In reality, Mann is being nibbled to death by an Okapi, and the tickling is more than he bear.
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by michael hart
↧
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by pottereaton
It’s not the climate wars. It’s the war on terror, the war on Western values by those who have only recently migrated to the West that provoked that response.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Don Monfort
Willie is really enjoying his fodder. That was too easy, willie.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by kim
What’s more iconic, The Piltdown Mann’s face or his Crook’t Stick?
==================
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Rud Istvan
Then see A Lacis’ scathing remarks downthread, or read any the other M 2007 debunkings out there. I chose SoD because it was written and illustrated at a math level folks like yourself can comprehend, and because Judith has said several times she thinks SoD is ‘great’.
↧
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by gbaikie
“In my opinion he thought people would regard his advocacy as science. Not unreasonable since Michael Mann is a scientist.”
I think one could easily be misled to assume Michael Mann is a scientist.
Just as, if someone who was state certified a carpenter, and that one could also assume that person is carpenter.
But personally, I have seen no evident which leads me to the conclusion
that Michael Mann is scientist. And all what he does say, leads me to conclusion that he is not scientist.
I would say, that I have a great deal of respect for scientists- in all subjects- even in questionable fields.
But this is related to what and how do they things.
Though the exception to this respect would be an actual scientists doing things which morally a problematic in terms scientific ideals and standards.
For example the EPA testing of pollution on “volunteers” is example something which could be immoral in terms scientific standards [and probably is]. Therefore scientists involved with EPA human testing could be scientists which I could have zero respect [though I kinda doubt real scientists were actually involved- though it is possible]. .
I mention this exemption not because it related to Mann, rather I am just clarifying the exemption to idea that I respect all scientists.
So I have waited and I have yet to see any evident that Michael Mann is scientist.
And will use Wiki’s definition {or any better one, that anyone could point to}:
“A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist
Of course don’t limit my respect to just scientists.
But scientists are doing important stuff and more importantly they part of a scientific process, and that process has made living on earth better for everyone.
–His problem is once you get into advocacy and propaganda, you lose credibility.–
Yeah- though there very good specific reasons one loses credibility.
As scientist one can speak for the state, or be spokesperson for many difference causes, and one can actually increase your credibility.
Propaganda which is of the brainwashing variety- such as parroting talking points and and not allowing questions to be asked, is quite unscientific.
One should lose credibility even if the person was not a scientist- but for a non scientist, it might help their credibility [though generally it’s mostly about the manner and style employed].
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Don Monfort
I don’t know what your problem is, Judith. The Charlie massacre is not remotely connected to the climate wars. The real war and there is metaphorical war. Serious people don’t try to make a point by equating real war with metaphorical war. Mann’s metaphorical legal war against Steyn is not remotely similar to the terrorist war on people they want to silence. Mann’s verbal attacks on yourself and others, not like the Charlie massacre. Of course, I could be wrong. Tom’s comment doesn’t put a dent in what I am telling you. It’s just more fodder for the trolls.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Thanks, Rob, but I read that one last week. I suspect the author’s view of Michael Mann may affect his observations and opinions.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Willard
Me neither, Rob. Which is why I haven’t followed through your mitigation denial.
↧
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by kim
Et two prong.
==========
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by gbaikie
–Willard | January 12, 2015 at 4:01 pm |
> Killing people for speech you don’t like is different in degree from suing someone for speech you don’t like – but they are both reactions to speech.
Exactly. The fact that one is legal while one may not be is just a matter of degree. A lawyer reminds us so, Denizens. No less.–
What if the killing was legal. As it might be in some states and those involved consider themselves a members of that state [and escape and live there].
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Rob Starkey
Willard
I deny that you have shown that mitigation actions are cost effective in a world of limited financial resources. (which is a fact in the real world) Since you can’t demonstrate that the activities you support will actually eliminate or even lessen your feared results all you have is appealing to authority and spreading fear of what might happen. Fear is powerful, but not necessary
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Charlie Hebdo, Climate Scepticism & Free Speech | Atlas Monitor
[…] 1) Charlie Hebdo, Climate Scepticism & Free Speech – Climate Etc, 11 January 2015 […]
↧
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by pokerguy
I’ve no problem linking these two things because they are in fact, linked. No, Michael Mann is not a terrorist, although he most certainly traffics in fear. What does one suppose all those lawsuits are about? To frighten people enough that they won’t dare criticize his work any longer.
Don, these are two assaults on our right to free speech. One is legal and does not involve murder, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t in its way, profoundly damaging. There are many ways to destroy a free society. Mann shows us one, the terrorists another.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by rls
Willard
The mannian cult is the community of people who believe that the hockey stick created by The Mann is true :-)
Regards
Richard
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by kim
Nice compilation by jbuc912 @ Atlas Monitor.
=====================
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Steven Mosher
“Exactly. The fact that one is legal while one may not be is just a matter of degree. A lawyer reminds us so, Denizens. No less.”
Wrong.
Killing a writer is legal under Islamic law
http://www.theguardian.com/world/rushdie-fatwa
The actions against the cartoonists speech and the actions against Steyn’s speech are both sanctioned under different legal systems.
The penalties are different but both systems allow for the crimilization of speech.
↧
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by eadler2
For those who are dubious about accuracy, here is a graph from Levitius’ 2012 paper which shows error bars for the 700-2000M deep ocean measurements. The error is small enough to have confidence that the ocean heat content has been increasing in the past 15 years, during the so called ‘hiatus’ in global warming.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by curryja
The common thread is about freedom of speech, which has been the subject of at least half of the op-eds on the subject, and was a major theme for the march in Paris.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by rls
JCH
Thank you. Do you think that characterization of Gore was the start of a wide spread dialogue between both sides of the climate wars? I remember it as a cartooning of Gore, with his pretending to be smart guy from Harvard; comparable with his claim to have invented the Internet. Wasn’t it limited to presidential campaign talk?
Richard
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
