Barbara Boxer

Watch Barbara Boxer Falsely Accuse Reason of Trying to "undermine climate science"

Senator calls one of her own constituents a "puppet of the fossil fuel industry"

|

Yesterday, in the spirit of Californian collegiality, I tried to warn Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that if she went ahead with her planned smear against the Reason Foundation as being part of a so-called "web of denial" over climate science, she would be lying. Sadly, the senator did not take my friendly advice.

"I want to work with my colleagues to call attention to this web of denial," Boxer said during a 15-minute speech on the Senate floor. "I want to talk to you briefly about three organizations based in my home state—the Reason Foundation, the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, and the Hoover Institution. These three organizations have been involved in efforts to undermine climate science. The Reason Foundation has been churning out materials to raise to uncertainty."

Boxer didn't cite any examples of said material, and in fact didn't say anything else specific about our work. So let me help her.

Every month, like clockwork, Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey publishes the latest findings from the global satellite temperature record, as measured by the University of Alabama at Huntsville. He's been doing that regularly for the past six years or so. For instance, on July 1, Bailey wrote a post headlined "June 2016 Was 2nd Warmest June in Satellite Record: Global Temperature Trend Update;" one month before that he wrote "May 2016 Was the Second Warmest May in the Satellite Record: Global Temperature Update," and so on. I would love to hear Boxer explain how keeping track of and publicizing the work of the scientists who are measuring the temperature of the planet amounts to undermining climate science.

Boxer closed her remarks with the stirring sentiment that "The truth will have its day." But not before positing as "truth" that "these organizations are puppets of the big fossil fuel industry," and are engaged in the act of spreading "phony science." That's one helluva way for a California senator to talk about a California-based foundation with a long and honorable record of (among many other things) working with the California government to improve California transportation. In fairness, the senator just might have no idea what she's talking about, given that during this same speech she referred to a former U.S. secretary of state as "Charles Schulz."

Watch for yourself; the Reason stuff kicks in after minute 10.

Regrettably, as I explained yesterday and Bailey the day before that, this name-and-shame campaign is not limited to comically inaccurate smears from the Senate floor—it involves prosecutorial fishing expeditions through the communications and donor records of think tanks perceived to be on the opposite side of an issue Democrats feel frustrated about. The effort is a naked attempt to punish and even prosecute organizations based on the content of their speech, and discourage donors from wanting to touch these organizations with a 10-foot stick. Boxer should be ashamed of herself not just for speaking gross untruths about her own constituents, but for gleefully encouraging the use of government power to punish people for expressing opinions she doesn't like. That is the work of authoritarians, not democrats.

NEXT: Hillary Clinton Tweet Explains Perfectly Why the Issue is Limiting Government Power, Not Just Personalities in Charge

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. WTF happened to the Hillary/Trump tweet article?

    1. It gave your mom AIDS.

      1. not again!

    2. This one?

      https://reason.com/blog/2016/07…..-perfectly

      1. Yeah, I went to look at the comments and all I got was a blank screen. Then I clicked on the article link and same thing. A couple of minutes later it was back.

  2. What does she care? The people she wanted to see it saw it, and lapped it up. We’re an evil bunch of climate killers over here.

    I secretly had my Camry Hybrid modified to take out the electric motor and reduce the engine to 1 MPG. That’s how much I hate the environment.

    1. I make the orphans at my factory start a tire-fire each morning before I arrive. Nothing like the smell of burning rubber to start your day.

      1. Ship-breaking, and e-waste metal reclamation for my little urchins…

        *polishes monocle*

        1. And that’s how socialism starts. Polishing your own monocle when you could hire an urchin at a half-pittance per day to do it.

  3. Ms. Boxer has been an authoritarian twit since forever. She cannot conceive of a day when she is not in power, cannot imagine the authority she wants to abuse being abused against her, and never met anyone with an opinion opposed to hers that she felt bound to respect. The guillotine was invented for the likes of her.

    1. Cunt. She worked really hard for that title.

      1. Did you know she owns a boat?

        1. Is it the Love Boat?

          1. Twat Yacht

    2. PREET: THIS MAN DOES NOT REPRESENT US. PLEASE DON’T SEND SUMMONS. WE ALL JUST WANT TO GIVE THIS LOVELY LADY SOME FLOWERS.

      1. You know, after the revolutionaries deposed the monarchy, was anything they did technically illegal?

        Other than that, I’d happily say that any number of politicians deserve to be put up against the wall, after a lengthy and thorough trial has found them guilty of crimes against their countrymen. Revolution isn’t worth losing due process.

        1. You know, after the revolutionaries deposed the monarchy, was anything they did technically illegal?

          I presume that depends on whether a natural or divine law exists.

      2. There is a lengthy legal precedent whereby you may claim self defense against an agent of the govt if that act is deemed a defense against tyranny. Though that argument didn’t work too well for Matt Damon.

        1. In fairness, Jason Bourne killed a fair number of agents preemptively.

        2. damon is a punk. Anybody who worships Howard Zinn is an ass -kissing dolt.

      3. Darn, I was looking forward to changing my comment handle to Guy O’Tyne Lover….

    3. “She cannot conceive of a day when she is not in power…”
      That’s an interesting statement, given that she’s not running for reelection.

      1. Indeed. There is no doubt after the Senate she will, like a modern day Cincinattus, leave all the trappings of authority behind and return to plowing her modest farm.

    4. Californians keep voting for her. Go figure.

      1. You can’t blame the voters for her. It’s the law in California that everyone must vote for the biggest Democrat on the ballot.

  4. So if disagreeing with climate science is a RICO case, is lying about someone doing that defamation/slander?

    1. Qualified immunity, bitches. It’s all upside and no downside to bring spurious and vexatious legal action against a political enemy.

  5. Reason should sue for slander.

    The discovery process would be awesome.

    1. Although proving damages might be tough as this might help the Reason Foundation.

      1. Might get punitive anyway. Though as we have recently learned, the law for politically connected citizens is a different one from the rest of us plebs.

    2. Absolute privilege for anything she says on the House floor, I think.

      1. That sounds right, I knew there was some issue with it.

        Okay, how about the Reason Foundation sponsors the Tar and Feather party the next time she flies home.

      2. Correct — she’s immune as long as she’s on the floor.

        1. Can’t the membership vote to strip someone of immunity, as I believe was done to Joseph McCarthy?

          I wonder what would happen if a Republican member of Congress proposed such a resolution.

      3. “…for any Speech or Debate in either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

        So, they can be questioned by the House where she spoke.

        I mean, the Senate calls its members to order if they insult *each* other, and that’s totally constitutional, because they’re being called to account in the Senate, not “in any other place.”

        So the thing to do would be an ethics complaint, I would imagine.

    3. That might work if we were a nation of laws. But we’re not. Laws are enforced based upon who the person is, not what they did.

    4. Calling Ken White – are you there, Ken?

      1. Come on, you know he thinks we are, collectively, the Worst.

        1. Yeah, but as a true first amendment supporter, he’d represent us anyway.

  6. BURN THE HERETIC!!!!

    1. Only if she floats like a duck.

  7. I just, got. funded $6864 working off my notebook this-month,, and if you think that’s cool, my ex-wife has twin toddlers and made over 7985 bucks her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less ?

    ========== http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  8. Well, in honor of this, I’m tripling my donation this year.

    Maybe I’ll get invited to Santa Barbara next time so I can try on the jacket glasses.

    1. What article of clothing designates KMW as the boss?

      1. Purple hair, just like Roman times, purple denotes royalty.

      2. The correct answer is “pick one,” because they’re all awesome.

  9. “The Reason Foundation has been churning out materials to raise to uncertainty.”

    And I haven’t seen a single dollar for it!

    1. Churning out materials . . . .

      1. These, masturbation, uh, euphemisms…

  10. “That is the work of authoritarians, not democrats.”

    How the fuck did you write that with a straight face?

  11. The other day, I mentioned that Bailey’s position on climate change was right on Bailey’s Wikipedia entry, but it’s in an even more obvious place than that, too.

    It’s on the Wikipedia page for the Reason Foundation listed under the Reason Foundation’s position on climate change!

    “In 2005, Reason magazine’s science writer Ronald Bailey wrote a column declaring that climate change is both real and man-made. He wrote, “Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up. All data sets?satellite, surface, and balloon?have been pointing to rising global temperatures.”[28]

    In 2006, Bailey wrote an article titled “Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore: Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming. Or anything else.”[29] In the article Bailey explains how and why he changed his mind on climate change.”

    http://tinyurl.com/j6ekcft

    Look at the link yourself.

    Yes, it’s bad that Boxer would try to bully people for criticizing climate change.

    Yes, it’s bad that Boxer would try to bully people for engaging in free speech.

    But it underscores how completely awful Boxer is that she goes after organizations for saying things they didn’t say!

    Apparently, she doesn’t care whether Reason actually says the things she claims–she just wants to bully people into silence for not towing the progressive line.

    1. Deviating even slightly from the (ever-shifting) apocalyptic dogma of the climate change extremist is categorically unacceptable. Questioning the AGW-approved course of action or the trade-offs involved, is also unacceptable.

      1. I don’t think it’s about climate change.

        I think it’s about criticizing progressives on all sorts of issues.

        If it isn’t because Reason is anti-climate change, then it must be for some other reason.

        I suggest three likely candidates:

        1) Reason is libertarian and libertarian isn’t progressive.

        2) The Koch brothers have given to Reason.

