It’s an old story. A stripper longs to be a ballerina, but the stuffy board at the local ballet company rejects her. She’s just a working class girl, who never had the money to pay for fancy ballet classes, and so EXCUSE HER for not living up to their standards of hoity-toitiness. Finally, the stripper gives up trying to play their game, and does another audition in which she dances really slutty, writhing around on the table where the board members are trying to write notes about the applicants, and knocking askew the board members’ conservative-looking glasses. The board members are shocked, but intrigued. They realize that maybe what ballet has been missing all this time is a massive injection of sluttiness to put some butts in the seats. Our heroine is admitted to the ballet company, and HOORAY FOR BEING YOURSELF!!!!
If real life is just like Flashdance, or innumerable other movies with essentially the same plot, then Mark Steyn is poised to win a stunning legal victory against Prof. Michael Mann. Yes, after two judges failed to dismiss Mann vs. National Review et al. based on Anti-SLAPP laws, because they found the suit is likely to succeed on its merits, defendant Mark Steyn fired his lawyers, and now he’s DOING IT HIS WAY!!! What is HIS WAY, you ask? Well, Steyn has filed a 33-page motion to dismiss the suit based on… wait for it… Anti-SLAPP laws, and cuz America is a free country, right? And FURTHERMORE, his motion files a countersuit against Mann, demanding at least $10,000,000 for infringing on his free speech rights (i.e., his right to falsely accuse people of crimes in print media), and cuz Mann is a big meanie who has sued others for the same thing.
If real life refuses to conform to Flashdance, however, the result might not be so favorable for Steyn. As one lawyer who happens to support Steyn about the free speech issue predicted, Mann’s lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the countersuit based on… Anti-SLAPP laws… and to award Mann attorney’s fees for having to deal with the frivolous countersuit. You see, Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect people against frivolous lawsuits… like Steyn’s. Mann’s lawyers note that “The specific legal theories upon which Steyn bases his counterclaims are unclear,” and that the only “evidence” Steyn presented didn’t have anything directly to do with this case.
Never fear, though! Steyn is busy getting his minions to finance his legal battles by buying more Mark Steyn coffee mugs and such from the steynonline.com store. And as he has constantly assured his backers, there’s no way he’s going to settle the lawsuit. So as long as Mark Steyn continues to just BE HIMSELF, playing the free speech martyr while twirling about the pole of shameless money grubbing, he might just make enough bank to cover the legal bills and any eventual judgement against him. The only losers will be the slack-jawed yokels who threw all their seed money onto the stage over a court case that Steyn could have avoided simply by inserting an “in my opinion” or two into his original, execrable piece. YOU GO, GIRL!!!
Climate Asylum 
Excellent news analysis and commentary.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 19, 2014
at 10:14 am
+1 Pithy and to-the-point. Steyn has wedged himself, his self-indulgence will get him nowhere in court no matter his followers apparently ‘irresistible’ demands for such self-indulgence.
By: Nick on March 24, 2014
at 11:54 pm
Thus is the cost of uncontrolled hubris — which has brought down a great many other villains like him. Steyn thinks he’s above the law and that he can defame people — and when someone tries to stop him, he cries like a baby how his First Amendment rights are being trampled.
He’s now finding out how wrong he is.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 25, 2014
at 10:31 am
Good job, Barry! I was wondering if you were ever going to get to the Mann Steyn case. Did I get you going on this case because of me mentioning it in you Lord Monckton blog?
Anyway, I can’t wait to see Dr. Mann win and then I can’t wait to see what the fossil fuel industry spin doctors have to say.
This is all great sport but I fear climate change is coming to get us big time. Have you seen the news about massive Methane leaks in the Arctic and elsewhere that are just one of the climate reinforcing feedbacks that we are seeing? And have you seen any of that humorous, great public speaker, Professor Emeritus Guy McPherson’s YouTube videos? After watching some of those, I’m just plain in despair. And when I come out of despair on occassion, I want to go out and party like it’s 1999. But wait, s***t! It’s 2014, and Guy says we’re in for total human extinction by 2030. If that’s true, and the whole world knew about it, then there would be panic and looting and mayhem in the streets. No wonder the media is mostly silent on the consequences of climate change. Most of the noise being made is the noise of denial, which is getting louder as more climate change weather related events happen to real people. I feel sorry for the young people. I’ve lived a good portion of my life already. Checking out between now and 2030 won’t be anywhere near as bad as young people checking out, being cheated out of their full life spans by selfish greedy oil, coal and natural gas billionaires and the political and media paid shills.
Barry, how about starting a Fukashima blog? I fear that because tons of radioactive waste are pouring into the Pacific ocean each day, that Fukashima may get us all before climate change does. Oh, and if there’s another Earth quake, and building 4 on the Fukashima complex collapses, a s**t load of fuel rods will be exposed to the open air and kill billions. And where is the media on this? Silent! One of Guy McPherson’s YouTube videos shows fish in the Pacific ocean bleeding from their eyes! Yuk!!! Urgggh!! People on the west coast won’t need street lights because everybody will glow in the dark. Nyuk Nyuk.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 19, 2014
at 11:52 am
Hi Raymond,
I’ve been blogging about the Mann v. NRO case for a while. Look at the top of the page and you will see a tab for a page with all those posts collected together.
You are exaggerating the Fukushima threat, though. (I’ve worked on nuclear waste issues before. Fukushima is bad, but it’s not going to kill billions in any scenario.)
By: Barry Bickmore on March 19, 2014
at 1:57 pm
Barry,
Steyn is asking for socialism, since he’s asking people to help pay his legal fees. Aren’t rabid conservatives supposed to be against socialism?
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 19, 2014
at 12:25 pm
No, he’s asking for charity, and conservatives actually give more to charity than liberals.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 19, 2014
at 1:58 pm
Oh, please. You’re merely repeating the old wives’ tale — that old, white, and conservative wives’ tale. Studies have shown no such thing. One of the most recent was published last August by MIT political scientists, Michael Sances and Michael Margolis:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148033
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 19, 2014
at 2:15 pm
Barry is a Mormon. I was dismayed when I found out several unsettling things about the Mormon Church. And one of those things is that they encourage their members to become Republicans. The only reason I see that would be necessary is if the rich, money grubbing leadership doesn’t want their faithful flock to believe in class envy, and not believe in taxing the rich.
Another thing I found out is that the Book of Mormon is a fake and a fraud. Sorry Barry, but the Mormon Church isn’t any better, and maybe worse than the Catholic Church I grew up in with made up bulls**t doctrines.
Another thing: I had a Mormon friend who back in the 90’s, responded to my accusation that black people were forbidden to join the church. He responded to me, wouldn’t you like to be with people of your own race in the afterlife? Wow! Is that racist. My answer to that would be that I don’t want to be around a**holes, stupid people, or violent people of any race.
Barry, feel free to say anything bad about Catholicism. There’s a lot bad to be said, like the inquisition, persecution of scientists, homosexual/pedophile priests. Now how did that church position of alter boy get started. And in what position did those alter boys end up in? Nyuk Nyuk!
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 19, 2014
at 2:46 pm
You need to chill out, Raymond. For instance, almost every time you pop up here, you are demanding that some contrarian poster provide his tax returns so you can make sure he isn’t being paid by the Kochs. It’s ridiculous and offensive.
Now you respond to a post that has nothing to do with religion by pointing out how stupid I am for being a Mormon… which might even be ok if you happened to know anything about Mormonism.
For instance, the LDS Church is strictly politically neutral, and NOBODY is EVER allowed to use our church facilities for political purposes, ESPECIALLY when someone like Mitt Romney is running. Harry Reid is a Mormon, for Pete’s sake. At least a couple times a year they read instructions about strict political neutrality over the pulpit. It’s true that most Mormons in the USA are Republicans, but that’s more about religious people tending to be socially conservative than anything else.
And since your point about promoting the GOP is flatly untrue, the rest of your point about money grubbing is moot. However, I would like to point out that 1) the LDS Church has its own welfare system that works astonishingly well, and 2) BYU (where I work) has over 30,000 students, is always ranked pretty high academically, and the tuition is only something like $2500 per semester. How can a private university charge less than a lot of state schools? Because the church heavily subsidizes the tuition so that it doesn’t become a school just for the rich Mormon kids.
The Mormons never barred black people from joining, but they were restricted from the priesthood for a long time. The LDS Church has come out and basically admitted it was a mistake. So your Mormon friend back in the 90’s wasn’t the brightest bulb in the box, and the vast majority of Mormons would never have said anything so racist, especially as late as the 90’s.
So forgive me if your pronouncement that my faith is a fraud doesn’t bother me. I see no reason to believe that you have ever expended the slightest effort to understand Mormonism or Mormons.
Note that up above you were also breathing heavy about how Fukushima might kill billions. Get a grip. We’ve dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities, set off any number of above-ground nuclear bomb tests, and the Chernobyl reactor actually exploded! And yet, the damage wasn’t anything near that. Yet another example of your tendency to talk without bothering with any critical thinking.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 19, 2014
at 5:58 pm
Barry,
Ok. No more tax return requests. I’ll chill a bit. I’m sorry I offended you.
[Moderator snipped a bunch of off-topic anti-Mormon crap Raymond got from the sort of knuckle-dragging fundamentalists who are ruining the Republican party because they are incapable of critical thought.]
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 20, 2014
at 7:17 pm
Are you suggesting we ignore Barry’s opinions as irrelevant based on your views of his religion? What does a person’s religion, or lack of, have to do with the validity of their ideas?
By: Don Ladner on March 20, 2014
at 8:42 am
Raymond you complain about growing “up with made up bulls**t doctrines” but you clearly are still a follower of such as you appear to be a disciple of a certain Guy McPherson’s doomsday cult.
I suggest you attempt to stay on topic and directly address Professor Bickmore’s post that you are responding to.
By: Colin on March 20, 2014
at 7:15 pm
Colin,
Doomsday cult? We shall see. It beats joining in with the climate deniers.
Here’s some links on Methane emmissions from the Arcticand one about irreversible climate change. This has everything to do with the Mann/Steyn case because when Dr. Mann wins his libel case, then the reality of climate change will become more widely accepted. But I fear it’s too late. I believe we are in for irreversible climate change. Main stream links like the last one from the Guardian have been around for years, saying the same old tired thing. We have to act now before it’s too late. Now should have been 1988 when James Hansen went to Congress and testified. He might as well have called a meeting with the oil and coal execs. the meeting with Congress was much the same thing.
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/02/massive-methane-concentrations-over-the-laptev-sea.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/18/climate-change-world-risk-irreversible-changes-scientists-aaas
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 20, 2014
at 8:42 pm
“..when Dr. Mann wins his libel case, then the reality of climate change will become more widely accepted”. That’s a hell of an assumption Raymond. More likely CAGW skeptics will refrain from comparing (or quoting others who do) Michael Mann to child molestors.
Until methane can be taxed by governments, it will not be seen as root of all evil.
By: Colin on March 20, 2014
at 11:44 pm
“In this paper, we show that the association between conservatism and generosity is a function of conservatives being wealthier and more religious than liberals. Further, any conserva- tive advantage in giving that remains after adjusting for confounders is driven by a greater propensity by conservatives to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.”
However it remains to be seen whether coffee cup sales will be enough to cover costs of a serious defense.
Steyn representing himself may in the long run turn out to be a serious error.
[and thanks Barry for the the posting. There’s also the UVA and Tim Ball suits to keep an eye on]
By: David Sanger on March 19, 2014
at 5:31 pm
Yes, the Tim Ball case is especially interesting, given the involvement of John “Vanilla Girl” O’Sullivan.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 19, 2014
at 6:18 pm
yes, no doubt you saw this posting on Facebook by Prof. Mann’s lawyer in the Canada case.
concluding “…Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball and other defendants is proceeding through the normal stages prescribed by the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules and Dr. Mann looks forward to judicial vindication at the conclusion of this process.”
By: David Sanger on March 20, 2014
at 4:43 pm
Hi Bubble,
I was going from a single study that I saw reported on the news several years ago. So while I don’t think it is a “myth” in the sense that it isn’t based on anything, I’m willing to entertain the notion that the study I was thinking of was wrong, or it wasn’t reported correctly. I look forward to reading the one you linked.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 19, 2014
at 5:33 pm
Actually, I’m not that impressed with the study you cited.
1) It’s not actually published in a journal, yet, so it’s not peer-reviewed, yet. And in fact, it is written by two graduate students. Why aren’t their advisor(s) involved?
2) They agree that Republicans do give more to charity, but the difference largely goes away if you correct for income and religiosity. Well, income is one thing, but the fact is that Republicans tend to be more religious. If being more religious tends to be connected with being more conservative politically, then how is it legitimate to separate the two?
3) This seems pretty stupid. “At the state level, we find no evidence of a relationship between charitable giving and Republican presidential voteshare.” Income distribution and religiosity vary quite a bit from state to state. At least income ought to be corrected for, don’t you think?
4) This is also stupid. “Finally, we show that any remaining differences in giving are an artifact of Republicans’ greater propensity to give to religious causes, particularly their own church.” Duh. When someone gives to charity, they generally give to organizations they trust will use the money wisely. Naturally, religious people tend to give more to religious charities. I usually give to LDS charities, which in turn often distributes through Catholic Charities, and so on. So completely separating out donations to religious organizations is absurd.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 19, 2014
at 7:00 pm
Barry, I am going to nitpick on one issue: the authorship. There are many different publication practices, and political sciences is closer to the social sciences in its frequent sole authorship. It is sometimes even frowned upon if the advisor is co-author on all papers with his PhD student.
By: Marco on March 24, 2014
at 5:39 am
” …that old, white, and conservative wives’ tale.”
I see a faint hint of a bias in your opinion there Bubble.
By: Colin on March 21, 2014
at 12:11 am
In the immortal words of Stephen Colbert, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
I tend to lean towards reality.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 21, 2014
at 12:31 am
Feel free to revisit Barry’s 4 points above that suggests your liberal view of reality is as distorted as many other liberal views.
By: Colin on March 21, 2014
at 2:44 am
Eg., earlier studies did not factor in the overlapping of conservatism and “religiousity” –they don’t give more because they’re conservative, they give more because they are religious. Hee hee, –AGF
By: agfosterjr on March 25, 2014
at 12:26 pm
Yes, and many churches, like the Mormon and Episcopal churches require members to donate 10 percent of their income every year to their church.
And of course, if you’re a God-fearing member of the Aryan Church of Divine Guidance, you get to deduct from taxes what you give to help print hate and racist literature and to buy white sheets for parishioners to wear if they can’t afford one.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 25, 2014
at 4:10 pm
The biblical tithe was directed in part to support the poor (Deuteronomy 26:12: “When you have finished paying all the tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.”).
And so it is with most churches that have adopted it: a prescription of charity. In conservative states then, government charities only have to deal with what religious charities have missed or could not afford. And I don’t have any numbers, but as for international charity, churches rival government donations, and at times donate to the Red Cross. I dare say religious charities are more efficiently run than those of government, and are more careful not to interfere with local commerce, as by putting local grain growers out of business through flooding the market with free grain. Indiscriminate charity automatically entails corruption. –AGF
By: agfosterjr on March 26, 2014
at 9:40 am
In my opinion, most churches that require 10% of your GROSS salary are using it to pay the tip top leadership a fat cat salary that in my mind isn’t morally justified. I was able to check on Church leaderships’ salaries recently. Exhorbitant! I say to those and other fat cat religious leaders, get out and get a real job and stop sucking off of your parishioners. The Apostle Paul worked as a tent maker. He didn’t sit on his butt barking orders and stealing the faithfuls’ hard earned money to feather his own nest. Oh Dear! I’m talking religion again. Barry is going to be so upset with me. But I’m just responding to someone else who is discussing religion in this blog.
I’m fed up with organized religion, fed up with what appears to me to be pro climate deniers in this and other blogs,
and fed up with paid off politicians. And I’m fed up with humanity in general. We are such horrible people. A race of highly evolved aliens would not want to associate with us anymore than highly intelligent people want to associate with the lowest common denominators of humanity.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 26, 2014
at 10:13 am
I doubt any druid conned as much from the flock as Al Gore. –AGF
By: agfosterjr on March 26, 2014
at 2:15 pm
Foster,
Gore didn’t con anybody about global warming. You accused him of being a con man in this blog. I think I’ll call it to his attention and you can be the next climate denier in court if he decides to sue you.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 26, 2014
at 2:33 pm
Raymond, you are a frigging idiot. A British court found that An Inconvenient Truth was riddled with false statements.
By: rspung on March 26, 2014
at 2:56 pm
I’m no idiot. But you are severely mistaken if you think I can be taken in by pro or amateur climate deniers. I’ll believe the possibly, maybe, could be, extremist pro climate ‘alarmist’ Guy McPherson before I’d believe anything a climate denier has to say.
Where did you get the phony Al Gore court case info, a conservative or conspiracy link?
Here’s a real link to the truth of what happened:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm
Now who’s the idiot? You! Trying to palm off climate denial crap on me and everybody else when it’s so easy to surf the net for good info.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 26, 2014
at 3:12 pm
hey idiot, the court found the film contained a multitude of errors, like I said. the errors had to be removed before the film could be shown in schools.
everything I said was correct, idiot. it wasn’t a phony court case. it actually happened and you linked to proof of it, idiot.
By: rspung on March 27, 2014
at 5:38 am
You dope!! Al Gore himself, in the flesh, was never hauled into a British court. What a Maroon!
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 27, 2014
at 9:55 am
hey idiot, I never claimed he was. You might do better at this if you answered the comments made here, in the real world, instead of the voices inside your head.
By: rspung on March 27, 2014
at 10:54 am
Al Gore wasn’t involved at all in the case as the link I sent showed that refuted a bunch of points that the deniers accuse Gore of in relation to this court case. Here’s a portion of the contents of that link.
22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that:
“Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”
The judge did identify statements that had political implications he felt needed qualification in the guidance notes for teachers, and ordered that both qualifications on the science and the political implications should be included in the notes. Al Gore was not involved in the case, was not prosecuted, and because the trial was not a criminal case, there was no jury, and no guilty verdict was handed down.
Here’s the link itself.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm
Now go away, you billigerant bully!
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 27, 2014
at 11:28 am
you idiot, he wrote and produced the movie. all the mistakes that were taken out of the movie were ones he put in there.
By: rspung on March 27, 2014
at 11:36 am
Name the mistakes and when they were taken out of the movie and by whom? If you mean post production mistakes and corrections done by movie film directors, producers, etc or any other real or imagined stuff you have in mind, spell it all out. Send me more crank disinfo stuff. Go ahead! It’s easy to spot links that refute all of that garbage.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 27, 2014
at 11:44 am
hey idiot, everything I said was true. al gore’s movie was found by a british court to be riddled with mistakes. what part of that do you not understand, idiot?
remember (and this is the most important part)-read the words that I wrote on the computer screen, and don’t listen to the voices in your head. ok, idiot? do you understand that?
By: rspung on March 27, 2014
at 11:55 am
You’re the idiot. I just sent a link and also pasted the most relevant stuff from it showing that the judge did not say the film was riddled with mistakes.
Let’s have at this again. Here’s the cut and paste again which contain other links for further reading. In the words of Howard Stern’s father, “I told you not to be stupid you moron.”
The Legal Case
The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue.
The case, heard in the civil court, was brought by a school governor against the Secretary of State for Education, in an attempt to prevent the film being distributed to schools. Mr. Justice Burton, in his judgement, ordered that teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues.
Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used – nine points formed the entirety of his judgement – indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous. About the film in general, he said this:
17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that:
“Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”
The judge did identify statements that had political implications he felt needed qualification in the guidance notes for teachers, and ordered that both qualifications on the science and the political implications should be included in the notes. Al Gore was not involved in the case, was not prosecuted, and because the trial was not a criminal case, there was no jury, and no guilty verdict was handed down.
Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract – like science – the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics – being a rich politician, for example – it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame.
Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne
Last updated on 7 January 2014 by Bob Lacatena. View Archives
Printable Version | Offline PDF Version | Link to this page
Related Arguments
Glaciers are growing
Hurricanes aren’t linked to global warming
Mt. Kilimanjaro’s ice loss is due to land use
CO2 lags temperature
Further reading
Al Gore responds to the UK court case that questions An Inconvenient Truth.
William Connelley writes a good article The Boring Truth about the judge finding 9 errors in An Inconvenient Truth including links to other blog reactions.
Real Climate’s Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann look at exactly what Gore said in each of his 9 errors in Convenient Untruths and find “the 9 points are not “errors” at all (with possibly one unwise choice of tense on the island evacuation point)”.
Catherine Brahic at New Scientist wonders Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth: unscientific? She concludes “Gore oversimplified certain points, made a few factual errors and, at times, chose the wrong poster child (Mount Kilimanjaro should have been replaced by any number of Alaskan or Andean glaciers, for instance). It’s unfortunate, but it remains the most comprehensive popular documentary on climate change science I have seen.”
Greg Hoke has gone to the trouble of transcribing an unofficial transcript of An Inconvenient Truth – useful for reading Al Gore’s exact words.
Kåre Fog provides a comprehensive List of acknowledged errors in Gore´s book and film.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 27, 2014
at 12:12 pm
awesome, idiot. the link you provided just proved that the judge ruled the film contained nine errors (just like I said). He also ruled that “teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues.”
do you understand what that means, idiot? it means the judge ruled that the film contained errors (JUST LIKE I SAID) and he ordered the teaching notes that accompanied the film TO BE CORRECTED.
you are a complete idiot.
By: rspung on March 27, 2014
at 12:43 pm
You dopey disinformer. Those words are under the subheading, “climate myth.”
Climate Myth…
Al Gore got it wrong
“Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was […] criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were “nine scientific errors” in the film.
Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film, some of which, he said, had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” to support the former US vice-president’s views on climate change.” (The Guardian)
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 27, 2014
at 1:00 pm
hey idiot, the judge found nine errors in the film. the verdict said he found nine errors in the film. the skeptical science link you sent me said he found nine errors in the film. everybody who has ever written about the case knows that he found nine errors in the film.
here is the verdict and order written by the judge:
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html&query=title+%28+dimmock+%29&method=boolean
hey idiot, the verdict says there were nine errors in the film.
hey idiot, what part of “the judge found nine errors in the film” do you not understand?
Here is a list of the errors the judge found:
1. ‘Error’ 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.
2. ‘Error’ 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.
3. ‘Error’ 18: Shutting down of the “Ocean Conveyor”.
4. ‘Error’ 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.
5. ‘Error’ 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.
6. ‘Error’ 16: Lake Chad etc
7. ‘Error’ 8: Hurricane Katrina.
8. ‘Error’ 15: Death of polar bears.
9. ‘Error’ 13: Coral reefs.
hey idiot, these errors were listed by the judge in the verdict and order he wrote. what part of “these errors were listed by the judge in his verdict” do you not understand?
By: rspung on March 27, 2014
at 1:56 pm
The Al Gore’s response to the UK court case link. there go those darn fossil industry and climate denier tie ins again!
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/an_inconvenient_truth_team_gor_1.html
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 27, 2014
at 1:20 pm
I thought I’d post more content from the link I sent because your are not likely to open it and read it, so here is more with some stuff repeated.
The Legal Case
The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue.
The case, heard in the civil court, was brought by a school governor against the Secretary of State for Education, in an attempt to prevent the film being distributed to schools. Mr. Justice Burton, in his judgement, ordered that teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues.
Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used – nine points formed the entirety of his judgement – indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous. About the film in general, he said this:
17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that:
“Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”
The judge did identify statements that had political implications he felt needed qualification in the guidance notes for teachers, and ordered that both qualifications on the science and the political implications should be included in the notes. Al Gore was not involved in the case, was not prosecuted, and because the trial was not a criminal case, there was no jury, and no guilty verdict was handed down.
Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract – like science – the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics – being a rich politician, for example – it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame.
Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 27, 2014
at 11:39 am
rspung,
you seem to be burnishing your credentials as far as my definition of denier goes.
“you say that AIT was “riddled” with errors.
as has been pointed out to you with quite a lot of detail by a very patient Raymond, the word “errors” was always in “quotes” by the judge.
and there were ONLY 9 instances in a 2 hour movie that was filled with facts and information. Pretty much any movie that advocates anything is likely going to have numerous points that can be argued.
But let’s look at them one by one
1. “20 foot sea level rise”. this one is absolutely true, but the judge said it was not made clear that this was not an imminent problem.
so NO ERROR There at all, just clarification. but it is alarmist
2. “low lying islands inundated now”. this actually is rather disingenuous and not really based on fact. almost surely this will be a problem in the future.
PARTIAL error, but it won’t be in the not distant future.
3.”shutting down ocean conveyor”. this is complicated. But he never said this WAS going to happen. at the time it was a more accepted possibility.
NO error, but alarmist and overplayed.
4. “Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 and in temperature”
this is just something that needs a clarification.
PARTIAL error, It was a bad simplification.
5. “Snows of Kilimanjaro” Again thought more likely at the time of the movie. currently unsure of ACC effect, but possibly not relevant source of melting in current times
PARTIAL error. exaggeration.
6. “Lake Chad”. the movie does NOT say that ACC caused this and specifically says that there are many causes. Judge said this should be more clearly explained
PARTIAL error. somewhat Misleading
7. “hurricane Katrina”. Again no way to be sure of the connection to ACC. judge wanted clarification of that
PARTIAL error. Possible exaggeration. Irene and Sandy and Haiyan give more support to the idea
8. “Death of Polar Bears”. Again there is no way to be sure of the effect. Judge wanted clarification
PARTIAL error. Possible exaggeration, future impacts could be accurate.
9. coral reefs. THere are many factors that impact coral reef health, and ACC is just one of them
NO error, just need clarification.
SO there we have it. NO lies, Just some exaggerations or overly hyped possibilities. Adding up the math it comes to 3 errors by giving .5 to the partial errors.
This was not a scientific presentation, it was an activist movie with a very specific agenda. Not bad in my view, even though I don’t approve of those “errors” and think that the judges decision was very valid.
Do you want to compare the to “The Great Global Warming Swindle?” I bet I can find more and worse “errors” in it’s first 5 minutes than in the entire AIT. (Yes I know you didn’t bring it up, but I see this referenced over and over again in comments by deniers on major media articles on ACC)
By: Tony Duncan on March 27, 2014
at 3:17 pm
hey, idiot, I said Gore’s movie had errors in it. and the judge agreed that Gore’s movie had errors in it.
I don’t care what you think, idiot. I was right and the judge backed me up.
By: rspung on March 27, 2014
at 4:04 pm
And everyone knows that judges are the most qualified to tell whether scientific claims are “errors” or “points that could be argued”.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 27, 2014
at 4:11 pm
nice try. the judge relied on expert testimony.
By: rspung on March 27, 2014
at 4:22 pm
DeBrainless needs help. I recommend this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/21/friday-funny-a-nurses-guide-to-the-apocalypse/
By: agfosterjr on March 27, 2014
at 8:56 pm
Oops, I forgot DeBrainless doesn’t read banned books or blogs. Here’s without the heretical middleman: http://www.thenursingbible.com/apocalypse/
By: agfosterjr on March 27, 2014
at 9:00 pm
rspung,
Thanks for calling me an idiot. I miss that about being banned from Goddard’s site.
Well, if we are going to be as picky and deceitful as that. you are WRONG, The judge said there were “errors” not errors.
see how easy it is to make meaningless statements?
I pointed out how the “errors” are not in any way problems with current ACC, and that they actually show it to be a pretty accurate movie, which the judge AGREED with.
And I AGREED with the judges decisions in almost every case that there should be clarification of those particulars. so you are calling me an IDIOT for agreeing with the judge?
other than that, what is your point? documentaries are not perfectly factually accurate?
I don’t think anyone on here would dispute that.
So why don’t you look at “the Great Global Warming Swindle” as I suggested and tell us how it compares for distorting science?
By: Tony Duncan on March 31, 2014
at 11:32 am
I didn’t call you an idiot. I was not talking to you. everything I said was directed to Raymond. but while i’m, here, an “error” is an error. and I am correct in my original statement. nothing else you said matters, because nothing else you said addressed any of my comments.
I said the documentary contained many errors, and the judge agreed with me. end of story.
By: rspung on March 31, 2014
at 3:24 pm
rspung, well thanks for the clarification. the use of the word “idiot” was just underneath my comment, and it seemed to be just as germane to me as anyone else.
But you are absolutely wrong. I addressed every one of your points specifically, and you have not given any information to suggest my analysis of those points is invalid or not relevant.
you seem to be arguing with yourself, as I have seen no one here state that AIT was absolutely perfect and had no exaggerations or misleading statements in it. Just who are you claiming suggests that it did not have shortcomings?
If someone HAS said it was perfectly accurate in every way, Well I will stand with you and argue with them.
the thing is that the TYPE of error is important in this case. I told you that I agreed with the judges decisions in almost every case and am all for students getting better more detailed knowledge.
so do you also agree that the film was a valuable education tool, and with those few minor caveats should be shown to english students? and that as the judge said, should deb told that the basic sincere in the movie is quite correct?
So let’s get on with “the Great global warming Swindle shall will we?
Do you want to make a bet if it takes more than 10 minutes to find more than 9 “errors” in the first 15 minutes of THAT movie?
By: Tony Duncan on April 2, 2014
at 10:50 am
“I have seen no one here state that AIT was absolutely perfect and had no exaggerations or misleading statements in it.”
You need to look again. I was addressing the following comment:
“Gore didn’t con anybody about global warming.”
I said AIT was riddled with false statements. And it was. A judge agreed with me.
I don’t care about whether or not you agree. I am not interested in arguing the degree of each of the errors. That’s why we have arbitrators, and this one said it contained nine errors.
If you feel the errors weren’t errors, you are free to discuss that with anyone else. However, I have no interest in re-litigating a settled issue.
“the thing is that the TYPE of error is important in this case.”
No, it isn’t. That’s your battle, but it’s not mine. I made a statement and the judge’s verdict confirmed it. End of story.
By: rspung on April 2, 2014
at 11:01 am
Did Styen really accuse him of committing a crime? What crime did he say was committed?
By: Don Ladner on March 20, 2014
at 12:02 am
He said that Mann fraudulently manipulated his data to serve particular political goals. Scientific fraud involving publicly funded research is illegal, and you can be prosecuted for it.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 6:30 am
Well, I read the article in question. It was 270 words long and is available in the magazine that published it online. You should actually read it because it does not accuse him of that.
By: Don Ladner on March 20, 2014
at 6:41 am
Here is Steyn’s original article, which quotes from Simberg’s original piece.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn
Here is an excerpt:
“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.”
Steyn went on to call Mann’s hockey stick graph “fraudulent”.
So basically, I don’t know which article you read, but it doesn’t sound like it was this one.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 7:22 am
Barry, your excerpt is misleading.
The first paragraph of your alleged excerpt, the one about Sandusky, is actually Steyn quoting what somebody else (Simberg) said. Steyn clearly marked this as a quotation of Simberg. Moreover, Steyn then goes on to say he disagrees with Simberg.
If quoting Simberg amounts to defaming Mann, then you’ve just done it too!
By: copner on March 20, 2014
at 7:43 am
Copner,
Your analysis is flatly wrong. See my answer to Don Ladner below.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 7:58 am
Your response is not responsive.
In your comments to Don you are discussing the “fraud” issue and whether it is defamatory, and the merits or otherwise of Mann’s lawsuit, bI was not discussing either of those points. I was simply focusing on your selective quotation of Steyn.
The vast majority of the text you attributed to Steyn, after “Here is an excerpt” were actually Simberg’s words. Yes Steyn quoted them, but so did many others, including you, and I think even Mann himself.
Saying “Simberg said X” isn’t the same as saying X yourself. And it is misleading to pretend otherwise.
Yes, there is a separate question over “fraudulent hockey stick”, which Steyn actuakly did say, but it is a separate question.
By: copner on March 20, 2014
at 9:28 am
Copner,
Steyn indicated that he agreed with the substance of Simberg’s allegations, and then reinforced them. Legally, he is liable, so if you don’t like it, go talk to the judge.
And if Steyn approvingly quoting Simberg is no different than me quoting him to support Mann’s claim that his statements were libelous, then I await notice from Mike Mann threatening legal action. And guess what? If he did that, I would say, “So sorry,” cut out the quotation, and leave the link. Then he would have no case. If CEI or the National Review had done anything like that, including inserting a couple of “in my opinions”, Mann would not have had a case. Ergo, they are stupid.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 9:58 am
You should read Judge Weinberg’s order dismissing the anti-SLAPP motions (where the defendants tried and failed to get the case thrown out):
“…when Mr. Steyn republished Mr. Simberg’s words, he stopped short of wholeheartedly endorsing the offensive Sandusky metaphor. Nevertheless, Mr. Steyn did not disavow the assertion of fact that Dr. Mann had “molested and tortured data,” and he added insult to injury by describing Dr. Mann as “the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph.” Am. Compl. ¶ 28. In context, calling Dr. Mann’s work “fraudulent” is itself defamatory and parallels Mr. Simberg’s claim that Dr. Mann “molested and tortured data.” Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable jury is likely to find in favor of the plaintiff on Count VII against the National Review defendants, and their special motion of those defendants to dismiss Count VII as well as their Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will also be denied.”
By: David Sanger on March 20, 2014
at 5:05 pm
That is the article I read. You posted a quote that he quoted from some one else. He then said that he would not go as far as that person.
He does refer to the hockey stick as “fraudulent” which is NOT: “He said that Mann fraudulently manipulated his data to serve particular political goals.” which I directly quote from you.
By: Don Ladner on March 20, 2014
at 7:33 am
Let me break it down for you, Don.
1. Legally, Mark Steyn and NRO are still liable for printing Simberg’s statements, even if they were just quoting.
2. Steyn said, “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does….” This only applies to Simberg’s comparison to Jerry Sandusky. It does not apply to the accusation that Mann manipulated his data.
3. The hockey stick was produced via publicly funded research, and the hockey stick was what both Simberg and Steyn were talking about.
4. The statement that Mann “molested and tortured data” clearly means that the data manipulation was illegitimate.
5. The statement that the data manipulation was done “in the service of politicized science” clearly indicates that it wasn’t an accident. It was done to serve particular political ends.
6. In this context, it’s hard to see how Steyn calling the hockey stick “fraudulent” could mean anything other than willful data manipulation.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 7:54 am
The two judges who heard Mann’s defamation claims against Steyn and NRO said pretty much the same thing in rejecting you just explained when they dismissed Steyn/NRO’s motion for dismissal. What makes you think Don will believe you?
Sadly, ignorance and error make mighty armor against having to change one’s mind. Some people are protected with ironclad ignorance.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 20, 2014
at 8:26 am
Very sorry. That should have said:
The two judges who heard Mann’s defamation claims against Steyn and NRO said pretty much the same thing you just explained when they ruled against Steyn/NRO’s motions for dismissal. What makes you think Don will believe you?
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 20, 2014
at 8:28 am
It is much easier to call people ignorant and give up on debate. The strongest amor of all is to walk away from the debate thinking how stupid everyone else is.
By: Don Ladner on March 20, 2014
at 8:38 am
I like the point by point break down, so I will respond to each point.
1. You have also quoted it. I will send your URL to Mann’s lawyers so they can include you in the law suit. (I have also quoted it hmmm… I wonder about freedom of speech here)
2. Oh, I thought it applied to everything. How is it possible to what extent he was referring to. Now many people believe there was manipulation of the data. Does that mean they should all be sued, or do people have the right to question information?
3. I do not know who funded the research. It is also irrelevant to free speech. (But I do understand that it is not irrelevant to my original comment about crime)
4. Which it might have been, neither you nor Styen will ever know if it was or not.
5. Styen did not say “in the service of politicized science”, that was Simberg so we end up back at point 1.
6. Point 4, there might have been and people all have the right to question that openly and in any way they feel fit.
My take on the article is that Styen was criticizing and questioning the validity of the university’s investigation into Mann’s work.
Mann has proven himself to be quite fraudulent in many other things, why assume that his previous work was any different. If you are following this case, you are aware that he falsely claimed to be a Nobel Laureate and he falsified a quote from an investigation, just to mention two things in the last two months.
By: Don Ladner on March 20, 2014
at 8:28 am
Don,
If you don’t like the fact that Steyn is liable for quoting Simberg, take it up with the judge, or with your local Congressional rep.
As for the idea that me quoting the passage is legally equivalent to Steyn doing so, here’s what I told Copner.
“And if Steyn approvingly quoting Simberg is no different than me quoting him to support Mann’s claim that his statements were libelous, then I await notice from Mike Mann threatening legal action. And guess what? If he did that, I would say, “So sorry,” cut out the quotation, and leave the link. Then he would have no case. If CEI or the National Review had done anything like that, including inserting a couple of “in my opinions”, Mann would not have had a case. Ergo, they are stupid.”
In any case, the idea that Mann could sue me for quoting the offending passage and agreeing with him that it is libelous is absurd beyond belief. He might as well try suing his lawyers for quoting the passage in the lawsuit documents.
In order for Mann to have a case, he has to show that the defendants knew the charge was false, or showed reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the charge. Mann’s evidence is that numerous official inquiries (including high level scientific panels) found no evidence of wrongdoing. Let me give you a hint. If someone is officially exonerated of a crime, you can’t go around saying they are guilty. You CAN, however, go around saying you THINK they are guilty. And even if you do go around saying they are guilty and get threatened with a defamation suit, all you have to do is retract the statement, or maybe even amend your statement to say you THINK they are guilty, and the basis for the case goes away. It’s incredibly easy to avoid such lawsuits, if you aren’t a moron.
As for your claim that Mann has “proven himself to be quite fraudulent,” my guess is that you have no idea what you are talking about. You don’t know what a “principal components analysis” is, and you know nothing about spatio-temporal statistics. You don’t have any idea how paleoclimate studies are conducted. And yet, you’re sure the blowhards you listen to are correct, and the scientific panels were wrong about Mann’s work.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 10:25 am
The arguments seem to diverge into so many directions, the comments get longer and longer. I will only continue on two paths and then probably none after that.
Back to my initial comment: I briefly looked into the famous hockey stick study and I actually think Mann was working for a University and it didn’t seem like he was being publicly funded.(I will be the first to admit that I do not know for sure the source of his funding, but I am pretty sure the university was paying his salary) Therefore, styen was not accusing him of committing a crime. If he did knowingly accuse him, it was very indirect.
Second, I specifically stated the two fraudulent things that Mann has done in the last two months. Why are you talking about “principle components analysis” or “spatio-temporal statistics”? Are you trying to make this a debate about climate change? I was talking about the fraudulent things Mann does.
By: Don Ladner on March 20, 2014
at 11:00 am
Hi Don,
1. Mann was working as a post-doctoral researcher at U. Mass. when the original hockey stick work was done. Mann’s salary was funded by the U.S. Dept. of Energy, and some of the work was also funded by the National Science Foundation.
2. Steyn actually didn’t have to accuse Mann of a crime for it to be libelous. But I was right about that, anyway.
3. I don’t buy either of your charges of recent “fraud”. The Nobel prize one is especially stupid. A lot of people were confused about whether any IPCC scientists were included in the award. In Mann’s case, he was a lead author, and the IPCC sent him a certificate acknowledging his role in the award, and a COPY OF THE NOBEL PRIZE DIPLOMA. I know others who thought that meant they shared in the award. The idea that this was some nefarious “fraud”, rather than an understandable mistake, is so absurd that it could only be entertained by swivel-eyed conspiracy theorists.
4. The fact that I was right that you don’t have a clue what a “principal components analysis” is tells me that you are willing to believe Mann fraudulently manipulated his data without even understanding what the alleged manipulation was even about. It tells me that you don’t have any basis for believing anything about what he did to his data, and yet you are willing to throw out the judgement of expert panels on the matter because you want to grab your pitchfork and join the witch hunt. It’s the same with Steyn. He recently said that the Hockey Stick is a “climate model” whose “predictions” have failed. (Hint: It isn’t a model, and made no predictions.)
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 11:37 am
Only to your point number 3. Both of these fraudulent claims by Mann can be found in his law suit. He was force to remove the Nobel Laureate claim from his first filing, then falsified a quote in the second. These are public documents. Look into it.
There are enough experts discussing climate change. Obviously it requires time and money to perform the analysis and research required. You know nothing of my background, but I definitely think that we would not enrich the debate.
I have no interest in debating it. I worry about more important things than climate change. (Like freedom of speech) The US economy is on the verge of collapse and when that happens, all the other populous nations of the world can continue to produce CO2, because we won’t be able to afford it.
By: Don Ladner on March 20, 2014
at 11:50 am
Nothing you said indicates the Nobel thing was anything other than a simple mistake that he corrected when it was brought to his attention. And yet, you are willing to charge him with “fraud”.
Then you once again confirm that you are willing to believe the “fraud” charges against Mann’s scientific work, even though you don’t have any idea what the charges are about.
Why are you so willing to fling around such charges? Because, as you say, you don’t want to have to worry about climate change when, according to you, we have bigger problems.
This, unfortunately, is the kind of morally and intellectually bankrupt mindset that is exerting too much control on the Republican party, nowadays. (I’m a Republican, and that worries me.)
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 12:18 pm
Oh, Barry. You have said too much.
I never tried to convince you of Mann’s fraud. I told you to look into it. It is obvious you don’t want to believe so you will never look into it.
I never said that I thought Mann’s hockey stick was a fraud.
What charges did I “fling around” except telling you to read his false claims (signed by him and his lawyers, it is a fact or isn’t no need to “fling charges”).
I thought we were discussing a topic and you feel the need to insult me by comparing me to the intellectually bankrupt mindset of your political party.
What did I say to bubblepoppingpete?
By: Don Ladner on March 20, 2014
at 12:47 pm
Ok, so I guess you agree that the fraud charge against Mann was false, and constitutes libel. Either that, or you are admonishing me to look into various fraud charges that you don’t have a clue whether to believe. Or something.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 1:12 pm
Don,
I will take a look at your original points, since you managed to maneuver the conversation to meaningless points with Barry.
1. you seem to be under the assumption that the law FORCES people to sue for libel regardless of the context.
to my knowledge a person may sue whomever they wish, and they can even be completely hypocritical about it is they so desire.
There is no issue of freedom of speech here, as Mann requested they remove the libelous statements , and they not only refused to do so, but they mocked him and basically asked him to sue them.
2. There is nothing keeping anyone from questioning any information. In fact it is accepted by everyone that some of Mann’s methodology was not good because people questioned it. It has no real bearing on any substantive issue regarding paleo-climate, and even the very antagonistic researcher who DId find the problem specifically said there was no reason to believe it was a fraudulent mistake.
Hundreds and thousands of people have claimed all sorts of things about Mann and his work, and they can all continue to do so, even if Mann wins, as LONG as they don’t accuse him of scientific fraud without any reasonable evidence to support the assertion.
3. As Barry pointed out ,there WAS government funding in his research and therefore he would be guilty of a crime. I imagine even if there hadn’t been the fact that he was using someone’s money could lead to legal proceedings of some sort if fraud was proven.
4. “molested and tortured” by any understanding I have of legal issues ( which is not a lot) seems hard to imagine not being illegitimate as Barry stated. Can you present me with some scenario where those words applied to scientific research would NOT indicate a belief in fraud?
5. Basically irrelevant since the entire point of the article was to accuse Mann of fraud, and the fact the hat he said “he would not go that far” actually encourages the obvious point that he believed it was extremely egregious. If he had said, “while the comparison to Sanduskey is completely inappropriate and inaccurate as a metaphor, there are serious issues with Mann;s research” that would give support to the idea of this not beoing libelous. But such is not the case.
6.No people do not have the right to call scientific research fraudulent in any way that they see fit. It is certainly free speech to say “those guys are all frauds”, or even “he is a fraud” as it is a general aspersion, and does not indicate any specific instance of fraudulent action.
I personally feel that if Mann’s suit fails, it could be a huge disservice to free speech, because it will enable anyone at any time to a assert anything they want about any facts. There will be no need for any fact checking or need to understand or provide evidentiary support to objections about any scientific issue.
I do not think the case is a slam dunk, because the courts, rightfully give a tremendous amount of leeway to free speech, but if his suit fails, I personally think it makes a mockery of the concept of libel.
By: Tony Duncan on March 24, 2014
at 12:17 pm
Barry,
I’ve seen pro Prof Mann pieces where the quote the fraud accusations and the Jerry Sandusky comparison. They just did that to inform their readership what the hell went down. Could they be liable for quoting in the service telling the news?
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 20, 2014
at 12:04 pm
I doubt it. Mann can’t sue people for simply reporting it in the context of his lawsuit, when he quoted it in his lawsuit.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 12:20 pm
Raymond, there’s a fundamental rule in libel law: a true statement can NEVER be defamatory. It’s pretty much carved in stone on court houses in countries that enjoy free speech: “Truth is an absolute defense against libel [or slander].”
Therefore, reporting accurately what is said in court or in court filings can never be defamatory — as long as it’s reported in a truthful manner.
For example, reporting that a “witness testified that the defendant tried to abduct the child by pulling her screaming into his car,” (if that was the testimony) is not defamatory.
However reporting it without the correct attribution might be: “A witness saw John Doe try to abduct the child by pulling her screaming into his car.”
That’s because the witness might be mistaken or even lying. To report his testimony as fact — if it isn’t — could be grounds for a defamation suit. Accurately repeating a witness’s testimony with proper attribution is not actionable. Repeating a terribly injurious accusation as fact and not attributing it to a witness testifying in court, could be actionable if the testimony turns out to be false or mistaken.
To win a judgment, the plaintiff in a defamation suit must establish three sound legs (four if the plaintiff is a public figure in U.S. courts).
The first leg requires proving in court that the defendant spoke, wrote, or electronically communicated a statement that damaged the plaintiff’s reputation.
The second leg requires proving the alleged defamation was a statement of fact rather than opinion — meaning that it CAN be proven true or false. (There’s no such thing as a true or false opinion — that’s the quintessential difference between fact and opinion. I’m always amused to hear deniers say, when confronted by a fact they don’t like, “Facts are like a-holes, everyone has one.”
And the third required leg requires proving the statement is false.
The 4th leg in cases involving public figures (in US but not British courts), requires proving a defendant “acted with malice” — meaning that he either knew the statement was false or had acted with a reckless disregard whether or not it was true.)
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 23, 2014
at 8:36 am
Mann is a lying cheat, and you lot are obviously imbibing his kool-aid on a regular basis. Saying that people supporting Steyn means Steyn is “socialist” is itself a heinous lie. I know that a lot of less-than-stellar thinkers attribute everything they think is good, kind, and fine, to Socialism, but they are wrong. And you. Mann’s model is a lie, he cheated on the data, the program that produces the “hockey stick” graph produces the same graph regardless what data are input, and clowns from the academy who support Mann are only making it obvious what a joke the academy has become. The left did that. The left are a joke.
By: welldoneson on March 23, 2014
at 3:56 am
I have no idea what you are talking about. I never called Steyn a Socialist.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 23, 2014
at 6:23 am
No Barry, you didn’t. It was the voices in Woedoneson’s head that called Steyn a Socialist. I think you should save your band-breath. Woedoneson is a troll who will continue to post insults and nonsense as long as anyone pays him the any attention.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 23, 2014
at 7:36 am
I was the one who said Steyn was being a socialist for asking his faithful brainwashed readers and listeners to give him money for his legal defense. That’s socialism, redistribution of money to somebody who has done nothing to earn it but desperately needs it, just like the poor, who are disparaged by the right need money.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 23, 2014
at 10:00 am
So you’re the voice in Woedoneson’s head. And a wrongheaded voice at that. Socialism is government-required redistribution of wealth. When someone willingly gives (or asks) for assistance, it’s called “charity.”
At the risk of Raymond thinking I’m a socialist, I beg posters here to think before posting. If they don’t understand the meaning of words, they should look ’em up.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 23, 2014
at 10:34 am
Hey Pete!
I never said that YOU were a socialist. I said that Steyn is just like a socialist because he wants his faithfull brainwashed followers to give him money for his legal defense that he didn’t earn and doesn’t deserve.
I’ve got a new flash for you. Giving to charity IS SOCIALISM!! People who give to good charitable causes are financially socializing with other people in need.
And taxation is also socialism. We lack the tax base we had during President Eisenhower’s time when the rich were taxed 90%. That big chunk of tax money went into building the interstate highway system, along with other projects that benefited the country as a whole. Taxing the rich is a way of forcing them to be financially sociable. Because of the higher tax rate on the rich, our economic system had been a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, and communism. From those with the means to those without. Not a bad system for the common man, but I can see how the rich would hate it.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 23, 2014
at 12:06 pm
By your definition, every financial transaction is “socialism.”
But that’s not what the word customarily means.
By: David Appell on March 23, 2014
at 12:24 pm
Every financial transaction is socialism? I gave that a milliseconds thought and I realized that this is indeed correct!!! Example: By handing money to say, the grocery check-out clerk, you are providing the store with a profit that employs people and supports them and their families. Now if that ain’t socialism, I don’t know what is.
To stay on topic, I would like anybody who knows to tell me how I can follow the Mann/Steyn libel case court progress and court room scheduling on-line. I’m just busting at the seems like a little kid waiting for Christmas morning to know when the actual court hearing will take place that will have, Mann and Steyn/CEI/National Review Online, et al, all in the courtroom and have this fantastically great trial get underway. I would also like to know if anyone has any TV media connections who could get cameras in the court room so I can watch the trial, like I watched the OJ trial in 1995 and the Jodi Arias trial last year. I’m still waiting on the court to get to Jodi Arias sentencing phase II, (the phase I jury as divided and 100% was needed to hand out the death penalty) to determine if she gets the death penalty or not. In my humble opinion, she deserves to be put to death in the same manner as she put Travis Alexander to death. Google Travis Alexander autopsy photos, that is, if you have a strong tolerance for really grissly pics. GEEEZZZZ!!!! UUUUH! I’m tolerant of seeing that stuff after a lifetime of watching horror movies. The Saw movies special effects were very realistic, unlike some of the effects on The Walking Dead or on Breaking Bad. When Gustavo got his eye blown out in an explosion on breaking bad, i could see his eye behind all of that caked on make-up that made him look like he was missing that eye.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 23, 2014
at 1:35 pm
Raymond appears to be a person who always wins a debate by using the Humpty Dumpty rule:
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'”
Hey Ray, put off huffing and puffing for a moment to look up the meaning of words before you lecture others as to what they mean.
“Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.”
Insisting that “giving and receiving charity” is socialism even after being corrected is brilliant.* Calling “taxation” socialism is truly brilliant — since every organized society in the world collects taxes.
* From The Humpty Dumpty Dictionary:
brilliant: adv. incorrigibly stupid.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 23, 2014
at 1:47 pm
That seems more like the definition of communism. European countries like France are considered socialistic, but they do have privately owned companies. Here’s a link to a Hi-Fi company in France:
http://www.focal.com/en/content/417-focal-jmlab-history
France seems to be a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. Without Capitalism ad taxation of it, how could a country have any money to distribute out to the poor and put into social programs and infrastructure?
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 23, 2014
at 1:56 pm
You really haven’t a clue what the definitions of socialism and communism are. Good lord, Rayman, do you have some kind of a religious prohibition against using a dictionary. Is that why you insist on telling us what you think words mean instead of looking them up?
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 23, 2014
at 2:13 pm
I suppose I could look the defs up.
I’m using the word socialism to mean what conservative radio hosts like Neal Boortz and Rush Limbaugh, the taxing of the rich and redistribution of their wealth to people who didn’t do a thing to earn it and just want a free hand-ouot because they are too lazy to work.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 23, 2014
at 2:24 pm
Raymond: Your comments are getting very far afield, both from the topic of this post, and from any pretensions to rational discourse.
Please start your own blog if you want to write about the inanities of Rush Limbaugh.
By: David Appell on March 23, 2014
at 2:57 pm
Well David, if you are a moderator, i’ll give serious consideration for what you said, if not…
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 23, 2014
at 4:25 pm
David,
You’re missing one obvious point. Steyn fills in for Rush when he’s out, so Rush is all tied up in this mess, just not legally. But the day will come when climate denial is either illegal or absolutely socially unacceptable, and then Rush will have to shut his big old ugly fat trap along with other climate deniers. That day will come after Dr. Mann wins his lawsuit and no one can publiclly say that the scientists are all liers, criminals, etc. I saw on the net that the Mann/Ball lawsuit is coming along nicely in Dr. Mann’s favor. Good for him.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 23, 2014
at 4:43 pm
lol… wtf?
By: rspung on March 23, 2014
at 4:49 pm
Rspung,
wtf indeed. You post a link to a video that is about climategate and hide the decline???!!! I can’t stop laughing. Almost everybody involved in this blog, knows climategate is a non issue. Who had the big money to hire expert hackers to break in to the East Anglia email server? Why big oil and coal can afford the best hackers going, and with network security as good as it is today, either the university didn’t employ good network security or if they did, it would take one hell of a hacker to punch holes in it to get all the way inside to the email server and extract those emails. Get with it. The scientists were cleared of any data maniuplation or other wrongdoing by several separate investigations.
Just you wait till the CEI has to face the process of discovery by Dr. Mann. Do you think that the records they have on hand will prove them innocent of any wrongdoing against climate scientists including accusations of Dr. Mann conducting fraudulent research? I think not.
If you want to go after fraud, just google what the drug industry is doing and blog about that. Links:
https://www.google.com/search?q=bayer+indicted&rlz=1C1SFXN_enUS500US561&oq=bayer+indicted&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.15278j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=bayer+indicted
https://www.google.com/search?q=bayer+indicted&rlz=1C1SFXN_enUS500US561&oq=bayer+indicted&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.15278j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=pharmacists%20indicted%20in%20alleged%20oxycontin%20ring
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a4yV1nYxCGoA
Now go chase down this stuff.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 23, 2014
at 5:09 pm
uh… sure thing, Raymond. I’ll get right on it.
By: rspung on March 23, 2014
at 5:42 pm
Raymond: Perhaps you are right. I profiled Michael Mann in 2005 for Scientific American, and he told me this:
“As long as they think it works and they’ve got unlimited money to perpetuate their disinformation campaign,” Mann believes, “I imagine it will go on, just as it went on for years and years with tobacco until it was no longer tenable–in fact, it became perjurable to get up in a public forum and claim that there was no science” behind the health hazards of smoking.
“Behind the Hockey Stick,” Scientific American, March 2005.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/behind-the-hockey-stick/
By: David Appell on March 23, 2014
at 4:59 pm
You’re a contributer to a big time magazine! Cool! Thanks for saying I may be right. I hope other people check out the link.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 24, 2014
at 12:58 pm
Raymond: Limbaugh is not tied up in this mess. Though he surely would like to be.
After all, controversy is how he stays in business.
An extremist like Limbaugh relies on saying the most extreme things he can come up with. It’s how he stays relevant, how he stays in the news.
When Limbaugh stops being controversial, his ratings drop.
It’s also how similar parasites operate — Ann Counter, Mark Steyn, James Delingpole, etc.
What is Steyn known for right now?
His latest column?
His latest thoughts?
Of course not — it’s for being — in his words — involved in the “Trial of the Century.”
This trial is Steyn’s claim to fame. It’s why he can’t shut up about it!
It doesn’t even matter how it turns out — Steyn is, in his mind, and many other’s –riding the crest of fame for being a climate denier.
It’s his path to history. He’s milking it for all he can, selling books and coffee mugs and all such things, for whatever suckers will buy them.
The day Rush Limbaugh is ignored is the day his ratings start to decline.
And the same goes for Coulter, Steyn, Delingpole, and several others.
It’s a pretty lousy way to make a living, even if you can stomach it.
By: David Appell on March 23, 2014
at 5:13 pm
welldoneson wrote:
the program that produces the “hockey stick” graph produces the same graph regardless what data are input
And yet strangely, completely different mathematics using the same input data gives the same hockey stick conclusion — the Bayesian approach of Tingley and Huybers, the RegEM algorithm of Marcott et al, and THREE different methods used by PAGES 2k.
Explain.
By: David Appell on March 23, 2014
at 9:10 am
Steyn has used the word “fraudulent” before in reference to the hockey stick, writing in 2006:
“This graph was almost laughably fraudulent, not least because it used a formula that would generate a hockey stick shape no matter what data you input, even completely random, trendless, arbitrary computer-generated data. Yet such is the power of the eco-lobby that this fraud became the centrepiece of UN reports on global warming.”
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/01/steyns-earlier-use-of-word-fraud.html
By: David Appell on March 21, 2014
at 2:04 pm
Mathematician Mann trumped himself in 2013 with promotion of a purely fabricated vindication of his life’s work, when in the top journal Science his Harvard buddies simply re-dated a few low lying temperature proxies to afford a pure artifact of a hockey stick blade, this time no statistical degree being needed to fully understand the fraud:
By: -=NikFromNYC=- on March 20, 2014
at 7:44 am
Really, Nik? And where is the peer-reviewed paper debunking the Marcott paper? Because some poorly done website put together by people who don’t understand statistics doesn’t impress me.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 8:07 am
Your naive trust in the ‘peer-review’ process (which ofttimes is naught but an echo chamber) would be touching if it didn’t threaten my pocketbook.
By: Jeremy Klein on March 20, 2014
at 9:52 am
Peer review is far from perfect. And yet, I consider it better than some moronic Internet post, in which they didn’t even bother replicating the global averaging process. As a former Associate Editor of a couple academic journals, I can guarantee you that garbage wouldn’t get published in any respectable venue.
Your naive trust in stupid Internet postings by non-experts would be touching if people like you weren’t supporting witch hunts.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 10:30 am
The Economist has had a few articles recently regarding the peer reviewed process. This is one of them.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble
It discusses replication issues, statistical mistakes, non-publication of negative results and the overconfidence of the reviewers own ability to see erroros.
” ……peer reviewers who evaluate papers before journals commit to publishing them are much worse at spotting mistakes than they or others appreciate”
By: Colin on March 20, 2014
at 7:59 pm
And yet, the situation would be even worse without peer review. Trust me, I’ve seen the ones that get rejected!
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 9:39 pm
And peer review isn’t the way science is “self-correcting”. It’s just a first cut at some kind of minimal quality control–i.e., weeding out patently obvious BS. The self-correction comes when scientists try to weave together all the relevant science in an area into a coherent story, and things don’t quite fit together. People figure out where the trouble spots are, and do some more work in that area.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 9:42 pm
I should have added the inability of commentators to see spelling mistakes before pressing enter.
I guess the self-correction aspect from scientists on opposing sides of the climate debate is somewhat unrelenting.
By: Colin on March 20, 2014
at 11:57 pm
Barry, your posts falling back on the “where is the peer reviewed paper yadda yadda” device, don’t prove much either. The peer review process has been corrupted just as surely as science itself has been corrupted. Face it, the climate change scare is propaganda. A lot of pompous heads are going to roll, as prediction after prediction falls by the wayside. Consider how stupid it is to cling to a system that has been so thoroughly debunked that even comedians joking about your failures make more sense than you do. To paraphrase a famous character from fiction “you college boys don’t have the wits to admit you’re wrong”. I have no respect for aszwholes like you.
By: welldoneson on March 23, 2014
at 4:01 am
So you are saying you can just look at that picture, without doing the spatial statistics, and tell whether Marcott’s data are wrong? You must be an even bigger genius than you think you are.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 23, 2014
at 6:21 am
The right-wing war on peer-review is a major part of their war on science. Their campaign to discredit peer-review is a disgrace and would be hilarious if it weren’t so successful in getting dittoheads to keep repeating their ludicrous claims.
Imagine a political party launching a campaign to discredit the jury trial system of America’s justice system. Through a thousand blogs and Fox News commentaries every day, they denounce the jury system by citing stories of wrongful and unjust verdicts — wrongful convictions of the innocent and murderers set free. The remedy, they insist, is to eliminate juries and one man judge and decide. Never mind what a few thousand years of history taught us about that.
No, the peer review process of science cannot GUARANTEE anything. Just as there can be no guarantee of absolute justice in any court system, there can be no guarantee peer review will prevent the publication of scientifically unsound papers.
Indeed, even the best, most respected journals have published scandalously fraudulent studies — such as when Lancet published Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent study linking measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines to autism — which continues to be cited by anti-vaccine nuts, quacks, and frauds, who insist childhood vaccines cause autism. (Yes, I know at least some of the global warming deniers here may be anti-vaccine nuts. The human brain is a remarkable organ: when it doesn’t function thinking about one issue, it is often equally dysfunctional thinking about others.)
Wakefield was found guilty of fraud and subjecting children to dangerous unnecessary surgery. His license to practice medicine was revoked and his fraudulent study eventually retracted. But for every Wakefield-like publishing mistake there are thousands of studies published in peer-reviewed journals that have led to medical advancements that saved and continue to save millions of people.
Just because some people pass their driver test, get a driver’s license, and go on to cause fatal accidents is NOT a reason to eliminate driver tests and let anyone drive.
When decision systems are found imperfect, they should be fixed or improved, not eliminated. Only an utter moron would advocate the practice of throwing out babies with the bathwater.
Does anyone remember when the U.S. Congress had a wonderful bi-partisan Office of Science and Technology to provide it with scientific analyses of the effects of proposed legislation? You know, the one that Republicans led by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich shut down because the troublesome office was generating too many reports on science, health, and environment they didn’t like? Newt — that modern day Captain Ahab — threw Congress’ sextant overboard. As Chris Mooney’s wonderful book, The Republican War on Science so carefully documents, the Republicans are determined to steer the American ship of state, without compass or sextant, in pursuit of their great white whale and utter destruction.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 23, 2014
at 10:20 am
Pete,
The links as Rod Serling would say are “submitted for your approval.” I don’t think Dr. Wakefield is a fraud after listening to Gary Null repeatedly over time coming to his defense. This is material I’m sure you have not been exposed to.
http://thegarynullshow.podbean.com/2013/04/12/the-gary-null-show-041213/
More relevant links of interest:
Gary Null on the goings on at the FDA:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/18/war-on-health.aspx
Link: Eli Lilly scientist indicted for theft:
http://www.ibj.com/lilly-employees-stole-55-million-in-trade-secrets-indictment-alleges/PARAMS/article/43949
Gary Null on Vaccines and big Pharma:
https://www.google.com/search?q=gary+Null+guardisil&rlz=1C1ARAB_enUS489US489&oq=gary+Null+guardisil&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.7252j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#nfpr=1&q=gary+Null+gardasil&start=10&tbs=qdr:y
Well you ask, what does this have to do with climage change scientists and the Mann / Steyn lible suit? Everyting!!! It shows that there is scientific fraud out there. It’s up to the courts to decide which scientists, corporations, and government entities are conducting fraudulent work/activities, and separate them from those who are not. Judging by the 97% scientific consensus on climate change, and the climatologists who have been accused of fraud and dishonesty who were cleared of all legal wrongdoing, I’d say the climatologists are squeaky clean angels compared to the Pharmaceutical industry, and especially clean when compared to oil and coal interests who fund climate science denial including funding conservative and conspiratorial commentators, bloggers, commentors, and conservative and conspiratoiral websites and conservative and conspiratorial talk radio. And also grease Congressmens’ palms to take no action on climate change. There are some internet links that show how much money some of those Congressmen get from the energy industry.
One more link: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on climate change and climate change deniers:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sheldon%20whitehouse%20climate%20change&sm=3
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 23, 2014
at 11:52 am
Srlsy?!?!? Gary Null as a source of supposedly credible information? Of course he comes to Wakefield’s defense: he can twist it to his desired ideology, in which HIV does not cause AIDS and dietary supplements (which he, conveniently, sells) are the cure-all for just about everything.
I also wonder what that link about theft of IPR is supposed to show. That people steal, even if they are employed by “Big Pharma”?
Sorry, Raymond, but so far you look about as nutty as Steyn.
By: Marco on March 24, 2014
at 5:49 am
How anyone who isn’t sinfully stupid or revoltingly evil could argue that Andrew Wakefield wasn’t found guilty of fraud is beyond my understanding. While this is a blog that attracts a lot of people who are eager to show off their delusions, there are some who are too dangerously crazy to indulge.
Raymond, is one of those. He is now using this forum to push falsehoods that are causing the death of so many children in the U.S. and abroad. I now realize that responding to his irrational comments is only encouraging him to dump more of his twaddle on this forum.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 24, 2014
at 9:01 am
Harvard buddies? One of four co-authors on the Marcott paper was from Harvard. The rest were from Oregon State University.
By: David Appell on March 21, 2014
at 2:12 pm
Ah, ‘climate change’/AGW/whatever. Sorry folks, y’all don’t have sufficient credibility with me for me to even be willing take the time to click a link you offer to ‘prove’ your assertions. I don’t see it happening and those whose judgment I have reason to trust indicate it’s not worth bothering about. Why in the world should I vote for someone who’s going to tax me more/close down coal mines and power plants whose product I rely on/take away my favorite light bulbs/whatever, when I don’t even believe the problem is worth dealing with?
As far as Mann/Steyn goes, there’s a number of quotes floating about that suggest Steyn at least had reason to think that what he said was true. Therefore Mann will have a tough time proving that Steyn knew that what he was saying was false. Ergo, no libel.
By: Jeremy Klein on March 20, 2014
at 8:30 am
By all means, don’t check on anything anyone claims. Why bother, when you already found something to confirm what you wanted to believe?
And Mann doesn’t have to prove that Steyn knew his charge was false. He just has to prove Steyn showed reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Given that Steyn recently wrote that the Hockey Stick is a “climate model” whose “predictions” have failed, that shouldn’t be hard. In case you don’t catch my drift, I’m saying that Steyn was willing to state unequivocally that the Hockey Stick is “fraudulent” without actually knowing what the Hockey Stick is.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 10:36 am
Barry,
Yep, don’t check on any I sent about the Mormon religion. I don’t want to confuse you with the facts.
I’m done playing games with climate deniers and B.S. about Dr. Mann. Because you chose to edit me after I took the trouble to gather good info., I’m gone for good. Get somebody else to help you battle with the S**t heads who post here.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 20, 2014
at 10:47 pm
Raymond,
I have spent plenty of time checking the kind of info you posted, and if you want to talk about it, you can e-mail me. I just refuse to let this blog become about religion.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 21, 2014
at 5:34 am
Barry,
I gave it some thought and I’ll take you up on your kind offer to discuss religion by email.
While I’m in here, I’ll say something on topic.
I think there should be an investigation to find out for sure who’s at the heart of all of the harassment and threats that climatologists like Michael Mann have had to endure. Years ago, I heard that one climatologist considered suicide because of despair from all of the crap hurled at him. I can’t remember his name, and I don’t think I should repeat it here anyway. If anybody wants to know, let them Google it.
When the individuals who are behind the harassment are found, they should be tried, convicted, and jailed. I wish that the death penalty applied for such crimes, like Vietnam has. They sentenced a banker and a businessman to death recently. Oh, if we only had that harsh a penalty here for banking and corporate crimes. There would be a whole lot less banking a corporate crime in the U.S.
Here’s a thought. Since corporations have now been declared as persons by the The Supreme Koch, should all people in the corporation be punished for corporate crimes that the corporation has been found guilty of?
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 22, 2014
at 4:33 pm
Personally, I wouldn’t want to live in Vietnam. Or Cambodia under Pol Pot.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 22, 2014
at 8:07 pm
Barry,
There’s plusses and minuses for wherever you choose to live. The death penalty for banking and corporate crime is a great plus. As for the rest of what you don’t like, I’ll quote The Stones. “You can’t always get what you want.”
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 23, 2014
at 9:47 am
“As far as Mann/Steyn goes, there’s a number of quotes floating about that suggest Steyn at least had reason to think that what he said was true. ”
Steyn just need to read into the record the entire Wegman report, and the M&M papers and other subsequent work that deconstructed the errors in Mann98. It’s 100% clear now that there were errors and cherry-picking of proxies (bristlecones etc.),
“And Mann doesn’t have to prove that Steyn knew his charge was false. He just has to prove Steyn showed reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.”
Mann can show reckless disregard for the truth with his misuse of proxies and poor statistical methods and get away with it, but allegations and metaphors for Mann’s poor scientific practice must have a much HIGHER level of scrutiny. Was not aware of such a legal double-standard.
“I heard that one climatologist considered suicide because of despair from all of the crap hurled at him.”
I heard that one NR editor considered suicide because of despair from all of the crap hurled at him. I toll him to stop being a baby and to ‘Mann up’!
“When the individuals who are behind the harassment are found, they should be tried, convicted, and jailed.”
When the individuals who are behind the harassment of calling rational skeptics “deniers” or worse – calling them ‘traitors’ – are found, they should be tried, convicted, and jailed. Right?
By: Patrick M on March 23, 2014
at 9:52 am
Steyn just need to read into the record the entire Wegman report, and the M&M papers and other subsequent work that deconstructed the errors in Mann98.
You mean Steyn had to read the Wegman report and *pretend* that it was the last word on the subject.
Steyn routinely puts himself forward as the arbiteur of Christian good versus Islamic evil.
Are we really supposed to think that Steyn lacked the intelligence to read anything beyond the Wegman report?
Or that you lacked the intelligence to do the same?
By: David Appell on March 23, 2014
at 5:52 pm
Mann up. Now that’s funny.
Yes, change the laws so you can try, convict and and jail or even execute climate deniers. What they do is worse than cry fire in a crowded theater. That at least only effects a couple hundred people. But you’ve got oil and coal paid and unpaid climate deniers (stupid as a tree the ones not paid, and smart and opportunistic as hell the paid ones) out there who are telling everybody their ain’t no problem at all, while the scientists are sounding the alarm (hence the Koch-spin word ‘alarmist’) that we are in big big trouble even in the short term. The most radical of them all is Guy McPherson. Can’t say he’s right, but time will tell. At least he ain’t a denier.
So yes, climate deniers really need to be severely punished for their crimes against humanity and against the Earth that is the only planet we have in our solar system that is habitable. Do you see any capitalist cultures on Mars? No! Why? Because as Al Gore said, you can have an environment without an economy but you can’t have an economy without an environment. Short term profits are all capitalists are concerned about. That’s mostly why we are where we are at this point in time with climate change closing in on us fast. And it’s why we have the Mann/Steyn trial going on. Short term profit concerns override the reputation and safety of climatologists and their families. Dr. Mann has had death threats. So recently have the Koch Brothers, a delicious irony since they are in the oil and coal business and the climate denial business, not the climate science business.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 23, 2014
at 6:40 pm
What they do is worse than cry fire in a crowded theater.
Can you prove it’s not?
We’re talking about at least half an inverse ice age here, in 1-1.5 centuries.
Steyn will be going down as, not just a boob, but as a prominent spokesman who denied that smoking causes lung cancer.
Do you really want to be on this man’s side?
By: David Appell on March 23, 2014
at 6:56 pm
So recently have the Koch Brothers, a delicious irony since they are in the oil and coal business and the climate denial business, not the climate science business.
I’m sorry, I don’t see the irony — can you help me?
The Koch Brothers deny that smoking causes lung disease. They pay people to repeat this for them, and some people take their money.
So where is the irony?
By: David Appell on March 23, 2014
at 6:59 pm
The irony is that the Koch’s funnel big $$$ into climate denial,which in my opinion, if I’m right, partially funds the jinning up of anger of the common conservative or conspiritorial brainwashed boobs or some pro deniers or both, who send death threats to climatologists and their families and the Koch Brothers have had death threats. The good you do comes back to you is an old saying. The word bad could be subbed for the word good. There’s also the saying, What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And there’s another saying, Karma’s a bitch.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 24, 2014
at 1:09 pm
Jerry,
Who do you trust to tell you the truth about climate change? What are their scientific credentials, if any, and what types of businesses are they employed in?
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 20, 2014
at 10:34 pm
Since I don’t see any particularly alarming climate change going on, I don’t rely on anyone in particular. Having a knowledge of human nature, history, and science in general my baseline attitude is skepticism when asked to spend money/time/energy combating something I can’t perceive. It is incumbent on those who want to convince me that I need to do so to demonstrate their credibility.
By: Jeremy Klein on March 21, 2014
at 9:11 pm
So I’m guessing your don’t really see yourself as a modern man, able to use his intellect to understand science and its logical consequences, able to understand the history of climate and how it might pertain to the present, able to find and discern data for himself, able to have empathy for anyone beyond the frame of your front door or for those who might come after you?
I’m just guessing….
By: David Appell on March 21, 2014
at 9:18 pm
“So I’m guessing your don’t really see yourself as a modern man, able to use his intellect to understand science and its logical consequences,”
I’m guessing you don’t see the irony of you tossing out this casual but repulsive personal Ad Hominem attack, defamatory in the least, in the midst of an extended discussion about a man whose lousy low-grade work (Mann98) was first used to hyperbolize the climate threat but now is an emblem of the errors of climate science.
So we see people in climate-warming glass houses throwing stones with zeal. I’m just guessing you don’t see the irony of doing what you are doing.
” …able to have empathy for anyone beyond the frame of your front door or for those who might come after you?”
Ah, the old “you hate children” ploy, the Gerry Sandusky of rhetorical talking points, abusing the kids to accuse the other side of moral inferiority.
Irony abounds.
By: Patrick M on March 23, 2014
at 10:05 am
Patrick M — stop whining.
And stop pretending you don’t understand the science, just because you don’t like its conclusions. It’s extremely childish.
By: David Appell on March 23, 2014
at 5:54 pm
by that same measures you don’t prepare for earthquakes (which you cannot see)?
By: David Sanger on March 22, 2014
at 12:42 am
A rather conceited response there David. Modern man? Please.
Jeremy clearly stated in his first sentence he doesn’t see any particularly alarming climate change going on.
So I’m guessing you don’t really see yourself as someone who has the ability to read a handful of sentences, to exercise your mind using the power of reason, and objectively ascertain it’s meaning without engaging in some sanctimoniousness pontification.
But I’m just guessing…..
By: Colin on March 23, 2014
at 5:58 pm
Colin: You guess wrong.
I know what the data says, and I know what the theory says.
And so I know why our BAU path will bring a lot of climate change and a lot of difficulties.
I am not impressed by you pretending to think otherwise. I don’t even know what to think of a man who would sacrifice the future of his loved ones to his own intellectual obstinancy.
By: David Appell on March 23, 2014
at 6:05 pm
Oh dear. Now comes the obligatory ‘do it for our children, our children’s children for Gods sake’ lecture.
Sorry if I haven’t impressed you David. I promise to try harder.
By: Colin on March 23, 2014
at 8:19 pm
indeed the ‘children’ – ya let’s save the children by spending every last penny of theirs to lower the earth’s temp 0.0001 degrees. sure johnny you’re penniless and cold because you can’t afford electricity, but aren’t you glad the sea didn’t rise 3 feet?
By: bv on March 23, 2014
at 8:38 pm
David,
I am always fascinated by people who can divert real discussion into somehow distorting it into a ridiculous argument. Your assertion that if climate change is actually a real danger that young people today will suffer for our lack of action gets turned into your making up a silly argument, presumably because you don’t have real facts. but of course the reality is that unless some unknown mitigating factor is discerned that undermines current ACC theory and the facts that it is based on, young peopler will certainly suffer tremendously because of inaction.
and thenBV makes the “alarmist” argument that somehow in battling climate change, real or not, we will have to impoverish the entire world and that even that will result n no concrete result. this is of course something that has absolutely no chance of happening, as the very tiny percentage of environmentalists who seem to support this sort of massive de-industrialization have absolutely no political power, and that since we managed to lose trillions of dollars that did absolutely no good in the great meltdown of 2008, and our economies were not destroyed, I wonder why an order of magnitude LEss money spent on a serious problem that would have at least some positive economic results could be so devastating.
