Post deleted by User.
Random Politics & Religion #38: The 38th One
Random Politics & Religion #38: The 38th One
Lol, i provide arguments and then when counter arguments are provided I argue against THEM not the sources. I don’t run to “CNN said it so it cannot be true”. I say “CNN is wrong and here’s why”.
Like right now, you just challenged how I argue, and Im directly refuting your point instead of changing your words around to argue against the argument you want, which is literally what you’re doing.
Climate deniers dont deny climate change. The climate ALWAYS changes. They are skeptical of the alarmism that comes from the “scientific” community.
With plenty of good reason too.
Like right now, you just challenged how I argue, and Im directly refuting your point instead of changing your words around to argue against the argument you want, which is literally what you’re doing.
Climate deniers dont deny climate change. The climate ALWAYS changes. They are skeptical of the alarmism that comes from the “scientific” community.
With plenty of good reason too.
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
On the other hand, it's obvious the climate denier blog is 100% objective, it's not like they have an agenda or something!
Of course man, nausi only posts third party tweets and blogs, those are always accurate!
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Nausi said: »
Lol, i provide arguments and then when counter arguments are provided I argue against THEM not the sources.
Nausi said: »
Lol ok the guy who just lost the case’s spin is im sure 100% objective.
Im sure if his scam is unraveling it bears no effect to his economic, moral, or social credibility.
Atta boy shi!
Im sure if his scam is unraveling it bears no effect to his economic, moral, or social credibility.
Atta boy shi!
Atta boy Nausi!
You’re literally pointing to the guy who lost saying I’m going to appeal, and saying “well he must not have lost the case if he's going to appeal. Case closed.” That is not an argument.
Do you want to make his argument for him that his data isn’t fraudulent? I would welcome that. So would Mann to be honest.
Nausi said: »
Mann LOST the case. He lost because he couldn't provide the evidence that his claim was not fraudulent. This was stated before.
Still waiting for a source for this then? It hasn't been reported at all.
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
It's actually a very high standard if the source you're asking for doesn't exist. And it's clear from Mann's own words that he didn't "win" if he's seeking an appeal.
But again, that's his words, I'm sure we will have more information in the near future.
YouTube Video Placeholder
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
On the other hand, it's obvious the climate denier blog is 100% objective, it's not like they have an agenda or something!
If someone has an opposing viewpoint, they can’t be objective (like the lefts true and just viewpoint) therefore they are not credible.
Bloggers don't have to meet any standard of truth, they can just make up whatever they want and put it on the internet. Nausi does it everyday. There is a reason they aren't accepted as credible sources.
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Nausi said: »
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Nausi said: »
Lol, i provide arguments and then when counter arguments are provided I argue against THEM not the sources.
Nausi said: »
Lol ok the guy who just lost the case’s spin is im sure 100% objective.
Im sure if his scam is unraveling it bears no effect to his economic, moral, or social credibility.
Atta boy shi!
Im sure if his scam is unraveling it bears no effect to his economic, moral, or social credibility.
Atta boy shi!
Atta boy Nausi!
You’re literally pointing to the guy who lost saying I’m going to appeal, and saying “well he must not have lost the case if he's going to appeal. Case closed.” That is not an argument.
Do you want to make his argument for him that his data isn’t fraudulent? I would welcome that. So would Mann to be honest.
The argument has been since the very beginning that Mann claims the case has been dismissed due to Tim's health and because he failed to significantly damage his reputation.
So we have 2 opposing arguments and we need facts to know what's true. I'm too lazy to try finding court documents and such and no journalist even wants to bother doing so.
Mann’s word?
[+]
https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Mann-Ball%20Libel%20Claim.pdf
Theres the legal complaint.
Theres the legal complaint.
A legal complaint from 2011 means nothing.
Viciouss said: »
A legal complaint from 2011 means nothing.
And it's 2019, almost 2020, and he still hasn't had enough time to show his work?
[+]
They’ll just ask for proof that the work was even requested to be shown.
Whatever blinders they will need to put on, they will put on.
Whatever blinders they will need to put on, they will put on.
[+]
Nausi said: »
They’ll just ask for proof that the work was even requested to be shown.
Whatever blinders they will need to put on, they will put on.
Whatever blinders they will need to put on, they will put on.
This is of course, a complete lie. No one is "putting on blinders." Nausi made a claim without evidence that Mann lost his case. Now we are waiting for him to provide the court ruling backing him up. So far, all we have gotten is the actual legal complaint, which does nothing to back up his claim. So we will continue to wait on the that court ruling.
It only seems reasonable that if someone felt strongly enough to sue someone over their professional reputation, they wouldn't use the courts to prevent discovery of their disputed research. No?
[+]
Eboneezer said: »
It only seems reasonable that if someone felt strongly enough to sue someone over their professional reputation, they wouldn't use the courts to prevent discovery of their disputed research. No?
Again, beats me. I don't think anyone here even knew this court case existed, much less gave a ***about it. Nausi and Saevel just saw a blog about it and tried using it to attack us, thinking that we actually care about Michael Mann climate opinions. Now they are spinning their wheels because they can't actually prove anything they are saying is true.
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
It's as if Donald Trump would do a libel lawsuit against someone accusing him of fraud and the accused would request Trump's tax return to prove his point. It just ... doesn't work that way or am I wrong?
I would argue that publicly funded science is a completely different circumstance than a citizen's private tax information.
[+]
https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/
Another source Shi/Vuc will claim to be meaningless
https://www.bccourts.ca/search_judgments.aspx?obd=2019&court=2#SearchTitle
The written judgement is not available yet.
Another source Shi/Vuc will claim to be meaningless
https://www.bccourts.ca/search_judgments.aspx?obd=2019&court=2#SearchTitle
The written judgement is not available yet.
[+]
Ball claimed Truth as an absolute defense. He basically said you cant sue me for libel, the hockey stick as fraud IS Truth. It was up to Mann to pony up his work to disprove the claim by Ball.
[+]
Another source with previously known information that does nothing to prove Mann lost the case, only that Ball requested it to be ended.
Court awarded Ball court costs. Im not sure who is going to pay that if it isn’t Mann.
[+]
We have Tim Ball saying the court awarded him costs, we have Mann denying he is responsible for Ball's legal fees. Hmm, who to believe?
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.