        3) She’s an ignoramus and has no idea what she’s talking about.

        Mind you, none of these reasons are mutually exclusive.

    2. If Democrats cared at all about honesty would they be nominating Hillary for President? Never let the truth get in the way of The Narrative.

    3. Well there is that whole problem that Reason is libertarian and not sufficiently progressive. Also KOCH KOCH KOCH!!!!

      Do we really need more proof that this is all about politics and NOTHING about science?

  12. If Boxer were to spend less time posting on here as “Jackand Ace” and more time on the on the Senate floor, she wouldn’t have missed 11 roll call votes in one month alone.

    “Still, a Senator hears what she wants to hear
    And disregards the rest”, eh?

    1. Nice…. Some finally ousts the true identity of Jackass..

  13. I know for a fact the Reason Foundation is in the bag for AGW propagandists. I hear it every time Bailey publishes an insufficiently inflammatory piece.

  14. Why does the article seem to think that being based in California would protect the Reason Foundation from this type of criticism. Or are you surprised that now Reason has risen to the Let’s attention you Fi d that you are despised?

    1. I have some old-fashioned views about how elected officials should treat and/or be aware of their constituents.

      1. Truly you are a relic of a time gone by, Matt.

      2. Fair enough, but to think someone like Boxer would hold to such an ethic seems painfully naive.

      3. Well they have some old fashioned views about constituents too, views they they picked up from Uncle Joe….

  15. If anything, Reason is waaaaaaaaaaay too far on the wrong side of this right with Boxer. Citation? JUST LOOK AT ITS SCIENCE EDITOR.

    1. It took EcoScam author Ron only a decade of hard study to stop disbelieving in global warming.

  16. The key to successfully spreading fake science is to make everyone think you’re crazy. Then they ignore you long enough so you can get your message out to unsuspecting rubes and by then it’s too late. Welcome to the new reality.

    1. Best short history of The Heartland Institute I’ve ever read.

  17. Cheer up, guys: Senator Whiteturd (D.R.I.) was blabbering the same thing on the Senate floor Monday. According to him, the entire Tea Party movement is merely a conspiracy paid for and directed by Exxon. I questioned some of the climate alarmism at Seeking Alpha last week, and another of these loonies even threatened to prosecute me!

    I decided to check out one of the supposedly more reasoned scientific books on climate change (Robert Strom’s Hot House). The same accusations are in there. It apparently is part of the new demodonkey mantra, you know: Bray a jackass remark loudly and long enough, and eventually the people will believe you!

    Say, now that I think about it, about that conspiracy…

    1. I, for one, receive a check from Chevron every time I post a comment on one of Bailey’s articles. It’s not as big as the check I get from the Koch Brothers every month for being a libertarian, but it’s a nice bonus.

      1. How much was your Koch Brothers check last month? I left my H2 idling outside in the driveway overnight, every night, just liked they asked me to, but the paycheck was a tad short of what I was promised.

        1. Amateur. I leave a 1972 Monte Carlo idling overnight. Also, I use only styrofoam dinnerware, which I incinerare in the 24/7 trash fire on my property, which I am also in the midst of clearcutting.

    2. Bray a jackass remark loudly and long enough, and eventually the people will believe you!

      +1 Josef Goebbels

  18. There is the possibility that she is so profoundly stupid that she did absolutely no research on the Reason Foundation and just thought “associated with the Kochs – must be a heretic.”

    1. When I listen to NPR they often mention how they are funded by a generous grand from the Koch brothers. It always makes me chuckle. Honesty? What’s that?

      1. It’s just part of this “progressive” belief that propositions are true or false based on who funded the speaker or who benefits from the statement.

        I can’t count the times I’ve been trying to explain a libertarian viewpoint to a “progressive” and they’ve instantly dismissed everything as completely false because “that just benefits the rich” or “that study was funded by [shady cabal of rich people]”.

    2. Pygmies have very small brains.

    3. Sounds likely.

    4. You’re actually assuming she wants to be fair in this “debate”, how quaint….

  19. The truth is I don’t think she knows or cares about Reason’s view on AGW. I think that what she cares about is that Reason dares to go against her belief that the only way to stop global warming is for government to be given incredible amounts of power and money.

    1. Let’s promote Juvenile to Sophomore- he’s a shrewd little fellow.

  20. I think what we got here is a cunt trifecta, that’s what it is. Good work, Reason.

  21. These three organizations have been involved in efforts to undermine climate science. The Reason Foundation has been churning out materials to raise to uncertainty.”

    Boxer didn’t cite any examples of said material, and in fact didn’t say anything else specific about our work. So let me help her.

    Even if they did “churn out” materials that raise uncertainty, what’s the fucking problem? Is “climate science”, as we’ve come to know it, free of dogmatism or undue influences? Is it infallible knowledge whose predictions have played out time and time again? A dose of uncertainty is part of the scientific method that climate “scientists” routinely eschew in favor of political convenience, professional courtesy and social signalling.

    It couldn’t be more clear that climate scientists are the modern equivalent of a priestly caste allied to the state for mutual benefit.

    1. Look. It’s science. The experts all agree, so they are right. Anyone who disagrees is in the pocket of Big Oil. There is no other explanation. Science is decided by votes. Not the quaint scientific method. And more importantly, if the government doesn’t act and act now, THE WORLD IS GOING TO BE CONSUMED IN FIRE!

      So get with the program. Science isn’t about discovery and inquiry. It’s about confirming what those who pay the scientists want to confirm. Well, if they’re profit seeking corporatists. Otherwise it is all about the truth. Disagree and you deserve to die.

      1. So basically the Spanish Inquisition.

        1. Yep. Climate Change is the new state religion.

        2. I had the same thought and then immediately thought of the inquisition song from the movie “history of the world part 1.”

    2. Climate scientists are just taking advantage of the funding dollars. If they could get equivalent dollars for finding no warming is occurring or no warming is due to humans, then they would damn well find that. The high priests of the religious cult are politicians.

  22. She’s bringing back spectral evidence and you’re John Proctor, Matt.

    1. So she’s, like, Betty Parris?

      1. All ye witches are Satan’s consorts

  23. Boxer closed her remarks with the stirring sentiment that “The truth will have its day.” But not before positing as “truth” that “these organizations are puppets of the big fossil fuel industry,” and are engaged in the act of spreading “phony science.”

    She couldn’t be projecting any harder if she actually tried. The truth is that countless institutions, universities and individual scientists are almost entirely beholden to government for their livelihoods and no one sees a problem with that while those same people and their sycophants claim any funding from non-government sources is inherently corrupt.

    Forgive me for believing that entities whose existence is predicated on the voluntary exchange goods and services is probably a more ethical source of investment than one whose existence is predicated on routine transgressions against life, liberty and property.

    1. You don’t understand. When government funds something, there is no motive. It is a quest for the truth. Government is the people. It is us. It isn’t some parasitic corporation that provides goods, services, and jobs to voluntary takers. That is coercion. No, government is the truth and the light. Voluntary cooperation is evil because it is force. Only force is good because it is voluntary. Because it isn’t force since government is us and we are government.

      1. So sayeth the Lord. Amen.

  24. “The Ministry of Truth has forwarded its report to the Ministry of Love. You will be contacted.”

    1. I’m going to inform on all of you if it keeps me out of Room 101.

      1. Do it to SugarFree!

    2. Golf clap…

  25. these organizations are puppets of the big fossil fuel industry,”

    ITS TRUE THAT DON BAILY GUY ADMITS IT HE HAS LOTS OF EXXON SHARES AND IS WORKS MONSTANTO TOO

    1. To hear them tell it, libertarianism is the largest, greatest and best kept conspiracy in the history of mankind. Libertarianism is just a fake ideology, invented and placed upon a group of energetic and vocal half-wits by the greedy korporayshuns.

      Why all our books, schools of thought, philosophies, theories, thinkers and generations of it’s advocates are just paid shills for ExxonMobil. I mean, we were conspiring to support ExxonMobil for a couple hundred years before ExxonMobil even existed, that’s how dangerous we are.

      1. We’re the paid lackeys of big business, and yet hold no elected seats anywhere in the country, but you should still be worried about the rich controlling the world and money buying political power.

  26. Is there any other state that can produce such horrible people as what Cali can? Seriously, Boxer, Waxman, Feinstein…

    1. NY? DeBlasio, Schumer, Hillary (yeah, technically Illinois), Weiner…

      1. Every single state attorney general and US attorney of the southern district ever…

        1. …from New York.

      2. ….And the Midwest farmer’s daughters, yeah, they make me feel all right….

      3. Damn you!

  27. “I want to talk to you briefly about three organizations based in my home state?the Reason Foundation, the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, and the Hoover Institution. These three organizations have been involved in efforts to undermine climate science. The Reason Foundation has been churning out materials to raise to uncertainty.”

    RRRRRRRETARD.

  28. Boxer has clearly been reading Reason’s idiot peanut gallery.

    1. You’re saying that pygmies can read?

  29. I hope they pass these laws and call up the energy industry CEOs for a congressional grilling. And they admit they knew climate change was real all along and as penitence they agree to make public service announcements about “What to do if you suspect your child has been radicalized by climate deniers.” The More You Know ?

  30. “[…]These three organizations have been involved in efforts to undermine climate science.”

    How does one undermine climate science? I though science itself is a process of gathering knowledge. How does one undermine a process? I don’t understand.

    Isn’t Climate “Science” sounding more and more like a religion and not like a true science?

    1. That sounds like blasphemy, infidel.. You need a “come to Gaia moment”, citizen.. Repent!

    2. You know who else tried to undermine science?

      1. Pontius Pilate?

        1. I was thinking Galileo.

          1. Ohh… *THAT* kind of “science”..

    3. I though science itself is a process of gathering knowledge. How does one undermine a process? I don’t understand.

      It’s easy to undermine it. What you need to do is be one of the people purportedly using the process, but in reality you twist and warp it or forgo it’s use altogether while claiming to rely on it. Then you get your colleagues and benefactors to vociferously support your work because of it’s conclusions, not because of the now bastardized process that led you to those conclusions.

      Now who does that describe….

      1. Ummm.. Eric Holder?

      2. Not that I don’t agree with you but what you describe is a distortion of the process or a deviation from the process. I do agree that what is being undermined is the credibility of climate scientists themselves when you have all these disturbed individuals defending their work by threatening everybody else with being dragged to the Soviet Court in chains. That doesn’t precisely breed confidence in their own objectivity.

        1. Not that I don’t agree with you but what you describe is a distortion of the process or a deviation from the process.

          I don’t think we differ on that point. That’s pretty much what I said.

          but in reality you twist and warp it or forgo it’s use altogether

  31. Mmmm, smells cunty today. Was it Boxer or her antiparticle Feinstein who felt all violated and dirty after CIA went up their digital panties? Everyone’s a libertarian for themselves.

    And how can moronic legal claims being made here not apply to Big Creation? Or the anti-vaxxers and -GMO kids? Or the entire construct known as ‘Islam’ among others? Can only non-profits be non-science by state definition? WTF are they thinking, or doing in lieu of thinking? So stoopid.

    1. as it Boxer or her antiparticle Feinstein who felt all violated and dirty after CIA went up their digital panties?

      Finestain

  32. I love the double standard on money from the left. They don’t need a shred of evidence that oil companies are funding someone before they use AG’s to launch witch hunts. They have no evidence of any such conspiracy, but they’ll drum up suspicion/push propaganda and go fishing.

    But their refrain to defend Hillary is always that nothing you accuse her of is proven so it’s all really meaningless innuendo and accusations. I mean, we have far more evidence of that than any conspiracy by oil companies to spread disinformation. The only difference I can identify is how the media and left discusses these topics.

    1. Forget it, Jake.. something, something, progtown..

  33. The Reason Foundation has been churning out materials to raise to [sic] uncertainty.”

    If only.

    Instead we get Bailey.

  34. Personally, if the Republicans had any balls, they would have turned off the air conditioning in the Senate just for those two day. If the Democrats complained they should say they were trying to save the environment.

  35. So you warned her that, if she accused Reason of so-called denial, she would be lying. What are the chances she actually heard the warning, much less bother to spend even 1-2 minutes on fact-checking?

    I think it’s much more likely that she had been handed a sheet of talking points and that amounted to the sum total of her “research” on this matter.

    I’m reminded of the single scene that clearly stands out in my mind from the documentary “Bigger, Stronger, Faster,” which is all about the media and political class’s reaction to the “problem” of anabolic steroids.

    The scene features an interview with Congressman Henry Waxman (thankfully gone, good riddance) speaking to the filmmaker about steroids. Waxman actually turns to an aide and asks him, “What is my position on steroids?” When the aide tells him they are illegal, and should remain so because they are dangerous, Waxman parrots this response and then briefly expands on it.

    This sums up, for me at least, the reality of these politicians. They are IDIOTS. Every one of them. They just stake a position on their TEAM BLUE or TEAM RED and then spout whatever crap they are expected to say.

    I would bet good money that Boxer was told by her handlers that she will go after “climate change deniers” and was given a list of the offenders, and that is the sum total of her thinking on the matter.

    Edgar Bergen’s dummy Charlie McCarthy probably had more opinions of his own compared to these manequins.

  36. They’re libertarians! That free-markety stuff inherently rapes the planet with it’s evil capitalism!

  37. Just goes to show what hacks these people (Boxer, Gainsburger). It shows that they are not prepared in any way to discuss anything. Government isn’t a clearing house for public policy and the “civil” way to work our disagreements. It’s the use of Force to get our way, and when the tide turns against us, we’ll shut it down. Like in Wisconsin back in 2010 – the Dems held Power and passed all sorts of laws they wanted, and the electorate swung to the Republicans, who went about their agenda, and the Progs fled across the border so political business was shut down.

    Wholly UNCIVIL.

    I/We pay one out of every two dollars my wife and I make to some level of government, and that is on the conservative side. And it looks like that is being considered a “good start”. The Progs at every level are apparently intending on taking even more – either taxed, debased, or REGULATED and any attempt to use the Civic organs to bring a halt to such grabs are now CRIMINAL.

    You can’t address incivility with civility. It just can’t be done. And Boxer talks crazy shit a la Trump, and Gainsburger doesn’t say a peep, Trump does and he’s a “faker”.

    This all isn’t going to end pretty.

  38. In fairness, the senator just might have no idea what she’s talking about, given that during this same speech she referred to a former U.S. secretary of state as “Charles Schulz.”

    Good grief!

    1. What a blockhead!

    2. It’s the Great Hiatus, Charlie Brown!

  39. So tell me Matt, are you equally outraged at Lamar Smith, who has said he will subpoena Union of Concerned Scientists and organizations such as Greenpeace and the Rockefeller Fund for communications and emails between them?

    http://www.houstonpress.com/ne…..ol-8551278

    I asked Bailey, but he didn’t respond. Maybe you will, since those aren’t federal agencies.

    Your defense of Bailey is interesting. I told him this, so I will tell you. For a guy who has said that AGW is real, and just might prove to be a significant problem by the end of the century, nearly every article or study he cites is trying to dissuade readers of believing exactly that.

    Now, that might not be undermining science, but it certainly isn’t presenting a fair sampling of climate science as it stands today. He doesn’t do that with any other science topic but climate. A simple reporting of troposphere temperatures each month isn’t that either, particularly when surface temperatures are ignored.

    So you can fight fight it out with Boxer. But your wrong if you think Reason gives a fair accounting of climate science.

    1. Forgot.
      In my humble opinion.

    2. I can’t answer for either Welch or Bailey, but I am against Congress using subpoenas to harass or persecute.

      Nonetheless, Congress is not an Attorney General. Congress does have legitimate oversight authority, and Congress can take actions of discovery that don’t come with an implicit or explicit thread of prosecution.

      Attorneys general cannot and do not. Prosecutors doing this sort of crap is clear and unadulterated abuse of authority that should chill the blood of anyone who actually believes in freedom and/or the rule of law.

      Fortunately for the promoters of this sort of activity, they are progressives. They believe in feelz.

      1. They certainly can. Here in New York we have the Martin Act which gives broad prosecutorial power to the AG to investigate fraud to the public. And it’s been used before against Wall Street.

        1. Yes. New York state and district attorneys are the very worst with regard to that.

          They certainly can.

          It’s good that you go straight to might makes right. It saves a lot of time.

          1. Every law ever passed has “might” behind it. Every single one.

            Hopefully you’re consistent abc therefore believe there isn’t one single law you believe should exist.

            Of course then you would just be an anarchist. Forget libertarian.

            1. Logic much? A implies B doesn’t mean B implies A.

              If your only justification for a law is that it is a law, then you have no useful justification for the law.

              The fact that the Martin Act exists doesn’t justify prosecution under it any more than the fact that the Fugitive Slave Act existed justified prosecution under it.

              If you want to claim that New York prosecutors aren’t overzealously abusing an overreaching law, you’ll have to come up with some normative argument. Otherwise, all you have is might makes right.

              1. Nah, I don’t. It’s been used before, it’s being used now, and no one has proved it to be unconstitutional. Your opinion that it is hardly matters.

                1. Just like the Fugitive Slave Act before the Constitution was changed.

                  You must be a real fan of drug prohibition with harsh penalties, deporting harmless aliens, and of killing American citizens along with numberless innocents in undeclared wars too. Those have been used before, are being used now, and no one has proved them to be unconstitutional.

                  1. Say wha’?

                    Let’s stick to the topic at hand. What I bieve is that there should be a law proscribing intentional fraud to the public, and that law should be enforced. Thankfully I live in a state that believes similarly. Hence the Martin Act, and hence AGs ( not just Schneidermann) who enforce it.

                    Let me know when New York passes a law legalizing slavery.

                    Good try.

                    1. Wow. An argument.

                      I think there is no way that any objective observer can believe that climate change alarmists not only have the preponderance of the evidence in their favor, but also have the preponderance of the evidence that their opponents are committing willful fraud when they take a more modest climate change stance. That’s the standard of proof that should be required before prosecutors go on a witch hunt against people exercising free speech on a contentious and politically charged topic.

                    2. It’s your opinion that New York State doesn’t have enough information to investigate potential fraud by Exxon. But then, you’re not the AG in New York. He has the authority to start such an investigation, he has law behind it, and he has precedence behind him as well.

                      So we will see. Exxon is fighting him, as can be expected. Just like UOCS told Smith to stick it.

                      The point here, stated again, Is that I am amused by the selective outrage engaged by Reason. They sure give the impression that they are looking out for oil companies.

                    3. @Jackass Ass,

                      People should be moved by your sudden and surprising preoccupation with selective outrage. It is as if you had an epiphany.

                      The reason the actions by the AG are outrageous is because they are utterly unjustified from the standpoint of the actions. It is one thing to mislead your investors on the financial state of the company or even on claims regarding your own product but quite another claiming that investors are incapable of making their own minds about the religion of Climate-Changey Angry Volcano God. There’s no question petroleoum works exactly as expected and advertised, and investors know this since the 19th Century. But the AG can try and bring the matter to a jury, where defense lawyers can then bring in Mann et. al. and his merry band of shysters and see what happens. The AG is not serious about bringing this to trial.

                    4. You gave yourself away as to your intelligence with your response to me below. You’re an idiot.

      2. By the way, as the Houston article shows, Smith is taking subpoenas from the science committe to a whole new level.

        Crickets from Reason.

    3. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander is the point that is being made.

      The article from the Houston Chron is tilted to say the least but I suspect the actions of Smith are to point out where all this nonsense leads

      1. Indeed, the Houston Press article is very clear: the targets of Smith’s subpoenas are the exact same attorneys general and other groups that initiated the harassment.

        While I think Smith’s motives are likely to be ordinary political preening before his electorate, the actions of “17 state attorneys general and eight environmental groups and nonprofits” actually do raise the question of what conspiracy is permitting these groups and nonprofits to use the power of the state and the threat of prosecution against their political opponents.

        It’s amusing that the folks who accuse others of politicizing science always turn out to be the ones who politicize science.

      2. I have no problem with Smith or the AGs. It’s Ronald who selectively applies the standard.

    4. Uh the article says that they are subpoenaing these groups to assess their collaboration with the AGs in the AGW fraud lawsuits. Which makes it very hypocritical for greens to complain about it, for one thing. Moreover, if government officials are conspiring with non-state actors to systematically deprive civil rights, then Congress’s oversight power should legitimately extend to investigating the involvement of those non-state actors.

      1. You missed any point I have made about this. I have no problem with what Smith is doing, and no problem with the AGs. It’s Ronald and Reason who think such actions lead to lysenkoism, not me. The difference is they are selective in their outrage. I’m not outraged.

    5. Fuck off. Jackass. Bailey didn’t answer you first because you’re a jackass, and second because as we’re discussing here there is no amount of agreement outside of total and complete capitulation would be enough.

    6. I asked Bailey, but he didn’t respond. Maybe you will, since those aren’t federal agencies.

      So, if their answer is “yes”, then we learn nothing.

      If their answer is “no”, then we learn that they really were hypocrites all along, just as you suspected.

      Maybe he’d answer your question if it was…worth it?

    7. nearly every article or study he cites is trying to dissuade readers of believing exactly that.

      Since most of his articles on climate change are the monthly temperature updates, I’m sure he’ll let Gaia know of your concern about the bias against catastrophic global warming that She keeps putting in the data she produces.

  40. “Boxer should be ashamed of herself not just for speaking gross untruths about her own constituents, but for gleefully encouraging the use of government power to punish people for expressing opinions she doesn’t like. That is the work of authoritarian s, not democrats.”

    FTFY.

  41. It is like McCarthyism all over again.

  42. Full On Retard in CA – Feinstein + Boxer + Gov Moon beam!!!

  43. “The truth will have its day.”

    There’s a little stain on your blue cape, Barb.

    Actually, it’s pretty clear at this point who the shrill, disingenuous, illiberal cultists are you medieval kook.

  44. Holy shit! I send Bailey’s climate work to friends and classmates on both the left and right. Of those who respond, almost all agree that he’s the most unbiased they’ve seen. One told me the other day that she LIKED that she could both agree and disagree, depending on the topic. I replied that it told me a lot about her own judgment. Good.

  45. “That is the work of authoritarians, not democrats.”
    Babs is a Death Camp Guard wannabe.

  46. There is nothing “progressive” about these sort of people. Just plain ol’ Authoritarianism.

    1. Authoritarians to the left of us. Authoritarians to the right of us.
      If not for libertarians, on both fiscal and social issues, this would be a fascist paradise/

  47. .” The effort is a naked attempt to punish and even prosecute organizations based on the content of their speech, and discourage donors from wanting to touch these organizations with a 10-foot stick.”

    Matt, you referring to Lamar Smith’s planned subpoenas of environmental groups and scientists?

    1. He’s referring to your mom, who participates in Blacked porno videos.

    2. “What difference at all … does it make?”

      Who really cares what those groups have to say as their ignorant idea of a scientific “consensus” is anti-scientific and their views morph to fearmonger the sky is falling every decade. Funnier is when they have to resort using people who aren’t remotely qualified in the climate such as Neil Degrasse and Bill Nye, who isn’t even a scientist at all, or even Al Gore, who owns oil. Not to mention many of them live in better homes funded often by taxpayers, in houses manufactured ,fueled, and made from fossil fuels they so claim to “despise”. They also confuse skepticism with heresy, as well.

