by Judith Curry
Some interesting developments during the past week.
In case you are not up to speed on the Mann vs Steyn et al. lawsuits, see these previous posts:
Paul Krugman
Krugman defends Mann in a NYTimes article The Empiricist Strikes Back. Excerpts:
But there are other, smaller evils; and one that strikes close to home for me is the campaign of personal destruction waged against Michael Mann.
Now for the slightly encouraging news: Mann filed suit against National Review for defamation. Also encouraging is the evident inability of NR to understand how you defend against a charge of defamation. You don’t repeat the false allegations — sorry, guys, but courts also have access to Google and Nexis, and can find that all the charges have been rejected in repeated inquiries. (JC bold)
Mark Steyn has a scathing response to Krugman entitled Real Nobel Laureate Takes Pity on Fake Nobel Laureate. Very brief excerpt:
Krugman hilariously headlines his column “The Empiricist Strikes Back“. But “empirically” Mann is not a Nobel Laureate, nor “empirically” has he been exonerated by the University of East Anglia, NOAA or the British Government. He will not stagger away from the witness stand with his “empiricism” intact.
Even Michael Mann doesn’t think Krugman quite got it right in a HuffPo article Interests, Ideology, and the Climate Denial Machine. Apologies for not excerpting anything, I couldn’t identify a coherent argument to excerpt. Think Koch brothers, denial machine, etc.
The Briefs
Steve McIntyre has an excellent summary of the recent legal developments in this post: ACLU and National Media Intervene in Mann vs Steyn et al. Excerpts:
I get the sense that the Washington libel community and U.S. national media have belatedly woken up to the potential threat of Mann v Steyn and that the tide is now starting to run strongly against Mann in the anti-SLAPP proceedings. The most visible evidence of this is an impressive Amici brief from the ACLU and an imposing list of 25 other media organizations (the Reporters Committee for Press Freedom, the American Society of News Editors, the Association of American Publishers, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia (The Village Voice et al), NBC Universal, Bloomberg News, the publishers of USA Today, Time, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, The Detroit Free Press, The Seattle Times, The Arizona Republic and The Bergen County Record) filed on August 11, 2014.
In addition, Steyn’s own Amicus brief substantially upped the ante on a separate front. It repeatedly and directly accused Mann of submitting “fraudulent” information to the court and commented adversely on “the ease with which Mann lies about things that would not withstand ten minutes of scrutiny in a courtroom”.
Other briefs are by CEI; National Review, the District of Columbia, the Alliance Defending Freedom; the Cato Institute, Goldwater Institute, Reason magazine and David Horowitz’s Individual Rights Foundation;, The Daily Caller, PJ Media, The New Criterion and various Internet publishers.
From the ACLU Brief:
Mann essentially complains that the defendants accused him of manipulating data, including by molesting and torturing it, to serve a political agenda. … Because the statements are quintessential opinions about the validity of Mann’s scientific methods and conclusions, they are entitled to full constitutional protection.
At bottom, a participant in the “rough-and-tumble” of public debate should not be able to use a lawsuit like this to silence his critics, regardless of whether one agrees with Mann or defendants. The “law certainly does not insist” that a speaker “look kindly on [his] subjects,” nor that a plaintiff “simply by filing suit and crying ‘character assassination!,’” may “silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs’ interests.” Rather, as the Seventh Circuit eloquently put it, expressing a sentiment echoed by other courts: “Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models – not larger awards of damages – mark the path toward superior understanding of the world around us.”
From Steyn’s Brief:
Steyn rubbed salt into Mann’s false claim to have been a Nobel Prize winner and the imaginary tort of defaming a Nobel Prize winner, describing Mann’s priod claim as a “fraudulent misrepresentation”:
Mann’s fraudulent misrepresentation of his credentials and academic standing later earned him a rebuke from Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute in Oslo. One can well understand why the exposure of Mann’s fraudulent claim should cause him embarrassment but it should surely not justify resetting the procedural clock back to the beginning on this case, which is what in effect happened.
In his later court filings, Mann has made equally preposterous and objectively false claims. For example, Mann has claimed that he has been “exonerated” by such bodies as the University of East Anglia, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, and even by the government of the United Kingdom, none of which have investigated Dr Mann at all, never mind “exonerated” him.
The audacity of the falsehoods in Mann’s court pleadings is breathtaking. For example, on page 19 of his brief below dated January 18, 2013, he cites the international panel chaired by the eminent scientist Lord Oxburgh, FRS as one of the bodies that “exonerated” him, whereas on page 235 of Mann’s own book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars , he states explicitly that “our own work did not fall within the remit of the committee, and the hockey stick was not mentioned in the report.” It is deeply disturbing that a plaintiff should make such fraudulent claims in his legal pleadings.
Twitter reactions
Paul A. Drinnon Paul Krugman‘s article on Michael Mann‘s defamation lawsuit seems a little optimistic.
Bob Beasley Krugman fails to note that, in filing his lawsuit, Mann fueled the “campaign of personal destruction.” http://nyti.ms/1vvxoAY
Roger Pielke Jr. Paul Krugman comes out in support of Michael Mann‘s defamation lawsuit. If Mann wins I’ll use it as precedent to sue Krugman for the same;-)
Judith Curry: Not to mention that I would have grounds to sue Michael Mann
Roger Pielke Jr. Indeed. I was joking, but the utter absurdity/irony of Mann’s lawsuit will be apparent to anyone who has seen him at work.
Judith Curry: I wrote a previous blog post http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/22/steyn-et-al-versus-mann/ … defending Mann’s right to defame me. Will rethink if he wins the lawsuit
Roger Pielke Jr. Mann is a clown with some personality issues, but I defended him in the UVA/Cuccinelli email issue and his right to lie in public.
Well, twitter forces you to cut to the chase, in 140 characters.
JC reflections
The support for Steyn et al. provided by the ACLU and the libel community plus the national news media re-emphasizes that this case is about the freedom of speech. It is very heartening to see this support for freedom of speech. It is particularly interesting to see liberal organizations, who would normally align to support an issue related to climate change, effectively take actions against Michael Mann.
The link between ‘defending Michael Mann is defending climate science’ seems to have been broken. This lawsuit seems motivated by one person’s fragile ego that has been bruised as he’s tried to defend questionable science. His behavior in making similar attacks on other scientists makes this lawsuit seem absurd.
I’m curious as to what kind of support Mann is getting from the science community – beyond the support from Romm, Krugman et al. I haven’t seen much, but I might not be shining my light in the right places.
The ACLU has it exactly right with this statement:
“Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models – not larger awards of damages – mark the path toward superior understanding of the world around us.”
“The ACLU has it exactly right with this statement:”
The ACLU has it exactly wrong. The case is not about a scientific controversy. It is about allegations of malfeasance, with background rhetoric involving Sanduskys etc. Science can be debated without getting into all that.
Not quite Nick – the ACLU has it exactly right with that statement – it’s just that the statement was nothing to do Mann vs Steyn.
Steyn has got nothing to do with science – his articles were just the lowest quality opinion, masquerading as journalism, for the sake of appealing to particular cultural values held by the target audience.
Mann has, correctly, noted this difference and is responding appropriately in the civil courts, as is his right.
That Judith can’t distinguish the 2 is concerning.
True, the statement is right; but as MaxDaddy notes, it isn’t even the ACLU speaking. They are quoting Judge Easterbrook, 1994.
My impression is that there are more than 2 levels in this case.
At the bottom is the scientific work, at the top the freedom of speech important to ACLU. There are, however, intermediate levels related to the discussion of climate change related matters in public. How these levels are construed may be, what’s decisive for this case.
I do not pretend to understand well the U.S judicial issues. Thus I don’t speculate more on the outcome.
The First Amendment protects the right of debaters to debate it with “getting into all that.” Per existing, long-standing case law.
See the various briefs for references.
Under the anti-SLAPP laws, he doesn’t have that right.
See the various briefs for references.
The reactions of some pro-Mann commenters here clearly demonstrates a total lack of concern for science, or honesty. Only their socialist/liberal agenda matters to them.
“Steyn has got nothing to do with science – his articles were just the lowest quality opinion, masquerading as journalism, for the sake of appealing to particular cultural values held by the target audience.”
you just destroyed Mann’s claim.
You rightly see Steyn’s piece as OPINION.
….where he says that that Mann has committed scientific fraud.
Try harder.
“…his articles were just … opinion,…”
Indeed. Such is NR and Steyn’s defense.
Having – and publishing – an opinion on a matter of public concern is protected speech.
Thanks for clarifying.
Steven Mosher | August 15, 2014 at 11:29 am |
“You rightly see Steyn’s piece as OPINION.”
….where he says that that Mann has committed scientific fr@ud.
Try harder.
Literally can’t help yourself, eh Michael?
“….where he says that that Mann has committed scientific fr@ud.
Try harder.”
I always get a kick out of this belief that the English language is like a computer language and words only have the most damaging meaning, i.e. ‘fr@udulent hockey stick” must be interpreted as “committed scientific fr@ud”. If that’s the case, perhaps an asterisk on the word in the dictionary and thesaurus is in order: Warning! Do not use this word unless you are or know a good lawyer. Steyn could mean that Mann’s paper is “pure scientific fr@ud,” or he could mean that the hockey stick was presented to the public as settled science when the climategate emails make clear that it was anything but. It’s not up to the courts to assign meaning to Steyn’s words. Steyn could have clarified his meaning a bit by adding “pure scientific,” but he didn’t. Even then, I’m sure someone as creative as Stokes could find some wiggle room if it suited his purpose.
Steyn was given a chance to clarify his statement but has only doubled down on it. It is an accusation, not just an opinion.
“Steyn was given a chance to clarify his statement but has only doubled down on it. It is an accusation, not just an opinion.”
You’ve said nothing, Jim D.
It’s not an accusation of scientific fraud.
Michael said
“….where he says that that Mann has committed scientific fr@ud.
Try harder.”
You’re trying *too* hard, Michael. You’re making a false statement.
thisisnogood, how do you interpret statements from Steyn like
“I want to get to court as soon as possible, and put Michael E Mann, PhD (Doctor of Phraudology) on the stand under oath.”? Is he just kidding or being misunderstood?
He is being clever – which is his chosen occupation.
Something to keep in mind here (and this is what Steyn has said he openly wants to happen). For this case to result in a victory for Mann, there would be a full trial on the facts. Think about that.. A Full Trial on the Facts.
What that means is, Michael Mann will have a deposition taken (by Steyn’s lawyers) and then Steyn’s attorneys will be able to spend hours-days-weeks even attacking in court every aspect of Mann’s work and public life. Every little discrepancy in his research will be highlighted, and Mann will be forced by the court to provide EVERYTHING – all data, formulas, calculations, etc – that he used.
If I was a big supporter of climate change, I would be horrified at the potential outcome of such a trial.
And keep in mind.. Steyn will appeal any loss, and I highly doubt this Supreme Court with its love of the 1st Amendment wouldn’t chomp at the bit to throw out a verdict that ends in Libel.
Be careful what you wish for.
Jim D, I’ve watched video of Steyn absolutely demolish those attacking the rights of the press ( 3 law grads at once ) and forcing them into self-humiliation, ’cause they were puffed up with hate and repeating falsehoods – then he turned and offered them his hand and invitation to dinner.
He’s not kidding about getting Mann on the stand. He’s not the guy to trifle with. Mann picked the wrong guy to attack.
How the courts go is a different matter, but Steyn is for real.
Nick Stokes.
Then why did Mann argue to some success under the funny judges that investigations by scientific and governmental bodies, “laid to rest” defendants’ questions regarding Mann’s research?
The investigations didn’t decide on the validity of the research. They investigated whether there was misconduct.
And some of those Mann mentioned in his brief to the court never investigated Mann at all. He lied. To the court.
And “scientific misconduct” is clearly, under law a matter of opinion.
See the various briefs for references.
Nick Stokes said:
“The investigations didn’t decide on the validity of the research. They investigated whether there was misconduct”
Well, Nick Stokes, then you just showed some more Mannian goings-on!
From an article by Mann:
” In his interview, Muller even maligned my own work on the “hockey stick” reconstruction of past temperatures. He falsely claimed “the hockey-stick chart was in fact incorrect” when in fact the National Academy of Sciences affirmed our findings in a major 2006 report that Nature summarized as “Academy affirms hockey-stick graph.”
Thank you Nick Stokes.
AK | August 15, 2014 at 9:42 am |
“He lied. To the court.”
Well, he hasn’t given evidence. But would you like to quote what his lawyers said that you think is a lie?
thisisnotgoodtogo:
“From an article by Mann:”
Yes, the NAS in 2006 did a scientific study of reconstructions. It wasn’t a misconduct investigation, and I don’t believe it was one of the ones he put to the “funny judges”.
Nick Stokes said
“Yes, the NAS in 2006 did a scientific study of reconstructions. It wasn’t a misconduct investigation, and I don’t believe it was one of the ones he put to the “funny judges”.
You’re free to hold your beliefs, Nick Stokes. :)
You are also free to make false assertions like this one:
“The ACLU has it exactly wrong. The case is not about a scientific controversy”
Mann is, as well as seriously misrepresenting the findings of the enquiries about misconduct, as exonerating him, trying to make it about climate science instead of just about his science. That’s why he used NAS in his complaint.
Page 8.
thisisnotgoodtogo | August 15, 2014 at 7:28 pm |
“You are also free to make false assertions like this one:”
…
“trying to make it about climate science instead of just about his science”
Mann brought the case. He is not trying to resolve any scientific controversy, or “make it about climate science”. He is seeking damage restitution for specific defamations.
Nick Stokes argues:
“Mann brought the case. He is not trying to resolve any scientific controversy, or “make it about climate science”. He is seeking damage restitution for specific defamations.”
Of course he isn’t trying to RESOLVE any scientific controversy. He’s attempting to show that there isn’t any wrt to his work.
Only one bore on Mann, and didn’t investigate his conduct. Same like they first did Sandusky.
==========
No Nick and Michael, neither of you seem to understand that this isn’t about the science and is everything about the need for someone to be able to disagree, nastily if necessary, with propaganda (a term that is neutral in its essence, to argue for, but nefarious in its reality). From what I have read of and by Dr Mann, he has a strong political agenda and seeks to promote Anthropogenic Global Warming without regard to how he is willing to portray those who disagree with him. As a political propagandist on the ‘consensus’ side (i.e. the political establishment), he deserves no protection under the law from those who are brave enough to disagree with him. His only recourse should be better argument than his accusers.
Caveat: I’m neutral on Anthropogenic Global Warming (I think the data is inconclusive) and, as I am in concern for any religious intrusion into science, against Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
“someone to be able to disagree, nastily if necessary”
I haven’t seen the defense argue that nastiness was necessary. But no, it’s a case about defamation and damage. No-one is arguing that you can’t disagree.
“he deserves no protection”? What principle is that? Where does the law say that “propagandists” are to be treated differently?
Dave W,
Huh?
Should there be some special law that excludes scientists from access to civil law??
He’s a public figure. The law, including case law, is quite clear about that.
See the various briefs for references.
“Should there be some special law that excludes scientists from access to civil law??”
1. if the scientist is a public figure
2. it the topic is of great public concern
then yes there are special laws..
Nick Stokes: nastiness is a legal option, but it isn’t necessary.
However, the Constitution protects nasty speech in this context. For example, I have been labeled a cretin, uneducated, a shill, a troll, and a denier on some occasions. I felt the individuals using such words were a bit rude, but since the global warming subject is mostly political and not really about science it seemed to me I was fair game.
Thus to interpret the Constitutional setting in this case requires that we dismiss the science. For example, assume Mann’s science is wrong. This way the science gets washed out of any consideration.
The other point where the judge goofed up was in allowing that investigations had taken place. Those investigations are meaningless in court. They don’t really establish whether one can write the plaintiff is a “bum” or use some of the other words they used.
I don’t want to get into Dr Mann himself too much, but he sure has demonstrated a rather politically dubious behavior. For example his “False Hope” article in Scientific American was deceitful in a way Watts didn’t really describe properly, the man sure played a subtle shell game with the data in that article. The article, the hockey stick, this lawsuit, and the insults he hurls at others makes the man a rather distasteful character in this drama. However, even though I can’t stand him, I do defend his constitutional right to speak openly and nastily if that’s his preference.
Steven Mosher | August 15, 2014 at 11:31 am |
…”then yes there are special laws.”
OK, play dumb.
AK | August 15, 2014 at 9:39 am |
“Where does the law say that “propagandists” are to be treated differently?
He’s a public figure. The law, including case law, is quite clear about that.”
Case law changes the standard of proof. It does not say someone deserves no protection. But more particularly, it makes no reference to being a “propagandist”.
Not really. Steyn has a right to be offensive.
His comment is a very apt analogy; Mann is man who brings in lots of money for universities through donation and expertise in the grant process (and politics of) and who has been protected from proper scrutiny. And one of the universities happens to be Penn State.
Steyn would be negligent in not making that analogy.
Wow, what a surprise. Stokes and Michael are against the 1st Amendment and don’t recognize that when the ACLU, NYT, WSJ, etc. all get behind something AND have hundreds of legal precedents they can quote that all get to the heart of the matter at hand, then they might want to pay attention to the ACLU. (which the Koch brothers have given donations to if you want more fuel for your conspiracy theories).
The fact is that there is no holy gospel of scientific truth that you can’t dispute and the 1st Amendment protects this. It also protects satire, strong language, insinuations, etc. and particularly when the person is a public figure. Add in the fact that “Mann started it” as he is quite active himself in insulting others and saying they are on the Koch brothers payroll adds a whole “nother” layer although I doubt if there are any precedents legally for “the other guy started it”, but who knows, maybe there are.
The articles were political satire (written by satirists even) and saying someone tortured and molested the data is obviously hyperbole and the witty, slightly nasty language that has always been used in every culture against ones opponents. Grow the hell up and stop being so partisan. If this law suit is settled in Mann’s favor, it will be used by people you don’t agree with and you won’t think it is such a good idea.
Sometimes I try to predict who will say what in response to an article.
–and some who comment here are quite predictable.
It would be interesting if the nature of the suit was turned 180 degrees as to who is suing whom. If then, anyone finds him or herself changing their comment, it might mean that person has a well ingrained bias.
Your wish has been granted. Steyn issued a countersuit six months ago.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/22/steyn-et-al-versus-mann/
Michael, you wrote: “Your wish has been granted. Steyn issued a countersuit six months ago.”
That statement parses only if you haven’t been paying any attention at all to this debate. Steyn would never have dreamed of suing Michael Mann if Mann hadn’t attempted to silence Steyn with his nuisance lawsuit.
Steyn has made a COUNTER-suit specifically to make the point that for defendants facing deep pockets litigation, “the punishment is the process”.
Nick
“Science can be debated without getting into all that.”
yes it can. but that is not what this case is about.
Trees are not thermometers.
Cherry picked trees are the opposite of science.
Sour whine Nick.
If you can’t see how sophomoric Mann’s attempt to paint himself as some warrior hero is, you need a humor transplant.
As I have never met the man, I am hesitant to judge his character. All I will note is that his twitter comments make him appear as some stuck up tool.
I think it would have been a good learning experience for Michael Mann and the tobacco lawyers to watch this video series to see who they were thinking of messing with before they acted.
” Science can be debated without getting into all that.”
It can also be debated with getting into that. Fraudulent work is to be exposed and called what it is.
Dear Professor Curry,
This case, and certainly many if not all of the amicus interventions in it, is not really about whether Michael Mann’s science is shaky. It’s about whether Michael Mann is a “public person” or a “limited public person” under the case law starting with New York Times v. Sullivan of 1964. If Mann is such a person, he faces a much higher bar in pursuing his libel suits: generally, active participants in public disputes waive many of the traditional American law protections against libel.
I happen to think Mann is at least a “limited public person”–no pun intended–and am somewhat mystified why the district court has not yet so ruled. But the amicus interventions may hasten that court along, and create a sound basis for appeal if Mann prevails.
PS. Your closing quote is the ACLU quoting a 7th circuit decision, as you yourself note earlier.
+1
” It’s about whether Michael Mann is a “public person” or a “limited public person” under the case law starting with New York Times v. Sullivan of 1964. If Mann is such a person,”
No, Mann is already considered a public figure. Self-described “reluctant”.
The trial court found that Mann was a public figure, and thus had to meet the burden of proving malice. This is why there are so many amici curiae briefs. And more are coming.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/385451/mann-v-national-review-more-amici-jack-fowler
The trial court’s ruling essentially gutted the DC Anti-SLAPP statute for the very reason that Mann was held to be a public figure, and yet according to the trial court, his law suit should still be allowed to proceed.
Let’s all agree that the case can be about many different things. Legally, it can be about precisely what Maxdaddy said. Scientifically, it could be about something else, and perhaps culturally another matter entirely.
It’s mostly about whether the judge leans to the left or the right otherwise it would have been thrown out long ago. Quite simply, if you make base allegations in print against everyone who disagrees with you then you are entitled to expect they do the same. The fact that such a truly simple matter takes so long is a total indictment of the legal system.
Yes, all that popcorn I bought has past its use by date. Just as well I wasn’t relying on it for sustenance.
==> “I couldn’t identify a coherent argument to excerpt.”
Really? You thought the following part was incoherent?
That reads like a solid chunk of the comments here at Climate Etc. – think GaryM, Wags, Cwon and the like. I never realized that you thought that so much of the Denizens’ arguments were incoherent.
Sounds like conspiracy ideation to me. Quick someone call Lew.
I found Mann’s “Climate Denial Machine” strangely entertaining.
yes – it is rather conspiratorial. To believe it to be true, you have accept that there is a rather implausible simplicity to what is likely a very complicated process (the causality of why “the notion that climate scientists are part of an evil cabal seeking to take away your freedom in support of creating a socialist world government.”) is so widespread..
Claims like that are one of the beautiful ironies of the climate wars. Conspiratorial thinking on one side offered as an explanation for conspiratorial thinking on the other side. And both sides complain about the conspiratorial ideology on the other side w/o owning up their own.
And all along, there is some pretty strong evidence that explains why such conspiratorial thinking is so pervasive in the climate wars:
Remind me, Have I ever mentioned the identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors that are associated with motivated reasoning? I can’t remember if I have.
On the other hand, I suspect their “conspiracy” is mostly about their ignorance of other subjects they need to understand before they start proposing solutions to the problems they perceive.
Joshua, the sentence you quoted does not qualify as any “argument” coherent or otherwise.
It is nothing but an ***assertion***
Whether or not you think it would be well-founded based upon a forthcoming argument, what you quoted lacks all pretense of reasoning between premises and a logically entailed conclusion.
Hence, not an argument.
p.s. Whatever one thinks of myriad comments here, many do not pretend to be an “argument” but rather are (frequently) sardonic or sarcastic musings on the issues of the day.
p.p.s. None of the above is an argument, either. I do not need to construct a logical argument to show that the sentence you quoted fails the most elementary standards of argumentation. Whether Mann’s statement might be “true” in any sense is quite distinct from whether it was argued for, whether brilliantly or poorly.
He is arguing that the constant refrain that we hear among “skeptics,” that ““climate scientists are part of an evil cabal seeking to take away your freedom in support of creating a socialist world government.” is the result of attacks emanating from well-funded and well-organized campaigns the conservative media.
It’s an argument that I don’t think is entirely correct, although I think it is at least partially true. There is little doubt that there are well-funded (I suppose well-funded is a subjective term) efforts on the part of well-organized (again perhaps relative) organizations to attack climate scientists. And much of those attacks are promoted by conservative media. I don’t agree entirely, however, as I think that the ubiquity of those kind of attacks is not entirely attributable to those well-organized and well-funded attacks. Some of extent to which that “notion” exists is a more organic process where it is generated in a more individual mechanism of identity-protection and identity-aggression among individual “skeptics” because of their ideological//political identifications.
In other words, I would guess that GarM, Wags, CWON, etc. would have that notion independent of the attacks funded and organized by organizations like the Heartwell Institute.
==> “It is nothing but an ***assertion***”
Well, yes. He argued by assertion because he didn’t provide evidence. The evidence of the “notion” he spoke of is ubiquitous. The causality behind that widespread “notion” is not so easy provide evidence of. His argument would have been better if he had provided evidence. The ubiquity of argument by assertion is one of the problems with the blogospheric world of the climate wars.
==> “Whether or not you think it would be well-founded based upon a forthcoming argument, what you quoted lacks all pretense of reasoning between premises and a logically entailed conclusion ”
See above.
So yes, the argument isn’t coherent. Which brings us back to my original comment:
Here are some examples of the evil climate scientist meme being promoted by the organizations mentioned by Mann.
Heartland
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/05/01/exposing-climate-science-corruption
CFACT (cited in the HuffPo article)
http://www.cfact.org/2013/01/22/ushering-in-the-new-socialist-world-order-one-crisis-at-a-time/
CEI
http://cei.org/events/2011/04/08/congressional-staff-and-media-briefing-climate-corruption-politics-and-power-behin
“Here are some examples of the evil climate scientist meme being promoted by the organizations mentioned by Mann.”
Actually not.
Mann’s meme is “These attacks frequently seek to create the notion that climate scientists are part of an evil cabal seeking to take away your freedom in support of creating a socialist world government.”
your first example says nothing about socialist world order.
your second and third cite are the same person that no one has heard of,
and further the 2nd and third cite do not follow Mann’s meme.
Bells meme relates to the IPCC.
Mann’s meme is that individual scientists are attacked because they are part of a cabal to create a world order.
Finally your second and third cite actually discuss those cases in which ‘scientists’ and politicians HAVE made the argument that the goal is to create a “socialist” order.
Nice try.
Joseph –
==> “Here are some examples of the evil climate scientist meme being promoted by the organizations mentioned by Mann.”
I think the biggest is probably Fox News, and other well-organized and well-funded right wing media outlets.
Just because they are conservative media outlets doesn’t exclude them from conducting well-organized and well-funded campaigns to utilize conservative media outlets to attack climate scientists (and pursue political ends. And making some Benjamins in the process ain’t a bad side benefit).
“Finally your second and third cite actually discuss those cases in which ‘scientists’ and politicians HAVE made the argument that the goal is to create a “socialist” order”
I saw a few examples of those who want some form of global governance and some related to redistribution (but not both). I didn’t see ANYTHING related to scientists advocating for either.
“Bells meme relates to the IPCC.
Mann’s meme is that individual scientists are attacked because they are part of a cabal to create a world order.”
Who writes the IPCC reports? He calls AGW a hoax! I don’t know how you can pull of a hoax without scientists being involved.
Joshua
Citing Fox News & the Koch brothers incessantly indicts an entire segment of the populace with a lack of originality if not a total lack of imagination. Perhaps that is why warmists are incapable of considering anything but CO2.
Citing Fox News and the Koch bothers incessantly as reasons why skeptics abound indicates a lack of character, if not honesty.
Joshua,
The sentence you quoted from Mann is NOT an argument at all.
You think there is/can be a real argument to support his bare assertion. Fine, it is always welcome to provide real arguments.
My point is merely a correction, a simple point regarding the logic of arguments. One lone assertion, without including any sequence of logically related inferences, simply is no argument. Period.
A few people sound like this perhaps. Most commonly though the argument is the other side of the coin from Krugman’s point that libertarian types that think government action is ineffective are more often on the side that says be careful with regulating energy. So the argument is that greens are often watermelons – they love government and regulation and think it solves everything. Except the green side is more likely to believe in Koch brother conspiracies while the other side simply points out (as a rebuttal) that there is far more money on the other side.
Joshua: I think the quote you attribute to Dr Curry is actually a quote of Steyn, who may not be fully aware of the Climate Etc comments.
Being part of a political culture, a pretty large chunk that is seeking a much larger state and generally along socialist lines, isn’t a “conspiracy theory”. It’s reality Joshua.
It’s just more tactical smearing and dishonesty on your part Joshua. Next you will tell us most warming advocates are “right-wing” as are most “journalists” and the MSM as well. The relationship to global socialism and climate/green policy is confirmed and the pejorative use of calling people who point it out “conspiracy theorists” is fairly ignorant;
http://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements-True-Colors/dp/0983347409
“The CDM has, in my view, played a far more critical role than Krugman’s piece might seem to imply. It is this well-organized and well-funded apparatus that supports and nurtures the larger conservative echo chamber of climate change denialism. A favored mode of attack by the CDM involves firing up the conservative “base” through dog whistles and red meat-loaded attacks on climate scientists via conservative media outlets. These attacks frequently seek to create the notion that climate scientists are part of an evil cabal seeking to take away your freedom in support of creating a socialist world government. ”
This is incoherent.
Pretend it was judith making the same argument. what would ask for.
Show us how you would take apart Mann’s argument.
Show us that you have critical thinking skills
Show us that you can rise above your motivated reasoning
Here I will help. And argument without evidence is incoherent.
1. what exactly did Krugman say about the CDM
2. is there a CDM, where is the evidence
3. is it well organized? really, show the evidence
4. is it well funded, again.. not rumors but actual evidence.. show it
5 how does it support and nurture the conservative “echo chamber”
6. what does he mean by denialism? examples
7. examples of claims that scientists are part of an evil cabal and no
comments from random denizens dont count as evidence.
8. Weigh #7 against actually claims by scientists that we need a command
economy to combat the problem.
In short, Mann’s “argument” really isnt an argument. Its a series of assertions that merely strings together a series of unsubstantiated conspiratorial claims that have been made repeatedly over the years.
To be sure you will find nut jobs saying that it is all a green conspiracy
green conspiracy number 1: its the Koch green, driving denialism
green conspiracy number 2: its the left green, seeking socialism
If you expect people to take you seriously Joshua you have to call out bullshit on both sides.
Mann is bullshit. Mann’s work is bullshit.
And, c02 warms the planet
And we need to take action.
Do you see that? you can believe in the science, you can accept the consensus and call Mann on his bullshit.
But you never call Mann on his bullshit. That’s interesting.
Josh, like the tides you can be counted on to make the same inane arguments.
Yeah, it must be true. It couldn’t be that Mann has been so much of a supercilious jerk defending his shoddy science that everybody wants to pick on him. People like Keith Briffa, Tom Wigley and other climate scientists characterize his work as shoddy. His Twitter remarks speak for themselves.
The truth is a defense against libel. His original science was flawed, which happens often and should have been nothing to be ashamed of. But it got picked up for the big time by the IPCC and his subsequent defense of his flawed work and the fame it has brought him has been fraudulent. Steyn was right.
Michael Mann and Peter Gleick. They’ve done so much for your cause, Joshua.Only a motivated reasoner could possibly criticize them.
Tom Fuller | August 16, 2014 at 11:37 am |
“His original science was flawed, which happens often and should have been nothing to be ashamed of. But it got picked up for the big time by the IPCC and his subsequent defense of his flawed work and the fame it has brought him has been fraudulent.”
Pretty much all science is flawed.
This is incoherent babble.
Well, when an expert on the subject speaks, Michael, of course we should listen. But when I said that flawed science happens and is nothing to be ashamed of, how could you have missed it? It couldn’t be that you were just looking for a place to paste in one of your canned comments, could it?
Don’t worry. Joshua will give you a better set of syllables soon.
Tom,
You admit all science is flawed then demand what?, apologies, retractions??
All scientists who’ve done flawed scoence (yes, that’s all of you) please explain yourselves to Tom.
Incoherent.
No, child. I don’t demand an apology for flawed science. I note that his bluster and b.s. in defense of his flawed science is abhorrent and he has become so himself.
Besides Fuler’s incoherent babble, what else is interesting is this bizarre obsession over Michael Mann and a 16 yr old paper.
The older it gets the more important it seems to become to these OCD types.
I assume that it’s some kind of sacred symbol in their anti-IPCC dogma……or something far nastier.
Flawed cf fraud
Do you see the difference?
The court case is about the use of the latter word, not the former.
so somebody called it what it is in vernacular
suck it up, toots!
Interesting –
==> “Roger Pielke Jr. Mann is a clown with some personality issues, but I defended him in the UVA/Cuccinelli email issue and his right to lie in public.”
Nice to see you and RPJr. taking the high road there, Judith. Way to stick your principles and rising above the juvenile name-calling.
Jane, don’t forget to pull Judith’s ponytails ok? Who knows, she might react some day.
Pielke is understating things in that quote. Clown is far too kind.
…attacks “seek to create” the notion ?
:)
tingtg –
-==> “…attacks “seek to create” the notion ?”
Good point. Obviously Krugman’s mistake. The attacks are simply revealing the truth – just ask GaryM, Wags, CWON, et al.
Joshua said
” Obviously Krugman’s mistake. The attacks are simply revealing the truth – just ask GaryM, Wags, CWON, et al.”
Oh, I thought Professor Curry was talking about *Mann’s* article and not having excerpts from it.
Sorry – I meant to say obviously Mann’s mistake. Couldn’t figure that out, eh?
Yes, I could figure that out, Joshua.
So, do you resent it being pointed out to you or something?
And since it was Mann, then you might see that it is not “Krugman’s mistake”, but Mann’s incoherent statement.
The attacks don’t create the notion.
If you think that Mann’s statement was incoherent, then you must think that it is incoherent when you read the common “denizen” refrain about how “climate scientists are part of an evil cabal seeking to take away your freedom in support of creating a socialist world government.”
Which was the point that I made earlier. Did you have some difficulty understanding that point?
Joshua said
“If you think that Mann’s statement was incoherent, then you must think that it is incoherent when you read the common “denizen” refrain about how “climate scientists are part of an evil cabal seeking to take away your freedom in support of creating a socialist world government.”
No – that is not incoherent.
“Which was the point that I made earlier.’
You overlook the fact that such comments cannot CREATE the notion. They are a reflection of it.
Joshua, you write that skeptics say
“climate scientists are part of an evil cabal seeking to take away your freedom in support of creating a socialist world government.”
Citation please
“…the IPCC is a political creation with a policy conclusion before the first science report was ever reviewed or cataloged. …It took a whole village to create the IPCC political monster. The dream of regulating, populist hatred of energy interests and desire of specialty tax targeting long predates the global warming scam. The IPCC work is brochure ware for power lust and nothing more. The loss of integrity of science, if not corrected, move the world ever closer to the Orwellian reality so many fear and reject…” -cwon14
Look at just about anything written by the above person.
“the IPCC is a political creation with a policy conclusion before the first science report was ever reviewed or cataloged”
Apart from the rhetorical flourishes, that is absolutely factual.
UN prayer
“The United Nations Environmental Sabbath Service
June 1990; UN Environment Programme, DC2-803
“We who have lost our sense and our senses – our touch, our smell, our
vision of who we are; we who frantically force and press all things,
without rest for body or spirit, hurting our earth and injuring ourselves:
we call a halt.
We want to rest
We need to rest and allow the earth to rest.
We have forgotten who we are.
We have alienated ourselves from the unfolding of the cosmos
**********************************************************************
yadda yadda …give us the $ trillions you owe
Joshua, Typically, you focus on superficial similarities rather than on what is actually true.
What’s “actually true” David, is that juvenile name-calling does nothing to improve the situation, and likely just makes it worse.
I thought RP jr. made some pretty effective points. He really helped clarify some important issues for me and I would say that this has significantly improved the situation from my point of view.
note David’s argument still stands.
There are many things that are actually true.
1.What’s “actually true” David, is that juvenile name-calling does nothing to improve the situation, and likely just makes it worse.
2.Joshua, Typically, you focus on superficial similarities rather than on what is actually true.
Both of those are actually true.
Notice how you avoiding the truth David pointed out by pointing to a different truth.
hence derailing any dialogue on truth #2. your tactic, like name, makes it worse
truth 3.
3.What’s “actually true” Joshua, is that juvenile thread jacking to improve the situation, and likely just makes it worse.
Is little joshie threadjacking, again? So as to avoid going blind, joshie has adopted threadjacking as his preferred form of compulsive self-gratification. Weird little dude.
Josh,
Josh,
stick to arguing about juvenile. It plays to your strengths.
Most attacks I see are simply talking about the lousy work he did and the misrepresentations he makes.
the definition of “attack” in academia is a source of great amusement to me. as children i think most people would have recited the “sticks and stones” nursery rythme ,though it appears many academics failed to understand it.
Reading Mann’s hilarious op-ed on HuffPo, I couldn’t decide whether he sounds more like Captain Queeg (“Ahhh but the strawberries – that’s…that’s where I had them.”) or General Jack D. Ripper (“It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual.”) (From The Caine Mutiny and Dr. Strangelove, respectively)
‘Roger Pielke Jr. Mann is a clown with some personality issues, but I defended him in the UVA/Cuccinelli email issue and his right to lie in public.’
I’d suggest that CE’s Mini Mann is in full swing. Just the right opportunity for defending the collective.
But a touch shrill for my taste. I wonder if Mini Mann offers the same kind of aghast-Victorian tut-tutting on warmist websites.
From Mann’s article: This network of front groups, organizations, and paid advocates is sometimes referred to as the “Climate Denial Machine” or just “CDM” (though, to be precise, they aren’t denying “climate” per se, but rather, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is changing, and that we’re the cause).
At least he backs off from claims of “climate denial”, but he misquotes the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are among the causes, though not through a single mechanism.
As to “paid advocates”, this irrelevance cuts both ways.
I’ve never seen CDM before. Has anybody else? Random acronymization, anyone? Or RAA, of course.
Krugman opened thus: If climate change doesn’t scare you, and our failure to act doesn’t inspire despair, you’re not paying attention. And the great sin of the climate deniers is their role in delaying action, quite possibly until it’s too late.
Blech.
Krugman does use the phrase “climate deniers”, without quoting even one person who “denies” climate.
And with Krugman we do get to the “sin ” part. :)
Remember, whether CO2 or sin, the effect will be the same.
Krugman was for years a very good economist, but sadly decided he’d have more fun and fame as a highly partisan and often inaccurate commentator.
The amazing thing about Krugman is how he could so correctly identifiy that the vast majority of economists fell in love with an idea that was wrong, due to massive dogma, confirmation bias and trusting models too much and real data not enough yet that he cannot comprehend this happens in science too. It doesn’t matter how many people believe a hypothesis – if mother nature disagrees then it must be wrong.
The idea of who is the biggest sinner of course really depends on whether the cure is worse than the putative disease. We could even say that the previous mistakes of the consensus of economists has cost us far more than climate policy. You’d thing he’d have learnt something about hubris by now!
Faustino
Krugman’s denial of Social Security adding to the deficit when the SS trustees report clearly shows it does, makes your point and puts him in the same camp as Mann, et al. The message is everything. Never mind the
facts.
It is sad a Nobel laureate can be provenwrong so easily.
Faustino
Krugman was never a good economist much less a ‘very good’ economist.
But but but, you say, he won a Noble prize.
Yes, a Left Wing organization gives a prize to a Left Wing economist whose work substantially gives cover to larger and larger government. What a surprise!
Is there anything to him that isn’t ideologically driven? Is there anything he won’t say in the service of his particular ideology?
Read his NYT columns as a body of work. Deplorable. But then you can accuse me of not being a Left Wing Progressive looking for reasons under every rock to justify an expansive State. You might ask, ‘Well, what’s wrong with justifying an expansive state?’ For Krugman the problem is a long and rich history showing exactly what is wrong with it to which his solution is to make things up, to twist facts into a mold, to leave relevant things out of an argument, etc. Much what a propagandist would do. Krugman is to economics what Mann is to climate science.
It’s amusing how his commentary and the work he is famous for are so dissonant. Yet his astounding rhetorical gymnastic talent make it seem not so. And his reader leap from vague implications to absurd conclusions and self affirmation.
Actually Economic Science was never included in one of the original Nobel Prizes but invented by the Sveriges riksbanks in 1969 as the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.
As Hayek already said when consulted about a Economic Science Nobel Prize that he would “have decidedly advised against it, primarily because “the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess…. This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally.”
He won his Nobel for work on free trade which he supports.
I wasn’t that familiar with Krugman’s early work so I looked up his prize and what it was for. I invite all to drop down the rabbit hole and read this which is a Lecture he gave upon acceptance of the prize: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2008/krugman_lecture.pdf
If you can keep from laughing out loud then you have more restraint than is possible.
Here are some gems:
“The use of deliberately unrealistic assumptions is, of course, common in
much of economics.”
“This approach also, more or less en passant, made it clear that increasing returns ordinarily reinforce, rather than call into question, the argument that there are gains from trade. Nonetheless, I can report from early experience that the new style of modeling was met with considerable hostility at first. Some discussants dismissed the whole enterprise as obviously pointless, given the unrealism of the setup. Some even insisted that if all the goods enter utility the same way, they must be perfect substitutes. There was a widespread sense that the new trade theorists were cheating. Meanwhile, even with all that cheating, the…”
Here is an interesting review of his book from 1999. The book, The Return of Depression Economics. The article: Artful Dodger.
http://reason.com/archives/1999/10/01/artful-dodger
This book was republished in 2009 with the last chapter dealing with the events of the prior decade.
Daniel, I am referring to Krugman’s early work on international trade – his speciality, for which he won the Nobel – and later work on spatial economics. None of that has anything to do with Keynesian macroeconomics, and preceded his support for it. I found Krugman’s earlier work helpful to me as an economic policy adviser.
Nottawa: Krugman talks as if there’s an actual social security trust fund. He said many years ago that the Republicans planned to steal from it; there is no trust fund from which to steal anything of value, he must know it, and for him to say it reveals his depravity.
I’m with Faustino on this. The young Krugman was the geniune article. Whether he got his prize for that, or his later daily excoriation of Dubya, is above my pay grade. Today, sadly Krugman is so predictable that it is impossible to get the dopamine system to eke out even an itsy bitsy reward from following his stuff. And I likes my dopamine.
Krugman was benefiting from Enron.
He sat on the board, after all!
Solid guy.
Krugman praising Enron:
“The retreat of business bureaucracy in the face of the market was brought home to me recently when I joined the advisory board at Enron–a company formed in the ’80s by the merger of two pipeline operators. In the old days energy companies tried to be as vertically integrated as possible: to own the hydrocarbons in the ground, the gas pump, and everything in between. And Enron does own gas fields, pipelines, and utilities. But it is not, and does not try to be, vertically integrated: It buys and sells gas both at the wellhead and the destination, leases pipeline (and electrical-transmission) capacity both to and from other companies, buys and sells electricity, and in general acts more like a broker and market maker than a traditional corporation. It’s sort of like the difference between your father’s bank, which took money from its regular depositors and lent it out to its regular customers, and Goldman Sachs. Sure enough, the company’s pride and joy is a room filled with hundreds of casually dressed men and women staring at computer screens and barking into telephones, where cubic feet and megawatts are traded and packaged as if they were financial derivatives. (Instead of CNBC, though, the television screens on the floor show the Weather Channel.) The whole scene looks as if it had been constructed to illustrate the end of the corporation as we knew it. ”
Really, a solid guy.
This guilt by association stuff is lame. BTW, Krugman’s useful work came long before his Enron mistake.
Supposedly his wife is the ideologue and writes most of his NYT material.
“This guilt by association stuff is lame.
Only it’s not guilt by association.
Krugman lends his support to the very worst kinds. His judgement is “off”, shall we say?
“BTW, Krugman’s useful work came long before his Enron mistake.”
That would depend on who is judging the usefulness, wouldn’t it?
I imagine he proved very useful indeed!
A insightful observation.
I’ll admit to bias, but anyone who supported Enron deserves time in a small cell with Tiny, a 300 lb convicted sex offender.
I would say that Krugman’s economic theory work (for which he won the prize) had interest as an improved way of thinking about how increasing returns to scale affect the pattern of trade and the gains from international trade. At that point he was accused by interventionist Democrats on the left of the party of being too establishment and too dismissive of their views (e.g. Robert Kuttner and Robert Reich). Kuttner in particular excoriated Krugman and the disdain was returned, but Kuttner’s attack was from the “left” accusing Krugman of publishing exceptions to the benefits of free trade in his academic papers but attacking opponents of free trade in his public commentaries. Krugman had positioned himself back then as a centrist bringing scientific skepticism to both right-wing (“supply-side”) snake oil and left-wing (“industrial policy”) snake-oil.
It was only later, after some professional and personal changes that Krugman took the regular NYT column and became a predictable, partisan, leftish hack. Stylistically, he was never very nice, but his earlier writings were more graceful and less vitriolic than his latter day writing. At some point years ago I sensed that his professional peers had emotionally distanced themselves from him, but only a few have bothered to call him out publicly on his behavior.
More Krugman bilge from 8/2/02: “To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.”
Krugman bilge on the VA on 6/19/14 : “Which brings us to veterans’ care. The system run by the Department of Veterans Affairs is not like the rest of American health care. It is, if you like, an island of socialized medicine, a miniature version of Britain’s National Health Service, in a privatized sea. And until the scandal broke, all indications were that it worked very well, providing high-quality care at low cost.” [Of course, following this column there were even more revelations about the gross inadequacies of the VA]
That anyone listens to this uninformed ideologue is beyond me. However, to the NYT’s discredit, he has a huge audience there notwithstanding his numerous blunders.
JD
Joshua’s snide sarcasm and disparaging sceptic pop psychology is unintended irony. His use of the term unintended irony is unintended irony – as is the dissimulative use of the term realist for fringe AGW groupthink activists. The whining that refraining from insulting them will lift the tone is the ultimate is unintentional irony.
He just goes from strength to strength.
Ah just let her do her thing Rob. If Jane wants to be confrontational just to be confrontational (on every thread, about everything) then let her. You could just ignore her “contributions”, makes for a much better thread read I found.
Mann seeks to misdirect by pointing to attacks on climate science when he’s using himself as an example of those attacks.
Most frequently the criticisms of him are not about world government, but of his bloated ego, his phony claims to the Nobel, and other of his peculiarities.
Let’s recall his conspiracy ideation trip. He tweeted that he thought Koch had spent money on a massive Christmas calendar distribution when Watts mailed him and a couple of other select numbnuts a calendar.
“Apologies for not excerpting anything, I couldn’t identify a coherent argument to excerpt.”
”
“This lawsuit seems motivated by one person’s fragile ego that has been bruised as he’s tried to defend questionable science.” – JC
Judith, it’s starting to look like you’ve got a full-blown obsession and a big chip on your shoulder.
Arguably, Michael Mann is climate science’s biggest liability.
Michael
That you feel is sitting right there, on your own shoulder.
‘chip’
Sad that the people who like to advocate…
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1991-10-21/business/9110190897_1_customer-service-retaliation-international-customer
secretly cost you your working conditions.
Astute observation for someone who stands ankle deep in straw and donkey poop.
Or maybe not.
It all comes down to the judges, who these days seem to think that they are the brightest blokes in the room, and as such, they are required to adjudicate issues the way that they believe is “right”, not by following the strict letter of the law. In Australia we have exactly the same problems. Judges interpret our Constitution, which is 112 years old, based on how they believe our founding fathers should have worded it. In so doing they create new laws, or at least precedents, instead of applying the laws enacted by our Parliament.
Yes Josh, its well documented that Mann is the world champion in the name calling department. Do you agree? Remove the beam from your own eye before you remove the speck from your neighbors eye.
Nice biblical reference there, David –
World champion?
He name-calls. Never defended it. Never will.
Judith complains about his name-calling. RPJr. complains about name-calling. Lots of people complain about his name-calling. Name-calling is often a topic in these threads. You know, the whole “denier” outrage
So one would think that: (a) Judith wouldn’t yuk it up with RPJr. about what names to call Mann and, (b) many “denizens” of Climate Etc.would hold Judith to the standard they often argue should apply to others.
Try finding one thread at Climate Etc. where those who complain about name-calling don’t name-call. You know, the whole “alarmist” “warmist” “statist” “warmista” “Lysenkoist” thing (actually, haven’t seen Lysenko much recently. Where’s hunter?). Perhaps the best is when Judith and other “skeptics” discuss the appropriateness of using “denier” for those who think there’s a higher risk of ACO2 negatively affecting the climate.
Are there any biblical quotes you can think of on the topic of how to treat others relative to how you expect to be treated?
Josuha
Where is the name calling in this?
“This lawsuit seems motivated by one person’s fragile ego that has been bruised as he’s tried to defend questionable science.” – JC
One could even read that as an expression of sympathy.
Daniel –
I’m looking at a different “this.”
I’m talking about Judith yuking it up with name-calling RPJr. , who has this to say:
You do have to admit, that there’s some beee-a-uti-ful irony. You are a fan of irony, aren’t you?
Joshua, you have an insane concept of yuking (I thought there were two k’s in that word). Roger Pielke goes easy on the Mann. Clown with personality issues is kindness compared to what others have said and what Mann truly deserves. And Judith has the gall to say he needs to watch twitter’s character limits? Go get Tobis–it’s time to fry Judith again!
Ooooooooooooooh. The horror.
there is a new Lysenko in the Ukrainian Government , I think? Joshua, but that is his real name.
Joshua,
Boy did you miss the point. Curry, Pielke Jr. etc. may mix it up with Michael Mann, but there is a BIG difference between them.
Curry and Pielke are not attempting to use the court system to sue their opponents into silence.
President Obama has been called many much worse things and has been accused of many much worse actions and motivations than Dr. Mann and yet has not tried to shut down his opponents using litigation. No doubt Dr. Mann would be flattered to be equated with President Obama yet he goes about trying to shut down his critics using the courts and cash.
I don’t think Dr. Mann has a snowballs chance in hell of prevailing. Unfortunately for him and his followers his failure in this litigation will translate into the perceived failure of his science in the public’s eye.
Despite his undoubted intelligence and desire to win at all costs it seems he is going to fail in many ways and on multiple levels the support of many, including the judge so far, of the good and great.
Keitho
Why use messy and protracted litigation when you have the IRS?
You make an excellent point mon ami.
Long ago I wrote to the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), urging them to weigh in on this case. I am happy to see that they have followed my advice and joined in on this amicus brief:
amicus brief from CEI, EFF, et al.
ok ok, perhaps I was not a decisive influence, but I am glad to see them getting involved in this case….
any chance of any action soon?
In Australia it takes 5-6 years to get an important case to court.
The sad thing is that Professor Mann will not have to give evidence on his work if the current appeal is upheld, unless the judge decides to call him in to defend it in order for the action to go ahead.
Can Steyn still proceed with his counter case, without an anti SLAPP ruling if Mann’s case is thrown out?
Steyn would seem to be even more of a public figure.
What the hell! Give that mann a medal. (
Ach du lieber! Four years of grad school, and for what?–A piece of paper too stiff for even a decent asswipe. Maybe diplomas should be perforated… hmmm…..
After graduating from college in 2000 apparently having already learned how “dirty” things have ran at colleges – DO NOT QUESTION PROFESSORS! – After 14 years, it is amazing how much of everything I questioned turned out to be right. I had thought the professors know everything since they did so much work but there was something I thought was not quite right but I was just young and not yet quite knowledgeable. It’s just funny how things turned out. “Liberal” professors are the worst kind that have happened to USA and everywhere else. They are not really “liberal” as they claim to be. That’s the hard earned life lesson for me. Unfortunately, not for others. They got brainwashed instead…
Ive always viewed the political spectrum not as a line but as a circle. When either side gets far enough from the center (liberal or conservative) they end up at the same place, which is basically facist.
Probably not an original thought, but…
Nickel, there are treatises about the similarities between the political extremes. Communists make the sign of the hammer and sickle at me when I mention their political future is fascism. But then, I tend to be closer of the middle, so I like to cuss at the people sitting on either side.
The difference between Communism and Fascism, which some people think is terribly important, is mere window dressing, fashion and style. The essence of both is the same. They each have an Authoritarian Utopian view of the world where the individual is an object with no rights to his/her own life, not subjects for whom the course of their life is something in their choosing but objects of the State which will use them as it sees fit for (fill in the blank). Both believe, religiously, in top down, command and control, centralized authority. Fervently. CAGW finds a comfortable home in both.
In my years in academia, I found that academics argued more and more about less and less until they went to war over nothing.
Great line!!
Politicians as well
Sounds like a nice and realistic set of marriage vows… Ha
Mann seems very reluctant to go to court and defend his good name.
When I hear the words climate science and peer reviewed, Mr. Mann somehow comes to mind.
Question Does the abusive language of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Mac Steyn pass through Judith Curry’s own Climate Etc filters?
Experimental Test Verbatim quotes will be posted as a response to this post!
The world wonders!
EXACT QUOTES (filter test)
The Competitive Enterprise Institute asserts “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
Marc Steyn asserts “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. […] Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.”
Well, it would be difficult to prove in court that Mann “molested and tortured the data” since the alleged act would have occurred in the privacy of his office.
I don’t believe proving that point is crucial to the case – if as Steve Mosher correctly points out – the piece was an opinion piece, given that Mann has been found to be a public figure.
Both quotes are excellent. Well-written, sarcastic and make the point they are trying to make. I would think so even if they were about someone I liked or agreed with. I might disagree with them but I would laugh at them and think they were well done. That’s what the 1st amendment is all about.
Outcome of Experiment The abusive language of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Mac Steyn FAILS Climate Etc moderation standards.
Fascinting!
The fact that the bloviations of FOMT are permitted here means that the moderation standards are incredibly lenient.
The FOMT is the last person who should pontificate about moderation issues.
Mann suing Steyn is like trying to win an argument in blog comments. Wouldn’t Mann be more productive doing good science than writing briefs?
I’d like to see Mann try to actually win an argument about his hockey stick in blog comments. He even has a blog.
He’s more of a feeble twitter account holder than scientist now.
Mann’s case (all of them really) boils down to one simple question. Do you have the right not to be offended? If the answer is yes, then you side with Mann. If the answer is no, then you side with Steyn et. al. Understanding there is a different level of proof for a “public person” versus a non-public person, really is irrelevant.
So the question is: Do you have a right not to be offended?
No one likes to be offended. But it is a part of life.
Actually, it’s do you have protection and more specifically, recourse for recovering damages, from being materially harmed.
No, not really. IN theory that is what it is supposed to be. But a satirists practicing his craft is not a scientist reviewing your work. Mann was not materially harmed. So the case is not about that.
Is torturing and molesting data an actual act? No, it is a sarcastic way of saying that someone has performed manipulations on it that you don’t agree with.
They worded it perfectly. One “might say” that Mann was the Sandusky of climate science but instead …. “he tortured the data”. No one reading that could think that he was saying Mann was a child molester. Someone might think it was in bad taste and think it reflected poorly on the writer. Others will think it is witty, even if they don’t agree. I really can not understand how anyone can think otherwise. Likewise the reference to a tree-ring circus. What planet are you from that you don’t know that this is all protected speech? The only thing that is questionable is the use of the term fraudulent. But taken in context, it is clear that what is meant is that they disagree with the various manipulations of the data and interpretation of the tree- rings.
Look at the climate-gate e-mails, the actual wording of the investigations, and even Way over at SkS as to how other scientists in the field, even those who follow the party line on CAGW, view Mann’s hockey stick work.
The really sad thing is that the first judge was an incompetent clown and this second one is bending over backwards to give Mann the benefit of the doubt due to the word “fraudulent”. I will be very surprised if this is not eventually thrown out or overturned if it has to go to a higher court. But, the longer it takes, the greater the miscarriage of justice and the greater the damage to the 1st amendment and free speech.
philjourdan
Re: “Do you have the right not to be offended?”
That is the essence of issue over the First Amendment Right to Free Exercise of Religion, Free Speech, and Free Press
Each has the right to state his opinion,
not a right to have one’s feelings protected.
AND
the Press has a right to freely report news AND to give opinions.
To most, especially the founders, you are EXACTLY right. Aaron Burr did not go to court. (Of course his solution is not recommended either.) But ALL speech is offensive to someone somewhere. And that is why the founders did not try to differentiate.
Protecting “I love you” speech is not heroic or noble. Protecting “I hate you” speech is both.
“So the question is: Do you have a right not to be offended?”
In a word, NO!
I agree – but others do not. That is why some support Mann in this case.
Phil,
Phil,
the answer is no. There is no right or protection against being offended .
I could argue that the crap which folks like Josh, Michael and more and more Jim D feel free to flood this site with is very offensive. But no matter how accurate my arguments might be, they have no standing. I have no protection under the law for being offended. Only a twit believes they do.
TimG56 – as I told others, I agree with you. But I think the problem goes deeper. It is part of the whole “everyone is a winner” attitude that is permeating society. No longer can you have a Valedictorian because not everyone can be a Valedictorian so others will get offended. The same way with no winner in sports, etc.
The right to not be offended is merely taking that philosophy one step further,
Why Paul Krugman writes for the NYT: 4) Financial/Political interest of friends 3)Spending money 2)He loves his wife 1)Laugh at his readers.
This comes down to Steyn calling Mann’s work “fraudulent”. If true, Mann could lose his job because fraudulence has zero tolerance in science. Steyn may not realize the special meaning of that word in academics where you can’t be fired for expressing opinions or speculations, but can be for fraudulence which is an entirely different thing. Had Mann’s work been found fraudulent, he would have lost his job by now, but it hasn’t, which is why Mann is saying Steyn can’t publish that accusation. You can’t just accuse people of career-ending crimes without proof. This is what the law should protect against.
Well, the net result of all this for Mann’s career is that he has been promoted to Distinguished Professor at Penn State. Not exactly what I would call ‘damage’
Academics can get fired for research misconduct: falsification, fabrication, plagiarism
“Academics can get fired for research misconduct: falsification, fabrication, plagiarism”
So do people in the private sector.
Just not in politics unfortunately.
So Judith, it would be OK for a national paper/journal to proclaim that you had committed serious scientific fraud, as long as it seemed to have no discernible effect on your career?
That is how the law is structured. If there is no damage, there is no libel or slander.
What I have see across 37 years of fairly close observations of academe (16 yrs inside, 21 yrs out) is that enforcement of standards are incredibly haphazard and subjective. Anyone who is not of a “politically correct” orientation (that can mean views more than skin color or gender, but also the latter) is far more likely to get crucified over minor infractions or non-existent infractions. Departments and Schools protect some faculty miscreants and destroy others, with great arbitrariness in many cases.
When I was involved with campus student discipline I would watch (helplessly) while some students got the boot from campus when far more egregious infractions received only a wrist slap at most, depending upon the “socio-political” status of the alleged offender(s).
Among faculty, otoh, some of the worst perps continue on unsanctioned, often in ever-rising prominence, so long as they serve the interests of the relevant powers. Michael Mann has not been subject of even one competent investigation, yet he pretends he has been “cleared” numerous times. His story is an example of the willful obtuseness and worse of academic Commisars.
ofc this is just the anonymous musing of a keyboard warrior… but I have seen the double-standards and non-standards practiced across quite a variety of institutions, public and private, famous and obscure. I don’t say that academics are generally the worst people in the world, just that they turned out to be (overall) little like the exemplary rational, ethical role models that I was expecting when I first entered the hallowed grounds nearly 4 decades ago.
I don’t see how his analysis could be valid support for his conclusions (global temps were stable…). Isn’t that in essence fraud?
Corporations are similar. I saw very good managers get nailed and forced out, and I saw awful, dumb, dishonest ones get promoted. In one case an individual with hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of mistakes made it to CEO, and nearly sank the company. It also happens in politics.
Skiphil, Fernando, likewise in politics and the public service. Saddening and sometimes sickening.
Judith, exactly, and fabrication is what Steyn is accusing him of. This is a very serious charge in academic circles. Steyn, being not at all academic, may not be aware of the significance of the words he used.
You are really lame, jimmy dee. Steyn can’t charge anybody with anything. He doesn’t have any jurisdiction or authority. He is just a freaking little columnist. He offers his opinions on various subjects. When it comes to public figures, like bigheaded publicity hound alleged climate scientists, he get’s to go all hyperbolic. It’s basic first amendment stuff, jimmy. Read the amicus briefs. Are you going to disagree with the ACLU, the LA Times and the WaPo, jimmy? This must really be hurting your little pointy head.
Did manny defame Judith, when he called her anti-science and serial dis-informer?
@Don
Here is the irony. By basically ignoring Mann’s infantile tirades, Dr. Curry is saying she cares nothing for Mann’s opinion. For a scientist, that is perhaps the greatest insult!
But Mann, having decided to sue Steyn, is saying he greatly values Steyn’s opinion.
Frankly, I enjoy Dr. Curry’s slap at Mann. It also shows a great deal of maturity on her part, and childish petulance on Mann’s.
JimD, “and fabrication is what Steyn is accusing him of.”
Technically, that is all Mann does, fabricate data where there is none. His methods are in question and some, Rob Wilson for example have called his work “a Crock of $hit”, which I assume would be actionable as well if the reason weren’t true in the case of mysterious tree ring leap years. Mann also assisted on the Antarctic Warming paper that made the cover of Nature though the corrigendum didn’t get as mush “climate science” press. So Mann’s hockey stick is not the only thing about his work that has been “questioned”.
Don M, as a journalist you can’t write a column and say Mr. So-and-so is a murderer without qualification, like “I think” or “maybe”, or unless you think you can prove it. Journalists are held to standards too, and they have lines they can’t cross when it comes to libel and defamation.
Journalists held to standards? Since when?
Rathergate.
Are you playing ignorant, jimmy? Do you know the difference between reporting something as being allegedly factual and expressing an opinion? Steyn is not a journalist. He is a commentator. Read the amicus briefs. You are just making a fool of yourself, again.
The closest liberal defense of Mann:
Gene Lyons: Cool off, climate change deniers
Don M, you don’t seem to know that Steyn wants this day in court because he is convinced of fraudulence. It is not just an opinion to him, which is why we have this clash and why it has gone this far.
You are not very bright, jimmy. Even if Steyn believes it is a fact, it is still his opinion. Look up the words, jimmy. Read the briefs. Ask someone to help you. Hey, consult the ACLU.
If true, Mann could lose his job.
Well said Jim D.
Suing someone implies a lot of worry in the Mann camp.
Could implies in the future, not the past.
If wishing to prove his work he could be more open about it, give out his code and run people through the proof.
Not sue them, the proof comes in proving the work, against arguments, not by suing people.
Mann doesn’t have to prove anything. Steyn has to prove his accusation of fraudulent scientific conduct was founded, not false which is plain defamation. Remember that an error doesn’t count as fraudulence unless it is a deliberate one. As the hockey stick was one of the first papers on the subject, it would be hard to argue he knew better and published it anyway. Scientists just don’t have any desire to publish things that they know can easily be shown wrong.
Jim D – you must not be an American. Your statement is 180 degrees wrong.
Mann has to prove everything. Steyn has to prove nothing. As an opinion, Mann has to prove Steyn knew it was wrong (very doubtful since there is no proof it is NOT fraudulent) and that Steyn knew it was wrong.
That is how libel works in the USA. You cannot be sued for making an erroneous statement, only if you knew it was erroneous and made anyway.
Jim D
He knew better when he first published spliced records that the tree rings were showing a drop in temp, not a rise in the latter half of 20th century. It was referred to as Mike’s nature trick.
While the words trick and fraudulent may not totally parse with you, you must agree that he should not have hidden the fact that the tree records bore no resemblance to the temperature records at that time so he had no reason to conjoin the two.
Jim D, making a mistake may be forgivable. Going to great lengths to defend your mistake after it’s been pointed out – not so much.
phatboy, the law makes a distinction between a mistake and a fabrication. It is fine to criticize people for making mistakes. No one will get sued for that. This is perhaps subtle, so people are having trouble following it.
Jim D, a mistake is a mistake. When it doggedly continues to be pushed long after it’s been shown to be a mistake, then it could be argued that it becomes something else.
phatboy, no you can’t be sued for mistaken thinking unless that leads to you publicly accusing someone of criminal behavior. The limits are in the publishing, not the thinking. The press are very careful to use “allegedly” when talking about unproven accusations, and that is for a reason.
“Mann doesn’t have to prove anything. Steyn has to prove”
Nope, by law, since Mann is a public figure the totality of that responsibility is his.
If true, Mann could lose his job because fraudulence has zero tolerance in science
There is criminal fraud and layman’s fraud.
I.E. Most of us would agree that Billy Joe Bob of Billy Joe Bob’s Auto Emporium is a liar, thief and a fraud.
Yet Billy Joe Bob has never been prosecuted and never will be prosecuted.
Billy Joe Bob is a master at being factually correct and at the same time being almost unbelievably misleading.
Heck…Lawyers are paid to present facts in a manner ‘most advantages’ to their clients…which means at least half the time ‘misleading’.
Laymen tend to label any statements that are deliberately misleading as ‘fraudulent’…lawyers label them as ‘presenting facts in the light most favorable to the client’.
Was Steyn using the laymen’s definition or lawyers definition?
Jim D | August 15, 2014 at 8:05 am | Reply
“Had Mann’s work been found fraudulent, he would have lost his job by now, but it hasn’t, which is why Mann is saying Steyn can’t publish that accusation. You can’t just accuse people of career-ending crimes without proof. This is what the law should protect against.”
It is worth pointing out that there are entirely different consequences between “being fraudulent,” “being called fraudulent,” and “being found fraudulent.” Unless I am mistaken this lawsuit is about whether Steyn slandered Mann in a legal sense, not whether Mann was being fraudulent. In any event Mann’s employer does not have to recognize the ruling of a court or other body. I would be surprised if anyone believes that any decision regarding this lawsuit would effect Mann’s employment.
Is my 10:45 comment still awaiting moderation?
deal with it yourself, Mummy’s busy
And, of course, several of the briefs made the point that a public figure, engaging in an important debate wshould expect to encounter rhetorical hyperbole. In particular, the ALF brief brings up the very cool example from Pompeii AD 79 with graffiti “The petty thieves support Vatia for
aedile” and “the late night drinkers all ask you to elect Marcus Cerrinius Vatia as aedile.”.
So, essentially the briefs comes out directly against your argument that ‘fraudulent’ is somehow off limits.
Jim D
But CLIMATE scientists have not been willing to address the ‘”unscientific” aspects of Mann’s work. –
Developing a “statistical method” that creates “hockey sticks” from red noise and calling it “science”.
“Hiding the decline” of deleting inconvenient data that disproves his thesis.
Inverting data and claiming that supports his thesis. etc.
See McIntyre and McKitric’s “hockey stick studies”
That is the OPPOSITE of Physics Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman’s standard of “Scientific Integrity”.
If that is not scientific “misconduct” what is?
Or have “climate scientists” also inverted “scientific integrity” to “the public good” due to what the rest of the world calls “noble cause corruption”?
Jim D
Re: Noble Cause Corruption
By “torturing the data” “tree ring circus” etc., Steyn lambasts Mann specifically on Mann’s corruption of the scientific method.
e.g. See:
All in a good cause: Framing science for public policy Professor Aynsley Kellow, Brisbane Club Lecture Series
Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science, by Aynsley Kellow (Edward Elgar, 2007, 218 pages)
Kellow cites Mann 41 times in his examples of corrupted climate science!
Review by J. Marohasy
presentation on Noble Cause Corruption
” You can’t just accuse people of career-ending crimes without proof. This is what the law should protect against.”
1. He didnt make a factual accusation. He asserted an opinion which is protected speech.
2. Mann is a public figure debating a topic of great social importance.
we have laws governing that. Those laws give critics great latitude to do exactly what Styen did.
Mosh
I don’t know the American judicial system but some of the commenters here seem to imply that certain judges have a political bias.is that correct?
if so ot seems disturbing that if your views are different to the judges that might count more than the facts as presented,.surely that isn’t what happens?
Tony, that has long been a feature of the US judicial system, and is also a factor in Australia.
Steve Mosher, the judge did not see it as an opinion. Rather it was as I described it. “Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.”
Tony B. said:
” seems disturbing that if your views are different to the judges that might count more than the facts as presented,.surely that isn’t what happens?
Tony , get a load of this, in Canada.
Supreme Court Justice dealing with environmental issues (her husband is a very high profile lawyer for the Green cause), joins with a foreign anti-oil group to stage a mock trial for David Suzuki on the charge of speaking out..
The set up involves real lawyers pretending that Canada has become an evil state controlled by oil and Suzuki is the victim, and an actual sitting Supreme Court Justice.
Never mind that it’s the exact reverse of the true situation – Suzuki is the one calling for the jailing of those who disagree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nARIP90l9Q
Jim D, – can you cite exactly how much grant money Mann has guided into Penn State coffers? They regard him as WILDLY SUCCESSFUL. Obama has earmarked another billion dollars to promote more of this same “science”, and you think the people lapping up this money are going to be held in low regard or fired? Uh, no.
“You can’t just accuse people of career-ending crimes without proof.”
The trial court didn’t find the accusation constituted a “crime.” In fact, in order to find the comments defamatory, the court had to eschew the legal/criminal definition of fraud and use a “dictionary” definition. Which is just one of the many incompetent rulings by the court.
No, Steyn is not in a position to professional evaluate Mann’s work. So any university using the word of a commentator to judge the work of its professors is stupid.
But then again, given its recent past behavior, intelligence and integrity are not the hallmarks of the university that Mann works for. And that may be his fear.
“Had Mann’s work been found fraudulent, he would have lost his job by now,”
Perhaps, had there been an independent investigation they would have. Is this why Mann is dragging his feet on the law suit? He will have to turn his work over independent scrutiny where he can’t control who looks at it. The same University that covered up the Sandusky affair did the investigation of one of there own, again, with Mann. Hardly a sterling recommendation of Mann’s veracity.
So why do you think he is so reluctant to have any one look under the hood of his work that isn’t a very ‘friendly?’
Jim D: Do you really think universities fire professors because bloggers claim their work is fraudulent? Wake up and smell the flowers: my sister made a formal complaint about serious faults at a prestigious organization’s medical research lab. Do you know what happened? Nothing.
They don’t, but you can’t go around publishing libelous statements either. We saw this in the other direction a while back with blogged accusations about East Anglia too.
Jim,
Who said a sucker was born every minute? Doesn’t matter. Jim D proves the validity of the statement
Jim D, you can’t lose your job as a result of someone saying some of your work is fraudulent, any more than you can be sent to jail simply because someone called you a murderer.
But if you actually did commit fraud or murder than it’s a completely different kettle of fish.
However, in neither case can your detractors be reasonably punished – in one case they were expressing an opinion, and in the other they were telling the truth.
“This comes down to Steyn calling Mann’s work ‘fraudulent’ ”
I think Mann might have more reason to be worried if an accusation of fraud were raised in an academic/scientific forum. It wasn’t. The suggestion was in a political commentary piece by a conservative pundit.
This might be a problem professionally for Mann if scientific journals, funding agencies, professional societies, and academic institutions actually took opinion pieces in the National Review into account in their decisions to hire, fire, promote, publish, and fund.
But from everything I can see Mann seems to be doing just fine on all those fronts.
Is his work “fraudulent”? I don’t know, but I doubt it. It may be flawed and erroneous. But that is for the scientific process to adjudicate, not a court of law.
His behaviour may be offensive and off-putting (to say the least, as Judith’s experience attests). But that’s not fraud.
Science, as Judith knows as well as I do, has quite a few offensive jerks. Similarly, political punditry is full of silly, sophomoric rhetoric.
The collision between the two worlds is happening because climate science strayed into political advocacy. A very different world from AGU symposia and journals’ comment-and-reply pages.
see also this piece in Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorburrus/2014/08/14/hopefully-dr-michael-e-mann-doesnt-sue-me-for-this-column/
wrhoward: http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorburrus/2014/08/14/hopefully-dr-michael-e-mann-doesnt-sue-me-for-this-column/
Thanks for the link. Playground tattle-tale, I hope, will have a long life in this context.
Jim D: This comes down to Steyn calling Mann’s work “fraudulent”. If true, Mann could lose his job because fraudulence has zero tolerance in science.
Steyn applied the word “fraudulent” to the “hockey stick”. Possibly a stretch but the IPCC took the corresponding graph off of its web page, supporting Steyn’s appraisal.
Nobody with grant money is going to lose a job because a music and drama critic who writes opinion pieces on social and political topics calls one result of the work “fraudulent.” In response to serious allegations, PSU launched a superficial whitewash of Mann, and included in its report the fact that he brought PSU lots of grant money. Only a John Dingell type audit of the grant money and research standards could hurt Mann.
This case will hinge on whether the judges read the texts carefully.
He said the hockey-stick was fraudulent and there was a tree-ring circus. The context matters and shows this is normal political hyperbole.
Given that trees apparently make great thermometers (/sarc) but suddenly since the 1950’s they no longer do and that this data was deleted and/or hidden in the graphs and that so many “non-skeptic” scientists agree in private that the HS work was done poorly, I think once the judge looks at the details he will agree.
I don’t think it’s just about free speech, it’s also about demonstrating and publicizing that Mann’s work and claims are invalid.
“The link between ‘defending Michael Mann is defending climate science’ seems to have been broken.”
Abandoning a sinking ship.
Mann made climate science, though. Bits of stuff can be thrown together and assembled into a conclusion, leading to very attractive money. That was his invention.
The public won’t go along anymore now.
The bits of stuff are enough to cling to, and used to be enough to interest science. Just don’t reassemble the bits into a grand picture that they don’t in fact support.
IIRC, the Climate Legal Defense Fund which finances Mann is a front/tax shelter for wealthy activists.
It’s interesting that Krugman identifies so strongly with Mann. Two ivory tower elitists who think they can issue their proclamations to the commoners with no accountability except an occasional University coverup “investigation” designed to obfuscate. Krugman is so wrong about all of this but he slithers under the cover of the NYTimes OPED pages.
The relationship of junk economics, Keynes in the hands of the likes of Krugman and extreme activist climate science with no empirical proofs is striking in itself.
Economic academia was in many ways a forerunner of the IPCC coordinating science “consensus” for the purpose of gathering undemocratic governing authority. Both are linked to war economy thinking and rationalizations which really was the root of Keynesianism. In both cases the state supplants the individual for the “common good”.
I am reluctant to comment fearing a possible lawsuit if my view offends.
I take that as an actionable assault on me! See you in court!
(Or with the Court Jester.)
We can’t control what other people say, subject on occasion to legal redress, We can control our own reactions to it: we cause our own suffering by reacting, there is no suffering if you remain equanimous. If Mann is so distressed by Steyn , he needs to look within himself for the cause.
I find Mann’s general behaviour towards people who disagree with him just disgusting. Maybe Twitter has a corrupting influence, but in his case this is much more.
BUT STILL: equating his scientific practices with the behaviour of a child molester deserves punishment. This is just beyond the limit of decent behaviour, and should not be protected by free spech, regardless of how famous the targeted person is (or – usually – believes to be).
Just my German gut feeling.
Agricultural Economist
Read what Mark Steyn ACTUALLY said, and inferred, not what Mann misconstrues him to have said.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK STEYN
“his is just beyond the limit of decent behaviour, and should not be protected by free spech”
The speech is no free and someone gets to decide what can and not be said; Saddam had a system like that,
AE, I think that is drawing on the link to Penn State, which protected a child molester then protected a data abuser.
Let’s try this out and see if it works.
faustino could be said to be the H*tler of the climate debate, except that instead of exterminating women and children, he has exterminated the notion of good faith exchange in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.
Joshua, you seem to be forgetting that this Steyn v. Mann fracas is currently a LEGAL controversy about US defamation law and Washington DC’s anti-SLAPP stature.
What anyone thinks about the goodness of Steyn (or goodness or badness of anyone here), or about the fairness of Steyn’s language and comparisons, is not relevant to the legal case(s).
Did Steyn defame, in legal terms, the “public figure” Michael Mann?
Does the DC anti-SLAPP statute apply to Mann’s legal complaint and thus require Mann’s suit to be thrown out?
You are trying to change the subject of this thread.
Josh, I am confident in saying that you are a self abuser based on the crap you post here.
so sue me.
Yep, you got it Joshie. That is what free speech is all about. You did not really harm faustino and we all know this is hyperbole.
you’re german. maybe you will appreciate some precision
1. metaphors dont equate, they liken
2. the subject was Penn states system of investigation
3. if it is just beyond the limit then you obviously have a way of measuring the limit. please share that method.
would it be ok if I compared him to a holocaust denier?
or to a murderer?
how about a serial killer?
jaywalker?
bank robber?
I got it . If you compare him to someone who would serve more than 10 years in jail for the crime.. then that’s the limit.
Here is a clue. Styen has a right to his obnoxious opinions. that is what he did. he expressed an obnoxious opinion.
More proof Josh is a self abuser.
He knows Mosher reads comments here and also knows that the M man can spank the Joshie as easily as he blinks.
Offensive, isn’t it?
I wonder if Judith will delete it for its offensive nature. Would make sense if she did.
But then again, it might display some….er….selectivity.
Joshua, why should Judith just delete it. You have made some dire accusations against faustino (“Hitler”, “exterminated good faith”, “dire consequences for the planet”).
By all the logic you’ve offered above, shouldn’t faustino sue you, and shouldn’t he collect? After all, what are your mere 1st amendment rights compared to the pain you caused by your vile accusations. He has the right not to be offended, correct?
Tom –
I think it is offensive, and I wrote it. It would make sense if Judith deleted it, given the blog moderation rules.
As to whether it is libel – I respect faustino’s right to file suit, and I respect the courts to decide accordingly. If the court were to rule against me, I wouldn’t equate that with an attack on free speech. It would be a ruling in one case, decided on its merits.
I’m not saying that I think that Mann should or shouldn’t win the case. I don’t really care one way or the other and I don’t have an opinion on the legal merits on either side.
My point is the defense of Steyn’s offensive speech – by people who frequently decry the damage that offensive speech is doing in the climate wars. And the hand-wringing about the future of free speech rights hangs in the balance. So much drama-queening!
IMO, this is just same ol’ same ol’ to the nth degree: drama queening and personality politics on both sides. Identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors.
Joshua,
“My point is the defense of Steyn’s offensive speech – by people who frequently decry the damage that offensive speech is doing in the climate wars. And the hand-wringing about the future of free speech rights hangs in the balance. So much drama-queening!”
Really? You see no material difference between people decrying language on a blog or calling for less heat in a discussion and someone suing for defamation? Really?
Joshua, It is all related to the topic of the post. Do a few more of those Hitler thingies, they are funny. How about “most people who post here are similar to Holocaust deniers, but instead of denying the Holocaust, they deny the truth of Mann and the truth of Climate Change(TM).”
Oh wait, that one has been out there for years and you seem to have no trouble with it, nor does Mann. And we argue it is not nice and in bad taste, but Judith has not taken Mann to court since she is aware of the 1st amendment and not a complete narcissist.
“equating his scientific practices with the behaviour of a child molester deserves punishment. ”
You should be aware that Steyn did NOT make this comparison himself, he merely reported it and offered an opinion on it. So whle such should, perhaps, be actionable, Steyn should not be the target of such action.
IMO.
The Agricultural Economist obviously did not take the trouble to be sure of his facts before venturing an opinion, which seems to be occuring a lot when it is about the subject of climate change.
Agricultural Economist: BUT STILL: equating his scientific practices with the behaviour of a child molester deserves punishment.
Steyn did not “equate” Mann’s scientific practice with the “behaviour of a child molester.” David L. Hagen has supplied the exact languate. What were “equated” were the superficial “investigations” and “exonerations” of Sandusky and Mann by PSU committees. The committees deserved calumny.
Matthew R. Marler could be said to be the H*tler of the climate debate, except that instead of exterminating jews and h*mosexuals he has exterminated the notion of good faith exchange in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.
Joshua: Matthew R. Marler could be said to be the H*tler of the climate debate, except that instead of exterminating jews and h*mosexuals he has exterminated the notion of good faith exchange in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that’s actionable.
You’re certainly entitled to that opinion. Just as Mann is entitled to his opinion that in his situation, he has a case to be made. Let the court decide. And somehow, I suspect, that life for the vast, vast, vast, vast majority will continue unchanged no matter which way the court decides.
Once again we see an important issue – in this case freedom of speech – held hostage to partisan bickering in the climate wars.
Same ol’ same ol’ to the nth degree.
Agricultural Economist
BUT STILL: equating his scientific practices with the behaviour of a child molester deserves punishment. This is just beyond the limit of decent behaviour, and should not be protected by free spech, regardless of how famous the targeted person is (or – usually – believes to be).
Can you back that up by citing evidence?
It’s not equating, to show similarity in some respects.
When I see people like Paul Krugman, Bill Nye (wrote the forward to the paperback edition of Mann’s book), Chris Mooney (all kinds of softball interviews), Naomi Oreskes (supposed historian of science) and Christopher Hayes (won’t interview skeptics, but will interview Mann), I have to wonder if they have actually looked at the actual criticism of Mann’s hockey stick. Reliance on just a few proxies, incorrect PCA that overweights hockey sticks, refusal to release adverse R squared results, … the Wahl and Ammann farce — these are not minor flaws. These are major errors and omissions!
• Accusations of scientific fraud must be refuted by multiple independent investigations.
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Albert Einstein
Guess someone does no agree with you , and in fact their dead right ONE study is enough if that study proves your claims are BS in the first place for its up to those making the claim to prove them. In science they use ‘CRITICAL analysis for a reason.
That is a salient observation Judith Curry!
Lesson for Climate-Science Students:
Michael Mann’s Recipe for Success
• First-author an article that is cited thousands of times (1,705 and counting)
• The key findings of this article must be independently affirmed by dozens of independent studies
• Accusations of scientific fraud must be refuted by multiple independent investigations.
• Abusive and/or slanderous slurs must be met first with collegial requests for apology and retraction, then (if necessary) with court action.
Summary The weight of scientific evidence broadly affirms Mann’s 1999 postulate, that anthropogenic effects are causing “hockey-stick” climate changes.
Conclusion Michael Mann’s personal mannerisms are irritating to many, and yet his scientific accomplishments, and his vigorous pushback against abuse and smears, both provide an outstanding role model for research students.
Good on `yah, Michael Mann! Students take notes!
good on yah, FOMBS!
you continue your nearly perfect record of adding nothing of value to this website!
When will FOMBS write something worth reading? The world waits and wonders, breathlessly….
So that is why Michael Mann is the poster child for noble cause corruption!?
Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science, by Aynsley Kellow (Edward Elgar, 2007, 218 pages) Kellow cites Mann 41 times in his examples of corrupted climate science!
Way to go!
JAMES DELINGPOLE writes: MANN V STEYN: IF THIS TRIAL EVER GOES AHEAD GLOBAL WARMING IS TOAST
He links to: The Climategate Inquiries, Andrew Montford
Mann’s push back is so stunning that military historians will be writing about him for centuries.
Ok, maybe not. Only Mann thinks he’s a warrior king. Sad, really.
You forgot about tweeting Climate Change Denier insults all over the place. He is good at that. But, apparently that is ok and not actionable. What a bunch of nasty hypocrites many of you are.
Fan…You know how untrue all those points are because you obviously follow the story. Yet you continue to push the lies. . Disgusting.
chuckr –
I simply pass on by Fannie’s drivel.
It’s not worth my time or yours.
Please don’t feed the trolls.
Love how Krugman uses the terms “sin” and “evil” so freely in his “article”. About time the orthodoxy quit hiding being the curtain and come out as the full religious movement that it is.
John Maynard Keynes, who Paul Krugman bases his entire personality cult upon as if he was a successor, dies deeply depressed and defeated economist in 1946. He all but acknowledged his depression era policies (which Krugman worships) had failed. That’s IRONY for the clowns trying pass Krugman off as an academic authority. In any era Keynes would have known Krugman for the jack ass that he as always been.
So Krugman is like a grave robbing slander machine to the very memory JM Keynes. It’s a pity he hadn’t the length of life to fully refute much of what he embraced as policy which is still distorted by the current state expansionists and modern socialist movements of which Krugman is certainly a member.
Many people misunderstand or read different things into this particular dispute. Mann’s lawsuit is not “just” about the language used by Steyn and Simberg, but whether people are obligated to accept the findings of government inquiries as proven fact – a principle that, to my knowledge, has not been previously advanced in American or other jurisprudence and one that ought to be firmly rejected even by Nick Stokes.
An essential component of Mann’s pleadings was that he had been “exonerated” by numerous government inquiries. Mann further argued that Simberg and Steyn were obliged to accept these findings as true. This line of argument was necessary to overcome the great difficulty faced by “public figures” in the US in demonstrating “actual malice” as it is defined in libel law.
Obviously, as a factual matter, Mann was not exonerated by the University of East Anglia, NOAA or the UK Government. Steyn calls these false assertions “fraudulent”. (Mann’s use of such transparently and easily provable false claims in his pleadings was a strange tactic, but that is a different story.) However, ACLU et al do not debate the factual status of the claims, but whether Simberg or Steyn were obliged to accept the findings of the government inquiries. They say that US citizens have a First Amendment right to dispute the findings of government inquiries. They further add that Simberg had reported the contrary findings of the inquiry, linked to it and adduced reasons for disputing the results of the inquiry. They strongly supported the right of Simberg and Steyn to dispute findings by government agencies, be it EPA or Penn State.
I am convinced that this is the battleground issue in this case. It is or ought to be relatively easy to decide. It seemed clear enough previously, but ACLU et al are completely convincing.
Courts like to follow options which enable them to avoid difficult decisions if they can reach a decision on an alternative easy ground. By deciding the case on these issues, the Court can avoid confronting other more difficult issues and I predict that this is what they’ll do.
I share Nick Stokes’ view that science ought to be debated without allegations of “fraud”, but Mann long ago abandoned that position. I have consistently refrained from such accusations in public, regardless of what I might think in private, a posture that has been criticized both by supporters and opponents (but not by Stokes.)
Mann:
“The CDM … It is this well-organized and well-funded apparatus that supports and nurtures the larger conservative echo chamber of climate change denialism. ”
I keep waiting for my check for being part of the CDM but it just never seems to come. What am I doing wrong?
Nickels
Surely you know that Judith gets a large amount of funding from all sorts of sceptical organisations and then gives sceptics who comment on this site a monthly allowance? I get 500 dollars a month but suspect others get more. how much do you get? :)
Tonyb
Tonyb –
Wow! that’s all you get? You should consider switching over to “the team.”
There’s a common theme at “skeptical” websites that “the team” pays people to write comments at “skeptical” blogs (you know, to “distract” and “derail” “skeptics” from their history-changing activities).
Indeed they do. It’s upsetting that “skeptics” have figured out the plot.
But we get paid much better than y’all. Do you get bonuses every time someone lobs an insult your way like we do?
I knew it! I guess I haven’t been around long enough but will be getting a check at some point.
Well Joshie, what then is your motivation?
Joshua said:
“There’s a common theme at “skeptical” websites that “the team” pays people to write comments at “skeptical” blogs”
really? If they are common , you should be able to show.
I’ve seen comments about NASA workers like Gavin online at RealClimate seemingly during work hours, but that’s about it.
Examples please, Joshua.
tingtg –
Ok, “common” is definitely a stretch (hyperbolic, I agree). I’d guess that such speculation has been directed my way at the most maybe 10 or so times.
phatboy –
==> “Well Joshie, what then is your motivation?
Dude. I just acknowledged that is my motivation. What else could it possibly be?
No really, joking aside, what is your motivation?
“There’s a common theme at “skeptical” websites that “the team” pays people to write comments at “skeptical” blogs (you know, to “distract” and “derail” “skeptics” from their history-changing activities).”
huh?
1. it’s not a common theme. at best its fringe.
2. there was a coordinated effort to send people to skeptical blogs
to make comments.
3. No one of note, no one with a verifiable identity, has ever claimed that the team “pays” people to derail skeptics.
4. you might find a few random comments asserting similar claims but its not common and not typically the claim you are claiming they make.
Here is a good test.
Go to WUWT its the most heavily trafficed site. If a theme is common your should find it there. if you dont find it there its not common.
Find a person claiming that I am paid to derail their conversations.
Steven, Anthony Watts once claimed that Nick Stokes might be paid to post there.
==> “No really, joking aside, what is your motivation?”
My main motivation is related to understanding a bit about how bias affects how people (including myself) learn, reason, and create meaning – which stems from a personal interest in epistemology and the science of teaching/learning,. This is a target-rich environment for exploring those issues.
I also share a motivation with what I assume to be that of most people here: To understand the realities of the effects of ACO2 on the climate and to explore the related policy/societal implications thereof – and to have a few laughs when doing so. Mosher’s comments are a target-rich environment for that last part.
“Joseph | August 15, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
Steven, Anthony Watts once claimed that Nick Stokes might be paid to post there.”
1. it was widely believed that Nick was part of the Crusher crew.
2. Joshua makes a specific claim about paid to derail.
3. cite your evidence. I dont doubt it, but Joshua’s position deserves a fair hearing. If he is right, then he is right. a link will help. I have no issue criticizing Anthony. ask anybody
phatboy
Joshua has no priveledged access to his motivations. You learn nothing by asking him what his motivations are. What you get is his interpretation of what his motives are. He will, as most people do, offer up a commentary on what he perceives his motivations to be. To do this he excludes certain evidence of his motivation that others see. In short he must present a unified vision of himself and his motivations. He can’t see his conflicts.
It’s best to avoid the question and focus on the behavior. Put another way, the behavior is what matters. The same behavior can come from different motivations. Understanding motivations is secondary and a distraction. one, because their is no clear way of understanding them and two because in the end the behavior matters more,
Mosh, Josh doesn’t do irony – something he proves at every opportunity
Mosher “it was widely believed that Nick was part of the crusher crew” and that’s a reason/excuse? Widely believed? On what evidence? The same as is used to believe in a conspiracy of climate scientists? Why can’t you just say it was baloney?
Here you Steve:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/anthony-watts-stokes-another-crazy.html
Problem joseph:
That doesnt support what Joshua Argued.
Joshua argued it was a common theme at skeptical blogs that the team
pays people to distract and derail.
1. The post refers to comments Nick made at ClimateAudit. mcIntyre isnt a skeptic.
2. Nick comments at WUWT without any subsequent claims of being paid.
3. Anthony offered two explanations.
The best one could argue is that Once on the most popular Skeptical blog the owner offered two explanations for the behavior of a commenter at another blog, one of which included taking money.
That is what the evidence is. Not a common theme that the team pays people to distract and derail.
“me”
it was believed on very little evidence.
start here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/30/skeptical-science-shouting-and-joe-romms-integrity-a-test/
Steven Mosher | August 15, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
“Problem joseph:
2. Nick comments at WUWT without any subsequent claims of being paid.”
Not quite:
“Nick Go obfuscate the truth someplace else. Now I’m SURE you are a paid troll.”
But I was allowed back later.
Steven Mosher | August 15, 2014 at 1:36 pm
“1. it was widely believed that Nick was part of the Crusher crew”
Now they say I’m part of the Mosher crew :(
ha. nick
well that kinda settles it.
Joshua looks to be correct. we might quibble about the phrase “common theme” but that would just be quibbling.
he is actually ‘sure’ that you get paid to obsfucate..
wow. just wow.
A couple of comments later Anthony equivocates:
“REPLY: Yeah, Nick either can’t help himself, as his many years of working for CSIRO has produced an institutionalized reaction to anything contrary to the monthly newsletter, or he’s simply paid to come here and sow obfuscation. Given he’s often one of the earliest commenters for anything contrary to his world view, I expect he has a trigger mechanism setup to alert him so he can derail threads early on with his particular brand of diversion.
Bottom line: increased CO2 forcing with no resulting increase in temperature, means no warming, and WMO believes there was warming. Bad science, just PR – no cookie. – Anthony”
Does Anthony really believe that nicky is a paid troll? I don’t think so. Does McIntyre really believe that nicky is a race horse? Has little joshie ever been right?
If I got a nickel for identifying each time Josh showed his ass, I might be a millionaire.
But as it is a free market, guys like Mosher would have me on a freeway off ramp holding a cardboard sign.
Paid troll? It’s still right now the received truth
“REPLY: Even though he denies it, I’m pretty sure Nick is paid to do what he does.”
OK, maybe “pretty sure” is down from “SURE”.
Comments that Nick is paid are just plain stupid.
Seriously.. Today I saw another wuwtsian claim trolls were Paid.
Stunning lack of skepticism
Josh was right
Mosher said
“Comments that Nick is paid are just plain stupid.
Seriously.. Today I saw another wuwtsian claim trolls were Paid.
Stunning lack of skepticism
Josh was right”
You’re right and you;re wrong, Steve.
Anthony says things he shouldn’t, as a type of leader of the pack.
However, the by Josh is not “common” but “common theme”.
So Josh is not proven right.
“The CDM …”
I find it amusing that Mann uses this TLA, given that the EU uses it for “Clean Development Mechanism” in support of action on AGW.
You are giving it away for free, man!! Why should they pay you. You need to hold out for higher pay (above zero)! :)
As always in the discussion of Mann vs. Steyn, I’m so struck by the willful blindness of the faithful, that I can’t quite believe they’re serious. These should not be partisan matters. Whatever one’s position on C02, we should all be able to agree that Mann’s lawsuit, were he to prevail, would be deeply injurious to our precious right of free speech. Even the liberal media get it.
There is a strong force in all of us that influences our view of what we perceive to be reality. We instinctively want our beliefs reinforced. It’s really a good quality usually. It’s what allows humans to achieve greatness even when logic says it won’t happen. but then there’s the downside. We see it all the time. A good example is Ferguson Did you see the reactions of people when confronted with evidence that their martyr and chief witness had just robbed a store and shoved and threatened the clerk. Denial….,photo shop…question the timing. (i make no judgement on what happened by the way…I don’t know) But the the unwillingness to accept reality seems very familiar. ………. Joshua,Michael, Jim D etc…Yeah but you do it too….i know we do it too
Here we have Paul Krugman, the quint essential Keynesian economic junk scientist and conspiracy theorist who gave up academics some 25 years ago to write the same class war, wealth redistribution screed over and over in the NYTimes ties right into its cousin; Michael Mann and the Global Warming mitigation advocate. Two sides of the same coin.
We’re on to our 6th year of the chosen one who has dutifully followed the very worst Keynesian doctrines and employment participation is at 50 year lows, personal income down 23% since 2008. Since most of that falls on private sector workers it’s considered good news to him. You wouldn’t trust Krugman to read a thermometer either.
Just want to point out that Steyn’s comments (quoting someone else) about the Sandusky affair is that if Penn State covered up Sandusky then it’s “review” of Mann’s work is not worth much. There was nothing about child molesting. This shows wilfull bad reading comprehension to interpret it that way.
That is a good point. I did not read the original comment and am relieved to hear it wasn’t an analogy of child abouse but of Penn State competence in investigations.
Scott
Scott, you should read the original column. You can find it on Steyn’s site I believe. The idea that Steyn was calling Mann a child molester, or that he was comparing him to a child molester, perpetuated over and over again by the faithful right here on C.E., is simply wrong. But of course it conveniently fits their narrative.
Yes. That is a good point.
That Sandusky is a child-molester was just coincidental. There’s no way anyone could have anticipated that anyone would think that the comparison was being made to a child molester.
It was unforeseeable. And obviously not intended.
Otherwise, Steyn, being the sensitive type that he is, who eschews polemics, hyperbole, and insulting comparisons, would surely not have quoted the analogy..
Joshua,
Some parts might be coincidental. Nevertheless, make for a well- fitting analogy. The coincidental part is that they both were at the same institution.
Against-the-rules manipulation. Ref. his inclusion of data that is against his own methodology rules.
“Investigation” by same university implicated in the whitewash of Sandusky.
Josh, kinda like the term “denier” huh? Well, if I am a denier, then Mann is a molester, a climate molester.
I get your point here Joshua. The two sides hate each other when you discuss it off media. My point to you is that you defacto support by your board presence calling people “Holocaust Deniers”. Show me the link where you take your warming supporters and fanatics like Fanboy to task??? I’ve been here for years and I’ve never seen it.
Steyn can defend himself but yes using “Sandusky” and “Penn State” is fairly nasty in the imagery department. It’s difficult of course because climate advocates never seem to draw lines of rhetorical conduct well…….ever. “Consensus”, “97%”, “Denier” are all steep in dishonesty as well a pejorative insults to those who they are directed and you will never admit as much directly. You come here with unclean hands and quickly begin your equivocation process.
Steyn is a smart guy, he has easy denial-ability but you’re right like a broken clock is twice a day. Linking Sandusky (child rapist), Penn State to Mann who is only one of thousands of would-be campus greenshirt activists is a pretty rough rhetorical extreme. It’s just that your side has lost the claim to moral outrage in public debates about 45 years ago. I concluded that when watching a left-wing mob giving the Nazi Salute in NYC outside a hotel Ronald Reagan happened to be in. You’re the last person who should ask to have it both ways Joshua but on the facts here you are correct, you’re hypocrisy of course is also completely intact as well.
DH –
==> “Josh, kinda like the term “denier” huh?”
Yeah. Kinda. I think that the hand-wringing about “denier” being a reference to holocaust denial is a bit overwrought for the purpose of political expediency. But certainly at this point, it is obvious that the argument is often made that its use is a direct reference to holocaust denial, so if the term ever was meaningful for reasoned exchange of views (which I don’t think it was), it certainly isn’t at this point, and anyone who really looks at the situation openly should recognize that there’s no valid reason to use the term from a productive standpoint (IMO).
I don’t doubt that getting upset about the Sandusky reference may have a similar dramaqueeniness. (Perhaps everyone should just don their big boy pants and get on with life?). So good point.
DH –
And then there’s this:
And the the “figure 1.” on this post is pretty good too::
http://climateaudit.org/2014/07/05/george-zimmermans-libel-lawsuit/
Was that “They do it to?” on my part?
Anyway, gotta go. Judith might start counting my comments and I don’t want to get “moderated.
Joshua
My fathe in law was one of the first of the British army To enter the concentration camps. It traumatised him for the rest of his life.. The consequences of the war are still with us and With anti semitism once again on the rise it seems deliberately provocative to call sceptics ‘deniers.’
sceptics is surely a good word and as no one I know has ever denied that the climate changes is surely more appropriate.
Tonyb
Yes, I prefer “climate nonconformist” it is less extreme and will probably survive the coming convulsion in these matters.
““Investigation” by same university implicated in the whitewash of Sandusky.”
Actually I made an understatement. “Whitewash”, rather than investigation, by the same university as whitewashed Sandusky behaviour.
They allowed Mann to answer a different question than was actually asked per his involvement with Wahl’s deletion of emails.
Tonyb
Great point again. The denial label against people for caution in supporting a hypothosis is name calling. Fight it out in the science with observations vs models and mutiple possible causes for the heating since 1979 to 2000 and 1920 thru 1940. Could it be similar natural variation? Is the long slow thaw continuing with variations around the long term average? Does the middle age warm period exist? What about the Roman warm period? How far back do we have good records?
How about the next increment of sea levels going back to the Roman period? I seem to recall that plus another effort at extending the CET back further where on your plant. It is a lot of work but you are appreciated.
Scott
tonyb –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU
I have close family connections to the outcomes of the holocaust also, and my view is that it is exploitative to leverage holocaust denial, on the part of “skeptics” to score emotional/rhetorical points in the climate wars. I don’t doubt that for some “realists” there is a direct reference (some have said as much), but for the most part, there is a different intended meaning (many have said as much).
I think it is particularly exploitative when the concern is expressed by those who talk of “scientific cleansing,” or turn right around and discuss whether it is appropriate to call “realists” “deniers” (as we have seen folks here yuking it up about, including Judith if I recall correctly), and thrown around terms like McCarthyism, Lysenkoism, etc., and frequently use terms like “warmistas” (obviously a reference to the Sandinista, no?) , and further, regularly engage in other types of polemical labeling (such as the ubiquitous “alarmists” and “warmists,” etc.). When I see that, it hard for me to take the claims of offense seriously, because it seems to me that if one is offended by such labeling and name-calling, they wouldn’t engage in such themselves.
As for the term skeptics:
I have seen unskeptical “skeptics” and skeptical “skeptics,” and I have seen unskeptical “realists” and skeptical “realists,” so I think that the term is not particularly good except if your interest is in creating false and rhetorically purposeful distinctions between “tribes” (as opposed to focusing on reasoned disagreement about the science. And of course, the same would go for the term realist. That’s why I use both in quotation marks).
What I would prefer is that people use accurate descriptions that are perhaps more meaningful: for example, instead of “skeptics,” those who are relatively less concerned about the risk post by ACO2 emissions. But of course, that’ll never happen. Using accurate terminology doesn’t satisfy the reasons why people gravitate to identity-protective and identity-defensive behaviors.
Whether one happens to hear holocaust echoes in the epithet “denier,” it’s without question an intentionally derisive term. I’ll never understand how you climate faithful can believe such tactics will be effective, if the goal is to “save the planet.” Truthfully though, I don’t think most of you care. It simply feels good to be insulting, especially since day by day you’re losing the argument.
When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the facts are not on your side, pound the opposition.
Very well stated!
Joshua
That the term ‘denier’ is offensive to many is self evident. That it is unnecessary, unless it is deliberately intended to cause offence is surely obvious, as there is a perfectly good word that can be used and that is ‘sceptic.’
You say;
‘….warmistas” (obviously a reference to the Sandinista, no?) ‘
Er, no. I use the term warmists myself but have rarely (never?) seen the term ‘warmistas’ and would never have coupled it with ‘sandinistas’ who are not exactly famous or on a par with deniers are they?
As I say, anti semitism is taking new disturbing turns at present and to feed the fire with such an unpleasant term as deniers seems wholly unnecessary.
tonyb
I have seen the term “warmistas” but never got the connection with Sandinistas. But I fail to see how that connection, even if valid, is much of a slur. There is still great debate on whether they were good or bad for the country, and the leader eventually won the presidency legitimately.
So they are kind of a nothing when it comes to pejoratives – even in their native land!
Scott
I am slowly accumulating records ready for the next instalment of ‘The long slow thaw’ which as I probably mentioned is entitled ‘tranquillity, transition and turbulence’ as it covers the supposed slip into the LIA around 1200/1250. It certainly covers a lot of weather extremes.
I have asked Mosh how to present the data in an appropriate format so the findings are transparent and others can use it. It will take a long time to get together though.
In the meantime, sea level changes will come out of the research into temperatures, although it seems to me there was a number of oscillations but with a high water stand around 1550/1600 then a century and more when the water became locked up in ice and the levels fell and started to rise again in the early/mid 1800’s.
tonyb
The common thread is they were both investigated and exonerated by PSU. We know you are not that obtuse
tonyb – I too am UK based and if you don’t automatically equate warmista to sandanista then you’ve lived a very sheltered life. On the other hand, I first heard the term denier applied to creationism. In no way does it call up holocaust denial first and foremost. Joshua is correct in that this is a cry of unwarranted ‘victimhood’ by those who refuse to accept the evidence that AGW is likely to cause severe problems for all of us.
Me
Well I personally have never made the connection between warmista and Sandinista and the latter is hardly a grouping on everyone’s lips these days, whereas ‘denier’ still resonates and is acquiring new prominence with rising anti semitism.
Tonyb
Scott, “Does the middle age warm period exist?” Well, hard to say, I moved from England to sub-tropical Australia when I was 37, so I attribute my middle age warm period to external natural causes rather than being related to my ageing. Subsequent developments suggests that further ageing leads to greater sensitivity to cold; I can no longer live in the UK.
“Sandinista” has never entered my mind prior to Joshua’s post. I would think that that is true of many who have found the word “warmista” a convenient shorthand for those who support the (C)AGW position and/or particular policies to deal with potential further warming.
I think that when the denier term was popularly coined, they expressly said it was to associate skeptics with holocaust deniers. When I saw it, I thought warminista::sandinista, and used that.
I’d be surprised if the denier term wasn’t used before it was popularized and that I was the first to use warminista. (All has happened before and will happen again.)
The link is the quality of Penn State initial ‘investigation’ into Sandusky and the their quality ‘investigation’ into Mann . Any fair person would regard asking the accused if they do anything wrong and just taken their word for it that they had not , has a poor ‘investigation’ to say the least. In addition it seamed that the money they brought into the university has factor into way the university ‘investigation ‘ their cases. A factor which should have had no bearing on the cases.
