by Judith Curry
The latest developments.
Some new filings from Mark Steyn:
New Trial:
Judgment as Matter of Law:
Stay of Execution:
https://www.steynonline.com/
Further details at steynonline [link]
-
Search
Denizens
Recent comments
- Russell Seitz on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- sylodhi on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- BA Bushaw (ganon1950) on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Joethenonclimatescientist on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- jim2 on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Woher wir wissen, dass die Sonne Motor des Klimawandels ist. Teil 1: die Vergangenheit | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- sherro01 on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Ulric Lyons on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Björn Nyman on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Rob Starkey on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
-
Recent Posts
- How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- There is no human right to a safe or stable climate
- The extraordinary climate events of 2022-24
- Mann v. Steyn: Round 2
- IPCC’s New “Hockey Stick” Temperature Graph
- Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part 3
- Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part II
- JC’s ethics complaint against Michael Mann
- JC’s expert report
- Time to retire the term ‘renewable energy’ from serious discussion and energy policy directives
- Two model-observation comparisons confirm: CMIP6 models run too hot
- Mann vs Steyn and Simberg discussion thread
- 2023 –> 2024
- “Realistic” global warming projections for the 21st century
- Climate attribution method overstates “fingerprints” of external forcing
Categories
Blogroll
- A chemist in Langley
- AndThenTheresPhysics
- Bill Hooke
- Cliff Mass
- Climate Audit
- Clive Best
- Ed Hawkins
- HeterodoxAcademy
- Kahn: Environmental & Urban Economics
- Paul Homewood
- Pragmatic Environmentalist
- Saravanan: MetaModel
- Science of Doom
- The Ethical Skeptic
- Watts Up With That?
- WoodForTrees
- Wx & Climate @ Reading
Archives
Email Subscription
Join 5,334 other subscribersMeta
Our legal system is in a terrible state. This should have been an open and shut case – not a finding of defamation.
In a more visible case, Mr. Trump was found guilty by a New York judge of .. of .. the way I understand it, of being in a real estate business.
you must be trying awfully hard to not understand, since he broke laws that were 100% crystal clear with no wiggle room whatever to them. of course, he did say he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and his supporters would still stand by him. i’m sure they’d be saying, ‘what did he do wrong?’
Danb – let me state up front that I am not a trump fan and would like to see go away. That being said, if are referring to the fraudulent financial statement case, then you should be aware there are serious constitutional issues with that statute, and serious doubts about whether the bank actually relied on the fraudulent personal financial statements at least not at the level the bank’s risk vp testified to.
Absolutely zero banks are going to make a $100m + loan without doing due diligence
Dan
You appear to suffer from TDS.
Even the back that loaned him the money says the loan application was in order. More Commy Dimowit “justice”.
While Mann v. Ball testifies that Blithering Idiocy may be a valid defense against a charge of defamation in Canada, where the courts ruled Ball to be simply Unbelievable , and thus incapable of much of much of anything, American law has determined Steyn to be of mind sufficiently sound to know when he ought to apologize, and chastise him when he does not.
So do confess yourself, Mark- we’ll all feel better when you do, and then you can return to battering your counterparts in the disinterested spirit of reciprocal zeal.
Consider the context of DC Jury pool Bias:
2020 Vote: 92.1 D to 5.4 R.
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election_in_Washington,_D.C.,_2020
As I have previously stated, Mann won when he chose the venue to file suit.
It’s the fairest Kangaroo Court in the land!
I beg to disagree with my learned friend.
Steyn lost by consenting to the venue in the reasonable expectation of returning from a recess with a snowball to brandish like Senator Inhofe, as prima facie evidence that warming was a hoax.
Instead he got a courthouse where the air conditioning had , unsurprisingly, been turned off for the winter , and a judge that adjourned the proceedings to a cooler courtroom when the mercury hit 80 in DC on January 26th, shattering a record dating tothe Lincoln administration.
Russell – its extremely hard – near impossible to get a change of venue in a civil case. The two options are A) move from a DC court to another DC court (same jury pool) or B) into federal court (with virtually the same jury pool population). Further, it is DC law (state law equivalent).
I am new to comments. First I am an avid reader of everything Dr Curry posts but I am not a climate scientist. I am an Otolaryngologist but have a graduate degree in population genetics so am familiar with models and have a good background in math. But I am perplexed by this law suit. Is there a good general background explanation. It seems impossible that one could be sued by a scientist because you disagree with your methodology, and conclusions. Or did the defendants cross the line and defame Dr Mann by saying he forged data, or was having inappropriate sexual relationships with his graduate students. The former is not defamation whereas the later could be defamation especially if it could not proven. Anyway I would love the “cliff notes” on this law suit
P Flexon
Saying he forged data would likely be defamation.
Not if it is true.
Unless you can prove in court that the data were forged.
Check out these previous posts:
https://judithcurry.com/?s=steyn
Court Papers posted here: https://portal-dc.tylertech.cloud/app/RegisterOfActions/#/39E6B1D3C30C2BB8B4486558221C8C0F621E97A8C8499E9C46C8336E44F4123B/anon/portalembed
The texts posted by Mark Steyn and alleged to be defamatory were:
“a) 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.”
b) “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does, but he has a point.”
c) “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.”
The jury unaninously answered Yes to all the questions below. I’ve reproduced them for Steyn, but with one exception the answers were the same for both Defendents.
Do you find that Plaintiff has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one or more of the above statements from Defendant Steyn’s July 15, 2012 post was defamatory or had a defamatory implication that was intended by Mr. Steyn?
A. Yes.
For each statement from II(A)(1) that you found defamatory, do you find that, for any one of them, Plaintiff has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defamatory meaning conveyed by Defendant Steyn’s statement(s) asserted or implied
a provably false fact, or relied upon stated facts that are provably false?
A. Yes.
For each statement from II(A)(2) that you found both defamatory and relied on provably false facts, do you find that, for any one of them, Plaintiff has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the provably false fact asserted, implied, or relied upon by the defamatory meaning conveyed by Defendant Steyn’s statement(s) was
false?
A. Yes.
For each statement from II(A)(3) that you found defamatory, relied on provably falsefacts, and was false, do you find that, for any one of them, Plaintiff has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Defendant Steyn published his post with either:
a. knowledge of the falsity of that fact,
Yes (No for Simberg)
b. reckless disregard for whether that fact was false? Reckless disregard means that Defendant Steyn published the statement while entertaining serious doubts about its truth or that he had a high degree of awareness that the statement was probably false.
Yes
For each statement from II(A)(4) that you found defamatory, relied on provably falsefacts, was false, and was made with either knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for whether the fact was false, do you find that, for any one of them, Plaintiff proved
by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff suffered actual injury as a result of the statement written or quoted by Defendant Steyn?
A. Yes.
Ifyou answered “Yes” to question II(A)(5), please identify which statements by Defendant Steyn (listed as “a” through “c” above), for which you answered “Yes” to all of the above questions in section II(A) and then proceed to question II(B)(i)(1).
a,c
“Final Judgment Order: Judgment for Plaintiff against Defendant Simberg ($1 compensatory, $1,000 punitive) and Defendant Steyn ($1 compensatory, $1,000,000 punitive); E-filed and e-served 2/9/2024.
Signed On:
02/09/2024”
Sure reads like a slam-dunk for Dr. Mann. I am very much not a lawyer, but given the unanimous result and the size of the award, I find it hard to see how or why a different jury on a different day would look at the same facts and come to a different verdict.
PJ – I havent had a chance to cross check your citation back to the court record, though the jury had to have answered yes to all 5 questions in order to find for the plaintiff. Your note above on #3 was no for simberg, If so, then mann should have lost with respect to simberg.
The second point is the jury instructions on the actual malice standard / reckless disregard for the truth were pathetic, poorly explained and not consistent with the US Supreme court decision in harte hanks comm
It has been said that Einstein shattered the myth of “Settled Science”; shattered–as in among scientists. Here we must be led to believe that a jury of cotizens satisfies the definition of settled science. Why not in our pilitical landscape, after all, the average citizen was quite capable of defining what a witch was in Salem, in the day.
The philosopher Karl Popper pointed out that early practitioners of science sought justified knowledge; today called settled science.
Newton’s theory for gravity described it as a force that affected the motion of celestial objects, it was corroborated over centuries’ worth of observations, passing every test thrown at it.
Per Einstein. guys, you’ve got it all wrong. Gravity is not a force, it’s a result of curved space and time.
“Einstein had done the unimaginable: proven Newton’s theory wrong….the Einsteinian revolution highlighted…we simply can’t have settled science.”
Unless you’re a citizen jurist, of course. In such a case, mostly, culturally speaking, opinion always trumps science. Scientist citizens, who are activists, wholehertadly agree.
“How could any number of observations ever justify a theory as true, if the very next observation could always render it false?”
“Einstein’s impeachment of Newton’s theory…may seem frightening to those with even a remote interest in making progress… But it need not be. Because along with demonstrating that we can’t have settled science, the Einsteinian revolution showed that we don’t need settled science.”
It appears there’s no doubt, however, we should defer to an emotive citizen jury for all matters concerning science.
I can’t get past the very fundamental issue of how far freedom of speech applies to journalists. There should not be requirements of a finding of fact. His columns were opinion. There is no right or wrong about opinion. There is no finding or falsifying an opinion as there is with fact.
All other issues should be irrelevant and immaterial.
Long live parody.
Steyn will be lucky if any of these motions succeeds. Courts are generally reluctant to change a jury verdict, with some exceptions for excessive punitive damages.
Concur that the courts are very reluctant to overturn a jury verdict.
The verdict along with most every ruling since the start of the trial was contrary to binding US Supreme court precedent (or the SLAP statute)
One item in the three motions that seemed to be missing was any mention of improper jury instructions. Under Harte Hanks Comm, the Actual malice standard requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that A ) the statement was false and B) that either the defendant knew the statement was false or made no effort to determine if the true (reckless disregard).
Both Styen and Simberg provided considerable evidence that there was strong reason to believe their statement was true. Zero evidence was presented to overcome the plaintiffs burden.
The jury instructions were written (#3 & #4), in a manner that the only answer was yes. S McIntyre and JC would likely would have answered yes, based on the wording when the correct answer is no under the Harte hanks Comm standard. Thus the improper jury instruction.
Pingback: Mann v. Steyn: Round 2 – Climate Depot
Freeman Dyson says, “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic.” As for Dyson’s opinion about climatologists he says, “I just think they don’t understand the climate.” Dr. Hans von Storch labeled the Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ as quatsch.’ Dr. Ross McKitrick details an instance (undoubtedly now a part of the Mann v Steyn lawsuit) about which he says Mann’s claims are ‘obviously misleading.’
“The intensity with which so many people have followed the story [of Michael Mann’s illusory hockey stick], and its continuing relevance via the ongoing Mann v. Steyn lawsuit (as well as others), indicate to me that it is more than just an academic spat about proxy quality and scores. I suspect that the whole episode has wider social significance as an indicator of a rather defective aspect of early 21st century scientific culture.” ~Ross McKitrick (A brief retrospective on the hockey stick, May 23, 2014)
Freeman’s dead.
What does Esther Dyson say ?
That, essentially – we should have the courage to do nothing:
‘Freeman admitted he was a skeptic on global warming. His problem was not change in the climate. “In the long view we ARE changing the climate.” He felt that climate was hugely complex, that we understand very little of it and many people are reducing this unknown complexity into one data point — the average temperature somewhere. Until we understand what kind of changes we are making in our “solutions” he says he believes the best action on global climate change right now is inaction.’ Esther Dyson
Steyn should win on his post-trial motions, which are very strong. There is no support for the punitive damages award. He should also win on his motion for a new trial. But you never know what a court will do. If he does not win now, he should win on appeal. Unless the appellate court just doesn’t understand the First Amendment.
All this is very disturbing to me. This is gas-lighting at its best. Every argument or presentation I see about how bad the human caused warming is starts off with the hockey stick.
The notion that contemporary climate science is rife with charlatanism can be seen from many different angles from the UN IPCC’s larger scaled depiction of contemporary warming, to the narrowed down treatment of Dr Curry’s change of heart and prognostication when shown that her own work in supporting global warming theory was flawed. It takes not just strong character and courage but also bolted on integrity to deal with t as Dr Curry did.
A certain Mann has no such integrity as he demonstrated when Dr Curry caught him lying about her in public and he couldn’t even manage the words ‘I’m sorry’ at the time.
The verdict of the District of Columbia was not consistent with what I read about the trial but then the last decade or so has thrown up so much bias in what used to be very carefully monitored processes at any and all levels. (Now you can even be questioned about your character by a UK shop before getting a 20% discount which shows just how trivial, unjust and unable to respect others our once strong and resilient society has become. We discriminate in order to reduce discrimination – apparently!)
Inquiries, investigations, courts etc. and justice do not always go together well and we’ll often never know the guilty getting away with stuff or the innocent who don’t, but the wrong guys certainly seemed to suffer bad decisions from bench, jury, and procedural biases in this defamation trial in my opinion.
My hope is that the whole thing rebounds on Mann eventually. His comeuppance is long overdue.
UK – Weather – “A certain Mann has no such integrity as he demonstrated when Dr Curry caught him lying about her in public and he couldn’t even manage the words ‘I’m sorry’ at the time.”
UK weather makes an important point. M Mann probably set a record for the quantity of perjury statements during the entire course of this litigation. ( 200+).
The obvious rhetorical question – can his professional work be of such high professional ethical and scientific standards, when deceit is so deeply embedded in other facets of his life?
What makes Mann’s repetitive defamation of other scientists legitimate while criticism of Mann’s work is defamation.
“What makes Mann’s repetitive defamation of other scientists legitimate while criticism of Mann’s work is defamation”
Yes–and why didn’t the judge plainly see this obvious reality?
Equally obvious, a rhetorical question.
Its difficult to get that type evidence into trial. Mann’s defamation was not on trial, it was Styens/Simberg’s alleged defamation that was on trial. Thus Manns defamation was not generally relevant ( at least for purposes of Mann’s suit).
Thanks Joe, I trust your knowledge of the courts more than my own, by far, but I thought there were special rules pertaining to veracity of character in testimony. For example, if an individual before God and country is recorded lying before congress. It appears courtroom complexities forbid such evidence?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_608
JT – I did poor job of explaining the standard ( with the caveat that I should defer to an attorney with civil trial experience)
Victoria Simberg’s attorney, did a very good job exposing Mann’s repetitive perjury, especially in the area of damages – (albeit Mann is a God in the climate science religion and most all of DC worships that religion and therefore clear evidence was ignored).
that type of perjury is generally admissible while Mann’s defamation of others generally would not be – again, I would prefer to defer to a trial attorney.
What you state generally makes sense, Joe. My final question is spurred from the prior links legal characterization of standing: “But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness’s character for truthfulness has been attacked”. How would the illustated legacy scenario, seemingly valid in context for in-trial standing during testimony play out otherwise?
JT – I am not sure I understand your question.
“standing” is a term used to describe a person (or entity) that has been harmed / damaged (or at high risk to be harmed ) and therefore has a basis to file suit ( Bob defaults on his bank loan. I can not sue Bob for Bob’s breach of contract with the bank because I am not a party to the transaction – thus lack of standing)
You may be referring to admissibility of evidence. The admissibility of evidence is based on the relevance of the evidence to the case. The general rule is that if it is relevant, then it is admissible as long as it is not predejucial. (spelling error). There a lot of more detailed rules regarding admissibility, that I am not qualified to comment on.
Relevant evidence is supposed to be prejudicial against one of the parties, so the prejudicial nature of evidence is not the test for its admissibility. Relevant evidence can be excluded if it is unduly or unfairly prejudicial.
Fed Rule of Evidence 401 – Evidence is relevant if
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action
Fed Rule Evid 403 – Excluding relevant evidence for prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or other reasons
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
In other words, relevance is in the eye of the judge and the judge’s exercise of discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is an abuse of that discretion.
Thanks paulg – much better explanation than I could give.
The defendant should have thanked the judge for discretely moving the trial to a cooler venue when the jury started to sweat.
Proportions of new energy generation for 2024 are interesting:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424
Yep, sure they will. We’ll see how it plays in Reality Theater.
impressive increase in capacity until you look at the actual capacity factor
As US electricity and overall energy consumption has at best plateaued, there is less new generation coming online. I’m happy solar is doing well–but it’s not as big a deal as you seem to think.
Interesting how you guys find bias in “interesting”. It is simply an overview of new capability – all types – expected to be added in the US in 2024. It’s what the EIA thinks the industry will do, like it or not.
Sorry, no more faith in District of Columbia justice = just us, the cabal, swamp creatures & their woke childless women.
Thanks God I don’t live in north America!
It’s strange how, on this blog, there is a war on natural gas, when in reality natural gas production continues to set records. u.s. crude oil production is also at a record. but hey, these are merely facts. so we know they mean nothing when compared to what we “feel” is happening. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/03/the-u-s-has-never-produced-more-energy-than-it-does-today/
Oh, why would anyone think that, DanB?
Why did Biden delay consideration of LNG export terminals?
The decision is complicated because Biden has praised U.S. exports in the past. But he has faced strong criticism from environmental groups who worry about the rapid expansion of LNG exports in recent years and question Biden’s commitment to phasing out fossil fuels such as oil and gas. U.S. oil production has surged since Biden took office.
U.S. LNG capacity has doubled in recent years and is set to double again under projects already approved, the White House said. Current methods the Energy Department uses to evaluate LNG projects don’t adequately account for potential cost hikes for American consumers and manufacturers or the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, officials said.
“There’s a long runway here (for LNG projects) and we’re taking a step back and thinking, okay, let’s take a hard look before that runway continues to build out,” said White House climate adviser Ali Zaidi.
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2024-01-26/liquified-natural-gas-what-to-know-about-lng-and-bidens-decision
Biden has indirectly helped our competitors because they will now supply the LNG needed in Europe and elsewhere. You see? He isn’t preventing ANY emissions, it will just be shifted elsewhere. Just like we shift coal emissions to China and India, giving them the advantage of a cheap energy source.
if thise constitutes a “war on natural gas” we’ve truly entered the twilight zone. first, this is strictly about export and has zero impact on extraction or use in this country. second, it is delay on construction of new terminals that are still in the planning stage while oversight is conducted. nobody is shutting down existed terminals, or even delaying already approved construction, or affecting extraction, or slowing the rapid rise of use of LNG. So…yeah….that war on natural gas is 100% nonsense, make-believe, and silly. it’s use is rising rapidly and nothing here is slowing that. finally, if you read on in the article:
“Seven LNG terminals are currently operating in the U.S., mostly in Louisiana and Texas, with up to five more expected to come online in the next few years. Biden’s action would not affect those projects.”
“Let me be clear. The U.S. is already the number one exporter of LNG, and we remain unwavering in our commitment to support our allies and partners around the world,″ Zaidi said Friday.
Having to delay an expensive project like that costs our companies money and our citizens jobs. You can try to sugar-coat this all you want, but it simply wrong. It certainly DOES hurt domestic production and obviously will affect extraction. Storage is already getting full.
DanB | March 13, 2024 at 11:11 am | Reply
It’s strange how, on this blog, there is a war on natural gas
DanB
1) Where did you get the idea that anyone posting on CE is fighting a war on natural gas?
2) Why would you link anything to yale climate connections? Its scientific credibility ranks up there (or down there) with watts up with that – though opposite ends of the spectrum.
Links, no matter which, have more scientific credibility than no links at all. At least people can evaluate the source themselves. Otherwise, it is simply person opinion. Skepticism is bidirectional.
Ganon – you continue to show both ignorance and an inability to use basic logic
DanB made the claim that “on this blog, there is a war on natural gas.” A he made with no support
Dan B then posts a link that does not support his claim and which link doesnt even address the topic he discusses.
use some basic logic and you might grasp how inane your comment was.
Said just like someone who never provides references (no credibility).
BAB
Useless links are meaningless. You seem to like to make the last comment whenever possible.
Rob, what is a “useless link” – one you don’t agree with?
Yeah, I have a tendency to respond to comments/questions directed to me. Sometimes, I even make original comments – isn’t it terrible?
1. I post from yale climate connections (and will continute to do so) because it is an extremely reliable source of climate science expertise. for example, it has long noted that, as the models predicted, the planet is warming. the deniers were wrong. the believers were right. so, call me crazy, i believe those who have been shown to be correct, and doubt those who have been steadily wrong for the last 30 years.
2. this site has many posts that seem to believe there is a war on natural gas happening in the world. obviously, this is a fantasy.
On Monday, National Review filed a motion in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia to recover a portion of the legal fees that Michael Mann’s frivolous lawsuits have forced us to spend over the last twelve years. We cannot recover the time and effort that Mann has wasted, but we can recover more than a million of the dollars that we have lost defending our unalienable right to free speech.
A little background. Back in 2012, Michael Mann threatened to sue National Review for defamation after Mark Steyn criticized Mann on our group-blog, the Corner. In response to this threat, National Review’s editor, Rich Lowry, wrote a post titled “Get Lost,” in which he explained that Mann’s characterization of Steyn’s criticisms as representing “criminal fraud” was incorrect, as Steyn was merely pointing out that Mann’s research was “intellectually bogus and wrong.” Angered by both the initial post and the follow-up, Mann filed a lawsuit against National Review in October of 2012, claiming that both Steyn and Lowry had not only libeled him, but were guilty of the intentional infliction of emotional distress. In response, National Review filed a Special Motion to Dismiss under Washington, D.C.’s Anti-SLAPP Act — a law that is designed to ensure that litigants such as Mann are unable to use the legal system to punish their critics.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/03/michael-mann-owes-us-1-million/
“There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures — one-twentieth of a degree by 2050.”
[Source: Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal]
On Monday, National Review filed a motion in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia to recover a portion of the legal fees that Michael Mann’s frivolous lawsuits have forced us to spend over the last twelve years. We cannot recover the time and effort that Mann has wasted, but we can recover more than a million of the dollars that we have lost defending our unalienable right to free speech.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/03/michael-mann-owes-us-1-million/
Despite National Review having succeeded with its Special Motion to Dismiss back in 2019, we have thus far been unable to recoup the “costs of litigation” that D.C.’s Anti-SLAPP Act allows any “party who prevails, in whole or in part” to seek.
That is an interesting part of the Anti-Slapp statute that I had forgotten. I havent read the statute on the recovery of costs of litigation by the prevailing party, though if the provision is effectively automatic (as NR implies in their press release), then Mann may actually incur real costs for being a jerk.
If the provision is automatic, then all 4 parties would be eligible (assuming simberg and steyn win on appeal). Given that provision and the likely hood/possibility of prevailing on appeal, it begs the question as to why simberg did not file any subsequent motions after the jury verdict (possible he did file motion). I dont recall the time period for filing appeal or other motions, though it is typically short such as 30 days, (45 days or 90 days)
I think judge irving is fully aware the case against all 4 should have been dismissed under the applicable Slapp statute, and further no evidence even remotely supported the actual malice standard set out in the SC decision in Harte Hanks Comm. That being said, Judge Irving denied the two motions for directed verdicts, which indicates judge irving would have to admit his mistakes of applicable law.
I’m wondering if Steyn could, with cooperation from National Review, negotiate a settlement with Mann such that Mann gets no money from Steyn.
Jim –
A) I doubt that NR would be open to that suggestion since NR needs to be reimbursed for their costs $1m +.
B) Mann’s fees were all paid for by the litigation fund. I suspect that the litigation fund may not be willing to fund the reimbursement.
C) by far the better outcome would be reversal on appeal and CEI & NR getting reimbursed. That would be a long way in establishing precedent on how the statute should be properly applied.
D) Unfortunately, the appeal goes to the same appeals court that heard the original appeal. Maybe not the same panel, but its the same appeals court the ruled on Mann’s favor in large part because they believed Manns perjurious statements that he had been exonerated by the 8 climategate investigations.
Also of note – Mann demonstrated through the litigation that he is a serial perjurer / liar.
Is it possible to believe that his professional work can be of high scientific and professional standards when his non professional work consumed with lies and unethical behavior.
Would any one retain employment or even obtain employment with such a huge reputation of dishonesty.
following back up on National reviews motion for costs – I find the chance of NR prevailing to be remote – Section 16-5504(b) is too large of a hurdle.
§ 16–5504. Fees and costs.
(a) The court may award a moving party who prevails, in whole or in part, on a motion brought under § 16-5502 or § 16-5503 the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees.
(b) The court may award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the responding party only if the court finds that a motion brought under § 16-5502 or § 16-5503 is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.
Granted, the suit was frivolous and contrary to existing US Supreme court precedent, but there were a series of botched court rulings along the way that will make the frivolous standard hard to overcome.
In March we have the same solar hours duration as in September.
The sun shines from the same high.
In September is much warmer at night, we still wear short sleeves.
But not in March. In March at nights is cold, in March at nights is cold, it is unpleasant even to stay outdoors at night.
Solar energy gets accumulated slowly. Also it gets slowly released to space. When there is more solar hours – at summer, more solar energy has kept.
It is not the thin atmosphere, it is the land and it is the water which accumulate heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The War on Fossil Fuels in Columbia.
Ecopetrol SA’s governance committee issued a report Tuesday that said none of the five candidates proposed by Petro — elected in 2022 as Colombia’s first leftist leader — have the experience needed to run the company, according to an internal document seen by Bloomberg News. Representatives of Ecopetrol declined to comment. Petro’s office didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The fight over the future of Ecopetrol — Colombia’s largest company — underscores the rifts that are arising over Petro’s push to eliminate the country’s dependence on fossil fuels, which has major implications for its economy and finances. Petro has refused to sign new exploration contracts even as oil and coal account for about half of Colombia’s exports, and the country is facing a looming shortfall in production of natural gas used to cook and generate power.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-13/ecopetrol-ec-board-blasts-anti-oil-president-petro-s-nominees-as-unfit
A rather long WSJ article about Mann’s suit.
In that time, a state attorney general accused him of misusing public money. The National Research Council and the university that employed him investigated his research. And conservative commentators attacked his work and his character. There were death threats.
Then last month, Mann won a 12-year legal fight and a $1 million jury verdict against the conservative bloggers who called his work fraudulent and compared him to a pedophile. The defendants have said they would appeal.
Mann’s $1 million jury award comes when public trust in science is at a low, scientific journals are retracting more papers than ever before, and researchers in a range of disciplines are scrutinizing the work of their peers and calling out what they see as errors or shoddy work in public forums.
Despite these wobbles, Mann is optimistic about both the discoveries and the integrity of how science is conducted these days.
https://www.wsj.com/science/environment/michael-mann-climate-change-defamation-hockey-stick-509ab363
Today in the Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/science/environment/michael-mann-climate-change-defamation-hockey-stick-509ab363?st=e5d96f2o2pbpizy&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Wall Street Journal Opinion Article on January 29: https://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-mann-overboard-pursues-critics-through-court-climate-change-ea3742be?st=hi6808lbotmmwxx&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Why do you invoke the moral authority of a WSJ pundit who lacks the moral courage to respond to other WSJ Op-ed writers?
Oh Noes! He didn’t respond to other WSJ Op-ed writers??? The nerve! How could he do such a thing.
Well, we know it’s all Bafflegab.
Atmosphere gets warmed by the surface, when air gets in immediate contact with it, and from H2O vapor condensation.
Then all that energy is emitted to outer space, as every other form of energy eventually does.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
China. Again.
Countries trying to replicate China’s boom in renewable electricity might also want to take a page out of its nuclear power playbook.
Beijing is able to approve as many as 10 new reactors a year, the chairman of China National Nuclear Corp. said last week, which would accelerate an already impressive expansion of atomic energy.
The nation has 36 reactors under development, and is expected to leapfrog France and the US to become the world’s largest source of nuclear power by the end of the decade, according to BloombergNEF.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-03-15/china-s-nuclear-energy-expansion-is-getting-even-faster
More from that article …
China is able to build reactors at a fraction of the cost of places like France and the US, according to BloombergNEF. That’s in part thanks to low lending rates from supportive state-owned banks.
It’s also because of smart construction strategies. China prioritizes building several reactors of the same design, which allows the development of a skilled work force and a ready supply chain, reducing the time and money needed.
Following simple lessons like these can reduce the cost of atomic energy and create another, more reliable, alternative to planet-warming fossil fuels.
They build their nuclear plants faster due to a lack of aðmìnistrative delays. That is what drives to total cost down.
Rob – that’s impossible. The lefty US government has nothing to do at all with the high cost of building nuclear power plants here.
Following the science …
https://www.wsj.com/articles/follow-the-science-leads-to-ruin-climate-environment-policy-3f427c05?st=uwkzlglw0kcllix&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Using the analogy of a greenhouse with respect to global warming alarmism was never an attempt to objectively describe the actual effect of CO2. The purposeful use of the erroneous greenhouse analogy was for its dramatic effect – it made for great theater. The phony greenhouse analogy is dogma not science: a scare tactic to help achieve the Left’s political agenda of taking over the country’s economy, just as ignoring the effect of clouds is a knowing deception to further the global warming hoax. It’s all a big math charade – pulling mythical rabbits out of abstract toy models to divert the public’s eye from the real truth.
the greenhouse analogy is an excellent and entirely appropriate way to understand the impact of co2 in retaining heat that would otherwise dissipate into space. there is no scare tactic whatever, nothing even remotely phony in it, and of course, as we now know, it has been shown to be correct and skeptics have been proven wrong. the simple fact that the planet is warming almost precisely at the rate predicted MUST be ignored by the skeptics, and so we see endless posts like yours that seem to be written in
a make-believe fairy-tale world where the planet isn’t warming because of co2.
DanB,
So what warmed the planet 1910 to 1940?
Fairy dust?
Geoff S
‘Of course, we now know that real greenhouses preserve warmth not by trapping infrared radiation but by physically obstructing the convective heat exchange between a greenhouse interior and the exterior environment. Nevertheless, the term ‘greenhouse effect’ stuck in science.’
~Nikolov & Zeller
Higher CO2 and higher temperature still begs the question, which came first…warmth or CO2 levels? Skeptics do not say the planet is not warming.
The skepticism, if you take “fossil fuel” bias out, is whether CO2 is the root cause. Simplifying a warming process to 400 parts of every million as the sole cause is ridiculous. Compressing gasses (troposphere) will warm things too.
As I understand CO2 action, it creates residual heat due to vibration of the compound caused by solar radiation passing through. Not by “trapping” the heat below.
Sherr001 – more important question than what caused the warming circa 1910-1940 is what caused the shift from a cooling trend to a warming trend starting in the mid/late 1800’s when co2 went from 280ppm to 281ppm? A shift from a cooling trend to a warming trend that was as large of a rate change (or large rate of warming change) as the post 1980?
there is a lack of a credible scientific explanation. The build up of C02 from the start of the Industrial revolution doesnt explain it since co2 went from approx 280ppm to 281 or 282pm.
“greenhouse analogy is an excellent and entirely appropriate way to understand the impact of co2 in retaining heat that would otherwise dissipate into space. there is no scare tactic whatever”
Does Dan know that water vapor is a GHG?
If we were planning a mission outside the solar system we’d want lots of CO2 to grow healthy plants for our journey to the stars–e.g., growers keep CO2 levels at 1,000 to 2,000 ppm in Earthly greenhouses, which is about the level you’d find in a lecture hall full of students and pretty much what has been normal over most of Earth’s 550 million year history. Plants begin to die below 150 ppm. The Sahara wasn’t always a desert. Dr. Will Happer testified before the U.S. Senate that, “the planet is currently starved of CO2, and has been so starved for several million years.”
I agree, and rest my case on the records of the District of Columbia:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/washington-dc/lowest-temperatures-by-year
Respectfully, I looked at your posts in this thread and don’t recognize where you “rested a DC case”, based your link. How is the charts substance the basis of a defined case?
I’m going to assume you’re demonstrating that there’s nothing parabolic, or all that unusual in the chart, if so I agree; actually the word “parabolic” would be an overstated sensibility. The chart best describes a slow moving local average temperature ebb and flow rise over the last 150 years, not much of anything to raise an eyebrow about relative to centennial temperature wiggles; unless one wrongly believes temperature averages should never wiggle at all within centennial measures. If your argument is “where’s the beef”, relating to temperature, it’s a reasonable question that I agree with.
Inversely, presenting an imaginary scenario: All humans were wiped off the planet in 1800 by a vicious virus. Reviewing the same temperature record in DC, sans population, it should demonstrate an absolutely flat temperature range over the same 150ish year period? Or one sees the slight amount of warming over the last 150 years; ho hum, natural variability in play? Or, my god what could have caused such a disturbing trend without humans here to cause it? To surmise that such a slight amount of warming demonstrated in said record is alarming suggests that on believes anything beyond a constant temperature average isn’t normal, outside of a natural catastrophe? I suspect you’re too smart to have irrational takes beyond the ho hum for said chart.
What ever do you mean? This was written to affirm
Dan B’s response to Wagathon :
the greenhouse analogy is an excellent and entirely appropriate way to understand the impact of co2 in retaining heat that would otherwise dissipate into space. there is no scare tactic whatever, nothing even remotely phony in it, and of course, as we now know, it has been shown to be correct and skeptics have been proven wrong. the simple fact that the planet is warming almost precisely at the rate predicted MUST be ignored by the skeptics, and so we see endless posts like yours that seem to be written in
a make-believe fairy-tale world where the planet isn’t warming because of co2.
As to the DC coldest day chart, its most salient and startling feature is that though the Capital recorded scores of subzero ˙F days & nights in the 19th and 20th centuries, it has experienced none in the 21st.
I’ll go with the science- carbon dioxide officially became a greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutant in 2009 because the EPA simply declared it to be. Attorney Michael B. Gillett informs us that, the “EPA issued an Endangerment Finding that motor vehicle emissions of GHGs cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare through climate change. 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009).” The EPA’s Finding is nothing more than a political statement with no science behind it whatsoever.
Affirm? Contraire, do you mean? Looking at a cross section of world climate trends nothing in particular stands out, via your own source:
Paris, France, cooling trend?
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/paris/lowest-temperatures-by-year
San Francisco, nothing burger:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/san-francisco/lowest-temperatures-by-year
New Orleans, nothing burger:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/new-orleans/lowest-temperatures-by-year
Miami, Florida, nothing burger:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/miami-beach/lowest-temperatures-by-year
Seattle Washington, cooling trend?
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/miami-beach/lowest-temperatures-by-year
Atlanta, nothing burger:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/atlanta/lowest-temperatures-by-year
London, UK, nothing burger:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/london-heathrow/lowest-temperatures-by-year
Berlin, Germany, nothing burger:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/berlin/lowest-temperatures-by-year
Centennial climate scales are generally a nothing burger as a measure for climate. For thin skinned ideologues; yearly, or decadal scales mean everything—as does a singular low temp over the last 100 years.
Russell: “its most salient and startling feature is that though the Capital recorded scores of subzero ˙F days & nights in the 19th and 20th centuries, it has experienced none in the 21st”
If science is beef, you’re a vegan.
Nothing in the chart you posted is salient–certainly nothing is startling, demonstrable within the DC teperature record you’re fixated on. There”s a stretch post WW2 that saw no sub zero temperatures in DC that lasted longer than the current stretch without a sub zero print.
Being compelled by immediate gratification, inventing arguments to nourish relevancy–never yields nourishment. Where’s the beef, wrong question for fast food vegan junkies.
.
Thank you for being deliberately obtuse: the slope of the DC lows record speaks for itself, as does my ongoing coverage of vegan cultural atrocities :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-existential-threatburger-hate.html
You’ll find roughly a hundred related posts if you search the index.
“The slope of lows”, right, no need to throw more kale over my shoulder. Enjoy your salad, Russell.
Whatever are you trying to say, old bunglechump?
That up is down and hotter cooler?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com
War on Fossil Fuels – Colorado.
A bill to substantially restrict oil and gas permitting in Colorado would result in widespread financial and environmental impacts, according to a new report by a research group.
The report, published by the Common Sense Institute, a free-enterprise think tank, says Senate Bill 24-159 would negatively impact the state’s economy as well as tax revenue at the state and local levels.
The legislation also would result in increased emissions, according to the report, which referenced the recently published Colorado Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap 2.0 Report to support its point.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/16/report-bill-to-end-colorado-oil-gas-permitting-could-have-2b-impact-on-tax-revenue/
Jim2 –
The loss of revenue to colorado would occur from three pots, A) loss of royalties on state property, B) loss of income tax on oil and gas revenue and C) loss of state severance taxes.
One of the biggest omissions/falsehoods of the “fossil fuels get big tax subsidies” claim is the omission of the severance tax on oil and gas revenues. The severance tax rates vary by state from 3% to 7% on the Gross revenue, (not Net income). The severance tax on the gross revenue greatly outweighs any benefit of the time value of money on the phantom tax subsidies.
Item A) is another falsehood / omission in the “tax subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuel” claim. both states and the federal govt enjoy tremendous revenue from the oil gas revenue from state or federal lands. Again vastly outweigh and phantom tax benefit from tax deductions for out of pocket cash expenditures.
clarification on “Jim2 –
The loss of revenue to colorado would occur from three pots, A) loss of royalties on state property,
Item A should read : ” loss of royalty income on state owned property” (colorado along with many other states, especially in the western states, owns the mineral interests on the state owned lands)
I read Steyn’s motions and this trial was a joke. (in addition to being presented to a very biased jury pool) For Williams to argue that a message had to be sent to climate “deniers” and also link Steyn to Donald Trump was egregiously inflammatory, and is very good grounds for reversal. The judge only slapped him on the wrist for this clearly, intentionally prejudicial and unethical argument. Personally, if I was on a board reviewing the ethics of Williams, I would sanction him for this behavior. Also, I am amazed that the NSF report was introduced into evidence — it was neither signed nor dated.
Finally, I have no idea how the punitive damages award of $1 million can possibly stand with no compensatory damages found. I thought there might be some weird interaction between defamation law, where some damages are presumed, and the punitive damages award, but I see no hint of that in what Steyn’s lawyers argued. (May come up later)
Additionally, I apologize for the short post above. I was a little confused by the log in.
The biggest confusion/deception on the NSF memorandum is that under the NSF standards for review, it only covered the period in which Mann received funding. Both the MBH98 and MBH 99 were prior to any funding from the NSF and therefore, neither study was investigated by the NSF.
As JD Ohio noted, it was a very biased jury and that jury was going to find defamation no matter how clearly the evidence showed otherwise.
Wyners testimoney should have sunk his case.
Mann even admitted he manipulated the stats and that he knew he manipulated the stats when he testified that the residuals had no meaning or value in his direct testimony.
Your money my friend,
Is blowin’ in the wind,
Your money is blowin’ in the wind …
Christian Sandström and Christian Steinbeck analysed wind-power companies’ annual reports in Sweden and their work revealed “significant financial problems”, they told Swedish media outlet Kvartal on February 28.
“The total loss for the years 2017–2022 amounted to 13.5 billion Swedish krona [€1.2 billion], which meant a loss margin of 39 per cent,” they said about the sector.
Such heavy losses seem to be the rule rather than the exception for wind-power companies in Sweden, according to the annual reports.
…
Sandström and Steinbeck have been pointing towards profitability problems in the wind sector for some time “despite suppliers benefiting from Government support through electricity certificates and being exempt from covering the entire expenses associated with grid adaptation for wind energy or the depreciation of properties near installations”.
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2024/03/01/icy-blast-of-bankruptcies-loom-for-swedish-wind-power-sector-experts-warn/
Meanwhile, ice is mostly staying put …
Explaining the motivation behind their work, Ing said, “As the climate warms, we’re noticing more frequent periods of intense surface melting on the Greenland Ice Sheet, especially towards the end of the summer. During this time, the ice sheet’s movement becomes particularly responsive to spikes in surface melting, potentially moving more ice to lower elevations where air temperatures are higher.
“Our study focused on analyzing multiple intense melting events that occurred in late summer 2022 and their effect on the annual movement of the ice sheet. Despite observing a large acceleration in ice motion, this acceleration was short-lived, lasting only a few days, and did not significantly impact the overall annual motion of the ice sheet.”
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-greenland-ice-sheet-motion-minimally.html
Thanks jim2 for that link. I frequently learn something by reading the entire article, rather than just the selected excerpt. Doing so often reveals a (perhaps unintentional) bias.
For instance, jim2 apparently regards the important message to be that the “…ice is mostly staying put”. He might also have noted that the article states: “While this study suggests that the increase in annual ice discharge from these late-season melt events will not be a primary factor in ice sheet mass loss, the increase in meltwater runoff from such events is critical and significant….This is especially important given that 50% of the entire Greenland Ice Sheet’s annual mass loss is due to meltwater runoff.”
So even if the ice sheet movement is relatively unaffected, the ice at the surface is certainly not “staying put”.
I encourage everyone to read the entire article :)
…” Doing so often reveals a (perhaps unintentional) bias ” …
as demonstrated in your response to Jim2 for example.
People often read what they seek to find rather than what the author perhaps intended. Climate change science is generally not blessed with honest to goodness treatments since the arrival of Mr Mann and others occupied in deceits because the truth wouldn’t have punched the required weight.
Like so many issues in Washington, the need for more transmission lines is accepted without question and the costs are not considered. But for American consumers, especially low-income and elderly, as well as small businesses and energy intense manufacturers, building new transmission lines could result in much higher monthly bills and leave them on the hook for stranded assets.
…
Over the past few years, States established renewable energy mandates; Congress enacted over $1 trillion in taxpayer subsidies for renewable energy; and President Biden issued an executive order setting net-zero goals for electricity generation by 2035. To fulfill these policies, the grid needs new high-voltage transmission lines—lots of them—and they will be expensive.
According to the “Net-Zero America” analysis published by Princeton researchers, achieving net zero goals with 100% wind and solar by 2050 will require an additional $3.5 trillion in capital spending for new transmission lines. If net-zero goals are pursued with a mix of renewables, nuclear, and natural gas generation (which may include carbon capture), then a significant portion of this transmission investment would be unnecessary. Furthermore, a balanced resource mix of dispatchable and renewable resources would enhance grid reliability without overbuilding renewables or transmission.
…
Renewable power developers see the potential for selling their electricity in higher priced power systems near urban centers, while also being able to harvest generous taxpayer subsidies. But having to pay for transmission cuts into profits. Furthermore, property owners impacted by the transmission lines are objecting. The solution: a wave of lobbyists and special interests pressing policy makers to eliminate permitting barriers and to socialize the $3.5 trillion cost of building new transmission lines to more Americans.
…
Customers may also be left paying for transmission projects that are no longer needed. New technology, such as small modular nuclear reactors that can be built at existing power plants that already have transmission access, may negate the need for new transmission lines to serve renewable generators. The current push for transmission reform may be another expensive example of Washington trying to solve yesterday’s problem. This is not mere speculation, since 2008 customers have paid $250 million for the PATH transmission line that crossed three states, even though it was never built and never served customers.
…
https://www.realclearwire.com/articles/2024/03/14/electric_transmission_buildout_could_cost_americans_trillions_of_dollars_1018392.html
Be sure to check this one out …
https://judithcurry.com/2024/03/01/ipccs-new-hockey-stick-temperature-graph/#comment-1003542
A few questions:
1. How does a college prof. finance lawsuits against both Dr. Ball in Vancouver and The National Review, et al in the District of Columbia?
2. If they have not been brought solely at Mann’s expense, who else has contributed to payment for these legal costs?
3. If there are others who have contributed to payment for these costs, are any of them institutions which are not parties to these suits and if so on what basis do they have the right to do so?
4. To the extent that the lawsuit brought against the The National Review, et al was brought on the basis of a contingent fee arrangement, who else is entitled to a share of the award?
Mann’s lawsuit was fully funding by a climate advocacy group.
Who?
Climate Science Legal Defense Fund!
The group was started by Abraham (spelling error) who was the one that falsely testified that several other climate scientist did not want to have mann on the team as part of a study due to the blog post , though he later admitted / accidently let it slip that it was due to mann’s behavior that was exposed due to climategate.
Not according to Lauren Kurtz
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/02/michael-mann-beat-his-defamers-but-climate-scientists-are-still-under-attack/
“My organization, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, provides free legal and educational support to researchers facing harassment and intimidation for their work….Although we were not directly involved in the Mann defamation case, we assisted over 50 scientists last year and similar numbers in recent years.”
Pat Cassen – the Statement from the Organization is extremely deceptive if not straight out lying
From the 4th paragraph –
“Here, the jury was clear that aggressively maintaining falsehoods in the face of repeated corrections is defamatory. Arguing that Mann committed scientific fraud was a losing battle — Mann’s climate research had already passed extreme scrutiny. Following the so-called Climategate email hacking in 2009, at least eight different official investigations into his and related research found no fraud or scientific misconduct.
Only two of the investigations actually did any investigation of Mann
1) the whitewash done by Penn state
2) the NSF investigation – yet that investigation did not investigate MBH 98 or MBH 99 because the NSF standards for fraud only includes studies funded by the NSF. All NSF funding of Mann occurred after MBH 89 and 99.
Pat As noted , the press release from the climate legal defense fund is highly deceptive. The press release repeats the lie that 8 investigations cleared mann.
their statement – “Although we were not directly involved in the Mann defamation case, we assisted over 50 scientists last year and similar numbers in recent years.”
Note the use of the term “directly” as opposed to “indirectly”
Should you trust the accuracy of the organization that makes such obvious falsehoods
Kurtz’s statement is:
“…at least eight different official investigations into his and related research found no fraud or scientific misconduct.”
That is true.
I guess it’s up to bvanbrunt to decide whether to believe you or Kurtz, regarding who foot the bill for Mann’s lawyers.
Joethenonclimatescientist,
“Should you trust the accuracy of the organization that makes such obvious falsehoods”. you have not pointed out any falsehoods. you yourself almost certainly produced a falsehood however, when you said, without evidence, that Mann’s lawsuit was fully funded by the climate science legal defense fund. and no, their saying they had no direct involvement is not evidence of anything. as for mann having been exonnerated by multiple investigations, i think i’ll stick with trusting scientific american.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/federal-investigators-clear-climate-scientist-michael-mann/
DanB – did you do any due diligence before you responded or did you take the article on blind faith because it fit your bias.
Of those “8” investigations, tell us how many actually investigated mann. Do a word search in each of the reports and tell us how many times Mann’s name appears.
I previously pointed out that the NSF policy manual for investigations provides that the nsf purview is limited to studies funded by the NSF, Both mbh98 and mbh99 were prior to NSF funding.
Now take another look at the Science American article and the Yale connections article.
Tell us again why you failed to pick up the deceptions and dishonesty
In 2011, CSLDF provided support and funding to Michael Mann when the American Tradition Institute (ATI) served a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on the University of Virginia regarding Mann’s climate research. UVA and Mann engaged in litigation with ATI to prove that Virginia law protected Mann’s emails and other documents. CSLDF raised more than $100,000 for Mann’s litigation.[13] The Virginia Supreme Court ruled in Dr. Mann’s favor in spring 2014.[14][15]
Amicus briefs
In addition to direct involvement in select litigations, CSLDF provides litigation support and files amicus briefs in related cases. In October 2015, CSLDF filed an amicus brief urging the Arizona Court of Appeals to protect climate scientists’ files from open records requests made by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal).[16] In March 2016, CSLDF filed an amicus brief before the Pima County Superior Court in Arizona, also arguing for protection of climate scientists’ private files against open records requests by E&E Legal.[17]
In February 2017, CSLDF filed an amicus brief in a FOIA litigation, urging the District of Columbia court to protect roughly 8,000 emails written and received by federal climate scientists.[2]
In July 2017, CSLDF filed an amicus brief asking the Arizona Court of Appeals to protect scientists from intrusive open record requests.[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Science_Legal_Defense_Fund
Right, so CSLDF provide mann support in to contest an unrelated FOIA request in 2011, before the lawsuit and before the blog statements that were the subject of the suit.
So, DanB, you are asserting Mann paid for his Steyn case out of his own pocket? Where is your proof of that?
DanB –
Did you do any due diligence regarding criticisms or shortcomings of those investigations prior to responding?
Were you even aware the NSF investigation did not even cover MBH98 or MBH 99?
Nor was the NSF investigation “broadened” to the extent portrayed by the division. Its investigation was limited to misconduct as defined in the NSF Research Misconduct Policy, which concerns only “fabrication, falsification and plagiarism … in research funded by NSF.” It stated that Mann “did not directly receive NSF research funding as a Principal Investigator until late 2001 or 2002.” Because the MBH98 and Figure 2.21 falsification allegations pre-dated 2001, the NSF had no jurisdiction over these allegations.
Did you even notice the NSF caveat in the memorandum where it stated the statistical methods used remain open to scientific debate?
DanB
Here is just a small sampling of the multitude of the criticisms of those faux investigations exonerating the esteemed climate scientists.
Due diligence is your friend
https://climateaudit.org/2023/10/23/was-michael-mann-exonerated-by-the-post-climategate-investigations-as-was-decided-by-the-dc-court-of-appeals/
https://climateaudit.org/2023/10/23/was-michael-mann-exonerated-by-the-post-climategate-investigations-as-was-decided-by-the-dc-court-of-appeals/
The sforzando of the global warming movement was 2008. After that, the AGW alarmists’ solo refrain has become, simply: prove me wrong to my personal standards of relevance. It is like saying, prove aliens are not causing global warming.
The AGW model-makers simply indulge the fiction that their GCMs will be reliable in the long-range. The mathematical models of the climate fearmongers cannot be verified but still – like carnival barkers — they want you to believe in these models and have faith in them and join up with Western schoolteachers to help be saviors of the Earth.
but the climate models have been highly accurate of course. and the null hypothesis, that the temperature would revert to the mean of the last few centuries, has been falsified. you can keep repeating the same nonsense year after year, decade after decade, but it is now entirely detached from reality, floating off on its own in some alternative universe.
…and, the last 2,000 years? Or, since the bronze age… 5000 years ago? A simple unavoidable fact is, it’s cooler now than it has been for 10,000 years…
Making up stuff that is opposite of the evidence is not convincing. Evidence says now is the warmest is 24,000 years.
https://phys.org/news/2021-11-global-temperatures-years-today-unprecedented.html
Saying the earth is warmer now than it was 24,000 years ago when New York was buried under a mile thick sheet of ice is not an argument for Mann’s Hockey stick propaganda. It was warmer in the era of the Minoans and the MWP which were 5,000 and 2000 years ago, respectively.
How about some evidence for you2 claims?
There’s a common misconception that per capita consumption of energy and resources is directly related to negative environmental impact. We’re told that, because the average North American consumes 80 times as much as the average Bangladeshi, we cause 80 times the damage. But all one need do is travel to Bangladesh to see the impact of poverty on the environment. Forests are stripped bare for subsistence farming, rivers are fouled for lack of sewage treatment, and wildlife is severely reduced through poaching. These people need more resources, not less… As a sensible environmentalist, I believe we should be planting more trees and using more wood-the world’s most renewable resource- while building upon and sharing everything we’ve learned about forest sustainability.” Dr. Patrick Moore
Wagathon said:
“A simple unavoidable fact is, it’s cooler now than it has been for 10,000 years…”
That is simply false, you just make up delusional crap. Nice deflection to well, 24,000 years ago it was colder than now – duh!
“This repeating cycle of 100,000-year glaciations and 10,000 to 20,000 year interglacials has been fairly consistent over the past 2.6 million years. The planet has trundled through the entire cycle dozens of times. If the pattern holds, we are due for another major glaciation sometime in the next several thousand years: The northern hemisphere will again become substantially covered in glaciers, ocean levels will fall hundreds of feet, and the earth’s overall production of plant biomass will fall substantially below what the current human population needs to feed itself. That will pose some ticklish technological challenges even for our hyper-adaptable species. Hopefully, such changes will be incremental enough to allow for adaptation.” ~ Mario Loyola
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | March 22, 2024 at 10:46 am |
Wagathon said:
Wagathon statement – “A simple unavoidable fact is, it’s cooler now than it has been for 10,000 years…”
Ganons response – That is simply false, you just make up delusional crap. Nice deflection to well, 24,000 years ago it was colder than now – duh!
‘
both statements are likely true
that being said, there are several points worth noting that indicate significant overconfidence in the studies conclusions
200 year resolution for the reconstruction vs daily instrument for the present day.
Using Proxies with 200 year resolution indicating low resolution for those 24k years.
“computer modeling” to fill in the unknowns .
simply put using data that is insufficient quality / resolution to achieve the accuracy and precision necessary to reach the claimed confidence.
Joe,
Their statistical analysis and conclusions are based on the data. If you choose to dismiss it, that is your choice. Perhaps it would help to read the original paper.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350562604_Globally_resolved_surface_temperatures_since_the_Last_Glacial_Maximum
Joe,
The original paper so you can quantify you dismissals.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350562604_Globally_resolved_surface_temperatures_since_the_Last_Glacial_Maximum
“Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.” ~ Edward Wegman
Ganon – perhaps you should read the paper in more detail and consider whether the resolution is sufficient to reach the conclusions at the confidence levels claimed.
A few paragraphs into the study has the following statement
“To ensure that the proxy data had sufficienttemporal resolution and length to inform our reconstruction, we required that records be at least4,000 years long, have a median time resolution of 1,000 years or less, and contain a radiocarbon-
Seriously – a median time resolution of 1000 years – and you believe that provides an accurate insight to compare the last 150 years of instrumental record.
The operative question is not why a layman would consider the resolution sufficient but why a scientist would consider the resolution sufficient.
As noted by Wyner, the statistical analysis and data science has quite a few know problems throughout the paleo arena. Its troubling that a scientist would accept those findings with the knowledge of known deficiencies in the data science.
Joe, so what is wrong with the statistical analysis and “data science” of the paper, or are you just making noise?
“…or are you just making noise?” … squawk.
“In general,” says Wegman, “we found [Mann’s methods] to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms [by Mann’s skeptical critics] to be valid and compelling… It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community… Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.” (ibid)
Trunks, juvenile is as juvenile does. You are another of the ones that just make noise.
I’ll stick with the science. Western academia’s global warming models can never be verified nor validated and the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. They are the very definition of an unprovable hypothesis, Their only utility is being of some service Euro/commie anti-America propagandists.
Green Hydrogen Boom Threatens to Tax Power Grid, AES Chief Says
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/green-hydrogen-boom-threatens-to-tax-power-grid-aes-chief-says
Green hydrogen boom? Now tell me about Snow White ..
Looks like Europe has almost succeeding in implementing Climate Doomer Green Energy Suicide! We need to vote in politicians who WON’T do this to US!!!
The boss of Dow Inc. said the price of electricity in Europe is so high that there are doubts about the long-term future of some of the chemical company’s industrial customers in the region.
“When I look at my downstream customers in Europe, I’m always questioning how long will they be there,” Chief Executive Officer Jim Fitterling said in an interview Tuesday in Houston, also citing the weakness of durable goods demand. “And if you don’t have the domestic market in Europe to service, you really can’t afford to export from Europe.”
Fitterling pointed to the huge difference in natural gas prices between Europe and the US, where the fuel currently trades at less than $2 per million British thermal units. While he sees a longer-term trend at around $2.50, current European benchmark gas prices are more than three times higher than that.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-19/dow-says-high-power-costs-cast-doubt-on-europe-s-demand-outlook
Jim2,
“So, DanB, you are asserting Mann paid for his Steyn case out of his own pocket? Where is your proof of that?”
I am not asserting that and never have said anything resembling that. Maybe he paid for it, maybe someone else did. i have no idea. I’m saying that the claim that his defense was paid for by CSLDF is a lie. in a post about how we shouldn’t trust liars! making stuff up based on zero evidence whatever is lying. the views of the known liars in this blog should be accorded the respect they have earned, which is zero.
There is a difference between lying and simply being wrong. You have made a careless accusation. Kind of, well, careless of you.
DanB
Any reason you chose not to address any of the other falsehoods in Yaleconnections Article?
Any reason you chose not to address the phrasing of the climate legal defense fund denial of the funding of Mann’s lawsuit – that they were not “directly” involved in the funding.
Any reason you chose not to address any of the other points I raised
Any Reason you chose not to address any of rebuttal points to your comments.
The CSLDF already established their deceipt, with the false claim of 8 climategate investigations that exonerated Mann. No honest neutrally objective person reviewing those investigations would conclude that anyone was exonerated by those investigations. Yet advocates repetitively claim those investigation’s exonerations as an article of faith.
My source for stating that CSLDF was involved in the funding of Manns lawsuit was from the testimony of John P Abraham during the cross examination where he stated he was a co-founder of CSLDF and that he stated (or implied ) that CSLDF was the organization funding his suit. Testimony was cut short on that line of questioning so perhaps I got an incomplete picture of the facts.
Though its interesting on this point of who is lying. John P Abraham stated he was a cofounder during his testimony and several sources state he was a cofounder. CSLDF however omits mention of John P Abraham.
Either CSLDF is lying or Mann’s star reputation witness perjured himself, though in fairness, that is common problem throughout the climate science community, at least with those affiliated with Mann
Joe, a couple of points:
Kurtz did not lie. She said ““…at least eight different official investigations into his and related research found no fraud or scientific misconduct.”
That is a true statement. We understand that you think the investigations were worthless and you disagree with their conclusions, but Kurtz’s statement is true. (You are the only one here throwing around the term ‘exonerated’, whatever that means.)
And I wonder if you might be confusing the CSLDF with the Climate Science Rapid Response Team. Abraham was a cofounder of the latter, not the former.
Joe, a couple of points:
Kurtz did not lie. She said ““…at least eight different official investigations into his and related research found no fraud or scientific misconduct.”
That is a true statement. We understand that you think the investigations were worthless and you disagree with their conclusions, but Kurtz’s statement is true. (You are the only one here throwing around the term ‘exonerated’, whatever that means.)
And I wonder if you might be confusing the CSLDF with the Climate Science Rapid Response Team. Abraham was a cofounder of the latter, not the former.
pat – From the climate science rapid response team website –
“Abraham co-created the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, which connects reporters with scientifically correct sources, and also co-created the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which helps scientists fight legal attacks.”
PatC
Regarding the following:
Kurtz did not lie. She said ““…at least eight different official investigations into his and related research found no fraud or scientific misconduct.”
That statement that you continue to defend is absolutely false.
A) Only 2 of the 8 conducted any form investigation of Mann. That is a well established fact. Thus any claim of eight different investigations into his research is a blatant lie.
B) of those two, The Penn investigation is well known by any objective observer to have been a white wash.
C) The NSF may have conducted (or may not have ) a valid investigation, However, the NSF policy on investigations of fraud is limited to studies that are funded by the NSF. MBH 98 & MBH 99 preceded NSF funding. Therefore it is highly deceptive to claim that the NSF cleared Mann of any wrong doing or fraud.
I gave you links to the criticism of those investigations.
Thanks Joe, very interesting. The statement you quote does not appear on the Climate Science Rapid Response Team website, but does appear in a (2016) press releases honoring Abraham with an award from the National Center for Scientific Education.
https://news.stthomas.edu/abraham-wins-friend-planet-award-national-center-science-education/
https://ncse.ngo/evolution-pros-crusading-scientistwriters-climate-change-evangelist-and-artist-are-honored-ncse-0
The press release is apparently wrong.
(Apologies for the double post above.)
Pat Cassen | March 20, 2024 at 8:13 pm | Reply
(You are the only one here throwing around the term ‘exonerated’, whatever that means.)”
FYI – From the Scientific american article cited by Dan B “It is the latest in a string of investigations to exonerate scientists involved in the so-called “Climategate” email scandal.”
JP Abraham testified that he was a cofounder of CSLDF during his cross examination .
Several other websites list him as co founder
Who is the one lying?
United as free-thinking, self-actualizing individuals, skeptical of government truths and unhindered by political correctness– we stand exquisitely tall; divided as a collective of intolerant socialist, progressive liberal fascists– Western civilization falls. Even Chinese scientists apparently are a good deal more pragmatic these days than what we have come to expect from what passes for government-funded research coming out of Western universities.
This study provides a preliminary estimation of recent climate changes on wind erosion risk in China’s drylands region, indicating an obvious decrease in the wind erosion climatic erosivity… (ibid.)
Here is an excellent summary of the scientific evidence about “Climate Change”
i.e., There Is No Climate Emergency, e.g., climate change alarmism is a hoax and a scare tactic.
Imposition of command-economy solutions to the non-problem of global warming, handed down by official government experts from their ivory towers and enforced by unelected authoritarian bureaucrats, is what the dispiriting hand of socialism brings to the table. No amount of Leftist propaganda about stopping the seas from rising will turn that sow’s ear into a silk purse!
Delicious. Just the right tincture of humorous music to set the tenor for some of the most pretentious and morbid claims of the catastrophic crowd.
Maybe a contender for an Academy Award….ohhh wait, too many whack jobs in Hollywood for that to ever happen.
It would be fun though, to have a screening in Tinseltown and film all the heads exploding.
I watched the whole thing. Good quality videos from around the world show that denialism is well funded. I waited to find out where the money came from, but the credits didn’t tell me. I guess that is what you call “dark money”.
Some obvious comments:
1. The video is a sort of summary of many comments on this blog, but set to music and with nice graphics. The script included all the well-known skeptics except Dr. Curry. I am surprised she was excluded.
2. I couldn’t help but notice that no comments came from climate scientists. Apparently the script writer felt that the arguments made by skeptics could not stand up to rebuttals by those in the field.
3. One of the tired assertions made often on this blog and repeated in the video is that “gatekeepers” prevent skeptics from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Nonsense. Have you read the papers of Hermann Harde? Have you read the papers of Edwin Berry? Have you read the paper in Health Physics (partially retracted) by Kenneth Skrable? They have been shown to be just plain wrong, never mind their conclusions! My study of denier papers over the last half dozen years is that the biggest secret in the climate “debate” is the weakness of the arguments of the 3%. When Javier claims he does not want to put his ideas in front of “gatekeepers”, I conclude that he has nothing to offer. I monitor Dr. Curry’s blog, knowing that any good skeptical argument will find its way here. I am interested in hearing it. I am still waiting.
4. Towards the end especially, the video gets political. “Climate scientists are against capitalism!” “Climate scientists want to control us!” I am a capitalist. My career was with a sucessful technology company, and we made good money. I don’t want to control others’ lives. But I do want policy decisions to be made on good science, for the sake of my grandchildren.
JoeTNCS,
“Seriously – a median time resolution of 1000 years – and you believe that provides an accurate insight to compare the last 150 years of instrumental record.”
Yes. Take a class in large data-set analysis.
I know there is nothing in the record for the last 6000 years, where resolution is quite high, that is remotely similar to the last 150 years (particularly the last 50). And certainly would have been discovered by now if existed.
BA – Who are you trying to fool?
Large data set analysis is not going to solve for low temporal resolution.
M,
There is no temporal resolution problem for the last 6000 years. Tell me which century in the last 6000 years has a temperature perturbation like the last 75 years.
“We can easily demonstrate the sun can explain all of it. There’s zero for the CO2, 100 percent for the sun. How’s that?” Dr. Soon (Climate The Movie)
The mystical powers of the one element, CO2, and the force this one idea has on the scientifically weak minds of Leftist global warming alarmists really does make this one element, the One to Western academia’s global warming catastrophists.
Michael Mann’s hockey stick science and Al Gore’s vision of Earth-destroying runaway global warming has been thoroughly debunked. It has all been the product of a knowing and purposeful deception– a scientific fraud. A big hoax!
It’s not an element, it’s a chemical compound (talk about weak minds). The “mystical powers” are photophysics and there are many polyatomic gases that have the “power”. It’s not that hard to understand, if you try.
CO2 a chemical element. That’s elemental. CO2 is the single element that turns normal people into pedantic global warming fear mongers.
Someone call it a fetish. Others… a mental disorder.
I just go with the science- it’s a hoax and a scare tactic perpetrated by Western academic charlatans.
Although seemingly obvious to anyone, climate change can be broken down and understood to be the result of many causes. But, to Hot World fetishists, modernity’s CO2 is the sole element that is responsible for humanity’s impending doom.
The one element. The One! global warming alarmism isn’t science- it’s a religion!
Eventually, say within the next decade, today’s young will be asking the likes of Michael Mann: None of the prophecies you sold us as facts are happening. Where is the beef?
I would hope so but 40 some years after federal agencies said there would be feet of sea level rise by now instead of the actual few inches, there are still old geezers down by the shore with their rulers measuring our eminent demise, convinced any day now the rate will miraculously skyrocket.
Delusional thinking is a wondrous thing.
The factual evidence of these despicable people will disappear from the internet as the real purpose of AI is revealed – to bury anything that might inform and help us in the future. Even now the search engines are failing miserably to help people find what they want rather than the ‘drugs’ big guys are pushing. judgements in the future.
Of course we could have a revolution instead.
actually, it is the skeptics who need to explain why they have been wrong for the last thirty years, over and over and over, and why mann has been right, and why they are still living in a delusional alternative universe. mann was exactly right. the planet is warming at the rate predicted. he should be praised and lauded for his foresight and highly accurate forecast. insteaad, you choose to live in fairy-tale. and then, amazingly, as you ignore 30 years of data, you claim to be pro-science. no words.
This internal memo from the White House is dated 1969. That is 55 years ago. They discuss the possibility of CO2 increasing by 25% and temperatures increasing by 7 F and 10 feet of SLR. Over 1/2 century later SLR has gone up by a few inches.
When will the doomsday scenarios get stale? It’s not happening.
BTW, I see a reference to Hugh Hefner having a handle on this. I guess ol’ Hugh was an early leader in multi tasking. Keeping track of those Bunnies and the climate at the same time. Quite a guy.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJcYJeSWEAADOt6?format=jpg&name=large
Mars/Earth interaction may influence Earth’s orbit around the Sun, periodically bringing Earth closer to the Sun.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46171-5
True, shifting crusts and volcanic eruptions, oscillations of solar activity on Decadal, Centennial and Millennial time scales with variations in gamma radiation and the role of the big planets, Saturn and Jupiter, a changing North Pole and variations in the magnetosphere are all a part of a holistic process that is Earth’s climate.
Of all the elements involved in climate change, the level of atmospheric CO2 is the least of them. Just as CO2 has nothing to do with the rise in heat in enclosed space of an automobile with its windows rolled up, neither does the level of CO2 in a greenhouse.
I guess I’ll have to be one to post this. I’m sure most of you have seen this. Informative and funny. What a great combination compared to gloom and doom.
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1770552312710217954?s=20
Enjoy.
Bill – Oh no – a remake of Durkin’s 2007 flop. One can only hope that it will have the same impact as that cult classic :-)
Pat … was that a copy of a review, or did you watch it? It’s a funny piece.
Bill – “It’s a funny piece.”
Well yeah, in a way. Kind of funny watching this rogues gallery of (mostly) has-beens trotting out their long-abused complaints about the ‘powerful global [climate] industry’ and how the leftist, world government takeover is destroying our way of life. (I got a chuckle out of Lindzen referring to all this as a ‘cult’.) And some funny footage of the good old days of prosperity for all. Oh yeah, the Charlie Chaplin clip is good!
Spencer Weart wrote a good book on ‘The Discovery of Global Warming”. I’m waiting for the definitive history of how this ‘eccentric scare story’ took over the world.
Pat … You didn’t mention Greta or Planetary Extinction. They were very funny. But, we all have our preferences. As to rogues gallery … I guess that comment is appropriate, from Mann’s perspective. After all, he thinks he won a Nobel.
Bill – I certainly can see why people laugh at Greta, but, knowing a few people dealing with autism at one level or another, I resist. Besides, I’m basically sympathetic to her message, as you’ve noticed. As for Extinction Rebellion (Planetary Extinction?), a little humor might help.
Pat … a doomsayer can’t incorporate humor into their message. Once they do, the message becomes lighter, hence not so bad. Being dour comes with the territory. Just Stop Oil (I think I got that one right) may think they’re cool attempting to destroy works of art, but it doesn’t come off as humorous. More like hubris.
Hardly anyone doesn’t know someone with autism. If you have experience you know that autistic people can’t be pigeonholed politically. They have diverse views. I do find putting Greta on such an intense platform abusive, by those who use her condition for their narrative. The videos use of a clip of her I take as representative of the ‘drama’ of the doomsayers.
CO2 is a trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere (~400 ppm).
One molecule CO2 per 2500 molecules of air (0,04% CO2, 21% O2 and 78% N2).
There is so little CO2 in atmosphere, it cannot cause any harm.
It cannot warm atmosphere.
Of course it cannot warm planet Earth.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
400 ppm = 0.04%. That’s correct.
Germany has come up with an “innovative” plan to help its energy starved companies, starving due to wind and solar and a war on fossil fuels, that is. Germany will not build more natural gas plants or nuclear plants and thus truly solve the problem. No, it will simply give them money. This has to be added to the tab for the cost of “green” energy.
The German Ministry of Economy (BMWK) has launched a bidding process for subsidies to support energy-intensive companies switching to greener production. The first round of the project will provide €4bn in funding. Germany plans to provide subsidies to companies in the steel, glass, paper, and chemicals sectors. The assistance will be provided for 15 years in exchange for reducing emissions during production.
Companies applying for tenders must provide emission reduction programs at their facilities. Through ‘climate contracts’, firms will be compensated for the additional costs of “climate-friendly” production in industries where climate-friendly production processes cannot currently be competitive.
https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/germany-launches-eu4bn-subsidy-scheme-support-energy-intensive-companies.html
While Climate Doomer “green” energy struggles to make a profit, AI is gobbling up electricity to beat the band, and it DOES make a profit!
It isn’t clear just how much electricity will be required to power an exponential increase in data centers worldwide. But most everyone agreed the data centers needed to advance AI will require so much power they could strain the power grid and stymie the transition to cleaner energy sources.
https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/big-techs-latest-obsession-is-finding-enough-energy-f00055b2
The EU takes another step down the Climate Doomer suicide path. Yet more trillions upon trillions …
Real estate investors already battered by high interest rates now face the prospect of significant writedowns triggered by new European regulations.
Property owners across the region will need to invest vast sums in renovations to ensure their buildings aren’t emitting illegal levels of carbon dioxide or consuming excessive amounts of energy, according to lawyers advising the sector.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-24/real-estate-investors-sitting-on-huge-co2-risk-turn-to-lawyers
Finally, an admission that wind and solar don’t really make money. Of course, this will just take away more rights and move societies further down the socialist rat hole. (My ***)
For years, many analysts and commentators promoted the idea that cheap electricity from solar and wind power generation was the key to unlocking an energy revolution that would significantly diminish fossil fuels’ contribution to power generation systems. But what matters far more are profits, argues Christophers, a professor of human geography at the University of Uppsala in Sweden whose research focuses on the intersection of climate and finance.
…
Brett Christophers: There’s this widespread argument that the economics of renewables work and that the only remaining significant obstacles are political and in the planning realm around permissions. The book pushes back quite forcefully against that argument and suggests that that’s a very partial and misleading perspective on the economics of the transition.
The basic argument is simple and it’s something that the world doesn’t want to admit: The business of developing and owning and operating solar and wind farms and selling the electricity is kind of a sh***y business. It’s really not a very attractive business. It’s a very competitive business where returns are not just low, but volatile and difficult to predict. All of that has a chilling effect on investment in that sector.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-25/profits-not-prices-drive-renewable-development-new-book-say
Politicians – gotta love ’em.
A levy on drivers of older cars with dirtier engines has pushed many of them off London’s roads, reducing pollution that’s been blamed for thousands of deaths in the capital each year. Yet some Londoners still resent the £12.50 ($15.80) daily charge for entering the Ultra Low Emission Zone. When city officials expanded it to London’s outskirts last August, resistance coalesced online, and some of the cameras that monitor ULEZ compliance were vandalized. The hostile reaction showed the risk of trying to tackle environmental problems during a cost-of-living crisis. Now the Conservative candidate to replace Labour mayor Sadiq Khan is vowing to roll back the ULEZ expansion if she wins office.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-25/why-mayor-sadiq-khan-s-ulez-car-pollution-charge-has-londoners-divided
Unintended consequences of ESGBS.
Private credit managers are doing significantly more fossil-fuel deals now than just a few years ago, as they step into a void left by banks exiting assets they worry pose too big a climate risk.
The value of private credit deals in the oil and gas industry topped $9 billion in the 24 months through 2023, up from $450 million arranged in the preceding two years, according to data provided by Preqin, an analytics company that tracks the alternative investment industry. That’s based on the limited pool of deals reported publicly or disclosed directly to Preqin.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-25/private-credit-funds-see-huge-rise-in-fossil-fuel-deals-as-banks-walk-away
ESGBS remains BS.
It’s not just SLBs that suffer from these afflictions. As companies increasingly tie executive pay to ESG, there’s growing evidence that bigger remuneration packages are being fueled by such add-ons without any meaningful environmental, social or governance improvement to justify it. Now, activist shareholder groups are demanding more disclosures around ESG-linked pay in an effort to force companies to produce transparent metrics. The criticism comes as the corporate appetite for such pay structures is on the rise. Roughly one-third of the 1,000 largest US companies link part of their executive compensation to ESG.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-26/the-280-billion-climate-bond-market-that-isn-t-working
Germany is the crash test Climate Doomer “green” energy crash test dummy of Europe. Of course, this article wouldn’t dare mention the effect of Germany’s green energy push, including closing coal and nuclear plants, and how that has hobbled the economy, especially heavy industry that relies on cheap electricity to survive. Unfortunately, the world more generally is experiencing a “green” energy pandemic.
BERLIN, March 27 (Reuters) – Leading German economic institutes said on Wednesday that they expect the country’s economy to grow by 0.1% in 2024, slashing their prior forecast of 1.3% as high interest rates, weak global demand and political uncertainty dent hopes for a stronger recovery.
…
Economic output was currently barely higher than before the pandemic, as productivity in Germany has been at a standstill since then, the institutes said in a report outlining their six-monthly joint economic forecasts.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-economic-institutes-slash-2024-gdp-forecast-01-2024-03-27/
Given the frequency of hail storms in the US what is the real life span of a solar farm? 20-30% chance of roof damage within 15-20 years, while solar farms are much more fragile than the typical roof
“Renewable energy is a joke for many reasons. Recent research suggests that the infra-sound from wind turbines is a threat to many life forms. But my favorite occurrences are when weather destroys renewable energy production, as it often does. Here is a story about a hailstorm in Texas completely wrecking a large solar plant. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize how likely it is for any solar plant, except one in a desert to be routinely exposed to this hazard. So when we are totally dependent on wind and solar, and the sun doesn’t shine, the wind doesn’t blow, or hail or high winds destroy the infrastructure, where will our electricity come from? And note as an extra bonus, this destruction cause environmental contamination with very dangerous substances. (WUWT Post)”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/26/hailstorm-in-texas-destroys-thousands-of-acres-of-solar-farms/
https://www.jsheld.com/insights/articles/solar-farm-hail-damage-the-perfect-storm
Climate Doomer Unicorn Fantasies collide hard with reality. This is happening more and more often.
“Banks are living and lending on planet earth, not planet NGFS,” Berkey told the group in an impassioned speech, alluding to the Network for Greening the Financial System, a collection of central bankers that creates model scenarios for how the energy transition may evolve. Details of what transpired at the meeting hosted by the Financial Stability Board — a coordinator of global regulations — came from people who were in the room but asked not to be named discussing private talks. Berkey confirmed his participation, declining to say more.
The UBS banker’s outburst, which got little pushback from those present, exposes the cracks emerging in a multitrillion-dollar transition finance project, and taps into what’s rapidly becoming one of the most contentious issues in the global banking industry. In private, senior bankers in sustainable finance divisions in London, New York, Toronto and Paris grumble about unrealistic expectations from regulators, civil society and climate activists around the industry’s role in getting the planet to net zero.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-03-27/ubs-banker-s-comments-highlight-challenges-facing-green-banking
More on “climate change” regulation degradation of the economy …
Regulations in the state aimed at reducing carbon emissions and other environmental impacts have also weighed on several industries, particularly oil and gas companies. Chevron announced in early January that it was anticipating up to $4 billion in asset value reductions due to hostile attitudes toward oil production.
Climate initiatives also weigh on the state’s budget, including $600 million being spent on environmental reviews for a high-speed rail project 15 years after it was first approved.
“All of the activity on the employment side is embedded in this very hostile relationship between people who are very much in love with the idea of regulation and the people who have to live with that regulation, namely the businesses, of course,” Swaim told the DCNF.
https://dailycaller.com/2024/03/27/californias-economic-woes-worse-thought/
Having to pay $4,000 to get an induction stove is insane. The road to fully electric energy will be bumpy indeed, and may even fall off a political cliff.
…
If new homes aren’t wired for increasing power needs from electric appliances and car chargers, it will bump the effort and cost of making such upgrades onto homeowners — a deterrent to going electric. Energy efficiency advocates say this could slow the pace of the energy transition, costing both jobs and the planet.
…
But upgrading an existing home is costly. When Boyce looked to install an induction stove in her 19th-century home, she was told it would require both an upgrade to her electrical panel and a wiring installation in the kitchen. “So in order to get an induction stove, I was quoted $4,000 — without the stove,” Boyce said, adding that these upgrades can not only be costly but disruptive, as “you might be ripping out drywall, or flooring.”
…
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-05/us-homes-face-costly-retrofits-for-induction-stoves-ev-chargers
Petroleum producers are considering SMRs to power the oil field.
US oil companies including Diamondback Energy Inc. are considering small nuclear reactors to power drilling operations in Texas’s Permian Basin, a move aimed at cutting carbon emissions and ensuring reliable access to electricity.
Diamondback, the largest independent producer headquartered in the shale-oil region, has signed a nonbinding letter of intent with Oklo Inc. to deploy small reactors for some of its future power needs, according to Diamondback President Kaes Van’t Hof. Oklo, which is developing an advanced fission reactor, has held similar discussions with other oil companies, its chief executive officer said in an interview.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-01/us-shale-drillers-seek-to-power-oil-patch-with-small-nukes
The Entire Push To Halt New Natural Gas Exports Traces Back To One Ivy League Prof And His Shaky Study
https://dailycaller.com/2024/04/02/push-natural-gas-exports-ivy-league-cornell-howarth-biden/
Wasn’t it a peer reviewed study? None of those related to the climate are biased are they?
I have no doubt it is the very last word from “science.”
“Rebutting 33 false claims about wind solar and EV’s”
Is this is supposed to represent the robust scholarly work of AWG science advocates?
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sabin_climate_change/217/
on the subject are quite familiar with the logic and math problems in the LCOE computation, so I will skip those points.
What is an obvious deception is the comparison of average solar generation costs with gas peaking costs. Gas peaking is the space where excess electric generatioSome of “myths” the paper rebuts for Solar
A) ” Solar will cost american jobs” – response to the myth – Using Solar will increase jobs
Response to the response – an increase on number of jobs shows that solar requires more manpower / labor to produce the same output. That is a sign of less efficiency, not better efficiency.
B) Myth – Solar works efficiently in cold and cloudy climates.
Response to that myth – they paper cites a study that shows only a neglible decrease in output in cloudy climates, and makes the claim that solar works in cold climates.
Response to the response – 1 solar works better in the cold – omits any mention of the decrease during winter in northern regions of daily drop in output from average capacity factor of 28% to 7%-10% average (regions north of 47 latitude).
C) myth – cost of solar is too high – response – the study touts the much heralded lazards LCOE computation including comparing solar vs gas peaking costs.
Response to the response – Most everyone knowledgeblen is needed for peak times of electric demand, the most expensive time of day for electric generation. neither wind or solar can perform in that space. The overbuild required to even approach the ability to perform in that space is 5x-8x. Any renewable advocate want to calculate what the LCOE is when you have to have that level of overbuild
They do themselves no favors when they categorize concerns about range and cold weather for EVs as false claims. False is a binary condition. It’s a subjective perception and their analysis is useless, making it appear as if they have discredited those issues. They haven’t.
Each potential consumer has to evaluate their unique situation and needs. That there are or will be 50,000 stations is irrelevant if the availability is less than the ubiquitous gas stations. When traveling long distances , I don’t want to waste literally 30 seconds to fill up my tank. If it takes only 5 minutes to find a charger, then that’s 4 minutes and 30 seconds too long. The reluctance by the public to not embrace EVs is not going to be reduced by this or any other report. They will sell when the consumer knows an EV is the best purchase for them.
As a second car EVs would be acceptable in some cases. But for those who take occasional long trips, they are a non starter.
When will the proponents of AGW and renewable energy get off this obsession with big oil? Spending just a little time researching both issues will blow that strategy of creating boogie men out of the water.
Negative interest rates for so long made a lot of hare-brained investments possible. Now the high interest rates along with high EV prices will take their toll.
Ford Motor Co. is delaying the rollout of an electric three-row sport utility vehicle by two years, extending the layoff of 2,700 workers in Canada who were set to begin building it in 2025.
The automaker said in a statement
Thursday it is “retiming” the big SUV EV to debut in 2027 to “allow for the consumer market for three-row EVs to further develop.” In addition, the carmaker said that deliveries of its electric F-Series pickup would push back into 2026 from late 2025.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-04/ford-delays-big-electric-suv-until-2027-as-ev-demand-remain-weak
When I did my cost analysis on buying my solar system back in 2011 my benchmark was the yield on the US 10 bond (2.1%) minus the inflation rate compared to the previous 10 year rise in the cost of electricity here in Texas. In 2011 electricity was selling for around 6₵-7₵ cents per kilowatt hour, today that same KWh costs between 10₵-14₵/KWh. My estimate predicted my system would pay itself off by 2020. I was wrong, the ROI was two years early and 9 out of 12 months of the year I pay nothing and I am still earning a couple hundred/yr. If the system lasts 20 years I will end up paying about 6₵/kWh for the 210+ MWh it will generate by the year 2032.
Using the same calculations today with the 10yr bond over 4.3% and Texas electricity @ 12₵ kWh and solar panels at twice the efficiency of my 2011 panels the numbers still work (if you live long enough 😁).
Click my ID to view my solar system.
Jack –
1) Are you measuring the costs on retail prices and costs or wholesale.
2) When your system is down ( not producing due to lack of sunlight, etc) you can tap into the grid. Basically its your back up storage, safety hatch, redundancy that keeps your lights on. You have virtually no risk due to failure or downtime with your system. How much would your costs be if you didnt have the grid as your backup.
Need to compare apples and apples
1) My cost estimates were based on retail monthly billing comparing the prices charged by TXU, the largest electric provider in ONCOR at the time.
2) I am grid tied with net metering. When the grid fails for whatever reason, day or night, I plug my house critical loads (freezer, lights and internet) into my 2000 watt pure sine wave DC-to-AC inverter powered by my 14KWh battery in my 2013 Chevy Volt. The hybrid Volt can power my limited load for about a week until I need to refill the gas tank.
From my experience I wound not encourage anyone over the age of 60 in buying a solar system.
Another “brilliant” idea bites the dust.
Despite billions of dollars of investment, fuel cell cars in the US are disappearing in the rearview mirror, overtaken by battery-electric models and stalled by hydrogen shortages and soaring fuel prices. Last year, drivers bought just 3,143 hydrogen cars in California — the only state that sells them — compared with 380,000 BEVs.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-04/california-s-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-lose-traction-against-battery-models
The demand for commercial unreliable energy is so strong no one wants it.
Naturgy Energy Group SA has shelved plans to sell the Australian assets of its renewable energy unit Global Power Generation on valuation concerns, people familiar with the matter said.
The Spanish energy group has put the potential sale on hold after early indications of interest from prospective suitors did not meet valuation expectations, the people said, asking not to be identified because the matter is private. Madrid-based Naturgy was seeking to raise about A$4 billion ($2.6 billion) from the disposal, according to the people.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-06/naturgy-is-said-to-shelve-2-6-billion-sale-of-australian-assets
Drake Landing, once the leading solar heating community of its kind in North America, may have to rely on fossil fuels as the aging system is breaking down and may be too expensive or impossible to fix.
The 52 homeowners in the small, tight-knit community in Okotoks, south of Calgary, at one point welcomed guests from around the world to show off the groundbreaking technology. The international visitors wanted to see first-hand how energy from the hot summer sun could be collected and stored and then released in a harsh Canadian winter to heat the community’s houses.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/okotoks-drake-landing-solar-energy-repairs-future-1.7148389
Oil and gasoline products remain “critical to national security,” two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a legal brief, weighing in on a closely watched court case in Hawaii that has activists calling on America’s top energy companies to pay damages for contributions to climate change.
A decision against these companies could have massive repercussions on national security and foreign policy that have not been considered. “Oil and gas products are critical to national security, economic stability and military preparedness,” retired Gen. Richard B. Myers and Adm. Michael G. Mullen wrote in an amicus brief filed last week to Hawaii’s supreme court, which is handling the high-profile case.
The case has pitted the city of Honolulu against Sunoco, Exxon, Chevron, and other U.S. energy firms in what critics have described as a “hyper-ideological” bid by far-left activists to “strong-arm progressive lifestyle choices” on the American public and destroy the country’s multibillion-dollar oil industry. The city wants these companies to pay billions to offset the alleged repercussions of climate change, potentially opening the floodgates for a flurry of similar cases from activists who are against the use of fossil fuels.
https://freebeacon.com/courts/activists-want-energy-companies-to-pay-climate-damages-that-could-imperil-us-national-security-former-joint-chiefs-say/
Unreliable wind and solar contribute to the rising electricity prices and also more capacity for EVs and other “electrification” projects. The only surprise load to the mix is AI.
It’s not just California. Nationwide, residential electricity inflation is outpacing the wider consumer price index. Prices were up 3.6% in February from a year earlier, compared with declines for staples such as eggs and milk, US Bureau of Labor Statistics data show. More than three out of every four major metropolitan areas the BLS tracks in the continental US saw power prices rise in the latest month of data—which voters may factor into their assessment of President Joe Biden’s performance when they head to the polls in November. (March inflation data will be released on Wednesday.)
Behind the runup are several massive expenditures that utilities are having to fund at the same time—they planned for some, but others caught them by surprise. Grids coast to coast were already undergoing multibillion-dollar overhauls to replace aging fossil fuel plants with greener alternatives and to make existing systems more resilient to wildfires, hurricanes and flooding. Now grids are also scrambling to increase generation capacity to accommodate a surge in demand that the utilities themselves weren’t even forecasting a year or two ago, fueled in part by the explosion of artificial intelligence.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-09/interest-rate-cuts-unlikely-to-lower-energy-costs-for-americans
It’s not just California. Nationwide, residential electricity inflation is outpacing the wider consumer price index. Prices were up 3.6% in February from a year earlier, compared with declines for staples such as eggs and milk, US Bureau of Labor Statistics data show. More than three out of every four major metropolitan areas the BLS tracks in the continental US saw power prices rise in the latest month of data—which voters may factor into their assessment of President Joe Biden’s performance when they head to the polls in November. (March inflation data will be released on Wednesday.)
Behind the runup are several massive expenditures that utilities are having to fund at the same time—they planned for some, but others caught them by surprise. Grids coast to coast were already undergoing multibillion-dollar overhauls to replace aging fossil fuel plants with greener alternatives and to make existing systems more resilient to wildfires, hurricanes and flooding. Now grids are also scrambling to increase generation capacity to accommodate a surge in demand that the utilities themselves weren’t even forecasting a year or two ago, fueled in part by the explosion of artificial intelligence.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-09/interest-rate-cuts-unlikely-to-lower-energy-costs-for-americans
Pingback: Mann v. Steyn: Round 2 - News7g