Vice: Despite a Failed Assassination Attempt, These Climate Deniers Continue to Impede Global Action

University of Alabama Scientists John Christy. In 2017 an assailant fired bullets into the office next door to Christy. Police believe the assailant mistook the office for Christy’s

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon, Marc Morano; According to Vice, the work of John Christy and eight other industry funded climate denier scientist holdouts is all that stands in the path of global climate action.

You could interpret the Vice article as an unscrupulous attempt to paint a big target on the backs of the named scientists for any murderous green crazies out there, but I’m sure that wasn’t Vice’s intention.

The Last of the Climate Deniers Hold On, Despite Your Protests

Propped by an industry-funded network, demanded by the Trump administration, the last vestiges of climate deniers in academia linger as millennials protest inaction.

By Dan Schwartz Nov 19 2019, 1:15am

Late in the summer of 1989, John Christy discovered the earth wasn’t warming. Satellites spinning through the atmosphere reported no upward trend line, and above the tropics, the University of Alabama atmospheric sciences professor and his research partner, the NASA scientist Roy Spencer, learned that the satellites had actually recorded cooling. The two men were the first to crunch the enormous volume of data captured by the satellites since their launch a decade earlier, the first to build a database that showed the surface readings depicting a warming earth were overblown. They were pioneers. They submitted a paper to Science magazine, and in March the following year, they became celebrities. NPR called. The Los Angeles Times called. Jay Leno made a joke about it on national TV.

Such attention today would not faze Christy. He’s testified numerous times before federal lawmakers. He has done so many interviews with reporters that he’s begun repeating himself. This year he began advising the director of the Environmental Protection Agency. He is now so widely seen as an obstacle to climate action that on Earth Day week in 2017, late at night, seven 5.7 mm rounds snapped through the office window next to his. The FBI told him the shooter had likely mistaken his neighbor’s office for his. But in the spring of 1990, Christy was in his late 30s, without tenure and surprised, suddenly, by the attention. “It was the first time I had gone through something like that,” he said.

Global warming threatens every living thing on earth, but cutting the pollution that causes it threatens the profits of enough executives, the climate researcher Richard Heede told the Guardian, to fit on a couple of Greyhound buses. Some of those—though not all of them—decided money was more important, and to protect their money they invested in a network of free-market think tanks and advocacy groups to manufacture celebrities of academia like Christy. These were academics who, crucially, already believed the climate crisis was no crisis at all, academics so ideologically aligned with the free-market values of the polluters that they couldn’t be bothered with the damning data signaling a crisis. These academics were true believers.

Though Christy has the credentials to talk the climate talk, he’s backed himself into a corner, shoulder to shoulder with eight other professors who sound a lot like climate deniers. This scrum of academics can be broken into two categories: those who are credentialed to have opinions about the atmosphere, like Christy, and those who aren’t.

These think tanks and advocacy groups became brokers for a community of mostly older white male scientists and economists who all doubted the looming climate crisis. As the country considered the binding international treaty to cut carbon emissions in the late 90s and early 2000s, this network blasted the voices of these men into the nation’s dialogue. Without their work, says Jerry Taylor, the president of the Niskanen Center, a libertarian think tank, lawmakers couldn’t support inaction. Taylor is skeptical of the skeptics today, but he once fought with them against action and knows the landscape well. “It’s not all that complicated,” he said. “There is a political demand for climate skepticism out of the academic community,” and by signaling it, lesser-known researchers can gain visibility and get private grants.

Read more: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wjwawq/the-last-of-the-climate-deniers-hold-on-despite-your-protests-v26n4

The other academics named in the article are David Legates, David Deming, Tony Lupo, Gerard Caneba, Larry Bell, Steven Hayward, Thomas Rustici and Scott Armstrong.

To reiterate: you could interpret the Vice article as an unscrupulous attempt to paint a big target on the backs of the named scientists for any murderous green crazies out there, but I’m sure that wasn’t Vice’s intention.

Advertisements

133 thoughts on “Vice: Despite a Failed Assassination Attempt, These Climate Deniers Continue to Impede Global Action

  1. This is the insanity we’ve descended into, where growing incidents of political violence. When these idiots make such violence everyday/commonplace, we will collapse completely as a society. I weep for our future….

    • Perhaps Sir John Glubb has our 250 year national lifespan (however Europe seems to have found a shortcut) correct in “The Fate of Empires” and Trump may be the last holdout. Some excerpts :
      In a surprising manner, 250 years emerges as the average length of national greatness. This average has not varied for 3,000 years. The end time is marked by The Age of Decadence:
      Defensiveness
      Pessimism
      Materialism
      Frivolity
      An influx of foreigners
      The Welfare State
      A weakening of religion.

      http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

      • Not to put too fine a point on it, but the U. S. of A. didn’t instantly become a “great” nation upon signing that Declaration in 1776. Nor upon ratifying our Constitution in 1789(?). We weren’t considered a military power until the Spanish-American War in 1900. The Europeans still didn’t have much use for us until saving their asses in WWII, which ended in 1946. And culturally many “aristocrats” still look down on us. So even if all the current symptoms do indeed signal our decline, that puts us well ahead of schedule. But then we always have been overachievers.

        • Another, similar book that I came across is “The Lessons of History” by Will, Ariel Durant. It was written by two historians in 1968. It is pretty incredible.

        • Red, The US Marines put down the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800’s. This resulted in as many as 1.2 million slaves being returned to their European and American homes and the end of paying tribute to them. European navies and ground forces had tried but were unable to perform this deed. After the American Marines left, Europeans were able to go in and put down any resurgences.

      • Yes, I came across the Fate of Empires recently myself. It’s strange how he blames essentially kindness for eroding the strength of the empire (welfare state, letting in others etc) but then finishes what seem to be quite an astute essay with “Maybe we should be kind to each other”. Quite interesting reading all the same

        • The welfare state isn’t being kind to others, it’s “buying votes”. If the Federal Government really cared, it would get out of the welfare gig entirely and let the states, communities, and churches handle it.

        • “…welfare state…” isn’t kindness, it’s a new form of slavery. Don’t believe me? Show any welfare queen a foolproof business that they could build on their own schedule, as long as you actually work to build it, and do you know what most of them will tell you? I wouldn’t want lose my benefits *whine*. All welfare did is substitute the government for the plantation.

      • Europe is not an Empire, it is USA’s vassal and will dismantle itself following your collapse. That’s why it’ll take less time. Another good reading following John Glubb is the political ponerology from Lobatchevsky.

    • Oh, take a chill pill, Brooklyn. Violence is part of human nature. We pound on each other all the time, have been since the Dawn of Time. Nothing new here. When governments fall for the claptrap that is “climate alarmism’, they’re either looking for more cash from that cash cow, the taxpayer, or they’re teetering on the edge of realizing that they, too, can be dismissed with prejudice.

      And that is why the Chinese government (and Russia, too) do not give a tiny little rat’s petootie about the climate nonsense going on.

  2. You could interpret the Vice article as an unscrupulous attempt to paint a big target on the backs of the named scientists for any murderous green crazies out there, but I’m sure that wasn’t Vice’s intention.

    You are more generous than I. I suspect that was very much a part of Vice’s intention.

    • Look at the language. It certainly is an attempt to target and nullify. In more rational times this would be deemed a crime and subject to legal penalty.

    • “You could interpret the Vice article as an unscrupulous attempt to paint a big target on the backs of the named scientists for any murderous green crazies out there, but I’m sure that wasn’t Vice’s intention.”

      I took Eric’s comment as sarcasm, especially, because he repeated it.

      • There was certainly an element of sarcasm to it (or at least I hope there was) but it also can serve as a CYA “I’m not accusing Vice of anything (as I heavily imply it)”. in any event, I think most here clearly see what Vice is doing there.

        • John Endicott
          November 19, 2019 at 12:36 pm

          Yes, you’re right…it’s very clear what the shameful intention of Vice is.

          It’s becoming increasingly dangerous to be a skeptic…but most of us are pretty brave and immune to criticism from the idiots and media. Now is the time to stand up and be counted and “walk towards the fire.” We owe it to our kids and grandchildren!

  3. Satellites don’t spin through the atmosphere.

    Mann and other anti-scientific alarmists get more industry funding than do rigorous atmospheric scientists Spencer and Christy.

    • This was a very poorly written article, not just from a standpoint of good journalism, but in its lack of research or understanding of the material. When the author starts out with the intent to make certain points and damn the facts, it is an editorial NOT a news article. I am reminded of National Review’s crack about Eleanor Roosevelt’s newspaper columns. “Following Roosevelt’s tortuous logic is like following a lit fuse to a stick of dynamite.”

    • John Tillman, Mann and the alarmists spin through the media. Amazing how a mere 8 can forestall the narrative. But it means there are only 266 pro scientists for their 97%

    • The shots were fired over the weekend, which would be really stupid timing if it were an assassination attempt.

      Yes, because academics are famous for the strict regimen of never, ever, working on weekends. Why, the very idea! (/snark, for the sarcasm-challenged).

      • Of course, everybody *knows* that the weekends are the best time to find them in their offices. (snark is easy, making sense is harder)

        • The shots were fired on a weekend because the perpetrator was trying to minimize witnesses.

          Keep in mind, that makes the shot pure threat and a test of the windows, not an attempt on life.

    • From a UK perspective, it is the fact that shots were fired that is notable. Not the working hours.

      It says a lot about the USA that bullets aimed at windows are commonplace while working on a Saturday is incredible.

      • It’s actually not commonplace. In all of my years on this earth, I’ve never witnessed someone getting their windows shot out, on Saturday working or otherwise. Pretty sure I’m in the majority on this.

        • Wrong. Our Corporate Solicitor a few years ago was out of his office when the hole appeared in the window. I saw it soon after. He and our mutual employer were mining uranium for peaceful use. Geoff S

        • IF it were commonplace bulletproof windows would be standard and the cost would come down exponentially. Even in inner city America gang warfare the windows are not the targets of drive by shootings. You have a greater incidence of penetrated human flesh than glass windows.

        • Pittzer you are indeed in the majority, but there are some small areas (mostly in the worst crime-ridden parts of big cities) in which such an occurrence would be, while not necessarily “common place”, all too frequent. such areas, however, are the exception not the rule.

          • Trying to compare a willfully aimed rifle shot at a window with the byproducts of gangs wild use of handguns, is comparing oranges to road apples.

          • That depends on what you are comparing: intents or results. The question of whether bullets through windows is commonplace is one of results (ie how often does it happen. frequency doesn’t care about intent). The question of *why* the bullets are going through windows is a sperate question, one of intents (intent doesn’t care about frequency).

      • There’s a stereotype that teachers are lazy, because they only work 9 months a year, never have overtime, and are paid astronomical sums when their pensions are taken into account,

        Professor Christy is a teacher, ergo the stereotype about teachers applies, even though the stereotype was built on elementary teachers, not research professors.

        It’s unthinkable a teacher would be working on a Saturday, but because that’s because of a classification error, not because research scientists nor other people work weekends.

      • “It says a lot about the USA that bullets aimed at windows are commonplace while working on a Saturday is incredible.”

        Not sure if its your media or ours that has given you that impression, but I assure you its quite dramatic and false.

      • “It says a lot about the USA that bullets aimed at windows are commonplace while working on a Saturday is incredible.”

        Indeed. What next? The knifing and mowing down with trucks of citizens in broad daylight (instead of bullets aimed at windows)?

      • You made a comment to me about not talking about things I have no knowledge of.
        I see that you have no intention of following your own advice.

        1) Where did you get the idiotic idea that firing at windows was common place.
        2) Are you actually claiming that working on the weekend is common place in your country? If so, please provide some evidence.

    • I poked around some on the WWW and the closest thing I can find involving Christy and assassination are references to character assassination.

      Eric Worrall, let’s not use WUWT as a medium supporting false claims, especially when we rail at alarmist organizations who do similar nonsense.

      • Ric, ironically, the vice article gives you all the information you need to know where the claim comes from:
        He is now so widely seen as an obstacle to climate action that on Earth Day week in 2017, late at night, seven 5.7 mm rounds snapped through the office window next to his. The FBI told him the shooter had likely mistaken his neighbor’s office for his.

        Are you claiming Vice lied when they mentioned that tidbit of information?

        well according to the washington times (published at the time), Vice is actually correct about the shooting taking place:
        https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/shots-fired-over-earth-day-weekend-campus-building/
        Seven gunshots were fired over Earth Day weekend at a University of Alabama in Huntsville science center that holds the offices of two of the world’s most prominent climate skeptics.

        “All bullets hit the 4th floor, which is where John Christy’s office is (my office is in another part of the building),” Mr. [Roy] Spencer said.

        Now to be fair, the Washington Times article mentions the campus police chalk it up to a “random” occurrance and don’t mention the FBI at all (unlike Vice, but then Vice has the benefit time for results of any investigations to have been completed). Frankly, though, Campus police aren’t the ones that should be investigating and making that determination. Crimes like that are way above their pay grade. The FBI is the more proper investigating organization, and according to the above quoted Vice article “The FBI told him [Christy] the shooter had likely mistaken his neighbor’s office for his”. so we are back to what basis are you claiming Vice got it wrong? Granted Vice has an abyssmil reputation for being biased, but that’s not the usual direction Vice’s bias run (they be more likely to find excuses to claim violence against “deniers” didn’t happen rather than to point out reasons to believe it did).

        • My gripe is not whether bullet holes appeared in the office, they clearly did, and most likely from someone targeting John Christy’s office, and on Saturday night.

          My gripe is that Eric Worrall (a frequent poster here) used an inflammatory title (i.e. calling it a failed assassination attempt) when it is quite clear that bodily harm was not the intent. Note the shooting was at nighttime, the office lights were probably off.

          WUWT used to consistently rail at the exaggerated claims from the alarmist side and pretty much adhere to the higher ground except for the most ridiculous claims. We’re losing our cred.

          BTW, before I posted my comment, I search the Vice article – the word “assassination” is not used in it. That’s why I did a WWW search and came up with nothing stronger than “character assassination.”

          • My gripe is not whether bullet holes appeared in the office, they clearly did, and most likely from someone targeting John Christy’s office, and on Saturday night.

            Case closed then.

            when it is quite clear that bodily harm was not the intent

            That’s an assumption on your part. They shot at an office building, regardless of the time of day, that brings with it the potential to harm those inside (even if the only one inside at the time is the night guard or evening janitor). That they were targeting a specific office means they knew (or should have known) that they could cause harm to the person whose office they were specifically targeting.

            Note the shooting was at nighttime, the office lights were probably off.

            Again, assumption on your part. just because it’s nighttime, even on a weekend, does not mean the lights need be off.

            BTW, before I posted my comment, I search the Vice article – the word “assassination” is not used in it

            Just because a particular word is not used does not mean that particular word can not be used to describe the situation. If I wrote a review about the new Ford F-150 but did not use the words “internal combustion engine” would you assume that the F-150 does not have an internal combustion engine, even if I described how much gasoline the vehicle tank holds and how many miles to the gallon it gets? really?

            WUWT used to …

            Your concern trolling is noted and given all the due deference it deserves (IE none).

    • Just to set the record straight, there are indeed people (National Weather Service employees) in our building 24/7. But yes, the shots were timed to reduce the possibility of the perp(s) getting caught, since the street from which the shots were fired is pretty busy during the daytime.

  4. These think tanks and advocacy groups became brokers for a community of mostly older white male…

    Get in a discussion (argument) with a left winger, and it is very likely that they will early on play the race card.

    • And don’t forget ageism. The beauty of ageism is that they can imply several things: 1) old = mentally not as fit or capable, 2) soon to die, and therefore irrelevant, and 3) of a different generation, with old, and outdated ideas and ways of viewing things. Alarmists have honed their use of the Ad Hominem to an art.

      • Of course they leap to Agism, perspective is their enemy.
        It takes being wilfully ignorant of history,to be cult members in good standing.
        hence the “Okay Boomer” retort from the “Doomers”.
        I suspect the hostility toward people with longer experience of life,could be an indication reality is not supporting the narrative.
        The School of Hard Knocks, is calling?
        As in “Learn to code”?

    • It’s the ‘old, white male’ smear. It communicates the idea that he was somehow not entitled to his position and part of some ‘old boys” conspiracy rather than a competent and unbiased analyst of data.

  5. “In August 2004, the late Senator John McCain had flown with a clutch of other senators to the Arctic island of Svalbard to observe the changing climate there and be briefed on an upcoming federal report, the first comprehensive peer-reviewed assessment on the impacts of climate change in the Arctic. ”

    Svalbard, the Canary in the Coal mine of Climate Calamity!!!!

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/10/04/svalbard/

  6. The 30 000 graduate scientists including 9000 PhDs who signed the Oregon Petition stand against your position Mr Schwartz. Add to that the literally scores of books produced on climate change exposing the scare as a hoax. However the main stream media can be called on to support the climate hoax. There is not a shred of scientific evidence to support the man made climate change hoax. elements within NOAA and NASA have been exposed busy altering temperature data to suit the global warming scare. I suggest you read ” Man made climate change—-the greatest hoax in history by Professor Timothy Ball retired Professor of Climatology University of Winnipeg (available from Amazon)

  7. “You could interpret the Vice article as an unscrupulous attempt to paint a big target on the backs of the named scientists for any murderous green crazies out there…”

    The leftist have been making these kinds of signals for several years. They just haven’t followed through, for the most part.

  8. There isn’t going to be any “global climate action.” It’s all a fantasy driven by a doomsday fad, sort of like the “Ban the Bomb” parades of 60 years ago. The H-bombs are still there, but people don’t worry about them anymore, because there’s not much you can do about it. Very few gizmos have ever been un-invented. Coal, gas, electricity, and the labor-saving devices run by them aren’t going to be un-invented, either, no matter how fiercely climate hypochondriacs hyperventilate about them.

    Several factions in the West are so rich, they take their comforts for granted, and assume they can regulate their way into higher prices for food, clothing and shelter indefinitely. Even in the West, the phony climate “accords” are non-binding, even though they’re costly.

    The “developing” world, which is around 3/4ths of global population, is exempt from climate-based restrictions. They’re still trying to reach prosperity, and aren’t yet stupid enough, or lulled enough to vote themselves poor. If rich boneheads in the West are dumb enough to vote themselves poor, it only helps the non-dumb catch up, and eventually get ahead.

    • “If rich boneheads in the West are dumb enough to vote themselves poor, it only helps the non-dumb catch up, and eventually get ahead.”

      Which sounds an awful lot like the UN’s actual agenda.

      • Got it in one, Goldrider.

        “ Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit … (Cancun, 2010) … is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer.

        Nine years ago, he said that, and still we haven’t understood!

  9. Judging by the comment sections on articles about the climate the general public aren’t buying it either. I think the increase in cold and snow might have something to do with it or maybe it is for all the shouting none of the claimed alarmist events have actually happened.

  10. “Global warming threatens every living thing on earth, but cutting the pollution that causes it threatens the profits…”

    C’mon Vice, make up your mind – is global warming the focus of your article, or pollution? But I confess I do like the way you point-out via John Christy’s work, that the globe isn’t actually warming.

    • Mischaracterizing CO2 emissions as carbon pollution is pure propaganda. Goebbels would be proud of such a trick.

  11. It is not a small group of conscientious and courageous scientists, nor a handful of wealthy industrialists who stand in the way of destroying society’s foundations in a vain attempt to control the weather. It is nature and the easy observations of any voter looking out their window that nothing bad has happened after a century and a half of gentle warming that took us out of the mini ice age, and after a very welcome rise in CO2 which is making life more abundant in the biosphere. Everything negative reported to date is either an unvalidated prediction from computer models (all predictions that can be checked to date have failed), or a misinterpretation or even misrepresentation of observations. Polar bears aren’t disappearing, they are thriving. Sea level rise hasn’t accelerated except in rigged reanalysis of satellite altimetry. Coastal regions and South Pacific islands are on average increasing in landmass rather than sinking. Corals are doing what they always do and mostly thriving. More people continue to die from cold rather than heat. Snow is not a thing of the past but a very real present concern on cold winter days. There is no upward trend in tropical cyclones, tornados, severe drought or flooding globally – only the usual variations that weather normally provides. And no, every bad weather event is not caused by consumption of fossil fuels, but the consumption of those fuels has allowed us to avoid more than 95% of the risk to human life and limb those events might otherwise cause, while we have become much better stewards of the natural world.

  12. What is so utterly weird about this is that, if you just look at who is doing the emitting, and who is not only refusing to stop, but actually is increasing, it ain’t us. Its the Chinese and Indians etc.

    So logically the argument must be that Christie, Soon, Spencer etc are majorly influential in China and are the main reason why the Far East and developing world are paying no attention to the climate hysteria in the West?

    I mean, if all they are influencing is Trump and the US and UK, they will have very little effect on global emissions, because we all are doing such a small proportion of either current or future forecast emissions.

    Its the same story over and over again, these guys don’t seem to understand who is doing most of the emitting, and who is refusing to stop.

    I doubt the Chinese establishment knows or cares what Soon and Christie think or write. They are just not taking any of this stuff seriously at all, and are getting on with economic growth as fast as they can. Because they know that if they falter, the political consequences will be absolutely dire. They cannot and will not risk it, even were the scientific basis for alarmism a lot more persuasive than it is.

  13. I guess that’s Vice’s way of saying we dodged a bullet from the Clinton Criminal Syndicate.
    The US played the Trump card.
    Thank goodness for the Secret Service.
    MAGA.

    • Thank goodness for the Secret Service.

      Yes, Joel. In fact, given the indoctrination of violence, I’m very surprised no one has taken a shot at Trump — yet.

      • That’ll probably be the next step should/when impeachment fails to remove him from office and it looks like he might win re-election.

  14. Notice the ignorance of the scientific method, of which Vice displays total ignorance of.
    Global warming is determined by data which is NOT under the control of global warming skeptics
    but of alarmists. Attempting to combat scientific arguments by the skeptics by making(mostly false) claims about something as irrelevant as funding is a complete admission by the alarmists that they cannot win their argument on the basis of scientific measures. Vice has produced perhaps the premier
    ad hominem fallacy

    • vice: a bad habit; serious moral failing:

      which pretty much sums up Vice

      BTW. you do know you could have googled, or other search engine of your choice, it? it’s a website & a youtube channel. highly biased. don’t know if they have an actual printed magazine to go with it, does anyone actual read magazines anymore?

      • “does anyone actual read magazines anymore?”

        I was just in a doctor’s office and looked over the magazines. The New Yorker was very thin—few ads—and cost $8!

  15. The article begins, “According to Vice, the work of John Christy and eight other industry funded climate denier scientist holdouts is all that stands in the path of global climate action.”

    Wrong. Common sense “is what stands in the path of global climate action.”

    Regards,
    Bob

    • No common sense and each countries sovereignty, economics and prosperity.

      The underlying assumption is that countries will somehow redistribute emissions, wealth, power and world resources to a per person equity ….. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

    • “John Christy and eight other industry funded climate denier scientist holdouts”

      They aren’t industry-funded, except maybe for speaker’s fees (if they give speeches), which hardly count as “funding.”

      BTW, I note that Curry isn’t listed among the eight. Nor is Happer.

  16. Climate REALISTS. The ubiquitous use of the term ‘denier’ is a deplorable Reductio ad Hitlerum logical fallacy. It’s childish.

    • I completely Agree!

      To find the term “Denier” on WUWT associated to Dr. Christy and Dr. Spenser is repulsive!!

      These obscure terms should never be used!

  17. Perhaps he should identify as a black female, then any future attempt at her assassination would be a hate crime.

  18. This is a fine example of a very bad piece of writing right here: Satellites spinning through the atmosphere reported no upward trend line, and above the tropics, the University of Alabama atmospheric sciences professor and his research partner, the NASA scientist Roy Spencer, learned that the satellites had actually recorded cooling. -article

    Sorry, Doofus, but satellites do NOT spin through the atmosphere unless they are descending at high speed, and when that happens, they are incinerated. But thanks for getting the part about ‘no upward trend line’ correct.

    • Sorry Duffus, I mean Sara but you’re wrong

      Satellites and the International Space Station orbit the Earth within the thermosphere. Adding to the complexity of the atmosphere, another layer of gas, which mainly consists of hydrogen, helium and carbon dioxide, is found above the thermosphere. Named the exosphere, it is officially part of the Earth’s atmosphere.

      • Satellites and the International Space Station orbit the Earth within the thermosphere.

        yes and no. The International Space Station and a some satellites do orbit within the thermosphere (the space shuttle also orbited in this region, back in the day). Most satellites, however, orbit a bit higher, in the exosphere. And Geosynchronous and geostationary satellites reside *outside* the atmosphere all together.

      • To further complicate things, JC, is what one means by the terms atmosphere and space. The Karmen Line (“the edge of space” is at 100km) is widely considered the boundary between outer space and the Earth’s atmosphere even though, as you point out, there are still layers of the atmosphere above that arbitrary line. So even though the international space station technically isn’t a space station (it’s within the Earth’s atmosphere. International atmosphere station just doesn’t have the same ring, does it?) as well as pretty much all satellites, are above the Karmen line and considered to be in outer space. And it’s likely that distinction that Sara was thinking of when she made her comment.

  19. How disgustingly racist! VICE plays the race and gender cards characterizing skeptic scientists as “a community of mostly older white male scientists”

    • Jim,

      But the characterization is probably true. Even Judith Curry recently remarked about the “older white male scientists.”

      The interesting thing about being “old,” is that we have life experience above and beyond the few years of formal education. The other side of that coin is that the younger people are lacking in that experience.

      It is well documented that grade inflation has gotten out of hand since the Viet Nam War, when well-meaning professors tried to help male students stay out of the military. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that education has been taken over by those with liberal political leanings. Further, the curricula have become less rigorous and more oriented towards social issues. Name a university that still teaches advanced optical petrography! [Petrography isn’t even in the Microsoft spell checker.] Thus, it is questionable whether today’s college graduates are as well prepared to deal with science as those who were the backbone of the Manhattan Project were. Society seems to be trying to compensate for a decline in quality by increasing the quantity of graduates. I don’t think it is working well.

      • Indeed “the characterization is probably true”, but VICE’s intent like much of the far left, has been to denigrate old white men and foment distrust for anything they do. It was a racist dogwhistle to their extremist base

  20. Wrong. Our Corporate Solicitor a few years ago was out of his office when the hole appeared in the window. I saw it soon after. He and our mutual employer were mining uranium for peaceful use. Geoff S

  21. Denial of climate unworthy of climate? Perhaps an inference with liberal license. A color or global judgment and label, too. A pretense of a model of climate.

  22. The only Steven Hayward I know of is a political theorist who teaches at UC Berkley. Despite that he really is quite conservative, but he is not a scientist, nor has he ever claimed to be one.

    If the rest of that article is that god, it is total garbage.

  23. So what they are really saying is they are too stupid to overcome a handful of climate scientists who disagree with them, in spite of government, internet and the Pope being on their side?

  24. What is “denial of climate”? They’ve never defined that, so it is a non-sequitur. It is gobbledygook and buzz words that mean nothing.

    Climate is long term. Weather is short term. Ten years of a trend is NOT a climate change, it is weather reports. 150 years of a trend IS a climate change. These silly people don’t seem to know the difference and whatever it is they think they know, it’s mostly baloney.

    Corrupting the meaning of a term or a word to suit yourself is a really really bad idea. I do, however, have a feeling that they will regret what they’ve done, in the end… substantially regret it, especially when they have to shovel all that “climate” off their roofs and front steps, and get a sump pump or two to keep water out of the basement.

  25. Dan Schwartz, the author of that scandal-mongering polemic, contacted me twice by email for an interview.

    I checked his bio and credentials. He came across as an eco-sentimentalist rather than a reporter and his work as advocacy rather than as journalism.

    So, I agreed to an interview on the grounds I get complete editorial control of what he wrote about me.

    Dan refused those conditions and the interview never happened. I see now that my perception of him was right.

    Dan produced a hit-job and is unable or unwilling to write honestly.

    • John Christy is pretty open about who he will let interview him. I’m not, after a few bad experiences. The media will make you look bad if they are intent on it.

      • Roy,
        About 30 years ago I was interviewed a number of times by the press. The topics were personal computers and gun control. The ‘reporters’ did such a poor job that I’m certain I did not utter the words they attributed to me. One occasion was particularly memorable. I was being interviewed by a local TV station. The reporter asked me a question about the efficacy of waiting periods for reducing gun violence. I started to tell her that when California tripled its waiting period from 5 days to 15 days, the justifiable homicide rate dropped in half. Before I could finish, she turned to the cameraman, and pulled her index finger across her throat. I never had the opportunity to get the facts out. I have been loath to be interviewed ever since.

        • A co-worker of mine was once interviewed (a man-on the street type interview) by the local news about a then recently proposed tax policy. She gave a detailed fact-filled response as to why she thought it was a bad policy. What aired was a cherry-picked 5-second sound bite that made it look like she supported the policy.

    • Pat Frank said:

      “So, I agreed to an interview on the grounds I get complete editorial control of what he wrote about me.

      Dan refused those conditions and the interview never happened. I see now that my perception of him was right.”

      That’s not an interview. That’s you making a statement.

      Do you really believe that him not agreeing to give you complete editorial control of what he wrote about you confirms that your perception of him was right?

      • Philip, “Do you really believe that him not agreeing to give you complete editorial control of what he wrote about you confirms that your perception of him was right?

        No, Philip.

        The fact that he wrote a hit-piece confirms that my perception of him was right.

        A perception, I add, developed after looking at his bio and examples of his writings. Which was specified in my post, but which you apparently overlooked.

  26. Academics John Christy, David Legates, David Deming, Tony Lupo, Gerard Caneba, Larry Bell, Steven Hayward, Thomas Rustici and Scott Armstrong are on the Honour Roll of Climate Realists. The Vice article is an unscrupulous attempt to paint a target on the these great scientists for the benefit of any murderous green loonies about.

  27. A 5.7 mm can’t bring down a satellite or the truth from the satellite and probably not change the mathematics of all the calculations. It was designed for intimidation of the satellites, the truth, and the mathematics.

  28. “Without their work”, says Jerry Taylor, the president of the Niskanen Center, a libertarian think tank, “lawmakers couldn’t support inaction.”

    It’s not just nine AGW skeptics which enable “lawmakers to support inaction.” Lawmakers have to worry about being re-elected, and those who live in districts or states where voters need cars to get to work, and need oil or gas to heat their homes and plow snow might have trouble convincing their voters to spend trillions of dollars to regress into the 19th century in order to (supposedly) make the weather a smidgen cooler. People who have seen decades of the same old weather year after year don’t really want to triple their taxes and utility bills to try to change it.

  29. The ugliness hidden in plain site is that the New World Order boffins supporting Climate Crisis stuff as a way to segue into a neo-left тотаliтагуаи destruction of free enterprise are… a bunch of ‘old white males’! They also invented the diversity perversity and invented a dozen genders to people it.

    The actual creators, leaders and lieutenants of this diabolical activism are … ‘old white males’. They don’t have very pleasant plans for Third World peoples, poor white folk, other non white folk for all their rants about global warming going to hurt the poor and disadvantaged. This whole schmear is really a battle between a little David of ‘old white males’ who value truth, science and fair play for all and a giant Goliath of neocolonial malefactor ‘old white males’ who call themselves “progressives” like the North Korea’s use of ‘Democratic’ in their country’s name.

    The Bill McKibbons, Michael Manns, Levendowskis, authors of the Vices and the phalanx of green NGOs are ‘temporary help’ and not actually welcome in the ranks of “progressives” (they would discover) when their job is done. The NWOs dont care about CO2 or the environment. Vlad Lenin had a term for these helpers.

  30. Vice claims that Fred Singer “in 1991, planted the seed of uncertainty.”

    The first claims of possibly dangerous human caused global warming did not appear until the early 1980s (as soon as it became clear that the 1950-75 cooling episode had ended and that temperatures seemed to be headed back up again).

    At the time the leading theory of climate change was solar-magnetic, as laid out in Jack Eddy’s 1975 Science article “The Maunder Minimum.”

    So a new theory pops up, apparently in opportunistic response to an uptick in temperatures, a theory promoted by proudly dishonest activist alarmists like Stephen Schneider who advised his fellow alarmist scientists to lie about what real science actually says in order to stampede political action that the truth does not justify, and the “science journalist” at Vice thinks that in less than ten years this new explicitly hyped theory had established a certainty against which Fred planted a seed of uncertainty.

    “Hey guys we had this field all paved over until this weed found a crack in which to pop up. Doesn’t this Singer person know that there is no uncertainty in science???” And they try to paint the contrarians as the politicized group.

    • You mean the same Steven Schneider who, in 1971 wrote a paper predicting a reduction of as much as 3.5k in that could “trigger an ice age”. To borrow a phrase he was advocating for global cooling before he was advocating against it.

  31. Red, The US Marines put down the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800’s. This resulted in tens of thousands of slaves being returned to their European and American homes and the end of paying tribute to the Barbary Pirates. European navies had tried but were unable to perform this deed. It took American Marines on the ground to force them to surrender. After the American Marines left, Europeans were able to go in and put down any resurgences.

    Europe took notice. They weren’t afraid of us, but they were more respectful.

Comments are closed.