I have far too many "interesting" things queued up in feedly, so its time for a dump.
Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted. mt is fiercer: Journal’s Mealy-Mouthed Retraction of Lewandowsky Paper. I wasn't terribly keen on the paper myself, though I avoided commenting, but I agree with SL's "the article is fine but Frontiers does not want to take the legal risk" and that this is rubbish on Frontiers' part. See-also Sou.
[Update: the shows goes on: Climate of intimidation: "Frontiers" blunder on "Recursive Fury": Ugo Bardi resigns from the journal (h/t mt); shades of von S].
Timmy offers his libertarian view of the Crimea; which is more really about bashing the pols here. Nonetheless, I largely agree with what he's saying; that will fold into the Great Crimea Post, which at this rate will not arrive until everything is safely over.
You might - but quite possibly you might not - want to watch this video of us rowing. Best in HD, and at 1/4 speed. For the first time, we put the GoPro onto a tripod behind the cox, allowing is to see rather more of what is going on. Yes, I know I'm looking down; I've tried sitting up straight but it feels weird; I like to watch my hands. This is our tideway crew, and you need not point out the obvious flaws. If you prefer something more exciting, try this. Actually if you want something more exciting then try the 2000 pairs final - watch those crazy frogs go. Almost falling in afterwards gets them extra points.
ATTP weighs into the Criminally negligent? question. Pfft. This reminds me of Kerching! This stuff has no real value; though it can raise your profile (I'm talking of the original, not ATTP, of course). If you want something more coherent, DO's first comment there is it. How does that turn into 471 comments? Other than it being one of those great issues where everyone can have an opinion. Speaking of which, Screaming Lord M has an opinion too, who could have guessed?
Various people have pointed out that Mann vs Steyn is descending into farce, as Steyn demonstrates ever more clearly his incompetence. Eli. Barry B. Mind you, the Watties are still whistling in the wind: Watts is like Steyn countersues Mann for 10 millon dollars and the crowd are all like "hey wow, that must mean he's winning". Its an interesting illustration of the basic inability of the two "sides" to agree on anything. Presumably the wavefunction will collapse at some point when the case actually gets heard, but that could be a way off. Speculation: this is already a success for Mann, in that it will make anyone vaguely sane hesitate to go down the Steyn route to insanity.
Retraction Watch, which I read and like, is touting for money: "Dear Retraction Watch readers: We want to grow. Here’s how you can help". I mention that so you can donate if you want to, though I confess that I haven't myself, as yet. I do have a letter signed by Ralph Keeling thanking me for my donation to the Keeling Curve fund, though. They also have Fight against false copyright claims goes to Capitol Hill which is a worthy battle.
Lots of people don't think much of USA politics; TPP is one. But that's a separate post.
* Sawyer's "remarkably accurate" forecast by JA.
* McPherson’s Evidence That Doom Doom Doom by mt.
* Heritage’s Freedom To Read™ program by Spocko.
* Keith vs Nafeez again by mt. mt prefers Keith; so do I. There's more.
Descending into farce? you mean there is more to come.? Popcorn, popcorn. . . .
No, no, no.
That's NOT it.
Have you seen the news from WGII? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26655779
Tol being predictable.
Paul S, you can add "the media being predictable", too. "Some scientists" apparently disagree, and then they cite Richard Tol, Richard Tol, and again Richard Tol as dissenting.
"Various people have pointed out that Mann vs Steyn is descending into farce, as Steyn demonstrates ever more clearly his incompetence."
Your implication here is that Steyns counter suit of 10,000,000 is spurious?
[Worse than spurious: ludicrous; incompetent; laughable -W]
But then you go on and say
"Speculation: this is already a success for Mann, in that it will make anyone vaguely sane hesitate to go down the Steyn route to insanity."
If your "Speculation" is correct and the ultimate goal of Mann's lawsuit is to make others "hesitate" then you are "speculating" that the intent of Mann's suit is to "chill" others which is torturous misuse of civil process and validates Steyns claim.
[No. The aim of Mann's suit is exactly what he's said it is: to get Steyn's libel sorted out in a court; which seems entirely appropriate. My speculation only covers a side effect -W]
You need to be a little more careful William.
[You need to learn to parse English correctly -W]
If the aim is to win the libel suit then Mann's case is not yet a success is it?
If you say that "success" is to get others to "hesitate" then there is a clear intent to use civil process to "chill". That is a torturous act.
I would also be careful what you say is "speculation" you and Mann are in the same circles. A court would view your "speculation" as more than pure speculation but informed speculation given your mutual friendships and working relationship through realclimate.
Having friends of Mann such as yourself talk about the suit being successful because it will cause others to "hesitate" is very much evidence that can be used against Dr. Mann especially during his anti-SLAPP motion.
The simple fact of the matter is that there is years of evidence from Dr. Mann and friends of Dr. Mann such as yourself advocating the use of libel suits to chill speech.
Mr. Steyn's legal team will assemble all such quotes, including this one which, Mr. Steyn has already noted on his blog, in their reply to Dr. Mann's anti-SLAPP motion. There are many and they are ever growing.
[Steyn is a joke. Keep whistling for the wind and scratching backstays -W]
Joke or not in the current Ezra Levant libel case in Canada of which Steyn is very much a part of working associates and friends of the plaintiff in the case have been hauled in front of the court for making the exact same kind of statements you have made here. It is very much germane to the case when friends and working associates of the plaintiff make statements that the libel suit is intended to chill speech. Since such people have an association its very hard to pass off the statement as pure “speculation”. The court will wants to know exactly what information such a friend or acquaintance are privy to that led to such a conclusion.