Jump to content

Global warming err Climate change HOAX


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

No, he's just a troll.

 

I mean, yes, he's a piece of ****. But he's just trying to get a rise out of people. If he were a true neo-Nazi, he wouldn't be here alone.

 

Why? They're too stupid to complete a sentence, so they need help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A BIG LOSS FOR GEORGIA TECH AS ONE OF ITS MOST FAMOUS FACULTY MEMBERS, JUDITH CURRY, DECIDES TO LEAVE.

 

But the real downer is why:

 

“The deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists. . . . At this point, the private sector seems like a more ‘honest’ place for a scientist working in a politicized field than universities or government labs — at least when you are your own boss.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A BIG LOSS FOR GEORGIA TECH AS ONE OF ITS MOST FAMOUS FACULTY MEMBERS, JUDITH CURRY, DECIDES TO LEAVE.

 

But the real downer is why:

 

“The deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists. . . . At this point, the private sector seems like a more ‘honest’ place for a scientist working in a politicized field than universities or government labs — at least when you are your own boss.”

In other words there is more money to be made being a hack for the polluters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good...................let's see how Mr Mann likes it when his case gets to court............ :)

 

 

Appeals Court Rules Climate Scientist Can Pursue Defamation Claims Against Critics

 

Michael Mann, known for his work on the “hockey stick” analysis of global warming, can proceed with defamation claims against writers who called him the “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” and characterized his work as fraudulent.

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/zoetillman/appeals-court-rules-climate-scientist-can-pursue-defamation?utm_term=.jl7qVWnpJ#.qe73LzJlG

 

 

 

Check out the bizarre statement by the judge in this ruling..........................very illustrative

 

Judge Vanessa Ruiz wrote for the three-judge appeals panel:

 

“Tarnishing the personal integrity and reputation of a scientist important to one side may be a tactic to gain advantage in a no-holds-barred debate over global warming. That the challenged statements were made as part of such debate provides important context and requires careful parsing in light of constitutional standards. But if the statements assert or imply false facts that defame the individual, they do not find shelter under the First Amendment simply because they are embedded in a larger policy debate.”

Did you read Steyn's blog in response to this decision? Very funny stuff.

 

The worst part: even the global warming clowns now acknowledge that Mann's work is fraudulent, and that he fudged his data.

 

But...IF you are Mark Steyn, you STILL aren't allowed to call Mann's work fraudulent(even though it's true), BECAUSE???? Mark Steyn doesn't have the requisite degrees and study in the field to be allowed to call out a fraud as a fraud. That's now the defense of Mann: only the experts can call a fraud a fraud. Right. As if any of them would have lifted a finger to prove Mann a fraud without Steyn's accusation.

 

What's worse? Apparently the rest of the US citizenry aren't allowed to criticize fraudulent climate change "research", that directly effects us all, as it has been used to create US public policy.

 

Oh no! The "fairness" of the global warming debate(read: you aren't allowed to call "obvious BS! :wallbash: "...without a climate science degree) supersedes our right to government by consent, and our right to free speech as well.

 

Essentially, they can use junk science to create policy, but if we call it junk, that's "defamatory"?

 

Yeah, watch this ruling get laughed out of the appeals court in about 3-6 months...that's if these 3 lady judges ever get off their asses and actually start the trial(It's been 3 years).

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read Steyn's blog in response to this decision? Very funny stuff.

 

The worst part: even the global warming clowns now acknowledge that Mann's work is fraudulent, and that he fudged his data.

 

But...IF you are Mark Steyn, you STILL aren't allowed to call Mann's work fraudulent(even though it's true), BECAUSE???? Mark Steyn doesn't have the requisite degrees and study in the field to be allowed to call out a fraud as a fraud. That's now the defense of Mann: only the experts can call a fraud a fraud. Right. As if any of them would have lifted a finger to prove Mann a fraud without Steyn's accusation.

 

What's worse? Apparently the rest of the US citizenry aren't allowed to criticize fraudulent climate change "research", that directly effects us all, as it has been used to create US public policy.

 

Oh no! The "fairness" of the global warming debate(read: you aren't allowed to call "obvious BS! :wallbash:"...without a climate science degree) supersedes our right to government by consent, and our right to free speech as well.

 

Essentially, they can use junk science to create policy, but if we call it junk, that's "defamatory"?

 

Yeah, watch this ruling get laughed out of the appeals court in about 3-6 months...that's if these 3 lady judges ever get off their asses and actually start the trial(It's been 3 years).

Well you must be happy that Trump is going to burn up the planet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...