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.
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.
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.
Your source contradicts itself
DeadCatX2 quoted some source: ... However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960."
"Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature
If the tree rings are showing falsely low temperatures after 1960 then it is questionabe at best if they were not giving falsely low temperatures back during the medieval warm period. It is a rule of science that you are not supposed to hide such evidence especially if your opponents say it is significant.
To say it was not hiding is rediculous since the alarmist Phil Jones himself described what he was doing as hiding. Burying data deep in an academic paper the public won't see is still hiding. Sure the experts were debating it, but it was hiden from the public who wouldn't look deeper than the graph.
I would have replied earlier but my battery died and i lost my post. I'll have more.
I think you missed the "some high-latitude locations" part. Tree rings altogether are not suspect, only those ones at high latitude, and even then only *some* of the ones at a high latitude, and even then only *after* 1960. I fail to see the contradiction.
I'm also not sure how you can say "sure the experts were debating it" and yet "the evidence was hidden". What more do you want? The evidence is right out there in the open, being discussed in peer-reviewed literature publicly available for 17 years. It was in the IPCC report. What definition of "hidden" involves reports that can be read by anyone with a web browser and a PDF reader?
:(){
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.
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.
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.