More data showing that #ExxonKnew is a dead campaign

People send me stuff.

Today there was a protest in Washington D.C. near the congressional offices. You’d think that in the hot bed of politics, our nation’s capital, you could find more than a handful of people who would participate. Sadly, no, as these photographs from Katie Brown demonstrate.

img_20160914_093231 img_20160914_093244 img_20160914_093250

As we reported before, sensible people are backing away from this farce.

Energy and Environment ran a story this morning

Greens to rally at Capitol ahead of Exxon subpoena hearing

Environmentalists will sound off at the Capitol today against subpoenas from the House Science, Space and Technology Committee chairman seeking communications between green groups and state attorneys general investigating Exxon Mobil Corp.’s work on climate change.

Source: http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/09/14/stories/1060042798 (subscription required)

In that story it was said:

Sharon Eubanks, a former Justice Department lawyer who prosecuted tobacco companies; Democratic lawmakers; and the executive director of 350.org will headline the rally over subpoenas from Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith.

Smith hit New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D), Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) and green groups with subpoenas in July for four years of documents and communications related to the Exxon probe (E&E Daily, July 14).

Smith has suggested that the attorneys general are making a political attempt to stifle foes of mainstream climate science.

The environmental groups boasted new support from legal experts and others alleging that they have been shut out of the committee’s proceedings.

Hmm, well the pictures sure don’t show a lot of support. Looks like just a bunch of ankle biters.

Meanwhile in the same story:

Smith has warned that his panel will consider “using all tools at its disposal to further its investigation” in the war over Exxon’s statements on climate change.

Critics of the probe contend that Schneiderman took on the crusade against Exxon to help attract campaign funds from liberal donors, a charge his office has denied.

It looks like Schneiderman is getting more and more isolated, especially when they can’t even rally significant troops to protest the cause.

Advertisements

106 thoughts on “More data showing that #ExxonKnew is a dead campaign

  1. One day, the big corporations may discover that their greenwash has stuck. They should have had more testicular fortitude in the beginning.

    • +1 Also people will learn that “environmentalism” isn’t in the interest of humanity. We’ve been cleaning up pollution for decades and doing a good job of it.

    • This all started in the UK many years ago when Shell took the decision to spend a lot of shareholders money towing a de-commissioned North Sea Oil Rig to a special drydock for environmentally safe dismantling and scrapping. They had wanted to sink the rig in situ but a massive campaign by Green Brigade activists claimed this proposed procedure would create a massive marine environmental catastrophe due to toxic waste products and materials on and in the rig. Shell subsequently advised, and had confirmed independently, that their on-shore dismantling confirmed their belief that no such massive amount of such toxic wastes and materials. The Green Brigade didn’t even apologise. Shell should have sued all of them for £billions!

  2. Several years back there was a national campaign to protest Climate Change and a coordinator was listed on the website for target cities around the country including Milwaukee. So I called the local number to find out about the exact when and where, and tootled on down to 6th and Wisconsin Avenue at the appointed time.

    I had a nice conversation with the half dozen or so people who showed up with signs. We were polite, and it was a gorgeous day.

  3. Scheiderman knows he is caught out. He has already changed his Martin Act reasoning to ‘future stranded assets’ from ‘past climate knowledge’. And that won’t fly because oil and gas assets are not yet stranded; to make assertions now would violate the Martin Act.
    The reason for Lamar Smith’s 4 years request is that this scheme was hatched in a two day meeting at Scripps in La Jolla in 2012. The meeting was sponsored by Union of Concerned Scientists, chaired by Naomi Oeskes of Merchants Of Doubt infamy, and was specifically about how to apply tobacco RICO to big oil. A multipage summary of the meeting outcome is still available on the web via Google, and I am certain Smith has a copy cause I sent it to him when this nonsense got started.

    • I too have sent Lamar Smith a number of data sets with corresponding information. But the journaling and overt analyses contained herein are by far the most powerful tools to date to combat Liberal Alarmism and all that implies. Thank you and thank Anthony!

    • One can only wonder where this kind of sickening intimidation and political predation would go if not for the courage and efforts of determined and honest citizens.

    • Just out of interest, the woman heading up this little demo fail, Sharon Eubanks, was a participant at the La Jolla meeting.

    • Now he is going after Trump and Trump foundation with a blind eye toward the Clinton Foundation.
      Partisan AG’s are scary and this guy seems to be the worst

  4. It looks like half of them are there to report on the other half. The ones with the signs are clearly protesters. The ones with the big shoulder bags look like reporters.

  5. The environmental groups boasted new support from legal experts and others alleging that they have been shut out of the committee’s proceedings.

    When you’ve been subpoenaed, that is the exact opposite of being “shut out”.

  6. Lamar Smith (R-Texas/Exxon) and Exxon-Mobil? Hmm, just wondering how much Exxon-Mobil contributed to his election /re-election campign? That this idiot (or any of these Republicans, many of whom believe that humans walked with dinosaurs 6,000 yrs ago) is the chairman of such an important committee is a joke, a farce and an insult to any person with a modicum of scientific training.
    Anthony, you’re always on point about integrity, data and honesty in science and I have to wonder why you so easily give these bufoons in congress who don’t know science fact from fiction if it hit them in the head a free pass.

    • ‘Anthony, you’re always on point about integrity, data and honesty in science’

      If he wasn’t this would be a climate alarmist site, filled with people like…….. you.

    • TM, your rant about Lamar Smith is offbase. You are confusing him with Senator Inhofe. Smith went after NOAA /Karl on the basis of 2 whistleblower complaints to his oversight committee from within NOAA. With respect to The AG’s and NGOs, his well founded concern is based on the published minutes of a two day meeting at Scripps hosted by USC and chaired by Naomi Oreskes, on expressly how to get the AG’s to execute Merchants of Doubt ‘Exxonknew’ in violation of 18USC241 and 42USC1985. Smith knows this because he has a copy of the meeting minutes. And he has already provided the legal basis for properly issued subpoenas under his committees express authority. He both the law and the probable cause ‘goods’ on his side.

      • I stand by my remarks. And I’m not confuing him with Inhofe. Smith has an agenda and a commitment to his wealthy Texas constituants and his ostensible search for the truth is a farce. It’s almost laughable that a Texas lawmaker is acting as a defacto advocate for one of the world’s wealthiest oil companies who just so happens to have its Corporate Headquarters in Texas, albeit not in his district. That detail doesn’t matter, the whole affair is a farce. Eric Schneidermann, et al, should begin an opposing action citing a huge conflict of interest. What Smith should do is recuse himself but then his witchhunt would end since his colleague in Dustrict 24 (Exxon-mobil) doesn’t hold such a prestigious position.

      • Ha ha ha,

        T. Madigan, then you will ignore the legal basis of Lamar Smiths Subpoena,because you have no cogent reply to it. You can’t show that it is a witch hunt either, since Mr. Smith has a legal basis of PUBLISHED Minutes of a two day meeting, chaired by, Mrs Oreskes,who were trying to find a way muffle the opposition.It is called PROBABLE CAUSE.

        You have NOTHING so far to enlighten the rest here, why you object to legitimate questions Mr. Smith has for the people, he wants answers from. I predict you never will because you are another dishonest visitor to pollute the thread with.

      • You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
        Schneiderman has been caught out, as explained above. He has even changed the rationale for his investigation since the presser. No longer ‘Exxonknew’ because that was a hobgoblin of warmunist Naomi Oreskes imagination that Exxon shot down with about 100,000 pages of subpoena reply; its now ‘future stranded assets’. The pathetic little demonstration in Washington obviously didn’t get his memo. On that new fig leaf excuse for inexcusable behavior (lackmof prosecutorial discretion in an election year) he will fail because they aren’t stranded in the present, and Exxon has for years been explicitly warning in its 10k and AP about possible negative AGW business impacts in the future. No SEC or Martin Act need to quantify anything until it happens, if it ever does.
        Take your Lamar Smith lumps and move on. This is politics. Politics is a tough game. You, Schneiderman, and Oreskes already lost this round. Schneiderman figured that out already. You have yet to.

      • Actually I think you mean Sheldon Whitehouse. His scientific knowledge is about 10th grade. And I am not kidding. He may be a lawyer but he doesn’t know shit about Science.

      • Isn’t Schneiderman the one who requires less transparency from the Clinton Foundation than other charity filings and just announced he wants to investigate a Trump donation or a Trump charity to make sure it was operating within the law?

      • T.Madigan, you clearly are not bright, since YOU and Phil Plait, completely ignored probable cause, Smith used to send the Subpoena,as ristvan pointed out,

        “With respect to The AG’s and NGOs, his well founded concern is based on the published minutes of a two day meeting at Scripps hosted by USC and chaired by Naomi Oreskes, on expressly how to get the AG’s to execute Merchants of Doubt ‘Exxonknew’ in violation of 18USC241 and 42USC1985. Smith knows this because he has a copy of the meeting minutes. And he has already provided the legal basis for properly issued subpoenas under his committees express authority. He both the law and the probable cause ‘goods’ on his side.”

