Do you not think that the letter goes well beyond what might be charitably termed advocacy? It is one thing to advocate for a solution; it is quite another to demand agreement with a solution upon penalty of imprisonment.
Comment on RICO! by Alan Poirier
↧
↧
Comment on RICO! by pottereaton
They’ve also signed the death warrant for civil liberties and freedom of speech and thought. If they are going to criminalize policy differences and scientific opinions, perhaps it’s time we start proposing to indict politicians who advocate trampling on constitutional rights and liberties to which we are all entitled. Threaten Whitehouse with jail. That would be difficult because he has immunity from legal consequences for anything he might say on the Senate floor, but it’s something to think about.
These kinds of of assaults on freedom are akin to loyalty oaths that were all the rage during World War II and in the 1950s. Whitehouse should at minimum be censored by the Republican-controlled Senate.
The RICO law should be repealed. It was written to help combat organized crime, but like so many laws, it’s scope has been widely expanded by prosecutors seeking to make a name for themselves.
↧
Comment on RICO! by pottereaton
Her advocacy is for preserving our liberties. If you can’t see the difference, you have a problem.
↧
Comment on Hiatus revisionism by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
ristvan:
Willard, I had not seen that blog post. Thanks. There are just two problems. 1. It has the null hypothesis bassackwards. 2. It misrepresents what McKitrick did, while claiming not to, by posting McKitricks R code. Hint. Posting code is not the same as understanding it. Do you?
I can assure you I do understand the code, and my conclusion is Ross McKitrick’s new definition of the “pause” is basically worthless, having no connection to how people actually use the word. Because of that, the “pause” he finds is anything anyone would normally think of as a pause, being nothing but an artifact of a peculiar methodology he happens to have come up with.
Even worse, it appears he has come up with this peculiar methodology entirely to find something he could label a very long “pause.” The exact same methodology could be used to argue there was a “pause” in warming for 13 years before 1997. Or for any number of other arbitrarily chosen periods, just by changing the endpoint you use.
The most peculiar part of all this, however, is just that his methodology can erase any “pause” it finds with just a couple new years of data. That is, in as few as two years, McKitrick’s methodology could tell us there was never any pause in the 21st century. We’re talking on a post titled “Hiatus revisionism,” and you’re promoting a work which by its very nature will constantly revise the duration, and even existence, of any hiatus it might find.
If you need proof of anything I just said, you can find it in this post:
http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2014/12/a-peculiar-pause/
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by ordvic
Right on, thanks for the lessons I learned (something new everyday). Talk to you soon – Philip
↧
↧
Comment on RICO! by Stanton Brown
Lets use RICO against Gore, Mann, and the hockey team. Two can play at this game. I believe it was Barack who said “Punch back twice as hard.”
↧
Comment on RICO! by khal spencer
I would not trust the legal system or RICO to be a good judge of what is good vs. what is bad or corrupt science. I think we have to police that ourselves, as subject matter experts or in my case, as a working scientist who tries to understand the technical stuff in your field. The technical stuff is generally beyond the scope of a grand jury or other legal system or of politics. In my field, my admonition is we need to ensure we give honest and guarded opinions on what we know lest we carry out foreign policy based on preconceived notion rather than hard data.
I would not rule out that there is some obfuscation going on, given the political intensity of the topic and the money involved in energy development and policy. Obfuscation not just from a few in the energy industry but from well meaning advocates of cutting carbon use. That said, I wouldn’t judge someone’s work by who is paying the bills but by whether the work meets high scientific standards.
Invoking RICO is somewhat akin to treating a cancer patient with a 45 caliber hollow point to the brain. It kind of precludes further treatment.
↧
Comment on RICO! by George Klein
Totally agree – well said.
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
↧
Comment on RICO! by George Klein
Reminds me of the court case by the Italian Government against the Italian seismologists who failed to forecast a disastrous earthquake several years ago.
George Devries Klein,PhD, PG, FGSA
↧
↧
Comment on RICO! by Michael
Alan,
Suggesting that the rule of law is applied as appropriate, seems a rather tame position.
↧
Comment on Hiatus revisionism by human1ty1st
The UKMO report reads like an essay on the difficulty of attribution. I dont know what else to say.
↧
Comment on Hiatus revisionism by human1ty1st
I also got a question. Presumably if heat isnt being transport north in the Atlantic then its staying around the tropics. And El Nino is making the tropical Pacific look hot. What does this tend to mean for heat loss back to space? Does having a hotter tropics have a nett effect on heat loss globally?
↧
Comment on RICO! by Joel Williams
Seems that that is the “point” (double entendre) of treating the “cancer”. Does “Siberia” await those who failed the court’s test? Or, will the advice to those sentenced be to go find something to do that does not require using your brain.
↧
↧
Comment on RICO! by Arch Stanton
I thought nasa, had already taken care of that, Michael?
↧
Comment on RICO! by nabilswedan
One of the biggest problems we have is that it is not a crime to be wrong in scientific matters. At the same time, we can never find out whether the wrong of scientists is intentional or inadvertent, a true dilemma.
↧
Comment on RICO! by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
It’s a “death warrant” only if the legal system pays attention. That seems unlikely, imo. After all, there has been minimal public policy response to alarmists’ forecasts of climate doom. Why expect a strong response to demands that their opponents be prosecuted?
This does, however, show the increasingly dysfunctional nature of climate science. That’s been visible for years to those who looked. These people just bring the rot to public attention.
↧
Comment on RICO! by aplanningengineer
I would suppose that anyone found guilty of impeding the consensus would be subject to punishment based on the concensus at the time of their infraction such that any future changes in “concensus” would not technically impact their sentence or be expected to mitigate their guilt or punishments. (Or perhaps I misunderstand the current proposal?). Could “vindicated” scientists within a statute of limitations be tried anyway, because at the time (pre-vindication) they opposed the ” Consensus”? How might such an approach to those challenging the orthodoxy played out over history?
↧
↧
Comment on RICO! by Hans Erren
Wikipedia defines a racket as A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering. Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this party.
Lubos Motl has shown that also the IPCC complies with this definition. Were it not for the IPCC, global warming would be a mere academic issue.
↧
Comment on RICO! by Richard L. Clarke
Speaking of Racketeers… how about the 20 guys (scientists) trying to send teams of hired guns (police) out to kidnap (arrest) anyone who disagrees with them. BTW if you resist being kidnapped (a natural response to a violent crime), you could be injured or killed (legally). A proper response I suppose to (alleged) “Deception of the Public”. After all, people like Judy have already killed my great great great grandkids (maybe… well… probably… right?) so we have the moral high ground here (20 scientist). #hypocrites #notsurprised
↧
Comment on RICO! by mosomoso
Here’s an idea: let’s get a pic of Sheldon Whitehouse in the shower emitting steam, just like that nasty “smokestack” in that ludicrous WaPo article. (On second thoughts, I don’t want to see anyone called Sheldon in a shower…but you catch my drift.)
Gawd, it would be so fine to get some adults back in charge. Please tell me we haven’t reached Peak Adult and that it’s going to be kids-in-the-kitchen from now on.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
