Michael Mann Defamation Suit Against National Review Writer to Proceed

From Ars Technica comes this update in the defamation case filed by climate researcher Michael Mann against political commentator Mark Steyn of National Review magazine, who rhetorically compared Mann to Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky and accused him of publishing intentionally misleading research results. "The defendants tried to get it dismissed under the District of Columbia's Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) statute, which attempts to keep people from being silenced by frivolous lawsuits. The judge hearing the case denied the attempt and then promptly retired; Mann next amended his complaint, leading an appeals court to send the whole thing back to a new trial judge. Now the new judge has denied the SLAPP attempt yet again. In a decision released late last week (and hosted by defendant Mark Steyn), the judge recognizes that the comparison to a child molester is part of the "opinions and rhetorical hyperbole" that are protected speech when used against public figures like Mann. However, the accompanying accusations of fraud are not exempt:"

Comments

Steyn is Slime

[SpockLogic]

Hope Steyn, the lying sack of shit, gets hit with a massive fine.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Anonymous Coward]

What a brilliant argument!

Can I get you 'hit with a massive fine' for being a 'sack of shit' too?

Michael Mann is a liar. He is a fraudster. He is a 'catastrophic man-made global warming' alarmist. He gets PAID the more he 'alarms' people.

www.climatedepot.com

He doesn't want to debate people who disagree with him, they would prove him wrong you see...

Re:Steyn is Slime

[MightyMartian]

Mann isn't a fraud, his observation an have been confirmed and refined, and you and Steyn are cowards incapable of facing the universe as it is. The only difference is at least Steyn is man enough to put his name to his libel.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[JDS13]

Steyn didn't assert that Mann is a fraud, but rather that Mann "tortured" the data. You may recall that Principal Component Analysis was used on a limited and secretly-adjusted data set to come up with the alarming "hockey stick" chart.

It's pretty much indisputable that there was significant warming from like 1930-1996, but very little since then in spite of more or less linear increases in CO2 concentrations since like 1850. The anthropogenic component of global warming is poorly understood, and the appropriate interventions even less so. But diverting taxpayer dollars so wealthy people can get a Tesla as their third or fourth auto is probably suboptimal.

The actual source code is this, from briffa_Sep98_d.pro http://wattsupwiththat.com/200... - you can decide for yourself whether this is "torture" or not, and whether this particular debate should be squelched:

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

Re:Steyn is Slime

[PopeRatzo]

I wouldn't trust him around my border collie.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Austrian Anarchy]

Mann isn't a fraud, his observation an have been confirmed and refined, and you and Steyn are cowards incapable of facing the universe as it is. The only difference is at least Steyn is man enough to put his name to his libel.

How is Steyn a "coward" when he is standing up in court, rather than fleeing?

Re:Steyn is Slime

[haruchai]

By the standards of science, peer-review and SEVEN INVESTIGATIONS.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[ClickOnThis]

The anthropogenic component of global warming is poorly understood, and the appropriate interventions even less so. But diverting taxpayer dollars so wealthy people can get a Tesla as their third or fourth auto is probably suboptimal.

Straw man.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[TubeSteak]

How is Steyn a "coward" when he is standing up in court, rather than fleeing?

The cowardness being discussed is Steyn's inability to "face the universe as it is," i.e. accept that climate change is man made.
One could argue that the denial of man made climate change is an extensive attempt to flee from the facts and their consequences.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Layzej]

Steyn didn't assert that Mann is a fraud, but rather that Mann "tortured" the data.

The judge disagrees that there is a distinction. Since the dozens of temperature reconstructions using different methods and different proxies all come up with the same answer it will be difficult to understand how Mann's work could be considered wrong, let alone fraudulent.

you can decide for yourself whether this is "torture" or not

Probably you cannot. Probably the most you can do is concoct conspiracy theories based on code comments. Leaving aside the fact that this code was authored by someone completely unrelated to the Mann temperature reconstructions (but why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?), it may be worth noting that the code was used in a paper that calls tree rings proxies into question : Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?

So if you want to dismiss the results of the paper that used this code, then you are dismissing work critical of one of the proxies used in Mann's reconstruction.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[the eric conspiracy]

Not sure I'd have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change "hockey-stick" graph.

- Mark Steyn

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just going to throw out as somebody who's been stuck doing some literature surveys for grad school. The more research papers I read, especially in areas that I know a fair bit about, the less peer reviewed means. Between people claiming 10 year battery life on a D-cell and microwave links being used as reliable weather monitors, the amount of bullshit published in peer reviewed scientific journals is absolutely astonishing. I find a typical paper has about 10% worth while, and 90% either worthless, poor assumptions or general misunderstanding of the topic. I read one where they kept on talking about I2C temperature sensors like the fact that I2C meant something about the quality of the sensor for christs sake.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[haruchai]

Even so, climate research gets a lot of scrutiny and the work of Mann, Hansen, and the other big names gets seen by a lot of eyeballs, most of them looking for flaws.

There's a lot at stake and anyone who can topple the pillars on which AGW stand is going to be very, very rich & famous.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Ol Olsoc]

By the standards of science, peer-review and SEVEN INVESTIGATIONS.

Welcome to Slashdot, haruchai, where posting simple truths brings out the deniers, to silence you.

To mod your post flame bait? Come on.

It's sad, that many of those who deny AGW will complain vociferously about censorship of their view, but are quick to try to bury anything they disagree with.

And yes, Mann has been investigated many times, and found innocent. Wait to see what they do to my post.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[KeensMustard]

Steyn didn't assert that Mann is a fraud, but rather that Mann "tortured" the data. You may recall that Principal Component Analysis was used on a limited and secretly-adjusted data set to come up with the alarming "hockey stick" chart.

I'm not sure about "alarming" - perhaps you've let your fear get the better of you. A good description would be "accurate" since the modelling accurately reflected what happened to the climate in the years succeeding.

It's pretty much indisputable that there was significant warming from like 1930-1996, but very little since then in spite of more or less linear increases in CO2 concentrations since like 1850.

And if we do not artificially split the period 1930-2013 into 2 chunks for no reason, we can see a clear interdecadal signal from CO2 induced warming - as predicted by Fourier, Arrhenius etc. If we artificially selected a region, say 1980-1996, we can see a significant warming trend somewhat above the long term trend predicted by GCM models, and then if we selected the period 1996-2013 we can see a definite warming trend, somewhat below the long term trend predict by GCM models. The data is so clear that the climate scientists were able to reduce the uncertainty (per AR5) of long term predictions of CO2 forced warming.

The actual source code is this, from briffa_Sep98_d.pro http://wattsupwiththat.com/200... [wattsupwiththat.com] - you can decide for yourself whether this is "torture" or not, and whether this particular debate should be squelched: ; ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! ; yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!' yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

Looks pretty innocuous. Perhaps you either (a) Posted the wrong section of the model (b) Misunderstood the meaning of the comment "Apply a very artificial correction for decline" per the quite embarrassing mistakes made by some conspiracy theorists with respect to the word "decline" used in the CRU emails.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[smittyoneeach]

So, allowing that Mann is correct, for the sake of argument, then why don't Mann's verifiably true facts trump Steyn's invective?
You may not like Steyn, but he's nothing if not a fair-minded thinker.
Clearly there is some sort of contradiction afoot.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[haruchai]

Don't worry; I'm used to it. After 15 years reading & posting here, there's not much that can faze me. But the climate deniers do seem to have gotten as thick as thieves in the past couple years.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[haruchai]

I'm sure there are "fair-minded thinkers" who don't believe in AGW - but Mark Steyn is NOT one of them.
I don't really give a damn whether he believes in global warming or not but he smeared a scientist purely out of political spite.

A "fair-minded thinker" would have stuck to a scientific critique. Steyn is a polemicist by nature, has been sued before and should be aware that he was straying into deep waters.
It's not a foregone conclusion that Steyn will lose, far from it, but it's telling that the National Review refuses to support him.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[stenvar]

The judge disagrees that there is a distinction. Since the dozens of temperature reconstructions using different methods and different proxies all come up with the same answer it will be difficult to understand how Mann's work could be considered wrong, let alone fraudulent.

Mann's data can be fraudulent without being wrong. That is, he may have deliberately manipulated the data, even if his results turned out to be correct later.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[JDS13]

There have been two judges so far... In any case, the essential question of fact to be determined at trial is whether it is libelous to use the word "torture" to describe the adjustments made to the various data series, and the parameter choices used for the PCA, and the various choices in the final graphical presentation. I spent two years feeding repeated PCA runs into a general optimization model. With the right parameter choices I could pretty much get any answer I wanted.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Layzej]

Nope. This isn't about whether there are better methods. Dozens of other papers get the same hockey stick with different methods and different proxies. They would all argue that their methods are better. That is science, not law. At issue here are the allegations of fraud. Here is what the most recent judge has said:

A reasonable reader, both within and outside the scientific community, would understand that a scientist who molests or tortures his data is acting far outside the bounds of any acceptable scientific method. In context, it would not be unreasonable for a reader to interpret the comment, and the republication in National Review, as an allegation that Dr. Mann had committed scientific fraud, which Penn State University then covered up, just as some had accused the University of covering up the Sandusky scandal. For many of the reasons discussed in Judge Combs Greene’s July 19 orders, to state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation.

Re: Steyn is Slime

[Anonymous Coward]

look, calling a child molester a FRAUD is cleary pushing the limit.
This is gonna have to go to roberts.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[FishOuttaWater]

Can we skip the name calling in favor of some references, please?

Re:Steyn is Slime

[umafuckit]

The actual source code is this, from briffa_Sep98_d.pro http://wattsupwiththat.com/200... - you can decide for yourself whether this is "torture" or not, and whether this particular debate should be squelched:

I really must disagree here. You can't infer anything worthwhile about the data just by reading some snippets of source code. If the analysis is convoluted and you don't trust it then the only way to "decide for yourself" is to analyse it for yourself. A bellicose blog ("arrogant programmer" and similar terms appear) doesn't count for much. A few lines of code don't tell you what the raw data look like, if the processing is reasonable based on the data, or if anything is being hidden. In this case, for instance, that code may be just a badly written attempt to produce a smoother curve.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[buybuydandavis]

The accuracy of Mann's claim is a fitting matter for scientific investigation, not legal investigation.

Similarly, Steyn's analysis of it is a matter for commentary, not a lawsuit.

Steyn should have every right to say that Mann is full of shit without being dragged into court over it. The same crowd that was all confused over what the meaning of the word "is" is now thinks that Steyn's rant on the "Nobel Prize WInner" (the *fraudulent* claim that Mann has made all over the place, including in his complaint against Steyn) can only be interpreted in one particular legalistic way. Scientists call interpretations of data in ways they disagree with "torturing the data" all the time. It means "I don't agree", it's not the specification of a grand jury indictment.

This is always the Left's way - shut up the opposition through force. Disgusting that it's increasingly effective.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[ChrisMaple]

"Manmade climate change", particularly "manmade global warming", is a colossal fraud. Steyn is quite brave in standing up to the political pressures advancing this fraud, particularly since Obama is packing the courts to the best of his corrupt abilities.

Can you say "railroaded"?

Re:Steyn is Slime

[TapeCutter]

But the climate deniers do seem to have gotten as thick as thieves in the past couple years.

Much thinner than they were a decade ago, IMO most of those that are left are trolls and astro-turfers who like to get in quick on AGW stories.

Mann has been character assassinated by "for hire" lobbyists, he has had numerous death threats and has appeared before several political inquisitions. The coal industries effort to discredit Mann and ruin his life is lead in congress by US senator Inhofe. It's about time Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, and others, fought back against political persecution and those who created the army of useful idiots intent on doing them physical harm. They should not have ignored the threat this long, I wish them the best of luck.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[TapeCutter]

whether this particular debate should be squelched:

On the one hand: That particular debate was the subject of a US senate inquisition lead by hostile senators from coal rich states. The national academies stepped in as arbitrator and reviewed the work, they agreed with Mann's methods but criticized some of his certainty levels, these minor criticisms were addressees in a subsequent "hockey stick" paper from Mann (circa 2005) that was published by the national academies in their own journal (Science).

On the other hand: Anthony Watts is a well known denier with strong links to the same anti-science lobby groups as Steyn, he has never published a single peer-reviewed article or paper. He simply ignores any and all contra-evidence to his claims because he knows that some people will believe him if he repeats the same bald assertions ad-nauseam.

more or less linear increases in CO2 concentrations since like 1850

I think you are using an unconventional definition of "liner", probably one invented by Watts. The facts are it took ~250yrs to pump 500 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, on current consumption trends it will take less than 50yrs to double it.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty much indisputable that there was significant warming from like 1930-1996, but very little since then in spite of more or less linear increases in CO2 concentrations since like 1850.

It's called a hockey-stick, not an asymptote, you silly person!
</sarcasm>

(disclaimer: yes this is incorrect. It just felt it fitted in well with the other arguments I've seen flying around, and it made me smile)

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Arancaytar]

> debate people who disagree with him, they would prove him wrong

If only disagreeing with people were enough to prove them wrong, you climate change deniers would have it much easier.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Layzej]

So your logic is that because there was a rape scandal at the school, therefor climate change is bogus? Good job. And in order to show that Styrn didn't accuse Mann of fraud you include a quote that says: "Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph"? Interesting argument.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Layzej]

Mod this guy up! Great example of tortured logic. Your narrative must really need an antagonist.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Anonymous Coward]

lol 'I don't like the consensus of climatologists for emotional and political reasons so SCIENCE = BAD and STUPID'

Re:Steyn is Slime

[stenvar]

You can try how far "I committed a crime, but nobody ended up getting hurt" will get you when you get dragged into court.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[drinkypoo]

"Manmade climate change", particularly "manmade global warming", is a colossal fraud.

[citation needed]

Can you say "railroaded"?

Sure, I can. Oddly, most railroads are CO2 producers.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[drinkypoo]

It is a straw man, but you're then linking to a self-selected group of people who bother to post on fora, which proves nothing. Or should I just respond with "Selection bias" so as to speaka your language?

Re: Steyn is Slime

[Anonymous Coward]

Steyn has been sued before, and he prevailed.

Re: Steyn is Slime

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point probably is that Mann represents a weak chainlink in the AGW armor. As such, the credibility of his work is in question, not the whole science of AGW.

It could lead to a greater unraveling, but that depends on how firmly the rest of the AGW advocacy community clings to Mann.

Re: Steyn is Slime

[Anonymous Coward]

All mammals are CO2 producers. All plants are CO2 consumers. Maybe we just need to plant a lot of trees instead of corn for ethanol.

Re: Steyn is Slime

[drinkypoo]

All mammals are CO2 producers. All plants are CO2 consumers. Maybe we just need to plant a lot of trees instead of corn for ethanol.

You won't get an argument out of me there. Hemp and bamboo are both excellent fixers of CO2, and you make them into stuff and plant more in the same space, so they are also great candidates. Some trees fix more CO2 when young than when old, so planting trees is great. Not cutting down some trees to begin with is the other key, though; for example, a stand of mature redwoods actually fixes more CO2 than a stand of growing ones; it puts on more mass per year, and plants are made mostly out of carbon, almost all of which comes from the air.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[funwithBSD]

Yes, but we already know that hockey stick graph was misleading. Mann left off the warming and cooling trend of the Medival warming trend, aka, the right side of the valley, to show a hockey stick, not an elongated U.

We also know he had code problems, and his results are bad.

Fraud? Probably not.

Confirmation Bias? Probably.

Steyn is stating his opinion, so I am not sure it rises to libel

Re:Steyn is Slime

[dziki]

And PSU was notified several times about Sarduski's conduct and didn't see anything wrong. Or let's try another one: GW Bush has been investigated by several organizations for wrongdoing in the Iraq war conflict and they never found anything. Or the Warren commission found that JFK was assassinated by a lone gunman.

"Science" apparently believes that after certain "investigations" are concluded, free speech has to stop.

The Vatican was more open minded....

Praise Science! Those who disagree with Scientific Faith must be punished!

Re:Steyn is Slime

[dziki]

Er, no. One of the claims of the global warming faithful is that a "consensus" of scientists agree with it's dogma while those who disagree are branded as heretics, er, non-scientists. Looking with one's eyeballs to criticize Mann is a good way to lose funding or status in the politically correct academic community. The problem with a faith that bases itself upon consensus and agreement is that it's not very credible as a group of skeptics. That's why most Americans are unbelievers in Global Warming.

In the meantime, Europe is now dropping it's global warming agenda and starting fracking.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Xyrus]

If your source is WUWT, you've already lost.A nd no, there is nothing malicious about that piece of code. This has been gone over multiple times on several different sites.

Quoting WUWT as a source in regards to climate science is like quoting the nutters on OverUnity in regards to energy research.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Anonymous Coward]

Mann isn't a fraud, his observation an have been confirmed and refined, and you and Steyn are cowards incapable of facing the universe as it is. The only difference is at least Steyn is man enough to put his name to his libel.

How is Steyn a "coward" when he is standing up in court, rather than fleeing?

It looks to me that Steyn did everything he could to avoid standing up in court, trying to get the suit dismissed as he did.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Anonymous Coward]

Opinion would read.

In my opinion, he has tortured the data.

His comment

He tortured the data.

See the difference? This is where the law sticks the label libel on his comments. Now he gets to suffer the consequences of his (jn my opinion) blow-hard fact falsifying nature. (see my intelligent use of my opinion before gutting Steyn for the equivelent of child-molestation of Mann's good name)

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Ol Olsoc]

Can we skip the name calling in favor of some references, please?

So what do you want the deniers to be called? Gotta have some reference name.

Mann's initial investigation was regarding the infamous Hockey stick diagram.

There was broad and general support by the science community in the year's since. I'll include some citations of freely available work:

Really long url, so I provided a tinyurl

Stalagmite records http://tinyurl.com/m2yhtgl

Reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the last 11,300 years. http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...

Millenial Temperature Reconstruction. http://www.clim-past.net/3/591...

Borehole heat flux data. http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu...

There is a lot more, but you might be able to do a little research after digesting this initial stuff.

After hackers stole the emails with the University of East Anglia, Penn State made two investigations of Mann. They cleared him of misconduct, but criticized him for sharing unpublished manuscripts.

Virginia Attorney Ken Cuccinelli, then Attorney General of Virginia (before this gets too contentious, yes, the Ken Cuccinelli that wants to make oral sex illegal) demanded that the University of Virginia release documentation of Mann's work via a Civill Investigation Demand.

The first demand was overruled by a judge. Cuccinelli revised his subpoena, and appealed to the State Supreme court. He lost there also, with the judgement that he had no authority to demand the work.

Note that Mann aided in the subsequent election efforts of Terry McCauliff, who was running against Cuccinelli in the 2013 Gubernatorial election.

Mann was investigated by the Office of the Inspector General of the National Science foundation in 2011, and exhonorated Mann of any professional misconduct.

http://www.science20.com/uploa...

At this juncture, I doubt that those who would deny AGW will accept any evidence, and would simply accuse Penn State and the National Science Foundation of corruption or worse. Note that there are many who likewise think of that University as a tool of the energy industry. Some interesting irony there.

Cuccinelli's failure to subpoena University of Virginia's records is probably the groundwork for claims that Mann refuses to share data with others. However, a pretty compelling case can be made that it was blatant politicizing of science.

Furthermore, Mann's campaigning for Cucchinelli no doubt really raised some hackles. Pretty much all out war. I suspect Mann would say he is just fighting back against those who have made it a mission to destroy him.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Anonymous Coward]

How is Steyn a "coward" when he is standing up in court, rather than fleeing?

The cowardness being discussed is Steyn's inability to "face the universe as it is," i.e. accept that climate change is man made.
One could argue that the denial of man made climate change is an extensive attempt to flee from the facts and their consequences.

So you love English, you just hate the words having any meaning at all.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[funwithBSD]

No,

because his writing would suck if he did that.

He is a political writer and sometimes satirist, not a scientist, so any statements he says about scientific matters is exactly that: an opinion with no hard grounding in the sciences. In fact, most of his commentary about the whole thing is observations on how political the situation is and that it might be interfering with the investigations

If say, Neil Tyson said it, it could be taken as a statement with a gravitas.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[close_wait]

Yes, but we already know that hockey stick graph was misleading. Mann left off the warming and cooling trend of the Medival warming trend, aka, the right side of the valley, to show a hockey stick, not an elongated U.

We also know he had code problems, and his results are bad.

Fraud? Probably not.

Confirmation Bias? Probably.

Perhaps you aren't aware that at the time Mann produced the hockey stick, the nature of his research was to investigate underlying natural cycles of climate (e.g. El Nino); he wasn't particularly interested in the AGW aspect of it. His initial graph went back as far as the data available at the time would allow and be statistically valid.

I'd suggest people read Mann's book "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars".

Re:Steyn is Slime

[haruchai]

Being notified and choosing not to act is not the same as conducting multiple investigations.
There's a difference between free speech & slander / libel - a distinction that even those who should know better cannot grasp.

Praise Science indeed!! It's done a hell of a lot more for us than the Vatican or any religion.

You might be able to post your Slashdot comments through prayer or indulgences but the rest of us are relying on science & engineering.

Re: Steyn is Slime

[haruchai]

Then he has nothing to worry about but still makes me wonder why he was requesting a dismissal when he's so eager to defend "free speech".

Re:Steyn is Slime

[funwithBSD]

So why didn't he sue Al Gore?

At least he has a heap of money. The shutupola from would have exceed anything Steyn would make in a lifetime.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[nbauman]

Er, no. One of the claims of the global warming faithful is that a "consensus" of scientists agree with it's dogma while those who disagree are branded as heretics, er, non-scientists. Looking with one's eyeballs to criticize Mann is a good way to lose funding or status in the politically correct academic community.

New Scientist did a story on the scientists who disagreed with the global warming consensus. There were about a dozen of them (and some of them have since gone with the consensus). They get a respectful hearing, when they do scientific work, present it at conferences and submit it for publication. Scientists do not normally look to the National Review for scientific critiques.

Most of the critics of global warming are not scientists. They were published prominently on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, where I read them. Most of them were economists, not scientists. They didn't address the main issue, which was whether the climate (not weather) was warming as a result of human activity, and how much. They merely argued that (1) there was no man-made global warming and (2) if there was, the cost of reducing it would be greater than the benefits (using supply-side economics).

Mark Steyn is not a scientist. He is apparently a literary critic who writes in popular media about politics and culture. If he descends to insults, by comparing scientists to child molesters, it's easy to understand why scientists won't pay attention to his arguments.

It looks like the National Review has come down quite a bit since William Buckley (although I may have idealized Buckley).

Re: Steyn is Slime

[MightyMartian]

Mann's initial research is from the mid-1990s. That's like claiming Big Bang cosmology can be questioned because assumptions made by the scientists who discovered CMBR may have been off, or insisting General Relativity is wrong because Einstein didn't produce a quantum theory of gravity.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Layzej]

I'm having real trouble following this twisted plot. I can see his coauthors objecting: "But Michael, we get the same answer even if you don't torture the data!" Mann: "Everysings vorking according to plan!"

Re:Steyn is Slime

[stenvar]

"But Michael, we get the same answer even if you don't torture the data!"

Mann didn't know what kind of result he'd get; he just wasn't a very good statistician. He fiddled with the data in inappropriate ways until it showed what he thought it should show and then published. By "torturing the data", Mann managed to produce the feature he cared about and that he intuitively felt should be there, the recent rapid temperature rise, but other parts of his graph seem to be wrong.

It happens a lot in the sciences: a combination of poor skills in data analysis and publication bias. Usually, other scientists just look at the paper, look at the methodology, roll their eyes, and ignore it. The difference in climate science is that politicians take it seriously and are using it to justify huge tax increases and spending programs.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Layzej]

Mann: "Now ve vill torture you!"

Co-Authors: "But Michael! This is literally the same result you would get anyway!"

Mann: "But ve like to torture... Zat is vhy ve became mad scientist..."

Re:Steyn is Slime

[stenvar]

Mann and his co-authors were too incompetent to know "what result they would get anyway", they just "tortured the data" until they got what they wanted.

You know, like the Spanish Inquisition stopped torturing people when they confessed to having had congress with the devil.

I know it's a hard concept to grasp, but you'll get it eventually. Unfortunately, Mann probably still isn't a good statistician.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[UnknowingFool]

No this is pure denial. According to you Mann and many countless others deliberately changed data and somehow got the right results that were later supported by other research. Either they are the luckiest SOBs in the world of sciene or you have to admit you simply don't know that the hell you are talking about. Contrast that with Andrew Wakefield who fraudulently published a paper that linked autism with vaccines. You know how many subsequent papers supported his initial assertion? 0. After years wasted, investigators found the inconsistencies in his study. The paper was later retracted which is very rare.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[AK Marc]

Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.

Sounds like he accused him of fraud. That could be good enough for a libel suit win.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[stenvar]

According to you Mann and many countless others deliberately changed data and somehow got the right results that were later supported by other research.

I'm saying exactly what the experts who looked at his research are saying:

The 'hockey stick' that became emblematic of the threat posed by climate change exaggerated the rise in temperature because it was created using 'inappropriate' methods, according to the head of the Royal Statistical Society. ... However the review, led by Lord Oxburgh into the research carried out by the centre, found no evidence of ''deliberate scientific malpractice".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...

Mann was not qualified or capable of performing the statistical analyses he did. The analysis he did was objectively wrong. And the resulting graph he got was quantitatively wrong. The only thing that was right about it was the qualitative behavior in the part of the graph used to justify political action against AGW; that is not a vindication of his work or methods.

The issue here (as with much of climate science) is one of lack of competence and publication bias, not deliberate scientific fraud. You ridicule people for supposedly alleging deliberate fraud by climate researchers, but that's a straw man. I am sure there is fairly little deliberate fraud in global warming research; I'm also sure that poor use of statistical methods and publication bias make most of the published results on global warming worthless.

I'm sure because that's the same in most scientific fields. Usually, these problems work themselves out over the next few decades. For climate science, however, politicians and activists want to rush into action based on results that are only a few years old, and that's a serious problem.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[UnknowingFool]

I'm saying exactly what the experts who looked at his research are saying:

Your reading comprehension is poor. In the link you provided: However the review, led by Lord Oxburgh into the research carried out by the centre, found no evidence of ''deliberate scientific malpractice".

Mann was not qualified or capable of performing the statistical analyses he did. The analysis he did was objectively wrong. And the resulting graph he got was quantitatively wrong. The only thing that was right about it was the qualitative behavior in the part of the graph used to justify political action against AGW; that is not a vindication of his work or methods.

So Mann didn't do the statistics one way means he fraudulently manipulated the data. Also a statistician came to the opposite conclusion of the panel: "I would note that our '98 article was reviewed by the US National Academy of Sciences, the highest scientific authority in the United States, and given a clean bill of health," he said. "In fact, the statistician on the panel, Peter Bloomfield, a member of the Royal Statistical Society, came to the opposite conclusion of Prof Hand." At this point, we have scientists arguing whether something was done the best way.

The issue here (as with much of climate science) is one of lack of competence and publication bias, not deliberate scientific fraud. You ridicule people for supposedly alleging deliberate fraud by climate researchers, but that's a straw man. I am sure there is fairly little deliberate fraud in global warming research; I'm also sure that poor use of statistical methods and publication bias make most of the published results on global warming worthless.

You seem to be using the same flawed approach that creationists use. Only cite whatever little proof you have that backs your side and ignore the large body of work that contradicts you. Also cite the proof in a way that contradicts what it actually proved. Also your statements above say he "tortured" the data. That is fraud. As for competence, there is a debate among scientists about the best way to do things all the time. For you, that means incompetence if one way was done over another. It's not always the case. Sounds like you have strong opinions, and you are entitled to your opinions but realize that scientists in the field disagree with you.

In a counter-example of a scientific debate about data: The Homestake Experiment. Raymond Davis in trying to measure solar neutrinos detected 1/3 of the neutrinos that was predicted by the Standard Model. Subsequent experiments by Kamiokande, SAGE, GALLEX, Super Kamiokande, and SNO backed up his numbers. No one could figure what was wrong with the experiment; but no one could figure what was wrong with the calculations that predicted the neutrinos. No one, however, called Davis incompetent. Especially someone not in the field. Later experiments showed that Davis and Masatoshi Koshiba of Kamiokande were right; it was the Standard Model that was wrong. For their work, they shared in the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[stenvar]

So Mann didn't do the statistics one way means he fraudulently manipulated the data

Are you dumb or something? I have repeatedly stated that I'm not accusing Mann of fraud, I'm accusing him of incompetence. And that was established by the Royal Commission (picking the wrong statistical analysis methods in such an important paper is incompetent).

You seem to be using the same flawed approach that creationists use. Only cite whatever little proof you have that backs your side and ignore the large body of work that contradicts you

My "side" is that AGW research is interesting and plausible, but that it isn't mature enough to base global economic policy on it; no scientific field is after only a few decades. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is backed up by more than a century of research.

but no one could figure what was wrong with the calculations that predicted the neutrinos. No one, however, called Davis incompetent.

Davis' results contradicted predictions, but presumably his methods were found to be correct. Mann is the opposite case: his results agree with prediction, but his methods were found to be incorrect. That's what makes Davis competent and Mann incompetent.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Layzej]

Are you dumb or something? I have repeatedly stated that I'm not accusing Mann of fraud,

Well one of us is. Here is what you said: "Mann's data can be fraudulent without being wrong. That is, he may have deliberately manipulated the data..." and: "You can try how far 'I committed a crime, but nobody ended up getting hurt' will get you when you get dragged into court." and "they just 'tortured the data' until they got what they wanted."

Is that in any way consistent with "I have repeatedly stated that I'm not accusing Mann of fraud"?

And now you are saying that Mann didn't use the best technique but got the right answer - either because his technique was 'good enough', or because the hockey stick is so inherent in the underlying data that you would get the same result no matter how you combined the proxies.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Layzej]

AGW research is interesting and plausible, but that it isn't mature enough to base global economic policy on it; no scientific field is after only a few decades. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is backed up by more than a century of research.

Gotcha, but we've only known about the greenhouse effect since the 1800's, so that's clearly not a mature science.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[stenvar]

Well one of us is. Here is what you said: "Mann's data can be fraudulent without being wrong. That is, he may have deliberately manipulated the data..." and: "You can try how far 'I committed a crime, but nobody ended up getting hurt' will get you when you get dragged into court." and "they just 'tortured the data' until they got what they wanted." Is that in any way consistent with "I have repeatedly stated that I'm not accusing Mann of fraud"?

Yes. I pointed out that Mann could have committed fraud even though his results were correct. I didn't accuse him of having committed fraud. Nobody knows whether he committed fraud or not. What we do know is that his analysis was wrong.

Torturing the data until they got what they wanted is not considered scientific fraud; people rationalize it as trying different statistical methods and cleaning up the data. And Mann did that.

And now you are saying that Mann didn't use the best technique but got the right answer - either because his technique was 'good enough', or because the hockey stick is so inherent in the underlying data that you would get the same result no matter how you combined the proxies.

Yes, the recent temperature rise is a strong signal that probably would have survived a lot of bad analyses. But since Mann sought to produce that signal anyway, he stopped when he had produced it, in the process producing a graph that was otherwise wrong.

The point is that Steyn's accusation against Mann is justified, and the whole thing calls into question the competency of the climate research community. The fact that this kind of analysis was allowed to stand and people still keep defending his paper means that I trust very little that that community has produced.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[stenvar]

Gotcha, but we've only known about the greenhouse effect since the 1800's, so that's clearly not a mature science.

If you believe demonstration of the greenhouse effect is sufficient to justify and prove the predictions of the IPCC report and scientists working on climate change, you really are completely ignorant of the subject.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Anonymous Coward]

No, most if us are simply objective, and recognize that natural forces have, in the recent and distant past, provably warmed the earth far more than what we see today, so there is no valid reason to 1) assume that any warming is man-caused, and 2) promote the largest expansion of government power and control in world history, using the patently false justification that we must accept serfdom to "save the planet".

AGW isn't about the environment, it's about getting people to willingly accept totalitarianism. We've sent this before, and it NEVER ends well...

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Layzej]

Ok. The theory of evolution is backed up by over a century of research, so we can trust it. The theory of greenhouse gasses is backed up by over a century of research, but the initial research done in the 1800's is not enough to prove the most recent findings so we cannot trust it. Sound.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Layzej]

I pointed out that Mann could have committed fraud even though his results were correct. I didn't accuse him of having committed fraud. Nobody knows whether he committed fraud or not.

In one sentence, then in the next:

since Mann sought to produce that signal anyway, he stopped when he had produced it,

You may be a liar or you may be a fool. You may be deliberately fooling yourself or you may have a loose grasp on reason. You torture logic until it bends to your whim. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not accusing you of anything.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[BasilBrush]

That's why most Americans are unbelievers in Global Warming.

Thankfully, that's yet another thing you are wrong about.

"Americans' belief in the reality of global warming has increased by 13 percentage points over the past two and a half years, from 57 percent in January 2010 to 70 percent in September 2012. At the same time, the number of Americans who say global warming is not happening has declined nearly by half, from 20 percent in January 2010 to only 12 percent today.
"For the first time since 2008, more than half of Americans (54%) believe global warming is caused mostly by human activities, an increase of 8 points since March 2012. Americans who say it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment have declined to 30 percent (from 37% in March)."
- See more at: http://environment.yale.edu/cl...

Re:Steyn is Slime

[stenvar]

In one sentence, then in the next: "since Mann sought to produce that signal anyway, he stopped when he had produced it,"

Yes, and as I explained: that's not fraud. Fraud involves an element of intent, but Mann probably simply didn't know what he was doing so he thought this was OK. As I also explained, stopping when you get the results that you want is common in the sciences; it's a form of publication bias.

All of this is a huge problem in the sciences in general and why it takes a long time until we an trust scientific results in any field.

In one sentence, then in the next: since Mann sought to produce that signal anyway, he stopped when he had produced it,

Look, you obviously don't know much about science, so your "accusations" amount to nothing.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[stenvar]

The theory of greenhouse gasses is backed up by over a century of research, but the initial research done in the 1800's is not enough to prove the most recent findings so we cannot trust it. Sound.

Correct. You cannot make useful climate change predictions based on the greenhouse effect that was discovered in the 19th century. Predicting climate change requires a huge amount of research results that are very recent and largely untested. Furthermore, evaluating approaches to mitigating climate change (carbon taxes etc.) require economic models that are speculative and even less tested.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[UnknowingFool]

Are you dumb or something? I have repeatedly stated that I'm not accusing Mann of fraud, I'm accusing him of incompetence. And that was established by the Royal Commission (picking the wrong statistical analysis methods in such an important paper is incompetent).

Do you read your own statements? You have have said Mann manipulated the data then he "tortured" the data. That is accusing him of fraud. Does English and words mean something in your world?

My "side" is that AGW research is interesting and plausible, but that it isn't mature enough to base global economic policy on it; no scientific field is after only a few decades. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is backed up by more than a century of research.

Again citing what non-evidence as evidence. Global warming research is newer but it is backed up by more than a century of evidence which is the fatal flaw in your argument. By your arbitrary level of evidence, we can't trust theoretical physics as some of it has less than a century of research. Einstein's can barely be trusted because he seminal works are slight more than a century old.

Davis' results contradicted predictions, but presumably his methods were found to be correct. Mann is the opposite case: his results agree with prediction, but his methods were found to be incorrect. That's what makes Davis competent and Mann incompetent.

You missed the point. The point was no one called Davis incompetent just they disagreed with his results. As for agree with Mann results, you immediately jump to the conclusion that he was incompetent. His techniques were not as strong as it should have been or he should have done things differently (in a very new field) are not your first thoughts. The man must be incompetent because you disagree with him.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[UnknowingFool]

All of this is a huge problem in the sciences in general and why it takes a long time until we an trust scientific results in any field

No it doesn't. Time isn't the problem. The amount of evidence is. It takes a long time to gather enough evidence. Clearly you don't seem to understand this part of science.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[UnknowingFool]

By your tortured logic, atomic physics doesn't really work.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[stenvar]

Do you read your own statements? You have have said Mann manipulated the data then he "tortured" the data. That is accusing him of fraud. Does English and words mean something in your world?

Fraud requires intent. Repeatedly applying incorrect statistical procedures until you get the result you want ("torturing the data") may be fraud, or it may be merely incompetence. In Mann's case, we don't know. I just point out that even if his results had been perfectly correct, it wouldn't exculpate him.

Global warming research is newer but it is backed up by more than a century of evidence which is the fatal flaw in your argument.

The effects from a century ago by themselves predict very little global warming in the future; based on that evidence alone, climate change simply isn't an issue. Global warming only becomes an issue if you assume the existence of feedback mechanisms, and those are based on recent results and theories, and they haven't stood the test of time yet.

As for agree with Mann results, you immediately jump to the conclusion that he was incompetent. His techniques were not as strong as it should have been or he should have done things differently (in a very new field) are not your first thoughts. The man must be incompetent because you disagree with him.

You aren't listening. I agree with Mann's primary conclusion about recent increases in temperature, as does the Royal Society. I disagree with his statistical methods, just like the Royal Society did. What he did wrong is what many scientists get wrong in any field. It's common statistical mistakes. Usually, those things get corrected through a few decades of additional work, but it takes that amount of time.

But as you just admitted yourself (contradicting your earlier statement), AGW "is a very new field", so there simply hasn't been time for people to go through this process. Many papers in AGW probably use incorrect methods, most of them are far more complex than Mann's paper, and many of them contain far more serious errors in their conclusion than Mann's paper.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[UnknowingFool]

Fraud requires intent. Repeatedly applying incorrect statistical procedures until you get the result you want ("torturing the data") may be fraud, or it may be merely incompetence. In Mann's case, we don't know. I just point out that even if his results had been perfectly correct, it wouldn't exculpate him.

Again, do you read your own statements? These are your words: " That is, he may have deliberately manipulated the data, even if his results turned out to be correct later." It would be one thing if you said, he used the wrong technique. As for using the wrong technique, a statistician agrees with him and disagrees with you. Doesn't that make you incompetent?

The effects from a century ago by themselves predict very little global warming in the future; based on that evidence alone, climate change simply isn't an issue. Global warming only becomes an issue if you assume the existence of feedback mechanisms, and those are based on recent results and theories, and they haven't stood the test of time yet.

First of all you clearly have reading comprehension issues. I said the evidence goes back more than a century. Some of it goes back millions of years. None of which has anything to do with "feedback mechanisms." Again do you read what you write?: "My "side" is that AGW research is interesting and plausible, but that it isn't mature enough to base global economic policy on it; no scientific field is after only a few decades."

What he did wrong is what many scientists get wrong in any field. It's common statistical mistakes. Usually, those things get corrected through a few decades of additional work, but it takes that amount of time.

No, you aren't listening or reading. From above: "I would note that our '98 article was reviewed by the US National Academy of Sciences, the highest scientific authority in the United States, and given a clean bill of health," he said. "In fact, the statistician on the panel, Peter Bloomfield, a member of the Royal Statistical Society, came to the opposite conclusion of Prof Hand."

But as you just admitted yourself (contradicting your earlier statement), AGW "is a very new field", so there simply hasn't been time for people to go through this process. Many papers in AGW probably use incorrect methods, most of them are far more complex than Mann's paper, and many of them contain far more serious errors in their conclusion than Mann's paper.

Um, no. You aren't reading again. Davis wasn't incompetent; neither was Mann. I said nothing about AGW. As far as I'm concerned they haven't proven their case at all.

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, do you read your own statements? These are your words: " That is, he may have deliberately manipulated the data, even if his results turned out to be correct later."

Yes, prefixed by "Mann's data can be fraudulent without being wrong.". That was in response to someone who claimed that because Mann's conclusions were correct, he cannot have committed fraud. So, if Mann committed fraud, arriving at a correct conclusion wouldn't get him off. I'm sorry you have trouble with hypotheticals.

I said the evidence goes back more than a century. Some of it goes back millions of years. None of which has anything to do with "feedback mechanisms."

You can say that the moon is made of green cheese; that doesn't make it true. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

"I would note that our '98 article was reviewed by the US National Academy of Sciences, the highest scientific authority in the United States, and given a clean bill of health," he said. "In fact, the statistician on the panel, Peter Bloomfield, a member of the Royal Statistical Society, came to the opposite conclusion of Prof Hand."

How nice. But a lot of statisticians disagree. So do I. And Steyn will have no trouble finding reputable statisticians attesting to the fact that Mann did "torture" the data, statisticians with a lot more impressive publication records and credentials than Bloomfield's.

good

[Anonymous Coward]

That should teach others to defile our religion

Re:good

[wytcld]

The hockey stick has stood the test of time. The facts hold. The data continue to support it. Here's Mann recently, and discussion.

Here are myths about the hockey stick debunked.

Re:good

[superwiz]

Isn't realclimate.org just his advocacy site? I've had people point to it before. It's reads like a marketing hype rather than as a scientific discussion.

Re:good

[wytcld]

Because it's an official meme of the Heartland Institute that scientific concern about radical climate change constitutes a "religion."

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is fraud, it will be a difficult subject to prove. It appears as if he included the graph in much the same way an author of fiction (or any literature for that matter) might include a drawing of something in a book to suggest something to our imagination. Maybe his paper simply carried an artist's rendition of how things would be if they were the way they wanted them to be?

However, I think the later uses of the graph that completely ignores any limitations like James Hansen's purposeful introduction to congress on a day they (democrat staffers) purposely disabled the air conditioning on one of the historically hottest days in the year in order to create effect might be pure and simple fraud.

So I guess the question might be more to the likes of if what Mann did was fraud or was it just the use of what he did by others in the future the fraud? But I guess that leads into other questions like did those future uses knowingly commit the fraud or did they assume more from what was available then what was said and created it by chance?

Re:good

[Jane Q. Public]

"That should teach others to defile our religion"

Haha!

Well, religion or not, one thing it should do is reinforce the principle that you should be careful what you say about people, even online, and regardless of whether you are a journalist. In most cases the libel laws are no different for Joe Shmoe than they are or a syndicated columnist.

Generally, opinions are fine... as long as they're clearly opinion and not stated as fact. Because even "You're an asshole" is commonly accepted as an opinion, that's probably okay... especially if you make it clear that it's only opinion.

But "fraud", and other such claims? Usually over the line, unless you can show that it's true.

Re:good

[superwiz]

Right, if your supporters take the torch that you light and carry it to make points which you never mean to make, but which make your work seem more relevant, does that mean you have to speak out to moderate their voices? If you stay silent and let the hype grow, are you committing fraud? In the legal sense, probably not. But can you be accused of it in a rhetorical sense? If not, then that would put severe limitations on any critic using hyperbole as a rhetorical device. And it really is up to the court to draw that distinction. I mean, anyone who accused GW Bush of fraud in any editorial opposing the Iraq war, would now be liable for damages to Bush for making such a charge.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Got any links to denier sites that read like scientific discussions? I'd love to see them. Or just one.

Re:good

[amorsen]

It's reads like a marketing hype rather than as a scientific discussion.

I think you are being a bit optimistic if you expect to find actual scientists having proper scientific discussions with each other on a popular web site.

Realclimate.org is primarily for lay people. I do not believe that marketing hype is the right description for it, but neither is scientific discussion.

Re:good

[techno-vampire]

Scientific concern about climate change isn't, of course, a religion. However, there are an awful lot of True Believers who act as though it were. And no, I'm not a member of the Heartland Institute, I'm just a skeptic who accepts the fact that the climate is changing (It's always changing, sometimes getting warmer, sometimes cooler.) but doubts that the main driving force at the presence is anthropogenic because I don't, personally, find the evidence sufficiently persuasive and prefer to think for myself.

Re:good

[the eric conspiracy]

In other words you have a cognitive bias that leads you to reject one of the largest bodies of modern scientific research.

Good!

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Accusing someone of being a child molester is OK, but you can't call someone a liar. Can you call the person who called you a child molester a liar?

Re:good

[OYAHHH]

Michael Mann has a LOT more to loose than some radio guy.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

No one called Michael Mann a child molester. Steyn compared him to Sandusky in a rhetorical and hyperbolic way. No one should seriously believe Steyn was calling him a child molester; he was just saying that in Steyn's opinion, he was as bad as a child molester. That's opinion. (It's a stupid opinion, but we allow those in this country.)

