Comments for Climate Etc.

Walter Olson at Overlawyered …

I’m interviewed at Vermont Watchdog about the truly terrible idea of aiming a civil RICO/racketeering action or investigation against the forces of “climate denial” over wrongful advocacy.
[ … ]
I note, and reject, the idea that the First Amendment protects only truthful speech and thus has no application here because climate skepticism is false. (As Cato and many others argued in last year’s Supreme Court case of Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, controversial speech need not be true to be protected, and in practice an “only truth has rights” rule would give the state a stifling power to punish advocacy in debates that it considers settled.) In substantial part, I note, debate in Washington (and not just in Washington) proceeds by way of advocates’ deployment of half-truths, selectively marshaled data, scientific studies with agendas, and so forth. It is common for both sides to use these techniques. The same techniques are also accepted as standard currency of the adversary process itself, in which the law takes such pride, which makes it particularly absurd to propose defining it as unlawful racketeering to “use dubious information to advance a cause.”

http://overlawyered.com/2015/09/using-rico-against-climate-change-skeptics-an-attack-on-free-speech/

Fear not, GISS has seen the error of their ways and are progressively altering their records to cool the early 20thC and warm the latter!

I had a mate who lived walking distance through the scrub. A hill separated us. When I got rain, he might not. The north side of that hill was a touch drier.

I have a track which flanks the forest: trees on one side, paddocks on the other. On a still night you can step into cool and warm pockets. A crafty siting might give you some higher or lower minima, if desired.

You record only what you record. If you record min/max at one spot, then you know about min/max at that spot, and min/max isn’t a lot to be knowing about temp. You don’t know about the “climate” of the region around that spot just from those numbers (especially min!). Even rainfall figures can deceive unless you know a bit about what actually went down on the day. It’s fair to make learned guesses about the region and time period and draw the odd conclusion from min/max and precip, but specificity becomes the enemy of knowing if you take it further than that.

Then there’s length of record. Climate being the longest game, it’s amazing what people are happy to conclude from three decades or so. The BoM has now relocated our main weather station to the airport, and our history is now fifteen years old unless you know where to look for the preceding century+ of quite interesting records. Instead of considering 1915 to be our hottest by mean max and 1902 our driest, the punters will glance at the most readily available record and assume 2003 was the bad boy.

Conversational English with a few relevant numbers would be far more scientific than intricate numbers derived from such skinny sources. But they keep hoping those sow’s ears will turn into silk purses, don’t they?

Being unable to give an adequate answer to a question doesn’t make the question dumb.

Mosher, if climate science spent more resources on the why questions instead of the what questions we might be making real progress.

AR$ I think I’ll use that.

If you add heat and the fluctuations do not change then everyone’s average should go up.

No, they are not.

Nick with the farmers

More or bable that in years of nil or negative income, the farmer will draw down from the reserves sometimes until it too is zero. Has analogy.
I used to have a friend who was a banker.
Geoff

Democrats are not being told how to vote by Solyndra and Tesla. They actually believe the scientific consensus, as do most of the population, and what kind of policies that leads to. The outliers are all on the other side.

Fercrisakes Spencer even the Aussies know the NYT is a rag for the loony-left which includes CAGW lunatics.

Danny, the science is being short-circuited by funding. Perhaps some see RICO as a way to get science to have the clout it should by itself. It really is just a tool to try to fix a broken system, but it doesn’t fix the root cause of the problem.

so jimd, let’s just manipulate the data, adjust the temperature record endlessly, ignore that temps have failed to do what the models forecasted and claim that the debate is over. The real fraud is commited by the warmists, but in the orwellian state we now live in, black is white and the warmunistas will use gestapo measures if they can get away with it to silence anyone who exposes the lie.

Hey J0shua what’s it like being in moderation? I’m here to tell you it’s a great improvement for the rest of us to have your empty blather so constrained! Have a great day.

What about the government funding front groupss to peddle the fake science of AGW? And, can you demonstrate that the Heartland Group has peddled pseudo science, or have they been publishing the truth?

Yes, it’s a conspiracy, and Exxon was in on it back in the 70’s too according to the ICN reports on their early research. Great theory. How do you explain Exxon’s original view?

Then you must also be against Dr. Shukla’s Tax exempt front groups?

Latest Images