Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann

Written by John O’Sullivan

Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

As can be seen from the graphs below; Mann’s cherry-picked version of science makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ‘tick’ in the late 20th century (the blade of his ‘hockey stick’). But below that, Ball’s graph, using more reliable and widely available public data, shows a much warmer MWP, with temperatures hotter than today, and showing current temperatures well within natural variation.

Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’

As first reported in Principia Scientific International (February 1, 2017), the defendant in the case, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, had won “concessions” against Mann, but at the time the details were kept confidential, pending Mann’s response.

The negative and unresponsive actions of Dr Mann and his lawyer, Roger McConchie, are expected to infuriate the judge and be the signal for the collapse of Mann’s multi-million dollar libel suit against Dr Ball. It will be music to the ears of so-called ‘climate deniers’ like President Donald Trump and his EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt.

As Dr Ball explains:

“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”

Punishment for Civil Contempt

Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State’ is a precise and true statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is now proven to have wilfully hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.

The spectacular rise and fall of climate alarmism’s former golden boy is a courtroom battle with even more ramifications than the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. To much fanfare at the time, Mann had sued Ball for daring to publish the damning comment that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State.” Dr Ball brilliantly backed up his exposure of the elaborate international money-making global warming scam in his astonishing book, ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science‘.

In his books, articles, radio and television appearances, Dr. Ball has been resolute in his generation-long war against those who corrupted the field of science to which he had selflessly dedicated his life. Now aged 79, Ball is on the cusp of utter vindication. Despite the stresses and strains on himself and his family, Tim has stood at the forefront of those scientists demanding more openness and transparency from government-funded researchers.

As Ball explains:

“We believe 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.”

Likely Repercussions for Science & Climate Policy

A bitter and embarrassing defeat for the self-styled ‘Nobel Prize winner’ who acted as if he was the epitome of virtue, this outcome shames not only Michael Mann, but puts the climate science community in crisis. Many hundreds of peer-reviewed papers cite Mann’s work, which is now effectively junked. Despite having deep-pocketed backers willing and able to feed his ego as a publicity-seeking mouthpiece against skeptics, Mann’s credibility as a champion of environmentalism is in tatters.

But it gets worse for the litigious Penn State professor. Close behind Dr Ball is celebrated writer Mark Steyn. Steyn also defends himself against another one of Mann’s SLAPP suits – this time in Washington DC. Steyn boldly claims Mann “has perverted the norms of science on an industrial scale.” Esteemed American climate scientist, Dr Judith Curry, has submitted to the court an Amicus Curiae legal brief exposing Mann. The world can now see that his six-year legal gambit to silence his most effective critics and chill scientific debate has spectacularly backfired.

But at a time of much clamor about ‘fake news,’ it seems climate scare stories will have a new angle now that the United States has officially stepped back from the Paris Climate Treaty. President Trump was elected on a mandate to weed out climate fraud so his supporters will point to this legal outcome as vindication for a full purge. It makes a mockery of statements made by Mann last February when PSI’s Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan publicly backed their colleague, Dr Ball and endorsed the revelations in his book. Mann reacted by moaning:

“It is difficult to keep up with this dizzying ongoing assault on science.”

The perpetrator of the biggest criminal “assault on science” has now become clear: Dr Mann, utterly damned by his contempt of the court order to show his dodgy data.

There can be little doubt that upon the BC Supreme Court ruling that Mann did commit data fraud, over in Washington DC, the EPA’s Scott Pruitt will feel intense pressure from skeptics to initiate a full investigation into Mann, his university and all those conspiring to perpetuate a trillion-dollar carbon tax-raising sting on taxpayers.

With the scent of courtroom victory invigorating pensioner Ball, he reveals he is determined to go for a second such court win this coming Fall. Then he defends a similar libel lawsuit in Vancouver, filed against him by fellow Canadian climate scientist, Andrew Weaver.

On that case Tim reports:

“The second defamation lawsuit involves Andrew Weaver and is scheduled for court in October 2017. We are not sure what will happen as Weaver, who was a lead author for the computer model chapter of four IPCC Reports (1995, 2001, 2007, and 2013), became a politician. He ran for and was elected leader of the British Columbia Green Party and is a sitting member of the provincial legislature. We must continue to prepare for the trial, but it is the prevailing view in the court system that if a scientist becomes a politician their scientific objectivity is compromised – it is considered the bias of a ’noble cause’.”

As a career-long defender of the scientific method, embracing open and transparent verification of important government research, Ball makes this promise to his loyal supporters:

“Regardless of the outcomes I am planning a major campaign to expose to the world how they used the court system to silence me because I dared to speak out against their claims and actions. I am not particularly bright but I had two major threats, I was qualified, and I had an ability to explain in a way the public could understand. These latter abilities were honed in teaching a science credit for arts students for 25 years.”

Saving a final word for his friends and colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) Dr Ball concluded:

“It goes without saying that I could not have done any of this without the support of people [like Gregg Thomspon] who gave money and John O’Sullivan who gave superb advice from a legal and life experience perspective.”

Dr Ball and his PSI colleagues are among those now calling for governments to set aside proper funding for ‘blue team’ scientists and experts skilled in critically examining claims made by so-called government ‘experts’ where they impact public policy. In the final outcome, these ‘devil’s advocates’ of science (or ‘skeptics’) are the best defense against waste and corruption.

To that end, Australian Astronomer and entrepreneur Gregg Thompson has been crucial in providing resources that helped establish PSI as a registered UK charity devoted to this public service. PSI is urging more charitable donations from ordinary citizens to help further the cause of creating more ‘blue team/red team’ initiatives devoted to monitoring government science and prepared to bravely expose negligence and intentional misconduct on the public dime.

Read more from Tim Ball at his website: drtimball.comBuy on Amazon Tim’s ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science


Second X-Flare in Two Months Signals the Grand Solar Minimum is Intensifying

Unusual Hot & Cold Temperatures Mixing Across the Northern Hemisphere

Government Climate Scientists Attempting To Extort Money From President Trump

  • Mark

    Fantastic victory for real science that will ultimately decrease the gross misuse of gov funds going to the climate change troughers. Well done to Tim Ball.

    I await the next nail in the Mann coffin to be hammered in by Mark Steyn who is being sued for a truthful blogpost.

  • Pingback: THE CHURCH OF MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE ON TRIAL ⋆ New York city blog()

  • Pingback: Rebutting Sorondo: Temperature Adjustments Account for Nearly All “Warming” in Government Climate Data | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics()

  • Roald J. Larsen

    No such luck (or risk) he doesn’t even bother to read it ..

  • Pingback: The Church of Man-Made Climate Change on trial | Conservative Republican News()

  • Pingback: Klimareligionen for retten | Hodjanernes Blog()

  • Pingback: #FakeNews Alert: Claim: "@MichaelEMann – ‘Commits contempt of court’" - Skeptical Science()

  • 9.8m/ss

    Mann is a hero, defending the integrity of science and standing up to harassment by the fossil fuels mafia.

    • You have to be a special kind of corrupt and shallow person to come to such a conclusion in face of all the facts in this case.

      I.e. a low IQ leftist

  • Necklinsberg

    Michael Mann should be as big an embarrassment to Penn State as Sandusky is

  • Pingback: Controversy in the “Climate Science Trial of the Century” – Peter Degedo()

  • Pingback: Michael Mann Refuses to Give his Hockey Stick Data to the Court - GraniteGrok — GraniteGrok()

  • Pingback: Defeat rather than disclosure for Michael Mann – Da Tech Guy Blog()

  • Simon Oswald Strange

    Holy fcking cow this is funny, i cant stop laughing……thjs article claim s mann is sueing ball in canada and ball is claiming mann must submit his dataset from 20 years ago, and that since he didnt submit it, they can now claim as true “mann belongs in the state pen, not penn state”

    Thats it! All they get out of it.

    I just go an email back from mann, he is engaed in a lawsuit for defamation in Pennsylvania and it is going well and NO he has not filed suit against anyone else.

    This is to deflect from his penn case. What is the point?

    The insanity we live in folks.

    • Richard Cranium

      How stupid are you? Can you not read the above article?

      Canadian law is not the same as US law.

    • gvanderleun

      Stop being an asshole and go back to being the turd.

    • jimb82

      Mann is very much in a lawsuit he filed against Mark Steyn, National Review, and others in the District of Columbia.

  • compareguy

    This is fake news – all the links go round and round linking back to each other with no proof that this actually happened. Typical “creation” of news by non-news sites.

  • Pingback: Never Yet Melted » Michael Mann in Contempt of Court()

  • Pingback: Global Warming? - Page 178 - PeachParts Mercedes ShopForum()

  • Pingback: Things Get Hot for Michael Mann | We Seek the Truth!()

  • ekofreek

    Ball’s chart was temps in Europe which are dependent on what the gulf stream does. Mann’s graph which looks a lot like the NASA graphs and the Royal Society graphs and every other, is world temps. Please don’t get your science from right-wing web sites. The greenhouse gas effect has been known for 200 years, studied and proven countless times.

    • Roald J. Larsen

      There’s NO “greenhouse effect”, there’s NO “greenhouse gases”!

      You are dishonest, you should take time to learn climate science before posting nonsense ..

      The 100% Fraudulent Hockey Stick
      In 1999, NASA showed no net global warming from 1876 to 1976. This wrecked their hockey stick plans, so NASA erased all of the inconvenient pre-1880 data and cooled 1880 temperatures by about 0.2C.

      Is No “Greenhouse Effect” Possible From The Way That IPCC Define It?
      “This article makes two significant points: – 1) The IPCC definition of “Greenhouse Effect” on page 946 of their Report No. 4, 2007, is wrong and no “Greenhouse Effect” is possible from the way IPCC define it. 2) Radiant energy reaching the Earth from the Sun is the only source of heat to maintain or vary global climate. earth in bottleTotal radiant heat gained must establish equilibrium with total radiant heat lost.

      As in the past, global climate change can only be due to longer or shorter-term variations in solar radiation.

      The Erroneous IPCC Definition

      Readers are invited to consider a fundamental error in physics in the IPCC Report No. 4, 2007.

      The definition of ‘Greenhouse Effect’ on page 946 contains an erroneous statement that would invalidate the premise on which most of the report is based.

      We should have particular regard to the IPCC sentences that state: “Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system.”

      The definition then goes on to explain that the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere decreases with height and the infrared radiation emitted to space originates from high altitude where the average temperature is -19°C in balance with the net incoming solar radiation.

      The enveloping atmosphere keeps the Earth’s surface at a much higher temperature as IPCC says averaging +14°C so there is a temperature gradient all the way up to the limits of our gaseous atmosphere with, on average, all higher parts of the column of air being at lower temperature than those below it.

      This gradient is measured thousands of times each day as our aeroplanes climb to high altitude but of course the main transfer of heat to the upper atmosphere is by convection. This is quite violent at times with typhoons, hurricanes, or tropical thunderstorms each afternoon.

      Nevertheless, total radiant heat outward from the whole Earth must remain in equilibrium with the radiant heat inward from the Sun. The IPCC definition (below) claims that ‘Greenhouse gases’ (CO2, methane, water vapour, etc.) absorb thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases ..” More:


      • Simon Oswald Strange

        Help, cant stop laughing,

        Stop posting, really, it would hdlp a lot if you stop making me laugh.

    • JamesW

      ekofruit, you are a very, very stupid person.

      • ekofreek

        great argument! were you in the debating society?

        • CaMaven

          It sure doesn’t look like you were.

          • Joshua Reece

            He posed an argument, gave supporting facts, and opened the floor up for debate by posting a comment you could argue with, and you wasted that opportunity, and instead you chose to say something inane and pointless. You can probably do better than that.

          • Finrod Felagund

            He also downthread ignored every single fact that could possibly contradict his religious belief in warmism. And you’re defending him.

    • Finrod Felagund

      You are full of lies and deceit. Open your mind and see the truth, fool.

    • Richard Cranium

      In which case, there should no be issue with Mann releasing the data and source code to the Canadian court.

      He didn’t for some reason.

      • ekofreek

        why not concentrate on the big picture? the science says that greenhouse gasses are warming the planet. you guys are doing everything you can to deny it. none of you think there ids the slightest chance you are wrong. that makes you more dangerous than any terrorist because there are plenty of alternatives to fossil fuels.

        • Roald J. Larsen

          No, that is not what the science say, that is what criminal, “green” activists say.

          The science say ..
          STUDY BLOWS ‘GREENHOUSE THEORY OUT OF THE WATER’ ‘All observed climatic changes have natural causes completely outside of human control’, ref.:

          .. and that is also what the facts on the ground are telling us, you know, empirical, real world measurements, also called EVIDENCE!

          Which is the reason the climate criminals are counterfeiting the data, ref.: History Of NASA/NOAA Temperature Corruption
          In 1974, The National Center For Atmospheric Research (NCAR) generated this graph of global temperatures, showing a large spike in the 1940’s, rapid cooling to 1970 and net cooling from 1900 to 1970.

          Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data – 40-Year Veteran German Climatologist: ‘CO2 A Scapegoat”

          Greenland Coldest Temperature Ever Recorded in Northern Hemisphere in July

          The Settled Science Of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Violates The Laws Of Physics

          • ekofreek

            I see you prefer russian prop to good old American data. a lot of you guys do, Putin and Kochs have you round their little finger. Yr being manipulated, but you’ll never see that. If I want to know about something, I go buy a book or google the subject, staying away from ideologically-driven info sources.

          • Roald J. Larsen

            I have no idea what you’re talking about, all i am doing is referring to the empirical data, i.e. real evidence. If actual data isn’t good enough there’s nothing more to discuss.

          • ekofreek

            So NASA data is manipulated, how come your’s isn’t? Why has the NW Passage opened up? Ocean acidifying? Cause of liberals?

          • Roald J. Larsen

            As always, you’re not interested in what the actual data is telling us, deflecting, dodging and skewing .. Why is that? Why are you not interested in the facts?

            Shallow, dishonest talking points about made up (FAKE) stories doesn’t impress anyone, you might as well just cut it out because i will not be wasting time trying to answer nonsense.

            More evidence the ice is not melting ..

          • ekofreek

            You’re betting the future of this planet on the chance that NASA charts are manipulated and yours aren’t. It took amundsen 3 years to get through the NW Passage.. now people sail right through. That indicates a warming planet. water sequestered in ice sheets will flow into the ocean, sea levels will rise, wiping out coastal cities. Or we could switch to renewables.

          • Roald J. Larsen

            New York Times: World’s nations building huge numbers of new coal plants despite emissions growth

            “A recent article discussed at Watts Up With That? exposed that many of the world’s largest CO2 emitting nations are proceeding with energy policies involving the building of huge numbers of new coal plants without regard to increasing CO2 emissions completely contradicting the aims of the Paris Climate Agreement.

            These nations actions clearly show the Paris Climate Agreement is meaningless in addressing global emissions and that President Trump was very wise to reject it’s oppressive provisions that were imposed on the U.S. ..”


            The future will arrive no matter how much NASA adjust the data.
            Hopefully the future will put some of the fraudsters in prison, where they belong!

          • ekofreek

            people should go to prison for being concerned about the fate of the planet? boy you are sick. deniers are far more dangerous than terrorists. there is zero evidence of fraud. NASA put an SUV on Mars. Not much room for error there.

          • Roald J. Larsen

            How The Climate Mafia Corrupted The Surface, Radiosonde And Now Satellite Data

          • ekofreek

            newscast is the most biased site I have ever seen, but you trust them with the fate of the planet. It’s scary how easily manipulated you are.

          • Roald J. Larsen

            Yes, we try to be as factual correct as possible. So far no one has found a factual error in the science we have posted.

            What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

            “What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?
            If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.
            More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.
            Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

            1Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves. The increase in storms is simply a result of improved measurement methods. There has been no real increase.
            2Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.
            3There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.
            4New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.
            5CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.
            6There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
            7Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.
            8The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.
            9No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2.
            10The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.
            Could this possibly be right? Is it heresy, or critical thinking — or both? If I’ve upset or confused you, let me guide you through my journey ..”

          • ekofreek

            I found a mistake in about 2 seconds. the 2 charts they are comparing represent different things, one is europe the other average temps of the planet,,, and ocean acidification is a huge problem that could wipe out humanity.. everything you say is complete bs on a matter of national security.

          • Roald J. Larsen

            I’ve told you before, shallow, unsupported and dishonest alarmist BS isn’t something i will spend time on.

            The Oceans are Absorbing Large Quantities of Carbon Dioxide

            “Alan Siddons recently pointed out that NASA’s James Hansen has been complaining that 44% of anthropogenic CO2 goes missing EACH YEAR, but CDIAC’s data clearly show that the situation has become far worse than that from the alarmist viewpoint. Alan Siddons found when looking at the CDIAC 2016 Global Carbon Project spreadsheet, under the Historical Budget tab, that he could graph both the annual increase in gigatons of carbon for the atmospheric CO2 concentration growth and for the change in carbon in the Ocean. The values to be discussed here do not resolve man’s contribution from natures contribution. They are totals changes in carbon dioxide in each case. The resultant profile was not what he expected. The additional carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean in red is compared with the additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in Alan Siddons plot below.

