Posted by: Barry Bickmore | March 15, 2015

“Merchants of Doubt” for Mormons

I wrote another op-ed for my local paper, the Daily Herald.  The headline is misleading, but it is essentially a plug for the movie and book, Merchants of Doubt.


Responses

  1. Minor error, in case you ever republish it: “everything from acid rain, to the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer, to acid rain, to” duplicates acid rain.

    • Yeah, I sent in a corrected version 5 minutes after the first one, but it was too late, apparently!

  2. Barry, you’ll probably find the bare-faced exhibition of a double standard by Patrick Moore in this cut short interview:

    http://www.canalplus.fr/c-infos-documentaires/pid3357-c-special-investigation.html?vid=1122650&sc_cmpid=TWShareInfo

    “I’m, not an idiot [but I think everyone else is]”
    🙂

    • Why doesn’t Barry respond to your posts? Except to correct you?

      • Because he doesn’t, I don’t think that.

        However, reality never bothered you, so you don’t bother it, do you, Loco.

        • Can you show an example of when Bickmore agreed with you?

        • Well you’ve had a couple of months and still haven’t come up with a single example of Bickmore agreeing with you.

          Face it. Even your fellow warmists think you’re utterly useless.

          • Sorry, Loco. A refusal to answer isn’t taken by you as admitting you were wrong, so my not pandering to your petulant demands (which are irrelevant anyway) which you made up out of whole cloth (what the hell was it supposed to prove?) isn’t proof of squat, dearie.

            But go running round your hamster wheel all you like.

    • Hey Wow-for-Brains,

      Bickmore’s posting on the Steyn case again. How come you haven’t posted your instructions for downloading all the court documents from Court Case Online? Wouldn’t Bickmore be interested in the actual documents?

      Aw, but you can’t because you just made up that story and then Bickmore will found out what a sniveling little lying pansy you are.

  3. Barry,

    In defending RJR’s use of the “Joe Camel” character, attorney John B. Williams quipped,

    “No study has linked Joe to youth smoking” and “Joe has become a scapegoat, a politically incorrect symbol”

    So, I’m sure that you’d be interested to know that Mr. Williams is involved in the Michael Mann libel case.

    Is Williams representing CEI? … No.
    How about NRO? … Nope.
    I know, I know, Mark Steyn must have hired him. Guess again.

    Williams is Michael Mann’s attorney.

    Since the tobacco industry is every warmist’s favorite example of a “merchant of doubt”, Williams seems a strange choice for the Hockey Stick Hero. I mean in the most litigious and over-lawyered country in the world, why, oh why did Michael Mann have to choose Joe Camel’s attorney?

    Could it be that the climate alarmists are the “conspiring men”?

    • So, I take it you want me to be shocked that a lawyer is morally inconsistent in how he advocates for different clients? Come on.

  4. Who says that Williams is being morally inconsistent? His new client lies in court filings and plays hide-the-decline games with his data. Doesn’t sound that different from his old client does it?

    • OK, so what was the point of your post, then?

      • Hey Wow-for-Brains,

        Bickmore’s posting on the Steyn case again. How come you haven’t posted your instructions for downloading all the court documents from Court Case Online? Wouldn’t Bickmore be interested in the actual documents?

        Aw, but you can’t because you just made up that story and then Bickmore will found out what a sniveling little lying pansy you are.

    • Scratch that, I see why: you’ve already decided that Mann is guilty and that’s all you really wanted to say.

      Problems:
      1) you’re wrong
      2) this isn’t about Mann lying, it’s about Mann being lied about.

      facts, however, are not your bag, are they.

      • Wow,

        1) Just out of curiosity but where did you get the idea that yelling “you’re wrong” is an effective debating technique? I mean how would someone differentiate your arguments from that of an angry five year-old?

        2) So according to you the defendants “lied” about Mann’s honesty but the case isn’t about Mann’s honesty? Wut?

        Could you please point to a single fact in your post, because I’m not seeing any.

        • Where did I get the idea from? Deniers like yourself, Locus.

          But in this specific case, you’re factually wrong and I gave the evidence. It’s still not a trick you deniers ply all the time that I’ve managed to work out yet, the ability NOT TO SEE EVIDENCE.

          The case is about Steyn lying, not Mann. This is absolute incontrovertible fact.

          As to your claims that Mann is lying, I apply Hitchens razor. If you don’t think saying you’re wrong is enough, that there needs to be evidence for a claim, then you need to do that first, dearie.

          I know it’s hard for you. Baby steps at first.

          • You’re claiming that I tend to say “you’re wrong” without a supporting evidence? Really? Take a look at my previous posts on Mann v. Steyn. I’ve quoted St Amant v Thompson, Milkovich v. Lorain, law review articles etc…

            You keep saying that you gave the evidence. Where?

            What evidence do you have that Steyn is lying? Do you have access to the discovery materials he provided to Mann?

            You seem to implying that questions about Mann’s integrity originated with Rand Simberg and Steyn. They actually started with Mann’s fellow warmists.

            http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2013/08/revisiting-bombshell-climategate-email.html

            http://metis-history.info/climate-e-mails.shtml

            http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-32362275.html&prev=search

            • “You seem to implying that questions about Mann’s integrity originated with Rand Simberg and Steyn.”

              You seem to be making that up.

            • Nope, you claimed that Steyn and Simberg just made up the idea that Mann was dishonest.

            • You seem to be making that up, too.

            • Which is it, Loco?

              Did you want to claim I thing the questions about Mann’s integrity originated with Rand Simberg and Steyn, or do you want to claim that they made up their claims?

              Those are two different claims.

              Which you apparently feel are completely open to future revision as if they were never any different at any time in the future.

              Although trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result IS a sign of insanity, absolute and unrecognised chaos in your screams of outrage is one too.

            • If Simberg and Steyn “made up” their claims about Mann, then how did those claims not originate with them?

            • They made up the claim Mann lied. Those claims were not original.

            • How does “made up” not equal original ???????

            • Because they’re two different words, Loco.

              If you wanted to use “made up”, then you should use “made up”. Lied would be more accurate.

              Yes, they made up their claims. They lied.

            • If they “made up” their claims about Mann then aren’t they the originators?

            • They made it up, doesn’t mean they are the originators.

              But, OK, if you want to equate “they made the claim” with “they are the originators of the claim”, under that definition, yes. They are the originators of the claim they made.

            • Took you long enough to be able to understand that simple concept. Just how damn stupid are you?

            • That’s rich, coming from someone who cannot recognise text unless they’re given a link to what they want to claim is a different document than that which the quote comes from.

              I note you ignored “If you want to use the definition”.

              Just how dumb do you think other people are?

              So, given there was never any dispute that Steyn told everyone Mann lied, why did you want to make them the “originators of the claim”?

              Or is this going to be yet another dead end, since you can’t make political capital out of it?

              Silly me. The latter, isn’t it.

            • Why do you continue to lie and deny that there was serious scientific criticism of Mann’s work long before Steyn’s blog post?

              Because lying is all you have.

            • I was not lying, Loco, there is no serious problems with Mann’s work, nobody has made an substantive claim supported by evidence that his work had problems.

              that is 100% an invention by yourself, Loco.

              Because you’re a nutjob.

            • You lying scumbag. Did I invent this video?

              You’re a worthless, lying sack of garbage.

            • You didn’t invent that video. Then again, only you claim anyone did.

              That video is not proof of serious (as in “not laughably incompetent”) scientific doubts about Mann’s work.

            • So now your new standard is that Mann’s work is not necessarily good, just “not laughably incompetent”?

            • Nope.

              Storch’s claims you linked to are an incompetent attempt to discredit Mann’s work.

              As was the laughably terrible piece (it wasn’t as bad as the G&T or Wegman paper, but that’s damning with faint praise) attempted by M&M.

              But it shows how dumb you are when you think that I’m calling Mann’s work into question.

            • No *Muller* is calling Mann’s work into question. But I’m sure it went all over your head. After all you’re just a day laborer who’s a wannabe “intellectual” online.

            • If you’re now talking about Muller, then his complaints were made from ignorance and desire. They were incompetent by definition.

              Of course, now even YOU admit you were talking bollocks when you said

              “Mann’s work is not necessarily good, just “not laughably incompetent”?”

              Since you apparently thought I should be talking about Muller.

            • You never provide any evidence, just assertions.

              He’s wrong.
              I’m right.
              blah, blah, blah

              You are simply intellectually incapable of constructing even a half-way reasonable argument.

              Last week you were praising Muller as a true skeptic who could change his mind. Now Muller suffers from “ignorance” and “desire”. “Desire” ????? What does that mean?

            • More projection Loco?

              I guess when all you’ve got is a hammer…

              You think the same trick will work eventually. Isn’t that one of the definitions of insanity?

              Well, you ARE nuts, Loco. Certifiable.

            • Because you ignore it? Like this:

              Loco Nutbar: “even claiming that the rulings hosted at Mann’s attorney’s office were fake. 4/6/15 3:43 PM”

              Hmmm. What did I say?

              QUOTE:

              Oh, and make that three links now.

              Not one to the court.

              Because the court statements do not support your editorial demands, you denier.

              UNQUOTE.

              Lets check.

              Any mention of Mann’s Attorney? Nope.

            • Yes, he changed his mind

              You quoted him from before he even looked.

              Making a conclusion based on ignorance is incompetence, Loco. Even though it feels to you like a knock-down winning strategy, that’s only because incompetence is your only strength.

              Weird, though.

              When Muller was accusing, this was proof Mann’s work was shaky. When Muller was agreeing, this is NOT proof Mann’s work was not shaky.

            • You’re lying in claiming that this interview took place before Muller’s announced conversion. ( See below ).

              You’re lying about the court rulings being available online ( See below )

              You’re lying in claiming that I never linked to the actual court documents after I provided a link to copies hosted at Mann’s attorney.

              You’re a liar.

            • No, I am not.

              Unless it’s not claiming what you said, but you’re “interpreting” it again, Loco.

            • I never made a claim about the court documents being online, Loco, so can’t have lied about that either.

              You still hadn’t linked to any court documents when I said you hadn’t, Loco. You’d made three. Not one contained links to the court documents. Nor have you ever read them yourself, only blog interpretations of what they “should” mean.

              The court documents do not support the claims you’ve made by munchausen about the rulings.

              You’re a freaking nutcase.

            • Wow repeatedly claimed that my failure to provide a link to the rulings hosted at the court itself was evidence of my duplicity.

              Wow then helpfully told me how stupid I am for not downloading the rulings from the D.C. Court Case Online system like Wow did.

              There’s just one small problem with that narrative.

              The Court Case Online system as described here only provides *docket* information. That is participants, dates of filings and fees paid.

              https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/pdf/CourtCasesOnline_UsersGuide.pdf

              The journalist’s handbook for the D.C. Courts explains how to obtain actual copies of the filings.

              “But actual copies of filings must be obtained at the public access computers located in the divisions’ clerk’s offices”

              http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/JournalistsHandbook.pdf

              Wow is a blatant liar.

            • Listen, double Goebbels, repeating the same lie doesn’t make it true, no matter how big the whooper you’re telling.

              You’re still making that shit up. Replied with details under the other post repeat of that ridiculous claim.

            • You’re still lying.

              Show how the User Guide is wrong. Show how the Reporter’s Handbook is wrong.

            • “You’re still lying”

              Nope.

            • Actually I worked it out just fine when I first found the Court Case Online website. Six weeks ago. When you first started with your direct link to the court documents avoidance tactic.

              It’s a lot easier to search by name.

              Last Name: MANN
              First Name: MICHAEL

              Hit the ‘Search’ button.

              As of today it’s the second case down and the only one with a status of ‘Open’.

              Check the box in the ‘Select’ column for Mann’s case.

              Hit ‘Case Details’.

              And you’re presented with the court docket for this case.

              Unfortunately there are *no* hyperlinks on this page to download the rulings themselves. Sure, you’ll be able to see that two orders were filed on July 19, 2013.

              *** But there are no links to download anything on this page. ***

              That’s why I read the User’s Guide which I linked to on May 3rd. The Guide tells how Court Case Online is an electronic *docket*, not a document archive like Wow claims.

              https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/pdf/CourtCasesOnline_UsersGuide.pdf

              The journalist’s handbook for the D.C. Courts explains how to obtain actual copies of the filings.

              “But actual copies of filings must be obtained at the public access computers located in the divisions’ clerk’s offices”

              http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/JournalistsHandbook.pdf

              So I’ll ask Wow again. How were you supposedly able to download the court rulings from a system that all the documentation says does not provide such documents? How do you download files from a webpage that has no download links?

            • “Actually I worked it out just fine when I first found the Court Case Online website”

              No, all you’ve worked out is if you post the wrong link then make claims about it not containing what I said some other link contains, you can continue to make believe you’re not a lying sack of crap.

            • I posted a link to Court Case Online. There’s nothing wrong with that link. I explained quite clearly how to search for Michael Mann’s case.

              You’re simply a lying weasel who can’t bear to countenance the awful truth.

              That you’re completely and utterly worthless. You can’t do anything right.

            • There is a big problem with it, it’s not https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf

              And I explained quite clearly what you need to do.

              You did something else somewhere else and claim that I’m a liar. The reason for the former is because you demand to be able to do the latter and *pretend* to have “justification”.

          • —- PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE —-

            Please be advised that ‘Wow’ is a pathological liar.

            His claims to have downloaded court rulings in the Steyn case from Court Case Online are a complete fabrication. Court Case Online only provides an electronic docket.

            If you follow Wow’s directions you’ll be presented with a list of documents filed with the court but no way to download them. You did not make an error. Wow is just a dishonest little cretin who needs to make up fairy tales to “win” arguments.

            • Same drivel. Same answer. See previous.

            • —- PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE —-

              Please be advised that ‘Wow’ is a pathological liar.

              His claims to have downloaded court rulings in the Steyn case from Court Case Online are a complete fabrication. Court Case Online only provides an electronic docket.

              If you follow Wow’s directions you’ll be presented with a list of documents filed with the court but no way to download them. You did not make an error. Wow is just a dishonest little cretin who needs to make up fairy tales to “win” arguments.

            • Same drivel

            • —- PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE —-

              Please be advised that ‘Wow’ is a creepy pathological liar.

              His claims to have downloaded court rulings in the Steyn case from Court Case Online are a complete fabrication. Court Case Online only provides an electronic docket.

              If you follow Wow’s directions you’ll be presented with a list of documents filed with the court but no way to download them. You did not make an error. Wow is just a dishonest little cretin who needs to make up fairy tales to “win” arguments.

            • Same drivel again.

              You get the picture.

              This is a lunatic. Medically problematic. A failure of care in the community.

            • —– PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE —-

              Please be advised that ‘Wow’ is a pathological liar.

              His claims to have downloaded court rulings in the Steyn case from Court Case Online are a complete fabrication. Court Case Online only provides an electronic docket.

              If you follow Wow’s directions you’ll be presented with a list of documents filed with the court but no way to download them. You did not make an error. Wow is just a dishonest little cretin who needs to make up fairy tales to “win” arguments.

            • This is the same drivel, so see the previous response to it.

        • Yes, the case is about Steyn lying, not Mann.

          What bit is not managing to get into your thick head? That Mann wasn’t lying? That you can’t just SAY Mann is lying? That the prosecution isn’t in the dock to have to justify themselves? That latter is entirely what the justice system has always been. But since it has proved Mann innocent, you cannot live with it.

          It’s a matter of blind faith for you, isn’t it: Mann MUST be lying, because God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real! Or some bullshit like that.

          • There is no “prosecution” as this is a civil and not criminal trial. Mann as the plaintiff will have to prove defamation and as a public figure will also have to prove “actual malice”, i.e. “reckless disregard for the truth”.

            Please show where I said that “God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real”. Now you’re just inventing things out of whole cloth. My skepticism regarding CAGW is based entirely on the scientific method. Predictions of temperature increases have failed to materialize, which indicates that the science of CAGW is not sound.

            Allow Richard Feynman to explain how science is supposed to work. As opposed to various dishonest “conspiring men” who try to make the case that science is really a disguised appeal to authority.

            • Yes there is, Locus. Steyn is the defendent, Mann prosecuting the libel case.

              “Please show where I said that “God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real”. ”

              Show me where I said you said ““God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real”.

              “Mann as the plaintiff will have to prove defamation ”

              Yes, and he’s already been judged to have a very good chance of winning that case by the judge Steyn tried to get to summarily dismiss the case.

              To do so he has to show that Steyn did not care, yet did know, that Mann was exonerated multiple times. Since Steyn was in on at least one of those cases as someone pushing it to be done, he can hardly claim he didn’t know.

              “Allow Richard Feynman to explain how science is supposed to work.”

              Allow Richard Feynman to explain to YOU how it’s supposed to work. I, Mann, and Richard all know very well how it’s supposed to work.

              Quite what it has to do with a libel case is anyone’s guess: you certainly don’t have the slightest clue how it does, just whackjob babble that it somehow says something relevant.

            • “As opposed to various dishonest “conspiring men” who try to make the case that science is really a disguised appeal to authority.”

              You mean denier like yourself, Steyn, Brad and so on?

              You are the conspiring men who try to make the case that the science is really a disguised appeal to authority.

              It is odd, however, that you use an appeal to Richard Feynman, an authority, in your screed. It is evidence that nothing above the brainstem is involved in your conspiracy ideation.

            • Wow,

              Are you denying that you accused me of the following? It’s right there in front of you.

              “It’s a matter of blind faith for you, isn’t it: Mann MUST be lying, because God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real! Or some bullshit like that.”

              It’s become a myth among alarmists that the original judge, Combs-Greene, said that Mann had a “very good” chance of winning. What she actually said was that the case was “close” and that there was “slight” evidence of actual malice at that stage of the case.

              http://volokh.com/2013/08/20/mann-v-steyn-mann-wins-round-one/

              As for Mann’s supposed “exonerations” one of the judges in the recent anti-slapp hearing was quite unimpressed,

              “When Williams claimed that eight separate investigations had exonerated Mann, one judge asked, “What if CEI sincerely believes that those investigations are flawed? They take them apart quite thoroughly in their reply brief.””

              My Feynman link was in response to your accusation that my skepticism was a matter of blind faith.

            • Wow,

              My appeal-to-authority comment was a crack aimed at Bickmore’s recent tortured argument that citing papers was in fact an appeal to authority. The sort of rhetorical contortions some resort to when their experiments come a cropper. Don’t tell me you forgot that post too? Yours was the very first comment!

              So now I’m thoroughly confused. In Bickmore’s post about Delingpole you enthusiastically endorsed the idea that appeals to authority are an essential part of science. Yet today you accuse me of lacking higher brain function by suggesting that Feynman could explain the scientific method to you. ( Note: I said *explain*. I would have thought that the efficacy of the scientific method had been self-evident since the 1600’s ).

              So which is it?

            • Forgot to include the link where the judge acknowledges that Mann’s claim of multiple exonerations had been “taken apart” by the defense.

              http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3231058/posts

            • You claim that Steyn was “pushing” for one of the investigations of Mann. That’s false.

              It was the defendant CEI and not Steyn and NRO.

              Judge Combs-Greene made a number of errors in her ruling.

            • Yes, the lawsuit is against Steyn for lying about Mann and defaming him and damaging his reputation and health.

              So you agree now.

            • You didn’t answer the question. What investigation was pushed by Steyn and NRO?

            • Yes, I did answer.

            • You did not answer. So I’ll ask again. What investigation was pushed by Steyn and NRO?

            • Indeed you have asked again.

              However I though you said you read Judge Greene’s ruling.

              Have you not? Was that another lie?

            • Combs-Greene confused the defendants.

            • That’s what you claim, Loco.

              Funny how you think the Judge right when you want them to be right and wrong when you don’t like the claim.

              Prove that Steyn and NR did not know about the dozen investigations, beyond a reasonable doubt.

            • The burden of proof is on Mann to show that Steyn and NR acted with actual malice.

            • I didn’t say that I agreed with the judge’s ruling. I said that it was a myth among climate alarmists that the judge said that Mann was likely to prevail.

              Don’t you remember?

            • And he has the proof. It is a civil case, so the level required is fairly low.

              And that is ONLY to get damages. He can still win without that: the court will rule they are lying and it is proven.

            • You are incorrect, it is NOT a myth.

              Mythological claims about it being a myth seem to be a denier “talking point” however.

            • You lying sack of garbage! You’ve had plenty of time. Show where Steyn or NRO “called for” an investigation of Mann. You know that didn’t happen so you just lie, lie, lie!

            • Nope, Loco, no matter how much your rage makes you insult me, merely claiming I’m lying doesn’t make it so.

            • You libeled Adler by claiming his quotes were not true.
              You lied and claimed that Adler had not linked to the original court documents.
              You lied and said that the court rulings hosted at Williams Lopatto were not the actual court documents.
              You lied and claimed that the Williams Lopatto website was just some “ordinary citizen” or a denier blogroll.

            • Truth is an absolute defence, Loco. Adler IS LYING about what the court says.

              Nothing wrong with calling a lie out, Loco.

              Except to deniers like yourself.

            • Oh, and more fiction from you.

              I called accurately that YOU linked to denier blogs, Loco.

              What a moron you are, Loco.

            • You roared that you can’t just *say* that someone is lying. So, back up your accusation that Adler is lying.

            • Where’s your proof that Steyn and NRO “called for” investigations of Mann?

              Caught in another lie you sack of garbage!

            • No, Loco, prove I’m lying.

            • Prove that Steyn is lying.

              Prove that Steyn “called for” an investigation of Mann.

            • It’s been proven in court a dozen times, Loco.

              “Doing a Steyn” and insisting that because you SAY you have no clue about the investigations when you definitely have won’t work.

            • You keep saying “proven in court a dozen times”. When I ask what case and in what court you refuse to answer. Because you made up the “proven in court” story.

            • Pretending the investigations and the exonerations never happened will work no better for you than it did for Steyn et al, Loco.

            • You keep saying “proven in court a dozen times”.

              What court? What case?

              You never answer.

            • This must be another rhetorical question since you’ve already said many times you know about the investigations into Mann and how they cleared him of the charges.

              Therefore I should not answer since you get pissed off when you demand answers to rhetorical questions that I answered them, despite you clearly knowing the answer.

            • You’re not answering because your statement,

              “It’s been proven in court a dozen times”

              is simply a lie.

            • Nope, even you know about them. You just don’t believe they were right. You believe they were rigged. Like Steyn and NR. They knew about them too. They believe they were wrong or fixed. They HAD hoped to be able to dig through Mann’s emails to find any shred of evidence of SOMETHING to claim it, but Mann’s emails aren’t in court, Steyn’s and NR’s claims are. And they don’t get to fish for evidence they were right.

              Even you know about them, Loco. Stop lying. Oh, you can’t, can you. You’ve invested now.

            • What court? What case? You never answer.

              Typical Wow behavior. Make a false statement and then try to bury it in gibberish.

            • I don’t have to. If you don’t wish to admit you’ve already said you know they happened (when claiming that they didn’t actually absolve him), then there’s no point in telling you again. You’ll just ignore it.

            • What court? What case?

              Mann v. …….. ?

            • If you don’t know, you can’t make a claim they show Mann wrong, which you have done.

              You know.

              You just want to demand I answer.

            • Where did I claim that a court case showed Mann to be wrong?

              Where were these court cases? In what court?

              You never answer because you’re lying.

            • You claimed it and pointed to freerepublic, a denier blog, April 4, 2015
              at 6:55 pm to show it.

            • That case still hasn’t gone to trial.

              So, I’ll keep asking. In what court case has Mann been exonerated?

            • Tachyon Stupidity from you again, Loco. This time to the distant past.

              Nope, it was the previous exonerations that you were claiming about, Loco.

              By proxy, because you never say anything yourself if you can possibly help it, because you never read the source material, therefore if it’s wrong, you get blamed for not knowing what it says.

              This time you’re not even reading a denier blog you link to and make claims about.

              Somehow you expect that to work?

              Insanity.

          • You’re still lying.

            In what court and in what case has Mann been “exonerated”?

            • See previous answers.

            • Stop your avoidance tactics you lying little shit.

              Answer the question.

              In what court and in what case has Mann been exonerated?

            • It has already been answered.

            • Stop wasting everyone’s time with your stupid avoidance tactics.

              Answer the question shitbag.

            • Same bunk, same debunk

      • Hey Wow-for-Brains,

        Bickmore’s posting on the Steyn case again. How come you haven’t posted your instructions for downloading all the court documents from Court Case Online? Wouldn’t Bickmore be interested in the actual documents?

        Aw, but you can’t because you just made up that story and then Bickmore will found out what a sniveling little lying pansy you are.

      • Hey Wow-for-Brains,

        Bickmore’s posting on the Steyn case again. How come you haven’t posted your instructions for downloading all the court documents from Court Case Online? Wouldn’t Bickmore be interested in the actual documents?

        Aw, but you can’t because you just made up that story and then Bickmore will realize what a lying little turd you are.

        • Well you will still be unable to follow the instructions, Loco nutbar.

          And you can read them again yourself if you like, so why should I repost them?

          • Hey Dipshit!

            I didn’t ask for your directions. I asked why who weren’t providing those directions to Bickmore or any of the other cultists.

            Learn how to read dumbass.

          • —- PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE —-

            Please be advised that ‘Wow’ is a pathological liar.

            His claims to have downloaded court rulings in the Steyn case from Court Case Online are a complete fabrication. Court Case Online only provides an electronic docket.

            If you follow Wow’s directions you’ll be presented with a list of documents filed with the court but no way to download them. You did not make an error. Wow is just a dishonest little cretin who needs to make up fairy tales to “win” arguments.

            • See previous answer to same drivel.

            • —- PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE —-

              Please be advised that ‘Wow’ is a pathological liar.

              His claims to have downloaded court rulings in the Steyn case from Court Case Online are a complete fabrication. Court Case Online only provides an electronic docket.

              If you follow Wow’s directions you’ll be presented with a list of documents filed with the court but no way to download them. You did not make an error. Wow is just a dishonest little cretin who needs to make up fairy tales to “win” arguments.

            • Again, same drivel

            • —– PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE —–

              Please be advised that ‘Wow’ is a pathological liar.

              His claims to have downloaded court rulings in the Steyn case from Court Case Online are a complete fabrication. Court Case Online only provides an electronic docket.

              If you follow Wow’s directions you’ll be presented with a list of documents filed with the court but no way to download them. You did not make an error. Wow is just a dishonest little cretin who needs to make up fairy tales to “win” arguments.

  5. “the science of CAGW is not sound.”

    Since CAGW is only ever claimed by deniers to exist, that would be you deniers, again, yes?

    “Predictions of temperature increases have failed to materialize”

    Sorry, those predictions haven’t failed. All that’s failed is your understanding.

    Meanwhile, on the subject of failed predictions that never materialised:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=72

    and

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/review-of-climatology-versus-pseudoscience.html

    When are you going to give up on the charlatans and failures that you only listen to because you like what they’re telling you? How often do they need to get things wrong before you stop believing them?

    • Wow,

      So you’re claiming that there hasn’t been an unexpected pause in global temperatures? That’s interesting.

      http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

      “Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled.”

      “But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field.”

      So clearly someone is wrong.

      Why do you choose to deny the statements of the climate scientists in the linked article?

      • Yes, there hasn’t been an unexpected pause in the temperature, loco.

        There is no pause. The temperature record includes the climatological trend and short term variations on top. That you won’t understand is the only reason why you insist that there’s a pause.

        By the way, you’ve tried avoiding the crap record of denier predictions.

        It has been noticed.

        • So why is Kevin Trenberth commenting and authoring papers about a pause that did not happen?

          • Because he’s not talking about a pause.

            • “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado.

              http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

            • Yup. No pause. Just random variation on a continuing trend that if you cherry pick (which deniers love to do: they adore cherries) will become called a pause by deniers and need explaining away because deniers are all a bunch of credulous morons.

            • Explain how heat going into the ocean is the same as “cherry-picking”

            • Since I never claimed that, why do I have to explain what you claim? Can you not explain yourself?

            • You said that there was no pause and that any false indication of a pause was the result of “cherry-picking”. But Trenberth is saying that he believes the heat went into the ocean.

              So is Trenberth wrong?

            • Yes, there isn’t a pause, Trenberth is not saying there is a pause or haitus.

            • “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the >>>>>>hiatus<<<<<<,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado.

              http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

            • Loco, how many times do you have to be told?

              He’s not showing that there is a haitus. He’s explaining to morons how your haitus is bogus.

              Just like Tamino.

              And you resist with every fibre of your being any ingress of enlightenment.

              There is no haitus, no pause. You’re lying when you claim there is one and Trenberth is in agreement.

            • Why would Trenberth refer to the “beginning” of something that doesn’t exist?

            • When I say there is no haitus, please note that the *word* “haitus” exists in that sentence.

              Trenberth is not claiming that there is any haitus, pause or whatever you want to name it. He is not claiming the models are in error because a haitus starts, and that is because there is no haitus there.

            • You ignore all the climate scientists who admit there’s been a hiatus. All because it doesn’t fit your delusions.

            • Nope, Loco. Just taking you deniers at your word.

              Trenberth is not claiming, nor showing, where the climate models are wrong. There is no pause, no haitus, but you idiots claim there is one, therefore the word has to be used when discussing what shibboleth you’ve concocted is being explained.

              But you can’t handle it, can you, Loco.

              Because you’re nuts.

              Clinically insane.

            • Lie, lie, lie and lie. That’s all you do.

              http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

            • That’s not talking about a pause either, Loco.

            • The article is clearly talking about the pause. You’re a pause denier.

            • Nope, it’s not talking about “the pause”.

              There is no such pause.

            • Why are scientists seeking to explain the pause if no pause occurred?

              You’re simply lying.

            • Because you and morons like yourself keep pointing to a wobble in the line and claiming it is a pause. When it isn’t a pause, saying “It isn’t a pause.” still has to use the word pause.

              There is no pause, Loco.

            • One of Wow’s favorite lies is to claim that there has been no pause in global warming.

              Evidently Wow didn’t get the memo.

              “The study set off a furious debate among scientists and oceanographers studying climate change. The world’s surface temperatures have risen at a slower rate over the past 15 years than at any time since 1951, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Some scientists have tied the phenomenon, called the global warming “pause,” to the deep oceans’ taking up more heat. But the NASA study suggests that may not be the case.”

              http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mystery-of-ocean-heat-deepens-as-climate-changes/

              If Wow didn’t lie, Wow wouldn’t have anything to say. At all.

            • Just like there’s no pause in the sun when the cloud covers the sun.

