Ricochet ‘n ‘ touche’.
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by beththeserf
↧
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by jim2
Based on this, looks like we could make a RICO case against the “Shukla Family”
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by beththeserf
Heh, what’s the definition of ‘cronyism?’ …And while we’re
about it, let’s check out double dipping.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
Many times I’ve asked you for sources and links and you’ve not responded. Now you chide me for “You didn’t answer why elected Republicans have the almost 100% view that warming is not mostly manmade and therefore that emissions should not be reduced,………….”
as if you wish me to be a mind reader of some kind?
Why did Shukla take handle things as he’s done?
Did you take a look at the links here: http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/28/my-fox-news-op-ed-on-rico/#comment-733737
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by mosomoso
What Faustino said.
It would be folly to have an alternative suggestion unless one accepted the premise that one needs to “tackle” and “take on” climate change.
Of course, climate will change…and I’d hate to be the guy who has to wipe down the grimy solar panels in the event of a dirty basaltic eruption. We don’t know much about catastrophic warmings, but some catastrophic coolings have certainly made a mess of dynasties and civilisations, since cooler=drier for much of the planet.
Keep industrialising, people. Generate more and better goods and services. Make money. The poor don’t conserve…they just neglect.
↧
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
Beth, you could have followed up your earlier “Ricochet” with “Ricocronyism” or “Ricronyism.” Well, perhaps not.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Don Monfort
The old dudes who ran Exxon in the 70s are DEAD, yimmy. Exxon is not a person. Try to get in touch with the real world. There is not going to be a RICO case. That ploy is a transparent and shameless attempt at intimidation.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Craig Loehle
Joseph asks how “supporters” or those who receive fossil fuel money could be prosecuted. It isn’t necessary to be prosecuted. Just the process of being investigated can ruin someone. Ask Enstrom, quoted above. Ask Willy Soon. Baseless investigations can scare an employer so they fire the person. The person needs an expensive lawyer. Overzealous prosecutors charge someone with absurd crimes like mail fraud or destruction of evidence or conspiracy, which they eventually drop. You really don’t want to start this ball rolling, yet several of the usual suspects here are DEFENDING this letter. wow.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Michael
DavidT | September 29, 2015 at 9:38 pm |
“I note you did not respond as to whether you are prepared to apologize for your false and reckless statement. Your last comment is also thoroughly dishonest – you refuse to acknowledge how it completely contradicts your previous assertion”
What is contradicted??
Perhaps if you could be less vague, I’d be more obliging.
↧
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Michael
Maybe. Not really. Whose?
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Michael
Craig,
i’d be far more comfortable defending this letter, than defending the incitement to violence agianst climate scientists (as Judith did here in the past).
Surely a legal process with the evidentiary requirments and all the protections entailed in the US Constitution is far less problematic than the possibility of vigilantes physcially attacking scientists on the street.
It appears Judith leans the other way.
That’s why I find her to be a humbug and purveyor of industrial-strengt cant.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Craig Loehle
Mark W: and you are the one to decide what is research and what is “pretend” research? What about research sponsored by Greenpeace? Do you vouch for it being pure as driven snow? How about “front groups” for unions or american lung association or even fake front groups for the president or EPA? Plenty of astroturfing to go around. I suggest plenty of disclosure and let all the liars lie as best they can–such lies usually come back to bite them.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
David, I noticed you linked to your Facebook page at CA. If you are open to Friend requests, one from Michael Cunningham would be me.
↧
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Don Monfort
Before your little pal willy comes along and embarrasses you for a lack of citation, care to tell us more about Judith defending so-and-so threatening climate sigh-in-tists?
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by willard (@nevaudit)
> Maybe he can answer the question […]
When you need an answer to a question from someone else before you can make an argument, DavidT, it means you don’t have one.
You asked two questions, BTW. I already answered the first one. Twice.
As for the second one, there’s no need to entertain any counterfactual to read the damn letter, and shifting the burden of proof is unbecoming.
Look. You don’t like the letter. Fine. Me neither. There’s nothing in your fight for freedom that requires you to misrepresent that letter.
You have an open net and you can’t score.
Go team!
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by Jim D
Those who don’t think RICO should be used to investigate big fossil and policymakers should consider if the shoe was on the other foot, and whether they would want an investigation into environmental organizations or renewable energy companies and their connection to policymakers if there was anything suspicious. It is neither or both if you are being consistent. We see a lot of outrage about the use of this tool while at the same time endorsing it for the opposite case, which just looks like hypocrisy, when you think about it.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by bedeverethewise
What are you talking about Micheal? Did Judith weigh in when Ben Santer threatened Pat Micheals? Was it related to one of the many violent environmental organizations? Or was it some other incitement to violence, perhaps an imagined incitement to violence.
↧
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by PeteBonk
Anyone posting in here a member of a scientific society? ACS, APS, etc? Organizations like the American Chemical Society should be speaking out on this for the hint of stifling scientific debate and free inquiry that the threat of RICO poses. I believe its a lot more than a hint and I am trying to bring this to the awareness of the ACS leadership and membership.
↧
Comment on My Fox News op-ed on RICO by human1ty1st
I guess when President Obama at the UN talks about respecting the principal of national borders (Ukraine) while insisting on regime change (Syria) then it looks like there are no ABSOLUTE principals.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by gymnosperm
Vaughan, I’m in the middle of harvest right now and lack the time and energy to seriously delve into this.Promise, I will read those links when time permits.
In the meantime, back of the envelope order of magnitude calculations can be helpful.
It is very clear that current human emissions are but 3% of the Carbon cycle. Ask Ferdinand. Ask anyone who has worked on this.
Evaporation from the oceans fractionates 12C very strongly, on the order of -10 PDB to the atmosphere and +10 to the oceans. This is because evaporation, photosynthesis, and virtually all chemical processes that do physical work prefer less weight.
Absorption into the oceans is the reverse as gravity aids the heavier isotope and the net is about +2 to the atmosphere and -2 to the oceans.
The point here is that humans burn fossil hydrocarbons at something like +20 PDB.
The oceans don’t want this stuff. They are weakly selecting for -2.
All this is meant to establish a framework for the bias in ocean uptake away from human CO2.
Even ignoring this significant bias and for the sake of argument saying that the IPCC is off by an order of magnitude and actually net 16 GtC is being currently absorbed by the oceans, humans are only responsible for 3% of this…
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
