Mann Wins Defamation Suit

The jury found that every claim Steyn and Simberg made against Mann was false, that they knew they were false when they made them and that their intent from the beginning had been malicious.

Very much like the deniers here.

Stefan-Boltzmanns' Law is malicious ... to you it is, I understand ... but in general. it's considered sound science ...

I accuse The Hystericals of not using math ... like you don't ... not of have sex with 6-year-old girls ... I assume you want to and that's why you're defending Dr Mann ... you don't want you're heroes denigrated like that whether it's true or not ...

Skirts, do all their thinking with their pussy ...
 
The jury found that every claim Steyn and Simberg made against Mann was false, that they knew they were false when they made them and that their intent from the beginning had been malicious.

Very much like the deniers here.

And they determined the damage to his character was worth $2.
 
Stefan-Boltzmanns' Law is malicious ... to you it is, I understand ... but in general. it's considered sound science ...

I accuse The Hystericals of not using math ... like you don't ... not of have sex with 6-year-old girls ... I assume you want to and that's why you're defending Dr Mann ... you don't want you're heroes denigrated like that whether it's true or not ...

Skirts, do all their thinking with their pussy ...
Just tell the truth. That's what the good guys want from you.
 
Mathematical truth? ... it takes truly massive amounts of carbon dioxide to raise temperature just a little ... and 1ºC is tiny ... we've seen that much temperature rise in just the past hour here in North America ...

I just looked outside; thousands are dead on the streets of Chicago.

EXXON!!!!!!! You bastards!
 
Mathematical truth? ... it takes truly massive amounts of carbon dioxide to raise temperature just a little ... and 1ºC is tiny ... we've seen that much temperature rise in just the past hour here in North America ...
What relationship do you believe exists between the contintental temperature change over the last hour and the average global temperature.
 
Stefan-Boltzmanns' Law is malicious ... to you it is, I understand ... but in general. it's considered sound science ...
But your misuse of it is considered sort of a scientific abomination.

But your
I accuse The Hystericals of not using math ... like you don't ... not of have sex with 6-year-old girls ... I assume you want to and that's why you're defending Dr Mann ... you don't want you're heroes denigrated like that whether it's true or not ...

Skirts, do all their thinking with their pussy ...
WTF is wrong with you? That kind of sleaze is why Steyn is paying out a million dollars.
 
Frank seems to relish reliving all those times over the years when he was humiliated for lying.

No one else cares. The issue is settled. Mann is vindicated, his critics are revealed as frauds.

I'm just glad he received both dollars that his reputation was worth.
 
Frank seems to relish reliving all those times over the years when he was humiliated for lying.

No one else cares. The issue is settled. Mann is vindicated, his critics are revealed as frauds.

2010 was an amazing year in the revelations made by AGW Cult members themselves.

BBC "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming. Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Subsequent to this interview, Jones was intellectually abused and assaulted by his fellow Cultists who saw the $ would soon stop flowing and suddenly reversed himself.

Later in 2010 IPCC 3 co-author Ottmar Edenhofer said

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."


IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth” - Net Zero Watch

Also in 2010, there was less than 3 years on the "Ice caps disappearing" countdown clock

See why no sane person takes this seriously? No science, failed predictions, they admit it's a wealth redistribution scheme

Need a skookerasbil meme to complete this

2010: The Year the wheels fell off of the Climate Change Hoax Tricycle
 
What relationship do you believe exists between the contintental temperature change over the last hour and the average global temperature.
I am curious why this has garnered no response. Let me spell this out with a little analogy.

Look at these data

1707915105450.png


Can I look at the CO2 concentrations from May to August or even just over the month of July and conclude that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are falling at a precipitous pace? Obviously not. Yet Reiny Days, who typically attempts to maintain a scientific basis for his arguments would like us to believe that the change in long term average global temperature is meaninglessly trivial because the temperature variations across the planet regionally and over short time scales are larger. That is not the case.
 
Yet Reiny Days, who typically attempts to maintain a scientific basis for his arguments would like us to believe that the change in long term average global temperature is meaninglessly trivial because the temperature variations across the planet regionally and over short time scales are larger. That is not the case.
Whereas I believe the recent warming trend has been mistaken for AGW when in reality the majority of warming is due to the planet naturally warming up to its pre-glacial temperature like it always does before plunging into another glacial period.
glacial cycles.png


Has an incremental 120 ppm of CO2 contributed to this warming? Yes, but simple physics of radiative forcing calculates only 0.5C of the recent warming is from CO2. And when we factor in that the entire atmosphere is only 44% effective at trapping its theoretical surface temperature because convective currents move the heat away from the surface only 0.22C of the 0.5C from CO2 would be expected.
 
But your misuse of it is considered sort of a scientific abomination.

How am I misusing SB? ... irradation is proportional to temperature to the fourth power ... Astrophysics 301 ...

WTF is wrong with you? That kind of sleaze is why Steyn is paying out a million dollars.

"Sleaze"? ... that's Steyn's tactic ... why does talk of raping little girls bother you so much? ... am I touching a nerve? ... but you can go ahead and sue me at the Portland Oregon District Court, 1000 SW Third Ave here in Portland, 97204 ...
 
I am curious why this has garnered no response. Let me spell this out with a little analogy.

Look at these data

View attachment 902055

Can I look at the CO2 concentrations from May to August or even just over the month of July and conclude that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are falling at a precipitous pace? Obviously not. Yet Reiny Days, who typically attempts to maintain a scientific basis for his arguments would like us to believe that the change in long term average global temperature is meaninglessly trivial because the temperature variations across the planet regionally and over short time scales are larger. That is not the case.

Now extrapolate that curve back to 1940 and explain why the average global temperature fell from 1940-1980, while CO2 kept increasing.
 
How am I misusing SB? ... irradation is proportional to temperature to the fourth power ... Astrophysics 301 ...
Because it's not related to anything being discussed. You're just tossing out a term you don't understand, in an attempt to look smart. It doesn't work.

Go on. Show we're wrong. Tell us exactly why SD disproves global warming.

(This should be hilarious.)
"Sleaze"? ... that's Steyn's tactic ...
Well, yeah. I just said that.

why does talk of raping little girls bother you so much?
Again, WTF is wrong with you? Normal non-pervs don't talk like you do. Do you even understand such a thing, or are you too far gone into pervdom to grasp it?
 
and explain why the average global temperature fell from 1940-1980, while CO2 kept increasing.
That's not correct. It drops from 1940-1950, it's steady from 1950-1970, and then increasing after 1970.

Why not a steady rise over that time? Because the cooling effect from increasing pollution aerosols was big, and it offset the CO2 effect during that time.

Why do you think CO2 is the only thing affecting climate? None of the rational people here think that.
 
2010 was an amazing year in the revelations made by AGW Cult members themselves.
It's kind of sad, that you literally haven't been able to come up with any new lies since 2010.

Your cult is dead. You're like an old alchoholic bragging about how he used to knock down mailboxes while in high school, as he sits in his run-down doublewide.
 

Forum List

Back
Top