Thursday, August 22, 2013

Not just settled science. Settled law.

Daren Jonescu from American Thinker has a great post on a U.S. district court judge's recent decision to continue AGW fraud Michael Mann's lawsuit against columnist Mark Steyn.

The lawsuit is obviously a SLAPP suit-- a strategic lawsuit against public participation-- and this judge is obviously in the tank with the fraudsters. The Constitutional issue here couldn't be more clear. AGW is a matter of intense public debate, and the debate falls entirely within the bounds of constitutionally protected freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Mann is a public figure, and Steyn is a journalist/columnist, and long-standing legal precedent properly insulates journalists from libel claims brought by public figures based on public debates.

The irony is that Mann concealed his emails from the Virginia attorney general who was investigating AGW scientific fraud, and Mann was a core co-conspirator in the Climategate emails ("Mike's Nature trick... to hide the decline") that should have earned him and the other criminals vigorous criminal prosecution for fraud and evasion of FOIA laws.

This decision to continue the lawsuit resonates with the corrupt intelligent design rulings and school prayer rulings of recent decades.

The formula works well: find a tool posing as a judge, file a lawsuit to shut your target up, and you win.

Jonescu:

If a court can decide that Mann's research "and conclusions" have been sufficiently vindicated as to be judged provably "sound" -- that is, sound enough to be regarded as legally unassailable -- then what does this imply about the research and results of all those who believe they are proving Mann's conclusions false? The implication is clear enough: anthropogenic global warming is one area of truth-seeking that is no longer merely "settled science" (whatever that means), but is now settled law. It is now, apparently, legally dangerous to question this theory, unless one prefaces one's questions with the proviso that the research supporting the theory was conducted with the purest scientific heart, and that its conclusions are sound.

When you are dragged into court for teaching about ID or praying in school or questioning global warming or helping a kid who doesn't want to be gay, then this ain't America no more.

We are far down the road to totalitarianism when "settled science" is settled law.


(Welcome to visitors from SteynOnline! If you can please help Mark and the folks at National Review defend themselves from this censorship. They're fighting the good fight, and we should stand with them.) 

91 comments:

  1. A journalist who labels someone's work as 'fraudulent ' and 'bogus' should expect to be sued - and have to justify the claims in court.

    It's a bit rich to claim that Mann cherry picked the tree ring data to make the proxy temperature data fit a 'hockey stick', when AGW deniers do something even worse by cherry picking recent temperature trends by starting a series in 1997 - a strong El Niño year which adds around 1 degree Celcius to global temperature - and finishing in 2012 - a moderate La Niña year expected to cause cooling.

    And then to claim that the pause in global temperature increase disproves AGW (ignoring that solar output has also decreased and release of coal power particulates resulting from China's and India's rapid industrialisation has increased - both also leading to cooling) is dishonest.

    AGW doesn't claim that increasing CO2 levels will cause steadily increasing global temperatures. It just claims that increasing CO2 levels will cause the Earth to have a higher temperature than it would otherwise have.

    The global temperature could stay the same, but if all the other factors change in the direction of causing cooling, then that's the equivalent of warming (over the cooler temperature the Earth should have had).

    The Sun provides 250 Watts per square metre of warming. Doubling greenhouse gases will add about 2.6 Watts per square metre. A small effect capable of being swamped in the short term by other factors, such as solar output, changes in albedo and La Niña events.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You parrot driveled "AGW deniers", thus your associating of dissent from Global Cooling Warming Climate Change Green Clean Energy ad nauseum, with Holocaust Denial is genuinely mediocre and offensive, so I must litigate against you. No, really.

      Delete
    2. How long did it take you to compose this word salad, Colonel?

      A C– for the effort.

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. "AGW doesn't claim that increasing CO2 levels will cause steadily increasing global temperatures. It just claims that increasing CO2 levels will cause the Earth to have a higher temperature than it would otherwise have."

      Which makes it very hard to confirm the theory. Convenient.

      Delete
    4. Are you serious? This isn't a GW debate. It's about FREE SPEECH.

      Delete
    5. I would NEVER in a million years try to silence your opinion. Why can't you just win in the arena of ideas instead of silencing your opposition? That's coercion vs. persuasion. Sorry you don't believe in free speech.

      Delete
    6. Ironic that you should be pointing fingers about getting facts right when you post something like this up.

      Perhaps you could start by explaining how the '97 El Nino increased global temperature by 1C?

      Delete
    7. The entire point of the AGW Crowd is that it is going to be CATASTROPHIC. If it isn't CATASTROPHIC, then what are we worried about? CAGW is the mantra - we MUST "for the children" make radical changes to our world's energy production and consumption habits and methods because if we don't, the results will be CATASTROPHIC.

      Not just a bit "warmer than it would have been."

      Delete
    8. To bachfiend:
      Have you read the research showing the errors and lapses in data amidst Dr. Mann's tree-ring data? He obviously did cherry-pick which data he used.
      Further, can we agree that both sides select start/end dates for their graphs to make their point?
      It is when you cite other factors 'swamping' AGW's effect that I have the most hope for you. Your position appears to oppose the "97%" nonsensus and the latest leaked items from IPCC's AR5 which claim that AGW is THE primary cause of climate change. This can hardly be the case if AGW can be so easily swamped by prevailing factors.
      Now, before we lose our marbles here, I will acknowledge that you stated "in the short term." On the other hand, since not a single climate-change model predicted this pause, the increase in Antarctic ice, the atmosphere would NOT be warming faster than the surface (all of them said it would and it is not), nor the difference in temperature trends between Northern and Southern hemispheres, it would behoove climate scientists to get the "short term" right before we are going to trust their pontifications on the next hundred years.

      To John Miller: agreed, it is about free speech.

      Delete
    9. The AGW crowd PROMISED catastrophe by now. Look at Rush Limbaugh's "Gore Countdown clock to ocean disaster" stuff for instance.

      So now they want to be forgiven for getting it abjectly wrong. Like that Harold Camping minister fellow who keeps getting the "end of days" date wrong, they want a do-over. On settled science. Funny, except the deceit costs us billions.

      Delete
    10. Hired hand,

      The difference between AGW and the other factors driving climate is that AGW is going in one direction - towards warming. All the other factors can go in either direction. The current quiet solar cycle could turn to a warmer one. China and India could clean up their coal power electricity generation and get rid of the particulates causing cooling (as the West did in the '70s and '80s. El Niño/ La Niña events are essentially unpredictable.

      Greenhouse gases are important. They're what make life (as we know it) possible on Earth. Without greenhouse gases, the average global temperature would be minus 18 degrees Celsius or less. 400 ppmv CO2 has produced 33 degrees of warming. And the result of a further doubling?

      Scientists can't predict short term climate, because they can't predict strength of solar cycles (there's no good solar model), China's and India's economic growth (nor can economists) or El Niño/la Niña events. It's only over the long term that they can - and they don't 'predict' they 'project'.

      Anonymous,

      Why don't you crack open a climate book? El Niño events cause warming because the ocean contain most of the heat from the Sun. With El Niño events the ocean dumps some of its heat back into the atmosphere - causing surface warming. With La Niña events, more heat is taken up by the oceans causing cooling.

      It's more complicated than this - it's the idiot's version.

      I commented more on the science than on Michael Mann because Egnor commented mainly on the science - referring to it as 'fraud'.

      Delete
    11. 400 ppmv CO2 does not produce 33 degrees of warming. Get your facts straight! The great bulk of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor. Typically, water vapor accounts for 90-95% of the greenhouse gas effect, depending on the relative humidity. If you want a demonstration of this, go into any ultra-low humidity desert, where it can be 50 degrees C during the day, yet drop below freezing at night. CO2 typically accounts for less than 5% of the greenhouse effect, with minor atmospheric constituents such as methane and nitrogen oxides contributing another 3% or so. This is why the climate modelers tie themselves into knots trying to invent mechanisms such as CO2 forcing to explain why this tiny CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect can have such a huge effect on climate. Most of the climate models used by the AGW crowd are based on spurious assumptions of this nature resulting from the necessity to demonize CO2.

      By the way, we all know that burning coal is bad, and burning natural gas is good (vigorous head-nodding all round, please). If you burn coal, you get mainly CO2. If you burn natural gas you get about half as much CO2, but a lot of water vapor. But since water vapor is just as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2 (actually, it is somewhat more effective), then the total greenhouse effect from natural gas is about the same as that from coal. Go figure.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous,

      You're right. Water vapour is the 'main' greenhouse gas. But without CO2, the global temperature would be minus 18 degrees Celsius as I have stated. 400 ppmv CO2 produces 33 degrees Celsius of warming both by its direct effect and also making the Earth warm enough to have water vapour (and also methane, which is a much stronger greenhouse gas, largely produced by bacterial rotting of plant material in thawed tundra and bovine guts).

      Water vapour is evanescent though. It drops out of the atmosphere as precipitation and dew. CO2 produces a large effect as a result of positive feedbacks; making the air warm enough to hold water vapour.

      Deserts at night are cold, but not as cold as they would be without greenhouse gases. CO2 in particular. If you reduce CO2 levels to 0 ppmv the global temperature won't drop a small amount. It will drop disastrously, as water vapour and methane disappear too. Increasing CO2 levels cause a similar increase in water vapour, and perhaps methane too. And that's without considering that there's some unavoidable leakage of methane from the natural gas burning you so favour!

      Delete
    13. Always some new argument to justify the unjustifiable. If just one of your predictions was unassailably true......no, I still would know its a load of control freak crap.

      Delete
    14. Bachfield - for a number of years after the super El Nino of 1998 Climate Collaborators used it as a sign that global warming was real and man made. When it turned out that it was a rare event and things had flattened they shut up.

      Further, the cherry picking you claim is not actually of the 1997 start date being flat temperature (and therefore CO2 has no effect, or whatever) but being so far out of whack with computer models.

      Delete
  2. Next time these fuckers will think twice before publicly calling a scientist a fraud. Learn the hard way.

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Hoo:

      Discovery should be interesting. Now we'll get to read all of Mann's emails, notebooks, etc.

      We'll also get Mann under oath at the deposition and trial.

      Yum yum.

      Delete
    2. Go ahead, knock me over with a feather! We've heard this before.

      I recall how Bill Dembski was “waiting for the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas in which evolutionists are deposed at length.” That day came (Kitzmiller v Dover) and Dembski ran away from the trial.

      You, guys, are a bunch of cry-babies. You'll be sulking in the corner when this trial is over.

      Hahahahahaha!

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. Dembski even devised an elaborate Vise strategy that would purportedly show that Darwinists are frauds. And then, when the trial came, he ran away like a little girl. Ken Miller and Nick Matzke ran over these idiots like a truck.

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. Yes, all scientist are 100 percent honest with no emotions, political agendas or need for money, status and employment. They are saints and must never be criticized by the proletariat. No, really. Colonel Neville. thepeoplescube com, zombietime com, lookingattheloeft com, wattsupwiththat com.

      Delete
    5. Yes, Mr. Proletarius. Know thy place.

      Hoo

      Delete
    6. Being practical - even if Mann wins, and an American judge claims that AGW exists - it won't make the data of the last 16 years go away. And it won't make the planet warm up either.

      Now, as long as AGW remains "flexible" enough - they can claim a 100-year "short term" drop (at least, until all the politicians and researchers have retired and died). After all, it hasn't mattered to the AGW religionists that their predictions and reality have in conflict for the last 16 years. Look at "Hoo" - it's a religion for him, not science, and he's on a Crusade. You'll never get him out of the Religion tree, using mere Science.

      Delete
    7. Ummm, I can call a public figure anything I want, within reason, and quite a bit beyond reason. That's the purpose of the distinction between public and private figures. A private figure has strong protections against slander and libel. A public figure has effectively none. It takes illegitimate accusation of criminal activity for a public figure to even get in the door.

      Furthermore, rhetorical hyperbole, satire, opinion, and most of all, truth, are all valid defense against libel suits. It is so difficult to prove libel in an American court that it was considered a viable strategy to throw lawsuits at people with no hope of winning, just to shut people up out of fear of being sued. This was why the SLAPP law was put into place.

      Delete
  3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 8:31 AM

    Egnor: "find a tool posing as a judge"

    Forum-shopping is a common strategy. The Hon. Natalia M. Combs-Greene, a graduate of Howard School of Law (Rank 120; US News and World Report 2013 Law School rankings) is considered by many DC trial attorneys to be one of the worst judges in the DC Superior Court system.

    A few comments:

    "Absolutely the worst judge in the DC Superior Court..." - Criminal Defense Attorney

    "Worst possible judge in DC..." - Civil Litigator

    "Extremely arrogant, biased, and in serious need of medication." - Litigant

    " Called my client a 'dog' in open court and told me 'When you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.'" - Civil Litigator

    "Results-oriented, whatever the law may actually be." - Civil Litigator

    That last comment is particularly revealing, as it describes a Perfect Progressive Judge.

    It is extremely rare for attorneys to single out and criticize a sitting judge in such terms. When they do feel a judge is difficult, they usually say something like this:

    "Superior judge with a sharp mind -- and sometimes a sharp tongue! If you are not prepared, you will pay the price!" - comment regarding DC Judge Abrecht (J.D., Georgetown)

    So, contray to Hooter's sage legal predictions (are you qualified, Hoots?), I would not think twice next time. All the judge did was quash a motion to dismiss Mann's lawsuit. Mann has most certainly not "won" anything but a right to proceed. Happens all the time. Here's a quote from the opinion [emphasis added]:

    [T]he evidence before the Court does not amount to a showing of clear and convincing as to “actual malice,” however there is sufficient evidence to find that further discovery may uncover evidence...”

    The benefit of allowing Mann to proceed with his lawsuit is both sides get discovery. Should be interesting!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. admiral: "So, contray to Hooter's sage legal predictions (are you qualified, Hoots?), I would not think twice next time."

      Albert Einstein" "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

      Hoo

      Delete
    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 9:17 AM

      Quoting Albert Einstein doesn't make you smart, Hoots, particularly when the quote doesn't apply to the situation. Just shows how unqualified you are to opine.

      And if your idiotic comment were viewed as correct by litigators, the civil courts in this country would be much less congested than they are.

      As an aside, Albert Einstein wasn't qualified to comment on insanity. Much less qualified than, say, Egnor.

      Delete
    3. No, it doesn't make me smart. It makes you stupid.

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 9:32 AM

      "You can't address the argument, so you attack the person."
      --- Hooter (7/21/13)

      Delete
    5. LOL. I didn't attack you, admiral. You slipped and fell.

      Nurse, give admiral a bath, he shat himself again.

      Hoo

      Delete
    6. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 9:45 AM

      Hoots, you aren't either smart enough, educated enough, or well-bred enough to get a job wiping Stephen Hawking's ass. Or, in fact, any of the disabled you so frequently mock.

      Delete
    7. Well-bred? Did they breed your mom with a stud?

      Hoo

      Delete
    8. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 9:54 AM

      Spoken like a true scientist, employed at an elite university. Very classy. :-)

      I think you're having cognitive vaporlock, Hooter.


      Delete
    9. Sour grapes, admiral?

      Hoo

      Delete
    10. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 10:11 AM

      Yes, of course. I long to be brilliant enough to make comments like "Did they breed your mom with a stud?" One of my goals is to learn from you how to mock the disabled. And I hope someday to be able to copy and paste journal references in German.

      Definitely. Sour grapes.

      Delete
    11. LOL. You were the one who posited that a scientist must be "well-bred." I am not "well-bred." My parents were middle-class. I was wondering about your origin, hence the question.

      Hoo

      Delete
    12. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 10:31 AM

      No, Hooter, that's not what I wrote. Or "posited", if we're getting hoity-toity here. :-)

      What I actually wrote - "posited" - was you're not "well-bred enough to get a job wiping Stephen Hawking's ass".

      Delete
    13. Exactly. That makes me not "well-bred enough" to be a scientist. So who's snotty?

      Are you well-bred, admiral? Who was your mom crossed with?

      Hoo

      Delete
    14. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 10:48 AM

      Hoots: "Exactly. [Not being well-bred enough to wipe Stephen Hawkings ass] makes me not 'well-bred enough' to be a scientist."

      You're equating two jobs with very different skills and personal requirements (much like your inane comparison between Apples and Chevrolets, in fact).

      I imagine you are skilled enough to wipe Stephen Hawking's ass.

      No, it's your illogic, your shallow, petulant commenting, and a general inarticulateness that shows you aren't a scientist, much less one employed by an elite university.

      Delete
    15. You wouldn't recognize a scientist if he bit you in the butt, admiral. Not only am I employed by an elite university, I am tenured at one!

      And you're obviously not.

      Hoo

      Delete
    16. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM

      Of course you are, Hoots. Of course you are. Because you say so on the internet. Anonymously, of course.

      And I am retired, not employed. I have never anonymously claimed to be otherwise in a cheap effort to burnish my credibility.

      Delete
    17. Whatever, admiral. But you seem to shy away from your brain fart about well-breeding. How well-bred are you? And do you agree that one need not be "well-bred" to be a scientist?

      Hoo

      Delete
    18. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 2:19 PM

      Brain fart?

      Apparently, your vocabulary needs improvement.

      Well-bred: well brought up; properly trained and educated:

      And yes, I agree that one need not be well-bred to be a scientist. A tiny minority of the best scientists I have known have been pure assholes.

      So what?

      Hooter: "How well-bred are you?"

      Well-bred enough to recognize an ill-bred cretin and poseur when I run across one.

      Delete
    19. Happens every time you look in the mirror, huh?

      Hoo

      Delete
    20. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 2:43 PM

      Are you in middle school? Even dorm rats do better than that, Hoots.

      Delete
    21. Great get-offa-my-lawn-kids moment, admiral! Keep up the good work.

      Hoo

      Delete
    22. Priceless! This dimwit going on and on in blissful ignorance of his error on a simple term of language like "ill-bred". Tenured professor!

      Delete
    23. If I thought you were a jackass before your pissing contest with the Admiral, you have proven it beyond any reasonable doubt. Even Mann would become an AGW skeptic faced with your....persona.

      Delete
  4. The problem is, the AGW alarmists keep moving the goal posts to suit their own illogical assumptions. And they're continue to do so to keep the money flowing to support the scam.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The irony is thick. Warming deniers have hounded Mann, launching administrative and criminal probes against him. Mann was cleared in all of them. He has now turned the tables and sued them. They cry persecution!

    Don't like the taste of your own medicine, guys? What a bunch of sissies.

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 9:19 AM

      Who's crying "persecution"?

      Delete
    2. Whoever wrote" When you are dragged into court for teaching about ID or praying in school or questioning global warming or helping a kid who doesn't want to be gay, then this ain't America no more."

      Can't comprehend what you read, admiral? Tough shit!

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 9:38 AM

      "Warming deniers have HOUNDED Mann, launching administrative and criminal probes against him."

      Pot-kettle-black, whiny little sissy-boy.

      Delete
    4. Of course they did. Now they reap what they sow. The irony is lost on you, admiral. No surprise here. Perceiving irony requires a functioning brain.

      Hoo

      Delete
    5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 9:57 AM

      "Reap what they sow"???

      Hoots is in the pulpit now. Give us a "Hallelujah!", Hoots!

      Delete
    6. Mann was "cleared" by internal probes by East Anglia and Penn State. We know how reliable and trustworthy Penn State is in their internal probes, and East Anglia appears to have much to hide in the e-mail case, so I hardly consider Mann to have been vindicated. Further, we all know his (in)famous "hockey stick" was long ago discredited. Count me as one scientist who really wants to see ALL of Mann's e-mails and data. It will be interesting watching the process of recovering the data he destroyed . . .

      Delete
    7. I'm waiting for the first of the AGW alarmist predictions to actually come true. The alarmists do a great job explaining - retrospectively - why they failed so miserably to predict the events that transpired and why the actual events were consistent with their theories. If your predictions for 100 years from now are going to be taken seriously, sooner or later some small piece of your model needs to accurately predict a trend over a decade or so. Even a phone psychic guesses right once in a while.

      Delete
  6. Nice to see the little fascist apologists for a fraud like Mann have descended to defend that punk psuedo-scientist and his quasi-religious eco-babble. Try looking up the worlds "science" in the dictionary - doesn't include anything about hiding conflicting data. Or commiting fraud. I know you leftists can't stand dissent from your radical orthodoxy - just wait for the day the tables are turned - you'll be crying like the infantile punks you are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Try looking up the worlds "science" in the dictionary."

      Maybe you need to look up science in a dictionary, anon, but I don't. I am a scientist.

      Hoo

      Delete
    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 9:40 AM

      Yeah. Right. So you say. Behind your little curtain.

      You are a sniveling little coward, a disgusting little snout.

      Delete
    3. Awww, poor little admiral is upset. Don't cry, baby. Everything's gonna be alright.

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 9:55 AM

      Are you not a coward and a snout?

      Delete
    5. Are you not a snob and a dork?

      Hoo

      Delete
    6. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 10:05 AM

      Depends on who you're asking. Both are subjective judgements. If you think so, I take that as an affirmation.

      Delete
    7. Adm.,
      He's a Hoo, says so himself.

      Delete
    8. He's a 'Hoo' that Horton never heard.

      Delete
  7. I'm not a scientist, or any of that sort. But when we experience a warm year, all we hear from the media and the libs is how bad global warming is. 2013 with its record cold weathers: "'weather' ain't 'climate', Mr. denier, flat earther, science hater!"
    Last year when areas of the country saw devastating tornadoes, Obama and others argued that it is the sad result of a warming planet. 2013, a record-low tornado year, nothing about the correlation between global warming (aka climate change) and tornadoes.
    And the list goes on and on and on.
    Don't confuse us with your supposedly scientific knowledge. We the little people look at the "facts". The "fact" is that all of the horror predictions that were made by Gore, the UN and others in the last decade, haven't materialized. The other fact is that many of the "90% of scientists" are open anti-capitalists. Why was Hugo Schavez cheered at the climate summit?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Relax folks, any day now Jeebus and his army of cock sucking angels will return to earth to clean up our mess, slaughter the evil homos and atheists and erase all evidence of the Holocaust.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You know we are dealing with big science when the models the scientists are using to predict the future cannot predict the past...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not sure why Jeebus's buddies would want to kill the "evil homos", they seem right up their alley, could you explain?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Are you shure your visitors are from National Review and not The Blaze or Stormfront? It’s so difficult to tell these days.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steyn belongs in jail already for his hate crimes against women, children, minorities, and gays. As far as I am concerned, even if the facts are wrong, the narrative is right and Steyn and the National Review are right wing hate mongers that deserve to be sued out of business. ANd even if the charges against them are fake, they are certainly accurate based on their history of libel and slander.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mind posting examples of the hate crimes you accuse Steyn of?

      Delete
    2. @Brian:

      [ANd even if the charges against them are fake, they are certainly accurate based on their history of libel and slander]

      'Fake but accurate', eh?

      Delete
    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 22, 2013 at 2:23 PM

      And in case you hadn't noticed, Doc, according to the Proglodytes the Obama "phony" scandals are "accurate but fake".

      Delete
  13. The religious cult of AGW. BOW TO THE HOCKEY STICK!

    ReplyDelete
  14. 'The gay fascists are in high gear. They make no pretenses. You will conform and endorse their degenerate lifestyle, or you will be prosecuted. This is just the beginning.'

    Yes to all that.

    However, to develop your analogy; the Fascists (well, they were Nazis NOT fascists but never mind that for now) advanced very rapidly. They needed to celebrate and glorify what appeared to be 'victories'.
    They appeared to be in possession of vast areas of 'occupied territory'. They loved marches and were very very 'proud' of themselves.

    Yet when they met opposition they collapsed.
    The 'occupied territories' turned out never to have been fully controlled.

    The fascists relied heavily on propaganda; most importantly the 'submit to the New Order, you are alone, we are the future' type stuff.

    I am a teacher. In Britain the march of organised perversion is loud and ugly.

    In school?

    Reality reigns.
    Ten years ago I thought;'Oh dear. I will never allow for the promotion of this stuff in my classroom, There goes my career..'
    Well, ten years on and the reality is that WE remain in such a silent majority that propaganda,lies and marches are all that we really face 99% of the time.

    New Jersey demonstrates how afraid 'they' are of reality.

    The future does not belong to them.

    Turn off enemy radio (all TV & MSM news).

    Look at the facts and remain positive.

    The future belongs to Him.

    John Richardson

    ReplyDelete
  15. 'Scientists' should be questioned and scrutinized as much as the theories and predictions they make.
    In my own business failed predictions often lead to loss of life, and those who fail in making them are replaced with more competent or resilient analysts. Of course these folks are subject to a much broader and classical education than most modern 'scientists'.
    'Scientists' making predictions (chicken little/ doomsday ones, in particular) that effect billions of lives (and could even cost hundreds of millions) in policy, diet, and lifestyle changes should be put under a microscope. If they cheat and selectively sample to push an agenda for political or financial (or both) reasons - they should be called out on it and even prosecuted.

    Here's the problem: 'Scientists' (the self defined type, a dime a dozen these days - and I am NOT picking on anyone on this blog, so RELAX people!!!) want the prestige and mystery of some regent priest class, but want the latitude of a high school kid when they make 'mistakes' and 'cherry pick data to push their DOOMSDAY predictions. They want to be the augers of the temple of Apollo, but not to be held accountable when their prediction in the guts leads to disaster. In those offal cases, they would like to remind us they are just fine, saintly, honest, moral (subjectively, of course) people who just made a simple 'mistake'.
    They are the most pretentious, puffed up bunch of over specialized, over grown children you could EVER work with.

    The solution? Start treating what specially trained technicians in specific fields for what they are: Technicians.
    Do not glorify them with religious titles like 'Scientist' (a worker of the abstract, personified 'science'). It takes more than a lab coat and a few years at daddy's favourite college to make someone who understands the manifold implications of any research. A sanitary engineer is a Janitor. In most cases a 'scientist' is a researcher or technician. It's just a play on words to make people feel good about themselves.
    Perfect example of this word play? 'Scientists convert planetary light into sound'. In English this means researchers use machines to convert light waves into sound in order to examine feedback data from other machines built by engineers in order to test a scientific principle. But, 'scientists' converting light into sound sounds more miraculous, right? And, after all, a priest of Apollo must be magical.
    In a reasonable world, in order to be called a 'scientist', one would need more than a degree in a specific field; they must also be a philosopher, a historian, and a logician at the very least.
    A scientist would be an educated student for life, not a trained 'professional'. They would practice 'science', not statistical manipulations for political blocs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Here's the problem: 'Scientists' (the self defined type, a dime a dozen these days - and I am NOT picking on anyone on this blog, so RELAX people!!!) want the prestige and mystery of some regent priest class"

      You idiot, crus. No offense, but that made me laugh pretty hard.

      Cheers,

      Hoo

      Delete
    2. Hoo,
      Glad it engendered some reaction of some sort. Laughter is good for the soul, so long as it is in good honest cheer.
      Thanks for taking the time to read it my two pennies.
      As for the idiot comment, no offence taken.
      None at all.
      I have known plenty of good people who came off as idiots and quite a few brilliant total assholes in my time. Been called plenty worse, too. Idiot is almost affectionate in my line of work. Only an idiot would be offended by it.
      :P
      Besides, your immediate take on the intellectual depth of my commentary concerns me much less than the fact you at least skimmed it. In order for you to be bothered you must actually think my intentions are good.
      That is a starting point, at least.

      Delete
  16. (Remember the joke about the Piccolo player?)

    I didn't call the scientist a fraud.
    I'm not sitting next to the guy that called the scientist a fraud.
    I'm not sitting next to the guy that's sitting next to the guy that called the scientist a fraud.
    What I want to know is who called the fraud a scientist???

    ReplyDelete
  17. *grin* A shout-out from the great Mark Steyn!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love Steyn. He earned my eternal admiration when he described the use of very young suicide bombers by Muslim terrorists as an "Islamic baby boom".

      Delete
    2. He does have an amazing way with words, and an amazing talent to see linkages or at least similarities.

      Delete
  18. Steyn has a way with words. Mann is basically right on some very important facts. Steyn is utterly wrong to call Mann a fraud. The lawsuit by Mann is not a SLAP, it's a real lawsuit with real merits. You're not into "robust debate" when you call a guy a fraud. Truth would be your only defense. And Steyn has no evidence that Mann is a fraud. His work has been picked over and examined by several authorities and while nits can be picked in almost any groundbreaking scientific work, Mann's position has been vindicated and he has been cleared entirely of fraud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Doug:

      The Climategate emails, to which Mann was an active party, alone demonstrate Mann's fraud. His co-conspirator Jones confessed when he invoked Mann's trick to hide the decline. The hockey stick graph itself is an obvious fraud-- Mann cooked the data, inserting different source data at the moment of the uptick. Even the IPCC has abandoned it.

      The roaring public and scientific debate about AGW will not be silenced by legal threats.

      Delete
    2. Tell us, Professor Egnor, about yer understanding of "hide the decline." What was it about, exactly?

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. Good try, Hoo. It is de rigueur for climate frauds to assert that "hide the decline" refers innocently to setting aside post-1960 tree ring data that diverges from instrumental temperature readings.

      Nonsense. If the tree ring data diverges from instrumental readings post-1960, tree rings cannot be used to reconstruct temperatures pre-1960. The claim made by the hockey stick graph is that recent temperature increases are unprecedented. Historical temperatures determined by tree rings must be reliable in order to make the "unprecedented" claim.

      There was obvious data manipulation-- deliberate use of old data derived from a source known to be unreliable, deletion of the data at the point at which it failed to support the "scientists" hypothesis, replacement with different source data at the inflection point of the graph.

      In addition, Mann was party to email discussions involving destruction of data and criminal evasion of FOIA requests and manipulation of peer review.

      Is all of that part of your science, too, Hoo?

      Delete
    4. Mann et al. removed data that were clearly unreliable. There are known reasons why tree-ring records diverged from the rest of the proxies recently.

      Familiarize yourself with science, Egnor, and you won't look like a blithering idiot.

      Hoo

      Delete
    5. Can't dispute your expertise in that area, citizen!

      Delete