Climate Scientist Michael Mann sues NR

[Lord of Planar]

You mean Bob Dylan?

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

So why is it OK to do so with those you call deniers?

Hypocrite...

 

[MoSurveyor]

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.

When the source of this "spoon feeding" is a credible source - like the UK government - I have no problem accepting it. Or are you one of those Conspiracy Theorists who thinks not only most of the scientific community but most of the Western World's governments are scamming us?

 

[Threegoofs]

Apparently, gauging is unaware that Penn State didn't investigate Mann. But then, facts seem kinda secondary to his position anyway....

It was U of Virginia and also the State of Virginia under intense political pressure from the Cooch.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

When the source of this "spoon feeding" is a credible source - like the UK government - I have no problem accepting it. Or are you one of those Conspiracy Theorists who thinks not only most of the scientific community but most of the Western World's governments are scamming us?

Well, though seemingly unrelated, it will be telling, did you believe the UK and US governments when they said Saddam was developing WMDs? Were the correct in their assessments, btw? You mean that kind of trust in the government always being knowledgeable, correct and truthful...? Or should we only believe what they say with regards to climate science...besides which you have produced no source or link from which I can determine what exactly it is you are saying...just that you read someplace that the UK government seemingly says, blah blah blah

 

[Occam's Razor]

When the source of this "spoon feeding" is a credible source - like the UK government - I have no problem accepting it. Or are you one of those Conspiracy Theorists who thinks not only most of the scientific community but most of the Western World's governments are scamming us?

You can't be serious. IF a decidedly untrained group of laymen was well informed and capable of understanding the science, what makes you think these gov'ts, and these current admins are driven any less by power, money, favors, biases, etc. The practice of science is to remove bias and make objective observations, test them and so on.

There has never been a point in history when I would trust gov't over science. Your first responsibility as a patriot is to be vigilant and skeptical of your gov't and it's motives regardless of what party is in power.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Apparently, gauging is unaware that Penn State didn't investigate Mann. But then, facts seem kinda secondary to his position anyway....

It was U of Virginia and also the State of Virginia under intense political pressure from the Cooch.

Gosh, it is one of life's little delights catching someone trying to look so smart which in turn makes them look so....uninformed and clueless and silly all at the same time.... read 'em and weep, goof.


Investigation of climate scientist at Penn State complete — Penn State University

Penn State Probe into Mann's Wrongdoing a 'Total Whitewash' | Fox News

Penn State's Handling of Mann Investigation Fails to Satisfy Students, Community Members -- STATE COLLEGE, Pa., Feb. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

Three sources are generally adequate I should suppose.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Well, though seemingly unrelated, it will be telling, did you believe the UK and US governments when they said Saddam was developing WMDs? Were the correct in their assessments, btw? You mean that kind of trust in the government always being knowledgeable, correct and truthful...? Or should we only believe what they say with regards to climate science...besides which you have produced no source or link from which I can determine what exactly it is you are saying...just that you read someplace that the UK government seemingly says, blah blah blah

Take your pick ...

The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review:
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

Government Response to the House of Commons:
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf



As for your reference to foreign intelligence and it's accuracy, it's a looooong stretch from foreign intelligence about a hostile country's actions and investigating a university in your own country. But I'll take that as a sign that you agree with the Conspiracy Theory crazies.

 

[MoSurveyor]

You can't be serious. IF a decidedly untrained group of laymen was well informed and capable of understanding the science, what makes you think these gov'ts, and these current admins are driven any less by power, money, favors, biases, etc. The practice of science is to remove bias and make objective observations, test them and so on.

There has never been a point in history when I would trust gov't over science. Your first responsibility as a patriot is to be vigilant and skeptical of your gov't and it's motives regardless of what party is in power.

Skeptical? Yes. Conspiracy Theories? No.


But I'll take whatever source you think is credible on this subject as long as they also had access to the all e-mails instead of just the BS released as an obvious political move. You can't believe the release of Climategate Part II and the start of a huge, international climate conference was just accidental, do you? --- especially when the e-mails were from the same batch as the original release? What other reason would they have to wait except politics?

 

[Occam's Razor]

Skeptical? Yes. Conspiracy Theories? No.


But I'll take whatever source you think is credible on this subject as long as they also had access to the all e-mails instead of just the BS released as an obvious political move. You can't believe the release of Climategate Part II and the start of a huge, international climate conference was just accidental, do you? --- especially when the e-mails were from the same batch as the original release? What other reason would they have to wait except politics?

ROFLMAO... gov't corruption is ALWAYS conspiratorial... it has to be, and is by nature. Several individuals acting in concert to achieve a goal contrary to the law or the benefit of the people. So, you'll be skeptical of gov't, you just won't consider the most likely and historically constant of all gov't misuse, abuse and tyranny? Holy CRRAP!

That is empty patriotism... and profoundly ignorant.

The climate conference did not represent the whole of the global climate science community. Neither did the group whose e-mails were released. Yet a study of published, peer reviewed research has shown that 97% of climate scientists, in every country on the globe are in agreement.. most of which have very little if any connection to the climate conference or the UN climate research.

So instead you imagine this unbelievably vast, global super conspiracy theory... quite extraordinary.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

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.

Imho, that's not a problem.
Personally, I think it's more appropriate to have scientists make determinations about matters of science and have courts make determinations about law.
It'd be surreal and siturbing to have the courts make determinations about science.
ymmv

 

[MoSurveyor]

ROFLMAO... gov't corruption is ALWAYS conspiratorial... it has to be, and is by nature. Several individuals acting in concert to achieve a goal contrary to the law or the benefit of the people. So, you'll be skeptical of gov't, you just won't consider the most likely and historically constant of all gov't misuse, abuse and tyranny? Holy CRRAP!

That is empty patriotism... and profoundly ignorant.

The climate conference did not represent the whole of the global climate science community. Neither did the group whose e-mails were released. Yet a study of published, peer reviewed research has shown that 97% of climate scientists, in every country on the globe are in agreement.. most of which have very little if any connection to the climate conference or the UN climate research.

So instead you imagine this unbelievably vast, global super conspiracy theory... quite extraordinary.

Yet you didn't bother to list what you would call an unbiased source on the e-mails. Why is that?


97% of those that voiced an opinion one way or the other in their scientific publication, yes. Many had no reason to voice an opinion since their research wasn't directly linked to the causes of global warming.


Are we crossing meanings here about climate science? I don't believe in the global conspiracy theory, quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

food for thought...
Top Stories - Scientists Denying Human-Caused Climate Change Fade from Existence

Not sure if this one says what you think it says. This says that there is a dearth of peer reviewed papers published which dispute AGW because there's a dearth of scientists who dispute AGW.
Imho, that seems to work against you argument that there is some significant number of "anti-AGW" papers which are being kept our of journals.

As I mentioned before, the data you are looking for are, the submission/acceptance ratio for "pro-AGW" and "anti-AGW" papers. If the quality of the work is roughly equal, then the acceptance rates should be roughly equal. If the quality of work is roughly equal, but the submission/acceptance ratio is skewed such that "anti-AGW" papers have a much worse ratio, it would be strong evidence that there was some sort of non-scientific influence keeping these papers out of publication--which, if I understand you correctly, is the case you're making when you reference "gate-keepers."

But this article instead makes the case that the views of the climatology community are being accurately expressed in the journals. Afaict, that's pretty much the opposite of the case you're trying to make.

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

I would say that this article supports the idea that your assertion that the "gate-keepers" are preventing some significant number of "anti-AGW" papers from being published is not impossible.

Yet to get from "possible" to actual, we still have some hurdles to clear.

A prominent one is the actual data on the submission/acceptance ratios mentioned above. Just because it can be demonstrated that reviewers have biases, (sometimes personal petty ones as I noted and you discounted up thread), we still need to show that the bias claimed actually exists.
This article's findings could have resulted from a bias against newbies.

We still need to show that there is some non-scientific bias which is keeping "anti-AGW" papers from being published. Showing that reviewers can have biases, possibly against letting first time authors get off easy, isn't the same as showing that reviewers have a specific bias.

Fwiw, sometimes when a paper is rejected, the objections are forwarded to the author who has a chance to rebut or correct the paper and re-submit.

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

Isn't this pretty much a re-hashing of the objections and accusations which National Review now claims are not based on actual facts?

Climategate: Why it matters

How many reviews have been done of the Climate-gate stuff? The court documents posted make a good case for that after multiple scientific reviews of the Climate-gate stuff that there is not really a there there.

 

[windowdressing]

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.

Can you remind me why the vast majority of scientists agree on global warmning?

 

[Occam's Razor]

Yet you didn't bother to list what you would call an unbiased source on the e-mails. Why is that?


97% of those that voiced an opinion one way or the other in their scientific publication, yes. Many had no reason to voice an opinion since their research wasn't directly linked to the causes of global warming.


Are we crossing meanings here about climate science? I don't believe in the global conspiracy theory, quite the opposite in fact.

This study was conducted by surveying published papers via their abstracts. If it wasn't a directly relevant study, it wouldn't have been included in the study.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

...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?

Since NR/Styn/CEI itself has says that their own claims claim are "not based on facts" and that their claims are merely "hyperbolic rhetoric" which no "reasonable reader" would take as being based on facts, I am not sure how the court case could possibly lead in that direction.

They characterized their own articles as hyperbolic rhetoric which is not based on facts and which no reasonable reader would take as anything but hyperbolic rhetoric.

For the life of me, since NR/Styn/CEI is making that claim and Mann is claiming that their articles are factually false, how ever could this case turn into a victory for "NR/Styn/CEI in pursuing the truth on this Global Warming now Climate Change silliness?"

 

[MoSurveyor]

This study was conducted by surveying published papers via their abstracts. If it wasn't a directly relevant study, it wouldn't have been included in the study.

I know the exact study you're talking about. It concerned any published (and I believe peer reviewed) paper on climate science. But that doesn't mean the scientist's research that was related to climate studies was investigating the causes of global warming. As I used as an example in that thread, a scientist testing various means of mounting thermal sensors classifies as climate science but would probably not mention the causes of global warming since that would be outside the scope of the research he was conducting.

Unlike the Deniers, I had no problem with the majority of papers not mentioning the causes. It still doesn't change the 97% who did mention it that agree with AGW.

 

[code1211]

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.​

The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick

<snip>
McIntyre and McKitrick then took their critical analysis a step further. When you apply a statistical manipulation to a set of data it is important to make sure that what you doing is not actually distorting the data so much that you are really just creating something new, spurious and false in the numbers. One way to do this is to take the statistical manipulation in question and apply it to several examples of random numbers (sometimes this is called a Red Noise test). To simplify, you use random numbers as input data, then apply the statistical technique you are testing to the random numbers then if the techniques are sound you should get a set of random numbers coming out the other end of the calculations. There should be no false shape imparted to the random noise by the statistical techniques themselves, if what you get out is random numbers then this would prove that the techniques you were testing were not adding anything artificial to the numbers. This is what McIntyre and McKitrick did using the techniques that Mann had used in the Hockey Stick paper. And the results were staggering.

What they found was that 99% of the time you could process random data using Mann’s techniques and it would generate a Hockey Stick shape. This meant that Mann’s claim that the Hockey Stick graph represented an accurate reconstruction of the past climate was in tatters.
<snip>

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick
<snip>
McIntyre and McKitrick then took their critical analysis a step further. When you apply a statistical manipulation to a set of data it is important to make sure that what you doing is not actually distorting the data so much that you are really just creating something new, spurious and false in the numbers. One way to do this is to take the statistical manipulation in question and apply it to several examples of random numbers (sometimes this is called a Red Noise test). To simplify, you use random numbers as input data, then apply the statistical technique you are testing to the random numbers then if the techniques are sound you should get a set of random numbers coming out the other end of the calculations. There should be no false shape imparted to the random noise by the statistical techniques themselves, if what you get out is random numbers then this would prove that the techniques you were testing were not adding anything artificial to the numbers. This is what McIntyre and McKitrick did using the techniques that Mann had used in the Hockey Stick paper. And the results were staggering.
What they found was that 99% of the time you could process random data using Mann’s techniques and it would generate a Hockey Stick shape. This meant that Mann’s claim that the Hockey Stick graph represented an accurate reconstruction of the past climate was in tatters.
<snip>

Truth is a sure defense against libel.

You should write to the CEI attorneys and tell them about this. Then they wouldn't have to say that what their clients were saying is obviously such total hogwash that no reasonable person would believe it was based in fact.
The CEI attorneys could instead say, "Our clients were correct, Mann is indeed a fraud."

Unless the National Science Foundation, or one of the other groups which analyzed Mann's work, have already debunked this. In which case, the attorneys may be forced to stick with disparaging their own clients' claims.

 

[Somerville]

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 not so good and probably greatly influenced by certain denier websites. You are wrong about the findings in the British case. A judge found that there were "nine scientific errors" in the film BUT

Despite his finding of significant errors, Mr Justice Barton said many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported "by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]."

The Legal Case

The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue.

The case, heard in the civil court, was brought by a school governor against the Secretary of State for Education, in an attempt to prevent the film being distributed to schools. Mr. Justice Burton, in his judgement, ordered that teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues.

Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used – nine points formed the entirety of his judgement - indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I know the exact study you're talking about. It concerned any published (and I believe peer reviewed) paper on climate science. But that doesn't mean the scientist's research that was related to climate studies was investigating the causes of global warming. As I used as an example in that thread, a scientist testing various means of mounting thermal sensors classifies as climate science but would probably not mention the causes of global warming since that would be outside the scope of the research he was conducting.

Unlike the Deniers, I had no problem with the majority of papers not mentioning the causes. It still doesn't change the 97% who did mention it that agree with AGW.

I see... so the earth isn't warming argument is dead. The earth is cooling argument is dead. It's generally accepted now that the earth is warming, the cause is the only thing being debated?

 

[code1211]

Truth is a sure defense against libel.

You should write to the CEI attorneys and tell them about this. Then they wouldn't have to say that what their clients were saying is obviously such total hogwash that no reasonable person would believe it was based in fact.
The CEI attorneys could instead say, "Our clients were correct, Mann is indeed a fraud."

Unless the National Science Foundation, or one of the other groups which analyzed Mann's work, have already debunked this. In which case, the attorneys may be forced to stick with disparaging their own clients' claims.

That's correct.

it's only libel if it isn't true.

I would love to see this thing go to court.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Can you remind me why the vast majority of scientists agree on global warmning?

As you are probably aware, I don't believe that way, so why don't you remind me? At the rudimentary stage of climate knowledge humanity is at, it is impossible to really know what the climate is going to do, at least with any accuracy.

 

[windowdressing]

As you are probably aware, I don't believe that way, so why don't you remind me? At the rudimentary stage of climate knowledge humanity is at, it is impossible to really know what the climate is going to do, at least with any accuracy.

maybe it is possible and you just don't know enough about the science ... funny how so many people (over 99% not scientists) accept most things about which the vast majority of scientists agree, but not others -- almost as if they became knowledgeable scientists overnight on some issues ... Sadly, this political gamesmanship may cost very dearly and it will be our children, grandchildren that will pay the consequences ... we'll be just fine ...

Oh well, let's hope this younger generation is a little wiser ... take care ...

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

maybe it is possible and you just don't know enough about the science ... funny how so many people (over 99% not scientists) accept most things about which the vast majority of scientists agree, but not others -- almost as if they became knowledgeable scientists overnight on some issues ... Sadly, this political gamesmanship may cost very dearly and it will be our children, grandchildren that will pay the consequences ... we'll be just fine ...

Oh well, let's hope this younger generation is a little wiser ... take care ...

That is a bit of a cop out isn't it? You ask me to provide the evidence and "reasoning" that undergirds the false assumptions made by the "consensus" (sic) we are told that scientists believe...and yet you provide no evidence for this side which you apparently advocate. Then you have the temerity to relate that its possible I just don't know enough about science... and that if I do not agree with the consensus I am somehow at fault.

Listen, I am a thinking human and I see how the game is being played by the "scientists" on that side, pretty shady... and I see how they try to exclude the scientists on this side of the debate, having studied and argued it for years, that I have come to believe. I know that C 0 2 is a lagging indicator, following the heating by 400 to 800 years [ no Industrial Revolution going on 400 years ago was there? I do not think the rich patrons of the Globe Theater were all driving their SUVs to the latest Shakespeare play driving up world temps... do you? ] I also know that a warming comes about every 1500 years coinciding with solar events... and that the CERN cloud studies have show us just how much we do not know that affects climate that we had no idea of prior. Name me one set of computer projections that have correctly predicted the climate for even a year much less expecting me to believe the garbage in garbage out modeling they are using to forecast the next 50 to 100 years...

My major concern is not global warming, its what to do about the inevitable coming ice ages... that is what should be of concern, warming periods are/have been great for the human race, times in which we have growth, renaissances and mainly good things happening...besides which warming and cooling periods are just going to happen, we cannot stop summer or winter, much less a warming that is already set to occur...and why would we want to do so? The earth knows far better what it is doing, its been doing its own thing for millions of years...we haven't yet much of a clue.

It is too big, too complex, and when we humans start trying to mess with that, then you indeed risk future generations... so do not deign to lecture me on what I should and should not believe...not without some pretty damn good evidence and logic...neither of which you have made any effort at expressing here.

 

[windowdressing]

That is a bit of a cop out isn't it? You ask me to provide the evidence and "reasoning" that undergirds the false assumptions made by the "consensus" (sic) we are told that scientists believe...and yet you provide no evidence for this side which you apparently advocate. Then you have the temerity to relate that its possible I just don't know enough about science... and that if I do not agree with the consensus I am somehow at fault.

Listen, I am a thinking human and I see how the game is being played by the "scientists" on that side, pretty shady... and I see how they try to exclude the scientists on this side of the debate, having studied and argued it for years, that I have come to believe. I know that C 0 2 is a lagging indicator, following the heating by 400 to 800 years [ no Industrial Revolution going on 400 years ago was there? I do not think the rich patrons of the Globe Theater were all driving their SUVs to the latest Shakespeare play driving up world temps... do you? ] I also know that a warming comes about every 1500 years coinciding with solar events... and that the CERN cloud studies have show us just how much we do not know that affects climate that we had no idea of prior. Name me one set of computer projections that have correctly predicted the climate for even a year much less expecting me to believe the garbage in garbage out modeling they are using to forecast the next 50 to 100 years...

My major concern is not global warming, its what to do about the inevitable coming ice ages... that is what should be of concern, warming periods are/have been great for the human race, times in which we have growth, renaissances and mainly good things happening...besides which warming and cooling periods are just going to happen, we cannot stop summer or winter, much less a warming that is already set to occur...and why would we want to do so? The earth knows far better what it is doing, its been doing its own thing for millions of years...we haven't yet much of a clue.

It is too big, too complex, and when we humans start trying to mess with that, then you indeed risk future generations... so do not deign to lecture me on what I should and should not believe...not without some pretty damn good evidence and logic...neither of which you have made any effort at expressing here.

no lecture, and I really don't have neither the time nor inclination to play these games (no one is telling you what to believe) ... Are you asserting that there's a conspiracy by the leading experts on this? And they're doing it for what reason?

The consensus is overwhelming ... the list of scientists and especially scientific societies that agree on this is extraordinary. A survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that humans were causing this climate change. So forgive me if for now at least, I'll go with their opinion over yours. The list of naysayers is pathetically short and you have to wonder their motivation ... Do you worry that they're being paid off to disagree, by the Koch brothers, for example? I don't know what your motivation is because it certainly isn't based on your scientific knowledge ... but if you get the chance, tell me about these scientists' motivation to lie about this ... Why are they doing it, in a profression where their integrity is everything! Peer reviewed! That's why I'm wondering if you're positing a huge conspiracy ... Are you? ...