I was replying to your ad hominem fallacy. Arguing about where Judith’s article was published is an ad hominem fallacy itself. If you want to have a rational debate, don’t begin with an ad hominem. Years of experience demonstrates the only way to deal with people like yourself (in most cases) is to respond in kind.
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Peter Lang
↧
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Barnes
The “science process” has already been thoroughly corrupted by the warmunistas. If anyone should be investigated, it should be the 20 who signed the letter. Pathetic that many on this blog see only evil in fossil fuels while blindly ignoring that fossil fuels are what make the lives we live possible. Without fossil fuels, we would be living the lives of those living in un-developed countries. If that’s ehat you want, go for it, but don’t drag the rest of us with you.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
What you’re stating is that the loss of a voice such as Dr. Pielke, Jr. is just fine. The ends justify the means? Silence all critics with the THREAT of RICO?
No sir. That’s not how science should be done.
Science is not being ‘short circuited’ by funding. How many dollars does the FF industry provide to the university system, Jim? How many? How many FF related dollars is Tom Steyer using? How many millions did Sierra Club take from an energy firm to fight against coal?
You and I have had this discussion before. There are no clean hands here. And using RICO or the threat of similar as was done to the seven (Dr. Curry who managed to get past it, and Dr. Pielke Jr. who chose otherwise) is a loss to science and a victory for what, intimidation? If you’re okay with that, that says much about you and those who think along those lines. You have a choice to make here and I hope you’re comfortable making it.
If the science is strong, it will stand. If the science is not strong, it deserves to be rebutted.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
Exxon’s original view? Back in the 70’s when there was the threat of a coming ice age (had to toss that in).
Jim, what is Exxon’s CURRENT view? Isn’t that what matters if one is advocating going after them with RICO statutes?
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by gymnosperm
Wow, my question is why the surface data is used. Have you seen a map of the surface stations?
If the fact that historically these measurements were taken in little louvered boxes were the only objection, it would be merely humorous. The reality is that we didn’t, and in the case of the oceans, could not have placed louvered boxes over about 85% of the planet. Trying to interpolate this is a farce.We desperately need the satellites to interpret the relevance of the louvered boxes and the iron ship data with varying deck heights and varying amounts of payload stored on deck to avoid the Suez tax, and varying inebriation of the recording sailors…
↧
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Barnes
The only conspiracy is in the minds of those who eant us to live in mud huts and use dung for cooking. As I commented below, you and others see only evil in fossil fuels while willfully ignoring that the benefits far outweigh the negatives. It is the left that has made it nearly impossible to have a rational discussion, as evidenced by the letter, climategate, gleick’s illegal acyions, the policy on many warmists sites to moderate away skeptical comments and not allow links to skeptical sites. The level of dishonesty is breathtaking as is the blind ideology that allows the lie of agw to continue.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Danny Thomas
JimD,
I read frequently about how ‘skeptics’ are conspiracy theorists. Wonder who the actual (or should I say alternative) conspiracy theorists are? Seems I speaking (writing) with one, eh?
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Jim D
Danny, exactly the point is that money should have no bearing on how the science is used in policy. It doesn’t matter how much money each side has, or rather it shouldn’t. The science speaks for itself. Find a low attribution paper, for example, before arguing for it in front of Congress. My opinion is that RICO is an imperfect tool to try to mitigate a different problem.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by jimeichstedt
Jim D,
You said about Democrats, “they actually believe the scientific consensus, as do most of the population…” You mean the population that drives gas guzzlers, commutes tens of miles to work, builds houses that are two thousand or more square feet on one or two acre lots? That runs their air conditioners continually, buys Teslas that take five times the energy and resources to build before you even consider fuel, that you’d have to drive for a decade before their carbon footprint even broke even with a Fiat? It’s easy to tell people what they should do, what they should believe. But it’s harder to live according to the principles we hear espoused by Democrats and those who believe the consensus… You only have to look at the highways, the subdivisions, the media’s depiction of middle-class life to see that most people don’t really buy the scientific consensus. Unless we are all one hundred present liars and hypocrites.
↧
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by jimeichstedt
ugh… one-hundred-percent liars…
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Jim D
Exxon originally used its own science to promote a view internally that fossil fuels would be phased out in favor of alternatives, and they started to plan for that. They even wanted to recruit Schneider and Broecker, who they respected in climate science.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Jim D
Explain why Republicans have a view on the science that differs not only from the scientists, but also the majority of the population. It’s not hard to see why. Call it a conspiracy, if you want.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Jim D
The population who in polls with a clear majority say we should be doing something to reduce emissions, even many who call themselves Republicans. Republican elected politicians almost 100% oppose this view.
↧
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Barnes
And, as to exxon or any other company looking to develop alternatives, why would they not? They are, afterall, an energy company, and as oil and gas become less abundant, it eould serve them well to find viable alternatives.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Jim D
Many European oil companies continue to look to alternatives, while Exxon chose to drop their science programs and instead back thinktanks that oppose alternative energy or mitigation. They made a 180 degree turn in the 1980’s, and their greatest fear is now a reduced consumption of oil which steers them counter to the common interest.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Canman
One of the most prominent of the RICO20, Kevin Trenberth, appears to be quite a zealot. From this Climate Etc post:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/11/curry-versus-trenberth/
Trenberth’s slides don’t do justice to his presentation – it was forcefully delivered, evangelical even. About 40% of it was about politics.
A few things of interest that came out in the questions/discussion:
Trenberth was asked if he regarded me as a ‘denier’. He hemmed and hawed, and asked me if I regarded myself as a denier. I said I was a scientist, and regarded myself as included in the so-called 97%, whatever that means.
I said that I disagreed with about 85% of Trenberth’s presentation. I don’t have the energy to debunk it here, see my recent Congressional testimony
I have an MP3 of that debate. A couple of questioners in the Boulder CO audience expressed their distaste for Trenberth.
Mark Steyn and Marc Morano have noted that Trenberth, like Michael Mann, has touted himself as a Nobel Prize winner, although he has since updated this reference:
Warmist Kevin Trenberth mimics Mann’s Nobel Prize claims?! Trenberth’s online CV lists himself as ‘Nobel Laureate’ — ‘Nobel Laureate (shared) for Nobel Peace Prize 2007 (as part of IPCC) Oct 2007′
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by La nueva caza de brujas a los críticos del “calentamiento global”, explicada en Fox News por Judith Curry | PlazaMoyua.com
[…] My Fox News op-ed on RICO […]
↧
↧
Comment on RICO! by La nueva caza de brujas a los críticos del “calentamiento global”, explicada en Fox News por Judith Curry | PlazaMoyua.com
[…] RICO! […]
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by michael hart (@michael97087462)
“Steve Mosher:
4. But we do know that there is no science that suggests GOOD consequences for increased acidity.”
Read more. Comment less.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
Danny, once Fox has published it, others can pick it up. I’d be surprised if The Australian doesn’t, and some other Oz media might too (although the majority are warmanista zombies). Likewise The Daily Mail at least in the UK.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
