Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > WUWT Propaganda

Obstructing justice huh?

You reckon?

Chicago police are asking the Feds to investigate and it seems possible that the Mayor of Chicago might go for a re-match with his old foe Mrs O'Blimey which would be entertaining.

Mar 26, 2019 at 10:30 PM | Registered Commentertomo

.

Mar 26, 2019 at 10:31 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Obstructing justice huh?
Mar 26, 2019 at 10:30 PM | tomo

Mann has been playing tricks to obstruct justice, but may have pushed his luck too far

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/26/the-reprehensible-politics-of-michaelemann/

Mar 26, 2019 at 11:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him"
- Robert Mueller

"We have not seen any report that concludes that Phil Clarke committed a crime, but (according to Phil Clarke's own words) that fact does not exonerate him"
- after Robert Mueller

There - using the same logic.

"Sticky mud, anyone want some sticky mud?"

SimonJ

Mar 27, 2019 at 9:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterSimonJ

Simonj, you have no idea what is, or is not in the report, you welcome one of the author's conclusions - no collusion - but you just know he is wrong to say his report provides no exoneration on the claim Dishonest Don obstructed justice.

Inconsistent, putting it mildly!

Mar 27, 2019 at 11:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Now, where the hell is my presumption of innocence? I'm sure I had it yesterday. I must have mislaid it.

SimonJ

Mar 27, 2019 at 12:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimonJ

Ask Dr. Mann, around here he is presumed guilty until found guilty, no evidence required.

You might want to check your dictionary for the definition of exonerate.

Bored now. I did quite well out of the Trump boom, but I'm off now to restructure the portfolio on defensive lines. May as well make some money out of the orange buffoon's economic illiteracy.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=US+Recession+2019

Mar 27, 2019 at 1:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Back on thread, the latest steaming pile at WUWT came out of some orifice of David Archibald's

What the graph shows is the departure from the average for the 30 years from 1981 to 2010. The last data point is February 2019 with a result of -0.03 degrees C. So we have had 40 years of global warming and the temperature has remained flat. In fact it is slightly cooler than the long term average. Is it possible to believe in global warming when the atmosphere has cooled? No, not rationally. Is it possible for global warming to be real if the atmosphere has cooled? Again no.

This amazing flatlining dataset is the UAH satellite lower atmosphere temperatures for the US 48 states, so 40 years of global warming is the first lie. Then he takes just one data point out of 480, the last one, and on the basis of that single reading declares the atmosphere has cooled. Archibald even confirms that the cold in North America was anomalous

And so it has come to pass. January-February had record cold over North America. 

One data point, for an unusually cool area over about 2% of the globe, is all you need to declare global cooling at WUWT. Never mind peer review, this would get rejected if presented in a GCSE essay.

This article is almost self-debunking. If you follow the link to the data, UAH show that while the Feb US48 anomaly is just negative at -0.03C, the global figure is +0.36C, and the trend for the US48 is +0.18C/decade, +0/13C/decade global. That's right, Archibald's 'cooling' dataset, when you consider all the data, shows considerably higher warming than the global equivalent.

Good enough for Anthony, though. Remember that next time somebody links to WUWT as proof of anything.

Mar 27, 2019 at 7:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil, linking to anything on the internet is rarely PROOF of anything - at best it might be evidence in support of or against a proposition.

Mar 27, 2019 at 8:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Wouldn't disagree with that.

Mar 27, 2019 at 8:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Perhaps I should have written, remember, when anyone links to WUWT in support of anything, remember that the quality control over there is nil.

Just recently WIllis Escehnbach wrote that Europe has already experienced 2C of warming (it hasn't) so what is the big deal. Now David Archibald argues that because the US has not warmed (it has), what's the big deal?

It would be funny if only, er no, actually it is just funny.

Mar 27, 2019 at 9:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Claiming that Mann has been exonerated simply multiplies the number of people and organisations that are exposed to hilarity, for lying without credibility. Please list them.

Dr Mann provides a list in his legal deposition to the Steyn case (which I am sure you have read in full), of the investigations that taken together demonstrate that there is no credible evidence to support any accusation that he ever engaged in any malpractice.

Besides, before someone can be 'exonerated', they are entitled to know what they are accused of; when Penn State University launched their inquiry into his conduct nobody had laid any formal charges against Dr Mann with them, and the inquiry team had to 'synthesize' possible complaints. In other words, despite the thousands of words from his critics, nobody was prepared to leave the safe spaces of their blogs and make a formal charge against Dr Mann in an arena where it might actually make a difference and where their claims would be subject to expert scrutiny. How very odd.

At the time of initiation of the inquiry, and in the ensuing days during the inquiry, no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of research misconduct were submitted to any University official. As a result, the emails and other communications were reviewed by Dr. Pell and from these she synthesized the following four formal allegations. To be clear, these were not allegations that Dr. Pell put forth, or leveled against Dr. Mann, but rather were her best effort to reduce to allegation form the many different accusations that were received from parties outside of the University.

The four synthesized allegations were as follows:

1. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

2 Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

3. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?

The inquiry found these allegations had no credible evidence to support them, and unanimously concluded that they were without substance.

Mar 27, 2019 at 10:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Mar 27, 2019 at 10:03 PM | Phil Clarke
Why did Mann put his name to Harvey et al?

Why did you believe Gergis?

You just seem to be getting desperate to hold on to phoney science, that is not supported by evidence. You also seem to be holding on to Steele's Dodgy Dossier, and accusing Trump of lying, when your sources are unreliable and now proven to be liars indulging in writing fiction

Mar 27, 2019 at 11:28 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

'Bored now' ........ 'but I'm off now'
Mar 27, 2019 at 1:30 PM | Unregistered Commenter Phil Clarke

At this point I got really excited! Yes, YES, he's going away!

That lasted all of 6 hours and 17 minutes, until 7:47 PM, then again at 8:49, 9:06, 10:03
Ah well, that'll teach me not to get my hopes up.

SimonJ

Mar 28, 2019 at 8:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterSimonJ

Mar 28, 2019 at 8:11 AM | SimonJ

Science requires honesty.

Climate Science depends on dishonesty, and Phil Clarke can be relied on to prove it.

Mar 28, 2019 at 12:01 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

1. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

who wants to know?

2 Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

who wants to know?

3. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

who wants to know?

4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?

depends on who's asking.

Mar 29, 2019 at 2:34 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Mar 29, 2019 at 2:34 AM | clipe

Mann is unhappy about appearing in Court. I wonder whether he will be happier about appearing before Happer?
They can just stick to Hockey Stick science, and avoid the Fifth Amendment

Any members of the Hockey Teamsters directly employed by the US Taxpayer, could get involved, as they were very keen to witness some Impeachment proceedings to further their interests.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Mar 29, 2019 at 10:33 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil is from Huckley, in Sussex, and has voted the hockey stick's shaft flat, tho' we know its rounds and curves. The silly, to so ignore nature, but it is the alarmists' major flaw, a dependence upon narrative over observation and understanding.
================================

Mar 29, 2019 at 5:03 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim