This just in. Here’s a potential bombshell for the Mann:
========================================================
Popcorn futures* continue their unprecedented climb:
UPDATE: Sunday 10/28 Mark Steyn writes an uproariously funny but at the same time stinging evisceration of Dr. Mann on his private website titled The fraudulent Nobel Laureate
This part says it all, I’d make it “Quote of the Week”, but then I don’t want to fragment this thread:
When a man sues for damage to his reputation and grossly inflates that reputation in the very court filings, that says something about his credibility.
He also links to this thoughtful essay by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
Mann’s embellishment has placed him in a situation where his claims are being countered by the Nobel organization itself.
*There are no popcorn futures markets, the graph is based on a corn future market graph, just for fun
Read Steyn’s latest here: The fraudulent Nobel Laureate
============================================================
Mark Steyn takes note of the airbrushing going on in Mike’s Nobel Trick:
A week ago, Michael Mann accused us of damaging his reputation – and seems to have made it a self-fulfilling prophecy. A week ago, he was a “Nobel prize recipient”. Now he’s not. Great work, Mike!
Dr. Judith Curry sends some advice in her week in review:
“JC message to Michael Mann: Mark Steyn is [a] formidable opponent. I suspect that this is not going to turn out well for you.”
Read more at JudithCurry.com
————————————————————–
FLASH: 10/26 7:30AM The Nobel committee responds to Mann’s “certificate”, says he can’t claim he won it (the Nobel prize itself).
See below. – ALSO National Review makes phone call to Nobel committee, audio and transcript below.
NOTE: This is a top sticky post for awhile since the interest is high. New stories appear below this one. UPDATE – legal complaint added, plus a new opinion piece by Chris Horner regarding claims of exoneration has been added – see below the “continue reading” line. UPDATE2: Steyn responds, see below.
UPDATE 3: Steyn responds even further, saying:
“Over the years, I’ve been sued and threatened with suits in various countries around the world but I’ve never before seen a plaintiff make such a transparently false assertion right up front in the biographical resumé.”
Details (and a photo to back up Steyn) below.
UPDATE4: CEI officially responds to the lawsuit, and Steyn mocks Mann even more with a priceless zinger, see below.
In related news, popcorn futures explode go nuclear.
More details to follow.
From Michael Mann’s Facebook page.
Lawsuit filed against The National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute 10/22/12
Today, the case of Dr. Michael E. Mann vs. The National Review and The Competitive Enterprise Institute was filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Dr. Mann, a Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, has instituted this lawsuit against the two organizations, along with two of their authors, based upon their false and defamatory statements accusing him of academic fraud and comparing him to a convicted child molester, Jerry Sandusky. Dr. Mann is being represented by John B. Williams of the law firm of Cozen O’Connor in Washington, D.C. (http://www.cozen.com/attorney_detail.asp?d=1&atid=1406).
Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”
Nevertheless, the defendants assert that global warming is a “hoax,” and have accused Dr. Mann of improperly manipulating the data to reach his conclusions.
In response to these types of accusations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation and seven other organizations have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann’s work, finding any and all allegations of academic fraud to be baseless. Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.
Despite their knowledge of the results of these many investigations, the defendants have nevertheless accused Dr. Mann of academic fraud and have maliciously attacked his personal reputation with the knowingly false comparison to a child molester. The conduct of the defendants is outrageous, and Dr. Mann will be seeking judgment for both compensatory and punitive damages.
Journalists interested in further information regarding the filing of this lawsuit may contact Dr. Mann’s attorney at 202-912-4848, or jbwilliams@cozen.com.
==============================================================
I’m sure Mark Steyn is thrilled with the prospect of now being able to do additional commentary on this side show. I can’t wait for depositions and discovery.
UPDATES:
Here is the legal complaint: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf
Chris Horner has this opinion piece now which explains his opinion on why Dr. Michael Mann was never fully investigated and thus never exonerated.
Mark Steyn responds with: I’ll have more to say about this when I’ve stopped laughing.
Mark Steyn writes in a further update:
Actually, it’s worse than that. I’ve just read the official indictment or whatever you call it against NR, and he makes the claim that he has been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” in the complaint itself (page 2, paragraph 2).
Over the years, I’ve been sued and threatened with suits in various countries around the world but I’ve never before seen a plaintiff make such a transparently false assertion right up front in the biographical resumé.
And I’ve got the photo of Dr. Mann’s award (shown from his office window) to back up what Steyn says here.
Note it says “for contributing to” not awarded to.
Be careful, don’t choke on your popcorn while laughing.
UPDATE4:
CEI has released it’s official statement on the lawsuit on their website here: http://cei.org/news-releases/climate-scientist-sues-cei
The say:
One of our attorneys, Bruce D. Brown of Baker Hostetler, expertly laid out the legal arguments against Mann’s defamation claim. In short, Dr. Mann is a public figure, and under libel law he would need to meet an exceedingly high standard to prevail. Given the support that Simberg’s criticisms rest on, that standard simply can’t be met. As for Simberg’s Sandusky metaphor, it was purely that—a metaphor.
They are also inviting readers to comment on the CEI Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/CompetitiveEnterpriseInstitute/posts/428205930566869
Meanwhile, Mark Steyn whips out an example of his rapier wit over Mann’s “Nobel Prize” claims (see photo above) writing:
On the one hand, Michael Mann’s own web page:
He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.
On the other, the Nobel committee:
Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize.
So we’re being sued for loss of reputation by a fake Nobel laureate. Hilarious.
=============================================================
FLASH The Nobel committee responds to Mann’s “certificate” From Tom Richard at Climate Change Dispatch and at The Examiner
I contacted the The Norwegian Nobel Institute to find out if Mann was indeed a Nobel Laureate, winner, etc…
…snip…
Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, or The Norwegian Nobel Institute emailed me back with the following:
1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.
3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.
(NOTE: on point 3, another example here (PDF) suggests that the IPCC added that text, not Mann – Anthony)
Lundestad goes on to say that, “Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not.”
Full story at Climate Change Dispatch and at The Examiner
=================================================================
ALSO: From NRO’s “The Corner” a call to the Nobel committee by Charles C. W. Cooke:
TRANSCRIPT
Cooke: Hello there, do you speak English?
Nobel Committee: Yes, can I help you?
Cooke: I’m a writer. I’m wondering if I could ask you about previous winners of the Nobel Peace Prize?
Nobel Committee: Oh, could you speak a little bit louder. It’s difficult for me to hear.
Cooke: Sorry. I’m trying to look for some information about previous winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Nobel Committee: Which one?
Cooke: I was wondering, has Dr. Michael Mann ever won the Nobel Peace Prize?
Nobel Committee: No, no. He has never won the Nobel prize.
Cooke: He’s never won it?
Nobel Committee: No.
Cooke: Oh, it says on his-
Nobel Committee: The organization won it. It’s not a personal prize to people belonging to an organization.
Cooke: Okay. So if I were to write that he’d won it, that would be incorrect?
Nobel Committee: That is incorrect, yes. Is it you that sent me an email today? I got an e-mail from our Stockholm office regarding Michael Mann.
Cooke: Oh. No, I didn’t send you an e-mail.
Nobel Committee: Oh. So what’s your name?
Cooke: My name is Charles Cooke.
Nobel Committee: And you work for?
Cooke: I write for National Review.
Nobel Committee: Okay, because I’ve got something from Boston and NY Mental Examiner that asked about the same thing.
Cooke: Oh, okay. Well maybe this is a big question. Okay, but he hasn’t won it. That is the answer.
Nobel Committee: No, he has not won it at all.
Cooke: Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much.
Nobel Committee: Thank you. You’re welcome. Bye bye.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
eliza says: Looks like google news has banned ANY reference to stories about his Nobel doings
Add “Nobel” & “never” ; that way you will get Two stories…
(rolls eyes)
“Looks like google news has banned ANY reference to stories about his Nobel doings” …
Well well.
Is this … Collusion?
Just how much PSU vie NSF money did “Dr.” Mann pay to Google Corp.?
Investigative minds want to know … and report to the … Authorities.
I am …
Mann’s fixation on his “award” of the Nobel Peace Prize says everything about his ego and his true motivation: he seeks fame.
