Media Ignores Michael Mann’s Court Loss — It Doesn’t Fit The Warmist Agenda

Well, looks like the MSM completely ignored this bombshell

Mann became famous for the chart, which showed temperatures running along in a horizontal fashion before spiking at the beginning of the 20th century. It was the “evidence” the global warming alarmists had been waiting for — “science” that showed human activity was overheating Earth. It was included in at least one United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Not all were convinced, however. There were questions about the data he used to create the stick, which he wouldn’t release. It has been called “100% fraudulent,” an “artifact of poor mathematics,” and a violation of “of scientific standards.”

Now why would anybody who claims man made climate change is very real and very dangerous

Refuse to show the data he used to create the famous hockey puck chart?

I’m confused... is this NOT how science works anymore ? Lol WTF

LINK

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
Well, looks like the MSM completely ignored this bombshell

Mann became famous for the chart, which showed temperatures running along in a horizontal fashion before spiking at the beginning of the 20th century. It was the “evidence” the global warming alarmists had been waiting for — “science” that showed human activity was overheating Earth. It was included in at least one United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Not all were convinced, however. There were questions about the data he used to create the stick, which he wouldn’t release. It has been called “100% fraudulent,” an “artifact of poor mathematics,” and a violation of “of scientific standards.”

Now why would anybody who claims man made climate change is very real and very dangerous

Refuse to show the data he used to create the famous hockey puck chart?

I’m confused... is this NOT how science works anymore ? Lol WTF

LINK

Contrary to your propaganda based delusions:

NASA scientist have consensus

And here is the consensus cause:

NASA Scientist Consensus On The Cause of Global Warming

Scientist don't care. Smart people always make money regardless if the population is forced to live in their own sewage. This whole issue is about the quality of life we live in our only life support system. It's very subjective as to what public policy should be.

But the science is very clear. And it's counter to your delusions.

a reply to: dfnj2015
How does your post address the topic of the thread? That being, one "scientist" that fabricated his data in order to push the AGW agenda. That data, then being used in very high profile and governmental policy to support the carbon tax "solution"?

Fact is, you didn't.

You deflected off to others and did not address THIS particular issue. You didn't even condemn the poor science and blatant fabrication of data.

Funny that....

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
Well, looks like the MSM completely ignored this bombshell

Mann became famous for the chart, which showed temperatures running along in a horizontal fashion before spiking at the beginning of the 20th century. It was the “evidence” the global warming alarmists had been waiting for — “science” that showed human activity was overheating Earth. It was included in at least one United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Not all were convinced, however. There were questions about the data he used to create the stick, which he wouldn’t release. It has been called “100% fraudulent,” an “artifact of poor mathematics,” and a violation of “of scientific standards.”

Now why would anybody who claims man made climate change is very real and very dangerous

Refuse to show the data he used to create the famous hockey puck chart?

I’m confused... is this NOT how science works anymore ? Lol WTF

LINK

Contrary to your propaganda based delusions:

NASA scientist have consensus

And here is the consensus cause:

NASA Scientist Consensus On The Cause of Global Warming

Scientist don't care. Smart people always make money regardless if the population is forced to live in their own sewage. This whole issue is about the quality of life we live in our only life support system. It's very subjective as to what public policy should be.

But the science is very clear. And it's counter to your delusions.

NASA have been caught lying many times, and engaging in politicized subjects that they have zero business in normally.
That plus your post is a straw man argument deflecting the OP's post.

a reply to: TritonTaranis

There's big a lot talk by science deniers that the sun is the cause of global warming. And therefore, global warming is a hoax.

The thing is NASA scientist have a strong consensus about solar irradiance:

NASA Consensus on Solar Irradiance

So let's be clear. Why is this even an issue? Scientist will always make money because dumb people always need smart people. Scientist will always have the highest paying jobs. So all that matters to scientists is their reputations. So most scientist would never dare to lie about data.

Nowconsider Big Oil on the other hiring public relations companies to use propaganda to prevent any public policies that might lead to a decrease in the use of the fossil fuels. I think the probability of the people who have the most to lose are responsible for the public relations campaigns designed to program public opinion.

a reply to: dfnj2015

That chart is from 1880—2010 a blink of the eye, yet we have ice-core sample dating back 420,000 showing everything looking perfectly normal

Again you’re also using the 97% of scientists agree LIE only 1.6% of those scientists attributed 50% of the warming to man made Co2

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

97% do not agree

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
Well, looks like the MSM completely ignored this bombshell

Mann became famous for the chart, which showed temperatures running along in a horizontal fashion before spiking at the beginning of the 20th century. It was the “evidence” the global warming alarmists had been waiting for — “science” that showed human activity was overheating Earth. It was included in at least one United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Not all were convinced, however. There were questions about the data he used to create the stick, which he wouldn’t release. It has been called “100% fraudulent,” an “artifact of poor mathematics,” and a violation of “of scientific standards.”

Now why would anybody who claims man made climate change is very real and very dangerous

Refuse to show the data he used to create the famous hockey puck chart?

I’m confused... is this NOT how science works anymore ? Lol WTF

LINK

Contrary to your propaganda based delusions:

NASA scientist have consensus

And here is the consensus cause:

NASA Scientist Consensus On The Cause of Global Warming

Scientist don't care. Smart people always make money regardless if the population is forced to live in their own sewage. This whole issue is about the quality of life we live in our only life support system. It's very subjective as to what public policy should be.

But the science is very clear. And it's counter to your delusions.

NASA have been caught lying many times, and engaging in politicized subjects that they have zero business in normally.
That plus your post is a straw man argument deflecting the OP's post.

Again, NASA and scientists have no motive to lie. But you being programmed into believing NASA and scientists are lying by public relations firms is probably what is most likely happening. How hard is it to publish some fake news scientists are lying. Very easy.

Why do you think NASA and the scientists would lie about global warming? What do you think is their motive?

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: dfnj2015
How does your post address the topic of the thread? That being, one "scientist" that fabricated his data in order to push the AGW agenda. That data, then being used in very high profile and governmental policy to support the carbon tax "solution"?

Fact is, you didn't.

You deflected off to others and did not address THIS particular issue. You didn't even condemn the poor science and blatant fabrication of data.

Funny that....

It's telling that he has to keep using the word "consensus."

Science isn't about a consensus.

It's about being able to use available data to replicate an experiment to prove a theory.

Which the OP has addressed... the data is not available to replicate. So DJ has to use the "appeal to authority" argument as a strawman to dispute it.

AGW belief is like we just gather all the scientists together and they vote on whether there is gravity or not... with the people that vote "no" being paid by the government to vote that way so that they can tax you for gravity.

It's an asinine ideology that isn't even about climate change.. it's about redistribution of wealth.

Which is why our communist friend here has swallowed the lie hook, line and sinker.

It helps his cause, you see...

a reply to: TritonTaranis

The Forbes article is BS. Here's the exact same number but with the opposite conclusion:

Here are the results of several studies on the true consensus

But again, I must ask you. Why do you care? What difference does it make?

The science is clear. Burning fossil fuels is changing the quality of our environment. Now what public policy you have in response is debatable. But the facts remains.

a reply to: TritonTaranis

It was a libel case.

You know where you have to prove someone said something slanderous about you. It is not a case that proves or disproves anything about the science.

The case was over Tim Ball saying that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State,”

It was a case about mean things being said. Did you know that?

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
Well, looks like the MSM completely ignored this bombshell

Mann became famous for the chart, which showed temperatures running along in a horizontal fashion before spiking at the beginning of the 20th century. It was the “evidence” the global warming alarmists had been waiting for — “science” that showed human activity was overheating Earth. It was included in at least one United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Not all were convinced, however. There were questions about the data he used to create the stick, which he wouldn’t release. It has been called “100% fraudulent,” an “artifact of poor mathematics,” and a violation of “of scientific standards.”

Now why would anybody who claims man made climate change is very real and very dangerous

Refuse to show the data he used to create the famous hockey puck chart?

I’m confused... is this NOT how science works anymore ? Lol WTF

LINK

Contrary to your propaganda based delusions:

NASA scientist have consensus

And here is the consensus cause:

NASA Scientist Consensus On The Cause of Global Warming

Scientist don't care. Smart people always make money regardless if the population is forced to live in their own sewage. This whole issue is about the quality of life we live in our only life support system. It's very subjective as to what public policy should be.

But the science is very clear. And it's counter to your delusions.

NASA have been caught lying many times, and engaging in politicized subjects that they have zero business in normally.
That plus your post is a straw man argument deflecting the OP's post.

Again, NASA and scientists have no motive to lie. But you being programmed into believing NASA and scientists are lying by public relations firms is probably what is most likely happening. How hard is it to publish some fake news scientists are lying. Very easy.

Why do you think NASA and the scientists would lie about global warming? What do you think is their motive?

I don’t believe you

Plenty of political reasons and plenty have come forward stating so

What a s**tshow

Political Reasoning

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: dfnj2015
How does your post address the topic of the thread? That being, one "scientist" that fabricated his data in order to push the AGW agenda. That data, then being used in very high profile and governmental policy to support the carbon tax "solution"?

Fact is, you didn't.

You deflected off to others and did not address THIS particular issue. You didn't even condemn the poor science and blatant fabrication of data.

Funny that....

It's telling that he has to keep using the word "consensus."
Science isn't about a consensus.
It's about being able to use available data to replicate an experiment to prove a theory.
Which the OP has addressed... the data is not available to replicate. So DJ has to use the "appeal to authority" argument as a strawman to dispute it.
AGW belief is like we just gather all the scientists together and they vote on whether there is gravity or not... with the people that vote "no" being paid by the government to vote that way so that they can tax you for gravity.
It's an asinine ideology that isn't even about climate change.. it's about redistribution of wealth.
Which is why our communist friend here has swallowed the lie hook, line and sinker.
It helps his cause, you see...

I assume you are calling me the communist. Regardless, saying science is a bunch a lies in order to promote a particular ideology is an extraordinary claim. I doubt very much it is as sinister has you making it. So what if global warming is real and man made. People are NOT going to stop buying cars. People are NOT going to stop buying gasoline.

You tell me why have any pollution laws. The smog in Beijing is so thick you can't see 100 feet. Why care at all about the quality of the environment? It seems to me your argument is people who make money off of polluting the environment should be left alone to do whatever they want.

We could live in a town that allows unprocessed sewage to spill into the streets. How can you argue for quality of life? I can't defend an opinion on preference. I can't prove to you why the quality of living environment is important requiring public policies that regulate pollution.

I'm still just amazed why you think scientists are connected to "asinine ideology that isn't even about climate change.. it's about redistribution of wealth." Wow! That's amazing. I don't think the scientist care much about public policies.

a reply to: TritonTaranis

Your data point would qualify under anecdotal data and not consensus.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TritonTaranis

It was a libel case.

You know where you have to prove someone said something slanderous about you. It is not a case that proves or disproves anything about the science.

The case was over Tim Ball saying that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State,”

It was a case about mean things being said. Did you know that?

That’s not the concern for me

My concern is

There were questions about the data he used to create the stick, which he wouldn’t release.

Wonder why?

a reply to: TritonTaranis

Old argument that I don't want to rehash, but I think it was said the data is public domain but he refused to release his methods.

But as for the OP the case isn't big news because it is a libel case.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: dfnj2015
How does your post address the topic of the thread? That being, one "scientist" that fabricated his data in order to push the AGW agenda. That data, then being used in very high profile and governmental policy to support the carbon tax "solution"?
Fact is, you didn't.
You deflected off to others and did not address THIS particular issue. You didn't even condemn the poor science and blatant fabrication of data.
Funny that....

I'm not deflecting. How do you know "the guy fabricated data" story is true and not some public relations tactic?

If any scientist is caught purposely fabricating results they're reputation is ruined and they are excommunicated from the community. A scientist's reputation is everything. This is why scientists are so careful in documenting methods.

I think the OP is just ill-conceived. If one chart is fabricated it doesn't mean all charts are fabricated. So my posts in response was putting politics and superstitions aside, what is the real consensus on the subject. This is what I attempted to talk about.

Let's review motives once again.

1. Scientists, no motive, will always have a high paying job doing what smart people do
2. Big Oil, hire public relations firms to program the public mind to be frothing at the mouth against all global warming in order to prevent any public policies that might hurt their cash cow.

I tend to go #1 as telling the truth. Besides, I live New Jersey. Pollution has been a big problem in this state all my life. I kind of like have pollution laws.

Again, people are not going to stop buying cars and gasoline. So I don't understand the right wing outrage other than people are just programmed to by hostile on this subject by Fox News and OAN type media outlets.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: TritonTaranis

Your data point would qualify under anecdotal data and not consensus.

No it would qualify as bigger picture which shows Blatantly obvious warning cycles none of which man or Co2 we’re responsible LINK

Yours would qualify as hugely debatable, highly questionable & provenly fudged

Co2 is no more of a greenhouse gas as water vapour you lot are acting as if it’s methane 😂

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TritonTaranis

Old argument that I don't want to rehash, but I think it was said the data is public domain but he refused to release his methods.

But as for the OP the case isn't big news because it is a libel case.

Probably because he FUDGED it

I mean I do the same if I were trying to hide something

Picture the scenario

The world is going to end, our house is on fire

Mhhhh nah I just can’t be bothered to prove it 😂

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
Well, looks like the MSM completely ignored this bombshell

Mann became famous for the chart, which showed temperatures running along in a horizontal fashion before spiking at the beginning of the 20th century. It was the “evidence” the global warming alarmists had been waiting for — “science” that showed human activity was overheating Earth. It was included in at least one United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Not all were convinced, however. There were questions about the data he used to create the stick, which he wouldn’t release. It has been called “100% fraudulent,” an “artifact of poor mathematics,” and a violation of “of scientific standards.”

Now why would anybody who claims man made climate change is very real and very dangerous

Refuse to show the data he used to create the famous hockey puck chart?

I’m confused... is this NOT how science works anymore ? Lol WTF

LINK

Contrary to your propaganda based delusions:

NASA scientist have consensus

And here is the consensus cause:

NASA Scientist Consensus On The Cause of Global Warming

Scientist don't care. Smart people always make money regardless if the population is forced to live in their own sewage. This whole issue is about the quality of life we live in our only life support system. It's very subjective as to what public policy should be.

But the science is very clear. And it's counter to your delusions.

The science is not very clear. Especially when you talk to people in the climate data business off the record. I have a Phd MIT relative who "collected" climate data. If the data wasn't saying what those who funded the research wanted to hear they would lose their funding and my relative their cushy high dollar job.

What happened to all that great data during the 70's that said we would run out of oil and the earth would become a boiling pot of water. Probably still slowly decomposing in landfills if I had to guess.

a reply to: TritonTaranis

Just making sure you understand that a libel case has nothing to do with science.