More »Professional certification signals a commitment to excellence.It confirms that individuals have the knowledge needed to competently attract, onboard and support volunteers.Indeed, Mann’s hockey stick took on a life of its own and was repeatedly cited by the IPCC and numerous governments as justifying collective action to combat climate change.
A graph based on Mann’s work was highlighted throughout the IPCC report.It received widespread publicity and was touted by climate alarmists as further evidence of manmade global warming.You can search for trials based on the type of cancer, the age of the patient, and where the trials are being done.General information about clinical trials is also available.smoke contains many of the same substances as tobacco smoke, there are concerns about how inhaled cannabis affects the lungs.
A study of over 5,000 men and women without cancer over a period of 20 years found that smoking tobacco was linked with some loss of lung function but that occasional and low use of cannabis was not linked with loss of lung function.Unlike Mann, Ball has published the data on which his graph is based.I really hope Mann loses both cases, his funding, his teaching position, his reputation, and all his friends …. His perversion of the scientific is method requires nothing less than total intolerance.“Secret Science” Astounded by the sudden disappearance of the Medieval Warm Period — a time generally considered to have been warmer than the present — a growing chorus of critics demanded to see the underlying data on which the hockey-stick graph was based. The episode raised allegations that climate alarmists were engaging in “secret science.” One of those critics was Tim Ball.Mann and his co-authors refused to release the data, even though their paper had been funded by U. In a 2011 interview, he quipped that Mann “should be in the State Pen, not Penn State.” Mann sued Ball for defamation in British Columbia under a procedure known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).SLAPP lawsuits are intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by threatening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism.