His work was proven to be BS and supported in hacked emails he sent to East Anglia university .
I think he was defamed by being called a child molester.
He knows Jerry Sandusky.
Can you get any coupons from Supercuts?
Glo-Bull Warming and Science
- Thread starter signals
- Start date
His work was proven to be BS and supported in hacked emails he sent to East Anglia university .
I think he was defamed by being called a child molester.
He knows Jerry Sandusky.
Can you get any coupons from Supercuts?
Much has been made about the well-above-average temperatures the Great White North has experienced this year and during the winter of 2015. For example, The Washington Post ran a story on December 20 titled “Pre-Christmas melt? North Pole forecast to warm 50 degrees above normal Thursday.”
Undoubtedly, the most vocal and least careful proponents of the theory that human use of fossil fuels is causing climate change will seize on this isolated fact as proof anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Some of them already made such claims in late November, when the temperatures in the Arctic were also well above average for that time of year.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/23/nobody-needs-freak-north-poles-higher-temps-right-now/
Undoubtedly, the most vocal and least careful proponents of the theory that human use of fossil fuels is causing climate change will seize on this isolated fact as proof anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Some of them already made such claims in late November, when the temperatures in the Arctic were also well above average for that time of year.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/23/nobody-needs-freak-north-poles-higher-temps-right-now/
Yesterday, the D.C Court of Appeals issued its decision in Michael Mann’s defamation case against us and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The court dismissed Mann’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and also dismissed his claims based on an open letter written by our editor-in-chief Rich Lowry taking Dr. Mann to task for threatening to file this bullying lawsuit in the first place. At the same time, the court refused to dismiss the defamation claims against NR and CEI based on blog posts by Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg respectively criticizing Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” graph, which is widely touted as providing lead-pipe cinch scientific proof of man-made global warming.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ent-michael-mann-decision-national-review-cei
First, some quick background. Simberg and Steyn authored a pair of blog posts alleging that Penn State University had failed to adequately investigate the alleged misconduct of climatologist Michael Mann that may have been revealed by the release of the “ClimateGate” e-mails. The posts were colorful and rude, accusing Mann of “molesting” data to produce the infamous “hockey stick” graph and comparing Penn State’s investigation of his alleged improprieties to its inquiry into the child-molestation accusations against Jerry Sandusky. The posts at issues were harsh. I blogged about the posts and the suits before (most recently here) as have others, such as Dan Farber and Ken White. As longtime readers might guess, I’m no fan of Thursday’s opinion. Let me briefly explain why.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-great-again-michael-manns-suit-may-continue/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-great-again-michael-manns-suit-may-continue/
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,179
- 1,420
You know....I wish my side would shift the focus away from global warming. All they will succeed in doing is getting EPA regulations for clean air and clean water rolled back. To the average American who goes out to their car when it's 5 degrees outside when it's normally 30, starting it up and shivering as they back out of the driveway...it's hard to agree with someone arguing about global warming.
If they would show pictures of Bejing's smog...with people wearing masks and smog so thick you can't see across the street and ask them "Would you want YOUR air to look like this?"....or show them the water from a river in India and ask them "Would you like YOUR water supply to look like this?". They might understand it better....whether it was 100 degrees or below zero outside. Because the excuse used to roll back EPA regs is so that America can better compete in a "global economy". There's a trade off....improved corporate profits at the expense of your air and water. China and India don't have those regs. Do we REALLY want to be like them?
The benefit to the tree huggers is that by focusing on clean air (and water) one big result is a reduction in carbon emissions. But when tell a guy on a zero degree day about global warming, he might come up with a pretty good argument. But when you ask them about clean air. then only a fool would object to that.
If they would show pictures of Bejing's smog...with people wearing masks and smog so thick you can't see across the street and ask them "Would you want YOUR air to look like this?"....or show them the water from a river in India and ask them "Would you like YOUR water supply to look like this?". They might understand it better....whether it was 100 degrees or below zero outside. Because the excuse used to roll back EPA regs is so that America can better compete in a "global economy". There's a trade off....improved corporate profits at the expense of your air and water. China and India don't have those regs. Do we REALLY want to be like them?
The benefit to the tree huggers is that by focusing on clean air (and water) one big result is a reduction in carbon emissions. But when tell a guy on a zero degree day about global warming, he might come up with a pretty good argument. But when you ask them about clean air. then only a fool would object to that.
Insp4
Veteran
- May 27, 2016
- 6,084
- 902
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,179
- 1,420
Thank you for proving my point. How much smog will you find acceptable in the air in YOUR neighborhood. China is running rings around us and doesn't have these pesky EPA regs. Here's the Bejing morning commute:
Mmmmm...smells like prosperity. Makes me kind of thirsty....how about a drink:
Notice I didn't mention global warming. Now...give me your case on why the above pictures are GOOD for America? Extra credit if you can argue FOR polluting aquifers.
Insp4
Veteran
- May 27, 2016
- 6,084
- 902
You know KC, you've just made mine! Any Climate change treaties mean nothing without the two largest polluters signing on. And they are China, and India. And I don't believe they would. The only thing we would be doing without them would be putting people out of good paying jobs.
Last edited:
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,179
- 1,420
I never said a word about global warming. In fact, if you go back to my first post about this, you'll see that I said that I wished "my side" would stop focusing on global warming and focus instead on clean air and clean water. As it is, the Trump administration is ready to roll back EPA regulations that will give us air like Bejing and industrial pollution, just like we had back when the Cuyahoga river caught fire and Lake Erie was basically pronounced "dead". Ah....those were the good old days. So rather than talking about global warming (that I wasn't talking about)....argue the benefits of rolling back EPA regs protecting your air and water.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,179
- 1,420
I'll use a big word you might not understand...."aquifer". IT's undergroud water....you know, where they store the rancid fracking residue, and in Florida, nuclear leftovers. We have an aquifer that pretty much is responsible for the Kansas economy....The Ogalala aquifer. It also supplies water to Nebraska, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas. And if that water gets polluted because of "leftovers" from fracking or from seepage from a pipeline, it will not be a good thing for the country. You think it's bad when gasoline is over $3 a gallon...just wait until potable water becomes in short supply.Sorry K.C, the devil made me do it!
