Climate Scientist Michael Mann sues NR

[donsutherland1]

For those who are interested, the judge's rulings can be found at:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mann_v_Natl_Review_Order_7-19-13.pdf

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mann_Order_CEI_7-19-13.pdf

 

[Simon W. Moon]

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

The editor iirc. I was not the editor. I was closer to the equivalent of the mailroom guy. Except most things (but not all) even way back when, were done via e-mail. Most of the correspondence came through me at some point.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

The editor iirc. I was not the editor. I was closer to the equivalent of the mailroom guy. Except most things (but not all) even way back when, were done via e-mail. Most of the correspondence came through me at some point.

So if you were working for a journal that tended towards believing global warming/climate change was obviously real, maybe the editor might nix the research as it would obviously be incorrect, in their opinion... as well as in consensus. I think that happens a lot... as the deniers of GW have science and logic as well... I know cause I argue it... so where are the peer reviewed journals allowing their material in?

As stated earlier, and this you failed to respond to, but there is no settled science on this question... so its just a crap shoot and the GW pushers are shooting a lot of crap that they have no real way of knowing.

 

[Manc Skipper]

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...

Could do better.

The main thrust of the argument in the film is that climate change is influenced by man made emissions of greenhouse gases, and that serious consequences can ensue from that. The weight of scientific evidence supports that view. Nothing in the judgement detracts from that central message.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

From this judgement: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mann_v_Natl_Review_Order_7-19-13.pdf

"...Defendants argue that issue of science are opinion..."

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So if you were working for a journal that tended towards believing global warming/climate change was obviously real, maybe the editor might nix the research as it would obviously be incorrect, in their opinion... as well as in consensus.

Maybe the editor might want to be the guy who gets his journal noticed by publishing controversial work.
The editor and the reviewers didn't make the judgments about whether or not the research was "right". They tended to be concerned about whether the methods used were valid for what was done.

I think that happens a lot...

It's your right to believe w/e you like. Have you any data to back that up? Or is it a conclusion based on "common sense"?

so where are the peer reviewed journals allowing their material in?

If you had reviewed the literature, it seems you would have seen it.
Iirc, it's not absolutely 100% of articles that support AGW. So there must be some. I am not familiar with those sorts of journals as you are. I have never "reviewed the data at the time."
That question about where are the peer reviewed articles which do not support AWG should really be reserved for someone like yourself who is more familiar with the climatology literature than me.
"so where are the peer reviewed journals allowing their material in?"

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Could do better.

The main thrust of the argument in the film is that climate change is influenced by man made emissions of greenhouse gases, and that serious consequences can ensue from that. The weight of scientific evidence supports that view. Nothing in the judgement detracts from that central message.

There is no weight of scientific evidence, there is speculation and creation of computer models none of which has been proven even close to being correct... most of the scientific evidence is on the side of the deniers, that this is a solar and naturally occurring event that happens every 1500 years nearly like clockwork... GW pushers basically know nothing as it is absolutely unprovable and by the time it doesn't occur they will long since have left the scene after wining and dining off tax payer dollars and pushing us towards unsustainable economies without energy production...they want to drive us back to the middle ages for some reason.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

from the same judgment:

NR says that they have never accused Mann of fraud--news to some of their readers no doubt

 

[Simon W. Moon]

...most of the scientific evidence is on the side of the deniers...

And the scientific community are all in on the conspiracy?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

...Defendants argue that the accusation that the Plaintiff's work is fraudulent may not necessarily be taken as based in fact...

again news to NR readers I am sure.

Seems that NR is doing some back pedaling on this one

 

[Simon W. Moon]

...Defendants argue that their statements are rhetorical hyperbole, which are not actionable assertions of fact...
...Defendants contend that any reasonable reader would interpret their statements as rhetorical hyperbole...​

and to counter that, Mann points to comments by NR readers.
NR may be tempted to counter that it's readers are not reasonable. rofl


NR is having to disavow what they have printed to defend themselves

 

[Simon W. Moon]

my sides hurt. that's some funny ****.

NR's defense is akin to
"Yeah, we said he was a fraud. But we didn't mean that he was fraud fraud--just a fraud. Besides, we didn't base our accusation on facts. Everyone knows that. No one takes us seriously."

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Maybe the editor might want to be the guy who gets his journal noticed by publishing controversial work.
The editor and the reviewers didn't make the judgments about whether or not the research was "right". They tended to be concerned about whether the methods used were valid for what was done.

"Maybe" and "might" do not seem to be occurring much, huh? Not many brave souls among these types it seems. So, just based on that, we see that almost all the published papers are, ostensibly, supporting the GW pushers... so can you tell me the science that proves GW is occurring? I mean if there is such a consensus, let me hear the incontrovertible evidence.

I wont hold my breath. Global warming, the planet heating up, seemingly started occurring prior to the Industrial Revolution being able to create the effects....we had a cooling in the 50s to the 70s when Industrialization was going full blast...how do you account for that? We have naturally occurring solar events that warm the planet right about every 1500 years, C O 2 is a lagging indicator.... CERN research on clouds has given pause to our hypotheses on climate and just how the process all really occurs... blah blah blah...