By: Tony Duncan on March 24, 2014
at 1:27 pm
[…] print a retraction and an apology. But that would disappoint his many admirers who send him money. Mark Steyn’s Flashdance | Climate Asylum Sign in or Register Now to […]
By: The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 3778 on March 20, 2014
at 2:28 pm
Why does Mann not want to get to discovery?
By: bv on March 20, 2014
at 7:48 pm
You have it backwards. The defendants are the ones trying to get it dismissed, and Mann is the one trying to push it forward into discovery.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 20, 2014
at 9:50 pm
Barry,
i’ve seen a lot of Google hits that say Dr. Mann doesn’t want discovery, is blocking discovery, is going broke from court expenses. You’ve got it right. Dr Mann is not afraid of discovery. The factual data is on his side. And his court case is being funded by the climate scientists defense fund, so he ain’t going broke. The dumb as rank and file people who believe the propaganda out there about Dr. Mann and climate change in general don’t get it that they are being taken for a ride by either deniers who are just like them, dumb and gullible, or are professional paid deniers employed by think tanks, front groups, and so-called charity groups that big oil and coal dump about a billion $$$ on every year.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 20, 2014
at 10:18 pm
Barry, getting things backwards is the modus operandi of deniers. It’s the way they never suffer from lack of arguments; They take every fact and insist the opposite. Global temperatures are warming? Nope, global temperatures are cooling. Judges repeatedly saying that Mann is likely to prevail in his suit suit against Steyn and National Review? No, Mann has already lost the suit and is now facing bankruptcy. Rising CO2 in the atmosphere warming our planet? Nope, increasing atmospheric CO2 helps to cool it.
They are Merchants of Doubt. They’re selling doubt to a scientifically illiterate public that mistakes the nattering of naysayers for scientific debate — a public that never notices how many of the deniers — who are working so hard to convince them that increasing the CO2 level of the atmosphere is actually good for us — are the same guys who worked to convince them that tobacco smoke is harmless.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 20, 2014
at 11:03 pm
I don’t understand what that has to do with my comment. Mann still isn’t the one trying to avoid discovery, obviously.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 21, 2014
at 5:37 am
“Mann still isn’t the one trying to avoid discovery, obviously”
Really?
Then please explain why Mann’s lawyers are trying to halt Steyn’s discovery requests. Steyn complied with Mann’s requests so why the stalling tactics now that it’s Mann’s turn?
http://www.steynonline.com/6184/oh-wont-you-stay-ay-ay-just-a-little-bit-longer
By: Locus on March 22, 2014
at 11:02 am
Ummmm… because Steyn’s countersuit is obviously frivolous, and they should be able to get it thrown out easily? Mann will have to go through discovery, anyway, if his already-declared-not-frivolous suit keeps moving forward.
And whatever Steyn’s current stance about allowing discovery is, clearly the other defendants don’t want to go there. Steyn has just figured out that if you want to get paid to be a blowhard, you can’t go around hiding from lawsuits. Instead, you have to get the people who pay for you to be a blowhard to keep paying! So if you act as your own lawyer and go around throwing out bombastic statements and court motions, your fans will keep cheering and keep paying, even if they have to pay your legal bills for all the lawsuits you (predictably) lose.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 22, 2014
at 11:12 am
Bickmore,
You’re completely wrong. Steyn’s discovery request is in regards to *Mann’s* suit, not Steyn’s counter-suit. As Steyn states clearly,
“What is so “impracticable” about proceeding with discovery between me and him? There are four defendants, so Mann has served four separate requests for discovery. I’ve returned mine; National Review, CEI and Rand Simberg are sitting on theirs. The four defendants will in turn submit, collectively, four requests for discovery upon Dr Mann. Why is responding to mine ahead of NR’s any more “impracticable” than me responding to his ahead of NR’s response?”
NR, CEI and Rand Simberg are not parties to Steyn’s countersuit.
Please name “all of the lawsuits” that Steyn has so far “predictably” lost.
By: Locus on March 22, 2014
at 1:06 pm
Locus,
Steyn is talking out of both sides of his mouth. His latest motion (which included the frivolous countersuit) was to dismiss the case! So why should Mann bother with discovery requests if there are motions from all defendants on the table to dismiss the case? Steyn says he has complied with Mann’s discovery requests, however, so if that’s true it’s a point in his favor (meaning that he isn’t avoiding discovery). The others certainly are.
As I have pointed out a number of times, Mann doesn’t even need discovery to show reckless disregard for truth/falsity in Steyn’s case. Steyn went on record recently calling the Hockey Stick a “climate model” whose predictions had failed. What possible defense can he have against the claim that he showed reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of claims that Mann’s work was “fraudulent”, when he didn’t even know what the %$@! that work was? [UPDATE: The original article had quotation marks around the word “predictions.” A reader, danger dad, pointed out that the word is not a direct quotation, so I have removed the quotation marks.]
His only real defense is what the Catholics call “invincible ignorance”. That is, he will have to claim that he is too stupid to understand the issue at hand, so no amount of study would have led him to a different conclusion, no matter how obvious.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 22, 2014
at 6:13 pm
Bickmore,
You’re the one talking out of both sides of your mouth. You state that Mann’s case is a slam-dunk winner but now you’re saying Mann needn’t bother with discovery because the case might get dismissed. So which is it?
Steyn is the only one pushing to get this case into a courtroom and Mann is now trying to obstruct discovery (on him) which is exactly what the climate realists predicted he would do and the exact opposite of what you said Mann would do.
Your claim that Mann “doesn’t even need discovery” is simple nonsense. To make his case Mann has to prove that the Hockey Stick is irrefutable and that Steyn knew as much and therefore showed reckless disregard for the truth. Mann has to prove that Steyn *believed* in the Hockey Stick but wrote to the contrary. How in the world would that be possible without discovery? You simply don’t understand the legal issues. At all.
What’s more I don’t think that Mann can even clear the first hurdle when people like Hans von Storch have publically called the Hockey Stick “quatsch” ( German for ‘garbage’ or ‘nonsense’ ).
Bickmore, you started this with a bizarre reference to “slutty” dancers and it has only gone downhill from there.
Clean up your act.
By: Locus on March 22, 2014
at 10:38 pm
To make his case Mann has to prove that the Hockey Stick is irrefutable and that Steyn knew as much and therefore showed reckless disregard for the truth.
No way. There is a huge space between “irrefutable” and “fraudulent.”
Scientists are allowed to make mistakes. If they do, that doesn’t make their work fraudulent.
And it sure doesn’t look like Mann made a mistake — his findings have been replicated many times now, some by completely independent mathematical methods:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever
Somehow, now of that ever seems to matter to deniers.
von Storch seems to say a lot of things, without all of them being true.
By: David Appell on March 22, 2014
at 10:53 pm
Locus,
The thing is that Mann’s lawyers are just plodding along, pushing the case forward in the standard manner. If it gets to the normal point when discovery is supposed to proceed, and then Mann backs out, then you can high-five and pat yourselves on the back for predicting it would happen. Until then, let’s just assume that Mann filed the lawsuit because he actually wants it to proceed.
What Steyn is doing is called empty theatrics. He’s throwing out all kinds of challenges and frivolous motions. I mean, did you actually read the thing? It had almost no factual content, and absolutely no content that a court would consider a reasonable argument. It’s stupid and bombastic. And if he really wants the case to proceed without a hitch, he should stop filing motions to dismiss.
What Mann has going for him is that he has been exonerated of wrongdoing by several official inquiries, including by expert scientific panels. Even Hans von Storch ended up admitting that any mistakes Mann made with the hockey stick didn’t end up affecting the results much.
Your legal theory about what Mann has to prove is quite interesting. Flatly wrong, but interesting. Perhaps you should ask a lawyer about it.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 22, 2014
at 10:57 pm
Bickmore,
We clearly are at the “normal point” where discovery is to proceed given the simple fact that Steyn has already complied with Mann’s requests. Is it your position that Mann’s Big Tobacco lawyers are so incompetent that they made their discovery requests way out of order? When do you think the defendant’s discovery of the plaintiff should take place? After the verdict? You simply don’t want to admit that at this point the realists’ predictions of Mann’s secretiveness are coming true. Why should you be surprised given that Mann is fighting FOI requests tooth and nail? If Mann really wants his day in court he needs to comply with Steyn’s discovery request.
Speaking of “factual content” in court filings, Mann has been caught doctoring quotes of the investigations that supposedly cleared him.
Imagine, Mann tries to convince the court that he’s honest and would never manipulate data by offering a quote… that Mann manipulated.
See climateaudit.org for more dissections of Mann’s “exonerations”.
If Von Storch has come to admit that his criticisms of the Hockey Stick “didn’t end up affecting the results much” then he evidently didn’t communicate that to … himself. Here’s Von Storch in Nov ’13 talking about the Hockey Stick.
“I believe it was something dumb by scientists who wanted to steer politics.”
http://notrickszone.com/2013/11/18/unminced-words-by-climate-scientist-hans-von-storch-in-long-interview-scientists-too-quick-to-claim-last-word/
(disclosure: I’m relying on the website’s translation)
An ordinary plaintiff can prove libel by demonstrating the falsity of the defendant’s statements. A public figure however, faces a much higher standard in that he has to also demonstrate the defendant’s “knowledge of falsity”. Steyn has at least one quote of Mann describing himself as a public figure and of course a record of Mann’s numerous media appearances. Hence Mann needs discovery or he could never prove “knowledge of falsity”. Your statement that Mann could proceed without discovery is nonsense.
http://www.rcfp.org/category/glossary-terms/actual-malice
By: Locus on March 23, 2014
at 6:14 pm
Locus: Stop it.
This kind of back-and-forth is really off-putting. It’s childish.
Don’t you have anything better to do with your life? Don’t you realize how pathetic you people look, making up all kind of claims about Mann, like you know anything about him at all?
No one knows what’s going to happen in Mann v Steyn. Stop pretending you do. You continual whining about it shows a lack of confidence.
Your inability to use your real name, instead of an anonymous handle, shows you have no fortitude at all. Real men stand behind their accusations.
Not you.
By: David Appell (@davidappell) on March 23, 2014
at 8:16 pm
David Appell, not only has Von Storch said a lot of stuff, he’s also known for making a major mistake in a paper in which MBH98 and 99 were criticized, failing to actually do what MBH98/99 did, declining to share this data with people at PIK (because “political”), and then ‘correcting’ the error in some obscure journal until he had to respond to a comment. Story here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/a-correction-with-repercussions/
The unwillingness to share the data is here:
http://www.spektrum.de/alias/kommentar/wie-waere-es-mit-sachargumenten/1016996 (in German, it’s mentioned under “peinliche drift”)
By: Marco on March 24, 2014
at 6:04 am
Hey Locus, if you ever get tired of setting up straw man arguments to knock down, let us know. A lot of us have more important things to do than to read and reply to the endless nonsense of trolls.
Barry has shown enormous patience in explaining what he actually said. Yet you continue to set up straw man arguments to knock down. Debating you is clearly a waste of time. But I’ll point out a few of your most foolish comments:
“To make his case Mann has to prove that the Hockey Stick is irrefutable and that Steyn knew as much and therefore showed reckless disregard for the truth. Mann has to prove that Steyn *believed* in the Hockey Stick but wrote to the contrary.”
No, Dr. Mann doesn’t have to prove any such thing. Anyone actually paying attention knows that he is required to prove his “hockey stick” findings are NOT “fraudulent,” That is one of the defamatory statements Steyn made in his malicious attack.
As the science philosopher Karl Popper pointed out over a half century ago, “A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutably is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.”
No scientist could ever prove, either in a court of law or a court of science, that his or her findings are irrefutable. In science all theories must be refutable. If someone’s “theory” is irrefutable, it’s not a science theory.
And even if someone could prove that Dr. Mann got something wrong in his hockey stick work, that would NOT prove fraud. All scientists sometimes make mistakes. That’s why journals have editors and peer reviewers and pencils have erasers. To prove fraud, one would have to prove the climatologist consciously and deliberately attempted deception for the purpose of financial or personal gain. Hey, good luck with that.
Dr. Mann’s work has been investigated and cleared of any wrong-doing by the National Science Foundation, the U.K. House of Commons, the University of East Anglia, the US. Environmental Agency, and the Department of Commerce Inspector General!
Also Locus’ assertion that Dr. Mann would have to prove Steyn knew his hockey stick research was irrefutable “and therefore showed reckless disregard for the truth.” is also wrong. To prevail, Dr. Mann has to prove Steyn either knew his statement was false OR that he acted with a “reckless disregard for the truth or falsity” of his statement.
Locus also bumbles, “Mann has to prove that Steyn *believed* in the Hockey Stick but wrote to the contrary.” That’s also nonsense. Defamation law does NOT require proof of the defendant’s “belief.” To win his suit, Dr. Mann has to to prove Steyn made his defamatory statements “with actual malice” — meaning that he EITHER knew they were false or that he acted with reckless disregard for whether they were true or not.”
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 24, 2014
at 9:33 am
The funny part is: Michael E. Mann’s attorney once represented the tobacco company R J Reynolds.
By: Peter on March 21, 2014
at 9:28 am
That’s interesting. What is the source of your information?
By: Barry Bickmore on March 21, 2014
at 10:53 pm
It’s true. Here is a news article on a 1998 trial where Dr. Mann’s attorney, John B. Williams defended RJ Reynolds.
In civilized countries murderers have the right to good legal representation — even mass murderers like RJ Reynolds tobacco company.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 22, 2014
at 1:07 am
So did Steven Millowy, Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, Garrey Carruthers, and numerous other major global warming deniers. You want to call a kettle black, Pete? You hypocrite — the list of the most outspoken global warming deniers contain many of the same names that are on the list of tobbaco’s leading science bashers.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 22, 2014
at 12:08 am
I’m not trying to be a hypocrite. I thought it was funny that the accusation was something about being the same people as tobacco. That’s all.
By: Peter on March 23, 2014
at 11:29 pm
Locus, no matter how many times you are corrected, you persist in repeating your falsehoods. Again you say Dr. Mann has to “demonstrate the defendant’s ‘knowledge of falsity.'”
What part of “That’s not true,” did you not understand.” How many times do we have to quote the law for you before you will stop repeating that nonsense?
Public figures like Dr. Mann have to — now take your fingers out of your ears and pay attention — prove Steyn and National Review “acted with actual malice” — meaning that they either knew their statements were false or that they “acted with a reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
No one needs to take my word for it. This was clearly stated to all parties in the judge’s ruling last July denying Steyn’s and National Review’s motion to dismiss, which I quote:
“… At this stage, the evidence is slight as to whether there was actual malice. There is however sufficient evidence to demonstrate some malice or the knowledge the statements were false or made with reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false.
Plaintiff [Mann] has been investigated several times and his work has been found to be accurate. In fact, some of these investigations have been due to the accusations made by the National Review defendants. It follows that if anyone should be aware of the accuracy (or findings that the Plaintiff’s work is sound), it would be the Defendants. Thus it is fair to say that the Defendants continue to criticize the Plaintiff due to a reckless disregard for truth.”
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 24, 2014
at 1:01 pm
Exactly, Pete. And I will make one more point for the umpteenth time. That is, the Steyn supporters around here keep bringing up Steve McIntyre and the Wegman report, but neither one said there was evidence of fraud on Mann’s part. Therefore, if Steyn brings that stuff in, he won’t be able to just quote some snippet saying that work shows Mann’s was fraudulent. Instead, he’s going to have to go through all the science and statistics to show why HE was justified in saying it was fraudulent. And here are three BIG problems with that. 1) Steyn doesn’t understand the scientific or statistical arguments. 2) The judge probably won’t be able to understand them, either. 3) Most, or more likely all, of the jurors won’t be able to understand them. So where are they going to turn for evidence about whether or not Steyn should have known that Mann’s work was not, in fact, fraudulent? How about the several official inquiries, including by panels of experts, that exonerated Mann? THAT is the kind of thing that matters in court.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 24, 2014
at 1:55 pm
there is plenty of evidence of mann’s fraud. you just chose not to acknowledge it. the nas investigation results are one source:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/there-he-goes-again-mann-claims-his.html
mcintyre and mckitrick both documented multiple instances of dishonesty and fraud. a summary of their work is here:
Mueller outlines fraud in this video:
the wegman report is summarized here:
all steyn has to do is introduce evidence from experts like these and then say he based his written comments on their expert opinions. it will be impossible to prove malice after that.
By: rspung on March 24, 2014
at 3:07 pm
And yet, with all those “dishonest” things they did, other scientists got essentially the same results using different methods. As you have been repeatedly told. Why go to all the trouble of committing “fraud” just to get the right answer? (I probably shouldn’t ask. You guys probably have another conspiracy theory for that, too. Wait, was that a black helicopter overhead?)
By: Barry Bickmore on March 24, 2014
at 4:00 pm
are you serious? “using the same methodology?” mann’s methodology was dishonest cherry picking and data substitution. he used proxies that were not supposed to be used for temperature reconstruction. his methodology had no validation skill, he refused to admit the high uncertainty of the results and it wasn’t robust. and you’re claiming others did the same thing and got the same results?
lol, dude that’s not a defense, that’s an indictment.
By: rspung on March 25, 2014
at 5:23 am
Oh, and on what planet is McIntyre an “expert” at paleoclimatology? And where, exactly, did McIntyre or Wegman say Mann’s work was “fraudulent”?
By: Barry Bickmore on March 24, 2014
at 4:02 pm
McIntyre is an expert on statistical analysis and that is where a lot of mann’s fraud lies. McIntyre said mann’s results had no validation, weren’t robust and he hid the high uncertainty of his results. that’s dishonesty about the quality of your work. dishonesty about the quality of your work = fraud. wegman said the same thing.
By: rspung on March 25, 2014
at 5:26 am
rspung,
You said, “are you serious? ‘using the same methodology?’”.
No. I said they used different methods.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 25, 2014
at 8:09 am
And I asked where McIntyre or Wegman said Mann’s work was “fraudulent,” not mistaken. Waiting…
By: Barry Bickmore on March 25, 2014
at 8:10 am
rspung.
What was the point of Mann’s fraud? the key thing is the current increase in temps. That has been shown over and over again. BEST Marcott and Pages 2 completely support that. The last two give absolutely no indication that MWP was warmer than current temps or even that it was one global event at the dame time around the world. Those which are the most recent and comprehensive research to date give similar results. why would Mann go to such lengths when the valid research would in no way undermine ACC?
Was there some great reward that Mann would achieve if he showed the MWP as cooler than it really was?
You believe that Mann was willing to produce research that was fraudulent, knowingly wrong, for political purposes, even though if his results were completely wrong, it would ruin his career?
the only links you post are from extreme denier sites, where the quotes and results are spun by people with a well known agenda which is to do anything to make it look like ACC is fraudulent.
why is it ONLY those sites with such a clear agenda against Mann that suggest fraud.
do you believe that all the other scientists who follow this are part of a huge conspiracy to ignore this horrible embarrassment? they are all willing to undermine the credibility of science, and it is just ideological deniers like McIntyre, Wegmen and the denier bloggers that are willing to expose the truth?
Steyn never said that Mann’s hockey stick was “wrong” he said it was fraudulent.
I think that in a court using sources that can clearly be shown as being extremely one sided will not be convincing.
I would liken it to using Pravda to argue that the The fall of Detroit was proof of the bankruptcy of capitalism. Republicans could site other more credible sources that paint a completely different picture, and an american judge or jury is not likely to be impressed, even though the stalinists can’t understand why it is not obvious to everyone
By: Tony Duncan on March 25, 2014
at 10:11 am
Bubblepoppingpete and Bickmore,
I suspect that the legal term “reckless disregard for the truth” does not mean what you *think* it does.
In the St Amant v. Thompson libel case the Supreme Court ruled,
“The cases are clear that reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.”
I’ll emphasize once again that the key point here is Steyn’s *belief* in his statements and not even whether Steyn prudently investigated before publishing.
Next, I would like to point out that the ruling you cite was tossed out by the DC Court of Appeals.
http://www.volokh.com/2013/12/27/mann-v-steyn-mulligan/
And lastly it was that reversal by the appellate court that reset everything requiring new motions to dismiss from the defendants.
By: Locus on March 24, 2014
at 9:39 pm
Isn’t that only true of some of the defendants? I mean since Steyn is countersuing, doesn’t that mean he doesn’t want it dismissed?
By: Peter on March 21, 2014
at 9:32 am
Read Steyn’s motion. It’s not a serious attempt. He’s just doing it to provide a little drama for the minions and keep the coffee mug sales rolling in.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 21, 2014
at 10:52 pm
Steyn’s career seems much like Ann Coulter’s — ever more dependent on saying outrageous things to keep it afloat. Hence his mad scrambles to whatever media outlets will let him whine for just a few more minutes, just another day.
By: David Appell on March 21, 2014
at 11:17 pm
Pete, are you serious? Steyn and co-defendants filed a motion for dismissal and the judge denied it. They appealed with a second judge and their 2nd motion for dismissal was denied. Yet you want us to believe that Steyn DOESN’T want the suit dismissed? Man, wha yo’ smokin’?
David, that’s a good comparison to Ann Coulter. Coulter jumped down the rabid hole a long time ago and put on the Mad Hater’s hat.
No, those are not typos.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 22, 2014
at 12:37 am
I am serious, yes. Things have changed since the motions to dismiss were filed. Like the countersuit. Mr. Bickmore seems to think it’s not serious, and it may not be. He certainly seems to be having fun with it, at least.
By: Peter on March 23, 2014
at 11:31 pm
Ok, then why is he not anxious to get to discovery, like Steyn is?
By: bv on March 23, 2014
at 3:51 am
Because Steyn is grandstanding, acting as his own lawyer to put on a show, while Mann’s lawyers are letting the case proceed in the normal manner. When the defendants (including Steyn) stop filing motions to dismiss, they will move to discovery.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 23, 2014
at 6:17 am
This ‘show’ was started by Mann. I bet he’s gonna try to avoid discovery. We will find out, not soon enough.
By: bv on March 23, 2014
at 9:06 am
Fine. But clearly claims that Mann is already trying to avoid discovery, because his lawyers are following the normal procedural route, are ridiculous.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 23, 2014
at 9:18 am
“according to Plaintiff’s counsel, it would be impracticable to proceed with discovery between himself and Steyn without the involvement of the other co-Defendants”
By: bv on March 23, 2014
at 9:34 am
Yes, because that’s not the normal procedure. First you clear out all the motions to dismiss, and appeals of the rejections of those motions, and then you go to discovery. Why should Mann spend time and money dealing with discovery, when the defendants keep filing motions to dismiss?
By: Barry Bickmore on March 23, 2014
at 5:28 pm
I think you are confused. Mann’s attorney’s just served the National Review with discovery requests and the National Review just filed a motion to stay discovery pending appeal of the anti-slapp ruling.
Here is a copy of the motion, filed on March 19:
Click to access 6183.pdf
So, basically, Mann wants discovery from the other side, but he does not want to produce any. He already got Steyn’s discovery and he is asking for NR’s discovery, but he is objecting to having to provide any.
By: rspung on March 23, 2014
at 5:38 pm
Ok, then why is he not anxious to get to discovery, like Steyn is?
If he’s not, who could blame him? Steyn is his own worst enemy, regularly pissing off the court, adding to his defamation, and sticking his foot in his mouth. The more time that goes by, the higher he piles it up.
When the other team insists on scoring own-goals, you get out of the way and let them.
By: David Appell on March 23, 2014
at 9:17 am
Steyn isn’t trying to get it dismissed. For all of your knowledge of this case, that seems like a big detail to overlook.
As a colleague of Dr. Mann have you asked for ALL of his data so that you could prove that what he published was replicable? Are you comfortable with him not releasing ALL of his data or code so his work could be verified? Dr Mann says that he perseveres because of his daughter, but has yet to release all of the data that proves him right and that humanity is doomed (including his daughter), but it’s too proprietary to disclose (even to his closest colleagues). Is that odd to you? P.S. Please don’t tell me that his work has been verified by the EXACT work he used to produce his “hockey stick”.
By: Brent Fieser on March 25, 2014
at 8:44 pm
Hi Brent,
Perhaps you are unaware that Mann’s data and codes are freely available at the following web address:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/research/res_pages/reconstructions.php
Does knowing this change your opinion of the issue and of Mann? If not, why not? Thanks in advance?
By: giovanni da procida on March 26, 2014
at 7:12 pm
Hi giovanni,
I’m fairly sure that all of the data and code are not contained in that link. If that were the case MBH98 would be easily replicated. Is what makes me uneasy about this is conclusion 2 in the Wegman report that was commissioned by the United States House of Representatives. It says: “Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally without disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not fully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent verification is impossible.” If his work on MBH98 has been replicated exactly, I have not heard of it. That means (to me) some part of his work must be missing.
By: Brent Fieser on March 27, 2014
at 9:49 pm
Brent,
1. The Wegman Report was not “commissioned by the U.S. House of Representatives”. It was commissioned by Rep. Joe Barton. You know, the guy who thinks Christopher Monckton is “one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable, experts from a skeptical point of view.” Click the tab above labeled “Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet” to see what I think of him. In other words, Barton is not the brightest bulb in the box.
2. Wegman didn’t actually do his own analyses. He just repeated M&M’s criticisms, which is what Barton wanted.
3. Much of the Wegman Report was plagiarized from Raymond Bradley’s textbook, and Wikipedia.
4. Hans von Storch originally criticized the Hockey Stick work on the same basis as M&M, but then admitted that the PC centering issue didn’t make much difference in the results.
5. Let’s suppose that Mann hasn’t produced every snippet of code he ever used, as you suggest. Let’s suppose that he’s thin-skinned, and he hated exposing himself that easily to criticism (like Roy Spencer and John Christy about their satellite analysis code). He still described his data and procedures well enough that others could come up with essentially the same answers. Whatever its flaws, his procedure produced answers that are within the error bars of many subsequent reconstructions that used different data and statistical methods. THEREFORE, I conclude that the people who have been hounding Mann about his out-of-date, but groundbreaking, papers from the 90’s, are intellectually impaired conspiracy nuts.
6. And if said conspiracy nuts are stupid enough to publicly accuse Mann of specific criminal acts, of which he has already been exonerated by multiple official investigations, AND they are too boxed in by their slavering conspiracy-nut audiences to retract or modify the statements, I conclude that they are getting exactly what they deserve if they get sued for libel… and lose.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 28, 2014
at 7:34 am
“And if said conspiracy nuts are stupid enough to publicly accuse Mann of specific criminal acts, of which he has already been exonerated by multiple official investigations”
Ah, but he hasn’t been exonerated by multiple official investigations. In fact, he lied in court filings about being “investigated and exonerated” by (at a minimum) the Oxburgh Panel, the first Muir Russell Inquiry, the UK Commons Committee, the UK Dept of Energy and Climate Science and the NOAA OIG.
By: rspung on March 28, 2014
at 7:54 am
… And if said conspiracy nuts are too stupid to understand that an exoneration of Phil Jones of any wrongdoing for using “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline” also constitutes an exoneration of “Mike” for using “Mike’s Nature trick”, they deserve to get fleeced of their money by the conspiracy nuts who refuse to retract their libelous statements.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 28, 2014
at 8:03 am
Lol, it doesn’t work that way. First of all, there’s a lot more to the Mann case than “hide the decline”. Secondly, Mann’s pleadings assert that he was “investigated” by multiple investigations and that all of the investigations exonerated him of scientific misconduct, fraud, academic fraud, data falsification, statistical manipulation and manipulation of data.
a) The Oxburgh report examined only the conduct of East Anglia Climate Research Unit scientists, not Mann.
b) The first Muir Russell panel found that Jones’ diagram omitted data and was “misleading”. In combination, these constitute the elements of the offence of “falsification” as defined in academic misconduct codes.
c) The report of the UK Commons Committee contained no findings (let alone exoneration) of Mann’s conduct, whether it be allegations of misconduct, data torture, data manipulation or poor statistical practice.
d) The UK DECC Response did not even use Mann’s name, let along make any statements evidencing that they had “investigated” and “exonerated” Mann. Nor can it be accurately described as an “investigation” even of the UK scientists.
e) The investigation of the NOAA OIG was limited to NOAA employees while they were NOAA employees. The NOAA OIG did not conduct an investigation of Mann’s conduct nor did it “exonerate” him.
By: rspung on March 28, 2014
at 11:07 am
I’ve been thinking about doing a post about these criticisms, since they keep coming up. I’ll have to look into it more, but it may well be that Mann’s lawyers made a mistake or overgeneralized about the investigations. The idea that it must therefore be FRAUD is idiotic, however.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 28, 2014
at 12:16 pm
Hi Brent,
I see that our host has addressed your concerns. But I wanted to follow up on one of the things you said. You said “fairly sure that all of the data and code are not contained in that link.” It seems that it should be fairly easy to determine if the data and code go to the link and examine what is posted there. Have you done so, or are you merely relying on the Wegman report?
Bear in mind that the Wegman report is from 2006, and Mann has posted data and code from papers published after 2006. So the Mann website has been updated or created since the Wegman report, which is a static document, and doesn’t really reflect on the current state of Mann’s data release.
Another point is that it would be interesting to compare Mann’s code and the code that Wegman used to analyze Mann’s results. But while I can find Mann’s code at the link posted above, I cannot seem to find Wegman’s code posted publicly anywhere. Don’t you find it odd that Wegman’s code does not seem easily available (particularly since his report made such a big deal about public release of code), while Mann has a website with files (data and code) for his first authored papers? Does that change your opinion? If not, why not? Thanks in advance.
-Gio
By: giovanni da procida on March 28, 2014
at 1:26 pm
“Judges repeatedly saying that Mann is likely to prevail in his suit suit against Steyn and National Review”
Stop repeating this ignorant nonsense. In evaluating motions to dismiss, judges are required to determine if the suit is likely to prevail based on the assumption that every factual argument in the Plaintiff’s pleading is true and viewing the legal arguments in the light most favorable to him. You are selectively ignoring that those assumptions don’t actually get tested until trial. THE JUDGES RULINGS IMPLY NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER MANN WILL ULTIMATELY WIN OR LOSE.
By: Captain Obvious on March 21, 2014
at 5:20 pm
The rulings imply that this isn’t some frivolous attempt to stifle someone’s “free speech”, as the defendants want to paint it. It’s a run-of-the-mill defamation case that has a legitimate basis. That being the case, the defendants were stupid to refuse to even slightly revise their language to avoid the lawsuit.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 21, 2014
at 10:49 pm
What it means, Captain Oblivious, is that Dr. Mann will not LOSE by summary judgment — as some of the most deluded or dishonest deniers have claimed. One of them, a make-believe lawyer named John O’Sulivan (who falsely claims to be defending Tim Ball in Mann v. Ball, et al, before the Supreme Court of British Columbia) has been publishing “news” reports touting Ball’s victory over Dr. Mann and reporting that Mann is now facing bankruptcy.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 22, 2014
at 12:51 am
I want to comment on misceptions about peer-review. Manuscripts are evaluated for the strength and quality of evidence that support conclusions. Innovation and a good job of explaining how a new study fits in with previous literature are also important. Unlike in the blogosphere, scientists don’t recommend acceptance of a paper simply because they think that the conclusions are correct or because they generally agree. Scientists do no support the publication of weak studies in their expertise. I often recommend reject of studies that support my own publications if the evidence is weak and does not lead to new insights. I also recommend publication of papers that disagree with my expectations if the evidence is strong–of course with quaiifications that point out differences with previous publications. After serving as a reviewer or editor for over 1200 manuscripts, I can say that I never saw one manuscript where the author misrepresented his or her results. This is the fastest way to both loose ones reputation and to get a paper rejected. Only occasionally do papers misrepresent a cited study or cite the wrong study. This is usually corrected in review, but perception of carelessness is likely to get paper rejected. I have not met many Repubican scientists and was sent to Barry’s blog to find an example of a Republican who not only believes science but is a good practitioner.
By: Bill DeMott on March 22, 2014
at 6:20 am
if the defendants show this video at the trial, mann instantly loses:
By: rspung on March 23, 2014
at 12:03 pm
Judith Curry has thrown her lot in with the climate skeptics and according to this link is a front man (woman) for the energy industry. If this accusation is true, then anything she has to say about climate change and climate change scientists should be taken as worthless capitalist propaganda.
http://climatecrocks.com/2014/01/20/judith-currys-testimony-where-theres-smoke/
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 23, 2014
at 12:15 pm
This video simply shows Muller’s ignorance about (1) the divergence problem with tree ring density proxies, and (2) the immense amount of work that has gone into finding the relationships between proxy data and temperatures.
Saying “Is this reliable? Well, we don’t know” is a laugh line that is really a slap in the face of all dendrochronologists and paleoclimatologists who have done hard, honorable work in this field for decades. Muller here is just another scientist (albeit a bombastic one) talking outside his field of expertise, on something he understands little about.
Muller used to make similar dismissals of warming temperatures. Then he actually bothered to analyze the data for himself and found the same result as everyone else (but couldn’t resist writing an NY Times op-ed about it).
Go ahead and show this video in court. There are dozens of experts who could be called to slice it, and him, up, all before lunch.
By: David Appell on March 23, 2014
at 12:21 pm
rspung,
as David pointed out Muller distorted the reality of the science, I am not a climate expert with just a vaguely competent understanding of physics, yet when I read about “hide the decline” and read all the analysis of it, it was blatantly obvious that this was done to make the result clearer. There was no attempt, no discussion, no conspiracy to prevent anyone from knowing about the divergence problem. Other proxies and actual temp records supported the proxies up until the 60’s, when they became unreliable. When the divergence problem was brought up it was always acknowledged., not one EVER stated that the proxies agreed with current actual measured temperatures. THAT would have been fraud.
curry in spite of being on the team that came out with the BEST research has since broken with Muller who now absolutely accepts the research that he had belittled before because his research, which was completely supported and encouraged (though a little snobbishly) by the scientific community completely supported all the other findings.
Judith has decided that there is no reason to beleive that current increase is due “primarily” to CO2.
But then Judith has a fan base to support that would have left her all alone on a street corner if she had agreed.
By: Tony Duncan on March 24, 2014
at 1:53 pm
there most definitely was an effort to cover it up. watch the video and Mueller explains how the scientists refused to include the data in papers and refused to release the data even after foia requests were made.
and with regards to the divergence, none, to this day, has come up with a justification for it.
hide the decline is most certainly fraud and dishonesty. substituting data that gives a completely different result is unethical and dishonest.
By: rspung on March 24, 2014
at 2:56 pm
That faulty analysis simply is irrelevant to the case. Think about it, please! The relevant issues are clearly stated before the court.
By: Nick on March 25, 2014
at 12:02 am
Barry, there is something really wrong with your blog, and with all WordPress blogs. I have to “log out” every time I come here, and log back in via Google+ (or whatever).
If I don’t remember these gymnastics, my typed-out comments are lost, and I have to start all over again. I’ve had to do that a dozen times or three. And I’m tired of it.
Please fix this glitch. It’s pretty ridiculous.
By: David Appell on March 23, 2014
at 6:08 pm
Hi David,
Sorry about that. I don’t know what to do about it, though. This is just a generic WordPress blog–I’m not running their software on another server. I’ll contact their support.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 23, 2014
at 6:57 pm
Hi David,
I experienced the same symptoms as you do, until I registered with WordPress and logged in on a (just any) WordPress blog using my WordPress.com account.
After that, no problems whatsoever. Logging in via Google+ apparently seems to be somewhat of a kludge.
By: Bob Brand on March 28, 2014
at 11:52 am
Appell,
“This kind of back-and-forth is really off-putting. It’s childish.”
No, this “back-and-forth” is called debate and for the last two thousand years plus it’s been at the heart of scientific progress. Why does it fill you with such fear?
“Don’t you have anything better to do with your life? Don’t you realize how pathetic you people look, making up all kind of claims about Mann, like you know anything about him at all?”
When Mann supplied a **doctored** quote in his court documents I think we all learned quite a bit about Mann and his character, or lack thereof.
“No one knows what’s going to happen in Mann v Steyn. Stop pretending you do. You continual whining about it shows a lack of confidence.”
Where did I say that I **knew** what was going to happen in the court case?
“Your inability to use your real name, instead of an anonymous handle, shows you have no fortitude at all.”
How would the quality of my argument change if I used a handle of “John Smith” rather than “Bill Jones”?
“Real men stand behind their accusations.”
You accused Von Storch of saying things that aren’t true. And yet when I called you on that you throw a hissy fit. Why aren’t you standing behind YOUR accusation?
By: Locus on June 22, 2016
at 8:06 pm
David Appell,
I’m heartened that someone admits that the science of CAGW is not irrefutable, may actually be the result of a scientific mistake and merely “looks like” it might be correct. That’s a refreshing change from Bickmore’s absolutism and childish name-calling.
However, even the IPCC is losing faith in the Hockey Stick and is in the process of airbrushing it from its reports like the picture of some executed bolshevik.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/17/climatology-sees-one-of-the-greatest-scientific-reversals-of-all-time-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick-charts/
Does your statement that Von Storch “seems to say a lot of things, without all of them being true” apply to when he as an IPCC report lead author? Are there other lead authors of the IPCC who have a similar affliction? I wonder how much of the science of global warming comes from people who “say a lot of things without all of them being true”?
By: Locus on March 23, 2014
at 7:11 pm
Locus, I have never talked to ANY scientist or read anything by any of those that support ACC that maintain the science is irrefutable. could you please give a link to someone who contends that?
I have never seen Barry do so, and I will happily condemn him when you provide that source. I have read a number of his blog posts and that sort of thing is completely antithetical to everything I have ever seen him discuss.
And I have yet to see anyone “airbrush” the hockey stick out of anything. All the other studies made since then show the same basic results, so what would be the purpose in hiding it? There are plenty of newer much better studies, so it certainly makes sense to focus on them.
Do I really need to explain to you how ridiculous that link you posted is.
First of all the initial graph that they post that shows MWP higher than current temps? well, they are just lying when they say that graph shows current temps. I am not sure but I think it only goes up to about 1970. it certainly is not from research that was done after the 80’s since the reports itself is from 1990. there is no actual data on that graph and our knowledge of paleo-temps was very sketchy.
but I find it hysterical that they blog authors really believe it was the selfless work of the climate skeptics (sic) that led to the downfall of Mann and Briffa
By: Tony Duncan on March 24, 2014
at 2:24 pm
Tony,
James Hansen said the following,
“CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
Bickmore said on this thread that Steyn’s
“only real defense is what the Catholics call “invincible ignorance”. That is, he will have to claim that he is too stupid to understand the issue at hand, so no amount of study would have led him to a different conclusion, no matter how obvious.”
That sounds like they believe the science is irrefutable to me.
And the plots that you say are so obviously wrong are from the IPCC Assessment Reports. They were *not* generated by the blogger. If you want to say that the IPCC reports are junk then on that we can agree!
By: Locus on March 24, 2014
at 9:54 pm
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya re “irrefutable” – “I do no theenk it meanz wha you theenk it means”
Your two quotes give no support to your contention that either Hansen or Barry believe the science of ACC is irrefutable. Certainly those quotes indicate very strong support of the theory and that they consider the likely consequences to be very serious, but I bet if you asked them and if you gave them some scenarios that would refute key elements of ACC they would acknowledge that if those things were shown to be true then, at least on a practical level, ACC would be “refuted”.
As for the Graph. Are you seriously trying to twist my words and pretend they mean something I obviously neither said nor implied?
Of course that is from the IPCC and of course I am not saying that it or the IPCC are “Junk”. In fact I looked it up on google and found a detailed description on, believe it one not, McIntyre’s site. He confirms my suspicion that it not a graph of current temps ( as it could not have been since it was published before 1990) is from a graph by Lamb that had an end date of 1950 and was adjusted to maybe the 80’s.
It is also DEFINITELY a graph not of GLOBAL temps, but of CET (Central European temps).
This reinforces my argument that the people on the blog you linked to are happy to lie about current global temps, since that graph was neither of current, nor global temps as they represented them. and the info proving tha is from a well known denier source. I didn’t expect that particular irony, but I am pleased that you were the reason I discovered that.
Sometimes people ask me why I argue with deniers when I am assured they will never change their minds, as fanatics rarely do. Well this is part of the reason, I have no interest in “changing your mind” in arguing with deniers, I often learn a lot more because I know they aren’t interested in the truth so I have to go a little deeper than I normally would to get at the truth and I sometimes learn more than I otherwise would have.
so thank you.
By: Tony Duncan on March 25, 2014
at 2:55 am
Tony,
The blogger is merely showing how the IPCC graphs have changed from pre-Hockey Stick, to Hockey Stick to post-Hockey Stick.
The blogger clearly says “The climate data were taken from Central England and extend up to 1970.” So, he’s not trying to imply that the MWP is warmer than 2013. He’s obviously using the colloquialism of saying ‘today’ to mean modern times and not this exact moment. For example, you might say,
In the Middle Ages communications were difficult but *today* we can use the telephone.
That’s not implying that Alexander Graham Bell just called for Watson last week.
I’d like to point out that this article was translated from German so you should forgive any slight imprecisions in language.
At no other point does the blogger claim that the MWP was warmer than 2013. If it was his intention to hoodwink anyone then why, why, why, why would he show the other graphs?
I’ll repeat again the blogger is merely showing how the IPCC graphs have changed from pre-Hockey Stick, to Hockey Stick to post-Hockey Stick.
The point is to show how the Hockey Stick has fallen out of favor even with the IPCC.
By: Locus on March 25, 2014
at 7:48 pm
Perhaps it makes more sense if you insert the word ‘inconceivable’.
By: Colin on April 1, 2014
at 5:26 pm
Locus,
“only real defense is what the Catholics call “invincible ignorance”. That is, he will have to claim that he is too stupid to understand the issue at hand, so no amount of study would have led him to a different conclusion, no matter how obvious.”
In the passage you quoted, I was not talking about the issue of whether the science is “irrefutable.” I was talking about the issue of whether Mann’s work was “fraudulent”. When a number of official and scientific inquiries have shown that the mistakes he made didn’t make much difference to his results, and a number of studies by other paleoclimatologists, using different data and methods, have produced the same results within Mann’s error estimates, then yeah… you would have to be a complete moron to think Mann’s work was “fraudulent”.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 25, 2014
at 8:03 am
Barry, I seriously doubt that a “too-stupid-to-understand” defense would work. Imagine how far this argument would go in any U.S. court room:
“The defendant is too stupid to understand defamation law and is therefore not responsible for any damages claimed by the plaintiff.”
That argument perhaps might reduce any punitive damages, but not actual damages if the plaintiff prevails. Actual damages are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for harm caused by the defendant — whether or not the defendant intentionally did anything wrong. For example, when a driver totals someone else’s car in a crash caused by blown tire, he must pay damages despite the fact that he is innocent of wrong doing. (ie. totaled someone else’s car due to break failure).
It’s pretty clear the ignorance of the law does not work. I doubt a “I’m-too-stupid-to-know-the-difference-between-fact-and-falsehood” defense would work any better.
And that’s especially so for a high-profile right-wing commentator like Steyn — who never tires of claiming intellectual superiority over others. And do you think that defense would work for National Review, which, for the past half-century, has has been claiming to be the leading champion of truth and wisdom?
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 25, 2014
at 8:58 am
Sssssshhhhhhhhhhhhh… I know it probably wouldn’t work. I just want to see if Steyn will try it. Now THAT would be a show.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 25, 2014
at 10:24 am
Why would Steyn ever need to adopt such a defense? His belief in his statements are the key issue. As long as Mann cannot prove that Steyn had serious doubts about the truth of his comments then Steyn wins the suit.
By: Locus on March 25, 2014
at 8:53 pm
That’s exactly why he might try it. Mann’s lawyers can pile on evidence that any NORMAL person would have entertained serious doubts, but if Steyn can show that no amount of evidence could ever change his mind, then maybe a jury would buy it!
By: Barry Bickmore on March 26, 2014
at 5:53 am
…and Steyn’s lawyers can pile on evidence that any NORMAL person would think Mann is a dishonest data manipulator. Dishonesty = fraud. And the jury will realize that Steyn based his written comments on the findings and comments of numerous experts who pointed out repeatedly that Mann:
a) used data he knew couldn’t accurately reconstruct temperatures,
b) cherry picked data so he only used data that formed a hockey stick shape,
c) knew his work was not validated and robust,
d) hid the fact that his work was not validated and robust,
e) graphed temperature readings onto proxy data, which dramatically altered the shape of his graph,
f) lied about his work being rewarded with a nobel prize,
g) lied about his work being exonerated by various investigations (so far he’s been caught doing this red-handed five times), and
h) refused to release his data and emails so others could check his work.
That’s more than enough evidence to conclude Steyn sincerely believed Mann was a fraud.
By: rspung on March 26, 2014
at 6:45 am
King Locus again declares a change in libel law:
“As long as Mann cannot prove that Steyn had serious doubts about the truth of his comments then Steyn wins the suit.”
That’s NOT at all what Dr. Mann is required to prove in any U.S. court of law.
Your Majesty, when you actually have a kingdom to rule over, and not just your soda-stained keyboard, you can then change the law to fit your warped sense of reality.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 26, 2014
at 9:21 am
Actually, what Locus said is 100% accurate. If Mann cannot prove Steyn knew or strongly suspected what he was saying is false, Mann loses. And Steyn had a mountain of witnesses and evidence confirming Mann is, indeed, a fraud.
By: rspung on March 26, 2014
at 9:30 am
Manufactured climate science disinfo is far from being evidence that Dr. Mann’s work is fraudulent, just the opposite. In my not so humble opinion, it’s Steyn’s climate disinfo that will be shown to be fraudulent in court.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 26, 2014
at 10:50 am
Rspung continues to ignore every effort to inform him about libel law. Hardly surprising considering how strong the denying habit is in global warming deniers. So he again repeats the nonsense about “belief” being a defense for defamation:
“That’s more than enough evidence to conclude Steyn sincerely believed Mann was a fraud.”
Courts cannot establish “beliefs” — “sincere” or otherwise. They can establish facts and falsehoods, but not beliefs. No one can prove or disprove what any other person believes. Belief or non-belief is NO WHERE cited in defamation law.
For the eightieth-umpteen time — for crying out loud — in U.S court cases involving public figures who sue for defamation, plaintiffs are required to prove that (NOW PAY ATTENTION: THIS — IT IS THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE USED BY THE JUDGE HEARING THIS CASE!) the defamatory statement “was false and was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
The key standard is “RECKLESS DISREGARD” — NOT “BELIEF.”
As an investigative journalist who worked to expose frauds for many years (and have been sued, unsuccessfully), I knew from the beginning of my career what I “believed” was absolutely irrelevant. The only matter I was concerned about — as are courts hearing libel cases — is what I can prove. While I would be protected by the malice standard established by the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan Supreme Court Case — should I make a reporting mistake — I knew I could be made to pay dearly for a reckless mistake. Standing up in court and testifying that I had “sincerely believed” the falsehood I reported would just get me laughed out of court.
As I’m now laughing at the dittohead deniers here who keep arguing the so-called “he sincerely believed” defense.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 26, 2014
at 10:47 am
Knowledge is based on what one reads and hears. Steyn read and heard numerous accounts from experts that mann committed fraud. He based his written comments on what he heard and saw.
Mann will never be able to prove malice because he will never be able to introduce evidence that Steyn KNEW or could have KNOWN that all that evidence and all those experts weren’t accurate.
How’s that, asshole?
By: rspung on March 26, 2014
at 11:07 am
Ray, since you want to talk about “assholes,” I’ll give you an example of what a real asshole does:
He refuses to acknowledge what the law actually says substitutes his own cock-eye view. And he stubbornly refuses to acknowledge what judges have already ruled in this case — namely that Steyn and National Review had to be aware of the findings of the respected agencies that investigated Dr. Mann — since they were the ones who demanded those investigations!
To ignore the results of those investigations and publish the unsubstantiated accusations of right-wing groups and fossil-fuel industry flacks as fact, is the epitome of “actual malice” — which as the judges have defined in their rulings means publishing “a defamatory statement with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
That’s why Steyn’s and National Review’s repeated motions for dismissal were overruled by 2 judges. Dr. Mann will win his libel suit unless Steyn and NR are able to prove their statements are NOT false — not that they “didn’t know” they were false, “couldn’t understand” they were false, or didn’t “believe” they were false. For them to beat the rap now, they have to prove their statements are not false but true. The ball is in their court (literally).
Normally, in the United States, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the alleged defamatory statement is false. However, in this case, Dr. Mann doesn’t have to: All the prominent government and scientific organizations that investigated Steyn’s and NR’s allegations of fraud have found them to be false. It’s up to the defendants to prove those findings were wrong or they may have to pawn any gold fillings they may have.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 26, 2014
at 12:33 pm
“And he stubbornly refuses to acknowledge what judges have already ruled in this case — namely that Steyn and National Review had to be aware of the findings of the respected agencies that investigated Dr. Mann — since they were the ones who demanded those investigations!”
That’s a lie. You will never be able to find any evidence that Steyn and NatRev demanded those investigations.
Furthermore, it has been proven beyond a doubt that Mann lied about being investigated and exonerated by the Oxburgh Panel, the First Muir Russell Inquiry, the UK Commons Committee, the UK Dept of Energy and Climate Science and the NOAA OIG.
“That’s why Steyn’s and National Review’s repeated motions for dismissal were overruled by 2 judges.”
No, it wasn’t. The judge said he was forced to read Mann’s allegations in the light most positive to Mann. The judge also ruled improperly, according to an attorney with experience in winning Anti-Slapp litigation:
http://faithhopeandcharity.blogspot.com/2014/03/mann-v-steyn-attack-on-free-speech.html
“Dr. Mann will win his libel suit unless Steyn and NR are able to prove their statements are NOT false”
Not true, either. The burden of proof is on Mann, not the defendants. He has to prove actual malice. He has to prove they KNEW their statements were false, which is basically impossible.
“All the prominent government and scientific organizations that investigated Steyn’s and NR’s allegations of fraud have found them to be false.”
Another lie. The Wegman Commission and the NAS Panel both found Mann to have committed fraud.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/there-he-goes-again-mann-claims-his.html
Their findings:
a) Mann used data he knew couldn’t accurately reconstruct temperatures (strip-bark data),
b) cherry picked data so he only used data that formed a hockey stick shape,
c) knew his work was not validated and robust,
d) hid the fact that his work was not validated and robust, and
e) graphed temperature readings onto proxy data, which dramatically altered the shape of his graph.
In addition, Steyn will also provide the following evidence of fraudulent behavior:
f) Mann lied about his work being rewarded with a nobel prize,
g) lied about his work being exonerated by various investigations (so far he’s been caught doing this red-handed five times), and
h) refused to release his data and emails so others could check his work.
By: rspung on March 26, 2014
at 12:46 pm
Pete,
I can’t argue with anything you said. It’s just more logical reasoning that might just break Steyn et al’s financial backs. And it’ll be a climate science/climatologist win win. And the fossil fuel industry funded think tanks and their spin doctors are going to have to work hard to explain it all away to their angry white conservative numbskull base.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 26, 2014
at 1:08 pm
Bubbles,
I did post on this subject previously but perhaps you did not see it.
While lower courts are allowed some latitude in this regard, the standard for what constitutes “reckless disregard” was established by the Supreme Court in St Amant vs Thompson,
“In order that it can be found that a defendant, within the meaning of New York Times, acted in “reckless disregard” of whether a defamatory statement which he made about a public official is false or not, there must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant had serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.”
The standard is whether the defendant had “serious doubt” not what the defendant can prove. What’s more there has to be “sufficient evidence” of that doubt.
Furthermore, in the same ruling the Court said,
“In a defamation action by a public official, reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published the statement or would have investigated before publishing.”
Again, the defendant’s actions are not as important as whether the defendant entertained “serious doubt”.
Now, to be fair it is true that a defendant cannot merely testify to his belief. In Lowell v. Hayes the Supreme Court of Alaska ruled,
” A finding that a defendant lacked actual malice may or
may not be based on his own testimony; a defendant cannot automatically insure a favorable verdict by
testifying that he published with a belief that the statements
were true.24 But we have held that such testimony will suffice to counter a claim of actual malice where (1) the plaintiff has
failed to present conflicting evidence, and (2) the circumstances
do not indicate that the statement was fabricated by the
defendant, . . . the product of his imagination, . . . based
wholly on an unverified anonymous telephone call . . . [or] so
inherently improbable that only a reckless man would have put [it] in circulation. 25″
Note that what the court offers as examples of actual malice that mere testimony of good faith cannot overcome.
1. Fabrication by the defendant.
2. Anonymous phone call
3. Inherently improbability.
All of which are well below the level of published criticisms of Mann’s work that Steyn’s lawyers can bring to court.
Note also that there is a burden on the plaintiff to “present conflicting evidence” to overcome the defendant’s testimony of good faith.
I am not a lawyer so perhaps I’m getting this wrong but what I’ve said seems to be supported by a law review article analyzing the Newton v. NBC case written by Brian Gura.
Newton v. NBC: First Amendment Big Winner in
Public Figure Defamation Action
( Google it, link is too long to copy )
Specifically Gura writes,
“In assessing the question of actual malice, the fundamental inquiry is the journalist’s state of mind and whether he realized that his statement was false or that he subjectively entertained serious doubt as to the truth of the statement.”
By: Locus on March 26, 2014
at 10:07 pm
Then why has the IPCC airbrushed away the Hockey Stick from its latest Assessment Report? Are the IPCC morons?
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/17/climatology-sees-one-of-the-greatest-scientific-reversals-of-all-time-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick-charts/
And if Mann’s “exonerations” are so persuasive then why is Mann misrepresenting so many of them,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/01/steve-mcintyre-was-michael-mann-exonerated-by-the-oxburgh-panel/
How’s that going to look to the jury? So, Dr. Mann why did you file papers with the court that included manipulated quotes? If these panels really did “exonerate” you then why the alterations?
By: Locus on March 25, 2014
at 8:58 pm
Wow. You mean that, as scientists gather more and more paleoclimate data from more parts of the world, and use different techniques, they might replace out-of-date reconstructions with new ones? And that the new ones will mostly be within the error bars of the old ones? IT MUST BE A CONSPIRACY! FRAUD!!!
By: Barry Bickmore on March 26, 2014
at 6:22 am
And here’s why McIntyre is intellectually dishonest. He knows very well that one of the things the Oxburgh Panel investigated was whether Phil Jones did anything dishonest by using “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”. Verdict: Phil didn’t do anything wrong by doing just what “Mike” [Mann] did. So if Phil was exonerated by the panel from any wrongdoing, then so was Mike. UNLESS IT WAS ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY!!!!!!
By: Barry Bickmore on March 26, 2014
at 6:26 am
Mann was not a member of the CRU. The Oxburgh Panel ONLY examined conduct and work of the CRU. They never even mentioned Mann in their report. It is ludicrous to claim they exonerated Mann, since they didn’t investigate any of his work.
In addition, Steyn’s conclusion that Mann is a fraud depended on a variety of evidence, not just “hide the decline”.
By: rspung on March 26, 2014
at 6:54 am
If Mann’s work continues to be vindicated then why has the MWP re-appeared in the IPCC Assessment Reports?
By: Locus on March 26, 2014
at 7:31 pm
Barry said, “but if Steyn can show that no amount of evidence could ever change his mind, then maybe a jury would buy it!”
That’s not how any judge would instruct a jury. If it were, than reckless drivers who cause injuries to others could act crazy in court in order to plead mental incompetence and avoid paying damages. Tort law does NOT work this way. If a defendant judged mentally incompetent got behind the wheel of a car and causes personal injury or damage to property, he or she is still held liable for those damages. Just as would happen if a young child causes property damages even though he is not considered old enough to be held responsible. In that case, the parents (or guardian at the time of the damage) would have to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the child.
That’s because the purpose of civil courts is to allow people, who suffer damage from intentional or careless actions of others, “to be made whole.” Whether or not the injurious action of the defendant was intentional, careless, or accidental, or even unpreventable, matters for determining what if any punitive damages to award.
Although I would Loooooove to see Steyn make a further idiot of himself by arguing he’s too stupid to understand the formal findings of the investigations he and National Review had demanded, I’m fairly sure he is NOT that stupid.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 26, 2014
at 10:13 am
(Excuse me: I meant to delete the word “unpreventable.”)
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 26, 2014
at 10:16 am
Locus, what someone’s opinion sounds like to you is of no interest to me (and I suspect most others who have more than just a brain stem and cerebellum.)
I don’t see anyone else here claiming that there can be scientific knowledge that is “irrefutable.” By the very definition of science, nothing in science is irrefutable. The fact you keep arguing about “irrefutable science” — despite having been corrected — shows you are beyond reasoning with.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 25, 2014
at 9:08 am
Hooray! We’ve reached a breakthrough!
Since you say we cannot claim that CAGW is irrefutable then people will stop using the term “denier”.
Since CAGW is not irrefutable then we’ll stop saying the “science is settled”.
Since CAGW is not irrefutable Michael Mann should apologize to Judith Curry for calling her “anti-science”.
Since CAGW is not irrefutable James Hansen will apologize for advocating jail time for fossil fuel executives.
Since CAGW is not irrefutable the Koch Brothers will be recognized for the important scientific research they fund.
Since CAGW is not irrefutable “An Inconvenient Truth” will be removed from schools.
Since CAGW is not irrefutable apologies will be forthcoming to Richard Lindzen.
Since CAGW is not irrefutable Michael Mann will come out of hiding and agree to fair and open debates.
Since CAGW is not irrefutable Michael Mann will stop trying to obstruct FOIA requests.
Since CAGW is not irrefutable the theory’s skeptics will be allowed equal air time in the media to debate the issue.
Since CAGW is not irrefutable then we’ll have to accept that the Hockey Stick might be flawed and that it is reasonable for someone to suspect that the flaws were the result of intentional data manipulation by Michael Mann.
And the list can go on and on….
By: Locus on March 25, 2014
at 8:47 pm
What a strange person this Locus is. I guess he wants equal air time too for the flat earthers whenever the shape of the earth is mentioned, the young- and old-earth creationists whenever the age of the universe and evolution are discussed, HIV-AIDS deniers whenever AIDS is discussed, any representative of all existing religions whenever a certain religion is discussed, andsoonandsoforth?
If not, why this hypocrisy of demanding equal air time for a fringe idea while denying the same for others (of which at least one is not so fringe).
One also wonders what FOIA requests have to do with “CAGW” not being irrefutable.
By: Marco on March 26, 2014
at 5:30 am
Science is never “irrefutable”. See these:
Which is why all of your statements above are meaningless.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 26, 2014
at 6:48 am
What would be a “breakthrough” would be teaching Locus how to use words and not merely to play with them, redefine them to support his political views, and waste everyone’s time.
While nothing in science is “irrefutable,” what is irrefutable is this: Trying to correct Locus is as time wasting as trying to shovel water uphill.
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 26, 2014
at 9:11 am
My satire seems to be going over some heads so let me elaborate. I do not contend that scientific theories should or even can be proven to a metaphysical certitude. What I am doing is lampooning those who act as if CAGW already has been proven to a metaphysical certitude.
Here’s Richard Feynman on the scientific method,
QED, the theory for which Feynman is best remembered, is one of the most successful physical theories of all time. Not because someone took a poll and 97% of scientists agreed but because it has produced some of the most accurate predictions of experiment ever seen. While no physical theory can ever be proven to a metaphysical certitude, QED is probably as close as humans can get. As a consequence I would not waste five seconds of my time listening to someone claim that QED is wrong.
In contrast CAGW has an abysmal record of making predictions. Von Storch and his team have calculated that the probability that the IPCC models are actually describing what is happening to the climate at about 2%. If you were to re-label a chart showing the IPCC model predictions vs the global measured temperatures with another quantity, say fertility rates of tree frogs, and walk into your PHD advisor’s office and say “Look, here are my results and there’s no debate that my theory is correct”, the advisor would probably look at you curiously and then hand you a rubber slide rule.
And yet so many of the wingnut warmists demand that CAGW be afforded the same exalted status as QED. The science is settled! The time for debate is over! Don’t waste five seconds of your time listening to someone who doubts CAGW!
I remember watching Neil DeGrasse Tyson explain why he was skeptical of string theory. He said something to the effect that while the mathematics were beautiful and elegant the theory had yet to produce any meaningful predictions so he was reserving judgement. Couldn’t agree with him more. But when asked about CAGW on the Bill Maher show he starts waving his arms and blabbering about animal migrations and plants. Why not just compare the CAGW predictions to nature or observation like Feynman says? It’s amazing, change the subject to Global Warming and everyone’s brain seems to turn off.
Has CAGW been proven? No. Has CAGW been disproven? No. Which means that now more than ever we need a reasoned, robust and objective debate about it. And every time Michael Mann calls his critics “anti-science” or refuses to participate in a debate the entire world gets just a little bit dumber.
By: Locus on March 26, 2014
at 8:40 pm
Yes, give the oil coal, and natural gas companies more time to make billions more $$$ while the world goes into a death spiral.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 26, 2014
at 8:47 pm
Bickmore,
Raymond DeBrane is on *your* side. Wow, you gotta be proud…
By: Locus on March 26, 2014
at 10:16 pm
Barry can feel anyway he likes. If he is proud of me, than I have to pat myself for doing a good job, and for free! Those that do climate science denial for free, are hard headed, brainwashed, woefully misguided, and very undereducated people. The pro deniers who do it for the money that trickles down from the likes of the Koch Brothers are very smart and talented spin doctors.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 27, 2014
at 9:48 am
Locus, Monckton, Watts, Delingpole, Bolt, and a few more wingnuts are on *your* side. You must be even prouder!
Oh wait, you probably really *are* proud of that…
By: Marco on March 27, 2014
at 1:12 am
Barry, I’m done commenting here. Every one of my comments gets blocked, because I didn’t ‘log ou’t before I ‘logged in’ and hit “Submit.” That’s a pretty ridiculous way to have to deal with a blog — I’m tired of having to type in the same comment 2 or three times.
By: David Appell on March 23, 2014
at 8:18 pm
Sorry to hear that. Before you go, however, can you try clearing your cache and your WordPress cookies? I put in a request for support, but haven’t heard back.
By: Barry Bickmore on March 23, 2014
at 9:50 pm
I have had no problem on a Mac using safari. I am not “logged in, and just have my email and name that is pre-entered whenever I come to the comments
By: Tony Duncan on March 24, 2014
at 7:53 pm
Duncan,
Barry gave some good advice. I’ll just add one more tip. Any computer problem you can think of is up on YouTube. Searching for your specific problems can be sometimes easy and sometimes a real pain, but you sure have access to a lot of brilliant people. Some videos do have accents that are hard to understand, and there’s one I saw where this guy’s voice is just too annoying to listen to. Lots of people from all parts of the world contribute, often in foreign languages that I can’t understand.
But anyway, I’ve heard owning a MAC compared to owning a Betamax. I’m insulted by that comment because I have two Betamax VCR’s and about 200 tapes, some of which I’m transferring to DVD.
To stay on topic, I’ll say that I saw a link about EXXON willing to talk about unburnable assets in the ground as it effects the financial status of the company. It looks like the deniers over there are a bit shook up by the latest climate reports.
When Dr. Mann goes into court and Steyn et al don’t have any science to back up their big mouths and the accusations of Dr. Mann’s work being fraudulent backfire and stick to them like glue, their butts are going to be in a big legal and costly financial sling. CEI might financially survive, but not The National Review Online, from what I’ve been reading on the net, and Steyn will probably have to take out 20 credit cards out of his wallet and max them all out to pay for damages against Dr. Mann. Maybe the court will sue him next for all of the snotty things he’s had to say about Judges.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 25, 2014
at 12:21 pm
If you’re tired of writing your comments, please spare some sympathy for us having to read them.
By: Colin on March 24, 2014
at 5:43 pm
I think all David has to do is get to a computer that is reliable, especially get off of Win XP and get onto Win 7 or 8.1. Skip 8.0 or do updates for it.
So much misery can be avoided by doing this and also scrapping your old computer and buying a new one. Old software and hardware screw up way too often.
After typing this, I did notice when I hit Post Comment that nothing happened. My Win 7 install said page unresponsive, wait or kill it. I waited and all is OK, but I do have to wonder what’s up with dat?
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 24, 2014
at 6:32 pm
[…] vs Steyn is descending into farce, as Steyn demonstrates ever more clearly his incompetence. Eli. Barry B. Mind you, the Watties are still whistling in the wind: Watts is like Steyn countersues Mann for 10 […]
By: Rowing, and some other stuff [Stoat] | Gaia Gazette on March 23, 2014
at 11:39 pm
[…] 2014/03/19: BBickmore: Mark Steyn’s Flashdance […]
By: Another Week of Global Warming News, March 23, 2014 [A Few Things Ill Considered] | Gaia Gazette on March 24, 2014
at 12:48 pm
To Marco,
Yes, Gary Null is a valid source of good health info and has a good size staff who helps him do investigative reporting and also documentary films. His critics that go after him are big Pharma and the medical establishment. The AMA went after chiropractors at least twice since the 1960’s. A long while back I heard the news on the radio that said that the courts have told the AMA to back off and leave the chiropractors alone.
Gary Null is having the same problem that climatologists have, having their names dragged through the mud and disinfo and accusations of fraud hurled at him.
In my opinion, I don’t think Gary Null is a nice guy to some people, but no one’s perfect. He is knowledgeable about biochemistry and health and nutritional sciences. And on top of it all, he has a good grasp about the dangers of man made climate change.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 26, 2014
at 10:45 am
Boy, just listen to that sound of cuckoos and quacks. Two birds of a feather. “Valid source of good health info,” your feathery ass, Ray. LOL!
Why does little birdie rant against pharmaceutical companies without mentioning that Gary Null runs a business selling alternative, unproven health remedies? Nor does he tell us that the snake-oil pedlar (Prepare yourself for a real thigh-slapper:) sued the manufacturer of his own dietary supplement, claiming it nearly killed him. (Man, you just can’t make this stuff up!)
Discovery magazine published a good article on Gary Null last year:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/05/31/gary-null-cultivator-of-dangerous-woo-plants-seeds-of-death/#.UzMRr4XQwoc
By: bubblepoppingpete on March 26, 2014
at 11:56 am
I’ll have to read that discovery article. You can’t always depend on so called official sources to tell the truth all the time. Back in the early 1990’s, Consumer Reports magazine published a quack buster article on Mercury in dental fillings. Ain’t no problem here people were told. Dentist who take your fillings out are in it for the money. A total lie.
Who had doctors like Dr. Alfred V Zamm MD, an allergist and dermatologist on his radio program back in 1993 and 1994 going over the medical problems caused in some people from mercury fillings? Why, the so-called quack himself, Gary Null. Null interviews real MD’s, the brightest of the bunch on his show and has done so for years. I personally benefitted by getting my mercury fillings out, and I had a lot of them! And I benefitted by Gary Null’s vitamin advice. I rarely bought any of his vitamin products. It was easy just to walk into a vitamin store and find what I needed there, and now I can shop on line and get cheaper prices than in a brick and mortor store. Don’t tell me Null is a quack. Bulls**t! He often on the air reads from mainstream medical journals about vitamins, other supplements, etc that have had studies done on them proving that they can help treat various health problems.
When Dr. Zamm was on Gary Null’s show in 1994, he mentioned an article in the Science section of the NYTimes. I went to the local university and got the microfilm or the paper and read it. It was about a study that was done where Mercury fillings were placed in the mouths of monkeys. When that was done, bacteria in their guts grew and became resistant to antibiotic treatment. Well well. Quackery? I think not.
I can criticize Gary Null for another thing. He talks up doctors who may be able to cure cancer. But one doctor who’s office I called, gave me sticker shock. The fees were in the stratosphere and insurance wouldn’t cover a dime of it. All I had left to do was surgery, and that did the trick. It would have been a good shot at curing it without surgery. I had time to mess around for a year or so, and if it weren’t for the astronomical fees, which I think are absolutely unjustified, I would have given the non surgical approach a shot.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 26, 2014
at 12:25 pm
Gary Null is an absolute disgrace, and the fact you believe what he says, says a lot about your (in)ability to separate facts from fiction. HIV causes AIDS. Simple. Probably more than 99.9% of all scientists in relevant fields will agree with that (there are dissenters in every field). And yet you put your faith in Gary Null. It is exactly as stupid as the pseudoskeptics putting their faith in Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, although I must say they are far less nutty than Gary Null.
By: Marco on March 27, 2014
at 1:19 am
Have you bothered to read any articles that Gary Null has written on AIDS, or listened to any of his archive radio show that discuss the topic? How about for Dr. Wakefield, how about for corruption at the FDA? etc, etc etc. Until you open up your mind and take in some information from Null instead of believing the crap you read from quack busters, than we can’t have a reasonable discussion on this subject. Please don’t bug me again on this until you have bothered to do as I request.
By: Raymond DeBrane on March 27, 2014
at 9:54 am
Yes, I have Raymond. I do admit I never make it to the end, as they are so filled with lies, misdirections and highly questionable argumentation that the few minutes I spent were solely useful in identifying yet another crank.
I have no interest to listen to another Wakefield apologist, as I know enough about that case to know there is no defense. None.
Null shows all the symptoms of crank magnetism (let me guess, Raymond, you also believe homeopathy actually works, and that 911 was an inside job, yes?). I do not even need the information from quack busters, as I am perfectly able myself to identify quacks. Gary Null is a quack, and with some of his proposed treatments a potential danger to public health.
So, yes, no need for further discussion, since I cannot ever have a reasonable discussion with you. You’ve swallowed hook, line and sinker what Null tells you. Perhaps you should take a step back and see how several people here, notably those who do not doubt AGW is real and a potential danger, have called you out on your inability to detect nonsense. I’m not surprised you accept AGW theory, but it is easy to see that you do not accept it because your reasoning skills are very well developed…
By: Marco on March 28, 2014
at 12:05 pm
Meanwhile crazy Mark Flashdance Steyn reveals he is actually lawyered up to the hilt. Which has been obvious for a while now.
By: fitzc on March 26, 2014
at 5:20 pm
[…] No, Lambkin, you aren’t being sued for “mocking” anyone. You are being sued for falsely accusing someone of a specific criminal act. If it were possible to file a defamation suit for mere mockery without having it summarily dismissed, I would be shaking in my boots, wondering if Steyn would sue me because I mocked his explanation of the Hockey Stick, quoted above. You see, the Hockey Stick isn’t a “climate model,” and it doesn’t predict anything. I further explained, […]
By: Inspector Steyn is Looking for a Clue | Climate Asylum on June 1, 2014
at 2:06 am
“Bickmore’s Second Law of Pretending to be Scientific
People whose “arguments” mainly consist of lauding their own “BS Detectors” and throwing out innuendos are always obnoxious, and usually fools.”
So now that you’ve thrown out obnoxious innuendos comparing Steyn to a stripper (a topic about which you have a disturbingly detailed and vivid imagination), and called his fans or supporters slack-jawed yokels (cribbing from the Simpsons – nice), how soon will you self identify as a fool?
By: Jeff Cook on June 3, 2014
at 11:33 am
1. If you click on the “Mann v. National Review et al.” tab above, you will find that I have offered a number of very detailed arguments about this case, and I have never used the “argument” that I can just tell (because of my well-oiled BS Detector, or whatever) that someone else is fudging. So I don’t think it’s fair to say that my arguments “mainly” consist of that sort of thing. Actually, I don’t mind all manner of snarkiness an sarcasm, as long as one backs it up with a real argument.
2. I don’t agree that this post consists of “innuendo”. I quite straightforwardly compared the stupid plot of an entire class of B-movies to Steyn’s stupid antics. Stupid = Stupid. There’s nothing subtle about it. If you can make an argument for why a motion to dismiss based on anti-SLAPP laws, right after the judge refused to dismiss based on anti-SLAPP laws, isn’t stupid, I’d love to hear it. I note, however, that now Steyn has retained another lawyer, so perhaps even he realized that such cheap theatrics aren’t going to get the job done.
3. The Simpsons are at least as worthy as Shakespeare for the purpose of borrowing expressions.
By: Barry Bickmore on June 3, 2014
at 12:57 pm
I came across this blog late, but found it interesting that Bickmore is opposed to the following groups, as described by Mark Steyn himself: “the ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other notorious right-wing deniers all filed amici briefs opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech. They did this not because they have any great love for me, but because their antipathy to wackjob foreign blowhards is outweighed by their appreciation of the First Amendment – and an understanding of the damage a Mann victory would inflict on it.”
By: JN on September 16, 2014
at 10:51 pm
Of course every news agency opposes ANY libel suit.
By: Barry Bickmore on September 17, 2014
at 6:43 am
Rather a lot of pointless argument. Not sure why I wasted any time here other than Mark Steyn seems to have recommended it.
Acolytes of the Holy Website really don’t get it that I simply do not consider SkepticalScience to be authoritative. All books prove themselves and so, I presume, do all websites. Its approach is rude and demeaning, riddled with hubris and from that hubris a lack of interest in persuading rather than ridiculing.
Let’s consider a single example but my complaints are similar about them all: Denier says: “Climate’s changed before” Sks reply: “Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.”
Says them. No link. No explanation. No persuasion. WHY should I believe that climate, which has naturally changed for billions of years, suddenly is no longer naturally changing?
I wasn’t going to do another but look at #6: Denier says: “Models are unreliable”. SkS replies: “Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.”
Do they seriously expect me to believe this? No, they don’t — they expect their *acolytes* to believe it, and quote it, and link to it; how different is that from a religion?
How about #24: Denier says: “Extreme weather isn’t caused by global warming.” SkS says “Extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by global warming.”
SkS is mistaken. By reducing the thermal gradient from equator to pole, global warming must reduce frequency of storms and also, generally, their intensity. This is actually the only demonstrable fact (and confirms global warming by the way). SkS obviously didn’t get the scientific memo.
Since SkS is *sometimes* wrong, I do not consider it a reliable source since I don’t always know which parts are right and which parts are wrong.
It’s a *blog* for heaven’s sake. So is this one.
The way I see it, Mount Kilimanjaro still has snow, no Pacific islands have vanished, Antarctica is not yet an ice-free paradise and neither is the Arctic. While these prophecies *could* someday come to pass, that wasn’t the impression I was given so many years ago. It was imminent, it was urgent. I’m still waiting for the alternatives.
On other news…
Some fondness for a high school buddy by the name of Bickmore causes me to give this blog more notice than would otherwise be the case. He was unusually civilized and maybe it runs in the family.
By: Michael 2 on September 17, 2014
at 10:49 pm
Skeptical science is not “authoritative” but it is extremely accurate.
I know nothing on the site that is wrong, but context and and depth may not be perfect.
talking about “acolytes” and “holy website” indicates a very distorted perspective that often shows the person not interested in the facts, but trying to promote an ideological agenda
By: Tony Duncan (@tonydunc) on September 22, 2014
at 10:32 am
Denier claims climate has changed before. Says them. No link. No explanation.
Of course, I can *find* links and explanations, but if I were like Michael, I wouldn’t look, I don’t want to find them, I want to be able to claim he’s just taking things he wants on faith alone.
Denier whines “Do they seriously expect me to believe this?”, no, because they know you won’t believe anything unless it concords with your preconcieved notions, this is why you’re accurately called a denier.
In this case, too, they have explanations and links and proof. Of course, they expect you to look at it, but deniers do not. Not unless they can notice only and solely a minor mistake or caveat they can crow on about,
Denier says “By reducing the thermal gradient from equator to pole, global warming must reduce frequency of storms and also, generally, their intensity.”
Says them. No link. No explanation.
But deniers will believe what they want to believe and deny anything that doesn’t.
Hence their classification.
By: Wow on March 12, 2015
at 7:05 am
Symmetry:
“But warmists will believe what they want to believe and deny anything that doesn’t. Hence their classification.”
By: Michael 2 on March 12, 2015
at 8:41 am