• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:91]

Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Mann ALSO said nothing about recent temperatures since they were reported by thermometers. :screwy

On the contrary, the blade of the hockey stick was thermometer data.:peace
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Mann Misrepresents the UK Commons Committee « Climate Audit

Mann’s inclusion of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (“Commons Committee”) among the investigations that supposedly “investigated” and “exonerated” Mann personally is as invalid as his similar claims regarding the Oxburgh and Muir Russell inquiries or his claim to have won a Nobel prize.
The Commons Committee (see report here) did not conduct any investigation into Mann’s conduct nor did it make any findings whatever in connection with Mann’s conduct. I’ll demonstrate this in today’s post, which is the third in the present series (previously I discussed the Oxburgh and Muir Russell inquries here and Muir Russell here).
In addition, I’ll also discuss an important discrepancy between the findings of the Muir Russell panel and the report of the Commons Committee concerning the notorious email concerning Jones’ construction of the 1999 WMO diagram (the “trick … to hide the decline”). Whereas the report of the Commons Committee had concluded in respect of this incident that Jones had “no case to answer”, the Muir Russell panel found that the diagram omitted data and was “misleading”. In combination, these constitute the elements of the offence of “falsification” as defined in academic misconduct codes.
Mann’s pleadings also emphasize and rely on international media coverage as an essential element of the defendants’ knowledge of the reports, but media coverage of Jones’ appearance before the Commons Committee was savage. . . .:peace
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Mann Misrepresents the UK Commons Committee « Climate Audit

Mann’s inclusion of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (“Commons Committee”) among the investigations that supposedly “investigated” and “exonerated” Mann personally is as invalid as his similar claims regarding the Oxburgh and Muir Russell inquiries or his claim to have won a Nobel prize.
The Commons Committee (see report here) did not conduct any investigation into Mann’s conduct nor did it make any findings whatever in connection with Mann’s conduct. I’ll demonstrate this in today’s post, which is the third in the present series (previously I discussed the Oxburgh and Muir Russell inquries here and Muir Russell here).
In addition, I’ll also discuss an important discrepancy between the findings of the Muir Russell panel and the report of the Commons Committee concerning the notorious email concerning Jones’ construction of the 1999 WMO diagram (the “trick … to hide the decline”). Whereas the report of the Commons Committee had concluded in respect of this incident that Jones had “no case to answer”, the Muir Russell panel found that the diagram omitted data and was “misleading”. In combination, these constitute the elements of the offence of “falsification” as defined in academic misconduct codes.
Mann’s pleadings also emphasize and rely on international media coverage as an essential element of the defendants’ knowledge of the reports, but media coverage of Jones’ appearance before the Commons Committee was savage. . . .:peace

Invetigations-by-blog is not much better than science-by-blog.

Funny how one has to go to a skewed presentation of the investigations conclusions instead of reading the news reports of how they actually concluded.

Or the reports themselves, which basically found... nothing. http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Invetigations-by-blog is not much better than science-by-blog.

Funny how one has to go to a skewed presentation of the investigations conclusions instead of reading the news reports of how they actually concluded.

Or the reports themselves, which basically found... nothing. http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf

We shall see.:peace
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Did it already. Search for it. I dont have time to spoonfeed those who plan on spitting it out anyway.
I'm sure I would have noticed you actually explaining science in your own words. I'm not going to look for what I seriously doubt exists.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

On the contrary, the blade of the hockey stick was thermometer data.:peace

Exactly, with proxies having as much as a 500 year range, which would smooth out 50 year anomalies.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Uhh....we already DID see. The reports are public and final.
What matters is the end result of the lawsuit.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Mann is saying Mark Steyn defamed his character by calling him,
"the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children,
he has molested and tortured data."
The word choice aside, the content of the statement, is that Mann manipulated his data.
The truth is that anyone who works with large data sets manipulates the data.
Averaging, homogenizing, elimination of outliers, all forms of data manipulation.
The question becomes, can Mann claim that his rendering of the data did not include
any data manipulation techniques?
And the answer is of course not!
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Mann is saying Mark Steyn defamed his character by calling him,

The word choice aside, the content of the statement, is that Mann manipulated his data.
The truth is that anyone who works with large data sets manipulates the data.
Averaging, homogenizing, elimination of outliers, all forms of data manipulation.
The question becomes, can Mann claim that his rendering of the data did not include
any data manipulation techniques?
And the answer is of course not!

Manipulated is different to twisted and tortured.

The essence of the case will be if it can be shown that Mann has misused data to portray a result which the initial data would not have.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Mann is saying Mark Steyn defamed his character by calling him,

The word choice aside, the content of the statement, is that Mann manipulated his data.
The truth is that anyone who works with large data sets manipulates the data.
Averaging, homogenizing, elimination of outliers, all forms of data manipulation.
The question becomes, can Mann claim that his rendering of the data did not include
any data manipulation techniques?
And the answer is of course not!

Nice selective reading.

The issue isn't data manipulation.

The issue is that Steyn called Mann's work 'fraudulent'. A lot.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Nice selective reading.

The issue isn't data manipulation.

The issue is that Steyn called Mann's work 'fraudulent'. A lot.
I finally went and dug up Steyn's article "Football and hockey",
Football and Hockey | National Review Online
If that's all it takes to get sued, we could all be in trouble.
He quoted what another writer had written, and added,
Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph,
the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.
This article seems a little weak to be the grounds for a lawsuit.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

I finally went and dug up Steyn's article "Football and hockey",
Football and Hockey | National Review Online
If that's all it takes to get sued, we could all be in trouble.
He quoted what another writer had written, and added,

This article seems a little weak to be the grounds for a lawsuit.

Again, nice selective reading. This wasnt the only article it referred to.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Again, nice selective reading. This wasnt the only article it referred to.
Do you have a link for Mann's actual lawsuit? I have found appeals and additions, but not the actual lawsuit.
Without it, we have no way of knowing if other articles were referred to.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Do you have a link for Mann's actual lawsuit? I have found appeals and additions, but not the actual lawsuit.
Without it, we have no way of knowing if other articles were referred to.

Yes. Unless I do your homework for you, who can ever know??
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Yes. Unless I do your homework for you, who can ever know??
You stated with great certainty
This wasnt the only article it referred to.
I assumed you knew what you were talking about.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

I finally went and dug up Steyn's article "Football and hockey",
Football and Hockey | National Review Online
If that's all it takes to get sued, we could all be in trouble.
He quoted what another writer had written, and added,

This article seems a little weak to be the grounds for a lawsuit.

It seems the judge in the case disagrees with your assessment
Viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the court must on a motion to dismiss, a reasonable jury is likely to find the statement that Dr. Mann “molested and tortured data” was false, was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, and is actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm. ...

Turning to the special motion of defendants National Review and Steyn to dismiss Count VII, when Mr. Steyn republished Mr. Simberg’s words, he stopped short of wholeheartedly endorsing the offensive Sandusky metaphor. Nevertheless, Mr. Steyn did not disavow the assertion of fact that Dr. Mann had “molested and tortured data,” and he added insult to injury by describing Dr. Mann as “the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph.” ... In context, calling Dr. Mann’s work “fraudulent” is itself defamatory...

People are wondering why the Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review are delaying the 'discovery proceedings' by filing an appeal. For years they and other deniers have claimed all they needed to do was get the "warmist" freaks into a court room where they would be forced to show that their supposed 'science' is nothing but fraudulent appeals for more tax payer funding - SO, why are they afraid of discovery? Aren't they sure they will win when witnesses must testify under oath? It's not like they don't have sufficient funding, what's their problem?
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

It seems the judge in the case disagrees with your assessment


People are wondering why the Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review are delaying the 'discovery proceedings' by filing an appeal. For years they and other deniers have claimed all they needed to do was get the "warmist" freaks into a court room where they would be forced to show that their supposed 'science' is nothing but fraudulent appeals for more tax payer funding - SO, why are they afraid of discovery? Aren't they sure they will win when witnesses must testify under oath? It's not like they don't have sufficient funding, what's their problem?
It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
If the lawsuit is only based only on the "Football and hockey" article, it still seems thin.
While the last ruling
Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.
Seems to look bad, I wonder if Mann will be forced to defend his hockey stick software.
The same software that has been shown to produce a hockey stick with random data input.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
If the lawsuit is only based only on the "Football and hockey" article, it still seems thin.
While the last ruling
Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.
Seems to look bad, I wonder if Mann will be forced to defend his hockey stick software.
The same software that has been shown to produce a hockey stick with random data input.

One can assume you mean the 'study' by McIntyre and McKitrick(2005) or maybe the Wegman Report to Congress. The papers that have both been shown to be false multiple times - right?
moyhu: Effect of selection in the Wegman Report

Then there are the multiple confirming papers:
http://www.realclimate.org/RuthetalJClim2004.pdf

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/eos03.pdf

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Jones et al. 2001 Climate Reconstructions

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

http://www.clim-past.net/3/591/2007/cp-3-591-2007.pdf

just a few of the dozens of papers supporting the hockey stick
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

I would like to see a lawsuit over the CO2 sensitivity claims. Open up the science on this one to the public.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

One can assume you mean the 'study' by McIntyre and McKitrick(2005) or maybe the Wegman Report to Congress. The papers that have both been shown to be false multiple times - right?
moyhu: Effect of selection in the Wegman Report

just a few of the dozens of papers supporting the hockey stick
Like I said, It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
Mann cannot prove he did not manipulate the data.
Steyn's comment,
Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph,
the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.
could be interpreted in ways other than a direct accusation of fraud.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Like I said, It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
Mann cannot prove he did not manipulate the data.
Steyn's comment,

could be interpreted in ways other than a direct accusation of fraud.
Put a person is innocent until proven guilty. Is this a civil case? The burden of proof is less.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Seems to look bad, I wonder if Mann will be forced to defend his hockey stick software.
The same software that has been shown to produce a hockey stick with random data input.

Sure it has. Got a non denier blog reference for that?

Got a clue why the MBH98 paper is highly referenced to this day with that knowledge?
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Mann has a few problems of his own.
Mann Misrepresents the UK Commons Committee « Climate Audit
Conclusion
Mann’s claim that the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee “investigated” and “exonerated” him personally is as invalid as his similar claims regarding the Muir Russell and Oxburgh inquries or his claim to have won a Nobel prize. Media coverage of Jones’ appearance before the Commons Committee hearings was eloquently savage, perhaps even Steynian. Nor did the Commons Committee report result in any uncontradicted findings on dishonesty: its only finding on dishonesty – that Jones had “no case to answer” in respect to the 1999 WMO diagram – was contradicted and superceded by the finding of the Muir Russell panel that the diagram was “misleading”. This diagram had “nothing to do” with Mann himself, but Mann was implicated in the 2001 IPCC TAR diagram, which also deleted adverse data from the Briffa recontruction and which the Muir Russell panel described as “similar”. I will return to this topic in a later post.
 
Back
Top Bottom