Take the Global Warming Test

tinfoil said:
do a search on Phil Jones, Mike Mann, and Keith Briffa, you bloviating douchebag
.....

. LOL fuck you!
Click to expand...


You need to get your head out of the rightwing blogs.

Michael Mann was investigated, and CLEARED of ALL charges of deception, data manipulation, and scientific fraud.

Cleared of every. single. charge. by the Board charged with reviewing him.


You seriously need to stop believing what you read in the rightwing blogs. They're the same partisan dumb asses who easily fooled you into supporting the disasterous Iraq War. You've been lied to and propogandized....repeatedly and routinely by rightwing blogs who have no expertise in science, and who have a partisan agenda.

The fact that Mann was cleared by the Board over a week ago and yet you keep braying like a donkey about some crap you read on a rightwing blog speaks volumes. Your blogs are lying to you. And they are not informing you with truthful information.


Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct
Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology,
College of Earth and Mineral Sciences,
The Pennsylvania State University

After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data. While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State. In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a “trick” to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones and others including Dr. Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.


http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf/quote
Click to expand...
 
anybody notice all the deniers are not college educated. Save for Spurt who puts a guys name and company on another board. that's wierd
 
Who was on the board that was "charged" with "clearing" (crap, I mean "investigating") him? Did it happen to be filled with scientists who rely on government cash and who "understand" the Warming Religion (crap I mean anthropogenic warming "science") wholly, or were there some people who may have even a bit of healthy scientific skepticism in them?
 
Damocles said:
Who was on the board that was "charged" with "clearing" (crap, I mean "investigating") him? Did it happen to be filled with scientists who rely on government cash and who "understand" the Warming Religion (crap I mean anthropogenic warming "science") wholly, or were there some people who may have even a bit of healthy scientific skepticism in them?
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight.

When a University Investigative Board found Ward Churchill guilty of academic fraud, resulting in him getting fired....you not only accepted the findings of the Academic Board, you wholeheartedly endorsed them and cheered them on. :cheer:


But, when a University Investigative Board clears Michael Mann of Every. Single. Charge you and the teabaggers parroted from your rightwing blogs, you DON'T find the conclusions of the Investigative Panel to be acceptable.



Yeah, Damo. I can tell you are simply emotionally invested in being a flat earth climate denier, and you are unprincipled and hypocritical about these university investigative panels. Why did you accept the Ward Churchill findings, but not the Michael Mann findings? Short answer: hyper partisanship.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
So let me get this straight.

When a University Investigative Board found Ward Churchill guilty of academic fraud, resulting in him getting fired....you not only accepted the findings of the Academic Board, you wholeheartedly endorsed them and cheered them on. :cheer:


But, when a University Investigative Board clears Michael Mann of Every. Single. Charge you and the teabaggers parroted from your rightwing blogs, you DON'T find the conclusions of the Investigative Panel to be acceptable.



Yeah, Damo. I can tell you are simply emotionally invested in being a flat earth climate denier, and you are unprincipled and hypocritical about these university investigative panels. Why did you accept the Ward Churchill findings, but not the Michael Mann findings? Short answer: hyper partisanship.
Click to expand...
Let me get this straight. You are building another obvious straw man argument. Didn't you recently say that was bad form on the board?

Those who judged Ward Churchill were not dependent on Native American Studies for their paychecks.

I asked a question. Who was on the board that was asked to "clear" this person and were they dependent on the global warming religion for their paychecks? By your reaction my guess is the board was chock full of global warming "theorists" who "fully understood" the "science" and his "methods".... Basically it was like Priests asked to investigate other Priests....

How many skeptics were on the committee asked to investigate this person?
 
Cypress said:
So let me get this straight.

When a University Investigative Board found Ward Churchill guilty of academic fraud, resulting in him getting fired....you not only accepted the findings of the Academic Board, you wholeheartedly endorsed them and cheered them on. :cheer:


But, when a University Investigative Board clears Michael Mann of Every. Single. Charge you and the teabaggers parroted from your rightwing blogs, you DON'T find the conclusions of the Investigative Panel to be acceptable.



Yeah, Damo. I can tell you are simply emotionally invested in being a flat earth climate denier, and you are unprincipled and hypocritical about these university investigative panels. Why did you accept the Ward Churchill findings, but not the Michael Mann findings? Short answer: hyper partisanship.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you support the Little Eichman?
 
Wait, I'm pathetically clueless about neocon pop culture references. It little eichman, supposed to be this ward churchhill dude?

I'm down with the Academic Board's findings on Ward Churchill. I accept them, if the fucker committed academic fraud, I guess they busted him and he got what he deserved.


And I'm down with the Academic Board's findings on Dr. Michael Mann, i.e., they debunked Every. Single. Charge. the righwing-blog reading teabaggers clucked about.

No worries. I don't have any substantive reason, or empirical evidence to question the findings of either Academic Board.



I'm still not understanding why teabaggers - for some strange reason (what could it be?) - fully accepted,without question or reservations, an Academic Board's findings on WARD CHURCHILL......but oddly, they cluck their disapproval and disbelief about an academic board's findings about Dr. MICHAEL MANN.


I wonder what the basis of the inconsistency is?
 
Cypress said:
Wait, I'm pathetically clueless about neocon pop culture references. It little eichman, supposed to be this ward churchhill dude?

I'm down with the Academic Board's findings on Ward Churchill. I accept them, if the fucker committed academic fraud, I guess they busted him and he got what he deserved.


And I'm down with the Academic Board's findings on Dr. Michael Mann, i.e., they debunked Every. Single. Charge. the righwing-blog reading teabaggers clucked about.

No worries. I don't have any substantive reason, or empirical evidence to question the findings of either Academic Board.



I'm still not understanding why teabaggers - for some strange reason (what could it be?) - fully accepted,without question or reservations, an Academic Board's findings on WARD CHURCHILL......but oddly, they cluck their disapproval and disbelief about an academic board's findings about Dr. MICHAEL MANN.


I wonder what the basis of the inconsistency is?
Click to expand...

The thing that set everyone off on Ward Churchill was a speech he gave about 9/11 victims, in which he said they deserved to die and called them "Little Eichmans." That's when the college decided they were done shielding him from offenses he had been committing all along.
 
Topspin said:
anybody notice all the deniers are not college educated. Save for Spurt who puts a guys name and company on another board. that's wierd
Click to expand...
I went to college and grad school for hard science fields and I don't agree that man is causing climate change. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top