Not if they are more successful exploiting another country's resources.
They'd exploit their own if they could come up with the energy needed.
Not if they are more successful exploiting another country's resources.
California.
They're advertising their beaches and parks all the time. And last I looked CA was not a country.California.
No, technically Mann is the one who sued. It's a defamation lawsuit. He's the Plaintiff. Mark Steyn submitted counterclaims after firing his lawyers. Then Mann made a motion to dismiss the counterclaims. The Court dismissed the Steyn counterclaims, and awarded Mann legal fees. Now Steyn has lawyered up again and has appealed the dismissal, perhaps realizing he's in over his head now. The first Amendment says nothing about the right to defame somebody, which is what can happen when someone asserts that someone else is a fraud.
LA County and Orange County pump oil out from under residential neighbourhoods but oil sands is bad according to CA politicians.,
Breaking news from the upcoming Mann vs Steyn Salem-witch-trial of the century. Actually, it broke a couple of days ago but I dozed off reading it. So I'll come back to that in a moment. But first: Last week, Judith Curry went back to John Christy's testimony to the US House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology Committee in 2011. Here's the passage she quoted:
Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another's result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.The IPCC Lead Author he's talking about is the litigant in my case, Michael E Mann. That's to say, Christy is telling the United States Congress that Dr Mann "misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years", by promoting his own result (a clear conflict of interest - it would be as if our DC judge were deciding his own divorce case), and not only ignoring contradictory evidence but deep-sixing it when necessary.
Who is this fellow Christy? Well, he's a professor at the University of Alabama and the guy who devised the satellite temperature record. But more to the point he's also an IPCC Lead Author. And, in fact, an IPCC Lead Author on the very same chapter of the report that Mann was an IPCC Lead Author on.
....................................................
But here's my point. I'm being sued because I referred to Mann's graph as "fraudulent". I stand by that characterization - although, were I writing my Corner post today, I would go further, having been on the receiving end of Mann's modus operandi for two years. A prudent man would not accept anything Dr Mann says about anything without independent verification, whether it be his fraudulent claim to be a Nobel Laureate or his multiple fraudulent claims to have been "exonerated" by the University of East Anglia, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the British House of Commons, etc, etc. But let us leave that aside, and stick only to the hockey stuff: Dr Mann's own colleague on the process that made the hockey stick the great iconic image of turn-of-the-century climate alarmism has testified to Congress that Mann's work is a "misrepresentation". Which is a polite word for fraud. Professor Christy again:
So, to summarize, an L.A. was given final say over a section which included as its (and the IPCC's) featured product, his very own chart, and which allowed him to leave out not only entire studies that presented contrary evidence, but even to use another strategically edited data set that had originally displayed contrary evidence.That last is a reference to Keith Briffa's tree-ring set, which supports Mann's hockey stick except when it doesn't and therefore had to be "truncated".
"Misrepresented..." "Strategically edited..." "Amputating another's result..." Does this happen often? With the exception of the coordinator, there were only two American Lead Authors on that IPCC chapter, and the one has testified under oath that the other corrupted the process.
Life in the Expedited Lane :: SteynOnline
my emphasis
LA County and Orange County pump oil out from under residential neighbourhoods but oil sands is bad according to CA politicians.,
They're advertising their beaches and parks all the time. And last I looked CA was not a country.
Nothing but a few billion and passing environmental standards stopping you from building one grump .On this one I hope he's right I am against XL not for environmental reason
for economic ones Canadian oil should be refined here and sold by our
country at inflated prices and a lower price for Canadians cause its our crude.
Not of lower than the cost of production but lower than the foreign price.
Why give it away cheap to America to buy it back refined or worse have it
shipped to foreign markets giving up jobs and profits.
Those fields have existed for more than a century. They couldn't be developed today because of California's extreme environmentalism.
Do you think California is still part of the United States? It doesn't even feel like America out here.
Mann is a liar, a con artist, and a fellow scientist and lead author on the IPCC has testified before Congress that Mann's "research" is fraudulent.
What is America supposed to feel like?
michael mann sex tape is up on motherless.
just sayin'.
Why aren't Canadians willing to accept a reduction in their standard of living in order to avoid exploiting their natural resources?
“Here in the U.S. we have a House of Representatives with a science committee led by a Republican politicians that don’t even accept that climate change is real,” he said.
Michael Mann says it's cheaper to combat climate change than pay for global warming
Mark Engstrom, the museum’s deputy director for collections and research, said the arduous process of transporting and preserving the bones is a worthwhile effort in light of a devastating blow dealt to one of Canada’s most endangered marine species this past winter.
The two blue whales Engstrom’s team is recovering were among nine killed by unusually thick sea ice, Engstrom said, adding that number represented about five per cent of the population in the North Atlantic.
The chance to preserve some record of a highly endangered species, he said, marks one of the more bittersweet moments in his 30-year career.