            • So what did both Nature and Scientific American get wrong?

            • Nothing. They shouldn’t have used the word pause or haitus, because neither exist and will be abused by morons like yourself to further your political and ideological aims.

            • Either show how the quote I provided doesn’t support my contention or admit that you’re lying as usual.

            • Hey Stupid,

              What the hell is a “haitus”? If you’re too stupid and uneducated to speak English then perhaps you shouldn’t try Latin.

            • “When I say there is no haitus, please note that the *word* “haitus” exists in that sentence”

              Yep, the word “haitus” might exist in that sentence. It just doesn’t exist in the dictionary.

            • “haitus” is undefined by you, Loco.

              Like “God”. A word you’ve used many times. Does using the word and discussing God’s existence mean you believe god exists?

            • Of course “haitus” is undefined by me. Or any dictionary for that matter. It’s simply a symptom of your lack of education.

              And why in the world do you keep trying to bring God into this discussion. What in the hell is wrong with you?

            • So you agree: there is no hiatus.

            • No wonder you couldn’t find evidence for a hiatus. You couldn’t spell it.

              And again why in the hell do you keep trying to drag religion into this?

            • No, I couldn’t find it because it doesn’t exist, smoochums.

            • Yes it does exist dipshit.

            • No it doesn’t.

            • Yes, there was a pause you lying little sack of shit.

            • Nope, there never was a pause.

              Good news, though, you’re no longer using the present tense. It takes a hundred comments explaining to you how you’re wrong before you back down a fraction.

        • Of course it’s about a pause. It’s completely obvious, except to pathological liars like yourself.

          • “a pause”????

            Why on earth should “a pause” prove climate models wrong, Loco Nutbar?

            “A pause” is modelled by the computer models, comes out of the inclusion of the ocean models that include PDO, AMO and so on.

            YOU were talking about a haitus that proves the climate models wrong.

            There is no such pause or haitus being discussed there, Loco.

            • Clearly the pause has been problematic for the climate modelers. They say so themselves.

            • Nope. Clearly you’re making it up.

              The only problem are morons like yourself who claim it’s a problem then when answered with an explanation of the problem they brought up then crow about how it must be a problem because they’re talking about it.

              Just like you talked about God. Is that proof you’re a god worshipper, Loco? You claim not, but you DID talk about it.

            • Right, right. The article in the journal Nature is “lying” about there being a pause in global temperatures and you’re telling the truth.

            • Nope, you’re lying about what the Nature article says, Loco.

            • Are you lying about the Nature article. Or are you just too stupid to understand it?

              Or maybe both?

            • Since I say the nature article, I mean the nature article. Since I said you are wrong in your claim about it, I mean you’re wrong about the claim you make of it.

              You’re just too dumb.

            • Explain then why does the Nature article describes the hiatus as “mysterious”.. Why has the pause sparked “a minor crisis of confidence in the field”?

            • God is described as “mysterious” too. It doesn’t exist either.

            • Still didn’t answer the question. You went off on a tangent because you’ve been caught lying again and you just want to weasel out of it.

              Why has there been a “minor crisis of confidence in the field” if there’s been no pause?

            • Hey Stupid,

              “God is described as “mysterious” too. It doesn’t exist either.”

              Gosh, have you discussed this with Bickmore?

            • I did anwer. You didn’t understand it (you don’t want to), there’s a difference.

            • So you’re admitting even you don’t understand your answers?

              Why, why, why would there be a “minor crisis of confidence” over something that you claim doesn’t exist?

            • Was there a word there you didn’t understand, Loco? They were all quite clear.

              “You” denotes you as the participle. If I’d meant me, I would have used “I”, being the similar personal pronoun equivalent.

              Oh, and what alarmism! “Crisis”??? Really????

            • Stop stalling dickhead and explain why the climate believers quoted in the Nature article are wrong.

            • There isn’t a pause.

              Those quotes aren’t saying there is a pause.

            • Yes, those quotes do say there was a pause you lying sack of shit.

            • No they don’t.

              That’s how you want to interpret them. Not the reality.

        • Hey Wow-for-Brains,

          Bickmore’s posting on the Steyn case again. How come you haven’t posted your instructions for downloading all the court documents from Court Case Online? Wouldn’t Bickmore be interested in the actual documents?

          Aw, but you can’t because you just made up that story and then Bickmore will realize what a lying little turd you are.

          • See previous answer to same question.

            • —- PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE —-

              Please be advised that ‘Wow’ is a pathological liar.

              His claims to have downloaded court rulings in the Steyn case from Court Case Online are a complete fabrication. Court Case Online only provides an electronic docket.

              If you follow Wow’s directions you’ll be presented with a list of documents filed with the court but no way to download them. You did not make an error. Wow is just a dishonest little cretin who needs to make up fairy tales to “win” arguments.

            • Same answer to the same drivel.

    • ”global” warming that doesn’t exist = cannot ”PAUSE”!!!: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/

      • Whut?

        • Wow, you instantly get deaf , when presented real proofs… read my post and you will stop wetting the bed – from fear of a non-existent global warming. Stop lying what ”deniers” say – what ”real deniers” say, is on that post. Stop suffering from ”truth phobia” and read the real proofs; OR admit that you are too coward to face the truth!.

    • Why do you say that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is only believed to exist by skeptics?

      • Because only deniers say anything about CAGW.

        Nobody else. Unless pointing out the nonexistence of CAGW to a denier who is banging on about it.

        • Please explain how only “deniers” believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

          • Only deniers talk about CAGW.

            • So AGW is no big deal then?

            • AGW is a big deal.

              CAGW is a denier belief.

            • What does the ‘C’ stand for?

            • You mean you use CAGW all the time and you don’t know what it means?!?

            • Please. If I needed information you’re the LAST person I would ask.

              So yet again. Why do you say that CAGW is a “denier belief”?

            • Then if I’m the last person you’d ask for information, your question must be rhetorical and a rhetorical question is not to be answered.

              Something wrong with you?

            • Again: only deniers talk about CAGW.

              Which word did you not understand?

            • When a teacher asks you a question is it because she doesn’t know or because she’s testing *your* knowledge?

              Explain why only “deniers” believe in CAGW.

            • I can’t describe why deniers believe in it.

              They just do. They’re nuts.

            • Actually, YOU should say why YOU believe in CAGW.

              YOU are here, bringing it up. WHY?

            • You still haven’t answered why persons like yourself do not believe in CAGW. Or so you say.

            • That would be because you never asked before. You only ever claimed I did.

              Maybe you should have ASKED anyone other than deniers if they believe CAGW exists.

              I don’t believe in CAGW because it’s never been defined so it’s not possible to assess whether such a thing exists.

            • You accuse me of not knowing what the ‘C’ in CAGW stands for. And yet there it is in my original post.

              “Why do you say that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is only believed to exist by skeptics?”

              Clearly you are too stupid to read effectively.

            • I asked you plenty of times. Can’t you read? Oops! I forgot. We already established that you can’t!

            • Well, yes, since you asked me what the C stood for.

              If it were meant as a rhetorical question, then there is no need for me to answer, but you decided instead to want an answer. Hence I am completely justified in saying you don’t know what the C stands for.

              If you know the answer, don’t ask the question and then demand an answer.

            • “I asked you plenty of times.”

              No you didn’t.

              You’ve asked DIFFERENT questions. In toto coming to “plenty of times”. However, that’s not “I asked you plenty of times” one question which you had only asked once. And I answered.

              Is the problem that I answered a question and it didn’t give you any material to lie about?

            • Squirm, squirm, squirm little liar.

              Tell us why warmists like yourself believe that effects of global warming *won’t* be a catastrophe.

            • How can I squirm when this is, yet again, another absolutely new question you are shocked to find I hadn’t answered before you asked it. Tachyon stupidity again, Loco.

              Only deniers believe in CAGW.

              Already explained.

              As to your new one, nobody (and there are no “Warmists”, only realists, sane people, you religous nutbag, says that warming won’t become a catastrophe.

              It already has been for many.

            • Huh?

              “As to your new one, nobody (and there are no “Warmists”, only realists, sane people, you religous nutbag, says that warming won’t become a catastrophe.”

              Do you think you could do us all a favor and wait until you sober up before posting?

              I think I know what you meant to say, but with a complete idiot like yourself it’s hard to be sure.

            • I am completely sober. You’re completely insane.

            • I see you’re still intoxicated and belligerent. When you finally sober up please fix your sentence. Again I think I know what you mean but with a complete idiot like yourself it’s hard to be sure.

            • I was and am still completely sober

              Is there a word you don’t understand?

              Is it “Sober”?

            • I see now that your inability to write a coherent sentence is a result of your lack of education. That also explains why you resort to lying so quickly.

              Have someone write the sentence for you if necessary. Probably the homeless drug addict at the end of your street has better writing skills than you.

            • It’s comprehensible. You lack the will to comprehend. There’s a difference.

            • I see you’re still intoxicated and belligerent. When you finally sober up please fix your sentence. Again I think I know what you mean but with a complete idiot like yourself it’s hard to be sure.

            • Just because your insanity gambit isn’t working doesn’t mean you can make up me being drunk or whatever to try to make out that you haven’t failed.

            • Since you remain intoxicated and belligerent I guess I’ll have to go with what I believe you *meant* to say,

              That sane people and realists believe that gobal warming will be a catastrophe.

              So why do you keep saying that only “deniers” believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?

            • You’re the only one (and Nast, tag-teaming with you) have talked about CAGW. Because you’re the only ones believing it.

              Because you can’t attack reality, you make one up and pretend.

            • So now you’re saying that anthropogenic global warming *won’t* be a catastrophe?

            • Aaand another new claim/query from nutbar.

              Do you think that a changing climate CANNOT be a catastrophe, EVER?

              A new ice age with 2km of ice over New York won’t be a catastrophe? If no, then what is your definition of catastrophe? Death Star evaporation? Vogon Constructor Fleet? If yes, then you agree climate change can be a catastrophe. CAGW therefore could exist.

              A denier, believing in CAGW, despite claims earlier he didn’t.

            • Are you intoxicated again?

              You’re the one who claimed that *only deniers* talk about CATASTROPHIC Anthropogenic Global Warming.

            • So what’s the problem?

    • Hey Wow-for-Brains,

      Bickmore’s posting on the Steyn case again. How come you haven’t posted your instructions for downloading all the court documents from Court Case Online? Wouldn’t Bickmore be interested in the actual documents?

      Aw, but you can’t because you just made up that story and then Bickmore will found out what a sniveling little lying pansy you are.

  6. “It’s right there in front of you.”

    Indeed it is: “Or some bullshit like that.”

    But reality never impinges on your psyche, does it, Loco? Not if it gets in the way of your crusade and your self-justification of it.

    You make up the world to fit what you THINK it is. And then nothing in reality can change it, because before reality gets noticed, you have to recognise it, and by then you’ve changed it to fit your preconceptions.

    This is the invariant mode of true deniers. And why nothing ever changes their mind. It’s also why they insist that denier means holocaust denier: because they decided that it MUST, therefore any evidence otherwise cannot even be recognised. It just doesn’t exist. Like a mental blind spot, filled in with what “should” exist there.

    “My Feynman link was in response to your accusation that my skepticism was a matter of blind faith.”

    Nope, your link was irrelevant because you don’t have skepticism. You have denial. “I don’t believe you” isn’t skepticism. To be a skeptic you have to be able to change your mind. Like Prof Muller.

    What you have is blind faith: AGW is false, and therefore any evidence must be fake, anyone producing it must be lying and that if this doesn’t happen to be true, then it’s a conspiracy to hide the truth.

    Deniers never change their minds. No evidence EVER works. See you and the dozen cases exonerating Mann. NO EVIDENCE that Mann is innocent! Because you decided that he’s guilty and only evidence for that claim (nonexistent though it is, you just fill in what you are missing out of thin air) can be seen.

    “recent tortured argument that citing papers was in fact an appeal to authority”

    It IS an appeal to authority, you knuckle-dragging idiot.

    “What she actually said was that the case was “close” and that there was “slight” evidence of actual malice at that stage of the case.”

    If that were true, you would have linked to the court statement, NOT a vlog run by some nobody.

    “Forgot to include the link where the judge acknowledges…”

    You still forgot it. Linking to a denier blog isn’t where the judge says anything.

    But when you go to the real source, you don’t get the results you want, therefore you go elsewhere until you find someone else who says she said. But a game of chinese whispers isn’t evidence of what someone said.

    • Oh, also on the “It’s right there” front: it’s not there, I never said you said it was god.

      I said you believed it.

      Not said it.

      • Please explain how you can deduce what I believe based on something you freely admit I never said…

        ???????

        • It’s called “Dedution”, dumbo.

          Deduction, induction and consideration are tools used to find out about reality.

          • I thought you used appeal to authority?

            • Where?

            • You heartily endorsed the idea that appeal to authority was central to the development of science. See Bickmore’s post on Delingpole.

            • Nope. Didn’t.

              And that’s irrelevant to the post you responded to.

              Crazy talk from the lunatic Loco.

            • You asked me to show where you endorsed the idea that appeal to authority was central to the development of science.

            • And you haven’t shown where I endorsed the idea that appeal to authority was central to the development of science.

              Even if you had, showing me (which you didn’t) where I claimed that isn’t explaining where you claim I said that came from.

              Is this tachyon stupidity from you, denier? Stupidity that travels back through time so that the (lack of) proof of claim comes after the claim that the proof was given?

            • So, now you’re saying that appeal to authority has no place in science?

            • Nope.

            • “Nope” to what part of the question?

            • There was only one part to the question. Which wasn’t a question. It was an assertion with a question mark on the end.

            • “You heartily endorsed the idea that appeal to authority was central to the development of science.”

              This isn’t telling anyone where I used an appeal to authority.

              It’s telling us you can’t, and telling us you lied.

              Again.

            • “You heartily endorsed the idea that appeal to authority was central to the development of science. See Bickmore’s post on Delingpole.”

              If you’re talking about my post there, I do not claim that appeal to authority was central to the development of science. See my post in Bickmore’s post on Delingpole.

        • It is idiocy to use an authority when you’re claiming appeals to authority are invalid. You are holding mutually incompatible precepts and not noticing them.

          From that I deduce you are an idiot.

          If you’d SAID you were an idiot, I wouldn’t have to show evidence supporting my deduction: I would only have had to agree.

          Hell you claim Mann is lying, yet nowhere did he say “I am lying about the hockey stick”. You claim he fiddled the data but nowhere did he say “I fiddled the data”.

          Yet this deduction is OK for coming to the conclusion on no evidence for (and not remembering the massive evidence against that conclusion) that AGW is a lie is fine, whilst using deduction, based on ACTUAL evidence that REALLY exists, is not fine.

          Yet more evidence of your stupidity.

          • You claimed that my skepticism was based in religion. You still haven’t answered how you “deduced” that.

            • Nope, I said it WAS a religion.

            • No, you specifically mentioned ‘God’.

            • Are you changing what you claim I claim yet again, yet never admitting your earlier claims were false?

              That;s lying, Loco.

              The word god did appear. Then again, the word god appeared in your post.

              Does that mean I can claim you invoked god to prove AGW doesn’t exist? Or is that sort of lie only allowed for you and your denier chums?

            • Can anyone explain what in the world ‘Wow’ is blabbering about now???????

            • Nope, sorry. I gave up ages ago.

            • Yes, though the problem is that any explanation has to get past your mental filters.

              Quite why you’re complaining about not making sense when you’re all over the shop is only explained by an attempt to blame others for failures you are undertaking in order to attempt to co-opt them early.

            • Colin would “like” to help you, after all, you’re fighting the good fight against the sciementists wot are all getting paid for AGW (or something).

              However, even he can’t find a way.

              Except to infer that you’re not being in any way obscure or changeable in your claims.

            • “Quite why you’re complaining about not making sense when you’re all over the shop is only explained by an attempt to blame others for failures you are undertaking in order to attempt to co-opt them early.”

              ??????????????????????????????

            • “??????????????????????????????”

              ???????????????????????????????

            • Which word did you not understand, Loco?

            • Explain why someone would want to “co-opt” a failure?

            • co-opt

              3. To take or assume for one’s own use;

              You are taking the failure and accusing others of it in the hope that others will not point out your failure because you’ve staked out the infantile proposition “Well you did it too!”.

              See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection for the psychological reasons why you do this.

            • Perhaps you should investigate the psychological reasons for your constant lying.

              You tried to claim that my skepticism of AGW was based in religion and now you’re just trying to lie your way out of it.

            • Since I rarely like, I cannot investigate how I constantly lie, Loco. Since I haven’t made any of the lies you claimed, I cannot investigate why I lied over things I didn’t lie about.

              Maybe you need to see someone to help your insanity remain contained.

            • What are you talking about? You lie *constantly*. Just like you lied for weeks about obtaining the court rulings online from the court itself.

            • That you don’t like what I say doesn’t make it a lie, Loco.

              I ain’t lying.

            • Of course you’re lying. You lied for weeks about obtaining the court rulings from the court case online website.

            • And I’e said dozens of times.

              Yet you’re still demanding to see it again.

              https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf

            • You’re still lying. Court Case Online provides only docket information.

            • No, it provides the rulings too.

          • .

            Actually I worked it out just fine when I first found the Court Case Online website. Six weeks ago. When you first started with your direct link to the court documents avoidance tactic.

            It’s a lot easier to search by name.

            Last Name: MANN
            First Name: MICHAEL

            Hit the ‘Search’ button.

            As of today it’s the second case down and the only one with a status of ‘Open’.

            Check the box in the ‘Select’ column for Mann’s case.

            Hit ‘Case Details’.

            And you’re presented with the court docket for this case.

            Unfortunately there are *no* hyperlinks on this page to download the rulings themselves. Sure, you’ll be able to see that two orders were filed on July 19, 2013.

            *** But there are no links to download anything on this page. ***

            That’s why I read the User’s Guide which I linked to on May 3rd. The Guide tells how Court Case Online is an electronic *docket*, not a document archive like Wow claims.

            https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/pdf/CourtCasesOnline_UsersGuide.pdf

            The journalist’s handbook for the D.C. Courts explains how to obtain actual copies of the filings.

            “But actual copies of filings must be obtained at the public access computers located in the divisions’ clerk’s offices”

            http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/JournalistsHandbook.pdf

            So I’ll ask Wow again. How were you supposedly able to download the court rulings from a system that all the documentation says does not provide such documents? How do you download files from a webpage that has no download links?

          • —- PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE —-

            Please be advised that ‘Wow’ is a pathological liar.

            His claims to have downloaded court rulings in the Steyn case from Court Case Online are a complete fabrication. Court Case Online only provides an electronic docket.

            If you follow Wow’s directions you’ll be presented with a list of documents filed with the court but no way to download them. You did not make an error. Wow is just a dishonest little cretin who needs to make up fairy tales to “win” arguments.

            • More insanity burbling from you, Loco.

              Nothing even remotely approaching relevance or sanity or plain old reality in there.

      • The link to the court documents is clearly indicated in the text of the page I linked.

        Mann v. National Review 7-19-13
        page 21

        “At this stage, the evidence is slight as to whether there was actual malice”

        Mann v. CEI 7-19-13
        page 16, footnote 12

        “The court does view this as a very close case”

        The page I linked to was written by Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western whose work was cited in 2013 in a Supreme Court opinion by Chief Justice Roberts.

        • And you didn’t like the original link content so you linked to another denier who lies about the content so you can claim you weren’t lying.

          • So, how many “deniers” have I linked to?

            • Scores. Several scores.

            • Forgot how to count again?

            • Nope, quite happy with the accuracy of counting.

              You’ve linked to scores of denier screed.

            • Obviously since I haven’t provided twenty links it could not be “scores”.

              So why did you say that?

            • Yes you have provided scores of links. Many scores. I’m not going to trawl this site to find them all.

            • Not this *site*, this *thread*.

            • First time you’ve said that, Loco.

            • I was responding to your comment,

              “And you didn’t like the original link content so you linked to another denier who lies about the content so you can claim you weren’t lying.”

              Should have been obvious I was only talking about the links I provided on this thread.

            • Well given that there were not three links in a single post and that there were more than three links in all the thread in your posts, there is absolutely no way to tell what YOU find “obvious”, what IS obvious is that “the third link” is you playing the pronoun game.

              Which you’re still playing.

              Is there some reason why you cannot actually say what you mean?

            • You’re lying again. YOU referred to Williams Lopatto as the “third link”. You had no problems in discussing the Williams Lopatto link as the “third link”. That is until the absolute insanity of your position became too untenable even for you.

              Really, how could anyone believe that the documents hosted at Michael Mann’s attorney were *not* copies of the actual court rulings?

            • No I didn’t. You did. At one point. Well, a few, but you didn’t say what your third link was for ages, then made up several claims about it being vlockh, then claimed SPECIFICALLY it wasn’t, went on about me calling Williams Loplatto a denier blog and point to me not calling them one, and have gone to claim it WAS vlockh again.

              Now you’re asking me why I think it’s Williams Loplatto.

              I didn’t. Asked whether it was, and then you pretend it’s something else.

              As you do with so many things you don’t like to understand, Loco.

            • You are the most worthless person on the planet. I said what the third link was from the beginning.

              “But as can be seen here, Adler’s statements were perfectly true and the professor linked to documents that were the actual rulings of Judge Combs-Greene. ( Unless of course you wish to claim that pdfs provided by Michael Mann’s attorney are also false ).

              http://www.williamslopatto.com/decisions1.html

            • No you didn’t. Indeed it doesn’t appear that you;ve yet said what your third link was.

              You’ve had two so far that you’ve swapped between:

              Vlockhw

              Williams Loplatto

              You still haven’t settled on which one you meant, though.

            • You’re lying again. Five hours after I posted the link to Williams Lopatto you responded with,

              “Oh, and make that three links now. Not one to the court.”

              You called the link to Williams Lopatto the “third link”

              Now that you’ve been caught looking stupid ( thought you’d be used to that by now ) you’re trying to lie your way out of it.

            • No mention of denier there in that quote, Loco.

              And Willimas Loplatto are not the court. That’s here: https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf

              So you’ve done and gone proved me right and you a liar, knowingly, since you already knew the claim was unsupported.

              Well done Loco.

          • You lying sack of monkey puke! Come on, show that Adler’s quotes aren’t in the actual court documents.

            • This is the first time you’ve asked that, Loco.

              Is that reason enough for you to get so vitriolically insensately furious with me for not answering a question before you ask it???

              Adler is lying about the Judge’s decision by use of quote mining.

              But you LIKE the result, hence your insane raging.

            • You claimed that Adler’s quotes were untrue and later said he was a “denier” who was “lying” about the court rulings.

              Only after being called out on your smears do you start talking about quote mining.

              Typical weasel behavior.

            • No, I said he was lying, Loco.

              Never said that the words he selected didn’t appear.

              Only that they don’t say what he wants you to believe they mean.

              That’s called “lying”, Loco.

              You should know all about that.

            • I said he’s probably a denier. That his education, politics and job require that he peddle lies that pander to other deniers.

              You really live in a fantasy world, don’t you, Loco.

            • Don’t make an accusation and then run away. Prove it. Show how Adler was “lying” by writing that the judge had characterized the case as “close” and that there was “slight” evidence of actual malice at that state.

              But obviously you can’t you lying sack of monkey puke.

            • Refuting your lie about what I said isn’t retreating, you lunatic.

              If you want to claim I’m lying, prove it. Don’t just squeal it out.

            • I already proved you’re lying.

              You’ve never proved Steyn was lying. In fact you never even tried.

            • No you didn’t.

            • I’ve proven you a liar over and over again.

              You’ve only proven *yourself* to be liar.

            • No, you’ve CLAIMED I was a liar over and over again.

              Like here:

              You, Loco: “even claiming that the rulings hosted at Mann’s attorney’s office were fake. 4/6/15 3:43 PM”

              Hmmm. What did I say?

              QUOTE:

              Oh, and make that three links now.

              Not one to the court.

              Because the court statements do not support your editorial demands, you denier.

              UNQUOTE.

              You claim I lie, but you lie about it. And pretend that your lie was never shown a lie so you can repeat it.

            • You mean like how you’ve been lying for weeks about downloading the court rulings from the court itself?

            • I have downloaded the court documents, Loco.

              Where’s your evidence?

            • Already posted my evidence multiple times.

            • Where’s your link to the documents at the court?

            • Still over here.

              https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf

            • You’re lying again. Court Case Online only provides docket information.

            • Rulings too.

            • You just can’t stop lying can you? After all it’s the only way you can “win” an argument.

              Must be your lack of education.

            • It really fucks you off to know that I’m right, doesn’t it, Loco.

              Really REALLY grinds your gears. Hence the spamming of the same complaint again and again, with enough changes to pass the spam filter.

            • You could not have downloaded the rulings from Court Case Online because that website does not provide copies of those documents.

              You’re a pathological liar. You’re a completely worthless, utterly contemptible, miserable excuse for a human being.

          • Actually I worked it out just fine when I first found the Court Case Online website. Six weeks ago. When you first started with your direct link to the court documents avoidance tactic.

            It’s a lot easier to search by name.

            Last Name: MANN
            First Name: MICHAEL

            Hit the ‘Search’ button.

            As of today it’s the second case down and the only one with a status of ‘Open’.

            Check the box in the ‘Select’ column for Mann’s case.

            Hit ‘Case Details’.

            And you’re presented with the court docket for this case.

            Unfortunately there are *no* hyperlinks on this page to download the rulings themselves. Sure, you’ll be able to see that two orders were filed on July 19, 2013.

            *** But there are no links to download anything on this page. ***

            That’s why I read the User’s Guide which I linked to on May 3rd. The Guide tells how Court Case Online is an electronic *docket*, not a document archive like Wow claims.

            https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/pdf/CourtCasesOnline_UsersGuide.pdf

            The journalist’s handbook for the D.C. Courts explains how to obtain actual copies of the filings.

            “But actual copies of filings must be obtained at the public access computers located in the divisions’ clerk’s offices”

            http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/JournalistsHandbook.pdf

            So I’ll ask Wow again. How were you supposedly able to download the court rulings from a system that all the documentation says does not provide such documents? How do you download files from a webpage that has no download links?

    • Hey Wow-for-Brains,

      Bickmore’s posting on the Steyn case again. How come you haven’t posted your instructions for downloading all the court documents from Court Case Online? Wouldn’t Bickmore be interested in the actual documents?

      Aw, but you can’t because you just made up that story and then Bickmore will found out what a sniveling little lying pansy you are.

    • Hey Wow-for-Brains,

      Bickmore’s posting on the Steyn case again. How come you haven’t posted your instructions for downloading all the court documents from Court Case Online? Wouldn’t Bickmore be interested in the actual documents?

      Aw, but you can’t because you just made up that story and then Bickmore will realize what a lying little turd you are.

      • Because it doesn’t seem to be necessary.

        Unlike you I don’t need to spam the same stuff time and time again.

  7. “Yet today you accuse me of lacking higher brain function by suggesting that Feynman could explain the scientific method to you.”

    Yet more evidence that no matter what they are presented with, deniers will screw around with reality until they get their way.

    Here’s what I said Quote:It is odd, however, that you use an appeal to Richard Feynman, an authority, in your screed.

    It is idiocy to use an authority when you’re claiming appeals to authority are invalid. You are holding mutually incompatible precepts and not noticing them, even though they go on inside the very same diseased brain.

    That’s why, quote, nothing above the brainstem is involved in your conspiracy ideation, unquote.

    It is not possible for a properly working brain to hold such a dichotomy without noticing it.

    Barry and myself accept that appeal to authority is a fallacious fallacy. Therefore there is no dichotomy here.

    And my noting that you hold incompatible ideas on the subject do not mean I hold the authority invalid.

    But you don’t bother with reality, you have your conclusions, then you work out how to explain them, like here:

    Oh, by the way, on the bad evidence and predictions, how well do deniers do compared to the professionals?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/winter-2014-15.html

    • So you’re admitting that your belief in global warming is a faith-based appeal to authority and not based on evidence.

      • No, but I guess you’re admitting that my deductions about your reasoning (such as it is) are correct, then?

        • No, but I guess you’re admitting that my deduction that your belief in AGW is indeed a matter of faith and not scientific evidence.

          • No.

            I guess you’re admitting that AGW is real.

            • Still waiting on that proof that I’m a creationist.

            • Never said that, Loco.

              Nothing of reality gets inside that insane cranium, does it, Loco. Everything is made up in your own crazed mind.

            • I thought winter in a small area like the UK was supposed to be called ‘weather’ and not ‘climate’?

            • In what way does the UK’s size and season explain where you get the idea I called you a creationist?

              This is why your whine about my “babbling” is so very false: you flail.

            • How is a prediction about the weather over one season in one small part of the globe evidence that “deniers” have a poor track record of predicting the *climate*?

            • Still has nothing to do with where I claimed you were a creationist.

              I take it this is a conversation you’re having with someone you constructed in your own head on a blog you populated with your imagination and are confused about whether you’re using your real fingers or imagining it.

            • “Oh, by the way, on the bad evidence and predictions, how well do deniers do compared to the professionals?”

              http://www.skepticalscience.com/winter-2014-15.html

              You asked the question. Don’t you remember?

            • Yes, said that. Well done. You can cut and paste. And, apparently, only remember what someone else posted, forgetting what you posted when convenient.

              You still haven’t explained what the size of the UK and it’s seasons have to do with me calling you a creationist.

            • How is a prediction about the weather over one season in one small part of the globe evidence that “deniers” have a poor track record of predicting the *climate*?

            • Which has nothing to do with explaining where I called you a creationist, Loco.

          • And you still forget to explain how that shows where I claimed you were a creationist.

            Is there some mental or ideological problem for you to say “I cannot find any evidence for my claim, so I’m asking a different question and admit no evidence supports my assertion on that claim”?

  8. Loco, Barry and myself can use an authority because we don’t believe that the argument by authority is always a fallacy. *You* can’t because you do.

    Or is this thinking far too logical for you to manage?

    • Wow,

      I’m still waiting for your evidence that it is an “absolute incontrovertible fact” that Steyn lied about Mann.

      • Where did I claim that? Loco?

        Where did I claim “absolute incontrovertible fact that Steyn lied about Mann.”

        Go on, where?

  9. Please explain why an appeal to authority is preferable when clear data to the contrary is available.

    • It isn’t. *When* there’s clear data to the contrary. There isn’t for Mann or AGW, but there IS for Steyn and the rag he wrote for.

