Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit on track

Anyone interested in the political struggles around the science of climate change will be aware of the attacks made on climate scientist Michael Mann. These go back a long time and are detailed in his book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (see The truth about the hockey stick for my review of this book). Despite a number of enquiries clearing Mann of any wrong-doing these attacks have continued.

Screen-shot-2009-11-24-at-03.03.162

But the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute went too far when they accused him of illegal acts, (like manipulating data and outright fraud). Mann filed a defamation suit against them. This week the Washington DC Superior Court came down with its first ruling in the case – and it’s not good news for those attacking Mann. It refused to throw out Mann’s on the grounds that the plaintiff’s statements were protected speech under the First Amendment, mere “opinion,” “rhetorical hyperbole,” or “fair comment.”

The ruling said that CEI defendants had produced:

“numerous articles that characterize Plaintiff’s work as fraudulent, combined with the assertions of fraud and data manipulation”

and this went beyond free speech. It added

” In Plaintiff’s line of work, such an accusation is serious. To call his work a sham or to question his intellect and reasoning is tantamount to an accusation of fraud (taken in the context and knowing that Plaintiff’s work has been investigated and substantiated on numerous occasions).”

The defamation case will now go ahead with the next hearing at the end of August.

It’s heartening to see this progress being made as many commentators were cynical about Mann’s chance of success.

As one commentator, Dan Satterfield, said - Wearing A Tinfoil Hat Is Getting Expensive

via DC Court affirms Michael Mann’s right to proceed in defamation lawsuit against National Review and CEI .

Similar articles

About these ads

99 responses to “Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit on track

  1. That’s good news. I would hate to be in the shoes of people like Michael Mann or James Hanson. What they are doing is incredibly important for all humanity, including the deniers, and they are doing it to the utmost limits of their ability, so why attack them? I liken it to drunks attacking ambulance officers attending someone hurt in a brawl. It’s weak and cowardly.

    Like

  2. Totally agree, David.

    Those that use smear tactics to discredit an opponant do themselves no favours. It shows they are devoid of rational arguments themselves.

    Like

  3. Gidday David and Frank,…. Michael Mann? One small lie for Mann,one giant fraud for mankind.? Nah, let’s not be too harsh,he’s young and was “led to believe”. inspired, encouraged and colluding with a world-wide club of mates protecting their funding and the “cause”.
    But the nutty fraudster Hansen is in a different league altogether.

    Like

  4. Mack, that’s the very sort of slander these organisations are being sued for – bit cowardly to only do it on blog comments, isn’t it?

    Like

  5. Ken, They deserve slander from all quarters when yours and my taxes are not only paying for crappy fraudulant science but also the resultant idiotic taxes as a by- product of their “findings” ,when there are so many other worthy things requiring that funding.

    Like

  6. What is this “crappy fraudulent science” Mack?. Well, that is the position the slanderers have put themselves in. To avoid defeat they now have to back up their claims – and they won’t be able to any more than you can. Because the fact is throat these scientists have a high reputation, their indignation have received wide support from other researchers.

    So, come on Mack, be specific. Back up your charges. Or be seen as just another cowardly slanderer.

    Like

  7. Don’t be too harsh, the poor chap is only repeating what he’s been told and it’s not what he actually thinks. The sad part is nobody, not even Mack himself, knows what he thinks. Perhaps it’s because he has been trained to believe that whatever The Great Ones write on WUWT is actually what he thinks, or perhaps in a nightmarish moment he opened his mind to those evil twins Logic and Reason cruelly and piteously tore down the beautiful and fantastic constructs that were all he believed in and he has promised himself to never open himself to independent thought again.

    Like

  8. The Great Ones on WUWT told him that the reason he is so sad is because of tax which the scientists make him pay so they can live in palaces and own jet planes . They are therefore the cause of all his misery.

    Like

  9. Yes Ken, the “crappy fraudulent science” is the whole damn “CO2 forcing”, “enhanced greenhouse effect”,”backradiation” “greenhouse gases” AGW…the lot…..First read this..http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/a-simple-model-of-global-average-surface-temperature/#comment-77341 Then this…http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78670

    Like

  10. Mack?
    NASA.
    Have you heard of NASA? The people with the rockets and the satellites and the super computers? NASA? Yeah?
    Well…they have a website on climate change. You wouldn’t like it.

    You see, there’s you with your blog link and then there’s NASA.
    To be more accurate, its NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    There’s no getting around that.

    You can ignore it or you can call every single scientific community on the planet “crappy” but…it makes you sound like a whacko.
    NASA.
    They went to the moon and everything, yeah?

    Getting your science information from some blog is not too bright.
    Try the mainstream scientific communities. All of them are good.
    Conspiracy theories are for suckers.

    NASA Earth Science – Climate Change and the Global Ocean

    Like

  11. And David, Get back to riding your motor-bikes, it will clear out the paranoid shit from your head.

    Like

  12. You’re the one with the paranoia.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is not involved in some vast global conspiracy to lie to you.
    Leave the blogs alone.
    Do some fact checking for yourself for a change.
    NASA is a good place to start.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    Like

  13. Cedric just fires off 1/2 cocked. Read the links Cedric. When reading Nasif Nahle ,try to read between the lines for further understanding. You too Ken ;) Sorry , it’s a marathon read ,but not my fault. If you want to know the truth…its there.

    Kind regards
    Mack.

    Like

  14. I don’t get my science information from some blog.
    Nobody should.
    On the other hand, there’s NASA.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    (shrug)

    Like

  15. It shows they are devoid of rational arguments themselves.
    Not true. Examples such as:
    (1) Splicing of instrumental data to proxy (see red line on graph)
    (2) Use of Bristlecone Pine data which is prone to hockey stick shapes
    (3) Short Centred PCA algorithm
    (4) Upside-down Tiljander lake sediment proxy
    (5) Divergence problem, leading to the “trick” to “hide the decline”

    are some examples of rational arguments that have been used to criticise Mann’s work

    Whether they are right or not is another issue

    Like

  16. Sure, Andy, these are the arguments which have attempted to provide a false “sciency” label to the attacks on Mann. But you avoid the fact that none of them have stood up to scientific scrutiny.

    The motives for the attacks in Mann have been political, not scientific. And the accusations have been slanderous. I suspect that there will now be a legal rippling to that effect.

    And I disagree with you completely, whether the charges are correct or not is the issue. Or at least has been the issue for those investigating committees in the past.

    But the issue for the court is more serious. Claimed of fraudulent behaviour were made – these are extremely serious for scientists and hopefully the court will treat the defendants accordingly. It’s one thing for scientists to make mistakes or pursue their own pet theories. It’s another to fraudulently manufacture or manipulate data. Mann has done neither and those who continue making such charges should get their come uppance.

    Like

  17. Apology to David Thompson…lets just call them cobwebs in the head.

    Like

  18. “Not true. Examples such as:
    (1) Second Law of Thermodynamics
    (2) Axe’s folding proteins
    (3) Goo to the Zoo to You
    (4) The lack of transitional fossils
    (5) The Piltdown Man hoax
    are some examples of rational arguments that have been used to criticise Darwins’s work. Whether they are right or not is another issue.”
    (shrug)

    Mann does work. It’s work that enters the scientific arena and kicks ass.
    It’s backed up by research that’s publically available and has had to jump through the peer-review process going back decades.
    It’s work that is tested and confirmed and built upon by other scientific communites from all around the world.

    If someone want’s to critcise Mann’s work then there are no short-cuts in science.
    It’s “enter the scientific arena or take a strong dose of shut the fuck up, bitch”.

    I hope Mann sues them for a tidy sum.
    This cowardly, gutless sniping has got to stop.
    You have evidence of fraud? Great. Go to the police. Fraud is a crime.
    You can lock people up for that.
    Call the police. I dare you.
    Conspiracy thinking is for morons.

    Like

  19. These “sciency” things have been dealt with over a period of years on Steve McIntyre’s blog

    So, Ken, you will be able to explain to us why the graph you display has instrumental data spliced onto the end of the proxy data, with a description of why this is a valid technique, and possibly examples from other fields?

    The Marcott et al paper that had a similar “hockey stick” was described by its authors as “not statistically robust”.

    The Yamal paper of Briffa has now been updated with the hockey stick removed.

    The Gergis et al hockey stick reconstruction for the southern hemisphere was withdrawn after a fairly major flaw was found by readers of Climate Audit

    Sounds like science working, not people “attacking” scientists.

    Like

  20. Andy, I can appreciate that the science may be beyond you but these arguments of yours have been refuted many times over. They are silly.

    The court case will not be dealing with the science – except to the extent thattheplaintiffs can provide support for their claims that Mann committed fraud and data manipulation.

    Now, have a look at the graph – the red line is clearly attributed (CRU observed trend) – nothing “spliced.” There is absolutely no reason why data from different sources and methods cannot be displayed in the same graph. If this is your concept of fraud and data manipulation you also need to be done for slander. It certainly disqualifies you from any scientific credibility.

    The reference to lack of robustness in Marcott’s work was to the proxy data at recent time. It would be stupid to use such proxy at recent times because we already have very high resolution instrumental data.

    These manufactured controversies rely on scientific ignorance. They are not “science working” – neither are the slanderous charges of fraud and data manipulation. They are outright political slander and hopefully will be strongly dealt with.

    Like

  21. Apology accepted Mack, but the cobwebs will only clear when you allow yourself to critically assess the words of the Great Ones (Like Dr Roy Spencer).

    Seriously, you guys act as though you have authority and expertise in climate science despite no formal or structured training, no professional background and no resources beyond what is free on the internet and a few books. You conduct no research, have no primary data, belong to no professional associations, are bound by no codes or rules, are never required to engage in professional development and your behaviour is not subject to independent scrutiny.

    But for me the kicker is that if you’re proven wrong the only cost to you is your pride, and given you are largely anonymous, there is no risk.

    Then you have the scientists and allied professionals. They get found either deliberately lying or being so inept they miss something an amateur can find and decades of work goes out the window along with their reputation and any chance of a job better than pumping gas.

