Enough is enough - use RICO to restore science respect.

[PK1]

This guy resigned from his job five years ago because he came to realize that Climate Change is a huge scam.

Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam –...

"How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

"I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club."

---
Your example of climatology "dispute" is about this one case of a formerly respected physicist (dead 7 months later at age 87 & retired from research for 19 years) who criticized scientists not in his own specialty? He also contradicted his own affirmation of global warming in his publication 13 years earlier without presenting any facts/data, or interpreting any analyses to support his contradiction. WTF?

Here was the response from APS (physics):
October 12, 2010
There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.
Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”
.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This guy resigned from his job five years ago because he came to realize that Climate Change is a huge scam.

Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam –...

"How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

"I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club."

---
Your example of climatology "dispute" is about this one case of a formerly respected physicist (dead 7 months later at age 87 & retired from research for 19 years) who criticized scientists not in his own specialty? He also contradicted his own affirmation of global warming in his publication 13 years earlier without presenting any facts/data, or interpreting any analyses to support his contradiction. WTF?

Here was the response from APA (physics):
October 12, 2010
There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.
Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”
.

Too funny; you cite a political statement which doesn't reflect the beliefs of its membership as proof of what?

 

[Crick]

One demented octogenarian is hardly an indicator of the position of the majority of the membership. Statements holding with AGW and the IPCC have been in place for years during which numerous conferences and meetings have taken place in which the membership could have raised any objections to their leader's actions. But what have we seen? Nothing. The membership, like virtually every single person on the planet with a science education, accepts AGW as a valid description of the behavior of Earth's climate in the face of growing levels of anthropogenic GHGs.

 

[PK1]

This guy resigned from his job five years ago because he came to realize that Climate Change is a huge scam.

Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam –...

"How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

"I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club."

---
Your example of climatology "dispute" is about this one case of a formerly respected physicist (dead 7 months later at age 87 & retired from research for 19 years) who criticized scientists not in his own specialty? He also contradicted his own affirmation of global warming in his publication 13 years earlier without presenting any facts/data, or interpreting any analyses to support his contradiction. WTF?

Here was the response from APA (physics):
October 12, 2010
There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.
Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”
.

Too funny; you cite a political statement which doesn't reflect the beliefs of its membership as proof of what?

---
Are you blindly religious too?
Like the word "truth", you throw around the term "proof" and think it sticks on a wall?

What "proof" was i alluding to?
What "proof" did Lewis have to support his belief?
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your example of climatology "dispute" is about this one case of a formerly respected physicist .... who criticized scientists not in his own specialty?
.

What about the example?

Yes it was my example of dissent among scientists.

After that mangled sentence you go down hill.

Why dont you come back when you're sober?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Are you blindly religious too?
Like the word "truth", you throw around the term "proof" and think it sticks on a wall?

What "proof" was i alluding to?
What "proof" did Lewis have to support his belief?
.

Lol, do you have a point?

The scientific establishments of Russia, China and India are also skeptical of Climate Change bullshit.

The climate has ALWAYS changed, and there is no proof that it is driven mostly by carbon dioxide when there are many more green houses gases that are a far greater share of the atmosphere aside from CO2, doofus.

The point was that this scientist was blowing the whistle on all the Obamy federal funding going into 'research' in favor of Climate Change nonsense.

That is pretty much proven, and when the next Republican is elected he wont likely be a believer in your horse shit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

One demented octogenarian is hardly an indicator of the position of the majority of the membership.

No one ever said he was, so straw man fallacy once again.

He indicated the flood of Obamy monopoly money that has corrupted the climate change field into paid whores.

 

[rdean]

Are you blindly religious too?
Like the word "truth", you throw around the term "proof" and think it sticks on a wall?

What "proof" was i alluding to?
What "proof" did Lewis have to support his belief?
.

Lol, do you have a point?

The scientific establishments of Russia, China and India are also skeptical of Climate Change bullshit.