            Since a shallow minimum in about 1840, the amount of the increase in the ocean concentration of CO2 has increased almost every year. Generally the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased except for two brief periods of reductions around 1820 and 1856. There was a strong decrease in the amount of the increase centered on about 1946. Because the surface water layer of the oceans is attempting to come into equilibrium in their dissolved CO2 content with the atmosphere, but there is substantial exchange between the warm surface layer and the colder ocean depths, the general increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since the end of the Little Ice Age will result in more dissolved CO2 in the ocean for a given surface temperature for a long period of time.

            In 2004, the additional CO2 dissolved in the oceans and other waters of the Earth was a bit more than 60% of the additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the 44% that was already so high in James Hansen’s mind as to be a troubling indicator of the disappearance of CO2 that he expected to remain in the atmosphere. For him, this disappearance was a problem with respect to the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis with its claims that man’s emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use and the making of cement would leave that CO2 in the atmosphere for a hundred years or thereabouts. Basically, these high atmosphere residence times are threatened by the high solubility of CO2 in water. At 25°C, CO2 is about 26 times more soluble in water than is molecular oxygen.

            We are told by the settled science that increased atmospheric CO2 causes warming. Yet, everyone knows that a warming ocean should release CO2, thereby adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere. If that picture is right, do we not expect the ocean to act like a source of further CO2, rather than a sink, because CO2 in the atmosphere is supposed to warm the oceans?

            Perhaps not. Let us examine this exchange or equilibrium condition for CO2 between the ocean and the atmosphere. The mole fraction of a gas, X, dissolved in water is given by ..”


          • ekofreek

            is that an argument that we should keep dumping carbon in the sky? I don’t think you’ve made your point. remember, you are trying to slow action on a matter of national security. so is your entire website, probably put up by russians.

          • Roald J. Larsen

            The Uncertainty Has Settled, Critical Documentary About Climate, Agriculture and Energy Now Online

            “After eight years of travelling through conflict and poverty zones, Marijn Poels – a progressive filmmaker – decided to take some time off. In the Austrian mountains no less. It confronts him unexpectedly with the roots of agriculture and its modern day perspective. Globalisation and climate politics are causing radical changes such as farmers becoming energy suppliers. But the green ideology raises questions. The scientific topic of climate change has now become incontrovertibly a matter of world politics. Poels faces a personal conflict. Are we doing the right thing?

            The Uncertainty Has Settled is the first film within a planned trilogy by Marijn Poels. “What is so beautiful and compelling in this documentary is the ignorance of the maker”, Jan Jakobs wrote in his review. “Marijn stumbles from one surprise to another. You can see his disbelief and amazement and sometimes even read the despair on his face. The beautiful images and transitions, along with the necessary rest points, provide the viewer with the necessary breaks but at the same time evoke a desire for more information. The way in which the issue is addressed, the words used to interpret the information, make the film extremely suitable for all and sundry. Even for those who thought there was only one opinion on the subject of climate change and CO2. There are also the conversations with ordinary people, who are victims of the remote and detached politics in Europe, which add so much more to this documentary than just a collection of facts to show that you are in the right. The human factor is ever present; the painful exposure of failed politics aimed at reducing human CO2, the devastating consequences for the landscape and nature, the income of entire populations that disappears and farmers who are busy producing energy instead of food. It eats away at the sense of justice of a man such as Marijn Poels”.

            The documentary, which is completely self-financed by Poels, was boycotted by media, distributors and film festivals after its release in February this year. Poels decided to self-distribute the film and screened it in 100 alternative cinemas throughout Europe ..”


          • McFeely Bhoob

            Carbon DIOXIDE, not carbon. Carbon is an element of which every life form on this planet is based on. CO2 is a naturally occurring compound CRITICAL to c3 and c4 fixation photosynthesis, of which NO LIFE on this planet would exist without, or 5th grade science, as we call it.

          • ekofreek

            we put carbon in the sky in many forms, it comes out of the earth in many forms. CO2 and methane are greenhouse gasses. 4th grade science.

          • McFeely Bhoob

            3 days without food and there is no such thing as a Vegan. You would eat your big toe. There is only one reason c02 has been demonized…. you can’t tax a sunspot or the Water Cycle. Plain and simple.

          • Roald J. Larsen

            100% correct!

          • McFeely Bhoob

            It’s not the fate of the planet, dim wit. The earth has been uninhabitable for most of its existence. What is the “perfect” climate? Please enlighten us. Many would say that higher CO2 levels to spur C4 fixation photosynthesis in grain crops is the answer to feed most of the earths starving population. Do you propose rolling tech back to 1850? Just go to India and you’ll see what it’s like to live in 1850. Better leave the iPhone behind. Do you realize a family with starving children in India using cow dung to heat their meager food cares not of your CO2 concerns? You dummies actually think the sea will rise like it did in “The Day After”? Lol. I will accept and plan for possible rising sea levels over a 250 year period over the death of a billion people because of your low info understanding of science.

          • Roald J. Larsen

            If all the ice on this planet were to melt, it wouldn’t cause any problem, no problem to manage as it would take about 5000 years. Even during the fastest melt after the last ice-age temperature low, some 11700 years ago, sea level only rose 10 cm. per 100 years. Most people manage to move their bodies, cars and houses, even their mother in law in a 100 years.

          • ekofreek

            India is full of programs and innovations to create energy and grow food.
            The ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are sequestered water, when CO2 levels were high, there was 2/3rds less land.

          • Shazbat

            So how’s that muslim outreach going?

          • Shazbat

            Liberals used to LOVE the Russians; at least back when it was the Soviet Union!

