Comments for Climate Etc.

Josh,

stick to arguing about juvenile. It plays to your strengths.

A insightful observation.

“defending Michael Mann is defending climate science”

Well Yes, in the sense of defending the consensus.

But of course the consensus isn’t vey scientific, it’s all driven by political money and hence predisposed to advance the cause of politics – hiding data, hiding declines etc etc.

A couple of comments later Anthony equivocates:
“REPLY: Yeah, Nick either can’t help himself, as his many years of working for CSIRO has produced an institutionalized reaction to anything contrary to the monthly newsletter, or he’s simply paid to come here and sow obfuscation. Given he’s often one of the earliest commenters for anything contrary to his world view, I expect he has a trigger mechanism setup to alert him so he can derail threads early on with his particular brand of diversion.

Bottom line: increased CO2 forcing with no resulting increase in temperature, means no warming, and WMO believes there was warming. Bad science, just PR – no cookie. – Anthony”

Does Anthony really believe that nicky is a paid troll? I don’t think so. Does McIntyre really believe that nicky is a race horse? Has little joshie ever been right?

“But most damning is the UK investigation into UEA CRU. Mann’s amended complaint, an official court document, specifically alleges this investigation ‘exonerated’ him when Mann was outside its remit.”

Could you quote that “specific allegation”?

It was, by the way, written and signed by the lawyers, not Mann. And they submitted the reports they cited.

Astute observation for someone who stands ankle deep in straw and donkey poop.

Or maybe not.

iRud said:

“Paucheri sent all IPCCAR4 participants a Nobel prize certificate”
No, he did not. He sent an IPCC certificate for helping..

You are not very bright, jimmy. Even if Steyn believes it is a fact, it is still his opinion. Look up the words, jimmy. Read the briefs. Ask someone to help you. Hey, consult the ACLU.

Mann said

“”IPCC certificate acknowledging me “contributing to award of the Nobel Peace Prize”.

Completing the argument then: defending Mann, is defending tainted science.

And if a Nobel laureate defends tainted science, the taint thereby begins to engulf him too, And soon thereafter the Nobel image as well.

Pachauri allowed himself to be introduced as a Nobel Laureate at his own Terri organization even after all the kerfuffle.
It’s a sick band of cheats.

Phil,

the answer is no. There is no right or protection against being offended .

I could argue that the crap which folks like Josh, Michael and more and more Jim D feel free to flood this site with is very offensive. But no matter how accurate my arguments might be, they have no standing. I have no protection under the law for being offended. Only a twit believes they do.

I’ll admit to bias, but anyone who supported Enron deserves time in a small cell with Tiny, a 300 lb convicted sex offender.

Without the ‘stick’ his nothing , so all he can do is double down .
In any other area of science the need to revise early work due to errors or because further research undermines it , is normal pratice . In climate ‘science’ we see ‘dogma’ in action where once a claim has entered the canon of ‘the cause ‘ no matter how poor the claim it must be defended.

• The scientific works of Mann, Hansen, and Oreskes keep on being cited, without pause or obvious limit.

Sadly it not the first time rubbish keeps getting cited long after its been proven has rubbish , science has a poor history when it comes to its ability accept fair challenge to poor consensus.