The climate has ALWAYS changed, and there is no proof that it is driven mostly by carbon dioxide when there are many more green houses gases that are a far greater share of the atmosphere aside from CO2, doofus.

The point was that this scientist was blowing the whistle on all the Obamy federal funding going into 'research' in favor of Climate Change nonsense.

That is pretty much proven, and when the next Republican is elected he wont likely be a believer in your horse shit.

Russian scientists say climate change to blame for mysterious Siberia craters

Climate Change China Shows Its Seriousness

Indian scientists join protests over killings of prominent secularists

A day later, more than 100 scientists from leading Indian science institutes, including national award winners, three fellows of the UK Royal Society and a foreign associate of the US National Academy of Sciences, signed a second statement expressing deep concern over the “climate of intolerance and the ways in which science and reason are being eroded in the country”. The scientists lamented what they called “active promotion of irrational and sectarian thought by important functionaries of the government”.

------------------------

Speaking of India, it looks like they could be talking about Republicans.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are you blindly religious too?
Like the word "truth", you throw around the term "proof" and think it sticks on a wall?

What "proof" was i alluding to?
What "proof" did Lewis have to support his belief?
.

Lol, do you have a point?

The scientific establishments of Russia, China and India are also skeptical of Climate Change bullshit.

The climate has ALWAYS changed, and there is no proof that it is driven mostly by carbon dioxide when there are many more green houses gases that are a far greater share of the atmosphere aside from CO2, doofus.

The point was that this scientist was blowing the whistle on all the Obamy federal funding going into 'research' in favor of Climate Change nonsense.

That is pretty much proven, and when the next Republican is elected he wont likely be a believer in your horse shit.

Russian scientists say climate change to blame for mysterious Siberia craters

Climate Change China Shows Its Seriousness

Indian scientists join protests over killings of prominent secularists

A day later, more than 100 scientists from leading Indian science institutes, including national award winners, three fellows of the UK Royal Society and a foreign associate of the US National Academy of Sciences, signed a second statement expressing deep concern over the “climate of intolerance and the ways in which science and reason are being eroded in the country”. The scientists lamented what they called “active promotion of irrational and sectarian thought by important functionaries of the government”.

------------------------

Speaking of India, it looks like they could be talking about Republicans.

Your straw man is in a huge pile of ashes..

 

[PK1]

Are you blindly religious too?
Like the word "truth", you throw around the term "proof" and think it sticks on a wall?

What "proof" was i alluding to?
What "proof" did Lewis have to support his belief?
.

Lol, do you have a point?

The scientific establishments of Russia, China and India are also skeptical of Climate Change bullshit.

The climate has ALWAYS changed, and there is no proof that it is driven mostly by carbon dioxide when there are many more green houses gases that are a far greater share of the atmosphere aside from CO2, doofus.

The point was that this scientist was blowing the whistle on all the Obamy federal funding going into 'research' in favor of Climate Change nonsense.

That is pretty much proven, and when the next Republican is elected he wont likely be a believer in your horse shit.

---
So, you avoided answering both my simple Q's because ... you can't?
Even a drunkard can see through your diversion! LOL.
Lewis must have been paid off by the rich denier orgs. Why else did he contradict his own climate change affirmation from his 1997 book .. without supplying data/research?

What did you not understand about this statement representing MANY (vs 1) physicists?

"On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear.”
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So, you avoided answering both my simple Q's because ... you can't?
.

Your questions are irrelevant and I dont have time to chase idiot geese.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are you blindly religious too?
Like the word "truth", you throw around the term "proof" and think it sticks on a wall?

What "proof" was i alluding to?
What "proof" did Lewis have to support his belief?
.

Lol, do you have a point?

The scientific establishments of Russia, China and India are also skeptical of Climate Change bullshit.

The climate has ALWAYS changed, and there is no proof that it is driven mostly by carbon dioxide when there are many more green houses gases that are a far greater share of the atmosphere aside from CO2, doofus.

The point was that this scientist was blowing the whistle on all the Obamy federal funding going into 'research' in favor of Climate Change nonsense.

That is pretty much proven, and when the next Republican is elected he wont likely be a believer in your horse shit.

---
So, you avoided answering both my simple Q's because ... you can't?
Even a drunkard can see through your diversion! LOL.
Lewis must have been paid off by the rich denier orgs. Why else did he contradict his own climate change affirmation from his 1997 book .. without supplying data/research?

What did you not understand about this statement representing MANY (vs 1) physicists?

"On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear.”
.

Another appeal to authority and a political statement as fact.. Epic fail!

 

[PK1]

Are you blindly religious too?
Like the word "truth", you throw around the term "proof" and think it sticks on a wall?

What "proof" was i alluding to?
What "proof" did Lewis have to support his belief?
.

Lol, do you have a point?

The scientific establishments of Russia, China and India are also skeptical of Climate Change bullshit.

The climate has ALWAYS changed, and there is no proof that it is driven mostly by carbon dioxide when there are many more green houses gases that are a far greater share of the atmosphere aside from CO2, doofus.

The point was that this scientist was blowing the whistle on all the Obamy federal funding going into 'research' in favor of Climate Change nonsense.

That is pretty much proven, and when the next Republican is elected he wont likely be a believer in your horse shit.

---
So, you avoided answering both my simple Q's because ... you can't?
Even a drunkard can see through your diversion! LOL.
Lewis must have been paid off by the rich denier orgs. Why else did he contradict his own climate change affirmation from his 1997 book .. without supplying data/research?

What did you not understand about this statement representing MANY (vs 1) physicists?

"On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear.”
.

Another appeal to authority and a political statement as fact.. Epic fail!

---
You don't reference authorities/experts to support your beliefs?
Ok then, why don't you provide your own evidence & logical analysis?
No can do?
LOL. Another lame debater!
.

 

[jc456]

Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma. The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and wont..

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?

False documents and propaganda are amazingly easy to create. However, centuries of research and the volumes of factual data cannot be refuted by propaganda.

Lets expose you for the anti-science person you are..

First of all here is the LOG for CO2:
View attachment 53500

This is confirmed by empirical experiment in Boulder Colorado's Atmospheric Lab. This shows the rate of expected warming in a closed cylinder by CO2 and empirical evidence in our open atmosphere.

The graph in my previous post was that of Dr Spencer with my annotations.
View attachment 53501

Dr Spencer plotted the natural variation rate and the CO2 enhanced rate that the IPCC and the EPA uses as justification for their endangerment finding and power grabs.

The rise in temp is consistent with the empirical lab results and the IPCC's own AR1 stating the natural variation rate for temp rise.

Given the empirical data and the IPCC's own finding of the natural variation rate, there is no warming that can be attributed to CO2. The EPA's endangerment finding is not only a lie but it is soundly refuted by empirical evidence.

Hmm, the empirical evidence of one man. Very impressive. The IPCC has empirical evidence from thousands of climatologists.

As I said, fake evidence (propaganda) is easy to create.

and they stated there is a pause. interesting, now how can that be if the amount of CO2 went up and CO2 drives climate? See it's the paradox you can't get away from isn't it? Wow, but enact the RICO and everything will come out. I say go for it.

 

[jc456]

Deliberate falsification of facts in the name of science for the economic benefit of corporations meets the legal test for RICO investigation.

If a corporation is found guilty of RICO offenses, then the stock holders can be fined three times the sum of the dividends they received during the time of infractions.

Any who argue on their behalf willing, knowingly, and voluntarily can be charge with conspiracy to further the RICO crimes.

Good.

This is my only post, because I know, despite the wailing and crying, because it will stand the test. Let the wailing begin.

let the facts come out. I'm all for it, sign me up I want to see Mann's data set and all the emails, the left won't release. See, you'd be opening your own pandora's box. But hey, be naive and open it.I don't think one skeptic on here would be against it at all.

