16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

[wilbur]

You've all lost the point at hand: that some politicians in the US are going to prosecute those who dispute climate change. Which means that no further studies count anymore, if they dispute what is now presently considered climate change dogma. Clearly making the leap from scientific objectivity to religious subjectivity.

In government and academic meteorological and climatological circles, you can't get a job as a climatologist if you don't conform to the current narrative. So nobody out there in the research field, will get any grant money if they want to pursue their controversial theories. We are now in the dawn of a new scientific middle-age.

 

[fuji]

You've all lost the point at hand: that some politicians in the US are going to prosecute those who dispute climate change.

False. They are going to prosecute corporations that publicly say things they know to be false. This is about corporate fraud, not what the scientists publish.

They appear to have evidence that Exxon knew as far back as 1970 that fossil fuels create greenhouse gas that has a warming effect. Yet Exxon spent huge sums on advertising and lobbying making public claims that Exxon executives knew were contradicted by its own internal research.

That is corporate fraud. It has nothing to do with scientists, their research, etc.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You've all lost the point at hand: that some politicians in the US are going to prosecute those who dispute climate change. Which means that no further studies count anymore, if they dispute what is now presently considered climate change dogma. Clearly making the leap from scientific objectivity to religious subjectivity.

Well said.

 

[Frankfooter]

You've all lost the point at hand: that some politicians in the US are going to prosecute those who dispute climate change. Which means that no further studies count anymore, if they dispute what is now presently considered climate change dogma. Clearly making the leap from scientific objectivity to religious subjectivity.

In government and academic meteorological and climatological circles, you can't get a job as a climatologist if you don't conform to the current narrative. So nobody out there in the research field, will get any grant money if they want to pursue their controversial theories. We are now in the dawn of a new scientific middle-age.

They are going after corporations that were caught doing their own research, hiding it and then funding disinformation. Its not a witch hunt at all.
Scientists are free to do their own research as before, and if it stands up to peer assessment, publish it.

You can do as much research on your paper on why you think gravity is only a theory and try to publish it as well. Don't confuse filtering out bad science with censorship. All the hacks the deniers like to use as sources, like the wacko Tim Ball, are free to write and publish their own papers. The only reason they don't is because their work is total bullshit and they make such basic mistakes that it won't stand up to real review, which is why its kept to the dark, conspiracy theory corners of the web. If they have a legit alternate theory, where is it?

 

[K Douglas]

They are going after corporations that were caught doing their own research, hiding it and then funding disinformation. Its not a witch hunt at all.
Scientists are free to do their own research as before, and if it stands up to peer assessment, publish it.

You can do as much research on your paper on why you think gravity is only a theory and try to publish it as well. Don't confuse filtering out bad science with censorship. All the hacks the deniers like to use as sources, like the wacko Tim Ball, are free to write and publish their own papers. The only reason they don't is because their work is total bullshit and they make such basic mistakes that it won't stand up to real review, which is why its kept to the dark, conspiracy theory corners of the web. If they have a legit alternate theory, where is it?

There are many reasons why scientists and academics don't publish more studies which challenge the AGW theory

1) they are marginalized and ridiculed within the academic community and threatened with lawsuits ex Dr Timothy Ball
2) the gov't will not fund any scientific studies that won't support the AGW hypothesis. they also risk losing funding for other research that may not even be related.
3) some actually receive death threats from extremists in the green movement. see eco terrorism

That being said many scientists are still doing research because they believe in the advancement of the scientific method. They will fight tooth and nail against the hijacking of science by political hacks. That's why scientists like Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter, Willie Soon, Don Easterbrook and Tim Ball are my heroes because they put their reputations and livelihood on the line to tell the truth.
http://www.populartechnology.net/
Here's a great site that lists thousands of peer reviewed papers that challenge the science of man made climate change. Naomi Oreskes and John Cook who perpetuate a mythical consensus can go eat a dick. They should be ashamed of themselves. Of course I know you won't look at this site because you are a liberal nut who has no interest in the truth or real science.

 

[Frankfooter]

There are many reasons why scientists and academics don't publish more studies which challenge the AGW theory

1) they are marginalized and ridiculed within the academic community and threatened with lawsuits ex Dr Timothy Ball
2) the gov't will not fund any scientific studies that won't support the AGW hypothesis. they also risk losing funding for other research that may not even be related.
3) some actually receive death threats from extremists in the green movement. see eco terrorism

That being said many scientists are still doing research because they believe in the advancement of the scientific method. They will fight tooth and nail against the hijacking of science by political hacks. That's why scientists like Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter, Willie Soon, Don Easterbrook and Tim Ball are my heroes because they put their reputations and livelihood on the line to tell the truth.

Lindzen charges $2500 a day to his oil and coal sponsors, and his only published work is through the Cato Institute, which is funded by Exxon. But besides being a paid lobbyist for the oil industry, why won't his work stand up to peer assessment? Where is his 'research'? Or does he also only publish opinion pieces?

As to your charges:
1) They are only ridiculed when their work is found to be shoddy.
2) Harper ran the government for 10 years, if anyone would fund research that disagreed with AGW it would have been him, so where is it? And what kind of conspiracy would be required to make this happen with over 100 countries, through all the changes of gov't over the last 30 years?
3) Really, that's just too much.

This conspiracy theory that so many governments over so many years are in on, according to you, makes the 9/11 truthers look sane.

 

[Moviefan-2]

This conspiracy theory that so many governments over so many years are in on, according to you, makes the 9/11 truthers look sane.

The Climategate emails weren't the product of a "conspiracy." The emails -- which confirmed what K Douglas wrote -- were legitimate emails by the big climate enforcers.

 

[Frankfooter]

The Climategate emails weren't the product of a "conspiracy." The emails -- which confirmed what K Douglas wrote -- were legitimate emails by the big climate enforcers.

Bullshit, they were investigated eight times and they found nothing each time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

You really are a piece of work.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Bullshit, they were investigated eight times and they found nothing each time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

You really are a piece of work.

It has been confirmed that those were actual emails among the climate bigwigs.

And when you read them (something you might want to try), there is no escaping the fact that the lead climate researchers in the world were prepared to go to extreme lengths to silence any research that didn't support what Michael E. Mann referred to as "the cause."

 

[canada-man]

he is not going to read them you are dealing with somebody who thinks climate change is slowing down the earth's rotation. ignoring billions of years of tidal friction between the earth and moon

 

[Frankfooter]

It has been confirmed that those were actual emails among the climate bigwigs.

And when you read them (something you might want to try), there is no escaping the fact that the lead climate researchers in the world were prepared to go to extreme lengths to silence any research that didn't support what Michael E. Mann referred to as "the cause."

So you are claiming all 8 of the investigations into those emails were a fraud, part of your ever growing conspiracy?
You are getting kookier and kookier.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So you are claiming all 8 of the investigations into those emails were a fraud....

"Fraud" sometimes has a legal meaning that I would prefer to avoid.

Let's go with sham.

I still like the Wall Street Journal headline about the Climategate emails: "How to forge a consensus." :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

Meanwhile, here's some good news. ExxonMobil is fighting back.

Regrettably, the full story is behind a paywall, but here is the opening part:

Exxon Fires Back at Climate-Change Probe

Argues subpoena represents unwarranted fishing expedition into its records that violates its constitutional rights

By AMY HARDER, DEVLIN BARRETT and BRADLEY OLSON

Exxon Mobil Corp. went to court Wednesday to challenge a government investigation of whether the company conspired to cover up its understanding of climate change, a sign the energy company is gearing up for a drawn-out legal battle with environmentalists and officials on the politically charged issue.

The company filed court papers in Texas seeking to block a subpoena issued in March by the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands, one of several government officials pursuing Exxon. Wednesday’s filing argues that the subpoena is an unwarranted fishing expedition into Exxon’s internal records that violates its constitutional rights.

“The chilling effect of this inquiry, which discriminates based on viewpoint to target one side of an ongoing policy debate, strikes at protected speech at the core of the First Amendment,” the filing says.

Exxon also dismisses the notion that there is any suggestion of a crime, saying Attorney General Claude Earl Walker “issued the subpoena without the reasonable suspicion required by law and based on an ulterior motive to silence those who express views on climate change with which they disagree.”

A request for comment to the U.S. Virgin Islands’ attorney general’s office wasn’t immediately returned.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-fires-back-at-climate-change-probe-1460574535

---

Every person who believes in due process and freedom of speech should be supporting ExxonMobil in this one.

Indeed, the American Geophysical Union has voted to continue its relationship with ExxonMobil: http://www.mmsend61.com/link.cfm?r=...onship-exxonmobil-accept-sponsorship-support/

I expect we'll see more support for ExxonMobil, and that will likely include support from some unexpected corners.

Many people understand what this inquisition is really about. It's an attempt to use the law to scare people from speaking out about climate change. It has nothing to do with "fraud."

 

[Frankfooter]

Every person who believes in due process and freedom of speech should be supporting ExxonMobil in this one.

OMG!

What a total idiot you are.
Suing Exxon an attack of free speech?
Total Dunning-Kruger effect post there, nicely done.

 

[basketcase]

Investigated by whom? ....

The Pope?

Who do you think? Just because you distrust scientists doesn't mean that there hasn't been extensive studies on the topic.


And you should really read up about Willie.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...ate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

Getting paid by the oil industry to write papers is hardly scientific.

 

[basketcase]

earth rotation is not affected by climate nor glaciers.

Yep, that's why a study was just released saying otherwise.

 

[canada-man]

Yep, that's why a study was just released saying otherwise.

A study based on computer models which can be manipulated

 

[basketcase]

A study based on computer models which can be manipulated

A hell of a lot better than just taking your word for it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Suing Exxon an attack of free speech?

Correct. Remove the question mark from your sentence and you will finally have managed to get something right.

 

[K Douglas]

The Pope?

Who do you think? Just because you distrust scientists doesn't mean that there hasn't been extensive studies on the topic.


And you should really read up about Willie.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...ate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

Getting paid by the oil industry to write papers is hardly scientific.

I don't distrust scientists. I distrust politicians who have bought off certain scientists (Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Kevin Tenbreth, Phil Jones to name a few) to move an agenda. Read up on Club of Rome and Agenda 21 it's enlightening.
If Willie Soon did something so unethical why hasn't his professional body suspended, or even reprimanded him? I've watched videos of him speaking, this is nothing but a political hit job. The dude is legit. His research is legit. Get over it.
And for the record, I won't believe anything regarding climate change that is published in the NY Times so I didn't even bother clicking on the link.