Penn State’s Conservative-in-Chief Speaks at CPAC


Sam Settle, who we interviewed in a series of four videos posted last spring, spoke this past weekend at the Conservative Political Action Conference on the Stars of the Future panel about the Climategate scandal and its relation to Penn State via Professor Michael Mann.

But the most interesting thing in his short address was not his comments about the supposed “whitewashing” Penn State did of the scandal. Rather, it was his characterization of the difference between conservatives and liberals as being the difference between right and wrong

The simple fact is that when we are right and they are wrong, we should say so. And for those of you who have been paying attention, when we are right and they are wrong is basically all the time.

Check it out and let us know what you think.


About Author

Creator of @OnwardState. Big fan of sweaters. Now at Fusion.


  1. This kid is a jackass.  He’s so thickheaded and stupid about everything and these comments prove that.

  2. Ughh, I threw up a little bit watching this. It’s almost like watching an early Hitler video or something


    I repeat, “[the university] humored [climate change denialists] enough by giving them this investigation within the university itself.” 
    In order for Dr. Mann’s and every other IPCC scientist’s findings to be published on the international scale, they needed to be peer reviewed and reviewed again by the IPCC.  These “charges” waged against Dr. Mann and others are merely unsupported accusations that only gained the momentum they have because so many conservatives and climate change denialists are willing to take statements at face value without even so much as examining the context in which they were made.  This “scandal” has gone on too long. Sam Settle and others should be ashamed of these unresearched and unfounded arguments.

  4. Wasn’t it obliging of the first two posts to validate Mr. Settle’s point?  Even elementary school children know it’s wrong to compare someone to Hitler.  The first poster was just name-calling, but I’m pretty sure Mr. Settle is not a Democrat. 

  5. Don’t be too cruel to this pathetic shrimp dick tea-bagger. He is a self-rightous elitist, and it is exactly this type of political discourse which diminishes the credibility of the conservative movements and destroys the principal of politics which allows for cooperation between competing interests for the better good.

  6. What do you mean by “The first poster was just name-calling, but I’m pretty sure Mr. Settle is not a Democrat”?

  7. The ad hominem on this thread is really amazing.

    I’m not a conservative, and normally I’d probably not sympathize with Settle. But, if the best rebuttal his opponents have is “shrimp dick,” I’m pretty sure he’s right.

    Go Samuel!

  8. The first poster (like all the anti-Settle posters) had no argument, so he used ad hominem (“thickheaded and stupid”).

    If I understand Gregg correctly, he (Gregg) is imply that “thickheaded and stupid” is equivalent to “Democrat.”

    Nice wordplay, Gregg!

  9. To Evan and Wendy: I didn’t post that comment, but a “jackass” is a donkey, which is the symbol of the Democratic Party. Settle expressed his opinion that liberal positions tend to be wrong for our country.  He didn’t resort to name calling or comparing those holding those positions to Stalin.  Like Wendy, I am appalled that the majority of “liberal” respondents resorted to ad hominem attacks.  I don’t think that speaks well for the liberal response.
    Go Samuel … andWendy!

  10. Ah I missed the jackass part. I thought it might have been some reference to democrats being hitler, but that wouldn’t have made much sense. Thanks!

  11. Perhaps you should read the Committee on Energy and Commerce Report (  Dr. Wegman and colleagues reviewed Mann’s “hockey stick” and other publications, as well as his relationships within the paleoclimate research community.  At the time (2006), Dr. Wegman was chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics 1.  Do you recognize the cast of characters from ClimateGate in Wegman’s “social network?”  You should.  2.  The report illustrates how data can be manipulated and that the peer review process does not guarantee the validity of the data, much less the conclusions drawn from analyses of the data.    a.  “Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”    b.  “In the present example there was too much reliance on peer review, which seemed not to be sufficiently independent.”   Assuming peer review is your gold standard, why does the IPCC AR4 cite non-peer-reviewed, advocacy-group publications from the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace?  See Check to watch the growing comedy (tragedy?) of errors that is the IPCC AR4 (e.g., 

  12. ============ ==========

    Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

    BOOT $50

    Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
    Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
    Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

    Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
    Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
    New era cap $15

    Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

    =========== ===============

  13. I find it revolting that Settle, and those who approve of his words, unfalteringly proclaim that their way is the best way, that the conservative way is the right way. The “right way” (if one exists) is neither entirely conservative nor liberal but a compromise between the two.  For compromise (and any level of productivity) there must be discussion between the parties, and compromise does not happen when both sides claim to be right and neither party budges off its high horse.  Settle is an intelligent person, but he is seriously misguided if he believes that the difference between right and wrong is as simple as the difference between right and left.

  14. I’m just curious as to what Settle hopes to accomplish by another internal investigation by Penn State?  What information would an invesitgation like this find?  What implications would these new findings have?

  15. You can’t have listened to the speech very closely. One of his main points of objection is that the investigation was internal. He doesn’t want “another internal investigation by Penn State.” He wants a new investigation by people outside the University.

  16. Okay, either way.  Delete the word internal.  I still want to ask the same question. 

    I’m just curious as to what Settle hopes to accomplish by another investigation?  What information would an investigation like this find?  What implications would these new findings have?