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.
@ 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.
A lot of the comments here about Scott Pruitt being an independent ‘not in the pocket of industry’ really made me chuckle. I suggest those who really believe this take a real look into what motivates him:
‘The mission statement of the EPA is simple: “to protect human health and the environment.” It says nothing about promoting economic development or energy security or the glory of fossil fuels. But Pruitt has already carried out an impressive list of corporate favors: He rejected the advice of EPA scientists and approved the use of millions of pounds of a toxic pesticide that causes neurological damage in children; in a gift to Big Coal, he delayed tougher ozone air-pollution rules; he plotted to kill Obama’s signature climate accomplishment, the Clean Power Plan, designed to put America on track to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 32 percent by 2030; he rescinded the Clean Water Rule, allowing countless streams and rivers to be exempted from pollution controls; he undermined regulations on the release of mercury, a potent neurotoxin, from power plants and other sources; and he submitted a budget that would wipe out more than a third of the funding for the agency, including cutting money for scientific research in half.’
Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/scott-pruitt-is-gutting-the-epa-serving-fossil-fuel-industry-w494156
ivankinsman “to protect human health and the environment.” Yes and note, human health comes first. And Pruitt seems to be on the right track in my opinion for many reasons, here’s one:
Healthy self-esteem and optimism is an important part of human health in the societies where average life-expectancy increases about 3 months/year. Why else UN WHO ICD-10 has classified anxieties as an illness? See chapter V. In my opinion healthcare professionals are more competent than politicians to treat the most affected individuals.
I agree that healthy self-esteem is an important factor but I am not sure Scott Pruitt is the man if this also comes at the expense of approving infant-harming pesticides.
By your standards nothing should be approved unless it can be fed to infants and not harm them.
Get real.
Starvation harms infants too, and if no pesticides were ever approved for use, agricultural production would fall off a cliff.
Yours is blatantly ridiculous fearmongering argumentation.
Hully gee, Ivan. You found a source even less credible than the Guardian, Rolling Stone. Cite Mother Jones and your will be on a roll.
What’s wrong with these sources – independent, unbiased. Do you want me to use Breibart or The Cato Institute or Cambridge Analytics?
Your not understanding what is wrong with the Graundiad or Rolling Stone is why you are mocked on this site. It is rather analogous to arguing religion with a Jehovah’s Witness.
Don’t think it is a case of “I’m better than thou”. I am perfectly happy to negate global heating if someone can show me an independently-reviewed article or report from a reputable scientific journal or indeoendent newspaper proving that it is not happening. Can you put up some links for me to look at?
Define “reputable” and/or “independent”.
The only way to learn this subject is a fair amount of reading of the several sides. Curry and Lindzen have the credentials in the field, and following the lame responses to them by the AGW advocates is a very useful enterprise, as is Mann v. McInintyre and MacKittrick on paleoclimatology (also knowing enough history is required to mock Mann et al.).
Doesn’t answer my request my man. I’ve put up my links – show me a few of yours. Think we all know what reputable and independent here … think you’re playing the lawyer trying to avoid giving the evidence.
You posted one link to an article from rock and roll magazine noted for fr@udulent reportage, more than anything else.
Keep talking, you make the point of your silliness better than any words by anyone else could.
And here is a real peach showing a very strong connection between Pruitt and Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris, who had a meeting:
“Twenty days later Pruitt announced his decision to deny a petition to ban Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide from being sprayed on food, despite a review by his agency’s scientists that concluded ingesting even minuscule amounts of the chemical can interfere with the brain development of fetuses and infants.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-pruitt-trumps-epa-chief-met-with-dow-chemical-exec-before-rolling-back-a-ban-on-pesticides-2017-6?IR=T
I hope all of you out there who have young kids are still big fans of his actions…
ivankinsman. Chlorpyrifos seems to be about the same as caffeine at least with regard to acute toxicity, CNS effects and teratogenicity. I’d personally choose chlorpyrifos instead of naturally occuring aflatoxins, which maybe present in untreated vegan menu and other reasons.
In my opinion animal proteins are a better than vegan diet also for other reasons. It provides vitamin B, which is essential for CNS development and health. It also avoids a myriad of other, more harmful plant alkaloids than caffeine.
If you want to work with chlorpyrifos pesticide then I suggest you take a look at this first as evidence of what it can do to human health. Pruitt went against the advice of EPA scientists after being lobbied by Dow Chemical (and we all know how much he listens to industry lobbyists):
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-cranor-chlorpyrifos-should-be-banned-20170606-story.html
Having already evaluated hundreds of hazardous materials, what’s one more? Or one more organophosphate to be more precise.
But while we are at it, one of the deadliest substance I’ve some across so far is cholecalciferol when EPA type of civil servants were alarmed to the point of banning it. A.k.a vitamin D. And one reason why I’ve factored in anxieties in the criteria and aim to rise above them when evaluating reasonably foreseeable risks. Perhaps you could try it in your turn.
So, first we find out that this pesticide has been in constant use since the 1960s and that traces of it are everywhere in almost everyone.
Then we find out it is terrible stuff and is going to make us all stupid.
It doesn’t mention it’s allowed to be used in California, where they ban everything. It doesn’t mention that it is used worldwide in over 100 countries. It doesn’t mention that the EPA heavily regulates its use, cannot be used on certain crops or sold for home use, and monitors an acceptable dose level on over a hundred products.
So with this stuff doing damage for 50+years, it clearly has worked its magic on me. I’m OK with it and the saccharin in my morning coffee.
OK, I am assuming the you are not a fetus or an infant, or a pregnant mother – as this is the risk group. However, let’s just say you have a young wife who is pregnant and you live near fields where this pesticide is used … how would you feel about it under those circumstances? Also even Dow AgroSciences says there are cheaper alternatives that it produces.
‘The EPA needs to show that there’s a reasonable certainty of no harm under certain conditions of use, such as the equipment worn by agricultural workers and the amount applied to crops.
“Under the law, if there isn’t sufficient science to demonstrate safety, then EPA is obligated to ban the pesticide,” Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, said. “That’s why a number of similar pesticides, what are called organophosphate pesticides, are no longer in use in the US.
The EPA concluded that chlorpyrifos was not safe for use in residential settings, and the science has only gotten stronger, he said. Ultimately, the agency’s risk assessment indicated that “chlorpyrifos posed significant risks to children, even at very low exposures,” he added.
“There’s simply no way EPA could reach any conclusion other than it should no longer be used on food crops … “What’s outrageous about Scott Pruitt’s decision is that the science is so strong, so overwhelming, that chlorpyrifos causes neurological problems.”‘
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/30/health/epa-chlorpyrifos-decision/index.html
Life is fatal by definition. No one has survived it, but some try to also enjoy it before it ends.
It also does not mention that lifespans and human health have increased by every measure in direct proportion to chemicals being used in food production…more chemicals, people live longer and are healthier.
No chemicals, people starve to death and die young.
BTW…everything is chemicals.
Only one substance on Earth has been proven to have no immediately harmful effect on human infants, and that substance is human breastmilk.
But even that is 100% correlated with a truly calamitous outcome: Every single baby who has ever been exposed to even one drop of breast milk has died or will die within a handful of decades.
Being fearful is easy…getting on with life and making the most of it…well, for some that is apparently impossible. Because they jump at shadows and imagine harms when none are present.
One of the things I always try to do is follow links to the original articles discussed in the main posts to see whether anything was lost in translation. In this case, after reading the Washington Post article, it’s clear that the WP reporter is an idiot for reasons not yet discussed. After opening with a brief discussion of Pruitt’s comment that he doesn’t believe that CO2 is the primary contributor to the warming the planet has experienced, the reporter asserted that this opinion contradicted the formal position of the EPA. But then when the article quoted that position it was clear that there was no conflict – the quoted EPA position merely stated that CO2 was the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to current climate change.
These positions address two completely separate issues. The EPA position merely states that, among all greenhouse gasses (CO2, methane, maybe water vapor since it may or may not be considered a gas, etc), CO2 is the most important for driving up temperatures. Pruitt’s statement addresses the issue of whether the observed warming is mostly natural or mostly due to CO2. The silly journalist with no critical reasoning skills couldn’t parse these statements carefully enough.
In fact, I read nothing in the article indicating that Pruitt’s opinion was at all at odds with scientific evidence.
All the countries in the world that signed up to the 2015 Paris climate agreement bar Syria (civil war), Costa Rica (did not go far enough on climate change) and the USA (makes a laughing stock of the US in its President’s own words) believe that the observed global heating is due to rising CO2 emissions.
Take a look at the list here: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/04/parisagreementsingatures/
Scott Pruitt disbelieves this – why is he right and he thinks that all the experts of these countries are wrong?
Group think hasn’t pampered Galileo, Darwin, Maya, people in the Soviets, Africa or Arctic circle even today, but perhaps you can give a better example.
Dunno what you’re going on about here…
Well, I’m an expert.
There’s nothing scientific about anyone’s opinion.Since there is no scientific procedure capable of empirically measuring how much of any observed warming is natural, and how much is due to CO2, Pruitt’s opinion is less sensible than that of anyone else. To the contrary; absent objective empirical data on the quantitative effect of CO2 on climate, asking anyone to pay higher electricity rates, forego vacations, etc. is irrational since you’re asking people to give up the tangible for fear of the inherently hypothetical.
(should have said “no less sensible”
“Since there is no scientific procedure capable of empirically measuring how much of any observed warming is natural, and how much is due to CO2.”
C’mon man, don’t spout such nonsense without backing it up with some serious independently-reviewed studies in a well-renowned scientific journal that prove this. What a load of horseshit a generalised statement like this is:)
It’s not BS. Use your own brain instead of letting other people do your thinking for you. The only scientific techniques ever used to measure what quantitative impact A has on system B is (1) controlled experiments on system B changing A, e.g. changing voltage across a resistor to see what effect it has on current (and doing it repeatedly to randomize out other unknown variables); and (2) statistically sampling different populations of system B, one with A and one without A, e.g. epidemiological studies taking data on how many of 1000 smokers develop cancer and how many of 1000 non-smokers develop cancer. That’s it. There are no others.
Neither of those options are available to measure the effect of CO2 on climate. There’s only one Earth, and we can’t conduct any kind of controlled experiment on it. That’s why every so-called “study” trying to conclude what ECS or TCR is, either fakes their data using a computer whose results can’t be checked, and/or uses weasel language like “as much as” or “could be” or “estimate.” That’s why the IPCC reports don’t cite any studies to back up its claim to “95% confidence that most of the warming is due to GHGs” – instead they expressly state that this quantitative assessment is only the “judgment” of the authors. If such measurements actually existed, maybe you could explain why the IPCC has to rely on “judgment” for this probabilistic statement?
Tell you what – you describe for me a scientific method that actually measures what percentage of observed warming is due to CO2 and how much is natural. Come back when you’re able to. I’ll wait,
And incidentally, you seem to rely too much on mere words written by glorified professors in journals. I want results, or performance. When one of those professors is able to predict the timing, severity, and location of droughts, or correctly predict the up and down inflection points of temperatures for the next twenty years along with the magnitude of changes, then I’ll start giving credence to their words. But until climate scientists actually start demonstrating they know what they are talking about, their published papers are useless.
Ivan says… “believe that the observed global heating is due to rising CO2 emissions.”
Ivan, be specific, what percentage of the warming since 1950 is due to C02?
Keep in mind that the ONLY surface warming that can POSSIBLY be CO2 related is about 20 percent less then the radiscone weather balloon and satellite data for the troposphere. ( This is per IPCC physics which show the troposphere overall warming 20 percent more then the surface) Therefore ANY surface warming greater then 20 percent LESS then the trophspheric warming, CANNOT be GHG caused! This eliminates about 50 percent of the observed surface warming as being GHG caused.