 

[jc456]

Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented. Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good. But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.

Most scientists are not rich. They don't do their type of work for the money, but for the quest for knowledge. So, they don't have the legal means to protect themselves from powerful corporate interests - unless their government does it for them. Similarly, the rest of us citizens expect the same from our government.

Climate scientists have known for decades that humans are hurting our Earth's environment with emissions from our machines and processes. But their reports have been erroneously and repeatedly dismissed as invalid by corporate powers that depend on continued use of their products for their profit levels, which have been enormous. This action to dismiss real science is illegal, as is any mass misinformation passed to influence the public. Having been frustrated for too long, a group of scientists has written a letter to the White House to prosecute the corporate offenders under the RICO Act. The prosecutor for the tobacco case agrees. Exxon’s Climate Cover-Up Should Be Investigated By DOJ, Tobacco Prosecutor Says

Thom Hartmann explains the criminal evidence. Maybe at last this will restore the respect science deserves. What do you think?

---
Yep, those who criticize leading scientists and their international consensus are either:
1) ignorant of scientific methods and/or
2) motivated by greed.

No wonder there are few Republican scientists in the USA.
.

Typical libturd appeal to authority. When will you ever learn?

---
I'm a liberal because i support science?
LOL!
In scientific research, we question "authority" all the time, but you would not know that, since you must be science-illiterate.
.

you support science? hmmmmmm, then post some up here, let's see the data sets that prove the science you believe in. Oh wait you can't, they won't release it. So how is it you know, if you have no science to back your position that you back science? A true paradox.

 

[jc456]

Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented. Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good. But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.

Most scientists are not rich. They don't do their type of work for the money, but for the quest for knowledge. So, they don't have the legal means to protect themselves from powerful corporate interests - unless their government does it for them. Similarly, the rest of us citizens expect the same from our government.

Climate scientists have known for decades that humans are hurting our Earth's environment with emissions from our machines and processes. But their reports have been erroneously and repeatedly dismissed as invalid by corporate powers that depend on continued use of their products for their profit levels, which have been enormous. This action to dismiss real science is illegal, as is any mass misinformation passed to influence the public. Having been frustrated for too long, a group of scientists has written a letter to the White House to prosecute the corporate offenders under the RICO Act. The prosecutor for the tobacco case agrees. Exxon’s Climate Cover-Up Should Be Investigated By DOJ, Tobacco Prosecutor Says

Thom Hartmann explains the criminal evidence. Maybe at last this will restore the respect science deserves. What do you think?

---
Yep, those who criticize leading scientists and their international consensus are either:
1) ignorant of scientific methods and/or
2) motivated by greed.

No wonder there are few Republican scientists in the USA.
.

Yes, those climatologists are indeed a greedy lot. They have received over 100 billion dollars in taxpayer dollars over the last decade and a half and they have nothing to show for it. The fact that you scientific illiterates don't understand is nothing new. You're just the latest bunch to be conned by the latest iteration of Piltdown Man.

---
Looks to me that you are illiterate in science too.
There are lots of peer-reviewed publications to show for gov funded research from many countries in the world.
However, you probably would not understand what they mean.
.

peer review, the good old boys club. funny you fall on that sword. Blog review with actual data is more important these days thanks to the internet, the Peers are exposed for the buddy system and ain't it funny?

 

[jc456]

Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented. Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good. But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.

Most scientists are not rich. They don't do their type of work for the money, but for the quest for knowledge. So, they don't have the legal means to protect themselves from powerful corporate interests - unless their government does it for them. Similarly, the rest of us citizens expect the same from our government.

Climate scientists have known for decades that humans are hurting our Earth's environment with emissions from our machines and processes. But their reports have been erroneously and repeatedly dismissed as invalid by corporate powers that depend on continued use of their products for their profit levels, which have been enormous. This action to dismiss real science is illegal, as is any mass misinformation passed to influence the public. Having been frustrated for too long, a group of scientists has written a letter to the White House to prosecute the corporate offenders under the RICO Act. The prosecutor for the tobacco case agrees. Exxon’s Climate Cover-Up Should Be Investigated By DOJ, Tobacco Prosecutor Says

Thom Hartmann explains the criminal evidence. Maybe at last this will restore the respect science deserves. What do you think?

---
Yep, those who criticize leading scientists and their international consensus are either:
1) ignorant of scientific methods and/or
2) motivated by greed.

No wonder there are few Republican scientists in the USA.
.

Typical libturd appeal to authority. When will you ever learn?

---
I'm a liberal because i support science?
LOL!
In scientific research, we question "authority" all the time, but you would not know that, since you must be science-illiterate.
.

Who is "we?"

You don't know what science is. You're a dumbass who believes he knows more than he actually does.

---
Are you a scientist?
If not, then you're the "dumbass".
If you are a scientist, then one would assume you have self-respect.
.

I think the gentleman asked you who 'we' was in your post. Are you a scientist? because if you are not, then you again would become the dumbass and an even dumberass since you brought it back up. Funny stuff though, just what rico is about.

 

[jc456]

Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented. Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good. But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.

Most scientists are not rich. They don't do their type of work for the money, but for the quest for knowledge. So, they don't have the legal means to protect themselves from powerful corporate interests - unless their government does it for them. Similarly, the rest of us citizens expect the same from our government.

Climate scientists have known for decades that humans are hurting our Earth's environment with emissions from our machines and processes. But their reports have been erroneously and repeatedly dismissed as invalid by corporate powers that depend on continued use of their products for their profit levels, which have been enormous. This action to dismiss real science is illegal, as is any mass misinformation passed to influence the public. Having been frustrated for too long, a group of scientists has written a letter to the White House to prosecute the corporate offenders under the RICO Act. The prosecutor for the tobacco case agrees. Exxon’s Climate Cover-Up Should Be Investigated By DOJ, Tobacco Prosecutor Says

Thom Hartmann explains the criminal evidence. Maybe at last this will restore the respect science deserves. What do you think?

Look at what an oil company did to our gulf and Republicans apologized to the oil company and kept away any meaningful investigation. When you have people who do that against the best interests of the country in charge, there's not a lot we can do. We can only hope that shrinking party shrinks faster than their increasing damage.

what does this have to do with RICO? I'm sorry, but do you ever have anything to say that is worthy of print?

 

[jc456]

Are you blindly religious too?
Like the word "truth", you throw around the term "proof" and think it sticks on a wall?

What "proof" was i alluding to?
What "proof" did Lewis have to support his belief?
.

Lol, do you have a point?

The scientific establishments of Russia, China and India are also skeptical of Climate Change bullshit.

The climate has ALWAYS changed, and there is no proof that it is driven mostly by carbon dioxide when there are many more green houses gases that are a far greater share of the atmosphere aside from CO2, doofus.

The point was that this scientist was blowing the whistle on all the Obamy federal funding going into 'research' in favor of Climate Change nonsense.

That is pretty much proven, and when the next Republican is elected he wont likely be a believer in your horse shit.

---
So, you avoided answering both my simple Q's because ... you can't?
Even a drunkard can see through your diversion! LOL.
Lewis must have been paid off by the rich denier orgs. Why else did he contradict his own climate change affirmation from his 1997 book .. without supplying data/research?

What did you not understand about this statement representing MANY (vs 1) physicists?

"On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear.”
.

"On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear.”

so bubba, post up the experiment that proves any of that bolded text actually does anything to weather or climate. I'm waiting. Been waiting for two years now. Still crickets. still today.

BTW, if you have no experiment, then you have no science. And then you've contradicted yourself.