From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Senator Ted Cruz destroys wacko Professor who wants oil executives locked up for murder:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Senator Ted Cruz destroys wacko Professor who wants oil executives locked up for murder:
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No wonder your law system is in a bit of a two and eight (state) with law professors like that. Much like our own Jolyon Maugham of The Good Law Project and the King’s Bench (KCs). The entire judiciary.
On the plus side, at least this guy appeared not to be demanding the death penalty. But what an astoundingly stupid hypocrite. Carbon footprints, no matter how big, are not the issue, oh no, selling the product is. In the US at least there is a market.
In dreamland Ed Miliband is getting rid of all fossil fuels and going hell for leather for the clean power transition. But every now and then reality intrudes on the dream…
CRITICS have slammed Ed Miliband’s net zero policies for pushing Britain’s oil industry to the brink after Lindsey Oil Refinery collapsed into insolvency.
…
Industry insiders say Miliband’s push to ban new North Sea oil licences has left the UK increasingly reliant on imported fuel, as renewables fail to meet demand. Imported fuel doesn’t require refining, leaving Britain’s refineries struggling to survive.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35638912/ed-miliband-net-zero-oil-refinery/
Labour is the chaotic party political equivalent of whack a mole.
“My bacon sandwich killed off Ed Miliband’s bid to be PM – now his Net Zero drive is killing MY business” – The Sun
Miliband is the most dangerous man in the UK at present.
What will it take for the empty suit to man up and get rid of him?
After yesterday’s farce in the House two-tier is a dead man walking. His MPs know the mere hint of rebellion will guide policy making now. Miliband seems more than safe. I wish I were making this up.
Not yet
Ted Cruz should do better than getting sucked into an exchange
with an obvious publicity seeker. “Don’t hit the tar baby!”
In a context-free exchange, maybe. But this was apparently some greenie senator’s expert witness, chosen by the greenie senator, and deserved to be questioned on his expert witness credentials. In a court room, this is called impeaching a witness.
This was entirely appropriate. He was letting the so-called expert open his mouth and prove himself a fool, and the only one caught in the tar as collateral damage was his sponser, the greenie senator.
You’re right, and Senator Cruz should have made that point. Dunno maybe under the rules of the senate that’s easier said than done but I wouldn’t think so.
Listen to it @1:55. He mentions Senator Whitehouse as the greenie senator.
Under the circumstances you have two options. Let the witness rattle on unopposed or expose the witness as the idiot he is.
Mark:
Yes! Ridicule. Ceaseless, unrelenting ridicule. [Saul Alinsky’s Rule #5]
Expose their hypocracy and their stupidity.
And I laughed when the professor said “they knew 50 years ago it would cause catastrophic climate change”. No, in 1975 the consensus then was we were headed for an Ice Age.
“Yes! Ridicule. Ceaseless, unrelenting ridicule.”
I agree, but I’m no longer allowed to 😉
Altough, in the loony professor’s defense, An Ice Age IS Catastrophic Climate Change. Just not the sizzling kind…
So the question is, does climate ideology cause people to become whack jobs like this “professor”, or does the ideology itself attract whack jobs?
The idea of course is not new, although the zeroing in on oil company execs seems to be all the rage now. Dave Roberts, of Grist Magazine in 2006 famously said:
“When we’ve finally
gotten serious about global warming, when the
impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a
worldwide scramble to minimize the damage,
we should have war crimes trials for these
bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg”.
The fact is, of course, that it is the reverse that is true: Climate Ideology is the most virulently dangerous, anti-human, anti-life ideology in human history. And yes, it likely has been responsible for much unnecessary human misery and death. Perhaps it is the proponents of said ideology who should be locked up for murder.
I have to say that when someone comes across as so self-contradictory and obviously ideologically motivated they don’t earn the monicker of professor of anything other than professor of ignorance.
This guy has no business teaching in a law school and, in my opinion, should be terminated, disbarred and have his law license revoked. If possible, any law degree that he obtained should be revoked as well. To quote Justice Amy Coney-Barrett, his argument “is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.”
Professor is a non-protected title in the USA. Anybody can call him/herself professor. It indicates nothing.
In my ideal judicial system, when you intentionally lie about something, that is perjury and your punishment should be whatever you were trying to do. If you try to frame somebody for murder, you should be punished as if you had committed murder. If a used car peddler lies about a car, he deserves to pay whatever he was trying to get for that car.
This professor should face a choice: he was either a competent adult and trying to throw oil company executives in prison for murder and thus should be punished as murderers would be punished, or he is a wack job who is not a competent adult and needs a guardian like all non-adults.
