Do You Dare To Disagree? You Must Go To Jail!

Posted: September 19, 2015 by oldbrew in climate, opinion
Tags: ,

No science here [image credit: Michigan Chronicle]

No science here [image credit: Michigan Chronicle]

The latest absurdity of the climate controversy is summed up at the American Elephants blog.

They are panicking! Some climate people have bet the farm on a dangerously warming earth, and the need to instantly switch to clean natural energy so we aren’t polluting the world by burning nasty coal and using nasty gasoline and creating the CO2 in the atmosphere that is causing all the trouble. It’s our fault.

But we are promised a colder winter, the claims of a lack of sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic are disproved by satellite photography. There’s millions and millions of subsidies and grants building wind farms and solar arrays, and they are still not producing much energy at all.

The science of global warming is so settled that 20 climate scientists have written to President Obama to ask him to prosecute the people who “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

They want him to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) — a law enacted to take down organized crime syndicates. The 20 scientists repeated the claims made by radical green groups that those who have had the colossal nerve to disagree with them — have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.

It is CO2, carbon dioxide produced by humans in their capitalist greed for money. Obama should be sympathetic, he claimed his election was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to halt and the earth began to heal. Activists have successfully pressured governments to declare CO2 a pollutant and to take drastic action to reduce the amount entering the atmosphere. And down with Capitalism too!

The folks at Heartland Institute have come up with an excellent mental exercise to explain about carbon dioxide. Picture a large football stadium that will hold about 10,000 people in the stands. Assume that each person in the stadium represents a small volume of one type of gas.

•Nitrogen (N2) ………….. 78% of the Atmosphere………………. 7,800 people

•Oxygen (O2) ………….. 21% of the Atmosphere………………… 2,100 people

•Argon (A)…………………….1% of the Atmosphere………………… 100 people

•Carbon Dioxide (CO2)…0.038% of the Atmosphere………………….. 4 people

Carbon dioxide makes up only 4 parts in 10,000. Historically low.
Approximately 2 % of the atmosphere is water vapor or clouds.

Moreover, those who name CO2 as a pollutant are not concerned with the 4 parts, but only with 1 part–the portion added during the past 150 years by the burning of fossil fuels. This 1/10,000 increase is the target of the Kyoto Protocol.

Remember high school biology and photosynthesis? After Nitrogen, Oxygen is the most common gas. The leaves of trees and other plants take in CO2 from the atmosphere, retaining the carbon for plant food, while releasing the O2 back into the atmosphere.

The present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is extremely low by historical standards. If atmospheric CO2 is significantly reduced, it is more likely that slower plant growth could affect world food supplies while having little effect on global warming. The life of all plants and animals on Earth is dependent on CO2 for food and oxygen.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is the staff of life for our planet.

What if they find out? The EPA gets in big trouble, grants for climate studies vanish, wind farms go quiet and the turbines sit there rusting. The birds can fly free and not face being chopped up, and I don’t know what they do with the solar arrays. A lot of crony capitalists lose their subsidies and their shirts. And global warming skeptics don’t go to jail after all.

Source: Do You Dare To Disagree? You Must Go To Jail!

UPDATE 21/09/15: check this out…

  1. Kon Dealer says:

    These people are not scientists- it is a list of the culpable and gullible.

    Record it for posterity and future trails for “Crimes against Humanity” and Fraud.

    Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
    Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
    Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
    Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
    Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
    William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
    Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
    T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
    Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
    Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
    Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
    Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
    Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
    Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
    Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

  2. Trenberth, the fellow who will not pull his incorrect paper on the Global Energy balance although he has admitted in an email (to a respected Dutch engineer and scientist) that the atmospheric radiation window is 66 W/m2 and not 40 W/m2. So who is campaigning with misinformation and lies.?

  3. Joe Public says:

    IANAL and know little about RICO but…..

    Prosecuting the people who “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change” is an interesting concept. Who are the supposed villains?

  4. oldbrew says:

    Joe Public asks: ‘Who are the supposed villains?’

    Judith Curry considers herself to be a target of these whingers.

    ‘Since I was one of the scientists called out in Grijalvi’s witch hunts, I can only infer that I am one of the scientists you are seeking to silence.’