It's your right to believe w/e you like. Have you any data to back that up? Or is it a conclusion based on "common sense"?

It is my right to believe, and it is my right to deny the crap that folks with a green agenda are trying to force upon us. You have a right to believe as you want, no matter how crazy.

If you had reviewed the literature, it seems you would have seen it.

I have a job elsewhere that takes a lot of time and energy, I have not time to review all the literature...I make efforts to review and contemplate what i can get to... so that criticism falls flat if you cannot similarly justify why you do not know.

Iirc, it's not absolutely 100% of articles that support AGW. So there must be some. I am not familiar with those sorts of journals as you are. I have never "reviewed the data at the time."
That question about where are the peer reviewed articles which do not support AWG should really be reserved for someone like yourself who is more familiar with the climatology literature than me.
"so where are the peer reviewed journals allowing their material in?"

It seems its like 97% even though when you scrutinize those more closely they are for the most part not imparting a decision on climate change... at least from what I have read... the gate keepers do not want the anti GW viewpoint to gain purchase, so they limit that viewpoint severely.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

"Maybe" and "might" do not seem to be occurring much, huh? Not many brave souls among these types it seems.

Imho, we would have to have some idea of how many are being submitted wouldn't we?
What if only three a year are submitted and all three are published? That would result in both a paucity of such articles appearing and a 100% publish rate.
Imho, I cannot reach the conclusion you do w/o more data.

So, just based on that, we see that almost all the published papers are, ostensibly, supporting the GW pushers... so can you tell me the science that proves GW is occurring? I mean if there is such a consensus, let me hear the incontrovertible evidence.

If you reviewed the literature and did not see it, how is some schlep on teh inarwebz like me supposed to better?

the gate keepers do not want the anti GW viewpoint to gain purchase, so they limit that viewpoint severely.

You have brought up your faith in that idea more than once. Do you have any data which demonstrate that?
Or is it a conclusion you reached via some other method?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

And the scientific community are all in on the conspiracy?

I think for the most part they are lazy, have their own areas of expertise, are followers and there is a green political agenda that many are lured into believing early on at university... I have spoken with professors who promote the scare and yet are hypocrites, jump on the bandwagon of blaming Bush for, say, quashing Kyoto... so just trying to score points with other liberals, doing nothing but encouraging the fear, yet making no adjustments to their own lives except for exhorting others to change their lifestyles, promoting government mandated changes....and as stated before, I have no doubt that you do what you have to do to get further funding for whatever your pet project is....why they do it I have no real idea as it seems rather obvious to me that they cannot know, their computer models still cannot predict one year in advance much less the next 50 to 100.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

You have brought up your faith in that idea more than once. Do you have any data which demonstrate that?
Or is it a conclusion you reached via some other method?

food for thought...

Top Stories - Scientists Denying Human-Caused Climate Change Fade from Existence

Peer review falls for recycled manuscripts | Watts Up With That?

Peer-to-Peer Review: How 'Climategate' Marks the Maturing of a New Science Movement, Part I


Climategate: Why it matters

Some decent articles that seem to express my own point of view determined from following this topic over the years...

You seem fairly even handed, would appreciate your opinion after reading them...

 

[MoSurveyor]

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.

Just like you read ALL the Climategate and other e-mails before you came to a conclusion, instead of just the released and out-of-context quotes that were taken from them? :lol: How many weeks did that take?

 

[donsutherland1]

Early on, National Review editor Rich Lowry predicted of Michael Mann's lawsuit:

He’s going to go to great trouble and expense to embark on a losing cause that will expose more of his methods and maneuverings to the world. In short, he risks making an ass of himself. But that hasn’t stopped him before.

Get Lost | National Review Online

With the court concluding that there are grounds to proceed--the final verdict is by no means assured--it's clear that Mann did not 'make an ass of himself.' Moreover, what exactly did Lowry mean by Mann's "methods and maneuverings" being 'exposed to the world.' Certainly, that implies at the time that Lowry and National Review likely viewed Mann's work as both sinister and hidden from the public. Of course, that was before National Review's legal team tried to create a new definition of what Steyn had meant by "fraudulent."

Bottom line: Writers should act with a degree of responsibility when crafting their arguments. One can disagree with others' ideas without vilifying them, making claims about their work that don't stand up to scrutiny, or making offensive analogies.

Perhaps the best outcome might be a victory for Mann after which CEI and National Review are ordered to publish a full headline retraction (CEI on its homepage and National Review in its publication), make an unconditional apology to Mann, unequivocally acknowledge that Mann's "hockey stick" is not "fraudulent," reveal that Mann was not found to have engaged in any unethical practices based on the findings of the EPA and Penn State investigations, and disavow the tasteless analogy with Jerry Sandusky.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Just like you read ALL the Climategate and other e-mails before you came to a conclusion, instead of just the released and out-of-context quotes that were taken from them? :lol: How many weeks did that take?

I have not read every single bit of information and books on World War II either, not every single telegram and official letter that Hitler wrote, or Eisenhower, or FDR, or Churchill or MacArthur or...blah blah blah...but I have read enough to get a pretty good sense of the thing...so what is your point surveyor...or is this just a nonsensical survey? What have YOU read? What do YOU know? And if you think it is more than me, challenge me... that is what debate is about, right? Not just this facile dribble that only indicates that you really have little to say but think it means something.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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

There lies the problem.

The legal issues will be decided by the text of the law. Not what is right and wrong. Not good to mix science with politics, or judicial issues. Law doesn't make science correct or incorrect.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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

So do you also agree people like Zimmerman have a claim against the media?

 

[MoSurveyor]

I have not read every single bit of information and books on World War II either, not every single telegram and official letter that Hitler wrote, or Eisenhower, or FDR, or Churchill or MacArthur or...blah blah blah...but I have read enough to get a pretty good sense of the thing...so what is your point surveyor...or is this just a nonsensical survey? What have YOU read? What do YOU know? And if you think it is more than me, challenge me... that is what debate is about, right? Not just this facile dribble that only indicates that you really have little to say but think it means something.

I'll take that as "No, I haven't read all the e-mails so my opinions are based on limited, spoon-fed facts."

I did read a couple of the reports from groups that did read all the e-mails and they didn't find any problems of conduct.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Early on, National Review editor Rich Lowry predicted of Michael Mann's lawsuit:

He’s going to go to great trouble and expense to embark on a losing cause that will expose more of his methods and maneuverings to the world. In short, he risks making an ass of himself. But that hasn’t stopped him before.

Get Lost | National Review Online

With the court concluding that there are grounds to proceed--the final verdict is by no means assured--it's clear that Mann did not 'make an ass of himself.' Moreover, what exactly did Lowry mean by Mann's "methods and maneuverings" being 'exposed to the world.' Certainly, that implies at the time that Lowry and National Review likely viewed Mann's work as both sinister and hidden from the public. Of course, that was before National Review's legal team tried to create a new definition of what Steyn had meant by "fraudulent."

Bottom line: Writers should act with a degree of responsibility when crafting their arguments. One can disagree with others' ideas without vilifying them, making claims about their work that don't stand up to scrutiny, or making offensive analogies.

Perhaps the best outcome might be a victory for Mann after which CEI and National Review are ordered to publish a full headline retraction (CEI on its homepage and National Review in its publication), make an unconditional apology to Mann, unequivocally acknowledge that Mann's "hockey stick" is not "fraudulent," reveal that Mann was not found to have engaged in any unethical practices based on the findings of the EPA and Penn State investigations, and disavow the tasteless analogy with Jerry Sandusky.

Hey hey hey hold on to your horses now, putting the cart before your horse, aren't you? Counting your chickens way way way before they are hatched there don...has it dawned on you that the best outcome is for a victory for NR/Styn/CEI in pursuing the truth on this Global Warming now Climate Change silliness? This is far from over and the court has only seemingly found in Mann's favor because the agencies and investigative bodies, at least the ones mentioned, all favor his establishment point of view. There is a lot of valid skepticism out there on climate, you cannot just take one side and their investigations which would give a pass [ and have in the case of Penn State ] on his research, methods and the peer review control process. I agree with Lowry, let the free debate actually begin... its like Gore spewing all the trash he did, getting all the awards, accolades and prizes and yet he would never ever debate anyone on the merits...why was that? Perhaps because there was plenty to debate and it was not as open and shut as he made it out to be in his conveniently Inconvenient Truth that was far from the truth?

We will find out... discovery will be fun and educational... I will be interested to see just what Mann knew and when he knew it...I personally would love to see the Marxist green agenda get hit hard like it needs to be...I have read for years this constant refusal to debate, to acknowledge the merits of the other side's arguments, the refusal to admit there is actual credible dissent in the ranks by Global Alarmists and the IPCC.

The other Bottom line: scientists should act with a degree of openness and regard to the actual scientific process as part of their responsibility when crafting their arguments, findings and research. One can disagree with others' ideas without vilifying them, without summarily excluding them, making claims about their work that don't stand up to scrutiny.

Maybe it is by no means clear yet that Mann did make an ass of himself, but should be proven in the final outcome....and we will see if the hockey stick stands up to scrutiny. The EPA nor Penn State are credible at this point, so we will need more unbiased investigative bodies to do the actual legwork...I mean, would you similarly agree to allow NR and CEI to be investigating themselves? I rather doubt it.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I'll take that as "No, I haven't read all the e-mails so my opinions are based on limited, spoon-fed facts."

I did read a couple of the reports from groups that did read all the e-mails and they didn't find any problems of conduct.

Oh, but you didn't read all them yourself? Well, I will take that as a no you didn't and therefore you cannot, by your own terms, be credible, you are relying on someone else to spoon feed you their version of the facts, right?

Suggest you go find someone else to annoy... your contribution to the argument has thus far brought not one scintilla of substance, which as I said before, if you want to debate, think you know more than me, prove it through debate, don't tell me you read something by someone else that you suppose may know something...do not waste my time like that.

 

[Threegoofs]

So do you also agree people like Zimmerman have a claim against the media?

You mean Bob Dylan?

No, I think it's a bit different when your work and livelihood is slandered.