You can call someone a liar, if they lied. On the other hand, if you call someone a liar and they didn't lie, that could be libel.

I say "could be" because the word "liar" is frequently used to refer to someone who says something you don't believe. In that regard it might be opinion. But if you accuse someone of engaging in fraudulent scientific practices on a particular topic, I think that's moving beyond a statement of opinion into the realm of factual assertion.

Re:good

[taustin]

Unless you have personally done the research, you also have a cognitive bias to accept one of the largest bodies of modern scientific research. It's only a matter of which side you believe, in the end.

Both sides act like drunken schoolyard bullies beating up the smaller kids for their lunch money.

Re: good

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't that many climate scientists. All the other scientists piling on are just laymen.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

is "you are as bad as a liar" acceptable? seems pretty close to "you are a liar" conceptually in my mind >_>

Re:good

[quantaman]

Isn't realclimate.org just his advocacy site? I've had people point to it before. It's reads like a marketing hype rather than as a scientific discussion.

Are you looking at the same link I am? Other than using the "Myth #1" style of summarization used by many people (including marketing) if I have a criticism of realclimate.org it's that they write too much like scientists. Their writing is full of caveats, asides, and long winded explainations because the subject is inherently messy. Frankly I think their writing is just too dry and analytical to reach a general audience. Just look at this excerpt from the link in question:

MYTH #4: Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous.

[...]

The second falsehood holds that there are errors in the Mann et al (1998, 1999) analyses, and that these putative errors compromise the “hockey stick” shape of hemispheric surface temperature reconstructions. Such claims seem to be based in part on the misunderstanding or misrepresentation by some individuals of a corrigendum that was published by Mann and colleagues in Nature. This corrigendum simply corrected the descriptions of supplementary information that accompanied the Mann et al article detailing precisely what data were used. As clearly stated in the corrigendum, these corrections have no influence at all on the actual analysis or any of the results shown in Mann et al (1998). Claims that the corrigendum reflects any errors at all in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely false.

Realclimate.org isn't marketing, it's dry scientific writing directed to laypeople, what the AGW community needs is an advocacy site written by non-scientists which is less concerned about the science and more concerned about the debate. Realclimate.org fills an essential niche in the debate but it's not the kind of hand wavy tabloidish mass audience style of blog that's needed to counter Watts Up With That?.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

There could be a pretty big difference.

Let's say you ask me, "Should I do business with Honest Joe?"

If I say, "No! Honest Joe is a liar. Don't do business with him," that's very different from if I say, "No! Honest Joe is so unpleasant to do business with that he's as bad as a liar. Don't do business with him." In the latter case I'm making a protected statement of opinion (I think he's unpleasant to do business with) and saying that for me, I'd just as soon do business with a liar. But I'm not impugning Honest Joe's honesty.

Re:good

[gtall]

Well, regardless of whether the climate is changing or whether humans have anything to do with it, consider CO2 and the acidifying oceans because of it. Man pumped up the extra CO2 over a very short time frame, short enough where species will have a hell of a time coping. Don't forget that one of the bases of the food chain is the ocean.

Acidifying oceans as a result of man-pumped CO2 in a short time frame is enough reason to stop it.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

What if Honest Joe is as bad a child molester? Are you allowed to call him as bad as a liar?

How about:
-"Don't do business with Honest Joe. I'm not saying Honest Joe is a lair, I'm just saying he's as bad as a lair"?
-"Don't do business with Honest Joe. I'm not saying Honest Joe is a lair, I'm just saying he's as good as a lair"?

Re:good

[KeensMustard]

He does?

I would say that they both stand to lose personal credibility - is credibility not important for radio stars?

Re:good

[haruchai]

No. This is a site where several prominent & practising climate scientists post.

For example, here's a translated one from Stefan Rahmstorf

Re:good

[haruchai]

Try SkepticalScience.com or ClimateCrocks.com

Re:good

[amorsen]

Don't be ridiculous. Government funded scientists have lots of proper scientific discussions. Practically all of CERN is government funded by various governments, just to pick an example off the top of my head.

Re:good

[citizenr]

No, he means calling child molesters a fraud. Priests are people too, you know.

Re:good

[Oligonicella]

Acceptable though tacky because "as bad as" is a subjective judgement, an opinion. If you call someone a liar, they've either lied or not.

Re:good

[Oligonicella]

extreme pedantry = tortured logic = disingenuous conversation

Re:good

[The Grim Reefer]

The hockey stick has stood the test of time. The facts hold. The data continue to support it. Here's Mann recently, and discussion.

Here are myths about the hockey stick debunked.

I'm not denying that the climate is changing, or that we should burn every combustible material we can get our hands on. But we also don't need to throw society a tailspin either. From your link:

after a single study I co-wrote a decade and a half ago found that the Northern Hemisphere’s average warmth had no precedent in at least the past 1,000 years. Our “hockey stick” graph

Which would be pretty scary if the planet was 6,000 yeas old. But it's not, and this type of warming is not new. Even during the time that Homo Sapiens has been on the planet. Also from your link:

James Hansen, who has turned to civil disobedience ... ...in 2011 and 2013 in Washington protesting the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Texas Gulf. He has warned that the pipeline, which awaits approval by the State Department, would open the floodgates to dirty tar sands oil from Canada, something he says would be “game over for the climate.”

This is such over the top hyperbole it's ridiculous. The tar sands in Alberta are going to be extracted whether the XL pipeline is built, or not. IF it's not built, then the oil will be sent by another pipeline to the coast to be shipped to China. It will also be shipped to the US via rail instead of pipeline. Which means more fossil fuels will be used in transporting it by train and ship; and the likelihood of an accident will be increased as well as there will be a pipeline, trains and ships hauling it. .

Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia’s Earth Institute, and other scientists, making a compelling case that emissions from fossil fuel burning must be reduced rapidly if we are to avert catastrophic climate change. They called for the immediate introduction of a price on carbon emissions, arguing that it is our moral obligation to not leave a degraded planet behind for our children and grandchildren.

How scientific of them. We have a "moral" obligation? Yes, very scientific. Even if the planet is warming entirely because of man, there is no definitive proof that it will reach worst case. How do we know it will reach a cataclysmic event(s) if we don't' stop right this very second? I've been hearing that "if we don't fix things right now, we are all doomed" (from one thing or another) for almost my entire life. If that's the case, we're already too late. So if we can't leave our children a non-degraded planet, we must give them a pile of cash? Or who is supposed to get this money?

Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, who has argued that “the only ethical path is to stop using the atmosphere as a waste dump for greenhouse gas pollution,”

You know what else is a greenhouse gas? Water. So should we support the Stop Dihydrogen Mono-Oxide people too? What about CO2? Do we need to stop expiration by all animals on the planet? Should we all go on the Atkins diet? After all, herbivores expel more methane. Hmm, that's probably very sustainable.

This virulent strain of anti-science infects the halls of Congress, the pages of leading newspapers and what we see on TV, leading to the appearance of a debate where none should exist

Re:good

[Oligonicella]

Whoosh on the original sarcasm.

Re:good

[LynnwoodRooster]

The "hockey stick" agrees closely with the average of IPCC models. Yet none of the models comes close to matching real measurements. Perhapsthe hockey stick only stands the test of time when compared against other models, not real data...

Re: good

[femtobyte]

There aren't that many scientists in any particular field. There are only small communities of people with personal, hands-on, in-depth work on the raw data indicating that the Cosmic Microwave Background exists, or that atoms have nuclei made of protons and neutrons, or that portions of general relativity hold up in the lab. All scientists "piling on" to every single aspect of modern science are "just laymen" with regard to the bulk of human knowledge outside a very specific sub-field that they personally work on. Would you give credit to some dentist funded by a creationist think-tank claiming that the CMB was a fraud, despite the claims of all the scientific researchers working on it? If not, why are your reasons different for denying plausibility to the community of climate scientists, while giving credence to corporate shills (who are also not climate scientists, and demonstrate poor levels of reasoning that make them a laughingstock of the vast majority of scientists)?

Re:good

[ClickOnThis]

Unless you have personally done the research, you also have a cognitive bias to accept one of the largest bodies of modern scientific research. It's only a matter of which side you believe, in the end.

Both sides act like drunken schoolyard bullies beating up the smaller kids for their lunch money.

I saw what you did there.

Re:good

[fche]

It's only false equivalence if the other guy is doing it.

Re:good

[ClickOnThis]

How scientific of them. We have a "moral" obligation? Yes, very scientific.

Scientist are also human beings with feelings and compassion for their fellow inhabitants of Earth. What's so surprising about them speaking in terms of a "moral" obligation? It may not be their ultimate decision on what constitutes the best moral decision, but they're allowed to have an opinion like anyone else.

Even if the planet is warming entirely because of man, there is no definitive proof that it will reach worst case.

Suppose we wait until the proof is, in your eyes, definitive. Methinks it will be too late to do anything.

How do we know it will reach a cataclysmic event(s) if we don't' stop right this very second? I've been hearing that "if we don't fix things right now, we are all doomed" (from one thing or another) for almost my entire life. If that's the case, we're already too late. So if we can't leave our children a non-degraded planet, we must give them a pile of cash? Or who is supposed to get this money?

Overly simplistic. It's not about non-degraded planet vs. cash. It's about changing the path we're on.

Re:good

[DAldredge]

Do you have the same concerns about evolution?

Re:good

[ClickOnThis]

It's only false equivalence if the other guy is doing it.

Doing what? And who's the "other guy" here?

This sounds like the "I know you are but what am I" retort from the same schoolyard that taustin hung out in.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

"largest bodies of modern scientific research."

You catastrophiles are something else.

--

Re:good

[techno-vampire]

consider CO2 and the acidifying oceans because of it.

Indeed. And, as I've written here before, you don't have to buy into AGW, or whatever they're calling it today, to think that pouring endless amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere to see what happens is a bad idea. I grew up in Los Angeles, and I can remember what the air there was like before we started putting in all of the pollution controls. I'd like to see some of the other developed/developing nations start doing something about their air quality (Mexico City and Beijing are good examples here.) because in the long run, I think it's in their own best interests, and I'd like to see the US start building nuclear power plants again so that we can stop being so dependent on fossil fuels.

Re:good

[microbox]

but doubts that the main driving force at the presence is anthropogenic because I don't, personally, find the evidence sufficiently persuasive and prefer to think for myself.

Then, with probability 1.0 a.s. (almost surely), you get your information from blogs, and you think know better than career scientists who actually study the issue.

Political tribalism is at the heart of most of the denial, including (mostly) wingnut fears of TEH SOCIALISM!!!!. This, of course, has nothing to do with the science either.

Be honest with yourself: how many real climate scientists have you listened to other than Lindzen, Spencer, and a few contrarians? If you think you know so much about the issue, then why do you pick and choose your sources of information?

Just sayin'

Re:good

[microbox]

Haha, projection is the last resort of the ignorant mind. Yeah, it's the other guy who's ignorant!!! It's always someone else, isn't it =0.

Re: good

[Bartles]

Intent is what makes it libel. The additional missing element is that you call them a liar while knowing they are telling the truth.

Re:good

[Layzej]

You should check out http://climatechangenationalfo...

One of the key features of the Climate Change National Forum is the comment section. Below each entry, and above the general comment section, will be comments made by other contributors. Rather than presenting a unified face to the outside world, contributors are encouraged to question, debate, dispute, expand, and otherwise discuss other contributions. The public rarely gets to see scientists debating each other, outside of the fake debates that are set up by news shows. As scientists know, what scientists eventually tell the outside world in publications, presentations, and committee reports gives little or no clue (or even the wrong impressions) about how scientists judge scientific claims, evaluate evidence, develop hypotheses, and reach conclusions. I know of no web site, inside or outside of climate science, that allows the public to experience true scientific discussions on a regular basis.

- http://blog.chron.com/climatea...

Re:good

[techno-vampire]

If you think you know so much about the issue, then why do you pick and choose your sources of information?

Of course, that's nothing more than a straw-man argument, and can be ignored. I do my best to stay informed on the subject, but I don't like (among other things) the way that the AGW people have done everything they possibly could to deny that the Medieval Warm or the Little Ice Age happened or that they were anything except "local phenomena." I also have a friend who requested the raw data from the CRU back when Climategate was raging and had his request refused because "he didn't know enough about statistics to understand it." What they didn't know, and my friend was too much of a gentleman (and probably too disgusted) to mention was that he has, among other things, a Masters degree in Statistical Inference, and probably knew more about statistics than whoever refused his request. There's been too much cherry-picking, too much using peer review to suppress contrarian papers and too much playing around with funding to make sure that nobody who doesn't agree with AGW can get the money they need for me to believe that there isn't something funny going on. However, if you think it's been proven, go right ahead and don't let my viewpoint stop you.

Re:good

[Layzej]

Even if the planet is warming entirely because of man, there is no definitive proof that it will reach worst case.

Right. We have to do a rational cost/benefit/risk analysis and take reasonable steps. The only thing standing in the way of rational policies is the hyperbole from the political ideologs.

Do we need to stop expiration by all animals on the planet? Should we all go on the Atkins diet? After all, herbivores expel more methane. Hmm, that's probably very sustainable.

Sigh....

Re: good

[Jane Q. Public]

I'm not sure that's true. There are three factors. Of which I am aware, that is... IANAL. And of course I'm talking about U.S. Libel laws are different in UK.

[1] The statement must be of a defamatory nature (likely to cause others to have a lower opinion of the subject or otherwise damaging, as to professional reputation for example). [2] It must be untrue, and [3] the person stating it must know, or reasonably should know, that it is not true.

I could be wrong, but I don't think intent per se is a requirement. For example, someone could write something damaging about someone else, genuinely believing it to be true, but if they reasonably should have known it was not true, then they can still be guilty of libel. So it's possible to run afoul of the law without intending to tell lies about somebody.

Re: good

[stenvar]

There aren't that many scientists in any particular field. There are only small communities of people with personal, hands-on, in-depth work on the raw data indicating that the Cosmic Microwave Background exists, or that atoms have nuclei made of protons and neutrons, or that portions of general relativity hold up in the lab. All scientists "piling on" to every single aspect of modern science are "just laymen" with regard to the bulk of human knowledge outside a very specific sub-field that they personally work on

Large parts of science (physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics) are easily reproducible, there are numerous independent sources of raw data, and the data analysis is simple enough that any scientist can do it and do it correctly. In high school and college courses, I could verify for myself that quantum mechanics, relativity, evolution, and many other results work as advertised; I didn't have to believe or trust anybody, specialist or otherwise. None of that is true for climate science.

If not, why are your reasons different for denying plausibility to the community of climate scientists

Skepticism is not the same as "denying plausibility". Many things are plausible but nevertheless false.

Given that, unlike much of the rest of science, I can't independently verify climate science results, I'm much more skeptical of those results.

Re: good

[femtobyte]

You can verify climate science claims to the same high-school/college level that you verified all other branches of physics. You can demonstrate, e.g., the greenhouse effect, and the spectral transmission characteristics of carbon dioxide, with simple equipment. You can check that burning carbohydrates releases H20 and C02. You can build simple toy-model radiative transfer models that show trapping more heat in a system (via greenhouse gas) increases the temperature. I doubt you did significantly more "conclusive" tests of gravity, particle physics, or quantum mechanics in high school or college --- you were just willing to trust that extending the same procedure that predicted the simple toy model results also works in the "damn, that's too hard to do in my garage" systems.

You probably haven't personally worked on squeezed light states or quantum entanglement or production of exotic particles in TeV-scale supercollider experiments; do you assume the scientists doing these are frauds pulling the wool over your eyes? Yes, the finest details of global climate modeling are too messy for high school students to pin down; but the science does make sense on the crude level accessible to college-level experiment. Data sets and models are available and shared between qualified researchers --- but, just like raw data from the LHC, they're not always easy for an "outsider" without extensive subject-specific training to evaluate. So, why do you assume that somewhere along the way (at the levels too complex for an Excel spreadsheet) the system suddenly turns fraudulent? Just because paid industry shills have told you so?

Re:good

[microbox]

So... where do you get your information on the Medieval Warm and Little Ice Age?

Re:good

[Jane Q. Public]

"Accusing someone of being a child molester is OK, but you can't call someone a liar. Can you call the person who called you a child molester a liar?"

Huh? Where did this come from? What is it supposed to mean?

Wait. I see. Steyn "comparing" Mann to Sandusky. Which he really didn't do. What he did was repeat a comment that had been made by someone else about Mann:

"He has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet."

So Steyn didn't actually compare him to Sandusky, or call him a child molester. He repeated someone else's comment, which was kind of a parody of the Sandusky affair.

Because it IS a kind of parody, in my opinion Mann has no chance at all of convincing a judge that he was actually "compared to a child" molester. Instead he was accused of molesting important data.

The problem is that because Mann is a public figure he has to show actual malice to win his case.

But re: the tongue-in-cheek reference to Sandusky, keep in mind that libel is pretty specific.

Re:good

[Jane Q. Public]

Oops. I was cut off in mid-reply.

As an example of what is libel and what isn't, consider a rather famous case from the 17th Century. Back in those days, innkeepers typically brewed their own beer.

According to the documents, a visitor to a popular inn complained loudly in front of the other patrons: "My horse can Pisse better beer than you serve here!"

The innkeeper sued the customer for slander (libel, except that it is spoken). The judge's ruling said that the visitor was not guilty of slander, because the customer had not defamed the bartender at all. He had merely complimented his horse.

Re:good

[techno-vampire]

There's quite a bit of information out there. If you're interested, Wikipedia has fine articles on both, and I'm sure that a little googlemancy will give you more sources than you need. Also, if you look around, you'll find a large number of books, including history books, that cover the two periods, including at least some mention of the climate. One important thing to read up on is the Norse colony on Greenland, because without the Medieval Warm it probably would have been impossible, and the last colonists were frozen out either at the beginning of the Little Ice Age, or shortly before, depending on who's opinion of when it started you're using.

Re: good

[stenvar]

You can verify climate science claims to the same high-school/college level that you verified all other branches of physics.

No, I cannot. I can verify the existence of the greenhouse effect, but that tells me nothing about AGW, since the greenhouse effect is insufficient to account for AGW.

Furthermore, I can directly observe the impact the results of other branches of physics have on my life: after verifying basic nuclear science, I can visit nuclear reactors and see the remnants of atomic bomb blasts. I can buy and use devices from numerous vendors based on quantum mechanical effects that I couldn't reproduce myself. Therefore, I can experimentally verify a lot of things that go far beyond what I can do in a high school lab, using lots of different sources.

You probably haven't personally worked on squeezed light states or quantum entanglement or production of exotic particles in TeV-scale supercollider experiments; do you assume the scientists doing these are frauds pulling the wool over your eyes?

I suspect a lot of those results are probably wrong. But those people aren't asking for radical changes to our global economic system based on their results, so I frankly don't care.

So, why do you assume that somewhere along the way (at the levels too complex for an Excel spreadsheet) the system suddenly turns fraudulent? Just because paid industry shills have told you so?

I have worked in three different areas of science and engineering. Bias, error, and fraud were widespread in all three of them. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to assume that they are widespread in climate science as well.

Why do you assume that climate scientists are any less prone to fraud, bias, and error than other scientific fields?

Re: good

[femtobyte]

Why do you assume that climate scientists are any less prone to fraud, bias, and error than other scientific fields?

There are many instances of individual lab / group level fraud in sciences across all fields. However, instances of entire fields committing fraud are unheard of. There aren't many climate scientists, but there are enough --- in academically competing groups --- that systematic fraud is implausible. We're not talking about just one PI's personal domain here; when isolated fraud gets committed, it also gets caught when other people in the field closely scrutinize and attempt to reproduce the results. If Michael Mann was the only lead climate researcher in the world, one might be skeptical of his claims. However, when dozens of independent institutions and research groups --- who would secure immense fame and funding for themselves by making a breakthrough discovery that contradicts climate science consensus --- all agree on the broad generalities, then I'm inclined (based on the history of how conspiracies work --- they don't last when too many people are involved) to assume there is vanishingly small chance of field-wide fraud.

Re:good

[The Grim Reefer]

How scientific of them. We have a "moral" obligation? Yes, very scientific.

Scientist are also human beings with feelings and compassion for their fellow inhabitants of Earth. What's so surprising about them speaking in terms of a "moral" obligation? It may not be their ultimate decision on what constitutes the best moral decision, but they're allowed to have an opinion like anyone else.

Morality is pretty ambiguous and not something that belongs in this particular debate. Oh, wait. Anyone disagreeing with, or even questioning AWG is "immoral". This is not what I call scientific in any way. Some would say much of the research done on animals is immoral. Or that using the knowledge gained from it is too. I'm not in this camp. But do you see the problem? Once this becomes a discussion about morality, it looses it's scientific merit. It then becomes a religious discussion, nothing more.

Even if the planet is warming entirely because of man, there is no definitive proof that it will reach worst case.

Suppose we wait until the proof is, in your eyes, definitive. Methinks it will be too late to do anything.

Not at all. If you read my post, you would notice that I'm all for developing renewable and nuclear energy. I'm not for knee jerk "the end is nigh, ye must repent and denounce the pagan, fossil burning ways!" hyperbole.

How do we know it will reach a cataclysmic event(s) if we don't' stop right this very second? I've been hearing that "if we don't fix things right now, we are all doomed" (from one thing or another) for almost my entire life. If that's the case, we're already too late. So if we can't leave our children a non-degraded planet, we must give them a pile of cash? Or who is supposed to get this money?

Overly simplistic. It's not about non-degraded planet vs. cash. It's about changing the path we're on.

I thought it was about saving the planet for future generations. And if we can't do that, then we must pay our penance in currency. You're telling me it's just about choosing a different path? I agree with you on this, by the way. But I do have a problem with the hell fire and brimstone predictions that are in the article I was talking about.

Re: good

[stenvar]

There are many instances of individual lab / group level fraud in sciences across all fields. However, instances of entire fields committing fraud are unheard of.

No, but there are plenty of instances of entire fields getting it wrong for decades at a time.

who would secure immense fame and funding for themselves by making a breakthrough discovery that contradicts climate science consensus

Scientists in any field don't get famous by showing that the "scientific consensus" is erroneous, they get their grants turned down and their papers rejected. That's why it usually takes decades for major scientific errors to get corrected, and few people have the stomach and stamina to do it.

Career-wise, scientists choose to do experiments that are likely to support the current consensus, and to selectively show only data consistent with the consensus and dismiss data inconsistent with the consensus as experimental error. That's something we observe in many fields, and there is no reason to believe that climate science would be any different. People are slowly coming to realize this, e.g.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/0...

http://www.scilogs.com/next_re...

then I'm inclined (based on the history of how conspiracies work --- they don't last when too many people are involved) to assume there is vanishingly small chance of field-wide fraud.

I agree: the chance of deliberate field-wide fraud is indeed vanishingly small. The chance of field-wide error persisting for decades and remaining unchallenged, however, is very high, in particular given that "there aren't many climate scientists" and the statistics, computations, and models are highly complex and interdisciplinary.

Re:good

[microbox]

Where did *you* get your information on the MWP and the Little Ice Age?

Re: good

[stenvar]

That should have read "Scientists in any field don't usually get famous by..."

Trying to upset the scientific consensus is a very high risk and very costly strategy for a scientist. Of course, if you succeed, you get rewarded, although you're usually retired or dead by the time people recognize your contribution. Not a good career move.

Re:good

[The Grim Reefer]

Even if the planet is warming entirely because of man, there is no definitive proof that it will reach worst case.

Right. We have to do a rational cost/benefit/risk analysis and take reasonable steps. The only thing standing in the way of rational policies is the hyperbole from the political ideologs.

As much as I hate MBA talk about cost/benefit crap. Yes we do. You can't tell industrialized countries they have to revert to the dark ages now, because we are simply out of time. There is no proof of this. And it's not going to make a damn bit of difference when half the world has no choice but to burn the hell out of fossil fuels in the cheapest dirtiest ways possible.

Do we need to stop expiration by all animals on the planet? Should we all go on the Atkins diet? After all, herbivores expel more methane. Hmm, that's probably very sustainable.

Sigh....

You may sigh all you wish. Oh, wait. That's releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. What are you trying to do? Murder the planet? Since you failed to recognize that the statement you quoted above was little more than a joke, I guess I need to inform you that the former part of this statement was in fact a joke as well. But only in that I have actually heard people who vehemently oppose eating meat not only because it "murders" animals. But because the domestic herds are a "major" contributor to AWG.

Re: good

[femtobyte]

No, but there are plenty of instances of entire fields getting it wrong for decades at a time.

Can you cite examples of fields getting it wrong on large scale details accessible to contemporary levels of experimental evidence? The "big revolutions" in science have always been about the tiny details. Einstein didn't radically overthrow Newton; his theory indicated only microscopically tiny deviations from classical physics that could barely be measured by the most sensitive apparatus (and they were, and the rest is history). Quantum mechanics didn't destroy classical physics; it only showed strange things happening at the most sensitive boundaries of technology. Fundamental shifts in understanding --- things that shift the foundational basis for entire fields --- occur at the extreme margins of experimental evidence; it's never "the old guys are 90% wrong," but rather "the old guys are 99.9% right, but we've just found that 0.1% discrepancy."

Scientists in any field don't get famous by showing that the "scientific consensus" is erroneous, they get their grants turned down and their papers rejected.

Really? You just stated that drastic changes in scientific understanding have occurred before. Who built renown and careers off those? The guys who stuck with the old, discredited theories? Being the revolutionary discoverer of new physics overthrowing old theory has always been the way to get maximal renown --- you just need to be able to back up your stuff with solid evidence. Anthropogenic climate change deniers aren't discredited because they oppose consensus views; they're marginalized because they have zero solid evidence and rely on sloppy, unscientific, long-ago-disproven rhetoric instead of intellectual rigor.

The chance of field-wide error persisting for decades and remaining unchallenged, however, is very high, in particular given that "there aren't many climate scientists" and the statistics, computations, and models are highly complex and interdisciplinary.

That's why climate scientists report very broad confidence intervals. They can't tell you the weather five years from now in Minneapolis, or even precisely where between 1.1 degrees and 6.4 degrees average warming will be over the next century (depending hugely also on emissions levels). IPCC warming estimates fall in a large uncertainty band, estimated by best practices to cover the complexity in fine details of figuring out exactly how a strongly-coupled complex system is going to evolve. On the other hand, climate change denialism --- that there is no effect within the broad range of uncertainty cited by climate experts --- is based on nothing but anti-scientific corporate shill craziness. There is zero scientific evidence that a guess at where the climate is heading falls in the "no change produced by anthropogenic emissions" regime, though there is room for uncertainty in the band between moderate and extreme climate impacts.

To the extent that there is field wide error, such errors (based on historical precedent) are likely to be in the small details rather than the "big picture." Also, such errors are, a-priori, no less likely to over-predict anthropogenic impacts than to under-predict them, so the hard-line "there's nothing to worry about" stance is simply politically-motivated intentional ignorance (the antithesis of a scientific "skeptical" approach).

Re:good

[hey!]

However, there are an awful lot of True Believers who act as though it were.

Weasel words.

Re:good

[superwiz]

Given this:

...denier sites...

I don't believe you when you say this (emphasis mine):

I'd love to see them.

Just saw we are clear, in my opinion, you are a liar.

Re: good

[femtobyte]

What fields have you applied for grants in? I'm not in climate science, but at least I particle physics, I can assure you that "everyone already knows this, and we're going to get the same results" is not a winning grant proposal or path to career success. If you want funding, you find an issue with lots of uncertainty (or one where you know you can do better than everyone else), and highlight how different your approach will be, with the possibility of finding new results. Trying to upset the consensus is the entire name of the game --- the only limit to doing so is demonstrating that you're competent to do so. Every scientist I know loves the principles of "underdog" experiments, using crazy new ideas that just might work to make new discoveries --- indeed, replication of results in many fields suffers because nobody is interested in just "confirming the consensus." There is no shame in the scientific community (at least the portion I've seen) about challenging the consensus with boundary-pushing work (negative results on well-performed experiments contribute to career success) --- you just have to be competent, rather than a nutjob spouting ignorance (the typical state of climate-change-denying "experts").

Re:good

[superwiz]

What's so surprising about them speaking in terms of a "moral" obligation?

Corruption, as such, is not following the mandate of one's accepted role. For example, if a defense attorney decides to help the prosecution to put his client (a criminal) in jail, he would be corrupt even if he is doing society a favor. His accepted role is advocating for his client. Once he abandones his mandate, the whole structure of the institution becomes corrupt and untrustworthy. A scientist's station is truth-finding. If he abandons his commitment to accuracy (even a little bit) in favor of advocacy, he becomes corrupt. And his entire disciple suffers from diminished credibility as a result.

Re:good

[superwiz]

Suppose we wait until the proof is, in your eyes, definitive. Methinks it will be too late to do anything.

Wait, are we talking science or religion? This is the traditional scare tactic proof of necessity to repent.... just in case. What it conveniently sidesteps is that the corrective behavior carries a huge cost with it. Not only is it not free, it requires an almost dystopian change to society. Better be sure before taking a step like that.

Re:good

[KeensMustard]

I wonder where the good Dr got his data from? Oh there it is! Turns out that he selectively chose 2 datasets for mid tropospheric temperatures in the tropics and then compared the data from those to GCM predictions for the whole surface (including polar regions) and for across the entire column.

Whoops.

He admits in the comments below after this is exposed that in fact the polar regions are expected to warm faster than the tropics (hard not to, since we've observed it) and thus, temperature rises in the polar regions will be higher then the projections of the models, but handwaves this away. No, Roy, this is what maths is for. Don't handwave.

Re: good

[stenvar]

To the extent that there is field wide error, such errors (based on historical precedent) are likely to be in the small details rather than the "big picture

Well, you just go on believing that. You asked why people don't believe climate scientists, and I gave you an answer. You can continue to denigrate people like me as "corporate shills", I don't care.

What your responses tell me is that you know next to nothing about the history of science, and your deficiencies in that area are so great that a debate with you about science and society is pointless. And it confirms my views of experimental particle physics again. Thanks.

Re: good

[stenvar]

indeed, replication of results in many fields suffers because nobody is interested in just "confirming the consensus."

And you just completely agreed with me: people don't write grant proposals to "confirm" (i.e. test or challenge) the consensus, they simply assume that the consensus is true. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Re:good

[techno-vampire]

How can it possibly be weasel words to point out that some of the AGW advocates are acting like religious fanatics?

Re: good

[femtobyte]

No, I didn't agree with you: people don't wire grant proposals to confirm consensus, they write grant proposals to challenge or disprove it. If you assume consensus is unchallengeable and true, then you have nothing to write a grant proposal on. Only if you find something new --- that previous researchers overlooked, or got wrong, or didn't have the tools to measure --- are you going to get research funding. "Confirm" and "test or challenge" are not the same things. You're saying that people can only get funding to do experiments that look for and find the same answers everyone got before ("the consensus"), which is simply false. People get funding to do things that might produce new results that change previous understanding ("test or challenge").

Re:good

[ClickOnThis]

What's so surprising about them speaking in terms of a "moral" obligation?

Corruption, as such, is not following the mandate of one's accepted role. For example, if a defense attorney decides to help the prosecution to put his client (a criminal) in jail, he would be corrupt even if he is doing society a favor. His accepted role is advocating for his client. Once he abandones his mandate, the whole structure of the institution becomes corrupt and untrustworthy. A scientist's station is truth-finding. If he abandons his commitment to accuracy (even a little bit) in favor of advocacy, he becomes corrupt. And his entire disciple suffers from diminished credibility as a result.

A scientist can follow the mandate of her/his role, and then, after the evidence is presented, can change hats. They are no longer being scientific after they change hats, but there is nothing un-scientific about changing hats. What is important is for scientists, and their audience, to be clear about when the hat-switch happens. In virtually all cases, this should be obvious.

Perhaps the real issue is that science has a deserved reputation for providing well-considered evidence and explanations for natural phenomena. It is important that such authority not be misused. Nevertheless, it is also important for science to inform and advise on public policy where appropriate. Scientists who have invested effort in arriving at important conclusions may need to go beyond the conventions of scientific presentation in order to communicate to a non-scientific audience. This may include rhetoric that includes talk of morality or public interest.

In short, there's nothing wrong with a scientist playing the role of an advocate, as long as it is clear that they are not simultaneously playing the role of a scientist. If they cross the line, their fellow scientists will call them out, even if the non-scientists don't.

Re: good

[femtobyte]

I asked for examples; please enlighten me. What in the history of science shows field-wide errors in things related to big deviations from experimental evidence, rather than surprising things in fine, tiny details? And, what is your view of experimental particle physics that I've just confirmed (or, are you confusing this with string theory)?

Re: good

[femtobyte]

Whether or not "avoiding boring replication" conflicts with "challenging the consensus" will depend a lot on the breadth of questions being studied in a field.

For example, there's a lot of trouble with non-replicable results in biomedical fields. The issue here is that there's a zillion different questions being asked about a zillion different topics. If one research group has claimed that chemical A results in a 23% change in very specific biological response B (some obscure disease in rats), then no one else is likely to bother following up (since every other research group has different work to do about chemicals C,D,E,F on diseases G,H,I,J). Where there are a combinatorially large number of hypotheses being tested, so no two research groups are working on the same specific problem, then there is room for fraud to get by without check by replication.

On the other hand, some fields are intensely focused on a few major, well-defined problems. How much will global average atmospheric temperatures rise? What is the mixing angle between neutrino mass states? In these fields, you end up with a bunch of independent research groups all focusing on the same specific questions. You'll get funding for testing and challenging the exact same things everyone else is working on (using your own approach). There is very close scientific scrutiny of results between different research groups. Careers will be made by scientifically rigorous examination of new angles on the same problems that no one has examined before. Climate science is one of the fields with very narrow and focused "big picture" results, that a lot of different people are looking at --- unlike research areas with very broad and diffuse subjects, where no two research groups are likely to scrutinize the same system.

Re: good

[Anonymous Coward]

One example would be whether large scale structural plasticity (axons growing new branches, etc) occurs in the adult central nervous system.

Re: good

[femtobyte]

Trying to upset the scientific consensus is a very high risk and very costly strategy for a scientist. Of course, if you succeed, you get rewarded, although you're usually retired or dead by the time people recognize your contribution. Not a good career move.

Can you cite many examples? Most instances of "revolutionary" scientists I can think of, in modern history (e.g. not going back to Galileo), had reasonably rewarding careers (despite controversy and vitriol directed against them). It's not like Schrodinger, Dirac, Einstein, Fermi, Pauli, Feynman, Higgs, Lee, Yang, etc., etc., weren't well respected or unable to maintain rewarding careers within academia. Recognizing the full scope of a scientist's contribution sometimes takes longer than their lifetime (since it requires the work of many other brilliant minds to confirm), but achieving moderate success (as much as most any living scientist hopes for) within a lifetime is fairly frequent. The only bad career move is doing sloppy, indefensible work. I know plenty of tenured professors at top institutions who made their careers doing good work on research that didn't pan out with new discoveries (chasing "non-consensus" possibilities, failing to find new physics, but doing a rigorous job of it).

Re:good

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yet we are still in a global temperature stall - and not a single model comes close to predicting it. The best worldwide dataset we have (the satellite data that Dr. Spencer uses) doesn't show the heating (where modern climate theory says it should happen the strongest - mid-troposphere). No data confirms the models. So which do you believe? Data or models?

Re: good

[ChrisMaple]

Actually, those in academia who question global warming come under intense pressure: no funding, threats of firing, denial of tenure, social ostracism. Anyone who looked like he was about to come up with proof that global warming was a fraud would receive death threats: the population of college students contains a substantial number of people with no compunction against violence.

Much existing funding for climatologists comes from organizations that have a vested interest in demonstrating global warming, particularly the government which is interested in increasing its power and keeping its base of voting envirofreaks.

Re: good

[Anonymous Coward]

There's something that always bothered me in the small "high school" experiments. Burning carbohydrates may release CO2, but how does that get overhead and become a greenhouse layer? Boyle's Law (V = k/P) and Gay-Lussac's Law (P1/T1 = P2/T2) establish that pressure and temperature of a gas go hand in hand. The burning of fossil fuels delivers energy k, evaporating the liquid H2O and heating the CO2. But CO2 is normally denser than air, so how does it rise high into the atmosphere if its temperature remains constant? Alternatively, if the burning raises its temperature enough to create a "hot-air balloon" effect, the pressure it is under must also increase, but it is rising into colder atmosphere, weaker gravity, and more and more room to expand in volume. It seems that even weather balloons cannot get high into the atmosphere using hot air and must use lighter-than-air hydrogen or helium. So how did it get up there?

"I believe it 100% but I don't know how to explain it but I can't deal with the fact that I don't know it well enough to explain it because that makes me look like a dupe so I'll just ridicule you or tell you to look the answer up in places it doesn't exist just to get you to go away so that I don't have to think about it" is the answer I keep getting, but I have to read between the slurs to get it. I doubt I'll get an honest answer in my lifetime, but my "skeptic" friend believes "it should only take 8 years for this whole hoax to be exposed" and then everyone will know the answer.

Re: good

[ChrisMaple]

Can you cite examples of fields getting it wrong on large scale details accessible to contemporary levels of experimental evidence?

The Earth is the center of the universe.

Phlogiston

The "ether"

Re:good

[Man On Pink Corner]

Science is not a democracy. If I had a nickel for every time when "95% of scientists" believed something that was later proven wrong, I'd have at least 25 cents.

Re:good

[KeensMustard]

Yet we are still in a global temperature stall.

false.

and not a single model comes close to predicting it.

false

The best worldwide dataset we have (the satellite data that Dr. Spencer uses) doesn't show the heating (where modern climate theory says it should happen the strongest - mid-troposphere).

false.

No data confirms the models.

false Sensing a trend here?

So which do you believe?

Oh gee, dunno.

Re:good

[silentcoder]

>the way that the AGW people have done everything they possibly could to deny that the Medieval Warm or the Little Ice Age happened or that they were anything except "local phenomena."

And there you went and proved your opponents point about observation bias. In fact, the medieval warming period is well known in climate science circles - and was discovered BY them.
I was once in a debate about climate change where a denier tried to use the medieval period to prove that climate science is a fake and Michael Mann is a fraud - to prove his point he linked me to a scientific paper about the medieval warming period... and proved he hadn't actually READ the paper because if he had opened it he would have seen, right on the front page, that the lead author was Michael Mann - the very scientist he was trying to discredit by bringing it up wrote most of the research we have on it !
The medieval warming period doesn't discredit modern climate science - that we know about it at all is a PRODUCT of modern climate science !

Re:good

[Layzej]

You can't tell industrialized countries they have to revert to the dark ages now,

Wow! Thanks for dialing down the hyperbole and coming back down to Earth!

Re: good

[silentcoder]

There is a fourth - the work must be presented in such a way that a reasonable reader is likely to BELIEVE the claims , this can both raise and lower the likelihood of guilt depending on circumstances.
The clause exists to predict obvious satire and humor from being targeted, and it was based on this clause that Jerry Fallwell lost his libel case against Hustler Magazine (he made the mistake of testifying in court that no reasonable person who knew anything about him was likely to believe what they wrote in their satirical article).

On the other hand - it also increases the likelihood of guilt for a professional journalist in an opinion piece over what it would be for say, a lay blogger, as reasonable people are far more likely to believe that the journalist would have researched his facts and acted professionally.

This actually means it's doubly important for journalists to stating "facts" (even in an opinion piece) to make sure those facts are provable because a reasonable member of the public will assume they did and the claims are true which removes this "no one would take it seriously" defense from the table.

Re:good

[silentcoder]

The judge already threw out the child molester claim as simple journalistic hyperbole (which is protected speech) so who cares ?
The only issue now is the accusations of fraud - which is not.

Re:good

[silentcoder]

It has been tested in court, three times already since the manufacture of climategate - and on each occasion Mister Mann was found not-guilty of any wrong-doing.

Re: good

[stenvar]

Look, don't try to weasel out. You yourself said that "replication of results in many fields suffers because nobody is interested in just 'confirming the consensus.'" Your words.

As for your comments on climate science and what is and isn't a "consensus", you have identified yourself as an experimental particle physicist; you simply aren't qualified to determine this at all.

Re:good

[LynnwoodRooster]

So you'll believe Mann's site. How about famed pro-AGW NASA scientist James Hansen who is on record as confirming the stall in temperatures? When the data doesn't fit the models nor the claim - it's the models and claims that fail, not the data. Perhaps Mann and Hansen need to have a little "chat"...

Re:good

[silentcoder]

Yep, nobody has ever discussed science at the Manhatten Project, or at NASA, or at DARPA or the NIH or the CDC or any of those government funded radio telescopes or the astronomers who work on them, or at any of the millions of government funded universities and laboratories around the world.

No, my friend, I think you will find that almost ALL scientific discussion happens where government funding is involved... it's the corporate-funded ones you should distrust, they are the ones who get paid to hide annoyingly inconvenient or unprofitable results.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

and the acidifying oceans because of it

Natural ocean pH variation is of an order of magnitude larger than the decrease we've seen since the late 1700s (if you believe it was possible to measure a global value to three digits then) up until now.

Why are you worried?

Re: good

[stenvar]

People get funding to do things that might produce new results that change previous understanding ("test or challenge").

Precisely. And that means that they don't get funding for experiments that they expect to produce the same results previous researchers have found. Therefore, if an erroneous or fraudulent research result sounds plausible and conforms to current theories, people will not apply for funding to test it. You keep proving my point.

I know the need for repeated replication of experiments without the expectation of getting new results must be hard for an experimental particle physicist to understand, given how simple the systems you deal with are, but in other disciplines it is absolutely necessary.

Re:good

[The Grim Reefer]

You can't tell industrialized countries they have to revert to the dark ages now,

Wow! Thanks for dialing down the hyperbole and coming back down to Earth!

Considering the amount of hyperbole in the article I was responding too, it seemed appropriate to respond in kind. This is the entire issue. Everyone on both sides of this "discussion" seem to dial it up to 11 and do nothing but shout each other down.

Re:good

[techsimian]

How about a car analogy?
10 mechanics examine a vehicle to determine if it is overheating. 9 of them agree (after running diagnostics) that the water pump is failing. One says everything is great, in fact, the engine is supposed to run hot, hell, it'd be better if it ran even hotter!

Consensus is built around the data, not people.

Re: good

[Muad'Dave]

Can you cite examples of fields getting it wrong on large scale details accessible to contemporary levels of experimental evidence?

How about Dark Matter? We didn't know that we couldn't account for about 95.1% of the universe's mass until recently. This first hints of it's existence came in the 1930's, but it didn't burst on to the mainstream cosmological scene until this century. We still don't know what it is. Same deal with dark energy.

Re: good

[femtobyte]

Key word: accessible to contemporary levels of experimental evidence. We have very little idea what dark matter is, and know we have very little idea what dark matter is, because the stuff is so hard to measure anything about. It's not showing up in laboratory experiments --- it apparently interacts extremely weakly with matter --- so all we have to go on is mystery clumps of gravitational material. It accounts for the majority of the universe' mass, but a tiny minority of "stuff doing things that make a difference" in the universe --- we know very little about it because it hardly impacts observable processes at all.

Climate science isn't working on principles on the far margins of experiment to detect. It's based on well-established principles from a hundred years ago, plus some new observational and computational capabilities. There's nothing in the mix that's "we haven't the slightest idea how this stuff interacts with the known world at all," which is the case with dark matter. That's why the scientific community is skeptical of particular dark matter models --- there is no strong consensus that anyone's particular dark matter theory is correct, since everyone (the theorists included) know it's highly speculative --- but can hold a moderately high level of certainty that the basics of global warming are correct.

Re: good

[Muad'Dave]

accessible to contemporary levels of experimental evidence.

I consider series of photographs of galaxies to be accessible. It took someone looking at the distribution of matter in a galaxy or two to notice there was a discrepancy between the observed and predicted rotational rate and matter distribution. Remember, hints of dark matter popped up in the 1930's - if they could see it, any current high school or college student could've seen it in the intervening years.

Another example is how everyone ignored radio static until Jansky discovered radio waves coming from our galaxy's heart. Static/noise had been around since the first radio receiver was developed in the late 1800's, so anyone could've dug into it - directional antennas were not unknown even in the olden days.

Re:good

[Layzej]

This is the entire issue. Everyone on both sides of this "discussion" seem to dial it up to 11 and do nothing but shout each other down.

And your contribution addressed this how?

Re: good

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you cite examples of fields getting it wrong on large scale details accessible to contemporary levels of experimental evidence?

There are two recent examples where politicians have successfully corrupted science. The first is the Soviets and Lysenkoism and the second is the Progressives and Eugenics. In both cases the politicians created a system of incentive to promote scientists who manufactured papers to support the political narrative and coupled those with punishments for scientists who did not.

So the evidence exists that science can and has be corrupted in certain cases in the past. What's scary is how easy it was to do.

Few would argue that CAGW is a hot topic between political parties. And, given the Progressive's track record in this area, the position that the Progressives would "never do such a thing" is untenable. In addition, the amount of money and patronage being provided by politicians to climate scientists is unmatched in human history.

There's a lawsuit working its way through the courts alleging that certain environmental pressure groups ties to the political left put more than $1.3 million dollars directly into the pocket of one of NASA's top climate scientists (the lawsuit alleges that this scientists did not disclose these payments). Politicians use these sorts of tactics like dog biscuits: they are designed to train behavior.

Re:good

[The Grim Reefer]

This is the entire issue. Everyone on both sides of this "discussion" seem to dial it up to 11 and do nothing but shout each other down.

And your contribution addressed this how?

Balance. ;-)

In all honesty, I agree, we do need to change how we produce energy, and use it. But I also understand that these changes have consequences and not necessarily economical. I've seen proposals for adding reflective aerosols to the atmosphere to decrease the amount of energy reaching the Earths surface. That's a nice band-aid, but unless something else is done, it's a stop gap at best. But the climate is a very complicated system. Even the experts don't really know what unexpected results could come of trying to re-engineer our climate in this way. As I posted earlier, we can't even find a good solution for defining the kilogram, I don't think climate change is easier to figure out than that.

Additionally, it's kind of hard to take people seriously regarding doomsday predictions. Especially when so many have made wild ass claims in the past that never came to fruition. Even when these people are not even related to the serious scientists, or have the best of intentions, it is hard to get all panicky about anything.

Here's a partial list of some of the crap that we were told we need to fear, or have in the past:

1. nuclear war/winter (Duck and Cover)
2. The Neutron bomb
3. depleted oil reserves
4. WMD's in Iraq
5. Communism
6. Terrorism
7. Killer bees
8. super volcanoes
9. planet killing asteroids/comets
10. End of days
11. AIDS
12. plague like influenza outbreaks
13. Reversal of the magnetic poles
14. Mega tsunamis
15. coronal mass ejections
16. Cosmic radiation from a local supernova
17. Disease outbreak form GMO foods
18. CERN creates a planet devouring black hole
19. Skynet
20. Global ice age
21. Global warming
22. ET ends up having a death ray instead of a magic healing finger
23. The end of the Myan calendar
24. We're all living in the Matrix
25. Keanu Reeves is actually Neo and the only hope for mankind
26. Getting trampled by one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse
27. Obama care, and it doesn't cover getting trampled by horses

Yes, many of those were intended as a joke, but it's far from a complete list of scary shit I've had to hear about. Nuclear war scared the shit out of me as a kid. We were told all about those crazy Soviets and how trigger happy they were with thousands more nukes than us. And how the blast from a modern nuke was thousands of times more powerful than the ones dropped in Japan. But "duck and cover" would save you. Part of me likes to play devils advocate as after you spend a lifetime of politicians and the news media trying to scare the shit out of you, you do become somewhat jaded. It's more of a defense mechanism I suppose. So please forgive me for not freaking out, even though I actually do agree with you.

Re:good

[Jane Q. Public]

" so who cares ?"

Apparently the person to whom I was replying does.

Re: good

[close_wait]

Yeah. Overturning the Newtonian consensus really screwed up Einstein's career.

Re: good

[TheNastyInThePasty]

Scientists in any field don't get famous by showing that the "scientific consensus" is erroneous, they get their grants turned down and their papers rejected.

What!?!? Your assertion is completely absurd. Every famous scientist is famous precisely because they proved the standard consensus to be wrong.

Galileo for his work on a model of the heliocentric solar system.
Newton for his work showing that planets are governed by the same rules as an apple falling to earth.
Darwin for his work showing how animals can evolve over time.
Einstein for his work showing that energy, mass, space, and time are all interconnected.
Hubble for showing that the universe is not static but instead expanding.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

global sea level air temps increases have slowed because that hasn't been a el nino year for a while el nino years are years where heat moves for the deep ocean to the atmosphere making those years warmer, even though we haven't had an el nino year in a while we have managed to have years that equal and even pass the last el nino year. The models do not predict when el minos will occur. Argue that temp hasn't increased since the last el nino therefore global warming has ended is like arguing temperatures have not increased since the last summer therefor global warming has ended.

Re:good

[Blaskowicz]

I'm expecting dystopian changes to society, too : those caused by the occurrence in my lifetime of massive famine, war, disease due to AGW. That is plausible, or even probable.

Re:good

[Blaskowicz]

You'll be probably dead in 30 years and I'll be probably alive in 50 years. Maybe it's just that you don't need to freak out anyway, and not freaking out is a more healthy lifestyle no matter what.
BTW a really huge coronal mass ejection would do quite a mess, there was one such in 1859 only the only stuff it could knock down was telegraph lines. The horses and contemporary steam engines were safe.

Re:good

[The Grim Reefer]

You'll be probably dead in 30 years and I'll be probably alive in 50 years. Maybe it's just that you don't need to freak out anyway, and not freaking out is a more healthy lifestyle no matter what. BTW a really huge coronal mass ejection would do quite a mess, there was one such in 1859 only the only stuff it could knock down was telegraph lines. The horses and contemporary steam engines were safe.

Well, thanks for planning my funeral, but I'm not freaking out. That was kind of my point. AWG is the current bogyman that you must go ballistic about. If you don't, you are some kind of planet killing Luddite. Or so the adamant proponents of AWG seem to keep telling us.

Yes, I've read about the CME in 1859. Operators were shocked, some telegraph stations stayed functional despite being disconnected from their intended power sources. Lines were throwing sparks and others even melted. The industrialized countries would be in deep shit if we had an event like that today.

Re:good

[LynnwoodRooster]

What data series do you use to make such claims? Because HadCRUT, GIS, WTI, UAH, and RSS all show completely flat (or negative) trends over the last 14+ years.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in the slightest, evidently.

Re: good

[stenvar]

What!?!? Your assertion is completely absurd. Every famous scientist is famous precisely because they proved the standard consensus to be wrong.

You're confusing the probability of having upset the consensus given that someone is famous with the probability of achieving fame given that you are trying to upset the consensus. The fact that a lot of famous and wealthy people are actors and basketball players doesn't mean that choosing acting and basketball as careers is going to make you rich and famous.

Also, fame for upsetting the consensus is often only achieved after they are dead, and they may have paid a big price during their lifetimes. Galileo was subjected to the Holy Inquisition. Einstein didn't receive the Nobel prize for relativity but the photoelectric effect. Darwin was famous long before The Origin of Species, and others with similar theories had simply been ignored. Etc.

If you want a low probability of great posthumous fame (i.e. a lottery ticket), try to upset the consensus. If you want a safe, productive scientific career, don't.

Re: good

[stenvar]

Yeah. Overturning the Newtonian consensus really screwed up Einstein's career.

He got the Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect and initially became famous for other papers. For decades, many people didn't believe in relativity and considered his papers in that area weird and eccentric, and most didn't understand them. If relativity was all he had done, he probably would have been working at the Swiss patent office until his death.

Re:good

[superwiz]

People in free societies have generally been able to create mechanisms for adapting to natural conditions. In fact, the less free societies are, the less they have been able to adapt. Problems usually spell out opportunity in a frees society -- opportunities to solve the problems. They spell out doom in planned societies -- because they haven't been planned for.

Re:good

[superwiz]

You talk about a scientist as if he were a literary character. Moving from accuracy to advocacy is not as simple as switching hats. It's more like switching careers. It takes the same personal toll. It's a very heavy context switch. Very few people manage it and usually the ones who do are the ones who dedicate themselves to being polymaths -- conditioning their minds to constant switching of contexts. They are the ones who are defined by their ability to switch contexts. To suggest that someone can easily go from science to politics is implausible. The politics inevitably corrupts them. It seduces them with ability to effect immediate change quicker than science ever could. The immediate gratification of political success corrupts them as any other immediate gratification would. They are, as you pointed out, only human.

In short, there's nothing wrong with a scientist playing the role of an advocate

There is if they insist on still calling themselves scientists when they do that. You know that the "climate science" gang went much further than that. They used popular sources to intimidate their skeptics. Just read through majority of responses about this topic in this thread. Most are foaming at the mouth. This is a religious level of fervor -- it's not a scientific advocacy. There is any number of questions I have on the topic, but I promise that with this level of fervor by this number of nuts I, with my PhD, would still be afraid to ask them out loud. They have denigrated pre-eminent physicists with life-times of achievement -- people to whom not a single one of the "climate scientists" could hold a candle when it comes to the level of their insight and intellect.

Anyone who suggests even for a second that the pro-AGW side is reasonable is blind. They are nothing of the sort. They are not even in the same ball park. This is the result of a political process being used to advocate for a scientific position. I don't see how you can claim that it hasn't corrupted the scientific inquiry.

Re:good

[Man On Pink Corner]

Oooh, I like car analogies. Difficulty: the car is three billion years old, nobody has seen the service manual, and the maintenance records for its first 2,999,990,000 years are missing.

Re:good

[KeensMustard]

So you'll believe Mann's site.

Perhaps I would, but you'll never know, since skeptical science is not Mann's site. Not sure why you are immigrating to the land of speculation.

How about famed pro-AGW NASA scientist James Hansen who is on record as confirming the stall in temperatures [wattsupwiththat.com]?

Whoops. Your mistake. Turns out in the actual paper written by Hansen (rather than a misquote by that idiot Watts) there is no indication of an actual stall in temperature rise, he is just addressing the myth that there is a stall, and explaining the reason for the slowdown. Serves you right for getting your information from a blog (a blog written by a paid employee of the Heartland institute) rather than from a scientist. In order for denialist theory to be right (i.e. the warming is attributable to a natural cause) the observed warming trend would have to be zero. This means not going back to the temperature in 2012, but going back to the temperature in 1901. So tell me, how long until the warming trend reverses itself? How long until we return to the average temperature from 1901?

Re:good

[KeensMustard]

He is probably referencing the paper by Hansen that you recently referenced:

These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure.

HTH

Re: good

[Stuarticus]

So you're saying first understand the current state of climate research before you try and overturn it? Seems like pretty solid advice.

Re:good

[LynnwoodRooster]

To deny SS isn't a pro-AGW/Mann-supporting site is pretty bold... But perhaps you can point to data that shows we're not stalled (not "slowing down - stalled)? Because every dataset shows we're either stalled or dropping in temperature. Mann does have his solitary tree (Yamal-06), but the dozens, even hundreds of other trees in the dataset, and the ground and satellite records show the opposite.

good

[superwiz]

It's about time the courts had a say about whether splicing 2 times series in the graph that is presented to the general public rises to the level of fraud. He did explain in the content of the paper that the hockey stick figure was not the actual claim, but the cover and the subsequent presentation to the general public made it look the hockey stick graph was supported by data. Is that fraud? That's is not a bad question to ask in a court room.

SLAPPed hard

[harvey the nerd]

Does persistent presentation of flawed mathematical techniques, alteration of data, and highly selective selection aided by ad hominem, conspiracy (climategate emails) and initimidation count as a reasonable suspicion of fraud?

Re:SLAPPed hard

[wytcld]

We look forward to your publication of the flaws you have discovered in Dr. Mann's math. Ah, but you can't publish them, because you're just making this stuff up. Or is it because every single reviewer for every scientific journal is a member of a deep conspiracy to undermine the fossil fuel industry because ... well if you have to ask you don't understand how these dark conspiracies work!

Here's Mann's new book on The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.

Re:SLAPPed hard

[bigsexyjoe]

It probably does. Let's see if Steyn can prove any of that.

Re:SLAPPed hard

[riverat1]

One random bit of code without any context doesn't prove shit.

Re:SLAPPed hard

[cold fjord]

We look forward to your publication of the flaws you have discovered in Dr. Mann ....

Here's Mann's new book on The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.

Is it claimed that Dr. Mann won the Nobel Prize in that book?

Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’

Re:SLAPPed hard

[Anonymous Coward]

So go look up the context. That snippet is how the fraud was introduced.

Re:SLAPPed hard

[KeensMustard]

Is it claimed that Dr. Mann won the Nobel Prize in that book?

You don't need to read a book to find that out. He did contribute to the winning of a Nobel peace prize. He received a certificate from the IPCC thanking him for his contributions. Various people, desperate people, thought this certificate was the Nobel peace prize, they never asked him, he never claimed it was. They made up a story about him faking the certificate - he didn't fake it, it was real. Much embarrassment was heaped upon Anthony Watts, and other worthies, including our favourite Lord-who-is-not-a-Lord Monkton, for these spurious and quickly debunked claims.

He never made any claim to have been a Nobel Laureate. He did win a Nobel peace prize, as one of many who shared the prize. He never claimed anything that was false, this was a rumour made up by a number of people who apparently can't read or otherwise lack basic comprehension skills.

Re:SLAPPed hard

[Anonymous Coward]

We look forward to your publication of the flaws you have discovered in Dr. Mann's math

The fact that Mann's statistical work was sloppy and that he wasn't qualified to perform these analyses is pretty well established:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7589897/Hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated.html

In fact, later graphs are different from his and show a decline of temperatures followed by a more dramatic rise:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/03/hockey-stick-graph-now-even-more-stickish

So, what does that tell you? There has been a dramatic rise in temperatures, but at the same time, Mann cannot be trusted to analyze this kind of data correctly.

Re:SLAPPed hard

[Troed]

Mann referred to himself as a Nobel prize recipient - which the IPCC has stated he's not allowed to do. Why are you posting obvious falsehoods in his defence throughout this thread?

Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

https://www.facebook.com/Micha...

It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/...

PS: I'm also a "Nobel laureate" if Mann is:

A peace prize made possible by the people has now been passed on to the people. The EU won the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, but the European Parliament believes this honour belongs to everyone. During a special ceremony in Strasbourg, the prize was symbolically handed over to 20 citizens of different ages and nationalities to represent the people of Europe.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...

Re:SLAPPed hard

[silentcoder]

>a number of people who apparently can't read or otherwise lack basic comprehension skills.
In the interest of brevity, you should be informed that I am petitioning the Oxford English Dictionary to have the above added as a definition for "conservatives".

Re:SLAPPed hard

[phlinn]

Actually, his original lawsuit introduced a complaint for defaming a Nobel Prize Recipient. Legally, he made that claim. Hell, his FaceBook post about the suit still describes him as a co-recipient.

Re:SLAPPed hard

[Anonymous Coward]

There's not much of a hurdle for Steyn to get over here. IMO, he should focus on Mann's repeated claims of winning a Noble Prize. Mann even claimed it in the court filing for this case! If Steyn can find an example where Mann claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner in a federal grant application (via a referenced CV), then this case is over.

This lawsuit seemed totally ill advised. (And remember, all of us here on Slashdot benefit from a free press, so we should be hoping that Steyn prevails.

Re:SLAPPed hard

[KeensMustard]

Mann referred to himself as a Nobel prize recipient - which the IPCC has stated he's not allowed to do. Why are you posting obvious falsehoods in his defence throughout this thread?

Care to elucidate what these falsehoods were? Are you saying the sequence I described (That is, some denialists mistook a certificate that Michael Mann had on display for a Nobel peace prize, claimed it was fake, only later to find it wasn't a Nobel Peace prize, but a real certificate he really received from the IPCC, thanking him for his contributions to winning the Nobel Peace Prize) did not actually occur?

Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

https://www.facebook.com/Micha... [facebook.com]

He WAS awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/... [typepad.com]

Presumably this was written by a legal counsel, not by Mann himself. Perhaps he had an opportunity to correct the wording and didn't, when he should have. Perhaps not.

Notably, this piece of paper, which appears to the heart of your concern, was tested via an appeal against the lawsuit in question. The appeal was thrown out, because Steyns lawyers admitted it had no substance: see here.

Accordingly, your own argument is spurious and without substance.

PS: I'm also a "Nobel laureate" if Mann is:

A peace prize made possible by the people has now been passed on to the people. The EU won the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, but the European Parliament believes this honour belongs to everyone. During a special ceremony in Strasbourg, the prize was symbolically handed over to 20 citizens of different ages and nationalities to represent the people of Europe.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/... [europa.eu]

Well, this is a matter of discussion between yourself and the Nobel Peace Prize committee.

Re:SLAPPed hard

[KeensMustard]

See here.

Re:SLAPPed hard

[Troed]

He WAS awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

No, he was not.

Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner.

The above quote is from the IPCC official statement on the matter: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/N...

To freshen your memory - this is the exact statement still available in a post by Mann on his own Facebook page:

Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

Presumably this was written by a legal counsel, not by Mann himself.

Irrelevant - that's what he or someone under his guidance submitted to a court - "a Nobel prize recipient". Whatever happened later to that submission does not change the wording that was used.

I fail to understand what benefit you see from posting falsehoods into a discussion. Are you often in denial to proven facts?

Re:SLAPPed hard

[KeensMustard]

Care to elucidate what these falsehoods were? Are you saying the sequence I described (That is, some denialists mistook a certificate that Michael Mann had on display for a Nobel peace prize, claimed it was fake, only later to find it wasn't a Nobel Peace prize, but a real certificate he really received from the IPCC, thanking him for his contributions to winning the Nobel Peace Prize) did not actually occur?

[ No response]

I take it then that you accept this actually happened?

No, he was not. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. The above quote is from the IPCC official statement on the matter: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/N... [www.ipcc.ch] To freshen your memory - this is the exact statement still available in a post by Mann on his own Facebook page: Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

Regardless of your ranting, the allegation that Dr Mann was/is being deceptive by his reference to winning the Nobel peace prize was tested in a court of law and found to be false. Opposing counsel admitted it was false and had no substance, leaving nobody of any significance arguing that it had substance. Oddly, on such matters I'm inclined to stick with legal judgements rather than the word of some random guy on the internet, particularly since I already pointed this out to you, and you studiously chose to ignore it.

Likely Mann is leaving that statement on his facebook page because it really annoys the denialists, it gets them frothing from their slack jaws and mouth breathing even harder than usual. Good for him. I'd do the same thing in his place.

Re:SLAPPed hard

[Troed]

it gets them frothing from their slack jaws and mouth breathing even harder than usual

I'd say that's a good description of your argumentative style in this thread :)

Fact of the matter: Mann has referred to himself on several occasions as the winner of a Nobel Prize. He is not.

Re:SLAPPed hard

[phlinn]

Do you have a cite for opposing counsel admitting it was false? Your cite to wottsupwiththat a couple of comments above does NOT provide any mention of this. Probably because it didn't happen except in your fevered imagination. Mann's counsel withdrew the claim in an amended complaint.

I'll state for the record that some of the skeptics did in fact assume that the certificate he had was false, but that was NOT the only source for the assertion that he claimed to be a Nobel Prize recipient. It's a stupid little detail the placed in his original defamation claim, and like or not stupid little details are important in the court. That doesn't make his entire claim false, but it shouldn't be that hard for you to admit that he presented a false claim. Hell, an argument that he didn't understand the distinction sounds plausible to me, except he's never acknowledge that it was a false claim as far as I can see.

Re:SLAPPed hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ignore cold fjord, and check his comment history on this topic. He's been beating that dead horse for so long it's now just a bloody smear in the general outline of a horse.

So...

[msobkow]

It's okay to call someone a child molester but not a fraud or a thief?

WTF?

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't call him a child molester, he compared him to one. There's a world of difference there. Had he actually accused Mann of molesting children then there would be a case for libel. Instead, he just said, "This guy is as bad as a child molester," which is obviously an opinion and therefore can't be libel.

Re:So...

[msobkow]

So "You're like a child molestor" is ok, but "You are a fraud" is not?

Weasel words and politicing, and slander in both cases in my books.

The legal system is seriously fucked up if it considers such minor differences to be grounds for letting someone off on making baseless accusations, "freedom of the press" or no. If you can't prove what you're making accusations about, one should be required to legally STFU and have some damned integrity in their writing, not be free to spew whatever bile and vitriol they like and whine "it's just an allegory."

Here's an allegory for the guy who wrote the insults and slams: "You're very much like the slime from between the toes of the Himalayan Sloth."

Re:So...

[khasim]

It's okay to call someone a child molester but not a fraud or a thief?

It's one of those weird legal things. He wasn't actually accusing him of molesting children. He was saying that he was AS BAD AS a person who molests children.

But I agree with you. It's all an attempt to conflate person A with person B's crime in the opinion of the public (people who have not researched this).

Re:So...

[wonkey_monkey]

And you, sir, are worse than Hitler.

Re:So...

[wonkey_monkey]

The legal system is seriously fucked up if it considers such minor differences

The legal system is pretty much there to consider exactly these minor differences, and it (should) strives to do so consistently and at the same as balancing both public opinion and the rights of the individual. Sounds impossible? Well, it is. You're welcome to suggest a better alternative.

Re:So...

[ultranova]

He was saying that he was AS BAD AS a person who molests children.

Which says nothing of Mann but does give the rest of us a perfectly accurate view of Mark Steyn and National Review magazine.

Re:So...

[khasim]

You know who else liked to compare people to Hitler?

Hitler's MOTHER!

Re:So...

[msobkow]

Yeah, I've got a suggestion: Jail every idiot who spews unfounded accusations under the guise of "freedom of the press."

An editorial is one thing; you expect opinion from an editorial, not reporting. But in any other case, the law should come down hard on the side of integrity without room for weasel-words.

Re:So...

[sumdumass]

Weasel words and politicing, and slander in both cases in my books.

Yes, because we all know Hustler Magazine should have lost their battle against Jerry Falwell when they printed an interview claiming "Mom looked better than a Baptist whore with a $100 donation," that he decided to have sex with his mother since she had "showed all the other guys in town such a good time", and that they had intercourse regularly afterwards was a statement made by Falwell when describing his first time having sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

Stop being the religious nutter who decries anyone who speaks ill of your fabled leaders of the truth. People say things for rhetorical effect and to challenge the resolve of their audience and some things are not factual but hyperbole. A few good recent examples of this free speech is the recent comments by politicians about the tea party (which anyone who has investigated them in the slightest know most of which is untrue) or even the comments made by Huckabee who was both taking something out of context and taken out of context in the course of using hyperbole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

Re:So...

[msobkow]

It has nothing to do with being a "religious nutter" (if you knew anything about what pass for my "beliefs" you'd realize that.)

My problem is with the fine-tooth combing of weasel words to determine whether something is or is not potentially slanderous. My issue is with people publishing "reports" that should be editorials because of their biased content. My issue is the media getting away with smear campaigns with the excuse "freedom of the press."

I don't give a damn who is on the offense and who's on the defense -- I believe there should be ethical standards as to the reasonable truth of a claim before it can be published as "news" or a "report". Personal bias and bullshit have no business outside of an *opinion* piece like an editorial.

Re:So...

[wonkey_monkey]

Jail every idiot who spews unfounded accusations under the guise of "freedom of the press."

Calling someone "as bad as" (if indeed that's what was said) isn't a direct - if any kind of - accusation. There is a judgement call to be made here, and it's been made.

the law should come down hard on the side of integrity without room for weasel-words.

It's not a crime to lack integrity. The law also has to come down hard on the side of freedom of expression, whether you like what's being said or not.

You can never make everyone happy when you try to come down hard on both sides of the fence (and you'll crush your nuts).

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're like a child molestor" would easily be recognized as hyperbole, even with the "like" qualification removed. That is, would a reasonable person interpret the saying to mean that the target is indeed a child molestor? In most cases, people would understand that interpreting this literally would be ridiculous and interpret it to mean "You are a very bad person." (An example where this statement could be considered slander would be if the target was convicted rape. In this case, a reasonable person could conclude from the statement that the victim was underage.)

"You are a fraud" could, depending on the circumstances, be interpreted as an accusation that the person in question did, in fact, engage in fraudulent activity. By itself, it probably wouldn't be enough to be libel or slander, but if accompanied by details a reasonable person could conclude the statement to mean that the person in question is literally a fraudster, which if the speaker know or should have known is false, then would be slander.

This distinction seems minor, but it is important. Have you ever called a politician a "crook" or "thief" or "corrupt"? Have you ever claimed that a bank "cheated" you with some fee or another? Have you ever said that someone "deserves to be killed/beaten/raped for something"? If so (and in the real world, we are all guilty of using these sorts of phrases), then you should appreciate the distinction between obvious hyperbole and slanderous accusations.

 

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

I get your anger, but it was a ""comparison"" to Sandusky...

I can only guess since I don't listen to brainless twats like Mark, but it probably went something along the lines of --molesting peoples minds with [what Mark believes to be] misinformation to mislead the world, like Sandusky had attempted/succeeded at doing---

A comparison --- as opposed to just saying-- he likes to molest children and he has been getting away with it hiding behind his profession, and because of the respect he has among his colleagues and other influential people he getting away with it.

The accusations of Fraud, to me, would be about right, since his is a well established scientist and an influential person in his profession. You cannot go around publicly calling someone a hack unless you con prove without any doubt the person is a fraud.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't prove what you're making accusations about, one should be required to legally STFU

So if I see someone shoot someone else in the face, and I immediately run away, I shouldn't be permitted to tell anyone, because I don't have video or forensic evidence?

Re:So...

[squiggleslash]

If merely comparing someone to someone bad was libelous, Godwin's law would have to be restated as "Back when the Internet existed, as each online discussion ended in a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler, resulting in the infamous libel suits that brought down that brave experiment in free speech and porn."

Look at it this way: it's OK to say "Joe Bloggs is just like Hitler". What's less OK is to say "I have compelling proof that Joe Bloggs is organizing a program of mass exterminations for jewish people, and is trying to manipulate events so that Germany can safely invade Poland, and he's also advocating the creation of a Federal freeway system."

I think that's a reasonable balance actually, as it allows hyperbole as long as it remains hyperbole, not actual false accusations.

Re:So...

[phlinn]

No, he didn't even do that much. Rand Simberg noted that Mann tortured and molested the data just as Sandusky had done with children. That doesn't mean he things the former is just as bad as the latter. Steyn specifically didn't fully agree with the comparison but linked to it.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't call him a child molester, he compared him to one. There's a world of difference there. Had he actually accused Mann of molesting children then there would be a case for libel. Instead, he just said, "This guy is as bad as a child molester," which is obviously an opinion and therefore can't be libel.

You are not an asshole, but you are like an asshole.

Re:So...

[mcgrew]

So "You're like a child molestor" is ok, but "You are a fraud" is not?

"You're like a child molester" is ok, but "You are a child molester" is not. One is an opinion, one is an accusation. What's so hard to understand?

Re:So...

[radarskiy]

'So "You're like a child molestor" is ok, but "You are a fraud" is not? '

They are so different there are separate words for the rhetorical figures used.

Alas, I have looked at the maths...

[Anonymous Coward]

The statistical technique used is called Principle Component Analysis. Prof. Ian Jolliffe, of the University of Exeter, UK is the acknowledged world expert in this field.

And he is on record as saying that what Mann has done is 'rubbish'. Mann modified the technique to ensure that graphical analysis would suppress any variation in the bulk of the graph, while driving the final data high - a hockey-stick, in other words. Jolliffe could see no other reason for introducing this modification beyond producing hockey-stick output.

It is essentially this mathematical trick - this, and pre-selecting datasets, which drew the accusation of fraud. I assume that Jolliffe will be submitting evidence for Steyn's defence...

What has been done is quite clear. I cannot see the hockey-stick surviving this case, especially with the current warming pause...

Re:Alas, I have looked at the maths...

[KeensMustard]

And he is on record as saying that what Mann has done is 'rubbish'.

I see. Are you able to provide a link to this record?

Mann modified the technique to ensure that graphical analysis would suppress any variation in the bulk of the graph, while driving the final data high - a hockey-stick, in other words. Jolliffe could see no other reason for introducing this modification beyond producing hockey-stick output.

This is the output that turned out, in the end, to be correct?

That output?

Curious.

Re:Alas, I have looked at the maths...

[Anonymous Coward]

The gentleman is not a huge fan of how Mann has used this particular technique, but what you have to say about him is rather far removed from what he actually has to say about both Mann and climate change.

Why not let him speak for himself?

http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/08/ian-jolliffe-comments-at-tamino/

Re:Alas, I have looked at the maths...

[Robear]

By citing Jolliffe as an authority, then, you are accepting his position that much more evidence than the hockey stick supports the idea that the climate is changing?

There once was a pundit named Steyn...

[HellCatF6]

...
who couldn't think worth a dyne,
he accused the one Mann,
who has Truth in his plan,
and we hope the court rules him a slime.

It's the best I can do on short notice - but there's not much else we can do as long as long as his advertisers keep making money.

Heat is pretty awesome

[mobby_6kl]

So I'm really glad Mann is standing behind his work.

Re:Heat is pretty awesome

[haruchai]

That was Monbiot, not Mann

Re:Heat is pretty awesome

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

That was Monbiot, not Man
Potential whoosh, here I believe the GPP was referring to the film Heat directed by Michael Mann(not the same guy), not the novel Heat, which you are correct was written by Monbiot.

Re:Heat is pretty awesome

[mobby_6kl]

Correct, since that's how the joke makes any sense. I didn't want to explain it further as I thought that'd ruin it, but obviously this didn't work out much better.

Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[bigsexyjoe]

He is debating Steyn in court about whether he is a fraud. If Steyn can just prove he is a fraud, he wins, if not, he is in a lot of trouble.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[OYAHHH]

Same goes for Mr. Mann. Sure would hate to see "Global Warming" get slapped down by the courts now wouldn't we?

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[ZipK]

Sure would hate to see "Global Warming" get slapped down by the courts now wouldn't we?

I think we'd all breathe a sigh of relief if the courts could rationally and scientifically strike down the phenomenon of global warming, or its source in man-made activities.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[stox]

Steyn doesn't need to prove Mann was a fraud, he must prove he had a reasonable basis to think Mann was a fraud. Proving Mann was a fraud would be a slam dunk. If he can do neither, his wallet is in a world of hurt.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[PopeRatzo]

Wait, are you telling me that people who believe in global warming aren't just trying to profit from global disaster?

You mean we're not all going to get a big check thanks to global warming? I'm shocked. I keep hearing how climate scientists are doing their research because of the billions of dollars that can be made from bad news. All those filthy rich earth scientists and their profiteering.

Let's not forget, one of Mark Steyn's best friends is the great humanitarian Conrad Black, who was sent to prison because he was so altruistic and decent. Steyn still uses about every fifth column he writes to advocate for the full pardon of Conrad Black (and probably a Nobel Prize for him, too).

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[JDS13]

Actually, one of the most interesting effects of this trial is that Mann must comply with Steyn's discovery demands, to see whether indeed he "tortured" the data... Mann and others have still refused to disclose the details of their models, saying (astoundingly) that people just wanted to prove them wrong. Trying to prove a model wrong is the usual way of science... So whether you think this is "settled science" or not, you should welcome this open disclosure and wonder why it takes a court proceeding to achieve it.

As for the notion of "settled science", which presumably means you should stop questioning something - this is a very disturbing concept which in my opinion has no place at all on slashdot, of all one forums. slashdot is one place where people discuss new ways of looking at old ideas - experiments test Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, studies about whether cutting salt from your diet reduces hypertension, the value of dietary suppliements, and other bits of uncommon knowledge. Almost every interesting post here challenges some "settled" idea.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Curunir_wolf]

He is debating Steyn in court about whether he is a fraud. If Steyn can just prove he is a fraud, he wins, if not, he is in a lot of trouble.

It's part of a concerted effort to end free speech of anyone that wants to question the AGW alarmists. It includes Reddit's decision to ban comments on climate change, targeting not just libellous or hateful stuff, but “outspoken opinions”, “potentially controversial” views, and “contrarianism”. In short, critical or eccentric thinking, stuff that doesn’t fit with what the overlords of Reddit consider to be politically proper.

They've encouraged other news sources to follow suit, and the LA Times has stated that they do not publish anything from skeptics of climate change, but they haven't yet gone so far as to ban them from the on-line comments section.

That one of the supposedly most free-speechy sections of the World Wide Web can be so upfront in demanding the “positive censorship” of controversial viewpoints is shocking. It shows just how successfully beyond the pale criticism of climate change alarmism has been put, and how even the young, funky overseers of modern, open discussion forums are willing to rein in free speech if they see or hear something that offends their Greenish sensibilities.

I hope Steyn makes this case a major media showcase. He should subpoena every single document and email and witness that has even a remote possibility to of demonstrating even the appearance of impropriety on Mann's part (that should be an easy task). Maybe he can even get UVA to finally release the Mann documents that were denied exposure through numerous FOIA requests and lawsuits by the Virginia Attorney General's office.

Transparency and free speech are at stake. We should be willing to tolerate all manner of inconveniences to ensure openness in science and uncensored debate.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[ClickOnThis]

Sure would hate to see "Global Warming" get slapped down by the courts now wouldn't we?

I think we'd all breathe a sigh of relief if the courts could rationally and scientifically strike down the phenomenon of global warming, or its source in man-made activities.

This.

For the benefit of those without sarcasm-detectors, it's worth emphasizing that it's the job of science, not the courts (or the media) to "rationally and scientifically" prove or disprove scientific phenomena.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[ClickOnThis]

Trying to prove a model wrong is the usual way of science... So whether you think this is "settled science" or not, you should welcome this open disclosure and wonder why it takes a court proceeding to achieve it.

It's one thing to challenge "settled" science for the sake of creating new science. It's yet another to challenge it for political or ideological reasons. Steyn and his ilk indisputably fall into the latter category.

As for the notion of "settled science", which presumably means you should stop questioning something - this is a very disturbing concept which in my opinion has no place at all on slashdot, of all one forums. slashdot is one place where people discuss new ways of looking at old ideas - experiments test Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, studies about whether cutting salt from your diet reduces hypertension, the value of dietary suppliements, and other bits of uncommon knowledge. Almost every interesting post here challenges some "settled" idea.

All science can be questioned. That's the point! But to question something, you must present contrary evidence. AGW deniers haven't. Instead, they rely on conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[the eric conspiracy]

If Steyn's motive was scientific inquiry and he was conducting the discourse in refereed journals I would agree with you.

That's not it though. He has no science background and he's into politically motivated demagoguery, court actions and making a public circus of it. His attacks of the judge in the case got his defense team to quit.

That's generally NOT the path to truth.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Anonymous Coward]

Most appropriate sig, you really are fucked in the head, a denialist touchstone.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Layzej]

Mann and others have still refused to disclose the details of their models

Complete nonsense! I found it with a two minute google search! http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holoc...

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Layzej]

Yup. People are getting real tired of bullshit. Turns out you can't call someone a fraud unless he has actually done something fraudulent.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary evidence? You mean, nobody is allowed to question anything until they have contrary evidence? They aren't allowed to look at your source and see if they agree with methods and assumptions until they have contrary evidence?

Did someone need contrary evidence when they took the atomic clocks on fast airplanes to see if its time slipped relative to the clock on earth?

Sorry, but you are wrong.

Science is as much about poking holes in assumptions and theories as it is about alternate theories. Sunlight is good.

The global warming crowd hasn't been very open with data and methods. You should condemn that.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[cold fjord]

It's hard to present contrary evidence if you can't get at and question the models or data. Ideology is irrelevant if the emerging critique is scientifically valid.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Wait, are you telling me that people who believe in global warming aren't just trying to profit from global disaster?

I think that's actually where Al Gore gets a lot of his money from. Selling books and movies, and selling carbon indulgences. I'm sure he's not the only one either.

I wouldn't have brought it up, but you did ask...

Re: Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Bartles]

It doesn't matter for what reason a model or method is challenged. If it fails to hold up under scrutiny, the method is flawed and the results are suspect.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Layzej]

It's hard to present contrary evidence if you can't get at and question the models or data.

Those who can't perform a simple Google search would be hard pressed to debate the science in any meaningful way (and should probably cease spewing BS to score political points). I found the code and data with a two minute search. - http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holoc...

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Ol Olsoc]

This.

For the benefit of those without sarcasm-detectors, it's worth emphasizing that it's the job of science, not the courts (or the media) to "rationally and scientifically" prove or disprove scientific phenomena.

To be sure however, the case of Kitzmiller vs the Dover Area School district, a judge determined what was or was not science. And the verdict came in, ID is not science. It was just a pseudoscience effort to put creationism into classrooms as science.

What I find a little unsettling is that both Creationism, ID and anti-AGW folks tend to use the same weapons. Cherry picking data, using old data, and one of their favorites, character assassination. Like comparing a respected scientist to a serial child molester.

And this passes for refuting AGW? That Mark Steyn believes that Mann is the same thing as a child molester? Using arguments like that just underscores the weakness of his position. And his web page is saying that Mann vs Steyn is the Scopes Monkey trial of the 21st century. Umm, sensationalizing much?

We see so much of this, where scientists are "refuted" by political operatives. Of course, being political operatives, they operate on a field in which they can, the mentioned cherry picking,, the character assassination, etc.

And yet, the answer is so simple. Reputable scientists hould be turning up research that shows that the amount of so called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is not causing any warming effect, and why a proven scientific principle is wrong. note: CO2 levels causing heat retention has been proven in grade school science fairs over and over and over.

And they need to do it outside of journals that have direct relationship to industries that stand to profit by refutation. And not cherry pick peers. And not have editors that are proponents of water dowsing, or work for petroleum institutes. Because that's about all there is so far.

Re: Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[ClickOnThis]

It doesn't matter for what reason a model or method is challenged. If it fails to hold up under scrutiny, the method is flawed and the results are suspect.

Agreed. But present contrary evidence or go home.

Re: Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Bartles]

You just said challenging a result for political or idealogoical reasons is not valid. I'm sorry, but you didn't agree. Did you change your mind? The more frivolous the reasons for challenging, the easier it should be to withstand the scrutiny. A lawsuit says to me that Mann is flailing and feels the attack struck a blow. That gives me less confidence in his method.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[BergZ]

The sad part is that no matter how many times you debunk that talking point "skeptics" of climate science will just keep repeating it forever.
That kind of behavior doesn't sound like honest skepticism to me.

Re: Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[ClickOnThis]

You just said challenging a result for political or idealogoical reasons is not valid.

I didn't say it wasn't valid. I said it was important to recognize the difference between those reasons, and a good-faith attempt to create new science.

I'm sorry, but you didn't agree. Did you change your mind? The more frivolous the reasons for challenging, the easier it should be to withstand the scrutiny. A lawsuit says to me that Mann is flailing and feels the attack struck a blow. That gives me less confidence in his method.

The proper "court" for determining the validity of Mann's findings is that of his scientific peers, not a court of law. Mann is seeking redress in the latter because he has been harmed in the public eye, not that of his peers. As much as he is supported by his peers, he cannot escape the harm from someone like Steyn, and he is compelled to respond.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to nitpick here but you're honestly saying that a few megabytes of ambiguous data is proof that they're open with their methods? Nonsense.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[cold fjord]

Sometimes being simple isn't good enough. Mann has a record of being evasive about the data and methods used. Are you willing to certify that what you found are the complete and accurate set of data, models, and code used to produce the results that Mann published on? Is any data he excluded noted? Is the methodology in there?

THE HOCKEY STICK REVISITED - A Tale of Obstruction (2003-2004) I suggest reading the entire section "A Tale of Obstruction (2003-2004)" at the web page, it is a sordid tale.

Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[cold fjord]

Mann has a record of being evasive about the data and methods used. Are you willing to certify that what you found are the complete and accurate set of data, models, and code used to produce the results that Mann published on? Is any data he excluded noted? Is the methodology in there?

THE HOCKEY STICK REVISITED - A Tale of Obstruction (2003-2004) I suggest reading the entire section "A Tale of Obstruction (2003-2004)" at the web page, it is a sordid tale.

Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[PopeRatzo]

I think that's actually where Al Gore gets a lot of his money from.

And he's fat, too.

We were talking about climate scientists, like Michael Mann. Now maybe you can enlighten us as to how Al Gore is spreading that wealth that dwarfs that of the major energy industry corporations to all the struggling climate scientists who work in his employ?

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[funwithBSD]

Considering the Hockey Stick is the only thing discussed, I think Steyn is in the clear here.

Canadian researchers found random data fed to the code results in a hockey stick

http://www.technologyreview.co...

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[funwithBSD]

But his code has been shown to fail the Monte Carlo test, or feeding it random data to see if random results come out:

http://www.technologyreview.co...

You can call that "torturing" the data I suppose, especially by a non-technical person. It certainly shows he had problems with his methods, although I would doubt it was intentional.

More likely, he wrote the code according to an algorithm he may not have understood completely, or not understood the code anyway, then while implementing it did the sort of half assed development cycle you would expect from a non-coder: run the code, if does what you want, it must be right.

  The fact that in this case it was to show global warming is really not important, it could have been any bit of code that manipulates data and gets judged by it looking "right" to the amateur coder.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[cold fjord]

he's into politically motivated demagoguery, court actions and making a public circus of it.

You may recall that it is Mann that is suing Steyn, not the other way around, and Mr. Mann isn't above politics himself.

Climategate 2.0

Consider an email written by Mr. Mann in August 2007. "I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy." Doug Keenan is a skeptic and gadfly of the climate-change establishment. Steve McIntyre is the tenacious Canadian ex-mining engineer whose dogged research helped expose flaws in Mr. Mann's "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures.

One can understand Mr. Mann's irritation. His hockey stick, which purported to demonstrate the link between man-made carbon emissions and catastrophic global warming, was the central pillar of the IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report, and it brought him near-legendary status in his community. Naturally he wanted to put Mr. McIntyre in his place.

The sensible way to do so is to prove Mr. McIntyre wrong using facts and evidence and improved data. Instead the email reveals Mr. Mann casting about for a way to smear him. If the case for man-made global warming is really as strong as the so-called consensus claims it is, why do the climategate emails show scientists attempting to stamp out dissenting points of view? Why must they manipulate data, such as Mr. Jones's infamous effort (revealed in the first batch of climategate emails) to "hide the decline," deliberately concealing an inconvenient divergence, post-1960, between real-world, observed temperature data and scientists' preferred proxies derived from analyzing tree rings?

This is the real significance of the climategate emails. They show that major scientists who inform the IPCC can't be trusted to stick to the science and avoid political activism. This, in turn, has very worrying implications for the major international policy decisions adopted on the basis of their research.

Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’

Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[cold fjord]

That's a relief.

Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’

At least the Climategate emails are simple skullduggery whitened by a whitewash.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[ClickOnThis]

Did someone need contrary evidence when they took the atomic clocks on fast airplanes to see if its time slipped relative to the clock on earth?

Well that, in fact, is contrary evidence. Which is exactly my point.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[BergZ]

If you think THAT's bad, you should see what happened to a journal "skeptical" of climate science last week:
The nepotism and scientific malpractice became so rampant that the publisher of Pattern Recognition in Physics actually had to shut the whole thing down (it was becoming an embarrassment)! There's your fraud.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[ChrisMaple]

How many people in the first world would be alive a year later if all the energy companies suddenly stopped producing energy? Think about that before you blindly accuse them of malfeasance.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[ChrisMaple]

We see so much of this, where politically funded "scientists" are refuted by political operatives. FTFY.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[KeensMustard]

I like how you've linked to a site that calls itself 'Canada Free Press', but is, in fact, a blog for spruiking canada's fossil fuel industry!

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Anonymous Coward]

If major energy industry corporations are the big bad guy, how is it that they somehow can't find a single shill to float a report that global warming isn't happening or that they're not causing it? Was I asleep when enormous money and power somehow ceased to become an incentive for human behavior? Why would they resort to using schlock jocks instead? Did everyone lean enough to fit into a labcoat suddenly grow an indomitable conscience?

What if the major energy industry corporations... benefit from global warming because it puts them on the path to becoming considered tax-exempt charities? or monopoly-like utilities? And what if they get there by harnessing everyone's hatred against them?

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[TapeCutter]

The money from Al Gore's AGW stuff is pumped straight back into a trust fund that uses it to produce more AGW stuff, he does not personally profit from the trust and has testified to those accounting facts in numerous senate hearings. The coal state senators who organise and run those senate inquisitions have a lot to gain if they could prove he was lying to the senate (and by inference the tax department). With all the coercive powers of such senate hearings they are unable to find any evidence he is lying. Undetered by any morality they then use their own "charitable" think-tanks to character assassinate Gore and their other perceived enemies - organisations such as the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" that Steyn "coincidentally" has strong links to. Note the CEI is also being sued by Mann in the same court case, this is more significant since it the main AGW lobby organisation that has spun off another 50 or so clones such as the "Heritage Institute".

The lobbyists are in it for the money alone, and it's surprisingly little ~$50 million spent on disinformation over 20yrs by my own recogning. A few million from CEI's wallet could (hopefully) signal the rapid demise of the "denier for hire" industry, it certainly shut the same people up when their sponsors were fined $500M for pretending to be "tobacco scientists" in the 90's. Will Peabody coal and their other sponsors stand by them with that sort of precedent hanging over their heads, or will they quietly back away and let the "over-zealous lobbyist" burn?

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[AlterEager]

AAARGH. Here comes the undead army.

You just can't keep a good zombie down.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[AlterEager]

For the uninformed, what M&M did was:

McIntyre and McKitrick's code selected 100 simulations with the highest "hockey stick index" from the 10,000 simulations they had carried out, and their illustrations were taken from this pre-selected 1%

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[AlterEager]

I suggest reading the entire section "A Tale of Obstruction (2003-2004)" at the web page, it is a sordid tale.

It certainly is sordid, being a tissue of lies, deliberate misinterpretation and error.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[AlterEager]

But his code has been shown to fail the Monte Carlo test, or feeding it random data to see if random results come out:

http://www.technologyreview.co...

Yup, if you run 10,000 sets of random data though his code, then pick the 100 results that look most like a hockey stick (turned either way up!) you find that those 100 results look like hockey sticks.

Torture? Maybe, but who was the torturer?

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to the Pope!

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Layzej]

Conspiracy narratives are always the fallback of the deniers. I gave you the code and the data and you still want to claim that "Mann has a record of being evasive about the data and methods used." Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good yarn.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Layzej]

Were you trying to illustrate my point about bullshit?

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[PopeRatzo]

How many people in the first world would be alive a year later if all the energy companies suddenly stopped producing energy?

Are those really the only two choices? Either throw the global climate in to paroxysms or not have energy?

Come on. I thought you were above trying to make your point with such a specious argument. Wanna try again?

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[UnknowingFool]

Well that, in fact, is contrary evidence. Which is exactly my point.

I would say it wasn't quite parallel. It was evidence--something that AGW deniers lack. Second, there wasn't a huge scientific question that relativity existed. The question was whether the experiment could have enough precision to show that it existed. The debate had been settled decades before.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[cold fjord]

Your condemnation of Dr. Mann is rather harsh, but seems to be supported by the data.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[cold fjord]

That isn't conspiracy, it is a record of interaction, and Dr. Mann was evasive and nonresponsive as the record shows. Anything you can point to now doesn't change the history, and that is assuming that what you have pointed to is relevant. As the first link shows Mann repeatedly refused to cooperate in making his data properly available for inspection.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[cold fjord]

There is plenty of BS to go around on this topic, including from Dr. Mann.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[UnknowingFool]

Pfff. Your Nobel link consists of one blogger linking to himself and another AGW critic. . The original blogger has a problem with reading comprehension. Al Gore and the IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. As a member of the IPCC and having contributed important work for the IPCC, Mann is correct in asserting that he and his colleagues were awarded the prize. They were not individually named as their collective work was recognized as an organization and not individually.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[cold fjord]

Litigious Laureate

From Dr. Mann's complaint filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia - Civil Division
"As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to present contrary evidence if you can't get at and question the models or data.

"Judge, I know the defendant is guilty. But he won't hand over the evidence to prove his guilt. He only states his clear, solid alibi."

Ideology is irrelevant if the emerging critique is scientifically valid.

First step would probably to gather your own data. You know, follow the scientific method? Have a hypothesis, run an experiment, publish a conclusion. Honestly, if you don't trust Mann and his method or his data, why the hell are you so gun-ho about getting at his methods or his data? If there's contrary evidence to the idea of AGW, then it stands regardless of whatever Mann or others say. The problem, of course, is that short of cherry-picking experiments that only match some of the well-known data, AGW stands up as the best model of what's happening.

But, yea, if you don't trust the well-known data, feel free to drill your own ice cores and count your own tree rings and gather your own historical data. Or are you really that insane to believe that Mann and others should, upon hearing you whimper, do your bidding to find evidence that doesn't exist?

Re: Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[HornWumpus]

In court he can't refuse to produce the raw data. This will be interesting.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[ClickOnThis]

I would say it wasn't quite parallel. It was evidence--something that AGW deniers lack. Second, there wasn't a huge scientific question that relativity existed. The question was whether the experiment could have enough precision to show that it existed. The debate had been settled decades before.

Yes, point taken. I meant that the evidence from this experiment was contrary to (non-relativistic) intuition.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to present contrary evidence if you can't get at and question the models or data.

An admirable principle. Why don't you support this principle when it comes to secret courts?

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Ol Olsoc]

I think that's actually where Al Gore gets a lot of his money from.

And he's fat, too.

We were talking about climate scientists, like Michael Mann. Now maybe you can enlighten us as to how Al Gore is spreading that wealth that dwarfs that of the major energy industry corporations to all the struggling climate scientists who work in his employ?

Now Pope, you know that the false equivalence is about the best weapon they have. There should be a Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky story any moment now.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Ol Olsoc]

It's hard to present contrary evidence if you can't get at and question the models or data. Ideology is irrelevant if the emerging critique is scientifically valid.

What are you talking about. The failure of Cucchinelli to subpoena the University of Virginia's dat egarding Mann? THat was a politically motivated case, where after two efforts, and a final judgement by th esupreme court that Cucchinelli had no authority to force the University to produce the data.

Although that did free Cucchinelli up to pursue his efforts to make oral sex illegal. See what I did there?

Ironically, one of the criticisms of Mann to come out of the several investigations was that he needed to stop sharing unpublished data.

There is a huge amount of data availible right at your computer screen. Somewhere in this article, I posted several citations. Given that you probably won't change your mind, you can look for it yourself.

See what I did there? Now you can claim I won't give any citations for my claims.

Re: Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Ol Olsoc]

You just said challenging a result for political or idealogoical reasons is not valid. I'm sorry, but you didn't agree. Did you change your mind? The more frivolous the reasons for challenging, the easier it should be to withstand the scrutiny. A lawsuit says to me that Mann is flailing and feels the attack struck a blow. That gives me less confidence in his method.

I believe that is the death by a thousand cuts model. Combined with the tragedy of the commons, we get this weird ability for one of the stars of say, "Hillbilly Blood" to have equal weight to refute anyone the disagreed with for any reason.

If Einstein were alive today, Chumlee from Pawn Stars could call him out easily.

Back to the example, Ken Cuccinelli, th eone time Attorney General of Virginia, and failed Gubernatorial candidate, once filed a Civil Investigative Demand afgainst the University of Virginia to obtain Mann's work. This was understandably fought by the University, and was denied by a Judge. Cuccinelli then issued a subpoena for the same, and th eVirginia Supreme Court denied that, stating that he had no authority to subpoena research data.

I'm certain that you will deny, but it is very difficult to come up with a compelling reason that an Attorney General in one state has grounds to demand data from a researcher in another state unless they were doing it for non-research reasons, as in poltical reasons.

As I have noted before, those who do not believe in AGW, need to produce good research, and they need to play by the rules of science, not the rules of politics.

But most are not scientists. And sinec we live in a world where creationists belive that evolution can be disproven by debate, and that anti-AGW people are very similar in action - not likely to happen.

Re: Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Ol Olsoc]

In court he can't refuse to produce the raw data. This will be interesting.

Actually, what he probably has to produce is evidence that being compared to a serial pedophile is damaging. Steyn will probably have to produce evidenc that Mann is indeed a serial pedophile.

In the end though, I am sure that Mann is just providing notice that "If you fuck with me, be prepared to support your beliefs out of your bank account. Although he's a scientist, he's come to the understanding that his enemies understand money more than science.

A few of these cases, and perhaps Rush Limbaugh's substitute host might not be so ready to call people pedophiles

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[bigsexyjoe]

So many disconnected entities are independently deciding that global warming deniers are crackpots? That's interesting. I think Steyn is going to have a rough court case trying to prove that Mann literally committed fraud.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[the eric conspiracy]

Mann is a significant contributor to the scientific literature.

Steyn is not. He is NOT doing science in any way form or mode.

End of story.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[UnknowingFool]

Linking to the same statement underlies that you have a reading comprehension problem or that you believe that restating the same thing over and over again will somehow make it true. It's the same statement as before in another link. As stated before, as a member of the IPCC, the work that Mann and his colleagues did contributed to the acceptance of global climate change. His work was highlighted. The collective work and the organization was recognized by the Nobel committee but not individually. It also shows a fundamental flaw to your denial. Many, many scientists have contributed to this work. Even if Mann was evil incarnate, it does not undermine the work of thousands of other scientists. Then you would have to pursue character assassination of thousands rather than accept you are a denier.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[UnknowingFool]

Mann and others have still refused to disclose the details of their models, saying (astoundingly) that people just wanted to prove them wrong. Trying to prove a model wrong is the usual way of science... So whether you think this is "settled science" or not, you should welcome this open disclosure and wonder why it takes a court proceeding to achieve it.

It takes like a minute to Google that this is not true. The debate I have is whether you were ignorant of this or you were lying. For someone on slashdot, I would tend to believe you can use Google.

As for the notion of "settled science", which presumably means you should stop questioning something - this is a very disturbing concept which in my opinion has no place at all on slashdot, of all one forums. slashdot is one place where people discuss new ways of looking at old ideas - experiments test Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, studies about whether cutting salt from your diet reduces hypertension, the value of dietary suppliements, and other bits of uncommon knowledge. Almost every interesting post here challenges some "settled" idea.

No one in science believes that a principle cannot be questioned. It is settled because there is enough consensus that is acceptable so that they don't have to waste energy and research funding on questions that have already been answered. Scientists in research want to focus on what is unknown than keep testing what is known. In your example, we don't need people to build two atomic clocks and send one around the world to test relativity. That experiment has been done. If you as scientist want to do that experiment, go ahead. However, I would think people in charge of your research funding and your career would be better spent in answering questions about relativity that haven't been answered.

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[UnknowingFool]

Mann was non-responsive to people who didn't know what they were doing and were questioning his results? Hmmm. Do you respond to people at your work (who don't work for your company) emailing how you've done your job incorrectly and that they want to see all your logs?

Re:Actually he is debating Steyn in court

[Namarrgon]

What record? You linked to a blog that picks quotes from a book written by a mining consultant and an economics professor. There's no record visible there - no context, no dates, nothing hard - only someone allegedly repeating claims from authors with obvious agendas, that we can't begin to verify. Oh, and an unreferenced op-ed with loaded language and unproved allegations that gives no actual contrary data, but only raises questions from a known skeptic (Lindzen) while ignoring the opinions of all the other scientists mentioned.

But you go ahead and believe whatever random opinions you like. We'll just stick to the data that's been repeatedly verified in a dozen different ways.

Re:good place to start

[Anonymous Coward]

Got any links to denier sites that read like scientific discussions? I'd love to see them. Or just one.

http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/

a good look at Mann's mistakes and dodgy stats

[Anonymous Coward]

http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/

Climate Audit...

[Anonymous Coward]

...would seem the obvious site to google...

Re:good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fraud has a legal definition, and so does libel. Mann's research has been found to be scientifically accurate and no allegations of fraud have been found worthy of recognition in the academic community. Steyn's writing is purely political, and his assertions of fraud against Mann, being without merit, clearly show that the author's intent is to discredit Mann's presentation. Steyn clearly went beyond reason when he impuned Mann's character by comparing Mann's character to that of a sociopathic child abuser. My hope is that that Steyn and the National Review, it's editorial staff and publisher are all found guilty and whipped within an inch of their dubious credility using the pulpit of the court. They should be bludgeoned with its gavel for the failure to afford their readers a reasonable opinion or the benefit of moderating their overzealous attackdog, and they should be fined within the limits of the law so as to hold their action up in the light of its own outrageousness.

William F. Buckely went to his grave lamenting the current state of Conservatism and its discourse.

Climate change...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had my view on the whole climate change/global warming thing for a while. First up, I accept that temperatures have risen on average in recent times. The numbers are holding up to scrutiny, although very recent numbers may be suggesting we've hit a plateau, depending who you believe.

Where there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus is whether it's entirely man-made (I'm awaiting the flames to start on that commment...). We know Earth's climate has gone through cycles (medieval warm period, little ice age etc) before mankind was industrialised; are we sure this isn't happening now?

However - regardless of whether climate change is man made or natural, there's a hard fact that we're burning up fossil fuels (gas, oil, coal) far faster than it can be created in the ground. They're going to run out at some point, so we need to reduce our usage of them somehow. Add in the pollution argument and surely it would have to be a no-brainer to be trying to cut down our usage of fossil fuels? The exception seems to be those heavily tied in to the oil & gas companies who don't care about what happens 40 or 50 years down the line, they just care about their profits now.

Re:Climate change...

[Layzej]

Where there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus is whether it's entirely man-made

This review of scientific literature found that 97% of papers that took a position agree that warming is man made: http://skepticalscience.com/97...

Re:Climate change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Science isn't a popularity contest. Granted, over the long term, a consensus seems to build, but if you were to review pre-relativity physics literature, you'd find some questions about questions about flaws in the model, but a general consensus that the model is correct. That doesn't stop me from building a laser (which requires stimulated emission, one of Einstein's contributions). The issue with climate is that it (a) requires unified public action -- again, you can choose to disagree with "Jewish science" (thanks Hitler), but that won't stop the US from building an atomic bomb, and (b) isn't tremendously well-modeled (climate has always been changing, the predictions haven't proven particularly accurate, and the estimations of cost are even worse). The standard of proof in particle physics is 5 sigma; I'd love to see an AGW model that predicts global temperature deviation that accurately, but they currently don't exist.

Then there are the misleading results that are tacked onto the 97% figure that is often quoted. I can accept that warming is occurring (certainly the basic physics of the greenhouse effect is well established), but the consensus on its feedback effects (water vapor and global wind patterns are a very complex system) and the costs of climate change (we swear there will be more hurricanes/tornados/rain/drought than last year!) aren't there at all.

Frankly, given the mitigation schemes that climate scientists have come up with, the choices aren't necessarily so black and white. If we stop the world from warming 1C at the cost of 1 billion people continuing to live in poverty, rather than rising into the global middle class (via more available energy), is it worth it? Is it more important to invest serious resources in averting AGW or into a space program capable of deflecting civilization-ending asteroids? Ultimately, it seems that we'll do what we can to incentivize reducing carbon emissions, but we're not willing to sacrifice standard of living now to reduce some nebulous hazard in the future.

How sad Republicans have gotten

[Anonymous Coward]

If William F Buckley was in charge of the National Review, he would have slapped Steyn down himself instead of a court doing it soon for writing such rubbish.

Re:How sad Republicans have gotten

[Bing Tsher E]

You're one of those guys who now says 'Ronald Reagan wasn't so bad' but you also were one of the people out in the street cheering the day he was shot, correct? Please can the phoney 'William F Buckley weeps' bullshit, brother.

Re:How sad Republicans have gotten

[haruchai]

I'm not one of those guys. Never thought much of Reagan except that he could fool people but didn't cheer when he was shot.
As for Buckley, he was smart and had integrity and would be ashamed of the modern American right wing.
If you know anything about the man, you'll recall that he took pains to exclude the radicals he deemed unworthy.

The Ayn Rand-lovers, the thinly-disguised white supremacists practising voter suppression, etc - they would have gotten short shrift from him.

Re:How sad Republicans have gotten

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember Buckley rather fondly too. However, he was all out in favor of voter suppression.

Whats' the difference between FOIA and discovery?

[Anonymous Coward]

FOIA requests are a lot easier to put off then discovery subpeonas.

I'm sure Steyn does not want to be sued, but defense against defamation include the statements in question being true.
So I'm also sure that Steyn et al are just drooling over the chance to go over all those documents that Mann has been hiding.

Re:good place to start

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, the "hockey stick" debunker guys. they don't really seem to refute much other climate science stuff, but the stuff they do, they certainly do scientifically.

Not as simple as it seems

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no doubt that historical measurements of temperature, atmospheric CO2, etc are correct and not fraudulent. I also have no doubt the Mr. Steyn is vicious and misguided. Calling those whom you disagree with disparaging names although common in this forum (and perfectly legal) is basically a sign of immaturity and perhaps also a personality disorder. However, what little I know about complex non-linear systems makes be skeptical of predictions of future behavior. Firstly non-linear system simulations are sensitive to initial conditions, that is the starting year of the simulations can grossly affect predictions. Climate change skeptics rather dishonestly pick an unusually hot year to start their charts for that reason, nevertheless the underlying models may not be robust as one would prefer. Secondly the system may be mathematically chaotic so that a small change in an arbitrary parameter affect the model in a large way. In general I think we should be more humble is our beliefs in the ability to predict future climates. While anyone can say it will be colder in the summer and hotter in the winter who is bold enough to predict what the actual temperatures will be? Incidentally I have similar skepticism for those who predict distant future disasters on both the Left and the Right. Gore predicting no snow for our grand children is as ludicrous as Cruz predicting budget deficits will destroy the country.

I love that National Review won't stand behind him

[bigsexyjoe]

If some journalist for Mother Jones got into legal trouble, I'm pretty sure they'd have his back. But the National Review just throws people aside when it's convenient. It would be one thing if what Steyn argued (that global warming is BS) wasn't conservative dogma, but it is. He pretty much just strongly worded their position.

Two way street

[Anonymous Coward]

Before everyone gets all exited that the big bad Mark Steyn is getting nailed, this is really more about free speech. In the US (unlike mother England and some other European countries) political speech has pretty wide protections. The difference between libel/slander/defamation and sarcasm/hyperbole have generally weighed heavily in favor of free speech. Does anyone really want this to change?

The next time Debbie Wasserman Schultz calls Rush Limbaugh a liar, do you really want that to be a court case?

Re:Two way street

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling someone a liar is not actionable. Saying something like "He falsified this particular study" is actionable. The first statement is unprovable opinion. The second statement is very much provable and was asserted as a fact. That is the key difference.

Re:Two way street

[haruchai]

I guess it would depend on why she called him a liar but going to court may not be such a bad thing.

Not about global warming itself, of course

[rbrander]

This isn't about whether the (very) widespread claims that current evidence supports 'global warming', it's about whether Mann committed scientific fraud.

For instance, George Bush's commander really did think of Bush the way a fake letter (put forth by CBS as real) said he did; presumably the faker was frustrated by his inability to get that fact in the news, so he resorted to fraud, no doubt thinking that the real truth made it morally OK. But he still committed fraud, and the news that the secretary who would have typed the letter if it were real, said it was the commander's opinion, even as she debunked the letter was quite lost in the scandal over the fraud.

So global warming could be real, and Mann still a fraud, or it could be all a huge mistake by thousands of scientists, and Mann NOT a fraud, simply in possession of data that was mistaken or didn't mean what he thought.

Steyn is no doubt happy about the trial, because it will give him grounds to subpoena great heaps of Mann's work, looking for the same thing that the climategate E-mail thieves looked for: any kind of out-of-context quote they can find that they cam drum up into a "scandal" - a fraudulent one, of course...

Re:Not about global warming itself, of course

[haruchai]

For someone who's supposed to be "happy about the trial", he's hiding it well - http://www.steynonline.com/602... - and prefers it be dismissed.

Re:Not about global warming itself, of course

[Carraldo]

That's true. He was not looking to be a martyr for anti-warming: "he believes that the cause of freedom of expression in the United States would best be served by dismissing the amended complaint, and that a trial would have a significant "chilling effect" in America of the kind the Anti-SLAPP laws are specifically designed to prevent. The "chilling effect" is a bigger threat to civilized society than all Dr Mann's warming. But the judge chose instead to put us on the road to a full-scale trial. So be it." But the judge is determined to have a full scale trial. So Steyn is going to fight. Here's a prediction, at some point Mann's lawyers will offer to settle with an apology from Steyn. They'll figure that they've imposed enough time and costs on him to intimidate any other of Mann's critics. Any rational person will take such deal they'll reassure their client, Professor Mann. "These things are always settled on the courthouse steps." And Steyn will say "screw you, you guys and the judge wanted a full scale trial and now you are going to get it." So Steyn is either totally crazy, brilliant, or both. But he is not going to play be the lawyers' rules.

Re:Not about global warming itself, of course

[Layzej]

Initially the defendants were pretty cocky. Perhaps not so much now that this just got real. Here is what they originally published in an article titled "Get Lost":

"If Mann sues us, the materials we will need to mount a full defense will be extremely wide-ranging. So if he files a complaint, we will be doing more than fighting a nuisance lawsuit; we will be embarking on a journalistic project of great interest to us and our readers.

My advice to poor Michael is to go away and bother someone else. If he doesn't have the good sense to do that, we look forward to teaching him a thing or two about the law and about how free debate works in a free country."

- http://climatecrocks.com/2014/...

Re:Not about global warming itself, of course

[haruchai]

Well, he'd better figure quickly which set of rules to play by as he caused his previous legal counsel to resign when he insulted Judge Greene.
If he ends up representing himself and controls his tongue as poorly as he restrained his pen, he'll soon learn the truth of Henry Kett's observation that the man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.

Re:Not about global warming itself, of course

[haruchai]

Yes, thanks for pointing that out; I recall now just how gleeful the climate contrarians were over the prospect of getting Mann into court and how the crowd over at WattsUpWithThat were and how supportive they were of Ken Cuccinelli going after the records of Mann's work at the University of Virginia.

Re:good!

[Attila Dimedici]

Mann's research has been found to be scientifically accurate by an investigative team appointed by the same University President who could not be bothered to investigate allegations of child molestation against Sandusky, a University President who had a vested interest in Mann's research being found to be scientifically accurate to the tune of several million dollars in research grants.

Re:good!

[cheesybagel]

Found scientifically accurate by the University of Pennsylvania. Where he teaches and which receives the income from the funding to his climate research. Which by coincidence or not is the same university involved in the Jerry Sandusky trial. That's the joke BTW.
 

Insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

Insurance companies are now doing their long-term projections based on the truth of AGW, and their profits depend on those projections.

I don't care what you think of Mann, but you'd be a complete idiot to bet against the insurance industry.

Captcha: vulgarly

Re:Insurance

[Citizen of Earth]

And what happens to the insurance companies if they get it all wrong using the runaway greenhouse model? (Answer: record profits!)

Re:Insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they'll have to fork it over to the International Illuminati, and the Scions of the Trilateral Commission.

Re:Insurance

[Layzej]

Nope. They would be the ones out of business instead of the insurance companies that bet against the science.

Re:Insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because insurance companies never get it wrong: http://www.healthcare.gov/

Re:Insurance

[ChrisMaple]

Insurance companies have such poor judgement that they also were caught in the bursting of the housing bubble.

Re:Insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

Actual answer: they lose most of their market share to the first one that realises their mistake and lowers prices accordingly. Competition means it's very much in the interests of insurance companies to be correct in their predictions, not just conservative.

The original blog aaricle that cause this suit

[Anonymous Coward]

Before everybody gets too heated up about who said what when, it might pay to read the post that precipitated this law suit.
http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/13/the-other-scandal-in-unhappy-valley/ Then we can start arguing whether its going to be worth discussing
However.....
*Two inappropriate sentences that originally appeared in this post have been removed by the editor.
But some of the comments are illuminating.

Cheerful Charlie

Re:The original blog aaricle that cause this suit

[Anonymous Coward]

Disagree with it (or not) it really doesn't seem too defamatory. The two inappropriate sentences would be interesting to see.

Re:I love that National Review won't stand behind

[the eric conspiracy]

National Review had it's lawyers defending Steyn, until at least a public attack by Steyn against the case's judge embarrassed them.

So they quit the case and are talking about dropping the National Review as a client.

Re:good!

[avgjoe62]

While I don't expect you to really be bothered by such things as facts, you might be surprised to learn that the University of Pennsylvania is different and distinct from Pennsylvania State University, the university where Jerry Sandusky committed his crimes.

Willam F. Buckely - Really!

[Anonymous Coward]

William F. Buckley may have never agreed with Mark Steyn's style. But I hardly would believe that he would agree with you that "the National Review, it's editorial staff and publisher are all found guilty and whipped within an inch of their dubious credility". The National Review was and is his crowning achievment. Really, do you think that for one minute Michael Mann was really injured by anything that Mark Steyn said? Or do you think that a die-hard liberal is using this opportunity to take a legal shot at people he views as his enemy? Even more than current state of Conservatism and its discourse, William F. Buckley went to his grave lamenting the current state of the legal system and how it is currently used as a tool to silence political discussion.

I actually wish Mann were right about climate

[Applehu Akbar]

Just so we can see the look on his followers' faces when we explain that if we needed to eliminate all of our emitted carbon in one generation, we would have to go balls-to-wall nuclear. And if we urgently needed to sequester a good percentage of the manmade carbon already in the atmosphere and oceans, we would have to do geoengineering projects like seeding large areas of ocean with iron to promote the growth of algae that would then sunk to abyssal depths.

What I'm imagining is something like the face-melting scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Re:I actually wish Mann were right about climate

[Anonymous Coward]

Or we can do what I have done and put a few solar panels on my roof. I saved 5% of my income for 3 years to pay for it. It wasn't that big of a deal. I also ride my bike most places because I am in shape and can ride 20 miles a day easily.

Now, yes, the planet can only take out around 2 ppm of CO2 a year, so it will take some time, but it isn't crazy to think that we could switch to renewable energy and reduced energy use in the next 10 years, and not just in the US, but world wide. Some aspects of life will have to change, but the mess we are making with fossil fuels is causing real problems.

Re:I actually wish Mann were right about climate

[Applehu Akbar]

Yes, let's push the hell out of renewables, as the Germans are doing. Then, with wind turbines twirling away on every hilltop and coastline, what do you propose for the other 80% of our power needs? Germany is going back to coal as a supplement, but in the Mann-is-right scenario we're discussing here, no fossil fuel is an option.

Meanwhile, have some freshly-sliced bald eagle straight from the windfield. I guarantee, no GMOs.

Where are the free-speechers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, Slashdotters usually swing pretty libertarian, at least when they agree with the cause. But based on the comments, once something they hold sacred is attacked they suddenly get quite pedantic about what exact speech is protected and what qualifies as defamation. The argument suddenly becomes an AGW debate not a free speech debate.

Re:good!

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, it was Pennsylvania State University that found Mann's research to be scientifically accurate, not the University of Pennsylvania (although you were correct that it was the University where he teaches and that receives income from the funding of his climate research. The interesting thing is that the person who put together the group to investigate him was the President of Pennsylvania State University, the same President who put together the group which initially "investigated" the allegations of sexual misconduct against Sandusky (that found no reason to contact the police about those allegations, even though the law clearly required them to do so).

By the way

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how liberals love to adopt conservatives long after they are dead. Liberals tried to destroy William F. Buckley many times throughout his illustrious career and failed miserably. After death, they comment on how they "respected" the man and his opinions. What a joke. I really don't care about your opinions but liberals utter lack of honesty or just plain ignorance about the history of their own movement is what makes me heave vomitously the most.

Oh Steyn

[Anonymous Coward]

Steyn, one of Canada's worst exports, along with Bieber of course. Is he defaming white people now?

I remember in his salad days at Macleans magazine, he used to stick to contemptuous generalizations about minority groups like Muslims and Tamils.

He moved to the U.S when he realized that his brand of libelous, fact free venom pays more down south.

Conrad Black is a crook.

[PopeRatzo]

"Railroaded"? For "outing a CIA newspaper reading bureaucrat"?

Here, this is from Wikipedia:

Black was found guilty of diverting funds for personal benefit from money due (to) Hollinger International, and of other irregularities. The embezzlement occurred when the company sold certain publishing assets. For example, in 2000, in an arrangement that came to be known as the "Lerner Exchange," Black personally acquired Chicago's Lerner Newspapers and sold it to Hollinger.[42] He also was found guilty of obstruction of justice.[43]

The only one who believes Black was "railroaded", is his good buddy and pederast, Mark Steyn.

The mark of a REAL scientist

[Mr. Firewall]

It seems that Michael Mann spends half of his time suing people for defaming him, and the other half defaming others on Twitter.

h/t Judith Curry

Get ready for a long and boring court case...

[Karmashock]

These things are rarely resolved in court. Rather they are a test of wills. You'll have two sides dicking with each other until one or the other gets tired or fed up enough to give up.

Its like those long drawn out divorce cases. Who is right and who is wrong? The courts don't care. It just rolls along until one side or the other makes a mistake the courts care about or shows any lack of resolve... and then that side collapses.

If both sides are equally unwilling to compromise... take the Apple VS Samsung issue... then get used to that case going on... FOREVER.

These things are pointless.

Re:good!

[firex726]

As I recall, the raw data was also released to the scientific community and competing peers also agreed with the conclusions from the data.

Unless you're going to suggest that it's some big conspiracy where all climate scientists are in on it?

notes of systemic bias

[harvey the nerd]

Here are 3 videos, Mr. McIntyre's dissection of the hijinks of climate academics, given at the 4th Int'l Conference on Climate Change. 1/3, 2/3, 3/3 , merely academics' bias or more ?

Surprised.

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling someone fraudulent is defamation, but calling someone a pedophile is protected speech?

uhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

okay, well I don't have a horse in this race, but if its a Penn State president that assigned the team, I guess I don't get why this particular president would have a vested interest in supporting research that would get UPenn more money?

I mean, you do see how your second comment completely contradicts your argument in your first comment?

And really, the same logic--"this person did this in this situation so they would do this in all situations"--would be easily applicable to all research and education at Penn State... "Well, he signed Sandusky's paychecks, and he signed 20,000 students' diplomas, therefor 20,000 students are mayyyybe fucking children in the showers."

I hate to be crass, but your logic is relllly crass here, Attila, and made worse by people moderating it up.

Re:good!

[Attila Dimedici]

What is missing is the proxy data from post 1980. Mann used proxy data for temperatures up until 1980, at which point he switched to using thermometer readings. He has, as far as I have been able to locate, never released the data that would allow a comparison of his proxy data to thermometer readings (that is, what the proxy readings would have shown since 1980). My recollection is that you are mistaken and Mann has never released his raw data, but I was unable to confirm or deny that understanding in the amount of time I was willing to spend looking.

Piss poor examples there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Geocentrism was before science: and was known to be wrong 3000 or more years ago.

Phlogiston was before science and when chemistry took off as opposed to alchemy, they discovered phogliston was "negative mass" and therefore discerned that burning wasn't phlogiston.

Ether was early science and had NEVER been seen, only inferred as a result of Maxwell's equations. And it was less than 20 years later that it was shown not to exist at all.

Climate science, of which the INEVITABLE result of human fossil fuel burning is AGW, has withstood 200 years, the first 120-ish were "AGW will not be a problem". Your denialism is the aether/phlogiston/geocentrism of science.

"has been sued before"

[smittyoneeach]

Are you referring to that un-funny joke that played out in Canada?

Why are 97+% in agreement?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the same reason 97+% are in agreement that the earth revolves around the sun: the evidence.

Roy Spencer gets paid a shitload.

[Anonymous Coward]

So therefore your claims are disproven in the absolute.

Texaco offered a bag of money for a science team to create a paper disproving AGW. There's a shitload of money in denial. Just as Pat Michaels. Or Chris Monckton.

Very good site, High School Math and stats helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

Very informative site. I'm an electrical engineer major tho. You may need some help if your rusty on lab type stuff. I'm sure you can get help if you need it. Very dry unless you are really want to know what posts here were made by what type of person and how many of them there are. :)

Basics with in depth quotes regarding emails and graphs that people haven't actually read or viewed data for.
http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.basics.asp
http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp

Identify the deniers

[h00manist]

Welcome to Slashdot, haruchai, where posting simple truths brings out the deniers, to silence you.

There is so much research, investment and interest in getting rid of oil and coal, its inevitable that oil and coal will not last that much longer. There are more alternatives every day.

But oil companies have some money to lobby with. It would make sense that they would spend on some PR agents to propagate their ideals and objectives into the public conscience.

Follow the money. Who stands to gain by climate-denialists crazy arguments? Oil and coal. Auto companies perhaps, but not so much. They already power cars from many other sources, even if it costs more. But oil and coal companies stand to simply die if too many people switch to other power sources.

Who is funding the climate-deniers? Oil and coal. Where are the climate deniers concentrated? Oil and coal states. Who are the politicians that go along with climate-denier positions? Politicians from oil and coal states.

And this crazy argument that there is some "lobby" who "finances" and "creates false science" to "profit from global warming"? Who, the scientists lobby? We wish scientists had political power. Everything they say basically falls on deaf ears. What, the battery makers lobby? The electric car lobby?

There is no large green corporation, or group of companies, there is no central profit center. Power can be generated in an infinity of ways, and many, many of them are more efficient, cost less, and are (gasp!) cleaner than oil and coal, in many ways. They haven't quite gotten enough traction yet to completely replace oil, coal, and gas, largely due to lobby, PR scams, and protectionism of the oil lobby. Still, it seems inevitable.

If anyone really likes oil power so much, tell them to buy a generator, and power the house with oil. See the absurd noise, maintenance and costs. Quickly come to the - quite common sense - conclusion that oil power is not so great.

Which is likely to be the interest of the population in non-oil-and-coal-power - common sense. Not some imaginary "green lobby", a fictitious invention of the oil corporate lobby.

Oil and coal is not only affecting weather. It's making air unbreathable in many cities. Its not infinite. Many nations don't have enough and are vulnerable by depending on imports too much, like China and US. Europe is also dependent on Russian gas imports.

Militaries around the world don't like being vulnerable on supply lines for energy and gas, any group generating their own power is far more autonomous. The same argument goes for industry, commerce, transportation, cities, remote locations, and pretty much anyone.

Car and truck transportation are being questioned for many reasons - global warming, air pollution, noise pollution, traffic, safety, costs, raw inefficiency, and urban planning. Each of these arguments have their own, huge, groups of supporters.

If there is an environmental lobby, it appears to be most of the population, pretty much.

The surprising part is how much the world politicians have bent over for oil, gas and coal monopolies.

Forget the research, think of your own power

[h00manist]

Would it make sense to be energy-independent, produce your own power? Of course - it's an expense, a supply headache, and a risk factor.

How can you generate your own power? Oil-dependent generators are not cost efficient. Coal is large investment. Extract your own oil and refine it? Insanely complex and costly. Nuclear is impossible, politically tough.

The reason we are dependent on oil and coal is because corporations profit from it, they can monopolize it.

If you're a nation or corporation, you can think of safe nuclear, like thorium-based nuclear power.

Otherwise, to generate power yourself, you're likely to end up looking at the wind, hydro, sun, waves, or something else you can get yourself for zero cost, simply because you can do it.

Re:Forget the research, think of your own power

[nbauman]

How can you generate your own power? Oil-dependent generators are not cost efficient. Coal is large investment. Extract your own oil and refine it? Insanely complex and costly. Nuclear is impossible, politically tough.

The reason we are dependent on oil and coal is because corporations profit from it, they can monopolize it.

If you're a nation or corporation, you can think of safe nuclear, like thorium-based nuclear power.

Simple. In Atlas Shrugged, the creators and makers went off to Galt Gulch and created electric power out of the static electricity in the sky.

Once you drown government in a bathtub, anything can happen.

Re:Forget the research, think of your own power

[AK Marc]

If every building was covered in solar panels, we'd have enough to run the country without use of coal. Of course, we'd have to buy cheap Chinese panels, so that's illegal.

And yet

[Anonymous Coward]

The PhD who is being attacked and now counter attacking seems to be aware of this and yet proceeding anyway.

Be afraid cultist. Be very afraid.

Rand isn't coming to save your lies...and neither is John Galt.

Mann vs. Steyn

[brunnegd]

Mann is a scientist. Steyn is a guest host for Limbaugh. Steyn is a typical GW denier. No facts, just character assassination. Quoting others with facts taken out of content or focused on tiny details that have no basis in fact. If he works for the Heartland Institute then anything he says will be a distortion of facts.

Understanding the Science

[brunnegd]

For those with an open mind, consider auditing this MIT course on climate http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/...

comment to the mentioned blog article by Steyn

[stock]

SLAPPstick Farce by Mark Steyn January 25, 2014 http://www.steynonline.com/601...
"Meanwhile, in the same period [the two-year anti-SLAPP hearing], Dr. Mann has been brandishing his hockey stick out on the campaign trail against Republican candidates. In Virginia, he appeared in the Democrats' attack ads against Ken Cuccinelli, and helped get Clinton's bagman Terry McAuliffe elected governor. When his candidate Mark Herring also prevailed over the GOP in the attorney general's race, Mann crowed and published tweets from his acolytes congratulating him on "two fresh notches on your hockey stick."
Global warming is apparently not a bipartisan research effort, but more of a Democratic National Committee sponsored science project which initially was given National coverage by Al Gore.

1 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but to say someone is a sack of shit, in a review is punishable? But to produce a hockey stick, that blames man (not mann) by manipulating data is not? Talk about tortured logic. So, carbon must be eliminated? You are carbon along with a few other things, is that justified because mann says so? Plants that are food and shelter, and the byproducts are carbon, must we eliminate them also? I'm against pollution, not against life on this planet, but for a respectful every man has a purpose, type guy. Why like things that kill for the sense of a few dollars, stein crime does not even come close to the crime of Mann. To advocate erroneously for a cause, that will not help man, but hinders proper development of our resources, that help mankind.
Because of that, I say, get rid of mann, he cheated, bullied others to follow him, to collect our tax dollars, for his propaganda. That climate science has to take into account, what it says, after all, after releasing a statement about evils of living on a coastline, that all coastlines will be undersea, in 20 years, some then millionaire, in climate science, bought a shoreside on the ocean, home, and remodeled. Did he talk someone else out of that property, or did he lie, to get the property.
Some one fought e-mail releases under "freedom/right to know" laws. Still doing it, but someone snuck in and got the e-mails, and published them, opps, they proved fraud. Many people read them, on the internet, And they refer to the process of review, not on the truth of the article, but yeah, you write well, but scare the yockels more,...and refered to programs and illustrations that were approved of. But wrong, adjusted, inflated. Overgeneralized eliminating periods that were warmer and colder creating false projections, In other words, they lied on our dime. and no one was punished for the lies. and those people are still in charge, the ones that say carbon is bad....but we are carbon...

2?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the "scientific" journals, say you have to have a publishable idea, and reject anything that is anti GW. So how does the idea get published, if you are not allowed to publish? There is no contrary opinion, if it is not published?
If it was published? Such as a recent article on cycles and systems, in physics? The publisher accepted the article, and then refused to publish after blocking because of AGW position. So now all cycles, are out in physics? Good news for earth. Back to flat earth again.That orbiting sun, is just crazy dissapearing under the earth...
Even the ancient greeks knew better.

How does one "torture" data?

[Anonymous Coward]

As Bill Clinton would say, it depends on what you mean by "torture"
Great, now when I torture my brother or torture my dog or torture a terrorist I can now be charged as a fraud too? And if you accuse me of torture I can now sue you for defamation!
I wonder how many little kids are going to be hauled into court for torturing their brothers and sisters!

Damned if they do, damned if they don't

[Blaskowicz]

The actual source code is this, from briffa_Sep98_d.pro http://wattsupwiththat.com/200... [wattsupwiththat.com] - you can decide for yourself whether this is "torture" or not, and whether this particular debate should be squelched:

Climate scientists are often accused of using misleading, uncorrected data : typically a blogger or forum reader writes that temperature datasets are invalid because of urban island heat effects, for one thing. But what actually happens is scientists discard such invalid data or apply a correction to it, when such effects are known. Enters "climategate" where a climate scientist uses corrected data not raw data, and he's reviled for doing so. Yes the correction is "artificial" and the published results are just an estimate, and it's just one piece of work that may make sense in a limited context and may be superseded by later, more accurate works.. because that's the nature of the work that could be done.

Really, random bloggers and lobbyists can chastise scientists for not using raw data in all times and contexts, but that shouldn't matter : the idea is nuts. Other times, the same people complain that the raw data is slanted. So which is it?

Re:good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mann did not release any data because he did own any of it, he received data that was made available to him under a NDA, the data was collected by other scientists doing their own research and so didn't want the data made public until they had finished their own work, that data has since been released to the public by the owners of the data.

Let's kick this AGW party into overdrive

[hardwarefreak]

I'm sitting in the central Midwest where it's currently 10F degrees and has been below zero many times this winter. Would everyone please start your car and just let it idle... for a month, start a bunch of foreset fires, tickle some volcanos into erupting, light Saudi Arabia's oil wells on fire. Let's kick this AGW party into overdrive, I'm freezing. This 0.5C degree rise per century just ain't cut'n it.

Still not making any sense

[TheNastyInThePasty]

And how do you become a famous scientist for conforming to the scientific consensus? Name one famous scientist whose only accomplishment was confirming what the scientific consensus already was.

Without showing that light can be bent by gravity, Einstein would have just been some schmuck we've never heard of. He gained a hell of a lot from his fame after that work. His rewards were by no means posthumous. Same with Darwin, whose fame was achieved from his chronicling of his voyages in which he developed evolutionary theory. Galileo was only persecuted because the "scientific consensus" of the time was a religious one, making his work blasphemous. It's in no way similar to what a scientist would experience today.

The reason science moves forward at all, and I think you can agree with me that it has, is because scientists challenge the scientific consensus. In fact, even an experiment which aims to prove that the scientific consensus is correct is a challenge because it exposes weaknesses in the standard model when the experiment fails to produce the expected results. See, for example, The Michelson-Morely Experiment.

Re:Still not making any sense

[stenvar]

And how do you become a famous scientist for conforming to the scientific consensus?

There are many ways of becoming a famous scientists while conforming to the scientific consensus: you publish huge numbers of incremental papers (with your graduate students), you give flashy demos and have a good PR department, you develop new tools and methods, you become leader of a big scientific consortium, and you become involved in lots of grant committees. Most of those require working within the scientific consensus.

Furthermore, most scientists these days are concerned not primarily with fame, but with getting an academic position, then tenure and grants. By the time they actually have the freedom to challenge the consensus, most of them are burned out or have too much invested in the consensus themselves.

Without showing that light can be bent by gravity, Einstein would have just been some schmuck we've never heard of. He gained a hell of a lot from his fame after that work.

The question is not whether many famous scientists overturned the consensus, but whether attempting to overturn the consensus is a viable career choice for scientists, and it's not.

The reason science moves forward at all, and I think you can agree with me that it has, is because scientists challenge the scientific consensus.

Of course that's true in the long term. But it took 200 years from Newton to Einstein, and that's a comparatively simple problem with a simple and clear mathematical answer and simple experimental tests that any physicist can understand and that are completely convincing. It requires a special set of circumstances for people to be able to challenge the consensus (in the case of Einstein, he was a patent clerk with nothing to lose). And it probably requires the death of the people who were invested in the old theory; as Planck put it "Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out." That's why we say that theories have to "stand the test of time".

Climate change activists are arguing that we should believe "the consensus" because nobody has overturned it and because there would be ample reward for overturning it. But serious research into climate change is only a decade or two old, and it simply hasn't "stood the test of time" yet. So, we shouldn't base serious policy decisions on it yet.