After six years of tedious litigation, a court in Vancouver, British Columbia appears set to hand down a ruling involving one of the most controversial claims ever made in support of human-induced global warming.
The case pits two climatologists – Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Tim Ball, retired from the University of Winnipeg – in a dispute rooted in data Mann used in creating his famous, or infamous, “hockey stick” graph. In 1999, Mann was the lead author of a paper that used an assortment of statistical techniques to reconstruct variations in atmospheric temperatures over the past 1,000 years. The graph made the Medieval Warm Period all but disappear and showed a sharp spike in temperatures at the end of the 20th century that resembled the blade of a hockey stick.
Mann was one of eight lead authors of the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment published in 2001. A graph based on Mann’s work was highlighted throughout the IPCC report. It received widespread publicity and was touted by climate alarmists as further evidence of manmade global warming. Indeed, Mann’s hockey stick took on a life of its own and was repeatedly cited by the IPCC and numerous governments as justifying collective action to combat climate change. The hockey stick has also been cited in innumerable peer-reviewed papers on climate change.
“Secret Science”
Astounded by the sudden disappearance of the Medieval Warm Period — a time generally considered to 
have been warmer than the present — a growing chorus of critics demanded to see the underlying data on which the hockey-stick graph was based. Mann and his co-authors refused to release the data, even though their paper had been funded by U.S. taxpayers. The episode raised allegations that climate alarmists were engaging in “secret science.”
One of those critics was Tim Ball. In a 2011 interview, he quipped that Mann “should be in the State Pen, not Penn State.” Mann sued Ball for defamation in British Columbia under a procedure known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). SLAPP lawsuits are intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by threatening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism.
As the case unfolded, the BC Supreme Court directed Mann to turn over all data relating to his graph by Feb. 20, 2017. The deadline came and went without the data being handed over by Mann.
Ball believes that Mann’s refusal to disgorge the data by the court-ordered deadline has put the Penn State researcher in a precarious legal position. As Ball explains (principia-scientific.org):
“We believe that he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”
Mann’s Suit Against Mark Steyn
Once the BC Supreme Court has ruled in his suit against Ball, Mann will have another legal battle on his hands. Mann filed a SLAPP lawsuit in Washington, D.C. against writer and commentator Mark Steyn after the latter wrote in a 2011 National Review Online article that Mann “has perverted the norms of science on an industrial scale.” Judith Curry, a recently retired climatologist at Georgia Tech, has submitted to the court an Amicus Curiae brief critical of Mann’s scientific methods.
For his part, Ball has produced his own graph showing temperature variability over the past 1,000 years. Both the Medieval Warm Period and the following Little Ice Age can be seen on the graph. The graph also shows the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age, albeit to levels below what was experienced during the Medieval Warm Period. Unlike Mann, Ball has published the data on which his graph is based.
I really hope Mann loses both cases, his funding, his teaching position, his reputation, and all his friends …. and his dog. His perversion of the scientific is method requires nothing less than total intolerance.
Mann’s nauseating smirk irritates the hell out of me. He’s a third rate mind hiding behind a fourth rate mentality.
How do you know?
Did the fossil fuel industry tell you so?
Do you think there might be a small conflict of interest in a company writing about a scientist who studies the effects of their product?
http://www.desmogblog.com/committee-constructive-tomorrow
CB – What we know for sure is that in an effort to force people to believe in AGW Dr. Mann declared both the Medieval Warming Period and the Maunder Minimum (the little ice age) as local events. These were not. Both have been plainly shown to have been world-wide events and caused not by some chaotic weather events but by output energy from the Sun.
If you claim that they were only local weather events then you can erase them from the data stream as he did. Without these events which were more extreme than our present warming the chart takes on a ominous look of the hockey stick instead of http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
This article was published after the time of Mann’s infamous claims.
You must understand that these are NOT actual events under discussion but computer models. These models are so bad that not only have they not predicted ONE correct even in the future since they were published but using them backwards they do not even predict what happened in the past. This is the sign of bad science – when your model doesn’t even match what occurred before the model was written.
AGW is a fact that has been known for over a century:
climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Why should anyone need to be “forced” to understand it?
What besides mental illness might explain people who “don’t” understand it?
I would like to ask you – what are your professional credentials to speak on this topic? I am not attempting to insult you. I have no educational credentials but I have 40 years of working directly in sciences that are all pertinent to the subject. I was chief engineer on a project that won the project leader a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. I was the digital designer and programmer on another project that won our project leader two Emmy Awards and the company another. I have designed and programmed boards presently in use on the International Space Station. I designed and programmed both liquid and gas Chromatographs. This means I understand spectometry.
One of the deepest problems is that the people most actively in the forefront of speaking of AGW are those who do not have any scientific credentials at all and “know” about it from a Popular Science article. As for your NASA “bible” – ALL of the science behind NASA has been due to manufactured temperature data. When you look into it they should be arrested and tried for misuse of governmental power.
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
As for your claims about “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century” – that is a complete and total lie. It is based on a paper written by Svante August Arrhenius around 1896. Exactly what would you know about it since it was written in German? He simple PROPOSED a connection between the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and Ice Ages. That has been shown to be totally incorrect since we have had and Ice Age with levels of CO2 of 10%. At the start of the last Ice Age which we are still in the levels were 1%. Arrhenius performed NO experiments. As he said, he had no money nor equipment to do so and instead used data from a paper about the color of moonlight to propose this theory. While he was a competent scientist he was wrong about CO2. And most experiments since his time showed that.
There IS a connection between temperature and levels of CO2 but CO2 is washed out of the oceans as the water temperature rises and CO2 increases follows the temperature rises by 800 years.
Almost NO scientists believe AGW to be true or that there is insufficient data to make such a claim. Who does NASA use as part of their 97%? The American Medical Association and the Boy Scouts of America! Now there is real scientific agreement there.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports are based on the “science” from 2500 “scientists”. However – most of that 2500 are not scientists but are politicians grasping for money and power. And the real scientists are relying heavily on the manufactured temperature information distributed by NASA. So even the most honest scientists in the world cannot produce good work using false data.
As you say – What besides mental illness might explain people who “don’t” understand it?
My credentials are that I can read and I can point you to the people who study the subject… as well as point out propaganda outlets like CFACT which are paid to lie about the subject.
Are you lacking those credentials, Wake?
Do you believe NASA made up the scientists who discovered the greenhouse effect in the 19th century?
Is that the sort of thing a mentally healthy person would believe?
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
By the way – I might add about Arrhenius – the title of his paper is: “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid on the Temperature of the Ground” – do you understand that? “OF THE GROUND”. This was not about atmospheric heating at all. And in case you are unaware if it “carbonic acid” is an old scientific name for carbon dioxide.
Yes! The ground! Where you live!
You do live on the ground, do you not, Wake?
climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/87_Q10-temp-anomaly-740px.jpg
CB – I was trying to make the point that Arrhenius was attempting to explain ice ages and not the temperature of the atmosphere. The method he used could not correct for humidity and so his numbers are questionable. I would have to run them and that’s too much work since what people claim he said and what he actually said are sometimes completely opposite.
NASA’s temperature charts are extremely unreliable. They have changed their raw data on three occasions and the reasons they did it were not an acceptable means:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
Note that this is a mathematical study of the changes and it shows that no corrections could have occurred in this manner. The peer reviewers are far more than technically competent including past managers from the EPA and a Fulbright Scholar who is more than familiar with statistical analysis.
Dr. Roy Spencer was the leader of the NASA weather satellite program and he has published the actual temperature data from those satellites:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg
To the uninformed this looks like there is a little warming over the last 38 years but there are only two points that are higher than normal variations and that is 3/4ths of 1998 and a hot summer in 2015. This can easily be assigned to chaotic weather patterns. The AVERAGE temperature since 1979 is zero change.
“His perversion of the scientific is method…”
>> How has Dr. Mann perverted the scientific method? What credible evidence do you have?
His efforts to to silence his critics using courts rather than have a discourse. Are you following along or just playing dumb?
My, my. Do we not read? Mann was asked multiple times to share his data and analysis code to validate his research. He declined to share. This is the antithesis of the scientific method.
M&M demolished Mann’s statistical analysis anyway via reverse engineering. That he did not acknowledge their valid conclusions is the antithesis of the scientific method.
Mann’s tree-ring data showed a temp decline after 1960. Not the result he wanted. So he truncated the declining data and concatenated temp sensor data, which showed the rising temp he desired. He published this WITHOUT noting what he had done. THIS is the antithesis of the scientific method.
To top it off, the IPCC no longer includes the hockey stick graph in its documents.
Are you honestly going to attempt to defend such a person?
We got another moron here.
“…We got another moron here…”
There’s another explanation:
I’ve just realised, after much wondering about the attitude, stance and argumentative approach, that Ian5 is probably none other than Michael Mann himself…!
Calling people names is a strategy of propagandists and the weak-minded.
“…Calling people names is a strategy of propagandists and the weak-minded..”
Hi Michael… You go on believing this, if it makes you feel better. It does nothing for your cause, though, since you’ve been the name-caller in chief; and debate-preventer; and peer-review corrupter.
“..debate-preventer; and peer-review corrupter.”
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Instead of citing extreme conspiracy rubbish from Heller and other disinformation websites, why not inform yourself on the science, evidence and implications of climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Extreme conspiracy? That is a load of rubbish you’re trying to pass around:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
This paper mathematically demonstrates that NASA doctored their data. It is peer reviewed and agreed upon by members and past members of the EPA.
You can haul your lying butt down the street and sell it on some other street corner.
No it is not peer-reviewed, published research, and no it does not demonstrate that NASA doctored their data. All you’ve provided is a single link to an unpublished paper written by well known contrarians, posted to the silly, amateurish ‘tropical hot spot research’ website. You are misinformed.
As usual, you don’t know what you are talking about.
But you never let that stand in your way of VENTING BILE AND HATE.
.
He has already WON 2 MAJOR COURT VICTORIES against the Attorney General of Virginia…
SORRY YOU MISSED IT….married, as you are, to BREITBART and DAILY LIAR.
As Twain said, “better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
UV won the right to prevent releasing alarmist Mann’s data and emails. Aparently, UV had no problem giving up the same info of skeptic Patrick Michaels. The hypocrisy could not be more telling.
Then there’s alarmist Mann’s libel trial against skeptic Dr. Tim Ball. Mann has now been declared in contempt of court for not turning over requested info. And we all know why. Mann’s work is flawed. And turning over his data and emails would make that all too clear.
Best move to the shallow end of the intellectual pool. You’re in way over your head.
Nice imaginary Tall Tale.
(( FICTION ))
NO MICHAELS RESEARCH….NO VIRGINIA ADDRESS..
what the hell are you talking about???
.
Mann’s court suit has had NO CONCLUSIONS,
THERE has been NO contempt citation
…once you realize that in Canada
…the Government is championing Mann’s case
…to gain that status, all disclosures were made BEFORE the case could ever get to court.
.
“….No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential,
that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.
“Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a
modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.
“Just to be clear:
Mann is not defying any judge.
He is not in breach of any judgment.
He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court.
He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball….”
2 separate suits filed by the Republican Attorney General of Virginia was laughed out of court
.
BECAUSE he had NO foundation to challenge the validity of Mann’s MASSIVE RESEARCH at several institutes.
.
.let alone attempt to gain ALL of his computers and his e-mails and written letters to ANYONE in the science field
…and
BECAUSE ALL of his research was already published, in PEER REVIEW and REPLICATED 36 separate times.
…
I cannot find ANY record of Patrick Michaels doing any research ! ? !
AND WHAT COURT SUIT…..?
…”….But Michaels’ credibility on climate is called into question by a trove of documents from a 2007 court case that attracted almost no scrutiny at the time. Those documents show that Michaels has Major financial ties to big energy interests
—ties that he’s worked hard to keep secret.
Here’s the back story:
Several years ago, the auto industry launched a salvo of lawsuits challenging the tougher vehicle emissions standards that had been introduced in many states.
In 2007, Michaels was scheduled to appear as an expert witness on behalf of a challenge by Green Mountain Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers to emissions standards in Vermont.
The auto industry’s lawyers planned to put Michaels on the stand as an expert witness who would question the scientific finding that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet.
But it soon became clear that lawyers defending Vermont’s law were going to ask Michaels about the clients of his “advocacy science consulting firm,” New Hope Environmental Services.
Michaels had never made a list of his clients public, and he refused to do so now, arguing that it was a confidential matter.
The judge disagreed,
and ruled that Michaels’ clients were a “viable area of cross examination.” “I understand that maybe it’s a little embarrassing,” said Judge William K. Sessions III. “[But] it’s not highly confidential information.”
In a rare move, the auto dealers pulled Michaels off their witness list.
**********
Pat Michaels was a “member scientist” and “individual supporter” at The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASCC), an organisation
CREATED & FUNDED
by the tobacco industry to fight anti-tobacco legislation. [10]
Michaels was also an “Academic Member” of the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF),
another group CREATED by the tobacco industry to frame legitimate science as “junk science” on matters pertaining to health and environment, particularly secondhand smoke health impacts.
Michaels was listed as an academic member on the ESEF’s March 1998 working paper titled “Environmental Tobacco Smoke Revisited: The reliability of the evidence for risk of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.” [11]
Fossil Fuel Funding
Patrick Michaels once estimated that “40 percent” of his funding comes from the oil industry. [12]
If you are ignorant of Greenpeace’s FOIA request to UV regarding info on Dr. Michaels (which was granted) and Chris Horner’s similar FOIA request regarding info on Dr. Mann (which was denied), you cannot be helped. The issue here is UV’s double-standard in executing FOIA requests.
And if you’re attempting to argue that Michaels is corrupt for being partially funded by the fossil fuel industry while ignoring that Mann is pure even though he is totally funded by sources that expect research results with a alarmist conclusion, then you are a special kind of fool.
That Suit … Green Peace V. Michaels … was a brewing political suit….Michaels made MANY derogatory statements about Green Peace…..
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY RESEARCH Michaels was involved with.
.
.
“https://wattsupwiththat.com/…/dr-patrick-moore-was-right-greenpeace-is-full-of-shit/
Mar 3, 2017 – Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, whom they have tried to erase from their website, resigned from… … Greenpeace claims it cannot be sued because its misleading claims were not meant to be factual
Obfuscation … again. But thanks for noting that Greenpeace’s claims weren’t meant to be factual.
NO OBFUSCATION….just you wanting to debate anything but science…..
Next you will be challenging by qualifications to read and study Scientific studies or their abstracts as I have done for 50 years.
….simply because you do not like the fact that in ANY given week….there are hundreds of peer reviewed studies, published and replicated in support of the ENHANCED GREENHOUSE EFFECT leading to THREATENING CLIMATE CHANGES.
…and VERY, VERY FEW with credible science in opposition.
TRUMP
“Steele used his contacts in Russia to put together a dossier that describes efforts by Russian President Vladimir Putin to cultivate a relationship with Trump and his entourage and to gather material that could be used to blackmail the candidate if necessary. Steele did not pay sources for information.
The dossier contains salacious allegations that NPR has not detailed because they remain unverified, but an unexpurgated copy of the document was posted by BuzzFeed last January and circulated widely. One important aspect of the story is that the material in the file, if accurate, might have exposed Trump to potential blackmail.
Months before, during the presidential campaign, information gathered by Fusion GPS was passed to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Trump and GOP lawmakers have sought to portray the 35-page dossier as outrageous and false. They’ve drawn attention to the fact that much of it is unproven. By impeaching the dossier, they have tried to impeach the basic case that people in the Trump orbit may have coordinated with the Russians who attacked the election.
Trump allies also have used the dossier to go on offense against the FBI and the Justice Department, charging that “biased” federal investigators used what Republicans call partisan, Democratic-funded propaganda as the basis for the whole Russia investigation.
The case for collusion, however, goes beyond the dossier and includes outreach by Russian agents to the Trump campaign and meetings between Trump associates and Russians.
In fact, in their op-ed, Simpson and Fritsch wrote that congressional committees have “known for months” of credible allegations of collusion but have chosen instead to “chase rabbits.”
“We suggested investigators look into the bank records of Deutsche Bank and others that were funding Mr. Trump’s businesses. Congress appears uninterested in that tip: Reportedly, ours are the only bank records the House Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed.”
“[We] found widespread evidence that Mr. Trump and his organization had worked with a wide array of dubious Russians in arrangements that often raised questions about money laundering,” the two wrote.
This is why I stopped replying to trolls in the past … they either do not understand or have contempt for the scientific method. Either way, I’m done.
The FOIA suit against man was not ‘regarding info on Dr. Mann’….it was a demanded for all of his research, much of which was conducted privately at HIS lab not at the UV,
and that Suit was BASED ON ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING OR FRAUDULENT RESEARCH….but it was based upon the Political / Ideological beliefs of the plaintiffs !
For Example….I believe you rape and beat your wife, therefor
I want to install cameras at you home and every restaurant you visit to prove it.
Obfuscation. The alarmist’s escape path. It doesn’t matter why an FOIA request is generated. Mann’s UV research was paid for, in part or in full, by taxpayer dollars. That means ANY public request for the work generated by those dollars should be reviewable by the public. There need not be evidence of wrong doing. THAT is a no brainer. If you don’t belueve that, then you must also believe routine audits are worthless exercises. Please, try to argue that.
And your analogy should have been more like, I paid you to inspect and repair my car. I want you to show me any/all parts you replaced and any printouts of tests performed. There, fixed it for ya.
NO obfuscation what so ever.
ALL of the Research, as mandated, by the UV.
..was PEER Reviewed
(true red team / blue team critical review)
..was PUBLISHED in Respected world Scientific Journals for wide spread critical review…and was REPEATEDLY
REPLICATED….
.
THE REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY GENERAL tried twice, to the tune of millions of tax payers dollars, to attack MANN’s
Research and Methods….and was SOUNDLY DEFEATED
TWICE..
primarily because HE HAD NO BASIS IN FACT to challenge.
The decision was quickly determined once the PUBLISHED WORKS WERE SHOWN TO THE JUDGE !
IN paper form and on the web.
DEAR
PITIFUL
ADAM….
YOU would have no right to ask for the BILL, the PARTS, or any explanation OF REPAIRS TO ” MY ” CAR.
And if you would take YOUR asinine claim to see my bill, my parts, and get an explanation of my repairs…..any judge and every judge would throw your ass out of court…and probably charge for costs.