“Climate Ideology is the most virulently dangerous, anti-human, anti-life ideology in human history.”
Not so. Climate ideology is merely a subset of socialism. In its extreme versions it has murdered millions in its forms as National Socialism or Marxist Socialism.This demented law professor aspires to open death camps for what he believes to be climate criminals; he doesn’t have them yet.
“So the question is, does climate ideology cause people to become whack jobs like this “professor”, or does the ideology itself attract whack jobs?”
Yes.
“ does climate ideology cause people to become whack jobs like this “professor”.
Yes. Real science requires objective data and discussions on all sides of the debate. The religion of “Climate Ideology” is by definition, the home only for kooks.
The Senator might have done better to expose the scientific unsoundness of the core claim. Fifty years ago, did anyone “know” that emissions of CO2 from using extracted hydrocarbons as fuel would be capable of causing climate harm? No. Does anyone TODAY “know” that? No. On the contrary, it can be shown that the computed radiative influence of incremental CO2 is vanishingly weak, as energy conversion in the general circulation massively overwhelms any tendency toward sensible heat gain down here as an end result. The modelers know this. That is why I keep posting this time-lapse video of plots of the ERA5 “vertical integral of energy conversion.” Thank you for your patience.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
For convenience, I will post the full text description at that video in a reply.
From the description of the video on Youtube:
***************
Readme: Are CO2 emissions a risk to the climate? No. The static “warming” effect of incremental CO2 (~4 W/m^2 for 2XCO2) disappears as kinetic energy (wind) is converted to/from internal energy (including temperature) + potential energy (altitude).
This time lapse video shows the daily minimum, median, and maximum values of the computed “vertical integral of energy conversion” hourly parameter from the ERA5 reanalysis for 2022. Values for each 1/4 degree longitude gridpoint at 45N latitude are given. The vertical scale is from -10,000 to +10,000 W/m^2. The minor incremental radiative absorbing power of non-condensing GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O vanishes on the vertical scale as the rapidly changing energy conversion in both directions is tens to thousands of times greater.
So what? The assumed GHG “forcings” cannot be isolated for reliable attribution of reported surface warming. And with all the circulation and energy conversion throughout the depth of the troposphere, heat energy need not be expected to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect from incremental non-condensing GHGs. The GHGs add no energy to the land + ocean + atmosphere system. Therefore the radiative properties of CO2, CH4, and N2O, and other molecules of similar nature, should not be assumed to produce a perturbing climate “forcing.” The concept of energy conversion helps us understand the self-regulating delivery of energy to high altitude for just enough longwave radiation to be emitted to space.
References:
The ERA5 reanalysis model is a product of ECMWF, the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. The computed parameters “vertical integral of potential + internal energy” and “vertical integral of energy conversion” are described at these links.
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/?id=162061
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/?id=162064
Further comment:
This is for just one latitude band at 45N. Similar results were observed for 45S, 10N/S, 23.5N/S, and 66N/S.
More Background:
From Edward N. Lorenz (1960) “Energy and Numerical Weather Prediction”
https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v12i4.9420
“2. Energy, available potential energy, and
gross static stability
Of the various forms of energy present in
the atmosphere, kinetic energy has often
received the most attention. Often the total
kinetic energy of a weather system is regarded
as a measure of its intensity. The only other
forms of atmospheric energy which appear
to play a major role in the kinetic energy
budget of the troposphere and lower stratosphere
are potential energy, internal energy, and the
latent energy of water vapor. Potential and
internal energy may be transformed directly
into kinetic energy, while latent energy may
be transformed directly into internal energy,
which is then transformed into kinetic energy.
It is easily shown by means of the hydrostatic
approximation that the changes of the
potential energy P and the internal energy l of
the whole atmosphere are approximately proportional,
so that it is convenient to regard
potential and internal energy as constituting
a single form of energy. This form has been
called total potential energy by Margules (1903).
…
In the long run, there must be a net depletion
of kinetic energy by dissipative processes. It
follows that there must be an equal net
generation of kinetic energy by reversible
adiabatic processes; this generation must occur
at the expense of total potential energy. It
follows in turn that there must be an equal net
generation of total potential energy by heating
of all kinds. These three steps comprise the
basic energy cycle of the atmosphere. The
rate at which these steps proceed is a fundamental
characteristic of the general circulation.”
YouTube is digital mainstream – It’s heavily “regulated”.
YouTube will demonetize a channel if it shows anything blowing up- or people injured in Ukraine. I find that absurd. It’s a war! People need to see what happens in a war.
Well, this is my video on my YT channel, so hopefully it will continue to be left alone.
I hope so
Exxon didn’t know, and doesn’t know, anything that “mainstream” science didn’t know. There was no secret Exxon knowledge.
Exactly.
And the last 50 years have shown that the mainstream still doesn’t know. 50 years of failed predictions of catastrophe, their best guesses haven’t gotten any more accurate. Some would call that an utter failure.
Yes, Exxon certainly did not “know” as far back as the ’70s about the harm of global warming in the face of all the concern about impending global cooling . . . . but there’s always more to these situations. This ‘professor’ provided Written Testimony in advance to the committee in which he made two particular false claims about ‘disinformation campaigns’ the industry supposedly led. I covered that problem the same day as the hearing, please see: “Enter the Predictable Dragon—the Left’s Lawfare Against American Energy.” I additionally relayed that problem to Sen Cruz’s three top staffers the next day.
‘…it can be shown that the computed radiative influence of incremental CO2 is vanishingly weak…’
Therein lies the problem. ‘Consensus’ climate science, whether full-blown alarmism or highly skeptical of CAGW, predominantly assumes that thermal radiation absorbed by GHGs at the Earth’s surface is transmitted to space by the spontaneous absorbtion and emission of photons in accordance with Kirchoff’s law.
While non-alarmist modelers may ‘demonstrate’ from time-to-time that the impact of incremental CO2 is ‘vanishingly weak’, the geological record itself provides absolutely no evidence that CO2 has ever had any impact on climate. In other words, until we acknowledge that the current paradigm to modeling energy transfer from the surface to space is in error, we will continue to be pestered and lose ground to Leftists like Sen. Whitehouse and their useful idiots in academia.
Thanks for your reply. Just to be clear, when I say, “The modelers know this” I mean they know the physics of compressible fluids applied to atmospheric motion. This is obvious by the development of general circulation models to begin with. Then the definition and computation of various parameters in ERA5, of which the “vertical integral of energy conversion” is the most compelling, makes the case plainly. But I don’t know of any of the modeling specialists communicating this point – so I have taken it as a signal to do it myself.
About radiative transfer, I would just say that it seems reasonable to accept that the IR absorbing power of the atmosphere does increase with incremental CO2, e.g. in the “wings” of the 15 micron main band. It is not obvious what happens as a result. An increased effectiveness of a unit mass of the atmosphere as an absorber at those specific wavelengths does NOT mean that the supposed increased effectiveness as an emitter is at those very same wavelengths. But in any case, the dynamics of energy conversion make it a non-issue in my view. Which leads me also, as you know, to challenge the semantics of the “forcing” + “feedback” framing of the question of climate system response to rising CO2. That framing is the beginning of a circular exercise, because it pre-supposes a capability to drive sensible heat gain without knowing it is even possible with all the motion.
Thanks, David. My problem with the ‘modelers’, besides the conceit that they have anywhere near enough computing power to ‘know the physics of compressible fluids applied to atmospheric motion’, is their (AFAIK) unsubstantiated assumption that atmospheric gases can be treated like condensed matter for the purpose of modeling the transfer of the thermal energy that is absorbed by GHGs near the Earth’s surface to space.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290528/difference-in-thermal-radiation-between-condensed-matter-and-gases
The real point is that it’s not the selling of fossil fuels that creates CO2, it’s the burning of them. In which case, the professor’s taxi ride makes him more culpable that the oil company executives. You could try to pin it on the cab driver but he’s only burning fossil fuel because the professor asked him to.
As Ted Cruz demonstrated, it’s all bull anyway.
I wonder who is more culpable, the industry executives that 50 years ago tried to understand a scientific debate about climate, or politicians who have knowingly and continually kicked the cans of deficit spending, illegal immigration or a myriad of other issues down the road.
If the taxi driver is guilty, then so are the oil company executives. They are both providing services that others have requested.
The cab driver could be in trouble – I’m not sure if the “I was only following orders” defence will stand 😀
If the taxi driver is guilty, then so are the oil company execs. They are both “just” providing a service requested by customers.
None of them are guilty of anything.
Agreed
The lawyer should have been arrested and convicted for his 20,000 ppm CO2 in each breath exhaled.
The hypocrisy of the professor is on full display. But what I would have liked to see is his ignorance exposed. Ask him why burning fossil fuels ‘kills’, ask him any basic question relating to the atmosphere and the blatantly ignorant answers will expose the intellectual poverty. For a start, he believes the Exxon Knew nonsense, which suggest the source of the information underlying his position.
“whack job theory”
that’s a phrase to remember
Ha Ha – Ted Cruz, love him or hate him, he can be funny.
