroom because people saw Matheson enter and saw Whitehouse leave a few minutes later.

July 13, 2016 6:25 am

Look no further than the lobbyists that fund re-elections to understand Washington. The best government money can buy.

July 13, 2016 6:37 am

After the fall of the USSR, Soviet archives revealed that most of the anti-communist “conspiracy theories” were actually correct.

Steve in SC
July 13, 2016 6:42 am

All I got to say is that Joe McCarthy was right. The proof positive is in Whitehouse.

Tom Halla
July 13, 2016 7:12 am

I was a psych major 40 years ago, in the decline of of the Freudians as a model. They did have very good insults, though. Whitehouse is clearly indulging in projection–attributing his own faults onto others.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 13, 2016 7:36 am

Halla. Agreed. And I was also thinking in terms of cognitive dissonance (if it is still an accepted concept in psychology today). Manufacturing the delusion of a vast climate denial conspiracy network funded by the fossil fuel companies in order to deal with the failing CAGW theory to which he is so emotionally and spiritually devoted.
People like Whitehouse keep taking me back to Leon Festinger’s book “When Prophesy Fails” published back in the 1950s which introduces the concept of cognitive dissonance. I’ve read it twice already. I just substitue UFO cult group in the book for CAGW believers.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 14, 2016 12:14 am

Tom Halla July 13, 2016 at 7:12 am
“Whitehouse is clearly indulging in projection–attributing his own faults onto others.”
It’s also a well-known Propaganda Tactic. I took Dr. Sanity’s free online Psych course, aka her blog, for 2+ years. True Projection is Paranoia’s “little brother”, especially when the “mark” starts to get irritated by the Projector’s words and acts, and begins to treat the Projector with some suspicion, disdain, or accusations of making false charges, etc., but which only proves to the Projector that “See, these are bad people and they’re out to get me!”, so it gets worse from there. I like to tell the Prog Projectors, “Methinks thy doth projecteth too mucheth.”

Snarling Dolphin
July 13, 2016 7:28 am

Seriously Rhode Island? Your Senator stands up, for the 143rd time now, and (after a healthy opening snort) quotes an environmental sociologist (whatever that is) to establish his bona fides to address this issue so that when future generations question what happened they will benefit from the insights of Sheldon? I think what happened will be quite apparent. “I happened to notice this because unlike most people I get my news clips…” Your state your representation, but sheesh!

Reply to  Snarling Dolphin
July 13, 2016 10:32 am

FWIW, RI has been run into the ground by the Democrat Party since it took over in 1937. The unions own the legislature and people vote to protect their small interests. They tolerate the corruption and the malfeasance of public officials, occasionally seeing one sent to jail when the federal prosecutors get them. Sheldon will continue to be reelected because most citizens can’t see the damage he does and aren’t really interested. There aren’t enough right-thinking people left in the state to change things. RI is the prototype for what America is becoming.

Political Junkie
July 13, 2016 7:49 am

There’s a lot of fuss being made about Exxon’s funding of evil deniers – Greenpeace has a website devoted to the topic. They claim $31 million in Exxon spending from 1998 to 2014.
Money talks! Just how high a priority is all of this to Exxon? In 2014 (latest year of Greenpeace data) Exxon earned $32.52 billion. That’s an astounding $61,872 net after tax profit per second! All sixteen years of Exxon’s $31 million ‘denial funding’ was earned in 500 seconds, or a little over eight minutes. Claimed donations in 2014 were $1,898,500, or 31 seconds worth of earnings. Notwithstanding Greenpeace efforts to hype the issue, so called ‘climate denial’ funding is obviously at the bottom of Exxon’s corporate priority list – amounts are less than a rounding error!

Physics Major
July 13, 2016 8:04 am

There’s a reason that they only give these speeches in the Senate chamber: they can slander people with impunity. Senators are protected from lawsuits for slander and libel for anything said in the Senate chamber.

Bob Meyer
July 13, 2016 8:07 am

McCarthy’s blacklist? Is that anything like a “no-fly list”?

July 13, 2016 8:34 am

Question- did the good Senator bike or ride a horse to the chamber, does he walk or ride
a bus home, Does he take the train back to his state or fly?
Does he show up at the latest luxury climate fest by taking a clipper ship?
I think I know the answer…

Tom Crozier
July 13, 2016 8:43 am

His display is a little frayed about the edges.

staspeterson BSME, MSMa, MBA
July 13, 2016 9:08 am

Senator Whitehouse is a dim bulb who never studied any science in his college days, so he knows nothing of any merit to anyone but another Lysenkoist know-nothing but can spout the Party line. But as is typical, he thinks he knows more than any architect about building construction, or more then any surgeon about heart transplants.

Political Junkie
July 13, 2016 9:15 am

More fun with numbers!
Greenpeace is shocked, shocked about Exxon spending a couple of million dollars per annum funding ‘deniers.’ By the way, Greenpeace counts the Congress of Racial Equality, Independent Women’s Forum, etc. among the ‘denier’ organizations funded by Exxon – really! Look it up.
In the meantime, Greenpeace fundraising costs alone are about $130 million per year.

July 13, 2016 9:18 am

Just went on the Senator’s Twitter feed and laid on C3’s historical climate graphs…let’m come for me!

Reed Coray
July 13, 2016 9:18 am

It finally dawned on me–Senator Barbara Boxer is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse in drag. 97% of all scientists agree that two people can’t be that stooopid.

George Steiner
July 13, 2016 9:22 am

Mr. Worall about all those conspiracies of the communist era. From the time of the October revolution the West was full of useful idiots, fellow travelers, socialists, communists, and traitors. All were cultivated by the Soviets to be activated when their position made them useful. The damage they inflicted was immense.
Today there is no need for the Comintern but the US is full of useful idiots, fellow travelers, socialists, communists and traitors. The feeble minded politically correct intellectuals populating academia and the political world are even more susceptible. Why one of them from the prehistoric times was even running for president recently.

Jerry Cook
July 13, 2016 9:27 am

Thanks for posting Sen. Whitehouse’s speech. Hopefully more people will see and hear it.
My prediction; It will take a few years,but eventually all of this will be looked back upon exactly like the big tobacco scam. Or are some of you still claiming that they didn’t lie either? Ha!
Enjoy your downward spiral into the ‘Embarrassments in US History’ file.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jerry Cook
July 13, 2016 3:17 pm

My prediction is that, in another 20-25 years when Armageddon fails to materialize – again – the alarmists will change their story – again – and repeat the same propagandist process all over.

July 13, 2016 9:52 am

“Or are some of you still claiming that they didn’t lie either? Ha!”
No, Jerry, the thinking public is ever more conscious of the lying (see USGS falsifies data) which has taken place….. and continues.
Thus explains the general publics bursting distrust with big politics on noth sides and the creation of an entirely new conservative party.
You’re right that the mythical menace of global warming will wind up another entry in the dustpile of failed causes.

Jerry Cook
Reply to  dukesilver
July 13, 2016 10:16 am

No, Duke, the science will prevail,as it always does (e.g. evolution) ,and the deniers of science will be relegated (e.g.creationism).
So let’s compare so-called ‘conspiracy theories’: 1.All scientific institutions on Earth falsely claim that greenhouse gas emissions from humans are warming the Earth…(for the last 50 years&for their own personal gain).All so leftists can rule the world.
2.Gas&oil companies realize(decades ago) that they will lose profits if word gets out about the deleterious effects of their product,so they try to hide and obfuscate the evidence.
Who is being more logical?

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jerry Cook
July 13, 2016 1:55 pm

Okay, Jerry, you understand that all these energy companies are huge green investors, right? And you know they have incestuous connections to most major media outlets.
We also have Climategate (and other examples) as a smoking gun. See, the exact same mechanisms that you claim are motivating the skeptic camps are exactly what’s motivating the warmist camps. See, if you genuinely followed the money, you would discover that these ‘scientific institutions’ which you hold above reproach, are subject to the exact same depredations as any other group – more so, in fact, since they produce nothing, generate no income of their own, and are completely dependent upon outside funding – which they get from government and activist donations – all with no oversight.
Try this out: If Global Warming is revealed – as the last quarter century have fairly conclusively shown – to be no kind of ’emergency’, a non-crisis, and even fraud – a small, mostly non-detrimental effect with only a minor human influence – a multi-billion dollar cashcow dries right up, the credibility of these prestigious institutions are compromised – goodbye funding, jobs, cushy career academic and government appointments.
Your logic is not logic – it is rationalizing backwards from an ideologically biased conclusion.

Snarling Dolphin
Reply to  Jerry Cook
July 13, 2016 1:56 pm

Deny this: incomplete sentences and incomplete theories based on incomplete data and incomplete models do not magically combine to formulate logical conclusions even if an incomplete historical anecdote is thrown in for good measure.

Reply to  Jerry Cook
July 13, 2016 3:23 pm

Tell me Jerry, why is the “solution” always socialism? Why is the “problem” always not just humans but capitalism?
Why is it that EVERYTHING is proof of global warming? What does no warming look like?
People who come to this site don’t take anyone’s word for things. We are not told what to think or who to believe. Most came to their own conclusion that things were not right. CAGW science isn’t science, not because someone says so but because the “facts” don’t stack up.
What’s your excuse for believing in CAGW?

Reply to  Jerry Cook
July 13, 2016 3:37 pm

You demonstrate the sort of simple reasoning a simple mind can generate rather well.
Thanks for playing.

Jerry Cook
Reply to  Jerry Cook
July 13, 2016 9:36 pm

Joel-the best you have is ;Climategate and grant money? -read any news in the last 8 years?
A.D. Everard – who said anything about socialism or your made up word CAGW?
Do any of you guys want to talk about what the senator said in his speech in this video? Or have none of you watched it?

Jerry Cook
Reply to  Jerry Cook
July 13, 2016 9:56 pm

hunter – here’s a ‘simple’ question for you; Who is being more logical? the person who believes #1or#2;
1.All scientific institutions on Earth conspire to falsely claim that greenhouse gas emissions from humans are warming the Earth…(for the last 50 years&for their own personal gain).All int the name of global governance.
2.Gas&oil companies realize(decades ago) that they will lose profits if word gets out about the deleterious effects of their product,so they try to hide and obfuscate the evidence.

Michael 2
Reply to  Jerry Cook
July 14, 2016 8:57 am

Jerry Cook “Who is being more logical?”
I am. But “logical” and a dollar will get you a cheap burger at mickey d’s.

Reply to  Jerry Cook
July 14, 2016 1:09 pm

Your reliance on straw man false choices is simply a manifestation of your inability to reason beyond the level of superstition.
Thanks for playing.
Better luck next time.

Reply to  Jerry Cook
July 14, 2016 2:59 pm

hunter- I’ll put you down as conspiracy #1 then?

July 13, 2016 10:10 am

This post should contain a poll that lets us vote on which of the two hairdos we prefer.

July 13, 2016 11:30 am

It’s political science vs. sound science. Sound science always wins because it is factual.

July 13, 2016 12:16 pm

Watching the good Senator go on about his obsession reminds me of this for the striking similarities:

July 13, 2016 12:20 pm

And being accused by this small pathetic excuse for a Senator of being a conspiracy inspires me to give to Senator Whitehouse the same answer Woody Allen gave in “The Front” to an out of control Senate.

Joel Snider
July 13, 2016 12:26 pm

Torquemada– Let’s face it, you can’t Torquemada anything. Sorry, it was there. I had to use it.

July 13, 2016 1:12 pm

And the response good Senator Whitehouse deserves is best summed b y woody Allen, in “The Front”.

July 13, 2016 1:31 pm

Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels use does not materially affect climate. Maybe climate is warming. It is supposed to be warming, because earth is in an interglacial period. Which begs the question why some scientists and government agencies try to pad the record by
“adjusting” prior-period temperature data.
Nature does an excellent job of converting ambient CO2 to limestone. Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical calcification processes (ie. cyanobacteria and coccolithiphores). The simplified formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3.
Anyone can make calcite quickly in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with quicklime.
Its very simple. Nature sequesters CO2 as limestone (calcite). The higher the atmospheric CO2 partial pressure, the faster it becomes limestone. 99.84% of all carbon is sequestered in sediments. Earth absorbs ambient CO2 quickly.
Climate change results from a combination of (non-CO2) causes, such as sunspots, solar orbital variations, cosmic rays’ effect on clouds, and plate tectonics (well documented elsewhere). But it cannot be caused by CO2 arising from fossil fuels use, because
nature efficiently recycles CO2 as carbonate minerals (limestone) through numerous calcification processes.
Only 3% of CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels use. Most of the rest arises from rotting vegetation in swamps and jungles. Carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuels use are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for regulating them. See
There is no empirical evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate. Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. The rest arise from rotting vegetation. Changes in temperature cause changes in CO2 emissions from these sources, and are not caused by them.
CO2 is in equilibrium. Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). See the paper by Norwegian researcher Tom Segalstad.
The theory of human-caused climate change is based on a false premise. Energy policy as fashion goods. The dead hand of the state, airheads picking winners & losers.
So all the cost and hysteria of the global warming movement is a colossal waste, and results in poor economic growth. Tens of trillions of dollars wasted on foolish superstition, when ordinary people can’t make ends meet.

Garbol Kilic
July 13, 2016 5:51 pm

THe Pathocracy’s main method to stifle dissent is through adverse psychiatric evaluations. I recommend everyone read the book POLITICAL PONEROLOGY by Andrew Lobaczewski

Steven Miller
July 13, 2016 6:59 pm

He looks so much like patient character Elliot Carlin from the Bob Newhart Show.

July 13, 2016 8:10 pm

It is hard to understand him with his lisp, but what a moron.

Evan Jones
July 14, 2016 3:39 am

A Hydra, eh?
Wen you cut the head off of a Hydra, two grow back its place. So the senator is attempting to burn each head as it s cut off, like in the myth.

July 14, 2016 8:36 pm

What did you do for work Grandpa Whitehouse ? Well er I .. I explained to people that climate changes .
Could I have more Jello Grandpa Whitehouse ?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights