Last week a UK jury decided that the threat of global warming justifies breaking the law; or at least they condoned the painting of the word ‘Gordon’ on someone else’s chimney stack.
The jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage accepting defence arguments that they had a “lawful excuse” when they vandalised the chimney stack because the carbon dioxide emissions from the Kingsnorth power plant are harmful to the environment of the Hoo Peninsula.
Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 damage is condoned if it will prevent even greater damage.
This is surely an unusual interpretation of a law meant to allow, for example, someone to break down the door to a burning building?
It does suggest the pubic are very concerned about global warming and see a link between a protest against a power station and saving the environmental. Furthermore it creates precedence, at least in the UK, the idea that it is OK to destroy property to save the environment from climate change.
Writing in The UK Independent Geoffrey Lean claimed that:
“The jury in effect sat through a six-and-a-half-day seminar on global warming, in a forum where lying was illegal, and every statement could be challenged by top barristers. And, at the end, they decided that the danger was so immediate and serious that it justified taking extreme – and normally illegal – action against it.”
NASA’s James Hansen gave evidence in defence of the Greenpeace activists at the trial and according to Kent News when asked what his message to Prime Minister Gordon Brown would be, Dr Hansen replied:
“I would ask him to make a clear public statement for a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO2.”
It is unlikely the case will have significant implications for activism in Australia.
In New South Wales (and all other States of Australia), juries are only available in criminal case for serious offences (indictable offences) such as sexual assault, murder, armed robbery and other serious crimes against a person. Since graffiti is a summary offence that would be heard by a magistrate, it is unlikely that a magistrate would find climate change a justification for the offence.
Secondly, the legal argument that graffiti to prevent climate change is damage to prevent greater damage in the future is not a very good legal argument. The main problem is that it is just as likely that the graffiti will make no difference what so ever to climate change that it fails to prevent the future damage.
Thirdly, in NSW criminal law, there is not similar provision that damage to property is permissible to prevent greater harm. If a similar case was brought in NSW, the magistrate would be likely to rule that the evidence on whether climate change is damage, which would be key to the case, would be ruled to be irrelevant and dismissed.
The damage to the Kingsnorth power station was estimated at £35,000.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Unless the judge decides otherwise, on the basis of rare and exceptional circumstances, the evidence given in criminal proceedings is public property and generally they can be watched by the public, a transcript can be purchased, as can a copy of the judgement.
This will expand Hansen’s ego even further. It is a ghastly result and demonstrates 2 things;
1 The general public has been misinformed, through msm collusion with AGW fundamentalists, who have suceeded in presenting a rabid, one-sided description of AGW ‘science’.
2 The AGW fundamentalists have once again shown, against all logic and sense, that they have misappropriated the high moral ground.
This decision shows the cognitive dissonance which infects middle class supporters of AGW extremism ( a plenonasm), and is another stake through the heart of good governance and law and order, which have been eroded for years under the yoke of left sponsored facile moral relativity and concepts of capitalistic hegonomy. As an afterhtought, the prosecutors appear not to have called expert witnesses to counter the apocalyptic junk of Hansen; if that is the case, and logic says it is because Hansen is a coward who will not debate his ‘peers’ and would not have turned up if there was a likehood he would be taken to task, than those prosecutors deserve to be sacked.
The full written evidence of Mr. Hansen is available at
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/climate/hansen.pdf
It includes these statements presented as facts :
The climate system is dangerously close to tipping points that could have disastrous consequences for young people, life and property, and general well-being on the planet that will be inherited from today’s elders
The mechanisms causing planetary energy imbalance and global temperature change are the ice-albedo and GHG feedbacks. Both mechanisms are now under control of humans:
The long lifetime of human-made CO2 perturbations assures that no human generation that we can imagine will need to be concerned about global cooling.
Another ice age will not occur, unless humans go extinct.
If all fossil fuels were burned, more than doubling the amount of CO2 in the air, the eventual global warming would be expected to exceed 3°C, possibly leading to an ice-free planet, as in the early Cenozoic (Fig. 1), with sea level about 75 meters higher.
Cohenite: ” than those prosecutors deserve to be sacked.”
Perhaps they just agreed with Hansen. Whether they did or not they still have not done their job properly.
Jennifer posted about it previously, but Two Tokyo Thieves associated with Greenpeace Japan indulged in trespass as well as the heist of a box of whale meat belonging to a whaling vessel crew member as part of their holy crusade against Japan’s whaling activities.
It’s a surprise to me that the courts in Britain could pass down such a ruling, but in any case it’s a bit scary that people can now commit crimes on such a basis. Hopefully Japan and any other place I choose to live doesn’t go down this sorry path.
Other witness statements here: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/kingsnorth-trial-witness-statements-full-20080912
We are really in a Dark Age if this trend continues.
The mind boggles as to what the Kent jury made of Hansen’s evidence. One suspects they ruled in favour of the Greenpeace defendants just to save themselves from having to listen to any more of his twaddle! Here is a sample: “Half of a fossil fuel CO2 pulse disappears within 20-30 years, mostly into the ocean”. Hansen himself is on record as saying that the annual airborne fraction of annual emissions is 57% and falling, while the IPCC correctly notes that it is only 44% and stable. That means at least half disappears within a year of the emissions, not 20 years. But when you are a great scientist precision is no longer expected of you. The great scientist also states that 450 ppm is the maximum allowable atmospheric concentration of CO2, as anything above that would be the tipping point leading to melting of all ice sheets and sealevel rise of 100 metres. But the great scientist has forgotten all about the CO2 equivalent radiative forcing of the non-CO2 gases, methane CH4, nitrous oxide N2O, the CFCs and a few other trace gases. Using the IPCC WG1 data (p.141), the present level of CO2e is 606 ppm, way beyond Hansen’s tipping point of 450 ppm, so clearly the Great Barrier Reef must already be gone, along with the Antarctic icesheets, while Sydney’s Rose Bay etc are already 100 metres under water, only the ABC and Sydney Morning Herald have joined in a conspiracy to keep all this from the great Australian public for fear of causing mass panic. Sadly, as the tipping points is already long past, it is already too late to shut down the Hunter and La Trobe Valleys’ coal power stations. Not the least of the Garnaut reports’ derelictions of due diligence is their inability to calculate the CO2e level correctly, their figure of 440 is plain wrong (on the IPCC data which Garnaut replicates). This has serious implications: Garnaut is demanding savage reduction in emissions via his ruinous ETS, claiming that they will stop us reaching 500 ppm, when we are already at 606. Not the least of Garnaut’s derelictions, again wholly unacceptable under ASX rules for IPOs, is his reliance on his own unpublished non-peer reviewed CASPI papers for his garbage on CO2e. The Garnaut reports are in the nature of a prospectus advocating purchase of its policy prescriptions by the goons in the DCC and the ALP cabinet. They are goons because they have not required proper disclosure and peer review. Roll on the Goon Show, as Australians deserve the government they have and all the misery it will inflict.
If the Green Peace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof that global warming is caused by human activity, why were these fools committing this vandalism?
Simple solution that is appropriately Green Friendly (TM) for the times: Guilty as charged. Slap a heavy suspended sentence on the vandals to be revisited in say five years time. If warming and sea level predictions have not been met, then its hard time down at Wormwood Scrubs for the delinquents. Oh, and Hansen could be charged with perjury.
Hansen is as mad as a hatter.
Its just delplorable isn’t it? How did things ever get this far? I mean people can have disagreements but someone always HAS-to start using violence against property or persons don’t they. These jerks on the left just have to get involved with this stuff.
I must condemn this in the strongest way.
Now we must get our definitions right and not get trapped into using these hateful leftist mantras.
”
The Fight Against Global Warming Justifies Criminal Action: UK Jury Clears Greenpeace Activists”
No good. We are talking not about the fight against global warming!!! We are talking about the fight against cost-effective energy production perhaps. The fight against industrial civilisation perhaps. We are talking about the fight against humane civilisation perhaps…..
… But what we are really talking about is the fight against INDUSTRIAL-CO2-RELEASE.
If climate rationalists get sucked into using the language of the energy-deprivation-crusade then we will go backwards in the battle a little further every day. All they have is their wordgames and we must not play into them.
Does the fight AGAINST industrial-CO2-release justify violence???
No of course not.
But the fight in favour of industrial-CO2-release surely does.
But its got to be measured. No spinal or head injuries. No facial disfigurement. No permanent damage of any sort other than to their careers.
Its not ethical to go further than a tidy little bruise on the shins. Wear your disguised steal-caps at all times just in case the opportunity for such measured righteousness becomes available.
Bird is right, if they are taking the law in their own hands and getting away with it, the other side needs to play for keeps as well.
Just a bruise on the shins ra. And having them sacked early on.
Any further than that may spiral out of control as well as involving third parties.
Just keep the steelcaps on at all times.
Once the opportunity is lost you can never get it back.
No playing for keepsies because that might be interpreted as permanent physical damage.
Geoffrey,
I think you will find that basically Patrick Moore and GreenPeace have had a falling out. I think you will find that Patrick Moore does not like or approve of where GreenPeace has been taken. And I suspect the current GreenPeace moguls have little abiding respect for Patrick Moore.
I don’t agree with everything Patrick moore now stands for. But he is certainly an impressive individual, and very firmly a rationalist. In that sense, I agree with you – it is a real shame the activists don’t take notice of what Moore now says.
Ha.. those pesky models again , yet Barry Huckster and the deltoid dwarf wouldn’t leave home without them:
Financial Times:
By Gillian Tett
Published: July 3 2008 17:40 | Last updated: July 3 2008 17:40
A few years ago, Ron den Braber, an outspoken Dutch maths geek, was working in the risk department at the Royal Bank of Scotland when he became alarmed about the models being used to price collateralised debt obligations.
Most notably, he concluded that the so-called Gaussian Copula approach then in use at RBS (and many other banks) significantly underplayed risks attached to the most senior pieces of debt – creating a danger of future, large losses.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
More columns by Gillian Tett – May-08
So he duly tried to raise the alarm. But, as he tells the tale, he faced hostility. “I started saying things gently – in banks you don’t use the word ”error” but the problem is that in banks …people just don’t want to listen to bad news,” den Braber recalls.
Now, every corporate tale has many sides – and RBS, for its part, vehemently denies it ever ignores challenges or stifled debate. It says it could not find any record of strong warnings about the Gaussian Copula model, is aware of its shortcomings, and while it has recently suffered CDO losses, these relate to products acquired after den Braber’s time.
However, the story is worth noting, since echoes of this saga now seem to be emanating from numerous banks. In particular, many other bankers have also recently told me that they knew that structured finance models were mis-pricing risk at an early date – and yet in many cases the attempts to raise the alarm were crushed.
Or as one senior risk manager writes (anonymously since he remains employed): “[My] institution has now taken multi billion write downs – job losses result and significant share price erosion – and I wonder how this can have happened? Upfront we did express to senior management that we lacked the analytical skills…and highlighted deep concerns about the approach colleagues in the market risk area had taken … I feel responsible for not doing more, but I really did push my views, risking my immediate career.”
So can anything be done to redress this? (or prevent it playing out again now in the commodities world, say?).
Perhaps not.
Few bankers want to hear dissent about the models when they are enjoying a profit bonanza. Greed is what drives much of the modern financial world – combined with fear of getting sacked.
But, if nothing else, this saga shows the great blind spot that still haunts many banks. This decade, financiers have invented so many brilliantly clever mathematical tools to repackage risk that the industry has slipped, almost unthinkingly, into an assumption that “credit” is a collection of abstract equations, stripped from any human context.
Thus banks have become so dazzled with their powers that they have ignored how they interact with the rest of society – or how the tribal aspects of their own institutions can create dangerous traps.
Meanwhile, the cult of models has become so extreme that banks have believed them even when this collides with common sense. Yet, as any Latin scholar knows, the word “credit” hails from the phrase “he/she/it trusts”; it is, in other words, also a social construct.
And bankers forget this human dimension to their cost – no matter how impressive the abstract numbers might seem. Or as the same risk officer says: “The billions involved were so hard to contemplate that we almost certainly lost sight of the possible consequences [of our credit business] until it was too late.”
So, as the banks nurse their credit losses, they certainly do need to review why some of their clever math models failed. That geeky Gaussian Copula stuff, in other words, matters hugely.
But most important of all, they need to work out why the human processes around the models failed too – and not just in the eyes of den Braber, but also in the experience of numerous other junior employees, who are now hugging their war stories, but far too nervous to speak out.
■ In the coming weeks I will be on sabbatical writing a book (about CDOs, modern banking tribes and much else.) I will return to the column after the summer.
I wonder are climate models less complex?
“I wonder are climate models less complex?”
The analogy stands. It’s amazing how people do not learn from history. (Google John Gray for the full philosophical treatise on how successive generations fail to pass on wisdom.)
Hansen’s NASA unit may well be the next Lehman Brothers. Ten years ago, if you’d said Enron was a crock, a hundred impeccably credentialed Anderson consultants would have lined up to portray you as a crank. Any B & B shareholders out there sharing my pain?
“The mechanisms causing planetary energy imbalance and global temperature change are the ice-albedo and GHG feedbacks. Both mechanisms are now under control of humans:
The long lifetime of human-made CO2 perturbations assures that no human generation that we can imagine will need to be concerned about global cooling.
Another ice age will not occur, unless humans go extinct.”
You’re dreaming.
Whoever you quoted is dreaming.
You just don’t have any clue do you SJT.
“You’re dreaming”
If by ‘you’ you mean James Hansen, then you may be right. Those are direct quotes from his ‘testimony’.
Careful, SJT you may lose your power-rangers badge questioning the word of Prof Hansen.
Is that Jim Hansen the Greenpeace activist who happens to moonlight for NASA? Is that him?
According to Greenpeace, James Hansen’s verbal evidence included
“If we carry on with business as usual, we’ll cause the extinction of one million species. Proportionately, several hundred of these species extinctions could be associated directly with Kingsnorth power station.”
“The atmosphere currently contains around 385 parts per million (ppm) of CO2, rising by 2ppm per year. Most targets to stop climate change suggest a target of 450ppm, and a two degree rise in temperature as safe upper limits. To meet those targets will require our world to change dramatically.”
“But the safe level is no more than 350ppm – and may be less. And a rise of two degrees is “a recipe for global disaster and not salvation”. The last time the earth was more than two degrees warmer than it is now, there was a 25 metre sea level rise.”
“The simple but shocking truth is we have gone too far. We place our planetary system, inhabitants and future generations in grave peril… If we are to preserve the planet that civilisation has grown on, we have to go back.”
“Humans are now in charge of atmospheric CO2 and the global climate… It’s up to those of us alive today to take the bold steps needed.”
It appears none of these statements were challenged in court however similar statements can be found in justification for Emission trading schemes and carbon pollution papers, perhaps the “blogs” are the place for debate on these claims.
Among the evidence put forward in favor of the ‘lawful excuse’ argument, I have heard nothing regarding how painting a chimney, or a portion thereof, changes its CO2 output.
In previous prosecutions of activists involving the ‘lawful excuse’ defense (generally involving destruction of GM crops), at least one British court has held that the defense is only available when belief in imminent harm was rational under the circumstances.
Thus, it appears that painting chimneys is a rational response to a genuine threat.
In the UK, that is.
ra – the sun god of Egypt with the head of a bird.
Jen do you have a policy on sock puppets?
According to Wikipedia:
“A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet.
“In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that “sock-puppeting” is defined as “the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company.”
“The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym (sometimes termed an “alt” which is short for alternate, as in alternate identity) is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer.”
Do I have a policy? I encourage pen names to avoid concerns over defamation and because it is what the person says that is important/the logic of their argument, not who they are. The use of multiple names though, is discouraged because it is deceptive.
Geoffrey, what Steve Schapel says concerning Patrick Moore is right on the money.
Patrick Moore was only a Greenpeace co-founder, one of about a dozen. He left the organization after eight or so years, when he realized that environmentalism was, in his words, “repackaged Marxism.”
Back in 2001, in a Canadian newspaper called the National Post, Patrick Moore had the following to say about Greenpeace:
“I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates. Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don’t care about the truth.”
He’s also quoted in Oregon Wheat magazine as describing Greenpeace thus: “Anti-human, anti-technology, anti-science, anti-trade, anti-free-enterprise.”
Compare that conversely to the words of another Greenpeace co-founder by the name of Paul Watson, who also has deep ties with Sierra Club and Earth First! Watson had this to say of his friend and fellow Greenpeace co-founder Dave McTaggart:
“The secret to David McTaggart’s success is the secret to Greenpeace’s success: It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true. You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth, and a myth-generating machine.”
I’ve codified a more extensive (but still only partial) listing of like quotations at the following blog — if, that is, the redoubtable Doctor Marohasy will permit me to include this link:
http://blog.the-thinking-man.com/environmentalism-cult-of-death
Sorry, Cohenite, but lawyers are simply not to be trusted. I’ve reached an age and experience to be able to justify that statement.
Some many moons ago, I was called as an “expert witness” in an horrific industrial disaster wherein some 13 men had lost their lives.
Twelve QC’s were lined up to cross examine me sequentially. Seemed quite daunting, but it took only a few minutes into the 1st cross to realise that what saved people like me from people like them was their impenetrable arrogance – they believed to their toenails that they could understand anything within a few hours or days of research … so one could lead them where one wanted to go as they had no deeper understanding of the dynamics of the disaster, nor did they wish to.
Painting a name on a chimney stack – destroying a critical transport belt, derailing a train ? Where may it stop ? Allowing lawyers to decide is decidely scary, but if the jury selection in this case was representative of the wider population, then I’m afraid that I believe that the populace deserves this outcome.
ianl I am actually quite impressed at how well cohenite has done getting a handle on the science. Not all lawyers are alike.
Thanks Jan; it helps with people like you to point me in the right direction.
ianl; I get this a lot; as a say to people, you have to treat lawyers just like any other tradesman; you have to control them and be on constant guard that while they might be cleaning up one mess they’re likely to be creating another bigger mess. But all bets are off with criminal matters and enquiries; as the Maidstone case shows, political considerations have a way of manifesting like warts; on the other hand green protestors have got the odd kick up the bum in NSW, and Gore had judgement against him; which is different from a jury I know, but Hansen should have been taken to task, and there should have been alternative experts brought in (I’m presuming they weren’t. )
I had a friend who left Greenpeace because in her view it had become a career stepping stone for those wanting ‘environment’ jobs with multinationals.
Scientists devote their professional lives to establishing the truth – barristers devote theirs to distorting it.
Don’t worry, CO2 will level off within the next few years. That should then be very entertaining and you heard it here 1st.
And BTW, it will then turn downward within about 5 years and that will be even more fun!
Pete,
I assume you are talking about atmospheric CO2 concentrations? I have heard (and I believe it to be correct) that the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2 levels decreases, so that at current levels it is negligible. But I haven’t seen much about the actual levels themselves deceasing. I would be very interested if you could point us to some further information about your prediction.
Cohenite,
I agree that this is the most remarkable aspect of this case. I’m sure there would be a number of prominent rationalist climate scientists who would have jumped at the chance to provide counter expert witness testimony.
In fact, that would have been a fantastic opportunity, as well as great fun, to see Hansen slogging it out in a British courtroom with someone like Carter or Gray.
Steve Schapel, you asked sbout the greenhouse effect of CO2 and whether it is increasing, likewise for CO2 itself. Table 2.1 in WG1 of the IPCC AR4 gives the data for 1998 through 2005. The radiative forcing (greenhouse effect) of CO2 was 1.66 in 2005, so averaged 0.00438 W/sq.metre over the 379 ppm of CO2 in 2005; however while the CO2 had gone up by 13 ppm since 1998, the IPCC says the radiative forcing in 2005 of 1.66 had increased by 13%, i.,e. from the 1.47 W/sqm. it had been in 1998, when it was 0.004014 per ppm. That is to say, the average forcing per ppm of the atmospheric CO2 did increase albeit very slightly between 1998 and 2005. Atmospheric CO2 over the same period grew at rates varying from 0.75% in the El Nino year of 1998 to 0.26% in the following La Nina year of 1999, and so on,
2000: 0.47%; 2001: 0.431%; 2002: 0.7% 2003: 0.6% 2004: 0.41% 2005: 0.68% (and 2006: 0.47% 2007: 0.54%). By the way the NOAA has been revising its recent readings at Mauna Loa, these are the latest (September to end August), and are quite different from the sets as recently as August 2007, with revisions not just for the latest month, and more often up than down. Hope this helps!
“Table 2.1 in WG1 of the IPCC AR4 gives the data for 1998 through 2005. The radiative forcing (greenhouse effect) of CO2 was 1.66 in 2005, so averaged 0.00438 W/sq.metre over the 379 ppm of CO2 in 2005; however while the CO2 had gone up by 13 ppm since 1998, the IPCC says the radiative forcing in 2005 of 1.66 had increased by 13%, i.,e. from the 1.47 W/sqm. it had been in 1998, when it was 0.004014 per ppm. That is to say, the average forcing per ppm of the atmospheric CO2 did increase albeit very slightly between 1998 and 2005”
But you don’t want to be pretending that these guys are talking about anything real and according to Fred Hoyle here.
This so-called FORCING… these figures…. they are all highly processed and airbrushed hypotheticals.
You don’t want to be misleading people by thinking that they can be taken on face value.
What are all the simplifying assumptions involved here?
I am not ra. Ra is not me. I think I know who he is. You ought to be able to figure it out too. If you cannot go ask the Deltoid Oracle. He seems to be able to figure out who is who.
No, I’m not who you think I am, Bird and although the “Deltoid Dwarf” made an attempt to ” out” me, he’s wrong and so are you it seems.
Barry Manilow Brook seems to have believed him which is quite funny because the Deltoid Dwarf has never been right on any single thing in his “short” life.
Great name “Deloid dwarf” by the way. I must commend you on a fine choice.
It’s amusing that people think I’m you while you and the Deltoid Dwarf think I’m someone else.
Jan
I have to second that, Cohenite has, as old Mr Grace would have put it, you have done very well!
Does it hurt being a sock puppet or do you like it?
Thanks Louis, but Dr Hansen has his nose out of joint; let me cheer him up; the issue of the 10 worst pro-AGW papers/articles is giving me pause because how do you call someone a liar without calling them a liar? The old standby of defining a situation where they either knew what they were doing, in which case they are a liar, or they didn’t know, in which case they are an idiot, is not completely adequate when you are dealing with complex circumstances which have multiple interpretative possibilities. Perhaps I should take our host’s advice and keep it simple. I have made a list with a few spares, but suggestions are in order since some pressing work is hanging over me and time will soon be limited.
“ra – the sun god of Egypt with the head of a bird”
Well, I’ve been educated for once on here.
A few days back I was hunting the the bird connection via comments on other blogs but could not put a finger on it it at the time.
Back chat between ID’s with a common source is simply juvenile and time wasting. My grand kids do better hey
Jan: Your post in support of someone’s grasp or otherwise on science got me wondering but I was most disappointed to see the use of words like “liar” and “idiot” being debated outside these juvenile circles I’m becoming so familiar with again. We adults hopefully discourage all this idle chat, both opinion and speculation about other’s motives and incomplete work based on the mood of a child.
We can do much more with our creative talents than that.
All scientists have pure hearts and noble motives, eh gavin?
Don’t worry about Hansen – how about Moncky wonk
http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
125 errors in “that” paper !!
AND
Khilyuk and Chilingar get shot up
http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/checking-links.html
Does it hurt being a sock puppet or do you like it?
You’re a dickhead, Lukey.
Next prediction: April 2009 – Mass media finally gets the message and starts clamoring all over themselves about “THE COOLING”. They will go way over board and predict an ice age in a few years. That won’t happen, and so the Warmists will get their chance again, but the amplitude of their influence will have decayed from the current influence. As it turns out the plot of Warmist vs Coolist influence will turn out to be an excellent proxy for temperature over the next 50 years. I cannot predict any further than that but I will hand it off to my grand kids and they will carry on. I heard it from Ra.
“Thanks Louis, but Dr Hansen has his nose out of joint; let me cheer him up; the issue of the 10 worst pro-AGW papers/articles is giving me pause because how do you call someone a liar without calling them a liar?”
HOW?
How Cohenite?
I would have thought the question was WHY?
Why would you call someone a liar WITHOUT calling them a liar?
Sounds like an encouragement to unscience if you ask me.