That Mann barefaced lied to them and they refused to follow this lie once they became aware of it , really shows how much ‘investigation ‘ they actual did in his case. In short, in both cases the university did a poor job of ‘investigating ‘ concerns of the behaviour of its staff members.
Josh,
begging to be molested are you?
Mosher points out the obvious. Nobody at PSU is defending Sandusky. Some are questioning how internal investigations could have missed what now appears obvious.
Steyn simply pointed out the parallel.
Joshua, now apply the same logic to “denier”
So this turned out to be more interesting than I expected.
I assumed that warmista was a direct reference to Sandinista. As it turns out, it’s quite possible that some who used that term did not intend that reference.
So should I insist that they used the term with the intend I thought – hand-wringing, pearl-clutching, and drama-queening from my fainting couch as I do so?
I’d say no. You get what I’m going for there?
Should they stop using the term now – since they know that at least some folks (I wasn’t the only one) consider it to be used in a way as to deliberately demean and offend?
And just to be clear, because y’all seem to need to have things repeated often: I don’t defend the use of the term “denier.” Certainly, since some “skeptics” claims (in some cases I don’t doubt authentically) that they’re offended by the term, I think it is counterproductive. To continue to use the term is pointless, unless the point is to engage in identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors.
IMO, the need to find labels, and in particular demeaning and insulting labels that at least some folks find offensive, is all part and parcel of the motivated reasoning that roils the climate wars. The need for labeling is largely about the identity struggle, the need to identify with a tribe and to demonize the other team. It’s about the otter.
Of course, there is a legitimate need to find terms to describe the participants in the debate, but if the purpose is good faith exchange, then the goal should be to find terms that are acceptable to both sides, and accurate descriptors, and that can further understanding and dialog. “Denier” doesn’t get that job done. Neither does skeptic – as it implies that skepticism only exists on one side of the war. Neither does realist.
Of course, there is also a legitimate need to express dissatisfaction or offense with the terms that others use.
But pardon me if I’m not particularly moved by the exclamations of offense by groups of people who regularly engage in the very same identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors by using demonizing terms themselves. My favorite is when “skeptics” yuk it up about whether it’s appropriate to use the term “denier” for “realists” after just wailing to mommy about how mean those “realists” are for using the term “denier.”
I’m thinking of investing in big boy pants futures, because it’s sure as shootin’ that there’s a lot of folks who need to put some on.
So this turned out to be more interesting than I expected.
I assumed that warmista was a direct reference to Sandinista. As it turns out, it’s quite possible that some who used that term did not intend that reference.
So should I insist that they used the term with the intend I thought – hand-wringing, pearl-clutching, and drama-queening from my fainting couch as I do so?
I’d say no. You get what I’m going for there?
Should they stop using the term now – since they know that at least some folks (I wasn’t the only one) consider it to be used in a way as to deliberately demean and offend?
And just to be clear, because y’all seem to need to have things repeated often: I don’t defend the use of the term “denier.” Certainly, since some “skeptics” claims (in some cases I don’t doubt authentically) that they’re offended by the term, I think it is counterproductive. To continue to use the term is pointless, unless the point is to engage in identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors.
IMO, the need to find labels, and in particular demeaning and insulting labels that at least some folks find offensive, is all part and parcel of the motivated reasoning that roils the climate wars. The need for labeling is largely about the identity struggle, the need to identify with a tribe and to demonize the other team. It’s about the otter.
Of course, there is a legitimate need to find terms to describe the participants in the debate, but if the purpose is good faith exchange, then the goal should be to find terms that are acceptable to both sides, and accurate descriptors, and that can further understanding and dialog. “Denier” doesn’t get that job done. Neither does skeptic – as it implies that skepticism only exists on one side of the war. Neither does realist.
Of course, there is also a legitimate need to express dissatisfaction or offense with the terms that others use.
But pardon me if I’m not particularly moved by the exclamations of offense by groups of people who regularly engage in the very same identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors by using demonizing terms themselves. My favorite is when “skeptics” yuk it up about whether it’s appropriate to use the term “denier” for “realists” after just wailing to m*mmy about how mean those “realists” are for using the term “denier.”
I’m thinking of investing in big boy pants futures, because it’s sure as shootin’ that there’s a lot of folks who need to put some on.
Boiled down, you are claiming your ad hominems are justified due to your ignorance.
Yea, I guess that is stellar for you.
Oh, and btw –
Yes, I have engaged with “realists” about why I think the term is counterproductive.
Their answer has been that it isn’t intended in the way that “skeptics” say that it was intended, and further, that it’s an accurate term. They seem to think that they know whether ‘skeptics” are denying the science as opposed to interpreting differently than they. I think (and I have said to them) that no one can know such things, and thus the assertion that it is an accurate term doesn’t hold water – because it is conflating fact with opinion.
I have told them that conflating fact with opinion is the kind of error that I frequently see “skeptics” making, and that when I see “realists” doing that, it lessens my confidence in the quality of their analytic reasoning. I have told them that conflating fact with opinion is, IMO, a classic “tell” for motivated reasoning.
Perhaps y’all get my drift?
It’s not, and never has been, about people getting offended. People may or may not be offended, but that’s their problem.
It’s about those who use the term, in full knowledge of its connotations.
It’s used to dismiss people, to marginalise them, to stifle debate – don’t try to pretend otherwise.
“It is like I am talking with a kitchen table” Barney Frank or mt, I don’t remember which and it is not that important anymore anyway. Right?
phatboy –
Geebus.
==> “It’s about those who use the term, in full knowledge of its connotations.
It’s used to dismiss people, to marginalise them, to stifle debate – don’t try to pretend otherwise.”
I agree. That’s freakin’ what I said.
Why was it that you read me talk about identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors and then conclude that I”m “try[ing] to pretend otherwise”? Why was it that you read me talking about the need for labeling and the otter, and then conclude that I’m “try[ing] to pretend otherwise.”
But people on both sides of the battle line engage in precisely the same behaviors. These threads, in comment after comment in post after post day after day are filled with exactly those same behaviors.
What I’m pointing to is the weak moral equivalency arguments that are used to justified the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching and drama-queening about dismissing and marginalizing, on each side, respectively.
Well I apologise for misreading you – but by the time I reach the point in your comments where you actually start to make yourself clear, my eyes have already glazed over and my brain is in the process of shutting down.
phatboy –
==> “Well I apologise for misreading you – but by the time I reach the point in your comments where you actually start to make yourself clear, my eyes have already glazed over and my brain is in the process of shutting down.
No problems. Thanks for the apology. I understand – it’s my fault.
Another “conservative” stands up for personal accountability, eh?
I’m not a “conservative”, if that’s what you’re saying.
Compared to the US, we just don’t have conservatives on my side of the pond
The suffix “-ista” predates the Sandinista by many decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista
and
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ista
Outside the Latin world it has long enjoyed ironic use to denote impassioned and ruthless activism.
Well, thank you. I was about to comment but didn’t have your scholarly chops nor dextrous turn of phrase: ‘impassioned and ruthless activism.’
================
Well, thank you Kim, but in the matter of dextrous phrase-turning, I sit at your feet. I fidget, but I sit.
Tom, right it just a part of suffix mania. Barista (barist or bartender/server) is used by Starbucks, popular with the warmist(a) crowd. Fashionista, mechanista, denista, sanitacionista etc. are playing with words. Literally, by the way has morphed into figuratively due to over use.
yeah – Those commonly found terms: mechanista, denista, and sanitacionista.
Barista is the Italian word for bartender, although urban dictionary has this to say:
==> “Pretentious sounding word used by dejected art history and drama majors that describes their employment in order to make themselves feel better about serving coffee.”
Joshua, You have to understand that south Florida has a large Hispanic population with a sense of humor. Don’t be such a perfeccionista.
Thank you Tom.
This is what I assume the connotation is when you use the -ista suffix. I did not know that it was derived from the Latin use, but I had assumed that Sandinista was used (initially at least ) by those who opposed the group and that it stuck. I would agree that the use of the suffix is not meant to be a compliment, and would agree that its use is not productive.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/15/Mann-v-Steyn-if-this-trial-ever-goes-ahead-global-warming-is-toast
This, if Steyn is successful, could be the moment the dam bursts: the one where the global establishment is finally forced to acknowledge the fraudulence, the corruption, the mendacity, the trickery, the deception, the junk science, the big money and the official complicity which for the last two or three decades have been underpinning the Great Climate Change Scam.
Scientific misconduct has no standing in the legal system unless one obtains federal grant money fraudulently. Otherwise, no one can be taken to court by the police for bad science–thank God. So alleging scientific misconduct is NOT like alleging that someone stole money or accepted a bribe–both of which are matters of fact and matters that can cause arrest. Alleging scientific misconduct is like claiming that a chef can’t cook. Totally a matter of opinion that might get you in trouble with your employer but not with the law. There has in fact been lots of misconduct by scientists throughout history. Entire fields have been trapped in delusional methods and paradigms and it has been shown that the field as a whole has a bias toward “positive” results and a reluctance to publish refutations of previous results and a tendency to put away in the file cabinet studies that “didn’t work out” which in a sense refute what the scientist was trying to prove (excepting those where there was a fire in the lab or something).
Golly, the anti-Mann faction — including both Marc Steyn and the Competitive Enterprise Institute — sure are showing the world how to gin-up some table-pounding raging and ranting, eh Climate Etc readers?
FOMD, it is pitiful that you embarrass yourself by your reflexive, obsequious defense of Piltdown Mann.
FOMBS leaves his stool on almost every thread, like a dog that needs to leave his scent everywhere.
Sometimes I like to show what dogs do with such execrable “arguments” — I lift my leg in response and leave my scent on the droppings of FOMBS.
It does not solve anything but it sure can be fun…. besides, I just don’t like to leave charlatans like FOMBS a free course, but there is no point in trying to reason and argue with him: he has proved endlessly that he is beyond reason and beyond thoughtful analysis.
Those hoping for a science work “discovery” phase of the trial are in for disappointment. Michael Mann’s infamous “tree-ring proxy” will likely rest along side the missing IRS emails/hard-drives, Al Gore’s Social Security “Lockbox” somewhere near the Grassy Knoll. Regardless of how successful Steyn is the real “team” will claim it’s their work, in this case all the public/private universities who funded the rubbish and that it is privileged information. “He only worked here” meme will be reprocessed for the courts and it will get stonewalled. It’s all mythology now, I suspect anything damning would have been destroyed long ago anyway.
Delingpole might only be indirectly right, Mann is a pathetic symbol of the failed social revolution inside the science fringe. There may be populist support to toss him under a bus for the greater purpose of advancing the new cause talking points. I just don’t think the junk science records are in the equation, certainly via court discovery over this case. Mann claim will be thrown out, will suffer from his peers for losing but that will end all the mechanics of future discovery through the courts. Happy Valley and the climate funding beneficiaries have chunks of tougher cases in their stool, this is no threat.
SITUATION REPORT
(tailored for cwon14)
• The oceans keep heating, without pause or obvious limit.
• The sea-level keeps rising, without pause or obvious limit.
• The polar ice keeps melting, without pause or obvious limit.
• The scientific works of Mann, Hansen, and Oreskes keep on being cited, without pause or obvious limit.
• Mann, Hansen, and Oreskes keep winning prestigious awards and academic appointments, without pause or obvious limit.
• The scientific consensus that “the energy-balance climate-change worldview is correct” keeps growing stronger, without pause or obvious limit.
• The appreciation of religious leaders, business leaders, and ordinary citizens that “carbon energy-economies are morally wrong, economically disastrous, and environmentally unsustainable” keeps growing stronger, without pause or obvious limit.
• The Competitive Enterprise Institute and Marc Steyn continue their inexplicable refusal to apologize for gratuitous personal abuse, without pause or obvious limit.
• The Competitive Enterprise Institute and Marc Steyn continue to provide no evidence of fraudulent practices on Michael Mann’s part … and so Mann’s case continues, without pause or obvious limit.
Prediction Climate-change denialism looks ever-more-foolish … without pause or obvious limit!
• The scientific works of Mann, Hansen, and Oreskes keep on being cited, without pause or obvious limit.
Sadly it not the first time rubbish keeps getting cited long after its been proven has rubbish , science has a poor history when it comes to its ability accept fair challenge to poor consensus.
It’s nice to see the media do something other than be a lapdog for Obama.
This situation is fascinating at several levels. Anti-SLAPP and immediate appeal ability being the ACLU/MSM amici focus.
At a base level, there is what was actually said by NR and Steyn and how a reasonable person would construe it. As Craig Loehle has pointed out, that has also been misinterpreted by commentators. Comparing the criminal PSU coverup of Sandusky to the PSU whitewash of Mann is not the same thing as comparing Sandusky’s behavior to Mann’s even by analogy, as NR arguably did but plainly did not.
Then at a procedural level, there is the question of Mann’s pleadings, which Steyn’s brief called fraudulent. ‘fraud’ involves a notion of intent to deceive, something beyond a mere mistake or even wilful negligence (knew or should have known). In the original pleading, Mann claimed to be a Nobel prise winner. That is wrong, but possibly not fraudulent since Paucheri sent all IPCCAR4 participants a Nobel prize certificate. Mann may not have known he wasn’t a recipient, so lacking intent to deceive.
But then there is the amended complaint to rectify this error, which specifically states that a variety of proceedings ‘exhonerated’ him, so then claiming he ‘tortured and molested the data’ was intentionally malicious. Steve McIntrye has eviscerated each and every one of those claims in a series of posts. But most damning is the UK investigation into UEA CRU. Mann’s amended complaint, an official court document, specifically alleges this investigation ‘exonerated’ him when Mann was outside its remit. The intent to deceive the court is evidenced in Steyn’s brief, which points out that in Mann’s own book on the hockey stick wars he specifically said his own work was beyond the remit of this investigation. And that book was published before the amended brief was filed. Pleading Alzheimer’s will not remove the clear evidence of knowing, intentional false pleadings.
It will not go well for Mann when this gets to trial, since provably intentionally deceiving the court via knowingly false pleadings is generally a very bad idea. And this will get to trial eventually, because Steyn severed himself from the SLAPP appeal and has countersued for exactly the sorts of damages the SLAPP statute was intended to prevent. I think the request is a minimum of $5 million actual and $5 million punitive (gettable via the knowingly false pleadings previously made).
The sad part is that this is such a slow process, demonstrating the adage that justice delayed is justice denied. Steyn is right to complain about it in his amicus brief.
“But most damning is the UK investigation into UEA CRU. Mann’s amended complaint, an official court document, specifically alleges this investigation ‘exonerated’ him when Mann was outside its remit.”
Could you quote that “specific allegation”?
It was, by the way, written and signed by the lawyers, not Mann. And they submitted the reports they cited.
Nick Stokes
There was a very good British TV Programme some years ago called ‘Yes Minister’ and Yes Prime Minister’ in which the machinations of politicians and civil servants was laid bare. The British can conduct superb in depth investigations but are also capable of investigations intended to ‘kick the ball into the long grass’ or apply a thick coat of whitewash to subjects they would rather not be seen again.
I would suggest that those investigation held to investigate Mann/climate science-in the UK at least-were worthy of an episode of Yes Minister. It was hardly detailed, or in depth, nor were searching questions asked.
I don’t have this visceral dislike of Mann that some others here do, but having read many of his works in connection with carrying out my own research I see him as nothing more than a mediocre (but not bad) climate scientist with a tree ring fixation that others in the industry should have relegated to his proper mid league position years ago.
Perhaps some are in awe of his reputation but it’s about time he was given more scrutiny by those in his profession and his occasionally mediocre work-such as the hockey stick-was relegated to the history books.
Ps Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister are available as Dvd;s from the BBC. Would you like me to send you one as a present as it would give you a better insight into the British (and I dare say US and Australian) establishment. Genuine offer as you are often given a hard time especially over at WUWT.
tonyb
Tony,
Thanks for the offer, but I did watch some of the Yes Minister (and PM) series when they were new – they were very popular here. Oddly enough, I found myself at Christmas at my son’s place in Oxford watching some familiar episodes (long time no see) – Xmas present.
Yes, I’m sure the inquiries were not overly intrusive. But IMHO, there was very little indication of material for them. But even if they didn’t have Mann in their remit, if the extravagant allegations made were true, they could scarcely have avoided mentioning them.
Re history and mediocrity, sceptics just can’t seem to deal with the fact that the hockeystick has been upheld over and over. With some variations, including later papers. But that’s normal.
Tony,
Thanks – response in moderation
This is another example of typical behavior by dishonest supporters of that lying fraud Mann. An effort to waste people’s time by forcing them to back up references to things anybody familiar with the situation knows.
So, OK, Just as I did before, I’ve spent the time digging up the originals. Here’s the quote, extracted and reformatted from “pages 19/20” the original filing. Note that I’m including commentary from my earlier comment, in blockquotes, with the Mann filing in double blockquotes.
I know this is sort of convoluted, and it;s typical of defenders of Mann and others of your type to engage in such dishonest obfuscation. Which is why I’ve bothered to spend the time untangling it.
Response in moderation.
Nick
The point is that these enquiries can be very gentle. I think that Phil Jones decided what questions could be asked of him.
you said;
‘Re history and mediocrity, sceptics just can’t seem to deal with the fact that the hockeystick has been upheld over and over’
Using novel paleo proxies with 50 year centring gives very different smoothed results compared to real world highly variable annual and decadal instrumental records. its comparing apples and elephants.
You could usefully supply me with a reference that accepts trees as accurate thermometers bearing I mind their considerable limitations for the job. Yes, I have looked into them in great detail so look forward to your additional insight
tonyb
“You could usefully supply me with a reference that accepts trees as accurate thermometers bearing I mind their considerable limitations for the job.”
Tony, you may scoff at dendroclimatology, but it is a substantial scientific field, with a literature (to which I refer you). And that is why your insistence on Mann’s mediocrity is so insular. He pioneered the methods of global reconstruction, and a very large group of scientists has developed that, with similar results. Folks here may insist that they are all spectacularly wrong. But whatever else is made of Mann’s role in that, it isn’t mediocrity. Nor incompetence.
Nick Stokes: He pioneered the methods of global reconstruction, and a very large group of scientists has developed that, with similar results. Folks here may insist that they are all spectacularly wrong. But whatever else is made of Mann’s role in that, it isn’t mediocrity.
Yes he was a pioneer.
Some of his responses to technical criticisms have been obfuscatory or confused, as though he didn’t appreciate the criticisms or was deliberately misleading.
Nick
I must have read ten books on dendro and Also attended a two day course on the subject. It has some merit for dating and is some indicator for moisture. However that is as far as this branch of science goes.
I have made a considerable effort to see the merits in this so please Provide your proof that it can give us global temperatures accurate to fractions of a degree as to date I haven’t seen it.
Tonyb
“He pioneered the methods of global reconstruction”
Nick, which global reconstruction are you talking about him pioneering?
Manny pioneered the art of dendroclimatology. It has become quite a lucrative gravy train.
AK | August 16, 2014 at 11:04 am
OK, thanks for doing that. So your claim is
“specifically alleges this investigation ‘exonerated’ him when Mann was outside its remit.”
and I look at your quote and say where? It seems like a straightforward statement of the facts.
So OK, I’ve heard this before, and so I suspect you will say, following Steve Mc, the lie is “concluded that “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.””
But that doesn’t specifically mention Mann at all. It simply says “the scientists”. So your claim is just dishonest. Since it isn’t specific, it’s a matter of interpretation as to what ‘scientists’ are referred to. The previous reference to something involving scientists is earlier in the para:
“assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice”
So the natural interpretation to other than a dishonest person looking for “lies” is that the statement refers to CRU scientists. And that is just how the judge interpreted it. She paraphrased it thus:
“The investigators concluded that the “’rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,”” (p 2)
Nick
Look forward to your reply to my 5.42 that demonstrates the global accuracy for a year round historic global temperature of dendro.
I have taken considerable efforts to understand this subject but can not see that it can do what is claimed, other than detecting the moisture in the immediate micro climate and general age of the tree through its rings
tonyb
climatereason | August 17, 2014 at 5:19 am |
“Look forward to your reply to my 5.42”
Sorry, Tony, I referred you to the literature. Dendroclimatology is a major scientific enterprise with many papers and textbooks. If those can’t convince you, I doubt that my limited expertise will succeed.
Nick
You say you have limited expertise in Dendro and refer me to the literature. I have read a great deal of it and been on a short course but I can not see the evidence that it can do what people such as Mann claim.
What has convinced YOU that Dendro proxies are good global thermometers.? There must have been a number of studies that convinced you-what were they?
The science appears to be hugely compromised by micro climates, the short growing season, shade and other factors.
tonyb
@Nick Stokes…
Actually, that was the claim was Rud’s. My response rests on two pillars: Mann(‘s filing) lied by making a false quotation from its supporting document, and that quotation was offered in support of the following statement (page 2):
Now, this is clearly an attempt to mislead the court. It might be claimed that the quote was offered in collateral support, lumping the whole set of investigations, and the targets of their charges, together with Mann and his fraudulent (IMO) activities. But the quote was at best a negligent mistake, most probably a deliberate attempt to mislead through misstatement. A lie. When a whole set of quotes are offered in support, some directly some as collateral (applying to other alleged conspirators), deliberately misstating one quote so that it appears to apply directly when the actual quote was indirect is tantamount to lying. Is Mann going to claim that he never reviewed his lawyers’ work? In my original comment, I was supporting the following by Tallbloke:
Readers can judge for themselves. As can the court.
ITT of Tulsa VoTech
I used to think that Stokes had some integrity.
Don,
Highly unlikely that the reverse is true.
Nick
Thought you might be interested in this comment re dendro from someone actually involved in the cultivation of trees.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3424#comment-35055
His conclusion-and mine-is that trees can give a reasonable estimate of date-his conclusion is that expecting trees to give an accurate temperature reading is akin to alchemy as they just aren’t designed to do it
Is your belief based on actual verifiable science or that you believe in the consensus?
tonyb
Nick, it’s beyond the pale that you would still try to give the impression that it’s true that Mann was investigated and cleared by any enquiry other than the one by the university of Southern-Headed Sandusky.
Mikey the twerp weighs in, barely.
“It might be claimed that the quote was offered in collateral support, lumping the whole set of investigations, and the targets of their charges, together with Mann and his fraudulent (IMO) activities. But the quote was at best a negligent mistake, most probably a deliberate attempt to mislead through misstatement. A lie. When a whole set of quotes are offered in support, some directly some as collateral (applying to other alleged conspirators), deliberately misstating one quote so that it appears to apply directly when the actual quote was indirect is tantamount to lying. Is Mann going to claim that he never reviewed his lawyers’ work?” – AK
Some mighty fine quibbling there.
OMG! Pot! Kettle! Black! Pot! Kettle! Black!
Oops, sorry. I confused you with nevaudit. An easy mistake.
AK | August 17, 2014 at 10:15 am
“My response rests on two pillars: Mann(‘s filing) lied by making a false quotation from its supporting document, and that quotation was offered in support of the following statement (page 2)”
That’s why I asked you to quote the alleged lie. These claims just keep shifting. Your original claim was:
“specifically alleges this investigation ‘exonerated’ him when Mann was outside its remit”
Now it comes down to just some lawyer inexactly transcribing a quotation. The specific allegation has evaporated. That quote error in no way substantiates your claim. It’s not clear that it changes the meaning in any way that aids Mann’s case. And as I said, the judge gave a different version again, with some details inserted, which actually clarified, but wasn’t in the original. Was she lying too?
@Nick Stokes…
You need to control your paranoia. That was Rud’s “original claim”. I provided the supporting quote, which does (IMO) justify the statement, although it’s not how I would have phrased it. Now, when “some lawyer inexactly transcribing a quotation” occurs as part of an effort to mislead the court, that IMO constitutes a lie: a deliberate mistruth told with intent to deceive. How many of the “investigations” listed in the brief actually considered “fraud” on Mann’s part, either scientific or any other type? How many just involved other people, and were added to the brief in support of “Dr. Mann’s research has been reviewed repeatedly and replicated by other scientists, and that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated: no fraud; no misconduct; no molestation; no corruption”?
Nicky, have you received a fake Nobel prize certificate from the IPCC? You deserve it.
Nick,
That’s about right.
I think this was all gone over once before here, and it was all the same desperate grasping as seen above.
It keeps leading me back to the same question – why the obsessive vilification of Michael Mann??
It did not exonerate him. Neither did the other ones.
Only his university inquiry exonerated him.
So the claim in Mann’s complaint is false.
It is false that it exonerated him.
The contextomy that was performed is evidence that it was a lie.
thisisnotgoodtogo | August 17, 2014 at 9:10 pm |
“It did not exonerate him. Neither did the other ones.
Only his university inquiry exonerated him”
So he was exonerated.
OK.
All the claims of “fr@ud” etc come from foaming at the mouth imbeciles on the intertubes and gutter ‘journalists’ specialising in spleen venting for the entertainment of a particular audience demographic.
Exoneration without investigation is a monkey trial. I can exonerate him, and it would have as much standing as the PSU kangaroo court. And that is in fact one of the points of the lawsuit. They also “exonerated” Sandusky – which was the comparison.
You are making Steyn’s case for him.
@Michael…
He was “exonerated” by the same university administration that “exonerated” Sandusky.
This is what the whole flap is about, comparing those two “exonerations”.
AK | August 18, 2014 at 8:34 am |
“You need to control your paranoia.”
No, just misunderstanding, for which I apologise. I asked Rud to provide quotations; you responded after intervening material, and I didn’t notice the change of author.
“How many of the “investigations” listed in the brief actually considered “fraud” on Mann’s part”
There is no implication that they all did that in the title. This is just a lawyer’s recital of facts that they believe will aid their case. Whether it does will be argued; some may not. There is no claim that each item on its own exonerates Mann.
@Nick Stokes…
Apology accepted. I’ve done the same thing.
According to thisisnotgoodtogo “None of them exonerate Mann.” That’s certainly the impression I got based on the CA posts discussing them. I haven’t followed up in detail, but if this is true it isn’t about “the title.” It’s about what the brief says on page 2:
To support that claim, at least two of the listed “investigations” need to support it.
Care to tell me which two or more?
Away with your pesky facts Nick Stokes.
Burn the Mann-witch, burn him!!
“There is no claim that each item on its own exonerates Mann.’
That will certainly impress the court!
None of them exonerate Mann.
Thank you Nick
Mann’s original complaint reads
“In response to these accusations academic institutions and governrmental entities alike, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Agency and the National Science Foundation have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann’s work, and found the allegations of fraud to be baseless. Every such investigation have concluded…. ”
Every such, Nick. Then the list.
Steyn will have a him. :)
“Every such” and “repeatedly”… the complaint is a morass of lies.
But maybe Mann never read any of the complaints, nor supplied his lawyers with that information, eh, Nick?
thisisnotgoodtogo | August 18, 2014 at 9:31 am |
“None of them exonerate Mann.
Thank you Nick”
Except the one you said did.
OK.
And that one allowed Mann to answer a different question than he was asked. Only later did the truth emerge when Gene Wahl admitted that Mann did in fact send him Jones’ email frantically asking him to delete all emails regarding their interference in the IPCC report-making.
The university’s Graham Spanier is now facing criminal charges related to what he did for Sandusky, another one of his bright stars.
this,
you’re right, because of Sandusky, we know that every investigation into anything at Penn was a ‘cover-up’.
It’s all the evidence we need!
Go ‘skeptics’!
Your name befits your claims.
We know no such thing. However, comparisons to other investigations by the same kangaroo court are valid – and not actionable. They have earned the reputation. Others are merely pointing it out.
You are still making Steyn’s case for him.
“this,
you’re right, because of Sandusky, we know that every investigation into anything at Penn was a ‘cover-up’.
It’s all the evidence we need!”
We can see that the university investigation of Dr Mann allowed him to not answer the question asked.
So that all for his “exonerations”.
Therefore the multiple misrepresentations to the court, and the wrongness of the university investigation, should lead the court to understand that Steyn did not and should not necessarily have known any of his accusations were false.
thisisnotgoodtogo | August 18, 2014 at 11:00 am |
“Therefore the multiple misrepresentations to the court, and the wrongness of the university investigation, should lead the court to understand that Steyn did not and should not necessarily have known any of his accusations were false.”
That might be a bit problematic, what with the court representations coming after the NRO article.
Steyn will argue prescience??
‘What is going on here?’
================
“Steyn will argue prescience??”
No, Steyn may argue that he thought there was falsity in Mann’s previous statements and that the continuation of making false statements before the court is further evidence lending support the notion that Mann is a serial disinformer.
Well, given the previous displays of incompetence, we can”t rule anything out.
If the judge or jury feels that they were misled by Mann’s statements, then it would be reasonable for them to decide that Steyn believed that Mann had not honestly represented facts.
The lawyers are representing Mann. So it is Mann’s neck on the line. He can later sue them for malpractice if they did it without his consent, but his name is on them just as surely as he signed them for this case.
philjourdan | August 19, 2014 at 10:09 am |
“Exoneration without investigation is a monkey trial. I can exonerate him, and it would have as much standing as the PSU kangaroo court. And that is in fact one of the points of the lawsuit. They also “exonerated” Sandusky – which was the comparison.
You are making Steyn’s case for him.”
phil,
You might be a bit confused.
As far as i can recall, Sandusky wasn’t ‘exonerated’ – he was found to have acted improperly and told not to do it again. Didn’t the Police and Child Protective services also look in to it and decide to do nothing?
Is this is really Steyn’s ‘case’ he should be worried.
Yes, Michael, to the PSU clowns that said it was “improper” they also said that Mann was ‘proper’, yet the legal system said Sandusky was a felon. No one is accusing Mann of a felony.
Congratulations. Expect a subpoena from Steyn – you make a very good case for the defense.
Incompetence is incompetence. Whether it is an amputation for a bo-bo, or the removal of the wrong organ.
“exoneration
The release of someone from a duty or obligation.”
philjourdan | August 19, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
“Yes, Michael, to the PSU clowns that said it was “improper” they also said that Mann was ‘proper’…”
Right, so now it’s that the investigations came to the exact opposite conclusions!
What happened to;
“They also “exonerated” Sandusky – which was the comparison.”
??
Ah, I love the smell of ‘skepticism’ in the morning.
i love the smell of burning alarmist in the morning. What part of “both wrong” do you not get? Apparently all of it.
But your inability to understand that “both wrong” is a pattern that is being used for an analogy is your problem only. As that was the analogy made and is the core of the case.
But please, do not let me stop your rush to ignorance.
iRud said:
“Paucheri sent all IPCCAR4 participants a Nobel prize certificate”
No, he did not. He sent an IPCC certificate for helping..
Mann said
“”IPCC certificate acknowledging me “contributing to award of the Nobel Peace Prize”.
Pachauri allowed himself to be introduced as a Nobel Laureate at his own Terri organization even after all the kerfuffle.
It’s a sick band of cheats.
Try looking up Richard Tol’s CV on his university website.
Richard Tol is also a Nobel fraudulent claimee
thisisnotgoodtogo, has he ever claimed it elsewhere? I’d imagine if challenged on his CV, he’d claim someone else wrote that part.
Ask “me”. He’s the one who pointed it out.
If Tol doesn’t have it removed…
Even Michael Mann faux gold medalist removed his.
I posted congrats to Richard in the climate audit thread you were commenting on.
‘nother one on a different university page
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/economics/people/peoplelists/person/289812
“shared winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007”
he tweeted that he isn’t a Nobelist
“I did not win the Nobel Peace Prize http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf … but who believes the IPCC anymore these days?”
so maybe he just needs to be told to look at his university pages
I apologize for my remark about Tol.
I guess that he doesn’t know what the university pages say.
thisisnotgoodtogo, no problem. I had the same reaction as you when I saw that page. I then looked for a quote from Richard Tol so I had something more direct to pin on him. When I didn’t find one, I started to reconsider. I then saw a couple comments from him (including that one on Twitter) where he seemed to go against the interpretation Michael Mann had used. That made me uncertain how to interpret things so I decided to ask.
To be clear though, I don’t think Tol can get off scot-free. When searching for quotes from him, I’ve seen him reference that same CV, even in direct response to people who had quoted the line in question. He may not have written the line, but I think he deserves some criticism for it. Either he’s aware of it and hasn’t tried to correct it, or he’s ambivalent enough to the matter to remain ignorant.
Willful ignorance may be better than outright dishonesty, but that doesn’t make it a good trait.
ITT VoTech of Tulsa
Seriously? Judith Curry, I’m all for light moderation. I can accept it if people are allowed to follow me around leaving comments for no reason other than to use personal information to try to insult me.
But can I at least get a comment saying this sort of behavior isn’t appreciated? I didn’t ask for anything when people kept randomly sprinkling my name in comments to insult me, but are we all really supposed to just ignore what WebHubTelescope is doing whenever I comment?
I’m happy to not feed the trolls. I’d just like to know there’s some public recognition that following a person around with spam to insult them isn’t considered acceptable behavior.
Not to worry Brandon,
The “overwhelming consensus” regarding the human telescope is he’s a nasty, angry troll…perfectly consistent with the rest of the rogues gallery of alarmist faithful.
He needs to go on permanent moderation.
It looks like he’s gotten so obsessed with me he’s started doing it in places I haven’t commented:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/14/mann-vs-steyn-et-al-discussion-thread/#comment-618936
:P
It was actually pleasant not to have to skip over his diatribes.
WHUT
Why are you so nasty?
Scott
Scott
Why is web so nasty? The evidence against CAGW is mounting to such an extent he sees all his beliefs going down the tubes. I am sure it is a very depressing feeling.
Think about telling a bishop there is no god – then you have his dilemma.
WHUT’d i do?
I mentioned ITT Technical Institute of Tulsa
Ask Brandon
But a humerous response. That is more like it.
Scott
My goal is to find the most innocuous phrase that will force permanent moderation.
It may well be some combination of the words “ITT VoTech of Tulsa”
A “diploma” from there is more prestigious than a Nobel prize certificate.
A diploma from anywhere is more prestigious than a fake Nobel prize certificate handed out by the IPCC’s railroad engineer/trashy novelist.
Rank is but a Guinea stamp.
======
Certainly than the Nobel “Peace” prize.
“Except the one you said did.
OK.”
1/That does not take away the falsehoods presented.
2/In his university’s investigation, it can be shown that Mann was allowed to not answer the important question – instead he was allowed to answer a different question, one he made up.
‘What is going on here?’
=================
“The report found that one aspect of the investigation that consumed time was investigators difficulty in obtaining records from Penn State officials and “Second Mile,” Sandusky’s charity for young boys, due in part to their lack of compliance to subpoenas.”
They cover-up of wrongdoing is the similarity suggested.
For me I believe it would be best if the appeals court dismissed the case on the first amendment grounds.
I have conflicting views on the case itself. My analysis of it is that if enough evidence is shown to dispute the validity of the hockey stick that would not prove Mann intentionally committed fraud. OTOH if it was shown to be valid within its parameters the disputes of it by columnists rising to the level of malicious intent is a high bar legally. The later would seem easier to prove than the former in my view. I therefore think Steyn would have to prove the stick intentionally fraudulent that I would see only based on the climategate emails or public statements and I see this as fairly weak material albeit possible.
I have a bigger picture view. Although I like Steyn better than Mann and am closer to him politically, I think science may suffer should he win. Since I find radiative physics and AGW late 20th century warming to be a fairly sound hypothesis, scientific inquiry should continue. That many in the consensus have exagerated findings hurts science. Now suppose Steyn wins and then we go into a wolfs cycle minimum of which the solar cycles suggest. Steyn and Limbaugh or right wingers in general will be trumpeting ‘The Hoax’ and science would have a black eye. That is not a good outcome IMO.
ordvic: I have a bigger picture view. Although I like Steyn better than Mann and am closer to him politically, I think science may suffer should he win.
There is more to science than academic science and climate science, and a lot more to them than just Mann. Why do you think this would hurt science? I think that the PSU committed that “investigated” Mann and “exonerated” Mann might be embarrassed, but that’s about it. Grant proposals would still be evaluated the same, and research projects carried out as proposed. The journal publication process would be unaffected.
The American voting public does not now rank CO2-induced global warming as a serious concern, but that’s mostly because of the holes in the case. I don’t see a decision in Steyn’s favor causing near as much damage as a decision in Mann’s favor.
oops, “committee” for “committed”.
Well if the taunts of conservatives seemingly prove correct (I’m thinking mainly Limbaugh) and the public sees the consensus as having been a hoax any real science to be had will be jepordized. Not that those particular folks don’t deserve it with all the flim flammrry some of them have been up to. I don’t really care if they get their grants only that scientific integrety will be set back. I do agree a win for Mann would also be ruinous that’s why I’d favor a dismissal in the current appeal.
>ordvic says:
>if… public sees the consensus as having been a hoax any real science to be >had will be jepordized
And it should. When essentially ALL of our scientific societies jump on AGW bandwagon and enthusiastically support it, when nobody in “hard sciences” like physics says anything against perversion of science that is happening, they deserve anything they got.
Maybe it’ll be a lesson for them to stay away from next cause that will become apparent after AGW is completely gone.
Ordvic: Well if the taunts of conservatives seemingly prove correct (I’m thinking mainly Limbaugh) and the public sees the consensus as having been a hoax any real science to be had will be jepordized.
I think there will be a transient of heightened scrutiny that will pass; as has happened when Universities have had their grant money interrupted pending audit of suspicious programs.
ordvic said
“Well if the taunts of conservatives seemingly prove correct (I’m thinking mainly Limbaugh) and the public sees the consensus as having been a hoax any real science to be had will be jepordized.”
No fears. Science survived the original Piltdown.
Perhaps a black eye is just what ‘science’ needs to shake itself up. There’s far too much rubbish and slipshod work passing itself off as science these days, and by no means only in climate.
phattie,
Go show them how it’s done.
Do the work.
Slow day, Mikey?
The impact of climate change on the mid-terms is nicely covered here
http://online.wsj.com/articles/kim-strassel-a-climate-crusaders-comeuppance-1408057542
With the ACLU’s coming out we see that LGBTQAMM is simply taking the definition of acceptable behavior too far away from the legitimate society.
Amazing how so many (99%) of CE bloggers are now also Constitutional scholars!
Question to the 99%: Why hasn’t the Mann lawsuit just been thrown out by now?
Expected answer of the 99%: Well, it’s clearly because the Judge is a “LIBERAL” and “LIBERALS” have taken over the U.S. judicial system.
(and, I make this comment as someone who wishes folks like Mann, Gore, Oppenheimer would just go away — or at a minimum, a 25 year sabbatical to study sea ice in the Arctic.)
Stephen, Expected answer of the 99%: Well, it’s clearly because the Judge is a “LIBERAL” and “LIBERALS” have taken over the U.S. judicial system.”
Let me correct that for you:
“Expected answer of the 99%: Well, it’s clearly because the Judge is a “DUMB LIBERAL” and “DUMB LIBERALS” have taken over the U.S. judicial system.
Now Bob only the first judge appears to be a dumb, as in incompetent, LIBERAL. The second judge appears to have a sense of humor which is rare in LIBERALS.
If I were you, I would check the Constitution. It has something in there about a judiciary.
It is up to the court to decide. And most judges will err on the side of the trial as that way both get their chance to present evidence. Even if the judge was a Reagan conservative, they would be hard pressed to dismiss a case before trial.
I hear Hillsdale college has a course on the Constitution. And it is free. You might want to sign up for it.
Most CE bloggers know the facts.
Is understanding facts, anti-LIBERAL?
Curious as to why you believe most judges will err on the side of a trial? GRanted, the standards for dismissal on the pleadings or summary judgment are difficult to meet. Judges, however, generally prefer to avoid protracted trials when a case can be disposed of by other means.
@PaulDD – if the parties can come to an agreement (Settlement or Plea Bargain) judges love it! But if it is deciding unilaterally for one said before trail (or even at half a trial) they do not. They see the trial as the way to allow justice to be played out. While I have not done a research study on it, I am married to a lady in the legal profession and go by “pillow talk” for my opinion.
Sorry, “one said” is “one side”.
Stephen, why did Mann bring his case in Washington DC?
Stephen, how does Washington DC get its judges?
I think these are 2 of the most damaging statements:
“Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation.”
“Mann’s claim “threatens to ensnare the court” in the contentious debate over climate change – its existence, causes, and solutions.”
When there is a consensus, about the first thing that consensus will do is divide on some issues as it has here with the support that Steyn is getting. This is a natural and healthy thing. Another hill Mann has to climb is the First Amendment as compared to Climate Change. One has a long central history.
It’s too early to know the outcome I think, for example:
“Defying predictions of a slew of legal observers, Jesse Ventura won his defamation suit in U.S. District Court in St. Paul…” – http://www.startribune.com/local/269042071.html
Our former Governor for at least the 2nd time in his life recently pulled off a long shot victory.
Cops have a code for this type of conflict:
NHI
Mann is to science as Steyn is to journalism. It’s the Kardashians for blanks.
blanks = m o r o n s
“It is particularly interesting to see liberal organizations, who would normally align to support an issue related to climate change, effectively take actions against Michael Mann.”
IMHO, citing the ACLU as a liberal organization strikes me as a poor characterization. True, they do very often find themselves at odds with conservative positions. It seems to me they have a classical liberal and/or libertarian position on individual rights and truly live up to their civil liberties namesake. When Ira Glasser came out in favor of the Citizens’ United result strikes me as a prominent example (even as I’ve been told there was some dissent in the ranks on that one), also in favor of free speech or at least favoring a severe limit on government ability to limit political speech. Their support of civil liberties hasn’t really been partisan in the political party sense. It’s simply that their effectiveness in the courtroom has lead to a great deal of material aimed at framing them as such.
http://www.theonion.com/artiicles/aclu-defends-nazis-right-to-burn-down-aclu-headqua,1648/
“Yes my loving wife Linda and three wonderful children, Ben, Robbie, and Stephanie, will be devastated when I’m killed next month” ACLU attorney Harvey Gross said … “But …
JM I agree that the ACLU is not wholeheartedly Nancy Pelosi liberal. However, it does support high government spending on welfare, which increases government power and ultimately decreases individual liberties. See https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/aclu-says-current-welfare-reform-m
I don’t know whether Mr Mann has a “fragile ego” but one thing is for sure; if he were to admit his hockey stick graph was was wrong/fraudulent/etc. his reputation would plummet even among the true believers. So he fights a holy war by any means at his disposal.
Without the ‘stick’ his nothing , so all he can do is double down .
In any other area of science the need to revise early work due to errors or because further research undermines it , is normal pratice . In climate ‘science’ we see ‘dogma’ in action where once a claim has entered the canon of ‘the cause ‘ no matter how poor the claim it must be defended.
I’m almost out of popcorn watching Mann vs. Steyn. It’s one of the best things to come along in years. I like to drop a shekel or two into Steyn’s cup occasionally. I’m happy he’s in a position to do this thing that needs to be done.
‘Ya think 97%’ers, Cook, et al., also may be Nobel Laureates…?
Mark Steyn’s post is worth a look: http://www.steynonline.com/6522/my-new-best-friends
Notice, hyper-accurate FOMD, that he is called neither “Mac” nor “Marc,” perhaps you were referring to someone other than the defendant in the Mann case.
Mann’s “hockey stick” continues to receive the strongest and most enduring support that the science community can offer: independent scientific verification that the “hockey stick” is real.
Recent Mann-supporting articles include:
• Does pre-industrial warming double the anthropogenic total?
• Holocene and ‘Little Ice Age’ glacial activity in the Marboré Cirque, Monte Perdido Massif, Central Spanish Pyrenees
• Ice Sheets and the Anthropocene
As for the Mark Steyn/Competitive Enterprise Institute blend of abuse, smears, and ignorance, I am not personally aware of any reputable scientist who regards it favorably.
It is a pleasure to answer your question, Judith Curry!
Fan,
I can’t speak for JC but I think the reference to support is in regard to the lawsuit not the hockey stick.
I am not a fan of Marc Steyn. I am pretty much completely opposite on everything political but the Mann lawsuit is a little over the top. I doubt many scientists think it was a good idea no matter whether they stand on the science.
Mann’s opinions on the science of clime the change seem to be overtaken by events. His so=called ‘hockey stick’ shape has proved to have a short handle because hiis exaggerated upward trend has failed to eventuate: since 1997 global average temperature, apart from typical year to year fluctuations . has been remarkably constant, despite ever increasing concentration of CO2.
tony b
my father was a ww2 combat soldier,
I grew up hearing him refer to dogmatic people as “g…tapo,”
Not calling “warmist” names, but i have the same visceral reaction to the term “denier” as you,
Soldier on.
When I scroll through I always stop and see what you have to say.
John
Thanks
tonyb
“A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions.” ~US Army-funded RAND Corp study
TonyB, something completely different which might be of interest to you:
Periodicities in mean sea-level fluctuations and climate change proxies: Lessons from the modelling for coastal management
Ocean & Coastal Management, Volume 98, September 2014, Pages 202-211
R.G.V. Baker | S.A. McGowan
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569114001781
Faustino
Thanks for that
Loved this sentence from the abstract.
‘This result has a huge implication on coastal management that should be based on observationally derived forecasts rather than “projections” of models lacking validation.’
Observations? Whatever next?
tonyb
Faustino
Thanks for the paper which I will read with interest
tonyb
For me the most interesting part will be the reaction of the court to Steyn’s brief – that is, if Steyn correctly cites Mann’s published book re: the enquiries NOT investigating Mann’s work, yet Mann offered them as evidence that they not only investigated his work, but exonerated him from any wrongdoing, then IMO, Mann may be in a world of hurt for willful misrepresentation. And rightly so.
So the reaction to this will be of extreme interest to this observer – both the reaction of the courts and legal system, and also the reaction and comments of the various sides of the debate to any such legal reaction. Time to stock up on popcorn and beer…
Judith Curry
Thank you for the post..
The liberal ideas that you wrote about are very difficult (impossible) for many people to understand.
“The support for Steyn et al. provided by the ACLU and the libel community plus the national news media re-emphasizes that this case is about the freedom of speech. It is very heartening to see this support for freedom of speech. It is particularly interesting to see liberal organizations, who would normally align to support an issue related to climate change, effectively take actions against Michael Mann.”
For those who think that prediction is hard, especially about the future, here is a case in which prediction is easy. Michael Mann will become a textbook case of misusing the courts to silence his critics. This case is about freedom of speech. Those who cannot see that it is about freedom of speech have a very poor understanding of that constitutional right and lack passion for its exercise.
In Australia, the Prime Minister has just walked away from a commitment to remove or amend a provision which acts against freedom of speech. The public lobby for it is essentially one newspaper (The Australian) and one think-tank (the IPA). I cited the ACLU intervention and its backers in a letter to the Oz as in indication of how much more seriously it is regarded in the US, but it wasn’t printed.
Only the United States has a tradition of supporting robust freedom of speech. Her Majesty’s Commonwealth comes in a distant second. The rest of Western Europe comes in a very distant third. The remainder of humanity has no comprehension of a robust individual right of free speech. Krugman belongs to the last group.
That is a good comparison. I whole heartedly agree.
Heh, it’s the only known corrective to limit the dominance of false narratives. Ah, yes, the medicine is bitter, often enough.
==============
The world’s gone mad today
And good’s bad today
And black’s white today
And day’s night today
And truth’s lies today
And myth’s truth today,
Which nobody can oppose,
Fer now, God knows.
Anything goes.
H/t Cole Porter and Inquisition.
Apologies for the hyperactive moderation (and spam filter). Unfortunately I’m traveling and can’t check it very often.
The only exoneration that happened in the wake of Climategate, is the self-exoneration of the Universities involved. Using public funds with which to bribe their pals for their predetermined conclusions. And we all know what a blinder they played there.
“defending Michael Mann is defending climate science”
Well Yes, in the sense of defending the consensus.
But of course the consensus isn’t vey scientific, it’s all driven by political money and hence predisposed to advance the cause of politics – hiding data, hiding declines etc etc.
Completing the argument then: defending Mann, is defending tainted science.
And if a Nobel laureate defends tainted science, the taint thereby begins to engulf him too, And soon thereafter the Nobel image as well.
I think people need to readjust their expectations. The belated intervention of heavy-weight news organisations and the ACLU, even if through gritted teeth because of their dislike of Steyn, combined with blatant and demonstrable falsehoods in the pre-trial statements, have in all probability lost him the case. But then again, OJ was found innocent.
Despite what some my be hoping, I don’t think that result will deliver Mann nailed to a cross, though the Steyn counter-suit might possible do just that.
However, there’s a bigger victory than just defending the fourth estate’s ability to vigorously comment on public figures. The novel ploy of using a court to decide on the scientific merits of a controversial branch of science looks to be stillborn.
Support for Mann has always been hesitant, even with the climate science community; the perception has always been he’s too much of a loose cannon. My feeling is they’ll walk away for good now.
Pointman
1+, accurate as usual.
U.S. Court system isn’t going to trump academic privilege to hide garbage on their turf, Mann’s junk is safe in any circumstance. I expect his claim to be thrown out followed by years of meaningless commentary on his imagined victimhood. Claims of “moral victory” etc.
The PR impact might be more favorable. AGW is smelling very much like “the old left”, baby boomer baggage like Obama himself. Mann is a perfect caricature of the aging fat, white, angry Sierra Club member short on his medication. This dog doesn’t hunt as well even in the democratic party and the swing public in general has turned. The climate academic whiners seeking authority have worn out their media allies who can’t sell a lick at this point. The media are desperate to avoid being linked to has-beens and cultural eye-sores that Mann represents.
Mann is going the way of the “Che” tee-shirt, a walking, talking too much metaphor and embarrassment. He’s not going to win, even if he won he loses because his peers would now be forced under rule they can’t live with at all. Climate dogma needs to wrapped in a seemingly clean and non-partisan container, difficult to maintain over time and obvious burdens like Mann go under the bus.
Mann has nailed himself to a cross in the eyes of those who understand free speech as it is protected by the Constitution and history of the United States. There are fewer and fewer of those people. That is because the Left in the US vigorously promotes the doctrine that the truth is the last ideology standing. From the Leftist point of view, a right of free speech is valuable only to the degree that it promotes their acquisition of power. Does that remind you of Mann?
The courts might or might not go beyond declaring Mann’s case to be without merit.
‘… Krugman argues that the current campaign to deny climate change is steeped more in political ideology than in industry-funded opposition.’
Climate science is one thing. The ability to predict the future reliably is massively overstated. Both models and climate are multiply coupled, nonlinear systems. Climate prediction is theoretically impossible. Attribution of recent – and indeed ancient warming – is impossible without understanding the changeable role of clouds, dust, ice and vegetation. The proof is that climate chaotically shifted last around the turn of the century – and the planet is thus is unlikely to warm for 2 to 4 decades at the least. The only guarantee is surprises – and the continued science denial insanity of Michael Mann and his ilk.
The real denial however – steeped in rational political and economic theory – is a fundamental opposition to taxes and caps – something that is much more clearly a failure than a success at any rate. The alternative is and always has been fast mitigation and adaption options using development and economic growth strategies linked to population, land use, ecological restoration, building organics in agricultural soils and reducing methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone and black carbon emissions. Along with investments in energy innovation.
The only important question left is where the denial, delay and obfuscation is coming from?
Example The scientific community has utterly rejected the works of Nobelist Ilya Prigogine, on the grounds that Prigogine’s good early work was not original, and Prigogine’s later original work was not good.
As long as the oceans keep heating, the sea-level keeps rising, and the polar ice keeps melting, we need not fear that the works of Hansen, Mann, and Oreskes will meet the same dismissive fate as Prigogine’s.
knr, it is a pleasure to increase your knowledge of scientific history … and the knowledge of Climate Etc‘s many denialist Prigogine fans.
Summary Hansen’s, Mann’s, and Oreskes’ science is proving to be good, Progogine’s science has proved to be bad.
FOMD
Shows his true believer and anti-science viewpoints by again repeating the false claim that oceans have been warming when the methods of measurement are not even adequate to measure the oceans to the degree necessary to detect warming or cooling. I quoted NOAA in this blog post http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/ and NOAA stated that: ” Nonetheless, preliminary processing of Argo data indicates that it is not without problems associated with different calibration and manufacturers of the instruments; a problem common for atmospheric measurements. Moreover, the different results from different analyses (Lyman et al. 2010) suggest that best methods have yet to be found.” Also, ““The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 10-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009)” http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Uses_of_Argo_data.html ”
In the prior post, you incorrectly claimed that I only cited 2009 and prior articles and when that was pointed out to you that you were obviously wrong about the 2009 as was clear in the text of the actual post, you eventually resorted to quoting Slashdot. I realize that nothing will stop you from repeating incorrect claims because you are impervious to reason and science, but it is good to remind people of how obviously anti-science you are. Post whatever unresponsive and irrelevant text that you wish, but I won’t waste any more of my time dealing with your unshakeable true-believer statements and deceptions.
JD
Understanding the ocean
THE article by Graham Lloyd will likely leave a mis-impression with many of your readers concerning the substance of our paper that will appear in the Journal of Physical Oceanography (“Puzzle of deep ocean cooling”, 25/7).
We never assert that global warming and warming of the oceans are not occurring — we do find an ocean warming, particularly in the upper regions.
Contrary to the implications of Lloyd’s article, parts of the deep ocean are warming, parts are cooling, and although the global abyssal average is negative, the value is tiny in a global warming context.
Those parts of the abyss that are warming are most directly linked to the surface (as pointed out by Andy Hogg from the ANU).
Scientifically, we need to better understand what is going on everywhere, and that is an issue oceanographers must address over the next few years — a challenging observational problem that our paper is intended to raise.
Carl Wunsch, Harvard University and Massachusetts, Institute of Technology
JCH I have real issues with whether the time frame of ocean measurements and the sensitivity of the measurements are accurate, but your response reasonably replies to the issue raised, as opposed to FOMD’s. I doubt that the measurements since ARGO was initiated are sensitive enough to show any significant trends, but I am open to additional evidence.
JD
Excellent, has in Plate tectonics, the cause of stomach ulcers, the acceptance and promotion of eugenics and the consensus view that vaccination where worthless and that miasma theory explained epidemics ?
Pick an area of science and you will find that ‘consensus’ can be well held and much supported and still find to be dead wrong over time . Of course for some climate ‘science’ is more of a religion where errors are ‘impossible’ therefore no matter how much actual evdainced undermines the ‘consensus’ ,so blind and unquestioning is seen as it can never be wrong.
Calling Oreske’s work science is a stretch, Hansen’s predictions have been wrong (the West Side Drive under water, decreasing Antarctic sea ice, etc.) and Mann’s hockey stick is broken (numerous non-hockey sticks from many parts of the world and sketchy statistics) but hey, you have to admire FOMD’s faith in his pantheon of green “gods.”
Michael said:
“Mann has, correctly, noted this difference and is responding appropriately in the civil courts, as is his right.”
Only true zealots from the Church Of Alarmism could describe filing court briefs filled with fraud, misrepresentation and misdirection as ‘appropriate”.
The Kool-Aid is powerful but the drinkers’ numbers shrink daily. Watching Mann (and Krugman) opposed by such as the LA Times and ACLU shows how truly despicable the man and his actions are.
The anti-SLAPP laws were put in place to prevent public figures especially from silencing the public and especially the media. For example, in any controversy about bad behavior by a politician, the initial reports about corruption or infidelity etc may not be provable, or maybe just bad opinions about the job performance of the politician are being written. Many many politicians have threatened to sue over the years about opinions of commentators or even to try to stifle investigative journalists. This strategy has been more successful in Britain. These laws were designed to prevent public figures from stifling these valid expressions of opposition or investigations into bad behavior. That is what is at stake here, not Mann’s hurt feelings or Steyn being rude.
Understand that there are differences between statements of fact and statements of opinion. You may be legitimately sued for false statements of fact, but not for statements of opinion. Be careful. You will not be protected for stating, “In my opinion, Senator Squelch is a liar and a thief,” unless, of course, your statement is entirely true. If your words contain an assertion of fact that is capable of being proven true or false — i.e., that Squelch is or is not a liar and a thief — you can be sued if it is shown that your statement is false, even though you tried to qualify the statement as “opinion.” …
What is at stake is the above. Without it, free speech will take it in the entrance at the rear portico. It would simple be anything goes, and that is not speech free of anything except any accountability at all.
I post this merely as a comment and not an argument for or against. Pat Michaels also uses the Nobel prize for the IPCC reference here :
http://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels
“Michaels was a contributing author and is a reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. “sn’t say he won the Nobel.
That does not say he won the Nobel. It says the IPCC won.
As a member (reluctantly) of the European Union which won the Nobel peace prize in 2012 I would like to point out that I am every bit as Nobel as Michael Mann….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Nobel_Peace_Prize
tonyb
Well Golly gee whiz … I’m also a Nobel prize winner than, and I didn’t even know it.
Phatboy
Welcome to this prestigious club
Tonyb (Nobel peace prize winner 2012)
me too!!!
Scott
NIce little column on the chilling effects of Mann’s risible lawsuit in Forbes. The author notes to good effect that cheerleaders like Paul K., and ironically Mann himself, who are noted for their contemptuous style in the public arena, should be careful what they wish for…. lest they find themselves on the wrong end of lawsuits for calling people deniers and frauds.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorburrus/2014/08/14/hopefully-dr-michael-e-mann-doesnt-sue-me-for-this-column/
It only intensifies the schism, similar to the farce playing out with Perry in Texas.
The courts are resource to all because they are held to non-partisan standards. Like science and academics once were. The largest harm is that each effort to achieve a political end through the courts drags it all that much further into the gutter.
More end of Republic “tells”. It isn’t any one case or topic, it just keeps adding up. Finally, one side or the other feels the moral imperative for lawless behavior as in Ferguson, Mo. Liberal media operators think they can steer it to their causes but that’s really pre-war delusional thinking. People who think the AGW agenda is a minor cultural decline are seriously mistaken.What’s more totalitarian in inclination then suppressing speech?
AGW is heavy in thought policing, word definitions as political policy mandates, coercion and thuggish behavior. Mann’s peers can’t be happy that he’s confirmed all the vices of the green authority culture in one neat act.
This may actually be the beginning of the Civil Wars.
There is a deep cultural divide here that can be separated into two camps and Conservative/Liberal, Right Wing/Left Wing doesn’t work nearly as well as a division along the lines of those who believe in and support the values of the Enlightenment, of individual freedom, of messy markets and voluntary associations, who prefer a civic society to a governmental society as opposed to those that value the Leviathan State, the strong man leader, the authoritarian, top down, centralized command and control everything where all one has to do is obey. No worries, no scary freedom, no messy change to adapt to, no choices to worry over, no existential angst but a world where the leader smiles and all is well.
The first impulse, the first set of values leads to prosperity, freedom, creativity, free markets and that great hobgoblin of the 20th century that has followed us into the 21st: Inequality. But inequality of outcome is guaranteed in a free society and equality of outcome can only be achieved in a police state where all are equally miserable. It’s difficult for me to understand the power of envy but it apparently is pretty powerful as a determinant in world view and surely seems to be the driving force behind much totalitarianism. The problem is that convincing people more people will make it higher up the ladder under freedom than will ever under an authoritarian regime. Sometimes people are so envious they can’t listen to reason. But it’s the authoritarians, who by market manipulation, rules and regulations have rigged the game in favor of those who have arrived and against those who are still trying to get there. That is a design for disaster and war.
The issue regarding science as part of Steyn v Mann caused me to research the Massachusetts v EPA decision, when the US Supreme Court decided that the EPA is required to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. That decision was deeply flawed because, in part, it decided that there was no uncertainty regarding the CO2 effects. However Scalia’s dissent provided evidence that the National Research Councel had written a report describing the overwhelming uncertainty. I can see why the warmists do not want to go there in the Steyn case.
Spot on with this write-up, I honestly feel this website needs a great deal more attention. I’ll probably be returning to see more,
thanks for the information!
I get the impression that support for Piltdown has dropped within this year.
Anyone else sense that?
The degree to which that may be sensed is likely proportional to the degree of confirmation bias of the ‘sensee’.
That may or may not be true. Let’s suppose it is true.
The degree to which it is sensed is not the degree sensed, however.
I’d roughly estimate a 50 % drop in number of people ( people involved in blog discussion) willing to voice strong support for Pilty.
No change from any one who counts in team climate change. They cannot afford to throw the baby [Mann] out with the cold bathwater.
Baron Mannchausen.
==============
Mannchausen by proxy – “Mannchausen by proxy syndrome (MBPS) is a relatively rare form of science abuse that involves the exaggeration or fabrication of global warming by a primary climate scientist.”
McIntyre just caught another clanger in Pilty’s complaint
This time, taking only 3 sentences into his complaint before the false statement emerges, Dr. Mann is claiming to have been, with his colleagues to be among the first to document 20th century measured temperature rise.
If Mann was in the UK he could sue and enjoy watching the defendant (try to) prove fraud. In the US Mann must now show that he didn’t commit fraud. Not a pleasant process.
Mann called others frauds.
Now we find all kinds of untruths lie in Pilty’s Complaint.
Mann produced the Hockey Stick fraud, fraudulently called others frauds, and initiated the the legal battle when his fraud was called.
but courts also have access to Google and Nexis, and can find that all the charges have been rejected in repeated inquiries.
Being a fellow-academic, I guess krugman feels obliged to defend the climategate coverups, organised by the guilty climategate universities themselevs to exonerate themselves at taxpayer expense,
Precommitted alarmists feel they need to defend Mann, imagining that damage to Mann’s reputatiion is damage to the alarmist cause.
The truth is quite the opposite. Since the alarmist ‘consensus’ is beset by accusations of bias, vested interest, poltical agenda and dishonesty, distancing themselves from a Climategate crook like Mann would have the effect suggesting there might be some integrity in the alarmist position after all.
Precommitted alarmists feel they need to defend Mann, imagining that damage to Mann’s reputatiion is damage to the alarmist cause.
The truth is quite the opposite. Since the alarmist ‘consensus’ is beset by accusations of bias, vested interest, poltical agenda and dishonesty, distancing themselves from a Climategate cheat like Mann would have the effect suggesting there might be some integrity in the alarmist position after all.