  5. Joe Public says:

    Those who exaggerate the risk are equally guilty of “have(ing) knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change”.

  6. p.g.sharrow says:

    A Watermelon attack. Communists always strive to jail or silent their opposition…pg

  7. I’m all in favour of sending those who get money and then distort the science to jail.

    And if it is initiated by the climate extremists … all the better, because like the French revolution it will very soon find there’s nothing at all wrong with the behaviour of sceptics and then the spotlight will focus where the real fraud has always been: the climate extremists!

  8. oldbrew says:

    The threat of jail can be avoided by working for people who suppress your science before it even sees the light of day.

    For example: don’t mention natural climate change.

  9. Curious George says:

    Climate skeptics are out. Climate heretics are in. Long Live the Great Inquisitor.

  10. Jerry says:

    The absolutely appalling part of this is the failure of journalists to understand, recognize, and publish information on the natural climate cycles. Instead, they focus on CO2 as the cause of it all. I believe much of what we see is driven by two climate cycles, the 30 year cycle and the 1400 year cycle, with the odd El Nino thrown in every 5-7 years. In the USHCN v2 historical database of the 48 contiguous United States, the 30 year cycle had a minimum in 1910-1912; a maximum near 1945; another minimum in about 1974; and finally a maximum in 2005-2007.
    The 1400 year cycle had a maximum around 200 BC and another in about 1000 AD. There were minima in about 400 AD and 1700-1800. So, temperatures are currently rising long-term and on the way to another maximum in roughly 2400.
    Why is this never mentioned by the journalists who claim some scientific background in order to publish science-related stories?

  11. Bryan says:

    How many lone voice sceptics from history would now face jail, for instance….
    Charles Darwin
    Plate Techtonics advocate
    Einstein for relativity….

    The list is endless

  12. oldbrew says:

    Jerry says: ‘The absolutely appalling part of this is the failure of journalists to understand, recognize, and publish information on the natural climate cycles.’

    One suspects their science knowledge would fit easily on the back of a postage stamp 😐

  13. James Delingpole writes in -London “Trenberth is a liar, a proven liar, who has now written a letter to the president full of still more lies urging the use of racketeering laws to harrass and pursue scientists for the crime of being more rigorous and questioning about science than Kevin Trenberth”.

  14. Power Grab says:

    Maybe it’s a make-work project for lawyers.

  15. cementafriend says: September 20, 2015 at 5:12 am

    James Delingpole writes in -London “Trenberth is a liar, a proven liar, who has now written a letter to the president full of still more lies urging the use of racketeering laws to harrass and pursue scientists for the crime of being more rigorous and questioning about science than Kevin Trenberth”.

    That is Kevin’s job! Kevin ‘Travesty’ Trenberth, a moustacheoed alarmist and IPCC lead author who works at the Climate Alarmist Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research. 😦

  16. hunter says:

    America has become at first subtly and now dramatically, a dark, censorious, repressive and scary place.This darkness is only beginning.

  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    hunter (September 20, 2015 at 6:24 am) wrote:
    “America has become at first subtly and now dramatically, a dark, censorious, repressive and scary place.This darkness is only beginning.”

    Certainly that is true of wuwt & ce.

    For sure the international climate skeptic community cannot look to the US for sensible leadership.

  18. oldbrew says:

    If they want state-enforced single-opinion science, backed up by the courts, just say so.
    Things seem to be heading that way already.

    It’s the road to totalitarianism.

    As American Elephants said: They are panicking!

  19. tallbloke says:

    We’ll be fighting back against this sort of nonsense at a geoethics conference in Prague in a few weeks time. I will be naming names with dishonourable mentions for their missing variable fraud.

  20. hunter says:

    I have no idea what your snarky comment means other than you have no respect for open discussion or intellectual integrity.

  21. ren says:

    Here you can see the temperature distribution of ozone at a height of 30 km and a preliminary design of the polar vortex. As you can see it is not beneficial for Europe.,87.85,345

  22. oldbrew says:

    ‘Do You Dare To Disagree? You Must Go To Jail!’