I fear he will only reap infamy.
TBear says:
October 28, 2012 at 2:55 am
Let me explain (the Bear is an experienced trial lawyer).
The Bear ain’t no troll and is an experienced trial lawyer.
——————————————–
Defendants say: `Oh, can we have access to Mann’s records, please?’
Judge says: `Why.’
Defendants: `So we can prove what we have alleged against Mann.’
Judge: `So you have made these allegations of serious professional misconduct against Mann with no proof?’
Defendants: `No we have the proof.’
Judge: `Excellent, so there is no need for discovery of Mann’s documents. Let’s get on with the trial.’
If the defendants say: `We have no proof, just suspicions and theories we would like to test against Mann’s documents’.
The Judge will say: `You’re kidding me, right? You cannot ask for discovery to test a theory. Application denied.’
I
+++++++++++++++++
ROTFLMAO Don’t go away TBear you supply such excellent comedy. Please forgive me for asking you to make (as a Wordsmith) a minuscule correction. In Aussie you call yourself a Solicitor NOT a Trial Lawyer. And once you have learned this minor fact please please provide us all with example (as a Solicitor- remember?) where the discovery process is not designed to reveal proof?
In the third person of course………
As much fun as it is to watch the plaintiff wallowing around in the manure of his own inflated, hypersensitive ego, the prize problem is one easily corrected with an amended complaint. It is peripheral to his claim. This is a distraction. He is a fool already being tossed under the bus by his peers (see Briffa’s latest) But Mann chose this small court for a reason. Either the judge is already compromised or the court, or both. Also, there is a good question about discovery. It will be more subtle than being a fishing expedition, especially if the judicial part of this is already in the tank.
James Allison says:
October 28, 2012 at 6:44 pm
ROTFLMAO Don’t go away TBear you supply such excellent comedy. Please forgive me for asking you to make (as a Wordsmith) a minuscule correction. In Aussie you call yourself a Solicitor NOT a Trial Lawyer. And once you have learned this minor fact please please provide us all with example (as a Solicitor- remember?) where the discovery process is not designed to reveal proof?
In the third person of course ….
_____________
Of course, my fine ignoramus friend.
The phrase `trial lawyer’ is an acceptable usage in Oz. But, and so sorry to tell, a solicitor is the opposite of a trial lawyer in Oz and the UK, for that matter.
In Oz the usual name for a trial lawyer is a barrister – we are the ones who wear the horsehair wigs, black gowns, bar jackets and white jabots. No idea what a jabot is, James Allison? A bit too cultured for you, no doubt.
Now, James Allison, it is actually illegal to be both a barrister and a solicitor (solicitors do the office work, barristers concentrate solely on trials) in most Australian jurisdictions; as a federal system we have state courts and a federal court structure, not unlike the USA.
So I am sorry, James Allison, your contention that an Australian trial lawyer is known as a solicitor is about as wrong as you could possibly be on this particular point. Best to check your facts before choosing to be a smart-ass, seems to be today’s lesson for James Allison.
As to your question (if it can be so described):` … please please provide us all with example … where the discovery process is not designed to reveal proof?’.
James Allison, I have no idea what you are on about. You appear to lack that minimal grasp of grammar required to formulate a clear proposition in written English.
So we have demonstrated ignorance and rank illiteracy in the one posting! Congratulations James Allison. You are a true champion!
The Bear wins, as usual.
James Allison says:
October 28, 2012 at 5:21 pm
“The cleansing of Mann’s lies off the Penn State Website has started. Followed by Wikipedia.”
In the legal world, this is known as “consciousness of guilt” evidence. In other words, this is the kind of action that would likely NOT be taken by a person whose position is one of truth, but WOULD be taken by a person seeking to hide evidence of their malfeasance. It’s the same kind of evidence used when a driver who causes a fatal accident races away from the scene instead of waiting for the police to arrive so that they can explain what happened. An honest person does not need, immediately after filing a civil suit based upon their reputation in the community, to go back through every malleable record of that reputation and remove apparently untruthful content they themselves had placed there.
