What until she's President to start it. Otherwise it becomes "whatabout" and no one except dullards are interested.
Again, more projection. Who was silenced? How were they silenced? There are plenty of these paid shills publishing fake papers - the kind you linked and yet you say they are being silenced. This is classical Con projection, pretend their lies are being silenced when they are called out. Try commenting on any of the right wing websites with anything not agreeing with their agenda, you are instantly banned. Here is a comedian being escorted from a Con summit when he started going astray with his prepared remarks Cons love 'dissent' LMFAO
Why don't you go read Dr .Judith Curry's blog. You can read the information from her of the abuse she endured for years from climate activists and their organized campaign to get her fired -- simply for publishing dissenting information fully backed with data. https://judithcurry.com/
I don't trust paid SHILLS which she is, she has been paid by oil companies for years and still is, why won't she write reports in favor of them? Weren't you against paid propaganda but it's OK when your side does it? Show me an independent source, something like the Berkeley Earth guys who took Koch money, studied the data and yet concluded that climate change is real https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
I stated that the paper had on page 2 a list of scientists that reviewed and provided the information in text. I never stated the paper was peer reviewed and published in in a journal. There were other threads where we provided Bios, websites, and information on the authors. Yet you cannot dispute any of the scientific information presented in the paper. Let's have you state exactly where the content is incorrect in the paper. Please site the section and page number. Everything you posted above is pure junk -- and a perfect example of what the problem is in the politics forum.
As stated clearly in her Congressional testimony, she was never paid by oil companies for any work on climate science. She never wrote climate reports in favor of oil companies or published papers on their behalf. She put forward in her climate research papers well-researched facts and figures that undermined the fabricated assertions by other scientists. She also asked researchers to improve their methods to provide unbiased research using proper data in order to provide meaningful results while providing insight into the measures that need to be taken to improve the integrity of climate science.
Technically that is not correct. The charges haven't been 'dis-proven', at least there is no official public record of that. There was a court filing claiming that Trump raped a thirteen year old and at least one person claiming to be a witness had come forward. The filing occurred many years after the statute of limitations would allow. The plaintiff, now an adult female living in California, was scheduled to have a court hearing, in New York I believe, this past December to determine whether the limitation should be lifted in this particular case. (This can be done in rare instances when it can be shown the plaintiff was in fear of retribution if they attempted to bring charges against their attacker). Before the hearing, however, the plaintiff withdrew the charges. That's all that is publicly known. It is not known if there was a settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant. One presumes there may have been a settlement, but that would be pure speculation. The filings were at one time part of the public record and had even appeared briefly on the net, but seem to have been taken down rather quickly. This is a case where there is neither proof nor dis-proof. At least not in the public record. Perhaps there are sealed records. It is mostly speculation at this point, however the initial filing appeared to be legitimate.
I agree that it is not known if there was any type of civil settlement. However if you follow the suit - it has been dropped twice. Both times before a judge was about to dismiss it anyway on various grounds. The witness ("Tiffany Doe") is unnamed and has recanted - which led to weakness in the suit leaving it to be dropped. I find it very suspicious that when Donald Trump runs for president that this type of suit comes out of the woodwork with no prior allegations on the matter. From the perspective of most reasonable people the courts case has been dropped twice, no reliable witness, the original case had to be dropped when it was proven Trump was not even in town on the date the plaintiff stated the rape occurred (which is the grounds the judge was about to dismiss the first suit on). The second case listed a range of dates when she was raped by Trump and a magical, nameless witness. From my perspective the individual ("Katie Johnson") who filed the suits is unbalanced, cannot even get dates correct, has no reasonable facts and was probably driven by political promoters -- to any reasonable person this is dis-proven. Keep in mind I believe that Donald Trump has both verbally and physically mistreated women -- but any reasonable person would view this assertion that Trump raped a 13 year old as unproven, and the proper term should be disproven. Continuously promoting unproven assertions basically is what is wrong today with politically commentary in the U.S. -- Focusing this unproven item rather than the important political issues is what detracts from any progress.
How oddly specific, that's DIRECT conflict of interest, if you are getting lucratively paid by oil companies, why would she put out research that harms their interests? Weren't you against these kind of propaganda/scam? But it's ok when your side does it?