Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Back in March, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt questioned the human contribution to climate change. The Sierra Club immediately raised an ethics complaint against Pruitt’s climate heresy.
The Energy 202: EPA finds no problems with Pruitt’s climate change views
By Dino Grandoni August 3 at 8:39 AM
When Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt went on CNBC last March and said that he did not believe carbon dioxide was the “primary contributor” to global warming, he put himself at odds with the scientific stances of many institutions — including, officially, the EPA itself.
But an internal EPA review has found that the agency can tolerate such a disagreement.
A panel of EPA scientists convened to investigate Pruitt’s commentary found that the administrator was not in violation of the agency’s scientific integrity policy because that policy “explicitly protects differing opinion.”
“This expression of opinion, which was not made in a decisional context, is fully within the protections of EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy and does not violate that Policy,” the panel found, according to a letter sent to the Sierra Club and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon and other outlets. The environmental group filed a complaint in March that prompted the internal review.
…
“It’s clear to me that Pruitt is in violation of basic standards of ethical conduct,” Michael Mann, professor of atmospheric science at Penn State, wrote by email.
Frankly I’m shocked it apparently took the EPA Ethics Committee six months to decide that expressing doubt about a scientific theory is OK. While I am glad the ethics committee eventually reached the only sensible conclusion, the fact this complaint was not immediately laughed out of the EPA in my opinion demonstrates the horrendous pressure on scientists and public figures not to deviate from hardline climate dogma.
“It’s clear to me that Pruitt is in violation of basic standards of ethical conduct,” Michael Mann,
What “basic standards” does he think were violted ? Baselss puff from Mann as usual
Of course Mann is always the go-to guy for advice on violation of ethics because he’s so good at it.
Maybe they should have asked Peter Gleick for his opinion..
He knows all about ethics 😉
At least as much as Mickey Mann.
Yeah, and Pruitt is a standup guy that is not in the pocket of industry.
Ethics are whatever we deem them to be.
which is what makes Mann’s unqualified statement , total BS. He does not say what standards Pruit has broken or in what way. Meaningless garbage, like most of the crap Mann comes out with.
“Yeah, and Pruitt is a standup guy that is not in the pocket of industry.”
Mann is a standup comedian.
It is unethical to NOT question global warming dogma.
When ignorant politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of global warming alarmism.
Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of society. It IS that simple.
Allan MacRae, P.Eng.
Michael Mann, ethics expert.
(Source: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/mann-actually-eliminate-records-with.html )
(Source: https://www.masterresource.org/climategate/revisting-climategate-climatism-falters/ )
The burden, here, is on you, Chris, to show that Mann refused to comply with Jones’ request to delete those e mails, for the extensive record of their past dealings (See Climategate e mails) is prima facie evidence that Mann would do as Jones asked here.
(Source: Id.)
Mann in a Nutshell: “…. tell a whopper.”
Speaking of not being ethical, accusing someone of being in the “pockets” of anyone, without the slightest shred of evidence is highly unethical.
On the other hand, it’s the only attack you trolls got.
Barbarian, “Ethics are whatever we deem them to be.”
Ethics are principled and can be made objective.
Morals are the socially normative standard of behavioral virtue, and can vary with the society.
That is morals, not ethics, are whatever society deems them to be.
“The burden, here, is on you, Chris, to show that Mann refused to comply with Jones’ request to delete those e mails”
The paper record is even worse for Mann than your burden of proof argument. Jones requested that Mann do two things: (1) delete his own e-mails; and (2) forward the request to delete e-mails to others. The e-mail chain demonstrates that Mann complied with the second of these requests. His only defense was that he, personally did not delete any of his e-mails, but he was certainly an accomplice in the destruction of public records by others.
The headline article is wrong.
At the very least it misses the point: We must examine the impact of what we say when judged by the standards of any possible future sensibility of such.
A day is coming of actual witch hunts.
At some point some civil uprising or war will demand that everyone who was a party to the beliefs of the losing side in that conflict, will be singled out and past remarks examined.
Anything, literally anything, that we have spoken out about or weighed in on, may at some point be declared to have been a criminal breach of capital proportion. A hanging offense.
Actual insults put into print or captured on video are the most risky. Overt insults are far past the minimum required for banishment from employment already. In the future, it seems likely, giving the present trajectory, that such insults will be punishable by death.
Political views are next-most in riskiness, most especially if ever spoken or written about.
If the globe warms to deadly levels, global warming skeptics, or anyone who was even on the fence or expressed questions about that possibility, will be rounded up and executed.
If the globe undergoes sharp cooling, as has happened many times on many time scales in the recent past ,and crop losses become so great that people starve to death, those who advanced the fear mongering global catastrophism, that is so popular today, will be declared responsible, rounded up, and executed.
We now allow the thinnest-skinned persons in our society to decide what is acceptable and what is a thought crime.
And thought crimes are now actual crimes.
Followed to it’s logical conclusion, we are all at grave risk, and best hope that any side we have taken on any issue becomes the prevailing one.
Delete emails? Sounds like Hillary took lessons from Mike!
He showed irreverence towards the holy writ of climate models and dared to doubt the infallible utterances of climate oracles (pis.s be upon them).
Face it–Pruitt made Mann look like an unethical idiot. Mann’s response was Exhibit A.
Spend a few bucks and check out who is in violation of basic standards of ethical conduct…
https://www.amazon.com/%2522A-Disgrace-Profession%2522-Steyn-editor/dp/0986398330/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=sl1&tag=steyn-20&linkId=0fa1d27778f07b28ac448082e079c09d
They’re acting like the Pope and the Inquisition at Galileo’s trial:
“The sun does orbit around the Earth, and to say otherwise is heresy!” Or words to that effect.
Mann’s credibility has become even worse than his honesty, and his Hockey Stick theory is getting even more “bent” everyday!
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/12/22/michael-mann-wins-court-decision/ Enough evidence to proceed with his deformation case.
Reply: I know you meant defamation~ctm
Steve, I advise you not to follow Greg Laden as an exemplar. He libeled Roger “Tallbloke” Tattershall with similar claims, but then saw the sense in backing down before ‘our learned friends’ got professionally involved.
The ethical principles cough up by EPA are extremely shallow:
EPA’s Principles of Scientific Integrity
This is what ethical principles of scientific conduct should look like:
Ethical guidelines for scientific conduct
Mann wouldn´t recognize ethical conduct of science even if it was sitting on his nose.
Mike’s attempted ‘ethics’ trick.
Meanwhile for those over over on planet Chris, Mann is deep, deep, deep down in his own big green pocket of self interest which is all he has got left these days, imo.
Shouldn’t someone remind Mann publicly that he’s a Class 1A liar? Just askin’.
Questioning the climate dogma. I don’t understand. Let me be part of the blue team. The planet gets heat and light from the sun. It heats the planet and some heat gets radiated back off the planet. Please supply link if you don’t agree. Co2 absorbs radiated heat, this is a fact, please supply link if you have science of the opposite. This is called the greenhouse effect, it allows us to live in a reasonably stable climate. When we burn fossil fuels more co2 goes into the atmosphere, please supply link if you disagree, the effect of this is more heat is trapped warming the planet. More co2 more heat. Please supply links to any reputable scientific Institute that disagrees with this. Here is my link https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php You may disagree with this but that means your are right and all these institutions are in on some kind of global scam, link if you have evidence of this. Please limit this to science with links and no personal abuse please.
Steve
Don’t talk CO2 when you’ve only read part of the equation. Does nothing for your “scientific” credibility.
If there’s anything we know based on evidence it’s that CO2 is not the temperature control knob the IPCC and assorted folks want us to believe.
Steve,
) The 2016 El Nino pushed global temperatures close to the bottom of the models’ range, but El Ninos are not CO2-caused events, and global temps have fallen as fast as they rose. 
)
With no positive or negative feedback mechanisms in the climate system, each doubling of CO2 would, by itself, raise global temps about 1C. (http://news.mit.edu/2010/explained-climate-sensitivity). Predictions of temperature increases up to 3C are all based on proposed positive feedback mechanisms that have yet to be observed. Actual global temperatures have tracked well below the predictions of models using these positive feedback systems.
Finally, global temperatures are commonly given to two significant digits, in hundredths of a degree C. Given that the error in temperature measurements is at best +/- 0.5C, such precision is in no way warranted. It’s argued that the Law of Large Numbers allows these averages to be calculated at these precisions, but this is incorrect. The LLN depends on there being a very large amount of measurements of a single variable that are independent and identically distributed (IID), such as measuring the length of an object in millimeters 1000 times, or rolling a die 1000 times.. This is not occurring with global temperatures. We are getting one (or two) measurements per day at one site, and it’s pretended that the thousands of stations around the world constitute this multiple measurement and are IID. They don’t, and global temps should never be given at more than one decimal point of precision, with the error bars shown.
James: Thanks for your riposte. Regarding your LLN example, however, even measuring an object 1,000 times to the nearest mm would not give you its actual dimension to the nearest micrometer, which more nearly resembles how the alarmists report anomalies.
Steve said:
“More co2 more heat”
“Please supply links ”
Steve, find your own links and do your own homework.
Science is not based on consensus.
CO2 is not correlated in any cause and effect relationship with global temperatures.
Please supply a link to any proof that you have that it is, any direct proof that CO2 is the temperature control knob of the atmosphere, as you so carelessly and baselessly assert as if it was an established fact.
Steve sez:
“Please…”
“Please…”
“Please…please.”
Steve, please stop making stuff up and please stop lying.
Then please go learn some actual science, and then please apologize to everyone whom you have insulted.
Please!
James,
“We are getting one (or two) measurements per day at one site…”
It is even worse than that. The temperatures that are used from each site on each day are a numerical average of the high and the low temp recorded at that station on that day.
This is a completely ridiculous measure of the temperature of a given place on a given day.
Bad enough, but then the temperatures that were recorded in Fahrenheit are put through some convoluted process of rounding when converted to Celsius.
And many values are worked into the averages that are not even measured but merely inferred. in the process known as infilling.
The disparity between what was measured and what shows up in the official graphs is growing wider by the day, as is the disparity between satellite measured numbers and those made up and reported as surface readings.
Skorrent, what you are saying sounds like a ridiculous thing, an exaggeration at best.
But it is not far off the mark at all, and closer to the truth than any statement ever made by warmistas and their jackass sycophants.
Steve,
Since you supplied no real “hard science” argument, you are not in a position to demand any such refutation of your simple, incomplete restatement of the CAGW theory. I will point out, however, that you totally ignored the fact that CO2 only absorbs certain frequencies of (IR) radiation, and that it also emits IR as well. In fact, when it absorbs a photon, it is now in a higher energy state so it is much more likely to emit one. And it won’t be preferentially only down back to the surface, but upward as well. So CO2 can only impede the radiation of surface heat back to outer space. There are other heat transfer mechanisms, however, like conduction and convection which you also conveniently ignore. A warmer atmosphere will increase these heat transfers and partially compensate for any CO2 affect. The question is how much? The answer is, we really don’t know. So now that I’ve demolished your simple argument, go back and study some more and come back a little more prepared next time.
your comment, “more CO2 more heat” seems to indicate a linear effect- -but CO2 is logarithmic- -each added increment has less ability to heat than the one previous- -so, a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial 280 ppm 560 ppm, ceteris parabis, would increase tempts ~1/C. It then would take CO2 doubling again
to 1120 ppm to get another ~1/C. The model projections calling for up to a +5 or 6/C assume added CO2 increases evaporation, increasing atmospheric water vapor causing major tempt increases. That relationship has not been proven and, in fact, has been largely disproven the past 20 years as CO2 has increased as projected but tempt has flat-lined which equals a failed theory- -end of sentence- –
So none wants to say that they are right and all the institutions I linked are wrong then.
Steve all the institutions you linked to are wrong then, there I said it.
Steve – sorry that your post has attracted abuse it doesn’t deserve. I think the position that many of us hold is that it isn’t as simple as “CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, therefore we are causing the warming”. All sides acknowledge that the climate is a very complex system and there are many factors affecting climate. For me the problem has always been the gulf between correlation and causation: the lack of evidence that the effect of CO2 on real-world climate is a significant factor.
The whole basis of the scientific method is hypothesis testing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper). The only test we have available is to run climate models for several years and see if they match reality. They don’t (https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/). This was a post by Judith Curry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry. They don’t just miss, they miss by miles
Steve, I for one want you on the blue team. Consider a battery/resistor circuit placed inside the chamber of a vacuum thermos bottle and the thermos bottle placed in a room at approximately 15C. Monitor the temperature of the thermos bottle chamber. The temperature of the chamber will rise eventually stabilizing at a temperature, TC, higher than the room temperature. The thermos bottle chamber corresponds to your earth in that it is the object whose temperature we are going to monitor. The battery/resistor circuit corresponds to your sun in that it is the source of energy. The vacuum region of the thermos bottle corresponds to an earth atmosphere devoid of IR absorbing gases.
Now inject Co2 gas—as much gas as you want—into the vacuum space of the vacuum thermos bottle. Let’s apply your reasoning to this system.
The planet gets heat and light from the sun.
The thermos bottle chamber gets heat from the battery/resistor circuit.
It [the sun] heats the planet and some heat gets radiated back off the planet.
It [the battery/resistor circuit] heats the thermos bottle chamber and some heat gets radiated off the thermos bottle chamber.
When we burn fossil fuels more Co2 goes into the atmosphere.
If we add Co2 to the vacuum region more Co2 surrounds the chamber.
The effect of this [more Co2] is more heat is trapped warming the planet.
The effect of this [more Co2] is more heat is trapped warming the thermos bottle chamber.
More Co2 more heat—which implies more warming
More Co2 more heat—which implies more warming.
Maybe.
Wrong.
The stabilized temperature (i.e., the temperature after all transient temperatures changes have died out) of the thermos bottle chamber will decrease, not increase, when Co2 gas is injected into the vacuum region of the thermos bottle—see http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/weekend-unloaded/#comments. If you question the referenced experiment, fine. But then please explain why no one manufactures a thermos bottle using CO2 gas as the insulating material. After all, vacuum thermos bottles are a dime a dozen. If it’s possible to manufacture a thermos bottle that maintains a vacuum for a long period of time, it should be trivial to manufacture a thermos bottle that maintains a region of Co2 gas for the same long period of time. And if the absence of commercial Co2 thermos bottles doesn’t convince you that adding Co2 to the vacuum space of a thermos bottle will degrade its performance, write a letter to the physics department of a nearby university and ask them if the injection of Co2 into the vacuum space of a vacuum thermos bottle will improve the performance of the thermos bottle. Finally, failing all of the above, do a little science of your own and conduct a thermos bottle experiment.
Virtually no one denies there’s been some warming and humans emit CO2 which has a warming effect. The relevant question is whether the human effect (AGW) is large enough to dominate natural variations and be more dangerous than the proposed energy restrictions. Pretending the relevant question is other than that is a straw man, the primary basis for most climate debate, and indefensible rationally. The facts do not support CAGW, which is why the scientific consensus is completely unquantified and therefore completely irrelevant (read Cook et al 2013 carefully, the primary consensus source, they parse deceptively but admit it if you read carefully).
lol
It is NOT Unethical to Question the Unethical.
I tried 2 times yesterday to enter the following post, but to no avail, so will try a 3rd time, to wit:
HA, still rejected it for some reason I don’t understand or know why.
Can you describe what it is being rejected?
Menicholas – August 6, 2017 at 9:23 am
The entire post, which consisted of two separate paragraphs, with the 1st paragraph being this quote, to wit:
As attributed to Dino Grandoni in the above commentary as posted by ERIC W:
And here is the 2nd paragraph, posted as three (3) separate entities to see if it “rejects” one or all three, to wit:
1st one:
Well “DUH”, it seem obvious to me that the reason it took the EPA Ethics Committee six (6) months to decide that Pruitt’s actions did not violate any rules …….
3rd one:
“imprinted” in the minds of the MSM, all proponents of CAGW and the general populace, making them adamant believers of said, ….. long before Mann’s comment was officially DISCREDITED.
AH SO, something in the 2nd posted portion it didn’t like.
Mann is a conman, feeding off the left-wing public trough.
Who better to give a fake news quote than a fake nobel winner.
Mann, differing opinions are a human right. This is how the UN phrases it:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
And in this particular case, it’s called also leadership. You’d better get used it. That’s the everyday reality for vast majority of taxpayers, who also voted for the new boss.
Ah, you must be using a new dictionary, where “the vast majority” means less than 50%.
Vast majority of ‘taxpayers’ snowflake.
Wrong again, Robert. Care to double down again?
Chris, got any references? (it would be interesting to see what percentage of HRC’s voters actually pay federal taxes)…
If someone receives taxpayer money are they really taxpayers? Does a government employee actually pay taxes?
Chris
You’ve obviously spent too much time in “safe spaces”, so you never learned presidents are elected by a majority of “electoral college’ votes, not “popular” votes (been this way since about 1789). Just like big-boy pants, this may come as a big surprise: Bill Clinton never won a popular majority, but won 2 presidential elections.
Apparently, only you & Hillary care about the fact she won the popular vote. Take your naive snark to the Federalist Papers (another new concept for you) to at least read why the founding fathers explicitly implemented the electoral college.
As always, when the facts aren’t on Chris’s side, he just makes up new ones.
No wonder he fits in so well with the AGW crowd.
That HRC won a majority of legally cast votes is far from certain.
Chris
August 5, 2017 at 12:27 pm: Pretty well shot your bolt, haven’t you christroll?
“it would be interesting to see what percentage of HRC’s voters actually pay federal taxes”
It would also be interesting to see what percentage of HRC voters were, in fact, entitled to vote – particularly as it has now been discovered that 11 counties in California have more voters than voting age citizens.
PiperPaul: A government employee does pay taxes, but the money he is paid is also taxes (someone else’s). It’s a strange daisy chain of economics. After all, some of his salary that is from taxes is also from the taxes he paid on his salary, so…???
Not only did Hillary’s popular vote victory margin come from Calif., it came from the LA area and the Bay area.
Chris, you will soon be very much in a position of eating your words.
Fresh proof is emerging daily of the numbers of illegal and fake votes being cast in our elections.
The whole truth, when revealed, is shocking in scope.
Our elections are a massive joke.
It was only because the numbers who voted for Trump was so overwhelmingly large that it confounded the expectations of those manipulating the election.
Chris, I assume you’re not an American. In the US, citizens vote for a delegate to the Electoral College. The delegates actually elect the president. In 2016, Trump won over 56% of the vote, which is greater than 50%. Same old dictionary.
Kook, I am an American. Your statement is false. Trump won 46% of the votes cast, and Clinton 48%. The post above referred to taxpayers, not members of the Electoral College who represent taxpayers.
Chris, all of Hillary Clinton’s popular vote majority came from California, some of which may have been legal and living real people.
Do government employees (or people who earn a living as a result of government spending) typically vote for politicians who want smaller government?
The post above referred to taxpayers — Chris at 1:22pm
That’s right, Chris. Thus, your answer, about all 2016 voters, is
, or, more accurately, intentionally misleading.
So, Chris, what was the % of taxpayers who voted for Mr. Trump in 2016?
Don’t know?
Then, how do you know that Mr. Turner is mistaken?
Your logic stinks. “I assume” is valid. It was not false that I assumed.
I’;m betting the Electoral College is made up of tax payers. I’m also betting that not all the people who voted are tax payers. A lot of those who do not pay taxes are registered Democrats. No skin in the game, and in many cases, no US citizenship. Just “gimme free stuff”.
Hopefully, you don’t think all taxpayers voted in that election.
Read Tom Halla’s comment. As a Kalifornian, I can tell you he is spot on. In Kalifornia, we all recognize this truth. It is why the state doesn’t want the Feds looking at the voter rolls.
You lose.
kook said: “Your logic stinks. “I assume” is valid. It was not false that I assumed.
I’;m betting the Electoral College is made up of tax payers. I’m also betting that not all the people who voted are tax payers. A lot of those who do not pay taxes are registered Democrats. No skin in the game, and in many cases, no US citizenship. Just “gimme free stuff”.
No, it is not valid. Your conclusion is based on a bunch of assumptions, with zero supporting evidence. It’s funny, folks spend their time here on WUWT attacking scientific papers, yet happily slurp up claims like yours that are full of assumptions with zero supporting documentation. Don’t be lazy, do your homework.
I know I do.
Hey Chris, it is pretty easy to make sure that there is no evidence of something…just block any efforts to investigate the issue.
Likewise supporting documentation.
Funny how people who pretend to believe in evidence and objective analysis have been dead set on blocking and preventing any and all efforts to find out once and for all how widespread voting fr@ud is, not to mention preventing common sense means to ensure election integrity.
Your position is laughable.
Something which not allowed to be investigated has no evidence.
Imagine that!
I suppose you think we can tell how many people on the roads are speeding by counting up the numbers of speeding tickets being written…on roads with no police patrols!
“I am an American.”
Personally, when people are known to make stuff and make untrue assertions, i do not believe what they say just because they said it.
Got any links?
We have seen zero proof of this being true.
Chris you seem to have missed my point with your distraction:
Leadership is written even in the flagship management standard 9001 of the International Standardisation Organisation. Cannot think of many disciplines where alternative standards applied, but cannot exclude “climate science” to qualify with or without your opinions. Even in public civil service the staff members operate according to the management vision. And management there starts from the elected leaders, including the parliaments, and those they nominate. I haven’t taken any position on Trump or the senate, but accept the preferences of the US electorate. Is this clearer to you now?
What comes to your specific point and provided you have US nationality, I’m ready to swap it with you. You’d have a passport to Arctic circle, from voluntarily one the most socialist countries in the world. That’s the place were 10% of people starved to death in the year without summer of the gang green optimum at the end of 19th century. The place is killing me in surprisingly many ways, but judging from your opinions in WUWT, it should be a paradise for you, right? Are you ready?
jaakko, feel free to apply for a green card in the US if you are not happy in Finland, which I assume is your home country.
I’ll try my luck once enough US climate “scientists” have migrate to Europe in the hope of Macron’s million euro check. But won’t blame you staying where you are. It makes no sense anywhere to pay more for energy and taxes in order to cool the average outside air temperature.
When we start using ‘climate change’ as a bludgeon in politics, when we start questioning other people’s ‘science’, we start using ‘climate change’ to divide, instead of bring the country together, then I think we’ve got a problem.
the above is edited quote from Barack Obama with following substitutes ‘climate change’ for religion and ‘science’ for faith .
This is wasting taxpayer money on a nonexistent issue. Dismantle the EPA.
the Federal EPA is beyond reform. It should me dismantled. Scott Pruit should remember to turn off the lights on the way out.
Yeah, we want air conditions like China!!!!!
Motte and Bailey tactics. Again.
Since you approve the Paris accord, then that is what you want. China has to evaluate whether they want to reduce their emissions in 20 years. You Obamabots were told otherwise.
Move to China then, Chris. You will “feel” more at home.
Maybe even try N Korea.
It really is sad how socialists actually believe that all good things come from government.
Chris by the same token as your argument since we don’t want the streets filled with wanton Anarchy and crime we should have three sorts of police and a large armed party militia like Venezuela all of whom should be untouchable organizations immune from any criticism reform or abolition as such. What is the prevent the EPA declaring certain humans vermin?
“It really is sad how socialists actually believe that all good things come from government”
What’s even sadder, MarkW, are completely ignorant posts. I’ve worked in tech startups, raised millions of dollars for others, and am now helping build out 2 tech companies in Asia. What exactly have you contributed to the private sector economy?
Chris: We have no way to authenticate your claims about yourself, so are you saying you’re a socialist who believes in the free market over government action, or are you just nonplussed that MarkW called you one?
Desperation move by Sierra Club backfires. Mann projects again.
Actually, the problem in the US is that the elites think they know better than the Forgotten Man regarding governance. Consequently, President Trump is fighting both Democrats and Republicans–two parties that put their own interests ahead of the common citizen.
I’m glad the employees decided to allow the boss to express his opinion.
Ah, just like the Roman Catholic Church when challenged on the sun revolving around the earth. I think Pruitt should be burned at the stake or perhaps drawn and quartered. That will show him not to make unethical comments.
What, no rack or evisceration, first? Or, maybe cut his heart out with a spoon? 🙂
(how about hung by his toes?)
