The Email Of Settled Science

Climate Cult 172 Comments

Marlo –
You are so full of crap.
You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.
Mike
Michael T. Eckhart
President
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)

H/T reader “Ross” who explains;

Marlo Lewis is a lawyer who works at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington. He published a well-reasoned article critiquing a cap-and-trade proposal before Congress, based on recent testimony he gave before a Senate committee.

172 Replies to “The Email Of Settled Science”

  1. Eckhart accidently hit the send button before he vowed to drown Marlo in a bucket of his own blood.

  2. Bought by Corporate America? According to the ACORE board of directors web site, Mr. Eckhart is the President of Solar International Management Incorporated. What a hypocrite.

  4. It’s not extraordinary Kate. It is typical.
    I bought a copy of the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming today. From the look on the cashier’s face you would think I was buying a how to guide for do it yourself torture.

  5. The Environmentalislamists will not be blasphemed by Ecoinfidels! Behead Marlo Lewis and all those who deny the revelation of the Prophet Gorehammed (carbon-credit cash be upon him)!

  6. One hopes lawyer Marlo is a calm and not too reactionary fellow.
    There is no doubt about how a more excitable Toronto [K] lawyer would respond.
    Harvard community member? Those guys used to be slightly elegant with words.
    Mikey must be a *football* graduate. = TG

  14. Behead all those who don’t cringe, cower and truckle before Lancer’s unimpeachably impartial BBC link!

  15. I don’t think that Wranglers Rock Star (he farts) would approve of checking out Lancer’s link.

  16. Peel Region cash grab in action. Here is another ‘settled science’ email, that references some very interesting links. Watch out for ‘Environment Canada’…
    Hi Aaron,
    Thanks for your question about climate change and increased water rates in Peel.
    I’d like to address your original questions about water rates and the existence of climate change.
    First, I’d like to assure you that climate change is indeed real, and global temperature is on the rise, as is our local temperature here in the GTA.
    The international consensus is that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are the culprit behind the increasingly warm temperatures. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has produced a series of reports explaining the evidence of human induced climate change (the science behind it), detailing what the global vulnerabilities are, and suggesting adaptation and mitigation measures to help cope and move forward.
    Check out these links to see the IPCC reports – the first report explains the science linking human activities to increased global temperatures:
    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf
    http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf
    http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
    Check this site out for information on what the IPCC is, and why it is an authority on climate change:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
    What do I mean by the burning of fossil fuels? Nearly every activity we do as individuals involves the use of energy, from heating, cooling and lighting our homes, to cleaning, extracting and delivering our water, to powering our vehicles. All these activities require energy and that energy primarily comes from the burning of fossil fuels, ie. coal, natural gas, oil.
    How does the burning of fossil fuels increase temperatures? When fossil fuels are burned, in addition to producing energy, they also produce greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide (CO2), which traps the heat energy leaving the Earth’s surface. Naturally, these greenhouse gases do exist in the atmosphere, and thankfully, as they keep our planet warm enough for life. But, as we continue to produce excessive amount of CO2, we increase the trapping effect, and therefore increase the temperature on the Earth’s surface – the operation of a greenhouse is a good analogy to consider, the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere serve as the glass of a greenhouse.
    Check out Environment Canada’s site for a good description of how climate change works:
    http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/education/scienceofclimatechange/IPCC/earth_thermostat_e.html
    So, how can we help reduce the effects of climate change? The quick answer is to reduce the need to burn more fossil fuels. Conserve.
    The longer answer involves recognizing that a balanced approach of mitigation (trying to slow the process down and eventually reverse it) and adaptation (understand and adapt to the change) are needed.
    This is where increased water rates come in.
    The funding approach related to water rates is a process to provide the revenue stream required to study, and define programs, methods and ideas to modify our lifestyles to meet the mitigation and adaptation requirements.
    From a practical perspective, if rates are increased, use usually goes down, which translates into less need to extract, clean and deliver the water in the first place, which reduces the need to burn fossil fuels, and therefore reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
    Please give me a call if you have any further questions about climate change.
    Thanks,
    Jeff

  18. I have been reading the book THE POLITCLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING AND ENVIROMENTALISM it realy has some realy great information and proves AL GORE is a habitial liar and hypotcrit and what the real motivation of the eco-wackos

  19. There is only one way to deal with the Global warming Kool-Aid gang – AGREE with them.
    Next time they argue that global warming is caused by man, reply – your absolutely correct we need a solution for generating energy that is almost carbon free. WE NEED TO BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.
    And watch their head explode. Its very funny and very effective.

  20. Lancer (10:52 P.M.)
    Read your link. Also looked at teh right hand margin… NOOOO bias at BBC News 24.
    A list of their articles (I especially liked that “Earth – melting in the heat?” title!)
    IPCC ASSESSMENT
    Climate change ‘can be tackled’
    Climate curbs: Who will buy?
    Billions face climate change risk
    Mapping climate change
    Stark picture of warming world
    Through the climate window
    GLOBAL POLITICS
    Politicians sign new climate pact
    China building more power plants
    EU/UK POLITICS
    UK emissions on the rise
    EU agrees on carbon dioxide cuts
    FEATURES
    Climate action ‘needs devolution’
    Power station harnesses Sun
    Scrutinising climate economics
    BACKGROUND
    Q&A: Climate change
    Climate change: In graphics
    Models ‘key to climate forecasts’
    Earth – melting in the heat?
    INTERACTIVE
    Can people make a difference?
    FROM ACROSS THE BBC
    Climate change portal
    (End of the list… phew!)
    Guess they ran out of space for the articles which take the opposite side of the issue.
    Say, can you link any other biased sources to support your side?

  21. What I don’t get is when did the entire world gang up to prove Marlo wrong?
    The “scientist”, Michael Eckhart, should hang his head in shame he didn’t learn more about the scientific method than I understood in 8th grade.

  22. Getting back to the not so veiled threat. This is all of a piece, characteristic of left wing zealotry.
    Surely some of you saw yesterday’s O’Reilley and Glen Beck programs? Each of them had interviews with RFKennedy Jr. who had referred to these gentlemen as ‘liars, flat-earthers, corporate toadies and traitors” -all during the ‘Live Earth’ program.
    Kennedy didn’t sugar coat his words when being interviewed, either – although he did dodge Beck’s question that as a ‘traitor’ whether he should be just be inprisoned or actually put to death.
    This particular Kennedy is even more deranged than the rest of the clan. And that’s going some. Beck had a new moniker for Kennedy though: he’s a ‘Lear Jet Liberal’.

  23. I think that would be a great answer to leftists prattling on about carbon…
    “Yes, that’s right! Even if there is no proof carbon dioxide causes global warming being a latent rather than a leading indicator, but then you already knew that, to be on the safe side, we must build more nuclear power plants.”
    “Will you join me in my sacred quest to [strike] seek the holy grail [/strike] I mean promote nuclear power?”

  25. No surprises here folks. Typical leftard tactic. If you do not agree with them, they will try to ruin your life. I went through the same bulls#$% because of my joining the Reform party. Because I was very high profile(doing security, newspaper interviews, etc.)I was targeted. It was so bad, at one point I even received a death threat phone call. Unbeknown to the idiot, I had an army buddy who worked for the phone company at the time. He left the threat on my answering machine(b4 voice mail). So I had my buddy trace the call, I went over to his house, and I beat the living crap out of him. Needless to say, no charges were ever laid, as I had all the counter evidence required to have him charged with threatening my family.
    PS – the leftard was a pencil necked, 140 lb piece of BA Queen’s garbage, who would not have the balls to confront any real man face to face.

  26. One other thing. As hard as they tried to ruin me, I have 3 beautiful daughters, I own a few million in real estate, my wife is surgical nurse, I own a lovely cottage, and I get to sit at home and make oodles of money playing poker on-line. And never once did I sell out my core principles. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, U F#$%ING LEFTARDS!

  27. Just a comment on the BBC ‘article’ linked by
    Lancer way above. Re-read the article with the
    thought in mind that the Sun produces “Sunshine” while the Cosmos produces “Cosmic Rays”. Then look up to the stars at night and feel your face warmed by “Cosmic Rays” [not]. Seems to me the BBC ‘article’ lies on its face – which is to be expected.
    Wes

  28. I think Eckhart has taken the wrong (angry) approach to the charlatan he is attacking.
    A dwindling few, backed scientifically-fig-leafed oil-industry lobbyists, will still deny global warming, as is their right. The rest of us (including media etc) should (and soon will) simply ignore them. Yes global warming is a theory but then so is gravity. We accept certain theorems as the best explanation of the world we live in (ex: gravity)and to keep ourselves alive we do not leap from tall buildings. Even Bush and Harper (at least in public) have abandoned the global warming deniers to the same fringes of society where we tolerate holocaust deniers, flat earth-ers and creationists.
    Cheers

  29. K.lad wrote: “I went over to his house, and I beat the living crap out of him”
    Buddy, – I like it. If it’s true, I like it a lot. If it’s not true, I STILL like it because it shows the right idea. (But my gut feeling is its true).
    You lucky b@stard. I only wish I had such a perfect opportunity.

  30. KingstonLad:
    140 lbs and you “beat the living crap out of him”.
    Was there any thing left when you were done?

  31. Sadly, it is very true. He still talks with a funny lisp(Kingston is a very small town)

  32. hey . . . time to go easy on the leftoid Warmongers for awhile. They are in mourning, with a hockey stick to lean on.
    Their great Live Earth event was a dismal failure at everything except spewing thousands of useless rock star Lear jet GhGs into the air. They poor little egos, so fragile from living the great lie for so long, just can’t take critique right now. W We should cut them some slack, pass the hat and see if we can raise enough for pysch help or whatever.

  33. @Ron (7.29am)
    “Yes global warming is a theory but then so is gravity.”
    Sigh…once more: Global warming is an observation, not a theory, deriving from an aggregation of sparse temperature data, both direct and inferred. Although the accuracy of measurement techniques have legitimately been questioned, there does appear to be a slight upward trend in energy retention. Rigorous causal analysis of this trend has been a casualty of the ecocorp propaganda.
    Gravity, commonly understood, is NOT a theory. It is also an observation (things fall down), codified into a law (things always fall down). The “theory of gravity” (space-time curvature) is an explanation of why things fall down.
    Unlike the theory of gravity, the theory of global warming remains untested and untried.
    “…we tolerate holocaust deniers, flat earth-ers and creationists.” Not true. Holocaust deniers are thrown into prison, fined and excoriated in press, and creationists are mocked, belittled and derided. If this is tolerance, I pale to think what you consider intolerance.
    (BTW, flat earthers are merely an invention of the rhetorically inept for use in strawman arguments)

  34. “Yes global warming is a theory ”
    Ah, Ron, Ron… Please don’t use big words you don’t understand. Global warming is NOT a theory, its questionable if is even a supportable HYPOTHESIS (pronounced “hi POTH eh sis”. Practise it, you’ll get it). What is the difference, you ask? Good question. A theory, in real science, is a reproducible series of observations and mechanisms that explain how a particular event occurs, with a very high degree of statistical and empirical reliability.
    Theories in science don’t get to be theories until they’ve gone through that tortuous, rigorous process of investigation, reproduction and subsequent analysis yielding consistently predictable results with a high degree of reliability. (Ron, you may have to read that line a few times…lotsa trick words in there.) Things like gravity, evolution, relativity, leftard utopianism (ok, that last one is still a hypothesis, but its elevation and sainthood is imminent).
    A hypothesis (that’s pronounced “hi POTH eh sis”. Practise it, you’ll get it) is an assemblage of anecdotal observations (which may or may not be scientifically derived) that suggest a particular mechanism may explain a particular event, but for which many other explanations and observations may and do exist.
    Global warming barely exists as a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Believing that it is so does not meet any test of scientific rigor. Even the observation that the earth is warming in any meaningful way outside of normal variation, is purely hypothetical. The data set for temperature increase is woefully inadequate to provide anything more than an indication that the earth may be warming.
    Anthropogenic global warming is nothing more than an anecdote at the present time. Since the hypothesis of global warming is still tentative at best, AGW has no more validity than a discussion about who’s going to win the latest round on American Idol, based on the first show.
    Belief, while a strong component of both politics and religion, has never been tenet of the scientific method (although certainly useful when trying to obtain funding for the scientific method).
    A clue and a warning that global warming is succeeding as an ideology and has left the science building, is the observation that the term is now, and has been for a bit, referred to a Global Warming – capital G, capital B, like Catholicism, Christianity, Islam etc. Real scientists don’t capitalize theories, except in titles of monographs, and even then only if it is the stylistic practice of the journal. I, and many, many scientists happily, pejoratively, remain deniers of the Theory of Global Warming – it doesn’t exist. As an objective scientist, I am willing to entertain the merits of a hypothesis of global warming and anthropogenic global warming, but there are far too many major unaccounted variables to support it as fact. Anecdotal observations do not a theory make.
    The popular ideology today, and the IPCC, is about nothing but the abuse and misuse of science.

  36. I like a good movie as well as any one. Threats such as this are becomeing more frequent to those that hold a different position from those that feel that they must protect everything. Maybe its time to tax an industry that is a huge user of energy.The entertainment industries (Lights, Camera, Action) Hay LOOK at me additude. With its Homes(with AC)and he who dies with the most toys wins mentality. An industry that uses a very large amount of POWER (fossil fuel) and so on. Just think of all the GHG that could be saved without this energy.I’m not a Ludite but if we did not have this Industry maybe “the world would be a better place”. Think of all the home grown entertainment each community would develop without the need for all that travel. Just thinking online!

  37. I have 3 beautiful daughters, I own a few million in real estate, my wife is surgical nurse
    i can imagine how proud they must be…
    now we know why you add lad to the end of your online personality.
    here’s a tip tough guy, turn off the computer and go for a walk. assault isn’t all that cool.

  38. “I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America.”
    BINGO!! There it is! Marx meets climate science…the whole dogma of climate control is a matter of political indoctrinates selling rehashed socialist utopianism….the hammer and sickle has a fresh coat of green paint.

  39. You know Jeff – in the real world – some people do confront cowards who threaten them the “safety” of a phone line. I wouldn’t think of that as “assault”, just “returning the call”.

  41. BTW: Bertrand Russel predicted we would be living under scientific dictatorships when he wrote about the end of democratic freedoms back in 1953.
    Social/cultural/legal/political policy dictated by a council of “scientist-philosopher kings”.
    Russel made the mistake of assuming the motivation of the science driven ruling class was pure….he never entertained the idea that intelligent people could also be corrupt and or megalomanic eugenicists.
    Watch the pathological egotists flock to this forming global dictatorship….Al Gore, Moe Strong call your office!

  42. ron- as others have pointed out, you’ve moved into dogma. There’s not a shred of science in your statements.
    No-one disputes the reality of Climate Change; that’s observable in the geophysical terrain since the planet was formed. But, AGW as a causal factor of such change, in this instance, warming, is not a theory; it’s just a speculative hypothesis that is rapidly being disproven.
    You can’t compare it with gravity – which has been empirically proven as a valid law. Ever been in an anti-gravity situation/
    You can’t compare it with the hypothesis of the flat earth, because this has been empirically denied by actual experience.
    You can’t compare it with the holocaust, because it has been empirically proven.
    The problem with AGW, ron, is that there’s no proof that links X (AGW) to warming. You see, all the other variables haven’t been exluded, including the exponential increase of cows around the world to feed the exponential increase of Industrial Man – oh, and solar effects.
    So, threats against us Deniers aren’t very effective because you have moved out of any House of Science and into a House of Religion. Such a movement of housing means the end of any theory. It’s become pure dogma.
    skip, tenebris – very nice posts.

  43. Jeff
    You say “assault isn’t all that cool”
    But you didn’t say how cool or not cool a “death threat” is.
    My vote is that a death threat (by a coward)
    is far worse than the assault.
    Mary Jane

  44. Skip, interesting comments. I would make one small point – when you ridicule people about the pronounciation of HYPOTHESIS, perhaps you should spell PRACTICE correctly, unless of course, it is your PRACTISE to make spelling mistakes.

  45. Practise/Practice is an interesting word, about which you will not get consistent agreement. For my part, I use “practice” as the noun, “practise” as the verb. Your mileage may vary. Both spellings are valid. The grammatical usage is contentious, depending on who you speak with, or which authority you wish to hang your hat. Since I tend to write colloquially and quickly in blogs, you may get either, or both. Yes, I derided Ron a bit too hard, and I should apologize. I am tired, however, about the casualness with which people treat the language of science. Like its methodology when properly practised ;), its language, too, is precise.

  46. [ So, threats against us Deniers aren’t very effective because you have moved out of any House of Science and into a House of Religion. Such a movement of housing means the end of any theory. It’s become pure dogma.] ET
    Exactly !! Some proof;
    Through the 70s and 80s I had a subscription to Scientific American. I cancelled it as it seemed to be ‘not that scientific’. (Even back then)
    I have not read a SA article since —- until today. A guest had the July 07 issue with him.
    ‘Absolute proof’ that it is now a religious (a poor one) publication and not ascientific one at all. A Tabloid at best.
    It “featured” an article on, you guessed it, ‘our-fault-global-warming’ and what the Earth would be like without man in the way. Both are bu**sh** and are very bad for ones mental health.
    Orgs, such as the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE, A GORE), are also going ‘religious’ because they have no choice. Scientificaly they are ‘dead-in-the-water’. Their careers, pension plans and life styles are in more danger than the Earth is.
    Check out our Canadian (Greenpeace International founder), Parick Moore’s fight with Scientific American at http://www.greenspirit.com

  47. For non-scientific folk, a simple and practical application of the difference between “hypothesis” and “theory”:
    People go to a casino on the hypothesis that they have a 50/50 chance or better that they can win. The casino operates successfully on the theory that that’s not quite true.

  48. So, when did a near complete lack of scientific knowledge and understanding become a pre-requisite for being a right winger? Seems to me that I have known plenty of bright scientists with conservative leaning over the years. Trouble is, to a person these people are shamed by the knee-jerk anti-science position taken by the vast majority of conservatives on the subject of climate change/global warming.
    Just because people that the right loathes are associated with the cause does not make the science suspect.
    You are free to have your heroes; intellectual giants such and Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity etc…, but methinks perhaps that the overwhelming majority of world’s top scientists as selected BY THEIR PEERS (i.e. members of the National Academies of Science for their repective nation) consider the debate long since over as to whether man has a key role in warming and to have moved on to what to do about it.
    Yes, I know there are a handful, like Tim Ball, who are skeptics, but he is part of a tiny minority. Now, minorities are not necessarily wrong, but his and their complete lack of willingness to take on and debate any of the substantive arguments put forth by the IPCC, National Academies etc… should make one highly suspect. That they are most inclined to voice their opinions unchallenged with such determined and scientifically well-briefed media personalities sich as Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly and even the sadly pathetic Lowell Green, rallying the blogging tory troops, is indicative of the weakness of their position.

  49. [ but his Tim Ball, Patrick Moore and others) and their complete lack of willingness to take on and debate any of the substantive arguments put forth by the IPCC, National Academies etc… should make one highly suspect.]
    Bull***T !!
    Gore has been challenged for more than a year and a half — still hiding.
    Tim Ball has long said he will debate Suzuki any day, anywhere.
    canadian_2 —- just name the place Buddy.

  50. canadian 2 – the trouble with your comments is that you’ve moved belief in AGW out of the realm of science.
    You’ve aligned rejection of AGW with acceptance or rejection of MSM pundits. But MSM pundits aren’t scientists, therefore, our rejection of AGW doesn’t rest on what these MSM pundits assert but on science.
    You then state that the ‘overwhelming majority of scientists’ accept AGW. This is untrue. Equally untrue is your claim that those who reject AGW won’t debate it.
    You’ve slipped into the House of Dogma.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation