https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/06/unacc...rsonified/

"“...We hold our journalists and their work to the highest standards,” Baquet said in a statement. “We are giving Ali an opportunity to show that she can live up to them. I believe she can. I also believe that The Times must be a humane place that can allow for second chances when there are mitigating circumstances.”

Get that, all you ambitious J-school students? Even though Baquet admits his reporter flouted the basic ethical standards of journalism as well as the paper’s internal conduct guidelines, she can keep her job. You can cheat, lie, break the company’s rules, embarrass an entire profession and you will still get to work at one of the nation’s top newspapers! Polish up those résumés, kids!

Press Complicity
The Ali Watkins matter exposes everything that is wrong with the American media. A young reporter trades sex-for-scoops with a powerful man more than 30 years her senior and it’s excused as business-as-usual; the man, James Wolfe—who is responsible for safeguarding classified documents for the Senate Intelligence Committee—illegally leaks government secrets to her to slander Trump associates and boost the politically motivated Trump-Russia collusion hoax; editors at other news organizations not only know about the affair, but hire her because of it so she can continue to access secrets about the Trump-Russia probe; when her tawdry, unethical behavior is disclosed only after Wolfe is arrested for lying to the FBI about their relationship, her peers in the press rush to her defense; and arrogant media overlords apply a different set of standards to their own profession and expect the government to consider reporters a protected class...."

Simple prostitution. That is all. The left owns it. Oh if this was reversed in it’s effect what a bunch of yelling and screaming.....

Yup. Also ...

When Michael Mann manipulated "peer review" processes to present only one side of the "global warming" (now "climate change") debate, there was virtually no condemnation from his fellow academics. They instead almost universally circled the wagons and disparaged any dissenting voices as "deniers".

When Lois Lerner was revealed as having used the special enforcement powers and authority of the IRS to squelch conservative organizations, the Obama administration went into stonewall mode: "not a smidgen of corruption".

Journalism, academia and government. The three most non-accountable professions.

I have contacted moderation on your blatant misuse of the spin room. You are supposed to cite sources to back up claims instead of your usual blathering.

Please cite evidence from any credible source of Micheal Mann’s manipulates peer review.

Just because you have read something on the daily caller or Conrrvative Fox treehouse doesn’t make it so cupcake. Please analyze your life choices and attempt to become somewhat educated beyond second grade.

when you can’t convince..... confuse.

The conservative mantra on manipulating lemmings. I can’t wait to see what he’ll hold sources you try to cook up that says Mann manipulated the peer review process.

(07-07-2018 02:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Please cite evidence from any credible source of Micheal Mann’s manipulates peer review.

It's not really a credible source, but I offer you an e-mail authored by one Michael Mann:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Please cite the article that email cane from. Was this taken out of context??? I want to see the cesspool of literature that is forming your opinions.

Please and thank you.

Here's what I recall from back when the controversy first broke:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240...reel_world

Instead of taking an honest appraisal of what pretty clearly to most observers looks to be the politicization of climate science, academia instead offered up near-universal for why "academic freedom" immunizes phd's such as Michael Mann from having to answer for his own statements.

That's pretty much the definition of non-accountability.

(07-07-2018 03:12 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 02:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Please cite evidence from any credible source of Micheal Mann’s manipulates peer review.

It's not really a credible source, but I offer you an e-mail authored by one Michael Mann:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

That quote is actually from Professor Phil Jones of UEA's Climate Research Unit and sent to Micahel Mann via email.

Quote:The bad blood over this paper lingered. A year later, in July 2004, Jones wrote an email to Mann about two papers recently published in Climate Research – the Soon and Baliunas paper and another he ­identified as by "MM". This was almost certainly a paper from the Canadian economist Ross McKitrick and Michaels that returned to an old sceptics' theme. It claimed to find urbanisation dominating global warming trends on land. Jones called it "garbage".

More damagingly, he added in an email to Mann with the subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL": "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"

This has, rightly, become one of the most famous of the emails. And for once, it means what it seems to mean. Jones and Trenberth, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, had recently become joint lead authors for a key chapter in the next IPCC assessment report, called AR4.

They had considerable power over what went into those chapters, and to have ruled them out in such a manner would have been a clear abuse of the IPCC process.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...eer-review

So now it’s a quote by someone else. Do you guys even see how you are being manipulated. You can’t get very basic facts straight and you constantly misquote people. It’s embarassing at some point I would believe. Sad!

Apologize Monarch for slandering a good man’s name. Nut up and admit your failings on personal and academic matters.

Please and thank you’s.

In all honesty, who wouldn’t know about the EAU emails?
Someone who’s not paying attention or someone so caught up in their own little universe they don’t educate themselves? Which is Mach?

(07-07-2018 04:24 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Oversimplify...... you guys are bitching about top scientists having to oversimplify things for an audience that can’t even get basic facts straight and misattribute quotes.


Lawdy lawdy lawdy.......... I just shake my head.

Review your lives and try to pinpoint the error of your ways. Reflect upon how you have gotten yourself into such a lowly state. I would advise you to stop reading the daily caller. Conservative treehouse and Fox News.


As a public service I offer you my services of approved reading. I’ll start a thread. I’ll label it it public service reading list. You shoot the source you are reading from and I’ll tell you if it’s legit. Just look at how many times you conservatives trip on your dick in just this one thread. I actually feel a little bad for you. How does one end up in such dire straights???? It’s an interesting case study.

Mach lamenting we conservatives being in dire straits is like RWT whining about someone abusing the Report feature.

In the land of the blind a one eyed man is King. At the end it’s my job to help. Maybe some of you will eventually see the light.

I do honestly believe most people are good. You just are under the spell of a chrlatan right now. This Tech character is full on lathered up over Trump. Surprised he doesn’t start calling him Dear Leader. The depth of his love affair knows no bounds. Sad!

I will apologize. Not to Michael Mann, who does not strike me as a good person. He strikes me as the poster child for an industry (academia) that has chosen sides in a politicized world, and subverts truth to an agenda. Then, when called on it, hides behind the claim of academic freedom.

My apology, instead, is to you, Machiavelli. It is not kind to antagonize the fragile-minded, and that was not my intention in this thread.