• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Mann's Bad Behavior

PoS said:
LOL Michael Mann uses the Guardian and NatGeo as sources? He's just like the many alarmists in this forum. :lol:
Click to expand...

What is NatGeo?

My first thought was Nature Geoscience, which is one of my subscriptions. Do you mean National Geographics?
 
Birdzeye said:
Wattsupwithat is NOT credible, and you are using the typical reaction by denialist when people won’t buy your disreputable sources: belligerence and insults.
Click to expand...

WUWT is extremely credible. Your tactic is the usual attempt to marginalize dissent. I suggest you take a look at the entirely factual presentation in the OP and go from there.
 
Jack Hays said:
WUWT is extremely credible. Your tactic is the usual attempt to marginalize dissent. I suggest you take a look at the entirely factual presentation in the OP and go from there.
Click to expand...

I don't always agree with the narrative, but it is very well sourced. Much better than any leftist blog out there.
 
Jack Hays said:
WUWT is extremely credible. Your tactic is the usual attempt to marginalize dissent. I suggest you take a look at the entirely factual presentation in the OP and go from there.
Click to expand...


Factual Reporting: LOW

Notes: Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006. The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally supporting beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change.

In review, the sole purpose of the website is to debunk human influenced climate change. Climatologist Michael E. Mann has called WUWT the leading climate change denial blog. There are numerous articles written about WUWT and many failed fact checks that can be seen here through a factual search. Overall, WUWT is a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website. (2/14/2017) Updated (D. Van Zandt 4/12/2018)

Source: Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
Click to expand...

Watts Up with That - Media Bias/Fact Check

Also, while Watts has worked as a TV. And radio weatherman, he has no degree, not even in meteorology. He’s not exactly the most qualified person to critique others’ findings on climate change.
 
Last edited:
Birdzeye said:
Watts Up with That - Media Bias/Fact Check
Click to expand...

Just the usual nonsense.

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[SUP][2][/SUP]

Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia


Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia



Media Bias/Fact Check is a web site that rates factual accuracy and political bias in news media. The site classifies media sources on a political bias spectrum, ...
 
Jack Hays said:
Just the usual nonsense.

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[SUP][2][/SUP]

Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia


Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia



Media Bias/Fact Check is a web site that rates factual accuracy and political bias in news media. The site classifies media sources on a political bias spectrum, ...
Click to expand...

Nonsense, like a conspiracy website by a climate denier who doesn’t even have a degree in meteorology? :lamo
 
Birdzeye said:
Nonsense, like a conspiracy website by a climate denier who doesn’t even have a degree in meteorology? :lamo
Click to expand...

It's not a conspiracy site, and Anthony Watts's academic credentials are irrelevant. It is in fact the world's most viewed climate site.
 
I noticed that the allegation appears to have something to do with congressional testimony by Mann, but you’d think if that were the case, why no link to the transcript of that testimony? Congress does, in fact, do that. I smell a rat emanating out of the trash site in the OP.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's not a conspiracy site, and Anthony Watts's academic credentials are irrelevant. It is in fact the world's most viewed climate site.
Click to expand...


Ah, the old appeal to popularity logical fallacy. If it’s “the world's most viewed climate site,” then it has to be legit. Um, no.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's not a conspiracy site, and Anthony Watts's academic credentials are irrelevant. It is in fact the world's most viewed climate site.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is.
 
Birdzeye said:
I noticed that the allegation appears to have something to do with congressional testimony by Mann, but you’d think if that were the case, why no link to the transcript of that testimony? Congress does, in fact, do that. I smell a rat emanating out of the trash site in the OP.
Click to expand...

No transcript is yet available. I refer you to Judith Curry's account in #2, which references a transcript prepared for her.
 
Birdzeye said:
Ah, the old appeal to popularity logical fallacy. If it’s “the world's most viewed climate site,” then it has to be legit. Um, no.
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
bloggies_wuwt_lta.png
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 
Birdzeye said:
Nonsense, like a conspiracy website by a climate denier who doesn’t even have a degree in meteorology? :lamo
Click to expand...

Neither does the guy who runs Skeptical Science. :lyao
 
bubbabgone said:
Sooooooo ... was it true?
Click to expand...

I’ve found no real evidence that it is. I’ve found no evidence that his testimony before Congress was “dishonest” as alleged, nor any evidence of his calling for “on-line mob action against” Curry.

And you wonder why wattsupwithat is considered a disreputable, untrustworthy site.
 
Last edited:
Birdzeye said:
I’ve found no real evidence that it is. I’ve found no evidence that his testimony before Congress was “dishonest” as alleged, nor any evidence of his calling for “on-line mob action against” Curry.
Click to expand...

Read the OP.
 
Birdzeye said:
Watts Up with That - Media Bias/Fact Check

Also, while Watts has worked as a TV. And radio weatherman, he has no degree, not even in meteorology. He’s not exactly the most qualified person to critique others’ findings on climate change.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO!

You go on and on with your empty whines about reliability, but NOT ONCE did you actually post a counterpoint against it. Which means you haven't made a case against him at all.

Meanwhile Dr. Mann's Twitter comments are easy to follow, he DID advocate the attack on her, but you will never know for sure with the now predictable source fallacy route you chose to follow on, it is how you remain ignorant of the controversy.

It is cowardice and fear is why warmists strongly avoid the evidence presented, it is much easier to demonize people and organization, which is the province of small minds.

Meanwhile after you made this comment at POST 4:

The OP source is a tinfoil hat site that peddles conspiracy theories. How about a credible source instead.
Click to expand...

Despite that it didn't dawn on you that NO ONE ELSE would report it because it makes Dr. Mann look bad, and that the Medeia wouldn't make such reports either, therefore only place to know about it is at a few Skeptic websites, they become the ONLY sources on this.

Five pages later you have not once made a case against post One, therefore you are blowing smoke all over the place with empty babble.

If you bothered to look at the post one article you would have found the links to Dr. Curry Congressional Testimony and Dr. Mann's Congressional testimony too.

You are Terrified!

You are pathetic!

:2wave:
 
Sunsettommy said:
ROFLMAO!

You go on and on with your empty whines about reliability, but NOT ONCE did you actually post a counterpoint against it. Which means you haven't made a case against him at all.

Meanwhile Dr. Mann's Twitter comments are easy to follow, he DID advocate the attack on her, but you will never know for sure with the now predictable source fallacy route you chose to follow on, it is how you remain ignorant of the controversy.

It is cowardice and fear is why warmists strongly avoid the evidence presented, it is much easier to demonize people and organization, which is the province of small minds.

Meanwhile after you made this comment at POST 4:



Despite that it didn't dawn on you that NO ONE ELSE would report it because it makes Dr. Mann look bad, and that the Medeia wouldn't make such reports either, therefore only place to know about it is at a few Skeptic websites, they become the ONLY sources on this.

Five pages later you have not once made a case against post One, therefore you are blowing smoke all over the place with empty babble.

If you bothered to look at the post one article you would have found the links to Dr. Curry Congressional Testimony and Dr. Mann's Congressional testimony too.

You are Terrified!

You are pathetic!

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Actually, I pointed out that the OP failed to make a case.
 
Jack Hays said:
I had no real expectation you were interested in a discussion.
Click to expand...

You certainly aren’t. Your source, such as it is, failed to prove the allegation of some evil behavior on Mann’s part, but instead of trying to find credible evidence to back that up, you get all ****ty on me.
 
Birdzeye said:
You certainly aren’t. Your source, such as it is, failed to prove the allegation of some evil behavior on Mann’s part, but instead of trying to find credible evidence to back that up, you get all ****ty on me.
Click to expand...

You opened with an insult and got what you deserved. I surprised myself by my forbearance.
 
Jack Hays said:
You opened with an insult and got what you deserved. I surprised myself by my forbearance.
Click to expand...

Where’s the insult in my opening post: “The OP source is a tinfoil hat site that peddles conspiracy theories. How about a credible source instead.” ??

:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom