• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

“Storm Troopers In Clown Shoes”

That’s how Instapundit refers to James Hansen, apparently the most intemperate of the global warming alarmists (yes, he’s worse than Gore because he’s Gore’s science advisor). Here’s Hansen’s latest proposal:

James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech (pdf) to the US Congress – in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming – to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the “perfect storm” of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.

Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.

Hansen isn’t clear as to which court would have jurisdiction, nor is he very specific on any other details. Frankly, any attempt to prosecute people for their opinions like this strikes me as authoritarian and something that should be avoided. In addition, when scientists become activists I find it pretty alarming; they’re supposed to be dispassionate about their conclusions and should be aiming for the truth. Maybe they are, but episodes like this make me question their objectivity.

It’s a shame it comes down to something like this as well. As a non-scientist I am forced to trust people who do understand these things to make informed judgments of my own. It’s difficult to trust their conclusions when they put someone like Hansen front-and-center and he makes statements like this. I suspect it does more harm to their cause than good.

For my own part, I’m content to go with what the scientists say on this issue, mostly. One very basic item would make it much easier to go along with the scientists unequivocally. In all I’ve read about climate change in the popular press, I haven’t seen that they even have a model that can predict the earth’s average temperature from one year to the next, much less decades into the future (if anyone can point me to an example of this, please put it in the comments). Hopefully this is something they took care of long ago.

Also, whether climate change is true or not, that doesn’t tell us what, if anything, needs to be done about it. My personal preference would be a revenue neutral, distribution neutral carbon tax.

Related Posts:

About Robert Prather
Robert Prather formerly blogged at the now defunct Insults Unpunished and, unlike his co-blogger Dodd, can not kill a mime using only his thumb. Follow him on Twitter.

Comments

  1. Show trials asked for energy execs…

    For propagating incorrect opinion — a speechcrime rather than a thoughtcrime, if one may classify. Our coverage of the Kivalina global warming suit (which, to be sure, proceeds along more of a “speechtort w/punitive damages” than a “speechcrime” t…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    1100 years ago Vikings lived, raised crops and animals on Greenland. Can’t do it today. Must have been warmer. The concept of settled science is very unscientific. They are still investigating Newton’s laws. These guys are hacks. Hang em.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Nikolay says:

    If it’s OK to persecute tobacco companies to persecute for spreading misinformation about their product, why is it wrong to persecute oil companies for spreading deliberate misinformation about the thing that’s going to cause immensely more damage to humanity?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Nikolay,

    I suppose by “persecute” you actually mean “prosecute”, though the slip up is revealing.

    The short answer to your question is that there’s no fraud here. They’re supporting science that opposes the view that CO2 is heating up the planet. It’s an aggressive tactic but an honest one.

    Having said that, I generally don’t consider it OK to prosecute tobacco companies (which, as I recall was civil rather than criminal) but it is far more acceptable given what was known and easily established by the science. The judgments against the tobacco companies involved fraud on their part; being wrong is not fraudulent, which is what the oil companies could be today.

    Criminal prosecution of the executives, in particular, is outrageous and seems like tyranny to me. It’s an attempt to squelch contrary opinions and use the force of government to do so. That’s what Hansen is advocating.

    The supporting of science that contradicts the mainstream is not fraud of any kind; as flawed as the system is, it’s up to policy makers to determine which side is correct and set policy accordingly. In the mean time I would expect oil companies to support science that makes their case for them and continue selling as much gasoline as they can.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Nikolay says:

    Sorry for a slip, being a non-native English speaker I’m prone to them.

    The judgments against the tobacco companies involved fraud on their part; being wrong is not fraudulent, which is what the oil companies could be today.

    Well, I’m not an expert on this question, but as far as I understand, much of the “science” supported by the oil companies is not in fact science but a deliberate deception. I.e. it uses manipulation of facts and outright lies to arrive at the necessary conclusion.
    As for the type of prosecution, what you say may be technically right, but you have to consider the fact that the potential damage caused by this “science” might be much bigger than that of cigarettes, which, after all, you smoke of your own accord. The Global Warming, directly and indirectly (i.e. water wars), could claim as much victims as WW2, or maybe much more victims than WW2. Do you think that someone spending his money on the fruadulent science with the sole goal of preventing this catastrophe from being prevented, should not have responsibility for this whatsoever?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Nikolay,

    I thought your first language might be something other than English.

    Your point seems reasonable but there’s another way to look at this. A year or so ago I read a story where a climate scientist, or a spokesman for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that they were 90% sure that global warming was man-made. This suggests that there is still room for debate, using their own estimates, and we can’t consider the matter closed. As long as there is room for reasonable debate I don’t see how them protecting their interests is criminal.

    Even if the matter were closed from a scientific perspective (that’s never the case in science, but that’s another discussion), as long as their continuing arguments don’t involve the use of fraud, I don’t see how there could possibly be a civil action, much less a criminal prosecution. Funding competing research is not a crime. Thankfully the American system tends to favor this by insisting on fraud as a crime, rather than speech.

    This also illustrates another concern: it might be possible that some international court could see this differently and would want to charge executives with the bogus “crimes” that Hansen is suggesting. One more reason that the U.S. ought to stay out of those courts and their political prosecutions.

    Good discussion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Nikolay,

    I should also add, to address the part of your response that I forgot above, you refer to the potential catastrophes that could come from global warming and act as if the oil company moves of today are dispositive, but they’re not. The build up of CO2 has largely been occurring since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and it isn’t clear at all that what we do going forward will change any warming trend. It may do nothing given that China and other countries are starting to develop.

    We’re also getting into an area of international relations that is fraught with peril. Hansen is using terms to describe “crimes” that I don’t even think are crimes prosecuted in the U.S. If they are, they’re called something else. Nevertheless, I have images in my head where one of these international courts tries to prosecute Americans because our policies are different from Europe’s. That is more likely to start a war than water shortages.

    BTW, I’m reasonably confident that technology will take care of water, through desalination or some unknown technology, making the likelihood of war over it less likely.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. One more thing. In reference to your last question, the catastrophe you’re referring to is speculative and may not come to pass. It hardly makes sense, in fact it’s tyrannical, to prosecute people for something that hasn’t even happened.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. DL says:

    “…I’m content to go with what the scientists say on this issue…”

    Which ones the pro global warming or the anti globalwarming? Perhaps, we could count them and go for finding factual truth democratically?

    If there is any danger in life it is in letting unbridled science lead us. (cloning – Nazi medical experiments – nuke bombs etc.)

    It is the principled moral leaders that need to be directing science, not paying it off with grants and jobs if they create politically viable hoaxes.

    We ought not do everthing we’re able to do.

    on a lighter note…
    Think crossing a Tasmainan devil with a mosquito?

    Oh wait -we have them in the Adirondacks they’re called black flies.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. DL,

    We ought not do everthing we’re able to do.

    I might agree with you depending on what you mean. If you’re talking about setting policies after the fact based on ethics, like with cloning, I agree. If you’re talking about preempting research and discovery by prohibiting it in advance, I strongly disagree.

    Also, I think we are past the point of global warming being a “hoax”. While it’s true that scientists are going to act in ways that help themselves stay employed — I think that might fall under public choice theory? — and there are political activists who probably want this no matter what, regardless of the truth, I doubt it applies to the hundreds of scientists doing honest work.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. rpk says:

    The vast majority of anthropogenic global warming is only supported by computer models. Anyone that has worked in research knows the model is only as good as the modeler.

    On the other hand there is a plethora of hard science that questions the basic concept of anthropogenic warming, suggesting that any warming observed, and none has been in the last 11 years, is caused by other factors and not carbon dioxide. Peer reviewed research papers by scholars in hard sciences dealing with climate conclude that the single most important force in climate change is solar activity.

    Stating that he science on global warming is settled is itself unscientific and erroneous.

    Finally, Hansen has been caught with his fingers in the measured temperature cookie jar at least twice and forced to correct his own figures. Surprise, each correction has cast further doubts on the models predicting gloom and doom.

    Where I grew up, there was nearly a mile of ice covering the land. The ice disappeared long before the modern era. Was this global warming? Yes. Was it man made? No. Was it a good thing? Yes. So what is the problem? Settled science indeed!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. M1EK says:

    rpk, that’s a misleading if not outright false statement. Oreskes’ study showed quite conclusively that as far as the peer-reviewed journals are concerned, this issue was settled a long time ago.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Bithead says:

    The models… the numbers they’re plugging into the computers to come up with their proof; If you plug historical numbers into them, they don’t predict what we have today. That seems a major issue they’ve not addressed.

    Also; The concentration on the matter of CO2 to the exclusion of all else seems a major concern. 95% of all global warming is water vapor caused. The models they’re using to ‘prove’ their theory don’t even take this into account. Why’s that, you may reasonably ask… and I suggest the reason is that water vapor cannot be controled, and that thereby man cannot be made out the bad guy and thus broughht under control of those pushng ‘global warming’.

    And in the end, that’s what all this global warming BS is… it’s about control. Political Power. The ability to check the growth of the successful.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Steve Plunk says:

    Hansen is not only an alarmist but a paid alarmist. Money from a number of sources have lined his pockets in order to keep him on subject and in the public eye. Others have pointed out weaknesses in his data collection and the inherent weaknesses of computer modeling for predictive purposes. This is a definitive case of garbage in, garbage out. Throw in a little manipulation and there you have it, junk science intended to support leftist goals.

