• 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

longview said:
I could not read that, and tried to blow it up, what were the words?
Click to expand...

I just told you- its sourced from there.

But wait... theres more. The pre-1960 stuff comes from... a facebook post.

Yeah.

Now Gish gallop some more.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
I just told you- its sourced from there.

But wait... theres more. The pre-1960 stuff comes from... a facebook post.

Yeah.

Now Gish gallop some more.
Click to expand...

So you cannot read the source ether?
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess my telling you what the source says isnt enough.
Click to expand...
If you cannot read the source at the bottom of the graph, your stating the source is simply a BS assumption.
 
Threegoofs said:
I just told you what it said.
Click to expand...
NO! you told me what a link that may not have been the source of the graph said!
If you can read the source link at the bottom of the graph in the twitter post,
then simply tell us what the words are?
 
longview said:
NO! you told me what a link that may not have been the source of the graph said!
If you can read the source link at the bottom of the graph in the twitter post,
then simply tell us what the words are?
Click to expand...

Because I can read it on my laptop but am not with my laptop anymore today.
 
The doom cult and Kevin Anderson’s memory lapse

Posted on 08 Nov 19 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 9 Comments
Some of the more reasonable climate scientists on twitter, such as Steve Forden here (“There seems to be a growing love of vague societal collapse scenarios that if you don’t accept then you are either bad or naive”) and Richard Betts (“no excuse for making up doom stuff. In fact it quite likely puts … Conti

". . . We have all known for ten years now that when talking amongst themselves climate scientists describe Michael Mann’s work as “crap”, but they won’t criticise him publicly and he continues to receive awards and be invited to appear in BBC documentaries. . . ."

 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Michael Mann: Climate “Deniers” are Exploiting the Lifestyle Change Movement[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall According to veteran climate conspiracy theorist Michael Mann, climate “deniers” are deflecting attention from large scale societal reform by deceiving people into focusing on climate friendly lifestyle changes. Climate change deniers’ new battle front attacked‘Pernicious’ campaign is unfair on well-meaning people who want to help – expert Robin McKieScience editorSun…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
[h=1]Laying To Rest The Ghost Of Climategate[/h]Posted on 10 Nov 19 by JAIME JESSOP • 5 Comments
On November the 19th 2009, the first batch of emails and other files hacked from the University of East Anglia’s (Climatic Research Unit) servers were distributed across the internet from a server in Russia. Climategate – a term coined by James Delingpole – was born and has refused to die ever since, much to the … C
 
Jack Hays said:
If the SCOTUS takes the case, the fake Nobelist may finally be cornered.

Supreme Court Weighs Lawsuit. Climate Scientist vs. Skeptics
J. Kruzel, TH
Click to expand...

Oh darn - SCOTUS rejected the appeal

The justices also declined to intervene in a defamation lawsuit filed against the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Review by Michael Mann, a well-known climate scientist and Penn State meteorology professor. Mann is a prolific author whose most recent book, with cartoonist Tom Toles, argues in the preface that the “distortion, denial, and confusion in the public-policy response to climate change has been nothing short of a madhouse.” Mann sued CEI and NR (among others), alleging that articles on CEI’s website and in NR that criticized his views on climate change and accused him of misconduct contained false statements that harmed his reputation in scientific and academic circles. (As this blog’s John Elwood reported, a post on CEI’s website “compared Mann to another famous Penn State faculty member, former football coach Jerry Sandusky, who had recently been convicted of sexual misconduct.”)

CEI and NR argued that the claims should be dismissed under the District of Columbia’s Anti-SLAPP Act, a law intended to provide legal protection for statements involving matters of public concern. But the trial court allowed the case to go forward, and D.C.’s highest court upheld that ruling. CEI and NR asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on two questions: whether the judge or the jury should decide whether an ambiguous statement contains a “provably false” connotation; and whether the First Amendment allows someone to be held liable for defamation when he expressed an opinion about a matter of scientific or political controversy.

Alito dissented from the denial of review. He wrote that the dispute “presents questions that go to the very heart of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of the press: the protection afforded to journalists and others who use harsh language in criticizing opposing advocacy on one of the most important public issues of the day.” “If the Court is serious about protecting freedom of expression,” Alito concluded, “we should grant review.”
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
This just means the fake Nobelist will be able to continue to delay, as he has done for years.
Click to expand...

That's odd, I must be mistaken in thinking the following words were in the linked piece
". . . the trial court allowed the case to go forward, and D.C.’s highest court upheld that ruling."

Looks to me like it was the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute were the ones hoping to delay depositions.
 
Somerville said:
That's odd, I must be mistaken in thinking the following words were in the linked piece
". . . the trial court allowed the case to go forward, and D.C.’s highest court upheld that ruling."

Looks to me like it was the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute were the ones hoping to delay depositions.
Click to expand...

You have to separate the anti-SLAPP appeal (our topic here) from the actual lawsuit proceedings, during which Mann has delayed at every opportunity.
 
[FONT=&quot]Climate Lawsuits[/FONT]
[h=1]Alito pens fiery dissent after court declines to hear dispute between climate professor, National Review[/h][FONT=&quot]From Fox News By Tyler Olson | Fox News Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued a fiery defense of free speech Monday morning as the high court announced it would not hear an appeal from the conservative magazine National Review in a defamation case against it by liberal climate science professor Michael Mann. … National…
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT=&quot]Climate Lawsuits[/FONT]
[h=1]Alito pens fiery dissent after court declines to hear dispute between climate professor, National Review[/h][FONT=&quot]From Fox News By Tyler Olson | Fox News Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued a fiery defense of free speech Monday morning as the high court announced it would not hear an appeal from the conservative magazine National Review in a defamation case against it by liberal climate science professor Michael Mann. … National…
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

You know you lost when you have to trumpet the fact that there was only a single objection from only one of the SCOTUS judges to refuse to hear the NR appeal.
The core of the dissent, of course, is not excusing the disgusting comments, or a fake position of ‘demanding’ to see the science, as the wingnuts here pretend is the case, but a simple complaint that smearing a reputation should be legal.


Alito Alone Wanted Court to Check Penn State Climate Scientist's Defamation Claim | The Legal Intelligencer
 
Threegoofs said:
You know you lost when you have to trumpet the fact that there was only a single objection from only one of the SCOTUS judges to refuse to hear the NR appeal.
The core of the dissent, of course, is not excusing the disgusting comments, or a fake position of ‘demanding’ to see the science, as the wingnuts here pretend is the case, but a simple complaint that smearing a reputation should be legal.


Alito Alone Wanted Court to Check Penn State Climate Scientist's Defamation Claim | The Legal Intelligencer
Click to expand...

Yes, and . . . ?
This ruling will make Mark Steyn happy.
 
[h=1]What a Piece of Work is Mann[/h]Posted on 31 Jan 20 by TONY THOMAS • 5 Comments
… Whatever other praise Mann might merit, if any, it’s not for defending “free and open” scientific debate on climate. In advocacy against fossil fuel emissions, Mann stands at the pinnacle, worldwide. Warmists should remember, you are judged by the company you keep. The year 2020 has hardly started and already Michael “HockeyStick” Mann has … Continue reading →
 

Friday Funny: Manntastic claims require Manntastic evidence

Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts of Australia recently gave this speech on the floor of Parliament, because Dr. Mann is in Australia (on sabbatical) making some pretty outlandish claims: Australia’s Wildfire Catastrophe Isn’t the “New Normal.” It’s Much Worse Than That. “These are the things that keep us up at night as climate scientists,” says Michael…
Continue reading →

Australia’s Wildfire Catastrophe Isn’t the “New Normal.” It’s Much Worse Than That.
“These are the things that keep us up at night as climate scientists,” says Michael Mann.
Australia’s Wildfire Catastrophe Isn’t the “New Normal.” It’s Much Worse Than That. – Mother Jones​
[FONT=&quot]Meanwhile: this graph prepared by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg ruins Dr. Mann’s claim of “new normal”.[/FONT]
australia-wildfire-area-satellite.jpg
[FONT=&quot]Senator Roberts would have none of it: . . . [/FONT]

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