Climate Scientist Michael Mann sues NR

[Threegoofs]

From TP:

A stunning DC Superior Court decision Friday on behalf of climatologist Michael Mann against the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) found:
There is sufficient evidence presented that is indicative of “actual malice. The CEI Defendants have consistently accused Plaintiff of fraud and inaccurate theories, despite Plaintiff’s work having been investigated several times and found to be proper. The CEI Defendants’ persistence despite the EPA and other investigative bodies’ conclusion that Plaintiff’s work is accurate (or that there is no evidence of data manipulation) is equal to a blatant disregard for the falsity of their statements. Thus, given the evidence presented the Court finds that Plaintiff could prove “actual malice.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...it-against-national-review-and-cei/?mobile=wp

 

[Deuce]

Oh man the tinfoil hat crowd is going to go ape**** over this one.

 

[Threegoofs]

There's even a legal defense fund to help climate scientists from denier attacks.

http://www.peer.org/help-center/climate-science-legal-defense-fund.html

Mann looks like he can prove malice against the CEI, hopefully that worm Steyn goes down too.

 

[Threegoofs]

More here:

http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/bad_a...ist_michael_mann_lawsuit_to_move_forward.html

 

[austrianecon]

Had him as a college professor years ago.. and i'll say this.. gonna love when someone slaps him with a lawsuit for his Op Ed in the Washington Post.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

There's an old saying, "You can indict a ham sandwich". Allowing this law suit to go forward falls in the same category. Yaaaawn

 

[Threegoofs]

There's an old saying, "You can indict a ham sandwich". Allowing this law suit to go forward falls in the same category. Yaaaawn

Except for the fact it has nothing to do with an indictment and that it is a civil case, and that the discovery is probably something the NR is more in fear of than the outcome, you are right.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Except for the fact it has nothing to do with an indictment and that it is a civil case, and that the discovery is probably something the NR is more in fear of than the outcome, you are right.

To the contrary, I think discovery will be a gold mine for NR. Cannot wait to see what happens here. I remember when they put the false movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" on trial in the UK...found it was mostly political in nature rather than science. I will be glad when groups other than the winking and nudging global warming- now climate change crowd has to prove the stuff other than the garbage in garbage out crap they are constantly dishing out to all the rest of us.

Bring it on.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

To the contrary, I think discovery will be a gold mine for NR. Cannot wait to see what happens here. I remember when they put the false movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" on trial in the UK...found it was mostly political in nature rather than science. I will be glad when groups other than the winking and nudging global warming- now climate change crowd has to prove the stuff other than the garbage in garbage out crap they are constantly dishing out to all the rest of us.
Bring it on.

I have my doubts that the court will hear arguments on the science itself.

The court ruling referenced in the OP refers to the " Plaintiff’s work having been investigated several times and found to be proper. ...EPA and other investigative bodies’ conclusion that Plaintiff’s work is accurate (or that there is no evidence of data manipulation)​

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mann-Order-CEI-1.pdf

This also seems worth note on this count:

Plaintiff has been investigated several times and his work has been found to be accurate. In fact, some of these investigations have been due to the accusations made by the CEI Defendants. It follows that if anyone should be aware of the accuracy (or findings that the work of Plaintiff is sound), it would be the CEI Defendants. Thus, it is fair to say that the CEI Defendants continue to criticize Plaintiff due to a reckless disregard for truth.​

 

[Threegoofs]

To the contrary, I think discovery will be a gold mine for NR. Cannot wait to see what happens here. I remember when they put the false movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" on trial in the UK...found it was mostly political in nature rather than science. I will be glad when groups other than the winking and nudging global warming- now climate change crowd has to prove the stuff other than the garbage in garbage out crap they are constantly dishing out to all the rest of us.

Bring it on.

Right. That was a movie, not a scientific paper. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the difference.

Mann has been investigated (and found to be totally guiltless) by a half dozen bodies after the climategate joke, and all 'discovery' in science is pretty much out there already.

The NR clearly had a mission to denigrate climate scientists. And it will be crystal clear in their internal discussions.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I have my doubts that the court will hear arguments on the science itself.

The court ruling referenced in the OP refers to the " Plaintiff’s work having been investigated several times and found to be proper. ...EPA and other investigative bodies’ conclusion that Plaintiff’s work is accurate (or that there is no evidence of data manipulation)​

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mann-Order-CEI-1.pdf

This also seems worth note on this count:

Plaintiff has been investigated several times and his work has been found to be accurate. In fact, some of these investigations have been due to the accusations made by the CEI Defendants. It follows that if anyone should be aware of the accuracy (or findings that the work of Plaintiff is sound), it would be the CEI Defendants. Thus, it is fair to say that the CEI Defendants continue to criticize Plaintiff due to a reckless disregard for truth.​

If the court only entertains investigations from those agreeing with the Plaintiff, which is probably the case, then it would be a subversion of justice. I suspect that CEI/NR will demand investigation from less biased sources... I know the University that Mann worked for gave him what appeared to be a quick and superfluous investigation. I also know I do not trust the EPA to be unbiased if they were involved and the National Science Foundation, which was involved, funds university studies and has a director who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, both under control of the opposing party...so lots of room for doubt...

Climate Scientist Michael Mann Sues The National Review And Competitive Enterprise Institute For Defamation | ThinkProgress


With the Climategate scandal a few years back there is plenty of material to investigate for manipulation of data, many of the emails were to or from Mann... so all this will be interesting if done properly.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Right. That was a movie, not a scientific paper. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the difference.

Mann has been investigated (and found to be totally guiltless) by a half dozen bodies after the climategate joke, and all 'discovery' in science is pretty much out there already.

The NR clearly had a mission to denigrate climate scientists. And it will be crystal clear in their internal discussions.

Okay, I see where the moniker for at least one of the three goofs comes from, Mr. Snarky... much of the scare tactic movie's most startling data came from the sky-is-falling climatologists, one of whom was Mann... I reviewed the data at the time and almost all of it was false and/or manipulated...

And which institutions investigated Mann... if they all agree with him of course they will find with him... would they not??? That is surely pertinent. Climate-gate was not a joke, only to those of you on that side who want to ignore the fact that the people in control of what information gets out through the peer review process did not want opposing views...that is not just not science Mr. Snarky, science is not by consensus manipulated by the elites ... these climatologists keep putting up these scares and then cannot prove the science... they have not got all the data by which to make such extravagant claims... just enough to continue their funding.

I am sure many of the facts will, indeed, come out, even more than in Climate-gate where they knew they did not have the proper data and were keeping others from finding that out. So quit your hyperventilating, aren't you afraid of your CO2 levels being driven up too high, ha ha ha ha ha ha...what a joke.

 

[Hard Truth]

If the court only entertains investigations from those agreeing with the Plaintiff, which is probably the case, then it would be a subversion of justice. I suspect that CEI/NR will demand investigation from less biased sources....

A new investigation would not clear the defendants, no matter the results. The defendants will have to show that they obtained reasonably reliable information to back up their claims criticizing the plaintiff before printing any allegations.

Truth is the best defense in a libel/slander case, but it has to be truth available at the time of the alleged slander.

 

[Threegoofs]

"I reviewed the data at the time"

LOL.

For which blog?

I'm sure it was a very objective review...

 

[Simon W. Moon]

if they all agree with him of course they will find with him... would they not???

The competition is so fierce because the stakes are so low.
They're like gunslingers. Taking someone else down a peg in the peer journals is a pastime in and of itself.
Agreeing in general is in no way protection against someone taking you to task for flaws in your methodology or methods.
So, to answer the question, they would not.

 

[Manc Skipper]

To the contrary, I think discovery will be a gold mine for NR. Cannot wait to see what happens here. I remember when they put the false movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" on trial in the UK...found it was mostly political in nature rather than science. I will be glad when groups other than the winking and nudging global warming- now climate change crowd has to prove the stuff other than the garbage in garbage out crap they are constantly dishing out to all the rest of us.

Bring it on.

Your memory is deeply flawed.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

A new investigation would not clear the defendants, no matter the results. The defendants will have to show that they obtained reasonably reliable information to back up their claims criticizing the plaintiff before printing any allegations.

Truth is the best defense in a libel/slander case, but it has to be truth available at the time of the alleged slander.

Just the available evidence suggests that climate science is in much a rudimentary stage with regards to being able, with any scientific accuracy, to predict what the coming age will harbor regarding climate. Sure it may change somewhat, but which way is impossible to tell. From what we know of the past it is far more likely the possibility of being at the edge of a climate mountaintop warming cliff... ready to jump onto the icicles. That is the far scarier of the two scenarios and the one for which we should be planning. Warming periods bring growth, renaissances, and is on average more good than bad...ice ages on the opposite end...

