Why do you suppose that mikey keeps avoiding discovery, johnny. The case can’t end with little mikey dragging his little feet for years on end. What is that little putz afraid of? Steyn wants to fget his wide butt in court. Who is the chicken here, johnny?
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Don Monfort
↧
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by catweazle666
Ron Graf: “Are not algorithms base on logical rules? Could not those be listed?”
That depends on whether you mean scientific algorithms or post-normal science Algoreithms.
The latter appear to dominate in modern climate “science”.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by jamesbbkk
Sorry; Mark Steyn is incomparable. He is well-tuned to the issues of the age and excellent at expressing all of the facts, the trends, his views, and his predictions for the future on many issues. Plus, he does Sinatra and the passing parade. I, for one, am looking forward to the apparently hard-to-find links to all of the corrections he’s had to publish, particularly about his characterization of the posts that seemingly launched the lawsuit. His indictment was of Penn State’s review committees with only a secondary shot at the plaintiff in his DC court case. He does not pussy-foot around and is not overly self-serious; it’s true. His case is not about science on trial; it is about free speech (that is, the ability to critique those in power and those associated with those in power).
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George
Is a population explosion still considered a problem?
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by matthewrmarler
John Sidles: matthewrmarler wonders “Can you show where something Steyn wrote is incorrect, and then that it is willfully so?”
You raise a fascinating question, Matthew R. Marler!
…
Open question That the candidates’ quotes, as aggregated by the League of Conservation Voters, display a disturbingly high level of Steyn-style climate-change ignorance is inarguable.
Well, …, can you show where Steyn wrote something that is incorrect, and then that it is willfully so? Or is it the case that you have no basis for your claim that Steyn is “willfully ignorant”? Is it the case that the League of Conservation Voters is willfully one-sided and mostly ignorant of the flaws of the consensus view (as I think it is)?
You drew an unwarranted inference from a poor source. Would you like to return to discussing the merits of Mann v Steyn and Steyn v Mann? Do you want to stand by your allusion to “attention to detail” as “quibbling”? It would not be fair to say that “the world wonders”, but a few of us regular and irregular readers do wonder.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
BP made a lot of direct payments to fishermen, including me. I had zero direct oil related damages but due to press coverage and out of school “scientific” assessments, I was compensated for half a season.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/oil-spill-to-hit-florida-_n_561653.html
Remember to take most environmental science with a grain of salt.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie
Better medical care (i.e., access to antibiotics), better nutrition, better education, and also more access to energy, saves lives.
Yes – those things all came directly or indirectly in part from coal use.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George
Evolution is surely not a theory, according to courts. Examples of theories: Number theory. Newton’s gravity theory. Relativity theory. Big Bang theory.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by matthewrmarler
Michael: <i> Yes </i> can you show that anything Steyn has written is either ill-informed or wrong? "Wit is reason to advantage dressed," as everyone knows.
<i>old whiteman </i>
Gracious, overt age, race and sex bias?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George
Is El Nino weather or climate? Did climate models predict it for 2015?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie
Is a population explosion still considered a problem?
By the UN, yes.
But UN fertility estimates ( of present TFR ) are higher than those of the CIA, who also make estimates, and those imply a falling population much sooner and a lower peak than the UN:
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Jim D
His best defense may be that he is just being a comedian. Comedy should be protected.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David L. Hagen
<b>Greening "Consensus"?</b>
<a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara_2.html" rel="nofollow">Compliments to James Owens for his courage in writing: <blockquote>"This issue is still rather uncertain," Haarsma said.
Max Planck's Claussen said North Africa is the area of greatest disagreement among climate change modelers.
Forecasting how global warming will affect the region is complicated by its vast size and the unpredictable influence of high-altitude winds that disperse monsoon rains, Claussen added.
"Half the models follow a wetter trend, and half a drier trend." </blockquote>
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
It’s more a fact than a theory.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by craigm350
Reblogged this on <a href="https://craigm350.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/mark-steyns-new-book-on-michael-mann/" rel="nofollow">CraigM350</a>.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by jamesbbkk
Civil, not criminal.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by nickels
“Scientific consensus can always be challenged if one were to produce contradictory and reproducible results”
Alternate Thoery concept I guess.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
This is related to the length of the pause, even though arguably that is not really climate either.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Steven Mosher, “Getting information on the actual sources may not prove as easy as you think. It’s on the list of things to do.”
Let me help.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892127/
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/may-2015/survey-tracks-china-diesel-quality
General or off road diesel is commonly used in heavy equipment associated with ports including the ships, yard transfer equipment, locomotives and trucks, generators and container refrigeration etc.
There is an ongoing battle in China over what should be tackled first, coal, transportation fuels or barbeque joints.
Research more and publish less.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by matthewrmarler
Jim D: The law does not, thankfully, reach into private conversations when it comes to how defamation is defined.
Let me try again. Mann sued Steyn for defamation, not the publisher of the emails, not the people who wrote the emails, not the people who commented on the emails; Mann sued Steyn, for defamation. At the time that Steyn wrote the offending editorial, the emails had been publicly discussed for years by eminent scientists. In order to win the defamation suit, Mann has to prove “reckless disregard for truth” or “actual malice” (things along those lines, “clarified” in the record of court judgments). “Actual malice” is hard to prove and is not the same as “scathing and disrespectful wit”; and the large assembly of publicly available criticisms of Mann, by climate scientists, at the time of Steyn’s offending opinion, discredits the claim of “reckless disregard for truth”.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
