There's a difference between critical peer review and character assassination. The lawsuit alleges the latter, not the former.

Then they're in the wrong discipline. The real money is in chemical engineering.

Ah, the classic straw man, the other staple of the climate change denier.

Nowhere are climate scientists claiming that the earth's climate was static in the absence of anthropomorphic factors - the issue is that rate and magnitude of change brought on by the modification of the climate, not that scientists think that the earth's climate has been the same for the previous 4 billion years of its existence.

If we add up all the academics, postdocs and postgrads working in the fields of atmospheric science, oceanography, environmental science among others what does it come to?

Quite a lot, is the point.

Are they all in it for the fame and fortune? Are they all paid off in some grand, global illuminati-style secret cabal to all tell the same alleged fabrications?

Also, a scientist is qualified to talk about dodgy science - it doesn't take a specific niche researcher to be able to point out errors in denier arguments, especially with some experience in the field of science itself and familiarisation with the topic (as opposed to it being the main focus of your research).

The recorded interviews of the actual veterans he was with, excluding the ones who originally recommended him for medals in the past and then later mysteriously claimed he was a worthless soldier after joining a political attack group.

You can google those. They're all over the place.

The swift boat group has been pretty widely debunked by a large number of people for many years now, except on right wing "news" sites.

How does filing a lawsuit for defamation of character (even if misguided, since it's tricky to win a defamation suit and typically the press has freedom to say what it likes) affect the way he does science?

Oh right, discredit the Mann, not the argument. Of course, my mistake.

So what about that other thousands and thousands of scientists who also work in this area who agree with him and who aren't making lots of money (far, far from it)?

I assume they're all in it for the fame and fortune too, right?

They'll simply hand wave all that away as "natural effects" and play the appeal to common sense card by saying "how foolish to think that a man is big enough to affect something as big as the world" or "it snowed this christmas, so much for global warming!".

Man, you have a serious axe to grind against him.

So now that the "truths" that you have tried to push earlier in the thread have been exposed as lies by established facts, you're going after him for service length that somehow discredits his military service.

Oh right, you're giving a textbook demonstration of swiftboating. Carry on.

How is it an ad hominem attack to call people who threaten to rape her to make her shut up, or call anyone who talks her about the media in anything but an oppressively critical light 'sacrificing integrity' anything but "immature young boys"? That's exactly what they are.

Put it this way, if they don't want to be called misogynistic, immature boys who are whining like bratty children when someone they don't like says something they disagree with then they should probably stop acting like it.

Whether she lies or not (what lies exactly - or are you just talking about disagreeing with her stance or her talking points?), the response to her is not to threaten to rape her, or doxx her, or call anyone who does a piece that is not critical of her "sacrificing integrity".

She has some extreme leaps of logic among some actual points, but the reaction to her has been nothing but immature whining and outright obscene and unacceptable behaviour towards her and anyone else who brings up the topic. You're essentially making her point for her better than she ever could. It's a self fulfilling prophecy at this point.

You clearly don't understand how Apple Pay works.

The combination of the phone's ID, your fingerprint hash and some other tokens generate a unique hash that is sent to the bank via the merchant terminal to authorise a payment. This check comes back as pass/fail, and if passed, the merchant terminal charges the card/account etc. At no point during this transaction does the phone (or Apple) know what the amount is, what the store is, or any of that information. All the Phone is doing is providing a key hash to the merchant who then talks to the bank.

This is why you need a participating bank/card issuer to use Apple Pay - the bank needs to be able to verify that hash came from you, and thus allow the charge to go through.

You should probably read the summary before thinking "off the top of your head".

It is amazing how threatened you young boys are by that woman. I guess it shows just how effective she is at what she does.

Holy shit.

Go to Target and buy some tin foil and make it into a hat. Put it on then make sure all of the gaps in your doors and windows are also stuffed with foil. You'll feel better.