      Therefore Steyn lied, you’re lying and you’re doing it because of some hysterical religious fanaticism, whilst Steyn is doing it to get paid.

      • Please show some evidence that,

        1) I’m lying.

        2) I’m doing so because of religious fanaticism. What is my religion?

        • You’re lying about there being a pause.

          You’re lying that Steyn isn’t lying.

          You’re lying about whether proof is needed depending on who is lying.

          • So Kevin Trenberth is lying too?

            • No. You’re lying, but not Kevin.

            • If I say there’s been a pause… I’m lying. But if Trenberth says there’s a pause … he’s *not* lying.

              ??????????????????

            • There is no pause. Trenberth isn’t saying there’s a pause. The only thing getting confused here is you, Loco.

              Because all you can hear is “AGW is over! (when it never happened in the first place!)”

              This does impede your understanding, because you don’t want to. Unless it says what you want it to, then you’re all about the (mis)understanding.

            • “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado.

              http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

              So what’s the difference between a hiatus and a pause?

            • Almost every letter is different. This should indicate that they’re different words, Loco.

              But there is no pause, no haitus.

              But morons like yourself keep jabbering on about it, so people have to respond using your words so it is shown that it is about your claims for their existence.

            • Trenberth is not saying there is a haitus.

              He’s explaining where you get your error from.

            • If there is no hiatus then why did Trenberth used the word ‘hiatus’ ?

            • For the same reason you used the word god.

              There is no pause, no haitus, and Trenberth wasn’t showing there was one.

            • If there is no hiatus then why did Trenberth use the word ‘hiatus’.

            • Because there’s not a haitus.

            • Right, right, the article in Nature is “lying” but you’re telling the truth.

            • Nope, there is no pause. Not a claim Nature is lying. Only that your claims of what it says are wrong.

            • Yep, Scientific American is lying as well, right?

              “The study set off a furious debate among scientists and oceanographers studying climate change. The world’s surface temperatures have risen at a slower rate over the past 15 years than at any time since 1951, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Some scientists have tied the phenomenon, called the global warming “pause,” to the deep oceans’ taking up more heat. But the NASA study suggests that may not be the case.”

              http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mystery-of-ocean-heat-deepens-as-climate-changes/

            • No, they aren’t. You don’t understand them. You’re wrong in your claim.

            • You’re wrong.
              You’re wrong.
              You’re wrong.

              That’s all you ever say. Admit it. You simply lack the intellect to construct even a halfway decent argument.

            • No, Loco, you’re wrong.

              Sorry, just telling you the inconvenient truth.

            • You’re still lying. The article acknowledges “…he phenomenon, called the global warming “pause,…”

            • “Because there’s not a haitus.”

              Well that’s true because nobody else knows what the hell a “haitus” is.

            • There is no pause, you Lunatic.

            • So, please write letters to the editors of Nature and Scientific American and explain why their articles are wrong.

          • You’ve *never* shown any evidence that Steyn is lying!

            • Yes I have, Loco. The same evidence the Judge used.

              12 exonerations.

            • Where’s your link to the actual court documents so we can be sure of what the judge said?

            • Here, Loco:

              https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf

              You’ll need that to find out how you’ve been lied to by your denier chums.

            • Why didn’t you link to the actual documents in question?

            • You demanded I give you where I got the documents from.

              Now you’ve been given them, instead of reading them for yourself, you complain.

              If you want to know why nobody bothers answering your petulant demands, that’s why.

              You never want the answer, you only want the whine.

            • “… where I got the documents from.”

              So, why didn’t you just post the link to the documents?

              Instead you posted to the *docket*. If you can post a link to the docket then why didn’t you just post a link to the court rulings?

            • I posted a link to the court document system.

              You scream and shout and swear to get an answer then when you get it, endlessly complain, scream, shout and swear that you’ve got it.

              Quite the nutbar, you are, Loco.

            • You pointed to the court document system. Why? Why not just point to the documents? It’s just a link. If you can point to the document system then why not just point to the documents themselves?

              What are you afraid of?

            • My goodness, are you REALLY willing to be this dumb to “win”????

              Here it goes, for the extremely hard of thinking:

              The court document system is where you get the court documents from.

              Understand?

            • How would I “win” if you posted the link to the court documents?

            • LOCO: You pointed to the court document system. Why?
              Me: The court document system is where you get the court documents from.

              What the hell does your response have to do with that?

            • You’re a liar.

              Copies of court rulings are NOT available through Court Case Online.

            • Yes they are.

              That’s what the court archive system is for: accessing the court case rulings.

              Just because you’re madder than a clapped out caffeine hyped squirrel doesn’t mean anyone else has to take your insane proclamations as truth.

            • Wow gets caught in another lie.

              Wow repeatedly claimed that my failure to provide a link to the rulings hosted at the court itself was evidence of my duplicity.

              Wow then helpfully told me how stupid I am for not downloading the rulings from the D.C. Court Case Online system like Wow did.

              There’s just one small problem with that narrative.

              The Court Case Online system as described here only provides *docket* information. That is participants, dates of filings and fees paid.

              https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/pdf/CourtCasesOnline_UsersGuide.pdf

              The journalist’s handbook for the D.C. Courts explains how to obtain actual copies of the filings.

              “But actual copies of filings must be obtained at the public access computers located in the divisions’ clerk’s offices”

              http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/JournalistsHandbook.pdf

            • Cart before horse again, dearie.

              Your duplicity means you pointed to denier blogs and never read the original documents or checked your sources for accuracy, accepting them because you already believe in the answer.

              That you never linked to the original document source until very much later (but never bothered to read them) was because of your denialism.

              Proper faithiest “reasoning”.

            • Are you admitting that you’ve been lying for weeks about downloading the rulings directly from the court?

            • Hey Stupid,

              “That you never linked to the original document source until very much later (but never bothered to read them) was because of your denialism.”

              So now you’re admitting that I *have* linked to the original document source? Which one of my links are you finally accepting?

            • Only as insofar as you admit you’ve said God wouldn’t let AGW happen.

            • As usual, completely and utterly worthless Wow tries to avoid the question.

              Which one of my links are you finally accepting?

        • Your religion is denialism.

      • Please show some evidence that Steyn lied.

        • Hang on, show evidence Mann lied. You can’t demand proof Steyn lied but just insist that Mann did. You can, but not without being wrong and called out on it.

          Steyn knew he was lying because he was very noisy about at least one of the cases Mann had to answer and was livid that “the conspiracy” had exonerated him.

          He CANNOT claim he didn’t know about a court case he’d blogged about with childish glee (until it didn’t give the answer he demanded).

          • What court case did Steyn blog about?

            • one of the nearly dozen.

            • In what court?

            • One of the ones in the USA. There’s been several.

            • Show evidence Mann lied.

            • So, name one of the ‘several’ court cases in the US.

            • Read the defendants court filings.

            • Yes, Loco, the people saying Mann lied can be proven to have said he’s lied.

              This isn’t proof he lied.

              You seem A-OK with the claim itself not being proof when I call you out on your lies, or Steyn out on his.

              Not so hot remembering it when it comes to your lies about Mann’s actions…

            • What “lie” did I tell about Mann’s actions?

            • That he lied.

            • Where did I say that?

            • So you don’t remember what you posted?

              QUOTE:
              Who says that Williams is being morally inconsistent? His new client lies in court filings and plays hide-the-decline games with his data. Doesn’t sound that different from his old client does it?

              By: Locus on April 1, 2015
              at 10:13 pm
              ENDQUOTE

              Or you’re lying about it. Again.

            • I said that Mann lied in court. And he did.

              http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/

            • No he didn’t. Claim is not proof.

            • +++
              What “lie” did I tell about Mann’s actions?

              By: Locus on April 8, 2015
              at 8:01 pm
              +++
              That he lied.

              By: Wow on April 9, 2015
              at 1:36 am
              +++
              Where did I say that?

              By: Locus on April 9, 2015
              at 9:16 pm
              +++
              .
              .
              .
              I said that Mann lied in court. And he did
              By: Locus on April 10, 2015
              at 8:49 pm
              +++

              So when you asked “Where did I say that?” what was the purpose when you admit you said it when shown proof you said it?

            • Mann altered a quote to change its meaning and then provided it to the court. How is that not lying?

            • No he didn’t.

            • From climateaudit,

              http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/

              The Muir Russell Report

              In their summary, the Muir Russell report explicitly stated that its remit related to the behavior of CRU scientists, not scientists in the United States or even at other UK institutions:

              6. The allegations relate to aspects of the behaviour of the CRU scientists, such as their handling and release of data, their approach to peer review, and their role in the public presentation of results…

              The Team wishes to focus on the honesty, rigour and openness with which CRU handled its data…

              The Muir Russell panel did not interview Mann, a minimum prerequisite in any investigation of Mann. (Not that their investigation of CRU scientists was searching or even adequate, but they at least interviewed Jones and Briffa.) Nowhere is there any Finding in the Muir Russell report that refers to Mann, though there are many references to “CRU scientists.” Consistent with their limited remit, their signature finding is explicitly and unequivocally limited to “CRU scientists” and made no mention of Mann:

              8. The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted… On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

              Re-read the exact language of this finding carefully as I’ll refer to it later.

              Mann’s Complaint
              As discussed in connection with the Oxburgh panel (see here), Mann claimed that he had been “investigated” by numerous investigations, including the Muir Russell inquiry, and that “all” of these investigations, including Muir Russell, had “exonerated” him on wide-ranging counts, “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data” and even found that his work was “properly conducted and fairly presented”.

              Mann’s Reply Memorandum contains a section entitled “Dr Mann Is Exonerated”, in which the two East Anglia investigations (Oxburgh and Muir Russell) are discussed in support of the assertion that Mann had been “exonerated” by “all” of these numerous investigations.

              National Review and CEI Motions to Dismiss

              The National Review memorandum in support of their motion to Dismiss (December 2012) clearly stated (page 9) that the Muir Russell report did not “offer any opinion on Mann”:

              Nor did it offer any opinion on Mann, who was not a part of CRU, but merely a collaborator with some of its scientists.

              The CEI memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss (p 12) more generally observed that Mann had failed to provide supporting quotations from seven of the nine reports (including Muir Russell.)

              So too is the assertion that those reports’ contents contradict any of the challenged statements made by the CEI Defendants. Compl. ¶¶24-25. Indeed, the Complaint fails to quote a single word or cite a single page from seven of those reports, and the brief excerpts of two that it does set forth do not actually contradict any of the CEI Defendants’ challenged statements.

              Mann Reply Memorandum

              In the Introduction of his Reply Memorandum, Mann acknowledged that both CEI and National Review had contested Mann’s claim to have been exonerated by the Muir Russell and other listed investigations with bluster that these (true) assertions were nothing more than attempts to “obfuscate and misrepresent”:

              While Defendants do address some of the inquiries [a list including Muir Russell] into these issues, including those undertaken by Pennsylvania State University, the National Science Foundation, and the University of East Anglia, they obfuscate and misrepresent the findings of those panels, in an effort to suggest (erroneously) that those inquiries did not exonerate Dr. Mann of fraud or misconduct. See CEI Anti-SLAPP Mem. at 14-17; NRO Mem. at 8- 11. 9 [Reply to CEI, page 3, fn 5]

              {Feb 27, 2010): That Mann himself knew that the Muir Russell report was limited to “CRU scientists” and did not include himself is demonstrated by his contemporary comment at realclimate (h/t Barry Woods):

              “The main issue is that they conclude that the rigour and honesty of the CRU scientists is not in doubt. For anyone who knows Phil Jones and his colleagues this comes as no surprise, and we are very pleased to have this proclaimed so vigorously.” Mike & Gavin

              Later in the Reply Memorandum (page 19), Mann purported to provide the requested supporting quotation from the Muir Russell report showing that the supposed exoneration was not limited to “CRU scientists”, but extended more generally to “the scientists”, including Mann himself:

              Three months later, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report, prepared under the oversight of Sir Muir Russell. The report examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt. [my bold][38 – Muir Russell Report]”

              But watch carefully here. The exact phrase within quotation marks doesn’t actually occur in the Muir Russell report: I noticed this because of the American spelling “rigor” rather than the English spelling “rigour” which would have resulted from a cut-and-paste. The actual quotation from the Muir Russell report (shown below) clearly limits its findings to CRU scientists,as National Review and CEI had asserted and contradicting both Mann’s complaint and blustery reply:

              On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

              Had Mann’s Reply Memorandum provided the actual quotation, it would have confirmed National Review’s and CEI’s claim that the Muir Russell had confined its findings to “CRU scientists”, but not in the quotation as altered by Mann and/or his lawyers.

            • Ah yes, climate fraudit. A blogroll of an incompetent denier moron, Steve McIntyre, paid out of fossil fuel money. You DO know the company he works for, yes?

              No, Climate Fraudit’s claims are more fictional denier chum.

            • Oh here we go. Wow, the wannabe intellectual doesn’t have the intellect to come up with an actual argument so (he/she/it) resorts to that old standby, the ad hominem.

              How about addressing the issue? Why did Mann alter a quote in his court filings?

            • I have an argument.You just ignore it’s existence.

              ClimateAudit is a piece of shit written by a venal moron willing to prostitute themselves for money, and willing to make up any old shit to do so.

              Like Monckton, Wegman and Anthony Watts, among others.

            • Well if McIntyre is such a “moron” then it should be no problem for a towering intellect like yourself to point out what he got wrong.

              Yet all you seem to do is make ad hominem attacks.

            • Easily. Already done. His PCA analysis with M&M was so poorly chosen that he “reconstructed” the temperature record with three data points.

              Google it up for more complete information.

            • The question at hand was McIntyre’s analysis of Mann’s court filings. You’re trying to change the subject because you know that McIntyre’s completely right and you’ve been lying.

            • If it’s about the court, hes not a legal professional talking as a legal professional (HINAL). Therefore he has no authority on those claims above mine.

              Prove his claims are correct, Loco.

            • Another completely stupid comment from Wow.

              The issue at hand is simple honesty, not some arcane legal point.

              Did Mann alter a quote in order to deceive the court? Questions like that are determined every day in courtrooms by juries of citizens who are not legal professionals.

              Does this mean that unless Wow is a legal professional (he/she/it) shouldn’t be commenting on the Mann v. Steyn case?

              What’s more McIntyre already made his point. Even Bickmore semi-conceded as much.

              Prove why McIntyre’s comments are inaccurate.

            • If he’s talking about the court then he’s talking as an “ordinary” citizen because he’s not a lawyer. He’s a false authority that you’re appealing to and therefore a fallacious argument.

            • You’re obviously too stupid to understand the difference between an appeal to authority and pointing out someone’s argument.

              If I just said,

              McIntyre said so!

              That’s an appeal to authority. What I did do was post McIntyre’s argument and that’s why I agree with him.

              You’d understand such simple concepts if you had any higher education.

              Like high school.

            • No, I understand the difference just fine, Loco.

              If you’re not making the argument yourself, if you’re not using your own words and your own reasoning, but are taking the reasoning of another, you’re appealing to an authority.

              And if that authority is a false one, then it;s a fallacy.

            • What utter and complete nonsense. Saying that a certain argument is persuasive is not an appeal to authority.

              What you should do is to treat every argument as if it were anonymous. By depending on the argument rather than the person making the argument you can prevent yourself from falling into the trap of an appeal to authority.

              But clearly you’ve never learned this lesson. Must be your lack of formal education.

            • You haven’t checked what supports his argument, you take his word for it his claims are right.

              That’s an appeal to a (false) authority.

              When others do the same thing, say for example, that Michael Mann has made a good case, you whine about how he’s a liar (McI is a liar, just to let you know) and whine about “appeal to authority” and “consensus doesn’t make science”.

              Just because YOU believe the blowhard doesn’t make it science, Loco.

            • So what persuaded you, then, Loco?

              If you found the argument persuasive, what was the bit(s) that you found persuaded you it was right and the rest of humanity wrong?

            • Maybe you should ask what persuaded Bickmore?

              “I read some of Steve McIntyre’s material, and I have to admit that maybe Mann’s lawyers worded the complaint a little too broadly. That is, ALL of those inquiries didn’t exonerate Mann of all charges, as their wording seems to imply.”

              https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/inspector-steyn-is-looking-for-a-clue/

            • I’m asking you, Loco.

              Since Barry was talking about the law case, and you claim that this is about McI’s science credentials, which are irrelevant when it comes to Steyn’s accusations being libel and point to Barry’s comment as “evidence”, you evidently do not have a clue what you’re talking about.

              So what so persuaded YOU about McI’s ridiculously ideologically driven drivel being “right”?

            • And of course Wow is too stupid to remember/follow the conversation.

              I only quoted McIntyre about whether Mann told the truth in his court filings.

              But of course Wow didn’t actually read the quote I provided. And so we’re stuck with Wow’s continual and habitual lying that this is about McIntyre’s science credentials.

              You obviously understand that your intellect is so grossly inferior to McIntyre’s that you *immediately* resort to dishonesty.

              At least you understand your limitations.

            • I’m following it precisely, Loco. If you want to change the topic to a new one, then you need to say what you’re changing the topic *to* before asking for answers.

              “I only quoted McIntyre about whether Mann told the truth in his court filings.”

              And McIntyre is wrong.

              He’s a false authority on the subject that you appeal to, and apparently no longer find persuasive, since you’d say what about it you found persuasive.

              Dumbass.

            • McIntyre made his case. Now it’s your turn.

              Prove that he’s wrong.

            • I have made my case.

              I can sum it up again if you like, though. It won’t be as thorough:

              He’s lying.

          • Scream and stamp your feet while saying that. That’ll make it true.

            • Since it is true, it will remain true if I stamp my feet and scream.

              So you’re technically correct.

              However I can’t be bothered to do that, so thanks for the offer, but I decline.

            • Just keep lying. It’s all you can do…

            • Every day is opposite day for you, isn’t it you nutcase.

            • Honesty is the opposite of habitual liars like yourself. Why don’t you lie again about where you got the court rulings?

            • More insane ranting from you Loco.

            • Why did you lie about obtaining the court documents from the court website?

            • Since I didn’t lie, how can I say why I lied?

              I didn’t.

            • You’ve been lying for weeks about downloading the court rulings from Court Case Online. That system only provides docket information.

      • I was talking about the AGW theory. Why do you still cling to your faith in the IPCC models when they’ve performed so poorly?

        • Why? Because the models are damn close to accurate.

          Why do you reject them when they’re accurate?

          • If they’ve been so accurate then why has Kevin Trenberth been writing peer-reviewed papers to explain why they’ve been inaccurate?

            • Because he hasn’t been writing papers to explain why they have been inaccurate.

              You do like making up nonexistent claims for other people.

              It doesn’t work.

            • Link to a paper where Trenberth touts the accuracy of the climate models.

            • Why? The nonexistence (I haven’t checked) of TRENBERTH doing such a test isn’t nonexistence of the tests having been done.

              There’s more than one scientist in the world, Loco.

            • Then explain why Trenberth disagrees with all those other tests that have been done.

            • He doesn’t.

              Stop making stuff up out of whole cloth.

            • If the models have been so accurate then why is Trenberth writing papers to explain why the models have gone wrong?

            • He isn’t.

            • “We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols.”

              http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha06510a.html

              So says James Hansen. Have you heard of him?

              Caught in another lie you scumbag!

            • And yet again you supply a quote then have to Dull Old Pole “interpret” it to make it mean what you want, rather than what it says.

              Nope, Hansen isn’t saying that the models are inaccurate.

            • Who is “Dull Old Pole”?

            • Dellingpole.

              Who is a Dull Old Pole (a stick in the mud), only of interest because he panders to the denier crowd and this is very money-friendly for the newspapers that employ his “craft”.

            • What “interpretation”? The quote is self-explanatory.

              You’re just a model-inaccuracy denier.

            • Your claim about it is wrong.

              Just as you claim with me and my accusation you’ve said god wouldn’t allow AGW to happen.

            • You’re lying again. I didn’t make any claim.

              I QUOTED Hansen and provided a link to the source.

              More and more NASA scientists are admitting that the climate models haven’t been working out very well.

              http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2015/04/24/shocker-cbs-earth-not-warmas-climate-models-predicted

              But the wannabe intellectual fraudsters like yourself have nothing else to say but lies, lies and more lies.

            • You quote him, as you do me, but your claims about them are wrong. As they are with me.

            • What claim? I QUOTED him. What does it take to get that simple concept to penetrate the concrete between your ears?

            • Like I quoted you saying god wouldn’t let AGW happen, Loco.

              Are you saying therefore you think that God wouldn’t let AGW happen, Loco?

              Or is mining a quote producing a lie?

            • Explain why the quote I provided is misleading.

            • There is no pause. Start from there and you’ll see your error.

              Give it a go.

              Try some REAL skepticism. Be skeptical of your own wishes and preconceptions.

            • You’re lying again. The Scientific American and Nature articles acknowledge the pause.

              Hansen admits the models have been inaccurate.

            • No they don’t.

            • That’s your idea of a counter-argument?

              Must be your lack of education.

            • No, that would be your culpable stupidity, Loco.

              There is no pause.

              Prove that the 0.17C per decade trend has stopped.

            • Please explain why Kevin Trenberth is seeking to explain a pause that you say never happened.

            • The same way I say the word pause when I say the pause never existed, Loco.

              Dumb enough to not get this after a hundred repeated explanations, Loco.

            • You haven’t “explained” a thing. All you do is just repeat.

              Nuh-uh
              Nuh-uh
              Nuh-uh

            • When you keep repeating the question, the answer doesn’t change, so I will keep repeating the answer.

      • Explain why Kevin Trenberth is seeking to explain a pause you say never happened.

        • You haven’t got any smarter, have you, Loco nutbar.

          No pause. No hiatus. Trenberth isn’t proving there is one.

          • You’re lying again. Kevin Trenberth says there’s been a pause.

            Explain why you think he’s wrong.

            • He didn’t say there was a pause.

              Explain why you think he’s right.

    • I also note you’ve not shown where I claimed “absolute incontrovertible fact that Steyn lied about Mann.”.

      Were you admitting you made that up?!?!

      Or are you wondering what the hell you were on about, like everyone else?

  10. Barry,

    During these discussions I noted that the first judge characterized Mann’s libel lawsuit as a “close case” and that the evidence for actual malice was “slight” and provided a link.

    http://volokh.com/2013/08/20/mann-v-steyn-mann-wins-round-one/

    Commenter ‘Wow’ called the blogger a “denier” and further claimed that the “original sources” would show these statements to be false.

    I replied that links to the actual court rulings were available on the page I linked and also noted that the blogger in question was Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western.

    Nonetheless, ‘Wow’ repeated the claim that Adler was “lying” about the court’s ruling.

    But as can be seen here, Adler’s statements were perfectly true and the professor linked to documents that were the actual rulings of Judge Combs-Greene. ( Unless of course you wish to claim that pdfs provided by Michael Mann’s attorney are also false ).

    http://www.williamslopatto.com/decisions1.html

    So, do you think that Prof. Adler should be able to sue ‘Wow’ for libel? It seems to meet all the criteria. After all the statement was false, was made publicly and would certainly be damaging to the reputation of a jurist. Furthermore actual malice could be shown since the accusation appears to be solely the product of Wow’s imagination as stated in St Amant v. Thompson.

    Also, since you provide some moderation of this blog would you also be legally vulnerable?

    • Whether Wow is liable, or not, I don’t care. As for me, I would take down Wow’s offending comments and apologize if Prof. Adler wanted to threaten a libel suit against me.

      • So you’re saying that you wouldn’t take down Wow’s comments because they’re false and not suitable for the level of discussion on this blog but only if you faced legal action?

        In other words you don’t have a moral compass and you have to be threatened in order to behave appropriately? What sort of example are you setting?

        What’s interesting in that on climateaudit, McIntyre will snip comments that *agree* with him if he feels the comment lacks new information or insight. He’ll replace the comment with the phrase “piling on”.

        Why can’t you show the same class?

        • I rarely censor anyone, here. Mostly I just let people say what they want. If McIntyre wants to run his blog another way, more power to him.

          • Barry,

            So I guess in public you’ll pontificate about the dishonesty and deceitfulness of the “conspiring men” of the tobacco industry and “denier” community.

            But if you’d like to practice those same tactics yourself then c’mon down to Barry’s blog! You can lie through your teeth until someone threatens a lawsuit because the ethos here is that our ethics have to be coerced.

            What was the last sentence of your op-ed?

            “These are not the kind of people we can trust to be intellectually honest and morally upright.”

            • Prove I’m lying, Loco.

              Or is your chest-beating about how you can’t say someone is lying without proof just distraction and hypocrisy?

            • Wow, I don’t think you’re a liar. Just stupid.

            • Wow, on second thought. Maybe I’ve just read too much John le Carre’ but …

            • Gosh. So when you say I’m lying, you mean you’re lying. And you just admitted it.

              Do I need to provide proof of what you yourself already admit?

              Is there a mental institution you need to visit?

            • “Wow, I don’t think you’re a liar”

              What word in that sentence didn’t you understand?

            • I understood every word. What mental disorder made you write them is what flummoxes me, Loco.

              You claim you think I’m lying, then claim you don’t think I’m lying and then when I point out the inevitable mismatch between the two claims, you point to one of the claims and wonder what I didn’t understand.

              I understood it.

              Better than you.

            • In one instance I did say that you were making up things out of whole cloth when you failed to recognize your own words.

              But obviously I’ve now decided that it was just your lack of intellect or perhaps intoxication.

            • “In one instance I did say that you were making up things out of whole cloth”

              that’s called lying, Loco.

              Is the reason why you lie so frequently, fluently and absolutely no shame whatsoever is that you don’t know what the word is, despite using it liberally on anyone who doesn’t agree with you?

            • How am I “lying” by pointing out that you can’t remember what you wrote?

            • Because I do remember what I posted.

            • Then why do I have to keep reminding you of what you wrote?

            • Making up out of thin air and claiming I wrote it is not reminding me of what I wrote.

              Coming from someone who doesn’t know what they wrote your sillyness is aberrant.

            • Here’s your response from just one of the times I had to remind you of what you wrote.

              “Yes, said that. Well done. You can cut and paste.”

            • Yes. And?

            • And what? The matter speaks for itself.

            • Indeed. It says nothing.

              If that’s what you meant, then fine.

            • Still incapable of putting together an actual argument.

            • Yes. You are.

              Try and put some effort into making a case instead of just “arguing” a la Monty Python sketch.

            • You haven’t put together a single coherent argument on this page.

            • Indeed. I’ve put hundreds. Which isn’t one.

            • —- PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGE —-

              Please be advised that ‘Wow’ is a pathological liar.

              His claims to have downloaded court rulings in the Steyn case from Court Case Online are a complete fabrication. Court Case Online only provides an electronic docket.

              If you follow Wow’s directions you’ll be presented with a list of documents filed with the court but no way to download them. You did not make an error. Wow is just a dishonest little cretin who needs to make up fairy tales to “win” arguments.

            • Loco, you’re insane. Not rhetorically, not figuratively, really insane.

              Your claims require no basis in reality.

              And that one was no different.

        • In other words, Barry won’t do what you want and therefore he’s evil.

          Because tantrum.

          • What did I ask Barry to do?

            • Do you not even read your posts?

              No wonder they never make any sense.

            • I simply asked for Barry’s opinion. I never demanded or asked that he take any action.

            • No you did not.

            • Then tell us all what I action I demanded of Bickmore.

            • You demanded Barry edit and delete my posts.

              Were you not there when you posted it? Or are you on a job rotation with other people paid to troll and fluff for the industry?

              Or was it schizoid delusion?

            • “You demanded Barry edit and delete my posts”

              Quote me then…

              I don’t want you censored. Not even a little bit.

            • Then what, Loco? You’ll ignore it, that’s what Look on April 6, 2015
              at 12:32 pm

              You obviously are not the same poster, therefore the account you’re using must be owned by multiple people who share the account to astroturf for pay.

            • I didn’t demand that Bickmore do anything. I asked why he doesn’t have the same amount of class as climateaudit.

              I was showing that Bickmore acts more like a “conspiring” man than the CAGW critics.

            • Yes you did demand he do something. You demanded he delete or edit my post.

            • Quote me to that effect.

            • I did.

              The fact you still demand a quote of you indicates why your petulant demands are merely an avoidance tactic for you.

            • You’ve been caught lying AGAIN! You’re not quoting me because you don’t have a quote.

              You just made it all up in your little weasel brain.

              Typical.

            • You were showed a quote, then said “Yes, I did say Mann lied in court” as if you never wondered where you’d said it.

              So supplying a quote for you is DEMONSTRABLY a waste of time.

            • You can’t show a quote because you just made it all up. Lying scum-weasel.

            • What court case did Steyn blog about?

              By: Locus on April 6, 2015
              at 6:04 pm

              Reply

              one of the nearly dozen.

              By: Wow on April 7, 2015
              at 3:18 am

              In what court?

              By: Locus on April 7, 2015
              at 6:45 am

              One of the ones in the USA. There’s been several.

              By: Wow on April 7, 2015
              at 10:52 am

              Show evidence Mann lied.

              By: Wow on April 7, 2015
              at 11:35 am

              So, name one of the ‘several’ court cases in the US.

              By: Locus on April 7, 2015
              at 7:52 pm

              Read the defendants court filings.

              By: Locus on April 7, 2015
              at 7:53 pm

              Yes, Loco, the people saying Mann lied can be proven to have said he’s lied.

              This isn’t proof he lied.

              You seem A-OK with the claim itself not being proof when I call you out on your lies, or Steyn out on his.

              Not so hot remembering it when it comes to your lies about Mann’s actions…

              By: Wow on April 8, 2015
              at 2:33 am

              What “lie” did I tell about Mann’s actions?

              By: Locus on April 8, 2015
              at 8:01 pm

              That he lied.

              By: Wow on April 9, 2015
              at 1:36 am

              Where did I say that?

              By: Locus on April 9, 2015
              at 9:16 pm

              So you don’t remember what you posted?

              QUOTE:
              Who says that Williams is being morally inconsistent? His new client lies in court filings and plays hide-the-decline games with his data. Doesn’t sound that different from his old client does it?

              By: Locus on April 1, 2015
              at 10:13 pm
              ENDQUOTE

              Or you’re lying about it. Again.

              By: Wow on April 10, 2015
              at 1:05 am

              I said that Mann lied in court. And he did.

              http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/

              By: Locus on April 10, 2015
              at 8:49 pm

              No he didn’t. Claim is not proof.

              By: Wow on April 11, 2015
              at 2:16 am

              +++
              What “lie” did I tell about Mann’s actions?

              By: Locus on April 8, 2015
              at 8:01 pm
              +++
              That he lied.

              By: Wow on April 9, 2015
              at 1:36 am
              +++
              Where did I say that?

              By: Locus on April 9, 2015
              at 9:16 pm
              +++

              Again.

              What a moron you are, Loco. Lying then claiming you need proof you lied, then saying yeah, you said it, then when told about it, demanding proof again.

              Why?

              Because you cannot see reality. You don’t like what it’s doing.

            • Where’s the quote that I demanded Barry delete your posts?

              Lying scum-weasel.

            • Done it once already, Loco:

              Then what, Loco? You’ll ignore it, that’s what Look on April 6, 2015
              at 12:32 pm

              You obviously are not the same poster, therefore the account you’re using must be owned by multiple people who share the account to astroturf for pay.

            • Where’s the demand here?

              So you’re saying that you wouldn’t take down Wow’s comments because they’re false and not suitable for the level of discussion on this blog but only if you faced legal action?

              In other words you don’t have a moral compass and you have to be threatened in order to behave appropriately? What sort of example are you setting?

              What’s interesting in that on climateaudit, McIntyre will snip comments that *agree* with him if he feels the comment lacks new information or insight. He’ll replace the comment with the phrase “piling on”.

              Why can’t you show the same class?

              ****************************************************

              Wow, I want you to post FOREVER. In fact for a short period I thought that you might be a false-flag. That you were trying to discredit the warmists by acting like the stupidest person in the world. Unfortunately for you I now realize… it’s not an act.

            • “Where’s the demand here? ”

              In the complaint. It was a complaint. You ended with an insult because Barry said he wouldn’t edit or delete my post and the insult was because he wouldn’t do as you demanded.

              Any sane human would understand it. Any insane one would claim “I don’t see the words ‘I demand you delete the post’ therefore there’s no demand to delete the post”.

              And you’re nuts as all get-out, Loco.

            • I don’t want your posts deleted.

              I wanted to highlight the hypocrisy of many in the warmist camp.

            • You’ve changed your demands, then.

              Because you did want Barry to remove it and got really pissy when Barry said he wouldn’t.

            • Why would I want your posts removed? From now on I can point to them to show how this blog is just a soapbox for pathological liars like yourself.

            • How the hell should I know? You’re insane. That means you don’t necessarily do anything for a reason.

            • Why would I want your posts removed? You make all warmists look like lying idiots.

            • It’s not relevant for me to tell you why.

              You did want them removed.

              You whined Barry would not.

            • Never wanted your comments removed. Your constant lying and stupidity makes global warming look like a bad joke.

              At this point the *warmists* probably want you to go away and never come back because you’re making them look bad.

              I want you to keep posting lies and gibberish.

            • So you are claiming that you insulted Barry for not doing what you don’t want him to do, and praised Moron McIntyre for his supposed desire to do what you don’t want done?

              The insanity is obvious. It’s as obvious you don’t care.

              Either way, there was plenty of evidence supporting my claim, I just assumed a rational human being was writing your stuff, Loco, not a nutbar who doesn’t know or care what they think as long as they can berate people who don’t agree with them.

            • No, I was pointing out that Bickmore doesn’t seem to be living up to the standards he pontificated in his Merchants of Doubt newspaper piece.

              I really don’t care what the hell Bickmore does. I just point out the contradictions.

            • Nope, you were complaining that he wasn’t deleting my post.

            • Total nonsense. Why would I want your posts deleted? I was just thinking what the readers of Bickmore’s article would think if they decided to visit this blog. Wow running around, constantly lying about downloading documents from the court, calling people religious nutjobs and screaming that God doesn’t exist.

            • You demanded Barry remove my posts.

              Your demand didn’t work. You whined.

            • Why would I want your posts deleted? Your stupidity is making this the best “denier” blog ever!

            • You wanted me silenced.

            • Are you kidding? I want you to be the voice of climate alarmism forever.

            • No you don’t.

              You’re just pretending.

              You want me silenced, shamed, “proven wrong”, even if you have to wade to the depths of your insanity to get to believe it.

              Your claims do not stack with your whining when Barry refused your demand. Or the demand itself.

              So now, given you’re not going to get your way and Adler isn’t going to claim libel on me, you’re pretending that this is good.

            • Why would I want you silenced? Your constant lying and stupidity are an embarrassment. I’ll bet that Bickmore has stopped reading his own blog now that you’ve appointed yourself the standard bearer.

            • Why do you want me silenced? Because you’re a loathsome little bigot. And you don’t want facts to be used against you on blogposts.

            • Total nonsense. Why would I want your posts deleted? I was just thinking what the readers of Bickmore’s article would think if they decided to visit this blog. Wow running around, constantly lying about downloading documents from the court, calling people religious nutjobs and screaming that God doesn’t exist.

              Face it. You the gift to the “deniers” that keeps on giving.

            • If you don’t want them to be deleted, why do you complain so much when they’re not?

            • I never asked that your comments be deleted. I simply pointed out that McIntyre runs a better blog where shitbags like you would be kicked to the curb even if you *agreed* with McIntyre.

              Face it. You’re a fraud and Bickmore’s a poseur.

            • If you didn’t want them deleted, why all the bitching and moaning when they weren’t?

              You are still refusing to answer that question.

            • When did I bitch and moan?

              All I did was point out that McIntyre is a superior person to Bickmore and that on McIntyre’s blog a stupid shitbag like you would get kicked to the curb.

              Bickmore is a fraud who runs a low-quality blog that attracts worthless pieces of shit like you.

            • All the time, Loco.

              All the time.

            • Typical. I ask for an example and you just make some nebulous claim.

              You just a lying piece of shit.

            • I’ve answered scores of times before and still you ask it again.

              So answering it is adequately done with “see previous answers”.

              You decide if you want to read them again. I don’t waste the effort again.

            • Bickmore! Whatever you do, DON’T DELETE WOW’S COMMENTS!

              Wow is the gift to “deniers” that just keeps on giving.

              1. Wow is fucking stupid. He says things so ridiculous it’s laugh out loud funny. Like claiming that judges assign prosecutors to libel cases! Or that the terms “defendant” and “plaintiff” keep switching between the parties in a lawsuit depending on who’s filing the motion! Wow makes the climate believers look like dipshits who can’t tell their asshole from their elbow.

              2. Wow is a lying sack of shit. Wow lied dozens of times about downloading court documents from Court Case Online. He makes all climate cultists look dishonest.

              3. Wow is obnoxious. He attacks anyone who says something he doesn’t like without providing any foundation. Kind of like when you screamed at that Yale law professor.

              4. Wow is a pussy. He screams that I’m trying to have him “silenced” and then he turns around and asks that you delete my comments. Fucking coward!

              So again Bickmore. DON’T DELETE WOW’S COMMENTS!

              Having a SLOP (stupid, lying, obnoxious pussy) as your flag-bearer is the best case scenario for a “denier” like me.

            • Are you going to withdraw your castigation of Barry and your avowed disgust at this blog compared to your hero McI as well as recant your demand to delete my post, Loco?

              Or are you going to insist he keeps it and then whine about how McI would have posted it, and that “obviously” Barry is a partisan hack or some such bollocks?

            • Are you going to withdraw your castigation of Barry and your avowed disgust at this blog compared to your hero McI as well as recant your demand to delete my post, Loco?

              Or are you going to insist he keeps it and then whine about how McI would have *deleted* it, and that “obviously” Barry is a partisan hack or some such bollocks for not doing likewise?

              (mistype)

            • I never asked that Bickmore delete any of your posts.

              You just don’t get it do you? You’re an embarrassment.

              For instance you got it in your head that I was religious. So for a while you peppered your comments with phrases like “religious nutjob” and “God doesn’t exist” in an attempt to wind me up.

              Like I care.

              But if you notice this thread is about an article Bickmore wrote attempting to entice his religious community on board the S.S. Climate Change. So the next time a Barry’s Epistle to the Mormons appears I’ll be sure to point the readership to your comments. That’ll convince ’em!

              Now how can I have my fun doing that if your posts get removed?

            • Yes you did, Loco.

              And now you’re punishing Barry for not deleting stuff by spamming his threads.

            • Nuh-uh! No I didn’t.

            • Yes you did.

      • However, it’s very difficult to conceive how this could be done with legal weight behind it.

        However, this isn’t a requirement for bringing a private lawsuit, all that’s needed is the fees to file with court and a lack of care for whether you’re entitled.

        Having to turn up is more trouble than it’s worth for you.

        But doing so would be rather odd and unsupportable morally. Especially from people who screamed holy murder when Mann sued Steyn because he should have the freedom to make up any old crap because Freedom of Speech!

        It would show incontrovertibly that it’s only speech they like they want defended.

        Hypocrisy is not a new or unwelcome thing for deniers, though. After all, the ends justifies the means for them, and they want AGW ignored.

        At any cost.

        • Could you expand your legal analysis of your situation? Why is it “difficult to conceive”?

          • Because it relies on the diseased mind reinventing reality to fit the precocnieved need of the one making the claim. I.e. you.

            Since I do not share your delusions, it is difficult to concieve how they arise and what they intend.

            • No, I asked for your legal analysis. If I’m so off-base it should be easy for you to show that legally a lawsuit would be “difficult to conceive”.

            • Yes, you did ask for a legal analysis.

              So what?

            • So, provide it. Should be easy right?

            • It’s as easy for you to get it, Loco.

            • I asked for *your* legal analysis. How is that easy for me to get?

            • Yes, I noticed you DID ask. So?

            • Explain why you said the following,

              “However, it’s very difficult to conceive how this could be done with legal weight behind it.”

              Or did you start with conclusion and then forget to look for any supporting evidence?

            • I said it because it’s true.

              “Someone said I was insulted!” is not a legal issue. Even “I’ve been insulted!” is not a legal issue. And Truth is an absolute defence to boot.

            • “And you didn’t like the original link content so you linked to another denier who lies about the content so you can claim you weren’t lying.”

              You didn’t insult someone. You accused them of lying.

              How is that not defamatory?

              So I’ll ask again. Please give your legal analysis.

            • Did I? How.

              Where.

            • I just quoted you,

              “And you didn’t like the original link content so you linked to another denier who lies about the content so you can claim you weren’t lying.”

              Are you so stupid you can’t even understand what you wrote?

            • Yes, you did quote me. But that doesn’t say what you claim.

              You appear only to be able to claim I lied when you make up what I say into what you want it to mean.

              It doesn’t work like that, dearest.

            • Typical evasions from a pathological liar. Just keep denying reality.

            • Yes, you’re right, Loco, you’re a pathological liar who cannot even recognise text unless a URL is given to them to read the text they’re being asked if they recognise.

              You’re a liar who has yet again lied, but plotted it out to insist that it’s everyone else lying. Including that lying bastard reality!!!!

              Insane denier lying?

              Yaawwwn. So normal for them.

            • Now your words don’t mean what they say?

              Typical, constant evasion from a pathological liar.

            • More pronoun game from the maniac.

              My words mean what they say.

              You don’t say what they are, making it up instead.

            • Still waiting on that legal analysis? Any year now?

            • Already given it. “Someone claims I was libeled on a blog” is not actionable.

              Though your most recent claim that you were on about Williams Loplatto, not vlockh would also indicate Adler would have problems making a libel claim against him because you insist I called Williams Loplatto deniers.

            • “Someone claims I was libeled on a blog”

              I succinctly made the case for defamation. Unless you provided some sort of rationale for your statements ( that’d be a first! ) I showed how they fell into one of the examples of actual malice mentioned in St. Amant.

            • “I succinctly made the case for defamation.”

              A fiction.

              And now you think it someone else: Mann’s lawyers, not Addle-pate. Which means you un-made your case for defamation for Adler.

            • I succinctly made the case for a failure to prosecute.

              “Someone says I was libeled”.

            • Why can’t you get it through your head that there is no “prosecution” in a libel case? It’s a civil, not criminal matter.

            • Do you still not understand why I linked to Williams Lopatto?

              You kept demanding that I link to the documents at the court itself. When I discovered that the D.C. Superior Court does not provide online access I thought that only a mental case would claim that pdfs of the court rulings provided by Mann’s attorney weren’t genuine.

              Unfortunately, you ARE a mental case.

            • Well, another blinding flash of the obvious from Loco.

              Yes, you agree then that there is no case to answer for here, then? Or did your comment have absolutely no relevance. Again.

            • Locus: “Unfortunately, you ARE a mental case”

              Wow: “Well, another blinding flash of the obvious from Loco”

              Hooray! We agree on something. You ARE a mental case.

            • Still running a flat zero for reading comprehension, Loco?

            • You still haven’t explained why you think the pdfs hosted at Williams Lopatto are not accurate copies of the court’s rulings.

            • I already have: I don’t.

              Something there you don’t understand?

            • You’re lying again. I posted the link to Williams Lopatto on April 6th. By April 21st you were still complaining that I hadn’t posted a link to the “actual documents” at the court.

              So please explain why you contend that the pdfs hosted at Williams Lopatto are not the “actual” court rulings.

            • And Williams Lopllato are not the court. Therefore my observation that they are not the court is 100% correct.

              But that, to you, is lying.

              Weird.

            • You keep avoiding the question. Why don’t you believe that the pdfs hosted at Williams Lopatto are the “actual documents”?

            • Because you’re completely insane, Loco. Because you’re insane.

            • Please explain why you told everyone that I only link to “denier blogrolls” and politically motivated hacks when in fact I linked to copies of the court rulings hosted at the website for Michael Mann’s attorney.

    • I said you would post a link to the court documents if you had confidence it would claim Mann’s case so shaky, Loco. I also called one of them a denier blog. Which it was.

      YOU decided which one you were going to apply it to.

      Not me.

      But I guess you hate government but not enough to go screaming to it to shut down anyone not accepting your biased and blinkered bigoted rant.

      Excessively draconian closing down of the opposition is rather an M.O. of the virulent rightwingnuts such as yourself, though.

      • What’s wrong with the links I provided?

        • None of them are to the court documents.

          One was a denier bog, the others blogs of nobodies, not one official statement from an official, just ordinary citizens making their personal statement.

          • The third link is to what ordinary citizen?

            • You don’t know who you link to????

            • Obviously I know who I linked to. The question is whether *you* know.

              So, tell us, my third link was to what “ordinary citizen”?

            • You claim you know, but you cannot say. This indicates you’re lying about knowing what you link to.

            • So can we deduce that you FINALLY understand to whom the third link points?

            • No. We can’t. You have shown no evidence you know what the third link was.

            • I said what the third link was in one of my posts to Bickmore. Don’t you remember?

            • You mean the vlockh link? Not a link to Barry?

              Yes, that’s to a random nobody. An ordinary citizen. I’ve never called that one a denier, though he probably is. YOU are the one who made the claim he was a denier, blaming me for it.

              You appeal to a random joe’s assertion of what the ruling was, apparently only and solely because you called him “Professor”. And you think appeals to authority are (inerrantly) a fallacy.

            • Not the volokh link.

            • Do you mean the one to tom nelson? He’s a denier and proud of it. Says so himself.

            • Did you finally figure it out? I wonder how many people have been laughing at your stupidity?

            • When you won’t say what it is about, of course it takes a while.

              It would go quicker if you said. Most humans understand this. It’s called “communication”.

              Though I will point out that YOU don’t seem to have worked out what you’re talking about. Or lied about it. I think the latter is correct, but it may just be that you think Adler works at Williams Loplatto.

            • “But as can be seen here, Adler’s statements were perfectly true and the professor linked to documents that were the actual rulings of Judge Combs-Greene. ( Unless of course you wish to claim that pdfs provided by Michael Mann’s attorney are also false ).

              http://www.williamslopatto.com/decisions1.html

              How is this not communication?

            • And I quote your words exctly.

              “God would not allow AGW to be real”

              By: Locus on April 8, 2015
              at 8:26 pm

            • Obviously you were intoxicated again so I guess I’ll have to repeat myself.

              “But as can be seen here, Adler’s statements were perfectly true and the professor linked to documents that were the actual rulings of Judge Combs-Greene. ( Unless of course you wish to claim that pdfs provided by Michael Mann’s attorney are also false ).

              http://www.williamslopatto.com/decisions1.html”

              How is this not communication?

            • What are you on about? I QUOTED your words there!

              You aren’t saying that taking a quote can mislead to the intent, are you? That would kill your “there is a pause!” bollocks.

            • I guess you’re still on a bender. When you sober up address the following.

              “But as can be seen here, Adler’s statements were perfectly true and the professor linked to documents that were the actual rulings of Judge Combs-Greene. ( Unless of course you wish to claim that pdfs provided by Michael Mann’s attorney are also false ).

              http://www.williamslopatto.com/decisions1.html”

              How is this not communication?

            • “But as can be seen here, Adler’s statements were perfectly true ”

              No, they’re a load of horseshit.

            • You’re lying again. I quoted Adler when Adler was quoting the judge.

              The judge literally said,

              Mann v. National Review 7-19-13
              page 21

              “At this stage, the evidence is slight as to whether there was actual malice”

              Mann v. CEI 7-19-13
              page 16, footnote 12

              “The court does view this as a very close case”

              http://www.williamslopatto.com/decisions1.html

              You’ve been lying for weeks now.

            • Nope, even you put down precisely there that that is a FOOTNOTE.

              The statement made by Green, to which that was a footnote, was

              “The court must, at this stage, find the evidence indicates that the CEI defendants’ statements are not pure opinion but statements made on provably false facts.”

              You’re a liar and 100% guilt free for it.

            • So footnotes don’t count? Why did she make the footnote then?

              And you’re a pathological liar. You’ve been lying about downloading the rulings from court website. I’ve proven that over and over and over again. But you just keep lying.

            • Yes, they don’t count. They are only a footnote to the statement it is a footnote to, therefore missing out the statement and only putting the footnote is falsifying a quote, loco, and therefore doesn’t count.

            • Complete and total nonsense from an ignoramus who has absolutely no understanding of U.S. libel law.

              If the court had found the defendant’s statements to be pure opinion then the suit would have been dismissed as this was an anti-SLAPP hearing.

              But finding that the defendant’s statements were not pure opinion does not imply that Mann “had a very good chance of winning this case”, which is your original claim.

            • I know enough to know you;re making up fiction about libel law, Loco.

            • Another accusation, without foundation, from someone without education.

              What did I “make up”?

            • Tell you what, go to the court and ask a judge to assign a prosecutor for criminal charges against me.

              Then record the laughter.

            • Judges don’t assign prosecutors.

              Libel is a civil, not criminal matter.

              Civil cases don’t have prosecutors.

              Wow is the dumbest person in the world.

            • So you’re saying that you dare not take this to court, since you don’t want to be proven a lunatic for your hysterics.

              It’s safer to scream holy murder on a blog. Where nobody cares or is reading your drivel.

            • I’m clearly saying that you’re completely and utterly worthless. You don’t even have the most basic understanding of the US legal system.

              How in the world could you be so stupid as to think that judges assign prosecutors to cases?

            • Yes, you DO talk a load of cock, don’t you, Loco.

            • Answer the question dipshit. Why do you think that judges assign prosecutors to libel cases?

            • Because that’s the rule.

              Duh.

  11. “You claim that Steyn was “pushing” for one of the investigations of Mann. That’s false.”

    No, it is true.

    • Which investigation? Could you provide some evidence?

      • Yes.

        Why?

        You don’t need evidence to claim any of the claptrap you spout. And you’ve always ignored the evidence given to you of Steyn’s duplicity before.

        There is no expectation you will change this time.

        • So you admit you just made that story up?

          • No. Do you admit that you are into bestiality?

            • Steyn pushed for which investigation?

            • An investigation into the Hockey Stick of MBH98.

            • You didn’t say no to that, I note.

            • Which investigation? Muir? EPA?

            • There were vastly more than that short list, Loco.

              Name them.

            • So now you’re saying that Steyn pushed for every single investigation?

            • No.

            • Unless you’re saying that he pushed for the Muir and EPA investigations.

            • Again, Steyn pushed for what investigation?

            • Some of them.

              You can troll back through his opinion and see for yourself, Loco.

            • Caught lying yet AGAIN! You can’t name any because you’re lying!

            • Prove I lied, Loco.

            • Already did in my post to Bickmore.

            • No you didn’t.

            • Sure did. Otherwise you’d have an argument rather than a mindless denial.

              You really are worthless.

            • No you didn’t.

              Repeating a lie doesn’t make me have to prove it a lie yet again.

            • No you didn’t
              No you didn’t
              No you didn’t

              Quite the argument style you have.

            • Well, yes, you didn’t.

              I can’t “prove you didn’t” with a quote of WHERE you didn’t, since that is the empty set and looks like this:

            • I’ve proven over and over again that you’ve lied.

            • Not remotely true.

            • Of course it’s true. I showed you lied about downloading the rulings in this case from the court itself.

            • No, completely false.

            • Please provide a link to where the court rulings can be downloaded directly from the court itself.

            • It’s still here.

              https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf

            • You’re still lying. Court Case Online only provides docket information.

            • You’re *really* desperate, aren’t you, Loco.

              The actual court judgement is not one you like, therefore you will do anything to avoid seeing it.

              Madness. Insanity. Lunacy.

              Denial.

            • Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !

              And a few months later the Wow, like the desperate little pussy he is, would be begging Bickmore to delete my comments.

              Just admit it you fucking piece of shit. You LIED about downloading the documents from Court Case Online.

            • More insane cackling from you?

  12. Oh, and make that three links now.

    Not one to the court.

    Because the court statements do not support your editorial demands, you denier.

    • And what is wrong with the third link?

      • Where did I say there was something wrong with the third link?

        • “Oh, and make that three links now.”
          “Not one to the court”
          “Because the court statements do not support your editorial demands, you denier”

          So, I’ll ask again. What is wrong with the documents provided by the third link?

          • And I say again, I didn’t say there was something wrong with it.

            • What is wrong with the *documents* at the third link?

            • Where did I say there was something wrong with the documents at the third link?

              Given you don’t know what your third link was, how do I know what the hell you’re talking about?

            • I described the third link is a post to Bickmore. Don’t you remember?

            • No you didn’t. You’ve never until now claimed your third link was a link to Barry.

              Did you mean someone else? Then you’re proving that I’m right: you don’t know what your third link was or are confused about it, therefore how can you claim what I’m saying about it?

            • Typo.

              Should have read.

              “I described the third link *in* a post to Bickmore”

              My mistake.

            • Which link?

          • Did you read Judge Frederick H Weisberg’s ruling, Loco?

            • Please provide a link so we can ascertain that you’re reading the actual court documents.

            • So you haven’t read the court documents?

              You can’t read the court documents?

              You don’t like what Fred said in the court?

              Which?

            • Please provide a link so that we can confirm that you’re reading the actual court documents and not some commentary from an “ordinary citizen”

            • Did you read the court document from Frederick, Loco?

              This does not require I provide proof of where they exist. Trying to do so would be orthogonal and change nothing. So your only reason (or facsimile thereof) for demanding it is so that you don’t have to answer.

              Have you read it?

              Yes or no is sufficient.

            • Please provide a link so we can confirm that you’re reading the actual court documents and not some commentary from an “ordinary citizen”.

              You repeatedly demanded the same from me therefore you have absolutely no right to complain when I demand the same from you.

            • Not talking about whether I read it.

              I’m asking if you read it.

              The answer is no. You haven’t.

          • None of the links have been to the court.

            You’ve linked denier blogrolls and those of other politically motivated hacks blogging on personal opinion, not in official capacity or factual reporting basis.

            • Please explain why the third link I provided is a “denier” blogroll.

            • Please explain what you’re talking about.

            • It’s self-explanatory. Why do you claim that the third link is to a “denier” blogroll?

            • No, it isn’t.

              Third link is unidentified. You’ve given around a dozen on this page alone.

            • But if you want to go this way, the reason why it;s a denier blogroll is because the author of the blog says they deny the science of AGW and are proud of their denial.

            • Hang on, your claim re: third link was only noted by me in this thread, which is entirely different, starts here with that statement that I’d noted that there was now three links.

              Which was made AFTER I called one up on being denier spoil.

              It *IS* tachyon stupidity from you, isn’t it, Loco? Timelines mean nothing to you, reality is morphing and can be changed to whatever you want it to be, merely by the assertive will of your insane brain.

            • You’re lying AGAIN!

              Long after I posted the link to Williams Lopatto you said,

              “None of the links have been to the court.

              You’ve linked denier blogrolls and those of other politically motivated hacks blogging on personal opinion, not in official capacity or factual reporting basis.”

            • Is that all you can come up with “Liar, Liar! Pants on Fire!”?

              You’ve not managed to show that I’ve lied anywhere than other in your interpretation of my words, an interpretation entirely within your own fictional world.

              YOU, on the other hand, have been proven to have lied with your own base words.

              And now you’ve proven your best effort after nearly a week of “thought” is no better than a four year old having a paddy.

            • Wow lied about the judge’s appraisal of Mann’s case.
              Wow libeled Adler by claiming Adler falsified his direct quotes.
              Wow lied about Adler linking to the court rulings.
              Wow lied about the court rulings being hosted at Williams Lopatto.
              Wow lied about Williams Lopatto representing Mann in court.

              These weren’t mistakes. No one could possibly be that stupid.

              This is clear and compelling evidence that Wow has embarked on campaign of brazen lying on this blog. The only question is why?

            • You’re lying again, Loco.

            • Simple denial from a sack of garbage who can’t muster a defense.

            • I have proven it, I have supplied a defence. Your just nuts and won’t admit it.

            • Wow is creating an astonishing record of blatant lying on this blog.

              Wow first claimed that Judge Combs Greene has stated that Michael Mann had “a very good chance” of winning. 4/4/15 4:36 PM

              I called out this common lie by pointing to a legal blog where Prof Adler directly quoted the judge as saying that the case was “close” and there was only “slight” evidence of actual malice at that stage. 4/4/15 6:04 PM.

              http://volokh.com/2013/08/20/mann-v-steyn-mann-wins-round-one/

              Wow doubled-down by calling Adler a “nobody” whose quotes were not true. 4/5/15 3:43 AM

              I replied that Adler was a law professor and that he had linked to the actual court rulings. 4/5/15 9:03 PM

              Caught in an obvious falsehood, Wow decided to brazen it out and accused Adler of lying. 4/6/15 2:50 AM

              I noted that it was Wow who was clearly lying and that the court documents could also be found at the website for Michael Mann’s attorney.

              http://www.williamslopatto.com/decisions1.html — Locus 4/6/15 10:51 AM

              Exposed as a dishonest weasel, Wow dug in even deeper, repeating the lies that Adler had falsified his quotes and not linked to the court documents and even claiming that the rulings hosted at Mann’s attorney’s office were fake. 4/6/15 3:43 PM

              Later Wow even lied about the link to Williams Lopatto claiming that it was just a “denier blogroll” or a “politically motivated hack(s)” rather than admit it was Mann’s attorney. 4/9/15 7:52 AM

              To recap,

              Wow lied about the judge’s appraisal of Mann’s case.
              Wow libeled Adler by claiming Adler falsified his direct quotes.
              Wow lied about Adler linking to the court rulings.
              Wow lied that the court rulings being hosted at Williams Lopatto.
              Wow lied about Williams Lopatto representing Mann in court.

              These weren’t mistakes. No one could possibly be that stupid.

              This is clear and compelling evidence that Wow has embarked on campaign of brazen lying on this blog. The only question is why?

            • Once.
              Twice.
              Three times a-lying.

              That’s our locoooooo!

            • You lied about obtaining the rulings directly from the court.

            • No, did really get them directly from the court.

            • No you didn’t you liar! ( see below )

            • No, I really did.

              I quoted them. Did you see the quotes? Or are you claiming that they don’t exist in the document you read?

              Are you categorically stating that the court documents do not contain the quotes I took and posted here?

            • Please provide a link to where you downloaded the court rulings directly from the court.

            • https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf

            • You’re lying again. Court Case Online only provides docket information.

            • Yet several times you’ve claimed you downloaded the court documents from there.

              One of you two psychos is lying.

              Or both.

            • You’re lying again. Show where I ever claimed to have downloaded the court rulings from Court Case Online!

            • By: Locus on May 12, 2015
              at 8:28 pm

            • Unbelievable. I write a lengthy comment showing how it’s not possible to download the court’s rulings from Court Case Online and it all goes over Wow’ head.

              Can Wow really be so stupid as to fail to understand the following?

              “Unfortunately there are *no* hyperlinks on this page to download the rulings themselves. Sure, you’ll be able to see that two orders were filed on July 19, 2013.

              *** But there are no links to download anything on this page. ***”

              Apparently so. Wow is truly the most worthless person on the planet.

            • That’s not what you say in that post, Loco.

              Maybe your calendar is wrong. Or your brain. Either explains it.

            • What does a calendar have to do with the fact that there are no download links for documents on the page for Mann’s lawsuit?

              You just plain lied. You worthless piece of shit.

            • Ah, yes, words. Mean nothing to you, do they, you just ignore them and make up a fiction based on what you’d believe to be there.

              One day you’re going to snap and go postal with a potato gun.

  13. QUOTE
    Are you denying that you accused me of the following? It’s right there in front of you.

    “It’s a matter of blind faith for you, isn’t it: Mann MUST be lying, ….

    ENDQUOTE

    Are you blind? Did you not notice that what you say I accused you of WAS NOT that you said “God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real”.

    That was what you accused me of before.

    You’re now proving you lied.

    • So you didn’t say the following at 4:34 AM on April 4, 2015?

      “It’s a matter of blind faith for you, isn’t it: Mann MUST be lying, because God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real! Or some bullshit like that.”

      • No, I did say that, I didn’t say what you claimed I did:

        “Please show where I said that “God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real”.

        By: Locus on April 4, 2015
        at 1:29 pm

        • What in the world are you claiming is the difference?

          • In one (reality) I did not claim you said “God would not allow AGW”. In the other (your lying claim) I “did” claim it.

            They are two different scenarios.

            One, where I did not say that, is true, the other, your claim, is a lie.

            • So saying the following…

              “It’s a matter of blind faith for you, isn’t it: Mann MUST be lying, because God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real! Or some bullshit like that.”

              is *not* an accusation that I believe that

              “God would not allow AGW to be real”

            • So you’re changing your claims YET AGAIN????

              You claim this time that I’ve made “an accusation that I [Loco Nutjob] believe that …” and no longer that I claimed you said that…

              I’m betting that you still won’t admit you were lying about your claim about what I accused you of, though.