    In science the skeptic should be given a measure of respect but climate change proponents have instead chosen to attack skeptics both professionally and personally. That, in my mind, is evidence of something being wrong with the way this is being conducted and reason for a slowing down of the political end of things.

    Those who deny this has become as much politics as science are doing us all a disservice. The science is no more settled than phrenology or blood letting was settled science.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Spoker says:

    Can we please get a “settled scientific explanation” about the causes of the out of control global warming currently taking place on Jupiter so we can make sure we do not have the same problems on Earth. (Or is man the cause of that problem too?)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Floyd says:

    Oppressive “global warming” laws must be passed ,AND SOON! Otherwise, when nothing happens, the “storm troopers in clown shoes” won’t have a basis to claim credit for saving the world!
    They will only reveal to the world that they have been “farding with eggs”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Steve Verdon says:

    Hansen, who heads Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, says 2009 will be a crucial year, with a new US president and talks on how to follow the Kyoto agreement.

    Every year is a “crucial year” to these bloviators. Kind of guts the meaning of the word crucial.

    Here is Hansen’s suggestion,

    Carbon tax on coal, oil and gas is simple, applied at the first point of sale or port of entry. The entire tax must be returned to the public, an equal amount to each adult, a half-share for children. This dividend can be deposited monthly in an individual’s bank account.

    Oh great, so we tax something and give the money back to the people so they can….buy more stuff that will necessitate the use of energy. And the numbers don’t add up either. The entire tax can’t be returned to the public due to the deadweight loss that accompanies any tax. There will be a net reduction in overall welfare. Further, part of the tax is paid by consumers and part will be paid by firms as such firms will see a decline in profits and some firms will likely shut down.

    Now this isn’t to say that the idea is bad, but to think it will be good is misleading at best and outright dishonest at worst. I hate this kind of rhetoric from the Warming Weenies. They make it sound like we can have our cake and eat it too when it comes to global warming and policies to address it. They say, “Oh, we’ll create 1,000,000 jobs in the alternative energy sector,” but fail to mention how many will be lost in the fossil fuel, utility, and manufacturing sector as a result.

    Hansen has stopped being a scientist and has become a politician.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. M1EK says:

    There are four or five obvious discredited canards from the GW denial playbook in just a few comments above. Good show, folks!?

    Also, the earth is really flat; all this stuff about it being round is just bad ‘science’ being influenced by the massive globe manufacturer conspiracy. Same thing with the ‘theory’ of gravity. It’s just a theory! It’s not proven! God wills those things to fall!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Bithead says:

    Can we please get a “settled scientific explanation” about the causes of the out of control global warming currently taking place on Jupiter so we can make sure we do not have the same problems on Earth. (Or is man the cause of that problem too?)

    Yeah, even in the case of global warming on Amrs, they at least had two SUV’s to blame. Jupier, no such luck.

    There are four or five obvious discredited canards from the GW denial playbook in just a few comments above. Good show, folks!?

    People are starting to figre out that AGW is a fraud. What will you do?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. M1EK says:

    No, Bithead, you people are recycling claims made about climate science which were discredited years ago. To take one example, yes, they can now run climate models on past data and get pretty close to today’s results – this has been true for quite some time. But know-nothings like you will continue to claim otherwise, because you simply don’t care that you’re lying.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. Bithead says:

    Hehhe…. “Pretty close” = “Missed it by *that much*. The fact is, the ‘science’ isn’t even THAT close.
    AGW is a fraud. It’s been exposed as such and the left is panicking.

    Sorry, no cigar.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. M1EK says:

    Bithead, you’re misrepresenting the truth, and that’s as nicely as I can put it. Every single scientific organization in the entire world must be corrupted by the awesome financial power of the solar industry, which makes Exxon Mobil’s pitiful billions pale in comparison?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Each and every time somebody claims to have ‘discredited’ global warming, it turns out to fail peer review, because it’s bad science produced for hire by people with direct financial interests at stake (like the oil companies).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. Bithead says:

    Bithead, you’re misrepresenting the truth, and that’s as nicely as I can put it. Every single scientific organization in the entire world must be corrupted by the awesome financial power of the solar industry, which makes Exxon Mobil’s pitiful billions pale in comparison?

    If you hold money as a corrupter, explain to me Al Gore’s personal investments in solar and wind power projects.

