Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No to me you are trying to tell us ignore the Naomi Kliens of the world who out right admitted this was about social economic change..(remember the pope invited her to speak at the Vatican)
Is to ignore Obama's words about we our flat earthers
Ignore Al gore ( who is advised by Jim Hansen) that the science is settled..
You make me want to puke...when you despise any one questioning your motives.
Using loaded words like denier says much about you. Nobody who is seriously interested in advancing science would indulge in such puerile politicking.
Going into "I've got the vapors!" mode because your junk science was debunked says much about you. It's says you know you can't defend your claims, and so you need to deflect.
Now, back to that topic you tried to deflect from. The OP in this thread was load of crap. There's zero evidence anywhere that Mann refused to provide any data. Yet every denier still swore that's the case. None of them displayed even the tiniest amount of skepticism. All of them simply parroted what they were told to parrot.
How does that square with your "My side has the skeptics" theory?
You aren't fooling anyone, but your fellow fools. Why would ony water be able to absorb and re-emit photons? There isn't anything unique about it in that regard.Only water vapor can absorb and emit photons.
No to me you are trying to tell us ignore the Naomi Kliens of the world who out right admitted this was about social economic change..(remember the pope invited her to speak at the Vatican)
Your deflection are quite creative, I'll give you that.
Is to ignore Obama's words about we our flat earthers
Ignore Al gore ( who is advised by Jim Hansen) that the science is settled..
Gore Rule invoked. Whoever brings up Gore first forfeits the thread for their side. Those who can talk about the science, do. Those who can't, they deflect by raving about whatever politicians that their political cult has ordered them to demonize.
You make me want to puke...when you despise any one questioning your motives.
You make me laugh, given how inept you are at defending your bad pseudoscience with these lame deflections.
LIES all LIES! And YOU know it!If you're not just a little bit skeptical you aren't paying attention!
Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges
World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online
World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online
Fed Whistleblower: NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Hype ‘Global Warming’
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
Using loaded words like denier says much about you. Nobody who is seriously interested in advancing science would indulge in such puerile politicking.
Going into "I've got the vapors!" mode because your junk science was debunked says much about you. It's says you know you can't defend your claims, and so you need to deflect.
Now, back to that topic you tried to deflect from. The OP in this thread was load of crap. There's zero evidence anywhere that Mann refused to provide any data. Yet every denier still swore that's the case. None of them displayed even the tiniest amount of skepticism. All of them simply parroted what they were told to parrot.
How does that square with your "My side has the skeptics" theory?
I already did Virginia supreme Court said...
The organization lost a lawsuit in April against the University of Virginia and scientist Michael E. Mann, with the state’s high court ruling that Mann’s unpublished research and e-mails about global warming, written when he was still at the school, were exempt from the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. This month, the court ordered that the group pay damages to the school and the scientist, who now works at Pennsylvania State University.
Former U-Va. climate scientist Michael Mann awarded $250 by state supreme court.
.
You aren't fooling anyone, but your fellow fools. Why would ony water be able to absorb and re-emit photons? There isn't anything unique about it in that regard.Only water vapor can absorb and emit photons.
Years from now? Don't you know that Manhattan has been under water for nine years already?I've read plenty. I've read the deniers & how they were debunked.
The idea you put your children at risk because you were duped is a sad sad thing.
Years from now, when the effects of global warming heightened, your kids will look back & wonder why their Dad was so very stupid.
1970 Years from now?Years from now? Don't you know that Manhattan has been under water for nine years already?I've read plenty. I've read the deniers & how they were debunked.
The idea you put your children at risk because you were duped is a sad sad thing.
Years from now, when the effects of global warming heightened, your kids will look back & wonder why their Dad was so very stupid.
The scientists who dispute AGW and any level of severity of AGW have not been debunked. Many are even on the alleged 97% list.
Anyone with an open mind and who wasn't swayed by fitting in with a political group or ideology would respect those differences to the point of yielding to ambivalence at the very least.
You have an agenda.
The organization lost a lawsuit in April against the University of Virginia and scientist Michael E. Mann, with the state’s high court ruling that Mann’s unpublished research and e-mails about global warming, written when he was still at the school, were exempt from the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.
From.a engineering stand point and technical stand point
No. There's no such thing as "PhD in climatology". Ball made that up. Colleges don't have a "department of climatology". He had a PhD in geology, which at the time, was the squishiest and softest of all the sciences.
Modern climatologists, of course, have hard science backgrounds, usually a PhD in physics.
Answer the question little kitty and then tell us how manns refusal to release his data,
Mann did release all data. It's all right there at the link I gave.
Now, lying is definitely a violation of the scientific method, as it's a form of data falsification. How do you rationalize lying?
Bullshit.And this is why there's over a dozen datasets made afterwards supporting it.
Seriously, get a grip.
Obviously Don THE Con is SLAPP happy, but the Right doesn't mind it then!!!!!Strategic lawsuit against public participation
A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1]Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.
The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate.[2] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat.
The creator, Michael Mann, sued for libel when his data was questioned. First step in a libel trial - prove what was said was not true. He refused.
So any guesses as to why he refuses to turn over his data? Three guesses, first two don't count.
Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’
As first reported in Principia Scientific International (February 1, 2017), the defendant in the case, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, had won “concessions” against Mann, but at the time the details were kept confidential, pending Mann’s response.
The negative and unresponsive actions of Dr Mann and his lawyer, Roger McConchie, are expected to infuriate the judge and be the signal for the collapse of Mann’s multi-million dollar libel suit against Dr Ball. It will be music to the ears of so-called ‘climate deniers’ like President Donald Trump and his EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt.
As Dr Ball explains:
“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”
Punishment for Civil Contempt
Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State’ is a precise and true statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is now proven to have wilfully hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.
Michael Mann refuses to hand over data to judge in climate change trial
Thanks for letting us know you never travel.The hockey stick graph that really counts and gives rise to all the rest.
If you took every human being on earth and put them all in Texas every family of four would get half an acre to live on.
I don't care if any temperature rise can be proven. What happens if CO2 and other GHGs keep rising? The trapped energy has to do something. Logic should tell you that temps will rise.Anybody who would rely on a mere 1000-2000 years of data to declare major planet climate shift is a fool.
That's you source?!?!You aren't fooling anyone, but your fellow fools. Why would ony water be able to absorb and re-emit photons? There isn't anything unique about it in that regard.Only water vapor can absorb and emit photons.
Why would ony water be able to absorb and re-emit photons?
You need to ask SSDD.
He feels CO2 isn't a GHG and water vapor is, even though they can both absorb IR.