            • So saying the following…

              “It’s a matter of blind faith for you, isn’t it: Mann MUST be lying, because God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real! Or some bullshit like that.”

              is *not* an accusation that I believe that

              “God would not allow AGW to be real”

              Please explain how these are two different scenarios.

            • So yes you are changing your claims and ignoring that you are.

            • Are either of those

              ““Please show where I said that “God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real”.

              By: Locus on April 4, 2015
              at 1:29 pm”

              ?

              No.

            • Again, so saying the following…

              “It’s a matter of blind faith for you, isn’t it: Mann MUST be lying, because God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real! Or some bullshit like that.”

              is *not* an accusation that I believe that

              “God would not allow AGW to be real”

              Please explain how these are two different scenarios.

            • The claim you made is incorrect. The reality was I never did as you claimed.

            • Lie, lie, lie, lie. Is that all you know how to do?

            • So yo’ure not saying I’m lying again?

              Or are you lying about your earlier claim that you don’t think I’m lying?

              The only one prove to have lied here is you, Loco. You CLAIM I lie, but you cannot show where.

              It’s projection, isn’t it.

              Or is it that nasty liberally biased reality that’s making you do this?

            • Wow lied about the judge’s appraisal of Mann’s case.
              Wow libeled Adler by claiming Adler falsified his direct quotes.
              Wow lied about Adler linking to the court rulings.
              Wow lied about the court rulings being hosted at Williams Lopatto.
              Wow lied about Williams Lopatto representing Mann in court.

              These weren’t mistakes. No one could possibly be that stupid.

              This is clear and compelling evidence that Wow has embarked on campaign of brazen lying on this blog. The only question is why?

            • No, Loco, you’re lying again.

            • Simple denial because you have no defense. You know you’re a lying sack of filth. Everyone else knows you’re a lying sack of filth.

            • And again we see where your insanity resides, Loco.

              Denial of lies is not denial of reality.

              You’re talking bollocks, and I have already shown multiple times where you have done so, whilst all you have are claims or quotes that do not support your claim.

              But your insanity won’t let you lose, so you continue to scream and shout your rage on the internet.

              Because you’re fighting for god.

            • Where did I say I was fighting for God?

            • When did I ever bring up God?

            • April 8th, 8:26, Loco.

            • I’m quoting YOU numbnuts.

            • Yet quoting me saying something different to your claim.

            • You sad “God”.

            • Let’s see. You accuse me of believing that God would not allow AGW to be real. Then when I quote your words, you accuse me of bringing up God.

              Dumbest argument ever. From the dumbest wannabe intellectual ever.

            • “Let’s see. You accuse me of believing that God would not allow AGW to be real.”

              Yup

              I even quote you saying those words. April 4th, 1:29pm.

              Are you saying that I fabricated that quote?

              I didn’t. Quoted the words directly from your post.

              Given you insist that merely having some of the words in quotation marks that appear is proof the conclusion is correct, you must agree that my claim about your godworship is correct.

            • You alter quotes to change their meaning.

              Michael Mann alters quotes to change their meaning.

              Adler however quotes honestly.

              But honesty is just an unfathomable concept for you isn’t it?

            • ah, yes, projection: you do it with abandon, therefore everyone else does it.

              Except you’re wrong.

            • Once again without anything intelligent to say, Wow resorts to gibberish. Typical wannabe intellectual fraud.

            • Intelligent debate would rather require you be able to keep up, Loco. You’ve shown you can’t.

              So I descend nearer your level. Not able to get that low, because I’m not batshit crazy like you.

            • blah, insult, blah, insult, blah, insult

              You still can’t come up with anything resembling a coherent argument.

            • So only you re allowed to insult, blah and so forth?

              Sorry, sauce for the goose and all that, dearie.

            • I have NEVER insulted you. When I say that “you’re the most worthless person on the planet”, that’s not an insult.

              It’s called an accurate description.

              You still can’t come up with a coherent argument. Must be your lack of education.

            • Oh, if that’s an acceptable response, then I’m not insulting you, you cretinous lunatic, I’m accurately describing you.

            • Wow is a fucking liar. He lied about downloading the court rulings from Court Case Online.

              Wow is fucking stupid. He tried to claim that the National Review could be both the plaintiff and the defendant in the same sentence!

              Wow is a pussy. He asked Bickmore to delete my comments.

              End accurate description.

  14. More on the nonexistence of the pause:

    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/a-pause-or-not-a-pause-that-is-the-question/

    • Why is some blogger more credible than Kevin Trenberth who says there has been a pause?

      • Tamino isn’t more credible than Kevin.

        However, Kevin didn’t claim there’s a pause.

        You do not seem able to comprehend the concept that you’re lying.

        • Why did Trenberth say there has been a hiatus that started in 1998?

          • He didn’t.

            • “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado.

              http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

              Why did Trenberth use the word ‘hiatus’?

            • For the same reason you used the word “God”.

              There is no pause, Trenberth is not talking about a pause.

            • Why did Trenberth use the word ‘hiatus’ then?

            • For the same reason you used the word god.

            • Why did Trenberth use the word “hiatus” if there’s no pause?

            • Why does using the word haitus mean AGW is wrong?

            • Why did Trenberth use the word “hiatus” if there’s no pause?

            • Because morons like you keep calling it a haitus.

              It doesn’t exist.

            • If the pause doesn’t exist then why do articles acknowledging the pause appear in journals like Nature and Scientific American?

            • Already explained. If you haven’t got it, the problem is at your end.

              You’re insane.

              There is no pause.

            • You’re lying again. Scientific American and Nature articles acknowledge the existence of the pause.

            • No they don’t.

            • Of course they do. You’re simply lying again.

            • You are simply wrong, simpleton.

            • And this is how every “conversation” with Wow ends. With Wow just repeating the same lie over and over and over again.

              How the world had changed in the last few years. Notice that acknowledgement of the pause is now the mainstream position. And the only pause-deniers are idiots like Wow, sitting in their mum’s basement with tinfoil wrapped around their nuggets so their thoughts can’t be read by the government, or space aliens or space aliens working for the government.

            • You’ve never had a conversation in your life, Loco. It;s either circle-jerk agreement among fellow moron deniers or it’s incandescent ISIS rage against those who do not follow or agree with your dogma.

            • And you’re just a little pussy who has to lie about downloading court documents from Court Case Online in order to “win” the argument.

  15. Did you read Judge Frederick H Weisberg’s ruling, Loco?

    • Please provide a link so we can ascertain that you’re reading the actual court documents.

      • You can read the court documents yourself.

        Have you read Judge Frederick H Weisberg’s ruling, Loco?

        This doesn’t require I have read them. It doesn’t require I show you where they are. Though if you don’t know where they are, this WOULD indicate why you have taken only a third party’s claims on them as authoritative (another appeal to false authority fallacy from you, no surprise there).

        I am not making any claim about the content, unlike you (via a proxy so you can just whine “That’s what THEY said, don’t call ME a liar!!!!” when caught out in a lie).

        Have you read Judge Frederick H Weisberg’s ruling, Loco?

        • Please provide a link so that we can confirm that you’re reading the actual court documents and not some commentary from an “ordinary citizen”

          • Since I haven’t said I’ve read it, why do I have to provide proof I’ve read it?

            Have YOU read it?

            Or is the problem that you don’t read that, you only read the “right people” who will come to the “right conclusion” about what it means Mann’s a liar, since that’s the only answer you will ever condone?

            Have you read it?

            I also haven’t said I haven’t read it.

            I’m asking if YOU read it.

            Given your flailing about to avoid saying no, you haven’t.

          • Have you read Judge Frederick H Weisberg’s ruling, Loco?

            This doesn’t require I have read them. It doesn’t require I show you where they are.

            • Please provide a link so that we can confirm that you’re reading the actual court documents and not some commentary from an “ordinary citizen”

            • Please answer the question.

            • Again,

              Please provide a link so that we can confirm that you’re reading the actual court documents and not some commentary from an “ordinary citizen”

            • Answer the question.

            • Why can’t you follow your own demands and post the damn link? Come on, it’s only cut and paste. How long would it take?

              What are you hiding now?

            • Because I’m not making any claim about them.

              I’m asking whether you read them, Loco.

              Doesn’t matter if I have, or I’m linking to fake versions.

              Have you read them?

              Obviously not.

            • Why can’t you follow your own demands and post the damn link? Come on, it’s only cut and paste. How long would it take?

              What are you hiding now?

            • I’ve never demanded I put the link up, Loco.

              Do you recognise it?

              Yes or no?

            • “I’ve never demanded I put the link up, Loco”

              Do you often make demands of yourself?

            • I’ve never demanded YOU supply the link, either, Loco.

              Only pointed out that you didn’t, instead linked to denier blogs to “explain” to you what they “mean”, and pointed out why: the actual content doesn’t support your claims, but liars like yourself and blogrolls you proffer for “information” (in the best BigBrother sense) ensure you never have to find out the truth.

              But then again, you also don’t need to know if I got it from the court documents to know whether you recognise it.

              Something you refuse to acknowledge because you’re insane.

            • But you now say that you do have the court documents directly from the court. When did you download them?

            • I do have the court documents directly from the court, Loco.

              I got them from the court. You can too.

              Not denier interpretations from people who claim they read it then had to “interpret” it because it didn’t say what the denier wanted it to say.

              Do you recognise the quote, Loco?

            • You’re lying.

              The D.C. Superior Court does not have online access to court rulings.

            • Wow repeatedly claimed that my failure to provide a link to the rulings hosted at the court itself was evidence of my duplicity.

              Wow then helpfully told me how stupid I am for not downloading the rulings from the D.C. Court Case Online system like Wow did.

              There’s just one small problem with that narrative.

              The Court Case Online system as described here only provides *docket* information. That is participants, dates of filings and fees paid.

              https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/pdf/CourtCasesOnline_UsersGuide.pdf

              The journalist’s handbook for the D.C. Courts explains how to obtain actual copies of the filings.

              “But actual copies of filings must be obtained at the public access computers located in the divisions’ clerk’s offices”

              http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/JournalistsHandbook.pdf

              Wow is a blatant liar.

            • Yes they do. I gave you the link.

            • That is an absolute lie. There are no court filings available for download at the link you provided.

              You are lying.

            • That’s projection again, Loco. You are the assclown lying their feet off here.

            • Just complete and utter lying by Wow.

              http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/CCO.jsf

              Actually I worked it out just fine when I first found the Court Case Online website. Six weeks ago. When you first started with your direct link to the court documents avoidance tactic.

              It’s a lot easier to search by name.

              Last Name: MANN
              First Name: MICHAEL

              Hit the ‘Search’ button.

              As of today it’s the second case down and the only one with a status of ‘Open’.

              Check the box in the ‘Select’ column for Mann’s case.

              Hit ‘Case Details’.

              And you’re presented with the court docket for this case.

              Unfortunately there are *no* hyperlinks on this page to download the rulings themselves. Sure, you’ll be able to see that two orders were filed on July 19, 2013.

              *** But there are no links to download anything on this page. ***

              That’s why I read the User’s Guide which I linked to on May 3rd. The Guide tells how Court Case Online is an electronic *docket*, not a document archive like Wow claims.

              https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/pdf/CourtCasesOnline_UsersGuide.pdf

              The journalist’s handbook for the D.C. Courts explains how to obtain actual copies of the filings.

              “But actual copies of filings must be obtained at the public access computers located in the divisions’ clerk’s offices”

              http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/JournalistsHandbook.pdf

              So I’ll ask Wow again. How were you supposedly able to download the court rulings from a system that all the documentation says does not provide such documents? How do you download files from a webpage that has no download links?

            • https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf

              Put the year the case of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Year” entry.
              Put the case number of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Case Number” entry.
              Select the type of case (two letters) of the ruling you want in the “Type” panel “Case Number” entry.

              And get the case of Mann vs CEI and Mann vs NR Inc et al. rulings.

              Go on, try it.

            • “It’s a lot easier to search by name.”

              It’s easier as long as you don’t want to find the information you’re looking for, Loco.

              Try doing my way.

            • Found Mann’s case on Court Case Online weeks and weeks ago.

              What part of this statement don’t you understand?

            • I understand it.

              And I don’t believe oyu one bit.

              You also don’t believe it since you keep claiming you can’t get the court documents from there.

            • I went to Court Case Online looking to download the rulings. And when I found out they weren’t available from that site I found them at Williams Lopatto.

            • That’s a work of fiction, Loco.

            • You’re lying again. Court Case Online does not provide downloads of court rulings.

            • So, no, you have never read the court reports. ANY of them.

              You’ve been lied to and you WANTED to be lied to.

            • I’m the only person who’s linked to copies of the actual court rulings. You’ve just lied and claimed to have downloaded them directly from the court.

      • No, you haven’t read them, have you, Loco.

        Otherwise you wouldn’t be asking me to provide them.

        • I’m not asking you to provide them. Like any sane person I accept that the pdfs at Williams Lopatto are the actual rulings.

          • So you accept

            +++
            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.”
            +++

            The Court must, at this stage, find the evidence indicate tht the CEI Defendants’ statements are not pure opinion but statements based on provably false facts
            +++

            then.

            • So yes, you do.

              I got them from the courts. Online. And read them. Unlike you. You just read an “interpretation” of it, never the actual documents.

              This is why you claim you can’t get the court documents from dccourts.

            • That is a blatant lie. Court Case Online does not provide downloads for court rulings.

              You are lying.

            • No, I’ve told you twice now how to get it.

              You refuse to try so you can claim it doesn’t, which is a blatant lie.Put the year the case of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Year” entry.
              Put the case number of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Case Number” entry.
              Select the type of case (two letters) of the ruling you want in the “Type” panel “Case Number” entry.

              And get the case of Mann vs CEI and Mann vs NR Inc et al. rulings.

            • Just complete and utter lying by Wow.

              http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/CCO.jsf

              Actually I worked it out just fine when I first found the Court Case Online website. Six weeks ago. When you first started with your direct link to the court documents avoidance tactic.

              It’s a lot easier to search by name.

              Last Name: MANN
              First Name: MICHAEL

              Hit the ‘Search’ button.

              As of today it’s the second case down and the only one with a status of ‘Open’.

              Check the box in the ‘Select’ column for Mann’s case.

              Hit ‘Case Details’.

              And you’re presented with the court docket for this case.

              Unfortunately there are *no* hyperlinks on this page to download the rulings themselves. Sure, you’ll be able to see that two orders were filed on July 19, 2013.

              *** But there are no links to download anything on this page. ***

              That’s why I read the User’s Guide which I linked to on May 3rd. The Guide tells how Court Case Online is an electronic *docket*, not a document archive like Wow claims.

              https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/pdf/CourtCasesOnline_UsersGuide.pdf

              The journalist’s handbook for the D.C. Courts explains how to obtain actual copies of the filings.

              “But actual copies of filings must be obtained at the public access computers located in the divisions’ clerk’s offices”

              http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/JournalistsHandbook.pdf

              So I’ll ask Wow again. How were you supposedly able to download the court rulings from a system that all the documentation says does not provide such documents? How do you download files from a webpage that has no download links?

            • It’s a form. Fill in the form. Your web browser will download the document.

            • And what is “the document”?

            • The court ruling you keep claiming you can’t get, Loco.

              Dumbass.

            • Which court ruling?

              According to your instructions you just have to enter the case number, the year and the case type. And you’re saying that is sufficient to download “the document”.

              Which document? How would the website know whether you were looking for Combs Greene’s ruling(s) of 7/19/13 or Weisberg’s ruling of 1/22/14?

            • All of the ones denying the motion to dismiss by NRI/Steyn and CEI.

              For example, the NRI/Steyn first laughable demand to dismiss

              Case No. 2012 CA 008263 B
              Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene

              You know, the one with the footnote you pick out because the text in the ruling is devastating to your case.

            • Can there be any clearer evidence that Wow has been lying for over a month now?

              According to Wow you enter the case number and the website automagically provides only the documents favorable to the plaintiff!

            • Yes, Loco, you fill in a webform and it issues a HTTP GET request to get the court documents.

              And do you think that only court cases that go against the plaintiff should be allowed on the court system??? That’s not much of a *justice* system if you believe it should only find against the plaintiffs.

          • You just can’t stop lying can you? I’ll ask the question again.

            And what is “the document”?

            By: Locus on May 19, 2015
            at 8:25 pm

            The court ruling you keep claiming you can’t get, Loco.

            Dumbass.

            By: Wow on May 20, 2015
            at 10:26 am

            Which court ruling?

            According to your instructions you just have to enter the case number, the year and the case type. And you’re saying that is sufficient to download “the document”.

            Which document? How would the website know whether you were looking for Combs Greene’s ruling(s) of 7/19/13 or Weisberg’s ruling of 1/22/14?

  16. QUOTE:

    In fact, some of these investigations have been due to the accusations made by the NR Defendants. It follows that if anyone should be aware of the accuracy (or findings that the work of Plaintiff is sound), it would be the NR Defendants. Thus, it is fair to say that the NR Defendants continue to criticize Plaintiff due to a reckless disregard for truth.

    ENDQUOTE

    Recognise it, Loco?

    • Please provide a link so that we can confirm that you’re reading the actual court documents and not some commentary from an “ordinary citizen”

      • Please answer the question.

        • Again,

          Please provide a link so that we can confirm that you’re reading the actual court documents and not some commentary from an “ordinary citizen”

          • Please answer the question, Loco.

            • Why can’t you follow your own demands and post the damn link? Come on, it’s only cut and paste. How long would it take?

              What are you hiding now?

            • I’ve never demanded I supply the link Looney.

              Whether you recognise it doesn’t depend on where I got it from, unless it’s from the court documents and you haven’t read them.

              In which case you will avoid answering the question negatively, which you have to do otherwise your “case” is found to be a lie.

              Answer the question.

              Do you recognise it, Loco?

            • “I never demanded I supply the link Looney”.

              You seem to be holding a conversation with yourself and you’re calling me crazy?

            • You seem just as insane as ever, Loco.

              Words quoted don’t say what you claim, Loco. Never stopped you before, but just pointing it out.

            • Now you’re claiming that your words don’t mean what they say. Just can’t take responsibility for anything, can you ?

            • They don’t say what you say they do.

            • So what do they say? That is, what’s your lie du jour?

            • They sat I’ve never demanded I supply the links.

            • You’re lying again. Any person can scroll through this page and see time after time where you complained that I hadn’t provided a link to the court.

            • Only the insane, liars, drug addicts or those under religious ecstasy can see things that don’t exist.

              Which one are you, Loco?

            • And uneducated, obnoxious and perfidious slobs like yourself can’t remember what they wrote.

            • I can remember what I wrote. You can’t.You can only remember what you think I might have written. And that’s all you see because you hallucinate.

              Drugs?

            • I’m always sober.

              You are always a complete and shameless liar.

              You’ve been lying for weeks on end, claiming that you downloaded the rulings directly from the court itself.

            • I’ve been telling the truth. I don’t play opposite day like you do, Loco.

              Where did I get the quotes from the court documents from if I didn’t download them?

              I got them directly from DCCourtOnline.

            • You took the quotes from the pdfs of the court rulings hosted at Williams Lopatto.

              And then when you didn’t want to admit to using a source I provided and you refused to accept, you started to lie about downloading the rulings directly from the court.

            • Nope, I downloaded them from the dccourts site.

            • You’re lying, as always. Court Case Online does not provide downloads of court rulings.

  17. QUOTE:
    The Court must, at this stage, find the evidence indicate tht the CEI Defendants’ statements are not pure opinion but statements based on provably false facts
    ENDQUOTE

    Familiar, Loco?

    • Please provide a link so that we can confirm that you’re reading the actual court documents and not some commentary from an “ordinary citizen”

      • Please answer the question.

        Yours has no bearing on whether you read it.

        Your squirming indicates you have not, just relied on random others as an authority to whom you appeal to.

        • You repeatedly demanded that I provide a link to the actual court documents. You have absolutely no right to complain when I ask the same of you.

          So, please provide a link so that we can confirm that you’re reading the actual court documents and not some commentary from an “ordinary citizen”

          • YOU made a claim about what they mean, Loco.

            I’m just asking if you recognise the text, Loco.

            Do you recognise it?

            If it’s NOT from the court documents, do you regognise it? Would you recognise it only if I provided the court document to you?

            If it IS from the court documents, do you recognise it? Would you not recognise it only if I provided the court documents to you?

            In either case it is obvious that you cannot change the fact of your recognition based on giving you the location of the court documents, whether you recognise it or not.

            Do you recognise it, Loco?

            • Post the damn link you lying scumbag!

            • Do you recognie it?

              Given your fear of saying, you obviously don’t want to say for some reason.

              1) You haven’t read the court findings, only relied upon the false authority of others who claim what it “means” with quote mines.

              2) You have or have not, but know that you may be proven wrong in your third-hand claims on the subject when the report is shown.

              3) You’re trying to make more work. Just as earlier when you went all “Where did I say Mann lied?” and when the quote given, “Yes, I said Mann lied”. It’s not about getting the information you want, it’s about making querying your fictions more hassle than it needs to be.

              Showing you links where I get my information from doesn’t change whether YOU recognise them.

              Swearing and calling me names does not make for any form of reason why it would.

              Scared?

            • Why can’t you follow your own demands and post the damn link? Come on, it’s only cut and paste. How long would it take?

              What are you hiding now?

            • Oh, NOW you’re offended by name-calling.

              You asked me to “admit that you are into bestiality”.

              You called me a “wipe of asses”.

              You want to be able to use that sort of vulgarity but suddenly turn into some delicate little flower if I use the term “scumbag”.

              Gutless little weasel.

            • I’m not the lying gutless weasel who is claiming I can’t recognise something I claim to have read unless someone else proves they read it first.

              Answer the question.

            • You’re he one claiming I’m offended, looney.

              I’ve just pointed out how insane you’re ranting on now.

            • What?

              “scumbag” = insane ranting.

              But “wipe of asses” and “bestiality” is just unremarkable, everyday speech to you???

              Good Lord, where do you work? In an adult movie theater?

            • Are you claiming you only said one word, now, Loco?

              THAT is why you’re insane: reality never gets a look in, and this is evident with your maniacal spite you spray over your message.

            • Still haven’t posted that link to the court documents…

            • Still not saying if you’re lying about reading the documents, Loco?

              Do you recognise the quotes?

            • Please provide a link to the documents so we can determine that you’re referencing the actual court rulings.

            • Already have.

              If they aren’t good enough, please provide one yourself or stop talking about what the court documents say.

              You can’t, can you. You’re a lunatic and will not bother.

            • You’re lying again. Court Case Online only provides docket information.

            • It has the court documents too.

            • That is an absolute lie. Court Case Online does not provide downloads for court rulings.

              You are a pathological liar.

            • Put the year the case of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Year” entry.
              Put the case number of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Case Number” entry.
              Select the type of case (two letters) of the ruling you want in the “Type” panel “Case Number” entry.

              And get the case of Mann vs CEI and Mann vs NR Inc et al. rulings.

              Lying little toerag, though, you will refuse to even try.

            • How many times will I have to post this before Wow-for-brains realizes that (his/her/its) lying isn’t going to work?

              http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/CCO.jsf

              Actually I worked it out just fine when I first found the Court Case Online website. Six weeks ago. When you first started with your direct link to the court documents avoidance tactic.

              It’s a lot easier to search by name.

              Last Name: MANN
              First Name: MICHAEL

              Hit the ‘Search’ button.

              As of today it’s the second case down and the only one with a status of ‘Open’.

              Check the box in the ‘Select’ column for Mann’s case.

              Hit ‘Case Details’.

              And you’re presented with the court docket for this case.

              Unfortunately there are *no* hyperlinks on this page to download the rulings themselves. Sure, you’ll be able to see that two orders were filed on July 19, 2013.

              *** But there are no links to download anything on this page. ***

              That’s why I read the User’s Guide which I linked to on May 3rd. The Guide tells how Court Case Online is an electronic *docket*, not a document archive like Wow claims.

              https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/pdf/CourtCasesOnline_UsersGuide.pdf

              The journalist’s handbook for the D.C. Courts explains how to obtain actual copies of the filings.

              “But actual copies of filings must be obtained at the public access computers located in the divisions’ clerk’s offices”

              http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/JournalistsHandbook.pdf

              So I’ll ask Wow again. How were you supposedly able to download the court rulings from a system that all the documentation says does not provide such documents? How do you download files from a webpage that has no download links?

            • Infinity times would not be enough, Loco. Repeating bollocks doesn’t make it sane.

              Try filling in the form as instructed. Stop stalling.

            • Post this on a current thread so your warmist buddies can see what a lying little cunt you are.

      • They’re completely new to you, aren’t they, Loco. Otherwise you would have said you recognised them from the court ruling.

        • Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

          And a few months later I’d be proving that you LIED about where you obtained the quotes and how you were too fucking stupid to understand what they meant.

  18. Various links off you, Loco:

    Hans von Storch: denier. Proud of it. Being interviewed

    Tom Nelson: denier. Proud of it. Writing on their personal blog.

    Adler: probably denier, at least a yellow journalist style luke-warmer. No pride. Writing as part of a libertarian institute that as a matter of dogma refuses the role of government at all when it interfereres with corporate interests and on their personal group blog, therefore ideologically reliant on denial of AGW evidence. No authority.

    Personal blog of snippets of stolen emails that do not show conspiracy. Possibly someone called Dick Metis, a nobody.

    Another blog link to someone saying that they have a lawsuit against them. What it was supposed to prove other than the undisputed fact that there is a lawsuit is anyone’s guess. But on a blog of a crackpot conspiracy theorist whose sole reason for refuting global warming is that it’s a problem that we need government action on and that will “interfere” with “businesses”. Political dogmatic tripe. A blot post by a nobody.

    A link to nature, apparently you’ve never read it, only had “appropriate” snippets fed to you. Explains your error on the existence of a “haitus”. At least by someone who can actually be expected to know what they’re talking about.

    A link to the law firm dealing with Mann’s case, with the court documents you have never read, only been fed “selected”, “appropriate” quotes interpreted for you. A second one that actually has something of valid authority on the subject, but a second one that remains unused by yourself.

    Plenty of denier blogroll suitable only for the wipe of asses such as yourself, Loco and two links you apparently never read yourself, and one link that contains documents never read by you, only read to you.

    And some youtube links to things you randomly thought would be a “zinger” because you have no clue.

    A terrible score for accuracy or relevance, plenty of reliance on false authority from someone apoplectic about how appeals to authority are “anti-scientific” or somesuch codswallop.

    • Did Prof. Adler accurately quote Judge Combs Greene’s ruling?

      • Yes, he was lying, Loco.

        http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

        • Show how Adler’s quotes misrepresented the ruling.

          • His claims are wrong.

            • Your argument style is unique.

              Ninety percent of the time you just make simple assertions as if that’s enough.

              On the rare occasions when you do try to provide some reasoning you sound like a crackhead.

              Worst wannabe intellectual ever.

            • Ah, more projections again, Loco.

              Silly boy.

              Assuming you ARE a boy.

            • I thought you said “claims aren’t proof”.

              But you never offer any proof.

              Because you’re a pathological liar.

            • Indeed, claims aren’t proof.

              So prove your claim.

              Stop whining about how much I lie, especially when the only place I lie is when you “re-interpret” what I say to a lie and use that pretense.

            • You lied about downloading the rulings directly from the court.

            • Nope. Telling the truth

            • Nope. Still lying. Court Case Online only provides docket information.

            • Court documents too.

            • You are lying. Court Case Online does not provide downloads of court rulings.

              You are a pathological liar.

            • Oi, Smeghead!

              Put the year the case of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Year” entry.
              Put the case number of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Case Number” entry.
              Select the type of case (two letters) of the ruling you want in the “Type” panel “Case Number” entry.

              And get the case of Mann vs CEI and Mann vs NR Inc et al. rulings.

            • How many times will I have to post this before Wow-for-brains realizes that (his/her/its) lying isn’t going to work?

              http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/CCO.jsf

              Actually I worked it out just fine when I first found the Court Case Online website. Six weeks ago. When you first started with your direct link to the court documents avoidance tactic.

              It’s a lot easier to search by name.

              Last Name: MANN
              First Name: MICHAEL

              Hit the ‘Search’ button.

              As of today it’s the second case down and the only one with a status of ‘Open’.

              Check the box in the ‘Select’ column for Mann’s case.

              Hit ‘Case Details’.

              And you’re presented with the court docket for this case.

              Unfortunately there are *no* hyperlinks on this page to download the rulings themselves. Sure, you’ll be able to see that two orders were filed on July 19, 2013.

              *** But there are no links to download anything on this page. ***

              That’s why I read the User’s Guide which I linked to on May 3rd. The Guide tells how Court Case Online is an electronic *docket*, not a document archive like Wow claims.

              https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/pdf/CourtCasesOnline_UsersGuide.pdf

              The journalist’s handbook for the D.C. Courts explains how to obtain actual copies of the filings.

              “But actual copies of filings must be obtained at the public access computers located in the divisions’ clerk’s offices”

              http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/JournalistsHandbook.pdf

              So I’ll ask Wow again. How were you supposedly able to download the court rulings from a system that all the documentation says does not provide such documents? How do you download files from a webpage that has no download links?

            • It doesn’t have any download links because it;s using java script to create a form, rather than a page that needs to be updated with links.

              Unlike you, they know how to make a document retrieval system for the internet.

              I’ve shown you how to get the documents, you refuse, preferring to whine and claim that I’m lying.

            • You are a lying piece of shit. Court Case Online is an online docket. NO document downloads.

    • Please explain to everyone the connection of law firm Williams Lopatto to the Mann v. Steyn case.

      Please explain to everyone why you’ve been calling that law firm a “denier” blogroll over and over and over again.

      • Please explain yourself.

        Why do you make up claims out of thin air?

        Pathological lying?

      • Please show where I claimed that link to the law firm Williams Lopatto was a denier blogroll?

        I never denoted which ones of the many you posted were blogrolls. YOU made the decision as to which one I “must” mean, and this is why you won’t say WHAT you mean by “my third link”. It’s also why you cannot make the claim you do without knowing you’re lying: not even YOU identified that “my third link” was to the law firm. You could have done so AT ANY POINT but did not.

        That you did not was because you don’t want to give any information, in case it doesn’t help your delusion appear sane.

        • Addendum: I did not make any delineation of which were denier blogrolls up to the date at which you made your whining complaint (which you later claim is not you complaining, because you don’t want anything done about it).

          Just in case Loco here uses the fact that, unlike him, I answer questions with specifics if asked specifically what it is I’m answering.

          • Specific question. Why do you lie so much?

            • Ah, the “When did you stop beating your wife” trick.

              More fallacies from one who believes, but does not act upon, the “appeal to authority fallacy”.

              I don’t.

              You haven’t been able to show where I have.

              All you’ve done is show what you re-worded in your mind to nefarious intent.

              Much like what you and your fellow deniers did with the CRU emails.

            • Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

              And a few months later Wow would lie his head off over and over and over again about downloading documents from Court Case Online!

          • Wow first claimed that Judge Combs Greene has stated that Michael Mann had “a very good chance” of winning. 4/4/15 4:36 PM

            I called out this common lie by pointing to a legal blog where Prof Adler directly quoted the judge as saying that the case was “close” and there was only “slight” evidence of actual malice at that stage. 4/4/15 6:04 PM.

            http://volokh.com/2013/08/20/mann-v-steyn-mann-wins-round-one/

            Wow doubled-down by calling Adler a “nobody” whose quotes were not true. 4/5/15 3:43 AM

            I replied that Adler was a law professor and that he had linked to the actual court rulings. 4/5/15 9:03 PM

            Caught in an obvious falsehood, Wow decided to brazen it out and accused Adler of lying. 4/6/15 2:50 AM

            I noted that it was Wow who was clearly lying and that the court documents could also be found at the website for Michael Mann’s attorney.

            http://www.williamslopatto.com/decisions1.html — Locus 4/6/15 10:51 AM

            Exposed as a dishonest weasel, Wow dug in even deeper, repeating the lies that Adler had falsified his quotes and not linked to the court documents and even claiming that the rulings hosted at Mann’s attorney’s office were fake. 4/6/15 3:43 PM

            Later Wow even lied about the link to Williams Lopatto claiming that it was just a “denier blogroll” or a “politically motivated hack(s)” rather than admit it was Mann’s attorney. 4/9/15 7:52 AM

            To recap,

            Wow lied about the judge’s appraisal of Mann’s case.
            Wow libeled Adler by claiming Adler falsified his direct quotes.
            Wow lied about Adler linking to the court rulings.
            Wow lied that the court rulings being hosted at Williams Lopatto.
            Wow lied about Williams Lopatto representing Mann in court.

            These weren’t mistakes. No one could possibly be that stupid.

            This is clear and compelling evidence that Wow has embarked on campaign of brazen lying on this blog. The only question is why?

            • See post, this is a dupe claim full of bollocks.

              Why is anyone’s guess.

            • Your continued refusal to mount a defense is clear evidence of your consciousness of guilt.

            • By: Wow on April 18, 2015
              at 12:25 pm

              Loco Nutbar: “even claiming that the rulings hosted at Mann’s attorney’s office were fake. 4/6/15 3:43 PM”

              Hmmm. What did I say?

              QUOTE:

              Oh, and make that three links now.

              Not one to the court.

              Because the court statements do not support your editorial demands, you denier.

              UNQUOTE.

              Lets check.

              Any mention of Mann’s Attorney? Nope.
              What did I claim? Not one link from you to the court.

              Which of your links by that time were to the court, Loco?

              None? Ah, well, seems like

              a) I was telling the truth
              b) your claims are a lie.

              Hey ho. Business as usual for the denier trolidiot.

            • You keep complaining that I haven’t provided a link to the court. So why don’t you believe the documents hosted at Michael Mann’s attorney, Williams Lopatto?

            • I said you hadn’t. And you hadn’t. You keep whining about how I lie and that you HAD posted a link, segued into how I claim Adler is a denier then Loplatto a liar, but that doesn’t change the fact that you hadn’t posted a single link to the court, only to denier blogrolls and third hand sources.

              Which is true.

            • “…the fact that hadn’t posted a single link to the court, only to denier blogrolls and third hand sources”

              So was my link to Williams Lopatto a “denier blogroll” or a “third hand source”?

            • You’ve been claiming for weeks now that you’ve downloaded the court rulings directly from the court.

              And yet you continue to demand that I supply a link myself.

              Why?

              If you already had a link then why keep asking for one?

              Because you’ve been lying for weeks. You don’t have a link to the documents at the court.

            • And I have downloaded them from the court directly.

              This is not a lie.

              Stop telling naughty porkie pies about things you do not want to comprehend.

            • You’re still lying. Court Case Online only provides the docket.

            • Hey Stupid,

              You’re still avoiding my question.

              So was my link to Williams Lopatto a “denier blogroll” or a “third hand source”?

            • Which one is your third link?

        • Here you go,

          “None of the links have been to the court.

          You’ve linked denier blogrolls and those of other politically motivated hacks blogging on personal opinion, not in official capacity or factual reporting basis.” 4/9/15 7:52 AM

          • Yes, and how does that equate to your claim?

            It doesn’t.

            You;ve added “information” that you plucked from your own head to make it conform do your wishes, not to reality.

            Which is entirely what makes you deny AGW yet believe you are right.

            • Typical lying scum-weasel. You say that all of my links, including the one to Williams Lopatto, have been to “denier blogrolls” and “politically motivated hacks blogging on personal opinion, not in official capacity or factual reporting basis”

              Show that the rulings at Williams Lopatto were NOT the court’s rulings.

            • And you cannot show how your claim arises from the quote you made of me.

              You misquote me, claim some nonsense rubbish, then let your spittle fly.

              Lies and projection. The invariable M.O. of the nutbag denier: Loco to a “T”.

            • Wow first claimed that Judge Combs Greene has stated that Michael Mann had “a very good chance” of winning. 4/4/15 4:36 PM

              I called out this common lie by pointing to a legal blog where Prof Adler directly quoted the judge as saying that the case was “close” and there was only “slight” evidence of actual malice at that stage. 4/4/15 6:04 PM.

              http://volokh.com/2013/08/20/mann-v-steyn-mann-wins-round-one/

              Wow doubled-down by calling Adler a “nobody” whose quotes were not true. 4/5/15 3:43 AM

              I replied that Adler was a law professor and that he had linked to the actual court rulings. 4/5/15 9:03 PM

              Caught in an obvious falsehood, Wow decided to brazen it out and accused Adler of lying. 4/6/15 2:50 AM

              I noted that it was Wow who was clearly lying and that the court documents could also be found at the website for Michael Mann’s attorney.

              http://www.williamslopatto.com/decisions1.html — Locus 4/6/15 10:51 AM

              Exposed as a dishonest weasel, Wow dug in even deeper, repeating the lies that Adler had falsified his quotes and not linked to the court documents and even claiming that the rulings hosted at Mann’s attorney’s office were fake. 4/6/15 3:43 PM

              Later Wow even lied about the link to Williams Lopatto claiming that it was just a “denier blogroll” or a “politically motivated hack(s)” rather than admit it was Mann’s attorney. 4/9/15 7:52 AM

              To recap,

              Wow lied about the judge’s appraisal of Mann’s case.
              Wow libeled Adler by claiming Adler falsified his direct quotes.
              Wow lied about Adler linking to the court rulings.
              Wow lied that the court rulings being hosted at Williams Lopatto.
              Wow lied about Williams Lopatto representing Mann in court.

              These weren’t mistakes. No one could possibly be that stupid.

              This is clear and compelling evidence that Wow has embarked on campaign of brazen lying on this blog. The only question is why?

            • And yet again Loco makes up reality to fit with his desires, rather than the other way round.

              And gets mad that the universe won’t agree with it.

              Nope, never said all your links were to denier blogs.

              “I called out this common lie by pointing to a legal blog” vlockw isn’t a legal blog. It’s a Free Market political blog.

              Adler *was* writing as nobody. He wasn’t writing a legal explanation as a lawyer. Therefore he is a nobody on that statement. But note that you’re using an appeal to authority here…

              “Wow decided to brazen it out and accused Adler of lying” He was.

              “Wow dug in even deeper, repeating the lies that Adler had falsified his quotes ” No i didn’t. Another lie form you, Loco. I said he lied about what the court said.

              “The link to Williams Lopatto claiming that it was just a “denier blogroll”” Nope, never happened, Loco.

              “Wow lied about the judge’s appraisal of Mann’s case.” Nope, I was accurate.

              “Wow libeled Adler by claiming Adler falsified his direct quotes.” You lie.

              “Wow lied about Adler linking to the court rulings.” Another lie.

              “Wow lied that the court rulings being hosted at Williams Lopatto.” Lying again.

              “Wow lied about Williams Lopatto representing Mann in court.” And yet another lie.

              This is why you see me on a “ampaign of brazen lying on this blog.”. Because you’re living inside your own head and never visit reality.

              The only question is how the hell you think that works?!?

              Of course, nobody cares why. The question exists, though.

            • Denials without proof show that you’re clearly conscious of your own guilt.

            • Lucky for me I have given the proof.

              Pity you haven’t.

            • The only thing you’ve proven on this blog is that you’re a pathological liar.

            • Actually what Ive proved is you’re a nutcase. I’ve proven how deniers cannot manage the truth and will ignore everything to cling to a cherished ideal, no matter how much it cannot stand scrutiny. Which is why you aren’t skeptics. You’re deniers.

            • You mean like the way you continue to lie about the pause in global warming?

            • You mean like how you continue to lie about downloading the court rulings directly from the court itself?

            • I’m not lying.

            • You’re still lying. Court Case Online only provides docket information.

      • Proof you know you’re lying from your own posting history:

        “…http://volokh.com/2013/08/20/mann-v-steyn-mann-wins-round-one/

        Commenter ‘Wow’ called the blogger a “denier” and further claimed that the “original sources” would show these statements to be false.

        By: Locus on April 6, 2015
        at 10:51 am”

        That isn’t a link to the law firm Williams Lopatto.

        Now, apparently, it is. Because reality was never your forte, was it, Loco.

        • You lying pile of filth! You know this comment and link was about your lies before Williams Lopatto was even mentioned.

          You lied about the judge’s appraisal of Mann’s case.
          You libeled Adler by claiming Adler falsified his direct quotes.
          You lied about Adler linking to the court rulings.

          • No I did not.

            Even if I did, this does not absolve you of the PROVEN lie here, from your own mouth about what I said, therefore is the temper tantrum of a toddler “But HE did it too!!!”.

            Entirely within your character, Loco, but hideously obvious that it’s a “SQUIRREL!” moment.

            And that was the best you could do on nearly a week’s work?!?!?

            • What did I supposedly “lie” about here?

            • See the post I made you are replying under:

              By: Wow on April 11, 2015 at 4:17 am

              For someone who is going ballistic because I’ve made a query on whether you’ve read something but not provided any of the (unnecessary) proof I’ve read it, you really don’t have anything to whine about.

              But you will.

              Because you’re a looney, Loco.

            • Still haven’t answered the question. What did I “lie” about here?

            • These are your lies.

              “Wow lied that the court rulings being hosted at Williams Lopatto.
              Wow lied about Williams Lopatto representing Mann in court.”

              Just one example, but one you “proved” with a quote which said none of that.

              But you can’t handle truth, can you, Loco?

            • What does my volokh commentary have to do with Williams Lopatto?

            • Nothing.

              What does Adler have to do with Williams Loplatto?

            • *Your* vlockh commentary???

              a) this must be the FIRST TIME EVER that you’ve EVER made a comment and then said you made one!

              b) are you trying to say YOU write there? ARE you Adler???

            • Exactly. Why do you think that Alder and Williams Lopatto are connected?

            • I don’t.

            • Then why are you complaining about being confused as to whether the link to Williams Lopatto was a link to the volokh blog or to Williams Lopatto?

            • I was asking what your “third link” was.

              You wouldn’t say.

            • Hey Stupid,

              You’re lying again. Five hours after I posted the link to Williams Lopatto you responded with,

              “Oh, and make that three links now. Not one to the court.”

              You called the link to Williams Lopatto the “third link”

              Maybe you should wait until you’re sober before posting. At least that way you might remember what you wrote.

              Then again even sober you’re still only operating with a room temperature IQ.

            • Three links doesn’t say which is the third.
              Williams Loplatto isn’t the court. No mention of deniers.

              So your quotes have proved me right and you a liar.

            • You’re lying again. After I posted the link to Williams Lopatto you still claimed that,

              “You’ve linked denier blogrolls and those of other politically motivated hacks blogging on personal opinion, not in official capacity or factual reporting basis.”

              Please explain why you believe that Michael Mann’s attorney is either a “denier” or a “politically motivated hack blogging on personal opinion”.

              You really are the stupidest person on the Internet.

            • What you quoted isn’t what you claim I said.

            • “What you quoted isn’t what you claim I said.”

              WTF is that supposed to mean?

        • Here’s your first clue. Williams Lopatto is not a “blogger”.

          • Goodness. You don’t say.

            If this was supposed to be a revelation, please feel disappointed, I already knew this.

            Will the rest of your revelations be as pointless as this?

            Probably.

            • Then why are you complaining about being confused as to whether the link to Williams Lopatto was a link to the volokh blog or to Williams Lopatto?

            • I didn’t. Because I’m not confused about that.

              Your “third link” you are confused about, as was everyone else.

        • What in world is wrong with you? Adler was the blogger you called a denier.

          • No he wasn’t. Tom I did. He says so on his own blog.

            Reality and you have never met once in your entire life, have you, Loco?

            • “Tom I did”

              What the hell?

              Again, could you please sober up before posting.

            • Plerase become inelligent before trying to read.

              Tom is a denier. I said so. freerepublic is a denier blog. I said so, but I don’t know who is running that. Tom, however, says he’s a denier on his blog and he’s proud of it.

              If you weren’t so insane, you’d have been able to work that out.

              But you’re too fking insane to manage that.

            • “Plerase become inelligent” ????

              I keep asking. Please sober up before posting.

            • Sober.

            • So you’re not intoxicated just fucking stupid?

  19. Wow is creating an astonishing record of blatant lying on this blog.

    Wow first claimed that Judge Combs Greene has stated that Michael Mann had “a very good chance” of winning. 4/4/15 4:36 PM

    I called out this common lie by pointing to a legal blog where Prof Adler directly quoted the judge as saying that the case was “close” and there was only “slight” evidence of actual malice at that stage. 4/4/15 6:04 PM.

    http://volokh.com/2013/08/20/mann-v-steyn-mann-wins-round-one/

    Wow doubled-down by calling Adler a “nobody” whose quotes were not true. 4/5/15 3:43 AM

    I replied that Adler was a law professor and that he had linked to the actual court rulings. 4/5/15 9:03 PM

    Caught in an obvious falsehood, Wow decided to brazen it out and accused Adler of lying. 4/6/15 2:50 AM

    I noted that it was Wow who was clearly lying and that the court documents could also be found at the website for Michael Mann’s attorney.

    http://www.williamslopatto.com/decisions1.html — Locus 4/6/15 10:51 AM

    Exposed as a dishonest weasel, Wow dug in even deeper, repeating the lies that Adler had falsified his quotes and not linked to the court documents and even claiming that the rulings hosted at Mann’s attorney’s office were fake. 4/6/15 3:43 PM

    Later Wow even lied about the link to Williams Lopatto claiming that it was just a “denier blogroll” or a “politically motivated hack(s)” rather than admit it was Mann’s attorney. 4/9/15 7:52 AM

    To recap,

    Wow lied about the judge’s appraisal of Mann’s case.
    Wow libeled Adler by claiming Adler falsified his direct quotes.
    Wow lied about Adler linking to the court rulings.
    Wow lied that the court rulings being hosted at Williams Lopatto.
    Wow lied about Williams Lopatto representing Mann in court.

    These weren’t mistakes. No one could possibly be that stupid.

    This is clear and compelling evidence that Wow has embarked on campaign of brazen lying on this blog. The only question is why?

    • Loco, you’re doing it again.

      Why quote part of me, then add your own words, and thing that this somehow is proof I said it.

      All it’s proof of is that you’re a pathetic liar.

      And the same goes with the rest of that insane rant of yours: a pack of fabricated lies on your part, Loco.

      Completely looney-tunes crackpot nutbaggery from the dumbest denier apart from maybe Duffer or Grima Wormtongue.

      How pathetic, can’t even come up with your own bullet list.

    • “Wow doubled-down by calling Adler a “nobody””

      He is. He’s posting as a Joe Blow, not under the authority of a legal opinion.

      But you don’t understand a damn thing about life, do you.

      ” whose quotes were not true. 4/5/15 3:43 AM”

      Whose words were lies, Loco.

      Only you claim his “quotes were not true”.

      • Your words you lying puddle of pus.

        “And you didn’t like the original link content so you linked to another denier who lies about the content so you can claim you weren’t lying.”

        • Yes, those in quotes are my words. However, your claim isn’t supported by them, you frothing maniac.

          Your claim about my assertions over Adler were:

          “Wow libeled Adler by claiming Adler falsified his direct quotes.
          Wow lied about Adler linking to the court rulings.”

          NONE of that appears in your quote.

          Reality never met between your ears, did it, Loco? All fiction. And froth.

          • I just quoted your own words to you. Are you trying to deny you said them?

            • No, I don’t deny you quoted my words.

              I deny they prove your claims. They don’t.

            • Nowhere in those words you quote do I say it’s adler I’m talking about, Loco.

            • You’re lying again. You said those words in response to a post of mine regarding Adler and only Adler. You could not have been talking about anyone else.

              You got caught talking stupid and now you’re just trying to lie your way out of it.

            • I wasn’t talking about Adler. The quotes don’t say it was. It wasn’t in response to a post about Adler only.

            • Just more lying from Wow. Here’s the post Wow claims wasn’t about Adler only.

              “The link to the court documents is clearly indicated in the text of the page I linked.

              Mann v. National Review 7-19-13
              page 21

              “At this stage, the evidence is slight as to whether there was actual malice”

              Mann v. CEI 7-19-13
              page 16, footnote 12

              “The court does view this as a very close case”

              The page I linked to was written by Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western whose work was cited in 2013 in a Supreme Court opinion by Chief Justice Roberts.”

              Wow just lies and lies and lies. After all it’s the only way Wow can “win” an argument with so little formal education.

            • And nowhere there did you say it was Adler (vlockh) you were talking about.

            • Not only are you a lying shitbag but you’re fucking stupid lying shitbag.

              “The page I linked to was written by Jonathon Adler…”

              Learn how to read dipshit.

  20. I hope for those still reading that this has been illustrative of the batshit insanity of the deniers with Loco here and the amazing brass balls of the fundamentally insane ideology of these fools, to whit:

    1) YOU have to prove that when you say someone lied, that they definitely lied
    2) THEY can just claim that someone lied and tht’s proof enough

    1) YOU have to provide them with proof of what they said when you call them on it
    2) They then pretend it never happened and demand it again

    1) They have a sue happy attitude to those against them
    2) They go ballistic if you sue them

    1) They don’t have to prove themselves correct, you have to prove them wrong
    2) You must prove yourself right, they can just claim they haven’t been convinced
    3) When you prove them wrong, they insist that it never happened

    1) When you say something, they will interpret what you mean, never asking for clarification
    2) You’re NEVER allowed to interpret what they mean

    1) When they say something, they never said anything
    2) When you say something, you never mean anything other than what they interpret it to be

    1) You cannot use authority
    2) They can

    1) When they use a word, it must be interpreted as proof of their conclusion and all other meanings must be ignored. Even though they use the same letters.
    2) When you ignore all other meanings, you are wrong, the letters are all there, so the word is there.

    (See the use of haitus: they mean “a climatological pause” proving AGW wrong, and no other meaning is possible. But when they point to the word “haitus” and this is NOT “a climatological pause”, then refusing to say it’s the same word, because it has the same letters. It’s not the same word as they mean, it just has the same letters)

    And so on.

    Whatever will work in their “mind” that gets them right MUST be right, because they have unshakeable faith that they are right. All contrary information must be lie, nonexistent, malice or libel.

    Whatever proof, cannot be so.

    • To recap,

      Wow lied about the judge’s appraisal of Mann’s case.
      Wow libeled Adler by claiming Adler falsified his direct quotes.
      Wow lied about Adler linking to the court rulings.
      Wow lied about the court rulings being hosted at Williams Lopatto.
      Wow lied about Williams Lopatto representing Mann in court.

      These weren’t mistakes. No one could possibly be that stupid.

      This is clear and compelling evidence that Wow has embarked on campaign of brazen lying on this blog. The only question is why?

      Where’s your defense scumbag?

      • None of that is remotely true, Loco.

        EVERY SINGLE CLAIM is fiction. NONE of them exist.

        • Your stubborn refusal to offer a defense is a clear admission of your guilt.

          • Since you imagined my “crimes”, you can imagine the defence, too, Loco.

          • After all, you’re happy to imagine there has been no defence. Just imagine there has been.

          • “Wow libeled Adler by claiming Adler falsified his direct quotes.”

            Prove I said that, Loco.

            • I already did.

            • No you didn’t.

            • I already did. Multiple times. Aren’t you paying attention?

              Bickmore understood the first time. That’s why he said he didn’t care if you were liable or not.

            • Bickmore understood that you had smeared Adler. That’s why he said that he’d take down your comments if Adler complained.

              Don’t you remember?

            • No he didn’t.

            • Another blatant lie by Wow. See below.

            • You’re wrong again. Loco.

            • Typical nonsense from Wow. Gets caught lying and tries to brazen it out.

  21. For all his whining about how Mann was stifling free speech, Loco does a lot of calling people on libel.

    It’s like he doesn’t care about the truth or something😀

    • You’ve never told the truth in your entire worthless life.

      • More projection, Loco. More mere claim.

        More insanity from you, in other words.

        Do you intend to wear me out by this? Not going to happen, dearest. The nutcases like you are why the Republican party is now beholden to the Teabaggers and is barely able to contain someone who agreed with their core principles like Barry.

        You nutcases never stop, never compromise, never look for anything other than beating others who don’t think like you do. And most people aren’t nutcases, and want to find a useful synthesis, so compromise. Then compromise more when you nutcases double down on the stupid. Then give up, but meanwhile there’s the “agreement” on the table that is *already* far further over to your case than the original contention, and that is where you start your insane ravings next time.

        And so the Overton Window shifts.

        • If you care so much about the truth then why did you lie about downloading the court rulings via Court Case Online?

          • I didn’t.

            • Obviously you did. I posted the proof.

            • Obviously you’re insane if you believe that, dearie.

            • Posted the proof multiple times. Court Case Online only provides docket information.

              You’re still lying.

            • Nuh uh. Court documents too.

            • Wow has been lying for weeks on end. Court Case Online is a an electronic docket. The court rulings are not available for download through that system.

            • They are. I’ve shown you how. You refuse.

            • I found Mann’s case on Court Case Online weeks ago.

              What part of this statement don’t you understand?

            • I understand all of it, Loco.

            • So does this mean that you’re finally conceding that I accessed Mann’s case weeks ago on Court Case Online? And that you’ve been lying by telling everyone that I’m either unwilling or unable to do so?

            • No.

              I know that’s a work of fiction, Loco.

            • Wow, I know it’s difficult for you to face the truth. But one of these days you’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that you’re completely and utterly useless.

              You’ve been lying about downloading the court rulings from Court Case Online.

  22. Loco Nutbar: “even claiming that the rulings hosted at Mann’s attorney’s office were fake. 4/6/15 3:43 PM”

    Hmmm. What did I say?

    QUOTE:

    Oh, and make that three links now.

    Not one to the court.

    Because the court statements do not support your editorial demands, you denier.

    UNQUOTE.

    Lets check.

    Any mention of Mann’s Attorney? Nope.
    What did I claim? Not one link from you to the court.

    Which of your links by that time were to the court, Loco?

    None? Ah, well, seems like

    a) I was telling the truth
    b) your claims are a lie.

    Hey ho. Business as usual for the denier trolidiot.

    • Explain why you don’t believe that the pdfs of the court rulings hosted at Williams Lopatto are genuine copies of the actual documents.

      • I don’t believe as you claim.

        • Obviously you do believe as I claim. Otherwise why would you constantly be demanding a direct link to the court?

          • You’re wrong, obviously.

            • Obviously,

              1. You’re uneducated.
              2. You’re a pathological liar.

              Why would you keep demanding a link to the court if you thought that the pdfs hosted by Williams Lopatto were accurate copies of the court’s ruling?

            • Obviosuly you’re a moron and don’t care.

              I did give you a link to the court.

              I did get the court results from there. You can too. Anyone can. That’s what the site is for.

            • Wow is simply lying through its sniveling teeth. Court Case Online does not provide downloads of court rulings. It’s an electronic docket system.

            • They do. I’ve shown you how You refuse.

            • You’re lying. Court Case Online does not provide downloads of court rulings.

            • You’re still wrong.

            • Post your instructions on a current thread so all your warmist buddies can realize what a lying piece of shit you are.

    • Of course you didn’t mention that Williams Lopatto is Mann’s attorney.

      You’re trying to fool any third party who might read these comments into thinking that my links are disreputable.

      You’re lying by claiming that I only link to “denier blogrolls” and “politically motivated hacks”.

  23. “What if CEI sincerely believes that those investigations are flawed? hey take them apart quite thoroughly in their reply brief.”

    Only appears in a denier blogroll “freerepublic” which is brazenly anti-government, pro-corporation. Written in a blog of a nonentity legally speaking as a report of a claim by Steyn of what one of his solicitors said in a recreation, not transcript, of the court proceedings. It’s only ever outside that blogroll when being quoted by people who report what that blogroll says. It doesn’t even appear in any of the court documents Steyn’s counsel post on their site.

    Hearsay evidence, especially fourth hand, is inadmissable as evidence anywhere.

  24. QUOTE:

    Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable jury is likely to find in favor of the plaintiff on Count VII against the National Review defendants, and their special motion of those defendants to dismiss Count VII as well as their Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will also be denied.

    ENDQUOTE

    From SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division
    Case No. 2012 CA 8263 B
    Judge Frederick H. Weisberg

    • Ha Ha Ha Ha!

      And months later you ended up trying to claim that the National Review was the plaintiff in this quote.

      Stupid piece of shit.

  25. QUOTE:

    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.”

    ENDQUOTE

    From SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division
    Case No. 2012 CA 008263 B
    Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene

    And note the reason why Steyn is screaming for dismissal:

    “however there is sufficient evidence to find that further discovery may uncover evidence of “actual malice.””

    Steyn doesn’t want discovery against HIM. His fans just believe him, no evidence required.

  26. When presented with quotes from the court rulings in the past Wow has categorically refused to accept them without a direct link to the court itself. Astonishingly Wow has not even accepted the quotes after they had been shown to appear in PDFs hosted at Michael Mann’s attorney, Williams Lopatto. Does Wow think Mann’s attorney is providing documents altered to make the defense case look *stronger*?

    In contrast, Wow presents quotes and yet refuses to provide links to the documents at the court itself. Requests for such links are “petulant” says Wow.

    This weekend, Wow claimed to have downloaded the court rulings directly from the court. And yet Wow still refuses to provide a direct link. Why?

    I think reasonable people can assume that Wow has not in fact accessed the rulings from the court and instead is relying on the links that I provided. Links that Wow had previously declared unreliable.

    Truly remarkable.

    • Wrong again Loco.

      The claims about the court rulings are wrong. Never claimed the quotes were wrong, but they WERE quote mined to give the wrong conclusion.

      Odd.

      You whine and bitch and moan that you’re not talking about God and you’ve never said god wouldn’t allow AGW to be real and when I point out where you HAVE said those words, (By: Locus on April 4, 2015
      at 1:29 pm), you say that I’m wrong, you never said that.

      Yet those words DO APPEAR.

      QUOTED CORRECTLY.

      Yet somehow, this is not correct when I do with your april 4th statement, but must be correct when you point to Addle-head.

      That would be because you know you’re lying, isn’t it, Loco?

      Yes, that’s it.

    • “in the past Wow has categorically refused to accept them without a direct link to the court itself.”

      Fiction.

      I point out that you DIDN’T post a link to the court but proffered the “interpretation” by bloggers of what it says and pointed out that this was because the ACTUAL documents, if read, would prove the conclusions you deniers want is wrong.

      Reality doesn’t help your case. Obvious insanity destroys it. Making up facts makes MY case: You deniers will read anything you want into a text and then claim it truth.

      • Even after I posted a link to the pdfs at Williams Lopatto you’re still demanding a link to the “ACTUAL documents”. Why would anyone believe that the pdfs provided by Michael Mann’s attorney were not accurate copies of the court rulings?

        This is what happens when an uneducated, obnoxious and intoxicated slob like Wow tries to construct an argument.

        • I got it.

          You didn’t. And can’t even find it when you’re given it.

          • You still haven’t explained why you do not believe that the pdfs provided by Michael Mann’s attorney are accurate reproductions of the court rulings.

            And if by “I got it” you’re still claiming to have downloaded the court rulings from Court Case Online. That is a complete and absolute lie. CCO does not provide downloads of court rulings.

            You’re a pathological liar. You lie freely and constantly and incessantly.

            It’s the only way you can “win” an argument, lacking as you are in formal education.

            • I’ve vveer claimed that, so why should I explain it?

              YOU explain why you think that Williams Loplatto are falsifying documents.

            • Fill in the form. Get the court rulings. That’s what the site is for. That’s what I’ve explained.

              Your refusal to try is not my problem.

            • You just keep lying. Court Case Online does not provide downloads of court rulings.

  27. Loco, you appeal to false authority but never give your own opinion.

    What is your opinion on court document quotes given above, 4:50 and 4:53 on the 21st?

  28. Quite the marathon, Locus. You are to be commended for your perseverance, if not for your “obdurate” persuasion that you could convince “Wow” of anything. After proving him/her/it a liar and a fool a hundred times over, like a punching doll, (s)he/it just keeps bouncing back up. What drives him/her/it? My guess is money. (S)he/it –let’s say Σηιτ for short (but BB might prefer שιτ) is quite likely a paid troll who must remain anonymous to keep from being exposed financially.

    It entirely escapes BB that Oreskes is likewise a professional propagandist–whether or not she actually believes in the doom she preaches–and she certainly cannot be accused of possessing any shred of intellectual integrity in her crusade of deceit. After all, what is her main premise? That skeptics are monopolized by a cadre of paid shills, paid shills of Big Oil we are expected to believe. Hoo boy, you have to be stupid to believe such nonsense. For all you idiots out there who don’t instantly grasp that, here’s why.

    For starters, Big Oil doesn’t give a hoot about climate change, whether it’s real or not, dangerous or not, curable or not, they couldn’t care less; they come out ahead no matter what. What happens when you shut down a coal plant? More natural gas is sold. What happens when climate fanatics gather to plot and plan? Jet fuel is burned like crazy. What happens when you buy an economical car? You put on more miles. Believing Big Oil has a stake in climate doom prevention is like believing in “Oil War”–first explain whether the purpose of the so called Oil Wars is to raise the price of oil or lower it–to create a glut or a shortage. But of course everyone knows about Oil Wars–97% of the populace accepts it, more or less. You can fool 97% of the people 97% of the time.

    So here’s the trick: Naomi Oreskes claims Big Oil is out to derail intelligent response to climate danger to make more bucks–world be damned. They are behind all doom denial. If not for Satanic Big Oil there would be no skeptics. It’s all a conspiracy, you see. You see. And yet if a skeptic cries conspiracy–no matter how obvious–he’s a John Birching lunatic. McCarthy reincarnated.

    Ignoring now the 1350+ skeptical peer reviewed papers, consider the remedy: is there a consensus? England opts for windmills, Texas for solar, Hansen for nuclear. Nuclear? Hansen is at least smart enough to know that wind and sun can’t cut it–nuclear is the only reliable alternative energy. That’s Hansen, the number one Global Warming nut job. Consensus my asss. But the climate retards say consensus. Conspiracy and consensus.

    Enough for now. There just isn’t a competent scientist on the planet who takes this climate alarm seriously. There really isn’t. And I haven’t even started on the great divide between glaciologists and climate quacks, you know, the CRU and the disappearing LIA. Diogenes is still searching for a glacier expert who doesn’t invoke an LIA to explain glaciers on a global scale, from Alaska to Patagonia and now Antarctica. The CRU crew still claim the LIA was regional–that’s what they forced out of their tree rings, quacks that they are.

    Time to quit. –AGF

    • You’re a twit. You don’t know what the hell is going on, all you know is someone who won’t believe your crap is being argued with by an idiot who agrees with you, so they must be doing good ™.

      loco lies, you applaud.

      This is why you deserve the name denier.

      • The professional liar calls every one else a liar. That’s how they do it in Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, China, everywhere where they outlaw a free internet and jail everyone who tells the truth. The sad thing is the main stream media believe all these liars. BB remains silent, which makes him complicit with a professional liar, but he’s already complicit with Oreskes, another professional liar. Wow, you know you’re a liar, and claiming you’re not doesn’t change anything. Climate doom is the biggest fraud the world has ever seen, and anyone–scientist or not–who doesn’t know that, is perfectly ignorant and infinitely gullible. –AGF

        • So you noticed Loco calling Mann, the IPCC, me, Mann, and the judges themselves liars, right?

          Ah, no you see what you want to be there, just like Loco.

          • We all know that Mann, the IPCC, you, and Mann again (he deserves double credit) are liars. As for the judges, specify comment date and time. –AGF

            • Just did a search of every incidence of “judge…” and found no such accusation. It’s just another lie by Wow –a pathological liar. –AGF

            • And you don’t see your posts at 12:25 and 8:18, either.

              Mad.

  29. By: Wow on April 28, 2015
    at 12:50 pm

    “And you don’t see your posts at 12:25 and 8:18, either. Mad.”

    Does anyone know what this lunatic is talking about? –AGF

    • what a fucking moron you are.

      “The professional liar calls every one else a liar.”
      “Oreskes, another professional liar”
      “Mann, the IPCC, you, and Mann again (he deserves double credit) are liars.”

      • And there you have it folks: Wow, the pathological liar, assures you these are all above reproach. This goes especially for recently resigned IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, who claims all his e-accounts were hacked: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/24/ipcc-chair-rajendra-pachauri-resigns

        But the professional troll must get the last words in, even if they are nothing but vulgar–that is not only his MO, it is that of his whole camp. –AGF

        • agfosterjr,

          I’ve been battling this numbskull for several weeks. But you’ve managed to shut up (him/her/it) in just a couple of days.

          I’m impressed.

          • Yes, you have been “battling” me. One would have thought you could have managed to work out how to do it by now, but insanity worked for you before, and you don’t know how to manage anything else.

            Nasty just wants to be nasty.

            • And uneducated, pathological liars like yourself just have to lie.

            • I’m educated. And not lying.Which really grinds your insanity gears, doesn’t it, Loco?

            • Educated?

              What college did you attend? Barber or Clown?

            • Yup, it REALLY grinds your insanity gears, Loco nutbar.

      • Wow claimed that my “swearing”, that is the use of the word “damn” indicated that I was “scared”.

        So what does “f______ moron” signify?

        Terror to the point of incontinence?

        • Stop making up what happens in the real world. Everyone can see you’re faking it.

          • “Stop making up what happens in the real world.”

            This is what happens when an uneducated, obnoxious and intoxicated slob tries to sound sophisticated.

            What in the hell was this sentence supposed to mean? If it happens in the real world then how is it “made up”????

            • Yes, that’s exactly what you sound like, Loco. Except you missed out frothing mania. Nobody else has missed your frothing mania.

            • “Stop making up what happens in the real world”

              Still haven’t explained what the hell this is supposed to mean.

            • It means you should refrain from making shit up and pretending that it really happened.

              It’s something a four year old would get.

              They may not do it, just like you’re not, but their excuse is their intellectual development has had no time to calibrate and develop into adult modes of thought.

            • Look who’s talking about “making shit up”. You just made up this fairy tale about downloading the court rulings directly from Court Case Online. And when presented with the evidence of your perfidy all you do is lie even harder.

              You’re a pathological liar. I don’t even think you’re capable of telling the truth.

            • Yes, me. And I’m right. Which really freaks you out, people aren’t supposed to call you a nutter and be right about it!

            • You’re still lying. You cannot download court rulings from Court Case Online.

            • Anyone can download them from there.

              I did.

              You too dumb to manage it?

            • You’re lying. Court Case Online does not provide downloads of court rulings.

              Obviously you’re too stupid to make reasonable arguments so you have to lie. People who lack formal education often resort to such tactics.

            • Well, they don’t “give” it to you. You have to go to the page with the form to fill in about which one you need, so you have to *request* it.

              But if you do, rather than go to random pages and not put in the information required, then you get the court rulings.

            • A blatant lie. Anyone following Wow’s instructions will end up on a page containing only the docket information for Michael Mann’s lawsuit, with no provision to download any court rulings.

  30. Of course Wow tried to discredit *anything* that Prof. Adler said by claiming that Adler is a “denier”.

    This is simply not true.

    Adler is a long time believer in AGW as evidenced by his recent piece in the Washington Post.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/14/what-does-it-take-to-convince-libertarians-and-conservatives-that-climate-change-is-a-problem/

    Paradoxically, Adler’s position as a conservative attempting to bring other conservatives on board with global warming puts Adler far closer to Bickmore’s position than mine.

    Yet all it took was for Adler to accurately *quote* a judge’s ruling that Mann’s case is not the slam-dunk predicted by so many of the foaming-at-the-mouth global warming community for the smears and insults to fly.

    Says quite a bit about the quality of discourse on this blog.

    • He probably is, Loco. Never said he DEFINITELY was. His Job requires him to spout denier drivel and push whatever is needed to keep the deniers happy, because he doesn’t get paid if he gets sacked.

      • Adler’s a tenured law professor you stupid fucking cunt. He doesn’t have to worry a whit about being sacked from a blog where he’s just an occasional contributor.

        This is just typical of your bullshit. You just pull things out of your ass and never bother to check if they have even a passing resemblance to reality. Honestly, you can’t even google Adler’s name?

        No wonder climate change attracts so many lying shitbags like you.

        • So what if Addle-pate is a tenured law professor? A lawyer isn’t concerned at all with the truth, only getting the answer their client needs, and his client are rightwing nutjob groups that see AGW as a commie plot to steal their money.

          And tenure means he can’t be sacked for gross misconduct and lying.

          And as a professor, he doesn’t have the problem of living in the real word, living as he does in that elitist ivory tower.

          He’s a hack and completely conscience free in his life.

          • You’re criticizing Adler for being an ivory-tower professor?

            Bickmore is too if you hadn’t noticed. Stupid!

            Face it. People like McIntyre and Adler are intelligent people who are towers of integrity. Not like that lying, quote-mining sack of monkey-crap Bickmore.

            • Tu quoque is a logical fallacy that only concedes the point.

              Adler doesn’t have to worry about being wrong because he’s tenured.

              Not to mention his “profession” is one where there’s no right or wrong answer, just what you can get away with without being found out.

            • Wrong again!

              How could I have conceded a point by saying that McIntyre and Adler are “towers of integrity”?

              I said that Bickmore is the ONLY lying, quote-mining sack of monkey crap among all the persons mentioned.

              You can’t get one single solitary goddamn thing right can you?

            • For it to be “again” I would have had to be wrong before.

              And Tu quoque is a logical fallacy and it DOES admit the point. Read up on it.

              And his profession IS such that lies and misdirection are entirely fine as long as

              a) you don’t get caught doing it to the wrong person
              b) you win the argument

              Laywers don’t do truth or facts, they do interpretations and avoidance. They build a case to convince, not a theory to explain.

            • I don’t have to read up on the tu quoque fallacy. I just have to read your stupid posts.

              One of the first things I asked you was where you got the idea that shouting “You’re Wrong!” was an actual argument.

              Your reply was “Deniers like yourself”. A clear example of the tu quoque fallacy.

              Even worse was when you chopped up one of my sentences from the original,

              “Please show where I said that ‘God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real'”.

              Into the bastardized version of,

              “God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real”.

              Your justification was to claim that deniers play such games and therefore you could. Another clear case of the tu quoque fallacy.

              Your whole life is a fallacy. You’re just a complete waste of oxygen.

            • Uh, yes, you do need to read up on it.

              You can’t claim anything about something you don’t know with any accuracy at all.

              I realise you don’t CARE about accuracy or truth, but this doesn’t absolve you of needing to know what the hell you’re talking about first.

            • Just more of Wow screaming “you’re wrong” without any evidence. Because he has none.

              Admit it. I’m always right and you’re always wrong.

            • Well, the point is you’re wrong.

              And screaming about how I’m telling you you’re wrong doesn’t make you right.

              Try finding some reality. Say “Hi” to it.

            • You’re constantly trying to justify your behavior by claiming that “deniers” did it first.

              Your whole “God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real” ploy is stark, staring proof.

              You’re an utterly worthless little shitbag.

            • I’m justifying my claims because they’re justified.

              Duh.

  31. Wow tries to brush aside Muller’s strong criticisms of Mann’s work by claiming that I “… quoted him from before he even looked”.

    Not true. What a surprise that Wow just keeps making things up.

    From the same interview Muller talks about the results of his BEST project and the reaction to his climate conversion.

    So clearly Muller has not changed his opinion of Mann’s work.

    Just another false, ad hominem from Wow.

    • Nope, again.

      Muller’s work confirms Mann’s as correct and he changed his mind.

      Like an actual skeptic.

      Go look at BEST yourself, Loco.

      • BEST and the hockey stick covered different time scales.

        I know thinking is difficult for you. But could you at least give it a try?

        • They covered the same timescales.

          Both show the hockey stick.

          Stop being insane.

          • You’re lying again. The two videos I posted clearly state the difference. BEST only went back 250 years, not long enough to address the controversy over the Medieval Warm Period. The Hockey Stick tried to erase the MWP.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

            Another stupid and easily disproved lie by the uneducated, obnoxious and intoxicated slob called Wow.

          • Yes, they both cover the last 250 years.

            Where the recent unprecedented warming is.

            Where the proof that AGW is real, happening and very alarming.

            You just don’t comprehend it at all. Your insanity won’t let you out. It’s worthy of great sorrow and pity, Loco.

            • Wrong. The point of the Hockey Stick was to show that global temperatures had been somewhat stable until recently. That is to minimize or erase previous periods when the climate warmed well before it could have been the result of humans, like the Medieval Warm Period.

              You still don’t understand the two videos I posted. Don’t think you ever will.

            • Wrong.

              By the way, there’s no evidence for a warmer global MWP, but if there was, then it would indicate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing is much higher than the 3.2C per doubling the IPCC estimate as the best guess.

              This would prove you far wronger than the IPCC, and prove that the IPCC has been the OPPOSITE of alarmist.

            • Explain how a “warmer global MWP” implies a higher estimate of climate sensitivity.

            • Because to get greater chnge requires less stability, moron.

              A stable atmosphere (by the way, what did the clouds do during that time? Isn’t one of your claims that clouds will form and reduce the warming by covering the sun when it warms up and evaporates more moisture? Didn’t it work in the 12th century, or is it just a modern invention?) resists change and therefore would not have changed as much.

            • Please show where I said anything about clouds.

              You’re asking me to defend a statement I didn’t make?

            • What was forcing CO2 during the MWP?

            • Doesn’t matter. It only indicates that the climate is a lot less stable to forcings than you claim.

              Therefore our actions are even more dangerous.

              This is the opposite of what you want to know, however.

            • Another stupid comment. You’re the one who claimed that the MWP was a result of CO2 forcing. When I ask what was forcing CO2 you now say it “doesn’t matter”.

              Because everything you said was just pseudo-scientific nonsense that you plucked out of thin air.

              Why do you insist on reminding everyone that your lack of education prevents you from understanding the debate surrounding the science of global warming?

            • And still waiting for you to show where I discussed cloud cover and global warming.

            • Yes, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if you push an unstable object or if it’s blown by the wind, if it falls over or changes in drastic ways when disturbed, it’s unstable and reacts heavily to ANY disturbance.

              And are you admitting you don’t know anything about the climate or what causes it?

              If not, then I don’t have to show you where you claimed clouds have an effect.

              If I DO have to, then you’re admitting you don’t know anything about how the weather happens, or even the climate.

            • Another in a seemingly endless line of stupid comments from world’s most useless person.

              Wow lies and constructs a strawman and then demands that I explain a statement that I didn’t even make.

              So now Wow is claiming that the climate is highly unstable and subject to change in “drastic” ways? So wouldn’t that make Mann’s Hockey Stick, with its flat and stable shaft, scientifically inaccurate?

              Make up your mind numbskull.

            • Serious question here, who do you think you’re fooling here? Are you fooling yourself? And is it *actually working*?

              It’s not working with me, since I know you’re a nutcase, and nobody will read that post, buried in the middle of the bollocks you spew. So it’s only me and you, bub. And it’s not fooling me.

              If it’s not fooling you either, then it was a waste of your effort, wasn’t it. So why the hell did you do it?

              No, if the MWP was global, then that means the climate is more unstable than even the worst projection of the IPCC has predicted.

              There is, however, no evidence whatsoever that the MWP was global.

            • Just more heads-I-win-tails-you-lose bullshit typical of junk science. No matter what the evidence, either a pronounced MWP or no MWP, global warming is “proven” either way.

              Little wonder climate change is the cause that appeals to lying shitbags like you.

            • Aaand now we see your paranoid delusions leak out…

            • Your delusion is that you’re a human being. From time to time my dog thinks he’s people too.

            • I am a human being.

              Idiot.

  32. Wow continues to claim that I proffer “interpretations” of the judge’s rulings because the “actual documents” don’t support my argument.

    Not true.

    In an attempt to avoid precisely this sort of attack I only quoted Adler when Adler was quoting the actual ruling.

    The judge literally said,

    Mann v. National Review 7-19-13
    page 21

    “At this stage, the evidence is slight as to whether there was actual malice”

    Mann v. CEI 7-19-13
    page 16, footnote 12

    “The court does view this as a very close case”

    http://www.williamslopatto.com/decisions1.html

    Can someone please provide a non-psychotic reason to believe that pdfs of the court rulings hosted at Michael Mann’s attorney are *not* the actual documents?

    • Nope, ABSOLUTELY my claims are correct, Loco.

      QUOTE:

      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.”

      ENDQUOTE

      From SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division
      Case No. 2012 CA 008263 B
      Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene

      Not quotemined like yours. What “case” was your quote for?

      The court claims that Mann is likely to find ACTUAL malice in Steyn and NR’s actions. The court ALREADY says that it’s proven to be false already and done with reckless disregard to the truth.

    • Mann v NRI quote continues:

      “There is however sufficient evidence to demonstrate some malice or the knowledge that the statements were false or made with reckless disregard for the truth”.

      Mann v CEI footnote is to the statement:

      The court must, at this stage, find the evidence indicates that the CEI defendants’ statements are not pure opinion but statements made on provably false facts.

      • Still avoiding the big question.

        Please provide a non-psychotic reason as to why you don’t believe the pdfs hosted at Williams Lopatto are accurate copies of the court’s rulings.

        • Already answered: I don’t. You made up what you want me to think so you can attack that strawman.

          • Still avoiding the big question.

            Please provide a non-psychotic reason as to why you don’t believe the pdfs hosted at Williams Lopatto are accurate copies of the court’s rulings.

            Typical avoidance tactic by the uneducated, obnoxious and perfidious slob called Wow.

            • I’ve answered many times. I don’t believe that.

            • You’re lying again. But then again that’s all you can do to “win” given your lack of education.

              On April 6th I posted a link to Williams Lopatto.

              On April 9th Wow said,

              “None of the links have been to the court.

              You’ve linked denier blogrolls and those of other politically motivated hacks blogging on personal opinion, not in official capacity or factual reporting basis.”

              So for something like the fortieth time. Please explain why you don’t believe that the pdfs supplied by Michael Mann’s attorney are not faithful reproductions of the actual court rulings. Is Williams Lopatto a “denier blogroll” or are they “politically motivated hacks”?

            • I know what I believe, Loco.

              I know that’s new territory for you, but others DO know how they think and what they think. They don’t need other people to tell them what to think.

              You do. Not me.

            • “I know what I believe, Loco”

              So you admit that your position on global warming is based on “belief” and not on a reasoned, scientific argument?

            • “So you admit that your position on global warming is based on “belief” ”

              Since you weren’t talking about my position on global warming, you must believe that everyone else is dumber than you.

              This is not possible, you’re as thick as a yard of lard.

            • You still haven’t explained why you *believe* that the pdfs hosted at Williams Lopatto are not accurate copies of the court rulings.

            • I don’t. Never have, never said I have. The only one saying that is you, Loco.

              Who the hell are you fooling with this charade? It’s not me. And I can’t be bothered to stop correcting you, so you’re just wasting your time with it.

            • Answer the question you lying sack of shit.

            • I have, you insane troll.

            • Just your usual tactics. You just lie and try to claim that you’re “already answered”.

              It’s all just nonsense in an attempt to maintain the fiction that you’re not a worthless piece of shit.

            • So in loco nutbar world, what am I supposed to say when I’ve already answered other than “Already answered this”?

            • Answer the question you lying little cunt.

            • I have answered the question. You can’t abuse the answer, so you pretend it was never answered.

  33. Wow repeatedly claimed that my failure to provide a link to the rulings hosted at the court itself was evidence of my duplicity.

    Wow then helpfully told me how stupid I am for not downloading the rulings from the D.C. Court Case Online system like Wow did.

    There’s just one small problem with that narrative.

    The Court Case Online system as described here only provides *docket* information. That is participants, dates of filings and fees paid.

    https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/pdf/CourtCasesOnline_UsersGuide.pdf

    The journalist’s handbook for the D.C. Courts explains how to obtain actual copies of the filings.

    “But actual copies of filings must be obtained at the public access computers located in the divisions’ clerk’s offices”

    http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/JournalistsHandbook.pdf

    Wow is a blatant liar.

    • Wrong again, Loco.

      You didn’t link to the court because you have never read the documents yourself, only the reports by fellow deniers that they made up and quotemined to “support”. And the reason for THAT is your denialism.

      Telling the truth is something you gave up years ago.

      • I just showed that you cannot link to the documents at the court itself. I also showed that Wow has been lying for weeks claiming that you could.

        And yet Wow just keeps bringing the stupid repeating the charge that I didn’t link to the court because I’m dishonest.

        Got that?

        I’m dishonest because I didn’t link to documents that *don’t exist* on the court’s website.

        Simply unbelievable.

        • Changing your claims yet again, Loco?

          Which one am I supposed to show you’re lying on? Your current bollocks or one of the old ones?

          I totally linked to the court system where you can get the documents.

          You seem to believe (when convenient) that the documents can;t be got online from them.

          They can.

          Stop being insane.

          • Like totally!!! Oh my God! Valley Girrrrrrl … Valley Girrrrrrrl

            You sound like a Frank Zappa song.

            But back the topic. You linked to Court Case Online. That system only provides docket information.

            Another easily disproved lie by the uneducated, obnoxious and perfidious slob called Wow.

            • No, it also provides the court case results. That’s where you can get the court documents. You don’t want to know, though.

            • As usual Wow is lying through its teeth. Court Case Online does not provide downloads of court rulings.

              Wow is a pathological liar.

  34. Guys, nobody, including me, will EVER have the perseverance to slog through all these comments. NOBODY. Personally, I would rather chew off my own foot.

    • That’s OK, Barry. Leave your foot alone. You need room for dinner🙂

    • Well get used to it because Wow is doing the same to your latest thread.

      • This is why loco nutbar likes how he is: being insane means never having to admit you’re wrong.

        • What was I wrong about?

          • Is this a trick question?

            Everything, loco nutbar. Everything.

            • You haven’t gotten one thing right for months. I’ve been kicking your tits in over and over and over again.

              Which is why you’ve been reduced to your shitbag avoidance tactics you annoying little cunt.

            • I have answered the questions before, and saying so is 100% correct. So you’re wrong again.

  35. Locus, welcome to the world of climate activism. They are all liars. Notice the first responder on top, William Connolley. He is another professional liar who coauthored a paper a few years back, “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” ( http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 ), where he pretends to debunk the global cooling scare.* Funny thing, he even lists such skeptics as Sherman Idso as being on the warming side, and includes them on his phony graph. Of the papers I’ve checked, none listed hint at any fear or likelihood of future warming. I doubt any such papers from the 70s could be found.

    Sound science and accurate history are the least of their concerns. Creating a mirage of consensus is their stock in trade. Cook and Lewandowsky only followed in the footsteps of Connolley, et al, in fabricating consensus tallies, and Oreskes continues the time honored tradition among fanatics of calling dissent denial, and blaming it on the great bogeyman, Big Oil. “Dissent” and “denial” are hardly appropriate words for honest science. –AGF

    *He has also devoted himself to turning Wikipedia into a climate scare mongering machine.

    • agfosterjr,

      Oh I agree. There are some truly creepy and dishonest people in the global warming scare industry.

      • Yup you and your pal are truly creepy. Loco and Nasty.

        An unpleasant double act.

        • You’re too stupid and obnoxious to have a pal. I’ll be your mum had to tie a pork chop around your neck just to get the dog to play with you.

          • Aaaand it’s back to the infants’ school for Loco.

            Sad.

            • So I guess even the pork chop didn’t work?

            • No, you never have.

            • But you asking bestiality questions is high-minded debate right?

              Dipshit hypocrite.

            • And yet another example of your disconnect with reality.

            • What are you claiming now you lying piece of shit?

            • They were all short words, you frothing lunatic. Which one did you not understand?

            • Answer the fucking question you little cunt.

            • I HAVE answered the question you diseased dingo’s rectum.

  36. Wow is at it again. Now claiming on that…

    “I never made a claim about the court documents being online, Loco, so can’t have lied about that either.” — Wow May 4 1:37AM

    Completely untrue. What a surprise.

    Just follow the sequence below.

    ================================================

    Here, Loco:

    https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf

    You’ll need that to find out how you’ve been lied to by your denier chums.

    Wow – April 16 11:25 AM

    =================================================

    Why didn’t you link to the actual documents in question?

    Locus — April 16 11:21 PM

    =================================================

    You demanded I give you where I got the documents from.

    Now you’ve been given them, instead of reading them for yourself, you complain.

    Wow — April 17 2:47 AM

    =================================================

    So first Wow lied about obtaining the court rulings from the dccourts website. And then Wow lied about saying the the rulings could be found online.

    • Yes, in response to your “You’re lying about the court rulings being available online ( See below )”

      Which was before my “I never made a claim about the court documents” quote.

      Tachyon stupidity from the insane nutcase loco.

      • What in the absolute hell are you blathering about now?

        Are you congenitally incapable of putting together a coherent paragraph?

        • I’m talking about how I was repsoinding to your claims that I never made about your links.

          Do keep up, dearest.

          • You’re still not making any sense.

            “repsoinding” ???

            Please sober up before posting. Of course that won’t help your lack of education.

            • Ah, so you don’t like the answer, can’t accept the answer therefore point out a typo.

              As if it is somehow relevant.

              What a maroon!

            • What answer?

              “… I was repsoinding (sic) to your claims that I never made about your links.”

              What the hell is that supposed to mean?

              Can’t you ever put together a coherent sentence?

            • The answer you ignore, dearie, preferring to obsess and get alarmed over a typo instead.

              Displacement activity.

              Ask a grown up what it means.

            • I’m not obsessing over a typo. You speak cryptically because you’re simply trying to fake being an intellectual. This often happens with people sensitive about their lack of a formal education.

              “… I was repsoinding (sic) to your claims that I never made about your links.”

              Which of my claims?
              Which of my links?

            • Oh you definitely did obsess over a typo. That hasn’t worked, so you’ve started obsessing over lying what you said.

            • And once again Wow the lying intellectual fraud avoids the questions. Please sober up and explain what in the world you’re trying to say.

              But then again with your lack of education even sobriety would barely improve your communications skills.

  37. One of Wow’s favorite lies is to claim that there has been no pause in global warming.

    Evidently Wow didn’t get the memo.

    “The study set off a furious debate among scientists and oceanographers studying climate change. The world’s surface temperatures have risen at a slower rate over the past 15 years than at any time since 1951, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Some scientists have tied the phenomenon, called the global warming “pause,” to the deep oceans’ taking up more heat. But the NASA study suggests that may not be the case.”

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mystery-of-ocean-heat-deepens-as-climate-changes/

    If Wow didn’t lie, Wow wouldn’t have anything to say. At all.

    • Yes, there’ s furious debate being made by morons like yourself insisting that there’s been a pause or haitus.

      It doesn’t exist.

      • Right. Here’s the pause that doesn’t exist:

        Spencer has the distinction of submitting the only major adjustment downward of any temperature record, getting his UAH record more in line with Christy’s RSS (sat) record.
        And Trenberth (5 years ago): “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Here’s how SS–a whole pack of climate liars–spins that:
        https://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm
        “Wow” is such a consistent liar that you are safe in believing the opposite of anything he says. –AGF

        • Nope, that’s a cherry pick. Too short for any statement on climatology too.

          Here’s the temperature graph for you without the cherry pips:

          http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

          See how the line goes up and down over an increasing trend? If you pick two points of short enough period, you can get “a haitus” for any period up to the current year.

          There is no pause.

          2014 is the hottest year so far and 2015 is currently beating it.

          There is no pause.

          • And which of those graphs does the pathological liar claim contradicts the above graphs? The only one with a similar time frame, 1966 to present, shows the same pause, plain as day. Do you never get tired of lying? But you’re doing us a favor with your pathology–you are the essence of climate hysteria: lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. Obfuscate and lie some more. –AGF

            • Rather 1996 to present: “Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change.”

            • And here’s an entertaining tidbit from N. Oreskes, minister of climate propaganda: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/07/a-disturbance-in-the-farce-another-hateful-and-pointless-paper-from-stephan-lewandowsky-and-naomi-oreskes/

              To paraphrase: “Listen up scientists, quit using the word ‘pause.’ It misleads the public. Don’t say it. Don’t say ‘hiatus’ or anything like unto it.'”

              All this talk about pausing would be discouraging to Callendar, who saw GHG warming as our salvation from “the deadly glaciers.”
              –AGF

            • No it doesn’t. The line goes up and down liky billy-o.

              And pre-1966 you can see that the same appearance happens many times yet still the trend increased.

              18th-20th century, up, down, up, down. 20th-21st Century, fast up, “pause”, fast up, “pause”.

              There is no pause. The increasing trend continues.

          • Maybe the reason you haven’t found any evidence for a hiatus is because you’ve been searching for a “haitus”, whatever the hell that is.

            Seriously you need some additional education. After you sober up see if you can find a class in basic English that they offer to new immigrants.

            Although I’m not sure you’ll find a class taught in your native tongue. There can’t be that many instructors that can speak Stupidish.

            • Nope, I’ve looked either for a pause (there is none: the temperature graph keeps moving about, no pause). And I’ve looked for a pause in the temperature trend. There isn’t one. It still holds true to about 0.17C per decade.

              I’ve not been looking for the word “haitus” with or without quotes and assuming that means there is a haitus. Just like your saying “God” does not mean god exists.

            • Kevin Trenberth says there’s been a pause and he’s on your side. Explain why he’s wrong.

            • Noone has EVER shown there was a pause. Because there never was a pause.

            • Then why does Kevin Trenberth say there’s been a pause? It’s right in that Nature article I linked.

            • And you say god exists and would not let AGW happen.

  38. New to this Blog, glad to see Barry has put this together over the last several years and I would like to leave a brief comment. Both in the media and in the scientific community (yes those are two different communities) there is, what I interpret to be, a gross over-confidence in our understanding of the climate system. General Circulation Models are amazing tools and “do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in” (Freeman Dyson). The fact that warming over the last 150 years has been less than expected (Ruddiman, p. 390) suggests that the atmosphere is not as sensitive to greenhouse forcing as the models suggest. Maybe aerosols or ocean absorption of heat are reasons for the lack of warming, but whatever the reason, it demonstrates Freeman’s point above. The general public knows nothing about the uncertainties of climate change because that is never reported. Having said that, the models do to predict warming. So what should be done to “combat climate change”? (I don’t really like the term ‘combat climate change’ but I hear it all the time). I here present two viewpoints that I have encountered. David Titley in an editorial in Science (25 July 2014) compared future climate change to the threat faced by nations in WW I. He said “we must stabilize the climate system by solving the root cause of its changes: unchecked greehouse gases.” How do you stabilize something that is not stable? I feel it is irresponsible for a scientist to suggest that climate could be stabilized. I know scientist don’t believe climate is really stable, but I think that is how the majority of non-scientists view it because of statements like Titley’s. That if we can just stop burning fossil fuels, that our climate will somehow be nice and neat with no wild swings and extremes and sea level will stop rising, etc.–that is how the public percieves it I feel. Titley then asks, “will we repeat the same mistakes they (European powers) made a century ago?” Apparetly Titley subscribes to the view that climate change will be responsible for death and destruction on the scale of WW I. When you site the first casualty in the coming climate change war, please notify me.
    Compare these ideas to what I feel are the more measured tones of Freeman Dyson, who stated that efforts to stabilize climate (again the words stable and climate are oxymorons) “take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.” Final word: climate change is not the greatest threat to our society. Call me a Dyson-ite, at least on this point.

