‘I don’t bluff’

[Trakar]

THere is no editorializing in that link. It provides the emails between Mann and others that were used in investigations of their shananigans. Do you believe someone EDITED them? Or made up 151 pages of emails with headers and footers? Do you not think they exist in MULTITUDES of places on the net?

How long would it take a 14 yr old to find a REPUTABLE source with the same exact material so that we could validate it? Could YOU do that? Will YOU do that?

There go the caps again.

Your assertions that neither you or anyone you buddy up to on this board has the skills or comprehension of a 14 yr old,...
is not effective or compelling advocacy for your cause,...(IMO)

just sayin!

Posting in caps is a very important thing to trakar.

It bothers him.

He's a very serious internutter.

speaking of 14 year olds...

 

[Liability]

There go the caps again.

Your assertions that neither you or anyone you buddy up to on this board has the skills or comprehension of a 14 yr old,...
is not effective or compelling advocacy for your cause,...(IMO)

just sayin!

Posting in caps is a very important thing to trakar.

It bothers him.

He's a very serious internutter.

speaking of 14 year olds...

Not that anybody was .... other than you. And you are just a plodding dimwit more worried about how a word is emphasized in an internet message board post than you are in honestly discussing the matter at hand.

 

[Trakar]

Posting in caps is a very important thing to trakar.

It bothers him.

He's a very serious internutter.

speaking of 14 year olds...

Not that anybody was .... other than you. And you are just a plodding dimwit more worried about how a word is emphasized in an internet message board post than you are in honestly discussing the matter at hand.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/239589-i-don-t-bluff-2.html#post5792450

Reading obviously isn't one of those skills you list on your resume, assuming you're actually competent or old enough to have a CV that is.

 

[Liability]

speaking of 14 year olds...

Not that anybody was .... other than you. And you are just a plodding dimwit more worried about how a word is emphasized in an internet message board post than you are in honestly discussing the matter at hand.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/239589-i-don-t-bluff-2.html#post5792450

Reading obviously isn't one of those skills you list on your resume, assuming you're actually competent or old enough to have a CV that is.

Oh good one. There WAS (as it turns out) another member who referenced 14 year olds.

You just won the interwebz!



Of course, back on substance, you lost long before you even started.

So, back ON point: Although Mann's lawyer and the school claim that they don't bluff, the reality is: they do and this will prove to be a bluff. It has to be one and the claim "I don't bluff" is an old ploy when making an obvious bluff.

Discovery would KILL Mann (professionally speaking that is).

 

[Old Rocks]

So, what we have here is a bunch of 'Conservatives' stating that all the scientists in the world are in on a scheme to fool the public and defraud the governments of the world of billions of dollars. And not a one of them has revealed how this scheme works!

Seems to me that 14 year old with this conspiracy theory is a bit retarded.

 

[flacaltenn]

So, what we have here is a bunch of 'Conservatives' stating that all the scientists in the world are in on a scheme to fool the public and defraud the governments of the world of billions of dollars. And not a one of them has revealed how this scheme works!

Seems to me that 14 year old with this conspiracy theory is a bit retarded.

Ask Al Gore how it works.. He has multiple investment companies and MILLIONS tied up in betting on GOVT declaring and enforcing CO2 as a pollutant.

Ask Solyndra, GE, and huckster garbage incineration operators "how it works". Ask you're 11 yr old what they teach for ecology in school nowadays.. You're just to old and duped to acknowledged all that.

Ask the UN what CLimate change has to do Woman's Rights, Social Justice, or Global Redistribution..

Ask the Royal Society of Birds why they spawned a "climate action group" in conflict with their previous responsibility to review and assess wind farm damage to birds.

It's the money honey.... And it's a clever means to get to "sustainability" which has some ugly political undertones for all of us.. We are now all subservient to the BIG GREEN. And it's cute, cuddly and you should LOVE it...

 

[Trakar]

Discovery would KILL Mann (professionally speaking that is).

Now that you've traced the silliness at the focus of your faux protest back to your ilk, you are back to repeating unsupported assertions without standing or merit. Please feel free to explain and support the absurdity you repeat. How would discovery "KILL Mann"? there is nothing that that I'm aware of in his very public life and works indicative of anything that would damage him personally or professionally. Note that blog rumors and distortions are not compelling references or evidences.

 

[Liability]

Discovery would KILL Mann (professionally speaking that is).

Now that you've traced the silliness at the focus of your faux protest back to your ilk, you are back to repeating unsupported assertions without standing or merit. Please feel free to explain and support the absurdity you repeat. How would discovery "KILL Mann"? there is nothing that that I'm aware of in his very public life and works indicative of anything that would damage him personally or professionally. Note that blog rumors and distortions are not compelling references or evidences.

'Nuff said, ya hack little douche bag.

 

[Liability]

EDITORIAL: Global warming's 'dirty laundry' - Washington Times

 

[flacaltenn]

Discovery would KILL Mann (professionally speaking that is).

Now that you've traced the silliness at the focus of your faux protest back to your ilk, you are back to repeating unsupported assertions without standing or merit. Please feel free to explain and support the absurdity you repeat. How would discovery "KILL Mann"? there is nothing that that I'm aware of in his very public life and works indicative of anything that would damage him personally or professionally. Note that blog rumors and distortions are not compelling references or evidences.

'Nuff said, ya hack little douche bag.

Hear no evil, See no evil... That's the Trakar tactic. And why anytime an opposing poster gives him a valid example of their position --- he usually edits it out when he requotes..

That way he can continue to claim there's "nothing that I'm aware of".. Heck with that amount self-protecting censorship --- how "aware" can he possibly be?

Life must be nice in the bubble...

 

[Liability]

A very informative blog type piece with lots of useful hyperlinks in it:

New SLAAPstick Courtroom Capers as Michael Mann Falls Foul Again | johnosullivan

EXCERPT:

* * * *

So Steyn should take with a pinch of salt the “warning shot” from Mann’s lawyer claiming that a slew of official investigations “cleared” Mann of any wrongdoing in the 2009 Climategate scandal. Such claims are not what they seem.

Andrew Montford (read his ‘Caspar and Jesus’ paper) is one such expert who deftly explains that those (non-judicial) “Climategate” inquiries fell well short of robust exoneration. This is because they all skirted around the unscientific behavior concerning Mann’s key hidden data. Unfortunately, for Mann he has made himself the plaintiff in this Canadian libel suit and cannot now duck the issue.

In the B.C. Supreme Court Ball’s attorney, Michael Scherr, has a clear run to perfectly demonstrate how climate “scientists” have been (and still are) withholding data that would help to resolve the climate controversy; we may say unscientific behavior, because hiding data makes it difficult or impossible for independent scientists/statisticians to replicate the claimed results.

As we know, Mann’s “dirty laundry” is the withheld r-squared correlation coefficient numbers for the “hockey stick” graph which McIntyre, Wegman, Cuccinelli and others have been desperate to see publicly examined but which Mann (and his university employers) have always kept under wraps. It’s not just the key evidence, but also Mann’s days that are numbered. This is because, as plaintiff in the action, Mann picked the worst possible jurisdiction to do legal battle over his “hockey stick” graph. This is for two key reasons:

* * * *

-- id.

 

[Trakar]

A very informative blog type piece with lots of useful hyperlinks in it.

hyperpartisan political rhetoric in support of hyperpartisan political rhetoric, linking to yet more hyperpartisan political rhetoric, imagine that.

 

[Liability]

A very informative blog type piece with lots of useful hyperlinks in it.

hyperpartisan political rhetoric in support of hyperpartisan political rhetoric, linking to yet more hyperpartisan political rhetoric, imagine that.

Bullshit, you dishonest pussy.

The piece has lots of very informative material in it, not just rhetoric and opinion.

That latter is your department, you spineless dishonest gonad-less twerp.

Fact.

 

[Liability]

What was proven was that Mann’s methodology would generate a hockey stick regardless of almost any data input. This was because Mann numbers had been generating “spectral noise,” One satirist, “Iowahawk” provided a primer on how to create a hockey stick at home, using a standard spreadsheet program.

Defenders of Mann claim that even if there are problems with his method or data set independent results from other researchers back him up. But as Andrew Montford’s ‘Caspar and Jesus’ study demonstrates, those third party statistical efforts to vindicate Mann actually raise more questions than they answer. But so much focus has been on Mann that a fellow Climategate co-conspirator, Keith Briffa has managed to evade the same level of scrutiny. But McIntyre showed Briffa was no less culpable.

Briffa had claimed to have independent Eurasian tree-ring analysis that confirmed Mann’s results. But what he offered from the Polar Urals and Eurasian data from Yamal led to even greater suspicion because leaked Climategate emails proved Briffa’s claims about these were unreliable. Emails proved Briffa had been telling one story in public but another privately. Further McIntyre examinations proved that Briffa’s Polar Urals update would not show a hockey stick shape graph at all.

A British criminal prosecution over Climategate was only averted because of a technicality - the incredibly short six-month statute of limitations. The British Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) confirmed that the UK’s University of East Anglia at the center of Climategate scandal had indeed unlawfully withheld and/or destroyed data.

Absent a full release of all the evidence (which governments and university authorities appear not to want) the evidence in the public domain points to a clique of climatologists conspiring to cherry-pick tree ring data. It appears their purpose was to be bolster “evidence” for their belief of unprecedented warmth in our modern era due to human emissions of carbon dioxide.

Briffa and others secretly accepted that the data from modern tree ring analysis showed a poor match with temperatures. So if there is poor reliability when compared with modern temperatures it is reasonable to infer that conclusions drawn from them before the pre-thermometer era may also be unreliable.

-- New SLAAPstick Courtroom Capers as Michael Mann Falls Foul Again | johnosullivan

 

[Trakar]

A very informative blog type piece with lots of useful hyperlinks in it.

hyperpartisan political rhetoric in support of hyperpartisan political rhetoric, linking to yet more hyperpartisan political rhetoric, imagine that.

Bullshit, you dishonest pussy.
The piece has lots of very informative material in it, not just rhetoric and opinion.
That latter is your department, you spineless dishonest gonad-less twerp.
Fact.

Ah, well, when you put it like that the content and reliability of what you have to offer is just so much easier to understand and properly characterize, thank-you for your assistance!

ROFLOL

 

[Liability]

hyperpartisan political rhetoric in support of hyperpartisan political rhetoric, linking to yet more hyperpartisan political rhetoric, imagine that.

Bullshit, you dishonest pussy.
The piece has lots of very informative material in it, not just rhetoric and opinion.
That latter is your department, you spineless dishonest gonad-less twerp.
Fact.

Ah, well, when you put it like that the content and reliability of what you have to offer is just so much easier to understand and properly characterize, thank-you for your assistance!

ROFLOL

Your fraudulent pretense of sophistication is duly noted and summarily rejected.

You make lots of demands for verification, etc. But you offer none.

In case you thought nobody noticed what a poseur you are, you were wrong about that, too.

Meanwhile, why do you support Mann the fraud? Is it that you frauds like to stick together?

 

[Trakar]

What was proven was that Mann’s methodology would generate a hockey stick regardless of almost any data input. This was because Mann numbers had been generating “spectral noise,” One satirist, “Iowahawk” provided a primer on how to create a hockey stick at home, using a standard spreadsheet program.

Defenders of Mann claim that even if there are problems with his method or data set independent results from other researchers back him up. But as Andrew Montford’s ‘Caspar and Jesus’ study demonstrates, those third party statistical efforts to vindicate Mann actually raise more questions than they answer. But so much focus has been on Mann that a fellow Climategate co-conspirator, Keith Briffa has managed to evade the same level of scrutiny. But McIntyre showed Briffa was no less culpable.

Briffa had claimed to have independent Eurasian tree-ring analysis that confirmed Mann’s results. But what he offered from the Polar Urals and Eurasian data from Yamal led to even greater suspicion because leaked Climategate emails proved Briffa’s claims about these were unreliable. Emails proved Briffa had been telling one story in public but another privately. Further McIntyre examinations proved that Briffa’s Polar Urals update would not show a hockey stick shape graph at all.

A British criminal prosecution over Climategate was only averted because of a technicality - the incredibly short six-month statute of limitations. The British Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) confirmed that the UK’s University of East Anglia at the center of Climategate scandal had indeed unlawfully withheld and/or destroyed data.

Absent a full release of all the evidence (which governments and university authorities appear not to want) the evidence in the public domain points to a clique of climatologists conspiring to cherry-pick tree ring data. It appears their purpose was to be bolster “evidence” for their belief of unprecedented warmth in our modern era due to human emissions of carbon dioxide.

Briffa and others secretly accepted that the data from modern tree ring analysis showed a poor match with temperatures. So if there is poor reliability when compared with modern temperatures it is reasonable to infer that conclusions drawn from them before the pre-thermometer era may also be unreliable.

-- New SLAAPstick Courtroom Capers as Michael Mann Falls Foul Again | johnosullivan

Blogosphere tabloidism at its finest, might as well feature bat-boy and Brangelina's distortions and unsupported assertions as well.

 

[Liability]

What was proven was that Mann’s methodology would generate a hockey stick regardless of almost any data input. This was because Mann numbers had been generating “spectral noise,” One satirist, “Iowahawk” provided a primer on how to create a hockey stick at home, using a standard spreadsheet program.

Defenders of Mann claim that even if there are problems with his method or data set independent results from other researchers back him up. But as Andrew Montford’s ‘Caspar and Jesus’ study demonstrates, those third party statistical efforts to vindicate Mann actually raise more questions than they answer. But so much focus has been on Mann that a fellow Climategate co-conspirator, Keith Briffa has managed to evade the same level of scrutiny. But McIntyre showed Briffa was no less culpable.

Briffa had claimed to have independent Eurasian tree-ring analysis that confirmed Mann’s results. But what he offered from the Polar Urals and Eurasian data from Yamal led to even greater suspicion because leaked Climategate emails proved Briffa’s claims about these were unreliable. Emails proved Briffa had been telling one story in public but another privately. Further McIntyre examinations proved that Briffa’s Polar Urals update would not show a hockey stick shape graph at all.

A British criminal prosecution over Climategate was only averted because of a technicality - the incredibly short six-month statute of limitations. The British Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) confirmed that the UK’s University of East Anglia at the center of Climategate scandal had indeed unlawfully withheld and/or destroyed data.

Absent a full release of all the evidence (which governments and university authorities appear not to want) the evidence in the public domain points to a clique of climatologists conspiring to cherry-pick tree ring data. It appears their purpose was to be bolster “evidence” for their belief of unprecedented warmth in our modern era due to human emissions of carbon dioxide.

Briffa and others secretly accepted that the data from modern tree ring analysis showed a poor match with temperatures. So if there is poor reliability when compared with modern temperatures it is reasonable to infer that conclusions drawn from them before the pre-thermometer era may also be unreliable.

-- New SLAAPstick Courtroom Capers as Michael Mann Falls Foul Again | johnosullivan

Blogosphere tabloidism at its finest, might as well feature bat-boy and Brangelina's distortions and unsupported assertions as well.

Petty commentary such as yours -- of course -- diligently ducks the obligation to substantiate your "point."

You remain a fail.

Is Mann, the fraud, a hero to other frauds like you, poseur boi?

 

[Trakar]

Bullshit, you dishonest pussy.
The piece has lots of very informative material in it, not just rhetoric and opinion.
That latter is your department, you spineless dishonest gonad-less twerp.
Fact.

Ah, well, when you put it like that the content and reliability of what you have to offer is just so much easier to understand and properly characterize, thank-you for your assistance!

ROFLOL

Your fraudulent pretense of sophistication is duly noted and summarily rejected.

You make lots of demands for verification, etc. But you offer none.

In case you thought nobody noticed what a poseur you are, you were wrong about that, too.

Meanwhile, why do you support Mann the fraud? Is it that you frauds like to stick together?

LOL. You demonstrate the assinine nature of your argument, I thank you for demonstrating the nature of you arguments so clearly for me, and you think I'm patting you on the back, what a maroon!

 

[Liability]

Ah, well, when you put it like that the content and reliability of what you have to offer is just so much easier to understand and properly characterize, thank-you for your assistance!

ROFLOL

Your fraudulent pretense of sophistication is duly noted and summarily rejected.

You make lots of demands for verification, etc. But you offer none.

In case you thought nobody noticed what a poseur you are, you were wrong about that, too.

Meanwhile, why do you support Mann the fraud? Is it that you frauds like to stick together?

LOL. You demonstrate the assinine nature of your argument, I thank you for demonstrating the nature of you arguments so clearly for me, and you think I'm patting you on the back, what a maroon!

You, by contrast, offer nothing at all except post after post of your mere opinion.

You remain a void, kid.