Michael Mann.. Deception and Misinformation

[Billy_Bob]

Or ole Doc Hansen feeding the mush minds of the press images of "coal trains of death" and "boiling oceans" so they have "scientific cover" to make highly exaggerated documentaries and people panicking claims as tho they have any scientific validation..

ACTIVISTS is what they are -- somewhere down the list of priorities they might have trained as scientists.

I do like my crab boiled... DAM... Hansen lied again.. and I am Hungry!

 

[Muhammed]

Yet Micheal Mann has scientists in every nation and culture that state that by their observations, he is correct. And who does Silly Billy have? LOL. Fellow fruitloops, crackpots, and fakers.

Michael Mann is a horrible criminal, not a scientist.

 

[Crick]

It astounds me how quickly the conservative mind succumbs to the siren lure of mob justice. Surely somewhere along the line you realized that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I mean, everyone here realized your lacking long ago. Despite such shortcoming, did it not occur to you that the depths of such ignorance is not the optimum viewpoint from which to be making judgments of others?

 

[Crick]

That if you refuse to release your data -- even in a COURT PROCEEDING, that you being unfairly attacked and need to take action.

What DATA are you talking about?

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists have been publicly under attack by by such liars as Inhofe for a long time. It is time to fight back, to name the miscreants that use lies to defame the names of people that are simply doing their jobs.

You don't like that, too fucking bad, you bozos have created that situation. When I consider all the lies and misinformation I have seen on this board, I can fully understand why Dr. Mann would be an activist. And I can understand why those dedicated to willful ignorance in support of the fossil fuel corporations would object to their activism.

 

[mamooth]

Stalin sent scientists to the gulag if they did science that disagreed with TheParty.

Every denier here has endorsed that sort of Stalinism. I've asked repeatedly, but I've never found one who opposes it.

Given that all decent people reject Stalinism, all decent people are morally obligated to oppose denialism.

 

[flacaltenn]

That if you refuse to release your data -- even in a COURT PROCEEDING, that you being unfairly attacked and need to take action.

What DATA are you talking about?

He was suing Nat. Review and others for defamation. Was asked to produce data for his hockey shtick by the Court -- refused to comply. So he lost the suite and 10s of thousands in legal fees --- because he didn't want to prove his data/conclusions were clean and tidy. Now he's being countersued by those defendents. Pretty stupid move for "a scientist" dontcha think?

 

[Crick]

He was suing Nat. Review and others for defamation. Was asked to produce data for his hockey shtick by the Court -- refused to comply. So he lost the suite and 10s of thousands in legal fees --- because he didn't want to prove his data/conclusions were clean and tidy. Now he's being countersued by those defendents. Pretty stupid move for "a scientist" dontcha think?

How about a link to that.?

Here's SteynOnLine, June 2015 http://www.steynonline.com/6910/mann-vs-steyn-the-state-of-play No mention that Mann had lost the suit (not "suite"). Steyn explains that the courts are attempting to sort out several claims and counterclaims and to determine "whether their brand new anti-SLAPP law comes with a right of interlocutory appeal". Neither do I find anything in the "Defamation Lawsuit" sections of the Wikipedia articles on Mann or Steyn.

NO mention of ANYTHING you claim.

Then, there is this from December 2 of 2015 by Volokh, a National Review contributor:

The last time we checked in on the case, three of the defendants (all save Steyn) were seeking to appeal the trial court’s denial of their anti-SLAPP (anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation) suit motion. Oral argument on this question before the D.C. Court of Appeals took place more than a year ago, and there’s still no word. Most other cases heard around that time have been decided, suggesting the court may be having some difficulty — perhaps because some of the judges are conflicted or the panel is split. This would be unfortunate because, in my view, the primary issues should be clear. Even folks who share Mann’s view of climate science (and his dim view of climate skeptics) recognize the danger of his suit (see, e.g., Dan Farber’s post at Legal Planet). In addition, a wealth of amici not particularly sympathetic to CEI or National Review ideologically nonetheless support their legal position.
It is also worth noting that this is not the only case implicating D.C.’s anti-SLAPP law that has been sitting around, suggesting that the judges may be having a difficult time on this aspect of the case. In any event, one would think it would not take over a year to sort out these questions. Indeed, the extent to which this litigation has been drawn out makes a mockery of the D.C. anti-SLAPP law, which was intended to accelerate the resolution of speech-related suits so as to reduce their potential effect of chilling protected expression.


Again, FCT, no mention of ANYTHING you claim. So, a link is definitely in order. And, given the number of claims, counter claims and suits and countersuits that would have to all be settled before anyone could suggest that Mann has "lost the suite", I find it difficult (but not impossible) to believe it could all be settled in the month and a quarter since without there having been some substantial notices given in a number of news and science sources we all frequent. I strongly suspect that what is required here is a withdrawal of your claim.

 

[flacaltenn]

He was suing Nat. Review and others for defamation. Was asked to produce data for his hockey shtick by the Court -- refused to comply. So he lost the suite and 10s of thousands in legal fees --- because he didn't want to prove his data/conclusions were clean and tidy. Now he's being countersued by those defendents. Pretty stupid move for "a scientist" dontcha think?

How about a link to that.?

Here's SteynOnLine, June 2015 http://www.steynonline.com/6910/mann-vs-steyn-the-state-of-play No mention that Mann had lost the suit (not "suite"). Steyn explains that the courts are attempting to sort out several claims and counterclaims and to determine "whether their brand new anti-SLAPP law comes with a right of interlocutory appeal". Neither do I find anything in the "Defamation Lawsuit" sections of the Wikipedia articles on Mann or Steyn.

NO mention of ANYTHING you claim.

Then, there is this from December 2 of 2015 by Volokh, a National Review contributor:

The last time we checked in on the case, three of the defendants (all save Steyn) were seeking to appeal the trial court’s denial of their anti-SLAPP (anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation) suit motion. Oral argument on this question before the D.C. Court of Appeals took place more than a year ago, and there’s still no word. Most other cases heard around that time have been decided, suggesting the court may be having some difficulty — perhaps because some of the judges are conflicted or the panel is split. This would be unfortunate because, in my view, the primary issues should be clear. Even folks who share Mann’s view of climate science (and his dim view of climate skeptics) recognize the danger of his suit (see, e.g., Dan Farber’s post at Legal Planet). In addition, a wealth of amici not particularly sympathetic to CEI or National Review ideologically nonetheless support their legal position.
It is also worth noting that this is not the only case implicating D.C.’s anti-SLAPP law that has been sitting around, suggesting that the judges may be having a difficult time on this aspect of the case. In any event, one would think it would not take over a year to sort out these questions. Indeed, the extent to which this litigation has been drawn out makes a mockery of the D.C. anti-SLAPP law, which was intended to accelerate the resolution of speech-related suits so as to reduce their potential effect of chilling protected expression.


Again, FCT, no mention of ANYTHING you claim. So, a link is definitely in order. And, given the number of claims, counter claims and suits and countersuits that would have to all be settled before anyone could suggest that Mann has "lost the suite", I find it difficult (but not impossible) to believe it could all be settled in the month and a quarter since without there having been some substantial notices given in a number of news and science sources we all frequent. I strongly suspect that what is required here is a withdrawal of your claim.

I'd go fetch for you. But you'd just forget it and bring the same question/issue up next month.. Think it's better for your learning to go out and find the result of Mann's lawsuit about defamatory said and repeated statements against him..

The stuff you're quoting are the COUNTER suits filed by Steyn and the defendents after Mann essentially conceeded his original claims..

 

[jc456]

Are you saying that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann are not real scientists?

what kind of scientists?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yet Micheal Mann has scientists in every nation and culture that state that by their observations, he is correct. And who does Silly Billy have? LOL. Fellow fruitloops, crackpots, and fakers.

But but but what about Mann's one tree ring?

 

[jc456]

Yet Micheal Mann has scientists in every nation and culture that state that by their observations, he is correct. And who does Silly Billy have? LOL. Fellow fruitloops, crackpots, and fakers.

But but but what about Mann's one tree ring?

that is one massive fkng tree ring, not sure how he handled that son of a bitch I mean the size of planet earth that tells what temperatures were to a tenth of a degree and all. that must have been one fkng big ass tree. wonder how it sounded when it finally fell? Maybe it skewed the earth and is the cause of GW.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yet Micheal Mann has scientists in every nation and culture that state that by their observations, he is correct. And who does Silly Billy have? LOL. Fellow fruitloops, crackpots, and fakers.

But but but what about Mann's one tree ring?

that is one massive fkng tree ring, not sure how he handled that son of a bitch I mean the size of planet earth that tells what temperatures were to a tenth of a degree and all. that must have been one fkng big ass tree. wonder how it sounded when it finally fell? Maybe it skewed the earth and is the cause of GW.

Back off, man. The "Science" is settled

 

[jc456]

Yet Micheal Mann has scientists in every nation and culture that state that by their observations, he is correct. And who does Silly Billy have? LOL. Fellow fruitloops, crackpots, and fakers.

But but but what about Mann's one tree ring?

that is one massive fkng tree ring, not sure how he handled that son of a bitch I mean the size of planet earth that tells what temperatures were to a tenth of a degree and all. that must have been one fkng big ass tree. wonder how it sounded when it finally fell? Maybe it skewed the earth and is the cause of GW.

Back off, man. The "Science" is settled

I keep tripping on that fkng big ass tree ring. It's invading my territory man.

 

[mamooth]

I'd go fetch for you. But you'd just forget it and bring the same question/issue up next month.. Think it's better for your learning to go out and find the result of Mann's lawsuit about defamatory said and repeated statements against him..

It would have been much simpler for you to say "You're right, I was repeating some rumors that I can't back up". After all, it's not like anybody doesn't understand that's the case.

 

[Crick]

He was suing Nat. Review and others for defamation. Was asked to produce data for his hockey shtick by the Court -- refused to comply. So he lost the suite and 10s of thousands in legal fees --- because he didn't want to prove his data/conclusions were clean and tidy. Now he's being countersued by those defendents. Pretty stupid move for "a scientist" dontcha think?

How about a link to that.?

Here's SteynOnLine, June 2015 http://www.steynonline.com/6910/mann-vs-steyn-the-state-of-play No mention that Mann had lost the suit (not "suite"). Steyn explains that the courts are attempting to sort out several claims and counterclaims and to determine "whether their brand new anti-SLAPP law comes with a right of interlocutory appeal". Neither do I find anything in the "Defamation Lawsuit" sections of the Wikipedia articles on Mann or Steyn.

NO mention of ANYTHING you claim.

Then, there is this from December 2 of 2015 by Volokh, a National Review contributor:

The last time we checked in on the case, three of the defendants (all save Steyn) were seeking to appeal the trial court’s denial of their anti-SLAPP (anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation) suit motion. Oral argument on this question before the D.C. Court of Appeals took place more than a year ago, and there’s still no word. Most other cases heard around that time have been decided, suggesting the court may be having some difficulty — perhaps because some of the judges are conflicted or the panel is split. This would be unfortunate because, in my view, the primary issues should be clear. Even folks who share Mann’s view of climate science (and his dim view of climate skeptics) recognize the danger of his suit (see, e.g., Dan Farber’s post at Legal Planet). In addition, a wealth of amici not particularly sympathetic to CEI or National Review ideologically nonetheless support their legal position.
It is also worth noting that this is not the only case implicating D.C.’s anti-SLAPP law that has been sitting around, suggesting that the judges may be having a difficult time on this aspect of the case. In any event, one would think it would not take over a year to sort out these questions. Indeed, the extent to which this litigation has been drawn out makes a mockery of the D.C. anti-SLAPP law, which was intended to accelerate the resolution of speech-related suits so as to reduce their potential effect of chilling protected expression.


Again, FCT, no mention of ANYTHING you claim. So, a link is definitely in order. And, given the number of claims, counter claims and suits and countersuits that would have to all be settled before anyone could suggest that Mann has "lost the suite", I find it difficult (but not impossible) to believe it could all be settled in the month and a quarter since without there having been some substantial notices given in a number of news and science sources we all frequent. I strongly suspect that what is required here is a withdrawal of your claim.

I'd go fetch for you. But you'd just forget it and bring the same question/issue up next month.. Think it's better for your learning to go out and find the result of Mann's lawsuit about defamatory said and repeated statements against him..

The stuff you're quoting are the COUNTER suits filed by Steyn and the defendents after Mann essentially conceeded his original claims..

So you don't have a link supporting your claim that Mann lost his defamation against Stern and the National Review. Sorry, dude, but that's BULLSHIT.

BTW, the original suit can't be settled until all the included claims and counter claims have been settled. If they aren't (and they aren't) the original suit is still pending.

It's time for you to make a graceful WITHDRAWAL of your claim.

 

[flacaltenn]

He was suing Nat. Review and others for defamation. Was asked to produce data for his hockey shtick by the Court -- refused to comply. So he lost the suite and 10s of thousands in legal fees --- because he didn't want to prove his data/conclusions were clean and tidy. Now he's being countersued by those defendents. Pretty stupid move for "a scientist" dontcha think?

How about a link to that.?

Here's SteynOnLine, June 2015 http://www.steynonline.com/6910/mann-vs-steyn-the-state-of-play No mention that Mann had lost the suit (not "suite"). Steyn explains that the courts are attempting to sort out several claims and counterclaims and to determine "whether their brand new anti-SLAPP law comes with a right of interlocutory appeal". Neither do I find anything in the "Defamation Lawsuit" sections of the Wikipedia articles on Mann or Steyn.

NO mention of ANYTHING you claim.

Then, there is this from December 2 of 2015 by Volokh, a National Review contributor:

The last time we checked in on the case, three of the defendants (all save Steyn) were seeking to appeal the trial court’s denial of their anti-SLAPP (anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation) suit motion. Oral argument on this question before the D.C. Court of Appeals took place more than a year ago, and there’s still no word. Most other cases heard around that time have been decided, suggesting the court may be having some difficulty — perhaps because some of the judges are conflicted or the panel is split. This would be unfortunate because, in my view, the primary issues should be clear. Even folks who share Mann’s view of climate science (and his dim view of climate skeptics) recognize the danger of his suit (see, e.g., Dan Farber’s post at Legal Planet). In addition, a wealth of amici not particularly sympathetic to CEI or National Review ideologically nonetheless support their legal position.
It is also worth noting that this is not the only case implicating D.C.’s anti-SLAPP law that has been sitting around, suggesting that the judges may be having a difficult time on this aspect of the case. In any event, one would think it would not take over a year to sort out these questions. Indeed, the extent to which this litigation has been drawn out makes a mockery of the D.C. anti-SLAPP law, which was intended to accelerate the resolution of speech-related suits so as to reduce their potential effect of chilling protected expression.


Again, FCT, no mention of ANYTHING you claim. So, a link is definitely in order. And, given the number of claims, counter claims and suits and countersuits that would have to all be settled before anyone could suggest that Mann has "lost the suite", I find it difficult (but not impossible) to believe it could all be settled in the month and a quarter since without there having been some substantial notices given in a number of news and science sources we all frequent. I strongly suspect that what is required here is a withdrawal of your claim.

I'd go fetch for you. But you'd just forget it and bring the same question/issue up next month.. Think it's better for your learning to go out and find the result of Mann's lawsuit about defamatory said and repeated statements against him..

The stuff you're quoting are the COUNTER suits filed by Steyn and the defendents after Mann essentially conceeded his original claims..

So you don't have a link supporting your claim that Mann lost his defamation against Stern and the National Review. Sorry, dude, but that's BULLSHIT.

BTW, the original suit can't be settled until all the included claims and counter claims have been settled. If they aren't (and they aren't) the original suit is still pending.

It's time for you to make a graceful WITHDRAWAL of your claim.

Hell no.. That's not gonna happen. Time for YOU to learn enough to discuss these things without CONSTANT reminders of what you've already forgotten..

 

[Crick]

It is time for you to admit that Mann has not lost his defamation suit against Stern and the National Review. Try it. I think you'll find it's not that difficult to simply say "I was wrong".

 

[Old Rocks]

Mann's graph has been verified by more than a dozen different papers by different researchers using differant methods and proxies since Mann published his original research. It is accepted as the early and seminal research on how quickly our climate is responding to our massive addition to the GHGs in our atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

It is time for you to admit that Mann has not lost his defamation suit against Stern and the National Review. Try it. I think you'll find it's not that difficult to simply say "I was wrong".

I guess I was wrong. He DOES find it difficult.

FCT, do you still claim that Professor Michael Mann has lost his defamation suit against Mark Stern and the National Review?