Home » Featured, Headline

The Lying Illini: U of I Atmospheric Science Professor Threatens NY Times with “The Big Cutoff”

Chicago Daily Observer 8 December 2009 4 Comments

From Roger Pielke

Michael Schlesinger, a climate scientist at the University of Illinois, sends an message to Andy Revkin of the New York Times (via his widely circulated email distribution list) threatening some sort of boycott — whatever that means — of Revkin among climate scientists, for having the gall to mention my views and those of my father. The reference to prostitutes in the email presumably comes from this post at Dot Earth where Revkin mentioned a funny news story in his Twitter feed, (emphasis added).

Andy:

Copenhagen prostitutes?

Climate prostitutes?

Shame on you for this gutter reportage. This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.

The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists. Of course, your blog is your blog. But, I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.

Copenhagen prostitutes?
Unbelievable and unacceptable.

What are you doing and why?

Michael

You’d think that after the actions of certain activist scientists to suppress certain perspectives was revealed in the CRU emails that there would be a little bit more self-awareness in this community.

From Clive Crook at the Financial Times

When I was an editor I always used to delete “He just doesn’t get it,” because it is smug, lazy, and overused. But if ever there was a case of just not getting it, Michael Schlesinger is the man.

From the Chicago Tribune *Nothing (possibly related story about musical Competitors no match for ‘South Pacific’s’ visual sweep)*

From the Champaign Urbana News Gazette *Nothing (unrelated story about marijuana bust)*

From the Daily Illini *Nothing*

From The Telegraph

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. “We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand,” she says. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden.”

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? “Five,” says Ms Jorgensen. “The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don’t have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it’s very Danish.”

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

4 Comments »

  • peter dublin said:

    Whatever about Climate Gate emails controversy:
    Few seem to know about the industrial profit politics behind the supposedly environmentally justified Light Bulb and other bans
    http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax

    As for “cutting down to save the planet”,
    whatever the merits of CO2 reduction,
    like that Telegraph quotation says,
    it’s always someone else (not the politicians) who has to make the sacrifice.

    Since when do Light Bulbs, TV sets etc give out any CO2 gas?
    Not like cars.
    And cars are taxed.
    They could of course tax the bulbs etc, and lower the tax on energy
    efficient alternatives.
    Governments make money on the reduced sales, they can pay for CO2
    emission processing and renewable energy, and consumers keep choice.
    Taxation can be lifted when enough low emission energy is in place.

    The taxes are unjustified, but better for all than bans.

    There is no energy shortage:
    (given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with CO2 emission
    limits set as deemed necessary)
    and consumers – not politicians – PAY for energy and how they wish to use it.
    Notice: If there WAS an energy shortage, its price rise would
    – limit people using it anyway, and make renewable energy more attractive
    – make energy efficient products more attractive to buy.
    No need to legislate for it.

  • Pat Hickey said:

    Roger Pielke Michael Schlesinger . . . and what do they call ye at home?

    ‘Walks through Jungle Tearin’ Limbs Offa Trees! Must be the Climate Change He-bull. Look at that Cave Man Go!!!!!

  • Mike F said:

    What is reportage?

  • John Maynard Krebs said:

    Mike F,
    How dare you ask that question! This man has a PhD from UCLA. He should never be humiliated by such impertinence. What could a civillian possibly know about this situation?

    You may experience “the big cutoff” for even thinking such things.

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.