FYI, consciousness of guilt evidence is not only admissible in a court of law (in the US, at least, which is the relevant jurisdiction), but it is SPECIFICALLY FLAGGED TO THE JURY as such. In other words, the jury is SPECIFICALLY instructed by the judge that this kind of behavior can be considered by them as evidence of the person’s (in this case Mann’s) bad conduct.
Anyone want to guess how that typically works out for the claimant?
TBear says:
October 28, 2012 at 7:20 pm
“The Bear wins, as usual.”
Ah, yes. *yawn*
On Mann’s Facebook page he wrote this comment last Friday.
“Its sort of funny how the rabble don’t seem too interested in the fact that many other IPCC co-authors (e.g. University of Montana scientists Steve Running) have found the IPCC’s official commendation to lead authors (“contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize”) translated to having been co-awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Running) or e.g. as “scientist shares in Nobel Peace Prize” (http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_6588bc94-6eac-5dc4-ad97-49b333e2071b.html). Where’s the outrage climate change deniers?”
Fellow Rabblers. My comment is not about what he wrote but how little support he now gets from his admirers. When I looked a few minutes ago there were only 15 comments in support of Mann or attacks against the Rabble. There were of course no unsupportive comments. I asked him if he cared to comment about Wiki and Penn State correcting his various statements about receiving the Nobel Peace Prize and was duly deleted and banned within 5 minutes. This got me wondering what the ratio of unsupportive to supportive comments would be if he wasn’t hitting his delete button – presumably rather rapidly.
I reckon he has just realised that his Titanic is sinking.
Pielke Jr reckons this
In Mann’s lawsuit he characterizes himself as having been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.” Mann’s claim is what might be called an embellishment
————
Well in Mann’s legal docs it sort of sounds like that, but the phrasing is ambiguous and likely formulated by Mann’s lawyer, not Mann himself. That phrase could reasonably be interpreted as Mann considering himself central contributing member of the IPCC team.
Since Pielke himself is not immune to sloppy and imprecise language, maybe he should cut Mann or more likely Mann’s lawyer some slack on this stuff.
TBear says:
October 28, 2012 at 7:20 pm
==============================
Nice try TrollBear but the correct answer is that Solicitors and Barristers can both operate in the court however in the higher courts the Barrister is usually retained by a Solicitor to act on their instructions.
=============================
James Allison, I have no idea what you are on about. You appear to lack that minimal grasp of grammar required to formulate a clear proposition in written English.
So we have demonstrated ignorance and rank illiteracy in the one posting! Congratulations James Allison. You are a true champion!
The Bear wins, as usual.
=============================
Troll Bear: E for effort and A for achievement. Read your ridiculous pretend exchange between Judge and Defendants again then make another attempt.
How IS your day going in the Higher Courts of Sydney this very fine early Monday afternoon TrollBear Barrister? Taking time out from from your Trial Lawyering to do a bit of Blogging are we?
TBear says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:07 pm
As matters stand, in the Bear’s view, Mann is favorite to win.
———————————————————————-
You have tried to say that, you believe a lawsuit has a chance of winning,
when the person accused of inaccuracies and fraudulent claims,
makes inaccurate and fraudulent claims,
in his complaint.
About having been awarded the Nobel peace prize.
You believe this is a winning suit.
LoL.
@TBear: MM’s complaint includes: “3. Neverthless, the Defendants, for business and other reasons, assert that global warming is a “hoax” and have accused Dr Mann of improperly manipulating the underlying data to reach his conclusions”; “5. It is one thing to engage in discussions about debatable topics. It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.”
I can only speak for UK procedure (I believe Oz procedure is very similar) where justification (eg that MM did “improperly manipulate the underlying data”) would just have to be *raised* in the pleadings for discovery to apply automatically to all documents showing any “manipulation” processes applied to the data, at any time in MM’s possession or power. I think (in the UK) it would be Dr Mann himself that would be making an early application to limit discovery.
But the real point is: the Bear is sounding less than convincing as an Oz “trial lawyer”. Grrr back to you too, from the Home country.
TBear says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Tell U what, let’s all wait and see what happens, eh?
As matters stand, in the Bear’s view, Mann is favorite to win.
