Climate change deceit to be investigated by the FBI

[Tommy Tainant]

DOJ Sends Request For Exxon Probe To The FBI

Reps. Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier, both Democrats from California, asked the DOJ to investigate Exxon last fall, after reporting from Inside Climate News and theLos Angeles Times indicated that Exxon's experts knew about the dangers of burning fossil fuels, and still publicly worked to undermine climate science. In aletter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch in October, the congressmen asked the department to look into whether Exxon violated federal laws such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act by "organizing a sustained deception campaign disputing climate science and failing to disclose truthful information to investors and the public."

The link has been made to the tobacco/cancer scandal from a few years ago.

They knew about it and then tried to diss the science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

indicated that Exxon's experts knew about the dangers of burning fossil fuels,

Reliable, affordable energy, heat in the winter, cool in the summer. Very dangerous. LOL!

 

[flacaltenn]

DOJ Sends Request For Exxon Probe To The FBI

Reps. Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier, both Democrats from California, asked the DOJ to investigate Exxon last fall, after reporting from Inside Climate News and theLos Angeles Times indicated that Exxon's experts knew about the dangers of burning fossil fuels, and still publicly worked to undermine climate science. In aletter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch in October, the congressmen asked the department to look into whether Exxon violated federal laws such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act by "organizing a sustained deception campaign disputing climate science and failing to disclose truthful information to investors and the public."

The link has been made to the tobacco/cancer scandal from a few years ago.

They knew about it and then tried to diss the science.

Sure... What they're going to find is that the Exxon scientists made a MUCH MORE ACCURATE projection of the Global Warming threat than the whole body of work by that shame UN Panel on CC.. And internal corporate research has NO obligation to be disclosed to the public. EVER. Under any conditions other than a warrant.

What has to happen is to SUE Exxon for CC FIRST --- and then argue about what they knew about it 30 years ago.. Good luck with all that. It's a side show.. And desperation from the fact that all the OTHER predictions have failed or are failing..

 

[bripat9643]

DOJ Sends Request For Exxon Probe To The FBI

Reps. Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier, both Democrats from California, asked the DOJ to investigate Exxon last fall, after reporting from Inside Climate News and theLos Angeles Times indicated that Exxon's experts knew about the dangers of burning fossil fuels, and still publicly worked to undermine climate science. In aletter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch in October, the congressmen asked the department to look into whether Exxon violated federal laws such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act by "organizing a sustained deception campaign disputing climate science and failing to disclose truthful information to investors and the public."

The link has been made to the tobacco/cancer scandal from a few years ago.

They knew about it and then tried to diss the science.

They should be examining Michael Mann and the rest of the AGW criminals.

 

[Old Rocks]

Someone should examine your head, Pattycake. Micheal Mann's study has been vindicated by more than a dozen different studies using different methods and proxies. Of course, Exxon hid the results. And hired the same advertising agencies as the tobacco companies to spread lies and doubts about the effect of adding GHGs to the atmosphere.

 

[bripat9643]

Someone should examine your head, Pattycake. Micheal Mann's study has been vindicated by more than a dozen different studies using different methods and proxies. Of course, Exxon hid the results. And hired the same advertising agencies as the tobacco companies to spread lies and doubts about the effect of adding GHGs to the atmosphere.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

You are an especially gullible AGW cult member, Rocks in the Head. Mann's study has been "vindicated" only by fellow cult members who used the same defective dishonest methodology he used. Even the National Academy of Sciences said that Mann's method led to incorrect results. They were far to polite to point out that Mann was committing scientific fraud.

You can read the explanation of how the Hockey Stick fraud was exposed here - Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesus paper and here Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Historic Proportions « JoNova

 

[Old Rocks]

Jo Nova? Crap, why not link to the Weekly World? Same credibility.

'Hockey stick' climate scientist quietly vindicated for the umpteenth time


National Science Foundation (NSF) inspector general: “Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed.”

Two things we know with extremely high confidence:

1. Recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude, speed, and cause (so the temperature history looks like a hockey stick).
2. Michael Mann, the lead author on the original hockey stick paper, is one of the nation’s top climatologists and a source of first-rate analysis.

We know these things because both the hockey stick and Mann have been independently investigated and vindicated more times than any other facet of climate science or any other climate scientist (see links below).
.....................................................................................................................................................................................

1. Temperatures of North Atlantic “are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming” –Science (2011)
2. GRL (2010): “We conclude that the 20th-century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years.”
3. JGR (2010) [PDF]: “The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last 1600 years.”
4. Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds (2009)
5. Unprecedented warming in Lake Tanganyika and its impact on humanity (2010)

 

[bripat9643]

Jo Nova? Crap, why not link to the Weekly World? Same credibility.

'Hockey stick' climate scientist quietly vindicated for the umpteenth time


National Science Foundation (NSF) inspector general: “Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed.”

Two things we know with extremely high confidence:

1. Recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude, speed, and cause (so the temperature history looks like a hockey stick).
2. Michael Mann, the lead author on the original hockey stick paper, is one of the nation’s top climatologists and a source of first-rate analysis.

We know these things because both the hockey stick and Mann have been independently investigated and vindicated more times than any other facet of climate science or any other climate scientist (see links below).
.....................................................................................................................................................................................

1. Temperatures of North Atlantic “are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming” –Science (2011)
2. GRL (2010): “We conclude that the 20th-century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years.”
3. JGR (2010) [PDF]: “The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last 1600 years.”
4. Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds (2009)
5. Unprecedented warming in Lake Tanganyika and its impact on humanity (2010)

The National Academy of Sciences ruled that the Hockey Stick graph is bullshit:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: There He Goes Again: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Affirmed by the NAS​

1. The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

2. In subtle wording, the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

3. M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

4. The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

5. The NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’​

 

[bripat9643]

Jo Nova? Crap, why not link to the Weekly World? Same credibility.

'Hockey stick' climate scientist quietly vindicated for the umpteenth time

National Science Foundation (NSF) inspector general: “Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed.”

Two things we know with extremely high confidence:

1. Recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude, speed, and cause (so the temperature history looks like a hockey stick).

We certainly don't know that. Like Mann you're pumping out bullshit.

1. Michael Mann, the lead author on the original hockey stick paper, is one of the nation’s top climatologists and a source of first-rate analysis..

We know these things because both the hockey stick and Mann have been independently investigated and vindicated more times than any other facet of climate science or any other climate scientist (see links below).

Michael Mann is a con artist who belongs in prison. The only true independent investigators have found that Mann's Hockey stick is a giant fraud.

 

[Vigilante]