        • Shazbat

          So why do greenhouse operators pump CO2 into the greenhouse and STILL wind up having to heat up the place to get optimal growing temperatures?

        • McFeely Bhoob

          H20 is the most prevalent green house gas. The problem? How can you “tax” earth’s natural Water Cycle? That is the ONLY reason C02 became the villain.

        • Max Buny

          Many things are warming the climate, the least of which is human activity.

          • ekofreek

            if you’re interested in this subject, maybe you should look into it.

  • Pingback: Things Get Hot for Michael Mann | It's Not The Tea Party()

  • Pingback: Things Get Hot for Michael Mann - The Right Side of News()

  • There is NO greenhouse gas and the WarmMonger verses Lukewarmists debate is fake.

    “Spencer Sorcery on Magic Gas” at FauxScienceSlayer website

  • SaguaroJack49

    It’s just so hard to be a phony since the advent of Trump.

    But this had nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with Dr Ball. The man is a true hero, sticking with this thing for six years, having to spend money out of pocket for his defense team.

    Mann and all those with him belong behind bars. May they soon all be there. Then we’ll see if anything happens to Merkle, who’s said to be ticked at Trump for withdrawing from that monstrosity agreement among thieves to rob Americans blind.

    • righteousreverenddynamite

      Dr. Ball should legally change his name by adding an “s” to the end. …and add a new middle name “Brass”.
      Bravo, Professor!
      Steyn is going to have a field day with this!

  • UncRemus

    I want to see a GIF of President Trump beating Mann with a Hockey Stick….

    • One Voice

      Now that you mention it, I would like to see that too.

  • Pingback: Michael Mann: ClimateHoax Fraud, Litigator and Profiteer | Michelle-Antoinette()

  • OdinsAcolyte

    All reasonable scientists/mathematicians have known this was garbage since its publication.
    Governments have been in collusion to steal power and money from the citizens. Climate changes with or without humanity. Species rise and fall. So shall mankind.
    We ARE part of nature and not apart. True science shall destroy the AGW scheme.

    • “Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami” at FauxScienceSlayer website

    • ekofreek

      because climate changes doesn’t mean we’re not changing it. please defer to scientists on issues you know nothing about.

      • Roald J. Larsen

        The 100% Fraudulent Hockey Stick

        In 1999, NASA showed no net global warming from 1876 to 1976. This wrecked their hockey stick plans, so NASA erased all of the inconvenient pre-1880 data and cooled 1880 temperatures by about 0.2C.

        Measured climate data doesn’t support global warming alarmism (and thus funding.) So government scientists alter the data to maximize funding.

      • Phillip Brisco

        Defer to scientists? This is the “argue from authority” logical fallacy. By its very nature, science is almost always wrong. We blindly stumble along in our ignorance, making small discoveries here and there, building on the work of those who have gone before, with the occasional big leap forward.

        But, every scientist who has ever lived has been wrong far more often than he has been right. Tis the nature of the beast.

        So to say that we should follow experts blindly is foolish beyond belief.

        • ekofreek

          then try google.

          • Ciampino

            You mean Google has gathered evidence independently of scientists? Who then are the Google’s experts? How do they collect their data? Can we see it?

      • OdinsAcolyte

        I know a great deal about it.
        Thank you very much.

  • Cali Joe

    Resist Socialist Oppression!

    • Cali Joe


  • jfhdsiu

    Mann is a “fake scientist”. And apparently he’s a liar, cheat and thief to boot. Must be a Liberal……….

    • ekofreek

      Mann’s observations are the same as every other science org on the planet.

      • Roald J. Larsen

        That is 100% correct, and implicitly serve as a very good documentation of how serious, comprehensive and deep the (Man Made) Climate Change Swindle really is.

        Because reality, empirical data doesn’t support Mann’s story, or data – AT ALL!

        1875 coldest year in 10000 years and no warming for 58 years

        Briffa and Melvin Crowns 1936 as Warmest Year Ever!

        So, 1936 is the warmest year ever, 81 years ago .. The period we emitted the plant food, CO2, was after 1936 ..

        The AGW hypothesis FAIL!! 100%!!

        Of course, Mann and the other rent and grant seeking criminals know this, but they came up with a clever solution, FRAUD!

        The 100% Fraudulent Hockey Stick
        In 1999, NASA showed no net global warming from 1876 to 1976. This wrecked their hockey stick plans, so NASA erased all of the inconvenient pre-1880 data and cooled 1880 temperatures by about 0.2C.

        History Of NASA/NOAA Temperature Corruption
        In 1974, The National Center For Atmospheric Research (NCAR) generated this graph of global temperatures, showing a large spike in the 1940’s, rapid cooling to 1970 and net cooling from 1900 to 1970.

        All Climate Adjustments Increase Over Time

        NOAA US Temperature Fraud
        Future President Ted Cruz recently held a Senate hearing on climate which featured the two graphs below showing the various stages of NOAA’s vandalism of the US temperature record.

        • ekofreek

          if you are right, there must be science orgs that agree with you. It would help if you could name one, or are all scientists on the planet in on this swindle? And does this mean we can keep dumping carbon into the sky with no consequence, and that everything that has been known and studied for 200 years on greenhouse gasses is wrong, but no peer reviewed study has proven that it’s wrong, but you’re going to believe Koch-funded prop over the National Academy of Science or NASA? Is your head really a potato?

          • Roald J. Larsen

            You know what happen to an org. that disagree to the scam?
            “No more funding for you”! .. and:
            It’s an Unsettling Climate for skeptical scientists like Murry Salby

            This process of coercion and corruption has been going on for decades now, ref. ClimateGate as an example, where, for example both journals “Nature” and “Science” totally has left the science and been taken over by the criminals at Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC.

            No, every scientists are not “in on it”, most scientists don’t do climate at all and most haven’t even been asked. It’s enough to corrupt the leaders of “science” org. .. Also revealed in the ClimateGate emails, ref.: Climategate in Review

            December 20, 2009 – A Climatology Conspiracy?

            31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
            including 9,029 with PhDs
            “The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

            Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

            It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

            These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.”

            “Carbon”?? You do not even know what you are talking about ..
            Do you mean diamonds, or?

            It’s called Carbon Dioxide, CO2, i.e. PLANT FOOD!!
            Not a magic gas “green” criminal, rent and grant seeker activists should use to, unlawfully, get taxpayers money through lies and fraud.

            No peer-reviewed papers and studies? Really??
            1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

            Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

            1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers in past 3 Years ‘Should Put UN IPCC To Shame,’ Says Harvard Astrophysicist

            30 peer-reviewed scientific papers reveal the lack of connection between hurricanes & ‘global warming’

            All Natural… Four New Peer-reviewed Scientific Publications Show No Detectable Sea Level Rise Signal

            Three Brand New Peer-Reviewed Papers Refute IPCC Global Warming Science, Climate Models

            Impossible To Ignore …In 2015 Alone Massive 250 Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Cast Doubt On Climate Science!

            And then, the absolute best thing to do is to look at the reality, what the nature actually is doing ..

            NASA not publicizing 8 months of cooler temperatures



          • ekofreek

            If a scientist fakes data or fudges numbers, they are flipping burgers or working at a car wash, or worse still, writing for a right-wing web site.

          • Roald J. Larsen

            It’s better to write for a “right-wing” web site than a “left-wing” (Nazi)- web site because “right-wing” web sites actually let everybody post ..


          • ekofreek

            I thought Nazis were right wing.. militaristic, propaganda based, suppression of the press, fake news. Anyway, I see your posts as full of dubious links and unsupported generalizations. you are calling me dishonest, the war of the graphs above is dishonest.

          • Roald J. Larsen

            Nazis has always been left-wing. What is the core values of communism, nazism, fascism and socialism?
            Big government, centralized control, press control, censorship, arbitrary imprisonment, violence and murder.

            Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet, Mao’s China, Cambodia, Cuba and today’s Venezuela and the violent left in the US .. as a few examples.

          • ekofreek

            and so you vote for a racist misogynistic would-be mussolini. why would you characterize the left as violent? Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren.. me I’m as middle of the road as can be, and know that rights mean responsibilities. the most important responsibility is preserving the planet for future generations, though you disagree with that I’m sure future generations agree.

          • Roald J. Larsen

            Nonsensical, dishonest weasel words whose only effect is to try to shut up and silence opponents and, as always, you posts no documentation.

            Preservation of what?

            I think it’s great to clean up our pollution and work for clean air and water, that is a completely different topic, got NOTHING to do with the climate which is 100% controlled by the sun through several effects.

          • ekofreek

            thousands of studies prove you wrong. no studies prove you right.. but all that does is convince you more! Just stay out of the way as we transition to renewable energy.

          • Roald J. Larsen

            How many studies and real peer-reviewed reports have i linked to in this comment section? 2500? (didn’t you read my posts?)

            .. in addition, sceptics views, reports, studies and peer-reviewed papers are supported by the actual data, real world empirically measurements, even Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC admit there’s NO GLOBAL WARMING (Man Made) over the last 2 decades, they call it “Hiatus”!


          • ekofreek

            I don’t trust your data because it’s from right-wing web sites. If it’s from the Royal Society in London, which has been taking temps since the mid 1600’s, I would trust that. I have never heard of a peer-reviewed study that refuted the known properties of CO2. That would be news!

          • Roald J. Larsen

            That’s just silly, a shallow, desperate attempt to avoid reality, yes, so what if you have been lied to? So what if you have been wrong?

            The character of a person is revealed when dealing with issues of haven’t been right ..

            I change my mind when i get access to new information suggesting i am wrong, but, of course, as a sceptic, i go check it out first.


            U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

            Do you believe it when even the UN FCCC, Christiana Figueres, tell you?
            “It’s not about the climate, it’s about transforming the worlds economy ..”

          • ekofreek

            Look at Venezuela, an oil based economy. that’s where we’re headed if DT has his way. renewables are the fastest growing sector of the economy. and that last chart is exactly right. we have to stop putting carbon in the sky. we have to remove the carbon we put in the sky. the defense dept. calls this a national security issue, so make sure you don’t lie on line on an issue of national security.

          • Roald J. Larsen

            Venezuele USE TO BE an oil based economy, now they don’t have any economy left, – and NO OIL ..

            No, the oil is still in the ground, the problem is, they do not have the equipment to get it out, well, actually, they do, problem is, they do not get spare parts to equipment that breaks down.

            .. and why not??

            Because they have no money to purchase it.

            .. and why not??

            Because they have ruined their economy.

            .. how did they do that??

            Hugo Chavez government seized all private businesses and all export stopped. His government also took over all oil production and oil refineries at the same time as he gave away money for all his “social programs”.

            When the oilprice collapsed from USD 150,- / Barrel, there was soon no money left because oil was the only thing left they could export.

            (You need export to get foreign currencies in order to purchase products from other producers in other countries, products you don’t produce domestically.)

            Socialism (communism) doesn’t work in the real world ..

            Inside Venezuela: The Socialist Haven on the Brink of Total Collapse

          • ekofreek

            I agree that’s what happened, but overproduction remains a threat to oil-based economies. that’s why so many countries are desperately turning to renewables. in spite of DT, we remain a leader in this field with amazing stuff coming to market soon. magnetic motors, super capacitors.. dirty oil from canada is just the wrong way to go, fracking even worse. even the saudis know the end of oil is coming.