Michael Mann’s lawyer Roger McConchie
(who is an expert in defamation/libel/slander law in Canada)
Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan
in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere,
plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his
disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.
No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential,
that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.
Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a
modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.
Just to be clear:
Mann is not defying any judge.
He is not in breach of any judgment.
He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court.
He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.
In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball
“is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger
mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.
Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.
If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence,
he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court
to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud,
or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.
O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences
is that the words he spoke about Mann
(which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”
The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether
or not climate change is real.
So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims
against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.
Roger D. McConchie
Lawyer
https://www.facebook.com/Mi…
https://www.irwinlaw.com/ti…
Ball does not need to prove that Mann’s work is flawed. That has already been done. The hockey stick graph has been removed from all IPCC releases. That should have been proof to anyone with a modicum of common sense.
Mann asked for an adjournment last Feb. Canadian courts almost always grant these as they are normally preludes to out of court settlements. But such adjournments need to be approved by both sides. Ball’s team agreed to the adjournment with the stipulation that Mann made his research docs available to the court by a certain date. Mann did not live up to the terms of the adjournment. If Mann has not been cited, it is because (as you noted) that the court is biased in his favor. No surprise there. And there is only one reason for Mann to deny releasing his research. It would prove what other analyses have already concluded, that Mann’s research is indeed flawed.
Normally, when one is in a losing position, one stops digging. As with most zealous alarmists, though, you simply grab a bigger shovel. Typical.
YOU SAY:
“Ball does not need to prove that Mann’s work is flawed. That has already been done. The hockey stick graph has been removed from all IPCC releases.”
FACTS:
Your comment is a work of FICTION. IPCC NEVER removed Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph, nor has it been DEBUNKED.
There is NEW and MORE COMPLETE studies to reference and they have enhanced the Hockey Stick Graph…rather than ‘debunk’.
Look:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
YOU SAY:
“…Mann did not live up to the terms of the adjournment. If Mann has not been cited, it is because (as you noted) that the court is biased in his favor. No surprise there.”
FACTS:
I never said the court was biased in MANN’S favor…In Canada these cases are presented to the court initially…the Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a claim of defamation against BALL
… and the COURT TOOK the case against BALL
……and prosecutes the case against BALL.
SILLY PERSON….Dr. Mann’s research was critically peer reviewed, then Published in a respected Scientific Journal,
it has been replicated and ENHANCED.
36 SEPERATE STUDIES, peer reviewed & published in respected international scientific journals.
Pitiful how deluded and OUT OF DATE you are.
***
***
Michael Mann’s lawyer Roger McConchie
(who is an expert in defamation/libel/slander law in Canada)
Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com
and elsewhere,
plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his
disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.
No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.
Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a
modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.
Just to be clear:
(1.)
Mann is not defying any judge.
(2.)
He is not in breach of any judgment.
(3.)
He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court.
(4.)
He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.
In this context,
O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.
**
*
(( VANCOUVER News Papers have confirmed that NO ‘PUNITIVE COURT SANCTIONS’ have been sought ))
**
*
Finally,
a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.
If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence,
he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.
O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences
is that the words he spoke about Mann
(which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit)
were said in “jest.”
The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.
So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.
Roger D. McConchie
Lawyer
https://www.facebook.com/Mi…
https://www.irwinlaw.com/ti…
***
CO2 & Temperature Marriage:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=%2f%2bt8mfVF&id=8999BA373F3B7B4F391B144E98514B474B7894CF&thid=OIP._-t8mfVFvINxHRaKkITjvAHaFT&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fzfacts.com%2fmetaPage%2flib%2fzFacts-CO2-Temp.gif&exph=377&expw=526&q=graph+co2+and+world+temperature+rise&simid=608046613771259242&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
The Greenland GISP2 ice core data (Quaternary Science Reviews) tells a completely different story. But I guess you would prefer to believe the output of a political org versus a scientific one. Sad.
THEY are defining GLACIAL EVENTS
….they do not redefine or undermine the above Holocene INTER GLACIAL WARM PERIOD, Its PEAK TEMPERATURES 8000-9000 years ago,
its STEADY DECLINE in temperatures toward the NEXTGLACIATION
and its ALARMINGLY SUDDEN termination in the mid to late 1700’s,
Despite the CONTUATION of the CAUSES of Glaciations on Earth….
Earth’s orbit pulling the planet away from the sun _Which continues !
Earth’s axial Tilt away from the sun____________ Which continues !
Earth’s wobble away from the sun _____________ Which continues !
The Stunning Termination of Earth’s most POWERFUL NATURAL CYCLE … GLACIATIONS…. in the mid 1700’s
We as US taxpayers should SLAPP Michael Mann for withholding OUR intellectual property. We paid for it, it is our data, not his.
Mann filed his SLAPP lawsuit against Mark Steyn? Steyn is one of the smartest people on the planet.
I would also like to see Tim Balls data that includes the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age data (Mann ignored both in developing taxpayer’s ‘hockey stick’).
“Steyn is one of the smartest people on the planet.”
>> Maybe, maybe not. What is a fact is that Mark Steyn has absolutely no climate science credentials whatsoever. None.
“I would also like to see Tim Balls data that includes the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age data”
>> I’d like to see them too. Dr. Ball hasn’t published any peer-reviewed climate science in over 25 years.
George Marshall told Dwight Eisenhower that he would not let Ike see action because Ike had never even commanded a platoon.
Does that mean Ike should not have been Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe?
Your remark about Tim Ball is just as much a non-sequitur.
Think about it a little…comparing Ball to Eisenhower is an empty comparison…comical really. Dr. Ball regularly presents “findings” that contradict the scientific literature. He hasn’t published anything in years. Why should he be considered an authority on the current state of climate science?
Retirement doesn’t prevent one from understanding and commenting on the subject they spent their working career studying. As a matter of fact, it frees them from the pressures put on them by managers, peers, and grant orgs.
“Retirement doesn’t prevent one from understanding and commenting on the subject they spent their working career studying“.
>> Of course it doesn`t. Neither does it negate the conclusions of the the scientific literature on climate change that have accumulated over the past 25 years, the vast majority of which continues to reinforce that GHGs from human activity are warming the planet`s climate system; the evidence is unequivocal. Why not inform yourself: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Next to none of it deals with causation, because it can’t be established.
Misleading statement. There are multiple, independent lines of evidence studied by thousands of scientists from many jurisdictions and agencies around the world that indicate that global warming is unequivocal.
‘Dr. Ball regularly presents “findings” that contradict the scientific literature’… YOU’VE lost the plot here. Ball presents data and evidence that accords with the scientific method… EVERYTHING he writes can be checked, all his data is there for everyone to see. He makes NO predictions using modelling techniques he keeps secret. You ABSOLUTELY cannot make those claims for Mann.. If Clausius stepped out of his grave today, knowing nothing of the invented ‘science’ called ‘climate science’, he could destroy Mann’s house of cards in 5 minutes. The Laws of Physics completely refute the bedrock claims that underpin the entire shambolic structure called ‘climate science’.
“Ball presents data and evidence that accords with the scientific method… EVERYTHING he writes can be checked, all his data is there for everyone to see.“
A little rich don`t you think? Moreover Dr. Ball`s positions on climate science and those of the silly “Friends of Science“ are diametrically opposed with the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy.
Keep in mind that the positions taken by the above societies don’t necessarily reflect the opinions of their members.
Yet these they reflect the findings of scientists from a range of different disciplines, from multiple countries and jurisdictions, and government and non-government sectors. Conspiracies are the stuff of Alex Jones and other extremists.
This is not a ‘conspiracy theory’. This is a scientific discourse. There are deep, fundamental flaws in the global warming agenda. The conspiracy is in fact the other way round, there is a conspiracy to deny any opposition to the agenda – see Climategate emails where this is spelled out clearly – see UN statements that ‘unless we show disasters, nobody will listen to us’.
“…see UN statements that ‘unless we show disasters, nobody will listen to us’.”
>> Untrue statement, a manufactured talking point of the climate denial industry designed to intentionally mislead. Attributed to former IPCC Co-Chair Sir John Houghton, yet he never stated such a thing. You have been duped:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html
More name-calling.
You need to look at the facts, not the purveyors you mention. Don’t forget, Galileo was opposed by every single institution yet he was right. The Earth DOES go round the Sun: his DATA proved it. All the bodies you mention take it as fact that the data they obtain from Goddard and Hadley/CRU (the only 2 sources they all use as source data) is correct and they put that into their models. But.. the data has been fiddled to remove past warming events, thus making any current warming – however small – appear disproportionately large. This fundamental problem is then exacerbated by hopelessly biased model which are designed to produce apocalyptic warming 100 years hence, even though they are universally unable to reproduce reality… run ANY model using the start data of, say, 10 years ago and compare the output month by month to what we know ACTUALLY happened and you will see they all fail spectacularly. The reason they do this: they are ALL feeding at the grants/subsidies trough and need to show future disasters or all their funding will disappear. Ball and others simply point out all the discrepancies in the data, the fallacy that the models are reliable, and the problems with the basic laws of physics arising from the theory that man-made CO2 has led to significant temperature rises which will only get worse: there is no scientific basis for this claim, it is just a politically expedient claim that generates huge funding for any body willing to take the shilling. Read sepp.org and wattsupwiththat.com for detailed analysis of all this. We’re not making this up!
References to Galileo in the context of climate science are nearly as frequent as they are absurd: https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/
Your response displays profound ignorance on a world class gold medal level. Are you totally unaware that the initial claim of a ‘97% consensus in favour of man-made global warming’ is itself an utterly discredited claim? This has been so thoroughly debunked so many times that it is remarkable it keeps getting trotted out. Given that the 97% figure is complete bunk, why would anyone bother to comment on the remaining 3%? It’s like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The answer doesn’t matter because there are no angels.
You don’t seem to get the basic point about Galileo, which is as relevant today as it was when he was first condemned for his data. It is this: consensus is not a valid concept in proper science for deciding the validity of any particular proposition. What counts – the only thing that counts in this case – is the raw unmassaged data and its employment using standard statistical techniques in a logical theory that obeys the known laws of physics and chemistry. If you follow that dictum your conclusion will be the same as mine: man-made global warming as a result of CO2 is on an extremely small, statistically insignificant scale indistinguishable from noise and not requiring any action by us. There are far more important issues on which to spend our money.
“What counts – the only thing that counts in this case – is the raw
unmassaged data and its employment using standard statistical techniques in a logical theory that obeys the known laws of physics and chemistry. If you follow that dictum your conclusion will be the same as mine: man-made global warming as a result of CO2 is on an extremely small, statistically insignificant scale indistinguishable from noise and not requiring any action by us.”
Please do explain your logical theory and provide the data that supports it. I’m all ears.
Now you’re just being silly.
You want me to provide a theory for something that isn’t happening? This is not how it works.
As an example, there’s also no theory for why you can’t observe angels dancing on the head of a pin. (hint: There is definitely a pin, but there are no angels.)
If you do want to study the science seriously, a good place to start would be Professor Fred Singer’s book ‘Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years’. It’s a rattling good read.
The central point is there is no reliable data to show temperature excursions are abnormal, therefore there is no issue. You don’t need a theory for this. It’s how things are.
The only abnormal excursions are either the result of fiddled data (for example the farcical Mann hockey stick), OR cherry picked data from locations that will inevitably show temperature rises (such as those close to towns) OR the projections from innumerable climate models, all of which fail the most basic credibility test: start each model one year in the past and run them against the actual data which was measured over the year. They all fail to track reality reliably. You shouldn’t be surprised at this: climate is an enormously complex system which we hardly understand at all.
‘Climate alarmism’ isn’t a science-based phenomenon, it is driven by political and social agendas, by people who want to create a new economic system and redistribute wealth to the second and third worlds. There’s nothing wrong with having such ambitions. Maybe capitalism is indeed crap and has failed the poor. Just don’t cloak the argument with fake science. If the agenda makes sense it will stand on its own feet.
Of course all those currently feeding at the deep troughs of money that is funding ‘climate research’ will lose their golden eggs, but there are plenty of far more useful things for society to spend its money on. I could do with a new car, as one example.
I’m being silly?
All you’ve got is conspiracy theories and the bizarre notion that a reduction in climate research funding will buy you a new car.
Your profound ignorance disbars you from further consideration. You are even unable to distinguish a joke when you see one.
