Summer 2019 was hottest on record for Northern Hemisphere

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Angelo, Sep 26, 2019.

  1. Sunsettommy
    Offline

    Sunsettommy Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    3,221
    Thanks Received:
    649
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +3,728
    I notice you completely ignored my post 28 showing these late season heat waves have happened many times before. I can show many more too, but what I showed was enough and happened long ago when CO2 was BELOW the "safe" 350 ppm level, McKibben says so......

    Snicker.........................
     
  2. bear513
    Offline

    bear513 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    58,127
    Thanks Received:
    7,393
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +38,492

    Propaganda....your counting on the uneducated/indoctrinated liberal base.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    53,386
    Thanks Received:
    6,517
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +29,391
    There was once a mile of ice on top of the spot where I live.
    Did the climate change that melted that ice cost us anything?
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  4. Angelo
    Offline

    Angelo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2019
    Messages:
    11,526
    Thanks Received:
    1,580
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    _Arkansas~_The Natural State_
    Ratings:
    +6,379
    I'm not responding to the trolls on this thread anymore. The OP speaks for itself.
    Have a nice day !
    [​IMG]
     
  5. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    20,976
    Thanks Received:
    3,553
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +13,650
    So, you're telling us that you can't back up any of your fraud here, not even with conspiracy blogs. But you'll keep pushing the fraud. This has reached the status of "sacred dogma" with the deniers, regardless of its complete lack of truth, so all of them are required to parrot it.

    Let's go over what's actually happened in the Mann case.

    Mann sued FCPP and Ball. Reference case # VLC-S-S-111913

    FCPP settled out of court with Mann. FCPP issued a public retraction, and a public apology to Mann. You can read it here.

    http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/clim...07_Court-No.-VLC-S-S-111913_press-release.png

    Ball asked for endless delays because all his witnesses had died, and because his health was poor, and because he had no credibility, hence he couldn't defame Mann. That's right, Ball admitted in court to having no credibility.

    All of Mann's data and methodology is available online for anyone to examine. Therefore, it would be insane to ask a court to order Mann to provide it, as the answer would be "here's the website address". That's why nobody did such a thing. "Mann wouldn't turn over documents!" is a denier cult myth.

    There was no "Mann must pay Dr. Ball's legal bills" order. That's another denier cult myth.

    Essentially, Ball just ran out the clock. Mann could keep pressing, but I think he's taking pity on Ball for being in poor health and stupid, and for already being a laughingstock.

    I'll also note that in the USA, CEI and NR are still asking the court to have their libel case dismissed. They don't want to face Mann in court.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2019
  6. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    53,386
    Thanks Received:
    6,517
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +29,391
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  7. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    20,976
    Thanks Received:
    3,553
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +13,650
    There's "official" satellite data?

    Tell us, who officially classified it as "official"? How does a data get the coveted "official" status?

    You're using UAH, which is regarded as garbage. It's the wild outlier of every data set. It doesn't match any other data set, including the weather balloons.

    However, it says what you want to hear, and thus in your eyes, it's "official".

    So we shouldn't use surface temperatures to compare with model predictions of surface temperatures, and should use bad satellite models instead. That makes no sense.

    Where do you come up with this stuff?

    Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? | Carbon Brief
    ---
    Despite a best estimate of climate sensitivity a tad lower than the 3C used today, the FAR overestimated the rate of warming between 1970 and 2016 by around 17% in their BAU scenario, showing 1C warming over that period vs 0.85C observed. This is mostly due to the projection of much higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than has actually occurred.
    ---
     
  8. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    53,386
    Thanks Received:
    6,517
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +29,391
    Ball asked for endless delays because all his witnesses had died, and because his health was poor,

    [6] I turn first to whether there has been inordinate delay. Some key dates in the litigation are:

    a) March 25, 2011, the action was commenced;

    b) July 7, 2011, the notice of civil claim was amended;

    c) June 5, 2012, the notice of civil claim was further amended;


    d) From approximately June of 2013 until November of 2014, there were no steps taken in the action;

    e) November 12, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of intention to proceed;

    f) February 20, 2017, the matter was initially supposed to go to trial, but that trial date was adjourned;

    g) July 20, 2017, the date of the last communication received from Mr. Mann or his counsel by the defendant. No steps were taken in the matter until March 21, 2019 when the application to dismiss was filed;

    h) April 10, 2019, a second notice of intention to proceed was filed; and

    i) August 9, 2019, after the first day of the hearing of this application, a new trial date was set for January 11, 2021.


    [7] There have been at least two extensive periods of delay. Commencing in approximately June 2013, there was a delay of approximately 15 months where nothing was done to move the matter ahead. There was a second extensive period of delay from July 20, 2017 until the filing of the application to dismiss on March 21, 2019, a delay of 20 months. Again, nothing was done during this period to move the matter ahead. The total time elapsed, from the filing of the notice of civil claim until the application to dismiss was filed, was eight years. It will be almost ten years by the time the matter goes to trial. There have been two periods, of approximately 35 months in total, where nothing was done. In my view, by any measure, this is an inordinate delay.


    [8] I now turn to whether the delay is excusable. In my view, it is not. There is no evidence from the plaintiff explaining the delay. Dr. Mann filed an affidavit but he provides no evidence whatsoever addressing the delay. Importantly, he does not provide any evidence saying that the delay was due to his counsel, nor does he provide evidence that he instructed his counsel to proceed diligently with the matter. He simply does not address delay at all.
    [9] Counsel for Dr. Mann submits that the delay was due to his being busy on other matters, but the affidavit evidence falls far short of establishing this. The affidavit of Jocelyn Molnar, filed April 10, 2019, simply addresses what matters plaintiff's counsel was involved in at various times. The affidavit does not connect those other matters to the delay here. It does not explain the lengthy delay in 2013 and 2014 and does not adequately explain the delay from July 2017. The evidence falls far short of establishing an excuse for the delay.
    [10] Even if I was satisfied that the evidence established the delay was solely due to plaintiff's counsel being busy with other matters, which I am not, I do not agree that this would be an adequate excuse. Counsel for the plaintiff was unable to provide any authority establishing that counsel's busy schedule is a valid excuse for delay.
    LOL! Liar​




    All of Mann's data and methodology is available online for anyone to examine.

    Should have been easy for him to provide it then......


    There was no "Mann must pay Dr. Balls legal bills" order. That's another denier cult myth.


    [18] Those are my reasons, counsel. Costs?

    [19] MR. SCHERR: I would, of course, ask for costs for the defendant, given the dismissal of the action.

    [20] MR. MCCONCHIE: Costs follow the event. I have no quarrel with that.

    [21] THE COURT: All right. I agree. The costs will follow the event, so the defendant will have his costs of the application and also the costs of the action, since the action is dismissed.


    DURR
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  9. Sunsettommy
    Offline

    Sunsettommy Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    3,221
    Thanks Received:
    649
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +3,728
    You are sooo lazy to look it up, I have posted THIS many times in the forum, YOU saw it and amazingly warmists always forget it, that is why I don't link it much anymore, it will get ignored as YOU will here again, since you are a dishonest person.

    This straight off the IPCC website:

    "Based on current model results, we predict: • under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade)..."

    bolding mine

    Your unsupported bias against UAH will be ignored since you have many times been shown that all of the issues have been accounted for, you just don't like it because you are a profoundly dishonest person.

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Sunsettommy
    Offline

    Sunsettommy Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    3,221
    Thanks Received:
    649
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +3,728
    Mamooth is LYING like hell!

    He writes this bullcrap:

    "Ball asked for endless delays because all his witnesses had died, and because his health was poor, and because he had no credibility, hence he couldn't defame Mann. That's right, Ball admitted in court to having no credibility.

    All of Mann's data and methodology is available online for anyone to examine. Therefore, it would be insane to ask a court to order Mann to provide it, as the answer would be "here's the website address". That's why nobody did such a thing. "Mann wouldn't turn over documents!" is a denier cult myth.

    There was no "Mann must pay Dr. Ball's legal bills" order. That's another denier cult myth.

    Essentially, Ball just ran out the clock. Mann could keep pressing, but I think he's taking pity on Ball for being in poor health and stupid, and for already being a laughingstock."

    =========================

    I told this liar over 30 minutes before his lie posted this in reply to him:

    Post 43

    "Gawad you are so thick headed!

    Dr. Mann lost the case because he wasn't pursuing his case for libel, he sat on it for long periods of time doing NOTHING! Dr. Ball ended up requesting shutting the case down due to Dr.. Mann foot dragging, heck the twerp was the one who stopped the trial in the first place!

    I posted the FULL LEGAL judgement and YOU ignored the entire thread I started, you are so pathetic on this, since as the Judge's ENTIRE Ruling has been posted in my thread, which you completely avoided."

    ===================

    It is clear you never read the Official Decision at all since what you post is a flat out LIE! From THIS LINK, you never read

    [1] THE COURT: I will render my reasons on the application to dismiss. I reserve the right to amend these reasons for clarity and grammar, but the result will not change.

    [2] The defendant brings an application for an order dismissing the action for delay.

    [3] The plaintiff, Dr. Mann, and the defendant, Dr. Ball, have dramatically different opinions on climate change. I do not intend to address those differences. It is sufficient that one believes climate change is man-made and the other does not. As a result of the different opinions held, the two have been in near constant conflict for many years.

    [4] The underlying action concerns, first, a statement made by the defendant in an interview conducted on February 9, 2011. He said, “Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the state pen, not Penn State.” This statement was published on a website and is alleged to be defamatory of the plaintiff. The notice of civil claim also alleges multiple other statements published by Mr. Ball are defamatory. It is not necessary that I address the many alleged defamatory statements."

    and,

    "[7] There have been at least two extensive periods of delay. Commencing in approximately June 2013, there was a delay of approximately 15 months where nothing was done to move the matter ahead. There was a second extensive period of delay from July 20, 2017 until the filing of the application to dismiss on March 21, 2019, a delay of 20 months. Again, nothing was done during this period to move the matter ahead. The total time elapsed, from the filing of the notice of civil claim until the application to dismiss was filed, was eight years. It will be almost ten years by the time the matter goes to trial. There have been two periods, of approximately 35 months in total, where nothing was done. In my view, by any measure, this is an inordinate delay.

    [8] I now turn to whether the delay is excusable. In my view, it is not. There is no evidence from the plaintiff explaining the delay. Dr. Mann filed an affidavit but he provides no evidence whatsoever addressing the delay. Importantly, he does not provide any evidence saying that the delay was due to his counsel, nor does he provide evidence that he instructed his counsel to proceed diligently with the matter. He simply does not address delay at all"

    and the clincher,

    "[12] Accordingly, I find that the delay is inexcusable.

    [13] With respect to prejudice, such prejudice is presumed unless the prejudice is rebutted. Indeed, the presumption of prejudice is given even more weight in defamation cases: Samson v. Scaletta, 2016 BCSC 2598, at paras 40-43. The plaintiff has not filed any evidence rebutting the presumption of prejudice.

    [14] Moreover, the defendant has led actual evidence of actual prejudice. The evidence is that the defendant intended to call three witnesses at trial who would have provided evidence going to fair comment and malice. Those witnesses have now died. A fourth witness is no longer able to travel. Thus, in addition to finding that presumption of prejudice has not been rebutted, I also find that there has been actual prejudice to the defendant as a consequence of the delay.

    [15] Turning to the final factor, I have little hesitation in finding that, on balance, justice requires the action be dismissed. The parties are both in their eighties and Dr. Ball is in poor health. He has had this action hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for eight years and he will need to wait until January 2021 before the matter proceeds to trial. That is a ten year delay from the original alleged defamatory statement. Other witnesses are also elderly or in poor health. The memories of all parties and witnesses will have faded by the time the matter goes to trial.

    [16] I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant. This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay."

    I hope your Kitty sized brain can digest this simple to understand ruling in favor for Dr. Ball....
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2019

Share This Page