————
You believe a man
called dishohest
because he published inaccuracies and falsehoods
can win a suit wherein he posits inaccurately and falsely,
he was awarded no less than
the Nobel Peace Prize.
You think, that’s a winning lawsuit.
LoL.
Will the NRO/CEI defense team call Briffa as a friendly witness?
If so would the Mann team consider him a hostile witness?
Popcorn stockpiles needed.
John
TBear says:
October 28, 2012 at 7:20 pm
I’ve always found that people like you who are NASTY in calling others names, generally lose. If you had strength of argument you wouldn’t need the nastiness.
So we’ll see how your nastiness plays out, Mr. Tbear. We’ll see.
If Mann’s legal team desperately looks at this WUWT thread for any legal straw to grasp, will they argue in court in the 3rd person per the advice of the yet to be identified illeist cum yet to be confirmed trial lawyer allegedly from Sydney?
More popcorn stockpiles.
John
@TBear Thank you for your brief response to me. I’m quite dejected that you should consider me unable to grasp the concept of irony given the manner in which i couched my previous comment to you. Sadly one must try harder.
Thank you to @richardscourtney who was more capable of spotting it.
Now if i may address a few matters of the case? You will have to bear with me here ( no pun intended ) as I’m not an academic of lofty towers, indeed my areas of expertise lie in the construction of buildings and ships from timber with a previous career waging war and liberating sovereign states from tyranny.
You have high confidence in Mann winning. This is something I can’t share. Whilst the complaint is long it revolves around two main points, neither of which should be allowed to get to court in my opinion.
The first that Mann has been compared to notorious paedophile Sandusky. A quick read of the articles shows that to be patently untrue. Even a dull-witted plebeian such as myself can see that the part of the article dealing with Sandusky and Penn State U was directed at the University and their apparent ability to hold investigations of wrongdoing that are unable to find fault due to a startling concept of not actually looking for any wrongdoing.
The point is Mann was in no way compared to Sandusky when the article is read in context. No reasonable person could take from the article that was the case and as Mann is a public person in the Us should he actually be allowed to fight this complaint he will have to prove actual malice. Hard work.
The second ans main complaint is that Mann was accused of academic fr@ud although this phrase never appears in the articles at any time. The defendants used a term along the lines of “…author of the fraudulent hockey stick graph…”.
I happen to think that’s a quite true and valid statement to use. It does not allege a fr@ud but it does say that the graph is incorrect. And that has to be true. It erases two well known periods temperature swings from the temperature record. Whatever else is wrong with Mann’s work the graph he produced is incorrect and false. We have archaeological and anecdotal records to show the Roman Warm Period and Little Ice Age existed so don’t need a proxy to show it.
This is why I believe that the graph, in and of itself can be called fr@udulent. Not in any criminal way and it’s a poor choice of word but it serves the purpose to state the graph as false.
That’s my opinion on these two matters and I’d be interested to read what you think. But please bear two things in mind. I am not a lawyer, I’m just a base, lowly citizen, the sort that might end up as soylent green in an alternative future and also that US libel law is very, very different to the UK law ( which I expect yours is closely based-upon ) and they have a much more rigorous tests. That’s why Most prominent Americans try to get their Libel fought in London.
I’d rather not get into the discovery as I’m out of my comfort zone there but I’m sure the defendants will have a good enough team to fight as well as they can for their clients.
And also @tbear ( as I wait for my rather lengthy response to you to appear, it has made it to the spam bin again, despite my best efforts to be careful with my language )
This business of trial lawyer in Australia. I’m not familiar with it and am surprised to learn that barristers refer to themselves as such. I was also surprised to read that it is illegal to be both a solicitor and a barrister when in fact in Australia the two professions are split in New South Wales and Queensland ( much as they are in England ) yet in the rest of Australia the two professions are fused. I’d expect that this would be difficult to police being ‘illegal’
Nobody seems to have realized yet that in a thread about Michael Mann, the Bear has shown up…
All that’s left is the pig!
don’t say that, you’ll make it snow.
cn
The Bear has just read the complete filing.
It is a pretty gutsy (pulls no punches) and convincing document.
One weakness that stands out in the filing, is the repetitive use of the term, `climate change deniers’. That is not smart drafting and may be a bit of an Achilles heel, for Mann.
The other surprising reference is to Mann”s `original data’, said to be `still available’ and which will probably become discoverable. Mann does not seem worried by this, with the filing quickly moving on to emphasize that he is a model maker – an interpreter of data, rather than an observational scientist. This is as big shield to hide behind, in a debate over the `truth’ of the underlying science.
On the basis of the filing, no experienced trial lawyer could seriously suggest that Mann does not have a good chance of winning. He might also lose.
Even if the judge finds Mann is a public figure, that does not give anyone an open license to slag him out and accuse him of scientific fraud. There are limits.
The Bear rates Mann 65% chance of success, discounting the child molester allegation – which should have been left out of the complaint or simply referred to in passing as as `color’.
The overwhelming theme of the filing is that Mann absolutely believes he is right and will be vindicated.
Interesting …
“But what do you call a man who uses someone else’s purported achievements for that purpose? An imposter just doesn’t cut it, because that doesn’t cover the circumstance that he clearly believes the deception himself. ”
Surely it’s Walter Mitty.
from the guy Steyn’s paper: (this is Pielke’s quote, if you c/p it you’ll find it both at Pielke’s place and the paper where Steyn writes satire and commentary:
” …Penn State University, whose willingness to police its own is what my original Corner post was actually about, has an official faculty policy on such things:
Academic integrity includes a commitment by all members of the University community not to engage in or tolerate acts of falsification, misrepresentation or deception. Such acts of dishonesty violate the fundamental ethical principles of the University community and compromise the worth of work completed by others.
The American Academy of Arts and Sciences also has something to say on the subject of “falsification of credentials”:
* * *Although falsification of credentials is not unique to the scientific community, ORI [the Office of Research Integrity] and NSF [National Science Foundation] hold that when researchers lie about their credentials, such conduct constitutes scientific misconduct.* * *
Hmm. What about committing “scientific misconduct” in a legal complaint complaining that you’ve been falsely accused of committing “scientific misconduct”?
——————————————
Eli Rabbett quality analysts and various OTHER people
who think there’s no way to check the atmosphere
ffor a rise in gas-associated light spectra
are here to tell us they think Michael Mann
representing himself IN THE ACTUAL LAWSUIT as a NOBEL LAUREATE
is doing fine.
These are the same people who told us they thought we better shut down civilization because magic gas could signal the end of stable climatic evolution. If it got more than about a thousand ppm.
When the U.S. Navy designs nuclear submarine air circulation systems to tolerate from ten to twenty times that amount.
Men who dwell with their finger on the nuclear button
for a half century
with no breaks.
In all these years, the many men who took electronic engineering, physics, nuclear engineering, not one of them
In all these years, the many men who designed, reviewed, maintained, rebuilt, repaired, upgraded these ventilation systems,
not one of them,
Not one – ever noticed that sneaky ‘when the carbon dioxide goes up, magical heat-handling properties are evinced’ thing
showing up.
Not one of the nuclear, and electrical, and electronic engineers, and the theoretical and applied physics phds on submarines,
with nothing to do off-shift,
but think about physics in the world around them and how to amuse themselves while looking for that EASY A,
for that IMPORTANT PAPER,
not ONE of them ever noticed magic gas in submarine ventilation systems.
Yet about six hicks who think we don’t have a way to check the atmosphere
for whether the amount of a certain color infrared light is building in the atmosphere
want us to chide ourselves
for not believing Mann has a case.
And for not believing Mann’s magical math
which makes hockey sticks
but can still accurately foretell doomsday
when used on a bunch of tree rings
to make THEM
Magical
Treemomiturs
is to be viewed as perfectly sound scientific endeavor.
October 28, 2012 at 8:07 am | Otter says:
brooksie, don’t insult autistic people. Autistic people are geniuses compared to you, And your buddy mann.
—————————————
Minor correction, Otter … Brooksie’s UWA mate is Lewandowsky; he hasn’t been accepted into the Mann sanctum as yet. He’s trying though !