O.8C increase since 1880. Two thirds of that since 1975. The other statements you make – please show me some evidence of what you are claiming.
Tell us all please, can you feel it is the temperature in your living room (or anywhere else) increases or decreases by 0.8 degrees?
Are you aware planet Earth is currently in an ice age?
That large portions of our planet are frozen to a deadly temperature on a permanent basis?
That the vast polar wastelands are so frigid that a person will die within minutes if one had the misfortune of finding themselves their without the protection of head to toe specialized clothing, and even with such, will die in less than a day without immediate shelter?
Do you know what the percentage of our planet’s surface is so cold, either permanently or seasonally, that it is fatal to human life?
Now, do you know how much of the surface will cause a person to die of heat?
Think hard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badwater_Ultramarathon
http://jtpedersen.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/frozen-penguin-2.jpg
http://static8.depositphotos.com/1037168/965/i/950/depositphotos_9651124-Young-woman-in-white-bikini-standing-on-tropical-beach.jpg
Boy, must be awful to be a fearful wretch who is so out of touch with reality one does not know that freezing is a bad thing, and that people pay money to flock to where it is hot.
May you find some solace and perspective at some point.
Correction ivankinsman: Politicians signed up to the 2015 Paris Accord, not experts.
C’mon on! The agreement was thrashed out based on the evidence that the scientists produced and it was overwhelmingly in favour of global heating. Of course it had to be signed and authorised by the politicians – are the politicians all around the world in cahoots over the climate change hoax? This really had me laughing out loud…
Global heating?
The US has been cooling for over a hundred years.
Don’t you mean climate change?
You need to get your talking points straight if you are going to have a career trolling on WUWT.
Are you out of high school yet Ivan?
The agreement was thrashed out based on the redistribution of wealth. Climate Seance was just the excuse to justify it to the masses.
From here.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
Also, here is another article substantiating Prutt’s supposedly pro-environmental stance:
“Perhaps the most disturbingly effective person on the Trump team is Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. In the few months since Trump’s inauguration, Pruitt, has transformed the EPA into a supine lap dog for the oil, gas and coal industries and is well on his way to erasing years of environmental policy built on scientific research.”
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-hatchet-pruitt-20170702-story.html
To my knowledge, thanks to EPA, US is the only country to have ever seriously considered carbon dioxide a pollutant. Even Merkel’s EU has exempted carbon dioxide from chemicals law. If US is laughing stock of something, that’s it. Based on that Pruitt has a gigantesque swamp to drain. Pleased it’s in good progress.
Eh? Where is the evidence US has tried to ban CO2 as a pollutant and EU hasn’t? How to you support this statement?
Once you had invented banning into my argument, I can wish you a good day.
Jaakko,
You would deprive a troll of his straw men?
Without logical fallacies, they are nearly unable to speak!
ivankinsman: The true question is not “Is the Earth warming?” It has been since the mid-1800s when the Little Ice Age ended. No one seriously disputes this, though the precision of the amount of warming given in the literature is not justified by the quality of the instruments used to measure the temperature.
The question is actually, “How much, if any, of the warming we’ve observed is caused by human-produced CO2?” The answer to that is “We don’t know.” From 1910 to 1940 there was warming of the same magnitude as between 1980 and 1996. There was global cooling between 1945 or so until the late 1970s. The GCMs were built with CO2 climate sensitivities at levels the programmers thought appropriate, and when the models ran degrees too warm, refused to change their parameters, and instead altered the data from the past to make it seem cooler than it was, and thus today much warmer.
There’s not a alarmist paper produced today that doesn’t contain the words “might”, “could”, “by xxxx year,” “modeled”, and so forth. Science works with predictions to see ifi they are proven correct, not to be used as data in another study. Climate science does not function as true science should.
Ivankinsman, You do know you keep quoting an op-ed, right? That is an opinion-only editorial by a journalist in the one section of the newspaper purposely devoted to fact-only opinions by journalists who get paid to write only opinion pieces. I’m not sure there is a less fact-based source around. I have been reading this site for a decade, I almost never post. I am not sure why the regular posters enjoy wasting time with you, you are one of the least informed posters in the last few years at least. You’ve ceased being entertaining a while back now. There are many truly amazing scientists and informed posters on this site, and your continual trolling, for me at least, has started really annoying me. I now skip entire sections as soon as I see your name. I wish people would just ignore you, you’re quite literally bringing down the whole site. I know people engage with you because they want to make sure that your silly statements are refuted but at this point it’s been well established you truly don’t know anything, you have less than average skills at arguing, and you are rude and often extremely insulting to boot. If you are older than a high-schooler then that fact alone would be truly sad. Even Griff is so much better at this than you are. I do hope that at some point those like me who enjoy a robust exchange of well thought out ideas will stop dealing with you, so that entire threads don’t have to be continually hijaked by arguments that venture on the inane.
Liar liar fraud and bald
http://17663-presscdn-0-49.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2012_12_04-RITGER-C1-Schneider-Award-James-Hansen-029-Mann-web.jpg
Oct. 26, 2012
The Norwegian Nobel Institute has today made a statement affirming that climate scientist, Michael Mann lied when he claimed he was a joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Tom Richard investigating for Examiner.com takes the credit for this sensational scoop. Tom says, “I contacted the Norwegian Nobel Institute to find out if Mann was indeed a Nobel Laureate, winner, etc.” A prompt reply from Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, of The Norwegian Nobel Institute was soon forthcoming. In no uncertain terms Lundestad affirmed, “Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.” Yet lo and behold Mann makes the claim that he has been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” in the complaint itself
As to the IPCC “certificate” Mann proudly displays on his Facebook page as “proof” Lundestad had this to say, “Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not.”
This is a great video by Dr. Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI) and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC).
He explains exactly how climate deniers work – they know that the science now indisputably proves human induced global heating and so adopt a strategy of trying to shoot the messenger i.e. the scientists whose work has helped to prove it. For anyone who is still sceptical of climate change, I suggest you tune in:
[from your website: “Planet earth has now reached a tipping point or more probably gone beyond this…” riiight, another doomer. -mod]
“Distinguished”? I’ll consider him distinguished when he learns to distinguish his own shiit from his own shinola.
Ivan,
You are hands down a contender in record time.
Keep up the insults my man – I live them because it is proving exactly what I have said about trying to shoot the messenger.
I am really interested in how climate sceptics see the world for their grandchildren. Do they expect it will be all clover and honey and business as usual. They are the ones who will bear the consequences of your inaction and thank the Lord there are millions out there who are now out to combat human induced global warming.
Ivan, a book that might give you some insight into where your attitude seems to be is “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer. That is granting you the status of a sincere writer, not a knowing paid spinner.
No way am I paid Tom. One always has to have this at the back of your mind on this site but this is all what my gut is telling me. I’ll check out Hoffer.
I also suggest you read Professor James Lovelock and his Gaia books. Works as an independent scientist and his books are a real eye opener on how this planet works. For example, his views on nucleur energy have convinced me it is a very viable option for our future energy requirenents.
Ivan, I have not insulted you.
Calling a fool a fool is merely speaking the truth.
If you would like some insults though, I have plenty on hand.
You insult yourself, and everyone here.
Please do tell me, although I doubt you will, why it is that you hate poor people?
Why do you hate the people who live in energy poverty?
Why do you wish to condemn hundreds of millions of infants, and women, and little girls and boys, and their parents and teachers, and everyone they know…why do you want to consign them to perpetual misery and deprivation?
Why do you want to lie to children, and everyone else, by filling their heads with fear mongering nonsense?
Do you remain unaware that many will lose hope based on the lies you spread and perpetuate?
Why Ivan?
Why all the hate?
Why all the love of misery of others?
Why do you condemn them without even so much as a trial?
You are an awful person, I do not need to insult you.
The truth of who you are is bad enough.
That video of Mann you posted did not reflect well on his honesty at all – just using Mann’s own words. Go back and watch it again and see whether Mann’s explanation of the use of the word “trick” squared with the later language in the e-mail “hide the decline.” Here’s a hint for you – it didn’t.
The e-mail he was discussing referred to Mann”s adoption of a procedure intended to hide the discrepancy between tree ring data and instrumental data; the tree rings showed declining temperatures at the same time the instruments were showing rising temperatures, leading logical people to conclude that tree ring data is not reliably accurate. Mann used a “trick” to hide this.
Again – watch the video and ask yourself whether he’s being honest about what his neat “trick” was doing and whether it at all matches the description of “hide the decline.”
and here is his very distinguished academic resume:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/
LOL
Golly, you sure got your snout way up his butt, dontcha?
You so funny!
He has got a very strong research record on human induced climate change and is one of the leading experts in this area. You may hate him and probably Al Gore for their ‘message’ but it is what many people are increasingly tuning in to.
Climate sceptics remind me a bit of Luddites – they can see what is happening but are determined to fight it but the changes the Luddites were facing were re relentless and unstoppable.
If Mann’s hockey stick did not result in a reaction from you along the lines of “WTF!”, you really, really need to read some history of the time period covered. That is before any exploration of grafting instrumental records onto proxies, or the adequacy of the proxies, or the program Mann et al used to derive the hockey stick.
Having a high opinion of Michael Mann is only somewhat better than a psychologist citing Cyril Burt.
Dr. Mann is one if the main contributors to the IPCC climate agreements
I do not hate anyone.
I do, however, pity fools.
I been feeling lots o’ pity lately.
Panic mongering warmistas remind me of Chicken Little, the Boy Who Cried Wolf, scientific illiterates, and various doomsday cultists…they are a combination of credulously timid, gullibly trepidatious, unscientific, unable to keep several ideas in their heads at once, ignorant of Earth history and physics and even the basics of how the atmosphere operates, ridiculously unaware of their own cognitive dissonance, 100% naïve of political reality, and they have simply zero awareness that they have been duped by propaganda so easily and completely that the people who did it must really be having a good laugh.
But do not feel bad…fooling the weak minded is like taking candy from a baby.
Climate skeptics look out their window at times to see what reality is doing rather than mistake the climate model on their computer screen for reality. Alarmist are “Virtual Luddites”.
And here Distinguished Professor Mann explains exactly what is going on with human induced global heating and how quickly it is impacting planet earth:
Dr. Mann refers to Jim Hansen’s paper, so for those interested in this you can find out more about what he focused on here ‘Hell Will Break Loose – Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms’ (17 Sept. 2016):
Dr. Mann refers to how the fossil fuel companies deliberately set out to either deceive or repress information on the danger of climate change. This is an example of one oil company that backs up his statement:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger?CMP=share_btn_link
I suppose from the perspective of a fawning sycophant, someone who sees through the bullshit and lies of the person you worship must seem almost like hatred.
Me laddie, you sure are going to feel very silly someday.
I hope it is soon, for your sake.
“Appeal to authority”.
How many of his comments (and links) have only been that?
I went to his website. One of “Individuals” of importance is Christiana Figueres. He seems to believe that she is a champion and an “authority” out to save us from caGW.
In the context of Paris further up the thread, I said this.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/05/epa-ethics-panel-it-is-not-unethical-to-question-climate-dogma/#comment-2573175
An excerpt.
Maybe he didn’t see it but, he didn’t respond.
Maybe because one his authoritative “Indivuals” seems to have a different goal in mind than saving us from “Global Hottering” (or whatever term ivan used)?
mods:
With 30 of the 198 comments, could ivankinsman be legitimacy accused of thread hijacking?
Well, Mann’s lectures on collective mind-reading and morals shadows even Heinrich Kramer.
No, it demonstrates that the Government, replete with red tape order of operations written in concrete, just takes that long to say a simple yes or no. Any questions, ask the vets lined up for care.
Ivankinsman: the annoying little dog next to the big dogs
There are two scientific views. Why do not we stop hatred and work together to solve major scientific issues?
1. Why models do not match global warming hiatus and overestimate temperature?
2. Why models underpredict Arctic sea ice?
3. After 1998 many climate features and teleconnection changed.
Are we missing some very important thing?
We all need to advance Climate Science prediction, do not we?
“We all need to advance Climate Science prediction, do not we?”
Practically speaking, this is not possible. The sine qua non of any scientific endeavor is experimentation – and experimentation is not possible on the climate system. All you can do is sit back and observe its behavior, and effectively without any control at all over what is input into the system. There is no possible way that the type of information needed to have any hope of an accurate predictive model can be gleaned from such observations under those conditions.
Moreover, since even the climate scientists agree that climate changes have to be observed over, at a minimum, 30 year intervals since everything in shorter intervals is just “noise,” even if by some astronomical coincidence, CO2 concentrations were to rise and fall, and rise and fall, enough times over respective 30+ year intervals to get the data you would need, it would take centuries to accomplish the task.
No way, no how, is any predictive model of the Earth’s climate going to be reliably accurate. .
I do get very tired of disagreeing, even strongly disagreeing, with another viewpoint being labeled as “hatred” or “phobia” or some other label that implies the opposing viewpoint is based on emotion and can’t possibly be based on valid reasoning.
Agreed Gunga Din. Once emotions start getting involved – or politics – then it becomes like two enemies on a battlefield. Let the scientific evidence speak for itself. I personally am prepared to listen to global heating sceptics if they really can show that the worsening climate phemonena can be put down to climate with no input from human produced CO2.
What also interests me is what the climate sceptics here were saying at the time about Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and the Ozone Hole prior to their being banned. I have a feeling pretty much the same thing – oh, CFCs have no impact on the atmosphere – the Ozone Hole is a natural phenomenon that will soon right itself – you just leave it to nature. Human produced CFCs causing damage to stratospheric ozone – what a bunch of boloney!
ivan, take the politics out of climate science and there would be no threat from CO2 requiring Paris or any other attempts to solve a non-problem.
You had said this above:
I replied twice but I guess you didn’t see it. Here’s the second which contains a link to the first.
Now, before changing the subject to Al Gore’s first attempt to milk the Green Cow, please explain how the Christiana Figueres’s quote and the Edenhofer quote (“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.) are evidence of “science” and not politics?
PS No, I don’t “hate” you.
Well, I think it will be very difficult to continue with the current economic model. Professor James Lovelock believes that unfettered capitalism is continuing along the road to planetary disaster and I also like some of the theories espoused by Naomi Klein which you can view here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/books/review/naomi-klein-this-changes-everything-review.html
Maurice Strong also said this in an interview with The Guardian in 2015:
“Maurice Strong (died 2015): “Look at the history of planet earth – there’s only a minute moment of time when the conditions have been conducive to human life. We are literally altering those conditions and my motivation is to alert people to this. I believe that we need a degree of cooperation on these issues that goes beyond anything we’ve ever seen before. During a war we get a lot of co-operation, but we also get a lot of rivalry. In the second world war, nations co-operated. There are examples of co-operation during periods of special need. But things are happening now that could really affect the future of humanity and that’s what drives me. It doesn’t mean I’m right about everything, but that is my purpose.”
And this is supported by Professor Lovelock:
[The Guardian, 29 March 2010]:
“One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is modern democracy. Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
If the UN IPCC 2015 Paris Agreement really produces the results then, in my opinion, this is the best way forward with or without the USA. Another good example of global cooperation is the banning of CFCs ref. the Ozone Hole. If, however, global heating continues unabated then a “war scenario'” is probably going to be required.
So you admit it’s not about the science but the politics.
https://youtu.be/OJ5hcwa7KZI?t=214
Well, I blew the video clip.
I was supposed to be just her saying, “Thank you for your cooperation.”
Michael “Hockey Schtick” Mann lecturing anyone on on ethics is the equivalent of Slick WIllie leading a symposium on marital fidelity…
“Truth is like a lion. Turn it loose and it will defend itself” – St. Augustine