        You are now just embarrassing yourself here.

      • T. Madigan,

        here are a couple of comments posted by ristvan,back in July about this:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/14/more-pushback-house-science-committee-issues-subpoenas-for-exxonknew-attorney-generals-union-of-concerned-scientists/#comment-2258173

        “Smith was polite and reasonable with his first letter. He warned them with his second, setting out in footnotes the legal precedents his committee was relying on. Did the legal homework before firing subpoenas.

        He also has in his hip pocket John Christy’s written February testimony showing the consensus is wrong because the CMIP5 models are wrong. Which means contrary skepical research and conclusions are scientifically justified, and attempts to supress it are not. Valid scientific basis for the subpoenas.

        Christy’s testimony by itself is also a full rebuttal to Oreskes’ Merchants of Doubt theory, upon which the AG’s relied. This addresses Schneiderman’s PR rationale the first Amendment does not cover fraud. It also fully, factually, (and it now appears with probable legal input from the committee) addresses several potential collateral issues related to these subpoenas. Such as Schmidt/Mann’s factually inaccurate video attack (professionally produced by YaleClimateConnections.org) on the reliability of the satellite temperature records used to disprove CMIP5 and by inference IPCC AR5. All skeptics should have a well thumbed copy of this newest testimony. Google Christy testimony feb 2016. The first link is directly to the testimony archived at docs.house.gov.

        It is a pleasure to watch Rep. Smith’s carefully thought out counter attack unfold on the ‘Green AG’s and their NGO enablers. My guess is contempt of congress is coming, and that rather than refer to DoJ ( an exercise in futility) Smith plans the congressional route of direct criminal enforcement to gain maximum timely PR with an election coming. (Wikipedia actually has a good article on this if you don’t want to wade through legal briefs from Congressional Research Service.)”

        and,

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/14/more-pushback-house-science-committee-issues-subpoenas-for-exxonknew-attorney-generals-union-of-concerned-scientists/#comment-2258280

        “A footnote on congressional subpoenas and contempt. There are three requirements for a ‘legally sufficient’ (that is valid and enforceable) congressional subpoena. These were set forth by SCOTUS in Wilkerson v. US, 365US399 (1961):
        1. The subject matter must be within the committee’s official congressional remit. Rep. Smith has since 2014 chaired the House oversight Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. His letters and the subpoena make clear this investigation is about climate science. That is his purview because the committee oversight expressly includes NOAA and NASA.
        2. The investigation must have a valid legislative purpose (but does not have to involve specific pending legislation). There are two independent test threads here. A. Supression of independent scientific endeavor. Smith’s committee, for example, oversees the NSF budget which funds many independent (non-governmental) climate research proposals, for example those of RICO20 Shukla. Suppression of science means NSF is hindered in potentially funding proposed legitimate skeptical research. B. Violation of first amendment scientific speech civil rights, a matter of criminal 18USC241 and civil 42USC1983. This is the explicit tack taken in his second letter. Simpler for PR purposes. The Merchants of Doubt counter by Schneiderman that the first amendment does not protect deceit and deception was already a matter of public record in Schneiderman’s PR, so Smith knew Schneiderman would use that counter to claim the congressional subpoena is wrong because Schneiderman has a legitimate investigation under New York’s 1921 Martin Act. Hence he shot that counter down in advance with the Christy testimony.
        3. The specific subpoena subject matter must be pertinent to the valid investigation. Correspondence between AGs and NGOs including USC about the motivation for AG subpoenas under the provably false merchants of doubt theory is very pertinent to showing a conspiracy between them to violate first amendment scientific speech rights.

        Smith has architected this well. He has the 2014 Congressional Research Service legal opinion on congressional contempt and procedural remedies. He has the 1961 SCOTUS opinion for subpoena validity. His second round of letters set forth detailed legal reasons for the request’s legitimacy. The second letter due date for voluntary compliance was July 13. The supoenas went out today, July 14. Quite the spectacle when he sends the House Sargent at Arms to Cambridge to arrest the head of UCS for trial in front of Congress for contempt because UCS did not comply with yhe subpoena–with well precedented penalties of fines (usually $1000/day noncompliant) and prison (usually one year in federal prison, shortened by subsequent compliance). I don’t see how the AGs and NGOs have any wiggle room, although they will sure try to wiggle hard.
        A conspiracy to use state AGs to shut down skeptics using Merchant of Doubt tactics first plotted by NGOs and individuals like Naomi Oreskes at the 2012 Scripps Climate Accountability Workshop organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists (Peter Frumhoff, who was involved in the AG meetings the day of their press conference), chaired by Naomi Oreskes. For those interested, the 36 page summary of that odious workshop is available on line for Smith to use as an investigation roadmap. Just google scripps la jolla climate conference. Its the fifth hit. I have archived it just in case it vanishes now. Its not to smart to put your conspiracy plan into the public domain years before it comes to fruition.
        Especially when there is no meaningful warming this century, there is large model/observation discrepancy concerning warming (2.5-3x) and sensitivity (2x), SLR is not accelerating, the planet is greening, polar bears are thriving, and renewable texhnologies are failing technically (Ivanpah), economically (wind) and at high grid penetrations (UK reliability). All of which says there is much legitimate doubt about the warmunist consensus–unlike the tobacco litigation.
        Popcorn futures keep rising.”

        You need to catch up……

      • Michael Jankowski September 14, 2016 at 4:18 pm

        You are correct. It’s the same Schneiderman who is embarking on a new fishing expedition to find evil-doing amongst his political opponents, this time it’s Trump. Apparently, there is not enough real crime to prosecute in New York.

      • T. Madigan September 14, 2016 at 1:47 pm Edit
        And then there’s this piece by Phil Plait calling out Smith on his climate adventures: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/30/global_warming_lamar_smith_s_conspiracy_ideations.html

        This just demonstrates that Plait is either a moron, a liar or both…

        Plait’s graph of the GISS data clearly demonstrates that the warming had slowed…

        While the 2016 El Niño has disrupted the pause…

        0.0035 °C per year and a correlation coefficient of 0.0098
        would round down to…

        Virtually no one disputed the pause until Karl et al., 2015 erased it

        NOAA climate feud: Pursuit of scientific truth vs. public accountability

        By Lisa Rein November 17 at 12:38 PM

        The standoff between federal climate scientists and a senior House Republican over a groundbreaking global warming study is exposing an emerging tension over government research: the freedom to pursue scientific truth versus the public’s right to know what is being done with taxpayer money.

        The flash point in the feud between House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is a congressional subpoena. The congressman, a prominent global warming skeptic, is demanding that the government turn over its scientists’ internal exchanges and communications with NOAA’s top political appointees.

        […]

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/noaa-climate-feud-pursuit-of-scientific-truth-vs-public-accountability/

        Karl et al. did this on the taxpayers’ dime while #OccupyWhiteHouse was pushing his latest assault on the US energy industry. Rep. Smith has a constitutional duty to determine if Karl et al., 2015 was driven by a political agenda… And… Setting aside the fact that NOAA may have committed scientific fraud, how in the Hell can there be a conflict between “the freedom to pursue scientific truth versus the public’s right to know what is being done with taxpayer money”?

      • T. is doubling down on stupid.
        As always, he attacks the messenger and ignores the message.
        Of course it’s all he can do, since he can’t refute the message.

      • Plait proved that the pause didn’t exist by starting his data 20 years before the pause started. Then drawing a simple trend line.
        That would be embarrassing for a 3rd grader.

    • I have to compliment the commenters responding to T. Madigan. By and large, they are showing considerable restraint in responding to his quite provocative, ad hominem attacks on legislators who trying to bring more transparency to the “climate change” discussions.

      • By the way, surely it would be obviously absurd to require every politician to be expert in everything? It’s not as if there were one small simple thing called “science” you could pick up in high school. I have science *degrees* and the main thing I learned is the vast area of my ignorance. For example, I do know a bit about ocean physics, but practically nothing about solid state physics, so you could tell me 100% efficient solar panels were possible and I wouldn’t be able to call you wrong. (Well, OK, I know *that* much, but as an isolated fact.)

        It would surely also be absurd to expect any politician to be utterly indifferent to the interests of a large company in his constituency employing a large number of people and producing a product that his society is utterly dependent on? Do you expect, do you WANT, politicians to ignore farmers completely? In both cases, I’d go so far as to say it would be EVIL to ignore agribusiness or oil companies. Oil companies are as selfish and amoral as the laws let them be, like any other companies, but it would be suicidal madness to try to smash them before there is anything resembling an alternative.

        The question is whether the AG or the Congressman has done anything WRONG. One has, one hasn’t. It doesn’t matter whether Smith listened to Exxon or to little purple exploding mushrooms, the question is whether his actions are in accord with law. US law being another continent in my world of ignorance, I trust the people here who say that they are.

