Mark Steyn, The Pope, And Barack Obama Walk In To a Climate Change Discussion…

by Steve MacDonald

A disgrace to the Profession  - Mark SteynBuy Mark Steyn’s new book – it was officially released today!  And Look what else happened c/o SteynOnline

Today has been proclaimed by His Holiness the Pope as the first International Day of Prayer for Climate Change. Getting into the spirit, the President of the United States took a 9,000-mile round-trip by private wide-bodied jet to give his usual calm, measured, prudent environmental speech:

Obama On Climate Change: Act Now Or Condemn World To A Nightmare

Keep reading at SteynOnline.

 

Leave a Comment

  • Radical Moderate

    OK, if you’re a roman catholic you should already know that according to Revelation this is supposed to be the last pope before the end of days. Smarten up and do not support this impostor.
    http://www.endtime.com/endtime-magazine-articles/pope-francis-false-prophet/

    If you’re of any other religion or an atheist all you should know is that everything in this guys background indicates that he is a one world order socialist tool that will sell you out to an omnipotent world government that will redistribute all the first world wealth to the third world until all is EQUAL in HIS eyes. As we speak he is working towards the destruction of any type of national sovereignty because he believes nationalism is the cause of global strife and inequality.

  • Bruce Currie

    Steyn is seriously disturbed. Mann’s original “hockey stick” graph has been reproduced many times over by subsequent researchers. Here’s a different take on Steyn’s latest screed, from the real world:
    “There is a new attack by an anti-science and anti-environment talking head on a well respected climate scientist and his work. Mark Steyn is self publishing a book of quotes by scientists that allegedly disparage Dr. Michael Mann and the “Hockey Stick.” If the three examples Steyn provides to advertise his book are representative, Steyn’s book is unlikely to impress. Like previous attempts to separate a key individual from the herd, Steyn’s latest money making scheme could make him a few bucks (his fans seem gullible) but in the end will destroy anything that happens to be left of his credibility and, possibly, his legal argument that he is not actively and maliciously attempting to defame an individual.”
    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-newest-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/

    • Radical Moderate

      The only thing ‘seriously disturbed’ is your weird outlook on the situation.
      If anyone cares to read the facts about the situation they are presented in this article; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/09/mann-v-steyn-steyn-goes-his-own-way/

      • Bruce Currie

        That’s an opinion piece you’ve linked to, not an objective look at the facts. There are two issues here: one is the wisdom of Mann going after Steyn for what he said about him and his integrity as a scientist, and whether someone has the First Amendment right to say virtually anything about the character and integrity of a individual; second, the validity of the hockey stick graph itself (since replicated many times by other researchers, but described by Alter in your link as “infamous”).

        • Scott Morales

          As is usual, Bruce
          entirely misses the point and undermines himself in the process of making his own.

          Let’s clear this up.

          Steyn et al say:the Mann’s Hockey Stick is bunkum (to keep it polite) and his book has many other scientist that take that view and he’s compiled a list of their quotes.

          That’s one side.

          The blog Bruce sites, and presumably Bruce himself, take a different view. One that Bruce implies is “an objective look at the facts”.

          That’s another side.

          Thus, what we have here is the traditional and, I daresay, natural process for science, in short: hypothesis, observation, exploration, analysis, argument repeat..

          That’s healthy.

          What’s unhealthy, however, is the true differences between the Steyn v Mann sides. One side, Steyn’s, is open to debate, to the process I just described. That is, it’s open to the scientific process.

          The other side, Mann’s and presumably Bruce’s (notice Bruce’s ad hominem on Steyn: “seriously disturbed”, very scientific indeed), however, is not. This side decrees silence upon those who disagree and dare say so and
          will mock and drag the violators into court to be gagged and punished.

          Given that, the domain of the truly anti-science (the “anti-science” deplored in the article Bruce refers to as “facts”) house Mann and many of his supporters. Like poor confused Bruce here.

          -Scott

    • So you side with the guy who lied to improve his professional career by claiming to be a Nobel Laureate (since retracted)?

      Assuming this does not demonstrate a major character flaw that could find its way in to his work, how do you feel about a guy who makes stuff up to enhance his fame and fortune (I’m a Nobel Laureate) filing lawsuits to silence people who claim he’s made up other stuff in pursuit of fame and fortune?

      • Bruce Currie

        As the information in the link I posted to shows, I think it’s more accurate to describe Steyn as one who “makes stuff up to enhance his fame and fortune”.

      • Radical Moderate

        Absolutely correct sb. Currie attempts to paint the link I provided as an opinion piece when its a news article written by an official reporter presenting several facts of the case in question which appears in a very well respected national newspaper . What does Currie offer as a link? A science ‘blog’ which by its very nature is the personal opinion of the ‘blogger’ who is peddling his own books and opinion pieces to various websites.
        I must admit Currie must have some knowledge of climate matters though, since his opinions offer nothing but hot air and bluster to the reader. Good grief.

        • Radical Moderate

          Sorry my error, not sb..I meant ‘nhsteve’.

        • Bruce Currie

          Do you not get the difference between an opinion piece and straight reportage? Your link was clearly to an author’s opinion piece on the validity of Mann’s suit–as his use of the loaded term “infamous” shows, and as his acknowledgement at the bottom of having worked for the two other defendants in the original suit–the CEI and NR, makes plain. A ‘disinterested’ reporter, he was not.

          And as for my link to a blog post–the link clearly and factually shows how two of the three quotes used by Steyn did not accurately reflect their views. That’s pretty damning in my book, and demonstrates just how fast and loose Steyn plays with the facts.

  • Herb

    An ex-disc jockey tells 90% of the world’s scientists they don’t know what they’re talking about…..BS!

    • Scott Morales

      Herb, way to contribute. I’m totally persuaded by your point by point refutation of Steyn.

      – Scott, amused at the goat’s callow cud regurgitation.

Previous post:

Next post: