RICO Charges Against ‘Climate Deniers’: A Case of Goose and Gander

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

clip_image002

As the people in power, like Al Gore and the White House, see the false claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) losing public interest they resort to nastier tactics to win the day. It won’t. Instead, it makes more people aware that something is wrong. People despise bullying and when the force of government and the courts are used to silence or intimidate they side with the oppressed. As Shakespeare said in Measure for Measure,

O, it is excellent to have a giant’s strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.

 

Consider the recent use of RICO, defined as the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act: a U.S. law, enacted in 1970, allowing victims of organized crime to sue those responsible for punitive damages.

Technically, the charges were filed under Criminally Influenced and Corruptions Organizations Act (CICO) because the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands brought them. One media outlet reported that,

A group of Democratic state attorneys general and former Vice President Al Gore have announced the creation of a coalition of “top law enforcement officials” to investigate whether oil companies committed fraud in order to hide the effects their businesses have on global climate.

 

Speaking at a press conference at his Manhattan office Tuesday afternoon, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said the group would look for “creative ways” to use existing law to investigate whether “fossil fuel companies” have “profited from the confusion” those companies have allegedly sown over global warming.

 

Extensive debate ensued over the suppression of free speech, control of science, and other restrictive practices in a supposedly free society. It caused retraction of many of the charges and exposure of apparently unethical or even illegal activities by those bringing the charges. WUWT did a good job reporting and exposing the sequence of events.

Keywords or phrases are a phenomenon of the search engine society. Consider the following from the commentary so far. Victims of organized crime; committed fraud; hide the effects on global climate; profit from the confusion. Now turn those charges back on the individuals, groups, and politicians who instigated, propagated and disseminated the entire deception that is the AGW hypothesis. Consider filing RICO charges against them.

It is likely the politicians are protected from such charges, which is why people are angry at all politicians; there is no accountability. Space precludes a complete recounting of what, how, and why the real racketeering occurred. Details are laid out in my book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. They are more succinct for a wider audience in a book due for release shortly (Figure 1). I refer to it as a Revised Summary for Policymakers (RSPM) (Cover by Josh).

clip_image004

Figure 1

RICO charges brought by the AGs claimed that Exxon knew the truth and sought and paid scientists (deniers) to create a false truth. Now consider RICO charges against Senators Al Gore and Timothy Wirth and all the scientists who participated in the promotion and dissemination of the false AGW hypothesis.

People know Al Gore and his career, but few know much about Wirth. Here is a brief Wikipedia entry that provides sufficient context.

Following two decades of elected politics, Wirth was national Co-chair of the Clinton-Gore campaign, and served in the U.S. Department of State as the first Undersecretary for Global Affairs from 1993 to 1997. He led U.S. foreign policy in the areas of refugees, population, environment, science, human rights and narcotics He chaired the United States Delegation at the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, and was the lead U.S. negotiator for the Kyoto Climate Conference until he resigned from the Administration in late 1997 to accept Ted Turner’s invitation to be President of the newly created United Nations Foundation.

His concerns were almost the same as those listed by the Club of Rome. In a remarkable 2007 interview with Frontline on PBS, Wirth provides a context for the manipulation of the AGW story and a basis for RICO charges. In response to the question

… What was it in the late ’80s, do you think, that made the issue [of global warming] take off?

Wirth replied

I think a number of things happened in the late 1980s. First of all, there were the [NASA scientist Jim] Hansen hearings [in 1988]. … We had introduced a major piece of legislation. Amazingly enough, it was an 18-part climate change bill; it had population in it, conservation, and it had nuclear in it. It had everything that we could think of that was related to climate change. … And so we had this set of hearings, and Jim Hansen was the star witness.

 

The product for sale is not a fossil fuel, a physical product, but a political idea with far more value in power and profit. It is selling advocacy, something that under the name of advertising advocacy was a major debate at the time. The issue was the legitimacy of a private company paying for advertising that sold an idea, a political view, rather than a tangible product. The situation with Wirth is similar. It is also a forerunner to crony capitalism. You need scientists or experts to provide or at least appear to provide legitimacy and credibility

They asked Wirth,

“How did you know about Jim Hansen?”

