Nobel Peace Prize Winner Vs. The National Academy Of Sciences

The courts have ruled that it is malicious to hold a different opinion than self-proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize Winner Michael Mann, so it is too bad he can’t go back in time and retroactively sue the National Academy Of Sciences in 1975.

Mikey says that there was no Northern Hemisphere cooling from 1940 to 1970.

ScreenHunter_177 Jul. 25 07.59

The retroactively malicious National Academy of Sciences reported the opposite in 1975, that there was almost 0.5C cooling during that time.

screenhunter_123-jan-31-20-33

The graph below shows the malicious National Academy of Sciences graph (pink) overlaid on the Nobel Peace Prize winning Mikey graph at the same scale. Looks like somebody hid the post 1940 decline.

ScreenHunter_183 Jul. 25 09.30

Briffa’s malicious trees closely matched the National Academy of Sciences graph, but Mikey in his infinite wisdom saw fit to hide the decline not use any inconvenient data which wrecked his hypothesis.

ScreenHunter_184 Jul. 25 09.33

The Deleted Portion of the Briffa Reconstruction « Climate Audit

disclaimer : The courts have ruled that it is illegal to hold a different opinion from Michael Mann, who has been vindicated of any wrong doing through several thorough reviews performed by his accomplices peers.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Nobel Peace Prize Winner Vs. The National Academy Of Sciences

  1. Glacierman says:

    Nobel Prize winner, thorough reviews, vindicated….stop it man you’re killing me.

  2. The courts have ruled that it is malicious to hold a different opinion than self-proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize Winner Michael Mann

    Where are you getting this Steve? Did I miss something?

  3. jst1 says:

    “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.””

    This is a good thing. The court did not say it is malicious to hold a different opinion. Now we can get to proving the endorsements of Mann’s work as authentic or rubbish, and hence, his work as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s