      I’m still confounded how Pope Francis can worship nature over his own God, or how any of his supporters ,like people I know, fall into idolatry over the creation their God created .Much less over border control, while he has armed guards and a literal WALL to shelter him around. Then again, I love how Popes as of late always ignored the plight of other oppressed of Islamic countries like the cowards they are, but preach to the West that we need to be more compassionate.

      Yeah, no. Those groups and scientists deserve all that and more for impoverishing average Americans by taking away their livelihood, and our economic advantage for their authoritarian viewpoints based in their fantasy cult.

      1. I’m still confounded how Pope Francis can worship nature over his own God

        Don’t be confused into thinking that Francis is a Christian. Liberation Theology is Marxism with stained glass. I expect him to be as Progressive as he can get away with.

        1. Don’t be confused into thinking that Francis is a Christian.

          Don’t be confused into thinking Liberation Theology is NOT Christian, It makes as little sense as saying it’s not Christian.

          I expect him to be as Progressive as he can get away with.

          Would he commit moral atrocities any worse than medieval Popes? Or the mass genocide of the Canaanites?
          Being wacky in the name of Christ has existed for nearly 2000 years, Take a deep breath.

      2. they have to resort using people who aren’t remotely qualified in the climate such as Neil Degrasse

        Ummm, he has degrees in physics and astrophysics, including a doctorate and post-doctorate studies, and is Director of the Hayden Planetarium. And you don’t even know his name.

        Plus …

        I’m still confounded how Pope Francis can worship nature over his own God

        At least you got his name correctly!

  48. It’s in the name. Democrats are for democracy, which is tyrannical by nature by the many to oppress the few.

  49. That’s “running-dog deviationist lackeys of the counter-revolutionary revisionist wreckers”, Senator. Get it right.

  50. Stupid cunt is stupid. And a cunt.

    -jcr

    1. Does the “cunt” talk like a 12-yeat-old kid who brags about his dick?
      Or did the parents do a proper job of raising?

      1. I’m with you Hinh. Only correct speaking, rich, urban elite Libertarians should be able to express their opinions. The rest of you should just shut up, sit at the children’s table, and listen to your betters.

        1. We can’t just let anyone talk. Those with incorrect speech must be silenced. They are going to ruin the Libertarian brand !!!!!!

          1. We can’t just let anyone talk. Those with incorrect speech must be silenced.

            Which is why shit pirate is trying to censor me with bullying. Again,

            They are going to ruin the Libertarian brand !!!!!!

            Too late. You assholes have caused the libertarian brand to be rejected by 91% of LIBERTARIANS. (Cato)
            And like most cyber-bullies, you’re proud of the damage you create.
            Free speech is an absolute. But aggression against a “cunt” is childish.
            And defending it is in infantile.
            Does he also say “shit” and giggle like a 12-year-old

        2. I’m with you Hinh. Only correct speaking, rich, urban elite Libertarians should be able to express their opinion

          Typical dumbfuck attack by the shit pirate

  51. I would love to hear Boxer explain how keeping track of and publicizing the work of the scientists who are measuring the temperature of the planet amounts to undermining climate science.

    Much like some of your readers would like Reason to justify their claims of Trump being a racist and likely the next Hitler.

    I’m not holding my breath on you or Boxer actually ever making arguments for your smears; that’s the whole point of a smear, that it’s completely ad hominem.

  52. Much like some of your readers would like Reason to justify their claims of Trump being a racist and likely the next Hitler.

    Only the ignorant ones. Many bigots themselves. (response to hard evidence)

    I’m not holding my breath on you or Boxer actually ever making arguments for your smears; that’s the whole point of a smear, that it’s completely ad hominem.

    Pot Kettle Black

  53. Thanks for the reminder Senator Boxer, I need to send in my annual contribution.

  54. At some point I think the only response to lyin’ mutha f’ers is to call them lyin’ mutha f’ers.

    These people worship at the alters of unreason, false science, and hysteria.

  55. How much longer until that giant earthquake?

  56. “Big business” is just another pagan god. Any kind of plan is a lot less scary (to some people) than no plan at all. And If its some imaginary authority’s fault(and therefore their responsibility) that you aren’t happy you can just hold signs instead of doing any work to change your circumstances yourself

  57. ‘Authoritarians not Democrats’ ??!!

    Please file under : distinction w/o difference

    1. All partisans are goobers on a hissy fit. File that under: undisputed fact

  58. my classmate’s aunt makes $80 an hour on the computer . She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her check was $18306 just working on the computer for a few hours.click for this website

    _+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.55easyline.com

  59. Showbox Download, Showbox Apk Download, Showbox App Download: Nowadays technology has brought a lot of changes in our lives, especially in education and communication.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.