Too bad Donald Braman and David Arkush don’t have names that are easily associated with wacko.
Did you hear the part when he asked the guy if the Uber used “Fairy dust” as fuel (or something to that effect)? People in the background were giggling.
Story tip:
BBC Complaints Director Takes Six-Month Sabbatical to Learn How to Promote ‘Climate Crisis’ …
joined on the jolly by Maeve Campbell who is a TV climate reporter on Channel 4 in the UK. Her inclusion is less surprising since she is an identikit activist fully up to speed on the need for fear mongering to support the Net Zero fantasy.
…
run by the Reuters Institute, which is funded by the Thompson Reuters Foundation. The overall steering committee is chaired by Alan Rusbridger, who in his time as the editor of the Guardian helped…
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/07/02/bbc-complaints-director-takes-six-month-sabbatical-to-learn-how-to-promote-climate-crisis/
Hilarious – reminds me of the socialist view of appropriate incomes. A former friend once suggested I should share my money with people less fortunate because I make more money than him. So I replied “You make heaps more money than most Africans, why aren’t you sharing your income with poor people in Africa?”. He said “My income is appropriate for my circumstances and where I live, therefore I don’t need to share”.
The professor is OK with his own CO2 emissions, perhaps because he believes his personal level of CO2 emissions is appropriate. It’s only people above his level of CO2 emissions who are potential criminals according to his whackadoodle theory.
From each according to their means, to each according to their needs always seems to work out in the minds of proponents of these theories so they personally get to receive benefits, but they never incur an obligation to share the product of their personal labor – or in this case, they never get held to account if they emit an appropriate level of CO2 for an individual in their circumstances.
The prof. is a weasel, very glad I didn’t have to take any courses he teaches.
Yes, it’s been my observation of socialists that they really hold that the lived practices of the ideology are for other people, not for the socialists themselves.
The socialists define the rich, as anyone who makes more than I do.
Decades ago, I realized that the major difference between the average person and a member of Mensa is that the Mensan is better at articulating their rationalization of their irrational behavior.
+ 1M
Yep.
Rationality and ideology cannot occupy the same mind space at the same time.
Cruz could have done better, such as pointing out the lives saved and enhanced by energy made affordable by fossil fuels.
50 years ago, people KNEW that activists wanted to control everything through energy. Other than that, people didn’t KNOW anything. As far as climate change, they still don’t know enough.
Is it possible to shield people from legal claims based on environmental arguments? They did something like that with the COVID vaccines.
I don’t like the way this argument played out. I’d have asked the Professor:
I would have started by asking how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.
But that has played out before when a young person lamenting the reduction of snow that was affecting his skiing testified before Congress.
Still, that question should be at the top of the list.
Congress had testimony from a skier, about the lack of snow? We are lost!
He was there to present the youth point of view. He could not answer a single question of weather or climate or even how much CO2 was in the air.
Should groups like Greenpeace be held accountable?
Not only yes, but hell yes.
Greenpeace: you cannot hate them enough.
Klingon saying:
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
About 20 years ago, two researchers for an oil company published a report that concluded CO2 was not causing a “run away greenhouse effect” or even a measurable amount of global warming.
The response was an outrage, “they work for the oil companies!” and “they should be fired.” Not one response read the actual report, applied critical thinking or analysis of the report, pointed out bad math or assumptions. Nothing about the report itself, only fire the researchers verbiage.
I no longer have the link and searches have not found it.
Several years ago, and again no longer posses the link, I read one of the “Exxon knew” research reports prepared by Exxon decades ago. Someone very carefully highlighted phrases and sentences which when the highlights were read easily led too the conclusion that Exxon knew and was lying. However, those highlighted passages omitted the context. If one were to read an paragraph or two or even a sentence that preceded the highlights, or even the full sentence, one discovered several things. First was a robust disclaimer of uncertainty. Second was the use of someone else’s model that the researchers could not verify or validate in which they inserted project oil usage. The preface was dedicated to informing management that this type of analysis was being used to “vilify” CO2 and by extension Oil.
Basically the paper said, if the models are valid (unproven) and if our projections are accurate, this is what could be presented. We thought you should be aware.
From that we end up with Exxon knew, which they did not. 50 years ago, no one knew.
The real unanswered question in all of this is: how many people have died because of CO2 versus how many people would have died had we not developed oil based technologies?
The alarmists love to avoid such questions.
To a socialist, the correct answer is the one that best advances the interests of the socialists.
Any argument that advances that goal is by definition correct.
Any argument that impedes that goal is by definition wrong.
