Slashdot Mirror
Michael E. Mann Sues For Defamation Over Comparison To Jerry Sandusky
eldavojohn writes "The global warming debate has left much to be desired in the realm of logic and rationale. One particular researcher, Michael E. Mann, has been repeatedly attacked for his now infamous (and peer reviewed/independently verified) hockey stick graph. It has come to the point where he is now suing for defamation over being compared to convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky. Articles hosted by defendants and written by defendant Rand Simberg and defendant Mark Steyn utilize questionable logic for implicating Michael E. Mann alongside Jerry Sandusky with the original piece, concluding, 'Michael Mann, like Joe Paterno, was a rock star in the context of Penn State University, bringing in millions in research funding. The same university president who resigned in the wake of the Sandusky scandal was also the president when Mann was being (whitewashed) investigated. We saw what the university administration was willing to do to cover up heinous crimes, and even let them continue, rather than expose them. Should we suppose, in light of what we now know, they would do any less to hide academic and scientific misconduct, with so much at stake?' Additionally, sentences were stylized to blend the two people together: 'He has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.' One of the defendants admits to removing 'a sentence or two' of questionable wording. Still, as a public figure, Michael E. Mann has an uphill battle to prove defamation in court."
Dr. Mann complains about two statements: 1) that as "the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph," he is "the very ringmaster of the three ring circus" on climate change; and 2) that he "could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet." Neither of these statements is actionable. Moreover, if Dr. Mann decides to pursue this matter, he and his research would be subjected to a very extensive discovery of materials that he has fought so hard to protect in other proceedings. Such materials would be required for National Review to defend itself.
My work here is dung.
While the imaginatively twisted likenesses are obviously meant to irritate Michael Mann, they are in no way defamation of character and I suggest a counter-suit for harassment!
Simberg is best known for a fabricated "Reuters" article allegedly from 1945 which, unbelievably, was taken seriously and cited by both Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld. Basically, it was a lame satire about the Iraqi resistance which (falsely) claimed that similar things had happened in Germany after WWII.
Hockey stick is proven fabrication.
Well, if you desire a citation for my claims of independent verification, check out Richard Muller who previously attacked said graph and consequent IPCC claims (the results of which earned them the 2007 Nobel Prize). Pay attention to these first three paragraphs. That 2007 IPCC report is important because that is what Mann contributed to.
If I'm not mistaken, Muller tackled the same problem from a as different an approach as possible and came to the same conclusion.
The studies approving Vioxx were "peer reviewed" as well...
Sure, just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it is without fault but it sure is a good deliminator between a crackpot on the internet and someone trying very hard to participate in a community that also tries to hold itself to a higher standard than baseless claims and unreproducible results, wouldn't you agree?
My work here is dung.
Defamation is a broad category that includes libel and slander. Libel is defamation that occurs in a persistent form; slander is defamation that occurs in a transitory form.
According to the complaint, Mann is suing for five counts of libel and one count of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
That even if Mann had engaged in scientific fraud, which is questionable considering that his accusers are known liars and can barely spell "science", they're stiill equating the violation of scientific integrity with the RAPING OF CHILDREN. .
Fuck these guys hard.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-advanced.htm
Mods, feel free to mod parent down not because you think he's wrong, but because he is wrong.
:(){
Good thing the hockey stick has been confirmed by others, then.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'd say 8 or 9 other graphs that show substantially the same thing using different proxy data provide independent verification of the Hockey Stick Graph.
The whitewashes explicity decided not to invetigate Mann's "hide the decline" because he did it and it couldn't be denied.
This is materially false. You are living in a fantasy world. Go read one of the many independent investigations on this, or better yet, read the original email yourself.
Talk about cherry-picking.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Seems like you never heard about the null hypothesis. Weather disasters rack up no matter what and none of what we have seen is in the least out of line with what has happened in history.
oOOooOOoo the "null hypothesis". You must think that 1000s of scientists don't know something about elementary experimental design! That MUST be it! Gee, you could use statistics and evidence to draw conclusions as to the likelihood of various hypotheses. Mmm, let me see... that EXACTLY what that IPCC did!!
Sorry, it might not mean shit to you, but null hypothesis (as you put it) was rejected in a 1979 NAS report (30 years ago). Today, the evidence is just stronger.
If you ignore history, however, you'll always think things are going to hell in a handbasket ... as people have done all the time in history.
Like the history of increasing weather disasters!
Of course I'm wrong, along with the scientific community. You just gotta find the logic to connect the dots.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The hockey stick graph was independently validated by nearly a dozen different reconstructions.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The decline is not hidden from anyone who has enough scientific background to go read the original papers. The "hidden" data is included in the paper and it is explained why they are not used. The words "hide the decline" refer explicitly to not using the data since it was shown to be wrong by other measurements. To quote the scientists over at RealClimate:
As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
It's useful to look at longer time periods:
http://skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html
This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.
The Met Office (who released the data), sent a letter to the author of that article, stating precisely how he doesn't understand what the data means, as he's not a scientist. This is the second time this same author has tried this stunt, and people like you take it on face value without checking the cited sources. If you believe this, what other nonsense do you believe? It's clear you don't bother to check the sources, so you have no way to discern fact from fiction, apart from your own bias.
Reading the original mails is exactly what brought many people to conclude that the whole discipline is full of shit.
The whole CRU email thingy itself shows why this is the case: it's easy to pick a few lines out of complex scientific dialog and distort them with a quick media blitz designed to portray someone as dishonest, or crooked, or biased, or incompetent, or silly. (As the saying goes, a lie gets half way around the world before the truth can get its shoes on.)
Yup, we don't want email where Phil Jones lays out his intention to deceive, or his intention and requests to erase data, to get around and be misinterpreted, now do we?
This is shit science. You don't just chop out data post 1960 without knowing what is wrong with it. Yes, it was discussed in the literature. No, they had no definitive answer, only speculation.
Even worse, what Phil Jones did was chop out the data and replace it with thermometer data so that three separate data sets rose up in striking agreement in a hockey stick fashion.