Hockey stick Mann loses climate denier court case

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

kilo54 said..

Chris 249 said..

kilo54 said..
Not only was Mann a bad mathematician (his technique made a hockey stick of how often you went to the bathroom!), but he used a handful of creosote plants growing at DIFFERENT altitudes, and attempted to say the difference in size was because there was no Medieval Warm Period! (MWP) Ha, ha. Another turd, Briffa, CRU East Anglia, did a study of 16 trees from 250 miles apart - 15 showed extra growth during the MWP but ONE stunted tree did NOT, and so he said the AVERAGE showed no MWP!!! What a titan.

To quote a "sceptic" website; "'When you start to lose an argument, you attack the individual".

I am attacking his maths, his bad science, his frequent law suits. In Briffa's case, refusing to show his sources? Disgraceful! The MWP was Global, but that does not matter. Europe WAS as warm/er cf. today. It WAS a time of prosperity. So, why, clever clogs, is our present mild warming bad? Just does not sense at any level. More food; less starvation; more variety; longer growing season..........in Peace River country, BC, about 110 frost free days today. "And you don't want it to get warmer? Are you barmy?"

I can't believe that anyone can be so conceited or insular as to ignore the many areas of the world that would suffer from extra heat. Weird.

It could be good for Peace River if it warmed up, but where I live, entire towns have run out of drinking water. Fire fighters have no water available; they are fighting the worst early fire season on record with drying hoses. Men over 80, who have lived here for generations, have never heard of such a drought. And you want it to get warmer and drier? Loony.

What a pity, by the way, that someone who claims to be educated cannot discuss such things without being a childish bogan and throwing around stupid lying insults.

There is absolutely NO evidence that the Tropics are warming.
But Chris 249, you are missing the point - several 100 papers showing the MWP WAS warmer GLOBALLY.....Zhang et al "Citrus growing 300 miles North of today in China" and other papers; pollen from river sediments in Spain; stable isotope ratios from the Caribbean and Indonesia;; stalagmites from S.Africa and New Zealand; sediments from Antarctica; Felixdottir's work in Iceland;warm loving insects in England found in Northern graves - today ONLY found in extreme South UK...... grapes grown in Scotland; grapes grown higher in Germany; farming in N Norway, all abandonned now etc etc
So Europe getting warmer better in Roman and MWP. Grapes NOT grown in N.Italy till 100BC

So what are you saying? "Yes, Europe will BENEFIT from GW, but the Tropics will suffer." The Sahel is GREENING. Crops way up these days.
....I appreciate you are an undergrad. Finish your education before flapping your gums.
Read about Be10 as a Sun proxy.
And on planes, read about adiabatic lapse rates, Reynold's numbers, induced stalls, adverse yaw......why Phantom F4s had audio and visual stall warnings - you could stall the sucker at 450kts by pulling G. Unrecoverable. Spoils your day. We hated that.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

kilo54 said..

Chris 249 said..

kilo54 said..
To Chris 249. Talk about a pedant, sir! The FACT is that they did NOT reach the mainland; the ship was badly stuck in thick ice; they needed help from SEVERAL ships and expensive helicopters. Well done! Promote this man!
The ice in Antarctica is growing despite supposed GW. Is 11,000ft thick on average. Melting next Tuesday, eh?
Passed my Bsc in Chemistry in 2 years while flying in the RAFVR. HM the Queen giving me a Permanent Commission in GD(P) the highest paid branch of the Brit armed forces. Flew Meteors ("meatboxes" as the Aussies called them, because they killed so many!)
Answer this you alarmist - the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods a time of PROSPERITY!! Getit? NOT gloom and doom - more food, more exploration, LESS deaths from cold etc. Why should our mild warming be ANY different? Illogical, pal! And, name 2 bad things PRESENTLY (not guff predictions from stupid people) from GW. Disappearing islands? No. More storms. No. More forest fires, eh? 100 times MORE fires in USA in the 30s cf last year. World grain production 2400m tons today; 600m in 1950. About 300m FREE from extra Co2 . Don't want free food? Trees in USA today DOUBLE those of 1900. Bad, eh?......its the Cloud Cover decrease (from less aerosols for nucleation) that is 200 times MORE powerful than CO2 forcing. Go back and get an education.

Kilo 249, I'm not a pedant - you are a LIAR. You are dishonest, a trickster, dishonest, falsifier..... how many different ways do you want be to put it?

I'll say again - you are a liar. Or else, you are ignorant or credulous. Your choice. You made a blanket statement that was untrue, either because you were too lazy to check the facts, too stupid to know what was right, or a liar.

Respect to you for flying Meteors (although didn't "Winkle" Brown say they were very easy to fly?) but it is ridiculous to say that because you did well in a bachelors degree, you know more than Nobel prize winners in physics.

Your claims about warming being better are viciously illogical, because they centre on certain parts of the world and don't seem to consider low-lying or hotter areas at all. Even if some areas do better, that is no consolation to those who may suffer.

I have a much better education, in terms of doing well in a highly competitive undergrad course, than you do so your claims that I should get an education are dishonest and stupid. People like Brian Schmidt have vastly better educations than you do and they believe in AGW. It it beyond stupid to claim that as an undergrad in chemistry you know more about AGW than people with higher qualifications who specialise in the related sciences.

On top of all that, if you are educated you should still not lie and you should know the difference between 100km and about 10km. Meanwhile, if you want respect, then you should stop lying.

I read that it was 100km. That MAY be a mistake, but certainly NOT a lie. Logic, old boy.
You prat on about $1.5m cost; others say $2.4m, AND "porky pie-lie, how about costing the 3 expeditions that were cancelled 'cos of you and your slack arses?" France, China, Australia not happy with you, and Oz now sending you the invoice I hear......don't get your balls in a knot, that is MY info, wrong tho' it may be.
How do you answer CO2 "saturation"? Being logarithmic. Know what they are? Hm?
And do you think cloud cover affects temp? For all our sakes, read John D. Maclean's PhD, "An audit of HADCRUT4 and a study on the decrease in world cloud cover, 1986 to 2009." He should get the Nobel and may well do so. Australia should be VERY proud of his meticulous work.
John, I salute you.

Your whole attitude is like you have been doing cocaine the night before!! Snappy, cranky, bitchy; avoiding issues; repeating "lies. lies, lies."
And try pulling hard G in a Meteor - "Mayday, mayday, mayday. Fanstop both engines. Unable to get out, will try and put her down."
10+ second throttle lag, but so smooth compared to pistons.
Look, Chis, would rather be friends than enemies.
My schooling cost $500K. (Beaten on my last day. We have won 2 Court cases against the swine that ran the school.) i am fairly bright, did fast 2 year course at Uni..........."CO2 is only a very MINOR player in GW. HALF of the claimed temp rise JUST from changing the paint from whitewash to modern paints. 0.7F alone diff. NOAA so busy changing temps, BUT NOT smart enough to change 'number of days over 100F etc'

Why so DEVOTED to CO2? Wot made the Roman and Medieval Warm periods so warm? (Ah, yes. Nissan factory in the Colosseum! Hm?)
You MUST have a vested interest, no?

Kilo, do you have fruit loops in the UK?

I am not sure about froot loops, but it sounds like they have plenty of cocaine!

Select to expand quote

log man said..

FormulaNova said..

log man said..

kilo54 said..

Chris 249 said..

kilo54 said..
To Chris 249. Talk about a pedant, sir! The FACT is that they did NOT reach the mainland; the ship was badly stuck in thick ice; they needed help from SEVERAL ships and expensive helicopters. Well done! Promote this man!
The ice in Antarctica is growing despite supposed GW. Is 11,000ft thick on average. Melting next Tuesday, eh?
Passed my Bsc in Chemistry in 2 years while flying in the RAFVR. HM the Queen giving me a Permanent Commission in GD(P) the highest paid branch of the Brit armed forces. Flew Meteors ("meatboxes" as the Aussies called them, because they killed so many!)
Answer this you alarmist - the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods a time of PROSPERITY!! Getit? NOT gloom and doom - more food, more exploration, LESS deaths from cold etc. Why should our mild warming be ANY different? Illogical, pal! And, name 2 bad things PRESENTLY (not guff predictions from stupid people) from GW. Disappearing islands? No. More storms. No. More forest fires, eh? 100 times MORE fires in USA in the 30s cf last year. World grain production 2400m tons today; 600m in 1950. About 300m FREE from extra Co2 . Don't want free food? Trees in USA today DOUBLE those of 1900. Bad, eh?......its the Cloud Cover decrease (from less aerosols for nucleation) that is 200 times MORE powerful than CO2 forcing. Go back and get an education.

Kilo 249, I'm not a pedant - you are a LIAR. You are dishonest, a trickster, dishonest, falsifier..... how many different ways do you want be to put it?

I'll say again - you are a liar. Or else, you are ignorant or credulous. Your choice. You made a blanket statement that was untrue, either because you were too lazy to check the facts, too stupid to know what was right, or a liar.

Respect to you for flying Meteors (although didn't "Winkle" Brown say they were very easy to fly?) but it is ridiculous to say that because you did well in a bachelors degree, you know more than Nobel prize winners in physics.

Your claims about warming being better are viciously illogical, because they centre on certain parts of the world and don't seem to consider low-lying or hotter areas at all. Even if some areas do better, that is no consolation to those who may suffer.

I have a much better education, in terms of doing well in a highly competitive undergrad course, than you do so your claims that I should get an education are dishonest and stupid. People like Brian Schmidt have vastly better educations than you do and they believe in AGW. It it beyond stupid to claim that as an undergrad in chemistry you know more about AGW than people with higher qualifications who specialise in the related sciences.

On top of all that, if you are educated you should still not lie and you should know the difference between 100km and about 10km. Meanwhile, if you want respect, then you should stop lying.

I read that it was 100km. That MAY be a mistake, but certainly NOT a lie. Logic, old boy.
You prat on about $1.5m cost; others say $2.4m, AND "porky pie-lie, how about costing the 3 expeditions that were cancelled 'cos of you and your slack arses?" France, China, Australia not happy with you, and Oz now sending you the invoice I hear......don't get your balls in a knot, that is MY info, wrong tho' it may be.
How do you answer CO2 "saturation"? Being logarithmic. Know what they are? Hm?
And do you think cloud cover affects temp? For all our sakes, read John D. Maclean's PhD, "An audit of HADCRUT4 and a study on the decrease in world cloud cover, 1986 to 2009." He should get the Nobel and may well do so. Australia should be VERY proud of his meticulous work.
John, I salute you.

Your whole attitude is like you have been doing cocaine the night before!! Snappy, cranky, bitchy; avoiding issues; repeating "lies. lies, lies."
And try pulling hard G in a Meteor - "Mayday, mayday, mayday. Fanstop both engines. Unable to get out, will try and put her down."
10+ second throttle lag, but so smooth compared to pistons.
Look, Chis, would rather be friends than enemies.
My schooling cost $500K. (Beaten on my last day. We have won 2 Court cases against the swine that ran the school.) i am fairly bright, did fast 2 year course at Uni..........."CO2 is only a very MINOR player in GW. HALF of the claimed temp rise JUST from changing the paint from whitewash to modern paints. 0.7F alone diff. NOAA so busy changing temps, BUT NOT smart enough to change 'number of days over 100F etc'

Why so DEVOTED to CO2? Wot made the Roman and Medieval Warm periods so warm? (Ah, yes. Nissan factory in the Colosseum! Hm?)
You MUST have a vested interest, no?

Kilo, do you have fruit loops in the UK?

I am not sure about froot loops, but it sounds like they have plenty of cocaine!

I've never tried snorting breakfast cereal.

You sure? I am sure I would have had some coco pops come out of my nose at some time in my childhood.

Select to expand quote

kilo54 said..

You seldom mention facts. Is a common alarmist technique - means you cannot be pinned down; a dishonest tactic.
You STILL do not say WHY this warming is bad WHEN it was GOOD BEFORE? "Oh, I have evidence that in 1000AD the rest of the World other than Europe went to hell in a hand basket! Droughts; famine;; unable to get it up (ha, ha); weeping; gnashing of teeth all day and night; sobbing." (Maybe written down in Chris's stone tablets he has hidden in his bedroom, eh? Found them in the road one day! Ha, ha!)

Statement of facts does not mean a lack of modesty. One has to assert.
Again, the whining, the aggrieved tone, the slander (libel actually). Been doing coke all night again?...........have been to Columbia twice - $7/gm flake. Take a holiday there. Cartagena very safe, and interesting.

You are getting to be boring. Were from the start actually. Why don't you naff off?

You keep on referring to coke. Is this why your discussion style is erratic?

I think your time of 'prosperity' is disingenuous as it really only applies to areas that were cold before and the warming enabled farming when none was sustainable before. It appears to ignore the rest of the world where increased temperatures may have made it worse.

Now, right now, we live in areas that are very much built on the coast and are more exposed to rising sea levels. I don't care that parts of Greenland were better for farming in that warming period. I care about the areas that I live in. These areas tend to be dry, and that's why I care about a potential worsening in droughts and the like.

Identifying a time in history of warming where it was prosperous for a particular area does nothing to address the global problem for the rest of us.

Yay, we can farm again in Antarctica! Brilliant!

Great effort Chris 249 - but I suspect logical argument is wasted on Lord Blowhard.

I wonder how he found his way to a watersport forum - he's got such a big head I can't imagine he can even balance on a board

There are so many alt right wing keyboard warriors these days who put forward their opinions based on a their own isolated privileged viewpoint.
Time to look at the future from a wider perspective.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

kilo54 said..

Chris 249 said..
If you want to discuss things, stop saying things that are not true and illogical. I have a top-class undergrad degree and post-grad qualifications, so your repeated claims that I am uneducated are untrue. May I ask you once more to stop saying things that are not true? It's embarrassing to have to ask a grown man to stop saying things that are not true, but in your case it seems necessary.

You lie yet again when you claim I am missing the point about the MWP being warmer globally; I said earlier "Yes, there have been previous warming and cooling cycles as in the Roman era". It is utterly dishonest of you to claim that I am missing the point when I acknowledged the point earlier. The issue is that the rate of warming we are experiencing at the moment is faster than the rate of earlier warm periods.

The Sahel is an area of variable rainfall where a massive project has seen the planting of millions of trees in the Great Green Wall project. Of course such an area, under such a project, can "green". The fact you continue to avoid is that the theory of AGW says that the climate will become more variable, and in a more variable climate you will always be able to cherry-pick areas that are getting greener even if the average is in the other direction. Pointing out isolated instances therefore does not disprove the AGW theory.

By the way, boasting about your education and pay is rather ridiculous. Boasting about your 2 year undergrad course and then ignoring what vastly more qualified Nobel Prize winners say about AGW is not just arrogant, but illogical.

Since you obviously lack both modesty and honesty, I think I should stop replying to you - you will just keep on lying.

You are obsessed about 'lying' and seem unable to distinguish between mistakes, errors, incorrect you say) info.
I did not say you were uneducated. At one point you said 'undergrad', so I told you to read up on Be10 and other topics. Have you read up on it? As said before, I am the author of "Cosmic ray induced radio nuclides and their uses in oceanography."

Using the word "lie" is deliberately perjorative and vexatious, sunshine! I have 4 'O' levels in English; it seems you have trouble with syntax and understanding.
The point about the MWP was NOT that it was global, but that it was warm (for whatever reason) AND a time of PROSPERITY. So WHY should our warming be any different..........you SAY, "It is the rate of warming.....". Where did you pluck this from? Evidence?

And, porky-pie, lie, where ever has it been said that the AGW morons theory claim "more variable is the problem". Evidence?.......I can show you several papers showing that "Less storms in latter part of 20th century than first half." In FACT, if you have done thermodynamics comme moi, you would realise than warming should REDUCE violent weather. (Less temp differentials.)

Talking about Global temps is like asking, "How high is a Chinaman?"......well each person's height changes with time, age, gravity (moving gold from S.Africa to Europe costs NOTHING 'cos of the change in G).
So we are faced with a huge amount of stochastic data that has to be statistically treated to make some sense of it. BUT each method produces different results - some start by discarding "outliers", then average; others use 'mean'.
Add to this the 40% estimated; the incorrect siteing (Why is Flushing, New York NOT showing ANY temp rise? "Cos its in the country and has not changed. No heat island effect." 3C in London.); the 600 altered temps every month by NOAA and NASA.

Don't remember boasting about my pay. In the RAF we were paid double when flying. Danger pay essentially; we were such heroes (sic).
I mentioned that I passed my exams in just 2 years to indicate that it is unlikely that am thick. getit?

You seldom mention facts. Is a common alarmist technique - means you cannot be pinned down; a dishonest tactic.
You STILL do not say WHY this warming is bad WHEN it was GOOD BEFORE? "Oh, I have evidence that in 1000AD the rest of the World other than Europe went to hell in a hand basket! Droughts; famine;; unable to get it up (ha, ha); weeping; gnashing of teeth all day and night; sobbing." (Maybe written down in Chris's stone tablets he has hidden in his bedroom, eh? Found them in the road one day! Ha, ha!)

Statement of facts does not mean a lack of modesty. One has to assert.
Again, the whining, the aggrieved tone, the slander (libel actually). Been doing coke all night again?...........have been to Columbia twice - $7/gm flake. Take a holiday there. Cartagena very safe, and interesting.

You are getting to be boring. Were from the start actually. Why don't you naff off?

Do you post only when you're drunk, or does it just read like that? To complain about my "aggrieved" tone when you are throwing abuse at others is hypocritical at best. To whine that you are suffering from "slander" (which I did not commit) when you abuse people as "oafs" and "fools" is just ridiculously hypocritical. To call people "AGW morons" and "turds" and then complain about me being "perjorative and vexatious" just shows that you are inconsistent and can throw it but not take it.

I'm interested in lies and mistakes because they say so much about a person and whether they can be trusted and reasonable. For example, if your first post did not include insults about "oafs" and a "ship of fools" I would have responded in a different way. If you had admitted your error, I would have responded in a different way. But you did neither of those things - you just doubled down on the silly insults. We all make mistakes, but to refuse to admit it and just throw more childish insults around indicates that someone does not know how to discuss matters reasonably.


Re "And, porky-pie, lie, where ever has it been said that the AGW morons theory claim "more variable is the problem". Evidence?"

The "AGW morons" regularly claim that increasing variability in weather is a problem caused by AGW; see for example the Australian Academy of Science's page on this very topic at

www.science.org.au/learning/general-audience/science-climate-change/5-how-are-extreme-events-changing

where it says, for example, "Because a warmer atmosphere contains more moisture, rainfall extremes are also expected to become more frequent and intense as global average temperatures increase. This is already being observed globally: heavy rainfall events over most land areas have become more frequent and intense in recent decades, although these trends have varied notably between regions and seasons."


Re "Why is Flushing, New York NOT showing ANY temp rise? "Cos its in the country".

Errr, what? Flushing NY is a borough in Queens, NYC. It's the fourth largest business district in NYC. That's not "the country". This may be your vision of "the country" but it's not that for many people.


Above - Flushing, NY......if that's "the country" I dread to think what you call "the city".


Re "you SAY, "It is the rate of warming.....". Where did you pluck this from? Evidence?"

I plucked the evidence from sources like NASA; "the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events." See earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php


Re "You STILL do not say WHY this warming is bad WHEN it was GOOD BEFORE?". Please, be truthful. I did say that, several posts before, when I noted "the problems it can cause in hotter areas and low-lying areas".


Re "Don't remember boasting about my pay." You did so when you said you were in "the highest paid branch of the Brit armed forces". It was utterly irrelevant.


Re "I mentioned that I passed my exams in just 2 years to indicate that it is unlikely that am thick. getit? "

Yes, I get it. But you still never respond to the issue that if you demand respect for your intelligence and education because of your two-year degree, you should GIVE respect for the intelligence and education of those with outstanding careers and post-grad results in climate science and other areas. If it is unlikely that you are thick, it is even less likely that people like Nobel Prize winners who believe in AGW are "morons" as you seem to label them.

If you demand respect because of your education then you should give respect to those who have more education. That is a very simple and logical premise. I don't see how you can argue with it or ignore it.


Re "As said before, I am the author of "Cosmic ray induced radio nuclides and their uses in oceanography." Where was it published? I can't find records of it. And secondly, if writing a paper on an unrelated area makes you an expert in climate science, why do you dismiss those who have written many more papers on climate science?


I notice that one of your posts contains the cryptic comment, apparently partly edited, "Depo- provera for ALL Afric". What were you trying to say with that? That all Africans should be treated in injected contraceptives?

The depo provera? Messaged was posted when still writing it........Instead of wasting money Canute like, in one year offer ALL African women depo provera AND a health check up. An example of what we CAN do to help.

Chris, I am not going to keep fighting with you., Mr.Turney. That's who i think you are. Have offered the hand of friendship, and do so, again.

Your barracking supporters need to stop dragging their knuckles!

Off topic - Tanzania, for some reason, has 100 times more Albinos (People With Albinism PWB more properly) than other countries. AND the kids are pursued for their LIMBS which fetch $5,000 in a country with per capita $1000 annually. (Witch doctors use the limbs to 'help' rich people who are dying etc) They live in constant fear.

I am a member of "Under The same Sun". We guard ALL albino kids in Tz 24/7 in protected schools. Last year only one killed - a little boy too young to leave his Mother........Previous years 80 killed, 200 maimed.
These Albinos suffer terribly from the Sun, most dead by 30 from cancer. All are legally blind but can see with difficulty. At 17, 18, we try and get them jobs, impressing on them the need for excellence to overcome the prejudice against them...........on the street, people giggle and say, "Feather, feather!" "Money, money" and make chopping motions.

Even the clergy laugh at them. "My God, why did you forsake these people?" (I am no longer a catholic after being whipped twice a day at a religious boarding school. Heavy duty electric cable making beads of blood; then whipped again on top of them. The Priest admitting he was aroused by our fear!)
Some of the girls have to resort to prostitution. Wanna get laid? Go to Fisi square, Dar-es-salaam. 25c for a ****; Aids, VD free.
In Kinshsasa, Congo, 10c to get laid - the wise wear 2 condoms!

So when things going badly, thank the Lord you are not a Tz albino. All the best to you.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

kilo54 said..

You seldom mention facts. Is a common alarmist technique - means you cannot be pinned down; a dishonest tactic.
You STILL do not say WHY this warming is bad WHEN it was GOOD BEFORE? "Oh, I have evidence that in 1000AD the rest of the World other than Europe went to hell in a hand basket! Droughts; famine;; unable to get it up (ha, ha); weeping; gnashing of teeth all day and night; sobbing." (Maybe written down in Chris's stone tablets he has hidden in his bedroom, eh? Found them in the road one day! Ha, ha!)

Statement of facts does not mean a lack of modesty. One has to assert.
Again, the whining, the aggrieved tone, the slander (libel actually). Been doing coke all night again?...........have been to Columbia twice - $7/gm flake. Take a holiday there. Cartagena very safe, and interesting.

You are getting to be boring. Were from the start actually. Why don't you naff off?

You keep on referring to coke. Is this why your discussion style is erratic?

I think your time of 'prosperity' is disingenuous as it really only applies to areas that were cold before and the warming enabled farming when none was sustainable before. It appears to ignore the rest of the world where increased temperatures may have made it worse.

Now, right now, we live in areas that are very much built on the coast and are more exposed to rising sea levels. I don't care that parts of Greenland were better for farming in that warming period. I care about the areas that I live in. These areas tend to be dry, and that's why I care about a potential worsening in droughts and the like.

Identifying a time in history of warming where it was prosperous for a particular area does nothing to address the global problem for the rest of us.

Yay, we can farm again in Antarctica! Brilliant!

Mann, the bogus hockey stick man; SLAPP suing dynamo; lying poltroon.

In his alternative universe, he and other climate scientists are the martyrs, oppressed and silenced by the Politburo. Never mind that Mann - a tenured professor at one of the country's top public universities - opened his testimony by reciting a prodigious list of awards he has won, books he has authored, scientific organizations he leads. He is celebrated by the media and environmental groups around the world, and yet in front of Congress he talked like a guy on his way to the Gulag.

It takes a special blend of hubris, juvenility, and dishonesty to portray yourself as a victim when you are really the bully.
"Good old reversal Tony RobbinsIt was quite a spectacle. Mann was joined on the panel (Senate hearings) by Judith Curry, John Christy, and Roger Pielke, Jr. - three scientists who have actually endured the kind of political witch-hunts Mann referred to. Rather than present data or debate the science,

Mann mostly engaged in the sophistry that has gradually undermined the credibility of climate science. He repeatedly referred to a bogus "97 percent consensus" about man-made climate change, and accused the Heartland Institute of being a "climate-change denying, Koch brothers-funded outlet."

. He engaged in one ad hominem attack after another against his fellow panelists and the committee's chairman, Representative Lamar Smith. He questioned whether Smith really understood the scientific method and read a nasty quote about Smith from a smear piece in Science magazine. (How to win friends and influence people!)

Mann's rhetoric became so inflamed that he was finally upbraided by Representative Dana Rohrabacher. "From the get go, we have heard personal attack after personal attack coming from those claiming to represent the mainstream of science," Rohrabacher said to Mann. "Call people 'deniers' all you want, use any kind of name you want . . . when we talk about Mr. Lysenko, that's the kind of thing they did to the scientists in Russia. Try to call people names and beat them into submission, that's a Stalinist tactic."

LaHood called Mann on his hypocrisy: "You mention in your opening statement about staying away from that and yet we have a suit that's been filed based on those exact same things. There's a real disconnect between a defamation suit that does the exact same thing you're engaged in that in this public forum."

Turns out Mann appears to be a bit of a denier himself. Under questioning, Mann denied being involved with the Climate Accountability Institute even though he is featured on its website as a board member. CAI is one of the groups pushing a scorched-earth approach to climate deniers, urging lawmakers to employ the RICO statute against fossil-fuel corporations. When asked directly if he was either affiliated or associated with CAI, Mann answered "no."

....The problem was that the same tree ring data that the alarmists needed to smooth out past ups and downs in the Earth's climate (getting rid of the MWP) showed cooling, not warming, after 1960!!!! Is why he (Mann) used thermometer readings after 1960 to hide this. Classy chap!

Apart from being a tetchy, hotheaded, rude, bullying, cackhanded, ignorant, malevolent and embarrassingly useless excuse for a scientist, Professor Michael Mann - the guy behind the serially-discredited Hockey Stick - is also the most outrageous liar.

Mann used often to claim that he was a Nobel Prizewinner - till someone unhelpfully pointed out that he was but one of hundreds of scientists who contributed to Assessment Reports by the IPCC (which did win the Nobel Prize in 2007)

This week the bald-pated shyster was up to his old tricks again, telling a string of porkie pies at a climate science hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.Given how litigious the mendacious, bloviating poltroon can be - he's currently engaged in at least two defamation suits: one against Tim Ball, the other against Mark Steyn - I obviously have to tread very carefully here.So I'd just like to say, as delicately and politely as I can to the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University:"Liar, liar. Your pants on fire!"

But it was Carlson's takedown of Bill Nye the Science Guy, a television personality and celebrity climate promoter, that exposes the intellectual chicanery behind this crusade. During an interview on Carlson's show on February 27, Nye goofily claimed that people who question claims about global warming suffer from cognitive dissonance: "We in the science community are looking for information why climate change deniers, or extreme skeptics, do not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change."

Nye went on to say that denial is denial, the evidence is overwhelming, and the question of whether humans are causing climate change is "not an open question, it's a settled question."

The turd is a mediocre Mechanical Engineer. What does he know about anything relevant?%3Fecver%3D1Now usually when these charges are made by someone who purports to possess expertise in climate science, the interviewer acquiesces, immediately surrendering the debate to the climate activist. But Carlson wouldn't back down: "To what degree is climate change caused by human activity? . . . Is it 100 percent, is it 74.3 percent? If it's settled science, please tell us to what degree human activity is responsible

."Nye started to get uncomfortable, well aware he had no certain answer to this so-called settled question, since climate scientists cannot agree how much human activity contributes to climate change. This is when Nye went off the rails, refusing to specify the degree to which people cause climate change and instead blaming us for the speed that climate change is happening:

This spun him into a really weird (and unscientific) spot where he started lamenting the fact that global warming has caused us to avoid another Ice Age - perhaps unaware that most people would consider freezing to death a horrible fate - and told Carlson another Ice Age "ain't gonna happen because of you and me." Yay CO2!

While it's easy to dismiss Nye's interview as a kooky one-off appearance from an unprepared celebrity scientist, he sadly represents the lack of integrity by most climate-change pushers. They move goalposts, manufacture facts, resist honest debate, and resort to smear tactics when confronted with specific questions they cannot answer.As Carlson said to Nye, "You really don't know, and you bully people who ask questions."

Randy Pauchori of the IPCC
Priapic former chair of the IPCC, railway engineer Pauchori, has come further off the rails after being accused by 2 MORE women of sexual misconduct.

He is the bovine oaf who predicted all glaciers gone from the Himalayas by 2030. Including Everest!"
He sauntered around the office sporting a big bulge in his trousers." One anonymous complainant said, "He would press it against you, while his greasy face smirked. He had bad breath as well. Smelled like he had been eating dog****.

"This pontiffying, free spending, jet setter, now confined awaiting trial, is known in India, as Dr.Lecherous. Every young woman who came within a mile of him, was bombarded with fervent sexual requests and groping. "His hands were everywhere!" another woman complained."
Ha, Ha!

The IPCC
The IPCC has published five reports since 1990, the latest being No 5 in 2013. For this No 5 report, it was claimed that a 95% consensus - that global warming is both occurring and man-made - exists, in spite of overwhelming evidence of nil, or nominal natural, warming. Of 11,944 papers considered, only 41 of them actually claim global warming is caused by man-made CO2 (that's an alarming or 0.3 of 1%).
Those that disproved global warming were dismissed. Lord Christopher Monckton (2013) of the UK's Science and Public Policy Institute has released an exhaustive statistical research paper that concludes that scientific consensus affirming man-made global warming is just 0.3%, not the 97% claimed by the global warming whiners.This must be the ultimate in "Reversal", the technique of obdurately, arrogantly, reversing reality. Surprisingly, it does work on some people

The IPCC is a conflicted institution pushing a mandate that lacks true scientific rigour.
Moore (2013) says; "by its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.

......There are countless examples of data manipulation The levels of deception stretch across all the data involved. In any developed country, to seek public funding by tampering with data would see the culprits jailed.As a comparison, consider an IPO prospectus seeking billions of dollars from the public without verifiable scientific information in it - let alone manipulated data.

As just one example, suspicious data records from Paraguay were found to have been changed from a downward temperature trend to an upward one (from a decline of 1 deg C to an increase of 1.5 deg C).Not only for three initial weather stations investigated but subsequently for a number of other weather stations in the area. Worse still they then used these upward temperature records to apply to tracts of the globe where no records have been kept.In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming."

"When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records - on which the entire panic ultimately rested - were systematically 'adjusted' to show the earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Mark Twain, "It is easy to make a fool believe, but impossible then to change his mind."

.Return to Almora, published in Dr Pachauri's native India earlier this month, tells the story of Sanjay Nath, an academic in his 60s reminiscing on his "spiritual journey" through India, Peru and the US.On the way he encounters, among others, Shirley MacLaine, the actress, who appears as a character in the book. While relations between Sanjay and MacLaine remain platonic, he enjoys sex - a lot of sex - with a lot of women.In breathless prose that risks making Dr Pachauri, who will be 70 this year, a laughing stock among the serious, high-minded scientists and world leaders with whom he mixes, he details sexual encounter after sexual encounter.

The book, which makes reference to the Kama Sutra, starts promisingly enough as it tells the story of a climate expert (!) with a lament for the denuded mountain slopes of Nainital, in northern India, where deforestation by the timber mafia and politicians has "endangered the fragile ecosystem".But talk of "denuding" is a clue of what is to come.

By page 16, Sanjay is ready for his first liaison with May in a hotel room in Nainital. "She then led him into the bedroom," writes Dr Pachauri. "She removed her gown, slipped off her nightie and slid under the quilt on his bed. Sanjay put his arms around her and kissed her, first with quick caresses and then the kisses becoming longer and more passionate."May slipped his clothes off one by one, removing her lips from his for no more than a second or two."Afterwards she held him close. 'Sandy, I've learned something for the first time today. You are absolutely superb after meditation. Why don't we make love every time immediately after you have meditated?'

."More follows, including Sanjay and friends queuing to have sexual encounters with Sajni, an impoverished but willing local: "Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay's bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before . He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni's body, caressing her voluptuous breasts.

"Take a cold shower, and read the rest of the steamy (possibly a water vapor feedback loop) novel at the Telegraph hereNote to the U.N. - Time to kick Pachy to the curb, he's not just toast now, he'scarbonized. In other news, The Love Guru has this relevant quote from a hockey team member:"there's no connection between hockey and my love life"He is a graduate of the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. He's not a climatologist but a railroad engineer.

So, if he ever avails himself of a free half-hour with a Copenhagen hooker, I'm sure, like the Bombay to Cochin express, he'll pull out on time.

But it's hard to see why he should be presiding over a multi-trillion-dollar shakedown of the global economy. For one thing, Dr. Pachauri has one of the largest carbon footprints on the planet. He's in favour of "hefty aviation taxes" to "deter people from flying," but fortunately once you're part of the transnational jet set nothing can deter you. He flew 443,243 miles on "IPCC business" in the year-and-a-half run-up to Copenhagen. I'm not sure whether that includes his two weekend round trips from New York to Delhi, once for a cricket practice, once for a match.

And alarmists listen to these disgusting liars? Apparently so. What does that say about them?

Select to expand quote

kilo54 said..

FormulaNova said..

kilo54 said..

You seldom mention facts. Is a common alarmist technique - means you cannot be pinned down; a dishonest tactic.
You STILL do not say WHY this warming is bad WHEN it was GOOD BEFORE? "Oh, I have evidence that in 1000AD the rest of the World other than Europe went to hell in a hand basket! Droughts; famine;; unable to get it up (ha, ha); weeping; gnashing of teeth all day and night; sobbing." (Maybe written down in Chris's stone tablets he has hidden in his bedroom, eh? Found them in the road one day! Ha, ha!)

Statement of facts does not mean a lack of modesty. One has to assert.
Again, the whining, the aggrieved tone, the slander (libel actually). Been doing coke all night again?...........have been to Columbia twice - $7/gm flake. Take a holiday there. Cartagena very safe, and interesting.

You are getting to be boring. Were from the start actually. Why don't you naff off?

You keep on referring to coke. Is this why your discussion style is erratic?

I think your time of 'prosperity' is disingenuous as it really only applies to areas that were cold before and the warming enabled farming when none was sustainable before. It appears to ignore the rest of the world where increased temperatures may have made it worse.

Now, right now, we live in areas that are very much built on the coast and are more exposed to rising sea levels. I don't care that parts of Greenland were better for farming in that warming period. I care about the areas that I live in. These areas tend to be dry, and that's why I care about a potential worsening in droughts and the like.

Identifying a time in history of warming where it was prosperous for a particular area does nothing to address the global problem for the rest of us.

Yay, we can farm again in Antarctica! Brilliant!

Mann, the bogus hockey stick man; SLAPP suing dynamo; lying poltroon.

In his alternative universe, he and other climate scientists are the martyrs, oppressed and silenced by the Politburo. Never mind that Mann - a tenured professor at one of the country's top public universities - opened his testimony by reciting a prodigious list of awards he has won, books he has authored, scientific organizations he leads. He is celebrated by the media and environmental groups around the world, and yet in front of Congress he talked like a guy on his way to the Gulag.

blah, blah, blah.

For all your supposed intelligence and education, you would think you would be better at quoting others, unless of course your name is julie_kelly2.

If you are going to post long posts that you want people to read, it would help if you showed the source of the text you are pasting. I guess on a cocaine high these things can be missed.

Kilo54 ... you raise alot of valid points - but you discredit Pachauri based on his IPCC approach , and not the other stuff (private exploits) he has been accused of ...

ie The same Rajendra K. Pachauri head of IPCC 2002 - 2015 that openly admitted to Judith Curry at a climate summit that he ONLY enlisted climate scientists into / under the IPCC umbrella that were going to promote the AGW line .... If IPCC were really serious about this cause - why wouldnt the IPCC have scientists heading up the IPCC ????~!!!! and NOT a railway engineer ??? pls answer how this is science gathering AZYMUTH and CHRIS249 ? and why do you have NON SCIENTIST's cherry picking science reports and data , and deciding what pararaphs / graphs go into the report - and how important / relevant they ARE or AREN'T ??

They are CLEARLY NOT trying to get to the SCIENTIFIC TRUTH of wether CO2 has caused this recent warming trend .... they are just enlisting propagandists ... SCIENCE INDEED ...

Heard the sicily climate conference attracted 110 private jets .... , and Guardian newspaper uk (a proponent of AGW views) reported 1500 INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE PLANES arrived for the Davos - where climate economics were forefront of talks ! .... This whole IPCC agenda is just attempting to change the elites at the top - with another elite ! ... (that don't actually give a **** about the planet - its more about taxes / gaining more political control over means of productions / populations / planet governance / taxing the AIR etc )

Select to expand quote

Foghorn said..

japie said..
Watch this gross bull**** designed to swing people onto the climate change bandwagon. If they had a case they would not need to keep telling such massive lies:

More brains in the 90s .Not exactly mountain goats are they.

Mendacious arsewipes must have known about this phenomenon before they made the doco..

Select to expand quote

kilo54 said..

azymuth said..
Great effort Chris 249 - but I suspect logical argument is wasted on Lord Blowhard.

I wonder how he found his way to a watersport forum - he's got such a big head I can't imagine he can even balance on a board

Hi, ****wit! You are a peasant; thick; rude; probably a bit smelly.
Try CONTRIBUTING instead of slanging off. Just because you have never done anything, been anywhere, does not make you clever.
Why am I responding to a GERBIL? Get lost.

Wow, I need to redo my understanding of British language. It seems watching episodes of The Bill is too outdated. 'Slanging off'?

Gerbil is an insult now?

On the positive side, its good that you accuse others of 'slanging off'and then go slagging them off. You are English? Why are you using the American spelling of asshole? That's just not British. The monarchy would be very dissapointed, but they would be borrowing money from you so probably wouldn't mention it.

Can't you just buy up all these climate alarmists and avoid the issue?

Select to expand quote

Foghorn said..
polarbearscience.com/2019/07/11/polar-bears-are-thriving-despite-global-warming-this-short-essay-explains-why/
Another scare campaign which some think is still true.

It is incredible what some people believe

Al Gore stated that polar bears would be extinct way back in 2006.

Despite this being proved completely wrong, people still think polar bears are still at risk.

No amount of evidence will change the mind of these religious types