-- by Horatio Algeranon
Leave it to Hank
To use Page Rank
To find the May
If you have no idea what Horatio is talking about (above or in general), you are undoubtedly not alone. But for the above, at least, reading this might help.
Nicotine is not addictive
Smoking doesn't lead to cancer
CFC's don't hurt the ozone
Consensus doesn't give the answer.
Acid rain is not corrosive
Doesn't kill the fish in lakes
Won't erode the limestone statues
The standard "proof" is all a fake.
CO2 does not cause warming
Doesn't make the sea-ice melt
Climate change is not alarming
Just the hand that Nature dealt.
You said the charges would be clear
From the investigation here
I think what I said is not what you claim
"Charges" and "focus" are not the same
I never said a single thing
About any charges we would bring.
So what exactly is the criminal offense?
I'm simply trying to make sense
Of why the referral to IG
Without a crime for all to see.
Why would there be a criminal referral
Concerning the contract issues (plural)??
Yes, precisely, why waste time
If in fact, there was no crime?
Well, you know, that's just your view
No, it's not. It's a question for you.
How can a referral be justified
Without a crime at least implied?
Well, potentially there are many offenses
With the possibility of contract pretenses.
Based on the fact patterns that you see
You decide what a potential crime could be.
And what was the basis for this case?
I already told you to your face
I would not give you those details
Well actually, from these travails
You said we'd know it from the questions
But all we have is vague suggestions.
That isn't -- wasn't -- my understanding
Of the answer you're demanding.
I took your question as simply this:
"What's this about?, what's the gist?"
I'm quite surprised, you deemed it so pressing
To interrupt science with second guessing
Without a charge, your "fire alarm"
Has really done a lot of harm
I hope you do not find it rude
But if that is all, we will conclude.
"Because there is no due process accorded in the IG process and Dr. Monnett is not allowed to see the evidence against him, let alone learn what the allegations precisely are, the IG investigation leaves an amorphous cloud of doubt that is difficult to dispel with facts." -- Dr. Charles Monnett (through counsel)
"I spend inordinate amounts of time challenging one or the other or both [dishonesty or stupidity]. On today’s menu: “China’s CO2 absolves us from responsibility,” “warming is natural,” “it was warmer 125,000 years ago,” and “you don’t want the younger generation to prosper so you are trying to drive us to ruin with your worthless renewable energy.” (Yes, really. And to clarify, the perpetrator of that last farrago is not, himself, a member of said younger generation.)"
In his above linked paper (and his companion video of same name, Cloud Variations and the Earth's Energy Budget), Dessler points out serious problems (among them, apparent violation of energy conservation) with the latter "reversed reality" claim, concluding that there is "No merit to the claim that clouds cause climate change.""The usual way to think about clouds in the climate system is that they are a feedback -- as the climate warms, clouds change in response and either amplify (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the initial change. In recent papers, Lindzen and Choi and Spencer and Braswell have argued that reality is reversed: clouds are the cause of, and not a feedback on changes in surface temperature." -- from Cloud Variations and the Earth's Energy Budget (A.E. Dessler)
"We simply cannot compete with a good-ole-boy, group think, circle-the-wagons peer review process which has been rewarded with billions of research dollars to support certain policy outcomes."
"It is obvious to many people what is going on behind the scenes. The next IPCC report (AR5) is now in preparation, and there is a bust-gut effort going on to make sure that either (1) no scientific papers get published which could get in the way of the IPCC’s politically-motivated goals, or (2) any critical papers that DO get published are discredited with any and all means available."
Well, well...Kevin Trenberth, is that you?
Hiding behind a screen name as you do?
Your points are lame, our results were GLOBAL
-- And your straw men are ignoble.
If you even bothered to read our paper,
You would not be passing vapor!
OMG! You're wasting time and space
With red herrings at my place!
CONGRATS, OBSCURITY, YOU'RE THE FIRST TO BE BANNED
FROM THIS SITE, (your hide is tanned)
THE CHARGE IS EITHER CHRONIC IGNORANCE,
OR MALICIOUS OBFUSCATION. Take your preference.
Well, well...is that you, Kevin Trenberth, hiding behind a screen name? First of all, our results were GLOBAL, so transport between regions are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Secondly, the lag associated with the heat carrying capacity was central to the point we were making!!! If you even bothered to read our paper, you would understand that! OMG! You are wasting time and space here with your straw men and red herrings! CONGRATULATIONS, OBSCURITY, YOU ARE THE FIRST TO BE BANNED FROM THIS SITE. THE CHARGE IS EITHER (1) CHRONIC IGNORANCE, OR (2) MALICIOUS OBFUSCATION. YOUR CHOICE.
*"it appears the IPCC gatekeepers have once again put pressure on a journal for daring to publish anything that might hurt the IPCC’s politically immovable position that climate change is almost entirely human-caused. I can see no other explanation for an editor resigning in such a situation." -- Roy Spencer (in response to the resignation of the editor in chief of "Remote Sensing" over the recent publication of a paper by Spencer and Braswell that the editor says should not have been published)