David: No, that is being unfair to the RC Church. There was far more scientific debate allowed within the church than is currently tolerated within the climate science community. See for example “The Sleepwalkers” by Arthur Koestler for a fascinating account.
thomasbrown32000, despite the violation of Poe’s Law, it seems pretty clear to me David Middleton intended his comment to be sarcastic of facetious. That’s my take…
The Church was not challenged. The Earth-centric theory dated back 2000 years and the Academics of the day backed it. When their power and paychecks were challenged by the new theory they put it in the Pope’s ear that his friend Galileo was mocking him in the book he wrote.
Well “DUH”, it seem obvious to me that the reason it took the EPA Ethics Committee six (6) months to decide that Pruitt’s actions did not violate any rules ……. was to guarantee or insure that Michael Mann’s dastardly, devious, defaming comment could be “imprinted” in the minds of the MSM, all proponents of CAGW and the general populace, making them adamant believers of said, ….. long before Mann’s comment was officially DISCREDITED, to wit:
The EPA Ethics Committee “actions” is about “old news” and no one cares about “old news”.
The Siera Club must be run by idiots. Let’s invite those SOBs to debate the isue of global warming with a collection of skeptics and see how ethical they are about scientific debate.
Get the youtube video where Senator Cruz questions the head of the Sierra Club. It was quite embarassing for the Sierra Club.
When Ted Cruz is your go to guy, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
@ur momisugly Chris — watch the video. The Sierra Club president is uninformed idiot. I was astonished how incompetent he is\was. He makes Gina McCarthy look like a genius.
Chris Typical useful idiot when don.t have the facts to back you up, you denigrated the person. Here what a ration person says As Texas’s Solicitor General, Ted Cruz has argued in front of the US Supreme Court nine separate times, more than any other sitting US Senator. Out of those nine cases, he won five. Since simply having the opportunity to argue a single case in front of the USSC is quite impressive, Cruz’s background is considered highly esteemed. ” Here is the link. https://www.quora.com/How-many-cases-has-Ted-Cruz-argued-before-the-Supreme-Court of course if you go to factcheck.org you will get a diffrent story. Of course one thing factcheck.org should it fact check them selves, their accuracy is less than Cruz win loss record.
Chris , instead of the inane slur against Cruz , just look at the total buffoon from Sierra Club, who knows absolutely nothing and makes a total ass of himself.
We already know who is scraping the bottom of the barrel, ie, those who habitually frame arguments with logical fallacies.
Chris, Greg’s kind posting of the hearing video I referred to is game, set, match. Want to play here, up your game–a lot. Some of us commenters/posters have been at this for quite a while, have a good memory, plus a better archive of actual data, and like jousting with such as you.
Thanks to Greg for two reasons. I am temporarily laid up with an acute back injury so am iPad limited, and do not have his WordPress linking chops nor any plan to develop them.
First time I’ve watched that. Cruz ate him alive with perfect manners and persistence.
There goes Chris again, with his patented argument via innuendo.
Anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Therefore anyone who agrees with someone who disagrees with you must also be an idiot.
It’s so easy to be proud of yourself, when you use yourself as the standard against the rest of the world is to be judged.
Not quite, Chris; underneath him are all the Democrats & mainstream media types + a number of snowflakes.
Mr. Myer is not stupid. AGW is great for the Sierra Club. It is great for those who wish to grow government. It is great for those who wish to grow the size of research grants. It is great for the media, which survives on sensationalism. People speaking for all of these varies demographics will pull out all the stops to defend the idea of a looming climate crisis. No one is going to kill this goose as long as it keeps laying the golden eggs! But their words have to be something that is not easily refuted or instantly recognized as idiotic.
Out of all the possible things the poor man could say, there was only one thing that could not be easily refuted or obviously idiotic. So he said it over and over again. That’s all he could do. That is all that any defender of an AGW crisis has been able to say for the last 10 years.
Think of it: You have all the power of environmental organizations, left leaning governments, research scientists backed by the worlds universities and Academies of Science and the media in all of its forms, and all you can come up with to defend your stance is an appeal to a fabricated 97% consensus. They cannot point to the data. They cannot point to the models. They cannot even point to the robustness of the theory. After 30 years and countless billions spent, they have nothing!
Don’t despair, Chris, you have one more argument. Pound the table.
Really Chris, that is pathetically weak argumentation, even for you.
Chris,
When Cruz asked Mr. Mair asked about the “the pause” he was referring to the satellite data. First Mair wouldn’t answer but stood on their “position”. After again consulting with his staff sitting behind him, he then said “the pause” referred to “the forties”. Can you tell us to which satellites he was referring to in “the forties”?
When Mair is your go to guy, you are really scraping the bottom of the cesspool.
So continuing to do something both ineffective and dreadfully expensive with other people’s money is ethical?
Scientific community has turned into some activist group…..
Where has this ethics panel been for the last 8 years given the fake science from the former EPA head?
Ethics are like wind-vanes – point which-ever way the wind blows.
Ethics, either you got them or you don’t.
(or somewhere inbetween)…
Not sure if they can be taught.
It’s like sincerity. If you can fake that you’ve got it made. (In politics)
If you do not have ethics, you can always cover that up with a dense smoke screen of lies about whatever and whomever you wish.
I realized that the Sierra Club was 60% about politics (mostly misguided), 35% about environment (mostly misguided) and 5% about the Sierra (mostly genuine) – and I left.
35% about the environment?
I doubt that very sincerely.
Maybe once upon a time.
Not now.
Not lately.
Not hardly.
Michael Mann commenting about anyone’s ethics is simply priceless.
Get the youtube snippet from the 29March congressional hearing where under questioning he denies having ever called anyone a denier, where Judth Curry interupts him point out he did so concerning her in his written testimony for the same hearing. Nuff said about Mann. That 16 second snippet is immortal and beyond priceless. Clever Google fu will find it on first query: ~ Congressional testimony march 2017 Mann Curry. I have it permapasted into iPad favorites.
https://youtu.be/DPUMztYMuis
In the context to this story I think it is appropriate for a formal complaint to be made to Penn State (Mr Mann’s employer) for a full investigation to determine if Mann’s complaint about ethics violation within the EPA is ITSELF a violation of broader scientific ethics standards.
Brilliant
These people are insane.
It is fortunate that the United States Supreme Court does not have an Ethics Committee.( Perhaps it does?)
On 11 February last Justice Samuel Alito gave the keynote speech to the 2017 Annual Dinner of the Claremont Institute.
In his remarks Justice Alito expressed the heretical view that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
To date I do not believe that either the Sierra Club or Michael Mann have sought to discipline his Honour.
There are ethics rules for all federal judges except SCOTUS. Their mandate is derived directly from the US Constitution, which implies that laws governing their behavior are either unconstitutional, or they can declare them as such.
Questions of ethical abuses by the last administration are in order.
For the last eight years, these were the ushers, ticket-takers and managers all yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater where there was no fire. Not content with mischief-making, they want to profit by collecting an exit fee at the door. It certainly smacks of corruption, and likely there are some cases for Pruitt to consider charges of legal malfeasance against employees in the previous administration – many still IN office who should be fired.
It seems some senior (true) scientists are now stepping up to revive scientific integrity. Good news for Climate Science! Expecting more such actions!!
On a related note…https://cliscep.com/2017/07/28/bob-ward-loses-again/
And don’t forget Dellers…https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/09/james-delingpole-beats-a-press-complaint-from-uea/
The idea that a political head of an agency is subject to the oversight of its own bureaucracy is absurd. The political head’s boss is the president and the people, not some bureaucratic committee
Ethics in science means you have to consider all possible reasons your conclusions are wrong, your data are misleading and your logic is flawed. If you find that hard to swallow, you aren’t a scientist, you’re a con man.
At best, government ethics just represent prevailing prejudices of the moment.
Just to show this organisation is phony bureaucracy like all the others. You can’t have bureaucracy judging the head person- absurd- The administrator is meant to be the person setting the rules- the nature of bureaucracy is top down. No bureaucracy is headed by a head bureaucrat that would make no sense.
I can see Tom Jones grinding this out;
“It’s Not Un-Ethi-Cal to Question Climate Dog-g-ma”
“It’s Not Un-Ethi-Cal to Question ‘Truth’ By Any-Onnnne”
“But When I See The ‘Climate Gate’ Of ‘Those-For-Onnnne”
“It’s Not Un-Ethi-Cal to See Me Mad, And That Is Sa-aaaad”
Haha 😉
If I wore panties I’d throw them.