In the “Exxon Knew” revelations, the only thing that the historical ‘projections’ shared in common was a positive slope for the temperature increase. The actual numerical values for the slopes varied from absurd to possibly statistically significant, but lacking the numbers to demonstrate it. Besides that, they were almost certainly ‘cherry picked’ to increase the appearance of an existential threat.
A better argument is this: Mr. Arkush has been eating food for the last 50+ years and emitting CO2 into the atmosphere all along. Those who sold him and others food knew he would be emitting CO2. They should be prosecuted for knowingly selling food.
Great video of Senator Cruz demolishing climate activist David Arkush’s argument that oil executives should be prosecuted for homicide and, if found guilty, locked up.
To show how ABSOLUTELY WACKO Arkush (former Professor of Administrative Law and Legislation at the University of Richmond School of Law . . . Lord only knows how he became an acclaimed “expert” on climate”) is, I would have simply asked him:
“Do you believe the executives of companies that sell gaseous or liquified CO2 to other companies, such as
Air Liquide/AirGas,
Air Products, and
Linde/Praxair,
and directly to the public (via carbonated beverages), such as
The Coca-Cola Company,
PepsiCo, and
Monster Beverage Corporation,
should likewise be prosecuted for homicide and, as a result of conviction, put in prison?
If not, why not?”
ROTFL!
Senate Hearing Reveals CCP-Linked Organization’s Influence on Climate Lawfare to Harm US Energy
During the hearing, Senator Ted Cruz discussed the CCP strategy of “judicial capture,” whereby U.S. courts are influenced to weaken American energy production capabilities.
https://x.com/MrRCDavis/status/1938075746590928995
story tip: apparently now climate change is causing sleep apnea:
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/climate-change-making-harder-us-sleep-study/story?id=123340570
Another ‘journal’ to the ash heap.
I’m surprised that the good professor doesn’t wear a hair shirt as penance for his past transgressions, and publicly sworn off using anything made or derived from crude oil or natural gas to avoid any future charges of being a knowing accessory to homicide by hydrocarbon.
The more frequent my visits to WUWT to gain knowledge, the more I despair that we will survive the overwhelming examples of stupidity like this ‘professor’, by exposing his thinking to youth.
The good Senator Cruz missed a nuance. Instead of telling the good professor he was guilty of homicide, he should have accused him of accessory to the crime.
If anyone is actually causing death by CO2, then everyone who emits CO2 in any way, shape, or form (all 8 billion of us), are accessories to the crime.
A hair shirt is insufficient penance. Unclothed in the Arctic or Death Valley (or other hot spot) would be more appropriate.
A number of commenters have criticized Cruz for not nailing down this “Professor” on this or that point.
In the US during a Senate hearing, they often only have 5 minutes. A witness could “filibuster” for 5 minutes to use up the questioner’s time. Both sides will cut off an answer that is turning into a “filibuster” to preserve their time. Both sides often ask “Yes or No” questions (with the occasional, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” type thrown in.).
Ted Cruz did a great job under the circumstances.
This guy’s illogic reminds of those that sue a gun manufacturer for making the gun that a criminal used to kill someone yet advocating for the actual criminal that pulled the trigger to go free.
(If such lawsuits succeeded, how long before they’d start to sue those that make Nerf guns or squirt guns?)
The problem with these academics is that they have too much time on their hands. Their teaching loads aren’t too heavy to begin with, and unlike teachers in the public sector, they aren’t expected to get involved in extra-curricular activities, nor conduct parent-teacher conferences, nor work as long a academic year or teaching day. So they have plenty of time to spin harebrained theories like the one just described. Fortunately the majority of the population just ignores them.
The presupposition from the liberal is that they believe that life is precious and important. Which is antithetical to their anti-natalism, abortion loving, eugenics based worldview. It’s doublethink. It’s a shame that rational people have to put up with their bs. There is no ontological basis of his “ought” statement.
God bless Ted Cruz. Arkush is a disgraceful bottom feeder. I don’t like him.
Bottom line with the Law is simple. Until such time as we democratically decide such matters as fossil fuel extraction is banned/forbidden it is fine to do so and to trade sell and promote same with no retrospective penalty whatsoever. Our Courts shouldn’t be full of these smug arsed illiberal lawyers and judges with their 20/20 hindsight tut-tutting at their forebears and their times. Get off your lazy butts and convince the majority they don’t need no oil coal and gas and get elected you steenking jackbooters.
+++++
It cuts both ways jackbooters. I might like to try them on right now with the kiddy sex mutilators but alas only once we decide democratically enough is enough at Law (until they’re free will decisionmaking adults perhaps?) Tempting no doubt but the jackboots once slipped on don’t come off quite so easily.