So, it is most assuredly murky enough, there were/are all sorts of queries out there as to where the data points are on the warming were actually coming from, ones whose data is registered but the gathering station seems to have vanished or was/is not extant, etc...that seems to have been directly related to Mann's citations and usage if I remember correctly, as well as to questions of what he knew and what he should have known....then you have the CERN Cloud studies bringing additionally applicable ambiguity to the science, showing there were things we had, until that study, not even known that we did not know... so when someone like Mann pontificates as if he actually knows, well, certainly appropriate if not actually an obligation of those who sincerely think him to be bogus, as do I, to say so publicly. I mean, if his work were not so blatantly regarded, almost without real question, to be true by the true adherents who project themselves as the evenhanded popes of science in all their imperial canonical infallibilities...

So I am pretty confident they were well within the necessary parameters.

Capiche?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

The competition is so fierce because the stakes are so low.
They're like gunslingers. Taking someone else down a peg in the peer journals is a pastime in and of itself.
Agreeing in general is in no way protection against someone taking you to task for flaws in your methodology or methods.
So, to answer the question, they would not.

Even the now old Climategate emails prove that premise archaic at best... scientists are human and know upon which side their bread is buttered. Besides, those that would deny [ ask the current deniers and those who have become deniers ] they have to get their findings through the peer reviewed process which is what was being controlled and what was so sinister about what we found out in those emails... so lets be a bit less utopian in our dreams of science please....

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Your memory is deeply flawed.

Yeah, would really like to believe you, but I believe you about as much as I believe Mann... why don't you prove me wrong, that is what debate is about, is it not? Not just flatly stating someone else is wrong...I mean, what might be a good word to describe that attempt... lethargic perhaps?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Even the now old Climategate emails prove that premise archaic at best... scientists are human and know upon which side their bread is buttered. Besides, those that would deny [ ask the current deniers and those who have become deniers ] they have to get their findings through the peer reviewed process which is what was being controlled and what was so sinister about what we found out in those emails... so lets be a bit less utopian in our dreams of science please....

First hand experience, not a dream. I worked on the staff of a peer reviewed journal for a bit. I saw virtually all of the correspondence between submitters, reviewers, and editors.

fwiw, I would hardly call bitter, petty rivalries utopia.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

"I reviewed the data at the time"

LOL.

For which blog?

I'm sure it was a very objective review...

I reviewed the material for myself... is that not what sentient beings should be doing, goof? And being human we all have a perspective, we all come to the table with different experiences, EVERYONE, including those who call themselves scientists...I am just not being paid nor seeking more grant funding from agencies who already have been suckered into believing what we cannot know...I think that is the more ethical way to conduct myself.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

First hand experience, not a dream. I worked on the staff of a peer reviewed journal for a bit. I saw virtually all of the correspondence between submitters, reviewers, and editors.

fwiw, I would hardly call bitter, petty rivalries utopia.

Who had final say regarding what is printed and what is not? You?

There is no settled science on this, maybe consensus but no settled science. We are far from that and if you are intellectually honest you will concede the point.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Yeah, would really like to believe you, but I believe you about as much as I believe Mann... why don't you prove me wrong, that is what debate is about, is it not? Not just flatly stating someone else is wrong...I mean, what might be a good word to describe that attempt... lethargic perhaps?

The Judge relased it for issue to schools with nine "corrections" such as "The claim that the loss of snow from Kilimanjaro is entirely due to AGW has not been proven." Not quite the complete rejection/condemnation you suggested. In any case, you/we are off topic, it has nothing to do with the confirmed accuracy of Mann's work.

 

[austrianecon]

I know the University that Mann worked for gave him what appeared to be a quick and superfluous investigation. I also know I do not trust the EPA to be unbiased if they were involved and the National Science Foundation, which was involved, funds university studies and has a director who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, both under control of the opposing party...so lots of room for doubt...

He works for Penn State. They have a habit of quick and superfluous investigations in which one's guilt or innocents is based upon money outcome. :lol:

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

The Judge relased it for issue to schools with nine "corrections" such as "The claim that the loss of snow from Kilimanjaro is entirely due to AGW has not been proven." Not quite the complete rejection/condemnation you suggested. In any case, you/we are off topic, it has nothing to do with the confirmed accuracy of Mann's work.

Here is an article from Time, not a right wing organization, on the British Court....look down to the second paragraph and you will see that my memory rather than being flawed is vindicated.... while based on research and opinion, Gore's faulty scare movie has far more than the nine imperfections you duly noted...and it is mainly political.

British Court: Gore Film 'Political' - TIME

Don't strain yourself though...