    Better than the death penalty at least 😉

  23. oldbrew says:

    Bishop Hill reports that the lead author of the climate letter is raking in the ca$h from the AGW scare…

    ‘There is much entertainment to be had this morning from the revelation that the ringleader of a notorious gang of climate scientists has been taking home as much as $750,000 per year from his climate activities. Professor Jagadish Shukla spearheaded last week’s attempt to get the Obama administration to prosecute climate sceptics under racketeering laws. These new revelations make it look as if his real motivation was to protect his own income.’

    So who is the racketeer?

  24. oldbrew says:

    Desist, ye knaves! Don’t stop the climate gravy train.

    ‘Conform, alarmists threaten — or else.’

  25. (repeating a comment I left at notrickszone)

    Re-read the names/books in the second paragraph of Jagadish Shukla’s RICO letter . The actions of the “corporations and other organizations”, as Shukla describes it, have NOT been extensively documented, that’s a literal talking point I covered in my blog post here: . The repetitions are no more than global warming alarmist book author Ross Gelbspan’s accusation, who is the central promulgator of the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid / instructed by industry people to lie and fabricate false climate assessments.

    Regarding the list of names/books, I covered Brulle’s tie to Gelbspan here , Hoggan here , Oreskes here , and the UCS’ Climate Deception Dossiers here . I can also directly tie David Michaels’ “Doubt is their Product” book and Eric Pooley’s “The Climate War” book to Gelbspan’s accusation. Plus, Senator Whitehouse’s diatribe about a skeptic / industry conspiracy is nothing new, I trace that back to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt circa 1997 here: , whose pronouncements about “a conspiracy to hire pseudoscientists to deny the facts” came out rather suspiciously close to the publication of Gelbspan’s book.

    Shukla and his pals attempt to fire a shot across the bow of skeptic climate scientists’ ship, but what they inadvertently do here is torpedo their own effort.

  26. oldbrew says:

    Russell C: An obvious propaganda trick is to claim to be a victim of propaganda, but it works better if it’s true.

    That’s where alarmists struggle sometimes :/

  27. oldbrew says:

    Steve McIntyre puts one of the RICO 20 under the microscope.

    ‘Disinformation from Barry Klinger and the RICO 20’

    Also plans further posts:
    ‘As many readers are aware, Roger Pielke Jr has identified apparent evidence of this sort of double-dipping by the leader of the RICO-20, Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University.
    In a follow-up post, I’ll review this evidence. In today’s post, I will limit myself to refuting Klinger’s false claim.’

  28. And one of the commenters at ClimateAudit caught that the IGES folks have scrubbed the RICO letter from their web site:

  29. Jerry says:

    Kon Dealer says these people are unqualified. I checked out Edward Sarachik at the UW a few miles from me. He is an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington who recently was the moderator at a session on El Nino. That sounds to me like he just might, indeed, be qualified to comment on global warming/climate change. Could Kon explain in more detail why he thought Sarachek to be unqualified?

  30. oldbrew says:

    Jerry: see if you can spot ‘Professor’ Edward Maibach’s climate qualifications here.

    ‘Dr. Maibach holds a BA in social psychology from University of California at San Diego (1980), an MPH in health promotion from San Diego State University (1983), and a PhD in communication research from Stanford University (1990).’

  31. Jerry says:

    Tim, I am having trouble with this search for “climate qualifications.” There seems to be zero in the hard sciences. HIs background is communications. That sounds like someone gives him the information, and he decides how best to communicate it — TV, magazines, internet, books, etc. or maybe all of the above. What is your take on his background?

  32. oldbrew says:

    Quote: There is a whole field of research dedicated to studying how to persuade people around climate change. According to Edward Maibach, a professor at George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, the key to shifting people’s behavior around a difficult issue like climate change is: start with simple messages, repeated frequently, from trusted advisers. Then, make “the behaviors we are promoting easy, fun and popular.” [end quote]

    ‘the behaviors we are promoting’ – get the idea?

  33. oldbrew says:

    It’s all going pear-shaped in RICO-20 land.

    ‘Backfire on the #RICO20 and Jagadish Shukla is imminent; wagon circling, climbdown, dissolution begins’

  34. oldbrew says:

    Even more pear-shaped: Congress investigation time for the IGES/RICO crew.

    Using taxpayers’ money to engage in political activity…tut-tut 😉