- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,586
- Reaction score
- 28,952
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
I have my doubts that the court will hear arguments on the science itself.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.
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.
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.
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....
The competition is so fierce because the stakes are so low.if they all agree with him of course they will find with him... would they not???
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.
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.
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.
Your memory is deeply flawed.
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.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....
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."I reviewed the data at the time"
LOL.
For which blog?
I'm sure it was a very objective review...
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.
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?
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...
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?