He replied.

… I don’t remember exactly where the data came from, but we knew there was this scientist at NASA who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So we called him up and asked him if he would testify. Now, this is a tough thing for a scientist to do when you’re going to make such an outspoken statement as this and you’re part of the federal bureaucracy. Jim Hansen has always been a very brave and outspoken individual.

 

Paradoxically, by their definition, this labels Hansen as a “denier” because he is far outside the scientific community.

The one thing that Hansen didn’t do that day in front of your committee is use the term “global warming.” He said, “Gentlemen, I’m 99 percent sure that human beings are contributing to climate change,” but he didn’t quite have the nerve, because he was outside scientific consensus at the time. …

To which Wirth replies,

Oh, Hansen went a long way. This was a very, very brave statement. He was on the edge of the science and almost 20 years younger than he is today, so he’s relatively new in the field. He’s working for the federal government, and certainly this was not cleared far up the line, what he had to say. So the summary of what Jim Hansen had to say that year, plus the fact that it had gotten so much attention from the [press] — it was on every channel, Hansen was widely reported. He went as far as anybody could possibly have expected him to go, I think. Again, it was a very brave thing for him to do.

 

There are a number of implications in that statement. It was only brave because it was outrageous and unsubstantiated. Hansen knew he would not have approval from “up the line.” But, how far up the line did he have to go? He was appointed head of NASA GISS eight years earlier in 1981 and as we know from the later revolt of astronauts at NASA, few knew what was going on. He knew his statement was without scientific support. It wasn’t brave because he knew he was saying what the politicians like Gore wanted to hear and undoubtedly was told they would protect him. Hansen’s boss, John Theon told me when I asked him why Hansen wasn’t reigned in that the word came from above to leave him alone. Wirth was backed by Al Gore, who was in his Presidential campaign in 1988.

Wirth then speaks about the degree of deception involved in Hansen’s 1988 appearance.

What else was happening that summer? What was the weather like that summer?

 

Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was, so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. It was stiflingly hot that summer. [At] the same time you had this drought all across the country, so the linkage between the Hansen hearing and the drought became very intense.

And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

 

… What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …

 

So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …

 

Did Exxon or any of the climate change deniers ever do anything like this? Is this committing fraud? Hansen’s information was apparently designed to “hide the effects of climate change,” natural climate change that is. It was designed to allow “profit from the confusion.” The profit was political at first, but became financial later for many like Gore and others.

Hansen continued his distortion of the science even though, as Wirth said, he was working for the Federal government. He also continued his activism, including protesting and being arrested outside the White House in contradiction of the Hatch Act.

Exxon or climate change deniers didn’t alter official modern weather records or alter historic records by eliminating decade long warm periods. They didn’t create a panel to study causes of climate change that only considered human causes. They didn’t let the public believe the panel was studying all causes of climate change. Exxon reportedly spent $16 million on climate research with virtually none of it going to deniers. Meanwhile, from the time Hansen appeared before the Senate Committee in 1988 to 2009, Gore, Wirth, and their political partners directed $79 billion to promotion of the unproven AGW hypothesis. It remains unproven. The total cost to societies from the implementation of unnecessary energy and environmental policies is in the trillions.

It is clear who the racketeers are. But then, it may not be racketeering but politics as usual.

Advertisements

62 thoughts on “RICO Charges Against ‘Climate Deniers’: A Case of Goose and Gander

  1. Disaster scenarios are very useful to some politicians, and truth gets in the way of a good story line. This sort of thing has a bipartisan history in Washington, with Nixon and the “War on Cancer” being a very expensive blind alley that just sort of petered out, but was a very big thing for a while.

      • What I meant by “Nixon’s War on Cancer” was the model envisioned by several resechers at NIH that cancer was caused by synthetic chemicals (re “The Apocalyptics” by Edith Efron, 1984). That scare scenario of a cancer epidemic did yield some good results, but the model as a whole collapsed.

    • Cancer survival rates are way, way up compared to the 70’s. There are many cancers that are curable now, that weren’t curable then.
      Not to bad for a blind alley.

    • How about “ganging-up” ?

      Check out the U.S. Form 990s for U.S. organizations and individuals involved in the Alberta oil-sands affair.

      These are available online.

  2. Biggest lie ever, indeed and it’s incredibly vulgar how this is spat as truth to children who could not know they are being brainwashed. The ‘Green’ crowd are the ‘deniers’ of the truth, using lies and deceit for their own evil purposes.

  3. Gore, Wirth, Hansen and the other conspirators probably feel safe right now, but if Trump gets elected, that might change.

    Trump has already said he would consider continuing the investigation of Hillary, if he is elected. If he is bold enough to investigate Hillary, then he shouldn’t have any problem investigating Gore, Wirth, Hansen and all the rest.

    Once Trump realizes the magnitude of the huge fraud that has been perpetrated on U.S. taxpayers, and the world, in furtherance of the CAGW lie, I would expect him to come down hard on those involved.

    Trump says he is the law and order guy. We shall see.

    • Trump is starting to turn more liberal on several of his issues. The minimum wage is one, and Immigration Amnesty is another so far. In Iowa he backed (and wanted to increase bio-fuels – where Cruz was the only one who was against bio-fuels, and won the primary there). I’m afraid he will soften his stance on CAGW too (he said it’s a hoax, we’ll see). If he gets too liberal, he will loose like McCain, Romney, and Dole…even to Hillary (crooked Hillary- don’t you think he could come up with a more creative mantra about Hillary?).

      • I don’t see any signs of Trump turning “liberal”.

        On the minimum wage, Trump says the States should be the ones to determine the minimum wage, since the cost of living is different in different States, and a one-size-fits-all solution is not as good as the States deciding for themselves.

        As for the immigration policy, it’s hard to tell what Trump says about it because every time he opens his mouth you have 500 pundits interpreting every word, and usually distorting every word, so if you want the truth, you need to listen to Trump directly, and not to someone’s interpretation of what he said.

        I personally heard Trump repeat his “No amnesty” pledge yesterday, so I don’t think he is contemplating doing that.

        I would suggest that instead of listening to all these talking heads going off in every direction, we should wait until Trump actually gives his speech on immigration policy in a few days, and then we can see if he has changed his position or not.

        Trump is the kind of guy who when he says he is going to do something, will try with all his might to do just that, otherwise he looks like a failure, and looking like a failure is the last thing Donald Trump wants. He will make every effort to keep his word, IMO.

      • “… (crooked Hillary- don’t you think he could come up with a more creative mantra about Hillary?).”

        Show us, please. Show us a better mantra, J. Philip Peterson.

      • He already used Lying Ted, and lying almost everyone else on that stage

        How about Inability Hillary, Incarceration Hillary, Incompetent Hillary, Big Government Hillary – I don’t know, I’m no longer in the advertising headline writing business. There must be something out there that one could think up – probably two words. Alinsky Tactics Hillary, the general population probably don’t know that. Help!
        No Fracking Hillary?

      • Trump stated that he now would raise the minimum wage to $10/hr. and his stand on immigration is just like most of the other GOP candidates now – Rubio, Jeb Bush, etc….I really think he is going to back off on Global Warming/Climate Change – you just wait…(I sure hope not!).

      • Years ago Will Rogers quipped that all politicians eventually sound alike at election time so you can’t tell who to vote for. As a result the only safe choice was to regularly throw the bums in power out on their ear.

        “Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and all for the same reason.” Unknown / Mark Twain / José Maria de Eça de Queiroz

      • To those that don’t like “crooked Hillary,” well I can offer you this one instead “Killary,” not because of the spate of deaths since the convention, but from ‘We came, we saw. he died! Hahahahahaha!” A person with no conscience is too demonic for me.

    • Quite right. The renewable energy protagonists have known for years that it would never work, and was basically a fraud.

      Time for some class actions, methinks.

    • Dr. Ball writes so many excellent articles he is like a movie six shooter that never needs to be reloaded but just keeps firing away.

  4. Posted on another thread, but equally relevant here.

    While we’re on the subject, perhaps it’s worth mentioning that the whole nefarious cap-and-trade scheme was dreamed up by a fine collection of n’er-do-wells including Enron’s CEO Ken Lay, BP’s Lord John Browne, President Bill Clinton and Vice President Gore.

  5. If anyone ever sees jail time for this, and that’s a big “if”, science as we know it might never be trusted so well again. But, maybe that’s a good thing in the long run.

  6. I much dislike the cover shown in Figure 1.

    First, the “deception” part of the title should be there, but the “human caused” part should not. As currently phrased the title reinforces the “human” part – just opposite what you want to do.

    The little figure in the purple suit with candle: What the xxxx is this? It is under the name “Dr. Tim Ball” but it is hard to say because I do not know what Tim Ball looks like. And why are you holding a candle?
    Okay! I’m familiar with the climate-story but of the 100 people I know best, even my wife, not one would have a clue as to the fact that the cartoon is not meant to be Tim Ball illuminating the “deception” of the book.

    You should have been reading Scott Adam’s blog for the past 18 months regarding the “persuasion” aspects of the political parties.

  7. The Very Proper Gander
    James Thurber (1894-1961)

    Not so long ago there was a very fine gander. He was strong and smooth and beautiful and he spent most of his time singing to his wife and children.

    One day somebody who saw him strutting up and down in his front yard and singing remarked, “There is a very proper gander.”

    An old hen overheard this and told her husband about it that night in the roost. “They said something about propaganda,” she said. “I have always suspected that,” said the rooster, and he went around the barnyard the next day telling everybody that the very fine gander was a dangerous bird, more than likely a hawk in gander’s clothing. A small brown hen remembered a time when at a very great distance she had seen the gander talking to some hawks in the forest. “They were up to no good,” she said.

    A duck remembered that the gander had once told him that he did not believe in anything. “He said to hell with the flag, too,” said the duck. A guinea hen recalled that she had once seen somebody who looked very much like the gander throw something that looked a great deal like a bomb.

    Finally, everybody snatched up sticks and stones and descended on the gander’s house. He was strutting in his front yard, singing to his children and his wife.

    “There he is!” everybody cried. “Hawk-lover! Unbeliever! Flag-hater! Bomb-thrower!” So they set upon him and drove him out of the country.

    MORAL:
    Anybody who you or your wife thinks is going to overthrow the government by violence must be driven out of the country.

    • My neighbor had a goose who must’ve served as the model for Thurber’s “There is a very proper gander”; though his honk could hardly be called song.

      As a very proper gander he was often seen “…strutting up and down in his front yard…”.

      Only, things were often too quiet in the gander’s front yard, so he would widen his strut to include portions of my side yard.

      When friends came to visit and went out walking, they often met this gander strutting his stuff. Now Mr. gander favored the ladies, rarely interfering with their walks.

      However, Mr. gander did not favor men so readily and would boldly strut up to them and interfere while honking his displeasure.
      Several of the guys didn’t challenge the gander and instead turned away from the gander to walk around or away.

      Now Mr. gander was a coward at heart. Challenge him and he’d back up and then walk away honking, (singing?), his misery.
      Turn to walk away, and cowardly Mr. gander would lean in and give a painfully severe bite to the guy’s derriere. Several men had to have their lady friends check the bruising and apply antiseptic.

      One friend came back running with a flapping singing gander giving happy chase.

      Moral?
      Do unto him, before he does unto you?
      Don’t turn your back on strutting ganders?
      Don’t count your cheeks before a gander struts them?
      Ganders are always better stuffed rather than strutting?

