A Sister Soljah Moment
James Inhofe has a little list of scientists he wants to throw in jail.
Raymond BradleyGo read Climate Science Watch for details
Keith Briffa
Timothy Carter
Edward Cook
Malcolm Hughes
Phil Jones
Thomas Karl
Michael Mann
Michael Oppenheimer
Jonathan Overpeck
Benjamin Santer
Gavin Schmidt
Stephen Schneider
Susan Solomon
Peter Stott
Kevin Trenberth
Thomas Wigley
This is indeed a Sister Soljah moment for the Pielkes, the Breakthrough Institute Boys, Richard Tol, Hans von Storch, Steve McIntyre, Myron Ebell, Fred Singer and even Bjorn Lomborg. Has Inhofe gone so far that even they will acknowledge and denounce his Climate McCarthy act, or not? Will they hide their ethics in the sand and do their Sgt. Schultz act? Will they try and blame this on Al Gore being fat? Will they demand to see Barack Obama's birth certificate first? Who knows, but let's ask them.
Comments
Posts
52 comments:
Well, you can see where "journalist" Lou Dobbs stands on the objectivity scale. So much for the benefits of a high-priced education.
No James Hansen? When did the denial crowd stop caring about him? Man, I have got to get my enemies lists up to date.
No prosecutions are forthcoming but those are not the point. The objective is for Inhofe's list to appear in the popular press and thus establish ongoing high profile discussion about which scientists may be criminals, which may not, etc.
Give CA and WUWT a couple of days to echo this and it'll begin moving up the foodchain. Next, Drudge and The Register, then Fox and the Washington Times, next again George Will in the WaPo, followed finally by Andy Revkin shaking his finger and saying "Tut, tut! I don't think any scientists are definitely criminals but if they are they should be ashamed."
Like mercury, or DDT, same deal as with any pollutants that start in pond scum and find their way into the central nervous systems of vertebrates. This one leaves victims spastically twitching, frothing at the mouth and babbling nonsense.
Silly rabbet, everybody knows that it's the Realclimate Team who's politicizing the science, and besides, the deniers are simply honest broker skeptics who just want to know the truth.
Now back to the original programming.
Al Gore is fat. Pachauri writes porn. Therefore, there is no global warming.
It's all rather Malice in Wonderland: 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'
Inhofe plays the Red Queen and says 'off with their heads'.
'Inhofe's list' are the knaves.
Who plays the:
Mad Hatter
Dormouse
Alice
Red King
Dutchess
Cheshire Cat
And of course there's the part of the white rabbit!
Eli, you didn't make the list. You must step up your game and write more critical posts about Inhofe, and get on his radar screen.
Off topic, but everybody check out Tamino's last couple posts. Further evidence that Watts and friends are utter incompetents. It's oh so easy to make and spread accusations, but they can't be arsed to spend a few days doing the math to see if there's any basis to them.
Obviously the Mad Hatter should be played by Monckton and the Cheshire Cat should be played by Lomberg.
Berbalang
I know the UK is jokingly called the "51st State", but Inhofe should be aware of the actual geographical and legislative limits of the US.
Keep you mits off our scientists Inhofe!
The geographical and legislative limits of the USA know no bounds.
And even if there were bounds (and even if there were not!), there's always extraordinary rendition.
Cymraeg llygoden
RE: Malice in Wonderland
Of course, we know the Rabett plays himself
..and, given the analytical capabilities of most of the denialist crowd, perhaps "Malice in Blunderland" (or "Dunderland") might be even more apt.
(and Horatio volunteers for "doormouse")
Horatio, thank you for you tip of the hat...) And here is a flash for all you silly rabbits...
Shock: UN IPCC Lead Author Drops F-Bomb on Colleagues! Prof. Latif on Climategate revelations: 'This is a very obvious fraud, on the public'
Eli, we know, you know, German real goot. Just what is a "Betrug",anyway?
Gotta fly, Starling-buy-buy
Pielke Jr. responds:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/red-meat.html
Amoeba,
We also know who plays the part of Tweedle-Dum (or is it Tweedle-Dee?)
Sometimes, Horatio feels like he's caught in a loop in the time space continuum...
As CSNY said, "We have all been here before..." (many times [so many times, in fact, that Horatio's little mouse brain is beginning to hurt])
Unlike that list of scientists, RPJr knowingly breaks the law. Copyright law.
Asked where he gets his images ...
"Graphics come from the web, and linked/captured via the (clumsy) Blogger interface. I have in the past 6 years had only 2 complaints about infringement, which I simply responded to by changing images when asked."
So he knows he's infringing, but figures if no one sees the images and complains, it's OK.
Tch tch.
So the 'honest broker' can't bring himself to only denounce Inhofe. He has to use equal space to denounce those denouncing Inhofe.
Inhofe is being moronic and hopefully will lose a primary challenge or at the very least the next election. Anyone who supports him in this effort is trying to score some cheap political point(s).
Celery Eater
Speaking of people with naked political agendas, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen has shown up in the comments at RC. Priceless.
Celery, for once we are in agreement. However, hell would sooner freeze over than Inhofe losing an election. Unless of course his stunts get even too much for the GOP and they kick him out.
MapleLeaf
Inhofe's point is to convict by the power of suggestion - no formal charges are necessary - in the minds of the gullible.
It's how most denier nonsense operates, in the PR guerilla war.
chek
"Speaking of people with naked political agendas, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen has shown up in the comments at RC. Priceless."
I about fell out of my chair. Normally cockroachettes hide from the light ...
Dear Mr. Inhoof:
Good luck extraditing the British citizens on the list.
John McManus
OK AGW folks, Here it is, as far as your stuff goes... I could not have said it better myself. This is for: grown-up-real(not phony)-scientists. They will understand the truth of what Mr. Willis Eschenbach, said. Remove the vail from your own eyes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/25/judith-i-love-ya-but-youre-way-wrong/
MapleLeaf
All that is needed is a smart opponent. The mood of the country is to get all the incumbents out. Anyone that looks fresh and wants a more limited government has a shot in any district.
You should agree with me more often as I am usually right. So much so I am a "legend in my own mind".
Celery Eater
Really guys, go over and have a word with Roger. Eli will join you after cocktails.
Eschenbach pontificates:
"The problem is that 71.3% of what passes as peer reviewed climate science is simply junk science, as false as the percentage cited in this sentence. The lack of trust is not a problem of perception or communication. It is a problem of lack of substance. Results are routinely exaggerated. “Scientific papers” are larded with “may” and “might” and “could possibly”. Advocacy is a common thread in climate science papers. Codes are routinely concealed, data is not archived. A concerted effort is made to marginalize and censor opposing views."
This guy does not know what the hell he is talking about, and has absolutely no bloody idea how to do science. OMG, we are so screwed!
And then he had the audacity to say:
"The solution is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science. "
WTF!? He is the one conducting BS pseudo-science for God's sake-- just go and see how Tim Lambert and other shave refuted his junk "science".
It gets better, he argues:
"Here’s a clue. Because a whole bunch of you are guilty of egregious and repeated scientific malfeasance, and the rest of you are complicit in the crime by your silence. "
Evidence please. Yes, we are guilty of not standing up to the absolute BS disseminated by victims of D-K like Willis Eschenbach.
Is there any way you can take inhofe seriously in such a way that he has to either run away (and thus look bad) or keep going until his idiocy is clear to all? (All except the nuttiest tea baggers that is). I know the USA has this spiffing one way extradition treaty with the UK which means they can demand any person they choose be delivered to them without any sort of hearing, so would he like to start proceedings? The problem being that it would be rather hard on the scientists.
OFFS, why does one have to be registered with wordpress or openId to post at RP Jnr's?!
This is what I wanted to post there:
"Roger, I find your wording on this intriguing. You are seemingly critical of Inhofe, but at the same time you do not explicitly state that what he is doing or proposing is ridiculous in the extreme. Does he even know that several of those scientists on his list do not reside in the USA? This is McCarthyism all over again.
You also say that "Senator Inhofe is not alone in serving up red meat for his partisan followers".
True, but you have been engaging in similar (dog whistle) tactics for some time now. Not for "partisan followers", but for so-called "skeptics". And don't try and deny it; the evidence is on your very own blog and elsewhere on the web.
Anyhow, what I want to know is *exactly* do you stand on this persecution of scientists by Inhofe? For example, Do you denounce or approve of what he is proposing?
I would like to see you do a post on why what Inhofe is proposing is so wrong and to take him to task on it. Anything less can easily and reasonably be construed as support for Inhofe by you.
MapleLeaf
I am going to cross post this at Eli Rabett and RealClimate"
Thanks Eli, you are a star!
OK, now I really have to try and finish writing this damn paper!
MapLeaf
"Here’s a clue. Because a whole bunch of you are guilty of egregious and repeated scientific malfeasance, and the rest of you are complicit in the crime by your silence. "
And down in the comments, Judith Curry gives Eschenbach a big warm hug.
Could Eli or someone please explain to P Jnr what dog-whistle politics is?
MapleLeaf
And back to the topic at hand - on significant "moments", in case anyone's forgotten....
Billy McKibben has a lengthy but relevant post that is on Grist, arguing that we are experiencing an OJ moment. It's not about the data, people!!
Inhofe is Inhofe.
Good ol' Willis, I've tangled with him before. Look up "Poe's Law" in the dictionary, and you'll see a sketch of Willis.
Willis is lecturing anybody on what is science?
Give me a break. He of the "I don't understand what this is, so therefore it must be fraud" non-analysis.
I will second the comment that people should check out the last couple of posts at Tamino's place. Especially this this one.
As far as Inhofe goes, he is planting a flag in anticipation of the Rethuglicans winning back the Senate in November. This is a hint of what might happen. Although he cannot get the Justice Department to bring prosecutions, he can make life very unpleasant for the scientists on his little list should the worst come to pass in the US elections. This is true even for the foreign scientists if they received NSF funding. It will not be pretty.
James Inhofe... As an innocent Swede I must ask, how the hell did he get elected in the first place?
Why is Inhofe a senator? The answer's simple, he was elected in the State of Oklahoma. And since I got a MS from the University of Oklahoma, I can attest to the fact that Inhofe does truly represent his constituents (Oil/gas companies, know-nothings, and other ne'er-do-wells from Tulsa).
After reading/enduring Judith Curry's essay, Willy E's reponse, and Curry's response to Willy, I think the only practical conclusion is that Curry's gone emeritus.
Magnus, don't ask silly questions ;-)
Eschenbach's rationale has always been "if I don't understand it, it must be fraud". Sadly, that leaves a hell of a lot of room for fraud accusations on his part.
The first I became aware of Eschenbach's existence was an article he wrote last fall about the GISS guys' abundance-based vs emissions-based paper. He completely and utterly misunderstood what the paper said, and remained stubborn in the stance until his position became so obviously untenable that he withdrew. At least he did withdraw in the end, I guess.
But what got me was, on accepting his error, he said something about that being science in action. No, it wasn't. Science is not an individual not comprehending a paper, writing a blog based on his miscomprehension, and then being corrected. I don't know what that is, but it isn't science.
Training.
A friend of mine across the pond recently drew my attention to a massive organised day of action for health care reform in the USA. Apparently over 1,000,000 people got involved in making their voices heard.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/24/836968/-Urgent-Call-to-Action:-Our-nation-needs-all-of-us-today
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/24/840292/-Over-800,000-Voices-Stand-Up-For-Health-Reform
Perhaps something similar could be organised in support of these scientists - and science in general - if the situation gets much more McCarthyite.
Andrew (the one above - from a public computer)
From Inhofe's report:
... In addition, Anderson wrote, “they attempted to take action against editors and journals that published the work of their rivals.”
Possibly the most egregious example of such behavior occurred in reaction to a paper published in the journal Climate Research in 2003. The paper posed a serious challenge to the conclusion reached in the so-called “hockey stick” temperature reconstruction by Professors Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes. The hockey stick graph, which was featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report in 2001, supported the conclusion that the 1990s, and 1998, were likely the warmest decade, and the warmest year, respectively, in at least a millennium. Dr. Sallie Balunias and Dr. Willie Soon, researchers at the Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, contested this conclusion, and many of the scientists in this scandal savaged them for doing so.
Not surprisingly, Inhofe doesn't mention that the Soon & Baliunas study (partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute) was so flawed that half of the editorial board of Climate Research resigned in protest when it was published.
And how did Inhofe himself react to the study? He talked a lot about it in the senate. Among other things he said:
I must say, to any reasonable person, these ratios appear very convincing, and undoubtedly rest on a solid scientific foundation. Again, remember, the conclusions of this study are based on 240 peer-reviewed studies, and this chart here shows what the Harvard-Smithsonian researchers concluded.
Peer review means they were rigorously reviewed and critiqued by other scientists before they were published. This climate study, published in March of 2003, is the most comprehensive of its kind in history.
Yes, that is what Inhofe really does with politically corrupted science: he embraces it.
Btw Carrot Eater, I just went and tracked down that thread you spoke of. I had to go to the cafe for a cup of coffee so I could take a drink and then spew it all over my monitor in shock at the man's sheer chutzpah.
"Having been accused of having nefarious motives quite often (including in this thread), I prefer to avoid speculation on the motives of the scientists involved. While what you say may be true, it also may be very untrue, and unfair to the scientists involved. I try to ascribe good motives to everyone unless there is strong evidence otherwise."
Right. He successfully requested the post be deleted - presumably out of embarrassment - so couldn't read it, but the comments remain. It takes a lot of brass to make an error like that and presume to lecture others on what science is about.
Andrew
Andrew, I'm surprised you found it based on just that description. Can you give a link?
carrot eater - article here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/09/shindell-methane-and-uncertainty/
It didn't take to long to find a paper that seemed to match what you referred to, and I googled the title along with Eschenbach's name to find the blog post. It wasn't that hard!
Andrew
The ever feckless Senator has outdone his opponents :
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116252563441412312.html
Andrew: Maybe so. After hanging out at WUWT, I suppose I'm not used to people taking the initiative to find things for themselves.
I've taken to archiving things there, in case they disappear.
thefordprefect
Watts latest: Archibald on stellar to climate linkage
provides another for his list:
Leif Svalgaard (17:42:44) :
This a pure Archibald, and also pure nonsense and cherry picking. You do not need to go any further than the very first Figure. The red curve is supposed to be solar activity [inverse 14C] and the gray bands solar minima. It is clear they don’t line up. Check for instance the dip of the red curve and the absence of a gray band and the high temperature around the year 1000. The rest is as bad. I would be ashamed to post junk like this, but that is, of course, only my humble opinion and David has his loyal flock, so stay tuned to hear the hymn from them.
Sister Souljah? So whose side were you on Rabett?
You guys are missing something. Pielke, McIntyre, BTI and the rest of them already are Sister Souljah.
On RPJR's blog discussing the prosecution:
"Craig said... 1
Waterboarding would be cheaper and more effective. ;-)"
Sick.
And Roger's the one who's all feeling threatened?
Post a Comment