• 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!

The Mann-Steyn trial begins

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
67,106
Reaction score
33,693
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, after a decade, the defamation trial that Michael Mann brought against Mark Steyn has begun.

There was lots of whining about this here in the past, but the truth will prevail in a few weeks.


US climate scientist’s defamation case over online attacks finally comes to trial

Michael Mann alleges, in lawsuit first brought in 2012, that attacks on his work by climate denialists amount to defamation
www.theguardian.com
 
Oh... so the claims by climate change denialists that this lawsuit was dismissed was a lie. No surprise there.

I will be watching this case closely.
 
LOL a quack climate doomsayer is angry hes getting criticized. This is the kind of scientists the neo luddites want: a hateful extremist out to silence his critics by every underhanded way possible.

Mann isnt a scientist, hes like Xi, the dictator of China who will not tolerate any kind of dissent for his religion.
 
In August 1984 he went to the University of California, Berkeley, to major in physics with a second major in applied math. His second-year research in the theoretical behaviour of liquid crystals used the Monte Carlo method applying randomness in computer simulations. Late in 1987, he joined a research team under Didier de Fontaine which was using similar Monte Carlo methodology to investigate the superconducting properties of yttrium barium copper oxide, modelling transitions between ordered and disordered phases.[12] He graduated with honors in 1989 with an A.B. in applied mathematics and physics.[2]
Mann then attended Yale University, intending to obtain a PhD in physics, and received both an MS and an MPhil in physics in 1991
Mann then joined the Yale Department of Geology and Geophysics, obtaining an MPhil in geology and geophysics in 1993
From 1996 to 1998, after defending his PhD thesis at Yale, Mann carried out paleoclimatology research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst funded by a United States Department of Energy postdoctoral fellowship. He collaborated with Raymond S. Bradley and Bradley's colleague Malcolm K. Hughes, a Professor of Dendrochronology at the University of Arizona, with the aim of developing and applying an improved statistical approach to climate proxy reconstructions. He taught a course in Data Analysis and Climate Change in 1997 and became a research assistant professor the following year.[2][18]

But he's not a scientist, according to @PoS.
 
One would think Mann would have been wiser to ignore the comments by a journalist that he tortured and abused his data!
Here we are 12 years later and he is in the position of attempting to justify “Mike’s Nature trick”, after his method has been invalidated by showing his method produces a hockey stick no matter what data is input.
 
The litigation targets two writers: Rand Simberg, analyst at the rightwing thinktank Competitive Enterprise Institute, who published a piece comparing Mann to a convicted serial child molester, and the National Review blogger Mark Steyn, who in a blogpost favorably quoted Simberg and called Mann’s research “fraudulent”
 
Not like the retired weatherman who runs the website where he gets his information on climate change from.
 
I think we can expect Whiner Mann to lose again.
 
Yep.

He has helped create Mann Made Warming with is paper using cherry picked proxies.
 
Reactions: PoS
Just using the standards you guys use.

Any time a good paper is brought up by someone who is at the top of a field like atmospheric physics, the naysayers of you side say "he's not a climatologist."

Just using that standard.
 
Are you denying that a hockey stick impact is possible?

Taken from a distance, compound interest looks like a hockey stick too.
 
mrjurrs said:
Are you denying that a hockey stick impact is possible?

Taken from a distance, compound interest looks like a hockey stick too.
Click to expand...
The problem Mann has now is that he has to prove in a court of law that "Mike's Nature Trick"
is a valid statistical methodology. This will be very difficult as red data input into his methodology also produces a hockey stick.
While there is little doubt that the average temperatures have increased over the last century,
there remains plenty of uncertainty as to the cause of the warming, or even if it is unusual.
 
Reactions: PoS
Don’t be absurd. He doesn’t have to prove that, because science has established it’s a valid methodology, since it’s been cited hundreds of times and independently verified dozens of times.

You guys always crow about stupid blog posts and their findings that have no relevance in the scientific world. That’s how we know you’re deniers.
 
His suite is his saying he did not abuse and molest his data, how does he prove that without revealing his methodology?
 
longview said:
His suite is his saying he did not abuse and molest his data, how does he prove that without revealing his methodology?
Click to expand...
The methodology is all well described.

Abusing and molesting data is a blog term, not science.

Thanks for confirming what we knew.
 
I would suggest that your summary of what the trial has to do is inaccurate.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Just using the standards you guys use.

Any time a good paper is brought up by someone who is at the top of a field like atmospheric physics, the naysayers of you side say "he's not a climatologist."
Click to expand...
Oh look, another rightist making up dumb shit and telling us how dumb his made-up shit is.
Lord of Planar said:
Just using that standard.
Click to expand...
 
This should be fum watching Mann squirm like a worm.
 
mrjurrs said:
I would suggest that your summary of what the trial has to do is inaccurate.
Click to expand...
Mann is claiming defamation of character,
It is on him to justify if his handling of the data meets the norms for statistical data analysis.
Because independent analysis has shown that and red data produces a hockey stick, it may be a steep hill to climb.
 
Again, no he doesnt.
Courts dont adjudicate science, and neither do ‘independent analyses’ done by denier blogs.

His paper was published, given accolades, is still referenced as a seminal paleoclimate paper, and thats all the evidence a court will need.
 
So the jury will need to be composed of scientists.
 
Reactions: PoS
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…