The Canadian court ruled that he didn't have a libel case just because the guy lied about him. The other case against Mark Steyn, who called him a child molester because he worked at Penn State, is still proceeding through the US courts.
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
The Canadian court ruled that he didn't have a libel case just because the guy lied about him. The other case against Mark Steyn, who called him a child molester because he worked at Penn State, is still proceeding through the US courts.
You just can’t handle the truth. The victory for the defense on the defamation claim proved there is no climate change. Ricky logic prevails.
I know I could do a LOT better than my spot in the 1%, that’s for sure. I mean, people are richer than at any time in history!
Thanks for noticing.
#MAGA
“What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it,” Hinderaker wrote. “Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.”
So no verdict? No finding that the hockey stick was fraud? Clear proof of the absence of climate change. If you analyze plumbing problems with this logic, lotsa luck!
That's not quoting the court finding. It is from one of your twitter masters, based on a report from a right-wing website.
Hüsker Dü
DA
These loons are so wrapped up in pretzel logic they believe they, and they alone, have all the answers.
Multi Sport
DA
Yea these lefty loons have lost it!
Did the court ask the Mann to show his work or not?
I just quoted the article I posted. The particular quote is from a lawyer commenting on the case.
Read it again.
The quote is from a rightwing website, quoting a retired lawyer who now writes for another right-wing website. You can look it up.
Explain the significance of "R2 regression", the data requested by the defense in the Canadian court case. You can look that up too. Just restate it in terms that even Izzy can understand.
You have an established reputation as a sucker for any wingnut tweet you read, but it is reassuring of you to provide regular reminders.
Since you consider anything you dont agree with, "right wing", your response is not surprising.
Did the judge ask Mann to show his work or not?
My understanding is that Mann was given a deadline and failed to provide his "proof".
This is not news. Driving around Oceanside you can see wave-cut cliffs more than a hundred feet above the current sea level. As the article you quoted points out, that happens when the land-borne glacial ice melts off. What do you think is happening now?
I just posted a link to something I find interesting and germane to the thread topic.
Why the hysterical response?
Did you look up R2 regression yet?
I don't consider a website to be anything until I research its background. I also researched the background of Dr. Ball, the defendant in the Canadian case that got you so excited. He has a long history of stretching his qualifications, doing things like claiming to be a long-term professor of climatology when, in fact, he was a short-term professor of geography. You can look it up.
Dr.Ball is a statistician. He used a proof defense and the judge asked Mann to provide certain requested proofs of his work.
Mann refused to provide his proof and the case was tossed.
Dr. Mann lost.
Why does that upset you?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Ricky is pretty logical.