    And while we’re on the subject of money, let’s look at the notes of John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Chennel, who suggested a reason why ‘preer review’ in this case may not be the final arbitor:

    . These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

    So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90’s they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

    There were a few who didn’t fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.

    I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970’s to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn’t accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

    You’re pushing a scam.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Bithead says:

    Oh wait -we have them in the Adirondacks they’re called black flies.

    Maine, too. Particularly, this year. Who is to blame? Environmentalists.

    Bye bye tourism industry.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. M1EK says:

    Nice work, Bithead! You pulled out yet another discredited lie about climate science!

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

    Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. M1EK says:

    As for the Weather Channel kook, there’s far more danger, at least in this country, for publishing science that supports the GW theory than the other way around.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Political_pressure_on_scientists

    Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that “Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’ or other similar terms from a variety of communications.” These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration’s climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist.[195]. In a report by NASA’s Office of the Inspector General it has been reveiled that NASA officials censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election[196].

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Steve Plunk says:

    Wikipedia is still not accepted as a valid source for high school papers. It has been manipulated a number of times by editors and has lost credibility as anything but a quick reference source for laymen.

    If we are talking about money corrupting then we must address Hansen’s payola, Gore’s financial endeavors, and how grant money drives scientific research.

    The way this controversy has been handled brings it into question. Mann’s refusal to share code, Hansen and NASA’s poor data gathering, politicians, not scientists, announcing the debate was over, it all stinks and riles skeptics like myself. Throw in musicians and movie stars testifying to legislative bodies and you can see why it’s called a sham, a fraud, a rip off.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. JohnG says:

    Tweaking a model until the output looks like what you want it to look like does not make the model accurate…

    In other words, the models always work up to next year. Then there is another tweak and the model works until the next year. That’s why every year there’s a “revised prediction” becaues the model keeps changing to produce the output that they are looking for.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. rpk says:

    M1EK
    rpk, that’s a misleading if not outright false statement. Oreskes’ study showed quite conclusively that as far as the peer-reviewed journals are concerned, this issue was settled a long time ago.

    A self serving and defective study that it was is your basis for assuming this is settled science?

    The search criteria “global climate change” by itself eliminates many papers that would be considered opposed or questioning the AGW postulate. Try a search using solar activity and see if you find consensus.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. Bithead says:

    A self serving and defective study that it was is your basis for assuming this is settled science?

    Don’t blame him, he’s simply going with his strongest argument.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. M1EK says:

    Steve, I expect that kind of know-nothingism from Bithead, but from you it’s rather disappointing.

    Every major scientific body in the entire world is on the same ‘side’ on this one. And any payola to Hansen or any influence of Gore is far outweighed by Exxon-Mobil paying for the science they want, and the Bush administration’s documented efforts to politicize science.

    The scientists were decided on this a long time ago. The peer-reviewed journals have done their job. You’re out on a limb with flat-earthers and Creationists at this point.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Bithead says:

    Every major scientific body in the entire world is on the same ‘side’ on this one. And any payola to Hansen or any influence of Gore is far outweighed by Exxon-Mobil paying for the science they want, and the Bush administration’s documented efforts to politicize science.

    The desperation is palpable. You’ve apparently forgotten NASA.

    There’s several other groups of the like.

    And let’s call this what it is; Hype. The fact is that the oft referred to National Academy of Sciences report doesn’t provide any valid scientific basis for global warming, and it also does not show any scientific consensus on the issue.

    As for scientists with views oppoing the myth spreading, let’s take for example, Lindzen, whose report is of such size and weight and which include all of their oft spoken doubts about warming and the facts backing those doubts, are spelled out in such detail as assure that folks like M1EK will never have a hope in hell of understanding it. And it certainly doesn’t end up in the group summary, which is written by the political hotheads of the group. And of course since nobody’s ever read the full report, nobody ever questions the sumamry.

    In the end, what we have here is an agenda being driven by the UN, with statistical falacies that are remanufactured by that body every few years. If you’re a scientists and you need those lucarative grants from the UN and other leftist agencies, you need to toe the liberal line.

    Which is to say that you need to be “progressive” and have what a “social conscience” which means of course, means being anti-business, anti-industry, anti-technology.

    Note M1EK’s tactics which are fairly typical of the global warming scam artists… In M1EK’s world, you’re offered only two chocies; to be a “concerned” environmental advocate, or to be dismissed as a shill for Big Oil.

    Every scientist… those getting government money, or money from the UN, who invariably support the global-warming scam is portrayed as independent, unbiased, trustworthy–and meanwhile M1EK goes out of his way to label any dissenter not as a scientist, but as “people with direct financial interests at stake (like the oil companies).”

    You’ll forgive me if I don’t stand up and salute.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. [...] —-Me at OTB just now: Every major scientific body in the entire world is on the same ’side’ on this one. And any payola to Hansen or any influence of Gore is far outweighed by Exxon-Mobil paying for the science they want, and the Bush administration’s documented efforts to politicize science. [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Beldar says:

    You don’t mean “tax.” You mean “fine.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. lrbinfrisco says:

    Where are the falsifiable tests of predictions made based on AGW hypothesis? Without passing rigorous falsifiable tests, AGW cannot be legitimately considered a scientific theory according to the Scientific Method. What is a result that could prove that AGW is false? I’ve yet to see any such result mentioned by any proponent of AGW. When new evidence arises that contradicts AGW, then instead of questioning whether AGW is accurate, it’s proponents immediately come up with a “reason” why the new information doesn’t matter. Global temperatures aren’t rising drastically, blame it on La Nina or because a previous El Nino pushed them too high in the resent past. But we can’t accurately predict when El Nino and La Nina events will begin, how long that they will last, and how strong that they will be. Sounds like there is much more we don’t know about the Global Climate than that which we do know. Given our lack of knowledge of the Global Climate, it seems to be a strong possibility that there are major flaws in AGW. Of course falsifiable tests could help prove or disprove this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  36. Grewgills says:

    In addition, when scientists become activists I find it pretty alarming; they’re supposed to be dispassionate about their conclusions and should be aiming for the truth.

    Advocacy is not new to science, scientists always advocate for “their theory.” This is counterbalanced by other scientists advocating for alternate theories, against that theory, and generally remaining skeptical. At some point, if a theory is particularly strong, most scientists agree that it is the best explanation given current evidence until new evidence invalidates that theory or better supports another theory.

    Robert, if you were as convinced of AGW and its potential effects as Hansen has become over his years devoted to studying it; would you advocate action to remedy the situation, remain dispassionate and take no action, or take some third way that you can elaborate?

    The short answer to your question is that there’s no fraud here. They’re supporting science that opposes the view that CO2 is heating up the planet.

    The same was said of the tobacco companies until the internal memos surfaced. Until a similar smoking gun is found no one can say for certain which the energy companies are doing. I suspect that they know that things like CEI’s CO2 add are deliberately misleading.

    If there is any danger in life it is in letting unbridled science lead us.

    Of the three examples you give, two (Nazi experiments and nuclear weapons) were driven by politics rather than science and the third (cloning) is a mixed bag but largely beneficial. If by cloning you mean human cloning most scientists are not in support of cloning humans for moral or ethical reasons.

    On the other hand there is a plethora of hard science that questions the basic concept of anthropogenic warming, suggesting that any warming observed, and none has been in the last 11 years, is caused by other factors and not carbon dioxide.

    Please provide some of this plethora. Regarding no warming for the past 11 years, that claim is bogus. First, you probably intended to claim 10 years back to 1998 since we are warmer now than in 1997. Second, 1998 was a particularly strong El Nino year. Choose any year from the 1980s forward other than 1998 and a warming trend is observed. Use 3 or 5 year temperature means and warming is observed regardless of the start date.

    If you plug historical numbers into them, they don’t predict what we have today.

    Incorrect, the global mean temperatures are within the range predicted by the current models.

    The concentration on the matter of CO2 to the exclusion of all else seems a major concern.

    Also incorrect. Methane, water vapor, sulfates, cloud cover, solar cycles, ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns and much more is taken into account when constructing climate models. CO2 is spoken of most because it is what humans have been influencing most, though we also impact others.

    95% of all global warming is water vapor caused.

    Replace global warming with atmospheric heat retention and you are much closer to being correct here.

    And in the end, that’s what all this global warming BS is… it’s about control. Political Power. The ability to check the growth of the successful.

    So, 90%+ of all scientists are in the pocket of Big Progressive and want to destroy industry and bring down the wealthy so they can convert the world to socialism?

    If you hold money as a corrupter, explain to me Al Gore’s personal investments in solar and wind power projects.

    You intentionally create a no win situation for Gore here. Either he does not invest and so does not have the courage of his convictions or he does invest and is corrupted by his investments. That is not particularly compelling.

    Maine, too. Particularly, this year. Who is to blame? Environmentalists.

    What is your answer to this? Should the waters have been kept polluted to keep the black fly population down?

    let’s look at the notes of John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Chennel

    John Coleman is a TV weatherman. There is no reason to hold him up as any more of an authority than any other celebrity or politician. An Al Gore quote has at least as much authority.

    Wikipedia is still not accepted as a valid source for high school papers.

    While it has its faults, Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica on most topics and is often more accurate and thorough on current technical and science topics. It also provides links to where the information was gathered so you can check further. Do you feel the quoted wiki was incorrect? Do you have another more reliable source that contradicts it?

    Try a search using solar activity and see if you find consensus.

    Solar forcing does not explain the last 10 years.

    The desperation is palpable. You’ve apparently forgotten NASA.

    Read the entire article before you assert that it supports your position.

    let’s take for example, Lindzen, whose report is of such size and weight and which include all of their oft spoken doubts about warming and the facts backing those doubts, are spelled out in such detail as assure that folks like M1EK will never have a hope in hell of understanding it.

    You have, of course, read and synthesized the entire document. Right?

    I also find it funny that you think that virtually all of the other scientists come to their conclusions (AGW a reality) because they are chasing grant money, but the considerable money Lindzen has received from Exxon and others raises no flags for you.

    A good example of Lindzen’s advocacy and its credibility can be found here.

    Every scientist… those getting government money, or money from the UN, who invariably support the global-warming scam is portrayed as independent, unbiased, trustworthy–and meanwhile M1EK goes out of his way to label any dissenter not as a scientist, but as “people with direct financial interests at stake

    I notice that you do exactly what you have claimed he does though with the parties reversed. Additionally, in your formulation an NSA or NASA grant holds a greater likelyhood of abuse and misinformation than a grant from Exxon or CEI.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  37. Steve Plunk says:

    Grewgills,

    My statement concerning money as a corrupter was in response to a claim against those who receive money from industry sources. Sure Gore can invest where he pleases but don’t have two standards, either money is a corrupting influence for both sides or neither.

    If person chooses to discount others views as nonscientific or “flat earth” thinking then they have raised the bar enough that sources such wikipedia which are subject to manipulation and falsification are invalid. I didn’t set the bar that high but AGW proponents did.

    In Hansen’s case the claims he makes without evidence is shocking enough he should be considered a kook not a scientist.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  38. Bithead says:

    Also incorrect. Methane, water vapor, sulfates, cloud cover, solar cycles, ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns and much more is taken into account when constructing climate models. CO2 is spoken of most because it is what humans have been influencing most, though we also impact others.

    Bithead’s correlary to Newton’s law: For every action there’s some power hungry yutz trying to ake you feel guilty about it.

    In this case, Co2 is he smallest part of the equation, but it also, quite coincidentally, I’m sure, the only thing that can be blamed on man, and provide a great wedge for the scare mongers to do their thing.

    You have, of course, read and synthesized the entire document. Right?

    As a matter of fact, yes… when it first came out.

    I notice that you do exactly what you have claimed he does though with the parties reversed.

    Even if true, that makes the arguments equally valid, and thereby the problem is not nearly as pronounced as ststed. Similarly;

    I also find it funny that you think that virtually all of the other scientists come to their conclusions (AGW a reality) because they are chasing grant money, but the considerable money Lindzen has received from Exxon and others raises no flags for you.

    If your claim that private money is the corruptor, here, is to be considered even remotely valid, then shouldn’t the power of government and the money it provides, be consider at least it’s equal?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. M1EK says:

    No, Bithead, because the government money is spread around institutions all over the country, and is earmarked for academic research – not, as with Exxon’s money, only research that proves a particular point.

    As noted, Lindzen is a shill.

    Steve, I used wikipedia here because they’ve collected the statements from all those scientific bodies in one place. They’re not editorializing; they simply aggregated. But if you have evidence otherwise, let’s hear it; wikipedia, warts and all, is still far more credible than anything you or Bithead have come up with so far.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  40. Bithead says:

    No, Bithead, because the government money is spread around institutions all over the country, and is earmarked for academic research – not, as with Exxon’s money, only research that proves a particular point.

    You’re making the assumption that government money is never doled on based on political motvations. A position so easily disproved, it hardly bears mention.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  41. Grewgills says:

    My statement concerning money as a corrupter was in response to a claim against those who receive money from industry sources.

    The source and any agenda it may have does matter. NASA, NSA, etc don’t push for results that support a particular outcome. I don’t think the same can be said of Exxon. This is by no means a definitive test of the rightness or wrongness of an argument.

    If person chooses to discount others views as nonscientific or “flat earth” thinking then they have raised the bar enough that sources such wikipedia which are subject to manipulation and falsification are invalid.

    Let me know which wiki claims you dispute and if it is material and I disagree I will make an effort to find other attribution.

    In this case, Co2 is he smallest part of the equation, but it also, quite coincidentally, I’m sure, the only thing that can be blamed on man

    Wrong and wrong. CO2 is far from the smallest factor in either atmospheric heat retention (though water vapor retains more heat) or climate change and man is also responsible for release of methane, sulfates, and other chemicals as well as deforestation that have climate implications.

