From the unlimited self-adulation department and the Manntastic Television Network, comes this video.
If anyone out there has recently ingested poison, here’s just what you need to induce vomitting.
Meanwhile, while Mann ups the alarm, real-world data shows there is nothing to fear: Inconvenient Truth: Climate-related death risk down 99.6% over 100 years
Planned Harvard balloon test in Sweden stirs solar geoengineering unease
https://news.trust.org/item/20201218140025-po1gu
“We’re not after truth here.What we’re after is plausible deniability”- Michael Mann from Climategate e mails.
Here’s something more realistic – evidence.
Everything that needs to said about Michael Mann has been said over and over again. Despite the overwhelming amount of condemnation heaped on him he still manages to find someone, prepared to publish in book form, the product of his twisted and tortured mind?.
With that being the situation far too typical in the world today? What hope for enlightened society is there? When the charlatans continue on, unaffected by valid criticisms, no sense of contrition for past well documented unsound science, people actually being applauded for completely bogus stories, think David Attenborough and tumbling walrus for a prime example. It begs the question.
What can we do to bring the masses back to healthy questioning of the “science”? When having done exactly that, the fraudsters in the AGW movement when found out take absolutely no notice and continue on regardless?
Let me know when he agrees to publish his data, then we’ll talk.
Hopefully unedited, including sources. The problem with his data, as I understand it, is that he obtained it from different sources, and then pick and chose what he wanted from each source in order to obtain the results he was looking for.
He’s got that climate schtick down pat. Oh, and he plays the martyr card like a pro.
Hid books are not exactly flying out the door so to speak . His 2013 book The hockey schtick and something else ? is rated on Amazon at 191,580 in Books .
May Mann and NRO BOTH lose!
What a poor, poor victim of his own ‘repeat after me until everyone remembers it my way’ non-scientific opinion … who someone mistakenly allowed to graduate.
Ingest this…
WSJ
WASHINGTON—The Environmental Protection Agency is issuing new rules that will give preference in future decisions about public health to scientific studies that disclose their underlying data.
Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the changes are aimed at increasing transparency so that the public has a chance to scrutinize findings that underlie major regulations.
“By shining light on the science we use in decisions, we are helping to restore trust in government,” Mr. Wheeler wrote in a commentary published by The Wall Street Journal late Monday. “We want the EPA to be able to say, ‘you can check our work.’”
The policy change, in the works since the start of the Trump administration, has been opposed by public-health experts, scientists and former staff who say it could undermine the agency’s effectiveness.
Many public-health studies rely on information about individual patient health that is required to be kept confidential, which may now exclude groundbreaking health findings from EPA consideration, these critics say.
The rules apply to the EPA’s consideration of “dose-response studies,” used to figure out how much exposure to a chemical or pollutant increases the risk to a person’s health. Those determinations are fundamental to many core EPA rules on public health.
In future decisions, the agency must now give greater consideration to studies in this area in which underlying dose-response data is available for independent validation. And when it proposes new regulations it must make available that science informing the rule to the public.
The rule won’t categorically exclude any data, Mr. Wheeler wrote, adding that the new practices can be applied without releasing personal information or violating confidentiality.
The rule will prevent agency leaders from trying “to cherry pick research to derive politically helpful results,” he wrote. It outlines specific criteria for when the administrator can make case-by-case exemptions to these requirements.
Several scientists and health experts have questioned Mr. Wheeler’s claims and say it is in many cases impossible to require these types of disclosures without violating patient confidentiality. In the end that is more likely just to narrow what research will be considered, they said.
“If left unchallenged, this rule would essentially bar the agency from using the most relevant medical studies when creating rules about air pollution, toxic chemicals, water contaminants,” Chris Zarba, a former director of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, said in a statement. “The rule…doesn’t ensure transparency in science, but rather is detrimental to high-quality impartial decision-making.”
Mr. Zarba was joined in the statement by other former EPA employees, who say the change will benefit industrial interests by excluding certain types of studies.
They noted the EPA has long had a public-review process for the science it uses, one that includes several review boards and committees of outside experts from academia and industry to ensure transparency and scientific quality.