  8. Just wait.

    Until 30 September 2016, ICANN, the US govt contracted entity under he Dept of Commerce, has overseen web domain name registration and lookup. As a US govt contracted entity, there is no way 1st Amendment free speech right could be abrogaed globally. Places like Turkey and China could block specific domain users within their own country, but there were always work arounds.

    When ICANN becomes an entity under the UN’s ITU, you will see IPCC attempt to shutdown climate skeptic domain names and web blogs like:

    realclimatescience.com
    Wattsupwiththat.com
    Bishop Hill’s
    Jo Nova’s
    Dr TimBall’s
    …and others.

    Progressives are really (national) socialists in sheep’s clothing. All part of Obama’s desire to abolish free speech on the internet.

    It is coming: A Dark Ages for global free speech on the internet is nigh.

  9. Jim Hansen said, “Gentlemen, I’m 99 percent sure that human beings are contributing to climate change…,”

    And that 99% was based on the false contention that the 1-sigma 0.13 C temperature jitter in the 30-year 1951-1980 normal period defined the entire range of natural temperature variability; discussed in WUWT here

    Jim Hansen published that total tosh based, first, on Figure 1 in (1988) Hansen, J. and S. Lebedeff, Global Surface Air Temperatures: Update Through 1987 Geophys. Res. Lett. 15(4), 323-326.

    Here’s what he wrote: “What is the significance of recent global warming? The standard deviation of annual-mean global-mean temperature about the 30-year mean is 0.13 C for the period 1951-1980. Thus the 1987 global temperature of 0.33 C, relative to the 1951-1980 climatology is a warming of between 2 sigma and3 sigma. If a warming of 3 sigma is reached, it will represent a trend significant at the 99% confidence level. However, causal connection of the warming with the greenhouse effect requires examination of the expected climate system response to a slowly evolving climate forcing, a subject beyond the scope of this paper.

    That “examination of the expected climate response“ came in (1988) J. Hansen, et al. Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model J. Geophys. Res. 93(D8) 9341-9364.

    Therein he wrote: “Our model results suggest that global greenhouse warming will soon rise above the level of natural climate variability. The single best place to search for the greenhouse effect appears to be the global mean surface air temperature. If it rises and remains for a few years above an appropriate significance level, which we have argued is abut 0.4 c for 99% confidence (3 sigma), it will constitute convincing evidence of a cause and effect relationship, i.e., a “smoking gun,” in current vernacular.

    That 0.4 C 3 sigma proof is merely 3x the 0.13 C standard deviation jitter of the global air temperature around its 1951-1980 normal that Hansen and Lebedeff reported in 1988.

    Got that? Jim Hansen claimed in peer-reviewed print that the entire natural variability of global average air temperature is 3×0.13 C. What a crock.

    If anyone should get sued for misrepresentation, it’s him. His nonsense sparked a huge waste of money and the corruption of science.

    Neither of those papers included any physically valid measurement or model uncertainty limits, either, by the way. None of Jim Hansen’s papers have them.

    • Hi Pat,
      Did you see Zhou & Wang 2016
      http://www.nature.com/articles/srep31789
      This compares the Tmean =(Tmax+Tmin)/2 temperature calc with the average of 24 hourly readings each day, for summer and winter, globally, thousands of stations, more than a decade.
      The trend differences in degC/decade from 1998 to 2014 under different scenarios can be up to 0.2 with the old method reading high.
      Very interesting.
      Keep well. Geoff
      h/t David S.

      • Thanks, Geoff, that’s a useful article showing the current state of thinking about air temperature. As usual, it deploys an uncritical use of compiled temperatures and not word one about measurement error.

        The paper seems most notable to me as a prime example of the false precision with which consensus climatology is rife, rife, rife. In that sense, it’s a valuable contribution.