    As a matter of fact, yes… when it first came out.

    Please provide a cite for the Lindzen article(s) you referenced. I have read some articles by him, but none have been convincing. That you have read and synthesized it indicates to me that M1EK is certainly capable of doing so. I have a bit of free time now and am willing to plow through it if I can get the pdf.

    Even if true, that makes the arguments equally valid, and thereby the problem is not nearly as pronounced as ststed

    Except that your formulation requires the distrust of virtually all national, international, and non-governmental science orgs (quite a large and diverse group who disagree on a number of other issues) whereas the other formulation requires distrust of fossil fuel company sponsored studies and CEI (a small and relatively uniform group).

    If your claim that private money is the corruptor, here, is to be considered even remotely valid, then shouldn’t the power of government and the money it provides, be consider at least it’s equal?

    Only if agendas and the push to come to the “right” conclusion are equal, which from what I have seen they are not.

    What was amusing to me was that you cite Lindzen and take his word as gospel despite money coming from Exxon and discount virtually all other climate scientists because their research is largely paid by government and NGO grants. Some NGOs do have agendas and I would take Greenpeace or Sierra Club research with the same skepticism I take Exxon sponsored research with. To argue, as you seem to be doing, that the US government through its research grants has been actively pushing for results that show AGW (particularly over the past 7 years) is laughable.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. Bithead says:

    What is your answer to this? Should the waters have been kept polluted to keep the black fly population down?

    A look at the history of the environmentalists, DDT and malaria is instructive, here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  43. lrbinfrisco says:

    Calling for the criminal prosecution of the alleged leaders of the opposition to his theories by NASA’s chief climite scientist, sure sounds like indicitive behavior that supports pushing for a particular outcome.

    Best thing to do is only give credence to research which can be backed by falsifiable tests of predictions. Anything else is pure speculation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  44. Bithead says:

    To argue, as you seem to be doing, that the US government through its research grants has been actively pushing for results that show AGW (particularly over the past 7 years) is laughable.

    the government? THat depends who is in power. Some people working for the government? Without question.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  45. Grewgills says:

    Best thing to do is only give credence to research which can be backed by falsifiable tests of predictions. Anything else is pure speculation.

    Certainly. An abstract of one of the most recent can be found here and here is some information on the predictions of earlier models (subscription required).

    the government? THat depends who is in power.

    and who has been in power?

    Some people working for the government? Without question.

    You were railing on an intergovernmental and NGO conspiracy that apparently includes the majority of the World’s and America’s scientists to gain governmental power and impose socialism. Now you fall back to some in government may have agendas. This administration through appointment and policy has until quite recently been hostile to the idea AGW. Mention of AGW was suppressed in official documents. Do you really think that leads to more federal grant money being focussed on proving the existence of AGW rather than the inverse or perhaps even honest people making honest choices among the best proposals?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  46. Bithead says:

    Please provide a cite for the Lindzen article(s) you referenced.

    It was sent me on amail echo at the time. If there’s a copy online per se’, I’m unaware of it.

    You were railing on an intergovernmental and NGO conspiracy

    Sorry, wrong answer, though I’m quite sure you’d like to see it so simple.

    AGW is a fraud.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  47. Bithead says:

    Do you really think that leads to more federal grant money being focussed on proving the existence of AGW rather than the inverse or perhaps even honest people making honest choices among the best proposals?

    Do you really resist the idea that doling out tax money is done for political purposes?

    I refer you to congressional earmarks as an example of just how whacked that argument is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  48. Grewgills says:

    Sorry, wrong answer, though I’m quite sure you’d like to see it so simple.

    Without that conspiracy, how is it that virtually all the peer reviewed literature and all that I am aware of in the more prestigious journals points in the direction opposite what you contend is most in line with the evidence as you see it, unless you are wrong.
    You have painted with a broad brush those who are convinced by the evidence that AGW does exist along with those who believe in the theory without understanding much as politically motivated hacks. You include in this the vast majority of scientists who you accuse of either intentionally supporting a fraudulent theory and so themselves perpetrating fraud or being clownishly incompetent in such a way that the results always point in the same direction.
    The only honest brokers you see in this can’t seem to get their research, which presumably better explains the evidence, published in any of the more reputable journals and most of them started or end up on the payroll of an energy industry group or a right wing think tank.

    Do you really resist the idea that doling out tax money is done for political purposes?

    I resist the idea that virtually all of the research the federal government funds through grants would be politically motivated to go against the stated policies of those in charge. Some perhaps, but all or nearly so is not at all likely.
    When pressure is put on government researchers to not use language that might validate climate change, particularly AGW, in official documents and face sanction if they speak about it; I don’t think that it makes most researchers more likely to direct their research to support that theory. Yet time and again their research does so. Are they all just thumbing their noses at the man and pushing the progressive agenda that drives us inexorably to socialism and the inevitable genocides that follow? Or are you perhaps wrong?
    Incentives were/are clearly present for the research that would bolster your position but as yet it has not been publishable. Why is that? Did Bush appointees squash it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  49. rpk says:

    I still have not seen an explanation for why the ice disappeared from the area of my home town, why it was AGW and why it was bad? If we can’t explain what happened in the past with current models how can we trust those models for the future?
    Now that is an Inconvient Truth!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  50. Bithead says:

    Without that conspiracy, how is it that virtually all the peer reviewed literature and all that I am aware of in the more prestigious journals points in the direction opposite what you contend is most in line with the evidence as you see it, unless you are wrong.

    So, tell me; who is pulling your strings? Nobody?
    Well, if you ahve the ability to act independantly, yet within a group toward a particular political goal, why is it you figure a conspiracy per se must be involved?

    I resist the idea that virtually all of the research the federal government funds through grants would be politically motivated to go against the stated policies of those in charge.

    Then you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Incentives were/are clearly present for the research that would bolster your position but as yet it has not been publishable. Why is that?

    To a large degree, the poliical views of many involved in reporting the reearch… as I’ve already indicated.

    By the way, Speaking of political presre as regards the myth of Global Warming, I commend this to your reading.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  51. Grewgills says:

    Well, if you ahve the ability to act independantly, yet within a group toward a particular political goal, why is it you figure a conspiracy per se must be involved?

    1. The actions you describe require massive unity of purpose among almost all scientists
    2. The results of my research* dictate the conclusions of my research, not my political opinions.
    3. Even if this was not the case, I am one person, not thousands spread across multiple governments and NGOs.
    4. Virtually every bit of research published on the matter points in one direction. Absent the actual research meriting this treatment there are only a few options; one is conspiracy, another is staggering incompetence throughout the scientific community, and I suppose a third is that almost all scientists are deliberate frauds. To support your argument you must buy in to some formulation of one of those. Which is it?

    Then you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

    So, the government deliberately and almost exclusively funds research to counter its own stated policy positions and to think otherwise is foolish?
    I suppose censoring terms that might lend support to AGW theory in official documents and censure of those who use them also leads to near unanimity of research results in support of AGW.
    It seems that in your view no matter the circumstance, other than under the protective halo of energy industry or right wing think tank grants, scientists will twist their results to support AGW.

    To a large degree, the poliical views of many involved in reporting the reearch… as I’ve already indicated.

    As I have indicated repeatedly those political views (enforcing socialism???) would have to be near universal at all government, NGO, and in all of the peer review panels of all the reputable science journals. It would also have to be strong enough to transcend all of their other marked disagreements. This seems even less likely than an actual conspiracy.

    By the way, Speaking of political presre as regards the myth of Global Warming, I commend this to your reading.

    Politicians quibbling over GW calculations in an NIE hardly qualifies as evidence that virtually all climate research is tainted. For most of the past decade congressional control has been in the hands of republicans actively opposed to the idea of AGW. The WH for most of the past decade has also been actively opposed to the idea of AGW. The levers of power and granting authority have been in the hands of people actively opposed to the concept of AGW yet this somehow leads to all of the political pressure on the research to run directly counter to that opinion and to think otherwise you deem foolish. That is mind boggling.

    I still have not seen an explanation for why the ice disappeared from the area of my home town

    It might help if you stated where your hometown is.

    * not on climate change, but potentially affected by climate change

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  52. lrbinfrisco says:

    Does a group of people have to be in concious conspiracy to inject bias from commonly held believes into results of a study? Were all of Pavlov’s dogs in concious conspiracy to produce the same results? It seems to me that there many studies which show a group with a common stimulus can be influenced sub conciously to produce common reactions without the members of the group even knowing each other.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  53. Grewgills says:

    Does a group of people have to be in concious conspiracy to inject bias from commonly held believes into results of a study?

    What biases and false commonly held beliefs do you think that almost all of the climate scientists in the world are injecting into their research?
    Why is it you feel that so few scientists are able to look dispassionately at evidence and based on that draw their own conclusions?
    What Pavlovian stimulus do you feel all of these scientists are responding to? Could it be the common evidence they are all seeing?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  54. rpk says:

    I still have not seen an explanation for why the ice disappeared from the area of my home town

    It might help if you stated where your hometown is.

    Not sure why it is important but on the Illinois/Wisconsin border. Ice core samples show pretty high levels of carbon dioxide coincidently.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0