Let me out!!!
If you're taking a break from reading the new IPCC report - from Working Group II, here's a distraction for you.
Someone named Roger E. Sowell, Esq. has written an article at WUWT (archived here) to fit with Anthony's theme of the week. If you thought deniers couldn't get any nuttier, think again. (The "Esq." just means he owns a bit of land. It could be anything from a handkerchief sized plot in a community garden to an island in the Pacific. It also probably means he's about 110 years of age. I haven't seen anyone add Esq. to their name in decades.)
Update: I've been informed by riverat that some people who practice law in the USA append Esq. to their name, though one source says it's bad form to append it to your own name. It's a courtesy title. Sou.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.reckons he's a skeptic. He makes a disclosure in keeping with his pomposity.
Disclosure: my own view after long and careful study and based on engineering, science, and mathematics, is that of a confirmed skeptic with a full understanding that carbon dioxide, CO2, does indeed absorb and emit thermal radiant energy.What he means by that is that he accepts the science but doesn't. He doesn't "believe" that CO2 absorption and emission means that more CO2 warms the planet. In other words, he's a nutter.
There is more evidence underpinning my "nutter" hypothesis.
The basis for the jailing of skeptics is that many, perhaps millions, of human deaths will occur inevitably if drastic action is not taken immediately to prevent additional fossil fuel use.
First off, not many people are calling for the "jailing of skeptics", not even fake skeptics like Roger E. Sowell, Esq. Certainly not the people he refers to (Lawrence Torcello, for example.)
Secondly, while strong action needs to be taken, I know of no rational person who expects "immediate action to prevent additional fossil fuel use" - or at least not any additional use - not immediately. Or that if there isn't "immediate action" that many, perhaps millions, of human deaths will occur inevitably. Although I must admit that some time over the next 120 years at least 7,000 million people are going to die. What we do need is urgent and considered action to shift to clean energy. Roger E. Sowell Esq. missed out that part. This is the Critical Decade. If we don't cut CO2 and shift to clean energy then it's a sure bet that a lot of people will die before their time. So he's partly right, just missing out on the bit where we are replacing a dirty, damaging energy source with clean, more renewable energy sources.
I noticed that Roger E. Sowell Esq. doesn't think the people who read WUWT have an IQ above 70, because he feels the need to explain:
By fossil fuel use, what is meant is the burning of coal and natural gas in power plants and process plants, plus burning petroleum products as transportation and heating fuel.
I got as far as this when it became crystal clear that this wasn't any ordinary nutter. Roger E. Sowell Esq. was an "utter nutter".
In this particular case, the assertion is that those who promote research into climate change to show that no alarm is justified will cause the death of millions of people due to events such as ice caps melting, subsequent sealevel rise and coastal inundation, droughts, and heat waves.
How many things can you find wrong with that sentence? (Apart from it being too long for people with an IQ below 70 to follow.) How's this for starters:
Roger E. Sowell Esq. thinks that a scientist would do "research into climate change to show no alarm is justified". Well, maybe that's not so silly. That's what motivated Richard Muller and I guess what motivated Koch to fund his research. At least he was scientist enough to recognise and admit that his base premise was wrong. Not like Richard Lindzen, who just threw in the towel when he failed to find evidence for his Iris hypothesis, and took to the science denier speaking circuit.
Whereas many scientists probably wouldn't admit they were searching for evidence to support a pet hypothesis and would argue one needs an "open mind", you do need an idea to start with. That idea might be a firm or woolly hypothesis - or it might not. The open mind is more important when it comes to designing the research and collecting evidence. Roger E. Sowell Esq., were he capable of designing a research project, would probably discard any evidence that he didn't like. No reputable scientist would do that.
Your other reaction might have been - WTF! Why does Roger E. Sowell Esq. think that anyone who promotes research should "cause the death of millions of people". Okay, some research has that potential. Research into a killer virus and letting it escape the lab might conceivably do that. But climate science? Not if it's done by a decent scientist.
I didn't bother with the rest of his article. I could see that Roger E. Sowell Esq. wandered into voluntary and involuntary manslaughter and spent most of his article talking about the ins and outs of that. Since his base premises were so flawed as to be laughable what was the point of reading further?
Evolution of a denier meme
It's an interesting development of a denier meme, just the same. It reminds me of Recursive Fury, probably because that's been in the blog news lately.
In the first iteration a few days ago, Anthony led in with a misrepresentation of an article by a climate philosopher, wrongly claiming that he said deniers should be thrown in jail. But the article didn't mention jail and wasn't talking about deniers. Professor Torcello was talking about people who fund disinformation campaigns. Roger E. Sowell Esq. might fit that description. I know nothing about him.
Anthony repeated his false claim in at least two other articles. For good measure he tossed in a misrepresentation of a climate blogger and a former Archbishop. That helped set the scene.
Now he trots out Roger E. Sowell Esq. who twists an already flawed denier meme into something even more twisted. It began with an actual suggestion that funding disinformation campaigns should be a criminal offence. That was morphed by deniers into fake sceptics should be thrown in jail. Now it's people who do climate science research to try to prove that climate science is a hoax should be thrown into jail. It didn't take long to evolve. It was only about 16 days in all, from start to where it is now.
By the time Anthony is finished with them, at the rate he's going, all the deniers at WUWT will be quaking in their boots, thinking they are heading for the gallows. Or at the very least, that FEMA concentration camp guards, supported by a platoon from Agenda 21 military force of the one world government, are going to knock down their door in the middle of the night and frogmarch them to Guantanamo Bay.
From the potential jailbirds at WUWTNo-one ever accused WUWT readers of being sceptical.
Owen in GA is an alarmist who says:
March 31, 2014 at 7:33 am
Stonyground says: March 31, 2014 at 7:21 am
So, in practical terms, what is this drastic action that we should be taking but are being prevented from taking due to the very existence of sceptics?Ahh there’s the rub in it all. If you read the literature of some of the players, the answer is to MURDER 9/10 ths of the world population, destroy all industrial conveniences and live as our stone-age ancestors did. (Except for a small cadre of “elites” who would have all the modern convenience to better “guide” over the stone age remainder.)
I wish the above was sarcasm, but it is the unfortunate reality of what we are up against.
Neo may not be aware of the L'Aquila jailings or the witch hunt after our own floods in Brisbane and says:
March 31, 2014 at 7:47 am
There is a slippery slope to linking scientific research and predictions to legal culpability.
Just imagine the possible litigation from a weather report that understands or overstates the level of precipitation.
Of course, the horror of horrors would be to extend this level of culpability to political promises.
Ronald says "there wright!":
March 31, 2014 at 8:07 am
Can’t do I think there is a bit of a problem. To go to court and claim skeptics are a danger for humans by dismissing climate change they must proof there wright. On the other hand skeptics get the change to proof there wright to.
Don’t think models stand a change a gains real life data so there must be a real stupid judge out there for the alarmist to win that one.
March 31, 2014 at 8:12 am
I see the call by climate alarmists that skeptics should be imprisoned as simply another indication that CAGW is a religion for them. Skeptics are the heretics of the CAGW religion and the call for imprisonment is a modern Inquisition.
Oh, this is a long one - and I didn't read it before writing the above, believe it or not (it's true!) Think how much the deniers have been squawking lately at the suggestion some of them are paranoid conspiracy theorists. R. de Haan talks about a mortal struggle and more - and says:
March 31, 2014 at 7:22 am
Roger, thank you very much for your excellent article.
At te same time I would like to ask you if there is a case to take on the UN and all in support for abuse of science and scare mongering promoting punishing caps, taxes and restrictions of fossil fuel use and social behavior manipulations to execute their UN Agenda 21 which in principle is a centralist take over (coup) of the entire world, it’s economies, it’s financial system, it’s resources, you name it.
Now this would be a productive move that would bring us forward instead of defending our views with our back against the wall.
I have come to the conclusion that we have arrived in a mortal struggle for the survival of our western civilization and thought it was better to check for legal options before we blow up the world because that’s where we’re heading if these idiots continue to push their insane plans.
In fact we already have numerous human deaths as a direct result from the US and EU bio fuel mandate which triggered the Arab Spring Revolution started as food protests and energy poverty is already killing numerous people, even in the Western nations.
The practices of the totally corrupted UN is going to turn very ugly soon if we don’t undertake something more structural than trying to establish a dialogue with the warmists, an initiative I gave up years ago.
I know this question is in the same category as ” Could a lawyer have stopped the Nazi’s from starting WWII and root out the Jews” but still.
Here we have a bunch of crazies destroying Western civilization by raping science and bribing politicians, NGO’s and scientists while they completely wreck our economies leaving written and physical evidence all over the place.
I am looking forward to your response.
Roger E. Sowell Esq. hasn't responded yet. However at the bottom of his WUWT article he wrote that he's touting for business. It takes no imagination to guess why he has to resort to free advertising on WUWT.
Specific legal advice is available from Mr. Sowell and anyone who seeks such advice is encouraged to contact Mr. Sowell.
PS This article is for real. It's not an April Fools Day joke.