the CBC is not a culturally unifying force, that is impossible if they continue to maintain a liberal bias and pander to special interest groups
They sued the conservative party
BREAKING: CBC producer quits, slams woke broadcaster for failing to cover issues important to Canadians
- Thread starter The Oracle
- Start date
They sued the conservative party
See how you are the one throwing insults when You are pushed to the corner!! I have answered far more question while You have not answered a SINGLE QUESTION, even though they are relevant to the arguments!! Any child would corroborate that fact. You are the one who that is just throwing insult after insult. You lost the argument. PERIOD!!
I will agree with this:The answer to No. 1 is irrelevant since the answer to No. 2 is yes, they are entirely different.
The IPCC claims there are thousands of researchers involved in its reports. So the question is whether thousands of contributors can claim to have "shared" the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Nobel Institute and the IPCC have both addressed this: they cannot claim to have "shared" the prize.
The context is important.
The original language that said contributors "shared" the award came from the IPCC. Mann explained that in his Facebook posting.
When the controversy about Mann's legal filing broke, the Nobel Institute was asked about Mann's claims and provided an unequivocal response. He cannot claim to be a Nobel laureate.
After the Nobel Insitute contacted the IPCC, the IPCC issued a statement on the matter.
Please note: The IPCC was fully aware of the "shared award" language being used by Mann and others (eg., Kevin Trenberth). In its followup statement, the IPCC said it is "incorrect" for contributing members to claim any credit for the Nobel Prize that went to the IPCC as "an organization."
The Nobel Institute and the IPCC explicitly answered question 2: The answer is NO! Regarding the Nobel Prize, the IPCC said contributors cannot take "credit for the work they contributed."
The IPCC's exact quote: "The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner."
The IPCC weighs in on the Mann Nobel dilemma, and throws him under the bus
This statement was issued today from the IPCC, which appears to be inspired by the recent claims of Dr. Michael Mann in the lawsuit against NRO that we discussed here and here. The colored bold tex…wattsupwiththat.com
I said (bolded and underlined, once again) that I completely agree with the Nobel Institute and the IPCC that Mann's statements were false.
(Not that it really matters, as I don't set the rules for the awarding of the Nobel Prize.)
I can't make it any clearer. I fully agree with the Nobel Institute and the IPCC that the answer to question 2 is that contributors cannot claim to have "shared" the award and Mann's statements were false!!
Contrary to the false claims quoted above, bver_hunter has NOT answered the question.
Yes or no, bver_hunter: Do you agree with the Nobel Institute and the IPCC that Mann cannot claim to have "shared" the award and that his statements were false?
Aanmelden bij Facebook
Meld je aan bij Facebook om te delen en contact te maken met je vrienden, familie en mensen die je kent.
www.facebook.com
So do You also want Dr Mann's Birth Certificate as well??
Just keep on following The Climate Change Deniers Online Conspiracy Theories!!
These are the actual legal court filings. Mann still stands by his Contribution to the IPCC:
Last edited:
Here's pure literature:
That's a lot of effort all to denigrate a scientist who is internationally recognized and respected.The answer to No. 1 is irrelevant since the answer to No. 2 is yes, they are entirely different.
The IPCC claims there are thousands of researchers involved in its reports. So the question is whether thousands of contributors can claim to have "shared" the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Nobel Institute and the IPCC have both addressed this: they cannot claim to have "shared" the prize.
The context is important.
The original language that said contributors "shared" the award came from the IPCC. Mann explained that in his Facebook posting.
When the controversy about Mann's legal filing broke, the Nobel Institute was asked about Mann's claims and provided an unequivocal response. He cannot claim to be a Nobel laureate.
After the Nobel Insitute contacted the IPCC, the IPCC issued a statement on the matter.
Please note: The IPCC was fully aware of the "shared award" language being used by Mann and others (eg., Kevin Trenberth). In its followup statement, the IPCC said it is "incorrect" for contributing members to claim any credit for the Nobel Prize that went to the IPCC as "an organization."
The Nobel Institute and the IPCC explicitly answered question 2: The answer is NO! Regarding the Nobel Prize, the IPCC said contributors cannot take "credit for the work they contributed."
The IPCC's exact quote: "The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner."
The IPCC weighs in on the Mann Nobel dilemma, and throws him under the bus
This statement was issued today from the IPCC, which appears to be inspired by the recent claims of Dr. Michael Mann in the lawsuit against NRO that we discussed here and here. The colored bold tex…
I said (bolded and underlined, once again) that I completely agree with the Nobel Institute and the IPCC that Mann's statements were false.
(Not that it really matters, as I don't set the rules for the awarding of the Nobel Prize.)
I can't make it any clearer. I fully agree with the Nobel Institute and the IPCC that the answer to question 2 is that contributors cannot claim to have "shared" the award and Mann's statements were false!!
Contrary to the false claims quoted above, bver_hunter has NOT answered the question.
Yes or no, bver_hunter: Do you agree with the Nobel Institute and the IPCC that Mann cannot claim to have "shared" the award and that his statements were false?
I get that you hate people that are smarter and more respected than you, but really, how long are you going to keep up with this nonsense?
All to avoid discussing the issues.
Even economists think you are out to lunch with your claims.
So no rebuttal to the fact that the CBC is "NOT AN EXTREME LEFT MEDIA". Case Closed!!To all those who support Tara Henley's stand that the CBC is an "extreme left" news media, please scrutinize this interview with Tara Henley:
Asking Tara Henley to explain what she means
The former CBCer said she was stifled by the broadcaster's "radical political agenda." We wanted to know: how so?
Now this part, where she gives her reasoning for leaving the CBC:
Here she sits with the various right wing media including the far right Fox News. But then her interview with Canada Land is very interesting:
So guys now read the whole interview and tell us exactly what makes the CBC an "Extreme Left" platform for that so called "Radical Political Agenda"??
Asking Tara Henley to explain what she means
The former CBCer said she was stifled by the broadcaster's "radical political agenda." We wanted to know: how so?www.canadaland.com
In other words her reasoning is total and utter BS, that only the right wingers buy, as she was pinned in the corner by Jesse Brown!!
Even the latest Guardian Newspaper has this summarization of Dr Michael Mann:
www.theguardian.com
This is his Curriculum Vitae:
Now to all these Climate Change Deniers who quote their so called Experts. Show us their Curriculum Vitae that matches Michael Mann's with all the tons and tons of REAL RESEARCH!!
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann
Michael Mann | The Guardian
<p>Michael Mann is distinguished professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University and the author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/023115254X">The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines</a>. He was recognized with other...
www.theguardian.com
This is his Curriculum Vitae:
Curriculum Vitae
Curriculum Vitae Michael E. Mann University of Pennsylvania, Department of Earth and Environmental Science Philadelphia, PA 19104 Tel: (215) 898-5724; email: mann@michaelmann.net Website: http://www.michaelmann.net Education 1998 Ph.D. Yale University, Department of Geology &...
michaelmann.net
Now to all these Climate Change Deniers who quote their so called Experts. Show us their Curriculum Vitae that matches Michael Mann's with all the tons and tons of REAL RESEARCH!!
That interview with her was hilarious.
She was more squirmy that rump was on his npr interview.
Maybe she will end up with the Rebel. But her aim is to make the big bucks out of controversy that is purely her making. LOL!!
Not at all. Although I'll admit that I do sometimes get frustrated with people who are much less smarter than me and who post things that can only be described as "extreme idiocy."
LOL!!!!!!! So, the CBC does not "cover issues important to Canadians", and the source for this information is some right-wing rag called "the Post Millennial" that has zero journalistic credibility?
I mean, if this headline came from the Toronto Star, or the National Post or the Globe and Mail, or the BBC, or the Wall Street Journal, I might be inclined to think they might be on to something, but "the Post Millennial"?
LOL!!!!!!!!
The Post Millennial can take a long, hard suck on my ass.
I mean, if this headline came from the Toronto Star, or the National Post or the Globe and Mail, or the BBC, or the Wall Street Journal, I might be inclined to think they might be on to something, but "the Post Millennial"?
LOL!!!!!!!!
The Post Millennial can take a long, hard suck on my ass.
I recently let someone off the hook after exposing him to more than three days of humiliation over the fact he can't do basic math. I thought he had suffered enough.
But would you believe it? He turned around a few days later and claimed that I "ran away" from the debate.
Even worse, he has spent more than six years (
) trying to argue that 0.13 is a bigger number than 0.15!!That goes far beyond "nonsense." It is batshit crazy.
Oh my, I just looked up the CBC article they mention about words like "brainstorm" being insensitive. It's pretty stupid.
Among other things, it says:
Among other things, it says:
- Brainstorm: Could be insensitive to those who have brain injuries
- Blind spot: Could be offensive to people who can't see
- Blackmail: It's a negative term that includes the word black, so it leads to the "lowering of blackness on the spectrum with regards to value".
- Tone deaf: Insensitive to people with hearing impairments. They suggest using the term "musically disinclined" instead.
Last edited:
I was going to ask who's bright idea was this?
Fortunately, I remembered that "bright idea" might be offensive to people who are hawkish about only using LED light bulbs.
Ah, you mean people who aren't really, really impressed that you can figure out how much more 5 is than 1?Not at all. Although I'll admit that I do sometimes get frustrated with people who are much less smarter than me and who post things that can only be described as "extreme idiocy."
Or people who don't believe that an increase of 1-5 over either 16 or 288 is a 400% increase?
Or do you mean people who weren't really, really impressed with your prediction that the planet wouldn't hit 0.83ºC?
As far as I'm concerned, 'extreme idiocy' is shown by those by Cliff Clavin types who believe that they are smarter than NASA, IPCC, AAS and 99.7% of people who actually study and get paid to study, the climate.
I mean, some people in this thread spend pages trying to denigrate scientists but then can't provide a single piece of evidence or single theory to back up their own claims, instead they just use smilies.
Hey moviefan, please show us your braniac math skills:I recently let someone off the hook after exposing him to more than three days of humiliation over the fact he can't do basic math. I thought he had suffered enough.
But would you believe it? He turned around a few days later and claimed that I "ran away" from the debate.
Even worse, he has spent more than six years (
That goes far beyond "nonsense." It is batshit crazy.
1) Is an increase of 1-5 over a base of 16 an increase in the range of 400%
2) Is and increase of 1-5 over a base of 288 an increase in the range of 400%
3) Is an increase of 1-5 over a base of 1,000,000 an increase in the range of 400%
4) What did NASA report as the temperature of the planet for 2015?
5) What temperature did you think it would hit?
The wording of question 1 is incorrect. There was no "base of 16" in the original statement.Hey moviefan, please show us your braniac math skills:
1) Is an increase of 1-5 over a base of 16 an increase in the range of 400%
2) Is and increase of 1-5 over a base of 288 an increase in the range of 400%
3) Is an increase of 1-5 over a base of 1,000,000 an increase in the range of 400%
4) What did NASA report as the temperature of the planet for 2015?
5) What temperature did you think it would hit?
The question was whether 5 is a 400% increase over 1, and the correct answer is yes. Bonus note of hilarity: It took Frankfooter more than a week to acknowledge this was correct after initially saying this calculation was "frigging comedy gold" and that it showed I was "incredibly incompetent" at math.
Questions 2 and 3 are from outer space. No relevance whatsoever to anything I ever posted.
Questions 4 and 5 are part of the six-year effort to try to persuade someone that 0.13 is a bigger number than 0.15.
Like I said: these questions all fall under the category of batshit crazy.
Such a total math failure, moviefan.
Of course there is a base, are you claiming that the earth has no temperature at all?
Its either about 16ºC or about 288 Kelvin, depending on your metric.
By your logic, increasing anything by 1-5 is an increase in the range of 400%.
Increase 1 million by 1-5 and your math gets you an increase in the range of 400%
Increase the planet's 16ºC temp by 1-5ºC and that's also an increase in the range of 400%
If you use 288 Kelvin as your measurement than that 1-5ºC increase is still an increase in the range of 400%.
This one is even funnier.
Its the most ridiculous claim you've posted here.
Science denier, math fail, comedy gold.