    • Funds for trolls must be just about, they are definitely scraping bottom when it comes to quality.
      1) Do you have any evidence for your claim about dinosaurs, or is just one of those things that everyone at your most recent bong party agreed on?
      2) Even if your statement regarding dinosaurs was correct (which it isn’t) what does that have to do with this issue?
      3) Now we have it. Anyone who doesn’t agree with what your sponsors told you to believe doesn’t know anything about science.
      4a) Dollars to donuts that T. is back at whatever cube farm his sponsors have put together telling everyone who will listen how he laid into us.
      4b) T. will never be heard from again, at least not under that name.

      • It seems to me that the real dinosaurs are the eco- lefties who are stuck with 1960’s ideas from Rachel Carson and 1930’s ideas from Bernie Sanders. The Socialist ideas have all been tried and failed while the environmental issues have mostly been dealt with. People whose brains are not fossilized are willing to take a rational, unbiased look at this non issue.

    • T. Madigan:

      You open with vague generalized ad hominem and a slur. Neither of which can you prove are true.

      Actually, those scientists and engineers with more than a modicum of scientific training are cheering.

      It’s those bottom of the barrel climate researchers, activists and devotional characters with only a modicum of scientific training that are squawking about getting caught.

      Then you have the gall to backhand compliment Anthony; an action that truly reveals the slimy knuckle dragging troglodyte you are.

      Anthony has been absolutely heroic in his stand for science!

      • T. Madigan’s critical thinking seems to go like this:

        Republicans: Evil and dumb (because they believe dinosaurs walked with man, apparently since many Republicans are devout in their Christian beliefs.)

        Exxon Mobil: Evil simply because they are “big oil”.

        Texas: Evil and dumb because the state houses so many evil big oil companies and is comprised by a majority of evil and dumb Republicans.

        Rep Lamar Smith: Dumb and super evil, because he’s an evil and dumb Republican and he’s from Texas, a state with a lot of evil big oil companies.

    • I think we all have mis-underestimated T. Madigan.

      He is a textbook example of the out-of-the-blue ad hominem attack, and we can all learn from this.

      I, for example, will be using this technique when discussing Ga Tech (GO ENGINEERS!) football opponents. This is best done in a passionate, mindless, fact-free yelling match fueled by adult beverages and chicken wings.

      • No dammit. The only football game that counts is Harvard Yale the Saturday before Thanksgiving, since they plus Princeton (a mere party school mistakenly chosen by Einstein and Feynman) invented football. And let me remind you heathens of the glorious Harvard victory of 1969, memorialized in the Harvard Crimson newspaper as, ‘Harvard beats Yale 29-29’. Cause Harvard came back to score 16 (yup, 2 TDs and 2 two point conversions) in under 2 minutes in 4Q. I was there. A moral victory, if there ever was one…

      • @ristvan
        Along with Stevens Institute of Technology. My alma mater was “in the game” until 1924, when the college president decided we couldn’t compete with “the big boys”, and besides, engineering requires actual studying and football was cutting into the available time.

      • A few decades back, GaTech was unranked and almost win less near the end of the season.
        Notre Dame, ranked number one at the time. Tech scored a field goal in the first half. ND was scoreless until the last play of the game, time expired while the kick was in the air.
        The next day, in inch and half letters, the sports page headline of the Atlanta Journal read, Tech wins 3-3.

    • T. Madigan, your personal attack on the “chairman of such an important committee” indicates to me you disagree with the committee’s request to see public documents created by and in the name of U.S. Attorneys General. If I, as a citizen, were to make a FOIA request of self same AG’s, would you personally attack me?

      I am your “person with a modicum of scientific training” and I’d like to see what my public servants are saying to unaccountable NGOs. NGOs that consistently lie about scientific facts.

      Funny you should bring up “integrity, data and honesty.” Should we consider people who ignore wide discrepancies between satellite and radiosonde temperature estimates and climate model outputs to have integrity and honesty and as using available data when predicting CAGW based on such models?

    • Mr. Madigan,

      Does this mean you actually believe this ExxonKnew nonsense? To transpose the immortal phrase, I guess it all depends on what the meaning of “modicum” is.

    • T.M,
      Think there’s any chance Schneiderman ever took political donations from Exxon? How ’bout from the Rockefeller Foundation (whose HQ is in NY so the AG MUST be kowtowing to them).
      Wonder if the “renewables” industry ever contributed to the Union of Concerned Scientists who sponsored the meeting that came up with this plan?

      This is a discussion site, so if you have any scientific fact related to this topic, I’m sure it would be welcomed. But most of us think the purpose of ad hominems is to detract from the conversation.

      By way of example, why not come up with a real study that shows what percentage of Republicans actually believe that dinosaurs walked the earth 6000 years ago. (That research should be enlightening to you.)

      No anecdotal evidence; I can counter that with a prominent Democrat who believes the temperature of the earth is several millions of degrees and another who thinks the “layer of greenhouse gases” is inches thick.

      • How about the Dem who was worried Guam might tip-over if too many people were on one side?

        Dems love to claim they support science, but they sure don’t when it comes to the beginning of human life or the biological determination of gender.

      • John, what about the ones who believe that economic prosperity is determined by how much money the government takes from one group of people in order to give to another group of people.

    • I have a question for T. Madigan. How much money has George Soros given to politicians to support the “Co2 dives the climate” issue?

    • @ T. – Always the character attacks from you watermelons. That above all else immediately tells me what you are full of. All of the people trying to misuse the RICO statutes are doing so for pristine reasons and any Republican (which I’m not) automatically has been bought out by big oil. Once you play these cards, which are not factual, and often lies, this non-scientist tunes you out. You have nothing cogent to say on any subject as far as I’m concerned. There are many like me.

  7. A specific detail very few people care about added to a general issue very few people care about using a media source frequented by less than 16 percent of Americans.

    #crickets

  8. Activists don’t show up in work attire, wearing heels and wingtips, and carrying leather shoulder bags. They show up with sandals and backpacks … does anyone else believe that these are just a bunch of paid staffers from some green lobbying group.

    • I was thinking they look to be bored government workers out on break, watching the freak show.

      There always was a lot of groups that are incredibly weird meeting in Washington DC.

      When I think about some of them, the witches and warlocks gathering had far more representative. And most of them didn’t dress anything like the cubicle troops.
      That gathering was a couple of days of, “don’t make eye contact, keep walking, head down. Don’t make eye contact. Oh God, what is that lady with the pink hair wearing? Are those shrunken heads?”

      • Those ‘rea’ protestors you are referring to are Sioux nation members and much as they were when Custer brought miners to the Dakotas previously, rather upset about trespassing and digging across their ancestor burial grounds.

        Plans for the pipeline should be revised to the nearest highway that fit the pipeline’s desired directions.

  9. Sounds like a good opportunity for a Viral Video on Youtube
    The scene:
    …..an ExxonKnew protest rally similar to the one above
    The Characters:
    …..A shady character in the shadows
    …..A Pseudo Protester
    the Pseudo Protester is shot from a distance approaching the Shady Cahracter in the shadows
    ZOOM IN
    The Shady Character and Pseudo Protester exchange words then the Shady Character gives the Pseudo Protester a wad of cash which is fanned to emphasize a somewaht sizeable ammount.
    ZOOM OUT 1/2 way
    The Shady Character then hands the Pseudo Protester a sign similar to those being held by the real protesters
    ZOOM OUT remainder
    The Pseudo Protester then stuffs the wad of cash in their pocket, takes their sign and joins the small croud to blend in.

    Guaranteed a million hits

  10. Meanwhile….
    WSJ
    Before the Fukushima accident, resource-poor Japan depended on nuclear plants for about 30% of its power.

    Now, with nearly all of the 50-odd nuclear plants in the country still shut down in the wake of the accident, the country gets 1% of its energy from nuclear power. Cheap coal and natural gas, nearly all imported, have filled the void, together comprising more than 75% of Japan’s energy needs in the year ended in March, compared with 54% before the accident.

    Meanwhile, deregulation of the power market has driven utilities to seek low-cost fuels as they fight for customers in a country where electricity demand is projected to stay flat through 2020. Japanese companies now plan to increase the number of coal-burning power stations in the country by almost 50% in the next 12 years, even as the U.S. and Europe shun the emissions-heavy fuel.

  11. OT,
    I’m trying to find a chart of the Keeling curve with the equinox slopes applied to one cycle. It was used by someone in the comments after an article two or three weeks ago. I would like to use it as part of an educational meme showing how the sun warms the oceans during SH summer causing the bulk of annual co2 increase and then decrease in NH summer. I think there was also a satellite view of the south pacific. This is for the “keyboard wars” in the comments after pseudo-science AGW articles on facebook, and my intent is to provide others with a fast response to disprove false claims by warmists. My inspiration is Burt Rutan’s presentation he used to give at EAA events. Whenever possible, these will include links to the appropriate pages on Nasa, NOAA or other sites usually referenced by warmists. I doubt they will appreciate the irony.

    • JH, what you seek is ‘wrong’. Grab a Keeling curve seasonal blowup from Scripps directly. The downturn in CO2 happens during NH summer startingnin spring and peaking in fall, a direct result of photosynthesis sequestration. CO2 builds back in NH winter when there is little land photosynthesis. Most landmass is in the NH. What this shows is that land plants are responsible for about half of carbon sinking, the rest being ocean phytoplankton.
      There simply is not enough dissolved CO2 in the ocean mixed layer for Henry’s law to explain the seasonal variation. Well intentioned idea, but just wrong. Google is your friend here. Check Station Aloha pCO2 in the mixed layer as a start. There is little to no ocean seasonality. You need stations like Aloha which are in barren oceans to sort Henry from photosynthetic biology.

      • Thanks ristvan, I plan on showing all sources and sinks, and I was under the impression that dissolved ocean co2 was a large chunk of it. One of the problems with checking many sources- some are wrong. I plan to “test-fly” the memes here for critiques of accuracy and make any corrections before “battlefield” debut. You have saved me some work.

      • Have AW give you my coordinates (he will, but is not hard, try Linked In or Judith Curry) and I will be glad to critique your worthy meme endeavor. Been at this for over 5 long years now, and parts of three books. The total carbon sources and sinks budget is very difficult and uncertain. Does not help that the new sat data is being withheld from publication because apparentlynupends preconcieved notions. But there are parts that are better known. Difference between individual molecule and concentration residence times ( the Salby bomb spike error). Seasonal variation. Average growth after average sinks. Saturation.

  12. Perhaps only those who could attend without using fossil fuels turned up, as a demonstration of their integrity?

  13. Ahhhh… nothing stirs the heart nor starts the blood racing like being swept up in the emotions of a throng of 10s and 10s of people.

    • I count 8 protesters, 9 if we include the guy on the far left, but he’s not holding a sign. The rest appear to be spectators, 10ish? I wonder how many DC media will claim?

      • heh- well, if they hire the guys that calculate the street value of marijuana, 10,000 or so.
        (those guys can be found over at the cli sci building)

  14. From the article: “Critics of the probe contend that Schneiderman took on the crusade against Exxon to help attract campaign funds from liberal donors, a charge his office has denied.”

    Denied it, huh?

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/13/state-gop-demands-doj-target-dem-attorney-general-for-using-office-for-political-gain/

    State GOP Demands DOJ Target Dem Attorney General For Using Office For ‘Political Gain’

    “New York state Republicans are calling for the U.S. district attorney to investigate Attorney General Eric Schneiderman for “abusing the power of his office for political gain.”

    “Another day, and more evidence Eric Schneiderman is using the Office of the Attorney General for political purposes,” state GOP Chairman Edward Cox said in a statement after Schneiderman appealed to a liberal billionaire to finance a potential 2018 gubernatorial run.

    The New York Post obtained emails showing Schneiderman reaching out to former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer in March — about four months after Schneiderman began investigating ExxonMobil for allegedly misleading investors about the risks of global warming.

    Steyer, a major funder of environmental causes and an Exxon critic, spent more than $73 million in the 2014 election cycle supporting Democratic candidates and opposing Republicans.”

  15. So if Exon DID know, what are the damages?

    http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf

    The past 4 decades have featured the best weather/climate and growing conditions since the Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago. So they must have been hiding these benefits if they really did know.

    Was the Medieval Warm Period experienced just in Europe and parts of North America? Some state this but the comprehensive science from the widespread studies available conclusively shows otherwise.

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

  16. Wow, I stirred up quite the hornet’s nest. I’m not (and don’t have the time to) respond to all of the responses except to say that Phil Plait is a professional scientist as am I and, quoting Phil from this article, reality is quite a bit different from what seems to be an armchair hobby for many of you. You need to get a new hobby or get a life or both.

    “In a very harshly worded letter, his co-committee member Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, accuses him [Smith] of overreaching and abusing his power, noting (correctly) that neither he nor his staff is qualified to examine the data.”

    and

    “Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/us-science-agency-refuses-request-for-climate-records-1.18660) is reporting that NOAA is refusing to comply with Smith’s outrageous demands and “has no intention of handing over documents that reveal its internal deliberations.”

    YES. This is precisely how it should be, and Smith’s gross overstepping of bounds is proof of that. If NOAA hands over the documents, then they are acquiescing to political pressure, partisan political pressure, I’ll add, which is completely removed from the scientific process. And given Smith’s clearly anti-science view of global warming (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/05/07/lamar_smith_more_climate_change_denial.html), this pressure is antithetical to the scientific process.

    I can’t stress enough just how distant from reality Smith is here. His view is literally that NOAA is purposely doctoring results to make it seem as if the planet is warming. After NOAA announced it wouldn’t kowtow to such nonsense, Smith’s office released this statement (http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/congressman-doubles-down-accuses-noaa-scientists-of-doctoring-results/):
    ‘It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made. NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda. The agency has yet to identify any legal basis for withholding these documents. The Committee intends to use all tools at its disposal to undertake its Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities.'”

    Lamar Smith is widely known to be a science lightweight, not just on Climate issues but on much of everything else related to science. His chairmanship on that committee is a patronage job given to him by his fellow Republican Science Lightweights. Did anyone in this thread even bother to consider my comments above, about how this is and how it looks, that a Texas Republican (Big Oil Supporter in a state where the state’s GDP is very much tied to Oil) lawmaker is, defacto, protecting a multi-billion dollar, multi-national, global oil corporation who is headquartered in his home state? Does that detail even cross your minds?

    And how do feel that NOAA basically told him to go take a walk with his subpoenas?

    And it isn’t just NASA/NOAA. What you’re suggesting (and much of whats posted as headline stories on this blog) is that its a multi-national conspiracy to promote an alarmist climate nightmare? For what purpose?

    • I know better than to feed the trolls, but here goes anyway, “T Madigan”. The green blob is a mass movement, like eugenics, fascism, or the other political insanities of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Calling it a “conspiracy” is like calling the Democratic party a conspiracy. The point of straw man fallacies is to look something like reality, but with no reality.
      There is a shared ethos is a mass movement, and shared goals, but no real organization in the sense of a conspiracy of knowing fraud. A similar thing happened with Nixon’s War on Cancer, which was based on the notion that certain industrial chemicals were causing a cancer epidemic. A residue of that movement remains in the notice on some products that they are known by the State of California to cause cancer. While funding for research inadvertently produced some good results, the movement as a whole petered out in the 1980″s.
      Your posts are a bit stale, though, and you should do something other than stale ad hominems, like all skeptics are vendidos paid by Big Oil.

    • Anyone who agrees with your religion is a scientist.
      Anyone who disagrees is a bought and paid for hack.

      Gotcha.

      Geeze, NOAA is breaking the law in order to hide what they are up to. And this makes you happy.

      Poor little troll. Actually believes he’s making a difference.

    • T Madigan:

      And how do feel that NOAA basically told him to go take a walk with his subpoenas?

      If the Committee has the legitimate authority to oversee NOAA’s work it makes no difference whatsoever who the chairman is. Although narrow exceptions to Congressional subpoena power may apply to some documents in this situation, your ad hominem attacks are, legally, irrelevant and display ignorance of how the law works in this country.

    • Madigan continues with their condescension, demeaning and ad hominems…

      Madigan also has the nerve, brainless of course, to charge others as ‘armchair hobby’ amateurs… Clearly disclosing Madigan as activist first, scientist somewhere near last, type of person.

      As usual ATTP, you are wrong. Many if not most of us are actual scientists who have spent our careers working in reality; not in the fanciful lucrative world of climate science. There is a major difference in scientific methods as conducted where costs and benefits are major concerns versus the climate land of non-deliverables. Over a trillion $dollars spent without any usable deliverables… Nice record mr. deskbound troll.

      Yes, ATTP! There is distinct similarity in your psychopathic anti-social topic trolling.
      Specious arguments.
      Condescension
      Shallow implications
      Circular word/meaning arguments known as doubletalk and bafflegab.
      Sheer b_llSh_t from the horse’s abundant fecal matter.
      A desperate loneliness from maintaining a rarely visited blog.

      Lamar Smith is chairman of the ‘of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology committee’.

      That committee is free to investigate any/all relevant questions/activities within their scope, no matter what you try to insinuate.

      That claim where you demean Lamar Smith is a major sign that you, along with others, are afraid of what Lamar Smith will uncover.
      It’s a shame we can’t have you keep Gavin company in the cell.

      ATTP and Gavin sitting in a cell, k-I-s-…

  17. Did Exxon know that an AG acting as a lobbyist formed a pact with a few other AG lobbyists in order to
    imply fraud and to call into question Exxon’s s reputation ? Had any of the AG lobbyists met to discuss their allegations directly with Exxon prior or was Exxon ambushed like the typical cowardly approach of grant dependant non profits ? How did Al Gore get involved ? Did he orchestrate the group ?
    How much donation money has been paid the AG’s by Democrat sugar daddies and the “Clean Power ”
    industry ?

  18. What amazes me is that the left can have a “rally” with 10 people and they get positive press, the Tea Party can fill the Mall in DC with millions of people and they get ignored and smeared.

Comments are closed.