13 thoughts on “Stossel slams Michael Mann for ‘arrogance’ in refusing to debate Roy Spencer; John, we call it cowardice”
Mr. Milloy has it right, AGW is a working hypothesis with a consensus to continue seeking funds…
So not only can he not produce a graph depicting known past reality, he has no spine as well. Back to your mommy’s basement Micheal.
Stossel turns to Dr. Mann and asks, “What do you say, Dr. Mann?”
Hard to see how that is a trap.
Another JackASS speaks. You are a Moron, oak.
Say, how’s your brother, Ash? He still catching pokemon?
Do actual research .use the scientific method.prove the fanticy to be real then calling people names would be unnessecary.
Mann only has an “hypothesis.”
Mann is wise to stay away from debating. If you have good empirical evidence to support your case, then debating is easy. All Mann has is a theory, while all the evidence supports the skeptic position.
After all, this is meant to be “settled science”. Haven’t we been told about the “consensus”, that all scientists agree? If the evidence is so irrefutable then just about anyone should be able to make a go at defending it.
Obviously however it is not, and Mann knows it. Of course he also wouldn’t want to have his “nature trick” discussed either.
Poor Michael Mann. Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn’t. The evidence is coming out strongly against any sort of catastrophic AGW so he gets his butt kicked if he debates. By staying away, he just looks weak and disingenuous. I suppose staying away from the debate will extend the life of the scam but the crash landing could very well be much harder.
This is a job for Clint !
Duane Gish debated creationism with actual scientists for years, and was credited with winning a lot of debates because he had learned effective debating techniques, most notably the “Gish Gallop” (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop); moving deftly on to a new topic when the debate opponent had scored a sound refutation on him. Just because Gish won debates with unprepared opponents didn’t prove a thing scientifically. Because many vociferous climate skeptics are Gish Gallopers par excellence, Mann was correct to turn down a debate “invitation”, otherwise known as a trap. I call it exactly what he should have done.
and insecurity and guilt (from knowing that he tweaked data) and dweebness
Cowardice masked by arrogance.
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Mr. Milloy has it right, AGW is a working hypothesis with a consensus to continue seeking funds…
So not only can he not produce a graph depicting known past reality, he has no spine as well. Back to your mommy’s basement Micheal.
Stossel turns to Dr. Mann and asks, “What do you say, Dr. Mann?”
Hard to see how that is a trap.
Another JackASS speaks. You are a Moron, oak.
Say, how’s your brother, Ash? He still catching pokemon?
Do actual research .use the scientific method.prove the fanticy to be real then calling people names would be unnessecary.
Mann only has an “hypothesis.”
Mann is wise to stay away from debating. If you have good empirical evidence to support your case, then debating is easy. All Mann has is a theory, while all the evidence supports the skeptic position.
After all, this is meant to be “settled science”. Haven’t we been told about the “consensus”, that all scientists agree? If the evidence is so irrefutable then just about anyone should be able to make a go at defending it.
Obviously however it is not, and Mann knows it. Of course he also wouldn’t want to have his “nature trick” discussed either.
Poor Michael Mann. Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn’t. The evidence is coming out strongly against any sort of catastrophic AGW so he gets his butt kicked if he debates. By staying away, he just looks weak and disingenuous. I suppose staying away from the debate will extend the life of the scam but the crash landing could very well be much harder.
This is a job for Clint !
Duane Gish debated creationism with actual scientists for years, and was credited with winning a lot of debates because he had learned effective debating techniques, most notably the “Gish Gallop” (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop); moving deftly on to a new topic when the debate opponent had scored a sound refutation on him. Just because Gish won debates with unprepared opponents didn’t prove a thing scientifically. Because many vociferous climate skeptics are Gish Gallopers par excellence, Mann was correct to turn down a debate “invitation”, otherwise known as a trap. I call it exactly what he should have done.
and insecurity and guilt (from knowing that he tweaked data) and dweebness
Cowardice masked by arrogance.