        Best regards, :-)

    • Pat Frank
      August 29, 2016 at 6:46 pm

      “Our model results suggest that global greenhouse warming will soon rise above the level of natural climate variability. The single best place to search for the greenhouse effect appears to be the global mean surface air temperature. If it rises and remains for a few years above an appropriate significance level, which we have argued is abut 0.4 c for 99% confidence (3 sigma), it will constitute convincing evidence of a cause and effect relationship, i.e., a “smoking gun,” in current vernacular.”

      “Jim Hansen said, “Gentlemen, I’m 99 percent sure that human beings are contributing to climate change…,”

      “Got that? Jim Hansen claimed in peer-reviewed print that the entire natural variability of global average air temperature is 3×0.13 C. What a crock.”
      —————————————————–

      Pat.
      Hansen seems to have claimed in peer-reviewed print that the entire natural variability of global average air temperatures due to RF (Radiative Forcing) variation, aka CO2 ppm variation is ~0.4C.

      For the last ~20 years that has not being surpassed regardless of so much positive biases applied to temps data and the ever increasing of RF…..therefor Jim has being already proven wrong with his 99% certainty, which by his own “confession” and admission is solely based in the suggestions of model results….
      Reality proves Hansen wrong by his own rationale and his own claims.
      And his certainty at 99% or whatever has no any real value……

      By his own work Jim shows that there is no any sign ore evidence of AGW. around to be fond.

      The GW (period) consist only of a 0,4C, and has not increased beyond that, for the last 15-18 years there has being a “plateau” in heat content increase, regardless of the RF increase.

      According to Jim the GW remains natural so far…:)

      cheers

      • whiten, global air temperature certainly hasn’t increased since 1988 the way it should have done to keep the thermista shouting triumphantly, that’s for sure. :-)

  10. “Jim Hansen said, “Gentlemen, I’m 99 percent sure that human beings are contributing to climate change…,””

    And if that is what he actually said, then he is probably 100% right. That is, that ne is 99 percent sure of it. It is feasible, though unlikely, that human beings are contributing to 5% of climate change. And if so, then he is 99% sure of human beings contributing a very small amount to climate change.

    What his statement did NOT say is that is he is 99% sure of human beings being the MAJOR contributors to climate change. Even if we contribute 1% he is still right. You have to watch their language, so often the leaders use carefully worded language, which is then blindly reused in a slip-shod fashion by underlings and sycophants. Politicians are usually very careful about this: John Howard, our Prime Minister from 1996 to 2007 was very careful – he would, when making a statement always say “I am advised that XXX”. Prevented him being caught out lying to Parliament, a resignable offence!

    • Dudley, here’s what Jim Hansen said in his oral testimony: “The warming is almost 0.4 degrees Centigrade by 1987 relative to climatology, which is defined as the 30 year mean, 1950 to 1980 and, in fact, the warming is more than 0.4 degrees Centigrade in 1988. The probability of a chance warming of that magnitude is about 1 percent. So, with 99 percent confidence we can state that the warming during this time period is a real warming trend. … The main point to be made here [following model simulations] is that the expected warming is of the same magnitude as the observed warming. Since there is only a 1 percent chance of an accidental warming of this magnitude, the agreement with the expected greenhouse effect is of considerable significance. (my bold)”

      The bolded sections leave no doubt about Jim Hansen’s meaning. His invocation of the 1% chance and the 99% probability clearly assigned natural climate variability to the 1950-1980 air temperature jitter, as published in his paper and as directly implied in the “Gentlemen…” quote.

      In short, Jim Hansen’s testimony before the Senate committee, in fact did say that he was 99% sure that human beings were the major contributor to the recent (to 1988) global warming trend (aka, climate change).

  11. Dr.Ball. Not to be to picky,however you left out one VERY important word in the sub-title….WHO.

  12. I get at least 4-5 emails a day from the Daily Kos. This one I got today. They seem to have a big following, unless their stats are bogus – lots of comments:

    “Daily Kos Community

    jpp1800, at Daily Kos we know climate change is real (and happening already)—but an alarming number of Americans have been spoonfed right-wing lies that attack it.
    Have you encountered a climate change denier? What ideas do you have to make them understand the real threat? Log in or sign up for a Daily Kos account, and write a blog post of your experience.
    At Daily Kos, this community writer had an excellent blog post about combating the type of propaganda that climate change deniers post. It’s a great resource to cut through the misinformation:

    • Combating Climate Change Denial: A Case Study

    The scientific consensus is universal: climate change is real, and it’s already happening. What we have is a political battle, and one whose consequences if we do not prevail would be calamitous.
    Log in or sign up for a Daily Kos account, and give us your thoughts about how to combat climate change denial so that we can focus on getting real change. When publishing your blog post, please be sure to use the tag #emailprompt.
    Thanks for all you do,
    Paul Hogarth, Daily Kos

    P.S. Please help keep Daily Kos strong by chipping in $3..”

    I haven’t unsubscribed because I want to see what they are thinking, and the propaganda they are sending out. Their comments all agree…

    • A person just has to wonder how long it took them to figure out “climate change is already happening”? 200 years? 2000? 10,000? These folks are right on top of stuff aren’t they?

      • Yeah, not like us dumb right-wingers, who are pretty sure climate started changing a few billions years ago when we actually acquired a climate TO change.

  13. I’m certainly looking forward to your book Dr. Ball, I’ve always enjoyed and been educated by your essays here and elsewhere.

    I’ve always (I think) understood Al Gore but had never heard of Mr. Wirth so you’ve educated me yet again, for which I sincerely thank you. On the question of Dr. Hansen and his part in all this, I’ve never been able to decide if he was a co-conspirator or just a useful idiot. He was appointed to GISS the year I left NASA so I don’t have any professional experience with him and don’t have connections any longer with folks who did. It would be interesting to me if anyone on this list could advance an informed opinion. Was he “put up to it” or did he really believe? Now that he’s in retirement he’s made some fairly wild appearances in the media and it would be easy to think he might be “a few beers short of a six-pack” as they say, but I don’t have any way of knowing if that’s a recent, maybe age related, development or if he’s always been a hairy-eyed bomb thrower?

  14. I’m not sure the lie is really all that much believed, although people probably have doubts.

    The progressive politicians have been looking for something new and ubiquitous to tax for a long time, and they’ve used the world-is-coming-to-an-end argument often enough, be it overpopulation or an ice age or whatever. What’s really changed is the US electorate. Many voters (not all, but a significant minority) are now willing to consider surrendering to a near totalitarian style governing model, and that’s something I didn’t think I’d see in my lifetime. It reflects a certain diminishment in rationality, or a lack of education, even among those brandishing degrees. (probably the latter). People seem more susceptible to the big lie.

    Of course no one really knows to what degree humans affect climate, or—if we do—whether the impact is beneficial or not. But that’s not important. What IS important is that we all believe whatever is sold, and that we obey without thinking, or at least that we obey, and keep our doubts to ourselves.

  15. Wirth and ex-senator Big Al are no longer public elected officials. RICO laws: Someone needs to go for it. I can see a Class Action civil suite against them followed by criminal charges.

  16. “Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was”

    I grew up in Northern VA, within a stone’s throw of DC. The hottest days are not in June, they’re in July and August. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t get hot sometimes in June, but the statement by Wirth is wrong.

  17. To understand the actions of these people like Gore and Hansen, I highly recommend Thomas Sowell’s “Intellectuals and Society”. He notes that public intellectuals (as opposed to those who get feedback on their performance, like engineers and CEOs and doctors) are insulated from feedback, are not interested in checking if their pronouncements are right, proclaim outside their official expertise (Paul Ehrlich is an entomologist, for example), and have incentives to get ever more extreme in order to get press. These tendencies are only made worse in the climate change arena because one can claim to be saving the world and one’s pronouncements are about conditions 100 years from now and are thus impossible to check.

Comments are closed.