Michael Mann
By Noel Sheppard
USA Today on Thursday devoted a front page story to defending one of the key scientists involved in November’s ClimateGate scandal.
In a piece entitled “Questions about research slow climate change efforts,” author Brian Winter — oh the irony! — omitted important information about Penn State University’s controversial global warming alarmist Michael Mann while downplaying the seriousness of the e-mail messages at the heart of the matter.
The main article also dishonestly ignored how Mann is being investigated by his own university concerning his involvement in the scandal, and actually NEVER even mentioned the scientist’s infamous “Hockey Stick” graph that has been widely discredited by climatologists and meteorologists around the world.
Instead of a fair and balanced treatment of Mann and issues related to his view of anthropogenic global warming, readers were unfortunately presented with a grossly one-sided and disingenuous report evident in the very first paragraphs.
You might think a journalist for the premier newspaper of the country might look into the funding of Mann and or his University for some answers. Lets find the motivation behind these people. Are the books open to the public at Penn State? Are they allowed to take anonymous donations? What are the rules for funding these studies? Who has taken the hit for the hockey stick? Apparently Mann is still selling his oil, it must have been swept under the rug well.
Fair and balanced reporting? You figure. Nothing changes until we vote.
Well, at least you have a debate. Here in Eurabia Global Warming is the equivalent to the so called democratic Lybia: no one have the nuts to even talk about it. Mann and Jones and all the GW’s gurus should face legal actions, but….
Lemmings they are lemmings they will be. Unfortunately, that is quite true in Europe. Never changes. Hopefully it will some day.
I saw in Youtube that Mann has been cleared of any wrong doing recently. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lqsKrckpY0
I guess it’s either double down and try to keep the lie going, or admit it’s a lie. When honesty has not been your policy there really is only one choice. Isn’t there?
Come on, having an internal review? Geez, maybe we should have had H.R. Halderman investigate the Watergate break ins. Duh.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34443.html
“After weeks of the global warming scandal, the world’s first climate billionaire is running for cover. Yes, I’m talking about Al Gore,” (He means Eyeore)
He’s counting his “carbon Credits.” I’m sure they are worth there weight in??? Not gold.
Now I will like to see someone like John Bolton going behind the lies of Patchuri at UN’s IPCC. In UK at least, for Phil Jones the game is over.
Today we learn that Lord Christopher Monckton has once again come forward to warn the United States of America – and the entire world we expect, that the United Nations will try again to get their ‘treaty’ passed in Bonn, Germany. The video of Lord Monckton speaking is found at the Cfact link.
(click here) http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/03/you-voted-them-in.html
How can they defend Mann when something is happening that, according to Mann, should not be happening at all? Of what do I speak? Well, this of course: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
For the last week the sea ice levels have stayed within 2 standard deviations of the 2006-2007 average. This is not on pace to become ice free by summer 2015. I forget what year they were predicting ice free summers, but it really doesn’t matter because it just is not materializing anyway! It is not on pace to become ice free……..ever!
Sorry, not 06′-07′ average that’s 79′-2000 average. It’s actually blowing away the 06′-07′ average right now. And FYI that link is to the daily image and is updated daily. So if it happens to fall below the 06′-07′ average at the time of reading, my comments are about right now, March 18, 2010.
“Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” graph has been discredited by scientists from around the world.” Now who is telling a fib? Care to name names and what their qualifications are? The truth, in fact, is that the data used in the graph has been re-evaluated by two independent teams and both teams came away with a hockey stick of your own.
If you want to get scientists to start listening to your reasoning, it would help if you could actually talk ‘science’.
Drewski: I don’t give a flyin’ monkey fart if “scientists” start listening to my reasoning or not. There are a lot of scientists whom I have listened to that have helped me form my opinion. And they have been arguing the point scientifically for 20 years. Don’t know of any? You can start here: http://www.friendsofscience.org/
Then there are guys like Dr. Richard Lindzen, and Dr. John Christy to name a few who dispute AGW. I’m talking to everyday average people here who may or may not be duped by all the fearmongering and misrepresntation of the science by people like Eyeore.
You sound like you are few fries short of a happy meal if you think the “hocky stick” graph is accurate. Do you believe there was a medieval warm period? Do you believe there was a little ice age? If you don’t, then that graph fits your beliefs. If you do, and most paleoclimatologists do by the way, believe that they did occur, then that graph is about as honest as Bernie Madoff.
You see, you can re-evaluate that data as many times as you want to, and it will show you a “hocky stick”. And now for something that you seem to be ignorant of. Ready? THE DATA IS NOT ACCURATE!!!!!!!!!
Garbage in garbage out. As my friend Paul is fond of saying. Nuff’ said!
drewski here is a link for you…http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/crisis-famous-global-warming-hockey-stick-graph-is-a-hoax/
I think that will answer your questions!
