O'Toole declares 'the debate is over' on climate change, but his party's grassroots d

[chuckChuck]

Chuck, you are trolling again.

Call it what you want. I could care less. Your words or lack of words and record stand for themselves.

[tmyrfield]

You fail to mention that the motion for summary judgement by Steyn, which the defense statement you posted supported, failed and the libel suit against Steyn is continuing. That statement does not prove Mann's work was fraudulent and in fact in deposition the witnesses the defense called which are named in the statement made it clear they did not find Mann committed fraud. Scientists disagree all the time. But simply disagreeing does not mean one side or the other committed fraud.

The hockey stick graph was published 23 years ago. In that time period, after multiple investigations by US and UK governments, Penn State, and the National Science Foundation, no one or no body has proved that Mann committed fraud. He has never been tried and found guilty of fraud. Yet there are those like Steyn (and AF5) who continue to claim he committed fraud and that is the reason Steyn is being sued for libel by Mann.

You can disagree with any person's conclusions all you want. You can argue the science behind a theory. But unless you can prove that a person/scientist knowingly falsified data you can be held libel for accusing them of fraud. That is what the current Mann vs Steyn case is about and nothing in that statement you linked to proves Mann committed fraud. It only shows disagreement with his methods or findings.

Go ahead and keep defending mann and Penn state.

Penn state covered up the child ****s that jerry sandusky committed over a period of many years. If the university would cover up something as horrific as child **** most people would conclude that they would have little trouble defending fraud on a climate paper.

If you had actually read the statement of facts submitted to a court of law you would see many conclusions from many people including Judith Currey and McIntyre and McKitrick that the paper was fraudulent.

By supporting institutions such as penn state and the people they are covering for tells me more about yourself than any facts that you are trying to refute. It's no wonder you cower behind a fake name.

[dmlfarmer]

Go ahead and keep defending mann and Penn state.

Penn state covered up the child ****s that jerry sandusky committed over a period of many years. If the university would cover up something as horrific as child **** most people would conclude that they would have little trouble defending fraud on a climate paper.

If you had actually read the statement of facts submitted to a court of law you would see many conclusions from many people including Judith Currey and McIntyre and McKitrick that the paper was fraudulent.

By supporting institutions such as penn state and the people they are covering for tells me more about yourself than any facts that you are trying to refute. It's no wonder you cower behind a fake name.

Jerry Sandusky was arrested, charged, and convicted for his crimes. None of this has happened to Mann in the 23 years since his graph was published despite multiple investigations. To accuse him of something because his employer "covered up" the crimes of another is pretty weak evidence.

Judith Currey, under oath in her depostition did not say his work was fraudulent:
"In his new motion, Mann argues that the defendants’ positions in the case have been weakened significantly because their own witnesses declined to testify that the Penn State scientist committed scientific misconduct or fraud.
“I’m not making a judgment on that. I’m agnostic on it,” Judith Curry, a prominent contrarian and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, testified when deposed by Mann’s lawyers. Instead, Curry said, she was only testifying as to “whether it’s reasonable for the general public or a journalist or a whatever to regard this as fraud.” Another defense witness, statistician Abraham Wyner of the University of Pennsylvania, testified that in his opinion, the hockey stick was “not a deception,” although he thought it misleading. Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder conceded during his deposition that when he blogged about allegations against Mann in 2010, he had written, “None of this rises to scientific misconduct or fraud, not even close.” https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07022021/michael-mann-defamation-lawsuit-competitive-enterprise-institute-national-review/

So because Penn state covered up Sandusky this somehow makes Mann less credible? How many children have catholic priests abused? Does this make every Catholic guilty of whatever someone decides to write about them without any proof or trial?

And your arguments tell me a lot about you in that it seems you feel one is guilty of what ever they are accused of unless they prove their innocence as long as it fits your bias unlike most Canadians who believe in innocent until proven guilty.

No one that I know of has has ever proven Mann committed fraud. He has never been charged, tried, or convicted of fraud. Yet AF5 uses him as an example of fraud and stated: "The outright frauds such as Michael Mann..." All I wanted to know is what proof is AF5 using to back up this serious allegation.

[Happytrails]

Settled science.

Since observation is central to science I would direct interested parties to check out the weather almanacs at the AGCM weather stations in Alberta. There has been a very noticeable drop in corn heat units and growing degree days in the last decade.

[fjlip]

How about 100 scary years, within margin of error....next leg on graph will be DOWN!