Comment on RICO! by bedeverethewise
↧
↧
Comment on Hiatus revisionism by Joshua
Agnostic –
You make a well-reasoned and reasonable argument (as you often do). It’s unfortunate that you consider my opinion to be disingenuous (let alone exasperatingly so), all I can do is assure you it isn’t. Consider the possibility that my opinion is just different than yours, or based on faulty reasoning, as alternaves.
“To advocate for a specific policy response based on an established but uncertain and unprove scientific theory is what Judith is advocating against
Even if I grant you that Judith doesn’t advocate for policies (which I think is a stretch), I think it is clear that she lends her scientific weight to towards having a differential influence on the direction of policy outcomes by advocating against policies. In an inherently politicized topic such as climate change, no one can have as high a profile as Judith and then try to claim that they are not an advocate, IMO.
==> “…and advocate for scientific integrity. ”
I think that Judith’s distinguishing her advocacy by saying that she’s advocating for integrity is self-serving. Everyone engaged here is advocating for their view of science with integrity. Virtually everyone here thinks that those who advocate for different scientific interpretations than theirs are not upholding integrity in science. I think that both of those positions fail to account for identity protective cognition, motivated reasoning, etc.
==> “Because there have been scienticists abusing their position with respect to what science can reliably say”
I will not defend any scientists who misrepresent the reliability of science. But again, I think that is a separate issue than the fact of advocacy in and of itself.
.
==> “It is NOT ok for scientists to advocate for specific policy responses, because it presupposes value judgements that may conflict with other values at work in society.”
I am not convinced by that argument. Judith’s positions, that she clearly states publically and uses to try to influence policy outcomes, also rest on her value judgements at work in society.
==> “Where she “advocates” is that the policy should reflect the uncertainty surrounding the science, not a predetermined conclusion on what it is or isn’t saying.”
Those that she accuses of irresponsible advocacy advocate for the same thing. They disagree with her about the interpretation of the uncertainty.
==> “That implies policy decisions that are robust against whatever changes there might be to the climate system, manmade or natural.”
In such,, she is making a distinct conclusion about policy hierarchies, which is certainly her right.
==> “But I also strongly suspect it is because her scientific conclusions about the evidence she has exminaned don’t agree with yours. Ergo, anything she says that undermines your conclusions about climate with respect to policy must mean that she is “advocating”.”
Always possible, Agnostic. We are all vulnerable to motivated reasoning in these discussions. I just wish that more people were not convinced that there is some disproportionality in its manifestation, in association with views on climate change.
OK. Dead horses and beating and all.
↧
Comment on RICO! by bedeverethewise
This is the climate science bait and switch scheme. The consensus applies to one very narrow set of facts. Some invoke it and pretend it applies to a set of opinions.
↧
Comment on RICO! by erikemagnuson
Having seen Holdren in action ca 1976, and hearing what he was advocating with his mentor, Paul Ehrlich, I don’t think he thinks the situation having “gone a little too far”.
↧
Comment on RICO! by nothothere
Who knew that hubris was an exponential function ? I always thought it was more linear, oh well we can all learn new things….
So good old “it’s a travesty we can’t find the warming” Trenbeth now wants another travesty on his hands; anybody that disagrees with him and his buds should be stripped of their livelihood, assets and freedom…
Nice, very nice indeed…
I love the smell of desperation in the morning, it smells like victory…
Hey Kev, go ahead and sic your government goons on me, I’m not at all afraid of the incompetents that fund you with my tax dollars.
Cheers, KevinK.
↧
↧
Comment on RICO! by stevefitzpatrick
The signatories can only be described by one word: Evil. Defunding is a suitable response.
↧
Comment on RICO! by nothothere
Also, based on the advice of my freshly retained RICO defense lawyer I must disclose that my parents did indeed receive some free water glasses from an evil fossil fuel gas station back in the 1960’s after a “fill-up”.
To the best of my recollection this only happened once. My folks have since passed on so I welcome a US Justice Department Probe into the full extent of their “Denier” activities.
Also, to provide full disclosure of my “Denier” activities I must also admit that I have freely and under my own accord tipped the poor lad filling my gas tank with evil fossil fuels in January in Upstate NY a few bucks. Heck, he was turning Blue and I felt sorry for him. I apologize in advance for this egregious “denier” activity.
I realize now after the fact that this was a clear Quid-Pro-Quo and I should serve at least 60 minutes of hard time…
Again, based on the legal advice of my new RICO defense attorney I now “declare” that in the future I will be “identifiying” as a consensus climate science believer and I am therefore automatically granted immunity from future prosecution…
(yeah this sounds like a bad joke…. and so is this letter from so called “adults”….)
Cheers, KevinK.
↧
Comment on RICO! by Daniel E Hofford
“Get a grip. No one has gone to jail for opposing the new EPA regs on coal.”
You seem incredibly naive…no one has yet! The ground work is being laid right now. Dictatorships don’t usually arrive by coup but by bits and pieces and everyone thinks, sheesh, your being alarmist when the thugs act like thugs because there is no violence today. How many days do we tolerate thugs before becoming inured to it to the point where it just seems like the next logical thing or we are so used to capitulating to the IDEA that when the ACT comes we just cave to that as well.
What these scientists have done is the prelude to evil. You really should read Atlas Shrugged. Though fictional it is amazingly accurate in describing how these things happen.
75 years ago, the Federal thugs who use asset forfeiture laws to steal would have been unthinkable. Like the proverbial frog in a kettle of water building to a boil. And when you start screaming ‘This isn’t what we meant’ or ‘I didn’t think they’d go this far’ it will be too late.
This sort of thing should draw instant excoriation and condemnation from every scientist, with a PhD,regardless of their field!
↧
Comment on RICO! by Daniel E Hofford
Except McCarthy was right. Communist agents were infiltrating the government and Hollywood.
↧
↧
Comment on RICO! by michaelspj
‘Scuse me, but if fmr. Congressman Waxman had his way, I would have, for opposition to his Cap and Trade bill.
↧
Comment on RICO! by michaelspj
Hear, hear!
↧
Comment on RICO! by michaelspj
Not bad! I need more popcorn!!
↧
Comment on RICO! by Brian G Valentine
Kevin Trenberth takes aim at “deniers”
↧
↧
Comment on RICO! by michaelspj
Read my comment (above) about Jagadish Shukla at GMU. He’s the ringleader.
↧
Comment on RICO! by Daniel E Hofford
“The letter is so childish and stupid that it really merits little response. ”
Egregiously wrong! As history is replete with examples of this sort of thing growing until a response gets you shot or sent to the Gulag. What this requires is a swift moral condemnation…a ‘how dare you’ engage in such thuggish tactics…how dare you even think about pursuing such thuggery. First it’s Oreskes and then another and then a group…and they will all note the reaction they get and silence will do nothing but embolden them. They need a shite storm visited upon their heads roundly condemning them. I certainly intend to find the addresses (email) of everyone of them and give them everything I have in the way of letting them know how immoral, unethical and slimy is their behavior.
But as Joe Sixpack, my rant will have little impact. I think everyone with a PhD in any branch of science is morally obligated to excoriate/condemn these people in the service of protecting the integrity of science.
Do you who practice science feel no sense of obligation to rise in its defense?
↧
Comment on RICO! by sarastro92
This is an incredibly stupid move. The instigators will be pilloried in the press. Furthermore, a large portion of the public is skeptical about Climate Catastrophe, so demanding that skeptical scientists be jailed implies that 30-70% of US citizens should be jailed too. That also applies to the US Congress as well.
The RICO proposal does show desperation and a very weak hand on the science. What they can’t achieve in journals and articles the Catastrophists wish to achieve with the billy club and handcuffs.
I would also expect that many scientists who do endorse climate orthodoxy will strenuously object to the RICO tactic. It has such ugly totalitarian overtones from the past.
Because: Why stop at Climate Science? Henceforth will there be an official body or Government Agency that decrees a Science Consensus on every issue and then throws critics and dissenters in jail? That’s the path that the RICO crew are laying. Not smart. A real blunder.
↧
Comment on RICO! by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
My letter in the Weekend Australian today in response to an article by Tim Costello (World Vision, brother of former Treasurer Peter Costello), Oxfam and WWF:
“If you seek support for your world vision on poverty, best not to start with references to “carbon pollution” when you mean a non-toxic gas on which our lives and plant growth depend, nor make false claims of “increasingly extreme and unpredictable weather” from which even the IPCC has backed away (“Global goals on poverty that need our support,” 18/9). If you are serious about dealing with poverty, start with the primary sources of it: lack of energy which only fossil-fuelled sources can remedy, and kleptocratic regimes with no interest in the welfare of their people.”
I’ve barred the door in case Australia has a RICO-style unit I’m not aware of.
↧
↧
Comment on RICO! by Rhyzotika
Just read the Exxon story by InsideClimateNews. Two installments so far in a series. They show that Exxon squashed its internal research program and that upper mgmt completely understood the consensus view at the time. So far the article doesn’t show if / how those same internal researchers resolved the big uncertainties.
ICN authors provide PDFs of original reports from Exxon scientists in the 70s/80s. Most of it reads as a careful but in some places questioning re-statement of consensus thinking, and what data is needed to resolve uncertainties.
James Black summary & slides
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/James%20Black%201977%20Presentation.pdf
Internal Memo 1980
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Letters%20to%20Senior%20VPS%20%281980%29.pdf
↧
Comment on RICO! by RiHo08
Daniel E. Hofford
Maybe you know more about freshly minted communists weaseling their way into vulnerable government and academic positions than I do. The Hollywood types were 1930’s communists clinging to their ideology in spite of revelations of Stalin’s bad behavior. Kinda like todays climate science groupthink Hollywood types. Do art schools have civics courses?
Algier Hiss was a spy and did transmit important nuclear bomb information to the Russians in the vain belief that both countries would either mutually destruct or develop detente. The latter proved true except the Russian intellectual spies did not see coming the demise of the Soviet Union by 1989. The Soviet Union demonstrated that socialism works only so long as there are other people’s pockets to pick, and, when socialism runs out of other people’s money, socialism collapses. The Soviet Union just demonstrated this in grand style and on a world stage.
As far as Joseph McCarthy is concerned, his Government bullying and career destroying behavior solidified for me at least why the 2nd Amendment remains vital in this day and age, irrespective of the carnage that results. Our Founding Father’s did not trust government. Joseph McCarthy is the current quintessential character in that distrust, yet, others are stating their case for entering that pantheon.
↧
Comment on RICO! by kneel63
As Judy has often said, raising questions of uncertainty, challenging the current consensus, and answering direct questions from politicians when invited to do so, is NOT advocacy. Instead, these actions are, respectively, telling the whole truth (not just the parts you like/want), testing hypotheses (a cornerstone of science) and offering solicited expert opinion (which you don’t appear to have a problem with when said opinion aligns with your own). Advocacy is offering unsolicited expert opinion that downplays the uncertainty known to exist for the purposes of extracting a politically desired outcome – something that, IMO, Judy has steered well clear of.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
