Neverending Audit

John,

Thanks for this. I don’t have much time this week-end, but let’s return to Judge Judy’s rhetorical question:

Recall all the flack I took last year for talking about the ‘pause’?

We can agree that she took flak, but was this flak really for talking about the ‘pause’? This rhetorical question does seem to hint that Judge Judy received flak because she deemed to talk about the flak.

Not because of what she said exactly, nor because to whom she said it, but because she deemed to say it.

And what she said is not supposed to be unlike what Hansen, Trenberth, Pierrhumbert, or Santer said.

And yet we don’t have a link to what she said nor to the flak, so we have no means to verify what was the critical basis for this flak.

And yet all the flak we have comes from the Dittoheads, whereas Judy declared her interests, which excluded the Dittoheads, except perhaps to dismiss them or use them as flak throwers. How is the flak from the Dittoheads relevant to Judge Judy’s purpose?

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

[John Nielsen-Gammon, that’s who.]

John Nielsen-Gammon would be a very tough opponent to confront on subjects in which Denizens indulge themselves at Judy’s and elsewhere. Perhaps this explains why we have amateur climatologists entertaining us with their theories here instead of entertaining John Nielsen-Gammon. But if they ever wish to do so, here’s where he is:

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

If there was a pause, there was a pause. Dana should have known better. You say there was a pause, even if you believe somebody will run with it.

First you say it is true that there is a pause. Then you make a pause yourself. You pause to make sure everyone got you just acknowledged something.

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

[Here’s how lolwot raises economic concerns.]

We skeptics of Economic Alarmism don’t deny that carbon taxes impact the economy, we just question how much they impact the economy, whether the impact will be positive and negative and whether it is really worth worrying about them.

So far proponents of Economic Catastrophe have failed to provide Empirical Proof that carbon taxes will harm the economy in any substantial way. All they have is flawed economic computer models and hand-waving. We should not worry about the impact of carbon taxes until it can be proven they cause harm.

(Source: judithcurry.com)