          • Roald J. Larsen


            Are there “over-production” of TV-sets? Mobile phones? Computers?
            If the government leave the market alone the market will correct itself 100% automatically through a mechanism called price / demand or, “the market”.

            Cheap energy means more production, lower prices. Energy is the ability to do work, energy is food in the stores, energy is medicine, energy is education, energy is health, energy is vacation, energy is a cool, comfortable home on warm summer days and warm houses in winter.

            Without energy, we all would live brutal lives, starvation, hard labor, diseases and early death.


            There are no countries being desperate to ruin their economies on renewable ..


            MSM can’t be trusted!

            Actually, Switzerland is the leader of REAL renewable energy, ref.: bi-ION – Energy Of The Future

            Oil-sand from Canada is not dirty, ref.: The TRUTH about carbon dioxide (CO2): Patrick Moore, Sensible Environmentalist

            Fracking is NO problem and the Middle East and Saudi Arabia, as you mentioned, knew they need other sources of both energy and income (ref.: Venezuela as a strong example of how bad it can go) .

            The TRUTH about fracking, natural gas and vinyl

            All electrical engines are magnetic, always been.

            The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels | Alex Epstein

          • ekofreek

            sorry I don’t do propaganda.
            The Dust Bowl is an example of over-production leading to disaster.. if you don’t agree, please research the dust bowl, I don’t have time to explain. The tar sands is the worst environmental tragedy on the planet.. please look that up too.
            The banks that finance pipelines and oil rigs need steady returns on their investments, therefore even if the market is flooded, their wells keep producing, leading to very low prices.
            Luckily technology exists that severely uncut those severely low prices, and the banks may soon stop financing these projects. Super capacitors are coming that charge in an instant and can power a truck or a train, maybe even a plane. that’s the future. and look up magnetic motors. very interesting. there’s a conference starting tomorrow in Idaho where the Teslian inventors are showing off their machines, perhaps saving us from global warming. don’t stand in the way.

          • Roald J. Larsen

            If you just going to spew nonsense, disregarding and not reading my posts, it’s safe to say, WE’RE DONE!

          • ekofreek

            because I’m not interested in propaganda? sorry about that. it’s been a pleasure.

          • Finrod Felagund

            If you’re not interested in propaganda, then you wouldn’t be pushing your warmist bull$hit.

          • JohnB

            ekofreek. Sorry to come in late but you seem a reasonable person. There are a few problems with your logic. You keep asking about “orgs” that support this or that. How many and who supports or rejects an idea has no bearing on its validity. These are logical fallacies known as “Appeal to Popularity” and “Appeal to Authority”.

            Similarly you appear to think that being a sceptic means ignoring the properties of CO2. It doesn’t. Do you know what Arrhenius actually said? All other things being equal, temps will rise by about 1 degree C for a doubling of CO2. In a chaotic world, all other things aren’t equal of course but there is zero empirical evidence for any form of catastrophe.

            There is no accelerating warming, in fact the three warming periods since 1850 are exactly the same to the nearest 1/100th of a degree per decade. The best fit to the temp curve is a gentle .5 degree/Century rise with a 60 year cycle superimposed. Perhaps you can answer a question? If the temp rise is due to CO2 as you think, why did the temps in Japan begin rising in the 1600s?

            You might also consider this. When the IPCC discussed paleoclimatology, the sciences of History, Archaeology and Palaeontology were not consulted. I find this quite odd, if I wanted to know anything else about the conditions in Roman Times I’d ask a Historian, wouldn’t you?

          • ekofreek

            You talk about zero empirical evidence when the whole world is rapidly warming, seas rising, raining in Antarctica, 30 degrees above normal in the Arctic… I could go on for an hour with empirical evidence.

          • JohnB

            Rapidly warming? Really? Compared to what? Certainly, if you only use the last 2,000 years and the Hockey stick you might conclude that, but a reasonable person doesn’t ignore inconvenient data. How does the warming of the last 150 years compare to the last 400,000 years. The words, mild and unremarkable apply.

            You appear to suffer from the idea that the planet doesn’t change in a short time without the help of humans. This idea is simply false. The fall of the Early and Middle Kingdoms in Egypt were directly due to climate change. The Nile stopped flooding because the monsoons that fed the river failed, suddenly, constantly and for hundreds of years. Tiahuanaco in Bolivia went from a thriving city of tens of thousands that was a food exporter to a desolate place that could barely support 4,000 people in 40 odd years. The climate changed.

            Harlech Castle, Beaumaris Castle, both of these were on the sea shore when built, look at them now. The peninsula that William the Conqueror landed on in 1066 is now several miles inland.

            The sea levels are always rising or falling, the land is always rising or falling. To point with alarm at the fact the sea level changes is as silly as worrying about the tide going in and out. BTW, exactly what long term temperature records are you using to decide what “normal” is in the Arctic?

            I also point out that proof of warming is not proof of cause. Suppose I put forward a theory that said the world would warm due to Unicorn farts, the extra methane causing the warming. does the fact that the world has warmed in the last 150 years validate the existence of Unicorn farts? Of course not.

            But here’s the temp record for the last 400k years or so. The “Rapid warming” that you are worried about is the little uptick at the right hand end.

          • ekofreek

            because the climate changes doesn’t mean we’re not changing it. No one wants it to be true, but it is. You don’t get a vote on the properties of CO2. We are disrupting the climate and switching to renewable energy to mitigate the problem. You don’t think there is the slightest chance you are wrong, but you can’t cite a single science org that agrees with you.

          • JohnB

            I notice that you didn’t actually answer a single one of my questions or refute any point. 😉

            Of course the fact that the climate changes doesn’t mean that we don’t effect it, we probably do. The question is how and how much. If you want to claim that there is a looming crisis then you have to show that something unusual is happening. Can you do that? There’s the rub, you can’t.

            We don’t vote on the properties of CO2, but those properties include that temps will rise for a doubling by only 1 degree C (roughly) If you want to claim a higher rise than that then you have to show that the feedbacks are positive and have a greater then 100% value. This has never been shown in a lab or the actual climate. You’re lacking in proof of concept here. (Again)

            You stated “We are disrupting the climate”, if this is true then you must be able to show some evidence that something unusual is happening. Can you provide some? Anything? Or is it just a statement unsupported by facts?

            Please don’t try and tell me what I think, it just makes you look foolish. If I didn’t question my thoughts, would I be reading as many climate papers as I do? I’d rather be doing far more interesting things, believe me.

            Once again you resort to logical fallacies. You seem to attach great value to the popularity of an idea with various orgs so let’s deal with this and why it’s nonsensical for a number of reasons.
            1. Appeal to authority. Just because an authority agrees with an idea doesn’t make it right. Many authorities in the early 20th Century backed the idea of Eugenics.
            2. Appeal to popularity. Just because an idea is popular doesn’t make it true. A cursory examination of the Salem witch trials demonstrates how the populace and very learned judges and lawyers accepted as fact that women were having sex with bats and bearing cats.
            3. None of those orgs that you revere actually put it to a vote. So a vote for the consensus means that 3 people out of 5 in the committee were in favour. It says nothing about the opinions of the 50,000 or so members.
            4. Reality does not come from consensus, breakthroughs are always opposed by the consensus. Using “Consensus” as a measure you would have been against these ideas as they went against the consensus of the day;
            A: Continental Drift theory.
            B: Germ Theory
            C: Washing hands as good hygiene in medicine.
            D: Evolutionary Theory.
            E: Big Bang theory
            F: Copernican Heliocentric planetary theory

            All of these ideas, and many more went against the consensus and you are arguing that we should follow the “Consensus” now?

            How about you argue facts and science instead of obfuscation and you try to refute my points and answer the questions?

          • ekofreek

            A consensus is reached when after a long long time, no experiments, no scientists except some geniuses on right wing comment threads, are able to refute the consensus. OF course to you that’s proof that the consensus is wrong.

          • JohnB

            Science is not about consensus, consensus is pure politics and nothing more. As I said read and understand exactly what “Appeal to Popularity” is. There used to be a consensus that Rogue Waves did not exist, and a consensus that Eugenics and sterilisation was good and that Phlogiston was what made things burn.

            There is the consensus by the majority of people on the planet (and the scholars that study the subject) that there is a God of some sort. Which God do you believe in because of consensus?

          • SaguaroJack49

            He can’t argue in the scientific sense, Roald. He can only parrot nonsense.

          • Finrod Felagund

            We don’t trust you because you lie through your teeth.

          • ekofreek

            take a chill pill. so much anger must make you a genius to outthink every science or on the planet. where do you teach, trump university?

          • Finrod Felagund

            You’ve got a serious case of projection going there, loser boy. It must really infuriate you that your whole global warning scam is going down the tubes.

          • Finrod Felagund

            Take your pseudo-science and shove it up your fourth point of contact where it came from. No warming in the 21st century at all, fool!

          • SaguaroJack49

            Thanks for all these sources, Roald. We honest seekers of the truth can use them. Lefties like ecofreek have no use for all this infor you have provided. You’re wasting your time because ecofreek can’t be bothered to look at both sides of anything; he makes up his mind first and then seeks out info to buttress what he already thinks. That’s how Lefties “think”.

          • Roald J. Larsen

            I was actually posting it hoping at least one visitor would understand, if not ekofreek.

            Thanks for being that guy 🙂

          • JamesW

            Wrong again, fruitboy.

          • Finrod Felagund

            Nazis are National Socialists, lying fool.

            Thanks for letting us know you are unable to think.

          • Ciampino

            Nazi is a form of socialism just as is Communism and Fascism – that’s why they were great bedfellows in the 1930s and part of the 1940s, until Hitler had this cray idea of invading the USSR.

          • JamesW

            Or working for IPCC or Penn State.

          • ekofreek
          • Roald J. Larsen

            .. clearly this isn’t for you!

          • John
      • jfhdsiu

        Not mine….

      • JamesW

        None that take science seriously. Only those that think science is a “consensus” – and those are all the fruitcakes.

      • Finrod Felagund

        That’s because you define any science org that doesn’t kowtow to your warmist nonsense as not being scientific. Your warmist nonsense doesn’t stand up to the scientific method, fool.

        • ekofreek

          just to point out that”s a very very weak argument. there are no science org that says dumping carbon into the sky has no consquences. CO2 has certain properties. live with it.

          • Ciampino

            Infrared absorber? Water vapor is even better than CO2. However it is next to impossible to control water vapor (think oceans, lakes, atmospheric clouds) so it is not a good vehicle for taxation, to move American taxpayer money to others.

          • ekofreek

            so you move your money to the oil companies, cause they need it. we’re switching to renewables, live with it.

          • Finrod Felagund

            You define any group that disagrees with you as “not science”, when it’s your “climate scientists” that are not scientists, because they have never released their ORIGINAL UNALTERED data like ALL OTHER scientists on the entire planet do.

            CO2 is plant food and doesn’t cause warming, in fact ice cores show that CO2 trails temperature by about 800 years or so. Why is CO2 high currently? Because 800 years ago was the peak of the Medieval Warm Period, another fact that you warmists deny.

      • CruisingTroll

        Really? How could you possibly know that, given that Mann won’t release his data? The data is the “observations”, the rest is his conclusions.

        Data sharing is fundamental to good science. There is no such thing as “proprietary data” when dealing with non-patented basic science. Mann is a fraud. An articulate, well compensate fraud.

        There is trouble in River City.

  • Easy Way #6

    We always knew Mann had nothing under those Calvins.

  • hughglass

    Sic Semper tyrannis.