I think Drewski was just a passing troller. Hit and run. More than likely will never be back, like Futbol, and Fred. Although I think I scared Fred away. He’s a teacher at some community college in Nevada and I found a bio page for him and the picture was of him wearing a purple felt hat. I mentioned in a reply to him that “I didn’t have no high fallutin degree or a purple pimp hat”, and that was the last we heard from Fred. Sorry Fred, it wasn’t meant as a threat or anything. I was just illustrating that I do my own research, and I can be pretty good at it when I put my mind to it.
Ya don’t like alternative voices? I’m SHOCKED !!!!
Isn’t democracy all about that? Oh well. Democracy is a passing phase anyway. Nice experiment for us. Now other countries are doing it better than we are. Sure hope we can recover, but right now it doesn’t look good.
Alternative voices? This is not a democracy. The country is a Representative Republic. It was never a Democracy. And this website is free for anyone to post here. What are you, like 12?
If this website is free for anyone, then why do you instantly attack people who say things you don’t like?
And please tell me why we are fighting for democracy around the world, if that is not what We are about. Or if it is “freedom” we are fighting for, does a Representative Republic give us that, or does democracy, or both?
And also please, since it is your passion, provide for us a definition of what a Representative Republic is. And then maybe you could more fully explain what it is you don’t like about democracy. If we don’t have demoracry now (and never did) do you think we need it now, or not? And if not, why?
Or is it that you that you just don’t like anything with the words Social or Democra(t)cy in it? I ask because we never seem to hear anyone, least of all our electeds, use the words Republic much. Mostly it’s Democracy. Why is that?
We’ve been down this road before. “Democracy” is often used as a generic term for any system that involves elections (elections are democratic in this country the government is not a democracy, though). Pure democracy would put everything on a ballot. Every law passed would be done by first gathering sigatures on a petition to get the proposal on the ballot and everyone would vote on every law and policy. Besides being unwieldy, pure democracies without the protections of a Constitution like ours (and they couldn’t realistically maintain such protections), and officials sworn to uphold it through checks and balances and operate government within it’s constraints would quickly become as terrible a tyranny as any Banana Republic, but it would be a tyranny of the majority. Minority rights would cease to be. Anything 51% agreed was a “good idea” would eventually become law, even if it was deemed a good idea for everyone to be clean shaven at all times, even their heads. Books could be banned on a whim of the majority, religion could be banned or mandated – whatever the preferences of 51% were. We need a fixed, democratically elected representative government operating under the rules of the Constitution. That’s a republic.
Hmmm. I would have preferred to hear Neil’s version of this. Oh well. Can’t have everything. Your definitions make use of “pure” and “generic” and others that does not help this discussion. The only difference between the two forms of governments according to you is a “Constitution like ours.” Seems a bit messy and flimsy, but granted you are trying to be concise.
As with many of your arguments and opinions, as are others here, you seem to blur some lines and take liberties, if you’ll pardon the pun. I am at a loss, however, to see why Neil and others of his ilk seem to get hot and bothered by the use of the term democracy, like it is a bad thing or inaccurate. If I am to be corrected in such a way, it would seem necessary to correct all the talking heads on the “news”, TV programs, teachers in all schools, our military and government leadership, many if not all textbooks, etc. You see what I’m getting at.
I’m also confused about what it is exactly that you and/or Neil think would be the best form of government or system for a civilized society. I should add that to use the word “pure” is rather specious, since nothing outside of certain elements can ever be such, not to mention something messy like democracy. Be that as it may, help me out if you would be so kind. What do you want???!!! And don’t just say a Libertarian country, because I’m not sure there is such a thing nor ever really can be. If you insist on that, then describe it in some brief way that makes sense to the real world.
I would still like to hear Neil’s explanation of why this country is not a democracy. It would undoubtedly be interesting. I contend it used to be, imperfectly of course, but really isn’t one any longer. I still think I could substitute the word democracy and put in its place “Representative Republic” and it would not really make any difference. I could then say it is no longer “representative”. Just semantics really.
Sorry Rob. I can’t help it if your education did not teach you what you should have been taught. You know what? I have just decided something. And it’s going to be hard for me because I think you need to be countered, but for my own blood pressure I’m giving up on you Rob. You have very easily distracted me from what I want to talk about here and I will not let you do that anymore. So have a nice progressive life. I’m not going to waste another keystroke on you. Buh-bye.
We’re talking about definitions. Civics. There shouldn’t be a need for a discussion about what the difference between a democracy and a republic is. I’m sure Neil will weigh in, but I’ve explained the difference to you. It’s not simply a constitution, but the rules it establishes that govern the government that makes a republic. A republic is a representative form of government. A consitutional republic places limits on what the elected representatives can do. This isn’t rocket science. It’s basic American civics. You should have learned this stuff in 9th grade or sooner.
Some remedial civics material for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNb9AoY5XXE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5I2KFENjS8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KINGYf7pdJE or: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSA8LX0xNLg&feature=related
If you want to go back a bit further, here’s some remedial history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofYmhlclqr4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VQA5NDNkUM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–VMlvbkJbw
Once you digest all that, you might be ready for this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw
Our Founding Fathers hated Democracies and warned us of them.
Jefferson on Democracies:
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Franklin on Democracy
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Some did perhaps dislike “democracy”. Why? Because they were already the elite and they wanted to hang onto that position. Duh.
OH MY GOD! Right. Thomas Jefferson was an elitist. Holy…wow. If you are really versed in American history and civics as you seem to assert below and still say somthing like that, then you are a lost cause.
Sorry, I have decided to ignore distraction from the topic, and the topic is Micheal Mann’s pass from his cronies.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Gee Dan, you really had to go woth the gratuitious insults? I believe a discussion about this issue is very important. It gets down the nut of the thing, so to speak. Look at the responses so far. It is not so much that I am confused or ill-educated, it is a different issue, one which I believe you, and may others, feel strongly about. To dismiss me in such a manner only shames you. That said, what I am trying to do re: this issue is to LEARN, and even learn from you all. Instead of being helpful or even slightly interested you degenerate.
I think we as Americans need to re-think these basic concepts before we can even try to proceed to fix what needs fixing and maybe even, God-forbid, come up with a better way. But it’s your right to stick to your ideological blindfold. That’s what most people do. I am merely trying to open up the subject, and propose to you that it is the crux of our dissatisfaction and alienation from our own country. It NEEDS to be discussed. If not here, then where? If not now then when?
You say you want to learn – it’s clear to me that you lack the basic foundation of American civics, so I gave you the opportunity to catch up on what you seem to have missed. If you feel insulted by the age-level Schoolhouse Rock is aimed at, jum on ahead to the last video I posted – but, honestly, I think you could benefit from watching all of them, in the order I posted them. Or maybe not. I’m starting to think you are deliberately being obtuse.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/mann-to-investigated-by-penn-state-university-review/
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/28/climategates-michael-mann-be-investigated-penn-state
So sly with your insults. Do you know what the meaning of smug is? Sure you do. That’s ok Dan- your true colors are showing- actually they are being openly displayed for all to see.
Stop being offended and watch the videos.
“USA Today Defends Michael Mann on Front Page, Misrepresents Climategate” “USA Today Defends Michael Mann on Front Page, Misrepresents Climategate”
“USA Today Defends Michael Mann on Front Page, Misrepresents Climategate” “USA Today Defends Michael Mann on Front Page, Misrepresents Climategate”
“USA Today Defends Michael Mann on Front Page, Misrepresents Climategate” “USA Today Defends Michael Mann on Front Page, Misrepresents Climategate”
“USA Today Defends Michael Mann on Front Page, Misrepresents Climategate” “USA Today Defends Michael Mann on Front Page, Misrepresents Climategate”
“USA Today Defends Michael Mann on Front Page, Misrepresents Climategate” “USA Today Defends Michael Mann on Front Page, Misrepresents Climategate”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
??? Is this your not too subtle way of telling us to return to the topic?
Yup!
Ha! I’m being moderated by readers!
Thank goodness for hall monitor Neil. (he can’t see me but I am saluting him right now too)…
And more smugness from Dan. Shocking.
At least you keep it posted, Dan. I’ll give you that. Here’s an idea for you from one of your “readers” (written by someone else): Is this a good idea??
It is impossible for a (relative) handful of elected representatives to reflect the views of a nation of over 300 million. Congress is much too small, it needs to be greatly expanded.
This would do two important things, it would involve the citizens more directly in the legislative process, and make it financially impossible to have corporate special interests buying off government to enact their narrow agenda.
Radical change is indicated, because piecemeal change has been consistently demonstrated as ineffective. A bought and paid for group of 545 citizens is much too easy a target for focused corporate attention.
The US Senate is an anachronistic body, and is no longer responsive to the desires of the electorate. I recommend this body be disbanded.
A hugely enlarged New Congress consisting of a House of Representatives would be a unicameral governing body. It must be enlarged by a factor of at least 20, each existing congressional district would be subdivided into 20 new Congressional districts. The resulting body would be comprised of 8700 members. This would result in a level of representation of (about) one Representative for every 35,000 citizens. Each of these individual representatives would meet with a one million member Peoples’ Congress.
This body would have two year terms, and membership would be rotated every two years, there would be no opportunity for re-election. Each of these representatives would have a constituency of (about) 300 citizens each. Each New Congressperson would caucus with those members of the Peoples’ Congress within their districts, (about) 115 Peoples’ Congress members per district. In this fashion, the desires and concerns of the electorate can be channeled upwards for legislative consideration. All legislation would be generated at the Peoples’ Congress level to facilitate giving expression to the true desires of the electorate.
The New Congress with 8700 members would rotate special electors, who would physically occupy the Existing Capitol for the purpose of voting on all proposed legislation. The expanded New Congress would be compensated with money saved by the elimination of an equal (or higher) number of currently existing unelected Congressional staff people. Because New representatives would only represent 5% of the current Congresspersons, the work load would be substantially reduced for each individual member of the New Congress.
Completely insane. I wouldn’t mind making the House bigger, but getting rid of the Senate? Horrible idea.
Not very open minded of you. Funny how people like you shoot down every possible solution to problems, unless their your own… down to the minutest detail. Other than that you cannot be satisfied. Sad. That’s how have become stuck one direction- down the tubes.
Unicameral is a great idea. J. Ventura at one time wanted to do that while Governor, or maybe while campaigning- I can’t remember. Never happened of course, but it was a good idea. It would save the tax payers money.
No. It would speed up legislation, meaning it would cost us more money, more faster. It would also move us closer to the mob rule of the vaunted democracy you are after. The cost of the legislature is nothing compared to the programs they enact. Those “savings” are a red herring. Unicameral is a terrible idea and Jesse Ventura was a terrible governor.
Monitor this:
Last year also experienced levels of cross-pollination between different sectors of the radical right not seen in years. Nativist activists increasingly adopted the ideas of the Patriots; racist rants against Obama and others coursed through the Patriot movement; and conspiracy theories involving the government appeared in all kinds of right-wing venues.
The SPLC also reports that just in the first year of the Obama presidency, “an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) — a 244% jump.”
We are falling apart. We have lost our sense of decency, our sense of direction. The past is overtaking us, and will soon be our future- unless… We are surrounded by increasingly violent gun-toting and/or threatening “Patriots” who are eager to water the Tree of Liberty with the blood of “loony liberals, Commies, and Socialists” — starting with their Black President who, according to the mad dogs on the right, is determined to destroy the freedoms of loyal Americans.
Can I join these milicias?
Sure you can Cuban Dude, although I’m surprised you have’t already.
If you can’t take the heat…
What!? We’re just “READERS” to you?? Uh oh, freudian slip?
Haven’t (which doesn’t mean heaven), please, expell correctly American Yerk!!!!
Yes you are my friend.
Readers… useless eaters… I feel so used…
Dan, please give us your insight on how to defeat Cap N Trade. Especially on how to get Lindsay Graham to see the truth. (As far as I’m concerned, he’s liberal) Let’s us know. I would be extremely interested to see your take. I will not donate one dime until there in full agreement on voting against this travesty and a lot of my friends are exactly like me. Let us know.
Minnesota Majority/GlobalClimateScam.com has partnered with organizations around the country to form the “No Cap And Trade Coalition,” the sole purpose is combating cap and trade. See http://www.nocapandtrade.com for information and action steps. Vote the loons out in November and keep pressure on senators in the meanwhile. The House already passed cap and trade. If the senate picks up that ball, we could be in trouble in a hurry. Give to out of state campaigns where needed (if you can spare it). In Minnesota, Franken and Klobuchar won’t be easily swayed – but try anyhow. Don’t let the Republicans go AWOL. Keep making noise and recruit others.
Thank you Dan. We needed that information. Appreciate the fast response. As to the Republicans, that I am, my party has gone AWOL and are attempting to be PC. That’s what is the most troubling of all. Just like the opposition, “finger to the wind.” All I can say is that “The winds are a changing.” If they cannot stand by their convictions, then they should get a different job/occupation. If not, November is coming for them as well. I vote for honesty,ethics and values, not party. My friends as well. Neither party has taken that into consideration. It is always “Compassionate conservative”, or “Change,” with no substance behind either one. Simple platitudes. Finally, when our duly elected officials finally deal with reality will we finally have a strong economy for “People that work hard and earned it,” not government which is there to protect you and me and not guarantee rights from birth to death called entitlements. I strongly suggest that both parties, as well as third parties ponder what I just said. Take it for what it’s worth. I’m just a simple man with simple thoughts. Later.
Finally! Something Paul and I agree on. The last part anyway.
Some one has to do it. This site is becoming full of crazies! 😉
Rob, I’m entitled to three things. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of?? What’s that last on?? Not entitlements. Think about it.
Paul, we ain’t even entitled to that any more. Wake up.
Rob, suggest that you “wake up” to facts.