What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

mamooth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
25,328
Reaction score
7,613
Points
360
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
You're the one whining about butthurt.......Mann pay those legal fees yet? LOL!
Libel has an extremely very high bar to prove, and Mann didn't have enough. That's all it means. And it's funny that you think it means somnething..

You used to be sort of normal. Not anymore. Your cult has really done a number on you.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Libel has an extremely very high bar to prove, and Mann didn't have enough.

Not only, "didn't have enough", he owes legal fees to Tim Ball, one of the guys he sued. LOL!
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Again, you're just babbling buzzwords from the cult.

And that's all you've ever been capable of.

Have you thought of getting a different hobby?

Do I need to explain "Mike's Nature Trick" and "Hide the Decline"? LOL!
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
I would like to hear you explain them Todd, because I think you're suffering from a few misunderstandings.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
He should have told that to the judge, maybe he wouldn't have had his court cases tossed?
It looks to me as if Steyn and Simberg are still in legal trouble and that CEI and National Review getting excused had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Mann did.

 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
It looks to me as if Steyn and Simberg are still in legal trouble and that CEI and National Review getting excused had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Mann did.


If you've not been keeping track of the litigious Mann's courtroom score card, here's how it stands after last week's ruling:

~Mann vs Professor Timothy Ball (British Columbia Supreme Court):
Case dismissed; Mann loses (and has been ordered to pay costs, which the bum and deadbeat has declined to do);
~Mann vs National Review (District of Columbia Superior Court):
Case dismissed; Mann loses;
~Mann vs Competitive Enterprise Institute (DC Sup Ct):
Case dismissed; Mann loses.

 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
My article is one day later than yours
If you've not been keeping track of the litigious Mann's courtroom score card, here's how it stands after last week's ruling:



How do you jibe your article with the conclusion of mine:

The judge’s ruling, if it stands and the case proceeds to trial, means that the bloggers will have to defend the accusation that they recklessly ignored those reports. But for now, the publishers who gave the bloggers a platform have succeeded in their bid to avoid liability, by virtue of the arm’s length relationship they maintained with the authors who wrote under their banner.

As I stated earlier, CEI and the National Review have been released from the suit, but Steyn and Simberg are headed for a trial since Mann has clearly stated he is not giving up this case.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
The judge’s ruling, if it stands and the case proceeds to trial, means that the bloggers will have to defend the accusation that they recklessly ignored those reports.

So what?

What's Mann's record to date?

Is it 0-3?

Is he ever going to pay the legal fees he owes? Why is he a deadbeat?

As I stated earlier, CEI and the National Review have been released from the suit, but Steyn and Simberg are headed for a trial since Mann has clearly stated he is not giving up this case.

Do you feel I denied your earlier statement?
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
As I've stated and verified repeatedly here, Steyn and Simberg are still being sued by Mann. And, as seems to be the case with every debate I have with AGW deniers, this topic has absolutely NOTHING to do with the validity of AGW. Or do you think otherwise? Do you believe its validity rests on whether or not Steyn and Simberg defamed Mann? Is that the criteria? If they lose will you accept AGW as valid? If they win, do you expect me to cast it aside? Then what the fuck are we doing here Todd? I never thought I'd say this of you, Todd, but you seem to be moving toward irrelevancy.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
As I've stated and verified repeatedly here, Steyn and Simberg are still being sued by Mann. And, as seems to be the case with every debate I have with AGW deniers, this topic has absolutely NOTHING to do with the validity of AGW. Or do you think otherwise? Do you believe its validity rests on whether or not Steyn and Simberg defamed Mann? Is that the criteria? If they lose will you accept AGW as valid? If they win, do you expect me to cast it aside? Then what the fuck are we doing here Todd? I never thought I'd say this of you, Todd, but you seem to be moving toward irrelevancy.

As I've stated and verified repeatedly here, Steyn and Simberg are still being sued by Mann.

Where have I denied that? Ever?

Mann has lost 3 cases, so far, and owes legal fees to Tim Ball. Which the deadbeat still hasn't paid.
Do you deny that?

this topic has absolutely NOTHING to do with the validity of AGW.

It has to do with the fraud that is Michael Mann.

Then what the fuck are we doing here Todd?

I think it started with you saying the hockey stick has never been disproven (or something of that nature, not an exact quote of your defense).
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
Steyn and Simberg have nothing to do with anything I am here to debate. Mann, Bradley and Hughes findings, from their data published in 1999, 2000, 2003 and 2008 has been repeatedly verified. The statistical flaw in the 1999 data had NO EFFECT on the conclusions drawn from that data, was corrected in the 2000 version and has never been repeated. His results have never been refuted despite numerous denier efforts to do so. So where the fuck do you get off saying the man is a fraud Todd?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
So where the fuck do you get off saying the man is a fraud Todd?

(cough) Nobel Prize (cough)

If you think Mike's Nature Trick, Hiding The Decline, trying to stop critics from being published, dragging out lawsuits against bloggers, publishers, professors for 10 years and then not paying court ordered legal fees is evidence of an upstanding member of the scientific community,
I'm gonna have to laugh at you some more.

Mann, Bradley and Hughes findings, from their data published in 1999, 2000, 2003 and 2008 has been repeatedly verified.

Mann's original hockey stick was bullshit.

The statistical flaw in the 1999 data had NO EFFECT on the conclusions drawn from that data

What flaw? Post it.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
I asked you several posts back to give me your understanding of Mike's Nature Trick and Hide the Decline. You have not done so.

Here is MBH 1998 compared to Wahl-Amman 2008

1630077387532.png


Where, exactly, do you see "bullshit"?
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
Last edited:

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
Your turn Todd. Show us a temperature reconstruction of the last 1-2 thousand years that refutes MBH 2000. And I would still very much like to hear YOUR understanding of Mike's Nature Trick and Hide the Decline.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Steyn and Simberg have nothing to do with anything I am here to debate. Mann, Bradley and Hughes findings, from their data published in 1999, 2000, 2003 and 2008 has been repeatedly verified. The statistical flaw in the 1999 data had NO EFFECT on the conclusions drawn from that data, was corrected in the 2000 version and has never been repeated. His results have never been refuted despite numerous denier efforts to do so. So where the fuck do you get off saying the man is a fraud Todd?

The statistical flaw in the 1999 data had NO EFFECT on the conclusions drawn from that data

What flaw? Post it.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
Why? Do you not know what it was? Everyone else does. You seem to claim that Mike's Nature Trick and Hide the Decline are hard evidence of fraud. I would say that is simply a clear indication that you do not know what Mike's Nature Trick was or what Hide the Decline actually did because neither were fraudulent. But we need you to explain it to us. If we start accusing people of crimes without providing evidence, we will have sunk to another new low. Please explain your evidence that Mann has been fraudulent.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Why? Do you not know what it was?

You know what it was, post it.

Yes, adding real temperature measurements to proxy ones is fraudulent.

If he was being honest, he'd post them side-by-side, with an explanation.

Adding them together to hide the decline is horrible science.

Why is Mann such a deadbeat? Pay your court ordered legal fees already. LOL!
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
Your understanding is incorrect. I'm certain the folks at Skeptical Science aren't your favorites, but they have a brief and concise (and correct) explanation of both Mike's Nature Trick and Hide the Decline at Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'. It's one page Todd. Please read it.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$132.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top