Comments on: Climate Scientists Defense Fund – Please Help

By: Cool Story Bro (Your Mom)

Cool Story Bro (Your Mom) — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:07:11 +0000

What’s the opposite of skeptic?

A. Guillible.

By: Mal Adapted

Mal Adapted — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:47:10 +0000

$100 to the defense fund from me. And I would like the see the emails, phone records, and office visit logs of all elected officials that have accepted money from the likes of Exxon, the Koch brothers, etc. Are you with me, Gerald?

By: Daniel J. Andrews

Daniel J. Andrews — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:14:30 +0000

Considering the denialists can’t even quote a publicly accessible interview without misrepresenting it (yes, Neil, that’s you), and considering how they’ve managed to mangle the Nature trick, even attributing the email to the wrong people–now how stupid do you have to be to misattribute an email and then not correct it even when shown the original email–then they certainly will misquote and misuse anything they get from the scientists. If there’s absolutely no evidence of wrong-doing in the emails then someone will just make something up just like last time.

It wastes time, money and it is harassment. Reminds me of McCarthy.

By: Scott A Mandia

Scott A Mandia — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:46:38 +0000

These requests are politically-motivated witch hunts against 30+ scientists. Dr. Mann is standing up for academic freedom, the preservation of the scientific method, and first amendment rights. Let us not allow a few lines of emails taken out of context to cause another false controversy such as happened when the bad guys stole emails in November of 2009.

ATI and Chris Horner are not interested in advancing the science and I do not think for a moment that they will honor the legal gag order if they view the “exempt” emails. The sanctions for breaking that law will be pennies in the bucket for the massive fake smoke they will create in order for fossil-fuel funders to continue to play fast and loose with the scientific truth in order to make their buck.

The hockey stick-shape temperature plot that shows modern climate considerably warmer than past climate has been duplicated by many international scientists using different types of data (tree rings, ice cores, corals, ocean and lake sediments) and different methodologies. To question Mann’s research is to question dozens of studies by other well-respected scientists.

Let us not kid ourselves what this is all about. Please.

By: Raging Bee

Raging Bee — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:15:05 +0000

If they had real evidence of crime…

…they’d be getting SUBPOENAS, and not bothering with FOIA requests. They’re only going the FOIA route because they don’t even have probable cause, let alone proof of anything.

By: Chris Winter

Chris Winter — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 01:54:56 +0000

Dr. Mann’s argument, distilled, is that the court must bend the rules to allow him to block implementation of a transparency law, so as to shield his sensibilities from offense once the taxpayer â?? on whose dime he subsists â?? sees the methods he employed to advance the global warming theory and related policies.

You’re sure the e-mails will contain evidence of this? I’d love to see you try to defend that.

As I see it this is nothing but a fishing expedition on ATI’s part. If they had real evidence of crime, they would state it and go after the specific documents related to that. But that’s not what they’re doing.

And in targeting Dr. Mann, ATI demonstrates once again the fallacy of clinging to the idea that his work is the cornerstone of the consensus on climate change.

By: daedalus2u

daedalus2u — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 00:32:40 +0000

How about we turn the tables on the fossil fuel companies. The stock prices of those companies are based on the value of their fossil fuel reserves. The value of those reserves are based on how much of them can be sold at what price.

There are more fossil fuel reserves than can be sold.

http://www.carbontracker.org/carbonbubble

It isn’t a question of running out, it is a question of the CO2 emissions making the world uninhabitable.

How about the accountants and the CEO’s be questioned about how they attach a value to their fossil fuel reserves? Under Sarbanes-Oxley they can be personally charged with fraud if they

â??… execute, a scheme or artifice â?¦ to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any money or property in connection with the purchase or sale of any security of an issuer with a class of securities registered under section 12…â?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act

Misrepresenting that their reserves can be sold and burned at market prices seems to fit the bill to me.

Sorbanes-Oxley does have whistle-blower protection for employees, so there might be some employees who would be willing to spill the beans.

Sorbanes-Oxley limits the influence that management of a company can have on its auditors.

â??It shall be unlawful … for any officer or director of an issuer, or any other person acting under the direction thereof, to take any action to fraudulently influence, coerce, manipulate, or mislead any independent public or certified accountant engaged in the performance of an audit of the financial statements of that issuer for the purpose of rendering such financial statements materially misleading.â?

Tobacco companies knew that smoking tobacco caused disease. The fossil fuel companies know that burning fossil fuels is increasing CO2 and is causing climate change. Sorbanes-Oxley now makes not disclosing those kinds of skeletons in the corporate closet a crime, if they affect the stock price of the company.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 23:28:09 +0000

Gerard Harbison, I was referring to the policy of people who work for universities using their emails for personal purposes. Not only is that allowed at most universities, but encouraged in some cases, for a number of different reasons. I have had university emails since emails started and not once, ever, was there no-personal-email policy.

When you say:

Mann should not be using a university email system for his private emails.

you are probably wrong.

I see absolutely no reason why email on a public university server, funded by public money, and presumably having the primary purpose of university business, should not be subject to FOIA.

It probably is. It is also subject to civil law and ferpa. Again, you don’t get to make up post hoc what appeals to you to make your case.

Which reminds me; I must set my junk folder not to automatically delete.

A guy like you probably lives in lot of people’s junk mail folder, I would imagine. What is it like being widely disliked?

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 22:14:19 +0000

Oh, so it’s nothing like as simple as you made it out to be in suggesting that the scientists are whining? Huh. Go figure.

By: Raging Bee

Raging Bee — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:00:25 +0000

Yo, Gerard, what about those rumors that you raped and murdered a 10-year-old girl in 1990? You’ve never been all that cooperative in clearing that up, have you? Your attempts to evade are telling.