Friday, April 4, 2014

People who are defrauding you demand that you be prosecuted!

Global warming assholes are getting fed up:
A writer for the website Gawker recently penned a self-described "rant" on the pressing need to arrest, charge and imprison people who "deny" global warming.
Well it's just some jerk named Weinstein at Gawker, I guess. Not that there's any mainstream sentiment among AGW frauds to prosecute deniers... Ummm... well... ooooo....
Weinstein says that this "is an argument that's just being discussed seriously in some circles." He credits Rochester Institute of Technology philosophy professor Lawrence Torcello for getting the ball rolling. Last month, Torcello argued that America should follow Italy's lead. In 2009, six seismologists were convicted of poorly communicating the risks of a major earthquake. When one struck, the scientists were sentenced to six years in jail for downplaying the risks. Torcello and Weinstein want a similar approach for climate change. 
This is a great standard for free speech in America. Let's just agree that the First Amendment reads, "Nothing in this clause shall be considered binding if it contradicts legal practices in the Abruzzo region of Italy." 
The truth is this isn't as new an outlook as Weinstein suggests. For instance, in 2009, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman insisted that "deniers" in Congress who opposed the Waxman-Markey climate change bill were committing "treason" while explaining their opposition on the House floor. (That same year, Krugman's fellow Timesman Thomas Friedman wrote that China's authoritarian system was preferable to ours, in part, because it lets "enlightened" leaders deal with climate change.)
Now my friends here in the blogsphere will no doubt expect that I, Champion of Free Speech, will speak out passionately against criminalization of the AGW debate.

Actually, I won't.

There is massive criminal activity here, and quite a few people belong in jail. The Climategate e-mails were smoking-gun evidence of fraud, conspiracy, evasion of FOIA laws, intent to destroy data, rigging of peer review, (have I forgotten anything else...?). If global warming scientists were government contractors or businessmen, a significant portion of them would be facing felony indictments and years in federal prison for massive corruption. Their business associates (e.g a certain former vice-president) who have stolen billions of dollars by manipulating markets with manifestly fraudulent science would be joining them in the slammer.

Oh... oh... wait... actually, AGW scientists and their cronies are government contractors and businessmen.

So I emphatically endorse criminalization of this debate, just like I endorse the criminalization of the debate about about Enron's finances and criminalization of the debate about Bernie Madoff's investments.

Bring on the prosecutors. Investigate everyone. Climate scientists and their entrepreneurial buddies should be served with search warrants across the board, and the rampant fraud that is the hallmark of their scam (you already have written confessions in the Climategate emails-- imagine if you had all of their e-mails) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

AGW is a crime syndicate. Please-- let's criminalize the debate.  


  1. Bachfiend doesn't have time to read those emails but he does have time to write three dozen comments on this blog just this past week.

    Global warming true believers want to shut down the debate. Did you know that it's now the policy of the LA Times not to publish letters about AGW if the reader intends to dispute the theory?

    There is no debating. Shut up. We win, you lose. Those are pretty much their arguments.


    1. JQ,

      I previously explained to you why I haven't read the Climategate emails.

      To reiterate:

      1. I accept AGW on the basis of the well known and well understood properties of greenhouse gases.

      2. I hadn't heard of the CRU pre-Climategate, so it didn't add anything to my opinion on AGW. So even if they behaved improperly, it can't detract from my opinion on AGW.

      Personally, I regard tree rings as a proxy for past temperatures little better than reading tea leaves, so I give it little weight anyway.

      3. If the CRU was important in forming my opinion, then of course I would have to read the Climategate emails. All of them, in context, not a selection.

      But the CRU played no role in forming my opinion, and I don't have the time to read them all (I get around 30 emails a day of which I delete 29 unread), so it's irrelevant.

      Anyway, commenting on this blog doesn't take much time. A minute or two a time. Reading a large number of emails and putting them into context would just take too much time.

  2. There have already been several fishing expeditions into Michael Mann's work started by the Republicans. All of them have cleared him.

    Furthermore, Mann's data and conclusions are not the only game in town. There are several other instrumental data sets, all of them showing a warming trend in the last century.

    Denial of global warming is a transparent ploy by the oil companies and their good friends Republicans. They use the same tactics as tobacco companies did a quarter century ago. It's not going to work.


    1. Here's a clue for you Hoo. Republicans cannot all be trusted.

  3. The discussion has moved on--to, for instance, whether developed nations that have emitted GHGs causing climate change and resulting damage to other nations, e.g., some that will disappear under water, have thereby violated international law and may be held liable for the damage they caused.

    The deniers play no role--apart from comic relief--in that discussion.