This is a long story that I’ll try to make short, because I’m trying to make a single, simple point.

Years ago shock jock and right-wing political commenter Mark Steyn, using the vehicle of the conservative magazine National Review, made disparaging remarks about climate scientist Michael Mann. These remarks were viewed by Mann and others as likely libelous. It is important to note that these remarks were both systematically and coincidentally part of larger efforts to disparage climate science, and climate scientists. I won’t discuss here why anyone would do that.

A law suit ensued, and the details of that suit are complicated and beyond the scope of this blog post, and, frankly, beyond my expertise as a non-lawyer.

More recently, the United States Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, chaired by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), conducted a hearing called “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate.”

One of the witnesses called by Cruz to testify was Mark Steyn. It was not clear to me, at first, why Steyn was called as an expert witness. He is at most a political commenter, and has no verifiable expertise on climate science, or the nature of science and scientific inquiry. After reading his testimony, and seeing the hearings, however, I developed a hypothesis as to why Steyn was involved, though I’m not sure how unusual this action was, or how it could have been organized.

____________
Current and recommended books on climate change.
____________

The law suit in question is certainly an important law suit, because it speaks to how anti-science forces can be allowed, or not allowed, to attack scientists. I’m not sure what the legal ramifications of one decision or another might be. A recent similar law suit in Canada found in favor of the scientist being attacked, and that might have helped mitigate against the growing problem that young people looking into science careers must increasingly consider that they will not just be scientists, but targets of politically motivated attacks, sometimes personal.

Mark Steyn’s Racist Remarks About Two Judges

In his written Testimony, Steyn, who un ironically refers to himself as a “human rights activist” (he isn’t) takes to task Judge Natalia Combs Greene, who was on the DC Appeals court earlier in the history of the Mann law suit, using what might be considered racist code words (Note: Judge Greene is African American). He referred to the “benighted jurisdiction” in which “the case was assigned to Natalia Combs Greene, a since reprimanded landlord-and-tenant judge appointed by President Clinton…After a botched ruling in which she confused the parties, she said the case was “complicated” and shuffled it off on a colleague…”

Yes, the dog-whistles are hard to hear, but that is why we call them dog whistles. The mention of appointment of a confused, shuffling judge by a Democratic president with links to the landlord-tenant court is clear enough, though, that when Steyn then moves on to Judge Vanessa Ruiz, a hispanic judge who currently sits on the court, we can see similar echoes of intolerance and innuendo. According to Steyn’s written Congressional testimony, “Judge Ruiz is an activist judge [with] an appalling backlog of cases” and various failings. “…it may be,” he told Congress, “that the judge is just an incompetent sloth who’s spending far too much time with the Carnegie Endowment working on world peace.”

Elsewhere in the testimony, Steyn claims Judge Greene “is not competent to rule” and “Judge Vanessa Ruiz is so lethargic that … global warming will have kicked in” first. Steyn goes further to note that the issue at hand in this law suit properly belongs in what the English judge Lord Moulton referred to as the “Domain of Manners.” This is the set of social rules by which proper people, proper English people, act properly, without having to be told how to act by some judge.

It is hard to observe these comments and not come away feeling assailed by class bias, racist innuendo, and self serving biased rhetoric.

Mark Steyn’s Use Of Ted Cruz’s Congressional Committee

But, actually, I digress, because while the racist subtext is important, it is not what struck me as most odd. What struck me as odd was the apparent fact that Mark Steyn appeared before the US Congress in order to argue his side of a law suit in the Washington DC Appeals Court. I assume that to some extent members of congress have some idea of what a given witness will provide in a hearing, so a second question emerges. Did the majority in this subcommittee intentionally provide a litigant in a law suit with the opportunity to argue their case?

And Steyn does use his written and oral testimony to argue the case, in a few ways. First, he simply argues that the law suit is invalid, and in a few places, argues that people should view Dr. Mann suspiciously. In other words, he says that he, Steyn, is right, and Mann is both wrong and a bad person. Second, he argues as I note above, and in other places in the testimony, that the judges on the Appeals Court are incompetent and biased in various ways. Third, he argues that the Washington DC Appeals Court is itself a rather messed-up judicial body. He told the US Congress that he has been “ensnared in the dysfunctional court system of the District of Columbia,” which is “a sclerotic and incompetent … court system … incapable of serving the people it’s meant to serve.,” which has “feckless lethargic judges … reward serial plaintiffs for nuisance suits.” And so on.

So, here is my question. Is this normal? Do people get to argue their legal cases in front of Congress? Does Congress normally, or even occasionally, bring people in as witnesses for this purpose? Or is this simply Mark Steyn taking advantage of the odd fact that he was asked to testify as an expert in something he admitted (as part of his testimony) that he is not an expert on?

Does Mark Steyn Need Better Legal Advice?

I asked around a bit, imposing on colleagues who have some experience with congressional testimony and various legal affairs. The general consensus seems to be that while grandstanding before congress is common, arguing your legal case in this manner is not. Indeed, one lawyer told me that he would never advise a client to do what Steyn has done (or, for that matter, what he does here) while in the middle of a court case. I has also been suggested that Steyn has, perhaps, been filing his briefings in the case separately from the other defendants precisely because they do not agree with his shock-jock strategy.

Was Ted Cruz using Mark Steyn as a tool? Was Mark Steyn using the Congress of the United States of America as a tool? Either seems a possibility. My advice to both: If you are going to use a tool, try to find a sharp one.

Comments

  1. #1 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
    December 22, 2015

    The entire freak show made no sense; it accomplished nothing of value to science, to human knowledge, to law and order, to policy…. it would have had equal import if the farce had been performed in a dimly lit pub in Burro Alley, among opium eaters, between dog acts.

  2. #2 @nicole473
    Mars
    December 22, 2015

    Steyn is completely despicable, as are most members of our RWNJ Congress.
    What these people have done re Dr. Mann is beyond horrific, and it makes me fear for the future of scientific inquiry.

  3. #3 Greg Laden
    December 22, 2015

    Dog acts or dog fights?

  4. #4 Joe
    Earth
    December 22, 2015

    It’s possible he’s trying to immunize his defamatory statements against future legal attacks by making them in a “privileged” venue–i.e. A congressional hearing.

  5. #5 Rich Horton
    December 22, 2015

    I must say, and you can trust me as I am an expert in diagnosing such conditions, you are an idiot.

  6. #6 See Noevo
    December 22, 2015

    “It is hard to observe these comments and not come away feeling assailed by class bias, racist innuendo, and self serving biased rhetoric.”

    Greg, if you’ve recovered from your feeling of being assailed, could you help me understand your dog whistle translation mechanism?
    I’m trying to see (or hear) the class bias and racist innuendo in Steyns words.

  7. #7 Brainstorms
    December 22, 2015

    Yes, Mark Steyn is definitely an idiot.

  8. #8 See Noevo
    December 22, 2015

    Congress might actually have a fairly long history of allowing non-experts to testify before it.
    A quick Google found this.
    (I think Christie Brinkley really stands out.)
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/2015/05/11/20-celebrities-who-testified-before-congress

  9. #9 Rattus Norvegicus
    December 22, 2015

    Isn’t Steyn pro-se?

  10. #10 David Appell
    United States
    December 22, 2015

    Simple answer – Mark Steyn isn’t interested in legal strategy, he’s interested in selling books, and so on getting on TV/radio as much as possible.

    Rush Limbaugh also doesn’t rely on being right. He relies on being controversial. He gets more attention for the dumb things he says than he ever would for saying truthful things.

    Steyn is a Limbaugh-era hack willing to debase himself on the low road for whatever personal ($) benefits he can find.

  11. #11 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 22, 2015

    The new normal in the Trumpiverse. Blovirrhea 24/7.

  12. #12 MikeN
    December 23, 2015

    Better legal advice? The idea that he should stop talking about it in the middle of the court case makes sense, but the case has been going on for four years and shows no sign of ending. Is it appropriate for commenters to be forced into silence because someone filed a lawsuit? At what point would it be appropriate to again comment about Michael Mann?

  13. #13 MikeN
    December 23, 2015

    Mark Steyn is a human rights activist, and under the standards of litigation that Michael Mann is seeking to impose on the country, you could find yourself in court for saying that Mark Steyn is not.

  14. #14 Hyperbole Tweets
    December 23, 2015

    Greg is calling Twitter skeptics “flying monkeys” with something about Steyn’s ass:

    https://twitter.com/gregladen/status/679531273711271940

  15. #15 James Mayeau
    December 23, 2015

    As I remember it, the New York Times and Washington Post joined Mark Steyn’s side, because if Michael Mann’s litigation were to become the standard for defamation journalism would cease to exist .
    Freedom of speech would cease to exist.

    Saying Michael Mann found cover under the same regime that would cover for serial pedophiles – which is true – would be grounds for a lawfare, and the guy with the deepest pockets would win every time.

    Penn State is so well endowed (talking about the money, not the other thing.), the truth no longer matters.

    That’s the legal standard you are advocating for Laden. I have to agree with the expert witness at #5.

    You are an idiot.

  16. #16 Russell Seitz
    December 23, 2015

    Don’t go all Cartwiright on us Greg–

    If we forget that this is a comedy of manners, or the lack of them. only the blowhardists will win.

  17. #17 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    Freedom of speech would cease to exist.

    What utter rubbish.

  18. #18 StevoR
    Adelaide Hills, South Australia
    December 23, 2015

    “Elsewhere in the testimony, Steyn claims Judge Greene “is not competent to rule” and “Judge Vanessa Ruiz is so lethargic that … global warming will have kicked in” first. “

    Er, hasn’t Steyn just thereby destroyed his own “argument” that, y’know that stuff ain’t real despite,well, all the scientific evidence otherwise?

    Mark Steyn, what a douche.

  19. #19 StevoR
    December 23, 2015

    @13. MikeN : Citation. Seriously. Required. there dude.

  20. #20 StevoR
    December 23, 2015

    @5. Rich Horton : For clarity here you did mean Steyn there right?

  21. #21 Useless Eater
    December 23, 2015

    Speaking of biased, self serving rhetoric, you sir epitomize that description. What a joke you are.

  22. #22 Jinx Thinks
    California
    December 23, 2015

    If the science is correct why sue a person who disagrees with your Opinion. I was an environmental engineer for 30 + years. I relied on data not feelings. When a few scientists who rely on global warming for their paychecks I throw that OPINION out. When I did studies I usually threw out the two ends of the data, high and low. If one does that and checks satellite data, global warming is within statistical devences. I am by the by a scientist. Now I am sure I will be attacked for spelling or some such I don’t care, study study study and the truth will out.

  23. #23 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    Mann is not suing steyn because he disagrees with his opinion. That is pure ignorance of the matter. Mann is suing steyn because steyn alleged that mann committed fraud when every single investigation into Mann’s work has shown that he hasnt. Steyn is aware of these investigations and their conclusions, so to know of them and still allege fraud is libelous. That’s what this is about. If you think it’s about a disagreement of opinions, then please kindly articulate what these opinions are.

  24. #24 StevoR
    December 23, 2015

    @21. Useless Eater : Who are there?

    If Steyn we agree – if not, not so much. Clarification please?

  25. #25 MikeP
    December 23, 2015

    cabc…..you need to go back and read what Steyn wrote. No where did he accuse Mann of committing fraud. He called the ‘hockey stick’ fraudulent, which many others have stated previously. Steyn himself has collected extensive public comments from notable scientists regarding the very questionable manipulations of the data sets to show a specific outcome.. Ultimately, fraud and fraudulent are two different words, with different legal meanings. Mann’s lawsuit is frivolous and opened the door for Steyn’s countersuit, which Mann appears to be desperately trying to delay facing for as long as possible. Mann made a habit of suing critics and whatever side you fall onto in this whole kerfuffle, it should be blatantly obvious that Mann made a very bad decision in suing Steyn.

  26. #26 flyguy
    ointment
    December 23, 2015

    Unlike out “benighted” pasty-white Canadian friends to the north, we have 10 things not up for a vote in the US: the Bill of Rights.

  27. #27 Jim O'Sullivan
    New York
    December 23, 2015

    “. . . the details of that suit are complicated and beyond the scope of this blog post, and, frankly, beyond my expertise as a non-lawyer ”
    If it’s beyond the scope of this blog post, why devote this blog post to it? Especially since it’s painfully obvious that, yes, the topic is beyond your expertise.

  28. #28 Allen
    Atlanta
    December 23, 2015

    Forgetting for a moment the substance of this debate, I’ll say that I find it more than troubling that there is not a single mention of the 1st Amendment in either the piece above or the comments below it.

  29. #29 StevoR
    December 23, 2015

    @22. Jinx Thinks :

    I won’t attack your spellings. FSM knows I suck so bad at typing myslef. (Among all too many other words!)

    But evidence and citations and reasons to think you are right instead of, y’know 98% of the experts in the field -that would be required and I don’t think has been provided by you yet.

    Y’wanna remedy that please and back up what you say with actual evidence thanks?

    Flip, I’ll even make it easy for ya – just complete the following sentence for us please then go collect your Nobel prize in physics :

    I don’t agree with virtually every climate expert on the globe because of __________________ which shows ______________ is really responsible instead / or /& ______ and my convincing evidence for this is _________ . Plus the scientists who have dedicated countless years of effort to observing and measuring and understanding using a vast array of different methodologies and multiple lines of evidence and approaches overlooked this point here that ____________ is really true because ___________.

    Go on, sure can fill in those blanks! Oh wait, no I’m not. Quite the reverse really. But do try to prove me wrong if you can please.

  30. #30 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    Lots of ad hominem from the claque but nothing of substance on the odoriferous way in which Steyn used his Congressional testimony for special pleading. Or the way that the opportunity for him to do so was set up, and why.

  31. #31 AnGiogoir
    Ireland
    December 23, 2015

    Regarding your dog-whistle accusation.
    Mr. Steyn was commenting on the shambolic handling of his free speech case by the judge. Your attempt to assign a racist motivation to his commentary is bizarre and even laughable.

  32. #32 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    Ultimately, fraud and fraudulent are two different words, with different legal meanings.

    Rubbish.

    You are invited to provide links to legal references in support of this nonsense.

  33. #33 StevoR
    December 23, 2015

    @25. MikeP : “it should be blatantly obvious that Mann made a very bad decision in suing Steyn.”

    I think a court is just about to prove you wrong – for a certain value of “just about” given the glacial pace of “justice” here..

    Mind you, one thing is beyond all doubt and that is that Mann is about a umpteen zillion times the scientist that Steyn ever was or could claim to be. Based on, y’know who each man really is.

  34. #34 Pete Freans
    December 23, 2015

    Steyn’s involvement in challenging climate science is based on his argument that your discipline has been poisoned by politics, progressive ideologies, and money. I don’t believe he has ever claimed to be a scientist. As such, he has complied two books worth of climate scientists who disagree with your assessments on climate change. Nevertheless, your position as a scientist grants you no greater protection from critical speech than any ordinary citizen. The attempts to use the courts and government to silence critics (as many climate scientist advocate) is chilling in the classic Orwellian sense.

  35. #35 dean
    United States
    December 23, 2015

    sn doesn’t see the ugliness of steyn’s comments, but since he’s said Neil Degrasse Tyson has an “Affirmative action Ph.D.” and “I think of Neil Degrasse Tyson as science’s Al Sharpton” (and has said even more disturbing things about the poor, handicapped, women, and others) it isn’t the fact that steyn’s comments lacked the dog whistle, it’s that sn is such a disgusting person he doesn’t care.

    I relied on data not feelings. When a few scientists who rely on global warming for their paychecks I throw that OPINION out.

    When you refer to scientists doing this for money are you are not relying on evidence but on your own ignorant belief of the myth that thousands of scientists around the world are getting rich from their research. That’s an opinion, not data.

    When I did studies I usually threw out the two ends of the data, high and low.

    Throwing out measurements simply because you don’t like them, or to obtain an analysis result that you like, is one of the first things we teach not to do in freshman statistics. Michigan’s DEQ did this with water quality readings in Flint – tossed out enough readings until they got readings for lead content that were low enough to be acceptable. It’s a sign of ignorance, dishonesty, and all around shitty knowledge. And here you admit it. You’re a scientist? No, you are a charlatan.

  36. #36 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    @MikeP
    Steyn wrote that Mann “has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science”. If you don’t think that statement is an allegation of fraud, would you kindly give me an example of a statement that is?

  37. #37 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, Austrailia
    December 23, 2015

    MikeP: “No where did he accuse Mann of committing fraud”

    Okay, I give up. Please explain to us why two judges and one appeals court have said Steyn did accuse Dr. Mann of fraud. Is the USA court system socialist communist lap-dog liberal Obama lovers?

  38. #38 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
    December 23, 2015

    Allen: “Forgetting for a moment the substance of this debate, I’ll say that I find it more than troubling that there is not a single mention of the 1st Amendment in either the piece above or the comments below it.”

    No one mentioned the 13th Amendment either; do you find that troubling? The 4th Amendment also was not mentioned. And the 3rd.

  39. #39 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    Pete Freans

    your position as a scientist grants you no greater protection from critical speech than any ordinary citizen.

    As Steyn may soon discover, there is no legal distinction between a scientist and an ordinary citizen relevant here. Both are protected alike from libel.

    The attempts to use the courts and government to silence critics (as many climate scientist advocate) is chilling in the classic Orwellian sense.

    Since suing for *libel* in no way silences any substantive criticism of climate science your invocation of Orwell is self-serving rhetoric.

  40. #40 Desertphile
    Anywhere but Earth
    December 23, 2015

    Pete Freans: “Steyn’s involvement in challenging climate science is based on his argument that your discipline has been poisoned by politics, progressive ideologies, and money.”

    The same is true of believe who believe Earth is flat. It also applies to people who believe they are being fumigated by CHEMTRAILS. =SHRUG!= Steyn has not been able to produce any evidence for his paranoid alarmist conspiracy idiation.

    “As such, he has complied two books worth of climate scientists who disagree with your assessments on climate change.”

    No.

  41. #41 MikeP
    December 23, 2015

    bbd, #32.
    consult a dictionary.
    Fraud is a noun with specific legal associations.
    Fraudulent is an adjective with both legal association as well as broader common usage. An act of fraud is a fraudulent act, but it is not legally true that a fraudulent act is an act of fraud.
    Common usage of the word fraudulent is most similar to the word, deceptive.

    It is fraudulent to continue to state that Steyn accused Mann of fraud.

    This is why most media organizations are backing Steyn. If his language was clearly libelous, they would not be doing so.

  42. #42 MikeP
    December 23, 2015

    Desertphile, #37.
    The courts have not ruled on this at all yet.

  43. #43 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    @MikeP
    What would steyn have to say about Mann to fit your understanding of what constitutes an allegation of fraud?

  44. #44 MikeP
    December 23, 2015

    cabc, #37
    An example of an allegation of fraud would be to say “Dr. Maxx selectively plotted data to support a trendline for the sole purpose of securing research grants.”

    The colorful comparison to Sandusky vile acts is over-the-top, but is not a direct accusation of fraud. Libel and defamation laws have a very high hurdle and it seems next to impossible that Mann’s lawsuit will meet with success.

  45. #45 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 23, 2015

    Yeah, ‘fraudulent’ can mean ‘fraud-like’. It depends on context and deeper reading.

    Awaiting MikeP’s response to #36…

  46. #46 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 23, 2015

    Never mind me @45.

    MP, So you’re saying the legal standard requires a higher level of specificity? Sounds dodgy…

  47. #47 JACK WALTERS
    Dallas
    December 23, 2015

    I see many problems with Michael Mann’s suing people to avoid disclosing his observational meta data; eliminating the well known medieval warm period to fit his hypothesis (notice I didn’t say “settled science”); and bullying his climate colleagues (read those climategate e-mails and try to tell me he wasn’t pushing those with skeptical comments to hide the decline). Since the likes of NY Times, Washington Post, NBC and typical left leaning “green” press giants filed amicus briefs in support of the 1st amendment and Steyn, I do think that this is also a First Amendment issue. I also believe that Steyn will find no shortage of Ivy League and other top scientists ready to testify on his behalf against one of the least liked scientists in the country. But how about a bit of levity surrounding this: http://linkis.com/www.youtube.com/0fTON

  48. #48 A.clark141
    December 23, 2015

    You’re all coming here judging mark even though he is quite correct. As for dog whistling, that sounds like some kind of mental disorder to me, no such thing, perhaps you side with the lunatics over at black lives matter, but sanity says otherwise.

  49. #49 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    MikeP, you still aren’t getting it. It’s not about the Sandusky comparison. It’s about the statement that Mann “has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science”. Is this not an allegation of fraud? If I said that Roy Spencer molested and tortured satellite data to fit his views on global warming, would you honestly not interpret that as me calling Spencer a fraud?

  50. #50 MikeP
    December 23, 2015

    Absolutely requires a higher level specificity.
    Particularly when involving ‘journalists and other commentators” with public personalities…..which Mann is when he started on the lecture/public speaking circuits, TV, and other gigs.

  51. #51 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    Jack Walters
    Every single large scale reconstruction done to date has confirmed the conclusions of Mann’s various hockey sticks. They all show late twentieth century warmth is unprecedented in the timespans that they cover and they all show that the medieval climate anomaly was not warmer than present. The most recent and most comprehensive reconstruction ever done, the pages 2k reconstruction, shows this as well.

  52. #52 MikeP
    December 23, 2015

    cabc, #49. I think we’re talking across each other.

    The “tortured” line directly followed a “like Sandusky…” in Steyn’s comments. He was colorfully comparing the two.
    But its my understanding that the issue in question isn’t that statement, but rather the other “the man behind the fraudulent ‘hockey-stick'” statement that is the crux of the suit.

  53. #53 Desertphile
    Anywhere but Earth
    December 23, 2015

    JACK WALTERS: “I see many problems with Michael Mann’s suing people to avoid disclosing his observational meta data….”

    Er.. ah… as soon as Dr. Mann does that, do complain to someone, m’kay? Thanks.

  54. #54 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    So steyn is saying Mann’s work is fraudulent but he isn’t a fraud? Since the hockey stick has been shown to not be fraudulent, a reasonable person would conclude that that statement bears a reckless disregard for the truth. And a reckless disregard for the truth is partly what this lawsuit is about.

  55. #55 Dave L
    December 23, 2015

    I tweeted you that climate science was today political and not scientific. You responded by blocking me adding me to a list of “deniers,” illustrating just what I said.

  56. #56 Lennard
    December 23, 2015

    It is not only Steyn that has a low opinion of Judge Combs Greene –

    http://www.therobingroom.com/dc/Judge.aspx?ID=3789

  57. #57 dean
    December 23, 2015

    “perhaps you side with the lunatics over at black lives matter”

    Or, more likely, you are one of the people all too willing to misrepresent the point of that campaign.

  58. #58 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    What aspect of climate science, specifically, isn’t scientific?

  59. #59 dean
    United States
    December 23, 2015

    I tweeted you that climate science was today political and not scientific.

    That very clearly identifies you as a denier. Apparently not only do you fail at your understanding of science you have a weak grasp of English.

  60. #60 Russell Seitz
    December 23, 2015

    25

    Mike P, Steyn stands out as a stand- up comic & cabaret singer who scarcely knows the difference between crap and crapulent , witness this performance

    That has not stopped him from advancing the cause of civil liberty in Canada by vigorously contesting PC attacks on free speech: justice cares not who seeks it.

  61. #61 Pouncer
    December 23, 2015

    Cabc: “What aspect of climate science, specifically, isn’t scientific?”

    The part where the people paid to study that science claim the privilege to re-order the political priorities of every other scientist of every other discipline on the planet and for the next century.

    It is as if those who studied the settled science of human “eugenics” in the early 20th century, who showed how failed mongrel races were breeding faster than the pure stock of western cultures, had been allowed to decide who –by race — would serve in what branches of the military, or work in what physics labs, and who else — again by race or even physical evidence cultural practices such as pierced ears or penile circumcision — would and should be assigned to work themselves to death in labor camps.

    I note Steyn seems to have a very 1930’s view of human demographics, migrations, and economic impacts that is quite in line with the best eugenics scientists’ views of that long gone era.

    Nobody, to my knowledge, came along and proved the science of eugenics “wrong”. What we decided, after the horrors of the so-called “final solution”, what that scientists should NOT be privileged to make political decisions of this sort.

    If the climate scientists truly believed that carbon dioxide emissions endangered all life on this planet, they might reasonably conclude that carpet bombing coal-fired electrical generating plants in China and India would be necessary and beneficial ways to reduce such emissions. And they would be correct, insofar as their narrow view of the world ONLY in terms of CO2 and climate science goes. But allowing one factor in a complex and chaotic calculation to “predict” the entire outcome is both politically unwise, and generally unscientific.

  62. #62 dean
    United States
    December 23, 2015

    The part where the people paid to study that science claim the privilege to re-order the political priorities of every other scientist of every other discipline on the planet and for the next century.

    Gosh, it is a very good thing the only place that happens is deep in the feverish minds of anti-science conspiracy theorists.

  63. #63 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 23, 2015

    MP,

    Questionable. You could no doubt come up with a list of sentences saying essentially the same thing, with varying degrees of specificity, color, distraction or whatnot; and all of them, some of them, or none of them would be actionable depending on context.

    I think, and this is just from my personal (not legal) perspective, that what is going on here is the vanishingly small Overton window on what is unacceptable for right wing wind bags to spew. No doubt some of it is unconscious and some is purposefully driven by propaganda. In any event, the issue seems to be, did Steyn jump the gun and cross the line before the public, at all levels, has been sufficiently stupefied to let it pass.

  64. #64 aelfheld
    Texas
    December 23, 2015

    There are more errors of fact and logic in this ‘piece’ than can be addressed in such a limited forum.

    But to point out a few of the more egregious bits of nonsense . . .

    If Mann’s lawsuit is so important why is he so reluctant to go to trial? He’s had every opportunity – Steyn having severed his case from those named in Mann’s initial (and fraudulent) filing – yet has made no effort to proceed to trial.

    The attempt to attribute racism to Steyn’s comments about the evidently incompetent Natalia Combs Greene and Vanessa Ruiz would be pathetic if it weren’t so risible. The only thing anyone reading this feels ‘assailed by’ is idiocy married to a hyper-sensitivity that would make a Yale undergraduate blush.

    It should be noted that Steyn has had no need or cause to amend his filings, whereas Michael Mann has had to do just that.

    Science depends on the integrity of both the underlying information and the integrity of the researcher. Mann’s data is scant & irreproducible; his claiming of a Nobel Peace Prize, even after being told to desist by the Nobel Committee, demonstrates a lack probity that taints his work and his acquaintances.

  65. #65 dhogaza
    December 23, 2015

    aelfheld:

    “Mann’s data is scant & irreproducible”

    A clear sign that someone doesn’t know WTF they’re talking about are the two words “Mann’s data”.

    Mann’s various reconstructions are based on other people’s data, so it’s not “Mann’s data”. And that data is as available to you as it is to Mann …

  66. #66 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    “The part where the people paid to study that science claim the privilege to re-order the political priorities of every other scientist of every other discipline on the planet and for the next century.”

    How about a little me on the specifics and a little less on the hyperbolic nonsense? And a diatribe about eugenics? Seriously?

    I’ll make it easy for you
    Are temperature measurements unscientific?
    Are forcing calculations unscientific?
    Are climate measuring instruments unscientific?
    Are attribution studies unscientific?
    Are paleoclimate reconstructions unscientific?
    Is the understanding of greenhouse gasses and their interactions with longwave radiation unscientific?

    That’s what I was getting at when I asked the question.

  67. #67 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    #41 Mike P

    consult a dictionary.

    I did. I then asked you to link to legal definitions that supported your incorrect assertions. You did not do this, but simply repeated yourself, confirming that you are both wrong and acting in bad faith.

    Thank you.

  68. #68 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    The only person who has attempted to delay this trial is steyn. Mann has been quite eager to proceed. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

  69. #69 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    How can you claim Mann’s work is irreproducible when every large scale reconstruction done to date has produced the same result?

  70. #70 Pete Freans
    December 23, 2015

    @BBD You are quite correct on the law of defamation. Of course your entire argument is premised on Steyn’s commentary being not “substantive”, which is not the legal standard to defending libel (my suggestion is you review the defenses to libel; you are overestimating the strength of Mann’s claim). But I will play the game of what is substantive criticism and what is not. Maybe you can give me an example of what is substantive criticism? My guess is that there isn’t any.

  71. #71 Brainstorms
    December 23, 2015

    When Truth and Reality threaten to impact people’s lifestyles and pocketbooks…

    …Truth and Reality will be attacked. Relentlessly.

    By fools.

  72. #72 Pete Freans
    December 23, 2015

    @Desertphile 1. “Clinate Change: The Facts” 2. “A Disgrace to the Profession”.

    So, yes.

  73. #73 Art
    December 23, 2015

    “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”

    Cruz and Steyn don’t have the facts on their side. The reason they go after the judges and claim they are not competent to rule is that the law isn’t on their side. Which leaves ‘pounding the table’.

    If you want to pound the table for maximum effect you need a professional table pounder and a really resonate table to pound on. Both are found in the US congress.

    This was the methodology of Eugene McCathy and the Red Scare. McCarthy didn’t really have the legal authority to get people fired or black listed. By the shear power of baseless assertion on national TV in a well orchestrated show, really world-class table pounding, he was able to destroy lives and warp the national consciousness. A result far beyond what his position as senator would otherwise allow.

    By discounting the judicial process and getting it into Congress they are effectively doing what any good commander does, chose the time and place of the battle. I doubt the climate issue is the main event for Cruz, likely this is rehearsal for what Cruz sees as more important issues, like advancing the career of Cruz. It may be a hint of things to come.

    Cruz seems to picture himself as McCarthy with much larger built in audience and more rhetorical skill. He can bring the evangelical, Tea Party, and Trumps followings together and form a coalition.

    He looks to be positioned to do it by using McCarthy’s heartless and underhanded tactics of vilification and alienation together with the passion and assurance that God is on your side from his father’s holy rolling.

    I picture it a chimera with Trump, Gríma Wormtongue, and John Hagee combined. It is all about learning to lie more effectively.

  74. #74 Narad
    December 23, 2015

    The law suit in question is certainly an important law suit, because it speaks to how anti-science forces can be allowed, or not allowed, to attack scientists.

    The only important thing about this is whether anti-SLAPP losses can be immediately appealed. The rest is a garden-variety defamation suit.

    @James Mayeau:

    As I remember it, the New York Times and Washington Post joined Mark Steyn’s side, because if Michael Mann’s litigation were to become the standard for defamation journalism would cease to exist .

    You remember quite incorrectly. The five amicus briefs (plus Steyn’s) were about the anti-SLAPP appeal, to which Steyn is not a party.

  75. #75 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    #70 Pete Freans

    Of course your entire argument is premised on Steyn’s commentary being not “substantive”, which is not the legal standard to defending libel

    No, this is incorrect. The argument here is that there is a clear distinction between what is libelous (untrue) and what is substantive (correct, evidentially supported etc).

    The contention here is that Steyn crossed the line from substantive into libelous. The argument about free speech is irrelevant because substantive argument is protected by the First Amendment, whereas libel is not.

  76. #76 Magma
    December 23, 2015

    I see Steyn’s fans have made this a rather active forum. To address the only point of interest any of them have raised, various media organizations did file an amici curiae brief advocating that Mann’s suit be dismissed.

    In my opinion the organizations muddled the separate issues of scientific debate and personal defamation, added some misplaced concern for First Amendment rights and topped it off with a large helping of pure self-interest in wishing to keep the bar raised high on publishers’ responsibility for libelous statements.

    As for Mann’s lawsuit against Steyn and other parties, it is an action against defamatory statements directed against Mann. It is not an attempt to shut down scientific debate, in which neither high-school dropout Mark Steyn or co-defendant Rand Simberg carry any weight at all. Accusing a scientific researcher of committing fraud is every bit as professionally damaging as accusing a journalist of plagiarism or fabricating stories, a judge of taking bribes or a prosecutor or attorney of suborning perjury. Such acts, if proven, can end careers or even lead to prison sentences.

    For those unfamiliar with how seriously news organizations have traditionally dealt with cases of plagiarism or fabrication, here is a U.S.-centric list of recent instances: http://catalog.freedomforum.org/FFLib/JournalistScandals.htm

  77. #77 Brian Schmidt
    United States
    December 23, 2015

    Steyn’s fans are ignoring his actual statements, as can be seen by their failure to actually quote him. Below is what he actually said (quoted in the first sentence) with the rest being what the judge had to say about it. Armchair lawyers seem to doubt this, but it sounds pretty reasonable to me.

    “The statement “he has molested and tortured data” could easily be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff distorted, manipulated, or misrepresented his data. Certainly the statement is capable of a defamatory meaning, which means the questions of whether it was false and made with “actual malice” are questions of fact for the jury. A reasonable reader, both within and outside the scientific community, would understand that a scientist who molests or tortures his data is acting far outside the bounds of any acceptable scientific method. In context, it would not be unreasonable for a reader to interpret the comment, and the republication in National Review, as an allegation that Dr. Mann had committed scientific fraud, which Penn State University then covered up, just as some had accused the University of covering up the Sandusky scandal. For many of the reasons discussed in Judge Combs Greene’s July 19 orders, to state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation.”

    —–
    The Sandusky analogy is additionally relevant to whether Steyn acted with malice, the extent of reputational harm Steyn was attempting to inflict, and whether punitive damages are appropriate.

  78. #78 Magma
    December 23, 2015

    @ Brian Schmidt: without getting into the specifics of Mann v. Steyn et al. (i.e., keep it general) if Mann wins his suit can Steyn’s multiple online comments and posts made *after* the original allegedly defamatory statements be used to assess malice, harm and damages?

    Saying that Steyn has doubled down on his personal attacks on Mann since the lawsuit was filed doesn’t come close to describing his actions.

  79. #79 RickA
    United States
    December 23, 2015

    Greg:

    1. Of course Cruz was using Steyn – that is what hearing are for.

    2. Of course Steyn can offer his opinion about the court case (whether it is advisable or not).

    3. The court case is a joke – we are waiting for an appeal which will probably say – yes you can appeal a denial of a slap dismissal – but which says nothing about the merits of the case.

    4. I suggest we wait and see if the entire case is dismissed or not – and wait until we get to summary judgment to see whether Mann’s claims have merit or not.

    I predict that Steyn will prevail, for two reasons.

    1. His piece was pure opinion, and opinion can be libel.
    2. Truth is a defense and Mann did torture and molest the data.

  80. #80 RickA
    December 23, 2015

    “opinion cannot be libel”

  81. #81 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    Stating that Mann’s hockey stick is fraudulent and that mann molests and tortures data for political reasons is a statement of fact, something that could be verified as being true or not, not an opinion. Since mann hasn’t been found guilty of fraud, and since his work has not been found to be fraudulent, and since steyn knows this, I don’t know what leg steyn hopes to stand on.

  82. #82 Magma
    December 23, 2015

    @ RickA

    I normally avoid wasting my time replying to comments like yours, but this will be quick.

    1. A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.
    2. Don’t give up your day job.

  83. #83 RickA
    December 23, 2015

    cabc #81:

    How would you verify whether mann molests and tortures data?

    This is clearly an opinion.

    Even if the court were to find this is a statement of fact (which I doubt will be the case) – it is true.

    Read climate audit for Mann’s data handling.

    Look up how he handled the R2 statistic.

    Look up how he censored data.

    Look up how he de-centered data.

    Look up how he arrived at 2 (or was it 3?) for his number of components in his principal components analysis (PCA).

    Look at how he used data upside down.

    Any reasonable person can look at the data manipulation Mann did and arrive at the conclusion that he was creating propaganda to advance his activism – which means he tortured and molested data.

    This means the statement of fact (which is really an opinion) is not false – and therefore no libel.

  84. #84 RickA
    December 23, 2015

    magma #82:

    Maybe Steyn is a fool then (although he does have his own lawyer). So what?

    I have not given up my day job.

    Thank you for your concern.

  85. #85 Rob Honeycutt
    skepticalscience.com
    December 23, 2015

    I find it interesting when Steyn and his minions claim this case could be a significant blow to free speech. If Steyn prevails I’m rather concerned that free speech will be irreparable harmed!

    There are clear limits to free speech, and for good reason. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater because of the harm it could do to others. Steyn is essentially arguing that he has the right to yell “fire” anywhere he damn well likes.

    Key to this case is the idea of “reckless disregard for the truth.” It is abundantly clear that Steyn has chosen to ignore mountains of information showing that Mann’s research is, in fact, correct. Dr. Mann is a good researcher, well respected by his peers, and has produced a significant body of important work related to climate change.

    What would it mean for free speech if it enables people to completely disregard reality? Speech becomes meaningless if it’s not somehow based in the real world on some level. The first amendment becomes meaningless if speech becomes a weapon to destroy those you don’t like without regard for facts.

  86. #86 RickA
    December 23, 2015

    Rob #85:

    Saying someones graph is fraudulent is not the same thing as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

    Maybe you should take your issues with free speech up with flat earthers or truthers or 911 conspiracy buffs. Most people would say they all deny reality – yet they can still speak their opinion.

    I hear some people think floride in water is bad – maybe you would ban their speech?

    I hear some people think vaccines cause autism – maybe you would ban their speech?

    One persons reality is quite often just an opinion to another person.

    For example, I live in the greatest country on the face of the planet.

    Other people from other countries might disagree.

  87. #87 RickA
    December 23, 2015

    Magma #78:

    No.

    Mann would have to amend his complaint or file a new lawsuit to complain of more statements made post-filing.

  88. #88 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    ‘Yes but free speech’ is a popular card in the victim-player’s hand.

  89. #89 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    Saying someones graph is fraudulent is not the same thing as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

    But it may well prove to be libelous.

  90. #90 RickA
    December 23, 2015

    BBD #89:

    Or not – we will have to wait to see.

  91. #91 Desertphile
    Vote for Donald Trump! We need a wall between Canada and the USA!
    December 23, 2015

    Dave L: “I tweeted you that climate science was today political and not scientific.”

    Climate science today is political and not scientific only to non-scientists, and only in the USA. You and your cult are to blame. If you object to science being politicized, STOP DOING IT.

  92. #92 Greg Laden
    December 23, 2015

    “Saying someones graph is fraudulent is not the same thing as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.”

    Making the claim that a person committed fraud, when you are wrong (and Steyn is wrong) is not exactly the same thing as yelling “fire” (when there is no fire) in a crowded movie theater. But both are inappropriate.

  93. #93 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    RickA
    And I encourage you to read deep climate, tamino, real climate for a thorough demolishing of McIntyre. To answer your question, I base whether or not Mann molests and tortures data on what formal investigations into his work have found, as opposed to the opinions of a mining executive. What do you imagine a court would look at? Formal investigations or the musings of an amateur blogger?

  94. #94 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    I was trying to stay out of this one, because Steyn’s position — i.e., the correct, sane position, has been well-represented by other posters. But, when I see the old “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater'” cliche, I just couldn’t hold back.

    Rob Honeycutt, your use of that phrase is so misguided it beggars belief. Since when can’t you yell “fire” in a crowded theater. In fact, I would argue if there was a fire in the theater, not only can you yell fire, but you have a moral obligation to do so.

    And, I would suggest, that moral obligation applies if you honestly and reasonably believe there is a fire, but it turns out no fire existed (the old “better safe then sorry”).

    What you can’t do is FALSELY yell fire in a crowded theater, if you know there is no fire.

    So, extending the analogy to this case: Steyn honestly and reasonably believe Mann manipulated the data (remember, it was Rand Simburg who said Mann “tortured and molested data;” Steyn said he would not have used the Sandusky metaphor), and Steyn further believes that an institution that did a sham investigation of a star faculty member accused of systemic rape of young boys is likely to do a sham investigation of another star faculty member accused of academic dishonesty.

    You can agree with Steyn, as do many notable climate scientists, including those who believe in man-made climate change. You can disagree with Steyn, as I many scientists do.

    But, what you cannot do, in a free society, is take away Steyn’s right to make that statement via criminal or civil penalties

    So, please, stop with the lame “can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” malarky, as it makes you look completely ignorant of the legal issues at hand.

  95. #95 Desertphile
    In a hand basket, going some where
    December 23, 2015

    cabc: “What aspect of climate science, specifically, isn’t scientific?”

    The parts that conflict with the interests of the fabulously wealthy, and their employees in Congress.

  96. #96 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    Greg: Is it wrong to yell fire in a crowded theater if you honestly believe there is a fire, but it later turns out there is none?

    Again, we get back to Mann’s (almost) impossible burden: to show Steyn KNOWINGLY made false statements about Mann (and, because Mann is a public figure, such statements must have had a malicious intent).

    Why do you think Steyn published the book and appeared at the hearing with other notable scientists? To make the obvious point that Steyn,as a layperson, can rely on the opinions of scientists who disagree with Mann and question Mann’s scientific methods.

    Those scientists upon whom Steyn relies might be wrong, they might be right. But Steyn is certainly free to think — and say — whose side he is on…

  97. #97 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    RickA

    As for millennial climate reconstructions – come on. MBH 98 / 99 were ground-breaking and inevitably imperfect but by no means ‘wrong’. Millennial climate change is suggestive of at least moderately high sensitivity to radiative perturbation, and quite strongly suggestive that human activity has had a significant effect on GAT since ~1850.

  98. #98 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    “Steyn honestly and reasonably believe Mann manipulated the data”

    But investigations into his work found that to be incorrect. Steyn is aware of this but said what he said anyway. That’s where reckless disregard for the truth comes into play.

  99. #99 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    Dan

    You can agree with Steyn, as do many notable climate scientists, including those who believe in man-made climate change.

    You go too far. See #97. And quote-mining as Steyn has done with his books does not constitute evidence of the strength you imply.

  100. #100 RickA
    United States
    December 23, 2015

    Greg #92:

    You said “But both are inappropriate.”

    Maybe so.

    You are entitled to your opinion.

    Steyn is entitled to his.

    Remember – Steyn didn’t say Mann was a fraud – he (paraphrasing) said Mann’s hockey stick graph was fraudulent. Even if you don’t agree that is very different – it is not the same thing.

    cabc #93 – you said “What do you imagine a court would look at? ”

    The court will look at what Steyn said. If the case goes to the jury – 12 (or 9 – it depends on the jurisdiction) random people will decide whether it is opinion or a statement of fact, if a statement of fact, false and if false, said with malice.

    If you think the non-investigations of Mann will have any bearing on this case you are sadly mistaken.

  101. #101 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    Jack Walters: You are absolutely right, and Steyn already has found Ivy League and other top scientists who will testify on his behalf. Two of them appeared at the hearing: Dr. Judith Curry, and the other gentleman who is a professor at Princeton.(I believe his name is Dr. Happer, but I could be wrong).

    If you buy Steyn’s book, the list of those scientists who believe Mann is a joke and (dare I say) a fraud is a long list indeed. Notably, a good portion of that list actually disagrees with Steyn and Curry, et. al, re: climate change. That is, they believe climate change exists, and that humans are playing a big role.

    However, they still think Mann’s research is suspect and (what is that word, again?) fraudulent…

  102. #102 Christopher Winter
    December 23, 2015

    Pete Freans (#34): Steyn’s involvement in challenging climate science is based on his argument that your discipline has been poisoned by politics, progressive ideologies, and money. I don’t believe he has ever claimed to be a scientist. As such, he has complied two books worth of climate scientists who disagree with your assessments on climate change. Nevertheless, your position as a scientist grants you no greater protection from critical speech than any ordinary citizen. The attempts to use the courts and government to silence critics (as many climate scientist advocate) is chilling in the classic Orwellian sense.

    Do they disagree? Do they really? I think a detailed examination of the quotes would cast doubt on that assessment. Anyone can collect a bunch of quotes critical of someone and claim those quotes prove the person criticized is wrong. The test in this case would be how many of those quoted by Steyn will testify under oath that Dr. Mann is a fraud OR that any of his work is fraudulent. If Steyn really had a case, why would he need to write even one book about it?

    Second point: A few climate scientists have said that global warming denialists should be made to stop denying established facts in order to delay action on a serious problem. This is not the same as trying to silence critics.

  103. #103 Christopher Winter
    December 23, 2015

    Art (#73): This was the methodology of Eugene McCathy and the Red Scare.

    Please; this was Joseph McCarthy, not Eugene.

  104. #104 RickA
    December 23, 2015

    BBD #97:

    It doesn’t matter whether MBH 98 / 99 was right or wrong.

    All that matters is which statements of Steyn are opinion and which are statements of fact.

    For the statements of fact – are they false.

    If they are false – were the statements made with reckless disregard.

    And finally – were the statements made with malice.

    Personally, I like Steyn’s chances before a jury.

  105. #105 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    cabc — there are also scientists who believe Mann ignored data (i.e., midieval warm period, little ice age, etc) that provided evidence contrary to his thesis, and therefore “manipulated” his findings.

    Steyn has just of much of right to believe those scientists as the ones who side with Mann. It doesn’t make his statements libelous…

  106. #106 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 23, 2015

    Pouncer: The part where the people paid to study that science claim the privilege to re-order the political priorities of every other scientist of every other discipline on the planet and for the next century. “

    Oh, how DARE they?! Damn them! There is an excellent collection of science papers that explains their evil behavior, here:

    http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415667623/

  107. #107 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    Dan
    Which scientists are these? Are they experts in the relevant field? And is that saying much? There are biologists who don’t accept evolution after all.

  108. #108 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    By the way, the irony of the climate-change champions never ceases to amaze me. Greg, you calling Steyn a racist based on “dog-whistles” is far closer to committing libel then anything Steyn has done. Steyn was challenging the methods of a prominent scientist.

    You, on the other hand, make an ad hominem attack against Steyn based on “dog-whistles” that no one else hears (by the way, just as only dogs hear real dog -whistles, only racists hear “racist dog whistles. So, who is the real racist).

    Don’t worry, though, Steyn isn’t a sissy (is that a gay dog-whistle?) that has to rely on litigation to silence those who disagree with him. He is perfectly capable of winning arguments on the merits, unlike those who do resort to litigation.

  109. #109 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    RickA

    I’m not sure that ignorance of the facts would constitute a defence against libel if the public statements made are libelous.

    Perhaps someone with a more detailed knowledge of US law could clarify this point.

  110. #110 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, Austrailia
    December 23, 2015

    cabc: So steyn is saying Mann’s work is fraudulent but he isn’t a fraud? Since the hockey stick has been shown to not be fraudulent, a reasonable person would conclude that that statement bears a reckless disregard for the truth. And a reckless disregard for the truth is partly what this lawsuit is about.”

    Considering no scientists except the tiny few “free market” ideologues believe (or claim to believe) “the” so-called “hockey stick” is “fraudulent,” the assertion that it is fraudulent is a political act— the exact same behavior these clowns insist they object to.

    A list of hockey sticks, compiled by Jim Milks of Seeing the Environmental Forest.

    Crowley 2000: Used both his own and Mann et al. (1999)’s hockey sticks to examine the cause of temperature changes over the past 1,000 years. Found that natural forcings could not explain twentieth century warming without the effect of greenhouse gases.

    Huang, et al. 2000: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 616 boreholes from around the globe.

    Bertrand et al. 2002: Reconstructed solar output, volcanic activity, land use changes, and greenhouse gas concentrations since AD 1000, then computed the expected temperature changes due to those forcings. Compared the computed temperature changes with two independent temperature reconstructions.

    Esper et al. 2002: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000 using tree ring chronologies.

    Cronin et al. 2003: Reconstructed temperatures between 200 BC and AD 2000 around Chesapeake Bay, USA, using sediment core records.

    Pollack and Smerdon 2004: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 695 boreholes from around the globe.

    Esper et al. 2005: Compared and averaged five independent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to AD 2000.

    Moberg et al. 2005: Combined tree ring proxies with glacial ice cores, stalagmite, and lake sediment proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000.

    Oerlemans 2005: Reconstructed global temperatures from AD 1500 to AD 2000 using 169 glacial ice proxies from around the globe. Rutherford, et al. 2005: Compared two multi-proxy temperature reconstructions and tested the results of each reconstruction for sensitivity to type of statistics used, proxy characteristics, seasonal variation, and geographic location. Concluded that the reconstructions were robust to various sources of error.

    D’Arrigo et al. 2006: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 700 and AD 2000 from multiple tree ring proxies using a new statistical technique called Regional Curve Standardization. Concluded that their new technique was superior to the older technique used by previous reconstructions.

    Osborn and Briffa 2006: Used 14 regional temperature reconstructions between AD 800 and AD 2000 to compare spatial extent of changes in Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Found that twentieth century warming was more widespread than any other temperature change of the past 1,200 years.

    Hegerl et al. 2007: Combined borehole temperatures and tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,450 years. Introduced a new calibration technique between proxy temperatures and instrumental temperatures.

    Juckes et al. 2007: Combined multiple older reconstructions into a meta-analysis. Also used existing proxies to calculate a new Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction.

    Wahl and Ammann 2007: Used the tree ring proxies, glacial proxies, and borehole proxies used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) to recalculate Northern Hemisphere temperatures since AD 800. Refuted the McIntyre and McKitrick criticisms and showed that those criticisms were based on flawed statistical techniques.

    Wilson, et al. 2007: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1750 to AD 2000 using tree ring proxies that did not show a divergence problem after AD 1960.

    Mann et al. 2008: Reconstructed global temperatures between AD 200 and AD 2000 using 1,209 independent proxies ranging from tree rings to boreholes to sediment cores to stalagmite cores to Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.

    Kaufman, et al. 2009: Used tree rings, lake sediment cores, and glacial ice cores to reconstruct Arctic temperatures between 1 BC and 2000 AD.

    von Storch et al. 2009: Tested three different temperature reconstruction techniques to show that the Composite plus Scaling method was better than the other two methods.

    Frank et al. 2010: A brief history of proxy temperature reconstructions, as well as analysis of the main questions remaining in temperature reconstructions.

    Kellerhals et al. 2010: Used ammonium concentration in a glacial ice core to reconstruct tropical South American temperatures over the past 1,600 years.

    Ljungqvist 2010: Reconstructed extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000 using historical records, sediment cores, tree rings, and stalagmites.

    Thibodeau et al. 2010: Reconstructed temperatures at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence since AD 1000 via sediment cores.

    Tingley and Huybers 2010a, 2010b: Used a Bayesian approach to reconstruct North American temperatures.

    Büntgen et al. 2011: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Central European temperatures between 500 BC and AD 2000.

    Kemp et al. 2011: Reconstructed sea levels off North Carolina, USA from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores. They also showed that sea levels changed with global temperature for at least the past millennium.

    Kinnard et al. 2011: Used multiple proxies to reconstruct late summer Arctic sea ice between AD 561 and AD 1995, using instrumental data to extend their record to AD 2000.

    Martin-Chivelet et al. 2011: Reconstructed temperatures in the Iberian Peninsula from 2000 BC to AD 2000 using stalagmites. Spielhagen et al. 2011: Reconstructed marine temperatures in the Fram Strait from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores.

    Esper et al. 2012: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Scandinavian temperatures 100 BC to AD 2000. May have solved the post-AD 1960 tree ring divergence problem.

    Ljungqvist et al. 2012: Used a network of 120 tree ring proxies, ice core proxies, pollen records, sediment cores, and historical documents to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000, with emphasis on proxies recording the Medieval Warm Period.

    Melvin et al. 2012: Reanalyzed tree ring data for the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden.

    Abram et al. 2013: Reconstructed snow melt records and temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula since AD 1000 using ice core records.

    Marcott, et al. 2013: Reconstructed global temperatures over the past 11,000 years using sediment cores. Data ended at AD 1940.

    PAGES 2k Consortium 2013: Used multiple proxies (tree rings, sediment cores, ice cores, stalagmites, pollen, etc) to reconstruct regional and global temperatures since AD 1.

    Rhodes et al. 2013: Used proxy and instrumental records to reconstruct global temperatures from AD 1753 to AD 2011.

    Y Zhang et al. 2014: “Millennial minimum temperature variations in the Qilian Mountains, China: evidence from tree rings,” Climate of the Past, 10, 1763–1778, 2014.

    Shi et al. 2015: “A multi-proxy reconstruction of spatial and temporal variations in Asian summer temperatures over the last millennium,” Climate Change, August 2015, Volume 131, Issue 4, pp 663-676. [PDF]

  111. #111 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    cabc_ Dr. William Happer, Princeton, Dr. John Christy, University of Alabama, Dr. Judith Curry, Georgia Tech…..

    Those are just but a few…

  112. #112 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    RickA

    Remember – Steyn didn’t say Mann was a fraud – he (paraphrasing) said Mann’s hockey stick graph was fraudulent. Even if you don’t agree that is very different – it is not the same thing.

    Actually, I think it is, since it is difficult to see how an individual can engage in an allegedly fraudulent act without themselves being guilt of fraud.

  113. #113 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 23, 2015

    dean: “Gosh, it is a very good thing the only place that happens is deep in the feverish minds of anti-science conspiracy theorists.”

    …. and those individuals who just pretend to be. There is a bloody hell of a lot of money being passed around to people who claim they believe in world-wide multi-generation conspiracies—- selling books and lectures. Amazon. com web site is crammed full of books about Earth being flat, and some of them have over 300 “five star” reviews.

  114. #114 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    BBD — I am knowledgeable about the libel/defamation law, and ignorance is a defense when dealing with public persons (which Mann is). Mann has to show that Steyn 1) made statements 2) that he knew were false, 3) for malicious purposes…

    Ignorance, if proven, defeats the second element.

  115. #115 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 23, 2015

    aelfheld: “If Mann’s lawsuit is so important why is he so reluctant to go to trial?”

    No.

  116. #116 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    #111 Dan

    At #107 cabc asked:

    Which scientists are these? Are they experts in the relevant field?

    To which you responded:

    cabc_ Dr. William Happer, Princeton, Dr. John Christy, University of Alabama, Dr. Judith Curry, Georgia Tech…..

    Those are just but a few…

    There is no expertise in millennial climate reconstructions there.

  117. #117 Christopher Winter
    December 23, 2015

    Dan (#94): Rob Honeycutt, your use of that phrase is so misguided it beggars belief. Since when can’t you yell “fire” in a crowded theater. In fact, I would argue if there was a fire in the theater, not only can you yell fire, but you have a moral obligation to do so.

    Dan, I would agree with you — except for that fact that Rob made a shorthand statement of a well-known argument which implicitly assumes there is no fire when the hypothetical person yells “Fire!”

  118. #118 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    #114 Dan

    ignorance is a defense when dealing with public persons (which Mann is). Mann has to show that Steyn 1) made statements 2) that he knew were false, 3) for malicious purposes…

    Ignorance, if proven, defeats the second element.

    Thanks for that. Is there a definitive legal source for this which can be linked for the thread?

  119. #119 Christopher Winter
    December 23, 2015

    Dan (#96): Why do you think Steyn published the book and appeared at the hearing with other notable scientists? To make the obvious point that Steyn,as a layperson, can rely on the opinions of scientists who disagree with Mann and question Mann’s scientific methods.

    “other notable scientists”? Steyn is not a scientist, so this wording is incorrect. Also — and this is my opinion — there was only one notable scientist invited to the Cruz hearing. That would be Dr. Titley.

    Those scientists upon whom Steyn relies might be wrong, they might be right. But Steyn is certainly free to think — and say — whose side he is on…

    Yes, but he did more than that. He stepped across a clear line.

  120. #120 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 23, 2015

    cabc: “The only person who has attempted to delay this trial is steyn. Mann has been quite eager to proceed. I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

    If it were up to Dr. Mann, the case would be over by now, a year ago. It is the latest judge who has agreed to delay the verdict at the behest of the guilty (er, I mean “defendants” NR and CEI).

  121. #121 Desertphile
    Anywhere but Earth
    December 23, 2015

    cabc: How can you claim Mann’s work is irreproducible when every large scale reconstruction done to date has produced the same result?”

    They’re in on it, too!

  122. #122 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    Christopher, what line did he step over? The whole point of the subject blog post is that the same institution that investigated and cleared Jerry Sandusky of any wrongdoing also investigated and cleared Michael Mann of wrongdoing. That is a perfectly valid point to bring up, whether you agree or not.

    By the way, I do find it funny (and ironic) that the propietor of this blog is so gung-ho for Mann to sue Steyn, when he himself has posted controversial, and possibly false, statements about others. see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/greg-laden-liar/

    If the court adopts Mann’s position, might Mr. Laden find himself on the wrong end of a lawsuit? (Note there is a good chance that the potential plaintiff in the link above will not be considered a public person, thus making his burden much more attainable).

  123. #123 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 23, 2015

    Pete Freans: “@Desertphile 1. “Clinate Change: The Facts” 2. “A Disgrace to the Profession”. So, yes.”

    What?

  124. #124 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    BBD — see http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html

    It is stated somewhat differently (4 elements instead of 3) but the gist is the same. Please note the element “falsity” and the holding the opinions are not capable of being false because the speaker believes them to be true (which is another way of saying the speaker has to make a statement he knows is false)

  125. #125 Christopher Winter
    December 23, 2015

    RickA (#100): Remember — Steyn didn’t say Mann was a fraud — he (paraphrasing) said Mann’s hockey stick graph was fraudulent. Even if you don’t agree that is very different — it is not the same thing.

    So if I were to say in public that Mark Steyn makes misleading and fraudulent statements about a subject in which he admits he has no training or expertise, he would have no legal grounds to dispute me?

    How would you feel if I made those statements about you to your employer? I guess you’d just shrug it off?

    Now do you see why your claim of a distinction is balderdash?

  126. #126 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    Christopher — my point in responding to Rob’s use of the “fire” analogy was that analogy is so dated it is hardly ever used. More importantly, it is not even a good analogy because, as you say, it presumes there is no fire. However, the question is not whether a fire existed, but whether the speaker believed a fire existed when he made the statement.

  127. #127 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    Christopher, you absolutely have the right to say Steyn makes misleading and fraudulent claims, and Steyn would have no recourse.

    No, if you said that about me to my employer, a different situation exists because I am not a public person. Mann (as the court already has held), is a public person. Steyn, as a radio host, and well-known columnist, would certainly qualify as a public person.

    If you honestly believe Steyn makes misleading and fraudulent statements, you could tattoo same across your forehead and be completely protected from legal recourse.

  128. #128 RickA
    United States
    December 23, 2015

    BBD #112:

    Try this:

    BBD, you are a fraud. What does this imply?

    Alternative:

    BBD, this one graph you did is fraudulent. What does this imply?

    See the difference?

    One implies that everything a person does is a lie and the other only implies that one thing the person did is a lie.

    Sorry – but that is not the same thing.

  129. #129 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    Dan #111

    If that’s the case then the answer to my question is a “no”.

  130. #130 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 23, 2015

    cabc: “Stating that Mann’s hockey stick is fraudulent and that mann molests and tortures data for political reasons is a statement of fact, something that could be verified as being true or not, not an opinion. Since mann hasn’t been found guilty of fraud, and since his work has not been found to be fraudulent, and since steyn knows this, I don’t know what leg steyn hopes to stand on.”

    Has Steyn ordered his brainwashed minions to fork over money to pay legal fees and the pending financial judgement against him? I would think Steyn stands to gain tens of thousands of dollars in profit after the judge rules against him.

  131. #131 Magma
    December 23, 2015

    RickA #87

    Brian is a lawyer who may be able to give a credible answer to my question. You aren’t, and can’t.

  132. #132 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
    December 23, 2015

    RickA: “How would you verify whether mann molests and tortures data? This is clearly an opinion.”

    Memory loss medication:

    http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp

    Good luck.

  133. #133 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    Wait, did penn state clear Sandusky of wrongdoing? It was a while ago but what I remember is that Sandusky’s boss, Paterno, knew what he was doing but kept quiet. I don’t recall the actual institution covering anything up

  134. #134 RickA
    United States
    December 23, 2015

    Magma #131:

    I am also a lawyer.

  135. #135 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    #124 Dan

    Thank you for the link. It seem to me that it does not provide any immunity for Steyn:

    Someone made a statement;
    1. that statement was published;
    2. the statement caused you injury;
    3. the statement was false; and
    4. the statement did not fall into a privileged category.

    (1 -3) are established, and (4) does not seem to apply to Steyn:

    Unprivileged — Lastly, in order for a statement to be defamatory, it must be unprivileged. Lawmakers have decided that you cannot sue for defamation in certain instances when a statement is considered privileged. For example, when a witness testifies at trial and makes a statement that is both false and injurious, the witness will be immune to a lawsuit for defamation because the act of testifying at trial is privileged.

  136. #136 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 23, 2015

    BBD: “Yes but free speech’ is a popular card in the victim-player’s hand.”

    It is indeed a ploy; a fraudulent argument meant to shut down legitimate complaints.

  137. #137 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    cabc — so in your opinion university professors, including one at Princeton, as well as Georgia Tech and Alabama, are not distinguished scientists?

    Thanks for proving the point that you, along with most of the climate change crowd, automatically discount, and dare I say, ignore, people or information that doesn’t comport to your world view.

    it is almost like you are manipulating the information you consider…

  138. #138 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    RickA

    BBD, you are a fraud. What does this imply?

    Alternative:

    BBD, this one graph you did is fraudulent. What does this imply?

    See the difference?

    In informal usage, yes, although marginally. In legal terms no, as to commit a fraudulent act is to be guilt of fraud.

  139. #139 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    BBD — did you read the paragraph describing the “falsity” element? It states that opinions cannot, by definition, be false because the speaker believes them to be true. Thus, if Steyn believes his opinions regarding Mann are true, #3 does indeed provide protection

  140. #140 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
    December 23, 2015

    cabc: {“Steyn honestly and reasonably believe Mann manipulated the data”}

    But investigations into his work found that to be incorrect. Steyn is aware of this but said what he said anyway. That’s where reckless disregard for the truth comes into play.

    That is also where malice was demonstrated.

  141. #141 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    ‘guilty of fraud’. That’s twice now, so apologies for the typos.

  142. #142 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    Rick A , somehow I knew you were an attorney because you actually know what you are talking about re: the legal standard of libel cases.

    I have tried, in other threads, to point out to the climate change group that Mann v. Steyn is not a science issue, it is a first amendment. I have also said I won’t comment on the science, because I am not a scientist. I am, however, a lawyer with more then passing familiarity with libel law, and feel more then qualified to discuss same.

    They won’t listen; instead, they just argue what they think the law should be, not what it is….

  143. #143 Desertphile
    Anywhere but Earth
    December 23, 2015

    Dan: “cabc — there are also scientists who believe Mann ignored data (i.e., midieval warm period, little ice age, etc) that provided evidence contrary to his thesis, and therefore “manipulated” his findings”

    Yes, there are scientists who believe Earth is the center of the universe. So? There is no evidence Mann et all “ignored data.”

    As for MCA and LIA, MB&H “ignored” the data because it didn’t exist at the time. That fact has been explained to you more than 30 times: even a fake lawyer would have remembered.

  144. #144 Brian Schmidt
    United States
    December 23, 2015

    Dan has read his own link incorrectly, including counting the number of elements to the claim. His main error is turning the requirement of falsity into requiring knowledge of falsity. For claims against a public figure, malice is sufficient and can be shown by reckless disregard of the truth, not requiring actual knowledge of falsity.

    And btw, I’m not a defamation lawyer, so take my comments with a grain of salt.

    I generally agree with the comment upthread that new defamation by Steyn would require an amended complaint (or a new complaint). OTOH, I’m guessing new defamation could be introduced in exhibit form as evidence justifying punitive damages without an amended complaint. Again, just a guess.

  145. #145 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    Desertphile: What if Steyn doesn’t believe the investigations that supposedly cleared Mann? That was his whole point — again — that an institution that cleared someone of systemic rape might not be the most objective institution to investigate someone.

    Steyn is allowed to believe that the investigations were shams, and say so. Just because you believe these investigations does not mean they are gospel-truth

  146. #146 Magma
    December 23, 2015

    RickA #134:

    Well, that may be. I won’t speculate further except to state that on the basis of the sum of your comments I wouldn’t trust your judgment or your veracity with respect to any topics discussed here.

  147. #147 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    “in your opinion university professors, including one at Princeton, as well as Georgia Tech and Alabama, are not distinguished scientists?”

    That’s not what I said. I asked if they were experts in the relevant field. They arent. If I wanted to know about ocean dynamics, remote sensing, or spectroscopy, I might ask curry, Christy, or happer, respectively. But the area of expertise in question is paleoclimate reconstructions. Understand?

  148. #148 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    # 139 Dan

    Falsity — Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement, no matter how harmful, is not considered defamation. In addition, because of their nature, statements of opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker.

    This is interesting. It would appear to be almost impossible to bring a successful action for libel in the US unless there is some other factor under consideration. Based on precedent, what is it?

  149. #149 dean
    United States
    December 23, 2015

    Dan: “I am knowledgeable …”
    There’s where Dan’s statement goes off the rails into fantasy.
    And Dan, nobody with a sense of integrity would link to anything at Watt’s site and thinks what is there is anything close to reality. But then, nobody here who has integrity did that.

    “I am also a lawyer”
    Clearly, however, ignorant of science and facts.

  150. #150 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    Brian — you are absolutely wrong. I picked that link, of many, because it specifically says statements of opinion, of which Steyn’s post was, are not subject to libel law because it is subjective to the speaker.

    I could provide countless more links, if you like, including links that state reckless disregard is not enough for a public person.

    And I am a lawyer, so no need for grains of salt here..

  151. #151 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    #144 Brian Schmidt

    His main error is turning the requirement of falsity into requiring knowledge of falsity. For claims against a public figure, malice is sufficient and can be shown by reckless disregard of the truth, not requiring actual knowledge of falsity.

    Thanks for the clarification.

  152. #152 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    BBD — Brian is wrong. From the same website, see below. Please read the section about public figures, discussing the landmark NYT v. Sullivan case. It clearly states that the Defendant, per NYT v. Sullivan, must know the statement is false when made.

    http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/fault-required-for-defamation.html

  153. #153 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    I will agree that reckless disregard is sufficient for malice, but that is not applicable in Mann v. Steyn, because Steyn’s comments were Opinion comments. Thus, they are not verifiable….

  154. #154 Magma
    December 23, 2015

    @ Brian #144, thanks.

    @ Dan (multiple), William Happer is an emeritus professor of physics with no expertise in climate science. While testifying before Ted Cruz’s Senate subcommittee earlier this month he embarrassed himself by confusing the satellite-borne microwave-derived atmospheric temperature estimates with infrared emission measurements. And that was actually a subject that touched on his area of expertise… or once did.

    Happer’s opinion is no more valid than Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever’s or Freeman Dyson’s uninformed off-the-cuff impressions of a field they haven’t even bothered to study.

  155. #155 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    Dean: I will agree I am ignorant when it comes to science. I have no idea about that other blog, other then the owner is contemplating suing Greg under the same standard as Mann sues Steyn. I.e., Greg makes an opinion statement about the a piece written by the owner, the owner thinks Greg took him out of context or somehow misrepresented him.

    In no way is Greg liable for his opinion, just like Steyn is not liabile

  156. #156 Brainstorms
    December 23, 2015

    Again, from the judge in this case (courtesy of #77):

    “The statement “he has molested and tortured data” could easily be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff distorted, manipulated, or misrepresented his data. Certainly the statement is capable of a defamatory meaning, which means the questions of whether it was false and made with “actual malice” are questions of fact for the jury. A reasonable reader, both within and outside the scientific community, would understand that a scientist who molests or tortures his data is acting far outside the bounds of any acceptable scientific method. In context, it would not be unreasonable for a reader to interpret the comment, and the republication in National Review, as an allegation that Dr. Mann had committed scientific fraud, which Penn State University then covered up, just as some had accused the University of covering up the Sandusky scandal. For many of the reasons discussed in Judge Combs Greene’s July 19 orders, to state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation.

    Now, denialist fools, you may once again plead your arguments as to why a U.S. judge doesn’t know the law he rules on.

  157. #157 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    BBD 148 : In the United States, it is nearly impossible for a public figure to bring a libel suit (in this area, U.S. law differs greatly from U.K. law). One needs to look no further then politics. Think of how many politicians are routinely called criminals.

    If libel were as easy as Mann makes it to be, Hillary Clinton would sue every person who labels her a criminal over the email scandal.

    For a private person, it is much easier, because the malice requirement does not exist.

  158. #158 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    Brainstorms, you misread that order. The only think the order does is get Mann pasta motion to dismiss, by saying the statements COULD be defamatory if Mann proves every element. Thus, the case is not subject to an FRCP 12(b) dismissal, and the parties can conduct discovery.

    Once discovery is complete, and Steyn testifies he reasonably believes Mann tortures data (please note that the fact that Mann manipulated his credentials by wrongly claiming he won a nobel prize, could, in and of itself, justify Steyn’s belief) the case should be ripe for a FRCP 56 motion for summary judgment.

    The judge simply said that, if Mann proves his case, he likely sustained damage. That does not mean, as the order states, Steyn’s comments were defamatory; only, they COULD be defamatory if made malicously…

    Now, all you mann-boys, get back to your mann-lovin….

  159. #159 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 23, 2015

    Dan: “I will agree that reckless disregard is sufficient for malice, but that is not applicable in Mann v. Steyn, because Steyn’s comments were Opinion comments.”

    I see you are still pretending to be a moron. Why? What does it get for you? What’s the pay-off?

  160. #160 James Mayeau
    December 23, 2015

    Yes his friends and co conspirators rushed to defend Mann’s fraudulent use of tree rings, splices, and bullying of anyone not on board with the global warming religion.

    The key friend being the President of Penn State, where Mann works. The same president who didn’t see anything wrong with Jerry Sandusky trolling pee wee football to pick up shower buddies.

    Trees are not thermometers. Tree rings don’t record the weather. Trees maintain their own internal temperature tuned to the process of photosynthesis.

  161. #161 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 23, 2015

    Great contribution, Desertphile. Absolutely brilliant.

    Brainstorms, again, read the order closely. Saying IT WOULD NOT BE UNREASONABLE for a reader to interpret the comments a certain way is far different then saying Mann has met his standard. Courts rarely grant 12b6 motions, because you are effectively denying someone their day in court.

    Much easier to let discovery proceed, then dismiss pursuant to summary judgment.

  162. #162 dean
    United States
    December 23, 2015

    “I have no idea about that other blog,”

    I don’t believe you, based on
    – your other comments about issues here
    – you would have to go out of your way to find a known denialist/false information site and look around

    You knew very well what a crap-pile that place is.

  163. #163 Desertphile
    Vote for Donald Trump! We need a wall between Canada and the USA!
    December 23, 2015

    James Mayeau: Trees are not thermometers. Tree rings don’t record the weather. Trees maintain their own internal temperature tuned to the process of photosynthesis.”

    A fine example. Well-done.

  164. #164 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, Austrailia
    December 23, 2015

    Dan: “Great contribution, Desertphile. Absolutely brilliant. “

    It’s all you have earned. If you paranoid conspiracy alarmists want respect, you will need to earn it.

  165. #165 dhogaza
    December 23, 2015

    James Mayeau:

    “…Trees maintain their own internal temperature tuned to the process of photosynthesis.”

    Words escape me …

  166. #166 Brainstorms
    December 23, 2015

    Dan the Denier: Mann & Steyn’s jury will NOT be made up of 12 defamation lawyers and judges.

    Sorry for you and your denialist agenda.

    It will be 12 citizen jurors, who will see a malicious blow-hard attempting to damage the career and reputation of a scientist because the malicious blow-hard doesn’t like what the scientist has to say.

    And they won’t like the fact that the malicious blow-hard is trying to suppress Mann’s free speech rights to inform the world & its politicians about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Just like you’re laboring very hard here to get it suppressed.

    Because you don’t want to face the consequences.

    They will find you. Anyway. Your “opinions” notwithstanding.

  167. #167 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    Apparently an entire field of science was dismissed based on #160. Outstanding.

  168. #168 Christopher Winter
    December 23, 2015

    Dan (#122): Christopher, what line did he step over? The whole point of the subject blog post is that the same institution that investigated and cleared Jerry Sandusky of any wrongdoing also investigated and cleared Michael Mann of wrongdoing. That is a perfectly valid point to bring up, whether you agree or not.

    I don’t see why Penn State’s supposed clearing of Jerry Sandusky is relevant. Dr. Mann was not at Penn state when he did the work on MBH98/99, so it’s not like Penn State would have much reason to cover up his alleged misconduct. Yes, he is now one of their own, but the work in question was not done under their auspices. It would be simpler to dismiss him for the hypothetical falsification.

    More to the point, no other investigation in the now 17 years since MBH98 was published has found any significant error in Dr. Mann’s work. Steyn may claim not to have known this when he called Dr. Mann’s work fraudulent, but such a claim would be dubious to say the least. A non-scientist judging the work of any scientist without looking at what other scientists have said about that work? It would be like me accusing the doctors who diagnosed the late Terri Schiavo as brain-dead of malpractice.

    In Sandusky’s case, there were multiple reports of his misconduct dating from 1994. Janitor Jim Calhoun reported seeing one in 2000; assistant coach Mike McQueary reported seeing another in 2002, and met with athletic department officials ten days later. Those officials did take action against Sandusky. You can argue that it wasn’t enough, and I would agree. But it was action.

    Where are the equivalent findings about Dr. Mann’s work?

  169. #169 Russell Seitz
    December 23, 2015

    106

    By an odd coincidence the oldest papers the volume cites are by psychlogists who, fearing a more plausible exisitential threat, denounced cold warriors as acolytes of “nuclearism’ manifesting symptoms of “denial” .

    Then the Soviet Union went infarct, and they shut up for a decade before offering their services to the cause of scaring the world into the Next Big Thing after disarmament- PC ball in Greg’s Science as Culture court, the usual suspects still serving

    Plus ca change …

  170. #170 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    #152 #157 Dan

    Thanks for the link. Interesting again. I can see why this one is dragging on a bit.

  171. #171 Locus
    Earth
    December 23, 2015

    Unfortunately Laden chose to ignore that criticism of Judge Ruiz’s backlog did not originate with Steyn but instead with the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure.

    “The Commission would be remiss if it did not address the serious issue of Judge Ruiz’s backlog of opinions… Of crucial importance to the proper functioning of the Court of Appeals is the timely resolution of disputes. The public’s confidence in the Court is eroded when litigants must wait multiple years for decisions to be rendered. The Commission believes that this problem is not only about the pace of opinion production, but also about a less than fully adequate appreciation on the part of Judge Ruiz as to how her backlog adversely affects the litigants, the Court, and her colleagues”.

    Commission member Noel Francisco also said,

    “It should go without saying that an appellate judge’s primary duty – if not her sole duty – is to decide cases. On this score, as my colleagues have described, Judge Ruiz’s backlog is ‘the highest by far of any of the appellate judges on the DC Court of Appeals” and, as a result, litigants often ‘must wait multiple years for decisions to be rendered’ by her… As the old adage goes, ‘justice delayed is justice denied’.

    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/commission-on-judicial-disabilities-and-tenure-report-vanessa-ruiz.pdf

    So clearly it’s not just Steyn who’s criticizing Judge Ruiz. Are they all racists too?

  172. #172 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    Russell Seitz

    Your commitment to avenging perceived past wrongs would do credit to the finest Sicilian bandit 😉

  173. #173 RickA
    United States
    December 23, 2015

    Brainstorms #156:

    Dan is correct.

    On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (12(b)(6)), the court HAS to assume all the paragraphs in the complaint are true. Then the court says – assuming all these allegations are true – do they state a claim?

    The court is engaging in that exercise and saying – if everything Mann says in his complaint is taken as true – does that make out a defamation case?

    The court finds that yes – if they (all Mann’s allegations) are taken as true – they can make out a defamation case.

    Nothing more than that.

    However, after the motion to dismiss is denied and the case continues to summary judgment or to trial – Mann has to PROVE his allegations (Mann has the burden of proof).

    The Judges denial of the motion to dismiss cannot be used to say – I have met my burden of proof – that is not how civil cases work.

    It is really important for all the non-lawyers on this thread to understand the following:

    There has been no finding that Steyns writings are not opinion yet.

    There has been no finding that Steyn’s writings are false or made with reckless disregard.

    There is no finding yet that Steyn acted with malice.

    These are all items that Mann will have to PROVE at trial, by a preponderance of the evidence (slightly more than 50%).

    Hope that helps understands the Judge’s denial on the motion to dismiss.

  174. #174 Christopher Winter
    December 23, 2015

    Dan (#127): Christopher, you absolutely have the right to say Steyn makes misleading and fraudulent claims, and Steyn would have no recourse.

    Now you’re broadening the argument (aka “moving the goal posts.”) Since I would effectively be accusing Steyn of fraud, he might well have recourse. As you’ve said, he would have to prove I made the accusation out of reckless disregard or malice, in order to prevail. Conversely, I would have to prove his claims really were fraudulent.

    In any case, I was not commenting on the legal merits of Dr. Mann’s case. I was pointing out the equivalence of calling someone a fraud and claiming he had performed work that was fraudulent. There is no practical difference, and claims that a difference exists have long since grown tiresome.

    Note the second paragraph of the ruling quoted here:

    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/03/18/mann-motion-to-dismiss-steyns-counter-suit/

  175. #175 Rob Honeycutt
    skepticalscience.gom
    December 23, 2015

    @RickA

    You said “But both are inappropriate.”
    Maybe so.
    You are entitled to your opinion.
    Steyn is entitled to his.

    Steyn is not entitled to his own facts, which was my point that you avoided addressing. Steyn is deliberately ignoring clear and obvious facts related to Mann’s work. His original research has been shown consistent with a couple dozen subsequent millennial reconstructions. There is not one temperature reconstruction that shows anything different than Mann’s original hockey stick.

    The point is, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater because you are NOT allowed to say anything that you like when it harms others. “Harm” would clearly extend to harm to a professional researcher’s reputation.

  176. #176 John Mashey
    December 23, 2015

    Will Happer’s research area was atomic physics, he’s now emeritus at Princeton, but that is irrelevant to this.
    He is and has been for a decade the Chairman of the George C. Marshall Insitute, one of the two key thinktanks that orchestrated the attack on Mann and the hockey stick (the other is CEI,, “coincidentally” one of the other defendants in the Mann case, who to all appearances wants to delay and avoid facing discovery).

    GMI’s CEO is WIlliam O’Keefe, who was an ExxonMobil lobbyist, and a 25-year veteran executive at the American Petroleum Institute. GMI has long gotten funding from ExxonMobil, Richard Mellon Scaife (Gulf Oil), for example.
    http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/crescendo%20climategate%20cacophony%20v1%200.pdf p.93

    See also CEI & GMI role in promotting McIntyre & McKitrick:
    http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/STRANGE.SCHOLARSHIP.V1.02.pdf

    To assess Happer’s worldview:
    http://dailyprincetonian.com/news/2009/01/professor-denies-global-warming-theory/
    “Physics professor William Happer GS ’64 has some tough words for scientists who believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

    “This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.””

    But, people should feel free to claim he is credible on this. That helps me assess their own credibility, i.,e., I can add them to list of people whose comments I need never read.

  177. #177 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt

    Steyn is not entitled to his own facts

    It’s not clear from the discussion of the law above that this is enforcible in the US.

  178. #178 Rob Honeycutt
    December 23, 2015

    @Dan (multiple)

    The way I read your posts, though I haven’t read every post so far, you seem to making a case that libel is impossible to prove in a court of law.

    Clearly there are libel laws and surely there are libel cases that have been won. So, what is the standard which a case has to rise to be won?

  179. #179 Russell Seitz
    December 23, 2015

    BBD

    It’s hard enough for some historians to record the past without others trying to erase or rewrite it

  180. #180 Rob Honeycutt
    December 23, 2015

    BBD… But I think that’s exactly what the Judge stated in this case. Fraud is not a matter of opinion. It is a statement of fact.

  181. #181 Russell Seitz
    December 23, 2015

    JM:
    ” I can add them to list of people whose comments I need never read.”

    Cave homenibus cumque liber solo

  182. #182 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt

    Clearly there are libel laws and surely there are libel cases that have been won. So, what is the standard which a case has to rise to be won?

    I asked Dan about this at #148 and he responded at #152 and #157.

    There would seem to be a discretionary element that needs further exploration (following the judge’s remarks), but also an indication that it is difficult (as Dan says) to bring a successful libel action if you are a public figure in the US.

  183. #183 Victor Venema (@VariabilityBlog)
    December 23, 2015

    You cannot call this a dog whistle.
    https://youtu.be/5KVTmo2Vxnk?t=2h6m3s

  184. #184 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    Russell Seitz

    It’s hard enough for some historians to record the past without others trying to erase or rewrite it.

    As you know, extrapolation from the personal to the whole is the pathetic fallacy.

  185. #185 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 23, 2015

    “It’s hard enough for some historians to record the past without others trying to erase or rewrite it.”

    It’s hard enough to deal with the present without partisans attempting to overwrite it with the past. The GOP, party of Lincoln (!), but…

  186. #186 James Mayeau
    December 23, 2015

    Media and rights organizations defend National Review, et al. against Michael Mann (The Washington Post)

    Of note, the defendants position is being supported by a wide range of media organizations and free speech proponents. The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, for example, filed an amicus brief in conjunction with the ACLU, the Washington Post, and two dozen other media organizations arguing that all of the speech at issue merits First Amendment protection. Another amicus brief was filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a group of online publishers, and another — supporting the defendants solely on the procedural question — was filed by the District of Columbia. Copies of these briefs and other amici supporting the defendants may be found here.

    Not everyone is lining up behind the defendants, however. NYT columnist Paul Krugman cheered Mann’s decision to file suit this week, though it appears his opinion on the matter is based on the uncritical acceptance of Mann’s characterization of events.

    Where are all the eco medias (and there is a keister load of them) filing briefs on behalf of Michael Mann?
    Whenever I enter a heated argument on the demerits of global warming there’s always that one fella who jumps in with a list of sciency sounding societies in favor of the AGW boogieman.

    Where are those science societies amicus briefs in favor of Mann?
    Do they all know something you don’t?

    BTW Greg. Nice blog. I like the way you have it set up. Too many bloggers use the nested comment system. This is more democratic.

  187. #187 James Mayeau
    December 23, 2015

    #167 cabc

    December 23, 2015
    Apparently an entire field of science was dismissed based on #160. Outstanding.

    You give too much credit.

    First, it wasn’t science, this dissecting of tree rings to divine climate. Second, it wasn’t me.
    (Tree) Leaves resist temperature extremes regardless of the weather.

  188. #188 Rob Honeycutt
    skepticalscience.com
    December 23, 2015

    BBD @181…

    I’m not sure I trust Dan’s opinion on these points. There are certainly a number of celebrity libel cases that have been won, thus it’s clearly not virtually impossible.

  189. #189 cabc
    December 23, 2015

    Article is about leaves

  190. #190 Russell Seitz
    December 23, 2015

    No BBD, pathos lies in chosing the mirror of ideology over the window of history .

  191. #191 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    #187 Rob Honeycutt

    To be fair, Dan linked to legal sources which appear to support his argument.

    To be clear, I’m not implying a (false) equivalence between the law and physical climatology.

  192. #192 BBD
    December 23, 2015

    Russell Seitz

    Pathos is not the pathetic fallacy. And false equivalence paves the primrose path to something hot.

  193. #193 James Mayeaud
    December 23, 2015

    December 23, 2015
    Article is about leaves

    And the tail wags the dog.

    How does the tree know when it’s time to drop leaves? Why bother tossing out the old, when it could just wait for new leaves to push off the old and take their place? Why do trees that live in cold places have skinny leaves?

  194. #194 James Mayeau
    December 23, 2015

    December 23, 2015
    Article is about leaves

    And the tail wags the dog.

    How does the tree know when it’s time to drop leaves? Why bother tossing out the old, when it could just wait for new leaves to push off the old and take their place? Why do trees that live in cold places have skinny leaves?

  195. #195 dhogaza
    December 23, 2015

    James Mayeau:

    “First, it wasn’t science, this dissecting of tree rings to divine climate.”

    The article casts doubt on the use of oxygen isotope ratios to correlate tree rings with temperature.

    However, this is not by any means the only way that tree rings are used in climate reconstructions.

    Nor does the paper explain the observered changes in ratios.

  196. #196 Christopher Winter
    December 23, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt (#187): I’m not sure I trust Dan’s opinion on these points. There are certainly a number of celebrity libel cases that have been won, thus it’s clearly not virtually impossible.

    Certainly. One example is Calder v. Jones — the libel suit won by Shirley Jones against the National Enquirer.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Jones

  197. #197 dhogaza
    December 23, 2015

    James Mayeau:

    In particular, MBH 98 didn’t depend on oxygen isotope ratios but rather changes in growth rate, an issue not addressed by the paper you reference.

  198. #198 John Mashey
    December 23, 2015

    #160, #186

    I notice WUWT Surprise: Leaves Maintain Temperature, new findings may put dendroclimatology as metric of past temperature into question

    That may be just coincidence, but maybe not.

    What is clear that Mr Mayeau:
    a) Knows nothing about MBH98/99, which used tree ring widths or densities, not tree isotopes.

    b) Does not own copies of Ray Bradley’s Paleolcimatology 2nd Ed (1999): pp.434-438 (of pp.397-438 seciton)
    3rd Ed (2015) pp.493-497. (of pp.453-498 on tree rings)

    c) May not realize that Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes were coauthors with Mann. Both know a bit about tree rings, and still did when I saw them last week at AGU.

    The first (1999)says:
    “Isotopic dendrocroclimatology has much potential, but significant efforts are still needed to complement ring-width and densitrometric studies.”

    The second says:
    “Isotopic dendroclimatology is sill in its early stages, …IT may fulfill its greatest promise in tropic dendroclimatology, and in multiproxy studies that combine several isotopes and in combination with traditional ring (width and density) dendrochronology.”

  199. #199 dhogaza
    December 23, 2015

    Piling on …

    “First, it wasn’t science, this dissecting of tree rings to divine climate.”

    1. One technique, whose efficacy may be in doubt, is not an entire field of science.

    2. The fact that follow-on science brings into question earlier work does not mean that the earlier work is not science. Even if that earlier work defined an entire field of science, which, of course, in this case it does not.

    James doesn’t understand science. He does (thanks, JM) understand how to cut-‘n-paste from WUWT quite well, though.

  200. #200 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 23, 2015

    dhogaza: “In particular, MBH 98 didn’t depend on oxygen isotope ratios but rather changes in growth rate, an issue not addressed by the paper you reference.”

    Indeed. Removing the tree ring data, the other proxies still show a hockey stick.

  201. #201 dhogaza
    December 23, 2015

    Desertphile:

    “Removing the tree ring data, the other proxies still show a hockey stick.”

    True. But what I meant was that the tree ring proxy analysis wasn’t based on the oxy iso ratios at all, so Mayeua’s paper reference is not relevant. JM said it more completely, above.

  202. #202 James Mayeau
    December 23, 2015

    Oh look. Dhogaza found his voice. In fact he’s so full of blather now he’s even trying to project words into my mouth.

    That’s a Christmas miracle is what that is.

    I don’t need you speaking for me Dhogaza. The process is pretty specific. Using heat sensors on treetops.
    Not just single isotopes of this or that.

    You can repeat the experiment yourself if you like. Seeing is believing.

  203. #203 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 23, 2015

    dhogaza: “True. But what I meant was that the tree ring proxy analysis wasn’t based on the oxy iso ratios at all, so Mayeua’s paper reference is not relevant. JM said it more completely, above.”

    I saw that. 🙂 I am expressing wonder and awe at Mayeau’s citing _Nature_ to some how defend his belief that tree leaves are used as temperature proxies for over the past 800 years…. when leaves tend to fall off trees every year. I was staggered at the brilliance of his wit and insight.

  204. #204 dean
    United States
    December 23, 2015

    I was staggered at the brilliance of his wit and insight.

    Yup. It was truly a level of intellectual activity not often seen in the world of science.

  205. #205 dhogaza
    December 23, 2015

    I have no idea what Mayeau believes regarding leaves, trees as temp proxies, etc after his last totally off-the-wall remark.

    It is obvious he has absolutely no clue as to what he’s talking about.

  206. #206 SteveP
    Lame R. Smh Center For Attorneys With Science Envy
    December 23, 2015

    It is truly heart worming to see so many paid and unpaid denialist sect workers here valiantly defending their legal arguments in the science arena. Why, with merely a few phrases from an irrelevant citation, they can fend off STEM experts for daze on end. Our legal system is truly a marvel, isn’t it?

  207. #207 Brainstorms
    December 23, 2015

    James, you’ve been outed, and responded by doubling down…

    Caught again. Want to try your “double for nothing” once more? You’re very entertaining… ’til your schtick gets tiresome.

  208. #208 Locus
    Earth
    December 23, 2015

    #196

    I’m sorry but Calder v. Jones was not a successful libel suit. The Supreme Court merely ruled that Jones could sue the Enquirer in California even though the reporter was based in Florida.

    Jones and the Enquirer eventually settled out of court.

    Yes, there have been *some* successful defamation cases brought by public figures. But to quote the Digital Media Law Project …

    “It should be noted that the actual malice standard focuses on the defendant’s actual state of mind at the time of publication. Unlike the negligence standard discussed later in this section, the actual malice standard is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication. Instead, the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work. It is generally not sufficient, however, for a plaintiff to merely show that the defendant didn’t like her, failed to contact her for comment, knew she had denied the information, relied on a single biased source, or failed to correct the statement after publication.

    Not surprisingly, this is a very difficult standard for a plaintiff to establish. Indeed, in only a handful of cases over the last decades have plaintiffs been successful in establishing the requisite actual malice to prove defamation.”

    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence

  209. #209 Brian Schmidt
    United States
    December 23, 2015

    Yes, public figures can win libel suits in the US, you can find examples if you dig around. It’s also correct that it’s difficult, so they usually don’t bother with them. So this shows how far Steyn and NR have gone beyond the pale if they lose. If they win, well as we’ve said, that just shows it’s very difficult for a public figure to win a libel suit.

    Regarding wild claims that Hillary is a criminal must constitute defamation under this standard, and therefore the standard is wrong, that’s all unlikely. It would probably be viewed as hyperbole. OTOH if someone said Hillary is a convicted felon with a criminal record in New York State that anyone could look up, then that’s defamatory, although not worth her bothering with.

  210. #210 Locus
    Earth
    December 23, 2015

    I notice that many of Mann’s lawsuit supporters seem to be hanging on the idea that Mann has been vindicated by multiple investigations. In that case people should be worried by a statement made by one of the judges during oral arguments in front of the D.C. Court of Appeals.

    She noted that with regards to Mann’s assertions of multiple exonerations the defendants “… take them apart in their reply brief quite thoroughly. At least from their perspective.” and asks how the plaintiff gets to “knowing falsity”.

    [audio src="http://www.climateaudit.info/proceedings/legal/mann%20v%20steyn/Mann%20OA%20Audio%201.mp3" /]

    [audio src="http://www.climateaudit.info/proceedings/legal/mann%20v%20steyn/Mann%20OA%20Audio%202.mp3" /]

    Alarm bells should be ringing…

  211. #211 Locus
    Earth
    December 24, 2015

    #110

    People like to cut and paste Milks’ list of ‘hockey sticks’. Unfortunately people don’t seem to be actually *reading* any of those papers.

    Here’s one hockey stick from the list. Only it’s not a hockey stick, but a commentary on climate reconstructions.

    http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/Frank_etal_WIRESCllmChange_2010.pdf

    Quoting,

    “Icons of past temperature variability, as featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports over nearly two decades, have changed from a schematic sketch in 1990, to a seemingly well-solved story in 2001, to more explicit recognition of significant uncertainties in 2007.”

    And,

    “The 1990 sketch was replaced 11 years later by a quantitative reconstruction for the entire NH by Mann et al. 16 Annual precision and y-axis in degrees Celsius contrasted strongly with the 1990 figure and suggested a marked increase of knowledge. The little varying, yet slowly declining temperatures over about 900 years of natural variability, reversed by the strong upward trend over the past century, served as a symbol for human impact on temperature change. The existence of an MWP and LIA were hinted at, but only as part of an almost negligible pre-anthropogenic temperature change. Even though this reconstruction was presented with calibration uncertainties, their common omission in subsequent discussion, may have led to an overly optimistic assessment of the degree to which past temperatures were understood.

    And,

    “In the most recent IPCC report, further consideration of existing and the development of new reconstructions, methodological disputes, and analysis called for a retreat from the 2001 position that reconstructed temperatures were well understood.”

    And for those divergence fans,

    “The climatic signal in proxy records is now routinely calibrated—and often verified—via comparisons with instrumental records allowing assessment of proxy trustworthiness in the recent period.”

    Take that Mr. Hide-the-Decline!

    This particular publication could be used by the *defense* at the Mann libel trial. Mann’s hockey stick was presented as a “seemingly well-solved story” from which the IPCC had to “retreat”.

  212. #212 Locus
    Earth
    December 24, 2015

    #110

    Another hockey stick from Milks’ list is this paper.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf

    Authored by Michael Mann himself.

    How can this be considered an independent confirmation of Mann’s previous work?

  213. #213 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 24, 2015

    “At least from their perspective.”

    In other words, are they even capable of knowing their asses from holes in the ground? One would not necessarily expect blog commenters to have an answer for that. Hopefully Mann’s legal team has an idea or two.

    Likewise from the comments here, one wonders whether there is, in all the world, sufficient meta-literacy about science to even formulate a ruling that isn’t confused by and saturated with denialist tropes and professional propaganda. Presumably the legal system has the tools for dealing with that.

  214. #214 John Mashey
    December 24, 2015

    One more time:
    This lawsuit is against:
    Steyn
    National Review
    Rand Simberg
    Competitive Enterprise Institute

    Of these, 3 have done everything to avoid trial and discovery.

    As it happens, there is a long, already-public record of at least one of these (CEI) running a multi-year campaign to damage and harass Mann, Bradley, Hughes.

    There are FOIAs that by happenstance showed that CEI’s Myron Ebell got Joe Barton’s intimidating demands … before some of the MBH folks.
    There are fascinating records of GMI/CEI sessions that GMI kindly placed online, archived long ago. There are analyses of missing connections to be asked about. There are lists of relevant names, some of whom really won’t like getting dragged into this as witnesses.

    Now, the question is: do Mann’s lawyers know any of this?
    A: the relevant report is cited half a dozen times in Mann’s book, so it is highly likely his lawyers know about it.
    http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/STRANGE.SCHOLARSHIP.V1.02.pdf pp.25-32.

  215. #215 Locus
    Earth
    December 24, 2015

    #110

    Similarly this paper from Milks’ list was co-authored by Mann.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/108/27/11017.full.pdf

    Again how can this be construed as an independent confirmation of Mann’s previous work?

  216. #216 Locus
    Earth
    December 24, 2015

    #110

    This paper from Milks’ list is co-authored by Richard Muller.

    http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-101.pdf

    The same Richard Muller who says that Mann’s conduct was so out of line that Muller won’t read his papers any more.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

    And this ends up on a list supposedly vindicating Mann?

    Besides this paper only talks about climate reconstructions extending back to the 1750’s.

  217. #217 Locus
    Earth
    December 24, 2015

    #110

    This paper from Milks’ list says that it’s been warmer at times during the interglacial periods. But *if* the IPCC *predictions* for 2100 come to pass, the temperature will be the warmest.

    http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf

    So I guess we’ll just have to wait until 2100 to see if this hockey stick “confirmation” works out. See you then! It’s on my calendar.

  218. #218 Locus
    Earth
    December 24, 2015

    #110

    And here’s an abstract from yet another paper on Milks’ list.

    http://hol.sagepub.com/content/23/3/364

    “We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. ce 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’. ”

    I’d like to draw attention to the phrase,

    “… indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. ce 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century.”

    So this confirms Michael Mann’s hockey stick how?

  219. #219 Brian Schmidt
    United States
    December 24, 2015

    Locus – regarding Muller, your Youtube video is from 2011. Muller then went on to do his own review of the instrumental record (the blade portion of the hockey stick) and found similar results to Mann and everyone else, a massive rise in temperature. You can get basics here and links to more info:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

    And yes, Mann is allowed to continue doing research on the subject. That research, usually with co-authors and with additional peer review, provides additional confirmation if the results lead to the same conclusion.

  220. #220 Locus
    Earth
    December 24, 2015

    #213

    The judge added that caveat because the defendant’s perspective *is what matters* in determining actual malice.

    Please go back and read Dan’s and RickA’s commentary on defamation of a public figure. They lay it all out for you.

  221. #221 Lee Grove
    Seoul/San Diego
    December 24, 2015

    As a science teacher, I can almost understand the virulent attack on the science that EXPLAINS global warming: the vast majority of Americans are idiots, and having been humiliated in every science class they’ve ever taken, they are out for revenge. Mark Steyn is the idiot among idiots, though maybe not: he might just be using the endless supply of American idiots to make a buck; I suspect that is actually the case. There really is no other explanation for the large numbers of morons that still can’t comprehend global warming is simply a matter governed by physics, and thermodynamics more specifically. The Cock brothers can only have so many whores out there whoring; the rest must just be vengeful morons who couldn’t spell thermodynamics if it would strike Michael Mann dead upon so doing.

  222. #222 Locus
    Earth
    December 24, 2015

    #219

    I’m sorry but Muller’s sharp criticism of Mann’s work continued after the announcement of the results of the BEST project.

    Here’s Muller in 2012,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Moum_SZ5NNY

    And again Muller in 2013,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html?_r=0

    And yes Mann can continue his research as much as someone is willing to pay for it. But it should not be considered as *independent* confirmation of his earlier work. Let’s put it this way. If Willie Soon writes four more papers would you accept that as confirmation of his first paper?

  223. #223 James Mayeau
    December 24, 2015

    What was Mann measuring with his hockeystick?

    It wasn’t temperature. Trees regulate their own temperature to compensate for variations in the weather.

    Near as I can figure he was measuring what he could plausibly get away with guided by greed, and an understanding of what the political forces of the day were shopping for.
    Huge amounts of public money.

  224. #224 John Mashey
    December 24, 2015

    Did people not notice that Locus shifted the goalposts onto a strawmam, trhat also showed he hadn’t read Mann et al(2008)?
    “How can this be considered an independent confirmation of Mann’s previous work?”

    Nobody had said “independent”, but in any cases, the paper (which I downloaded in 2010 and still have), was a new study, with an expanded set of authors, a vastly expanded set of proxies, and several different sets of improved mathematical methods, as there had been progress there in ten years. They also did them without tree rings.

    Still /the new results were generally within MBH99’s error bars.
    So are other credible reconstructions that cover compatible geographies, even with different methods,.

    The earlier studies (MBH98, Jones et al(1998) and MBH99 stirred great interest and many improvements over those early works.
    (see this, which shows Jones next to MBH99.

    For the nth time, I wish John Tukey were still around/, because I have a pretty good idea what he would say about all this from a statistics viewpoint.

    Mann et al. 2008: Reconstructed global temperatures between AD 200 and AD 2000 using 1,209 independent proxies ranging from tree rings to boreholes to sediment cores to stalagmite cores to Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.

    That’s a paper I just happen to have,:

    “Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council
    report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature
    Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.”

    The “not independent” meme originated with McIntyre and CEI/GMI, and is one of those things that makes a nice sound-bite for people who don’t know the field. “Independent” is hardly binary.

    Science is filled with series of studies that involve some of the same people doing studies that later confirm or disconfirm their earlier results.

    Of course, see PAGES2K.

  225. #225 BBD
    December 24, 2015

    Locus

    John Mashey is correct. The ‘Mannean’ Hockey Stick has evolved, but never broken. Attempts to portray the ground-breaking work in MBH98/99 as dishonest and misleading do not derive from the science, but from misrepresentations of it.

    It’s also worth bearing in mind that were there evidence that the MCA was global, synchronous and as warm as or warmer than the present, it would suggest that the climate system is relatively sensitive to radiative perturbation. So we would be at the higher end of the risk spectrum from CO2 emissions.

  226. #226 BBD
    December 24, 2015

    James Mayeu

    What was Mann measuring with his hockeystick?

    It wasn’t temperature. Trees regulate their own temperature to compensate for variations in the weather.

    Near as I can figure he was measuring what he could plausibly get away with guided by greed, and an understanding of what the political forces of the day were shopping for.
    Huge amounts of public money.

    Then you must explain why so many subsequent studies have essentially validated MBH99. Or does your conspiracy theory encompass every researcher working on millennial temperature reconstructions?

    BTW any point you believe you are making with your assertions about dendro proxies is invalidated by the use of other proxies, eg. isotopic archives, sediment cores, speleotherms etc.

    Please have a think about that before repeating that claim yet again.

  227. #227 zebra
    December 24, 2015

    Well, this has been fun.

    @James Mayeu 223

    “trees regulate their own internal temperature”

    I regulate the temperature of my house, and you can find a record of that in my electricity and fuel expenditures. Do you think trees respond to temperature by some magical process that has no effect on their energy budget?

    You know, I still have this criticism for the science-oriented group that you argue with Denialists about these large data sets when most of it is refuted with just simple physics. But carry on the good fight– I think the recent actual climate is pretty much leaving only the dead-enders still active.

  228. #228 SteveP
    December 24, 2015

    Dear Drowning Tiger,

    Wonderful revelation about tree leaf homeostasis! We applaud your attempt to use science to try to prove a point. Good start! However, the possession of one fact is not going to be sufficient for you to win an argument with scientists. You will, of course, to continue claim victory in order to preserve some level of dignity, and your testosterone level, but those who are knowledgeable in the art are taking great amusement in your foolish floundering.

    You have discovered the not particularly surprising semi-precious gem of knowledge that plants try to maintain an optimum temperature of their leaves through things like transpiration and turgor, a phenomenon any competent gardener/botanist/biochemist could easily deduce from observing things like the rattle snake plant next to me now, or a squash plant on a hot summer day, or from the knowledge that living things have internal biochemical mechanisms to regulate their physiological processes. However, extrapolating from that one fact to your complete condemnation of the science of dendrochronology is about on the par of a martial art student learning how to stand at attention and thinking that they are now ready to fight a master.

    Knowing that tree leaves regulate their temperature to optimize photosynthesis in no way invalidates dendrochronology. Why don’t you read that two or three times before you proceed. Tree growth is sensitive to temperature. That is well established. The relationship between tree-ring growth and temperature has been established through measurements or tree rings and temperatures over centuries. One does not need to know the temperature of the tree leaves, to know that tree growth, and hence tree ring thickness, is related to temperature. And please note that in modern times, with massive man made perturbations of the environment like increasing carbon dioxide, acid rain, industrial pollution, and stratospheric ozone depletion, the tree ring correlation is changing. But we don’t need tree rings now because we have thermometers. Got it?

  229. #229 Rob Honeycutt
    December 24, 2015

    @Locus

    Where is the millennial temperature reconstruction that shows these other constructions are wrong?

    Every time someone attempts a reconstruction they get a hockey stick. And do you honestly think “contrarians” haven’t tried their own reconstruction? Clearly they have but they’ve not published it. You know why? They didn’t get the answer that supports their position. Maybe that’s an indication for you as to which side is approaching this issue honestly and which side is approaching it from a political ideology.

  230. #230 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 24, 2015

    Locus @ 220

    My comment was about the plaintiff’s response to the question of what the defendant perceives. That is all. I don’t know what you thought you were reading.

    As for your other comments, I’ll simply point out that climate science works the same way as other sciences. In fact you could argue that it is largely other sciences applied the study of climate. That is to say, your entry into the subject is not to assume that as a process it functions like the op-ed pages of your favorite rag.

    So conspiracy theories, sophistry, and other products of fevered imagination do not move the conversation forward here any more than they do for creationists, anti-vaxers, lunar landing denialists, etc. etc.

  231. #231 Pete Freans
    December 24, 2015

    @ Christopher Winter. Steyn’s two books, “Climate Chnage: The Facts” and “A Disgrace to the Profession” are not collections of brief statements by climatologists disagreeing with Mann and man made global warming. They are detailed essays, with scholarly citations, doing the above. Also, the court of public opinion (more importantly the court of peer review) is what we are talking about here. Whether they testify under oath or not is irrelevant. They have voluntarily submitted to Steyn to publish their work which contradicts Mann & man made global warming. Kindly read those books before suggesting that Mann’s work is universally accepted.

  232. #232 dhogaza
    December 24, 2015

    James Mayeu

    “What was Mann measuring with his hockeystick?

    It wasn’t temperature. Trees regulate their own temperature to compensate for variations in the weather.”

    Another astonishing display of miscomprehension of the paper in Nature which he so proudly cites in his astonishing display of ignorance as to what the tree ring proxy analysis used by MBH 98 actually was.

    It is as though he is intentionally maintaining his ignorance …

  233. #233 dhogaza
    December 24, 2015

    Pete Freans:

    “They have voluntarily submitted to Steyn to publish their work which contradicts Mann & man made global warming.”

    PT Barnum had kind words of appreciation for the likes of you: “there’s a sucker born every minute”.

    If you believe the physics underlying climate science is wrong, you can test our physical understanding of the radiative properties of CO2 by taking the CO2 laser challenge:

    1. buy yourself a reasonably powerful CO2 laser
    2. point it at your forehead
    3. while muttering “Steyn has disproved our understanding of climate science”, turn it on

    You won’t be around to clean up the mess that results …

  234. #234 BBD
    December 24, 2015

    #231 Pete Freans

    Scientific studies are critiqued in the scientific literature, not self-published tosh peddled by some pig-ignorant right-wing demagogue.

    When we turn to the published literature, we find various millennial temperature reconstructions that essentially confirm – and refine – the original MBH99 results.

    This begs a serious question: why are you waving the aforementioned vanity publishing project around instead of a stack of papers showing exactly how MBH has been fundamentally invalidated?

  235. #235 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 24, 2015

    BBD: This begs a serious question: why are you waving the aforementioned vanity publishing project around instead of a stack of papers showing exactly how MBH has been fundamentally invalidated?”

    The denialists’ answer:

    var audio = new Audio(‘CRICKETS_CHIRPING.WAV’);
    audio.play();

  236. #236 Clay
    USA
    December 24, 2015

    After reading the article and comments section I’ve observed that the prevailing opinion is “free speech be d***ed we need to save the planet.”

  237. #237 Clay
    December 24, 2015

    The hurdle for libel is extremely high for public figures. Mann has to prove Steyn doesn’t believe what he said and that his intent was purely to harm Mann. The speech is obviously political so it seems like the case should have been thrown out.

  238. #238 Narad
    December 24, 2015

    There are clear limits to free speech, and for good reason. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater because of the harm it could do to others.

    This is one that should have been retired a long time ago.

  239. #239 Brainstorms
    December 24, 2015

    The speech is obviously political …

    And its political intent is to stifle Mann’s Freedom of Speech by damaging his academic reputation, doing so with obvious malice and a reckless disregard for the truth, so …

    It is libel “so it seems like the case should have been brought to trial already.

    There. Fixed that for ya.

  240. #240 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 24, 2015

    Clay: “After reading the article and comments section I’ve observed that the prevailing opinion is “free speech be d***ed we need to save the planet.””

    Your complaints about your low reading comprehension skills should be addressed elsewhere, where a mental health care professional can help you. This is a science blog.

    Also, what the bloody anal fuck is “d***ed?”

  241. #241 Brainstorms
    December 24, 2015

    After reading the article and comments section I’ve observed that the prevailing opinion is “The libeling of scientists be damned. Oh, and we need to save the planet.”

  242. #242 BBD
    December 24, 2015

    Dear Clay & Narad

    Please try to distinguish between what constitutes a case in US law (which enshrines the right to free speech) and what constitutes a robust scientific argument (which is focused best fit of hypothesis to evidence).

    They are not the same. The absurdity of trying to establish a (false) equivalence between them should be obvious, but apparently is not.

  243. #243 dhogaza
    December 24, 2015

    Clay:

    “After reading the article and comments section I’ve observed that the prevailing opinion is “free speech be d***ed we need to save the planet.””

    The 1st Amendment gives Steyn the right to say whatever he damned well pleases.

    Laws against defamatory speech give him the opportunity to pay for the consequences of his exercising his 1st Amendment right to free speech when he crosses the line drawn by those laws.

  244. #244 BBD
    December 24, 2015

    Sorry, that should be:

    ” (which is focused on the best fit of hypothesis to evidence).”

    Parsimoniously, of course.

  245. #245 dhogaza
    December 24, 2015

    “There are clear limits to free speech, and for good reason. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater because of the harm it could do to others.”

    Not true, really You can yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, but if harm comes to people or property as a result, you are liable for having done so …

  246. #246 BBD
    December 24, 2015

    dhogaza

    Laws against defamatory speech give him the opportunity to pay for the consequences of his exercising his 1st Amendment right to free speech when he crosses the line drawn by those laws.

    While one may hope so, I was obliged to concede last night that US law places a higher value on freedom of speech than on freedom from libel.

  247. #247 James Mayeau
    December 24, 2015

    Wonderful revelation about tree leaf homeostasis! We applaud your attempt to use science to try to prove a point. Good start! However, the possession of one fact is not going to be sufficient for you to win an argument with scientists.

    Actually Helliker & Richter is enough when the topic is millennial temperature reconstructions. You bunch of one trick ponies. Sit. SIT! SIT.
    Mann, you can’t even get that one right.

    Everyone of those pile on’s. Everyone of the double downs on tree rings. Every half baked defense, and circling of the wagons around Michael Mann, just cements the moral bankruptcy of climatology.

    Otoh anybody can spot review Helliker and Richter with an IR scope and a tree.

  248. #248 Fragmeister
    December 24, 2015

    “@ Christopher Winter. Steyn’s two books, “Climate Chnage: The Facts” and “A Disgrace to the Profession” are not collections of brief statements by climatologists disagreeing with Mann and man made global warming. They are detailed essays, with scholarly citations, doing the above. Also, the court of public opinion (more importantly the court of peer review) is what we are talking about here. Whether they testify under oath or not is irrelevant. They have voluntarily submitted to Steyn to publish their work which contradicts Mann & man made global warming. Kindly read those books before suggesting that Mann’s work is universally accepted.”

    Oh, boy. Where to start? Darwin, Einsten, two more scientists for whom we could find a pile of dissenting voices. Doesn’t make the dissenters right, does it? More problematically, scientific issues are not solved by who shouts loudest, who has an opinion or who publishes a book. They are solved by evidence and some need to be reminded that MBH98 has been supported by a stack of later studies saying essentially the same thing.

    My opinion of Steyn’s comment that has led to this case. There is a matter of fact to be sorted – did Mann distort or abuse the data. If he did, so did his co authors whose reputations will be stained as a result. A series of investigations have concluded that Steyn is wrong and that Mann did not commit scientific fraud. I suspect a judge will not disagree with the scientific community.

  249. #249 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 24, 2015

    Clay 236
    An incorrect though unsurprisingly waspish caricature.

    Clay 237
    Defamatory speech can’t be politically motivated? Nonsense.

    There is enough of a question about the merits that the matter can go to trial.

  250. #250 BBD
    December 24, 2015

    James Mayeau

    Actually Helliker & Richter is enough when the topic is millennial temperature reconstructions.

    Please see #226:

    Then you must explain why so many subsequent studies have essentially validated MBH99. Or does your conspiracy theory encompass every researcher working on millennial temperature reconstructions?

    BTW any point you believe you are making with your assertions about dendro proxies is invalidated by the use of other proxies, eg. isotopic archives, sediment cores, speleotherms etc.

    Please have a think about that before repeating that claim yet again.

  251. #251 dhogaza
    December 24, 2015

    James Mayeau

    “Otoh anybody can spot review Helliker and Richter with an IR scope and a tree.”

    talk about missing the point … someone can’t see the forest for the trees.

    idiot talks on blogs proclaiming the take-down of a field of science by citing a paper that claims no such thing. science marches forward, unaware of the existence of the idiot. progress and the advancement of knowledge continues, despite the idiot’s efforts to lower our collective IQ down to his double-digit level.

  252. #252 Clay
    USA
    December 24, 2015

    I was making an educated statement about US defamation lawsuits. You do not have to like it but the burden of evidence is on the plaintiff to prove the defendant didn’t mean what he said. If the plaintiff is a public figure the bar is set incredibly high.

    See:
    Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell

    We are free to be angry about Steyn’s blog post but I highly doubt Mann will win.

  253. #253 dhogaza
    December 24, 2015

    Clay:

    “Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell”

    from wikipedia:

    “Thus, Hustler magazine’s parody of Jerry Falwell was deemed to be within the law, because the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims, leading to a reversal of the jury verdict in favor of Falwell, who had previously been awarded $150,000 in damages by a lower court.”

    My understanding is that Steyn isn’t claiming that his writings are parody, and that he’s only poking fun at Mann.

    Any judge who were to read this thread, for instance, would be disabused of the notion that reasonable people wouldn’t take Steyn’s claims as being factual. For some definitions of “reasonable”, at least.

  254. #254 Clay
    USA
    December 24, 2015

    dhogaza the amici brief filed on behalf of Steyn by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Reporters Committee for Press Freedom, the American Society of News Editors, the Association of American Publishers, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia (The Village Voice et al), NBC Universal, Bloomberg News, the publishers of USA Today, Time, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, The Detroit Free Press, The Seattle Times, The Arizona Republic and The Bergen County Record.

    It can be found by googling: Amicus Curiae Mark Steyn

    The lawsuit is important because it will set a precedent for future libel law. Free Speech means protecting unpopular sometimes ugly speech from prosecution. I understand your anger with Steyn but Mann’s solution is overreaching.

  255. #255 Brainstorms
    December 24, 2015

    … but the burden of evidence is on the plaintiff to prove the defendant didn’t mean what he said.

    The law/court doesn’t care if the defendant meant what he said; it’s concerned with the fact that the defendant published his libelous statement as a fact rather than as an opinion, did so with malice, and the result could reasonably be taken as harmful to the plaintiff.

    As happens to be the case with Steyn and Mann…

  256. #256 Brainstorms
    December 24, 2015

    Free Speech includes the responsibility of protecting unpopular sometimes ugly targets of such speech from persecution.

  257. #257 Brainstorms
    December 24, 2015

    C’mon, Clay, let’s get it right.

    “Free Speech” in the United States does not allow citizens to practice libel under the cover of whinging about their free speech rights to do so.

  258. #258 BBD
    December 24, 2015

    #255 Brainstorms

    The law/court doesn’t care if the defendant *meant* what he said; it’s concerned with the fact that the defendant published his libelous statement as a fact rather than as an opinion, did so with malice, and the result could reasonably be taken as harmful to the plaintiff.

    Actually, I’m not sure that this is correct. From the link Dan posted upthread:

    Under the rules set forth in Sullivan, a public official cannot recover from a person who publishes a communication about a public official’s conduct or fitness unless the defendant knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the statement’s truth or falsity. This standard is referred to as “actual malice,” although malice in this sense does not mean ill-will. Instead, the actual malice standard refers to the defendant’s knowledge of the truth or falsity of the statement.

  259. #259 BBD
    December 24, 2015

    Since it is abundantly clear that Steyn is not on top of his brief when it comes to climate science in general and Mann’s work in particular, it would be difficult to demonstrate that MS didn’t know he was spouting bollocks.

  260. #260 BBD
    December 24, 2015

    Sorry:

    Since it is abundantly clear that Steyn is not on top of his brief when it comes to climate science in general and Mann’s work in particular, it would be difficult to demonstrate that MS knew he was spouting bollocks.

  261. #261 Brainstorms
    December 24, 2015

    #258 BBD

    Does this apply given that Mann is not a “public official”? I read that as someone holding a political (governing) office, not an academic. Does Dan’s link make that distinction, or lump them together?

  262. #262 John Mashey
    December 24, 2015

    For some insight: into the beliefs and knowledge of climate science:

    1) I strongly recommend A four-party view of US environmental concern
    See Figure 1, one of whose take-aways is that:
    a) Self-identified Tea Party adherents were by far the least well informed on straightforward science questions … and the most confident they are well-informed.

    b) Of course, a Tea Party guy who thinks WUWT is science, is invincible in his beliefs. This is unsurprising, given the well-documented Koch+Big Tobacco fostering of the Tea Party.

    2) From my experience, I have never once seen a serious Dunning-Kruger afflictee recover, perhaps because they have Sauron-sized Morton’s Demons to repel facts they don’t like. (see Pseudoskeptics are not skeptics.

    3) There’s lots of Dunning-Kruger in this thread, on both science and law.

  263. #263 Rob Honeycutt
    December 24, 2015

    Clay @ 237…

    Steyn doesn’t believe what he said and that his intent was purely to harm Mann.

    Incorrect. Mann merely show a reckless disregard for facts, which essentially describes Steyn’s raison d’tete.

  264. #264 Brainstorms
    December 24, 2015

    I think Steyn did intend to harm Mann: Steyn wanted to damage Mann’s reputation.

    Why? Because if Mann maintained a highly-regarded reputation, his published results would carry weight — not only in the climate science community, but also with politicians charged with enacting policy — policy that would include taking steps to mitigate the effects of AGW that climate science has been bringing to light.

    Steyn seeks to damage Mann’s reputation so as to make his results come into question, through association with claims of fraud. With those results in question, the whole of climate science can (fallaciously) be called into question.

    This allows politicians to be more easily manipulated, especially if the public is similarly gulled into thinking there’s something nefarious about scientists, especially those working on climate issues.

    That reduces the risk that Steyn and his ilk and their supporters would have to part with money or change their precious lifestyles.

    Little wonder Steyn has shown such forceful malice in attacking Mann… His tactic may, unfortunately, work. He’s now trying to incorrectly frame this as a First Amendment issue, when he’s just using that as a protection to inflict this harm on Mann and his revelations about AGW.

  265. #265 BBD
    December 24, 2015

    #261 Brainstorms

    Does this apply given that Mann is not a “public official”? I read that as someone holding a political (governing) office, not an academic. Does Dan’s link make that distinction, or lump them together?

    It appears that having a public presence (media exposure etc) is enough to engage the actual malice clause.

  266. #266 BBD
    December 24, 2015

    Sorry, link and:

    Later cases expanded the rule to apply to public figures. A public figure is someone who has gained a significant degree of fame or notoriety in general or in the context of a particular issue or controversy. Even though these figures have no official role in government affairs, they often hold considerable influence over decisions made by the government or by the public. Examples of public figures are numerous and could include, for instance, celebrities, prominent athletes, or advocates who involve themselves in a public debate.

  267. #267 John Mashey
    December 24, 2015

    One more time: MBH98/99 have 3 authors, not one, and Jones et al(1998) got very similar results, also reported in IPCC TAR, and actually, that had even less warmth circa 1000AD.
    Again, see MedievalDeception 2015: Inhofe Drags Senate Back To Dark Ages, which shows Jones et al at left, MBH99 at right, or see IPCC Tar Fig 2.20.

  268. #268 MikeN
    December 24, 2015

    Stevo, you ask or an explanation regarding Steyn’s being a human rights activist and Greg Laden is subject to lawsuit under the standards of Mann law.

    Let’s take the second part first. If Steyn is a human rights activist, then it is defamation to declare that he is not. Basically you are accusing him of lying, just as Mann is suing for declaring Mann’s work fraudulent.

    Now is Steyn a human rights activist. See Russell Seitz’s post above about standing up for free speech in Canada. That is a human right, and Steyn was instrumental in having the whole anti-human rights Human Rights Commissions thrown out.
    Steyn also appeared in Denmark at the tenth anniversary of the publication of the Mohammed cartoons in Europe. THE PEOPLE HE SHARED THE STAGE WITH AT THE FIVE YEAR ANNIVERSARY WERE ALL KILLED by Islamic jihadists.

  269. #269 MikeN
    December 24, 2015

    Brainstorms, by that logic every public statement made by a politician in a political campaign about his opponent is grounds for a lawsuit.

  270. #270 dean
    United States
    December 24, 2015

    Steyn is a human rights activist,

    Who started this asinine meme of him as a human rights activist?

  271. #271 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 24, 2015

    dean: “Who started this asinine meme of him as a human rights activist?”

    On the Phil Donahue show, David Duke called himself a “human rights activist.” Maybe the same phenomena are involved with Steyn’s minions….

  272. #272 John Mashey
    December 24, 2015

    Why are people arguing about whether or not Mann is a (limited-purpose) public figure? See Oct 2012 complaint.

    The phrase “public figure” does not appear, but
    the phrase “actual malice” appears 10 times.

    Now, why would that be?
    Hint: Mann’s lawyers are not dumb.

  273. #273 BBD
    December 24, 2015

    Who started this asinine meme of him as a human rights activist?

    That was MikeN: #13 MikeN.

  274. #274 BBD
    December 24, 2015

    @ John Mashey

    Hint: Mann’s lawyers are not dumb.

    And TFFT because the law is problematic, isn’t it?

  275. #275 John Mashey
    December 24, 2015

    The law is certainly messy, especially given differences in jurisdictions.

    More Dunning-Kruger.
    Spread across numerous blogs are all sorts of discussions arguing that Mann was a public figure and therefore suit would fail, not having bothered to read the complaint and get the hint that Mann’s lawyers expected to prove actual malice from the beginning, not claiming non-(public figure).

  276. #276 Christopher Winter
    December 24, 2015

    Locus (#208): I’m sorry but Calder v. Jones was not a successful libel suit. The Supreme Court merely ruled that Jones could sue the Enquirer in California even though the reporter was based in Florida.

    You’re right, of course. I should have been more specific. As the <New York Times reported, the actual libel suit was settled for an undisclosed sum, and the Enquirer provided a five-paragraph retraction which Jones and Ingels were free to publish anywhere they wished. The Enquirer also published it.

    You may not regard that as a successful suit. I think it comes close enough.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/27/us/national-enquirer-agrees-to-settle-with-shirley-jones-in-libel-suit.html

  277. #277 Brainstorms
    December 24, 2015

    Brainstorms, by that logic every public statement made by a politician in a political campaign about his opponent is grounds for a lawsuit.

    Given the current trend in incivility among candidates, perhaps it should be!

  278. #278 Christopher Winter
    December 24, 2015

    Locus (220): The judge added that caveat because the defendant’s perspective *is what matters* in determining actual malice.

    And if the defendant in this case (Steyn) has a long public record of denigrating Dr. Mann and his work, what are we to conclude from that?

  279. #279 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 24, 2015

    “Given the current trend in incivility among candidates, perhaps it should be!”

    I think women who urinate are disgusting.

  280. #280 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 24, 2015

    “And if the defendant in this case (Steyn) has a long public record of denigrating Dr. Mann and his work, what are we to conclude from that?”

    She’s made outta wood!

  281. #281 BBD
    December 24, 2015

    @ John

    How can actual malice be demonstrated even by widening the scope of the evidence?

    Nutters are sincere and wrong.

  282. #282 MikeN
    December 24, 2015

    ‘Tim, Phil, Keith:
    I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments involved, to an uninformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by “for” and “against” global warming proponents. However, if
    an “independent group” such as you guys at the Climatic
    Research Unit could make a statement as to whether the McIntyre and McKitrick effort is truly an “audit”, and whether they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue.’

  283. #283 MikeN
    December 24, 2015

    John Mashey, it is Mann’s defenders here who are using the not a public figure defense, hence the attack on that argument. No one is accusing the lawyers of doing so(I hope).

  284. #284 MikeN
    December 24, 2015

    >>Who started this asinine meme of him as a human rights activist?

    >That was MikeN: #13 MikeN.

    BBD, perhaps you should read the main post.

  285. #285 Christopher Winter
    December 24, 2015

    James Mayeau (#247): Everyone of those pile on’s. Everyone of the double downs on tree rings. Every half baked defense, and circling of the wagons around Michael Mann, just cements the moral bankruptcy of climatology.

    So now climate science is not just scientifically bankrupt, it is morally bankrupt too? In the face of continuing changes that not only climate scientists but other scientists the world over, as well as farmers and forestry managers, mountain climbers, and military leaders recognize and report — changes like the thinning of the Greenland ice sheets, the steadily falling extent and volume of the north polar icecap, the retreats of mountain glaciers, the expansion of growing and wildfire seasons, the acceleration of sea-level rise — we are to treat their warnings of oncoming problems as some nefarious plot?

    If you answer yes, I and many others here will expect you to provide evidence.

  286. #286 dhogaza
    December 24, 2015

    MikeN:

    “‘Tim, Phil, Keith:
    I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments involved, to an uninformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by “for” and “against” global warming proponents. However, if
    an “independent group” such as you guys at the Climatic
    Research Unit could make a statement as to whether the McIntyre and McKitrick effort is truly an “audit”, and whether they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue.’”

    And? There’s something wrong with sticking up for science?

  287. #287 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 24, 2015

    MikeN: “…it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by “for” and “against” global warming proponents….”

    Er… ah… I think you mean “global warming opponents.” Only a very few homicidal sociopaths in the world are global warming proponents.

    “an “independent group” such as you guys at the Climatic
    Research Unit could make a statement as to whether the McIntyre and McKitrick effort is truly an “audit”, and whether they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue.”

    Ah… um… that has been done already, a few hundred times. McIntyre (mineral extraction industry lobbyist) and McKitrick (economist) had the odd belief that adding invalid PCs is A Good Thing because when they did so, the hockey stick became flatter…. therefore they insisted MB&H should have added more PCs. McIntyre and McKitrick also ran 10,000 pseudo-random simulations, saw half-a dozen hockey sticks, ignored the rest, and then reported that MBH98 and MBH99 are random walks….

    So, why in the world would anyone need to YET ONCE AGAIN “… make a statement as to whether the McIntyre and McKitrick effort is truly an “audit”, and whether they did it right….” when no scientist, anywhere, thinks they did it right? See, for background, the phrase “Dead Horse; Flogging”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

  288. #288 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 24, 2015

    MikeN: John Mashey, it is Mann’s defenders here who are using the not a public figure defense….”

    Uh, no. The pro-science defenders here have noted, a few billion times, that the issue of being a public figure is not relevant, nor is the issue mentioned in the litigation.

  289. #289 dhogaza
    December 24, 2015

    Desertphile:

    He’s dragging up an excerpt from the e-mails stolen from HadCRU so long ago. Because, you know, once the e-mails were stolen, physics changed and CO2 was no longer a GHG.

  290. #290 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 24, 2015

    Christopher Winter “So now climate science is not just scientifically bankrupt, it is morally bankrupt too? In the face of continuing changes that not only climate scientists but other scientists the world over, as well as farmers and forestry managers, mountain climbers, and military leaders recognize and report — changes like the thinning of the Greenland ice sheets, the steadily falling extent and volume of the north polar icecap, the retreats of mountain glaciers, the expansion of growing and wildfire seasons, the acceleration of sea-level rise — we are to treat their warnings of oncoming problems as some nefarious plot?”

    Also the many species (animals and plants) moving northward; the many species migrating south later than usual, north sooner than usual; 10,000+ electronic temperature recording devices pouring data into the Weather Underground database…. all part of the “let’s be immoral!” conspiracy.

  291. #291 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 24, 2015

    dhogaza: “And? There’s something wrong with sticking up for science?”

    Oh, yes, very much so— on the Internet. In one of my recent YouTube videos I happened to mention the fact that Earth is not a flat, round disk: over 300 people got irate, enraged, and called me all sort of amusing names. CoolHardLogic, on YouTube, made a few videos that showed why and how we know Earth is not the center of the universe, and that upset over 1,000 YouTube users.

    Spooky times we live in….

  292. #292 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 24, 2015

    dhogaza: He’s dragging up an excerpt from the e-mails stolen from HadCRU so long ago. Because, you know, once the e-mails were stolen, physics changed and CO2 was no longer a GHG.

    Al, well, yes. That explains the CRU mention…. I wondered why it was brought up, since the topic is Mark Steyn. Eventually we will start reading about how Dr. Mann masterminded the Benghazi attack. When President Sanders legalizes marijuana cultivation and possession, Dr. Mann’s “_Nature_ Trick” will be blamed.

  293. #293 MikeN
    December 24, 2015

    Forget Benghazi. Dr Mann almost killed off the entire human race for his own selfish reasons.

  294. #294 MikeN
    December 24, 2015

    I wonder if Mark Steyn will call the former Met Office head to his defense?

    b. Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It
    seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no. It is not clear how
    robust and significant the more recent approaches are.

  295. #295 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 24, 2015

    Forget Benghazi. Dr Mann almost killed off the entire human race for his own selfish reasons.

    “Moonraker” sucked as a movie as well as a novel.

  296. #296 dean
    December 24, 2015

    ™Dr Mann almost killed off the entire human race for his own selfish reasons.”

    How do people like you type when your knuckles are dragging on the ground?

  297. #297 SteveP
    Lame R. Smh Center for Obfuscation
    December 24, 2015

    Dear Noncomprehending Individual With The Drowning Tiger Avatar:
    Trees that depend heavily on temperature in the growing season will have narrow rings during cold periods and wider rings for warm periods. Trees that depend heavily on moisture during the growing season will have wider rings during rainy periods and narrower rings during dry periods. This has been known by scientists since the time of Da Vinci and before. And the temperature of the leaf obviously doesn’t have a fuck of a lot to do with the width of tree rings if the temperature of the leaf is fairly constant during the day during growing season. According to your reasoning, all tree rings should be the same width, and that is not the case.

    If you or an intelligent jury were to think about it, they would realize that a tree has other parts besides leaves, and as long as those other tree parts are successfully supplying important raw materials to those constant temperature leaves, and as long as they are successfully taking finished products back from them, the tree will tend to grow. The leaves are like engines with thermostats that run at a fairly constant temperature. The width of the tree ring has fuck all to do with the constant temperature of the leaf during growing season, just like the distance your car runs before it runs out of gas has nothing to do with the engine temperature if that thermostat is running properly.

    An article about leaf temperature does not invalidate dendroclimatology. Your mind appears to be rigidly made up, and you appear to be in face-saving-mode and therefore cannot publicly admit that you might be dead wrong.

  298. #298 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 24, 2015

    “Dr Mann almost killed off the entire human race for his own selfish reasons.”

    How do people like you type when your knuckles are dragging on the ground?

    Damn it, he’s on to us! Someone must have talked! Round up everyone who has certs for Operating Thetan Four and above, for sec checks!

  299. #299 MikeN
    December 24, 2015

    I see M and Manuela, but no Dr Mann in THAT…

  300. #300 John Mashey
    December 24, 2015

    BBD @281
    “How can actual malice be demonstrated even by widening the scope of the evidence?”

    The two reports I did in 2010 offered much evidence of a well-organized conspiracy to make Mann the focus of neverending attack, and I actually think there is already plenty of evidence of that, especially at CEI, but there’s some other history with NR as well …
    but, there are interesting questions to be asked to fill in holes, i.e., not contradictiions but questions of how information got from A to B, who attended certain meetings where discussions are on record, but not who said them, how the Wall Street Journal was enlisted, and how it got the image it falsely claimed was exactly as shown in IPCC FAR, etc, etc, etc. There are at least 2 CEI folks (Ebell and Horner) long involved in harassing Mann. There are of course interesting questions about certain politicians and their staffers.

    Anyway, the issue with discovery is that judges typically do not allow giant fishing expeditions, but having specific reasonable questions helps. … and in this case, might well drag a lot of people in as witnesses.

  301. #301 James Mayeau
    December 25, 2015

    @ # 297 It’s a tiger diving into a pool after some meat. Tigers like to swim.

    Anyhow, your description makes tree rings a pretty good rain gauge or maybe a hygrometer, but not a thermometer.

    Using tree rings to backcast the temperature is like using rectal thermometers on polar bears as a proxy of pack ice thickness.

  302. #302 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 25, 2015

    SteveP: “Dear Noncomprehending Individual With The Drowning Tiger Avatar:”

    I love pwnage poetry with my coffee in the morning!

  303. #303 dean
    United States
    December 25, 2015

    Using tree rings to backcast the temperature is like using rectal thermometers on polar bears as a proxy of pack ice thickness.

    Use a stupid comparison like that is like making a massive attempt to hide your lack of understanding of science.

    Oh, wait.

  304. #304 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 25, 2015

    James Mayeau: Anyhow, your description makes tree rings a pretty good rain gauge or maybe a hygrometer, but not a thermometer.”

    What you mean is, you have no idea how dendroclimatology works and you have no interest in learning…. and that makes you an expert in the subject, much more so than the people who studied the subject.

  305. #305 Desertphile
    Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
    December 25, 2015

    Dean: Use a stupid comparison like that is like making a massive attempt to hide your lack of understanding of science.

    Oh, wait.

    My toes were cold this morning, therefore the pizza I eat six times a day isn’t what is making me fat.

  306. #306 Rob Honeycutt
    December 25, 2015

    James @301…

    Using tree rings to backcast the temperature is like using rectal thermometers on polar bears as a proxy of pack ice thickness.

    Care to explain exactly how these are the same?

  307. #307 Narad
    December 25, 2015

    Dear Clay & Narad

    Please try to distinguish between what constitutes a case in US law (which enshrines the right to free speech) and what constitutes a robust scientific argument (which is focused best fit of hypothesis to evidence).

    They are not the same. The absurdity of trying to establish a (false) equivalence between them should be obvious, but apparently is not.

    The only thing I’ve been talking about is the legal side. How on earth you turned that into some nonsense about trying to “establish a (false) equivalence” is beyond me.

  308. #308 Pete Freans
    December 25, 2015

    @desertphile and bbd: have you read Steyn’s two compilations of contrarian climatologists?

    (Sound of crickets)

  309. #309 Desertphile
    Deport Mark Steyn!
    December 25, 2015

    Pete Freans: “@desertphile and bbd: have you read Steyn’s two compilations of contrarian climatologists?”

    I don’t consume pornography.

  310. #310 John Mashey
    December 25, 2015

    People may recall Greg Laden’s Mark Steyn’s Newest Attack On Michael Mann And The Hockey Stick.
    That one got 600 comments, with many of the same people and arguments.

    Of the 3 examples, the 2 climate scientists were quoted out of context. Sadly, although I commented many times, I forgot to add information about the third, Jonathan Jones, a physicists far removed from climate science, He often commented at Bishop HIll. Sooner or later, I will publish my detailed study of the Salby affair (held until I was sure his grad student had finished her PhD).
    Jones commented at Bishop Hill, and seems to have taken Montford’s “Hide the Decline” as Truth. He also was involved in the long discussion about “The Hockeystick Illusion” that led to the “dog astrology journal” post of mine, which he seemed to ignore.

    Since Jones is an Oxford physicist,the following might or not be relevant:
    http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/the_arrogance_of_physicists

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_A._Jones
    http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jajones; http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk/
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/23/the-beddington-challenge.html?currentPage=2 ; http://www.webcitation.org/6QzcwmYAx
    ‘People have asked why mainstream scientists are keeping silent on these issues. As a scientist who has largely kept silent, at least in public, I have more sympathy for silence than most people here. It’s not for the obvious reason, that speaking out leads to immediate attacks, not just from Gavin and friends, but also from some of the more excitable commentators here. Far more importantly most scientists are reluctant to speak out on topics which are not their field. We tend to trust our colleagues, perhaps unreasonably so, and are also well aware that most scientific questions are considerably more complex than outsiders think, and that it is entirely possible that we have missed some subtle but critical point.
    However, “hide the decline” is an entirely different matter. This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science. The significance of the divergence problem is immediately obvious, and seeking to hide it is quite simply wrong. The recent public statements by supposed leaders of UK science, declaring that hiding the decline is standard scientific practice are on a par with declarations that black is white and up is down. I don’t know who they think they are speaking for, but they certainly aren’t speaking for me.
    I have watched Judy Curry with considerable interest since she first went public on her doubts about some aspects of climate science, an area where she is far more qualified than I am to have an opinion. Her latest post has clearly kicked up a remarkable furore, but she was right to make it. The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an error, has endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science. If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question.
    Judy’s decision to try to call a halt to this mess before it’s too late is brave and good. So please cut her some slack; she has more than enough problems to deal with at the moment.
    If you’re wondering who I am, then you can find me at the Physics Department at Oxford University.’
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/2/journal-editor-resigns.html#comments;
    http://www.webcitation.org/6QzdAi5pv
    ‘This is truly bizarre, and just shows how profoundly warped the climate science community has become. I make no judgement here on the correctness of the paper, but editors just don’t resign because of things like this. …
    Sure, my two controversies above never hit the popular press, but the arsenic stuff was discussed all over the place, far more than Spencer and Braswell.
    What sort of weird warped world to climate scientists inhabit? How have they allowed themselves to move so far from comon sense? What is wrong with these guys?’
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/4/8/tamsin-edwards-versus-jonathan-jones.html#comment19911732 ; http://www.webcitation.org/6QzdJ6cs1
    ‘I did sign off on the copy after a couple of minor modifications which I requested. As I am saying on twitter I am definitely a sceptic of the “policy usefulness” of climate models, so I was happy for them to use the phrase in that context, rather than my usual “climate agnostic” self-description.’
    My bio (which they haven’t yet used) makes very clear that I am a scientist with wide ranging expertise, but no special expertise in climate science. A central part of my claim is that professional climate scientists are over confident about the quality of their work, but this is largely because all scientists are over confident about the quality of their own work. Outsiders, without the emotional commitment that working in a field inevitably brings, can take a much more objective view of things.’

  311. #311 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 25, 2015

    PF,

    Just out of curiosity, what climatologists?

  312. #312 Joe
    Earth
    December 25, 2015

    In the United States, the law of defamation is inextricably bound to the First Amendment.

  313. #313 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 25, 2015

    #306
    “Using tree rings to backcast the temperature is like using rectal thermometers on polar bears as a proxy of pack ice thickness.

    Care to explain exactly how these are the same?”

    Drowning Tiger isn’t saying that the two are the same, but that they are similar. Based on his inability to reply to BBD’s twice asked question (#226 & 250), I don’t imagine he’ll reply to yours. My suspicion is that he was so pleased with the image of a phallus-like object being inserted into a polar bear rectum, that the rest didn’t matter.

  314. #314 James Mayeau
    December 25, 2015

    No. But a global warming phony trying to take a polar bear’s temperature, that would be hilarious.

    Coming in from the bear’s blind side would be the safe approach.

    I’m thinking of your welfare.

  315. #315 SteveP
    Nova Florida
    December 25, 2015

    #301 Dear Drowning Tiger Avatar Person

    You would do well to look up to the words of wisdom of Chauncey Gardener or someone of his stature in the matter of basic botany. In the mean time, I’ve chosen J. Zimmerman for his wise thoughts on tree rings, but anyone with a good knowledge of the art will do.

    ” If spring starts early, the growing season is likely to be longer than usual, causing a tree to have a wider ring.
    ……. A late spring is likely to shorten the growing season, causing a tree to have a narrower tree ring.
    Abundant rainfall increases growth, producing a wider ring.
    Drought decreases growth, producing a narrower ring.
    ****Species of tree do differ in their response to weather changes. One might respond strongly to changes in overall rainfall, another might be more sensitive to the amount of rain during the late summer, and another to a temperature change that alters the length of the growing season.”

    The above knowledge and some linear algebra should be all you need to crack this code, ace.

    By the way, your polar bear comparison is missing an analogous temporal component to give it some added punch and humor, so it really falls flat. It is neither far enough away from dendro-climatology to be insanely humorous, nor close enough or insightful enough to be instructive. It is just kind of meh. People are waiting for your punch line, but it never comes. You really gotta work on that.

  316. #316 John Mashey
    December 26, 2015

    SteveP
    Good advice, albeit likely ignored, given the power of Dunning-Kruger.

    Of course, even better would be the study of Ray Bradley’s Paleoclimatology – Reconstructing the Climates of the Quaternary (2015), pp.453-497.

  317. #317 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 26, 2015

    #314
    Thanks. You’ve proved my point.

  318. #318 BBD
    December 26, 2015

    #307 Narad

    The only thing I’ve been talking about is the legal side. How on earth you turned that into some nonsense about trying to “establish a (false) equivalence” is beyond me.

    Looking back, it is beyond me, too. Entirely my mistake; please accept my apologies. Mr Clay, however, not so much.

  319. #319 BBD
    December 26, 2015

    # 308 Pete Freans

    @desertphile and bbd: have you read Steyn’s two compilations of contrarian climatologists?

    (Sound of crickets)

    See #234:

    Scientific studies are critiqued in the scientific literature, not self-published tosh peddled by some pig-ignorant right-wing demagogue.

    When we turn to the published literature, we find various millennial temperature reconstructions that essentially confirm – and refine – the original MBH99 results.

    This begs a serious question: why are you waving the aforementioned vanity publishing project around instead of a stack of papers showing exactly how MBH has been fundamentally invalidated?

    Why have you reappeared on this thread without the necessary evidence to support your argument?

    Where is it?

    At this point, you either provide scientific evidence or lose the argument. Don’t you even understand that yet?

  320. #320 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 26, 2015

    BBD: “Scientific studies are critiqued in the scientific literature, not self-published tosh peddled by some pig-ignorant right-wing demagogue.”

    … except in the USA, and only when it comes to climate change, guns killing people, and pregnancy.

    Regarding “desertphile and bbd: have you read Steyn’s two compilations of contrarian climatologists?” I read the free sample via Kindle. (I will only give Steyn money if a Second Amendment Freedom Device is pointed at my head.) I wrote better when I was eight years old; the text is a fine example of Creationism “science—” state the opposite of what a scientist has stated, attribute one’s statement to that scientist, then repeat 300 times.

  321. #321 Rob Honeycutt
    December 26, 2015

    James @ 314…

    No. But a global warming phony trying to take a polar bear’s temperature, that would be hilarious.

    Ah, so you have no actual substantive comment to make. Not that I’m surprised, but good to know.

  322. #322 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    Mashey #224

    “Nobody had said ‘independent’.

    “The “not independent” meme originated with McIntyre and CEI/GMI, and is one of those things that makes a nice sound-bite for people who don’t know the field. “Independent” is hardly binary.”

    a) Yes, independence is binary, when we’re talking about the same exact person. We’re not talking about whether other people in the same field can be independent, we’re talking about a person somehow managing to be be considered “independent” of themselves.

    Look at it this way. If a doctor just gives the same opinion twice, is that considered a “second opinion”?

    b) Independence is a critical in examining scientific claims. But don’t take my word for it. Since you mentioned the National Academy of Sciences report on Mann’s hockey stick, let’s take a look at the definition of peer-review developed by the NAS for U.S. scientific agencies. Note how much independence is stressed.

    http://www.nap.edu/read/5939/chapter/4

    “A peer review is a documented, critical review performed by peers [defined in the USNRC report as “a person having technical expertise in the subject matter to be reviewed (or a subset of the subject matter to be reviewed) to a degree at least equivalent to that needed for the original work”] who are independent of the work being reviewed. The peer’s independence from the work being reviewed means that the peer, a) was not involved as a participant, supervisor, technical reviewer, or advisor in the work being reviewed, and b) to the extent practical, has sufficient freedom from funding considerations to assure the work is impartially reviewed.

    A peer review is an in-depth critique of assumptions, calculations, extrapolations, alternate interpretations, methodology, and acceptance criteria employed, and of conclusions drawn in the original work. Peer reviews confirm the adequacy of the work. In contrast to peer review, the term “technical review” . . . refers to a review to verify compliance to predetermined requirements; industry standards; or common scientific, engineering, and industry practice. (USNRC, 1988, p. 2)

    In this definition, the term peer review has the following characteristics:

    expert (including national/international perspectives on the issue),
    independent,
    external, and
    technical.

    Most importantly, peer reviews must be carded (sic) out by independent reviewers who are experts in the technical issues relevant to the projects under review. Such reviewers must be highly qualified and independent in order to evaluate credibly the scientific and engineering merit of…”

  323. #323 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    Mashey #224

    I want to thank you for bringing up Mann’s 2008 paper, especially Mann et al’s admission that “suggestions” from the NRC report of 2006 needed to be addressed. Want to take a guess as to who was used a prominent source for some of the NRC report suggestions?

    To quote that report,

    “McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated that under some conditions the
    leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike appearance, which could
    then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based reconstruction. To see how this can
    happen,…”

    and,

    “This exercise demonstrates that the baseline with respect to which anomalies are
    calculated can influence principal components in unanticipated ways. Huybers (2005),
    commenting on McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a), points out that normalization also
    affects results, a point that is reinforced by McIntyre and McKitrick (2005b) in their
    response to Huybers.”

    and,

    “A second area of criticism focuses on statistical validation and robustness. McIntyre
    and McKitrick (2003, 2005a,b) question the choice and application of statistical methods, notably principal component analysis; the metric used in the validation step of the
    reconstruction exercise; and the selection of proxies, especially the bristlecone pine
    data used in some of the original temperature reconstruction studies. These and other
    criticisms, explored briefly in the remainder of this chapter, raised concerns that led to
    new research and ongoing efforts to improve how surface temperature reconstructions
    are performed.”

    and,

    “Regarding metrics used in the validation step in the reconstruction exercise, two
    issues have been raised (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003, 2005a,b). One is that the
    choice of “significance level” for the reduction of error (RE) validation statistic is not
    appropriate. The other is that different statistics, specifically the coefficient of effi-
    ciency (CE) and the squared correlation (r 2 ), should have been used (the various
    validation statistics are discussed in Chapter 9). Some of these criticisms are more
    relevant than others, but taken together, they are an important aspect of a more
    general finding of this committee, which is that uncertainties of the published recon-
    structions have been underestimated.”

    So what are we to make of this?

    1. Repeated screams from the alarmist crowd that McIntyre and McKitrick have been “demolished” or “debunked” or whatever is so much propaganda designed to confuse idiots. M&M made valid criticisms of Mann’s work and Mr. Potato-Head was forced to address his flaws by the NRC report.

    2. As skeptics have been saying for years, the peer-review system, in at least the field of paleoclimatology, is broken. It took two outsiders to do the job other climate scientists were *supposed* to do. The Climategate emails show that some climate scientists had reservations about Mann’s work but they didn’t speak up.

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years

    Global warming believer but Mann critic Richard Muller gives his take,

  324. #324 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    BBD #225

    This paper, so thoughtfully mentioned by DesertPhile, shows how the IPCC has had to change it’s depiction of temperature reconstructions.

    http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/Frank_etal_WIRESCllmChange_2010.pdf

    This site shows how the hockey stick has been replaced by something much more reminiscent of the Lamb reconstruction from the 1990 IPCC report.

    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

    I have to strongly disagree with your second paragraph. Scientific theories need to be falsifiable. If there was no MWP we’re told it proves AGW because the climate was stable until the industrial age. If there was an MWP it also proves AGW because it shows that the climate system is unstable and prone to a catastrophe brought on by industrialization. Heads I win, tails you lose and the theory is proven right *no matter what the data eventually shows*. That’s not science. It’s junk science.

  325. #325 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    Applesauce #230

    “My comment was about the plaintiff’s response to the question of what the defendant perceives. I don’t know what you thought you were reading.”

    I don’t know what I’m reading right now. What in the world is that sentence supposed to mean?

  326. #326 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    Mashey #272

    1. Actual malice only applies when the plaintiff is a public figure.

    2. From the Court’s ruling of July 2013.

    “Plaintiff does not seriously challenge the assertion that he is a public figure and the Court finds that given his work and notoriety the characterization as a public figure (albeit arguably limited) is appropriate. As a public figure, Plaintiff may only succeed in a suit for libel if he can prove “actual malice” because, as a public figure, he has opened himself to criticism and differing opinions. At this stage, the evidence is slight as to whether there was actual malice.”

    http://www.williamslopatto.com/uploads/2/5/8/4/25843913/7192013cei_motion_to_dismiss_denied.pdf

  327. #327 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    Mashey #275

    Nonsense. Proving actual malice is only necessary if the plaintiff is a public figure. If Mann’s lawyers thought they had to prove actual malice if Mann was not determined to be a public figure, then they are totally incompetent.

  328. #328 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    Winter #276:

    Why is Calder v. Jones “close enough”? It was settled out of court and Jones didn’t have to prove actual malice. Steyn has absolutely no intention of settling. The fact that it’s not easy to find a plaintiff who succeeded in proving actual malice should serve as an indication that Mann faces a very hard row to hoe.

  329. #329 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    Winter #278:

    Mark Steyn does not have long public record of denigrating Dr. Mann. If I recall correctly Steyn only mentioned Mann three times from 2000-2010. Steyn’s recent comments are a direct result of Mr. Potato-Head suing Steyn and running up his legal bills into seven figures.

  330. #330 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 26, 2015

    @ 325

    Actually it was three sentences:
    “My comment was about the plaintiff’s response to the question of what the defendant perceives. That is all. I don’t know what you thought you were reading.”

    I’m not surprised that you are unable maintain the the thread of the conversation in your head. Therefore a detailed recounting and explanation of it would not only be tedious but in your case pointless. However in the future I’ll be very careful to keep it simple for you.

  331. #331 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    DesertPhile #288:

    Complete and total nonsense. Utter rubbish. If being a public figure is “not relevant” then someone needs to tell that to the D.C. Superior Court. From the ruling of July 2013,

    “Plaintiff does not seriously challenge the assertion that he is a public figure and the Court finds that given his work and notoriety the characterization as a public figure (albeit arguably limited) is appropriate. As a public figure, Plaintiff may only succeed in a suit for libel if he can prove “actual malice” because, as a public figure, he has opened himself to criticism and differing opinions. At this stage, the evidence is slight as to whether there was actual malice.”

    http://www.williamslopatto.com/uploads/2/5/8/4/25843913/7192013cei_motion_to_dismiss_denied.pdf

  332. #332 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    Applesauce #330

    Well OK then. Just make sure you keep it simple enough in the future so that *you* can actually make sense of what you write.

  333. #333 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 26, 2015

    Locus: “Complete and total nonsense. Utter rubbish. If being a public figure is “not relevant” then someone needs to tell that to the D.C. Superior Court. From the ruling of July 2013,”

    I mean not relevant in the context given; the complaint against the defendants does not dispute public figure status— which is why the complaint did not seek protection under the personal privacy violation clauses regarding libel. The defendants wailed and moaned and bitched that their libel was de facto protected because Dr. Mann is a public figure; that defense was already dismissed before the cult filed their appeals— the issue was already stipulated by all parties involved. The cult keeps insisting the judges continue to rule on an issue they already ruled on, and did not even need to rule on in the first place: the issue was not under contention— it was utterly irrelevant to both the abusers and the plaintiff.

    In other words, the cult refuses to take “Yes” for an answer; the cult continues to seek dismissal of the tort against them by asking the judges, over and over and over again, to decide in their favor about “public figure” status. Dr. Mann already did that for them.

  334. #334 BBD
    December 26, 2015

    # 324 Locus

    Your link to Frank et al. (2010) is broken.This study does not undermine the argument that past (millennial) climate variability caused by natural variability in forcings did not result in an analogue of modern global warming forced by CO2.

    I have to strongly disagree with your second paragraph.

    I don’t think you really understand this topic. First, there was not and has never been any evidence of a global and synchronous MCA as warm as or warmer than the present. Modern global average temperatures really do appear to be exceptional in a millennial context.

    Second, arguing for a hot MCA is to argue for high climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation – which would include increased forcing from CO2. I don’t think you want to do that.

  335. #335 dean
    United States
    December 26, 2015

    Just make sure you keep it simple enough in the future so that *you* can actually make sense of what you write.

    How is your inability (or unwillingness) to understand the fault of another person?

  336. #336 BBD
    December 26, 2015

    Since the IPCC doesn’t *do* science, only summarise it, then the evolution of the presentation of millennial climate in each Report is both necessary and desirable. This is the current figure. It contains no good news for contrarians, I’m afraid.

  337. #337 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 26, 2015

    dean @ 335
    “How is your inability (or unwillingness) to understand the fault of another person?”

    Perhaps it’s related to the tendency to argue from personal incredulity, a lack of perspective taking, and the need to adopt certain tribal postures. On the other hand, I suppose it could be the result of a simple trauma, like getting hit on the head with a coconut, which might arguably make it an accessibility issue…

  338. #338 Christopher Winter
    December 26, 2015

    Locus (#328): Why is Calder v. Jones “close enough”? It was settled out of court and Jones didn’t have to prove actual malice. Steyn has absolutely no intention of settling. The fact that it’s not easy to find a plaintiff who succeeded in proving actual malice should serve as an indication that Mann faces a very hard row to hoe.

    I’m referring there to the actual lawsuit against the National Enquirer, which you earlier took care to distinguish from Calder v. Jones.

    It’s a reasonable conclusion that the Enquirer chose to settle because they estimated they would not prevail in court. That’s why I decided it was close enough to a legal victory by a celebrity in a libel suit. I have not studied the case in detail. Have you?

    I expect it might not be easy to find a successful prosecution finding actual malice. I doubt it’s impossible. I did not search; I merely mentioned the celebrity case I happened to remember. If I do search and fail to find any such success, would you think that proves Dr. Mann’s case has no chance? That would be an unwarranted conclusion.

  339. #339 Christopher Winter
    December 26, 2015

    Locus (#329): Mark Steyn does not have long public record of denigrating Dr. Mann. If I recall correctly Steyn only mentioned Mann three times from 2000-2010. Steyn’s recent comments are a direct result of Mr. Potato-Head suing Steyn and running up his legal bills into seven figures.

    Excerpts from Mark Steyn (National Review Online, 25 July 2009):


    * “If you mean the argument on “global warming,” my general line is this: For the last century, we’ve had ever-so-slight warming trends and ever-so-slight cooling trends every 30 years or so, and I don’t think either are anything worth collapsing the global economy over.”


    * “Actually, no. In public,”climate experts” rejected the notion. But in private – in fact – they well knew that “global warming has slowed or stopped”. They just weren’t prepared to say so to the gullible rubes at Media Matters, Think Progress and The Washington Post. A few months after my column appeared, Climategate broke, and among the leaked emails was this one from Dr Mann’s bestest buddy, Phil Jones, head of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. July 5th 2005:

    The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms
    if I said the world
    had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

    Oh, okay then. So the only chaps lying were Jones and his fellow members of the climate alarmism industry. In private, they agreed with me.”


    * “This is the tragedy of “climate science”. Imagine if it hadn’t fallen into the hands of a cabal of insecure, neurotic, ideological enforcers like Michael E Mann.”


    * Speaking of Steve McIntyre, he has resumed his series on the multiple misrepresentations of Dr Mann’s so-called “exonerations” by official bodies. Along the way, he noticed this Tweet by one of the few scientists still willing to be associated with Mann, Gavin Schmidt, explaining why Doctor Fraudpants had no choice but to sue:

    Saying that ppl are frauds is per se defamatory. Goes beyond disagreement/error/dislike

  340. #340 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 26, 2015

    BBD: I don’t think you really understand this topic. First, there was not and has never been any evidence of a global and synchronous MCA as warm as or warmer than the present. Modern global average temperatures really do appear to be exceptional in a millennial context.”

    There is an entire denialist web site created specifically to sell the notion that the MCA was global, and warmer than now— complete with many dozens of vanity-published “papers” that are formatted to appear as if they are science papers that had been published in science journals.

    That effort seems to be driven by the need to convince the denialosphere that the same mechanisms are involved now as during the MCA period. It’s a waste effort: even if the MCA was global and as warm or warmer than now, it would say nothing at all about human-caused warming.

    Second, arguing for a hot MCA is to argue for high climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation – which would include increased forcing from CO2. I don’t think you want to do that.”

    “Oh, dear, I didn’t think of that…..”

  341. #341 Christopher Winter
    December 26, 2015

    Locus (#329): Mark Steyn does not have long public record of denigrating Dr. Mann. If I recall correctly Steyn only mentioned Mann three times from 2000-2010. Steyn’s recent comments are a direct result of Mr. Potato-Head suing Steyn and running up his legal bills into seven figures.

    Excerpts from Mark Steyn (National Review Online, 25 July 2009):


    * “If you mean the argument on “global warming,” my general line is this: For the last century, we’ve had ever-so-slight warming trends and ever-so-slight cooling trends every 30 years or so, and I don’t think either are anything worth collapsing the global economy over.”


    * “Actually, no. In public,”climate experts” rejected the notion. But in private – in fact – they well knew that “global warming has slowed or stopped”. They just weren’t prepared to say so to the gullible rubes at Media Matters, Think Progress and The Washington Post. A few months after my column appeared, Climategate broke, and among the leaked emails was this one from Dr Mann’s bestest buddy, Phil Jones, head of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. July 5th 2005:

    The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

    Oh, okay then. So the only chaps lying were Jones and his fellow members of the climate alarmism industry. In private, they agreed with me.”


    * “This is the tragedy of “climate science”. Imagine if it hadn’t fallen into the hands of a cabal of insecure, neurotic, ideological enforcers like Michael E Mann.”


    * Speaking of Steve McIntyre, he has resumed his series on the multiple misrepresentations of Dr Mann’s so-called “exonerations” by official bodies. Along the way, he noticed this Tweet by one of the few scientists still willing to be associated with Mann, Gavin Schmidt, explaining why Doctor Fraudpants had no choice but to sue:

    Saying that ppl are frauds is per se defamatory. Goes beyond disagreement/error/dislike

    Steyn uses this quote from Gavin Schmidt to allege that Dr. Mann should be sued since he too has called people frauds. I didn’t bother to verify that. Steyn forgets the possibility that Dr. Mann might be right about that.

    You are correct that Steyn has ramped up his stream of allegations against Dr. Mann since the lawsuit was filed. How is that not a pattern? He has also lambasted a judge in the case and at least one of the opposing lawyers — after which his own lawyers withdrew.

  342. #342 Desertphile
    December 26, 2015

    Excerpts from Mark Steyn (National Review Online, 25 July 2009):

    “If you mean the argument on ‘global warming,’ my general line is this: For the last century, we’ve had ever-so-slight warming trends and ever-so-slight cooling trends every 30 years or so, and I don’t think either are anything worth collapsing the global economy over.”

    Oh, well, okay then. Hey, everyone: cancel the plans to collapse the global economy!

    Oy vey! (As my Irish mother used to say.) I wonder if Steyn ever wonders why sane people only laugh at him.

  343. #343 dean
    United States
    December 26, 2015

    Hey, everyone: cancel the plans to collapse the global economy!

    (Reads that. Scuffs foot in dirt while thrusting hands into jeans’ pockets. Looks up with a longing expression…)

    “Can we keep on extolling the benefit of scientific knowledge and shoving it out to the public, explaining what it says about climate change and the danger of not addressing it, thereby pissing off all the no-nothings on the far right of the United States’ political spectrum?”

  344. #344 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 26, 2015

    Desertphile, if I read you post about public figures correctly, you completely misrepresent the reality of the situation. The court has determined Mann is public figure. But your post seems to suggest that the Court has already ruled that Court has ruled in Mann’s favor, despite being a public figure. The court has done no such thing.

    I know, I know, you will point to the prior ruling in which the Court ruled a jury “could” conclude Steyn libeled Mann, and that, if Mann’ proves his allegations, it is very likely he will succeed. As has been explained over, and over, that is a far cry from the court ruling Mann has a case (if the court did do something, the case would be over before a trial, before discovery was completed, etc). As has also been explained, many times, when courts entertain motions before discovery is completed, they have to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Thus, defendants seek dismissal; the court has to view the case in from the vantage point that Mann will prove Steyn made false statements, which he knew were false, for the solely malicious reasons. The jury (you know, those people who actually determine the merits of the case) will make their decision based on the evidence…

    BBD, in another column on this blog, I posted a law review article by a law professor at UCal Berkley who is a free speech expert. He summed this case up best, when he said (paraphrasing): you can say anything you want about a public figure if you are dumb enough to believe it….

    Thus, if Steyn honestly and reasonably believes Mann is full of bunk, he is good to go. Also, don’t pay attention to the “investigations that exonerated Mann.” Assuming that is true, people are free to disregard the finding of investigations if they believe bias, incompetence, etc., existed. A perfect example is the OJ murder trial in the 90’s. After that trial, millions of people called OJ a murderer despite being found not-guilty. Imagine the libel settlements he would have had, if Mann’s (and his fellow Mann-boy lovers on this website) had their way

  345. #345 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 26, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt Posts #178 and #188: I have never said it is impossible to bring a libel/defamation suit in the United States. What I have said is that is very difficult and nearly impossible to bring a libel/defamation suit if you are a public person. The standard is much easier for private individuals. Mann, as we know, is a public person in the eyes of the court.

    You advise other posters not to “take Dan’s word” about this issue. I have never asked anyone to take my word; I would love everyone here to take the word of experts in this field.

    I am not a first amendment lawyer (I handled a few minor defamation cases in the corporate context years ago, when I was clerking in law school). If you want to say I am just some schmo corporate litigator whose practice focuses on transportation litigation, fine. I have never held myself out as anything else.

    What I do suggest people do is take the word of constitutional scholars. As I linked to in the other column, Dan Farber is a constitutional scholar (perhaps the country’s foremost), and a professor and one of the country’s top law schools. He also happens to support Mann’s findings on climate change. Yet, he realizes Mann has a very difficult, if not impossible case. As I have quoted before “you can say almost anything you want about a public figure if you are dumb enough to believe it…” Don’t take my word for it. Take Professor Garber’s (among many others)
    http://legal-planet.org/2013/09/16/lies-damned-lies-and-climate-denial/

  346. #346 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 26, 2015

    Also, another poster (maybe Rob Honeycutt) states that he “is sure” there have been celebrities who have filed a successful libel case. If so, name them. And, by successful, I don’t mean a settlement or retraction, because parties often do that to avoid the cost of litigation.

    What I mean is a case in which a jury found someone libel for defaming a public person. Also, state standard the plaintiff was held to (i.e., actual malice), and when the case was resolved (i.e., before or after NY Times v. Sullivan, Falwell v. Flynt).

    Look, this isn’t an emotional issue with me. If, according to our laws, Steyn defamed Mann, I would be the first to say so. I might say I disagree with the law, but I would acknowledge what the law is according to the legal scholars (way more then 97%, btw) and experts in 1st amendment law.

    It is ok that Mann has an impossible case, guys, really. It doesn’t mean his science is wrong (or right, for that matter). It just means he needs a little thicker skin when a jazz vocalist/theater reviewer/substitute radio host is a big meanie to him and calls him names…

  347. #347 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 26, 2015

    One more point: if you read Professor Garber’s article, he specifically disproves the statements of various non-lawyers on this site that have said, repeatedly, that (paraphrasing)”the court has already ruled that Mann has a case. Twice!).

    No, as the good professor states (and which I have stated numerous times), the court has ruled Mann is entitled to conduct discovery regarding Steyn’s state of mind (i.e, is he being honest when he says he truly believes Mann’s hockey stick is based on manipulated data and is fraudulent). That. Is. All. The. Court’s. Prior. Ruling. Stands. For.

    Professor Garber then rightly notes that, because Mann has no direct evidence regarding Steyn’s state of mind, his job is difficult indeed.

    BBD, regardless of where you stand on climate change, when it comes to Mann v. Steyn, listen to the legal experts who state, over and over, Mann’s case is nearly impossible.

  348. #348 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 26, 2015

    Dan: “Desertphile, if I read you post about public figures correctly, you completely misrepresent the reality of the situation….”

    Your history has clearly demonstrated you have a reading comprehension disability. Many people have mentioned this to you. Perhaps it is time you consulted a professional about the problem.

  349. #349 SteveP
    Dark Side of Terra
    December 26, 2015

    Mark Steyn is a large bore conservative cheer leader , and he and his overloud voice make a great spewer for the basic conservative memes of “resist change” and “endorse inequality”. Ted Cruz undoubtedly loves Steyn’s authoritarian pronouncements, delivered with a trained voice and a conviction born of ideology and ignorance. ( Ted’s voice, by
    comparison, sounds like he stuck pencil erasers up his nose to weaponize it in grammar school, and he never bothered to fish them out again.) Conservatives are resistant to any change in the economic, physical, and political power structure that rests on the bedrock of fossil fuel extraction , and they are endorsers of the hierarchy of inequality upon which the whole system of extraction has evolved . They desire stability and certainty, and here we are telling them that things that they depend upon, such as dry land, potable water, and agricultural infrastructure, are all in the beginning stages of being eroded away by Nature and her merry band of long wave photon pranksters. Cons like to bask in their god given racial and moral “superiority”, which they use as the justification for their elevated position in life’s hierarchy , and here we are telling them that , no, you aren’t superior, and, in fact you are pretty God damned pin-headedly stupid.

    I certainly hope that Dr. Mann gets some satisfaction from Steyn , the National Review, and CEI . Just getting them to ratchet back their level of misleading hysterical bombast a notch would be a great accomplishment, at least until climate change itself sweeps the stage out from under them.

  350. #350 Brainstorms
    December 26, 2015

    SteveP, WELL PUT.

    Nature will sweep them all up and put them in their place.

    Unfortunately, the rest of us with our heads screwed on straight and our hearts in the right place will become “bycatch”.

  351. #351 Narad
    December 26, 2015

    Looking back, it is beyond me, too. Entirely my mistake; please accept my apologies.

    Done, thanks.

  352. #352 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    BBD #334

    I never claimed that that the Zorita paper had anything to say about natural forcings. I thought what I said was pretty clear,

    “This paper, so thoughtfully mentioned by DesertPhile, shows how the IPCC has had to change it’s depiction of temperature reconstructions.”

    I’m sorry but this new story that the reappearance of the MWP supports global warming is so much hogwash.

    For years the global warming crowd argued that it was the flatness of the HS shaft that provided the best evidence for their position. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s a letter undersigned by the entire hockey team.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003EO270003/pdf

    But when the MWP started to rise once again in the climate reconstructions, the warmists changed their story. Why now the MWP was evidence of an unstable climate and therefore just more proof of global warming! Heads I win, tails you lose.

    When a theory is supposedly supported no matter what the data or evidence show, then that theory is not science.

    It’s junk science.

    The MWP doesn’t have to be as warm or warmer than the current temperature for it to be significant. Many of the major skeptics like Lindzen and Curry say that of course we’re affecting the climate. The real question is by *how much*. So how much of recent warming is caused by man-made CO2 and how much by the natural rebound from the Little Ice Age?

  353. #353 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    BBD #336

    And where is the uncertainty statement / error bars? I was taught in my laboratory classes to never accept data without a statement or depiction of the uncertainty in the measurement.

  354. #354 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    #335, #337 Dean and Applesauce

    Lots of insults; nothing even close to an argument. And of course you two geniuses still haven’t tried to explain what the following sentence was *supposed* to mean.

    “My comment was about the plaintiff’s response to the question of what the defendant perceives”

  355. #355 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    #338 Winter:

    If the case looked so grim for the Enquirer then why would *Jones* settle?

    I’ve already made my statement in #208. So I really don’t care what you can or cannot find.

    “Yes, there have been *some* successful defamation cases brought by public figures.”

  356. #356 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    #339 Winter:

    I have no idea of what these series of quotes are supposed to mean. All except the first paragraph are from 2014. Only the first paragraph is from before the lawsuit but it doesn’t say anything about Mr. Potato-Head and his hockey stick.

    So what’s your point?

  357. #357 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    #340 DesertPhile:

    I’m sorry but this new story that the reappearance of the MWP supports global warming is so much hogwash.

    For years the global warming crowd argued that it was the flatness of the HS shaft that provided the best evidence for their position. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s a letter undersigned by the entire hockey team.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003EO270003/pdf

    But when the MWP started to rise once again in the climate reconstructions, the warmists changed their story. Why now the MWP was evidence of an unstable climate and therefore just more proof of global warming! Heads I win, tails you lose.

    When a theory is supposedly supported no matter what the data or evidence show, then that theory is not science.

    It’s junk science.

  358. #358 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    #333 DesertPhile:

    This is the most bizarre story I’ve ever heard.

    Please provide some scrap, some shred of evidence that anything you’ve just said has any passing resemblence to reality.

  359. #359 elspi
    December 26, 2015

    Let me help you all out here:
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=libel+per+se

    So yes, Mann will be winning this.

  360. #360 Locus
    Earth
    December 26, 2015

    #359 elspi:

    I wouldn’t share your confidence.

    St Amant went on television and accused Deputy Sheriff Thompson of criminal conduct. A charge later shown to be false. St Amant had based his accusation on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.

    Thompson eventually lost his libel case in the Supreme Court.

    From the majority opinion,

    “These 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.”

  361. #361 dhogaza
    December 26, 2015

    Locust:

    “For years the global warming crowd argued that it was the flatness of the HS shaft”

    MBH 98 showed a MWP, less pronounced than Lamb, but still there.

    Now, the scientific question for you is …

    Why do you believe that Lamb’s reconstruction of central england temps (a fraction of the earth’s surface) was a global reconstruction? He himself made it clear it was not …

    On second thought, don’t bother answering. It’s clear that you have no understanding of the underlying science. Blech.

  362. #362 Jim Spriggs
    December 27, 2015

    Dan #344 says:
    A perfect example is the OJ murder trial in the 90’s. After that trial, millions of people called OJ a murderer despite being found not-guilty. Imagine the libel settlements he would have had, if Mann’s (and his fellow Mann-boy lovers on this website) had their way

    I think the Simpson murder trial is far from a perfect example. Imagine the discovery process. It would be totally killer (pun intended). I think O.J. would file ONE case, that would be that, and then he would go back to Par 3 to look for who really did it.

  363. #363 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 27, 2015

    #352

    “The MWP doesn’t have to be as warm or warmer than the current temperature for it to be significant. Many of the major skeptics like Lindzen and Curry say that of course we’re affecting the climate. The real question is by *how much*. So how much of recent warming is caused by man-made CO2 and how much by the natural rebound from the Little Ice Age?”

    First, a few words about my scientific qualifications: I have never completed a course in chemistry, never taken a course in physics, and my mathematical understanding is at the level of a 12 year old. Despite that, I’m familiar with conclusions Curry drew from the “stadium wave” paper regarding the persistency of “the pause”, which since have been shown to be utter nonsense. I’m also familiar with instances of Curry’s testimony, in which she contradicted her own research and distorted facts. I’m also aware that she at times has thrown her support behind any gibberish that argued in favor of a wait and see response to climate change.

    I’m somewhat familiar with Lindzen’s “iris theory” and the response it has elicited. I’ve read the reviews of the rejected Lindzen/Choi paper “On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications.” A short quote from the first review: “The paper is based on three basic untested and fundamentally flawed assumptions about global climate sensitivity…”

    I thank you for providing us with your best examples of “major skeptics.”

    The rest of your statement has more in common with ideologically informed magic than with science. Sorry, but the amount of “ recent warming … caused by man-made CO2” has been looked into and is well established. The phrase “natural rebound from the Little Ice Age” has the evidential precision of an incantation.

  364. #364 Jim Spriggs
    Long Beach adjacent
    December 27, 2015

    Locus #357 says:
    But when the MWP started to rise once again in the climate reconstructions, the warmists changed their story. Why now the MWP was evidence of an unstable climate and therefore just more proof of global warming! Heads I win, tails you lose.

    I’m beginning to get the impression you just like to bitch about everything that’s not straight-line linear. Nothing makes you happy about climate science. Maybe you should just stick to the solid, sound, and perfectly predictable safety of the maths.

  365. #365 Jim Spriggs
    December 27, 2015

    Locus #218 says:
    I’d like to draw attention to the phrase,
    “… indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. ce 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century.”
    So this confirms Michael Mann’s hockey stick how?

    It becomes yet another hockey stick because an adjustment was made to eliminate an earlier bias. This article may help you out:
    Yamal and Polar Urals: a research update
    — group @ 3 June 2013
    Guest commentary from Tim Osborn, Tom Melvin and Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, UEA

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/06/yamal-and-polar-urals-a-research-update/

    To me, you’re doing way too much nit-picking and over-thinking. Numerous studies have replicated the hockey stick using different methods and proxies. Maybe you can pick out a couple of studies/articles out of Milks’ list to nit-pick, but you’re pissing in an ever-warming wind. Whatever, it’s your life.

  366. #366 John Mashey
    December 27, 2015

    361 dhogoza
    A minor quibble:
    In modern parlance, Lamb’s curve would not rise to the level of being called a reconstruction.
    The first part was uncalibrated estimate, a sketch.
    The second part was Manley’s CET record, OK, but not global either.
    As usual, see MedievalDeception 2015: Inhofe Drags Senate Back To Dark Ages

    But why bother arguing with someone who rejects Consrvation of Energy, ie believes in fantasy that there was a “natural rebound” from LIA?
    (Origins of false memes can be hard to track, but i think this one most likely came from Lindzen’s section of The Greening if Planet Earth(1992), ie Western Fuels Association. This is implied by the “climate has always varied by itself” meme.

  367. #367 SteveP
    Fogbound Cove
    December 27, 2015

    Dear Particular Position, Point, or Place, aka Locus, aka Locust:

    You have such enthusiasm for your position! I imagine that if fingers had saliva glands, your keyboard would be covered in spittle by now! Outstanding! Post after post after post! I applaud your persistence! Good show!

    Now for the bad news. Working up all that steam over a lawsuit involving one popularized depiction of global warming is not going to stop the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere from continuing to increase. Attacking all those wrong people on the internets is not going to prevent carbon dioxide molecules from re-directing infrared radiation to the Earth’s surface and warming it every single nano-second of the day (and night!). Whether or not Dr. Mann succeeds in convincing a jury to side with him in his suit against Steyn and his “co-conspirators” is not going to have much effect on our overall terrestrial situation one way or the other, is it now. The army of powerful and vocal obfuscators who are shoveling shit against the tsunami of reality are really doomed but we all can’t help but watch. This story matters to the litigants, and apparently it matters to you, based on the testosterone that you have invested in this fight. But really, this is just a trivial but highly entertaining side show to the main event. And remember, even chess contestants suffer a loss of testosterone when they lose a match.

    BTW, was this the 5-minute argument or the quarter hour argument?

  368. #368 Rob Honeycutt
    December 27, 2015

    Dan @ 345, 346…

    There are a wide range of interesting elements to the Mann v Steyn et al case. I actually have no specific opinion over whether Mann can prevail or not. The more interesting aspects don’t relate to that at all.

    1) Mann is only a minor public figure at best, and the aspects for which he’s made public are primarily related to the very same sort of attacks on his research that Steyn is promoting. The hockey stick graph is hardly controversial work. MBH98/99 (from which the hockey stick comes) was interesting mostly in that it was first large attempt to doing a millennial temperature reconstruction. But since then there have been about two dozen others that are far more comprehensive, and still show that MBH98/99 were correct in their conclusions.

    2) It seems to me that Steyn is very clearly attacking Mann on political grounds, which is bizarre, but I think accurate. He does not want to acknowledge climate change is real, based on his political ideology. Thus, I think he feels justified to say virtually anything he likes based on free speech, and do so in the most ugly, nasty manner possible, since that’s what gets you in the media. Thus, the two side are arguing their positions from completely different standpoints. Steyn is arguing his right to say anything he likes politically, and Mann is arguing his right to not be libeled as a researcher.

    3) All of the above is all just the dog and pony show. The more interesting elements are going to come from the discovery phase related to CEI, and less so from NR. (I think there is a battle going on between the defendants which is not unlike the battle going on between the GOP establishment and anti-establishment elements like Trump and Cruz.) I believe CEI and NR likely do NOT want this case to proceed, but Steyn does. So, Steyn is dragging them into the case unwillingly.

    Ultimately, Steyn doesn’t matter.

  369. #369 BBD
    December 27, 2015

    # 352 Locus

    I never claimed that that the Zorita paper had anything to say about natural forcings.

    I suggest you try reading it, then. Or perhaps once again, you simply don’t appreciate the implications of your own arguments.

    While you are in scholar mode, re-read MBH99 too. Note that the warmest period in the reconstruction prior to ~1900CE was 1000 – ~1200CE. That would be the MCA.

    As I have now said twice already subsequent work has refined the MBH99 result but not overturned it. Since MBH99 was a groundbreaking piece of research, it is unreasonable to expect it to be the last word on the subject of millennial climate reconstructions. This being the case, you would expect the IPCC summaries of research to reflect – accurately – the improvements in millennial climate reconstructions in the years since MBH99. Your arguments are specious.

    From the link you posted (emphasis added):

    Healthy debate with regard to the details of past climate change exists within the peer-reviewed scientific climate literature […] and it remains a challenge to reduce uncertainties and properly synthesise global means. Nevertheless, the conclusion that late-20th century hemispheric-scale warmth is anomalous in a long-term (at least millennial) context, and that anthropogenic factors likely play an important role in explaining the anomalous recent warmth is a robust consensus view.

    Which is exactly what I have been saying all along. If you are going to reference a source, it’s a good idea to read it first and check that it doesn’t directly contradict your position. A note demolishing the methodology and conclusions of two studies by the now-infamous Willie Soon is not an ideal choice.

    When a theory is supposedly supported no matter what the data or evidence show, then that theory is not science.

    It’s junk science.

    This was a strawman last time you said it.

    The MWP doesn’t have to be as warm or warmer than the current temperature for it to be significant.

    But I thought you wanted a hot MCA? As hot as the present or even hotter so you could wave away modern warming by claiming a false equivalence between the MCA and modern warming. Which of course would be a logical fallacy.

    Now you’ve dimly perceived the sensitivity implications of a hot MCA, you are backing away sharply in the direction of the established scientific view, which is actually quite amusing.

    So how much of recent warming is caused by man-made CO2 and how much by the natural rebound from the Little Ice Age?

    There is no ‘rebound’ from the LIA, which was over by ~1850 anyway. Climate isn’t a bouncing ball. Climate changes in response to net forcing change, and as a consequence, *all* modern warming is anthropogenic. There has been no other natural forcing increase sufficient to drive modern warming, (much of which has been offset by anthropogenic aerosols). It is very clear indeed now that you have no grasp of the basics of physical climatology, so why are you posturing around in comments here as if you knew more than the experts?

    And where is the uncertainty statement / error bars?

    In the original papers in which the reconstructions were presented. I have already pointed out that the IPCC doesn’t conduct original research; it only summarises it.

  370. #370 Michael Wells
    December 27, 2015

    I wish I could entirely agree that “Steyn doesn’t matter,” but unfortunately a relatively small number of people like him have managed to stall vital action on climate for decades, and they may have irretrievably screwed us already. If they haven’t, they will soon.

    It’s clear that Mann is ethically in the right here – in the sense that he’s an honorable person impugned by a toxic liar and ignoramus. I’m less certain about his legal chances, or about the tactical wisdom of pursuing this suit – as we can see in this thread, it provides plenty of ammunition for deniers squealing about “warmists” trying to squelch “the debate.” But that’s easy for me to say from the comfort of my relative anonymity.

    The ongoing obsession with Mann on the part of the deniers is extraordinary. It points up the political nature of their crusade – they’re trying to defeat individual leaders, or people they view as such, via PR tactics, thinking this will help bring the whole edifice down. But they could send a terminator back in time to prevent Mann’s birth and it wouldn’t change the science of climate change one bit – the data are what they are. The recent history of the science would be slightly different, but we’d be in the same place we are.

    In that sense, Mann doesn’t matter.

  371. #371 Rob Honeycutt
    December 27, 2015

    Michael @ 367…

    I think, ultimately, Steyn doesn’t matter relative to this specific court case.

    It will also be interesting how this plays out relative to the “reckless disregard for the truth” which Steyn is clearly guilty of.

  372. #372 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 27, 2015

    MW @ 367

    I’m less certain about his legal chances, or about the tactical wisdom of pursuing this suit – as we can see in this thread, it provides plenty of ammunition for deniers squealing about “warmists” trying to squelch “the debate.”

    Yes, however keep in mind that a portion of the toxic environment for climate scientists in general is bullying –up to and including death threats (so far). Rolling over only encourages them.

    Some of what you’re now hearing from denialists is increased noise aimed at maintaining their position. Some is the confused squealings of stuck pigs. If Mann and, more importantly, his lawyers think they’ve found a legitimate opening through which they can push back, I say more power to ’em.

  373. #373 dean
    United States
    December 27, 2015

    The ongoing obsession with Mann on the part of the deniers is extraordinary. It points up the political nature of their crusade – they’re trying to defeat individual leaders, or people they view as such, via PR tactics, thinking this will help bring the whole edifice down.

    Exactly. They seem to be realizing that the “research” done by the people on their side is substance-free, convincing to nobody except their own. The smear campaigns – like the ones Steyn is running – aren’t based on any real science, but on the old Reagan philosophy that “if you repeat a lie often enough a large number of people will believe it”.
    It seems to have worked on several of the folks who post here.

  374. #374 Michael Wells
    December 27, 2015

    Rob @ #368 – Ah, that probably would have been clearer if I’d read more carefully. Perhaps you’re right, though the legal details are too arcane for me to come to any definite conclusions about any of those aspects. If something like “reckless disregard for truth or falsity” is the standard, it seems to me Steyn ought to lose, but that’s just an educated guess. I know the bar is high for a public figure to prevail in a libel suit, which is as it should be, even if it gives the occasional regrettable result.

    ObApp @ #369: Good point. If Mann wins and the plaintiffs have to fork out, it might make denier propagandists a little less eager to engage in the most underhanded of tactics. Or maybe that’s wishful thinking.

  375. #375 Michael Wells
    December 27, 2015

    *”the defendants have to fork out,” I meant, of course.

  376. #376 Narad
    December 27, 2015

    If Mann wins and the plaintiffs have to fork out, it might make denier propagandists a little less eager to engage in the most underhanded of tactics. Or maybe that’s wishful thinking.

    Yah, I doubt it. Even if Mann is successful, it’s a substantial outlay of cash to pursue such an action, and I don’t offhand have a guess whether the actual damages would offset his costs, assuming he could even recover them (Steyn strikes me as the most vulnerable of the defendants).

  377. #377 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 27, 2015

    Is it possible that the HS (and climate science) could win even if Mann loses? Could the court find that the HS is valid science, while finding that Mann’s suit doesn’t meet the particular proof requirements? And what would the implications be? Considering the publicity that the case has received, wouldn’t such a result make future HS based slanders and libels against Mann less likely? Wouldn’t it offer other climate scientists some degree of protection?

    In any case, the biggest victim of of climate denialism will be life on Earth as we know it. And there seem to be no laws that can hold the denialists accountable for that.

  378. #378 John Mashey
    December 27, 2015

    Rob #365
    Yes, discovery. WAY more important than Steyn’s antics.

  379. #379 Desertphile
    December 27, 2015

    cosmicomics: {…} Could the court find that the HS is valid science…”

    Gosh, I sure hope not! USA courts, and specifically tort litigation cases, should not be allowed to state what is and is not “valid science.” Courts are allowed to state that religion is not science (Creationism), but the last thing humanity needs is to have courts state what science is.

    The world’s scientists have already judged “the” Hockey Stick and found it valid.

  380. #380 Locus
    Earth
    December 27, 2015

    #361 dhogaza:

    1) “MBH 98 showed a MWP, less pronounced than Lamb, but still there.”

    I’m sorry but MBH98 only went back as far as 1400. It didn’t cover the time period in question. You’re thinking of MBH99 which extended the reconstruction back to 1000.

    Here’s the link,

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL900070/epdf

    Forgive me but I really can’t see anything like an MWP in figure 3 of MBH99.

    2) “Why do you believe that Lamb’s reconstruction of central england temps (a fraction of the earth’s surface) was a global reconstruction?”

    I never claimed that the Lamb reconstruction was global. The Zorita paper I linked didn’t claim the Lamb reconstruction was global. The notrickzone analysis I linked didn’t claim that the Lamb reconstruction was global.

    All that was said was that the Lamb reconstruction *was the first* reconstruction presented in an IPCC report. And notrickzone said that the latest IPCC reconstructions look much more like the admittedly limited Lamb chart than the graph presented in MBH99.

  381. #381 Desertphile
    December 27, 2015

    Narad: {…} I don’t offhand have a guess whether the actual damages would offset his costs, assuming he could even recover them (Steyn strikes me as the most vulnerable of the defendants).

    I am not sure, but I think Dr. Mann only asked for legal expenses to be paid by the defendants.

    “Actual damages” are legal expenses, and include non-monetary awards— such as the defendants being required to apologize as well as being ordered where and when to apologize.

    The judge is allowed to award “assumed damages” (which apply to libel) if Dr. Mann asked the judge to do so. The judge will base the monetary award on past cases that are similar, and what was awarded in those cases. Since defamation has already been judged as per se instead of per quod, the judge might grant assumed damages even if Dr. Mann does not ask for them.

    Punitive damages must also be requested by Dr. Mann, with the goal of correcting the defendants’ abusive behavior in the future.

    After a judge awards damages, and sets a time frame when they must be paid, it is extremely difficult to force defendants to pay. It can take many decades of constant effort on the part of the plaintiff. Defendants need merely ignore all demands for payment. The USA legal system has ways and means to force payment, but defendants can delay, ignore, and evade until long after Dr. Mann is dead.

  382. #382 elspi
    December 27, 2015

    libel per se
    n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis), or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for “general damages,” and not just specific losses.

    So there is no need to prove malice. All he has Mann has to do is show that the accusation is false.

  383. #383 Locus
    Earth
    December 27, 2015

    #362 cosmicomics:

    You’re employing the False Dilemma fallacy.

    Even *if* Curry’s Stadium Wave or Lindzen’s Iris theory fail, it doesn’t mean that anyone else’s explanation for the pause *must* be correct.

    Case in point one of the leading AGW theories for the pause was that the “missing heat” all went into the oceans.

    http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

    Except that theory took a major hit last year.

    “The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.”

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/

    So are you now going to heap disdain on all the major AGW proponents of the “missing heat” theory?

  384. #384 Locus
    Earth
    December 27, 2015

    #361 Mashey:

    Fair enough. Take out my use of the word “natural” in “natural rebound” and the question still remains. How much of recent warming is man-made and how much is natural?

    We can all concede that the warming into the MWP and the cooling out of the MWP were natural can we not?

  385. #385 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 27, 2015

    #376
    A valid objection. But wouldn’t discovery necessarily entail a look at the science, and wouldn’t that look normally be determined by the evaluation of other scientists?

  386. #386 Locus
    Earth
    December 27, 2015

    #364 SteveP

    And the dark reality that the Mann lawsuit might not be such a cakewalk begins to penetrate the warmist hive-mind.

    Before the warmists were salivating that a large judgment in Mann’s favor would scare the “deniers” into silence and prevent those dastardly villains from confusing the public.

    But now that the warmists have finally started to get a handle on just how difficult it will be for Mann to prove actual malice, suddenly the case is no big deal.

  387. #387 Christopher Winter
    December 27, 2015

    Dan (#346): Also, another poster (maybe Rob Honeycutt) states that he “is sure” there have been celebrities who have filed a successful libel case. If so, name them. And, by successful, I don’t mean a settlement or retraction, because parties often do that to avoid the cost of litigation.

    What I mean is a case in which a jury found someone libel for defaming a public person. Also, state standard the plaintiff was held to (i.e., actual malice), and when the case was resolved (i.e., before or after NY Times v. Sullivan, Falwell v. Flynt).

    That was me. I did some searching and found some examples that meet your criteria. I’ll discuss them in two comments.

    The first examples are from here:
    http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/11/18/6-most-successful-celebrity-libel-and-slander-case
    6 most successful celebrity libel and slander cases
    Amanda Ciccatelli, 18 November 2014

    It’s a very sketchy article (and misleading in that of the 6 lawsuits listed, one was thrown out for being unable to show malice.) However, check out the last one, Jesse Ventura v. Chris Kyle (2012) in which Ventura was awarded $1.8 million.

  388. #388 Christopher Winter
    December 27, 2015

    Dan (#346): Also, another poster (maybe Rob Honeycutt) states that he “is sure” there have been celebrities who have filed a successful libel case. If so, name them. And, by successful, I don’t mean a settlement or retraction, because parties often do that to avoid the cost of litigation.

    What I mean is a case in which a jury found someone libel for defaming a public person. Also, state standard the plaintiff was held to (i.e., actual malice), and when the case was resolved (i.e., before or after NY Times v. Sullivan, Falwell v. Flynt).

    The other victory is a little older:
    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/jury-awards-13-million-texas-defamation-suit-anonymous/story?id=16194071

    Texas couple accused of sexual assault, defamed online by anonymous posters. Acquitted January 2009, sued and won $13.8 million. Arguably they were public figures, for much the same reason that Michael Mann is a public figure.

  389. #389 BBD
    December 27, 2015

    #300 and #375 John Mashey

    Rob #365
    Yes, discovery. WAY more important than Steyn’s antics.

    Thanks for clarifying this for me John. It’s a subtlety (?) readily overlooked when reading up on the difficulties of demonstrating actual malice. The penny has now dropped 🙂

  390. #390 Rob Honeycutt
    December 27, 2015

    Locus @377…

    And notrickzone said that the latest IPCC reconstructions look much more like the admittedly limited Lamb chart than the graph presented in MBH99.

    That would be a completely insane conclusion regardless of where you find it stated.

    First off, The HH Lamb schematic was NOT a reconstruction by any stretch of the imagination! It didn’t even have a scale on the Y-axis!

    Second, if you look closely through the various millennial reconstructions presented in subsequent IPCC reports, MBH98/99 is INCLUDED in the groups of reconstructions. You can’t even pick it out amongst the group. And the most recently presented group of reconstructions is fully consistent with MBH98/99.

    Here’s where people get all twisted in their shorts, Locus. Most people don’t realize that MBH98 only went back 600 years. And MBH99 just added a couple of hundred years onto that. At that time they were looking for proxies that we back BEFORE the MWP in order to “contain” it (meaning, to see how far back it went before temps were cooler).

    The MBH hockey stick looks straight merely because it is a shorter hockey stick handle than subsequent reconstructions.

  391. #391 Rob Honeycutt
    December 27, 2015

    Locus…

    Here are a dozen millennial reconstructions done between 1998 and 2006, that include MBH99.

    http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_6_1_large.jpg

  392. #392 Christopher Winter
    December 27, 2015

    Locus (#356): I have no idea of what these series of quotes are supposed to mean. All except the first paragraph are from 2014. Only the first paragraph is from before the lawsuit but it doesn’t say anything about Mr. Potato-Head and his hockey stick.

    So what’s your point?

    Sorry about posting that twice. Please refer to #341; it’s formatted better.

    Perhaps you missed “Dr. Mann’s bestest buddy Phil Jones” and “a cabal of insecure, neurotic, ideological enforcers like Michael E Mann” and “Along the way, he noticed this Tweet by one of the few scientists still willing to be associated with Mann, Gavin Schmidt, explaining why Doctor Fraudpants had no choice but to sue.”

    It’s clear that Steyn is defaming Dr. Mann here. Do you deny that “Doctor Fraudpants” is an outright accusation of fraud?

    Note that this post was made in July 2009, before the lawsuit was actually filed. I don’t agree that the spate of similar posts from Steyn filed after that filing have no bearing on the case. They pertain to his state of mind.

    You can find this June 2004 assessment of Mark Steyn’s writing in the Boston Phoenix: “Steyn’s way — Write, twist, smear, and sneer. Repeat!
    Meet Mark Steyn, the most toxic right-wing pundit you’ve never heard of.”
    http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/multi-page/documents/03917099.asp

    Goes to character. Establishes a pattern of disinterest in conducting research to determine whether or not his pronouncements have any basis in reality. The money quote, IMO (from page 4):

    “Judgments about idiocy aside, Steyn’s got a point. But if American papers are duller than they need to be, they at least try to get the facts straight. They often fail, but there are corrections and ombudsmen and letters to the editor to provide at least some accountability. Steyn, on the other hand, is an acerbic stylist who would enliven any op-ed page. Yet, in his hands, facts are malleable things, to be twisted and reinterpreted and omitted in order to advance his particular point of view. His malpractice is hardly unique; but his sins are more egregious, and his gifts are more obvious, than is the case with lesser but more scrupulous talents.”

  393. #393 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 27, 2015

    #380
    “Even *if* Curry’s Stadium Wave or Lindzen’s Iris theory fail, it doesn’t mean that anyone else’s explanation for the pause *must* be correct.”

    First, I’m sure you’re aware that a number of papers, using different arguments, have rejected “the pause.”

    Second, even though scientists may not have known where the missing energy was, they knew it was in the climate system. It seems to me that if you want to explain a pause, you have to account for what would cause the cessation of additional energy, or account for a negative forcing that would counteract GHG emissions.

    Third, I suspect that you’re again citing a source without having looked sufficiently into it. From your source:

    “Scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably.”

    Note the depth. The Balmaseda et al. paper, Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content, doesn’t focus on the abyss:

    “In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend.”

    In other words, the two papers really aren’t referring to the same thing. So contrary to your hasty assumption, the paper you cite doesn’t reject previous findings, and in no way vindicates the results and views of the Lindzens and and the Currys.

  394. #394 BBD
    December 27, 2015

    Did Locus completely blank my comment at #366?

    What an odd thing to do.

  395. #395 Desertphile
    December 27, 2015

    cosmicomics: A valid objection. But wouldn’t discovery necessarily entail a look at the science, and wouldn’t that look normally be determined by the evaluation of other scientists?”

    Funny thing about discovery: USA lawyers overwhelmingly agree that plaintiffs must never be subjected to any kind of discovery. CEI, NR, and Steyn are pretending that discovery will show Steyn’s assertion is true; it is therefore a positive defense, which defense lawyers hate.

    A fine example of defendants attacking science is the Dover Area Board of Education case, which attempted to demonstrate to a judge that Creationism is science, and evolutionary theory is religion. The lawyers for the defendants were Fundamentalist Christians who are in business to violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: they allowed the attack against science and scientists, when no secular lawyers would have allowed such a thing.

    Discovery applied to Dr. Mann makes no legal sense at all. There is no evidence he can produce that shows Steyn’s statement is true.

    The only thing discovery in this case is designed to show is who actually wrote the false statement in question, and who allowed the falsehood to be published. In other words, discovery is designed to identify the defendants without ambiguity.

  396. #396 Narad
    December 27, 2015

    I am not sure, but I think Dr. Mann only asked for legal expenses to be paid by the defendants.

    “Actual damages” are legal expenses, and include non-monetary awards— such as the defendants being required to apologize as well as being ordered where and when to apologize.

    No. Actual damages exclude attorney fees. I’d have to look at D.C. law to see whether they’re allowable in the case of exemplary/punitive damages in defamation, but I just returned yesterday from holiday travel, and I’m not sure when I’ll be able to get to it.

    If I were to blindly bet, my wager would be on Mann’s not being able to recover legal expenses even if he prevails. “Lawfare” is a risky gambit.

  397. #397 Narad
    December 27, 2015

    Also:

    Funny thing about discovery: USA lawyers overwhelmingly agree that plaintiffs must never be subjected to any kind of discovery.

    I really have no idea where you picked up this notion. A bit of help, please?

  398. #398 Jim Spriggs
    Long Beach adjacent
    December 27, 2015

    Locus #383 says:
    Before the warmists were salivating that a large judgment in Mann’s favor would scare the “deniers” into silence and prevent those dastardly villains from confusing the public.

    Once again we hear a denier falsely claiming speech infringement. No, Locus, it’s all about (say it with me) defamation. Deniers and their masters have always been free to give their opinions. It’s just that when they cast their psychologically projected aspersions on individual scientists it becomes a problem. In this particular case, though, they’ve attacked a scientist who just happens to hit back.

    Let’s pull our heads out the sand and realize that this Mann suit decision (assuming it’s ever handed down) is a crap shoot. Whether Mann wins or loses, the best thing that can happen is that it gets a respectable amount of publicity which may further expose Steyn et al. for the frauds they are. Heads we win, tails you lose.

    Oh yeah, and as #364 SteveP correctly said, “this is just a trivial but highly entertaining side show to the main event.”

  399. #399 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 27, 2015

    #392
    “Discovery applied to Dr. Mann makes no legal sense at all. There is no evidence he can produce that shows Steyn’s statement is true.”

    No. But his interest would be to provide evidence that it’s false.

  400. #400 Jim Spriggs
    Long Beach adjacent
    December 27, 2015

    Dan #344 says:
    A perfect example is the OJ murder trial in the 90’s. After that trial, millions of people called OJ a murderer despite being found not-guilty. Imagine the libel settlements he would have had, if Mann’s (and his fellow Mann-boy lovers on this website) had their way

    I think the Simpson murder trial is far from a perfect example. Just for a moment, imagine the discovery process. Assuming any lawyer would be dumb enough to represent him, I think O.J. would file one case. If he’s lucky it will go nowhere, and then he could go back to Par 3 to look for who really did it.

  401. #401 John Mashey
    December 27, 2015

    #392
    “The only thing discovery in this case is designed to show is who actually wrote the false statement in question, and who allowed the falsehood to be published. In other words, discovery is designed to identify the defendants without ambiguity.”

    Actually, I don’t think these are in much doubt.
    I think there is plenty of evidence for “actual malice” for at least several of the defendants, especially the one I’ve studied extensively, CEI … but as I’ve pointed out, there is potential in this case to expose a lot of connections.

  402. #402 Desertphile
    December 27, 2015

    “I really have no idea where you picked up this notion. A bit of help, please?”

    The Journal of the American Bar Association, constantly, over and over and over again. See, for one example, Edna Selan Epstein’s article dated June 2012 on the subject. Also articles by Maxwell Kennerly regarding plaintiff discovery in his year 2013 series. The problems are two: #1, discovery of plaintiffs in tort litigation almost never yields any useful information, but #2 costs many thousands of dollars.

    You didn’t mention it, but do you think deposing Dr. Mann will do anything at all but waste time and money?

  403. #403 Brainstorms
    December 27, 2015

    It would work to aid the defendants’ desire to delay the entire proceedings…

  404. #404 Locus
    Earth
    December 27, 2015

    BBD #336:

    1) I would dare anyone other than BBD to point to figure 3 of MBH99 and say that the plot between 1000AD – 1200AD is “anomalous”. It’s the start of a gentle downward slope on the graph until 1800AD. MBH99 effectively erased the MWP

    2) Yes, I’ve read the Zorita paper. Several times. And it’s become clear that you still have no idea of what that paper is about.

    The paper is what is commonly referred to as “damage control”. It’s written by folks who believe in AGW but who have become worried that revelations of Mann’s sloppy, slipshod science threatens to undermine the credibility of everyone else in the field.

    The paper acknowledges that the AGW community jumped on the MBH98/MBH99 bandwagon too quickly and too enthusiastically without a good and proper vetting.

    “Icons of past temperature variability, as featured
    in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports over nearly
    two decades, have changed from a schematic sketch in 1990, to a seemingly
    well-solved story in 2001, to more explicit recognition of significant uncertainties in 2007.”

    The paper says that the IPCC started “stepping back” from the MBH reconstruction shown in the 2001 report,

    “IPCC 2007: ‘Stepping Back’
    In the most recent IPCC report, further consideration
    of existing and the development of new reconstruc-
    tions, methodological disputes, and analysis called
    for a retreat from the 2001 position that recon-
    structed temperatures were well understood.”

    And the paper notes that playing “hide-the-decline” is not a good idea,

    “The climatic signal in proxy records is now
    routinely calibrated—and often verified—via comparisons
    with instrumental records allowing assessment
    of proxy trustworthiness in the recent period.”

    The paper says that the AGW community has learned from the bad example of Mann’s dodgy methods.

    So how does this “directly contradict” Steyn’s (and my) position that Mann is a lousy scientist?

    3) Why was my example of Willie Soon such a bad choice? I specifically chose Soon **because** he’s held in such contempt by the AGW community.

    4) “This was a strawman last time you said it”. Why? I was thinking of providing another example but after #3 I’m afraid that you might misinterpret the argument again.

    5) “Climate isn’t a bouncing ball”. So the ice ages were not a series of oscillations of climate?

    6) “…, *all* modern warming is anthropogenic”. This statement is entirely unsupported by evidence. With the rapid industrialization of parts of the Third World, most notably China, estimated man-made emissions of CO2 since 2000 have accelerated.

    http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html#three

    And yet global temperatures have essentially flat-lined.

    http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

    So how in the world can you state with such certainty that *all* modern warming is anthropogenic?

    7)”…so why are you posturing around in comments here as if you knew more than the experts?” Are you claiming expert status?

    8)”In the original papers in which the reconstructions were presented.” You just finished accusing me of not reading the Zorita paper. So how come I remember the following sentence, but you apparently don’t?

    “Even though this reconstruction
    was presented with calibration uncertainties, their
    common omission in subsequent discussion, may have
    led to an overly optimistic assessment of the degree to
    which past temperatures were understood.”

  405. #405 Narad
    December 27, 2015

    The Journal of the American Bar Association, constantly, over and over and over again. See, for one example, Edna Selan Epstein’s article dated June 2012 on the subject.

    The closest hit I’m getting here is “So You Want to Depose Opposing Counsel?” Again, more specificity, please. Ditto on the Kennedy.

  406. #406 BBD
    December 27, 2015

    #401 Locus

    1) I would dare anyone other than BBD to point to figure 3 of MBH99 and say that the plot between 1000AD – 1200AD is “anomalous”. It’s the start of a gentle downward slope on the graph until 1800AD. MBH99 effectively erased the MWP

    See #387 Rob Honeycutt and #366.

    2) Yes, I’ve read the Zorita paper. Several times. And it’s become clear that you still have no idea of what that paper is about.

    It speaks for itself (emphasis added):

    Frank et al. (2010):

    The geological principle of uniformitarianism, often summarized as ‘the present is the key to the past’, was invoked by early natural scientists to comprehend long time-scale processes that occurred so slowly or in the far distant past, that only traces remaining could be used to infer what occurred. Significant natural variability and the long response time of the oceanic and terrestrial systems to climate change, make it exceedingly difficult to understand and therefore predict climate based upon short present observational data. Current anthropogenic activities
    have led to unprecedented trajectories and states in the earth’s coupled climate system, but characterization of the natural climate variability will at least allow a better understanding of the basic operating rules and patterns of climate change. In the context of trying to understand the consequences of new anthropogenic regimes, this uniformitarianism paradigm must be flipped and the past used to grasp hints for what the future may hold.

  407. #407 dean
    United States
    December 27, 2015

    Before the warmists were salivating that a large judgment in Mann’s favor would scare the “deniers” into silence and prevent those dastardly villains from confusing the public.

    Even though that statement is a massive lie from the denier/liar side, it is what would be screamed continually if Mann wins, as it is too good a PR chance (from their point of view) to give up. If you think locus’ posts now are stunning only for their lack of accuracy, imagine what they would be like if Mann prevails: the dishonesty would flow unabated.

    But if steyn wins “freedom of speech” will no longer be touted as having been the point of the suit: rather, it will be spun as a referendum on the validity of the science. The dishonest cry from locus (and other, similarly unknowledgable folk) will be that Mann lost because the science has been found lacking.

    Either way the denialists win: it will matter not to their followers that whatever the verdict the message sent will be false.

  408. #408 BBD
    December 27, 2015

    5) “Climate isn’t a bouncing ball”. So the ice ages were not a series of oscillations of climate?

    Oscillations in response to net forcing change are not bouncing balls. The balls are orbiting.

  409. #409 Brainstorms
    December 27, 2015

    Either way the denialists win

    Until they lose — when Nature, who is unswayed by their self-serving propaganda and false messages, rolls over them with storms, property loss, destroyed crops, displaced populace, droughts, etc. taking their homes, their food, their money, and in some cases, their loved ones with Her.

    Fools. You fool no one but those who would suffer with you. We’d leave you all to rot but for the fact that you’ll “take us down with you”.

  410. #410 Jim Spriggs
    Long Beach adjacent
    December 27, 2015

    Locus #401 says:

    3) Why was my example of Willie Soon such a bad choice? I specifically chose Soon **because** he’s held in such contempt by the AGW community.

    Why isn’t Willie Soon held in contempt in your community? Is it because you people will take any “expert” you can get regardless of any lack of veracity or propriety? If Michael Mann suddenly gets the “Willies,” the hockey stick will still be here, because it’s been replicated numerous times and from all angles for the past 15 years. On the other hand, Soon has been thoroughly discredited and all you have to show for it is more mountains of egregious, shoddy shillery.

    Your entire post indicates to me you simply don’t know when to stop digging.

    5) “Climate isn’t a bouncing ball”. So the ice ages were not a series of oscillations of climate?

    Reference your “rebound” comment.
    Stop. Digging.

  411. #411 BBD
    December 27, 2015

    Locus

    So how in the world can you state with such certainty that *all* modern warming is anthropogenic?

    Like this.

    How would you show that modern warming is not anthropogenic?

  412. #412 Desertphile
    December 27, 2015

    BBD: How would you show that modern warming is not anthropogenic?”

    Gosh, that should be easy for the paranoid conspiracy alarmists to do: just point to what is actually warming the planet anomalously. They insist it isn’t human-produced greenhouse gases—- so fine! WHAT IS IT, THEN?

  413. #413 Locus
    Earth
    December 27, 2015

    #380 cosmicomics:

    1) So there is no ‘pause’? So why is Kevin Trenberth and other prominent warmists trying to explain it? AGW is supposedly a “settled science” but the AGW can’t even agree on what temperatures are doing today? I’m filled with confidence.

    2) I don’t get your point here. First you say that with regards to the missing heat that scientists “knew it was in the climate system”. But then you mention negative forcing so there wouldn’t be any missing heat. So what are you saying?

    3) It’s not my “hasty assumption”. It’s NASA’s.

    “The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years. ”

    and,

    “In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world’s oceans — above the 1.24-mile mark — is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.”

    4) “…and in no way vindicates the results and views of the Lindzens and and the Currys.”

    And who said it would? I just finished complaining about the False Dilemma fallacy and here it is again. If theory ‘A’ fails that does not mean that theory ‘B’ must be correct. Fill in ‘A’ and ‘B’ any way you wish.

    I

  414. #414 Locus
    Earth
    December 27, 2015

    #341 Winter:

    It’s not the formatting or the double-posting.

    Your first paragraph is from 2009, i.e. pre-lawsuit, but it does not mention Mann or the hockey stick.

    All the subsequent quotes from Steyn are from 2014, after the lawsuit was filed.

  415. #415 Locus
    Earth
    December 27, 2015

    #407 Spriggs:

    Let me try this again.

    To begin. I am not endorsing any of Willie Soon’s work. I haven’t studied it and therefore cannot comment.

    The question was whether a subsequent paper by Mann should be accepted as an independent confirmation of Mann’s previous work.

    So all I did is hypothesize what would happen if things were reversed. You have heard of that argument haven’t you?

    My question was would the warmist community accept any following papers by Soon to be an independent confirmation of his previous work. My guess is an emphatic NO! And yet warmists demand that subsequent papers by Mann be considered independent confirmations.

    Hence my accusation of hypocrisy.

    Thats it.

  416. #416 Locus
    Earth
    December 27, 2015

    #407 Dean:

    Really? Mr Potato-Head himself, when announcing his lawsuit on Facebook, characterized his lawsuit as part of a “battle” for public opinion.

    “There is a larger context for this latest development, namely the onslaught of dishonest and libelous attacks that climate scientists have endured for years by dishonest front groups seeking to discredit the case for concern over climate change.”

    and,

    “Now would be a great time to help out w/ the larger battle by assisting climate scientists in their efforts to fight back against the attacks.”

    And hey I’m glad that you can predict my future ‘dishonesty’ if Steyn wins. I didn’t know you were psychic. Can you tell me the next Powerball numbers?

  417. #417 Locus
    Earth
    December 27, 2015

    #408 BBD:

    Those are *models* that are constantly being revised. You should review Richard Feynman’s advice on how hard it is to actually know something.

    These models are subject to constant revision. Case in point,

    “The satellite total solar irradiance (TSI) database provides a valuable record for investigating models of solar variation used to interpret climate changes. The 35-year ACRIM TSI satellite composite was updated using corrections to ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 results derived from recent testing at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics/Total solar irradiance Radiometer Facility (LASP/TRF). The corrections lower the ACRIM3 scale by ~5000 ppm, in close agreement with the scale of SORCE/TIM results (solar constant ~1361 W/m^2). Relative variations and trends are not changed. Differences between the ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites, e.g. the decadal trending during solar cycles 21-22, are tested against a set of solar proxy models, including analysis of Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS/ERBE results available to bridge the ACRIM Gap (1989-1992). Our findings confirm: (1) The validity of the TSI peak in the originally published ERB results in early 1979 during solar cycle 21; (2) The correctness of originally published ACRIM1 results during the SMM spin mode (1981-1984); (3) The upward trend of originally published ERB results during the ACRIM Gap; (4) The occurrence of a significant upward TSI trend between the minima of solar cycles 21 and 22 and (5) a decreasing trend during solar cycles 22-23. Our findings do not support: (1) The downward corrections to originally published ERB and ACRIM1 results during solar cycle 21; (2) A step function sensitivity change in ERB results at the end-of-September 1989; (3) the validity of ERBE’s downward trend during the ACRIM Gap or (4) the use of ERBE results to bridge the ACRIM Gap. Our analysis provides a first order validation of the ACRIM TSI composite approach and its 0.037%/decade upward trend during solar cycles 21-22. Thus, solar forcing of climate change may be a significantly larger factor than represented in the CMIP5 general circulation climate models. ”

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7194

    So maybe the chart you showed won’t change. And then again maybe it will.

  418. #418 Locus
    Earth
    December 27, 2015

    #403 BBD:

    Uh, you realize you just shot yourself in the foot. With an elephant gun.

    In post #408 you state categorically that *all* recent warming is anthropogenic. No doubt about it and you’ve provided a graph that sums it all up.

    And yet here you provide a quote full of warnings about natural variability.

    “Significant natural variability and the long response time of the oceanic and terrestrial systems to climate change, make it exceedingly difficult to understand and therefore predict climate…”

    If it’s “exceedingly difficult to understand and therefore predict climate” then tell me again how you can be so sure of that chart that ascribes *all* recent warming to anthropogenic sources?

  419. #419 SteveP
    Third Stone From The Sun
    December 27, 2015

    #384 Locus
    “And the dark reality that the Mann lawsuit might not be such a cakewalk begins to penetrate the warmist hive-mind.”

    ***”Warmist hive mind”. God that is rich! “Warmist hive mind”! Is that anything like a “ditto head”? Mark Steyn is a team mate of Rush Limbaugh, the king of ditto-head-olatry. Talk about your hive mind! The die hard ditto-head belief that fossil fuel carbon has nothing to do with climate certainly sounds like it is more congruent with “hive mind” than a bunch of scientists measuring and predicting phenomenon related to carbon dioxide. Are you completely unfamiliar with the concept of projection?

    “Before [comma needed here] the warmists were salivating that a large judgment in Mann’s favor would scare the “deniers” into silence and prevent those dastardly villains from confusing the public.” Perhaps you have a hard time empathizing with someone who has worked hard and honestly and who is being abused by a loud mouthed lout. Steyn is a bully who abuses free speech and it looks like Steyn has now used his free speech rights to earn himself a painful lesson in libel law. Hurrah.

    “But now that the warmists have finally started to get a handle on just how difficult it will be for Mann to prove actual malice, suddenly the case is no big deal.” National Review should have known better than to let Mark Steyn snarl and froth at the mouth like a rabid wolverine, but they apparently have lost any semblance of the restraint and elegance once displayed by their bright but awful Mr. Buckley. I guess you want us to think that this is a really big, really important case and I’m sorry, but I just can’t rise to that bait. I suppose that you feel that Dr. Mann is really some kind of really important cult leader in the fight against global warming, or that this case is really important, but really, they are not. The really important people to global warming science were Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius. You can certainly exercise your free speech rights to attack those brilliant men if you like, and they won’t fight back, but if you do so you will merely remove any doubts about your status as a pedantic pea brained science bashing imbecile. Cheers.

  420. #420 SteveP
    Planet of Stupid Monkeys
    December 27, 2015

    #414 Locus

    I see now that you are citing the famed Climastrologer Nicola Scafetta! Wow! You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel this time! How about throwing in one of his cosmic ray papers while you are at it!

    Is it starting to dawn on you now that there is no good evidence for your position? Well, keep digging. If you find the philosopher’s stone down there, let us all know!

  421. #421 Locus
    Earth
    December 27, 2015

    #416 SteveP:

    “… someone who has worked hard and honestly …”

    Honest?

    Mann got caught **falsifying a quote** in his court filings. He took the quote from the Muir Russell report,

    “On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.”

    and changed it to read the following in his court filings to obscure the fact that the report was only charged with examining the CRU scientists,

    “The report examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt. [my bold][38 – Muir Russell Report]”

    Mann is suing over suggestions that he’s not a trustworthy character and to prove what an honest guy he is, he falsifies a quote.

    Can you imagine if one of the defendants had done such a thing? We’d have to scrape the warmists on this blog off the ceiling. But Mann does it and nobody here notices or cares.

    Unreal.

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/

  422. #422 Rob Honeycutt
    December 27, 2015

    Locus @401…

    1) I would dare anyone other than BBD to point to figure 3 of MBH99 and say that the plot between 1000AD – 1200AD is “anomalous”. It’s the start of a gentle downward slope on the graph until 1800AD. MBH99 effectively erased the MWP

    Ah… See my full comment at 366.

    A thousand years back is about the peak of the MWP, thus Mann didn’t “erase” anything. He mere put it in context.

    HH Lamb’s graph was a schematic based on anecdotal evidence and was limited to northern England. MBH took things a huge step forward by pulling together a large number of northern hemisphere proxies to create a multiproxy millennial reconstruction.

    What you find is that, the MWP was present in many different proxies but it’s generally heterogeneous. Meaning, it didn’t occur at the same time in all locations. Warming and cooling in different regions at different times tend to cancel each other out. You can see this easily if you compare Greenland temps with Antarctic temps. You get a lot of oscillations between north and south. That’s just heat that’s already IN the climate system moving around to different places.

    What we have today is very very different. We have much more homogenous warming, especially since the 1960’s.

  423. #423 Rob Honeycutt
    December 27, 2015

    Mann got caught **falsifying a quote** in his court filings.

    No he did not.

  424. #424 Rob Honeycutt
    December 27, 2015

    Last I looked McIntyre was not the Judge in the Mann v Steyn case. Therefore you are making a fraudulent statement yourself.

  425. #425 Narad
    December 27, 2015

    You should review Richard Feynman’s advice on how hard it is to actually know something.

    His popularizing of the term “cargo cult” is also notable in this context but, it seems, in a sense opposed to the one intended.

  426. #426 Narad
    December 27, 2015

    ^ Well, I just blew my hewing to legal aspects. The invocation of Feynman was just too much.

    I intend not to repeat this error.

  427. #427 Jim Spriggs
    Long Beach adjacent
    December 27, 2015

    Locus #412:

    All you people have with Mann are thousand-cut nitpicks on the periphery (you know, like what you’re doing now), apparently because you seem to find it impossible to accept what he represents. The bottom line is there is no intelligent acknowledgement of fraud with Mann as there is with Soon. Your hypothetical “if things were reversed” is therefore invalid.
    Stop digging.

    Locus’ original analogy:
    And yes Mann can continue his research as much as someone is willing to pay for it. But it should not be considered as *independent* confirmation of his earlier work. Let’s put it this way. If Willie Soon writes four more papers would you accept that as confirmation of his first paper?

  428. #428 Jim Spriggs
    Long Beach adjacent
    December 27, 2015

    Locus #314 says:

    Really? Mr Potato-Head himself, when announcing his lawsuit on Facebook, characterized his lawsuit as part of a “battle” for public opinion.

    Great, thanks for bringing that up. The thing “our side” always seem to have are the facts. With PR that’s considered a plus.

    I think the era of scientists meekly stepping out of the way of attacks on their credibility is coming to a close. Nothing like this assault on science has ever happened in the modern age. Yeah, Steyn and his minions have a tiger by the tail with Mann, and there’s a lot of us to back him up. The deniers who make it seem like they’re more numerous than they really are had better get used to taking a lot of punches.

  429. #429 BBD
    December 28, 2015

    #415 Locus

    In post #408 you state categorically that *all* recent warming is anthropogenic. No doubt about it and you’ve provided a graph that sums it all up.

    And yet here you provide a quote full of warnings about natural variability.

    I showed that there is no evidence for any increase in natural forcing sufficient to drive modern warming. I then asked you (#408) to *show* that modern warming is *not* anthropogenic.

    You have not done this.

    Before you start spluttering, referencing Scafetta on solar forcing uncertainty doesn’t carry much weight as Scafetta has never published anything about climate that wasn’t riddled with errors.

    Two key points on NS’s claims: first, if TSI were increasing, then the stratosphere should be warming. It is in fact cooling (as a consequence of the increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2). Second, solar variability during the Schwabe cycle is only thought to alter GAT by about 0.2C peak to trough and the cyclic variation cancels out on the multidecadal scale anyway, so the ‘significance’ of any climatic effect would be moot.

    I read through the WUWT article you are getting this stuff from and suggest that you review the comments by Leif Svalgaard for expert perspective on NS’s results.

    If it’s “exceedingly difficult to understand and therefore predict climate” then tell me again how you can be so sure of that chart that ascribes *all* recent warming to anthropogenic sources?

    Because OHC is increasing. The only way the climate system could be heated from within would be a net loss of energy from the ocean to the atmosphere, which would result in an overall decrease in OHC in the upper ocean layer. This is not observed but the opposite is: OHC is increasing. This shows that energy is accumulating in the climate system and the reasons for this are well understood to be exclusively anthropogenic.

  430. #430 SteveP
    Terminator
    December 28, 2015

    #418 Hocus Pocus Locus

    So once again you have shown the ability to gin up outrage over things that are not outrageous, in this case, a general exoneration of climate scientists by people in a better position to judge them than you. And you think that this exoneration somehow does not apply to Dr. Mann’s work and correspondence with scientists at the CRU?

    You certainly seem to have studied at the same drama queen school as Mark Steyn. Or perhaps you both have simply have spent too much time dipping into the same petrochemical contaminated well and are now both completely addled. If you weren’t both such egregious cat callers, you would be eliciting pity from those of us with the capacity to empathize.

    Here is an actual video of Mark Steyn cat calling. It is indeed worthy of sympathy. Caution- Severe meh involved. Oh and Sting and the Police should sue for the stolen base line.

  431. #431 RickA
    United States
    December 28, 2015

    Desertphile #399 asked “You didn’t mention it, but do you think deposing Dr. Mann will do anything at all but waste time and money?”

    Yes – deposing Dr. Mann will be very helpful to all the defendants.

    As other commenter’s have noted, this case is all about the discovery.

    Both sides will have questions for the other – and that is normal.

    Assuming Steyn hasn’t prevailed on the issue that his writings are an opinion – Steyn will be trying to show that Dr. Mann’s graph is fraudulent.

    Why? Because if he affirmatively proves his statement is true then he wins.

    There are many many topics related to the graph, which Steyn will want to ask Dr. Mann.

    I cannot wait to read the transcript.

    I predict that Dr. Mann will very much regret suing Steyn after the deposition transcript is published (if it is).

    The entire unfortunate lawsuit will have been worth it if Steyn gets a chance to depose Dr. Mann.

    I am actually quite concerned that the entire lawsuit will be dismissed before we ever get to see Dr. Mann deposed – which would be a real shame.

    Still – keep the popcorn coming – hopefully the intermission created by this appeal will be over soon.

  432. #432 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    RickA lives in a fantasy land …

  433. #433 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 28, 2015

    RickA lives under a moss covered bridge and jumps out at passersby…

  434. #434 dean
    United States
    December 28, 2015

    I still have not seen ricka, locus, or any of the other liars/science deniers, provide an intelligent explanation for the reason they continue to arbitrarily dismiss the various studies that support Mann’s work, the hockey stick, and the accumulated science in general.
    Could they do it if they wanted to, or are they doing it simply because they don’t understand it?

  435. #435 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt #386: Thank you for the reasoned response that discusses various aspects of the case, and avoids the personal attacks some other posters seem unable to resist.

    To address your points, in order:

    (1) I am unaware of any law that distinguishes between a “minor” public figure and a “major or non-minor” public figure, as it applies to the malice and actual knowledge requirements. Being a public person is kind of like being pregnant — you either you are or you aren’t…

    (2) I agree that Steyn’s statements against Mann have a political basis, which actually strengthens Steyn’s case, as our system affords political speech the highest levels of protections (as opposed to say, artistic work which can be banned on obscenity grounds). Climate change is a political issue, as various parties have different ideas on how to respond, how much money to spend, economic consequences, etc.

    (3) While Mann v. steyn might not “matter” to some, it certainly matters to Steyn, who is being forced to spend a ton of money and time on legal fees and procedures.

    And that last point is what makes Mann’s antics so deplorable. He files these lawsuits knowing most people don’t carry libel insurance, thus forcing them to incur the legal fees and costs on their own. When this becomes no longer feasible, the party agrees to a settlement, which Mann spins as a victory (whether or not the settlement contains a retraction or admission of responsibility).

    As Steyn rightly notes, the process of being sued is almost as bad as being found responsible. And don’t give me this garbage about Steyn getting his money back if he wins. I have had fees and costs awarded to my client numerous times; they barely ever collect. Also, courts rarely award the full amount of fees and costs.

  436. #436 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 28, 2015

    It’s not about science. It’s about Mann, conspiracy theories, and the art of smearing.

    “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
    ~ Cardinal Richelieu

  437. #437 John MAshey
    December 28, 2015

    Dean:
    See Pseudoskpetics are not sekeptics and read about Morton’s Demon, which
    “stands at the gateway of a person’s senses and lets in facts that agree with that person’s beliefs while deflecting those that do not. This demon is used to explain the phenomenon of confirmation bias.”

    Some such Demons are Sauron-sized,, able to repel basic laws of physics like conservation of energy.

    These are especially useful to those angry people (males, mostly)who need people to hate, of whom they can learn by reading Steyn or Marc Morano. There is always a good supply of angry people to then send hate mail, make death treats, leave eviscerated rat on doorstep.,etc.

  438. #438 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 28, 2015

    My #434 was in response to dean re: RickA et al.

  439. #439 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Chris Winters: Regarding your posts about celebrities never winning libel cases, I would agree they can, but it is rare and much more difficult. Even the article linking to the Ventura case (which is up on appeal, I believe), says as much. As for the Texas couple, I could not see how they were public figures (unless being accused of a crime makes you a public figure per se, which it might in some of the 51 jurisdictions in this country).

    I agree, it can happen. But, based on the facts we know so far, Mann is highly unlikely to succeed. As experts in this area have stated (and I have linked to), short of Steyn saying, under oath, I know Mann’s hockey stick is legit, and I said it anyway because I just don’t like him, Mann has an uphill battle.

    Of course, Steyn might say that. That is what discovery is for. If I was in the betting business, however, I would bet against it…

  440. #440 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    Dan:

    “And that last point is what makes Mann’s antics so deplorable. He files these lawsuits knowing most people don’t carry libel insurance, thus forcing them to incur the legal fees and costs on their own.”

    Classic blame-the-victim argumentation. By Dan’s logic, no one should ever sue anyone for any reason because … the poor defendent will incur legal fees.

  441. #441 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    Dan @435…

    You could apply Warhol to this idea and easily state that we are all public figures, albeit for 15 minutes.

    There certainly is no standard which you can determine if someone is or is not a public figure. And, no, it’s NOT like being pregnant. There absolutely are different levels of being a public figure. Barack Obama is not a public figure at the same level as Michael Mann is a public figure. Most people on the planet know who Obama is. Most people on the planet do NOT know who Michael Mann is.

  442. #442 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    By the way SteveP, you might think Steyn’s musical productions are cringe worthy, but his recent release hit number 1 on the Amazon jazz charts, beating out Michael Buble, among others. You might not like, but others sure due…

    Ironically, if Mann’s interpretation of the 1st Amendment is correct, Steyn could sue you for your statements. After all, it is a fact that his record reached no 1 in its category. Therefore, you should know it is not cringeworthy.

    Thank God for people like Steyn, who stick up for the rights of all people (even those who do not like him) to engage in free discourse on all matters, from politics to science to music…

  443. #443 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt: in the real world, yes, there are distinctions, but for legal purposes when adjudicating libel/defamation cases, there is no distinction. If there is, link to your authority.

    As for Mann, while not as well known as Obama, the Court has already declared him a public person. Unlike the existence of malice, the issue of Plaintiff’s status as a public person is a legal issue for the judge to decide, not a factual issue for the jury, because it goes to the duty owed by Defendant to Plaintiff, which, again, the judge determines. The jury determines if Defendant breached said duty.

  444. #444 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    dhog: It is only “blame the victim” mentality if you view Mann as a victim. I don’t, and the law most likely won’t either. Also, Mann has a history of doing this to others who disagree with him.

    Believe me, I am all for people suing if legitimately wronged. I make my living defending individuals and businesses who have been sued. What I find deplorable is abusing the system, via frivolous litigation, in an attempt to silence legitimate speech (whether I agree with said speech or not).

    I would hope we would all find that deplorable…

  445. #445 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    Dan…

    Climate change is a political issue, as various parties have different ideas on how to respond, how much money to spend, economic consequences, etc.

    And here lay the rub.

    Steyn is attempting to use empirically based scientific research as a political soccer ball.

    Mann’s work is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community as being good research, even as being seminal early research on millennial temperature reconstruction. It was not perfect, nor is any science perfect. Science is an iterative process where each piece of published research is a stepping stone to newer better research. Mann’s work is clearly NOT fraudulent by any realistic scientific measure. And Mann has right to defend attacks against his credibility as a scientist.

    Steyn is welcome to all his opinions about how we respond to the science. He does not have the right to deliberately try to destroy a scientist’s reputation in the pursuit of his political opinions. That is a clear case of libel, whether he is deliberately doing it or is doing it by ignoring the abundant evidence contrary to his statements.

    The long and short is, Mann’s work is clearly NOT fraudulent by any stretch of the imagination. Steyn made claims of fraud that are provably right or wrong. Those claims are clearly wrong.

  446. #446 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    Thank God for people like Steyn…

    I just threw up in my mouth.

    Few people on this planet have done more damage to rational discourse.

  447. #447 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    Dan:

    “Ironically, if Mann’s interpretation of the 1st Amendment is correct, Steyn could sue you for your statements.”

    Gosh, and here I thought the case was being judged under libel law …

  448. #448 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    Dan:

    “dhog: It is only “blame the victim” mentality if you view Mann as a victim.”

    If being falsely accused of being guilty of scientific fraud doesn’t make one a victim, it is hard to see what would make one a victim in your mind. Oh, yeah, the person who is sued for making false accusations is the victim in your mind …

    “I don’t, and the law most likely won’t either.”

    As you well know, a pubic figure can lose a libel case despite being victimized …

  449. #449 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Dhog: #447: Ummm, libel law is part of 1st amendment law (along with obscenity, prior restraint, etc)

  450. #450 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    Dan…

    He files these lawsuits knowing most people don’t carry libel insurance, thus forcing them to incur the legal fees and costs on their own.

    Hm… Interesting. Being that libel seems to be Steyn’s stock and trade, if he wasn’t carrying libel insurance that’s his own fault.

    I have to say, this all strikes me as a crybaby defense of Steyn and others.

    Which brings up the question, exactly how many times has Mann done this? As far as I’m aware, only twice. Once with Tim Ball and once with Mann. In both cases these people viciously and unjustifiably attacked Mann’s scientific work.

    Do you not believe that Michael Mann has a right to defend his scientific reputation? Is he just supposed to idly stand by while people attempt to destroy his scientific career?

  451. #451 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    Correction: “…once with Tim Ball and once with Steyn.”

  452. #452 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt: It depends on how you define “fraud.” If, as Steyn believes (based on the East Anglia emails, etc), that Mann ignored/downplayed data that went against his thesis, that could be said to be fraudulent.

    Also, if Mann claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner, when in fact he never won the prize, that could be considered a fraudulent statement.

    You can agree with Steyn; you can disagree. But Steyn has the right to make such statements without fear of civil recourse

  453. #453 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Rob, and how is Mann’s career destroyed? if he is not a fraud, the facts will speak for themselves. Again, it all comes down (as I have linked to the legal authority) that if Steyn reasonably believes Mann ignored certain data, his speech is protected.

    Also, the fact that he was “exonerated” does not mean that Steyn can assert the investigation (at least of them, by PSU) was conducted by an institution that very recently ignored evidence of wrongdoing against other prominent faculty members.

    Again, agree, disagree, whatever. It is protected speech and, barring something unforeseeable in discovery, Steyn will win this one going away…

  454. #454 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    And, to answer your last question, yes, I absolutely believe Mann has the right to protect his scientific work and reputation in the Court of public opinion, not via lawsuits.

    Ironically, Mann’s lawsuits make his science less credible, because his lawsuit, if successful, will silence his opponents. If his science was as accurate as he claims, he would not need to silence his critics.

    And it is a fair criticism to say a scientist ignored data that went against his position, and was fraudulent in so doing…

  455. #455 BBD
    December 28, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt’s #445 hits the nail on the head, Dan.

    And Dan, listen to yourself:

    Ironically, Mann’s lawsuits make his science less credible, because his lawsuit, if successful, will silence his opponents. If his science was as accurate as he claims, he would not need to silence his critics.

    If Mann’s critics had responded in the scientific literature with a valid demonstration of error in Mann’s work then they would have made their point. But they did not because they could not. Instead, they chose to smear his reputation and it is for that that Mann is seeking legal redress.

    If the likes of Steyn were to engage with a proper scientific argument it would be impossible to ‘silence’ them.

  456. #456 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    Dan:

    “Ironically, Mann’s lawsuits make his science less credible, because his lawsuit, if successful, will silence his opponents. If his science was as accurate as he claims, he would not need to silence his critics.”

    What idiocy. No, his critics will not be silenced. When you make obviously stupid and incorrect statements such as this, why would anyone pay any attention to anything you might say?

    “Dhog: #447: Ummm, libel law is part of 1st amendment law (along with obscenity, prior restraint, etc)”

    Ummm, libel laws in the US predate the Constitution. The First Amendment to some degree contradicts libel law (increasingly so in the last few decades) but to read the case as being “Mann’s interpretation of the First Amendment” is more than mildly inaccurate. The Court could, for instance, rule that there was no libel (as defined by libel law) in the first place without ever invoking 1st Amendment restrictions on the application of libel law based on Mann’s status as a public figure etc etc.

  457. #457 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    “his critics will not be silenced” in the sense BBD states above, i.e. if Steyn gets slapped for his accusing Mann of scientific fraud, it will have absolutely zero effect on scientific criticism of his work.

  458. #458 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 28, 2015

    RH @ 446

    “I just threw up in my mouth.”
    No doubt that was Dan’s intent.

    “Few people on this planet have done more damage to rational discourse.”
    Well, I’d refer you to the role of talk radio in Rwandan massacres. We’re not there yet, but maybe eventually with the help of Dan’s myopic, legalistic viewpoint and the persistent “defining deviancy down” of wingnut mouthpieces.

    He has definitely shown his bias with regard to the science despite his statements to the contrary. You understand the operating distinctions between science and policy. Dan’s view from under his bridge is that all speech is political game for sophists and lawyers.

  459. #459 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    Dan… If there were legitimate claims for fraud in the CRU email hack, that would have been a major issue and Mann would have been reprimanded in some manner.

    Mann’s Nobel Prize claims are also not fraudulent because he merely claims to have shared the prize with all the other scientists who contributed to the 2007 IPCC report.

    Mann’s professional reputation is clearly under attack from people like Steyn. There is clearly NO fraud on Mann’s part. Any claims of fraud are libelous.

    Your claim that libel is protected speech is wrong.

  460. #460 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    Dan @454…

    And, to answer your last question, yes, I absolutely believe Mann has the right to protect his scientific work and reputation in the Court of public opinion, not via lawsuits.

    You’re essentially arguing there should be no such thing a libel law, and that’s just absurd. This is the sound of the wheels coming off your particular rhetorical cart.

  461. #461 RickA
    December 28, 2015

    OA #436:

    You are correct – this is not about the science.

    Many posters here seem to think the trial will turn on the consensus view of the science – which it will not.

    This trial will turn on the reasonableness of the defendant’s views (Steyn’s view is pertinent here) of Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph.

    The science doesn’t matter and the posters views here don’t matter.

    What matters is whether the jury finds that Steyn’s statement is an opinion or not, and if it finds Steyn’s statement a factual assertion or not, and whether the jury finds (if it is a statement) to be false or not, and if it is found to be false – was Steyn’s reasonable to hold his view or not.

    At least that is my take on it.

    I am not a libel attorney, but a patent attorney, so I could be wrong.

    But I don’t think this case is about the science – so I agree with OA.

  462. #462 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    Dan…

    You might also take note of the fact that this is not just Michael Mann arbitrarily deciding to sue Steyn for libel. Mike has a very good libel lawyer who is telling him he has a good shot at winning this. The rulings thus far in this case have also suggested the case has clear merit and can proceed.

    All of your claims suggest that this is a open and shut case for Steyn, and clearly that’s in no way an accurate assessment of the situation.

  463. #463 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    RickA…

    The judge in this case has already clearly stated that “fraud” is not an opinion. It is a statement of fact that can be proven true or false.

  464. #464 dean
    United States
    December 28, 2015

    Dan at 155:

    I will agree I am ignorant when it comes to science.

    Dan at 454:

    Ironically, Mann’s lawsuits make his science less credible, because his lawsuit, if successful, will silence his opponents. If his science was as accurate as he claims, he would not need to silence his critics.

    In a mere 300 posts dan learned enough about science to be able to determine that a lawsuit is enough to make science less credible.
    Or, dan is simply doing what he does best – lying about things he doesn’t understand but opposes because he’s been told he should.

  465. #465 RickA
    December 28, 2015

    Rob #459:

    You are assuming libel, when that is Mann’s burden to prove.

    Mann has not yet proven there was a libel.

    This will be a very steep uphill path for Dr. Mann.

  466. #466 Brainstorms
    December 28, 2015

    If Mann were to have hired Dan the Lawyer to represent him…

    Dan the Denier would be singing the praises of Mann and describing him as a woeful victim and impugning Steyn’s character with all sorts of deplorable descriptions.

    Typical lawyer morals.

  467. #467 RickA
    December 28, 2015

    Rob #463:

    You are not reading the Judge correctly and therefore you are wrong.

    The Judge is saying that if you assume the paragraphs in the complaint are taken as true that Steyn’s statements could be considered statements of fact.

    The Judge is not finding that they in fact are statements of fact.

    Dr. Mann still has to PROVE that these are statements of fact and not opinion – that is his burden of proof.

    But don’t take my word for it – just wait and see.

  468. #468 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Dean #464: You really don’t understand my posts, or what this case is all about. I never claimed to learn anything about science. What I do know, and what is common knowledge among legal scholars, academics, practicing attorneys, etc., is that courts do not decide science.

    Mann v. Steyn has very little to do with climate change, or whether Mann’s hockey stick is legit. The case is about freedom of speech, and whether the Defendant is entitled to offer his opinion about scientific research he disagrees with, a scientist whom he believes ignored and manipulated data, and his opinions regarding the investigation.

    Further, how do you know I am a “denier (whatever that means)?” I have long said I don’t know who is right in the climate change debate, but the fact that one side seeks to silence critics does not bode well in its favor.

    Lastly, I have posted various articles from LEGAL academics regarding Mann v. Steyn, all of whom state Mann has a difficult, borderline impossible case. I have yet to see one person post a link from a LEGAL scholar which states, under current 1st Amendment jurisprudence, Mann has a strong case, or, for that matter, that this case is about science.

  469. #469 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Brainstorms, #466: How do you know anything about my morals? Also, it speaks volumes about your character and intelligence to judge an entire group of people. Some lawyers (most, at least the ones I know and work with) have morals. Some don’t, just like some doctors lack morals, some businessmen, and (dare I say, some scientists).

    If I represented Mann, what I would tell him is that he has a very difficult libel case against Steyn because ( the article from the Cal Berkely professor succinctly states) he is a public person, and people can say almost anything about public persons if they are dumb enough to believe it.

    I would then tell him that, if a lawsuit is filed, we would have to adduce, during discovery, some evidence that Steyn knew his comments were not true, yet made the statement anyway solely for malicious purposes. Next, I would tell Mann that the chances of adducing said evidence during discovery is slim, and that filing a lawsuit is probably not in his best interests because he could expose himself to judgment of attorneys fees and costs if the case is ultimately not successful.

    Lastly, I would explore other ways of obtaining his goals that does not involve litigation. I would encourage him to present his case in the court of public opinion. Write an Op Ed responding to Steyns’ comments proving how silly they are. Perhaps challenge Steyn to a debate, etc.

    Mann is certainly entitled to competent legal representation. If he has been fully advised of the difficulty of his case, then the decision to proceed is on him….

  470. #470 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt, #454: I am not sure how you can conclude I am arguing there should essentially be no libel laws. I have not stated what I think the law should be, merely what it is based on research and (most importantly), the opinions of legal scholars in this field. Whether I think there should be libel law, or my thoughts regarding the current burden for public persons, is not germane in any way to this issue..

    But, since you asked, I believe that free speech is the crown jewel of our personal rights, and that without it, all other rights will essentially cease to exist. I therefore fully support broad rights regarding speech..

    I also believe that the best defense to libel cases is in the court of public opinion. If Steyn’s statements are as outrageous as some here claim, Steyn will be proven a buffoon not to be taken seriously.

    I would much rather have these issues played out in the court of public opinion as opposed to the court of law, because if these situations are resolved legally, it will often come down to money, and legitimate speech will be stifled — which, in turn, would be a tragedy…

  471. #471 Dan
    December 28, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt #459: Mann’s claims re: the Nobel Prize were fraudulent. He never clarified that he “shared” the nobel prize. Even if he did, that would still be a lie, as the Nobel committee made clear when it stated, unequivocally, that Mann is not a Nobel Prize recipient and should hold himself out to be…

    His original complaint stated Steyn defamed a nobel prize recipient. Not a “shared-nobel” prize recipient. If Mann’s statements were true, why did he amend his complaint to take said language out?

  472. #472 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    BBD, #455: Steyn did respond with a valid scientific argument, in which he relied on the opinions of other scientists (Dr. Curry, Dr. Happer, et. al.), each of whom disagrees with Mann’s hockey stick and state that Mann ignored certain data.

    Calling someone a fraud, if you reasonably believe they are a faud, is legit. Steyn is certainly free to take the side of Drs. Curry, Happer, et.al as opposed to. Dr. Mann…

    Btw, BBD, did you read the article by the legal scholar I linked to? If you did, you would realize all these Mann-boys are simply wrong when they fail to admit Mann has a difficult (albeit not impossible; almost impossible, but not quite) case.

  473. #473 RickA
    United States
    December 28, 2015

    Dan #471:

    I think Rob (or perhaps someone else) said on other Steyn threads that they don’t blame Mann for this statement – they blame the lawyer.

    So I believe Rob would say that Mann never said he was a nobel prize receipient – his lawyer said that, made a mistake and then fixed it when he amended the complaint.

    Ridiculous, I know – but most of the people posting on this blog know nothing about legal process.

  474. #474 BBD
    December 28, 2015

    #472 Dan

    BBD, #455: Steyn did respond with a valid scientific argument, in which he relied on the opinions of other scientists (Dr. Curry, Dr. Happer, et. al.), each of whom disagrees with Mann’s hockey stick and state that Mann ignored certain data.

    No, the contrarian nonsense espoused by Steyn does not even approach a scientific argument. And you are ignoring my central point that had Steyn confined himself to a scientific argument and publications none of this would have happened.

  475. #475 SteveP
    Mirkwood
    December 28, 2015

    #442 Dan

    “By the way SteveP, you might think Steyn’s musical productions are cringe worthy, but his recent release hit number 1 on the Amazon jazz charts, beating out Michael Buble, among others. You might not like, but others sure due [sic]…” I have not said that his music is cringe worthy earlier, I think that those are your words, but the thought of listening to the samples of his CD again is repulsive to me. I like just about every type of music and yet here is something completely free of any redeeming musical features, a collection of un-inspirational, uncreative, covers to which he adds nothing. My aesthetics professor would have labeled it counterfeit art. There is a well known practice of conservative groups bulk buying books to drive up sales numbers, and I wonder if this CD got the bulk boost too. I sincerely doubt that any real jazz lovers would tolerate let alone purchase his detritus. It would be a typical Karl Rovian conservative strategy… pad his resume so he can get on more talk shows and spew more right wing crap.

    “Ironically, if Mann’s interpretation of the 1st Amendment is correct, Steyn could sue you for your statements. After all, it is a fact that his record reached no 1 in its category. Therefore, you should know it is not cringeworthy.” I know of no law, scientific or otherwise, that states that reaching the top of a chart is mutually exclusive with the property of being cringeworthy.

    “Thank God for people like Steyn, who stick up for the rights of all people (even those who do not like him) to engage in free discourse on all matters, from politics to science to music…” Which God would that be? The God of petrochemicals? Or Rush? At any rate, Mark Steyn is, in my opinion, remarkably devoid of musical talent, remarkably devoid of knowledge of science, and remarkably unfit to be writing anything about Michael Mann.. But there he is, another raucous rising star in the pantheon of outrage peddlers, boosted by right wing ideologues.

    Viciously bashing a scientist as Mark Steyn has done is a line of civility that he has stepped over with the help of anti-science, anti-intellectual, fossil fueled promoters. His hysterical attacks have no place in modern society. If he had legitimate evidence of fraud, he could have simply presented it. It would have been extremely powerful if it existed. But it did not exist, and he did not present anything tangible. He hurled the charge without evidence, without qualification, and then, to add insult to injury, he linked his victim with a universally loathed pervert. What Mark Steyn did is not free speech, in my opinion. In my opinion, it is libel serving no purpose other than to bring in bucks into his coffers as a salable form of right wing verbal violence pornography.

  476. #476 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    OA, is Prosser Garber (see article linked in post #345) a wingnut with myopic legal views? Not one person has responded to the opinions set forth by Professor Garber, a noted scholar on all aspects of 1st Amendment law, including libel law.

    The problem is most of the posters WANT Steyn to be liable, and therefore let their emotions get in the way of the objective legal standard (which is kind of ironic, as Steyn, essentially, accuses Mann of ignoring objective evidence that disputes his desired result).

    Again, Professor Garber supports Mann’s scientific positions, but realizes his case against Steyn is weak, at best.

    Not. One. Single. Poster. Has. Linked. An. Article. Disputing. Professor. Garber. Until someone can find a 1st amendment scholar disputing Garber, you all are engaged in wishful thinking.

    Personally, I don’t really care if Steyn is liable for libel (see what I did there?). I happen to enjoy Steyn’s writing, agree with some of his views and disagree with others. But, if according to the law he committed libel against Mann, I would say so.

    Instead, I rely on legal authority and scholars, not emotion

  477. #477 BBD
    December 28, 2015

    I’m going to keep asking this until I get a satisfactory answer:

    If MBH99 was so wrong as to merit the description of ‘fraudulent’ then why has 15 years of additional research only refined and not invalidated it?

  478. #478 BBD
    December 28, 2015

    Until someone can find a 1st amendment scholar disputing Garber, you all are engaged in wishful thinking.

    Not me, Dan. Feel free to review the thread. I have learned somewhat and disputed nothing about US libel law.

  479. #479 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Steve, #475. At least you admit that is your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to. And I respect the fact that you think the libel laws should be changed. It doesn’t change the fact, however, that, per the laws as the currently exist, Mann has a difficult case.

  480. #480 Dan
    December 28, 2015

    BBD #477: You make a legitimate point about MBH99, but you ignore the fact that Mann v. Steyn is NOT ABOUT SCIENCE. The court will not decide if Mann’s science is correct (other then to the extent it will determine if Steyn made false statements). But, even if Steyn made false statements, Mann has to prove he knew the statements were false, and the statements were made maliciously.

    I get it. You agree with Mann. You don’t think Mann is a fraud. Steyn does, and therein lies the legit disagreement. Steyn just published a book fully of scientists who take Mann to task. I read the book. There are lots of scientists who think Mann is a fraud.

    Isn’t Steyn free to agree with them, just as you are free to agree with Mann?

  481. #481 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Rick, #473: You are probably right, and that is indeed ridiculous. At one point, Mann posted to his twitter feed a certificate he received from the IPCC about the Nobel Prize, as if that was the prize itself. He clearly held himself out to be a Nobel Prize winner (a perfect example is the Pulitzer Prize, which is sometimes awarded to entire news divisions or newspapers. In those cases, journalists who contributed to the paper/division/section winning the Pulitzer absolutely cannot and do not hold themselves out to be Pulitzer Prize winners).

    You are absolutely right that most people here have no idea how the legal process works. I can’t fault them for that, but it is frustrating that every lawyer on this thread, and every legal article cited that has addressed Mann v. Steyn, states Mann has a tough case.

    Why can’t they admit that? Are they that emotionally invested in Mann?

  482. #482 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Dhog, I have no idea what you are talking about in post 456. Obviously, 1st amendment law is far broader then just libel law, but libel law is a subset of 1st amendment jurisprudence. In other words, all libel cases are 1st amendment cases, but not all 1st amendment cases are libel cases.

    There is no dispute, even among Mann’s lawyers, that this case hinges on the 1st Amendment. Have you read the parties briefs? I have….

  483. #483 BBD
    December 28, 2015

    #480 Dan

    There are lots of scientists who think Mann is a fraud.

    Then where is the scientific literature demonstrating fundamental flaws in MBH99?

  484. #484 RickA
    United States
    December 28, 2015

    Dan #481 – you ask “Are they that emotionally invested in Mann?”

    The answer is yes.

    Mann is their champion, to create propaganda so they can argue that the warming we have experienced is unprecedented (over various periods of time).

    If the warming is not unprecedented than their whole case falls apart.

    Because then we would have no way of knowing if the warming we are experiencing is natural or not.

    Mann got rid of the MWP (the flat part of the hockey stick).

    So they are emotionally invested in Mann – no doubt.

  485. #485 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    BBD, what does that have to do re: Mann v. Steyn, and the issue of whether Steyn libeled Mann? Steyn can certainly rely on scientists who disagree with Mann, and this just shows he truly believes Mann is a fraud. You seem to think that this MBH99 literature is dispositive of the legal issues..

    Btw, here is a good (albeit succinct) article discussing the difficulties Peyton Manning would face should he sue over recent HGH allegations…

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/could-peyton-manning-actually-win-a-lawsuit-against-al-jazeera/ar-BBnZbaB?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=DELLDHP

  486. #486 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    Wikipedia, at least, gives us a more nuanced discussion of libel law and its relationship to the first amendment than Dan does.

    And given that Mann has a very competent expert in the field as his lawyer, I’d say it’s a fair guess that the black-and-white, cut-and-dried, “I’m right because I’m a lawyer” arguments Dan makes are, shall we say … overly simplistic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

  487. #487 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Rick, #484: I think you are right re: emotional investment. It is the only possible explanation for their responses to those who disagree with them. Both you and I have been called various names and been subject to numerous ad hominen attacks for having the temerity to think Mann has a difficult case under current libel laws in this county.

    Who knows? Maybe Mann will take this to the Supreme Court and they will overrule NYT v. Sullivan, Falwell v. Hustler, ect? Like I have said repeatedly (and I am sure you have as well), if Mann had a good case, I would say so and hope Steyn’s lawyers were advising him to issue a retraction and an apology….

  488. #488 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    RickA:

    “Because then we would have no way of knowing if the warming we are experiencing is natural or not.”

    Stick to your day job.

    Oh, and climate science is based on physics, not psychics …

  489. #489 BBD
    December 28, 2015

    BBD, what does that have to do re: Mann v. Steyn, and the issue of whether Steyn libeled Mann?

    I was challenging *your* assertion that:

    There are lots of scientists who think Mann is a fraud.

    You didn’t respond to the question. Once again:

    If MBH99 was so wrong as to merit the description of ‘fraudulent’ then why has 15 years of additional research only refined and not invalidated it?

    Where is the scientific literature demonstrating fundamental flaws in MBH99?

  490. #490 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    Dan:

    “Both you and I have been called various names and been subject to numerous ad hominen attacks for having the temerity to think Mann has a difficult case under current libel laws in this county.”

    I doubt if anyone here would argue that Mann has a difficult case.

  491. #491 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    dhog: Obviously, this area of law if far more complex then could be explained in this venue. And I have never said I was right because I am a lawyer. What I have said is that I have researched this issue, and the pertinent case law, as well as the opinions of various legal scholars in this area, suggest Mann has a difficult case.

    I have clearly said, when linking to Professor Garber, to NOT take my word, take his. Instead, you rely on Wikipedia (which, ironically, discusses the challenges facing public persons, as promulgated in NYT v. Sullivan)

  492. #492 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    that Mann does NOT have a difficult case.

  493. #493 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    dhog: re-read the posts. Numerous posters have used terms like “slam-dunk,” and “text-book” case of libel…

  494. #494 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    Dan:

    “Instead, you rely on Wikipedia (which, ironically, discusses the challenges facing public persons, as promulgated in NYT v. Sullivan)”

    I only used Wikipedia to underscore the fact that you’ve been arguing along very simplistic lines that aren’t particularly accurate.

  495. #495 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    BBD: I am not a scientist. Your question would be better directed to Dr. Curry, Dr. Happer, and the 100+ scientists whom Steyn quotes in his recent book. I don’t even know what MBH99 is.

    I am here to discuss the law, not science…

  496. #496 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Fair enough, dhog. And to be clear, I have never said Mann can’t win. I have practiced law long enough (although only 10 years) to know that anything can happen in litigation. He certainly can win, it is just that it is a very difficult case and, if he is successful, I think it would likely be the result of an erroneous jury instruction that would be ripe for reversal on appeal (that is based on how things stand know; discovery can change everything)

  497. #497 Christopher Winter
    December 28, 2015

    Locus (#414): It’s not the formatting or the double-posting.

    Your first paragraph is from 2009, i.e. pre-lawsuit, but it does not mention Mann or the hockey stick.

    There are four excerpts from that same 25 July 2009 post by Steyn. The others mention Dr. Mann. I repeated these mentions in #392. You need to read more carefully.

    All the subsequent quotes from Steyn are from 2014, after the lawsuit was filed.

  498. #498 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 28, 2015

    Dan,

    But, if according to the law he committed libel against Mann, I would say so.

    You mean if you thought he committed libel you would say so?Maybe, but now why do I doubt even that? Oh wait, could it be this:

    611
    Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 16, 2015
    Obstreporous, I actually agree with you when you state mother nature doesn’t care what people do. That is the smartest thing you have ever said. Mother nature is far too complex to concern itself with what man does, including how mankind produces and uses energy.

    There were wild climate extremes will before man existed, let alone started using fossil fuels. There was an ice age, little ice age; they used to hold winter fairs on the frozen thames; alligators used be found at the north pole, etc.

    The point is, some things are out of our control. One of them happens to be the climate. Now that you have admitted that, hopefully you can realize not only the futility, but the dire economic consequences that will follow by enacting such insane legislation as “cap and tax,” and other legislation to somehow limit carbon emissions.

    This is why the public no longer trusts the climate cartel. You all act as if extreme weather just appeared in the second half of the twentieth century, and conveniently ignore the warming and subsequent cooling that has existed for as long — and longer — then man has.
    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-newest-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/

    Now Dan, I know you’re not a dumb guy, so I know you had to go far out of your way to come up with something that ridiculous; and that’s taking into account that it’s basically just preprocessed meme hash.

  499. #499 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Desertphile #402: It is comments like these that really make me question some of Mann’s backers. when you say that discovery of plaintiff’s in tort litigation rarely leads to anything useful, you lose credibility with anyone who has basic understanding of how our legal system works.

    If I didn’t depose a plaintiff (or defendant if I represented the Plaintiff), I would be on the hook for malpractice. You never, ever, know what you might find during discovery. In medical malpractice cases, for example, I found evidence that a defendant doctor intentionally altered his medical records because there happened to be an original out there that we got through a different source….oops, as a former governor might say….

    Who knows what deposing Mann will yield? Maybe he has emails from years back admitting he is going to ignore all anti-warming evidence? It is unlikely, but crazier things have happened in discovery

  500. #500 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    “Dan at 155:

    I will agree I am ignorant when it comes to science.”

    So Dan admits to being ignorant about science but that doesn’t stop him from claiming that climate science is wrong about our CO2 emissions affecting climate, as quoted by OA above? Figures.

  501. #501 BBD
    December 28, 2015

    # 495 Dan

    BBD: I am not a scientist. Your question would be better directed to Dr. Curry, Dr. Happer, and the 100+ scientists whom Steyn quotes in his recent book.

    If there is such concern in academic circles, there should be a body of published work demonstrating fundamental flaws in MBH99. Since none exists, then it is reasonable to infer that there are no fundamental problems and claims that ‘lots of scientists think that Mann is a fraud’ are baseless and almost certainly incorrect.

    I don’t even know what MBH99 is.

    Mann, Bradley & Hughes (1999). The source of the 1000yr temperature reconstruction usually referred to as the ‘hockey stick’.

    I am here to discuss the law, not science…

    Then you cannot reasonably assert that:

    There are lots of scientists who think Mann is a fraud.

    …unless you address the mystery of the Missing Literature.

  502. #502 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    OA, what I am stating in that post is that, as a non-scientist, I don’t know what to make of climate change. First, it is not an area that really fascinates me. Second, there are examples of extreme weather patterns well-before the industrial revolution and man-made emissions. What to make of these?

    When I refer to the climate cartel, what I mean is those people (scientists, politicians, etc), who go to extreme lengths to attack, abuse, destroy careers (look at the French weatherman who lost his job) to anyone who dares to challenge the notion that man is responsible for climate change.

    Now we have evidence of a pause. What to make of that? I haven’t the faintest idea, but when one side resorts to name calling, litigation, and otherwise abusive tactics, said side loses credibility in my opinion.

  503. #503 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    BBD, I was referring to the scientists quoted in Steyn’s most recent book, “A Disgrace to the Profession,” which I have actually read. Whether they or Mann and his backers have the better scientific evidence, I have no clue. But, there are scientists out there (even those who believe man-made global warming exists) that disagree with Mann and his methods, including some who claim he intentionally distorts his findings.

    This is relevant from a legal standpoint, because it lends credence to Steyn’s position that he actually believes Mann to be fraudulent…

  504. #504 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    Dan:

    “OA, what I am stating in that post is that, as a non-scientist, I don’t know what to make of climate change.”

    No, you went far beyond that to outright rejection of the notion that human activity can impact climate:

    “some things are out of our control. One of them happens to be the climate. ”

    Science tells us that this is a false statement. To make it is to reject science.

  505. #505 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    Dan:

    “I haven’t the faintest idea, but when one side resorts to name calling, litigation, and otherwise abusive tactics, said side loses credibility in my opinion.”

    Your speaking of this side, right?

    http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/monckton_garnaut.jpg

  506. #506 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    dhog, #500: When did I ever say climate emissions are wrong? I simply said there are scientists on both sides of this issue, and, as a lay person, it is fair to have questions about pre-industrial revolution climate patterns such as the MWP. Maybe, as some say, there is a difference (if I understand correctly) because the MWP was localized, instead of global. I don’t know?

    All I am saying is that it is REASONABLE to have question about climate science, and not agreeing with everything Mann says does not make one a “denier” or “wingnut.’

  507. #507 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    Dan:

    “This is relevant from a legal standpoint, because it lends credence to Steyn’s position that he actually believes Mann to be fraudulent…”

    Only if the book is accurate, and the book is far from being accurate.

  508. #508 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Can you name one person who has ever lost his job for taking the side of man made climate change? I can, because it recently happened to a French meteorologist. Can you name one journalist or editor who was ever criticized for thinking there is too much climate coverage? Cause it happened to the editor of Reuters simply because climate coverage decreased (fortunately, he did not lose his job, and was proven right that climate stories decreased across the news injury). Can you point to lawsuits filed by those who question climate science to silence critics?

    That is what I mean by abusing the process, not comments on blogs

  509. #509 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    dhog, #507: How is the book inaccurate? Are the scientists accurate, or does Steyn intentionally misrepresent their positions? Have you read the book?

  510. #510 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    dhog, if the climate is not out of our control, then how to explain the ice-age? How did hurricanes occur before carbon emissions existed?

    Does it have to be an either-or? Isn’t possible man’s activities affect the climate, but can’t people disagree as to how much?

  511. #511 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    BBD, is it possible that the reason that there are few, if any, published papers challenging MBH is because scientists are afraid to criticize the “consensus” for fear that it will have on their professional, or even personal, lives. Look at what has happened to Dr. Curry? She was accused, literally, of sleeping with Steyn, has been mocked, etc.

    Isn’t that a fair inquiry?

  512. #512 Christopher Winter
    December 28, 2015

    RickA (#431): Assuming Steyn hasn’t prevailed on the issue that his writings are an opinion – Steyn will be trying to show that Dr. Mann’s graph is fraudulent.

    Why? Because if he affirmatively proves his statement is true then he wins.

    So you claim Steyn is trying to prove his statements are mere opinion, hence protected speech — and at the same time trying to prove they are factual and true?

    That would be a losing strategy.

  513. #513 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    Dan:

    “dhog, if the climate is not out of our control, then how to explain the ice-age? How did hurricanes occur before carbon emissions existed?”

    Since people died before guns were invented, doesn’t this prove that guns don’t kill people?

    ” Isn’t possible man’s activities affect the climate, but can’t people disagree as to how much?”

    You said that man’s activities don’t affect the climate. Which is it?

  514. #514 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    Dan:

    “BBD, is it possible that the reason that there are few, if any, published papers challenging MBH is because scientists are afraid to criticize the “consensus” for fear that it will have on their professional, or even personal, lives.”

    Ah, conspiracy raises its ugly head …

    As to what happened to Curry, she has been attacked for her activities outside of science, not inside science. She still publishes (though not often), has an apparently successful consultancy, and is still department chair at her university …

  515. #515 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    dhog, I said I am not sure if man’s activities affect climate. I do know climate varied extremely before man existed, as (I think) we would all agree. My point is that people should be able to disagree with man made climate change, or its extent, without being subject to the recriminations of job loss (French meteorologist), lawsuits, etc.

    Btw, what, exactly, did Dr. Curry do “outside” of science?

  516. #516 Christopher Winter
    December 28, 2015

    Dan (#511): Look at what has happened to Dr. Curry? She was accused, literally, of sleeping with Steyn…

    Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

  517. #517 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Chris Winters: No, proving Steyn’s comments are right, and opinions, at the same time isn’t a losing strategy; they are multiple strategies to the same goal. Truth is a defense to libel. Thus, if Steyn can prove (it is an affirmative defense, so the burden is on Steyn) that Mann did manipulate data he wins.

    If Steyn can show is comments were his opinion, he also wins. See how that works?

  518. #518 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Christopher Winters (#511) Huh? What facts did I assume? Do you want me to provide a link?

  519. #519 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    Dan…

    Rob Honeycutt #459: Mann’s claims re: the Nobel Prize were fraudulent.

    This is an abundantly idiotic statement.

    1) The IPCC (along with Al Gore) was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their work raising awareness of climate change.
    2) The IPCC is an organization consisting of scientists who do assessment reports on climate change.
    3) Mike Mann was a lead author in working group 1 related to the scientific basis for man-made climate change.

    To say that Mann is “fraudulent” for claiming that he shared the Nobel Prize with the other contributors is beyond insane. “Fraud” has very clear meaning both in law and in common usage and this case doesn’t even come within a mile of that.

  520. #520 RickA
    United States
    December 28, 2015

    Christopher Winter #512:

    Yep – it is called pleading in the alternative and is quite common.

    If Steyn’s statements are found to be opinion than nothing else matters – because opinion cannot be libel.

    On the other hand, if the Court (or Jury – depending on the litigation stage) finds that the statements are not opinion, we move on to the next issue – which is are they correct.

    Truth is a complete defense to an allegation of libel.

    In other words – if I call you short and you sue me for libel, but I establish (by affirmative defense) that you are in fact short, than I win.

    You cannot libel someone with the truth.

    Whether you think it is a winning strategy or not is not relevant.

    Anybody handling the case would argue both items, sequentially. But we may never get to 2, because Steyn could win on 1 on summary judgment. We will have to wait to see.

  521. #521 BBD
    December 28, 2015

    #511 Dan

    BBD, is it possible that the reason that there are few, if any, published papers challenging MBH is because scientists are afraid to criticize the “consensus” for fear that it will have on their professional, or even personal, lives.

    As dhogaza observes, this is a conspiracy theory and as nonsensical as they generally are. If a scientist has a valid and serious criticism of other work they aren’t going to hurt their career by publishing it. Note ‘valid and serious’.

  522. #522 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    Dan…

    …and legitimate speech will be stifled…

    “Legitimate” speech will NOT have been stifled. Clearly wrong and libelous speech will have been.

    It’s interesting how early on in this conversation you state that, “I have also said I won’t comment on the science, because I am not a scientist.” And yet you go straight at doing exactly this in your diatribe that OA points out @498.

    You clearly have virtually no understanding of the underlying science of climate change, and yet you’re here castigating a respected scientist in defense of someone else who knows absolutely nothing about climate science (Steyn), with confidence enough to call that respected scientist a fraud.

  523. #523 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    Again, RickA… “Fraud” is a statement of fact, not an opinion.

  524. #524 Christopher Winter
    December 28, 2015

    Dan (#439): As for the Texas couple, I could not see how they were public figures (unless being accused of a crime makes you a public figure per se, which it might in some of the 51 jurisdictions in this country).

    Aaron Larson writes at ExpertLaw: The concept of the “public figure” is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

    http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3

  525. #525 BBD
    December 28, 2015

    Dan

    Following on from Rob Honeycutt at #522, this is a fair comment.

    When confronted with something awkward, like the mystery of the Missing Literature, you retreat behind the incorrect claim that:

    I am here to discuss the law, not science…

    You cannot maintain this facade in the light of your own words:

    The point is, some things are out of our control. One of them happens to be the climate. Now that you have admitted that, hopefully you can realize not only the futility, but the dire economic consequences that will follow by enacting such insane legislation as “cap and tax,” and other legislation to somehow limit carbon emissions.

    As dhogaza and RH point out, this is a dismissal of the scientific position and I will add that it is an excursion into public policy as well.

    You are going to have to be more consistent than that or things will get awkward.

  526. #526 Christopher Winter
    December 28, 2015

    @Dan (#518):

    Yes, I would like you to provide a link to someone who said that Dr. Judith Curry slept with Mark Steyn.

    Note: Saying that someone is “in bed with” another person is usually a colloquialism indicating they share a point of view. It seldom denotes a sexual relationship.

  527. #527 BBD
    December 28, 2015

    Should be:

    Following on from Rob Honeycutt at #522, which is a fair comment.

  528. #528 Christopher Winter
    December 28, 2015

    RickA (#520): If Steyn’s statements are found to be opinion than nothing else matters – because opinion cannot be libel.

    On the other hand, if the Court (or Jury – depending on the litigation stage) finds that the statements are not opinion, we move on to the next issue – which is are they correct.

    OK — I read that as saying he would pursue both at the same time. It’s a wrong interpretation.

    Still, my position remains. I hold that accusations of fraud cannot be protected opinions, and that in this case Steyn has no chance of proving Dr. Mann committed fraud.

  529. #529 Brainstorms
    December 28, 2015

    I will go on record as saying that BBD #525 is a fair comment.

  530. #530 RickA
    United States
    December 28, 2015

    Christopher #528:

    I respect your right to your own opinion.

    Mine is different.

    Here is a link to a case which used the word “scam” and was found to be opinion.

    http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2012/10/defamation-and-statements-of-opinion/

    Now – I will admit right up front that this is from a different jurisdiction and does not deal with the use of the word “fraud” (which Steyn did not use anyway – he called the stick graph fraudulent – but no matter).

    Still – you might find it interesting.

  531. #531 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 28, 2015

    #413

    That’s right. There is no pause.
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084002/pdf
    https://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/fosterabraham2015.pdf
    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/its-the-trend-stupid-3/
    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/
    http://www.nature.com/articles/srep16784

    The only way denialists such as yourself have created the illusion of one is by cherry picking your start point so it coincided with a super El Niño, and by then using an insufficient amount of follow-up data. The last 5 years have been the warmest 5 year period on record. 2014 was the warmest year on record and is now being superseded by 2015. According to the Met, 2016 may be another record breaking year.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/17/2016-set-to-be-hottest-year-on-record-globally

    A knowledgable commenter here informed me that as a result of the recent warming, not only is there a clear warming trend from 1998, but that the trend is now statistically significant.

    Trenberth and others were trying to explain where the heat that had not resulted in surface warming had gone. They were fully aware that additional energy had been added to the climate system, and that it would eventually express itself as surface warming. They weren’t referring to a warming pause in the climate system.

    “Although the energy imbalance from 1993 to 2003 could be accounted for, it was not possible to explain the energy imbalance from 2004–2008. This led to the concept of “missing energy” [Trenberth and Fasullo, 2010].”
    Balmaseda et al. 2013

    Focusing on surface warming while ignoring other components of the system is another example of cherry picking.

    My second point (#390) was clear, and could only be misunderstood by a denialist with an severe case of confirmation bias. If you don’t understand the structure – this or that – then you should consider a remedial reading course.

    “Second, even though scientists may not have known where the missing energy was, they knew it was in the climate system. It seems to me that if you want to explain a pause, you have to account for what would cause the cessation of additional energy, or account for a negative forcing that would counteract GHG emissions.”

    In other words, you can’t postulate a “pause” without explaining what’s causing it. Either you have to show that the anthropogenic forcings that previously affected the system no longer do, or you have to point to factors that totally negate that additional energy. So how do you account for your (non-existent) pause?

    Something similar could be said about the extent to which recent temperature increases are anthropogenic or not. If you claim that positive natural forcings have played a significant role, you have to specify what they are. What are they?

    Your “evidence” against my third point is yet another example of your cherry picking. I quoted the following from Balmaseda:

    “In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend.”

    Here’s a quote from the press release you cite – that you chose to leave out:

    “Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down.”

    As I mentioned, and as you failed to acknowledge, the NASA press release does not rebut the previously demonstrated ocean warming. It refers to a lack of warming below 1,995 meters.

    Finally, your talk of a “false dilemma fallacy” is nonsense.

  532. #532 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    Dan @511…

    BBD, is it possible that the reason that there are few, if any, published papers challenging MBH is because scientists are afraid to criticize the “consensus” for fear that it will have on their professional, or even personal, lives.

    Nope!

    This is how scientists make names for themselves! There have been over 2 dozen millennial reconstructions produced since the original MBH98/99 hockey stick graph came out. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has confirmed the conclusions of MBH.

  533. #533 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    RickA…

    …he called the stick graph fraudulent – but no matter…

    How is it any different if you call Mann a fraud or you call his research a fraud? Same damn thing.

    Same mincing of words happens with the Nobel issue. The IPCC was awarded the Nobel, Mann was a key contributor, but Mann was not a recipient (as if the Nobel committee had awarded the prize to Al Gore and his favorite couch). The IPCC is a collection of individuals, not an inanimate object.

  534. #534 Brainstorms
    December 28, 2015

    Only those on the losing end of an argument mince equivalencies in that way…

    It’s a sign of desperation.

  535. #535 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    BBD #525, that was a different thread, first of all. And, if you look at that thread, in its totality, I said over and over (1) I am not a scientist and not well-versed in any area of science, much less climate science, and (2) the case of mann v steyn brings up legal, not scientific issues.

    Now, I offered my opinion as to the conduct of one side of the climate cartel, expressing my opinion that there are legitimate questions regarding human impact on climate change.

    but, if you read all of that thread, you will see, long before that post, I qualified any statements regarding science as described.

    If you want to talk science, fine. It is just another indication that you, along with most posters, are ignorant about the law. At least I can admit which areas are outside of my expertise.

    RickA and I link to cite after cite after cite of case law, legal dictionaries and scholarly opinion refuting all of the juvenile legal positions taken on this thread by the Mann-boy lovers…

  536. #536 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt — you ignore the fact that the Nobel organization specifically told Mann he cannot rightfully claim he is a Nobel prize winner. also, like my example about Pulitzer’s being awarded to entire news divisions or papers, any individual affiliated with that division or paper cannot claim they won the prize.

    Same with Nobel prizes. It is common logic based on common sense. I am surprised Mann has not faced any significant ramifications. Usually, falsifying credentials is a serious issue in the professional world.

  537. #537 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    For those asking, he is a compilation of the sexist attacks Dr. Curry has suffered at the hands of the climate cartel. Yes, it is from Mark Steyn’s web page, but he links to all quotes. This is more efficient then linking each quote individually (I checked them all out before posting)

    http://www.steynonline.com/7123/the-ugly-misogyny-of-big-climate

  538. #538 BBD
    December 28, 2015

    #534 Dan

    BBD #525, that was a different thread, first of all.

    We can both sit and read this again, as adults in conversation, and ponder the implications for your integrity.

    Now, I offered my opinion as to the conduct of one side of the climate cartel, expressing my opinion that there are legitimate questions regarding human impact on climate change.

    This directly contradicts your previous claim:

    I am here to discuss the law, not science…

    .

    You need to sort this out.

  539. #539 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    For everyone saying that scientists aren’t afraid of challenging the climate cartel, look at Lennart Bentgesson (sp?) case….

    http://www.steynonline.com/6347/the-descent-of-mann

  540. #540 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    BBD, #537: Actually, I already did. Perhaps you missed the part where I said that quote WAS. IN. A. DIFFERENT. THREAD. As in, not “here.” In other words, I am here, in this thread, discussing law not science.

    And, even assuming you could read my mind about how I used the term “here” (which, oddly, is what Mann will have to do to win), I clearly qualified that answer with multiple posts in that thread, wherein I acknowledge I am no expert in scientist.

    That quote THERE (i.e., not HERE) was in response to Steyn’s recent testimony before the Senate,

  541. #541 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    Dan… That you use a term like “climate cartel” reveals that you are completely incapable of any rational evaluation of anything related to this issue. That you repeatedly cite Steyn’s blog as a source doubly proves this point.

  542. #542 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    BBD, you are a perfect example of why scientists make horrible attorneys, and really should stay away from interpreting legal issues. You assume, that when I said I was “here,” it could only mean one thing: i.e., I am here on this site. However, “here” can mean multiple things. This thread is directly related to Mann v. Steyn, the legal case (look at the title).

    The other thread was broader, in dealing with Steyn statements about Mann is his book. I.e., two similar, but different topics.

    Also, here could be used in a temporal sense (which it wasn’t, but not that you could know how I meant it).

    See, this is what you guys do with Steyn. He says the word “fraud,” and you automatically assume he is calling mann a fraud, and automatically assume that means intentional, criminal conduct, as opposed to manipulating data

  543. #543 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 28, 2015

    Rob: I cite the sources within Steyn’s cite for convenience. I could have linked to each one individually, but that would have been time consuming. Also, if you read my posts, “climate cartel” does not refer to scientists who believe in man made climate change; rather, it refers to a narrow but powerful subset who seek to silence those with differing opinions.

    But, assuming that was true, why can other people use “denier” and be objective, but I can’t use climate cartel?

  544. #544 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    Dan @353…

    What is the point of awarding an organization of people an award if no one who contributed to the efforts that won the award can state their contribution to winning that award?

  545. #545 RickA
    United States
    December 28, 2015

    Rob #532 asked “How is it any different if you call Mann a fraud or you call his research a fraud? Same damn thing.”

    It is very important.

    Words matter a great deal – especially in a defamation case.

    The court and jury will be analysing what was actually written – not what you think they wrote.

    Here is the actual quote:

    “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. ”

    Nobody wrote that Mann was a fraud.

    This is a strawman.

    The actual quote makes it a whole lot easier to see why Steyn’s piece is an opinion.

    And even if it is found to be a statement of fact (which I doubt will be the case), then it will much easier to show that the graph was fraudulent than that Mann is a fraud – so also helpful to use the actual quote.

    Again – we will see.

  546. #546 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    Dan @542…

    Now you’re venturing into conspiracy theory.

  547. #547 BBD
    December 28, 2015

    Dan

    BBD, #537: Actually, I already did. Perhaps you missed the part where I said that quote WAS. IN. A. DIFFERENT. THREAD. As in, not “here.” In other words, I am here, in this thread, discussing law not science.

    A different thread on the same blog. Not a galaxy far away. When you distance yourself from your own statements you need plausible deniability, which you don’t have here.

    You are in a pickle. Stop pretending to be neutral and have the courage of your convictions. Own your views or you will be marked down as dishonest.

  548. #548 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    RickA @544…

    Ah, so according to Steyn the hockey stick graph just appeared as a fraudulent figure without human assistance. Sort of like a virgin birth I guess. How seasonally appropriate.

  549. #549 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    Dan:

    “He says the word “fraud,” and you automatically assume he is calling mann a fraud, and automatically assume that means intentional, criminal conduct, as opposed to manipulating data”

    Manipulating data in order to intentionally produce results a scientist knows to be false is scientific misconduct, and can, under certain (though rare) circumstances rise to the level of criminal conduct when US grant funds are involved.

    ” automatically assume that means intentional…” yes, of course the claim is being made that Mann *intentionally* manipulated data in order to produce his fraudlent hocky stick. If it were simply an unintentional error, Steyn, RickA and you wouldn’t be using the word “fraudulent”.

  550. #551 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    RickA:

    “Nobody wrote that Mann was a fraud.”

    Being a fraud is not a crime. Committing fraud can be a crime. Accusing someone of committing fraud is a far more serious charge than accusing someone of being a fraud, which AFAIK has no legal meaning.

  551. #552 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 28, 2015

    Dan,

    “climate cartel”…it refers to a narrow but powerful subset who seek to silence those with differing opinions.

    Oh, brother…

    But, assuming that was true, why can other people use “denier” and be objective, but I can’t use climate cartel?

    Well, because it has a specific, verifiable meaning and symptomology, though it can be abused. The basic ScienceBlogs take on it:
    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/

    In your case, you’re either a denier or naive to an extent that strains belief.

  552. #553 wheelism
    December 28, 2015

    Dan-the-attorney’s STUNNING IGNORANCE regarding human influence on the climate could be salved with just a bit of sincere research on the interwebs, but of course his interest in this case is PURELY LEGAL. Dan molests intellectual integrity like Steyn molests climate scientists. (RickA, as the record shows, is simply incompetent.)

  553. #554 Brainstorms
    December 28, 2015

    Dan the Denier is a science denier, and his interest in this case is PURELY SELF-SERVING.

    RickA is a denier who claims to be an EE but shows a stunning lack of technical knowledge, and his interest in this case is PURELY SELF-SERVING.

  554. #555 Rob Honeycutt
    December 28, 2015

    This whole exchange begs the question… Since there have been 2 dozen subsequent hockey stick graphs, does this mean there have 2 dozen fraudulent graphs produced, or does it mean Mann fraudulently came up with the correct result?

  555. #556 Brainstorms
    December 28, 2015

    Option 3: Dan the Denier and RickA are f r a u d u l e n t l y claiming that Mann produced a fraudulent graph.

  556. #557 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt:

    “Since there have been 2 dozen subsequent hockey stick graphs, does this mean there have 2 dozen fraudulent graphs produced, or does it mean Mann fraudulently came up with the correct result?”

    No, it simply shows that the Climate Cabal’s dominance over climate science, and in particular the dominance of their Supreme Leader Michael Mann, is so complete that working scientists fall all over themselves to publish papers showing their fealty to their Leader. Because if you dare question Mann, you will be banished, like Judith Curry, to a career of being a mere tenured professor and department chair at a reasonably high-ranking university, with a successful consultancy and decent track record of published papers.

  557. #558 dhogaza
    December 28, 2015

    Sorry, meant “cartel” not “cabal” above.

  558. #559 dean
    December 28, 2015

    It’s interesting to compare the approaches to science denial practiced by rickA, dan, and the other folks here who dismiss climate science, and the approach favored by sn who is a rabid denier of evolution.

    There is an intersection in the approaches as both groups simply deny that the accumulated data and analysis are valid, but they get to that point through two different approaches.

    The climate deniers here argue that the results have to be the result of collusion because of the high levels of agreement from study to study, and they explain that it is due to “scientists not wanting to lose access to money”.

    sn recently argued against evolution by saying there is no observational or experimental evidence, or an explanation of how a “fruit fly could change into, say, a fruit bat”.

    Given the contortions people in both groups are willing to put themselves through on the way to making their “arguments” it is no wonder the climate folks here are willing to repeat the same lines of crap and ignore the evidence. The repeating and ignoring are the easy parts of their game.

  559. #560 Michael Wells
    December 29, 2015

    A question: has Steyn (or CEI or NR) explicitly made the argument in any of their filings that the “fraudulent” talk was merely rhetorical hyperbole? I.e., just an opinion, not a literal claim of fact? It seems to me that their only other choice is to own up to a specific accusation and try to demonstrate that it’s true, or at least that there’s enough evidence backing it that it’s a reasonable supposition. I don’t see how they can do both, though some of Steyn’s defenders on this thread like to slide back and forth between the two. What tack does the defense seem to be taking? Or is it too early in the process for that question? (Yes, I’m lazily asking someone here to summarize for me, rather than wading through documents in legalese.)

    Both those options look problematic to me. If it’s mere hyperbolic opinion, why has Steyn doubled down on the “fraud” stuff with his little book and other public statements? On the other hand, claiming he has strong evidence to back fraud accusations isn’t going to fly in court, in front of a judge and with plenty of time for the overwhelming weight of scientific expertise on the other side.

    But the law moves in mysterious ways, so who knows what my speculations above are missing?

  560. #561 Rob Honeycutt
    December 29, 2015

    Steyn truly is his own worst enemy relative to this case.

  561. #562 RickA
    United States
    December 29, 2015

    Michael #560:

    Here are the affirmative defenses from Steyns Answer and Counterclaims – check out the Sixth defense:

    FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    114. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
    may be granted against Defendant Steyn.
    SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    115. The statements at issue made by Defendant Steyn are
    true.
    THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    116. Defendant Steyn did not make the statements at issue
    with “actual malice”. That is, he did not make the
    statements with the knowledge they were false or with
    reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.
    FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    117. The statements at issue made by Defendant Steyn are
    absolutely protected freedom of speech and of the press
    under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
    FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    118. The statements at issue made by Defendant Steyn
    constitute legitimate public debate on a controversial,
    highly charged issue of intense public interest.
    SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    119. The statements at issue made by Defendant Steyn
    constitute non-actionable opinion and are absolutely
    protected.
    SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    120. The statements at issue made by Defendant Steyn are not defamatory, and would not be understood as defamatory by a reasonable reader in light of their immediate and broader social context and setting surrounding the challenged
    statements.
    EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    121. The statements at issue made by Defendant Steyn were made in the unique electronic format of the Internet, not print media. By its very nature, the Internet is immediate
    and global with a wider-ranging and less mediated public
    discourse than that of print newspapers, and therefore in
    order to function is entitled to the very broadest
    definition of free expression.
    NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    122. This action is barred by the DC Anti-SLAPP Law, DC Code $ 16-5501, et seq.
    TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    123. The allegations of Count Six for emotional distress do
    not constitute conduct so shocking and outrageous as to
    exceed all reasonable bounds of decency.
    ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    124. Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of
    emotional distress based on Defendant’s constitutionally
    protected speech violates Defendant Steyn’s First Amendment rights and cannot be maintained..
    TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    125. Plaintiff has suffered no damages.
    THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    126. Plaintiff has said the same or worse as the statements
    at issue about many fellow scientists, statisticians and
    other prominent figures, none of whom has sued him.
    Plaintiff is seeking to impose restraints on freedom of
    speech on political opponents and others who disagree with him that he himself does not abide by.
    FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    127. Defendant Steyn has said substantially the same things or worse about the fraudulence of Plaintiff’s hockey stick for many years in far more prominent publications in
    Australia and other jurisdictions without attracting legal
    action by Dr Mann. It cannot be the intent of the First
    Amendment that it should leave citizens of the United States
    with fewer rights to free speech than those of countries
    that remained within the British Empire.

  562. #563 RickA
    December 29, 2015

    Michael:

    It is to early, by the way.

    First a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was made and denied (1st affirmative defense).

    Then ninth defense was used and that motion was denied and appealed.

    That is where we are in the case.

    No discovery has been had (other than Mann’s discovery to Steyn – which he answered). The remaining discovery was stayed pending the appeal.

    The case – despite being over 4 years old – has just started and if the case is not dismissed on appeal, discovery will recommence.

    After some more discovery, it would be likely that summary judgment motions would be heard. If those are not granted, then a trial could start.

    Very early days, unfortunately.

  563. #564 Bernard J.
    December 29, 2015

    Desertphile at #110.

    It’s worth adding Aono’s cherry blossom festival data to the list:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/09/temperatures-and-projections/comment-page-2/#comment-99680

  564. #565 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 29, 2015

    Christopher Winter: Still, my position remains. I hold that accusations of fraud cannot be protected opinions, and that in this case Steyn has no chance of proving Dr. Mann committed fraud.”

    The only defense left to the defendants is to show Dr. Mann committed some form of academic fraud. Heh. I wish them luck with that. Oh, wait… no, I don’t.

    As for this message thread, I wish I had the time to read all of the comments. Darn it.

  565. #566 Desertphile
    December 29, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt: “This whole exchange begs the question… Since there have been 2 dozen subsequent hockey stick graphs, does this mean there have 2 dozen fraudulent graphs produced, or does it mean Mann fraudulently came up with the correct result?”

    That is merely evidence of how vast the conspiracy is. More than 33 hockey sticks, all showing the same thing, is proof that Dr. Mann is World Dictator.

  566. #567 dhogaza
    December 29, 2015

    RickA:

    “SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    119. The statements at issue made by Defendant Steyn
    constitute non-actionable opinion and are absolutely
    protected.”

    Yes, of course his lawyers will claim this. Just like criminals caught in the act routinely plead “not guilty” …

  567. #568 Christopher Winter
    December 29, 2015

    I’m especially fond of the fourteenth affirmative defense. Paraphrased: “Oh, yeah? Well I’ve been calling your hockey stick fraudulent for years, and in publications far more prominent than the National Review, and you never sued me until now! So there!”

    I’m sure the staff of the National Review are delighted by this…

  568. #569 RickA
    United States
    December 29, 2015

    Christopher #568:

    I thought the last one was funny. A little shot at America.

    Steyn is a funny guy.

  569. #570 dhogaza
    December 29, 2015

    RickA:

    “I thought the last one was funny. A little shot at America.”

    LIbel cases are far easier to win outside the US, so it’s only funny in the “look at me, I’m ignorant” sense of funny.

  570. #571 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 29, 2015

    OA, you keep saying I am naïve or a denier, when I have said, repeatedly, on this thread and on others that I am by no means an expert in scientific matters, have studied any scientific subject since the Clinton Administration. As I do in any med mal case I handle (or products liability, etc)., I leave the science to the scientists. I might have opinions that I offer, but I never hold myself out to be an expert.

    The funny thing is, people are quick to criticize Steyn because he is “not a scientist,” but all you Mann-Boy Lovers have no qualms about claiming you know more about the law then lawyers….

  571. #572 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 29, 2015

    RickA — this might have been stated earlier (I didn’t read all the threads), but Affirmative Defenses are often pled simply to preserve the record because they are waived if not pled. For example, I filed an Answer yesterday, and put as an affirmative defense that Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Now, in all probability, it wasn’t based on when the records state the incident occur. Does this make me a liar for pleading it?

    Of course not. Sometimes, the records are wrong (I have had that happen plenty of times), and I would rather plead an affirmative defense, learn it doesn’t apply and waive it, then no plead it, turns out it could have applied, and be screwed…

    But, again, I don’t really expect non-lawyers to understand our system, as a lot of our procedural rules are counter-intuitive when observed from an elementary manner

  572. #573 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 29, 2015

    BBD, when have I ever claimed to be neutral? I obviously have opinions about the merits of Mann’s case, and the overall conduct of climate scientists towards those who disagree.

    What I don’t have is an emotional attachment to Steyn, or his case, or his position. My primary interest, and yes, I will heartily acknowledge this is self-serving to not only me but to our entire society, is protecting free speech.

    I firmly believe, as does every major media outlet and the ACLU, that if Mann’s case is successful it will be the biggest set-back to free speech in this country in the past 50 years, if not longer.

    I value freedom, especially freedom of thought, ideas and opinions. I shudder at the thought of people using our legal system to silence those who disagree with them. Many of you might disagree with the threat Mann’s case poses, but ponder this: if this case is no big deal to free speech, why is the ACLU, not to mention various medial outlets, involved?

  573. #574 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 29, 2015

    Another funny point, which again shows the irony (dare I say, stupidity) of the Mann-Boy Love Association that constitutes most of the members of this blog. Greg Laden accuses Steyn of racism. Again, by Mann’s standards, Laden has subjected himself to a libel suit. After all, calling someone racist can have wide-ranging consequences on careers, reputation, ect.

    But, again, Steyn is not a sissy who runs to the Court for protection. He actually links to Laden’s absurd comments, posts a brief rebuttal, and then sits back and laughs as Laden is exposed for the buffoon that he is…

    Greg, you really did make an arse of yourself with the racist accusations towards Steyn. Steyn absolutely won that in the Court of public opinion. See how easy that is?

  574. #575 dean
    December 29, 2015

    is protecting free speech

    Of course this is not about free speech, no matter how much you ignore that fact.

  575. #576 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 29, 2015

    RickA, I have concluded this really comes down to one thing, as demonstrated perfectly by the commentators here: arrogance. They are so arrogant, that they have to call those with different opinions “deniers” or “ignorant.”

    They can’t grasp the concept that reasonable people can look at data, facts, etc, and come to different conclusions. Some people can conclude that (from what I hear) solar activity is causing warming; others say gasses.

    For example, I enjoy the study of history, particularly civil war history. There are many long-standing debates, such as Longstreet at Gettysburg (did he put full effort into fulfilling his duties, especially on the 2nd day, or did he half-ass it because he disagreed with lee’s plan, preferring instead to implement an offensive strategy with defensive tactics). Or, Lee himself. Some view him as a traitor who should have hanged. Others note that he played a huge role in preventing the Confederacy from engaging in guerilla warfare, which would have likely resulted in the “vietnamization” of the U.S.A., and greatly impeded the ability of this country to develop into the world’s superpower a few generations later.

    I am no scientist, but isn’t there enough wiggle room for good people to disagree. In my brief reading, I thought I heard something about oceanic temperatures being warmer, which could explain the severe winters. Others might say the severe winters show warming has slowed or is no longer existent.

    Rick addressed this earlier, but I am shocked the inability of scientists to engage in civil debate and resort to name calling, then sue when someone calls them a name…

  576. #577 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 29, 2015

    Dean, if this is not about free speech, please answer, just once, why the ACLU, NYT, NBC, ABC, etc., have all filed amicus briefs? At the same time, no scientific organizations, that I am aware of, have availed themselves to doing the same?

    Why would media organizations and the ACLU trouble themselves with a scientific matter. It is absolutely about free speech. the pleadings make that clear.

  577. #578 Brainstorms
    December 29, 2015

    What I don’t have is an emotional attachment to Steyn, or his case, or his position.

    (dare I say, stupidity) of the Mann-Boy Love Association

    Dan the Denier, you are such an obvious liar.

  578. #579 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 29, 2015

    How, Brainstorms? What have I said that is a lie? Just one fact that I have lied about. I did say I have an emotional attachment to free speech, but that is much larger then Steyn. If steyn’s speech wasn’t protected, under our current state of law, I would be the first to acknowledge it…

  579. #580 RickA
    United States
    December 29, 2015

    Dan #579:

    Some of the posters here like to call names.

    I am used to it and just ignore it.

    The name calling usually starts when you are winning the argument – so it is really a compliment.\

    I certainly don’t think you have lied.

  580. #581 dean
    United States
    December 29, 2015

    This is about an accusation of fraud – an accusation, without substance, that a scientist committed fraud in his research. It is an accusation that is not supported by the work of other scientists: the supposedly fraudulent item in question has been supported numerous times, while the arguments against it have been shown to be vacuous.

    It’s clear, despite your protests, that you willingly dismiss the science behind climate change, and that that is the driving force behind your “free speech” crusade.

  581. #582 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 29, 2015

    OA, you keep saying I am naïve or a denier, when I have said, repeatedly, on this thread and on others that I am by no means an expert in scientific matters, have studied any scientific subject since the Clinton Administration. As I do in any med mal case I handle (or products liability, etc)., I leave the science to the scientists. I might have opinions that I offer, but I never hold myself out to be an expert.

    Yeah, I get that. Do you get why some of your comments here might be considered trolling? Do you think that might account, at least in part, for the reception you’re getting here?

    The funny thing is, people are quick to criticize Steyn because he is “not a scientist,”

    No.

    …but all you Mann-Boy Lovers…

    Tsk, Tsk…

    have no qualms about claiming you know more about the law then lawyers….

    I don’t, and as I’ve said before I’m not especially interested in what amounts to handicapping the horse race.

    If it helps, there’s more to this conversation than the law. You’ve essentially wandered into a foreign country here, unaware of the issues that shape and inform what is being discussed.

  582. #583 RickA
    December 29, 2015

    Dan #576:

    Yep.

    Greg is a scientist.

    I have no idea if the other posters here are scientists (although they certainly could be).

    Greg is very polite, although does like to use the term “denier”.

    I have tried to get the posters here to realize this is name calling, but have not had very much success yet.

    I enjoy posting here about 2nd amendment issues and global warming issues, but often engage when Greg gets into legal issues.

    I have often wondered at the age of several of the posters (like brainstorms). But of course have no idea of the age of any of the posters.

    Still – fun site.

  583. #584 dean
    United States
    December 29, 2015

    I have tried to get the posters here to realize this is name calling, but have not had very much success yet.

    “Denier” is a perfectly good word to use when describing someone who denies the science behind and impact of climate change.

  584. #585 Rob Honeycutt
    December 29, 2015

    Dan…

    How about you give us some examples of what would constitute libel.

  585. #586 Brainstorms
    December 29, 2015

    RickA #583:

    There is nothing impolite about the term “denier”. It is purely descriptive.

    You do not have some inalienable right to contradict Reality and then take umbrage at being labeled a “denier” for doing so.

    Reject Reality as being revealed by Science at your own risk. Don’t expect anyone here to support you in doing so.

    As famously pointed out by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.”

  586. #587 RickA
    United States
    December 29, 2015

    Rob #585:

    Here is an example from the cite I linked to several times before:

    “John stole $100 from the corner store last week.”

    If John did not steal 100 from the corner store last week, this is defamatory.

    To give an example of what would not be defamatory – “John smells bad.” This is an opinion and cannot be defamatory.

  587. #588 Chris O'Neill
    December 29, 2015

    RickA:

    Greg is very polite, although does like to use the term “denier”.

    Perhaps that’s because you keep making the same unjustified claim over and over again, even though it is pointed out to you that you have no justification for making such claims. That type of behaviour qualifies you as being a denier.

  588. #589 RickA
    December 29, 2015

    Rob:

    Here is the site:

    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/what-defamatory-statement

    If you click on the State Law: Defamation link on this page, you can go to the DC page for more information on defamation in the district of columbia (where the Mann case is being heard).

  589. #590 Chris O'Neill
    December 29, 2015

    More than 33 hockey sticks, all showing the same thing, is proof that Dr. Mann is World Dictator.

    The denialists go quiet at this point.

  590. #591 Rob Honeycutt
    December 29, 2015

    RickA…

    Why is…

    “John stole $100 from the corner store last week.”

    any different from…

    “Mann produced fraudulent science.”

    ?

  591. #592 Chris O'Neill
    December 29, 2015

    The only way denialists such as yourself have created the illusion of one is by cherry picking your start point so it coincided with a super El Niño, and by then using an insufficient amount of follow-up data.

    And also, while it lasted, cherry picking your end point with a very strong and unusual pair of La Nina years, 2011/2012.

    Those days are over now, not that it changes anything denialists say.

  592. #593 Rob Honeycutt
    December 29, 2015

    RickA…

    You’ve just exactly explained why Mann is suing and why his lawyer is telling him he has a good case.

    Steyn said Mann’s work was fraudulent. That is not the same as saying Mann is a crappy scientist or some other opinion-based statement. Steyn called his work fraudulent, and that is a statement of fact that can be proven true or false. The overwhelming body of scientific research is very clear that Mann’s work is NOT fraudulent.

  593. #594 dhogaza
    December 29, 2015

    Dan:

    “Mann-Boy Love Association”

    homophobic slur meant to mark yourself as superior noted …

    And RickA and Dan whine about name-calling by others …

    RickA:

    “I have often wondered at the age of several of the posters”.

    Yeah, Dan has exposed himself of having the maturity of a junior high school bully.

  594. #595 Brainstorms
    December 29, 2015

    Note how long Dan tried to push the innocent, insouciant, “I’m-only-interested-in-the-legal-aspects” act — before unmasking himself as being hostile to science and what it’s telling mankind — and, potentially, its governmental policy-makers.

  595. #596 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 29, 2015

    dean: ““Denier” is a perfectly good word to use when describing someone who denies the science behind and impact of climate change.”

    If deniers dislike the word “denier,” perhaps they will let everyone know what other word they prefer. I have asked dozens of deniers that question, and I have yet to receive any answer.

  596. #597 Brainstorms
    December 29, 2015

    ::gasp!:: You mean… The deniers DENIED you an answer???

  597. #598 Bernard J.
    December 29, 2015

    I am no scientist, but isn’t there enough wiggle room for good people to disagree. In my brief reading, I thought I heard something about oceanic temperatures being warmer, which could explain the severe winters. Others might say the severe winters show warming has slowed or is no longer existent.

    If your understanding of the science is as poor as you have claimed it to be, here and previously, you should not be speculating on matters where an understanding of the science is crucial to the outcome, whether that outcome is a legal one or a policy one. Essentially you are relying on a ‘broken watch is right twice a day’ strategy.

    And really, you “thought you heard”?! I’d like my legal councel to be more on top of her or his backgrounding than vague memories and speculative extrapolation from uncertain recollections.

    Further, postulating on what undefined “others might say” is a fatuous logical fallacy*`. As you are someone with a legal background I am sure that you are all over a working knowledge of the large variety of fallacious logic, as you would toil assiduously to avoid any such in all councel that you provide, so you should be able to identify which fallacy it is that escaped your necessary professional high standards.

    [* Unless of course one desires to lead an audience away from objective fact. Then is becomes a rhetorical tool – but still a fallacious one…

    ` It actually qualifies as at least three different logical fallacies. Bonus points if you can list three.]

  598. #599 Rob Honeycutt
    December 29, 2015

    Personally, I try to use the term “denier” in a very specific context, related to people who clearly reject the well established scientific aspects of climate change.

    Both Dan and Rick have each made comments here in this thread that show they have a very limited knowledge of the body of research and choose to reject the body of scientific research.

  599. #600 Brainstorms
    December 29, 2015

    Unless of course one desires to lead an audience away from objective fact. Then is becomes a rhetorical tool – but still a fallacious one…

    Bernard, what do you call it when it’s the case where one desires to lead oneself away from objective fact?

    This is what some deniers are doing. And they show up on blogs like this looking for confirmation that, “It’s okay to fool myself, right? Right?”

  600. #601 dhogaza
    December 29, 2015

    Dan:

    “RickA, I have concluded this really comes down to one thing, as demonstrated perfectly by the commentators here: arrogance. They are so arrogant, that they have to call those with different opinions “deniers” or “ignorant.”

    They can’t grasp the concept that reasonable people can look at data, facts, etc, and come to different conclusions. Some people can conclude that (from what I hear) solar activity is causing warming;”

    If you were testifying in a court of law, any competent lawyer would rip you to bits. Because if you examine the data, solar activity can’t be causing the observed warming of recent decades.

    Your first mistake, from a debate point of view, was to admit that the data exists.

    Because now I get to ask you how declining solar activity causes increased temps now, while in the past declining solar activity caused decreased temps …

    http://skepticalscience.com//pics/TvsTSI.png

  601. #602 dhogaza
    December 29, 2015

    Dan:

    “They can’t grasp the concept that reasonable people can look at data, facts, etc, and come to different conclusions.”

    And, this is not an absolute truth. There are many situations in which reasonable people, looking at data, can NOT come to different conclusions. The physics underlying climate science happens to be one, and in its most basic form, can be tested if you choose …

    by taking the CO2 laser challenge.

  602. #603 dhogaza
    December 29, 2015

    Dan:

    “They can’t grasp the concept that reasonable people can look at data, facts, etc, and come to different conclusions.”

    Your comment is idiocy because graspping the concept that reasonable people can look at data, facts etc and reach different conclusions IN SOME CASES does not imply that reasonable people can do so IN ALL CASES.

    I would say that you and RickA suffer from an inablity to grasp the concept that data, facts, etc can, in many cases but not all, lead to only one reasonable conclusion. This is a weaker assertion than yours, but is superior in that it is true.

  603. #604 dhogaza
    December 29, 2015

    Dan:

    Given “Mann-Boy Love Association” …

    If I were to choose to lower myself to your level, I could riff on Steyn’s name and a whole variety of sexual innuendo commonly associated with male homosexual behavior, but I will not do so.

    Fortunately I’ve been fortunate enough in life to know some very good lawyers both professionally and personally, so I won’t claim that you reflect poorly on the profession as a whole. You simply reflect poorly on yourself.

    A first-class asshat, intentionally ignorant of science, and hardy-har-har choosing to try to denigrate those who understand science by implying that those that do are pediphiles.

    Right up there with the sandusky comparisions with Mann.

  604. #605 dhogaza
    December 29, 2015

    RickA, of course, will complain that I’m being impolite, and that Dan oh-so-poliitely said “Mann-Boy Love Association”. That Dan is inbounds, while those who point out that RickA denies science (despite that latter being a statement of fact, rather than a slur).

    Obviously, asshats like these want to see an asshat like Steyn prevail.

  605. #606 dhogaza
    December 29, 2015

    “those who point out that RickA denies science” are out-of-bounds, of course …

  606. #607 dhogaza
    December 29, 2015

    Dan:

    “Some people can conclude that (from what I hear) solar activity is causing warming”

    And none of us here are fooled by your … “from what I hear” … disclaimer. As a lawyer, apparently you’ve been trained to believe that lying is fine as long as you’re not under oath and answering a question that is material to the case at hand.

  607. #608 Michael Wells
    December 29, 2015

    Thanks for the clarifications on the status of the legal arguments, Dan and RickA – I figured there were counter-intuitive arcana involved there.

    Sadly, I can’t say much for the rest of your contributions. Others with more knowledge of the science, and the history of the players, than myself or you are taking them apart handily, so I’ll leave them to it.

    But I will reiterate that it seems to me the defendants and their lawyers are going to have to pick one of those arguments to actually argue at trial, if it comes to that. “This was just a hyperbolic statement of opinion, not a literal accusation of fraud” strikes me as marginally the most likely to succeed, but it doesn’t look like Steyn, at least, is interested in saying any such thing. If he plans to argue that he has enough evidence to back up accusations of fraud, he’s going to have a tough time of it.

  608. #609 dhogaza
    December 29, 2015

    Michael Wells:

    “Thanks for the clarifications on the status of the legal arguments”

    Note that Mann’s lawyers might be able to contribute even more clarifications, if they were to bother showing up.

    Also note that RickA’s and Dan’s arguments would seem to hinge on a notion that Mann is either going forward with incompetent legal representation, or has competent legal representation and is ignoring their advice. The evidence thus far, though, is that only one side has had their legal counsel choose to end their representation of their client, and it’s not Mann …

  609. #610 Bernard J.
    December 29, 2015

    Bernard, what do you call it when it’s the case where one desires to lead oneself away from objective fact?

    I’d call that willful self-delusion.

  610. #611 Marco
    December 30, 2015

    Dan, you mention the case of Philippe Verdier, but I wonder whether you even remotely considered how extremely appropriate it is that he was taken off the air as a weather forecaster. That’s right: extremely appropriate. What the state-owned France 2 had here was one of its front figures making large claims about a field of science *in which he has no discernable knowledge*, and becoming politically active by complaining to and *about* the president and politicians in general as deliberately fooling the people.

    By his complaints about a scientific field that is not his own, he significantly reduced his credibility. People seeing him present the weather on tv would wonder whether to believe him, since he apparently is so confidently wrong about a somewhat related science. Add his willful political posturing, and his credibility as an objective front figure for the weather was completely destroyed. Keeping him on as a weather forecaster would hurt France 2 more than keeping him on.

    Hilariously, he then was hired by Russia Today to cover COP21…if people think Fox is bad, they should try following RT for a while.

  611. #612 Marco
    December 30, 2015

    Dan also reminds us of Lennart Bengtsson. Bengtsson is, and I have no problem repeating this right to his face, an idiot. He made the *political* decision to join the GWPF, a known political thinktank with a clear ideological bias…and then gets all upset when one(!) scientist tells him he does not want to work with him anymore and others ask him why he joins such a political organization.

    Of course, people in Sweden knew Bengtsson had gone down the road of politicization for some time already, and considered his supposed surprise at the reaction as hypocritical at best.

  612. #613 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    #573 Dan

    BBD, when have I ever claimed to be neutral?

    When you lied about only being here on this blog (no more childish evasions about threads, please) to discuss the law.

    I obviously have opinions about the merits of Mann’s case, and the overall conduct of climate scientists towards those who disagree.

    As has been pointed out, the problem here is that your opinions are incorrect and derive from science denial and political prior commitment to the status quo wrt public policy.

    I value freedom, especially freedom of thought, ideas and opinions. I shudder at the thought of people using our legal system to silence those who disagree with them.

    The rest of us shudder at the thought that US libel law is so problematic that it is powerless to prosecute an obvious libel forming part of an organised political smear campaign aimed at delegitimising a prominent climate scientist.

    You can only confuse this with using the legal system to silence dissent if you are a science denier and political ideologue yourself, which we have already established is the case with you.

    This being the case, you are in no position at all to accuse others here of arrogance.

  613. #614 Desertphile
    December 30, 2015

    Brainstorms: “::gasp!:: You mean… The deniers DENIED you an answer???”

    I deny having received an answer.

    This morning a denier called me “a globist,” meaning (I assume) my sinister political ideology has caused me to insist Earth is a globe, not a disk. Deniers love to make up imaginary words: it is called “language loading.”

    “Denier” and “Denialist” are perfectly good, correct words to describe people who deny observed reality. If deniers who reject the evidence for human-caused climate change object to the words, they may step forward and explain why.

  614. #615 Desertphile
    December 30, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt: “Personally, I try to use the term “denier” in a very specific context, related to people who clearly reject the well established scientific aspects of climate change.

    Both Dan and Rick have each made comments here in this thread that show they have a very limited knowledge of the body of research and choose to reject the body of scientific research.”

    There are two species in general: deniers and disavowers. Denialism is a mental health care issue, even though it is normal for humans to believe falsehoods and at the same time know they are false while they believe they are true. Disavowers publicly deny observed reality when they know their denial is false. “Hey I’m A Lawyer Really I am Dan” and “RickA” both show denialist behavior. Senator Inhof is a fine example of disavowal.

  615. #616 Desertphile
    December 30, 2015

    Brainstorms: Bernard, what do you call it when it’s the case where one desires to lead oneself away from objective fact?”

    Religion.

  616. #617 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 30, 2015

    #576
    “In my brief reading, I thought I heard…”

    In my brief reading I’ve learned that the medieval warming was caused by the sudden proliferation of fire breathing dragons, whose strange interspecies sexual predilections led to their being hunted by “valiant” knights, who didn’t give a damn about biodiversity. Their precipitous decline then led to the little ice age. Modern warming can, perhaps, be explained by the energy expended by Santa Claus and his reindeer. Their perspiration adds moisture to the air. Makes sense to me.

  617. #618 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 30, 2015

    In defense of Steyn, a strong case can be made that he’s an idiot. The link that Dan provided in #537 clearly shows that Steyn wouldn’t recognize a HS if he saw one. Steyn’s post is illustrated with the tattooed arm of a woman. According to Steyn:

    “~Michael E Mann Tweeted the photograph at top right from a female admirer, who has had his hockey stick tattooed on her arm.”

    However, the tattoo didn’t show Mann’s HS, but the Keeling curve.

    Despite his inability to recognize the original HS, Steyn evidently feels he’s qualified to evaluate those that followed:

    I [David Appell] wonder if Steyn has examined any of the other evidence for the hockey stick, some derived with independent mathematical techniques. Like Marcott et al Science 2013, PAGES 2k, or Tingley and Huybers.
    I expect he hasn’t. If not, why not?

    Yes, why not, Steyn? Ha! You’ve got no answer to that, have you?
    In fact, there’s an entire section on other, supposedly “independent” hockey sticks, starting at page 171, and I devote pages 185-190 to Marcott et al.”

    And he still doesn’t know what a HS looks like!

  618. #619 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 30, 2015

    #511
    “Look at what has happened to Dr. Curry? She was accused, literally, of sleeping with Steyn…”

    Not quite:

    “Instead of apologizing for misleading Appell, that blogger posted this comment on Appell’s site:
    Curry, however, is a supposed scientist who has (perhaps) literally gotten into bed with slime like Steyn.
    (Quote from Dan’s link to Steyn, #537)
    Dan has confirmation bias problems with understanding what he reads.

    “For those asking, he [sic] is a compilation of the sexist attacks Dr. Curry has suffered at the hands of the climate cartel. Yes, it is from Mark Steyn’s web page, but he links to all quotes. This is more efficient then linking each quote individually (I checked them all out before posting)”

    Steyn links to a denialist blogger who has no understanding of context and who only sees what s/he wants to see.

  619. #620 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 30, 2015

    #535
    “BBD #525, that was a different thread, first of all. And, if you look at that thread, in its totality, I said over and over (1) I am not a scientist and not well-versed in any area of science, much less climate science, and (2) the case of mann v steyn brings up legal, not scientific issues.”
    If you look at my comments in totality, you’ll find that I’m against rape, and beside, the rape occurred in Texas and right now I’m in Oklahoma.
    Any pretensions Dan has to legal objectivity are negated by his own disingenuousness and his eagerness to suck up whatever shit flows from Steyn’s ass, including the term “Mannboys/Mann-Boy Lovers #571).” Perhaps Dan would like to elaborate on what that term means? And it’s comforting to know that Steyn isn’t a sissy (#574). Like dhogaza, I appreciate your wisdom and maturity.
    “What I don’t have is an emotional attachment to Steyn, or his case, or his position.” #573
    Bullshit.
    “My primary interest, and yes, I will heartily acknowledge this is self-serving to not only me but to our entire society, is protecting free speech.”
    But not when science denying scientists are criticized or mocked.

  620. #621 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 30, 2015

    #539
    “For everyone saying that scientists aren’t afraid of challenging the climate cartel, look at Lennart Bentgesson (sp?) case….”
    http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.dk/2014/05/lennart-bengtsson-and-his-media-gambit.html
    (Uppsalainitiativet has a number of posts in Swedish, among others,
    http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.dk/2014/05/om-lennart-bengtssons-beklammande-fard.html, which also has been noticed by Stoat and Eli Rabbett)

    “Thing is, Lennart Bengtsson, or whoever wrote his letter of resignation, is blaming it on scientists behaving well instead of accepting it’s he who behaved badly – or had very poor judgement. He reckons he was pressured to leave and complained the pressure was affecting his health, poor chap. He should try walking a mile in the shoes of Phil Jones or Michael Mann or James Hansen or Ben Santer. That’d toughen him up.”
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/mccarthyism-my-foot-stoat-has-story.html

    Scientists who deny scientific evidence can’t complain if they’re mocked.

  621. #622 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 30, 2015

    #574
    “Another funny point, which again shows the irony (dare I say, stupidity) of the Mann-Boy Love Association that constitutes most of the members of this blog. Greg Laden accuses Steyn of racism. Again, by Mann’s standards, Laden has subjected himself to a libel suit. After all, calling someone racist can have wide-ranging consequences on careers, reputation, ect.”

    I again refer to Dan’s link to Steyn’s webpage #537. There one can immediately see that Steyn both writes and endorses Islamophobic books, one of which was written by the Dutch politician Geert Wilders:

    “Wilders has campaigned to stop what he views as the “Islamisation of the Netherlands”. He has compared the Quran to Mein Kampf and has campaigned to have the book banned in the Netherlands.[6][7][8] He advocates ending immigration from Muslim countries,[6][9] and supports banning the construction of new mosques.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

  622. #623 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 30, 2015

    #502
    “Now we have evidence of a pause.”

    No we don’t. Disinformation from denialists and Republican politicians.
    (See the first part of #531)

  623. #624 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Cosmic comics, I cited to the sources within Steyn’s website, instead of each link individually for time purposes. Yes, I read Steyn’s work, and the opinions of his detractors. As for his “islamophobic” books, again have you read them? Steyn doesn’t criticize muslims per se, only those muslims who engage “Honor Crimes” such as fathers killing daughters who refuse arranged marriages, female genital mutilation, killing victims of rape, etc.

    Writing that such activities, committed as whole over certain sects of islam, is wrong, then that says more about you then about Steyn, and would certainly explain the misogyny people like Dr. Curry have had to endure at the hands of the Mann-boy lovers

  624. #625 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Cosmic, #620. The term “Mann-boy lovers” is a joke, calm down. It is meant to refer to Dr. Mann, and his “boys,” i.e., colleagues, and those who support Mann, et. al to the point of absurdity. Lighten up, Francis…

    And, I don’t have nose stuck up Steyn’s….I think he is a talented writer, with a lot of interesting views on current political issues. Some I agree with; some I disagree with. I happen to agree with him, for example, that western society is committing societal suicide via declining birth rates. I also agree that the actions of certain sects of hard-core muslims, such as honor killings is wrong. I happen to disagree with him on immigration, for example, as I believe that we are a nation made up of immigrants, and a path to citizenship is the right solution (i.e., some equivalent of an modern-day Ellis Island on the southern border).

    I happen to have married an immigrant from the Philippines, and see the value that immigrants from all over the world can bring economically, socially, etc…

  625. #626 RickA
    United States
    December 30, 2015

    Rob #593:

    While I respect your opinion that what Steyn said is a statement of fact – it is still just an opinion.

    You don’t get to decide this question – that is left for the Judge (if decided on summary judgment) or the jury (if decided at trial).

    My opinion is not the same as yours – and that is ok.

  626. #627 dhogaza
    December 30, 2015

    Dan:

    “The term “Mann-boy lovers” is a joke”

    It’s an offensive joke worthy of a locker room full of 13 year-old boys. It speaks to your lack of maturity, and your general all-around asshattedness.

    “I happen to have married an immigrant from the Philippines”

    How much did you pay for her, and was it via the internet or an old-fashioned mail-order bride service?

  627. #628 SteveP
    Watcher Point
    December 30, 2015

    Reading the Mann complaint one is struck by the venomous nature of, and disregard for any sort of civility in the writings of Steyn, Simberg, National Review, CEI, and Lowry. I take this as a sign of the times, showing how Science and Scientists are treated with utter contempt since the time of Reagan. William F. Buckley Jr., the National Review founder, was often depicted in caricature as a charming but fork tongued snake, but he was no Luddite in terms of technology or science, which is, I believe what this whole battle boils down to – a battle between people using the Constitution of the United States of America to wipe their asses with ( all the while singing its praises) , and scientists trying to do the job of contributing to the preservation of mankind.

    I believe that ol’ Bill Buckley was distressed, at the end of his life, by the monster he had created , and indeed he should have been.

    May Nature and Nature’s God bless Michael Mann and give him fortitude as he sallies forth into the crap shoot mine field which is our modern system of jurisprudence. I think that he has a great case and I hope that he wins. Amen.

  628. #629 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    BBD, #613, and this is where we disagree. And you make my point, perfectly, by referring to anyone (even one, like me, who makes no claims to be an expert and is perfectly willing to accept the opposite position if it turns out to be correct. As I have said, over and over, when scientists try to silence via litigation their opponents, they lose credibility).

    And keep referring to a single post from weeks ago, without reading any of my other posts in that blog, in which I repeatedly state I am not well-versed in climate science, and any opinions I have not set in stone, to say the least (in other words, unlike most posters here, I am smart enough to know what I don’t know, and can admit it).

    Lastly ,Desertphile, I disclosed my public identity in that other thread, proving I am indeed a lawyer. Just because you disagree with my legal analysis (which isn’t even my analysis, it is based Professor Garber, and other 1st Amendment scholars, opinions) doesn’t change that fact….

  629. #630 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    BBD, #613, it is a fair comment to say that you all “shudder” at the thought of U.S. libel law, and think it should be changed. However ,the fact remains the law is what it is. After 600 posts, I do not recall seeing one post from a 1st Amendment legal scholar saying Mann has anything other then an very difficult case. And the reason is simple: Mann has a difficult case because he can’t prove malice, and Steyn’s piece was opinion, which enjoys absolute protection.

    I defer to the scientists regarding scientific issues. I can at least point to some scientists, like Dr. Curry, to back up my position. But you and your ilk think spout of legal non-sense with no authority to back it up…

  630. #631 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Dhog, #627, it is funny that you accuse me of lack of maturity for using literary twist on Dr. Mann’s name, yet you accuse my wife of being a mail order bride? Frankly, I don’t care what you think of her, as she has lived in this country for a decade before I met her and became a citizen before I met her.

    Should I sue you for libel, now? Never mind…I am not a sissy like Dr. Mann

  631. #632 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Dhog, #609, your post about Steyn’s prior representation is inaccurate. Steyn parted ways with his prior counsel because Steyn took Mann at his word when Mann said he wants a trial, and wanted to forgo the Anti-Slapp appeal the other defendants filed. He therefore found new counsel (personally, I think Steyn erred in not pursuing the anti-slap appeal).

    Also, you statement that Mann’s lawyer pursing litigation show Mann has a decent case is misguided. As a lawyer, I can tell you that parties often file lawsuits for reasons other then an ultimate court victory. Sometimes it is to stall for time, sometimes some other remedy, like a retraction, is sought. Sometimes a party seeks to enter a war of financial attrition.

    It is not right that these suits happen, but they do. And, because the law is a self-regulating profession, it is very difficult to hold an attorney accountable for filing a frivolous lawsuit pursuant to FCRP 11.

    As stated, Mann’s objective, in my opinion, is to file suit hoping the Defendants will ultimately get tired out financially or emotionally with the litigation process. I find it hard to believe he has any real desire to proceed to trial, because he has that opportunity with Steyn. Steyn offered to bifurcate his case from the other defendants, proceed with discovery and move on.

  632. #633 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Bernard J, #598 — since when did I claim to be litigating science matters. To clarify, for BBD’s sake as well, what I probably should have said is I am here to discuss legal issues only from the a knowledgeable standpoint. I never claimed, and do not claim, knowledge regarding science.

    However, I have, and claim, legal knowledge and can tell you, as all lawyers will, that Mann v. Steyn is not an issue of science, it is an issue of law. In other words, Steyn’s scientific opinions can be totally wrong (and maybe they are, I have no idea) yet he will still succeed legally as long has he honestly and reasonably believed them at the time of his blog post. See Professor Garber’s article, linked to above.

    And, in cases in which I litigate that are tangentially related to science (i.e., med mal) it is not me setting forth my client’s position. We hire experts for that. IN fact, the court would strike any statements I make in closing that were not first proffered by an expert

  633. #634 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 30, 2015

    #576 “In my brief reading, I thought I heard….”

    “… that Earth is a flat disk.” Hey, I read that also.

    cosmicomics: In my brief reading I’ve learned that the medieval warming was caused by the sudden proliferation of fire breathing dragons, whose strange interspecies sexual predilections led to their being hunted by “valiant” knights, who didn’t give a damn about biodiversity. Their precipitous decline then led to the little ice age. Modern warming can, perhaps, be explained by the energy expended by Santa Claus and his reindeer. Their perspiration adds moisture to the air. Makes sense to me.

    Unicorns, of course, get all the hot maidens.

  634. #635 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt, #580: I would be happy to provide examples of what constitutes libel. First, we need to clarify: is the Plaintiff a public person or not? If the plaintiff is not classified as a public person, the malice standard does not apply, thus greatly enhancing the Plaintiff’s case. In fact, if Mann were not a public figure, I would not longer believe he had a weak case; I would say he had a decent case, at worse, and perhaps a strong or very good case.

    With public figures, the closes example I can think of what be Dan Rather’s report regarding President Bush and his national guard service, although even this probably fails to meet the requirement. Remember, in a legal context, “malice” doesn’t mean ill-will or mean-spirited; rather, Malice means “with knowledge of falsity” or “without reasonable grounds to believe the truthfulness” of a statement.

    Applying that to Rather’s case, you could argue that, because CBS hired experts, none of whom would verify the legitimacy of the documents, his reliance constituted “malice” because he knew, or at least should have known, the statements were false. But, here is the kicker: Rather can still say, and did say, that he believed Bush shirked his duty, regardless of the documents. How could Bush ever prove that is not true?

    To sum up, pretty much the only way, in my mind, a public figure could win a libel case is if an email, tape recording, etc., exists when the Defendant admits he knew the statement was false, but made it anyway. It is very difficult to prove what someone thinks is true…

  635. #636 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Rob Honeycutt, #593: In that post, you actually state why Mann has a tough case. You say the “overwhelming” majority of scientists conclude Mann’s work is not fraudulent. You didn’t say “all” scientists, or every single scientist.

    Even if a small number of scientists believe Mann is a fraud, Steyn, as a lay person, is free to side with the minority. Science, after all, isn’t decided by majority rule….

  636. #637 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    Dan the Deceiver and RickA both believe that “reasonable grounds to believe the truthfulness of a statement” is achieved by nothing more than “because I want it to be true”.

    Put that before a jury.

  637. #638 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Brainstorms, /sigh/ that is not at all what either of us mean be reasonable grounds. First, it depends on the context. A layperson relying on an expert, even if that expert is in the minority, will almost always be reasonable. It depends on the information available to the Defendant.

    For example, Rick gave used the “John stole $100 from the store last week.” If the Defendant knew that John was out of town, or in the hospital, or at work at the time the theft occurred, malice exists. A trickier situation applies if it is common knowledge, but not universal, that John wasn’t there for example, what if it was in the news that John was in a car-accident and hospitalized? How do you prove the Defendant read the news? (This example assumes, of course, that John is a public person and that standard applies)

  638. #639 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Dan, severally:

    Cosmic, #620. The term “Mann-boy lovers” is a joke, calm down. It is meant to refer to Dr. Mann, and his “boys,” i.e., colleagues, and those who support Mann, et. al to the point of absurdity. Lighten up, Francis…

    The phrase is offensive, homophobic and used by you to irritate. Please stop.

    BBD, #613, and this is where we disagree. And you make my point, perfectly, by referring to anyone (even one, like me, who makes no claims to be an expert and is perfectly willing to accept the opposite position if it turns out to be correct.

    This level of intellectual dishonesty is contemptible. If you want to be taken seriously, then have the moral courage to own your views and stop hiding behind childish rhetoric. Even if there will be consequences (see below).

    But you and your ilk think spout of legal non-sense with no authority to back it up…

    I have repeatedly reminded you that *I* don’t dispute that it will be difficult to prove actual malice in this case. I would appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth.

    I never claimed, and do not claim, knowledge regarding science.

    The same lie, over and over again. You claim that the science is WRONG which implicitly requires that you understand it. If you don’t understand it then you should immediately cease your politically motivated science denial and join other non-experts in accepting the expert scientific consensus.

  639. #640 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Remember, in a legal context, “malice” doesn’t mean ill-will or mean-spirited; rather, Malice means “with knowledge of falsity” or “without reasonable grounds to believe the truthfulness” of a statement.

    Agreed (re US libel law and actual malice). I suspect that some commenters here are more focused on the second definition, that of reckless disregard for the truth. That may not be as easy for Steyn to defend as you imagine, since the evidence that he is wrong about Mann is difficult to refute.

    Consider your own growing problems here. Once you are compelled to admit that you are denying the scientific evidence you are exposed as exhibiting a reckless disregard for the truth.

  640. #641 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 30, 2015

    Just a general comment: “Teaching the controversy” instead of the science is a known propaganda FUD ploy.

    And for Dan, not all opinions are equal. This is not a point of law, but it is something competent council ought to be able to access, for instance, in expert testimony. What I’m hearing from you is that you have no judgement on the matter and no interest in even acquiring sufficient meta-literacy to even begin to form a reliable opinion of your own, preferring instead to let Steyn tell you what’s what because [insert platitude here]. But, you assure us, you can and will change your opinion, presumably when Steyn tells you it’s OK to do so– which it’s safe to say, will be never.

  641. #642 dhogaza
    December 30, 2015

    Dan:

    “Dhog, #627, it is funny that you accuse me of lack of maturity for using literary twist on Dr. Mann’s name, yet you accuse my wife of being a mail order bride?”

    Apparently she’s not, but when did you stop beating her?

    There’s no reason to act mature around you. That’s the point. Act like a 13 year-old bully, and I’ll respond accordingly.

    Blindly ignorant of science. Thinks that homophobic slurs are funny. Writes a stream of insulting posts while professing nothing other than a detatched analytical interest in the case. Contradictory posts point to either a weak mind or a pathological need to lie.

    I think that pretty much sums up Dan.

  642. #643 dhogaza
    December 30, 2015

    BBD:

    “I suspect that some commenters here are more focused on the second definition, that of reckless disregard for the truth. That may not be as easy for Steyn to defend as you imagine, since the evidence that he is wrong about Mann is difficult to refute.”

    Correct.

  643. #644 dean
    United States
    December 30, 2015

    for example, that western society is committing societal suicide via declining birth rates.

    Is anyone surprised that dan is an asshole about things other than climate change?

  644. #645 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    BBD, I am not on trial for libel. Plus, I have no problems here. Lastly, it is safe to say, should Mann actually Mann up and go to trial, the jury won’t be packed with his Mann-boy lovers who will willingly disregard the law to find Steyn liable.

    That said, I don’t see any troubles for myself here, as I took RickA’s advice to heart. Once the name-calling starts, that means you are losing the argument. I have repeatedly asked questions no one has even tried to answer, such as: post one, just one, article from a recognized 1st amendment scholar stating Mann has anything but a difficult case. Or, in response to silly claims that this case is about science, I have asked commentators to state if that is true, why have the ACLU, NY Times, NBC, etc., all filed amicus briefs? You don’t really think they would file an amicus brief in a case about science, do you?

  645. #646 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    Dan, ::sigh:: ‘For example, Rick gave [us] the “John stole $100 from the store last week.” If the Defendant knew that John was out of town,

    OBJECTION! How did the defendant “know” that John was out of town?

    Did the defendant do anything to ascertain whether or not John was or was not in town?

    Sustained.

    Counsel will refrain from making strawman arguments that presume that the defendant’s political campaign to impugn the plaintiff are based on claims of misconduct that are accepted as “common knowledge” — especially when no such common knowledge exists, expert claims that the plaintiff’s conduct was in fact not misconduct do exist, and it remains the responsibility of the defendant to prove that such conduct was in fact the fraud that the defendant has publicly claimed it to be.

    “Did the defendant make any reasonable attempt to determine whether or not John was in fact out of town or in the hospital?”

    No.

    “Did the defendant consult with experts or authorities who were keeping track of John’s whereabouts to inquire if he was in fact out of town or otherwise unable to have perpetrated the crime he was accused of?”

    No.

    “Is the defendant actually in contempt of the experts and authorities who were keeping track of John’s whereabouts, and thereby, due to defendant’s political agenda, willingly and negligently refuse to consult the knowledgeable authorities to determine John’s whereabouts before making his defamatory claim?”

    Well, um, let me talk about my interest in the First Amendment on this case in order to confuse and mislead this line of inquiry… You will co-operate, please, won’t you??

  646. #647 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Dean, how is that an “asshat” comment. Do you disagree with the fact that society’s survival birth rate is 2.1 births per female? do you disagree with the fact that virtually every single western European country’s birth rate is far lower then that (in some cases, hovering around the 1.0 mark?), or that the United States birth rate is right at 2.1 (thanks in large part to the religious areas of the country, like Utah, where the average family far exceeds the coasts?).

    That is not being racist or an asshat. It is simply stating a fact that societies that don’t bread will eventually fail to exist.

  647. #648 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    … the jury won’t be packed with his [dispassionate supporters] who will willingly disregard the law to find Steyn liable.

    And you are squirming with discomfiture over the fact that they can do exactly that.

    Your “recognized 1st amendment scholars” notwithstanding.

    You know damn well that this case is not about science and that it is not about the First Amendment. But you’re more than happy to keep stirring up that FUD.

  648. #649 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Brainstorms, sigh — can you point to any law that says the Defendant has an affirmative obligation to actually seek the truth? Your first objection actually proves Steyn’s point: How does the Defendant know John was out of town.

    Also, there is a big difference between making a statement without looking into its veracity, and willfully ignoring contradictory evidence.

    Lastly, you ignore the idea of “overwhelming” evidence vs. absolute evidence. There prominent scientists (prominent defined as those who are professors at well-respected universities) who disagree with Mann and his methods.

    Please explain why it is libelous for Steyn to side with the position of the minority (even if it is a substantial minority) vs. the majority.

    Are you claiming that not one, single scientist disagrees with Mann. Are you claiming that not one single scientist takes issue with Mann’s methods, and states he manipulated the data?

    If so, how do you respond to the scientists Steyn quotes in his book? Oh, that is right, you never read it…

    Finally, yes, Steyn can claim at the same time his statement was opinion, while also claiming he believed it to be true…

  649. #650 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Brainstorms, I do know damn well that this case is about the First Amendment and not science. We finally agree. And, if the jury does ignore the law, then it would be ripe for appeal.

    I strongly suspect Steyn will have a strong summary judgment motion after discovery (which is why Mann refuses to Answer the discovery propounded by Steyn).

    How will Mann meet the notice requirement if Steyn says he has studied the opinions of mann vs. those he cites in his book, and sides with those who think Mann’s work is fraudulent….

  650. #651 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorburrus/2014/08/14/hopefully-dr-michael-e-mann-doesnt-sue-me-for-this-column/

    Yet another legal scholar who recognizes Mann’s case is “silly…”

  651. #652 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Dan

    BBD, I am not on trial for libel.

    This is irrelevant and evasive.

    Plus, I have no problems here.

    This is not true.

    Lastly, it is safe to say, should Mann actually Mann up and go to trial, the jury won’t be packed with his Mann-boy lovers who will willingly disregard the law to find Steyn liable.

    This repeats an offensive phrase that you are using provocatively, which reduces your status to that of mere troll.

    At this point, nobody is required to take you seriously. Is that what you mean when you assert that you have no problems here?

  652. #653 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Also, there is a big difference between making a statement without looking into its veracity, and willfully ignoring contradictory evidence.

    But Steyn did the latter, and that may yet be his undoing. As a legal expert, you are obliged to concede this point.

  653. #654 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Concede what point? Steyn may well have looked into, and I presume he did. But I don’t know that. But, even if he did, there are experts out there who support Steyn’s position. Brainstoms said in #646 there are experts who claim Mann’s work was not fraudulent.

    Well, there are also experts who claim it is fraudulent. http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

    This is why courts don’t try science. The court will not determine whether mann or the dissenters are correct. It will simply determine if Steyn reasonably believed his comment to be true. The fact that professional scientists have claimed Mann is a fraud is fatal to Mann’s case….

  654. #655 Julian Frost
    South Africa
    December 30, 2015

    Dan:

    [T]here is a big difference between making a statement without looking into its veracity, and willfully ignoring contradictory evidence.

    Then why is the legal definition of Malice used for both? And actually, I would argue that you’re wrong. Making a potentially damaging claim without bothering to check if it is true or not is not “very different” from making that same claim and ignoring contradictory evidence.

  655. #656 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    BBD, Rick takes me seriously. And, to the extent I am not taken seriously, it is because no one come up with a legit response to the legal authorities I have linked. Instead, I get responses such (paraphrasing) “no matter what your experts say”

    As or the “Mann-boy lovers,” lighten up. I have been called various names. Even worse, so has my wife (being called a mail-order bride, which in itself is racist to Asian, particularly south-east Asian, women).

    Really, BBD, you seem like a decent guy. Just admit that, under U.S. libel law, Mann has a difficulty, borderline impossible case as it stands right now. What is so hard with that?

  656. #657 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Or, try Mr. Rind, CV attached: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/drind.html

    Mr. Rind is on record as being highly critical of the hockey stick, saying he has informed Mann of the issues, and has been ignored.

    I will link to Rind’s statement. Again, why can’t Steyn agree with those scientists who disagree with Mann and think his work is fraudulent? they might be in the minority, but science is not a majority-rules subject

  657. #658 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Julian, you misinterpret “reasonable belief.” If people are liable simply because they do not check the veracity of a statement, then people can essentially be sued for being stupid. In the legal sense, “unreasonable” means they had access to data, and ignored it….

    Your point is fair from an ethical standpoint, but it is legally invalid. If you can find any case law out there that supports your position, please post.

  658. #659 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    The aforementioned Mr. Rind’s full opinion regarding Mann and his hockey stick. The link gives the quote, and then provides the entire email for context…

    This is Fun! I can do this all day, being that I am off work and all…

  659. #660 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 30, 2015

    dean: “Is anyone surprised that dan is an asshole about things other than climate change?”

    Gosh, I sure am! Why, it is unprecedented— a denier of reality also being an asshole. Usually when someone insists she or he is vastly better educated than all of the world’s experts in a subject, the arrogance ends there and the denier is a fine, polite, liberal human being in all other venues in life.

  660. #661 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Concede what point? Steyn may well have looked into, and I presume he did. But I don’t know that. But, even if he did, there are experts out there who support Steyn’s position.

    You keep making this claim and I am reasonably certain it is false.

    Experts that support Steyn’s claim that MBH99 is fraudulent? Experts as in palaeoclimatologists with special expertise in millennial climate reconstructions?

    Who are these experts? I mean *real* experts, not a bunch of right-wing ideologues with irrelevant scientific backgrounds. I want real experts. And I want them now.

    List them, please.

  661. #662 dean
    United States
    December 30, 2015

    Dan, that canard about “societal suicide” is an old racist fake call for concern, masking the “muslim plan to destroy the west by out-breeding Europeans”.
    The fact that you repeat it quite telling.

  662. #663 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Calm down, BBD. I just posted a link with over 1,000 scientists who disagree with climate change. I also posted a link to Mr. Rind’s comments challenging, specifically, the hockey stick. You claim he is a right-wing ideologue? Prove it…

    Is that enough, for now? Or do you want more experts?

    Is it that hard to admit, really, that there are climate scientists who disagree with Mann, MBH, etc?

  663. #664 Desertphile
    December 30, 2015

    Dan: Lastly, it is safe to say, should Mann actually Mann up and go to trial, the jury won’t be packed with his Mann-boy lovers who will willingly disregard the law to find Steyn liable.”

    Er… ah… you do realize Dr. Mann has been trying very hard to have the law suit concluded as soon as possible, right? You also realize it is the defendants working to delay the conclusion as long as they can, right? You also realize it is the judge who has said the defendants’ request to delay is financially and legally expedient, right? After all, these facts have been explained to you more than 100 times.

  664. #665 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Really, BBD, you seem like a decent guy. Just admit that, under U.S. libel law, Mann has a difficulty, borderline impossible case as it stands right now. What is so hard with that?

    I have said exactly that, I think seven times on this thread, but you can count for yourself. The most recent example is at #639.

    Stop making false statements about what I have said here.

  665. #666 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Dean, that statement has nothing to do with muslims. It is a simple statement about demographics. In fact, the county who might be in the worst position, demographically speaking, is Japan, which isn’t exactly known to be a prime destination for muslim immigrants.

    Really, calm down with the racist dog whistle BS. Sometimes a statement is really just a statement without racist undertones

  666. #667 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Desertphile: You can’t lump all defendants as one. Steyn wants the case to proceed. he has responded to Mann’s written discovery. Mann has not responded to Steyn’s. Steyn filed a motion to bifurcate his case from the other defendants, so at the very least discovery in mann v. steyn could proceed. Mann opposed same.

    This has been explained to you many times. If Mann wanted to proceed to trial as quickly as possible, the first thing he would do is respond to Steyn’s written discovery.

  667. #668 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    I just posted a link with over 1,000 scientists who disagree with climate change.

    Irrelevant. What you were asked for is this:

    Experts that support Steyn’s claim that MBH99 is fraudulent? Experts as in palaeoclimatologists with special expertise in millennial climate reconstructions?

    Who are these experts? I mean *real* experts, not a bunch of right-wing ideologues with irrelevant scientific backgrounds. I want real experts.

    Did Rind call Mann’s work fraudulent? If not, then he is not what you need to produce in order to defend your repeated claim that:

    there are experts out there who support Steyn’s position.

    Please list real experts who have stated that Mann’s work is fraudulent.

    Now.

  668. #669 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    BBD, I see post 639, and stand corrected. I am glad you recognize the weakness in Mann’s case. As for science, I have not denied anything. I have posted to links to scientists with a dissenting view, and I have stated my belief, shared by many, that when one side tries to silence the others by filing libel lawsuits which (as you concede) will be difficult to succeed, they lose credibility with me.

    I have said, over and over, I am not in a position to judge the actual science, as it is not my area. Also, Desertphile, I have never claimed to have more education then anyone here. there could be Ph.D’s here in various fields for all I know. I just state I am a lawyer because…wait for it… I actually am and publicly identified myself on this site before

  669. #670 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    BBD: Did Rind actually use the word Fraud — no. What he does say is that there are significant deficiencies in MBH that bring in to question its validity. Rind next states he has brought these up to Mann, who has refused to address them, or even respond.

    In other words, Mann is aware (via Rind telling him) of information that challenges his position. Instead of responding to same, he ignores it. In other words, he is manipulating the data by ignoring contrary data, at least according to Rind

  670. #671 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    There are at least six other occasions on this thread where I made the same statement.

    Now, where’s the list of palaeoclimatologists with expertise in millennial climate reconstructions who described Mann’s work as fraudulent?

  671. #672 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Where is the link to Rind’s statement? I can’t see it.

  672. #673 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    BBD: Did Rind actually use the word Fraud — no.

    Then Rind does not endorse Steyn’s view and is not relevant to your defence of your claim that multiple experts *do* endorse Steyn’s view. FFS, I thought you said you were a lawyer.

  673. #674 Dan
    Las
    December 30, 2015

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/11/fraudulent-hockey-stick/

    BBD, I must have copied. I will re-link. also, here is a quote from Dr. Curry, who cites other scientists. notably, Curry concedes that she does not think Mann committed academic fraud. But, based on the scientists she cites, she does think Mann cherry-picked data.

    This is important, because if you read the original CEI post that Steyn says he agreed with, Mann was never accused of academic fraud, he was accused of cherry-picking data.

    Mann wants to limit the definition of fraud to academic fraud, when in fact fraud or fraudulent has different meanings depending on context.

  674. #675 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015
  675. #676 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    BBD: Yes, Rind does endorse my position, because the original quote by Rand Simburg states Mann “tortured and manipulated data..” Rind is saying Mann manipulated data…

    If your position is that a scientist needs to use the word “fraud,” and no other phrases that clearly refer to the same conduct, you are in a tough bind

  676. #677 Dave
    December 30, 2015

    Funny how Mann doesn’t like his work being called fraudulent but he has no problem calling other people frauds.

  677. #678 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    FFS, I am a lawyer. Maybe that is why I can recognize that “tortured and molested data” = mann ignores the issues brought up by Rind, directly to Mann = Fraud (in the dishonest sense of the word)

  678. #679 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Please remember, BBD, I have never said that Mann’s case is guaranteed to fail, only that it is extremely difficult. New evidence could be brought to light during discovery.

    However, in my opinion, such evidence is likely to be produced because it would require Steyn to essentially admit he knew mann was right and didn’t manipulate/ignore data all along. Short of that acknowledgement by Steyn, Mann will most likely lose, and could end up owing Steyn a sizeable amount in attorneys fees.

  679. #680 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Dan

    You can’t provide a single scientist with relevant domain expertise who endorses Steyn’s statement that Mann’s work is fraudulent.

    So you can never henceforth make that claim without lying.

    Please remember this, or I will have to remind you.

  680. #681 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    What he does say is that there are significant deficiencies in MBH that bring in to question its validity.

    Stating an opinion that another researcher’s paper does not produce valid results is part of the scientific process. It is not an accusation of fraud.

    Your position is hanging by threads. That keep breaking under scrutiny…

  681. #682 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Rind:

    … that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got. (And similarly, without knowing the tropical sensitivity for the LGM, we don’t know what it’s global cooling was, and without knowing it for 2xCO2, we don’t know what the future sensitivity would be.) It cannot be reconstructed with any confidence from the extratropical response, even if we were to know that well, because the extratropical response is partly driven by in situ feedbacks, so can occur with a variety of tropical responses…

    If there is ‘practically no reliable tropical data’ then how can Mann have have cherry-picked data?

    If it’s not there, it cannot be used or not used.

    Rind is another irrelevance, quoted out of context, by people who don’t understand the topic under discussion.

  682. #683 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    BBD: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

    In this article, a prominent U.S. scientist, Dr. Zorita, claims Mann should be barred from further IPCC work due to his misleading conduct, and that of others, in the CRU scandal.

    Again, Dr. Zorita might be wrong, but a lay person such as Steyn can read this article, agree with it, and post a blog post with similar statements regarding Mann

  683. #684 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Brainstorms, you are right. But claiming Mann is ignoring data that contradicts his graph, can be considered fraud because Mann would be cherry-picking data…

  684. #685 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    RInd:

    How well we know the numbers for the first part
    of this century is also somewhat uncertain, so I can’t say Mike is wrong –
    but the point is, I don’t know that he’s right, nor do I think anybody else knows either.
    So what should we do about it? Basically I think we should indicate that
    there are conflicting views concerning the actual global climate change during this
    time period – quote the references (including the one’s Mike provides), note that there
    are uncertainties concerning the magnitude of the extratropical response, and
    that there is a paucity of tropical data – and leave it at that. Unsatisfying, perhaps,
    since people will want to know whether 1200 AD was warmer than today, but if the data
    doesn’t exist, the question can’t yet be answered.

    No data, no cherry-picking and no fraud.

    Rind does not endorse Steyn. End of discussion of Rind.

    Never make this claim again, Dan.

  685. #686 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Again, BBD 681, you rely on a vary narrow definition of a phrase. “Cherry-pick” data means can certainly mean failing to acknowledge a lack of data where it exists, especially when this absence of data could undermine your position.

    Really, that is the biggest stretch since “depends on what the definition of is, is”

  686. #687 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Zorita is a minor figure. Claiming that he is prominent is risibly self-serving.

    Even Zorita doesn’t accuse Mann of fraud. He is an irrelevance.

    I want only one of two things from you now, Dan:

    1/ A list of scientists with relevant domain expertise who have endorsed the view that Mann’s work is fraudulent

    2/ You to cease and desist from making the demonstrably false claim that such a body of experts exists.

    Do you understand this?

  687. #688 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Again, BBD 681, you rely on a vary narrow definition of a phrase.

    No, I don’t. You cannot cherry-pick data that doesn’t exist. Stop the childish crap now please.

  688. #689 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    But claiming Mann is ignoring data that contradicts his graph, can be considered fraud because Mann would be cherry-picking data…

    Well, then, now who has to prove “he knew about this data at the time”? Looks like the worm has turned…

  689. #690 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    BBD, I will absolutely make the claim. He says he doesn’t know if Mann is right or wrong, and states why. Mann is saying not only is he right, but so right that anyone who dares disagree with him is a “denier” on level with those who deny the earth is round.

    Again, ignoring the absence of data, when such data is NECESSARY to prove your position is cherry-picking.

    You really don’t intend to argue that ignoring information, without which Mann’s foundation is fatally flawed, is not cherry picking data (i.e., information).

    Come on, BBD, you are better then that…

  690. #691 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Not Steyn, that is for sure. He simply needs to say he relied on Rind, et. al. But, the fact that Rind has made Mann aware of this information, and that Mann failed to respond and keeps on claiming is stick is the gospel is certainly enough to justify Steyn’s comment that Mann manipulated and tortured data…

  691. #692 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    BBD, I will absolutely make the claim. He says he doesn’t know if Mann is right or wrong,

    Then it is logically impossible for Rind to accuse Mann of fraud. WTF do they teach you in law school these days?

    You cannot make the claim that there is a body of experts that endorses Steyn’s view of Mann’s work.

    It is demonstrably false.

    What does a lawyer call the knowing repetition of demonstrable falsehood, Dan?

  692. #693 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Jesus BBD, you really are dense. Dr. Zorita, per that article, says Mann should be precluded from IPCC because of what happened at CRU, in which Mann, Jones, et. al. cherry picked data.

    Dude, this idea that Steyn reliance is unjustified unless a scientist says, verbatim, Dr. Mann is a fraud is silly. Accusing him of cherry-picking data, which the scientists I have linked to clearly do, as does Dr. Curry in her link, is sufficient.

    And btw, what standing to you have to ask me to cease and desist referencing comments others make. If they want me to cease and desist, that can ask me themselves (you do know what standing is, right?)

  693. #694 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    He says he doesn’t know if Mann is right or wrong, and states why.

    Is NOT a claim of fraud.

    If anything, it’s pointing out that more research needs to be conducted.

    “Ignoring the absence of data” is not cherry-picking.

    Mann is correct to point out that there are many out there who are politically motivated to ignore scientific results and use any underhanded means and argumentation to try to suppress his publishing these results to those who will enact policy on the basis of its conclusions.

    “You really don’t intend to argue that” this isn’t so…

    Come on, Dan, you are better then that… (Or, “you should be.”)

  694. #695 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Again, ignoring the absence of data, when such data is NECESSARY to prove your position is cherry-picking.

    Remember when I asked you to account for the mystery of the Missing Literature?

    What if there have been studies since that *did* use improved tropical proxies and which *validated* MBH99?

    Yes, this is a trap.

    You were stuffed 300 comments ago.

  695. #696 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Jesus BBD, you really are dense. Dr. Zorita, per that article, says Mann should be precluded from IPCC because of what happened at CRU, in which Mann, Jones, et. al. cherry picked data.

    I think you are becoming confused in your desperation, Dan.

    Check the authors of MBH99. Can you find a Jones in there?

    You are cluelessly defending the indefensible, and so confirming that you are not just here to talk about the law.

    Since this is turning into a bit of a rout for you, I suggest that you stop now.

  696. #697 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/08/29/mannomatic-smoothing-technical-details/

    Here is another, by Stephen McIntrye.

    And, maybe there have been studies that have. There are more out there then just Rind. Again, all of these scientists might be wrong, and Mann’s work truly is gospel.

    The point is there is a legitimate debate, and Steyn is free to opine as to whose side he is on, and to comment (even in a vulgar way, if desired) about the debate.

  697. #698 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    Dan, you really are dense. Do you think that Dr. Zorita has no political ax of his own to grind?

    Do you really think that Steyn is the only right-wing political nut-job out there who’s on an ill-advised campaign to stifle all speech about what AGW is doing to the planet?

    Dude, really?

  698. #699 Dan
    December 30, 2015

    BBD, #695, what does that have to do with the cost of sunshine? Jeez, and I am getting routed. I simply pointed out that Dr. Zorita stated that Mann and his CRU colleagues (Jones, et. al.) engaged in cherry-picking data and should be off the IPCC.

    I am not even saying Dr. Zorita is right, just that he made the damn comment, which you wont even concede.

    Again, someone is getting routed, and it sure isn’t me.

    I will help you out…go to google and type “Scientists who think Dr. Mann is a fraud.” You will be plenty satisfied…

  699. #700 Desertphile
    freegoldmaps.com
    December 30, 2015

    BBD: Experts that support Steyn’s claim that MBH99 is fraudulent? Experts as in palaeoclimatologists with special expertise in millennial climate reconstructions?”

    Heh! I would love to see an actual expert in the related venues step forward and show MBH98 or MBH99 is in any way fraudulent. I would even pay good money to see evidence that it/they are fraudulent.

  700. #701 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Brainstorms, #693. Exactly! He says more research is needed. At the same time, Mann and his supporters call anyone who has the temerity to suggest the science isn’t settled a “denier.”

    Rind says more science is needed, Mann knows this because Rind has advised him of same, and Mann continues to spout his “denier” lines.

    Saying something is settled, when more research is needed, is dishonest (assuming you know that to be the case), and, therefore, fraudulent.

    Guys, this isn’t hard, really

  701. #702 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    Ya know, for someone who has been exclaiming his lack of science knowledge, Dan is real quick to spew out the links to (pseudo)scientific literature to (try to) back up his scientific but-I’m-not-trained-in-science arguments…

    I will help you out…go to google and type …

    Shows that Dan is actively practicing Confirmation Bias.

    Dan-o, how many actual, legitimate, peer-reviewed science papers have you ‘Googled’ and read on this subject?

  702. #703 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Brainstorms, I have no idea if Dr. Zorita has a political ax to grind. He is referred to in major media publications as respected scientist. Btw, you will certainly admit Dr. Mann has own political ax to grind right?

    First, you guys say there are no scientists who challenge Mann. Now, you question the credentials or impartiality of them. You don’t have to agree with them. YOu can think they are biased, just like some think Mann is biased.

    this is all fine and dandy. It is called free speech, which is protected in our great republic. Btw, saying Dr. Zorita has a political ax to grind is the same as calling him a fraud, because you are questioning his impartiality.

    Better watch out, Zorita might sue (then again, I doubt he is a sissy like Mann..)

  703. #704 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    Dan, #700, you are demonstrating our point. Who said it was settled? Saying that more research is needed is not a claim of fraud. It is part of the scientific process. It is not a mark of disgrace to “not have all the data” or to “not have all the answers”. It is a matter of pointing the way to truth.

    Those, such as Steyn, et al, who respond to what’s being turned up in the Global Consciousness by this research, and respond with, “Stop the research! It’s fraundulent!” and other such self-serving, deceptive, and illicit non-sense are, yes, deniers — as well as being anti-science.

    Dan, this isn’t hard, really.

  704. #705 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Brainstorms, I am simply trying to show that there are scientists who have stated, in public, that Mann’s work is suspect (I would say fraudulent, but BBD’s panties will get wound up in a wad). I have said, over and over, I have no idea who is right.

    What legal authority do you have that says, unless Steyn relied on peer-reviewed literature, his comments were without reasonable knowledge and therefore malicious? If anything, lay people are less likely to rely on peer-reviewed issues

  705. #706 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    Btw, you will certainly admit Dr. Mann has own political ax to grind right?

    AB-so-LUTE-ly. And you yourself had better thank your god that he’s got it, got it right, and is willing to suffer for your sake (not exclusively) to help mitigate the tragedy that will visit you if this issue is not studied, acknowledged, and dealt with responsibly.

    STOP STANDING IN THE WAY.

  706. #707 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Dan

    I will help you out…go to google and type “Scientists who think Dr. Mann is a fraud.” You will be plenty satisfied…

    I am not. What I want, and what you are serially failing to provide is a list of scientists with relevant domain expertise who said that Mann’s work is fraudulent.

    Stop wriggling and post the required list or concede the *fact* that your claim is false.

  707. #708 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Brainstorms, you misinterpret what those who oppose Mann say. I have no idea what Steyn says, although I would suspect he says exactly what Rind says: more research is needed to link human activity to warming before we enact significant legislation like cap and trade, etc. I know for a fact that is what Dr. Curry says, as she said it in her senate testimony.

    It becomes fraudulent when someone knows more research is needed, yet states the science is settled and the government should enact various legislation and regulations to the detriment of the economy.

  708. #709 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    It is called free speech, which is protected in our great republic.

    Then why are you unwilling to defend Mann’s right to speak out on what he’s learned about AGW, and side with Steyn, et al, to defame him so that he’ll lose his credibility, ability to speak, and venues in which to do so? (Answer: Because we’re politically against the results of Mann’s free speech on the subject.)

    Smacks of hypocrisy, Dan.

    Btw, saying Dr. Zorita has a political ax to grind is the same as calling him a fraud,

    OMG, you say that with a straight face???

    because you are questioning his impartiality.

    Being impartial is the same as being a fraud?

    ::snap, snap, snap:: go the strings of Dan’s arguments.

  709. #710 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    BBD:
    Dr. Mcintrye (sp?)
    Dr. Rind
    Dr. Zorita
    Dr. Curry
    Dr. Happer

    Want more? I can get plenty more. The funny thing is if you actually read Steyn’s book, he quotes over 100 who call Mann a fraud (meaning dishonest).

    But you wont read his book, will you. You will simply say it is full of bunk and biased without even knowing what is in it

    And I am the biased one?

  710. #711 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    You misinterpret what those who oppose Mann say.

    You’d best hope the jury similarly misunderstands Steyn.

    I have no idea what Steyn says …

    You’re dissembling once again…

    I know for a fact that is what Dr. Curry says

    Why do you treat her as an authority? Is it because she says what YOU want to hear about the subject?

    What percentage of climate scientists (or scientists in general) support that view, versus support the prevailing view?

    “It becomes fraudulent when someone knows more research is needed, yet states the science is settled and the government should enact various legislation and regulations to the detriment of the economy.”

    Now we’re getting to the core of your argumentation… The Actual Issue at Hand.

  711. #712 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Brainstorms, I absolutely agree with Dr. Mann’s right to speak out? What makes you think I don’t? I have long advocated a debate between Mann and Curry or Happer or whoever. In fact, I would defend to the death Dr. Mann’s right to speak, even if I disagree with it.

    and, if the situation was reversed and Steyn was suing Mann for something Mann wrote on his blog (and Mann does exactly what he is suing Steyn for; i.e., questions the impartiality of those he disagrees with).

    Please, seriously, explain how I don’t want Mann to speak simply because I think his case against Steyn is weak.

    You don’t mean to suggest that Mann will be prevented from speaking his mind unless Steyn is held liable, do you?

  712. #713 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Dan

    Rind says more science is needed, Mann knows this because Rind has advised him of same, and Mann continues to spout his “denier” lines.

    Saying something is settled, when more research is needed, is dishonest (assuming you know that to be the case), and, therefore, fraudulent.

    Guys, this isn’t hard, really

    See the error bars? Where is this claim that Mann said MBH99 was ‘settled’ science coming from?

    Look at the error bars and *think*.

    And then there’s all the subsequent work that has failed to demonstrate fundamental flaws in MBH99…

    More evidence.

    So, where’s the list?

  713. #714 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Brainstorms, I don’t treat Curry as an authority. I just happen to know what she said because I saw that portion of her testimony on the news.

    I have long said I don’t know if Curry is right, or Mann or whoever. What I do know is that Steyn is free to agree with Curry, over Mann if he choses, and such reliance nullifies Mann’s position that Steyn was “malicious” (in the legal sense) in making his comments

  714. #715 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Dr. Mcintrye (sp?)
    Dr. Rind
    Dr. Zorita
    Dr. Curry
    Dr. Happer

    No relevant domain expertise there, except for Rind, and he didn’t say what you claim he said. I have already asked you not to associate his name with your false claim and here you are, doing it again a few comments later.

    What do lawyers call serial repetition of falsehood, Dan?

  715. #716 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    And I am the biased one?

    You certainly are… “It becomes fraudulent when someone knows more research is needed, yet states the science is settled and the government should enact various legislation and regulations to the detriment of the economy.”

    And you are saying everything you can say to try to avoid admitting this is your issue, as you try to defeat “the government enacting various legislation and regulations” because you believe it would be “the detriment of the economy.”

    YOUR economy. YOUR lifestyle.

  716. #717 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Brainstorms, it is common knowledge that if the government limits the access of corporations to fossil fuels, especially via a carbon tax, the cost of business will go up. Companies will have to take money that could be used for R&D, hiring, expansion, to pay the new tax….

    That will slow the economy (which most people would agree is harming the economy). The question is: is such slowing worth it?

  717. #718 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    BBD, Dr, Curry doesn’t have relevant domain experience? Also, Rind said more research is needed. Is he a denier?

  718. #719 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Steve Mcintyre isn’t a PhD, let alone a climate scientist with relevant domain expertise. So you can erase the ‘Dr’ honorific for a start.

    He’s got no relevant scientific background at all. According to Wiki:

    BSc (mathematics)
    MA (philosophy, politics, and economics)

  719. #720 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    BBD, Dr, Curry doesn’t have relevant domain experience?

    No, not even close. Check for yourself.

  720. #721 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    Brainstorms, I am still waiting for you to explain how I don’t support Mann’s right to free speech simply because I don’t think he has a liable case? I really hope you don’t mean Mann is that think-skinned that he can only speak his mind when he is afforded the protection of our legal system against those who dare to challenge him? I would feel sorry for such a Mann-child…

  721. #722 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    Dan, #711, WE ARE NOT THAT STUPID. We know damn well that a very effective tactic to stifle someone’s speech, when that person is a scientific researcher and an acknowledged authority on a subject that some in society see as politically threatening, is to DISCREDIT THEM as a vehicle to try to DENY THEM their right to speak.

    We know damn well that your issue is that you do NOT want Mann, et al, to influence “the government to enact various legislation and regulations” to (ironic, ain’t it) SAVE the economy, because you WRONGLY believe it would be “to the detriment of the economy.”

  722. #723 Dan
    Las Vegas
    December 30, 2015

    As a respected climate academic, I think her opinion merits consideration, especially from a lay person perspective…

  723. #724 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    I don’t treat Curry as an authority.

    You DO when you keep citing her — almost exclusively. Without ANY balance by any other scientists that oppose her view (and that ratio is what? 32:1?)

    That’s biased.

    I just happen to know what she said because I saw that portion of her testimony on the news.

    Get real.

    I have long said I don’t know if Curry is right, or Mann or whoever.

    Yet you speak as though you believe Curry is right. And defend it. Actions speak louder…

  724. #725 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 30, 2015

    #508
    “Can you name one person who has ever lost his job for taking the side of man made climate change?”

    If persons who are responsible for providing the public with credible information provide misinformation instead, should that not have consequences?

    Another example that you could have mentioned, but didn’t, is government censorship to prevent employees from referring to climate change, and threats of reprisals if they do.

    http://insideclimatenews.org/news/13042015/climate-censorship-gains-steam-Florida-Wisconsin
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/09/3631465/not-just-florida-censoring-climate-change-talk/

    How come protecting the rights of those who abuse their positions concerns you, while the rights of those who attempt to responsibly do their jobs doesn’t? You claim you don’t have an opinion about climate science, yet you consistently parrot the opinions and attitudes of denialists. Your comments are not just about law, which you can speak about with some authority, but also about climate change, and there you are totally ignorant and totally tendentious. Your statements on climate impugn your legal credibility.

  725. #726 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    As a respected climate academic,

    Respected by which climate scientists? How many papers on climate science has she had published in peer-reviewed literature? (If she’s “respected” by that field, they would impartially review her papers.)

    But no, she has no relevant domain experience. (She may have political domain experience that’s relevant to you — and others seeking similar Confirmation Bias support. We’ll grant you that.)

    I think her opinion merits consideration, especially from a lay person perspective…

    It has been considered. And found to be not valid with respect to climate science and its revealed results.

    The “layperson” would be better served by paying attention to legitimate climate scientists. (And by avoiding the right-wing ditto-head media that attacks such scientists for purely political reasons.)

  726. #727 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    Dan

    As a respected climate academic, I think her opinion merits consideration, especially from a lay person perspective…

    First, I would question that JC is a respected academic at this point. Second, she is not a palaeoclimatologist with domain expertise in millennial temperature reconstructions. Third, it has been amply demonstrated that JC doesn’t understand MBH99. Her performance on a certain thread at Keith Kloor’s old blog springs to mind.

    JC doesn’t meet the necessary criteria of expertise.

  727. #728 BBD
    December 30, 2015

    One more thing, Dan. Blog posts such as those you link aren’t relevant in the scientific debate, which is carried out in the peer-reviewed literature. There are plenty of studies that essentially confirm MBH99 and we have to explain this in the context of claims that it is fraudulent. Now I’m struggling to do that, as any reasonable person would.

  728. #729 cosmicomics
    Danmark
    December 30, 2015

    #722

    I believe it’s fair to say that Curry’s opinions are considered, and that among climate scientists she therefore no longer is regarded a respected climate academic. This, by the way, is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It’s about honesty and respecting evidence.

  729. #730 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2015

    Dan, “it is common knowledge that if the government limits the access of corporations to fossil fuels, especially via a carbon tax, the cost of business will go up.”

    In the short term, yes, it will. Then it will get cheap again. Ironically, it will end up cheaper than it is now with BAU fossil fuel use. (Your implicit assumption that fossil fuel availability/price will not change is woefully wrong.)

    Companies will have to take money that could be used for R&D, hiring, expansion, to pay the new tax…

    …unless they cut their fossil fuel use. You’re making unbalanced assumptions.

    That will slow the economy (which most people would agree is harming the economy). The question is: is such slowing worth it?</i.

    Okay. Now, Dan, continue: Dan, what will it cost the economy to NOT slow/stop the use of fossil fuels? What does bad weather cost the economy today? What will flooding such as being experienced by Missouri an