The courts have ruled that it is malicious to hold a different opinion than self-proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize Winner Michael Mann, so it is too bad he can’t go back in time and retroactively sue the National Academy Of Sciences in 1975.
Mikey says that there was no Northern Hemisphere cooling from 1940 to 1970.
The retroactively malicious National Academy of Sciences reported the opposite in 1975, that there was almost 0.5C cooling during that time.
The graph below shows the malicious National Academy of Sciences graph (pink) overlaid on the Nobel Peace Prize winning Mikey graph at the same scale. Looks like somebody hid the post 1940 decline.
Briffa’s malicious trees closely matched the National Academy of Sciences graph, but Mikey in his infinite wisdom saw fit to hide the decline not use any inconvenient data which wrecked his hypothesis.
The Deleted Portion of the Briffa Reconstruction « Climate Audit
disclaimer : The courts have ruled that it is illegal to hold a different opinion from Michael Mann, who has been vindicated of any wrong doing through several thorough reviews performed by his accomplices peers.
Nobel Prize winner, thorough reviews, vindicated….stop it man you’re killing me.
The courts have ruled that it is malicious to hold a different opinion than self-proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize Winner Michael Mann
Where are you getting this Steve? Did I miss something?
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/07/19/dc-court-affirms-michael-manns-right-to-proceed-in-defamation-lawsuit/
Mann has to be sweating bullets over this. Now he’ll be subject to discovery, and all of his “science” will be out in the open. Note to counselors for the defense: it’s not too early to start work on your Motions to Compel. You’re gonna need them.
Yea, it’s really bad when a scientists’ work is put out for all to see and review……at least when you are Magic Mike and have been playing games with the data and techniques for your entire career…..Oh wait, Magic Mike is not a scientist, he is on a mission to save the world so the ends justify the means in his case.
“At this stage, the evidence before the Court does not amount to a showing of clear and convincing as to “actual malice,” however there is sufficient evidence to find that further discovery may uncover evidence of “actual malice.””
This is a good thing. The court did not say it is malicious to hold a different opinion. Now we can get to proving the endorsements of Mann’s work as authentic or rubbish, and hence, his work as well.