    Or organisations like NASA and NIWA who are dependent on government funding for their survival and NGOs like the WMO or the IPCC who are equally dependent on external funding. If the CEOs of these organisations find out that anyone working for them is either an idiot or a liar they would be pumping gas by lunchtime. If anyone discovered that the entire staff of, say, NASA, were a mix of idiots and crooks (how would you keep that under wraps for more than 8 minutes) you would have the story of the millenia and the US deficit would suddenly cease to be a problem

    And companies like PWC or McKinsey & Co have spent billions and decades building a reputation for being trustworthy and expert enough to command staggering amounts for their advice. If, say, a competitor got wind that the hundreds of millions they have been paid for climate change advice was all a fraud; that’s the end of the whole company.

    One group comprising everything from scientists to accountants says one thing, and if they’re wrong, they’re history. Then we have a few thousand people, mostly middle aged men with blogs, who says another thing and has nothing to lose by being wrong.

    Who would the wise man listen to?

    Like

  22. The original claim was that there was “no rational argument” for criticising Mann. I gave some examples of rational arguments, and then you claim that these have been refuted (without references)

    Does this then make them irrational arguments?

    Furthermore, you seem to think that it is fine to splice instrumental data onto proxy data, at different resolutions. I never claimed that this was “fraud”. You attributed the word “fraud” to my comment.

    It was Nobel Prize winner Distinguished Professor Mann that brought this lawsuit, not the CEI or Mark Steyn. If he is so sensitive about a few comments in “right wing” magazines then he should just keep quiet. After all, they are not part of the scientific peer review process, so why is he worried about it?

    I think the CEI and Steyn are quite glad that Mann has brought the case to court, so that they can get hold of those “deleted” emails

    Should be fun.

    Like

  23. Seriously, you guys act as though you have authority and expertise in climate science despite no formal or structured training, no professional background and no resources beyond what is free on the internet and a few books

    David, do you have any evidence for this assertion?

    Like

  24. Andy, look at the graph above – those are plots from different sources presented in the same graphic. No one has “spliced” them.

    The case has been brought against CEI and The National Review. They had made unsubstantiated claims of fraud and worse. (As have you and your mates, Andy). They now face the consequences. I get the impression Mann is not worried – just that he feels he has nailed them. And a lot of scientists would love to see him succeed.

    As for the defendants being “quite glad” – why then did they move to throw the case out and thus deny themselves these “emails”? The fact that their motion was clearly rejected and the court says the charges of fraud and data manipulation must be looked into is upsetting for them and their supporters like you. Hence the bluster.

    Like

  25. Sure, I’m generalising, but I’m talking about a widely dispersed group and I’m describing what I have observed from what deniers say in their posts and what they say in their bios. Am I wrong? Are they,as a body, as qualified, experienced, skilled and resourced as the body of climate scientists?

    Back to my question – which group should a lay person with limited knowledge about climate science (99.999% of the population) listen to?

    Like

  26. If he is so sensitive about a few comments in “right wing” magazines then he should just keep quiet. After all, they are not part of the scientific peer review process, so why is he worried about it?

    Why worry about anti-vaxxers pushing pseudo science?
    They’re not part of the scientific peer-reveiwed process either.
    Why worry about the tobacco lobby pushing pseudo science?
    They’re not part of the scientific peer-reveiwed process either.
    Why worry about creationists pushing pseudo science?
    They’re not part of the scientific peer-reveiwed process either.

    (Sniff. So very beautiful. Denier logic never chances. Just the labels.)

    Science is the study of reality. Reality is where we live. What you don’t know or don’t understand can kill you.
    Cancer is a good example. Cancer will kill you. You can deny it all you want but the cancer doesn’t care.
    The way you get reliable information on cancer is the same way you should get reliable information on climate change or the safety of vaccines for children or the dangers of smoking.
    We rely upon the medical community to diagnose and treat cancer.
    Smart people will go the NIH or some other medical scientific community to find out information on cancer.
    Not that hard.
    Sensible, normal stuff and no global conspiracy thinking required.

    Flogging the Scientists

    Like

  27. Pingback: The Daily Blog Watch Monday 22 July « The Daily Blog

  28. So Mack’s a “slayer”, people too flaky even for the likes of Watts and Spencer.

    Like

  29. David, Try to refrain from calling me a denier. Denialist ,OK…it’s more professional. There are no “experts” in this AGW issue. Nobody has such “expertise”, least of all the climate scientists.(Note..no uni. degree in climate science) Another thing, just because you’re qualified with uni. degree doesn’t preclude you from being a crank. It also doesn’t preclude a crank mentality,or groupthink, in a number of “qualified experts”.

    Like

  30. Yes Andrew W, I’m a slayer, This huge deceptive mistake in the incoming solar radiation made by Trenberth , a kiwi, is a disgrace to NZ and science.

    Like

  31. Perhaps, Mack, you should briefly explain what a Slayer is? Sounds like a dogmatic religion. And do we look forward to a good old brawl between you and Andy who,I understand, belongings to a different dogmatic religion?

    Like

  32. I like you Mack, you’re much funnier than Ken. The most useful contribution you deniers can make is giving us all a good laugh and as a mark of my respect for your talent and in gratitude for your contribution to the debate I am happy to call you a professional denialist.

    I hereby declare as someone qualified with a uni degree that Mack the Slayer is a professional denialist.

    Like

  33. Dave,
    You could possibly be a bloke I could get along with too.Dave. My bikes were a 1939 Royal Enfield 250cc Clipper and a 1951 Triumph 650cc T-Bird (sprung hub)…….but before your time. :(

    Like

  34. There are no “experts” in this smoking causes cancer issue. Nobody has such “expertise”, least of all the doctors.
    There are no “experts” in this Evolution issue. Nobody has such “expertise”, least of all the biologists.
    There are no “experts” in this moon landing issue. Nobody has such “expertise”, least of all the NASA scientists.
    There are no “experts” in this vaccine safety issue. Nobody has such “expertise”, least of all the epidemiologists.

    Your ignorance is not equal to my knowledge.
    You’re entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

    Penn and Teller – Bullsh*t – Vaccinations

    Like

  35. Cedric, I click on your name and get James Randi, conjurer extraordinare, demystifier, decipherer and investigator of spoonbending,card-shuffling,and the false purveying of all things occult. Your credibility….epic fail Cedric.

    Like

  36. Actually, what you will get is the JREF.
    It’s a foundation that furthers Jame Randi’s work.

    Mission statement:
    Our mission is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

    About the JREF:
    The James Randi Educational Foundation was founded in 1996 to help people defend themselves from paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. The JREF offers a still-unclaimed million-dollar reward for anyone who can produce evidence of paranormal abilities under controlled conditions. Through scholarships, workshops, and innovative resources for educators, the JREF works to inspire this investigative spirit in a new generation of critical thinkers.

    Credibility? In spades.

    James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff

    Like

  37. Here is an entertaining piece by Lobos Motl on James Randi, Michael Mann, and “climate pseudo-science” as he calls it

    Randi who may be the world’s #1 symbol of skepticism towards pseudoscientific charlatans (and magicians claiming to have special abilities: he reproduced lots of their tricks without any paranormal abilities) turns out to be consistent in his skepticism: he is skeptical towards the climate judgement day pseudoscience, too.

    http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2009/12/climate-james-randi-vs-mindless.html

    I liked his description of P Z Myers as “the self-described godless ejaculating scumbag P.Z. Myers who calls me names”

    Like

  38. Bloody hell, that’s the nail in the AGW coffin – Cedric Katesby is a member of an organisation that uses conjuring etc to discredit pseudoscience and on a blog by some young Czech, James Randi (not a climate scientist) is “outed” as a denier.

    I guess that’s the end of the IPCC.

    Like

  39. “…he is skeptical towards the climate judgement day pseudoscience, too.

    If you are interested in the truth then let the man speak for himself. It’s the honest thing to do.
    Randi has done some great work. On the subject of climate change, he really put his foot in it and copped a lot of flak from the scientific community on it. The thing I found the most disturbing was how he got sucked in by the petition thing.

    Like

  40. I remember the incident, Cedric, but Randi actually later acknowledged his mistake and effectively criticised himself for going off half cocked.

    Not surprised that Andy is selective in his linking though. Not surprised at all.

    Like

  41. As you can see, the petition is easy to spot as a con job. All it takes is a little background checking. Yet people fall for it. Even someone like Randi.

    32000 Scientists

    Like

  42. David, there was also an answer to your previous question as to “who should you listen to” in the Motl link I published

    Ken, Randi later “admitted his mistake”
    Which mistake was that Ken?

    Like

  43. I skimmed over the Randi piece that Cedric posted, and Randi admits that “he doesn’t know”, rather than take any position, which is fairly consistent with most sceptical positions on climate change

    It is still possible that the late 20th Century warming between 1975 and 1998 is attributable to CO2, and that an insignificant amount more will occur in our lifetimes. So many options are open. Try Googling within the ipcc.ch domain for “dangerous” or “catastrophic” gw/cc and tell me what you find.

    Like

  44. What is fantastic David?

    Like

  45. Basically, Andy, he had uncritically accepted a couple of the arguments that your mates have made. He got criticised from within the sceptical groups for this and after checking the science for himself he realised he has been uncritical and acknowledge this.

    Michael Shermer is another skeptic who has also made a similar transition. Of course in his case he had been driven basically by his libertarianism, but in the end had to acknowledge the science. Ridley is someone who has also been driven by his libertarianism but still has not been able to break though to make a critical assessment of denial claims.

    Like

  46. By the way, “some Czech” is a theoretical physicist with a specialty in string theory and a penchant for a sharp and abrasive tongue.

    Like

  47. Basically, Andy, he had uncritically accepted a couple of the arguments that your mates have made.

    Which arguments?
    Which mates?

    Like

  48. Ridley is someone who has also been driven by his libertarianism but still has not been able to break though to make a critical assessment of denial claims.

    is Matt Ridley a “libertarian”? First I heard of that.
    Any basis for this assertion Ken?

    has not been able to break though to make a critical assessment of denial claims

    which “denial claims”? I guess you have read The Rational Optimist. Do you have specific examples of where he is wrong in his book?
    Or perhaps, where he is wrong in other writings he has made?

    Like

  49. Andy, your climate change denier mates.

    As for details I don’t remember – just rather I heard a number of interviews where he was taking up a denier position (don’t recall the petition), and other participants in the discussion criticised his points (yes, he was basically saying I don’t know in response). It was all quite polite, as it has been with Shermer, but Randi did publicly withdraw his comment after checking out some of the facts.

    This was 4 or 5 years ago before the manufactured “climategate” issue. Guess he was pretty pleased to have acknowledged his mistake before getting caught up in all that skulduggery.

    Like

  50. Try Googling within the ipcc.ch domain for “dangerous” or “catastrophic” gw/cc and tell me what you find.

    Why?
    Should we google for the word “vampires” too?

    It is still possible that the late 20th Century warming between 1975 and 1998 is attributable to CO2, and that an insignificant amount more will occur in our lifetimes.

    This is not something that you will find on the ipcc.
    “Insignificant”? Nope. That’s just you. Your feelings are not science.
    The size of something (Ebola virus, arsnic, the ozone layer etc) is not in proportion to it’s effect.
    It might make you feel better to talk like that but there’s nothing scientific about it.

    26 — Science vs. the Feelies

    Like

  51. I picked up Ridley’s libertarianism from one of his books on biology – I think he had a chapter concentrating on his idealistic understanding of capitalist paradise. No, haven’t bothered reading the Rational Optimist (doesn’t interest me) but understand his libertarianism comes through clearly there.

    I think anyone who has read much of his public comments over reent yep years would be a fool not to recognise his libertarianism.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think his writings on popular science, and the biological origins of morality, were excellent and have no bother recommending them..

    Like

  52. This is not something that you will find on the ipcc.
    “Insignificant”? Nope. That’s just you. Your feelings are not science.

    They are not my feelings. They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests that climate sensitivity to CO2 is low

    Like

  53. Andy, “They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests that climate sensitivity to CO2 is low” which you hurry pick to fit your own biases.

    Bit the fact is even using the lower end values the likely climate change from our use of fossil fuels business as usual scenario is still a huge problem. You can’t magic that problem away by cherry picking values like that.

    Like

  54. Bit the fact is even using the lower end values the likely climate change from our use of fossil fuels business as usual scenario is still a huge problem

    And your evidence for this is what Ken?
    You you deny that the forcing effects of CO2 are logarithmic? The longer the “pause” in warming sticks around, the less likely it is that some major climatic changes are going to occur. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary.

    Oh wait, you do, it’s the “hockey stick”, oh and blind faith

    Like

  55. They are the increasingly large body of…

    You’re lying.
    There is no “increasingly large” anything.
    It’s still NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    There is no future for you where, say, five years from now you will be vindicated and be proven right after all.
    Two years from now, you will still have nothing.
    Ten years from now you will still be in the same tiny world as the creationists.
    Twenty years from now, you will still be sitting at the bus stop in the rain with the anti-flouride nutters.
    That’s not going to change.
    Do you know why?
    You don’t get off your backside and do any work.
    You don’t enter the scientific arena and sucessfully defend your ideas.
    All of your isolated contrarians are retirees with more than one foot in the grave.
    There’s no work. You are forced to cherry pick isolated studies doled out to you from blogs that offer a glimmer of hope in the title or the abstract somewhere.It’s just sad.

    HMS Darwin has been sinking for over 150 years now and it’s still going strong.

    They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests that cancer instances related to smoking is low.
    They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests the link between HIV and AIDS is low.
    They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests the link between fluoride in the water and brain damage is high.
    They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests that disease prevention sensitivity from vaccines is low.
    (shrug)

    I don’t get my science from some nobody on the internet.
    I’m smarter than that.
    I get my science from NASA.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    “Increasingly blah, blah, blah”?
    That’s nice.
    NASA has a website. I’ll wait for it to pop up there.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    Like

  56. You’re lying.

    and your assertion for this is what?

    I could provide a list of recent papers giving a low ball estimate for CS (such as Otto et al)

    So if you are going to start a comment with the statement “You’re lying” then I am not going to go any further reading your comment

    Maybe you and your friends can have a group hug and review the literature on climate sensitivity and get back to me.

    I have a busy day ahead working for Big Oil

    Like

  57. There is no “pause” in warming, Andy, just in the surface temperature changes. And that isn’t unusual if you look bake at the records for the also 50 years. There is still accumulation of heat in the oceans and the melting of ice.

    When I say that even the lower end values for sensitivity present a problem I am just repeating what climate scientists are telling us – I think they are worth listening to and you are not, on his question.

    I know your mates in the fossil fuels industry don’t like it but the assessment of the effect of business as usual burning if fossil fuels is pretty well established – no matter how angry that makes you

    Like

  58. There is no “pause” in warming, Andy

    Yes there is Ken. All the major academies agree on this. NASA included

    Like

  59. No they don’t, Andy. They agree that the global surface temperature is currently plateauing (not unusual if you look at the temperature plot over the last 100 years) but the changes in energy balance have not stopped. Energy is still being absorbed into the oceans and melting ice.

    But, of course, you and your mates will try to confuse the issue by ignoring everything but the surface temperature record at the moment. The dishonest of omission.

    Don’t want to harm all those profits from fossil fuel burning, do we?

    Like

  60. ..and your assertion for this is what?

    I’m not asserting anything.
    I’m dismissing your claim.
    Don’t try and shift the burden of proof. It won’t work.

    I could provide a list of recent papers…

    Yes, we know. This is the usual line trotted out.
    “Hey, here’s a study/newspaper article/blog post/ that you will tremble in awe and fear of.”
    So could the creationists, the anti-vaxxers and the flouride nutters out there.
    It’s how the science denial game of any stripe is played.
    They all have the same playbook.
    It’s predictable.

    It’s not going to change.
    Ten years from now you will still be cherry picking some study or other from the huge pile and making vague, silly claims. It’s never going to end.

    So if you are going to start a comment with the statement “You’re lying” then I am not going to go any further reading…

    Yes, we know. This is another cliche that’s trotted out.
    “Oh, I’m offended”
    Been there. Done that. Was not impressed the first time.

    All the major academies agree on this. NASA included.

    Did you know that NASA has a website devoted to the topic of climate change?
    I did.
    Let me help you with that.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    Like

  61. Don’t want to harm all those profits from fossil fuel burning, do we?

    No we don’t Ken. We need to keep extracting fossil fuels so that you and your mates can sit in your nice homes furiously tweeting about “deniers”.
    We need fossil fuels so that you can drive or catch the bus to the hospital or cruise around on your motorbike at weekends

    Like

  62. Ah yes, heaven forefend that we might try to improve fuel efficiency or look forpractical alternatives to burning fossil fuels. That way lies madness.

    Like

  63. another day, another strawman argument..

    Like

  64. Well, if you don’t like straw man arguments, perhaps you ought to stop making them.

    Like

  65. These new avatars are pretty wacky aren’t they? You look like SpongeBob Squarepants, Chris

    Like

  66. Huh? The avatars have changed again.
    Cedric will be pleased to have his old one back

    Like

  67. Just trying to keep you awake, Andy.

    Like

  68. All the major academies agree on this. NASA included.

    I love it when idiots like you try and tell me what NASA agrees on or doesn’t agree on.
    NASA has a website.
    In English.
    I don’t need you. I can skip the middlemen entirely and go directly to the NASA website. That’s what smart people do.
    You have nothing.
    It’s still you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    Tomorrow will be the same.
    The day after that too.
    There is no spooky-wooky global sekrit scientific global konspiracy.
    It’s all in your head.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    Like

  69. Cedric, James Hansen works at NASA, or at least he did until he became a full time activist

    He talks of “the pause”. I can find the link sometime, if I can be bothered, which I can’t really, since I might as well be talking to a bunch of Jehovah witnesses.

    Like

  70. Oh, OK, then

    Global Warming Standstill.
    The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for
    the past decade. It should be noted that the “standstill” temperature is at a much higher level than existed at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998 , which had the strongest El Nino of the
    century. However, the standstill
    has led to a widespread assertion that “global warming has stopped”
    .
    Examination of this matter requires consideration of
    the principal climate forcing mechanisms that can
    drive climate change and the effects of stochastic (unforced) climate variability

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

    Also mentions the partial saturation of CO2 forcing

    Like

  71. Maybe the Lizard People got to Hansen in the middle of the night?

    Like

  72. Andy, I located that paper for myself. My reading of it indicates that you have cherry-picked a quotation which fits your agenda (relating to surface temperatures), whilst ignoring the overall conclusions.

    This paper does not support your viewpoint.

    Like

  73. Cedric, James Hansen works at NASA, or at least he did until he became a full time activist…

    I don’t care.
    Have you ever heard me bring up Hansen in conversation?
    Have you ever heard me quote him?
    Nope.
    What he says is of no interest to me.
    Does he accept climate change? Sure but…I don’t care.
    It’s not important.
    It’s not about personalities or personal opinions. I don’t single out one solitary scientist or one solitary paper or one solitary quote from one solitary blog.
    That’s your thing; not mine.

    I go to NASA.
    Not Hansen or some other guy working at NASA.
    Just NASA.
    The NASA website. The NASA website written in plain English that’s dedicated to climate change.
    I go to NASA and…(wait for it)…every single scientific community on the planet.
    Not individuals. Scientific communities.
    Hansen could drop dead tomorrow and it would change nothing.

    It’s just like Darwin. Darwin =/= The Theory of Evolution.
    Hansen =/= the science behind climate change.
    it’s much bigger than that.

    Abandon the cult of personalities. Science is not a religion. There are no high priests. There are no prophets.
    If you feel the need to bring up individuals either for or against…then you are doing it wrong.
    Focus on the vast body of scientific literature going back decades and the position statements of all the scientific communities on the planet.
    NASA is a good place to start.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    Like

  74. My reading of it indicates that you have cherry-picked a quotation which fits your agenda (relating to surface temperatures), whilst ignoring the overall conclusions.
    This paper does not support your viewpoint.

    Yep, that happens a lot.
    Creationists do it.
    The recently departed anti-fluoride nutters tried that on only a day or so ago.
    It’s a standard shtick.
    So very predictable.
    You’d think that after the umpteen zillionth time they’d go “Hmm, I remember doing this last week with some other gosh, wow, wonderous paper spoon-fed to me by my favourite denier blog. It failed to impress. Maybe I should fact-check this new gosh wow wonderous paper before I go waving it about? Hmm.”
    But no. It’s an established routine. They never hesitate. They never think beyond the next comment in the thread.

    Birth of a Climate Crock

    Like

  75. Andy, I located that paper for myself. My reading of it indicates that you have cherry-picked a quotation which fits your agenda (relating to surface temperatures), whilst ignoring the overall conclusions.

    This paper does not support your viewpoint.

    What is my viewpoint Chris?
    My viewpoint is that there has been no change in global mean surface temperature for the last 17 years or so.

    What is your viewpoint Chris?Do you disagree with that statement?
    If so, can you tell me why?
    Show me a statement in that paper that contradicts my “viewpoint”

    Cedric –
    I go to NASA.
    Not Hansen or some other guy working at NASA.
    Just NASA.

    Cedric, NASA has these things called “people” working for it. Hansen is one of the original members of the Goddard Institute at NASA.
    Another one is Gavin Schmidt

    These people are called “climate scientists”
    They write “papers”

    NASA is a corporate body that issues press releases.

    Like

  76. Is it indeed? I was under the impression that your viewpoint was that anthropogenic global warming was a hoax, perpetrated by corrupt scientists.

    You might perhaps wish to clear that up.

    Like

  77. Is it indeed? I was under the impression that your viewpoint was that anthropogenic global warming was a hoax, perpetrated by corrupt scientists.

    I never said that “global warming was a hoax”

    However there are plenty of corrupt scientists

    We see corruption in all walks of life.
    Government, the police the army, the press, science, education.

    It has always been with us and always will be, and there will always be people defending that corruption, people who have a vested interest in it.

    For example, the kind of parasites that we see on NZ “science” blogs and cesspits like “The Standard” and “The Daily Blog”

    Like

  78. Cedric, NASA has these things called “people” working for it.

    Sure but I don’t care about individual scientists.
    How can I make this clear to you?

    These people are called “climate scientists”
    They write “papers”

    Yeeessssss but…any one of those papers could be simply wrong.
    Any one of those scientists could be mistaken or something bad or whatever.
    Personalities are worthless.
    Only the work counts.
    The vast body of research.
    Peer reviewed research.
    All of it.
    Not one paper here or some single study there or some lonely cherry-picked report there.
    Nope. I look at the big picture.

    NASA is a corporate body that issues press releases.

    Not according to NASA.
    They have a website.
    You don’t get to tell me what they are or are not.
    You are just some anonymous wierdo on the internet.
    NASA has a website. It’s in English. I can read it for myself.

    You got spoon-fed some paper or other from some blog and it sent a thrill up your leg?
    Again?
    (shrug)
    You need to ask yourself what it is that you are doing that is not like the creationists or the anti-vaxxers of the world out there.

    You might perhaps wish to clear that up.

    Oh yes please.
    Perhaps you could mention the Hard Left Marxists too?
    That was a golden moment from you.
    (How long do the have left before they turn out all the lights in Europe? Two years?)
    Tell us how your opinion is different from say…NASA’s website.
    That would be fun.

    tobacco_papers

    Like

  79. And the greatest corruption is found in the corporate sector.

    Like

  80. I said “anthropogenic global warming,” Andy. Do try to keep up.

    Are you saying that my impression is incorrect, and that you do not believe anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists, you need only say so and I shall take your word on it.

    “I never said that” is hardly an indication that you do not believe it. Certainly, I have gained the impression that you believe it over the course of our interactions, and you have done nothing to disabuse me of this notion.

    Like

  81. I never said that “global warming was a hoax”
    However there are plenty of corrupt scientists
    We see corruption in all walks of life.
    Government, the police the army, the press, science, education.

    I never said that “vaccinations were a hoax”
    I never said that “the moon landings were a hoax”
    I never said that “Evolution was a hoax”
    I never said that “AIDS research was a hoax”
    I never said that “ Water fluoridation was a hoax”
    I never said that “cancer risk of smoking was a hoax”
    However there are plenty of corrupt scientists
    We see corruption in all walks of life.
    Government, the police the army, the press, science, education.

    (Sniff. So very beautiful)

    Like

  82. Are you saying that my impression is incorrect, and that you do not believe anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists, you need only say so and I shall take your word on it.

    I never said AGW is a hoax
    If you can find a link where I said that, good luck.

    However, AGW is a theory that was proposed some time ago. A very large funding gravy train then proceeded to build up which enforced a mentality of groupthink and dogma (in my view)

    Naturally, there will be some corruption in any system where this is allowed to happen.
    There is good climate science and bad climate science. The difficulty for most of us is sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

    Like

  83. “I never said Evolution is a hoax
    If you can find a link where I said that, good luck.
    However, Evolution is a theory that was proposed some time ago. A very large funding gravy train then proceeded to build up which enforced a mentality of groupthink and dogma (in my view)
    Naturally, there will be some corruption in any system where this is allowed to happen.
    There is good Evolution science and bad Evolution science. The difficulty for most of us is sorting out the wheat from the chaff.”

    Claim CA320:
    Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
    Claim CA321.1:
    The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective.
    (Index to Creationist Claims)

    Like

  84. Are you accusing me of being a creationist?

    ha ha ha

    That is hilarious

    *facepalm*

    Like

  85. (Sniff. So very beautiful)

    I guess in Cedric’s world, everyone is honest.

    This is not my world, unfortunately. Try working with Christchurch Insurance Claims, for example

    Like

  86. Or try talking sense to Richard Treadgold and the idiots who congregate around his blog? Makes you lose faith in human nature, eh Andy?

    Like

  87. Are you accusing me of being a creationist?

    No. Why would you think that?

    I never said you were a creationist.
    If you can find a link where I said that, good luck.
    I never said you were a anti vaxxer.
    If you can find a link where I said that, good luck.
    I never said you were an HIV denier.
    If you can find a link where I said that, good luck etc, etc, etc.

    Like

  88. I guess in Cedric’s world, everyone is honest.

    Bad guess. Try reading English.

    Claim CA321.1:
    The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective.

    (Index of Creationist Claims)

    Deniers argue that because scientists receive grant money, fame, and prestige as a result of their research, it is in their best interest to maintain the status quo . This type of thinking is convenient for deniers as it allows them to choose which authorities to believe and which ones to dismiss as part of a grand conspiracy. In addition to being selective, their logic is also internally inconsistent. For example, they dismiss studies that support the HIV hypothesis as being biased by “drug money,” while they accept uncritically the testimony of HIV deniers who have a heavy financial stake in their alternative treatment modalities.
    Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma…

    (HIV Denial in the Internet Era)

    Like

  89. Alright Andy, let’s go back to first principles.

    What, exactly is your viewpoint? What is it that motivates you to chime in on these discussions? What would you seek to convince us all of that would satisfy you that we were all basically in agreement on the topic of climate science?

    And please don’t confine yourself to some narrow point (such as 17 year surface temperature trends) which isn’t going to convince anybody of anything. Let’s see some big picture stuff.

    Like

  90. (…grabs the popcorn…)

    Go for it, Andy! Come out of the closet and say it loud and proud.

    Like

  91. ” Go for it, Andy! Come out of the closet and say it loud and proud”

    Reminds me of the joke about the Royal Baby
    They should have called it “George Michael” because it took so long to come out

    Like

  92. Mark Steyn posted up the link to the Slate article on Facebook. He seems to be quite looking forward to the lawsuit.

    I expect he is hoping to find out the contents of some emails by the process of discovery. Should be fun.

    Like

  93. Andy, you obviously chose not to read the bit where Mann’s team are also looking forward to discovery. After all, as the plaintiff they have more legitimate reasons for discovery related specifically to the charges of fraud and data manipulation – including emails. The defendants are if course hoping for a fishing expedition – which will probably be knocked back as it was in the previous case because they actually have no evidence for their charges. No justification to go fishing.

    I am also looking forward to discovery.

    Like

  94. So what will they discover Ken?
    On the other side of the coin, the email that Phil Jones instructed Mann to delete might come out of the woodwork.

    Steyn doesn’t actually seem that concerned about this.

    Like

  95. Well, Andy, they could justifiably search for material on which they base their charges of fraud and data manipulation. After all, they made their charges and if they are trying to justify their position then there will be some sort of evidence. And to justify their position they must be in possession of that evidence. It would be very weak on their part to claim that they can only get their evidence via discovery of Mann’s emails, etc. that would, or at least should, lead to them being lumbered with very high penalties and they would,min ego feet, admit wrongdoing..

    I can imagine all sort of emails and links could come out if Mann pursues discovery.

    Perhaps we should try the same sort of think ph here with Treadgold and his team of scientists who wish to remain anonymous.

    Like

  96. Creationism never does very well when it goes to court.
    Neither does climate denialism.
    It’s one thing to indulge in idle babble on some no-name blog. Quite another to step into the real world and face a judge.
    NIWA, anyone?

    Like

  97. Perhaps we should try the same sort of think ph here with Treadgold and his team of scientists who wish to remain anonymous.

    Were the people who brought the case to court anonymous? Were there others hiding in the wings that we don’t know about?

    Sounds very spooky.

    Like

  98. Pingback: Mike Mann’s Defamation Suit | Planet3.0

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s