‘I don’t bluff’

[Toddsterpatriot]

hahahahahahahahah


the republican party really created themselves a stupid label and have no way out of it now.
this is what happens when you court the idiot vote.


denying global warming is just another anti science stance that will haunt them until they can extracate themselves from it

this is what happens when you court the idiot vote.

Rest easy, the Republicans are not courting your vote.

Well of course not, toadsteretard, but that's because we're not idiots like you.

You're a special class of idiot.

 

[Liability]

Michael Mann’s lawyer says National Review must retract and apologize
By Curtis Brainard

http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/michael_mann_national_review_m.php

Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann is demanding that National Review retract and apologize for a July 15 post that compared him to Jerry Sandusky, the convicted child molester and former Penn State assistant football coach.

The post in question, by Mark Steyn, accused Mann of academic fraud, dredging up a discredited charge that emerged in 2009 following the leak of emails between Mann and other scientists, which critics claimed were evidence of data manipulation. Despite the fact that almost half a dozen investigations affirmed the integrity of Mann’s research, Steyn quoted a post from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) that referred to Mann’s work as Penn State’s “other scandal,”...

...In a letter sent Friday to Scott Budd, National Review’s executive publisher, Mann’s attorney, John B. Williams, called Steyn’s allegations defamatory:

“Your allegation of academic fraud is false, and was clearly made with the knowledge that it was false….” Williams wrote. “And further, you draw the insidious comparison between Dr. Mann and Jerry Sandusky, who as you point out, was recently convicted of child molestation. This reference is simply outrageous and clearly subjects your publication to a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress...

“Needless to say, we intend to pursue all appropriate legal remedies on behalf of Dr. Mann.”...

“This is not a bluff,” Williams said when asked about Simberg’s comment. “This is a very strong case. I’ve done a fair amount of libel and defamation work. I vet the cases pretty thoroughly before I take them, and I don’t bluff. We’re going to bring it unless they retract and apologize.”...

Rand has always been a fringe conspiracy extremist. He used to be a big Hoagland "Face on Mars," Martian temples and pyramids guy, big time into UFOs and Bigfoot as well. This isn't terribly surprising.

Bad news for Budd, for attorney Williams and for "scientist" Mann:

In a defamation lawsuit (if one IS ever filed, because it would be stupid not to be bluffing in this case):

TRUTH is an absolute defense.

 

[Liability]

Furthermore, if Budd (and attorney Williams) does file suit on behalf of Mann, Steyn gets to obtain DISCOVERY!

This could REALLY pan out!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Please oh please oh please let Mann defend his scientific fraud in a court. It will never happen of course but it's great to fantasize about mann getting demolished in court

 

[Trakar]

Michael Mann’s lawyer says National Review must retract and apologize
By Curtis Brainard

http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/michael_mann_national_review_m.php

Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann is demanding that National Review retract and apologize for a July 15 post that compared him to Jerry Sandusky, the convicted child molester and former Penn State assistant football coach.

The post in question, by Mark Steyn, accused Mann of academic fraud, dredging up a discredited charge that emerged in 2009 following the leak of emails between Mann and other scientists, which critics claimed were evidence of data manipulation. Despite the fact that almost half a dozen investigations affirmed the integrity of Mann’s research, Steyn quoted a post from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) that referred to Mann’s work as Penn State’s “other scandal,”...

...In a letter sent Friday to Scott Budd, National Review’s executive publisher, Mann’s attorney, John B. Williams, called Steyn’s allegations defamatory:

“Your allegation of academic fraud is false, and was clearly made with the knowledge that it was false….” Williams wrote. “And further, you draw the insidious comparison between Dr. Mann and Jerry Sandusky, who as you point out, was recently convicted of child molestation. This reference is simply outrageous and clearly subjects your publication to a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress...

“Needless to say, we intend to pursue all appropriate legal remedies on behalf of Dr. Mann.”...

“This is not a bluff,” Williams said when asked about Simberg’s comment. “This is a very strong case. I’ve done a fair amount of libel and defamation work. I vet the cases pretty thoroughly before I take them, and I don’t bluff. We’re going to bring it unless they retract and apologize.”...

Rand has always been a fringe conspiracy extremist. He used to be a big Hoagland "Face on Mars," Martian temples and pyramids guy, big time into UFOs and Bigfoot as well. This isn't terribly surprising.

Bad news for Budd, for attorney Williams and for "scientist" Mann:

In a defamation lawsuit (if one IS ever filed, because it would be stupid not to be bluffing in this case):

TRUTH is an absolute defense.

Indeed, truth is a defense that can be used; in a court of law, however, the facts determine truth, not partisan denialist talking points and spin doctored distortions of reality.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes and Mann altered the facts to fit his "theory"

 

[Liability]

Michael Mann’s lawyer says National Review must retract and apologize
By Curtis Brainard

http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/michael_mann_national_review_m.php



Rand has always been a fringe conspiracy extremist. He used to be a big Hoagland "Face on Mars," Martian temples and pyramids guy, big time into UFOs and Bigfoot as well. This isn't terribly surprising.

Bad news for Budd, for attorney Williams and for "scientist" Mann:

In a defamation lawsuit (if one IS ever filed, because it would be stupid not to be bluffing in this case):

TRUTH is an absolute defense.

Indeed, truth is a defense that can be used; in a court of law, however, the facts determine truth, not partisan denialist talking points and spin doctored distortions of reality.

Yes. That is how it works. Which is WHY I look forward to the hypothetical filing of such a lawsuit.

But it IS a bluff. Why, the DISCOVERY process alone would RUIN Mann.

Hockey sticks in hockey are good. In fraudulent climate science, they are as useful as well -- hiding data in science.

 

[flacaltenn]

Furthermore, if Budd (and attorney Williams) does file suit on behalf of Mann, Steyn gets to obtain DISCOVERY!

This could REALLY pan out!

OOOhhhh --- I LIKE the sound of that part.. Bring it on...

Somehow -- I figure Penn State has had enough for one year and will pressure Mann to back down.. ESPECIALLY if THEY get dragged into it as you suggest...

GOOD POINT!!!

 

[Trakar]

Bad news for Budd, for attorney Williams and for "scientist" Mann:

In a defamation lawsuit (if one IS ever filed, because it would be stupid not to be bluffing in this case):

TRUTH is an absolute defense.

Indeed, truth is a defense that can be used; in a court of law, however, the facts determine truth, not partisan denialist talking points and spin doctored distortions of reality.

Yes. That is how it works. Which is WHY I look forward to the hypothetical filing of such a lawsuit.

But it IS a bluff. Why, the DISCOVERY process alone would RUIN Mann.

All available evidence indicates otherwise.
(btw, is this all caps abberation an extremist identifier?)

 

[freedombecki]

Mann is a punchline.

Warmers and Decline Hiders love him.

I hope they reconsider:

“The UVA emails are a key part of a history that taxpayers are trying to piece together to place the early climate alarmism, and taxpayer financing of it, in context,” said Dr. David Schnare, Director of the ATI Environmental Law Center. “The alarmist professors who in some of these emails speak about ‘the cause’ have complained that their emails have been taken out of context. Release of the full UVA email collection, all sent or received by Mann after expressly agreeing he had no ownership of or expectation of privacy about them, will provide that context. Considering the behavior of this former UVA professor as documented in many emails already available to the public, these emails are the only means he has to claim exoneration without being accused of a whitewash.”
The selected emails include graphic descriptions of the contempt a small circle of largely taxpayer-funded alarmists held for anyone who followed scientific principles and ended up disagreeing with them. For example, in the fifteenth Petitioners’ Exemplar (PE-15), Mann encourages a boycott of one climate journal and a direct appeal to his friends on the editorial board to have one of the journal’s editors fired for accepting papers that were carefully peer-reviewed and recommended for publication on the basis that the papers dispute Mann’s own work. In PE-38, he states that another well respected journal is “being run by the baddies,” calling them “shills for industry.” In PE-39 Mann calls U.S. Congressmen concerned about how he spent taxpayer money “thugs”. Legal exemplars cited in Michael Mann's UVA E-mail case

Sad day for the scientific community.

Indeed, anytime anyone mistakes WUWT as anything but the extremist political cesspool that it is, is a sad day humanity in general.

Aw, Trakar, I didn't take you for one to ignore evidence and singing the official global warming themesong:

 

[Trakar]

I hope they reconsider:

Sad day for the scientific community.

Indeed, anytime anyone mistakes WUWT as anything but the extremist political cesspool that it is, is a sad day humanity in general.

Aw, Trakar, I didn't take you for one to ignore evidence...

I only defer from listening to extremist political rhetoric. If there is science that you have to discuss, I'm all ears(eyes). I don't have much appreciation for partisan cheerleaders when it science.

 

[freedombecki]

Bad news for Budd, for attorney Williams and for "scientist" Mann:

In a defamation lawsuit (if one IS ever filed, because it would be stupid not to be bluffing in this case):

TRUTH is an absolute defense.

Indeed, truth is a defense that can be used; in a court of law, however, the facts determine truth, not partisan denialist talking points and spin doctored distortions of reality.

Yes. That is how it works. Which is WHY I look forward to the hypothetical filing of such a lawsuit.

But it IS a bluff. Why, the DISCOVERY process alone would RUIN Mann.

Hockey sticks in hockey are good. In fraudulent climate science, they are as useful as well -- hiding data in science.

Mann ruined himself when he tried to get a journal editor fired for blowing the whistle on his vicious emails to scientists all over the world.

Here is the 151-page PDF file of the Petitioners Exemplars.

It's a little telling about Mann's footshoot and his attempts to engage others to do likewise, some of whom willingly took the bait. One did with a telling exemption, stating "A word of warning. I would be careful about using other, independent paleo reconstruction work as supporting the MBH reconstructions. I am attaching my version of a comparison of the bulk of these other reconstructions. Although these all show the hockey stick shape, the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers' side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all."

Can you say wah-wah trumpet?

 

[freedombecki]

Indeed, anytime anyone mistakes WUWT as anything but the extremist political cesspool that it is, is a sad day humanity in general.

Aw, Trakar, I didn't take you for one to ignore evidence...

I only defer from listening to extremist political rhetoric. If there is science that you have to discuss, I'm all ears(eyes). I don't have much appreciation for partisan cheerleaders when it science.

That's fine with me. Now read his own words: Petitioners-Exemplars.pdf

His telling other scientists what to say, do, avoid, and emphasize really goes against the grain with me. My father taught science and math. From him I learned independent thinking, not group thinking.

 

[Trakar]

Aw, Trakar, I didn't take you for one to ignore evidence...

I only defer from listening to extremist political rhetoric. If there is science that you have to discuss, I'm all ears(eyes). I don't have much appreciation for partisan cheerleaders when it science.

That's fine with me. Now read his own words: Petitioners-Exemplars.pdf

His telling other scientists what to say, do, avoid, and emphasize really goes against the grain with me. My father taught science and math. From him I learned independent thinking, not group thinking.

Blaming your parents for your failures is not a compelling argument, IMO.

 

[Trakar]

Indeed, truth is a defense that can be used; in a court of law, however, the facts determine truth, not partisan denialist talking points and spin doctored distortions of reality.

Yes. That is how it works. Which is WHY I look forward to the hypothetical filing of such a lawsuit.

But it IS a bluff. Why, the DISCOVERY process alone would RUIN Mann.

Hockey sticks in hockey are good. In fraudulent climate science, they are as useful as well -- hiding data in science.

Mann ruined himself when he tried to get a journal editor fired for blowing the whistle on his vicious emails to scientists all over the world.

Here is the 151-page PDF file of the Petitioners Exemplars...

American Tradition Institute!? Good lordy now you've jumped from the cesspool back into the colon. This is a step backwards and isn't advancing your cause any at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. That is how it works. Which is WHY I look forward to the hypothetical filing of such a lawsuit.

But it IS a bluff. Why, the DISCOVERY process alone would RUIN Mann.

Hockey sticks in hockey are good. In fraudulent climate science, they are as useful as well -- hiding data in science.

Mann ruined himself when he tried to get a journal editor fired for blowing the whistle on his vicious emails to scientists all over the world.

Here is the 151-page PDF file of the Petitioners Exemplars...

American Tradition Institute!? Good lordy now you've jumped from the cesspool back into the colon. This is a step backwards and isn't advancing your cause any at all.

Are the Climategate emails on that site not the real ones?

 

[freedombecki]

Mann is a certified quack who got caught manufacturing data. That's why he's being investigated.

You've got it kind of backwards and upside-down, as usual, you poor deluded moron. You are a certified denier cult retard who has been caught numerous times posting lies. That's why you're being ignored.

Well, what did I miss. When I see one of bripat9643's claims that I haven't seen before, I find three or four good validations of his claims. His interpretative skills are on the money. A lot of people read data and do not understand what it says. Not bripat, and he doesn't have to be told twice. The sound of rolling thunder? You might check for appendicitis, cause you got a leak somewhere in there, pal.

 

[freedombecki]

Yes. That is how it works. Which is WHY I look forward to the hypothetical filing of such a lawsuit.

But it IS a bluff. Why, the DISCOVERY process alone would RUIN Mann.

Hockey sticks in hockey are good. In fraudulent climate science, they are as useful as well -- hiding data in science.

Mann ruined himself when he tried to get a journal editor fired for blowing the whistle on his vicious emails to scientists all over the world.

Here is the 151-page PDF file of the Petitioners Exemplars...

American Tradition Institute!? Good lordy now you've jumped from the cesspool back into the colon. This is a step backwards and isn't advancing your cause any at all.

Over your head, are they? Sorry, I thought perhaps you had the rudimentary skills one learns in college speed reading from your braggadocio.

 

[Liability]

Indeed, truth is a defense that can be used; in a court of law, however, the facts determine truth, not partisan denialist talking points and spin doctored distortions of reality.

Yes. That is how it works. Which is WHY I look forward to the hypothetical filing of such a lawsuit.

But it IS a bluff. Why, the DISCOVERY process alone would RUIN Mann.

All available evidence indicates otherwise.
(btw, is this all caps abberation an extremist identifier?)

(A) Fail claim by you trakar. You falsely say "all available evidence indicates otherwise," whereas, in truth, almost no available evidence indicates otherwise.

(B) There is no abberation nor even an aberration. It's called emphasis, you petty little fraud.

You and your dishonest ilk are the extremists.

The adherents of anthropogenic global warming are, by and large, piss poor scientists or outright frauds.

Try to take a break from your silly polemicist claptrap. Once upon a time, before there were many humans or much human "industry," the earth was a ******* hot place. Later, still before humans and human industry took root, the Earth got ******* cold. Then, still before humanity and human industry flourished, guess what? It warmed again.

Try to draw a conclusion from that on the impact on the Earth's climate premised on humans and human industry.

Get back to us with some cooked data.

 

[freedombecki]

I only defer from listening to extremist political rhetoric. If there is science that you have to discuss, I'm all ears(eyes). I don't have much appreciation for partisan cheerleaders when it science.

That's fine with me. Now read his own words: Petitioners-Exemplars.pdf

His telling other scientists what to say, do, avoid, and emphasize really goes against the grain with me. My father taught science and math. From him I learned independent thinking, not group thinking.

Blaming your parents for your failures is not a compelling argument, IMO.

Some of his math and science students became CEOs in major companies. My math is all done in cloth, and I'll wager you couldn't do it, pussycat. I mean that in the nicest way it could possibly sound.