    • Sorry, Evan you’re wrong.

      We have plenty of confidence in the climate models. They have been very accurate indeed.

      You’re demanding perfection because you know it can never be achieved, your aim SOLELY to make no change to your way of thinking in any way whatsoever, because change scares you, environmentalism detests you and greed overwhelms you.

      You demand perfection.

      Because you can’t say what you really want: to deny it all.

  39. Wow,

    On June 3, 2014 Bickmore semi-agreed with McIntyre saying,

    “I read some of Steve McIntyre’s material, and I have to admit that maybe Mann’s lawyers worded the complaint a little too broadly. That is, ALL of those inquiries didn’t exonerate Mann of all charges, as their wording seems to imply.”

    https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/inspector-steyn-is-looking-for-a-clue/

    Does this mean that you’ll be calling Bickmore a “venal moron”?

    • No I’m calling him wrong.

      You can be wrong without being a moron.

      However, a moron is frequently wrong.

  40. During an exchange I reminded Wow that Bickmore had offered to take down Wow’s comments if Prof. Adler complained.

    Typically Wow responded with dishonesty,

    “No he didn’t”

    OK. Should be fairly easy for anyone to check. And so,

    “Whether Wow is liable, or not, I don’t care. As for me, I would take down Wow’s offending comments and apologize if Prof. Adler wanted to threaten a libel suit against me.” Bickmore — April 6, 2015 at 11:29 am

    Geez, does Wow *ever* stop lying? How psychologically damaged does someone have to be to tell such obvious untruths when it’s just so easy to disprove them?

    I also like the “I don’t care” part. I’m guessing that Bickmore probably thinks Wow is as useless as I do. And I think that Wow is about as useless as a truck full of dead rats in a tampon factory.

    • “I reminded Wow that Bickmore had offered to take down Wow’s comments if Prof. Adler complained.”

      You did not. That was not your claim. That is a fiction. A lie. A fib.

      As normal for you, Abby.

      • Loco: “Bickmore understood that you had smeared Adler. ”

        Me; “No he didn’t.”

        By the alchemy of insanity from Loco becomes

        Loco: “Bickmore [had] offered to take down Wow’s comments if Prof. Adler complained.”

        Me: No he didn’t.

        • Here we go with Wow’s incessant lying. My actual comment was the following,

          Loco: “Bickmore understood that you had smeared Adler. >>>That’s why he said that he’d take down your comments if Adler complained <<>>second sentence<<< mysteriously disappeared from Wow's version of events?

          So yes Wow I did remind you that Bickmore had offered to take down your comments if Adler complained. Which of course you tried to deny. Typical.

          I guess the only way Wow can "win" is to lie. Must be Wow's lack of formal education.

          • Editing error in the above. Should read…

            ==========================================

            Here we go with Wow’s incessant lying. My actual comment was the following,

            Loco: “Bickmore understood that you had smeared Adler. >>>That’s why he said that he’d take down your comments if Adler complained. <>second sentence<<< mysteriously disappeared from Wow's version of events?

            So yes Wow I did remind you that Bickmore had offered to take down your comments if Adler complained. Which of course you tried to deny. Typical.

            I guess the only way Wow can "win" is to lie. Must be Wow's lack of formal education.

          • No your actual comment was the following:

            “Bickmore understood that you had smeared Adler. That’s why he said that he’d take down your comments if Adler complained.”

            You said “Bickmore understood that you had smeared Adler”. And I said he had not.

            You also claim that this was why he said that he’d take down the comment if Adler complained, which is an assertion of what Barry’s motivation was, which is entirely conjecture on your part.

            And therefore your claims are, as usual, lies.

            Desperate flailing lies.

            Because you’ve lost a thousand times but don’t want to know.

            • Here we go with the lies again.

              Wow gets caught lying by denying that Bickmore had offered to take down Wow’s comments if Adler complained. Confronted with the evidence Wow now changes stories and tries to say that…

              “No, he didn’t”

              referred to Bickmore’s motivation and NOT to an offer to take down the comments.

              So why did Bickmore indicate a willingness to delete Wow’s statements?

              This is why Wow writes in such an obscure fashion. So that Wow can go back and claim a different meaning at a later date.

              Typical tactic from a known and proven liar.

            • We already know you are an inveterate liar, Loco, there’s no need to say you’re about to start again.

            • Still didn’t answer the question.

              So why did Bickmore indicate a willingness to delete your comments?

              And you’re still lying about downloading the court rulings from Court Case Online. That system does not provide downloads of court rulings. It’s just an electronic docket.

            • Barry said he wouldn’t. Then you went all “LEAVE BRITNEY^WADLER ALONE!!!!!” on him for not doing so.

            • Lying about the DC Court site again, Loco:

              Put the year the case of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Year” entry.
              Put the case number of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Case Number” entry.
              Select the type of case (two letters) of the ruling you want in the “Type” panel “Case Number” entry.

              And get the case of Mann vs CEI and Mann vs NR Inc et al. rulings.

            • Ask Bickmore to follow your “instructions” and download the court documents for himself.

              But you won’t because you know you’re lying.

            • I have. You’re too dumb to understand.

  41. https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf

    Put the year the case of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Year” entry.
    Put the case number of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Case Number” entry.
    Select the type of case (two letters) of the ruling you want in the “Type” panel “Case Number” entry.

    And get the case of Mann vs CEI and Mann vs NR Inc et al. rulings.

    Dopey old Loco can’t work it out.

    • Actually I worked it out just fine when I first found the Court Case Online website. Six weeks ago. When you first started with your direct link to the court documents avoidance tactic.

      It’s a lot easier to search by name.

      Last Name: MANN
      First Name: MICHAEL

      Hit the ‘Search’ button.

      As of today it’s the second case down and the only one with a status of ‘Open’.

      Check the box in the ‘Select’ column for Mann’s case.

      Hit ‘Case Details’.

      And you’re presented with the court docket for this case.

      Unfortunately there are *no* hyperlinks on this page to download the rulings themselves. Sure, you’ll be able to see that two orders were filed on July 19, 2013.

      *** But there are no links to download anything on this page. ***

      That’s why I read the User’s Guide which I linked to on May 3rd. The Guide tells how Court Case Online is an electronic *docket*, not a document archive like Wow claims.

      https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/pdf/CourtCasesOnline_UsersGuide.pdf

      The journalist’s handbook for the D.C. Courts explains how to obtain actual copies of the filings.

      “But actual copies of filings must be obtained at the public access computers located in the divisions’ clerk’s offices”

      http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/JournalistsHandbook.pdf

      So I’ll ask Wow again. How were you supposedly able to download the court rulings from a system that all the documentation says does not provide such documents? How do you download files from a webpage that has no download links?

      • What a load of bollocks, Loco.

        You haven’t the merest glimmer of honesty in your psyche. That claim is 100% sold-turd bullshit.

        • Prove it. Ask your man-crush Bickmore to follow your instructions and download the documents himself.

      • Put the year the case of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Year” entry.
        Put the case number of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Case Number” entry.
        Select the type of case (two letters) of the ruling you want in the “Type” panel “Case Number” entry.

        And get the case of Mann vs CEI and Mann vs NR Inc et al. rulings.

        If you had ever done as you claimed, why did you stall for six weeks?

        • How many times will I have to post this before Wow-for-Brains realizes that (his/her/its) lying isn’t going to work?

          http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/CCO.jsf

          Actually I worked it out just fine when I first found the Court Case Online website. Six weeks ago. When you first started with your direct link to the court documents avoidance tactic.

          It’s a lot easier to search by name.

          Last Name: MANN
          First Name: MICHAEL

          Hit the ‘Search’ button.

          As of today it’s the second case down and the only one with a status of ‘Open’.

          Check the box in the ‘Select’ column for Mann’s case.

          Hit ‘Case Details’.

          And you’re presented with the court docket for this case.

          Unfortunately there are *no* hyperlinks on this page to download the rulings themselves. Sure, you’ll be able to see that two orders were filed on July 19, 2013.

          *** But there are no links to download anything on this page. ***

          That’s why I read the User’s Guide which I linked to on May 3rd. The Guide tells how Court Case Online is an electronic *docket*, not a document archive like Wow claims.

          https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/pdf/CourtCasesOnline_UsersGuide.pdf

          The journalist’s handbook for the D.C. Courts explains how to obtain actual copies of the filings.

          “But actual copies of filings must be obtained at the public access computers located in the divisions’ clerk’s offices”

          http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/JournalistsHandbook.pdf

          So I’ll ask Wow again. How were you supposedly able to download the court rulings from a system that all the documentation says does not provide such documents? How do you download files from a webpage that has no download links?

        • What do you mean “stall for six weeks”? I posted a link to Williams Lopatto within a few days since only a mental case would try and claim that the documents there weren’t accurate copies of the court rulings.

          But I hadn’t counted on Wow’s pathological lying.

        • And let’s look at the history here shall we? I posted a link to Williams Lopatto on April 6th.

          On April 7th Wow was demanding that I respond to a quote from Judge Weisberg’s ruling.

          But as late as April 16th Wow was still steadfastly refusing to provide a link to where Wow *claimed* to have downloaded the documents. Amazingly Wow said that it didn’t even matter if the quotes Wow was providing were fake!

          “Doesn’t matter if I have, or I’m linking to fake versions.” — Wow April 16th 2:09 AM

          Later that day Wow finally claimed to have downloaded the court rulings from Court Case Online. A blatant lie.

          Wow was obviously stalling, flailing desperately to concoct yet another lie. Why else would it take Wow nine days just to post a simple link?

          Wow is a pathological liar. Truly a worthless individual.

        • I mean you stalled for six weeks, Loco. You squirmed for six weeks. You evaded for six weeks.

          You only recently, after I gave you the bloody link, and after days of evasion, looked.

          Then sought out a quotemine to insist you’re still right when you’re failing hard.

          • You never gave me any link. Your quotes were taken from the documents I linked.

            I didn’t stall. You just kept lying about where you got the quotes from and I wasn’t going to let a thing like you get away with that.

  42. QUOTE:

    Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable jury is likely to find in favor of the plaintiff on Count VII against the National Review defendants, and their special motion of those defendants to dismiss Count VII as well as their Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will also be denied.

    ENDQUOTE

    From SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division
    Case No. 2012 CA 8263 B
    Judge Frederick H. Weisberg

    QUOTE:

    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.”

    ENDQUOTE

    From SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division
    Case No. 2012 CA 008263 B
    Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene

    A post that Loco will never bother reading.

  43. “Wow” is the winner here in the sense that he has effectively trashed BB’s blog. He could blabber gibberish indefinitely and still claim his check. This is the way Putin’s trolls work too–Putin can afford a whole cadre of lying propagandists to fill up the comments section whenever a media outlet runs news Putin doesn’t like. And although Wow’s methods are lower budget than most, the difference in believability is one of degree: lots of people figured out the climate scam 20 years ago. As for me, it took a while to realize it was ultimately propaganda rather than just bad science. –AGF

    • Most of the posts are from Loco.

      Not “on message” for you, though, nasty, is it?

    • Most of the posts are from Loco.

      Not “on message” for you, though, nasty, is it?

      You can’t complain about Loco.

      HE’S supposed to win.

  44. “On message” is just propaganda talk–it has nothing to do with science, truth, or reality. Every claim Wow makes is a lie: no pause, models vindicated, Locus claiming the lawyers are liars, etc. The pause is the big reason the models are off–they predicted much more warming than has occurred. The pause is so universally accepted among honest scholars that minister of propaganda Oreskes feels the need to call them to task: they are off message. The pause doesn’t invalidate GHG warming theory, but it certainly does lower the range of possible and likely ECS values. The pause lowers the likelihood of dangerous anthropogenic warming.

    Only dishonest radicals claim vindicated models and decry pause language and such is Oreske, whom BB displays to the world as an advocate of valid science when she projects all the faults of the climate activists onto the skeptics: you deny our propaganda? You are obviously funded by Big Oil. BB’s evangelism has won him a place in Wikipedia (thanks to Connelley, no doubt), and BB is having a very hard time accepting he’s been conned. After all, he has given seminars examining the psychology of skepticism. and after that it’s not easy switching to an examination of the methodology of the preachers of doom. –AGF

    • Yes, it is propaganda talk. Because that’s what you’re doing, Nasty.

      Fact: More posts are from Loco. Though if you keep demanding I answer you or claim that you “scored a win”, that may become less and less the case.

      Which may be why you’re agitating like you do.

      Yes, agit-prop.

      That’s propaganda talk.

      • “Wow,” you are as big and idiot as you are a liar. I said YOU won, you moron. And you have. The people who are stupid enough to believe a transparently pathological liar will keep cheering you on. And everyone with the tiniest shred of intelligence will see you for what you are: a professional liar, typical of the hysterical proponents of climate doom. I’ll say it a gin. You win. –AGF

      • Yes, and that’s called projection, Nasty.

        • And for your most excellent service, I dub thee Sir Skunk Scatterer (SSS for short). –AGF

  45. Wow continues to claim that I’m a “religous (sic) nutbag”.

    Really. Could Wow please provide some proof? Can anyone find where on this blog I’ve *ever* brought up religion?

    Of course Wow will simply doctor some of my commentary to “win”. For example Wow has already truncated my question,

    ‘Please show where I said that “God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real”.’

    to instead read,

    “God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real”.

    And Wow’s explanation is simply astounding.

    “You whine and bitch and moan that you’re not talking about God and you’ve never said god wouldn’t allow AGW to be real and when I point out where you HAVE said those words, (By: Locus on April 4, 2015
    at 1:29 pm), you say that I’m wrong, you never said that.

    Yet those words DO APPEAR.

    QUOTED CORRECTLY.”

    You see because Wow *accused* Adler of quote-mining supposedly this gives Wow carte blanche to chop up my sentences.

    Just how flippin’ stupid do you have to be to make an argument like that?

    What’s so amazing about this is that Adler believes in AGW and is trying to get other conservatives on board. What’s more Adler quoted the judge as saying that this was a “close” case. The actual quote is that this is a “very close” case. If anything that makes the plaintiff’s case look stronger.

    Simply unbelievable.

    • “Can anyone find where on this blog I’ve *ever* brought up religion?”

      I have several times:

      “God would not allow AGW to be real”

      By: Locus on April 8, 2015
      at 8:26 pm

    • “You see because Wow *accused* Adler of quote-mining supposedly this gives Wow carte blanche to chop up my sentences.”

      Oh, not just Addle-pate. You do it too, and insist that the fact that the words you quote appear proves that your claims about their meaning are correct. Which you’ve done with Hansen, among many others (including myself).

      I quoted the words in your post you made precisely.

      If you say that this does not mean you think god is real, then why does the word god appear?

      And if the word god appearing doesn’t mean you think god exists, then the reason the word haitus exists doesn’t prove they claim there is a haitus.

      • On April 4, 0436, Wow quotes Locus asking: “Please show where I said that “God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real”.

        Wow: “Show me where I said you said ““God wouldn’t allow AGW to be real”. [At that point this was true–Wow didn’t say Locus said that; it was Wow who brought God into the discussion.]

        So Locus said no such thing, and Wow denied he said that Locus said any such thing. And here he is making an opposite claim. But like I said before, this is the MO of the whole climate doom establishment. Fortunately, as their lies become more and more transparent and absurd, ever less perspicacious people are catching on to the scam, and recognizing that they can dismiss the likes of Wow and Oreske and Mann and Hansen and Pachauri and a host of inveterate liars who couldn’t give you a straight answer if their lives depended on it.

        Wow is the sort of pathetic troll who would be quickly banned at a skeptical website, but his ilk are the bread and butter of the propaganda sites. Wow’s only aim is to dilute the comments to the point that nobody will take the trouble to use BB’s blog as a source. Why should anyone read a blog so filled with garbage? –AGF

        • Are YOU saying that the words “God wouldn’t let AGW happen” appearing in Loco’s post does not mean he says that god would not let AGW happen?

          Because those words appear, 100% accurate quote.

          Are you saying the quote was inaccurate?

          How?

          The words appear in his post!

          • Of course the words appear–he was quoting YOU. They only appear because he quoted your quote. YOU brought God into the discussion, not Locus, and you are purposefully wasting everyone’s time with your uninterrupted lies. For you it’s all a joke, filling a blog with garbage. All in a day’s work for a troll. Do they pay you by the lie? –AGF

            • “Of course the words appear”

              Therefore I’m right: Loco DOES believe God exists and wouldn’t allow AGW to happen!

          • Hyperbole abounds on the Internet.

            But I am completely serious when I say that Wow’s comment is the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard.

            • I’m glad you think it’s a stupid argument.

              It’s the one you’ve used when attempting to prove that there’s a pause.

              Yours was the most stupid argument you’ve ever seen. You just said so.

              You only bother to say so, however, when it’s used against you.

            • That is complete and utter nonsense. I linked to articles that described scientists attempting to EXPLAIN the pause, not deny that a pause had happened.

              Wow, you are truly the most worthless human being on the planet.

            • Yes, your post IS a load of rubbish, Loco.

              The two are precisely analogous.

              You say God therefore god exists? NO!!!! you scream! Trenberth says haitus therefore the haitus exists? No.

              Precisely the same situation, dumbass.

            • Another contemptible lie from a utterly worthless person. Honest people quote honestly.

              Pathological liars like yourself mangle quotes to completely change their meaning.

              And again what in the hell is a “haitus”?

            • How would you know what honest people would do or think, Loco? You’re a lying nutbag.

            • Another zero information comment from something utterly worthless.

  46. Here’s is NASA’s honest website on climate doom science:
    http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/index.html
    Hansen and his underlings are just an embarrassment to the real rocket scientists. –AGF

    • “Here’s is NASA’s honest website on climate doom science:
      http://www.therightclimatestuff…”

      Really? The NASA website address isn’t “therightclimatestuff”. Sounds like a denierblogroll address.

      NASA are available here:

      http://www.nasa.gov

      It’s fairly obvious. Government. Web address. NASA. All points to that link there being the right stuff and yours being some rubbish that isn’t NASA.

  47. More habitual lying from Wow.

    “It’s been proven in court a dozen times, Loco.” Wow April 8 3:01 AM

    That’s the first time I’d ever heard of Mann’s work being proven correct “in court” let alone a dozen times. So, I’ve been asking Wow what case in which court.

    Any normal person would just admit that they’d misspoke and we’d move on but Wow is so emotionally flawed that (she/he/it) has to lie… just has to lie.

    So Wow’s new story is,

    “Nope, it was the previous exonerations that you were claiming about, Loco.” — Wow May 11 3:06 AM

    Well obviously not otherwise I wouldn’t have asked “which case?” and “which court?”.

    So, if anyone wonders why we’re going to bust 1000 comments on little more than drivel, it’s because we have a mental case named Wow on the blog.

    • Yes, all you’re doing there is pretending somehow that I’m wrong.

      “That’s the first time I’d ever heard of Mann’s work being proven correct “in court” ”

      This is your problem, Loco. You insert words where there are none.

      My quote you used, the entire bit you used: “”It’s been proven in court a dozen times, Loco.” Wow April 8 3:01 AM”

      First time you’ve heard a quote you just made up? Not a surprise, Loco.

      • What in the hell is this idiot trying to say now????

        “My quote you used, the entire bit you used”

        What is that supposed to mean?

        Why, why, why does Wow insist on commenting while intoxicated?

      • Yes, that’s what I was wondering, Loco, what are you (the idiot) trying to say?

        “I make no sense, therefore you’re an idiot for not understanding what I mean!”?

        I mean, we’ve already well established you’re fucking crazy, so it’s definitely possible you think something insane like that.

        • Again the intellectual fraud attempts to make an argument and gets everything backwards. I’m not complaining about others not understanding my statements as you imply here. I’m complaining about your poor communication skills which are obviously a consequence of your lack of higher education.

          Tell me, when you try to think, does it hurt much?

          • Again the intellectual fraud attempts to make an argument and gets everything backwards..

            Again, it’s all projection from Loco. He’s not an insane maniac, he’s “just like everyone else”!

            • And you calling Michael Mann’s attorney’s website a “denier blogroll” is *not* getting things backwards?

  48. Check out this recent exchange. Wow claims that there’s been no meaningful pause in the rise of global temperatures. I’m pointing out that a recent Nature article acknowledges that there’s been a pause, that it’s created a “minor crisis of confidence” and that climate scientists have been working to explain it.

    http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
    ==================================

    So you’re admitting even you don’t understand your answers?

    Why, why, why would there be a “minor crisis of confidence” over something that you claim doesn’t exist?

    By: Locus on May 10, 2015
    at 6:08 pm

    ==================================
    Was there a word there you didn’t understand, Loco? They were all quite clear.

    “You” denotes you as the participle. If I’d meant me, I would have used “I”, being the similar personal pronoun equivalent.

    Oh, and what alarmism! “Crisis”??? Really????

    Wow on May 11, 2015
    at 3:10 am

    ==================================

    What in the world was Wow’s comment supposed to mean?

    • Does it all seem a bit surrealistic? –AGF

      • Absolutely.

        Reading Wow’s comments would have made Kafka’s head explode.

    • “Check out this recent exchange. Wow claims that there’s been no meaningful pause in the rise of global temperatures.”

      There hasn’t.

      “I’m pointing out that a recent Nature article acknowledges that there’s been a pause, that it’s created a “minor crisis of confidence”

      Just a minute ago you were claiming that was the dumbest argument you’ve ever seen on the internet.

      Now you’re using it again.

      Oh, and nature don’t say things. They have papers and they have opinion pieces. Opinions aren’t science.

      Not even if you love them, Loco.

      • Wrong again. I said that *your* statements were the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard.

        You’re saying that because you *accuse* someone else of misquoting that gives *you* the right to misquote.

        Just plain stupid.

        • Yes, that was your statement, but you’re a fucking moron, and got it wrong again.

          I just corrected it for accuracy, Lunatic.

          Yours IS the most ridiculous moronic pile of trash masquerading as an “argument” that the internet has EVER seen outside an Answers In Genesis fanboi meeting.

        • Loco, I quoted you PRECISELY.

          If you claim that it’s wrong and I’m lying, but your argument is NOT that those words don’t appear, then bleating “But those words appear in…” is known by you to be a false argument.

          If you claim I’m lying because I misquote you, then you cannot claim that you’re not lying when you misquote someone.

          But you twist and try to make out that the only misquotes being done are the ones you don’t like.

          Because you’re fucking stupid.

        • What complete nonsense by a pathetic fraud attempting to portray themselves as an “intellectual”. The only way you can argue is by doctoring quotes.

          • So is your whine that only YOU and McI, et al are allowed to doctor quotes?

            You’ve butchered hundreds of statements, and insisted “But those words appear!” as if this means your assertion is true.

            When the words “God wouldn’t let AGW happen” appear in your post, however, that’s “doctoring quotes” and proof I’m a “lying weasel”.

            Your insanity is boundless, fuckwit.

            • Evidently Wow is too stupid to understand McIntyre’s posts.

              McIntyre was pointing out how MANN deliberately altered a quote and then submitted it to the court.

              Show where I’ve “butchered” a quote and then insisted “But those words appear”.

  49. Anyone masochistic enough to have slogged through these comments will know that one of Wow’s favorite avoidance tactics has been to disregard any documents I provide since the links are not directly to the court. That’s actually understandable because the D.C. Superior Court does not provide an archive of court rulings.

    ======

    “If that were true, you would have linked to the court statement, NOT a vlog run by some nobody.” — Wow April 5 3:43 AM

    “Oh, and make that three links now.

    Not one to the court.

    Because the court statements do not support your editorial demands, you denier.” — Wow April 6 3:43 PM

    “I point out that you DIDN’T post a link to the court but proffered the “interpretation” by bloggers of what it says and pointed out that this was because the ACTUAL documents, if read, would prove the conclusions you deniers want is wrong.” — Wow April 21 3:15 AM

    =====

    So, of course I was thrilled to hear that Wow had finally accepted that I had linked to the actual documents ( or accurate copies thereof ).

    “That you never linked to the original document source until very much later (but never bothered to read them) was because of your denialism.” — Wow May 7 2:55 AM

    I asked Wow to indicate which of my links were now acceptable but the normally loquacious Wow has suddenly gone quiet for several days now.

    ( Stand by for one of Wow’s clintonesque “that depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” defenses. Starting in 3 … 2 … 1 … )

    • They do provide an archive of the rulings, Loco.

      Even told you how to get it.

      But lying is easier and means oyu don’t have to admit to being wrong.

      What a sorry sack of crap you are, Loco.

      • And what did I say about clintonesque arguments?

        Note, that Wow never did answer the question.

        Which of my links do you now consider to be the “original document source”?

        And of course you’re still lying about downloading the documents directly from the court. Court Case Online does not provide downloads of court rulings.

        • And avoiding the question yourself, Loco.

          Because you loathe the fact you’re wrong. Your religion won’t LET you be wrong. You’re DIVINELY INSPIRED! GOD MOVES IN YOU!!!!

          None of your links go to the court.

          You link liberally and with abandon to any blogroll or opinionated piece ™ that will pretend that your conspiracy terrors are real, but you’re “not alone”.

          You’re just a sad sack of crap unable to manage anything outside the MINISCULE box of docmatic trip you’ve been indoctrinated in all your life.

          You probably still check for reds under the bed.

          • More bluster to cover for the fact that you’re not answering the question.

            Which of my links do you now consider to be the “original document source”?

            How does my link to Williams Lopatto fit into your narrative that I only link to “blogrolls” or “opinionated pieces”.

            And again, please show where I’ve ever given discussed religion on this blog or given an indication of a religious belief.

            • Another new question posed as old. That’s old hat, Loco. Try another trick.

              NONE of your links were to the court.

              Not one of them.

              Only after I supplied it did you “suddenly discover you’d known it all along”.

            • Still not answering the question.

              Which of my links do you now consider to be the “original document source”?

              You supplied a link to the court’s docket and I’ve known all along that you’ve been LYING about downloading the rulings from the court directly.

            • I’ve provided a link to the form where you can request the court rulings.

              Just like I did. From the DC Court online site.

              Go to the link I gave. Fill in the form as I say. Get the court ruling for the case. If you put in information for a case which is still not ruled on, you won’t get a court ruling, since it hasn’t been ruled on yet.

              Put in the information I did. And you get the court rulings for the cases I quoted and you didn’t recognise.

              Why didn’t you recognise them? Because you’ve never read them. You’ve only relied on claims by others (such as McI) and found them “persuasive” because they gave you an answer you liked.

            • More stupidity and lies from the world’s most worthless human being.

              Anyone following Wow’s instructions will be presented with the docket information for Michael Mann’s lawsuit with no provision for downloading any of the rulings. This is stated in the documentation for Court Case Online.

              The quotes Wow supplied were taken from the links that I provided. Unable to summon the character to admit that, Wow has been lying for weeks claiming to have downloaded the SAME rulings from Court Case Online.

            • No, you’ll get what I got. The court rulings on the motion to appeal Mann v NRI and Mann v CEI.

            • Prove it. Post your instructions as a comment on Bickmore’s latest post and invite your fellow warmists to download the documents themselves.

  50. Straight from Kafka. And these guys want to run the world. –AGF

    • And that’s projection, Nasty.

  51. Oh, I see now that Wow has become a champion for the polite, respectful exchange of views.

    “Either way, there was plenty of evidence supporting my claim, I just assumed a rational human being was writing your stuff, Loco, not a nutbar who doesn’t know or care what they think as long as they can berate people who don’t agree with them.” — Wow May 8 4:41 AM

    Oh really? Evan Hart wrote a reasoned comment that was in no way insulting or argumentative and not even directed at Wow. But Wow doesn’t like to hear contrary viewpoints so (it/she/he) just had to respond in an abusive manner.

    “You’re demanding perfection because you know it can never be achieved, your aim SOLELY to make no change to your way of thinking in any way whatsoever, because change scares you, environmentalism detests you and greed overwhelms you.

    You demand perfection.

    Because you can’t say what you really want: to deny it all.” — Wow May 8 4:15 AM

    And that’s not berating ??????

    • ““Either way, there was plenty of evidence supporting my claim, I just assumed a rational human being was writing your stuff, Loco, not a nutbar who doesn’t know or care what they think as long as they can berate people who don’t agree with them.” — Wow May 8 4:41 AM

      Oh really?”

      Yes, really.

      I know that you don’t do it, you automatically assume some nefarious intent on anyone who disagrees with you, but sane rational people assume otherwise.

      “Evan Hart wrote a reasoned comment that was in no way insulting or argumentative and not even directed at Wow.”

      Uh, there was nothing reasoned in Evan’s comment. It was denier tripe regurgitated. It was argumentative, it asserted ill will on 97% of working climate scientists and nefarious deeds of many others. That’s argumentative.

      And who cares who it’s directed at? A blatantly wrong statement being corrected doesn’t require the blatantly wrong statement being addressed to the only person allowed to correct the blatant error.

      But you scratch about looking for “reasons” why I’m bad. Because I don’t agree with you, therefore I must be bad. Otherwise you may have to question your own actions. And your ego won’t let that happen.

    • “And that’s not berating ??????”

      What if it is?

      • So you complain about others berating you but want to reserve the right to berate everyone else?

        Don’t you have *any* character?

        • “So you complain about others berating you”

          Only fter you did, Loco.

          Whined and bitched and moaned that I wasn’t being polite. Despite you being really assholish to everyone who doesn’t accept your conspiracy theory or “in on the conspiracy” as far as your enraged little rodent mind can be bothered to think. E.g. Michael Mann, for example.

          Then I point out to YOU how you are ridiculous.

          And now you whine again as if the subject were never brought up before.

          Just because YOUR stoner alcoholic brain can’t remember anything older than a couple of days ago doesn’t mean nobody else can remember.

          • Nonsense. You are abusive to others and then whine and complain when I’m abusive to you.

            You simply don’t have the character to accept what you dish out. And I don’t think you ever will.

            • Nonsense. You are abusive to others and then whine and complain when I’m abusive to you.

              You simply don’t have the character to accept what you dish out. And I don’t think you ever will.

            • Very original.

          • Nonsense numbskull. I was talking to Bickmore. YOU started arguing with me.

            And now you’re whining that I’m berating you.

  52. https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf

    Put the year the case of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Year” entry.
    Put the case number of the ruling you want in the “Case Number” panel “Case Number” entry.
    Select the type of case (two letters) of the ruling you want in the “Type” panel “Case Number” entry.

    And get the case of Mann vs CEI and Mann vs NR Inc et al. rulings.

    Dopey old Loco WON’T work it out.