Unfortunately, your own ignorance is far from profound. It is as common as muck, and as dimwitted as your “jokes”.
You are thicker than a tar-flavored Frosty.
How you can be literate enough to type your drivel and yet stupid enough to believe it is one of life’s eternal mysteries.
I can’t help but notice your avatar is a bloodsucking mosquito. It seems somehow appropriate.
The sad thing from society’s viewpoint is that it is zealots such as yourself who have so far allowed to be wasted hundreds of billions of our precious taxpayer money on a madcap theory of man-made global warming which is devoid of rationality. Bloodsucking indeed.
Your certainty makes one think of religious zealotry, and in this case it is equally unfounded in logic, scientific rigour and an appreciation of irony.
The simple, inescapable fact is the ONLY significant increase in global temperatures outside the bounds of natural variability is the result of models which are preposterously inadequate, or of cherry picked data, or of faulty statistical forecasting. Satellite data from Huntsville, Alabama shows no such increases, and since this data can be read in its raw state by anybody before agenda-driven busybodies get hold of it to perform their fiddles, we are entitled to regard this data as the best available.
No temperature excursions = no global warming = no problem
Let’s spend our money on useful endeavours, like cures for dreadful diseases, better schooling, proper medical care for everybody, reduction in poverty.
“Satellite data from Huntsville, Alabama shows no such increases, and since this data can be read in its raw state by anybody before agenda-driven busybodies get hold of it to perform their fiddles, we are entitled to regard this data as the best available.”
Not if you care about scientific accuracy. As the wiki on this very dataset points out:
“Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained different temperature data. Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The satellite series is not fully homogeneous – it is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for satellite drift and orbital decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.”
Arguments from authority are worthless. If you have the necessary facts and data to prove a hypothesis, you win. If not, you lose. Mann has neither of those things on his side and he has demonstrated his contempt for the scientific process (and his legitimate critics) by refusing to release his data.
NOAA. NASA. HADCRUT. A recent peer reviewed paper proves that they have repeatedly manipulated the data. Their credibility is on a par with Mann and Hansen.
What “recent peer reviewed paper” would that be? Surely you don’t mean the PDF of D’Aleo’s WordPress blog post that Breitbart’s Delingpole and other misinformers have been promoting as peer-reviewed science? Not peer-reviewed, nor does it “prove” anything.
What’s been proven about man made CO2 and global warming/ climate change/ whatever it gets labelled next when the data fails to conform to the theory?
Hard to say-it’s a race to the bottom!
“NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union”. Each and every one a politically driven organization whose “data” has been soundly refuted time and again by real scientists.
Untrue statement intentionally designed to mislead and misinform. That every reputable scientific organization is somehow conspiring to manipulate climate data and scientific findings isn’t plausible.
Not conspiracy, just pure politics.
Starting to sound like “Blah blah blah blah blah blah”. TROLL
Your own self assessment perhaps. Repetition of talking points and childish name-calling.
Wow. You really are drunk with blindness and you just don’t care about losing the wealth that you’ve established in your life or your family’s wealth because you will lose it if you continue to go along with this hoax. These government agencies have come out in the last 10 to 15 years with Data that was misrepresented in underminded the actual study of global warming because there was zero global warming and it was global cooling. If you use half of the temperature gage is around the world and warmer climate you can make anything look like it’s heating up around the world. But if you use the average of all the temperature gauges around the world we have been cooling not warming.
Hey, Rip Van Winkle – wake up!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-record.html?mcubz=3
You will just believe anything won’t you? The New York Times ha ha they are the biggest piece of crap lying newspaper. Have you ever heard of the New World Order or the Bilderberg Group? Have you read Agenda 21? I feel sorry for people like you that actually believe in Al Gore’s global warming theory. It is a theory and that is all it is just like the big bang theory. I have a question for you how long have we been taking temperature readings around the planet?
Hey, if you have any alternative sources that contradict the data, pull ’em out.
I’m sure we’d all like a laugh.
Apparently you can’t answer any of my questions that I asked you.
And apparently you’ve got nothing but absurd conspiracy theories yet again.
You still can’t answer my questions because your knowledgebase is limited.
Apparently you’ve never been in the library before or open up a search engine and look for these topics because they do exist. It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories because it is all facts not fiction. Your ignorance is bliss.
So let me get this straight – you’re trying to tell ME how to use a search engine after you’ve posted three useless irrelevant links?
Ignorance is bliss.
…as much as I hate to disrupt your euphoria: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-window-is-closing-to-avoid-dangerous-global-warming/
BS.
Climate Depot: Special Report: A-Z Climate Reality Check
Sub-prime Science Expose’: “The claims of the promoters of the man-made climate fears is failing.”
The three research papers that debunk your false narrative were true because you had them removed from this site. Apparently your to young and your wheel house has zero knowledge of the New World Order, George Soros, the Bilderberg Group. Agenda 21 and so on.
LMAO
I have no power to remove anything from this site. If anything was removed, it is because the moderators do not tolerate deranged conspiracy theories about the New World Order, etc.
hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2007/02/extreme-temperatures-wheres-global.html
http://www.climatedepot.com/?=temperatures+for+past+10+years
newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=57680&s=LURQEd
Neither of your links go to anything pertinent.
All heavily infiltrated by #BigGreen.
TROLL
Still blinded by all those government agencies I wonder why because you think government agencies have the end-all and be-all of everything and they are just the fact finding people of the world and they are gods because when they say something it’s the God honest truth. BS they are bought and paid for by governments around the world to continue the hoax of global warming, carbon emissions and climate change. This government tax is to steal wealth from every nation so that the billionaire elites can line there pockets such as George Soros the face end up at master of the New World order.
Such arrogance. Einstein also went for years without publishing any papers. Should that fact be used to impugn or discount his understanding of physics? My God, you really are hopeless.
I’ve had a couple of conversations with Ball. He has seen enough climate change and studied enough history to know that climate change, sometimes catastrophic, has always been a feature of life on this planet. He has absolutely nothing to gain by questioning the alarmism.
He kicked Mann’s ass from here to Christmas in BC Supreme Court. Go home troll, the game’s over. http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/.
Hilarious that you would cite the disinformation site principia-scientific. Oops there’s Tony Heller aka Steve Goddard again. No climate science credentials whatsoever.
You’re not a scientist and we have to listen to you and you’re spewing your nonsense.
“What is a fact is that Mark Steyn has absolutely no climate science credentials whatsoever. None”
So, what you’re saying is we should blindly trust people with credentials who lie to us versus a layman who researches the subject and tells us the truth. Got it.
Nope. On the contrary, what I am suggesting is that you should think twice before blindly trusting people – particularly political pundits – on scientific matters when they have no scientific credentials whatsoever.
But what if I AM a scientist, and agree with everything he said? And trusting people, just because they have certain credentials, is a recipe for disaster. The DATA, not a reputation, not credentials, are what matters. This observation somehow slipped by you.
“But what if I AM a scientist, and agree with everything [Mark Steyn] said?“
>> Then you`d be in the company of a small handful of well-known contrarions with extreme views and be supporting a position that is diametrically opposed to the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy.
That Hockey stick was discredited long ago, 2002 or 03, by Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick DR, Richard Muller, a professor of physics at University of California at Berkeley, He is also a faculty senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. wrote an article about it, and he is a believer in human induced climate change. below are parts of it
But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
But it wasn’t so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously–that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small–then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.
A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one–if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.
A small handful? Are you frigging retarded? How about 31,247 American scientists who are quite open about their disbelief and signed onto the NPCC report? How about the 65 % off members of the American Academy of scientists who DON”T support that idiot mann? How about all of the scientists who have testified before congress clearly stating , and backing up with data, that ACC is a scam? You are clearly an uneducated liberal MORON
Name-calling…the preferred strategy of propagandists and the poorly educated.
And “well-known contrarians with extreme views” is not name-calling? How about the grotesque Holocaust smear (“deniers”) so many of your climate change pals are so fond of hurling at scientists who disagree with your dogma? Have a look in the mirror, pal.
Sorry you are offended, I didn’t use the term “denier” in the above comment so go complain to someone else.
No, referring to a 3rd party as a “contrarian with extreme views is not the same as responding childishly to a commenter with words like moron,
Scott you are correct he is a moron.
Why not explain why you disagree with my view and the position of virtually every reputable US and international scientific organization and academy instead of resorting to childish name-calling?
Being called a moron is not name-calling it is a fact. If I wanted to name call you I would say something totally different but being called a moron is factual.
As I stated up-thread, name calling is a strategy typically used by propagandists, the poorly educated and those harbouring feelings of inadequacy.
Your ignorance is bliss.
Says the frequenter of the silly Infowars conspiracy site and other rubbish sources customized for the gullible.
This website has nothing to do with the infowars this website is called CFACT. Ian I feel sorry for people like you so gullible. Ask Al gore how much he’s making on the hoax of global warming, carbon omissions and climate change? Have you notice how big his house is and how big his jet is that he flies around the world? Follow the money Ian. I am not suggesting that we do not become good stewards of our environment, of our relationships between human beings and our stewardships of life. But what I am suggesting is that this money making system for the billionaire elites that run the world such as George Soros a.k.a. puppetmaster and leader of the New World Order.
Where do you obtain your information?
By the way I wasn’t name-calling I asked Tecca question and he couldn’t answer my questions. Because he’s not honest about his knowledge base. And you’re the propagandist my friend not me. You’re the one it’s poorly educated not me and I don’t feel inadequate it all I feel just fine thank you very much. I feel sorry for people that actually believe in gores BS hooks on global warming him, climate change and or carbon emissions.
“How about 31,247 American scientists”
>> A reference to Art Robinson’s silly long-debunked Oregon Petition Project. Go look it up.
“…the NPCC report?
>> Do you mean the Heartland Institute’s ridiculous NIPCC report? Heartland Institute…not a scientific organization. Lobbyist for the tobacco industry…. Its report does not even purport to summarize the scientific literature. Why would you believe such rubbish.
“65 % off members of the American Academy of scientists who DON”T support [Mann]”
>> Hopeless rubbish, you just made that up.
“You are clearly an uneducated liberal MORON”
>> Name-calling is a strategy typical of propagandists, bullies and the poorly educated.
Nasa believed that there were canals on Mars, until 1998. The canals were first proposed in 1789. before 1950 there was a cosensus that Martians were trying to signal earth. Experts, what does tht even mean.
(93) Scientific Consensus And Mass Delusion – 150 Years Of Scientific Insanity – YouTube
Provides link to silly video posted by well-known misinformer Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard). He has no climate science credentials whatsoever. Why do you think he is credible? Would you trust your heart condition to a plumber?
And alGore has climate credentials…?
Yet you’re happy to accept his disgustingly dishonest narrative
Deflection…the article isn’t about Al Gore. You pointed to Heller’s silly rubbish and I’m calling you on it. Heller’s views are extreme and diametrically opposed to the positions of NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC and virtually every US and international scientific academy.
All those government organizations are given taxpayer money to continue the hoax of Al gores global warming. You can’t even think for a second outside the box that these organizations actually could be taking money and promoting an absolute hoax? Of course not because you’re so ignorant, uneducated and uninformed .
“…promoting an absolute hoax”.
>> Why not start by educating yourself about the science , evidence and implications of climate change instead of intentionally trying to mislead readers.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
You can’t refute any of it.
NASA is bought and paid for by government a.k.a. taxpayers money. Can refute all of it because it’s all lies and you want to talk about misleading that you. I will bet you could not be fair minded and actually look and research and study and find out that this whole thing that Gore has started is one big HOAX. Why don’t you follow the money that is made and ask yourself how? Why? Who?
The organizations you cited have been proven to have manipulated the data. Repeatedly.
Untrue, unsubstantiated statement intentionally designed to mislead and misinform. If your ridiculous statement were true, then cite some organizations that you feel are trustworthy and tell us why.
Absolutely true.
NASA, NOAA, British astronomy data center, Environmental Canada, IPCC and other government agencies are bought and paid for with taxpayers money to do exactly what the New World Order tells them to do. George Soros the puppetmaster and leader of the New World Order tells them exactly how to tax everybody around the world to steal the wealth of the world because they don’t have enough money already.
Ridiculous conspiracy fluff that is promoted by multiple disinformation sites. No evidence whatsoever. Remarkable how many people fall for this rubbish.
Your ridiculous and you need to stop your ignorance and being so uneducated that you believe everything that you hear from the IPCC and every other government organization that’s full of crap. You’re so ignorant and you’re so blinded that you’d rather be taxed of all your wealth then realize that they’re playing an absolute hoax and lies with regards to global warming, climate change and carbon emissions.
“Appeal to Authority” is a logical fallacy. Like Michael Crichton said “The claim of consensus is the first refuge of scoundrels”.
Incorrect talking point. Argumentum ad Verecundiam is an argument from an inappropriate authority — an appeal to an authority outside the authority’s special field of expertise. Appeals to legitimate bodies and experts is a perfectly admissible form of inductive argument.
Just because Ian says so that’s what we’re supposed to believe try again Ian. Your ignorance is so bliss that most people on this website don’t even listen to what you’re saying because you’re a fool and your arrogant and ignorant.
It is well known that the leadership within these orgs is dominated by progressives. That missives from these orgs (generated ONLY by those leaders) is pro-alarmist is not surprising. The AMS was the only org that actually took a vote of its members regarding AGW. The result? About 50:50. I imagine every other org shuddered and prevented such votes from being taken. So much for your appeal to authority. A tactic of losers.
“The AMS was the only org that actually took a vote of its members regarding AGW. The result? About 50:50.”
>> No, your ridiculous statement is a complete myth. The last survey of the American Meteorological Society was conducted in 2016. The survey concluded that “Nearly all AMS members (96%) think climate change – as defined by AMS – is happening, with almost 9 out of 10 (89%) stating that they are either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ sure it is happening. Only 1% think climate change is not happening, and 3% say they don’t know.”
https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3
The AMS has a very strong position statement on Climate Change that readers can access here:
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/
Wow. So we’re supposed to put a lot of faith in a poll where less than a third of the members responded, was performed by an institution well known for its alarmist leanings, and did not guarantee the anonymity of responders. Right, like that’s going to produce believable results.
I suggest you look beyond data. Data are not the same as information, knowledge, understanding and wisdom.
Right. So fundamental physical facts (i.e., data) don’t matter in a scientific debate about matters that involve atmospheric physics??
I suppose you think that the “wisdom” and “information” of people like Al Gore supersede all that nonsense about data.
But as Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things.” (Especially facts like the unexplained 20-year warming pause we’re currently experiencing.)
Fundamental physical fact: Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is responsible for a stronger greenhouse effect that is warming the planet.
Why not inform yourself: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
“Fundamental physical fact: Humans have increased atmospheric CO2
concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution”
You can’t show that is true. All you can do is link to sites that hype the scare tactics of increased CO2. THEY can’t substantiate your statement either.
Why do you bother to troll here? You aren’t a scientist and are convincing no one with your garbage (or is it rubbish). Do you think you are saving the world?
Humans have indeed increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution. Over 25% in the past 60 years. Unequivocal; why not inform yourself: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png
You can make that claim all day long, yet you can’t substantiate it. Your graph is meaningless. Why not take your head out of the sand and realize that you don’t have a clue? I have offered a link to an atmospheric physicist that shows what you believe is bogus. What’s the matter, can’t you absorb his explanation?
“You can make that claim all day long, yet you can’t substantiate it. ”
>> Your statement is false. The Keeling curve presents direct evidence of rising atmospheric CO2; measurements have been taken continuously since 1958. You cannot refute it.
Ed Berry’s views on climate change are extreme…it is not his research area and besides he hasn’t published any peer-reviewed science since the 1980s as he freely admits: http://edberry.com/dr-ed-berry/publications/ . There is ideology not science all over his website.
Please educate yourself: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
You haven’t refuted Ed berry’s views. All you have done is regurgitated garbage from Patrick Moore. What kind of expert is he? Ed Berry addresses every one of his criticisms and Moore can’t refute it. You’ve been to his site and YOU can’t refute Dr. Berry. He simply doesn’t align with your naive understanding of climate science. He uses the scientific method. You and your ilk don’t. It IS that simple!
“…What’s the matter, can’t you absorb his explanation?…”
This is the problem of trying to persuade a scientific ignoramus, using logic and facts – his brain is so full of indoctrinated rubbish that there’s no space for facts. Or even for doubt.
Like you, I’ve offered easily-understood evidence, but he keeps bouncing back with comments about absent credentials… Weirdly (or perhaps not) he sees no irony in accepting AlGore’s nonsense, despite his clear “lack of credentials”.
I know he can’t be persuaded to reason honestly; and I’m not trying to convince him… The only reason I bother to respond is for the others who might be reading these comments. I hope that some percentage of readers take the trouble to do a bit of research of their own, rather than accept the current narrative that we’re all ‘climate sinners’ and deserve to die because we’re “polluting” our atmosphere with carbon dioxide.
They will ignore the hugely beneficial effects of higher CO2 levels… the widespread rebound in plant growth everywhere, as we emerge from the CO2 famine of the last thousand years.
The loony Warmists haven’t the capacity to understand that CO2 can only be considered a pollutant when water vapour is considered the same way.
1.The climate was not better at lower levels of CO2
2.The climate would not get better if we reduced CO2 levels
3.The NASA temperature record is complete garbage
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/nasasurfacetemp1981-1999-20141.gif
Another link to disinformation professional Steve Goddard (his real name is Tony Heller), Steve and Tony have no climate science credentials whatsoever. He hasn’t published a single journal article, not one.
how can you explain the satellite data?
Fill your boots:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
that’s not satellite
Here you go… RSS dataset prepared by Remote Sensing Systems: http://www.remss.com/research/climate.html
And some helpful context and summary: http://www.remss.com/research/climate.html
Figures 4 and 7 show no indications of runaway warming with 3x amplification from water vapor. Global warming is a hoax.
“Global warming is a hoax”
>> Instead of spreading disinformation and other shallow rubbish why not educate yourself:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
i think it’s you that needs to. it’s a scam.
The climate change, global warming and or carbon emissions that Gore is spewing is a hoax. This is why Gore is a multimillionaire and would like to continue stealing your wealth.
NASA never takes information and dilutes it or gives us disinformation!
NASA never tells a lie!
Let us ask you again – what credentials do you have?
More bullshit.Why do you only show the chart going back to 1960?
Because if you go further back the CO2 levels were higher and it makes your chart look stupid and insignificant,that’s why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg