It’s libel – except when Mike does it

This Mann-made global warming lawsuit could backfire on the Penn State alarmist

Guest post by Paul Driessen

Lewis Carroll died too soon. Just imagine the fun he’d have with the cliquish clan of climate catastrophe researchers who seek to control science, debate and public policy on global warming and energy – and then get outraged when someone challenges their findings, methodologies or integrity.

On October 1, Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and “hockey stick” fame published an angry riposte in Colorado’s obscure Vail Daily Voices (circulation 15,000), expressing his umbrage over an article that had appeared in the free coffee shop newspaper a day earlier.

“An individual named Martin Hertzberg did a grave disservice to your readers by making false and defamatory statements about me and my climate scientist colleagues in his recent commentary in your paper,” Mann began. (Hertzberg is a research scientist and former US Navy meteorologist.) The thin-skinned Penn State scientist then ranted:

“These are just lies, regurgitation of dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science.” [emphasis added]

Meanwhile, NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen, recipient of huge monetary awards for strident climate disaster claims, wants oil and coal company CEOs prosecuted for “crimes against humanity.”

So Mann and Hansen are honest scientists, trying to do their jobs. But Hertzberg and anyone else who questions the “imminent manmade climate change catastrophe” thesis are dishonest crooks, liars, Holocaust deniers, hired guns for fossil fuel interests, criminals threatening all humanity.

Hertzberg’s views were defamatory, but Mann’s and Hansen’s accusations are mild, rational and truthful.

(Readers can find Mann’s letters and lively discussions about them and Hansen on Dr. Anthony Watts’ WattsUpWithThat.com climate change website. Hertzberg’s letter appeared, mysteriously disappeared, then reappeared in the Vail Voices online archives as the controversy raged and ebbed.)

The bizarre saga gets even stranger when viewed alongside Dr. Mann’s kneejerk lawsuit against Dr. Tim Ball, a Canadian scientist, historical climatologist and retired professor who has frequently voiced his skepticism about claims that hydrocarbon use and carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of climate change and present an imminent risk of widespread planetary cataclysms. Dr. Ball has analyzed Canadian and global climate history, and does not regard computer models as much more than virtual reality scenarios that should never be the basis for real-world public policy.

Dr. Ball had poked fun at Dr. Mann, playing word games that suggest the computer guy should not be at Penn State, but in a similarly named state institution. Unfortunately, Mann is not easily amused, as Dr. Ball should have known from the PSU professor’s testy reaction to the “Hide the decline” animation and other spoofs that various AGW “deniers” posted online.

Mann insisted that Dr. Ball’s little joke was libelous and took him to court. Mann’s legal principal seems to be that libel is fine only when he and Hansen practice the craft, albeit with far less good humor than others display. More importantly, Dr. Ball does not live or work in the United States.

US libel cases are governed by the First Amendment, “public figure” rules and other safeguards that ensure open, robust debate, and make it difficult and expensive to sue people over slights, affronts, insults, disagreements and jokes.

Canada, unfortunately, has more limited free speech protections. So Dr. Mike sued Dr. Tim in Canada, assuming victory would be rapid and sweet. Surprise! Dr. Ball decided to slug it out.

In Canada, the principal defenses against libel claims are that the alleged defamation constitutes “fair comment” or was in fact “the truth.” Ball chose the latter defense.

Doing so means the penalty for losing could be higher than under “fair comment” rules. But arguing that his statement was based on truth allows Dr. Ball to seek “discovery” of evidence that Dr. Mann’s actions reflect a use of public funds to alter or falsify scientific data, present highly speculative results as solid facts, or otherwise engage in something that a reasonable person would conclude constitutes dishonest activity or criminal culpability, undertaken moreover through the use of taxpayer funds.

Proving that will not be easy, especially since Mann has steadfastly refused to provide such potential evidence to anyone, including Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. That evidence might include Climategate emails; computer codes and data used, misused or used selectively to generate global warming spikes in historical graphs; and questionable research or proposals used to secure additional government grants, misinform citizens or lawmakers, or promote costly or harmful public policies.

The US government alone spent an estimated $79 billion on climate, renewable energy and related research between 1989 and 2009 – and many billions more since then. Obviously, there is a lot at stake for scientists, universities, government agencies and other institutions engaged in trying to demonstrate a link between human greenhouse gas emissions and climate, weather, agricultural, sea level and other “disasters.” The reputations and credibility of researchers and their institutions are likewise at stake.

Keeping people alarmed, insisting that numerous disasters will soon result from carbon dioxide emissions and a few degrees of planetary warming – and silencing anyone who questions climate chaos claims – are essential if this money train is to be kept on the tracks.

Dr. Mann is likely aided by Penn State lawyers, largely paid for with climate research taxpayer dollars the university wants to safeguard, by preventing criticism or scientific disclosure and transparency.

A judge and jury will decide the Mann vs. Ball case, after carefully weighing all the evidence on whether Dr. Ball’s allegations and insinuations were factual, accurate and truthful.

Dr. Mann’s research was conducted primarily with public money. It is being presented as valid, peer-reviewed science. It is also being used to champion and justify major policy recommendations at state, national and international levels. And those recommendations call for carbon taxes and other penalties for using hydrocarbon energy; the replacement of affordable, dependable fossil fuel energy with expensive, unreliable wind and solar facilities; a roll-back of living standards in rich developed nations; and limited or minimal energy and economic development in poor countries.

Therefore, as I have argued previously, the public has a right to demand that Mann & Comrades show their work, not merely their answers and policy demands. Thus far, serious questions about Mann’s research remain unanswered. The public also has a right to require that Mann, Penn State & Company provide their source material, not just their results – along with anything else that may be relevant to gauging the validity, accuracy and honesty of the work and its conclusions and policy recommendations.

We the People have a further right, duty and obligation to protect free speech, robust debate, the integrity of the scientific method, our personal freedoms, and our access to the reliable, affordable energy that makes our jobs and living standards possible.

Support science, energy and freedom – donate to Dr. Tim Ball’s legal defense fund. Just click here or go to http://DrTimBall.com/

__________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

============================================================

UPDATE: It seems there is some skullduggery afoot with FOIA law revisions. From ProPublica:

A proposed rule to the Freedom of Information Act would allow federal agencies to tell people requesting certain law-enforcement or national security documents that records don’t exist – even when they do.

Under current FOIA practice, the government may withhold information and issue what’s known as a Glomar denial that says it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records.

The new proposal – part of a lengthy rule revision by the Department of Justice – would direct government agencies to “respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist.”

So in the case of climate records, we have imperious leader saying it is a matter of national security:

Obama says climate change a matter of national security

and the military brass agree:

Generals, admirals say climate change a matter of national security

Ergo, the data and records you requested don’t exist. Sorry.

It is the manifestation of everything CRU’s Dr. Phil Jones stands for in his famous quote:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

November 2012 can’t come fast enough.

About these ads

126 thoughts on “It’s libel – except when Mike does it

  1. Apologies for the OT but I thought you might want to know about this right away:

    Justice Dept. proposes lying, hiding existence of records under new FOIA rule

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/24/justice-dept-proposes-lying-hiding-existence-of-records-under-new-foia-rule/

    “A proposed revision to Freedom of Information Act rules would allow federal agencies to lie to citizens and reporters seeking certain records, telling them the records don’t exist.

    The Justice Department has proposed the change as part of a large revision of FOIA rules for federal agencies. Specifically, the rule would direct government agencies who are denying a request under an established FOIA exemption to “respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist,” rather than citing the relevant exemption.”

  2. Even the most rabid leftist should be able to understand that whatever Mann gets away with, a lot of government people with who knows what purposes in mind will be able to get away with as well. Tricky Dick would’ve been proud.

  3. Dr. Watts? … Well, maybe they should give you a PhD for your excellent research work you did on the surface station project. This was a much more robust research that what those bozos are publishing between buddy-review.

  4. 2 examples of Mann suing for libel is cited and one example of Hansen saying CEOs should be tried for crimes is cited. These are conflated and used to suggest Mann is a hypocrite i.e.

    “Mann’s legal principal seems to be that libel is fine only when he and Hansen practice the craft”

    Where did Mann libel anyone? I don’t see any example or claim of this at all.

  5. The claim with regard to Hansen is he committed libel with his “crimes against humanity” statement. The full quote can be found here

    “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

    It’s pretty clear he carefully worded it specifically to avoid accusations of libel. You can disagree with it, say it’s a bad idea or whatever but libel it isn’t.

  6. Carol’s warning about legal lying, if true, is about as in-your-face-and try-to-do–something-about-it as it can get. Sounds like the kind of thing the OWS people should be protesting. As for Tim Ball, count me as another Canadian willing to help his cause.

  7. I don’t know Canadian law, but if discovery in Canada is anything like it is in the U.S., then this case will never go to trial. Given the way he is fighting the UVa request, Mann will not give Dr. Ball anything. And if Mann does not produce requested documents that Ball’s attorney deems necessary to Ball’s defense, then the case goes no where. Mann cannot afford to give up incriminating documents, otherwise he might have the same problem Oscar Wilde did when he sued the Marquess of Queensberry for libel.

  8. sharper00 says:
    October 25, 2011 at 9:54 am

    [...]

    Where did Mann libel anyone? I don’t see any example or claim of this at all.

    Right here…

    “These are just lies, regurgitation of dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science.”

    Falsely accusing us of lying and regurgitating “dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science” is libelous…

    libel
    1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation.
    […]

  9. I don’t know if Anthony would want a PhD, at least honorary anyway….given the list of those he could stand shoulder to shoulder with..
    George Forman, Mike Tyson, Kermit the Frog, Al Gore, Tim Allen, Bob Barker, Stephen Colbert, Bill Cosby, Jon Bon Jovi, Dolly Parton, and Yoko Ono. …. to name a few granted honorary degrees…

    One premise though for a legitimate PhD is honesty in the field or discipline. That one, Mikey fails in.

    We should be reminded of an Hendrik Schön when thinking of Michael Mann…..

  10. So Mann, an American citizen, sued Dr Ball (who, I’m assuming is a Canadian citizen) in a Canadian court.

    Can Mann use American lawyers in a Canadian court?

    And if any of those documents were denied or protected under American FOIA, can the Canadian courts compel release?

    I have a feeling that Mann, when he sees what he has to release, will find a way to back out of the suit. There’s NO WAY that the scientists want this data out, in ANY court.

    He’ll come out with some long involved excuse, saying that he’s willing to “take the hit” so that the important work being done by the abused climate science community won’t be comprimised.

    Or some such BS…

  11. Sharperoo, is your memory so short you already forgot this quote from Mann that you just read?

    “These are just lies, regurgitation of dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science.”

  12. Jay, you are generally correct about Canadian discovery. I recently went through a civil suit for wrongful dismissal, and the defendant (employer) did everything they could to keep it out of court, as doing so would require them to open all their books.

  13. sharperoo:

    “Where did Mann libel anyone?” Well, Mann apparently says about Hertzberg: “These are just lies, regurgitation of dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science.” Gee, sounds like he is making a claim, in writing, that is intending to give Hertzberg a negative image.

    And Ball’s tongue-in-cheek, clever word play is libel?

    The whole thing, of course, is silly. Let’s let them slug it out, instead of getting the courts involved. Mann is acting like an insolent baby who thinks others are taking his toys away.

  14. “November 2012 can’t come fast enough.”

    Good luck with that, Anthony!! I believe the EPA bureaucrats are not elected officials.

    And did you mention that the National Security bugaboo has been invoked? All that means is that the topic already off-limits for the stupid unwashed masses – please stand aside and let the expert technocrats handle this.

    [NOTE: Your e-mail address does not register as a valid e-mail address. Please note WUWT policy and correct the situation. -REP]

  15. @David Middleton and R Taylor

    “Falsely accusing us of lying and regurgitating “dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science” is libelous…”

    “Sharperoo, is your memory so short you already forgot this quote from Mann that you just read?”

    Are you guys [SNIP: policy -REP] ? He has accused Hertzberg of telling lies about him, he further claims those lies come from the industry funded yadda yadda. Hertzberg could make a case that he’s being defamed by being accused of telling lies but then you’re making refutation of libel the same as libel.

    [NOTE: Sharper, the quote in this context is a violation of policy. -REP]

  16. They should be careful making fun of the CAGW industrial complex. After all, Alexander Solzhenitsyn was hauled off to the Gulag for making fun of Stalin’s moustache. No doubt Mr. Mann and his enablers would love to have that kind of power. /sarc

  17. @Eric Anderson

    “And Ball’s tongue-in-cheek, clever word play is libel?”

    Presumably a judge will decide that. Odds are you’d find word play a little less clever if it was a public statement claiming you were a criminal that should be in jail.

  18. sharper00 says:
    October 25, 2011 at 9:56 am
    The claim with regard to Hansen is he committed libel with his “crimes against humanity” statement. The full quote can be found here

    “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

    It’s pretty clear he carefully worded it specifically to avoid accusations of libel. You can disagree with it, say it’s a bad idea or whatever but libel it isn’t.

    Hansen’s screed is also libelous…

    “Special interests have blocked the transition to our renewable energy future,” Hansen writes in an opinion piece posted on the institute’s Web site. “Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer.

    “Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming,” Hansen continues. “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

    Hansen’s accusation of fossil fuel industry executives as intentionally and willfully spreading lies about global warming is a malicious lie. It’s not just libel; it is libel with malice aforethought .

    His qualification of his call for “high crimes against humanity and nature” trials as his opinion, does nothing to mitigate his lies about fossil fuel company executives. Hansen’s accusations are textbook libel…

    n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation.

  19. Can anyone provide the chemical mechanism by which CO2 is purported to increase the temperature of the atmosphere? I mean, we know how CHO + O2 yields CO2 + energy. The equations describing how CO2 raises the air temperature should be readily available, yes?

  20. If there was any question about Obama using Climate happenings to enable a dictatorial government they should be gone… between circumventing congress and issuing funds to hiding data and method of his plans to overtake what is left of our republic should be enough evidence…

    there are grave consequences an the end of the line…

    Following the Pied piper ends in death… you awake from the trance to find your drowning..

  21. Progressive liberals are the worst kind, they will crush the free speech rights of anyone who opposes them (and I am convinced would jail and/or execute them given the chance) and the next breath defend to the death the free speech rights they themself should be entitled too. I’m sure the NYT would never expose any information they have that would damn the Global Warming industry or its many teat suckers, but exposing a terrorist sting operations or defnding treasonis State Department officials is all in a days work for the Old Gray Hag. You know, some truths are more equal than others.

    Once FIOA requests are denied beyond the walls of the most sensitive departments and subjects anything worth knowing will eventually be barred from FIOA.

  22. sharper00 says:
    October 25, 2011 at 10:27 am
    @Eric Anderson

    “And Ball’s tongue-in-cheek, clever word play is libel?”

    Presumably a judge will decide that. Odds are you’d find word play a little less clever if it was a public statement claiming you were a criminal that should be in jail.

    I haven’t sued Hansen over his libel of me and his insinuation that I should be in jail. To my knowledge, no other fossil fuel industry executives have sued Hansen over his “word play.”

    I guess fossil fuel industry executives must have thicker skins than academic and gov’t climate scientists… Or, maybe it’s just that we have real jobs and don’t have time for junk lawsuits against people who hurt our feelings.

  23. Babsy says:
    October 25, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Can anyone provide the chemical mechanism by which CO2 is purported to increase the temperature of the atmosphere? I mean, we know how CHO + O2 yields CO2 + energy. The equations describing how CO2 raises the air temperature should be readily available, yes?

    _____________________________________________________________________

    while the reaction does cause heat it also causes cooling through air movement. it also affects energy of the sun that reaches the planet surface… However, when you ascertain that .0003% of the CO in the air is man made the insignificance of the problem is shown.

    we are finding that the earths systems can absorb and release much more than we could ever create. I wonder when they will Outlaw the CO2 that is used in drinks….Hmmmmmmm

  24. “[NOTE: Sharper, the quote in this context is a violation of policy. -REP]“

    How so? I was relating David Middleton’s “Falsely accusing us” to the claim in question. I find it difficult to believe anyone is stepping forward to accept membership of that group hence it’s difficult to see who is being libelled.

    @David Middleton

    “His qualification of his call for “high crimes against humanity and nature” trials as his opinion, does nothing to mitigate his lies about fossil fuel company executives.”

    It does everything to mitigate a claim of libel. He clearly states it as his opinion, not as fact. The problem for Ball and Hertzberg is they accused Hansen directly of criminal acts with no such qualifier that they were expressing their opinions. “You are a criminal that should be in jail” versus “In my opinion you should be tried as a criminal and put in jail” are quite different.

    Reply: Mod -REP, I have to agree with sharper00 in that his quote was appropriate in this context. Sharper00, it’s hard being a mod and making some subjective decisions. Each of you cut each other some slack. ~ ctm

  25. More Soylent Green! says:
    October 25, 2011 at 10:49 am
    ___________________________________________________________

    i wouldn’t hack them you might catch a virus… LOL

  26. [SNIP: Ralph, I'm not sure I disagree, but address what he says. This is just a little too personal and speculative. Think higher thoughts. -REP]
    .

  27. Babsy says:
    October 25, 2011 at 10:36 am
    “Can anyone provide the chemical mechanism by which CO2 is purported to increase the temperature of the atmosphere? ”

    It’s not chemical but physical. CO2 absorbs infrared photons of certain wavelengths and re-emits them in some arbitrary direction. So it’s like a fog for this radiation, scattering it all around. Much simplified… if you want a more complete version, here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/

  28. Call me petty, I probably deserve it. I donated a 100 bucks to Ball some months back and not so much as an acknowledgment, much less a “thank you.” I get that It’s not about me, or my feelings as one individual, but I’m not sure I trust a guy who can’t be bothered to send a two word email. Glad he’s getting the support he needs, but I’m done.

    Like I said, call me petty.

  29. I would think that just sending a copy of Figure One of the BEST study to Mr. Hertzberg’s defense team would be enough to disprove the Hockey Stick. Or am I wrong?

  30. @David Middleton

    “I haven’t sued Hansen over his libel of me and his insinuation that I should be in jail. To my knowledge, no other fossil fuel industry executives have sued Hansen over his “word play.””

    According to the about page for your guest posts you’re a geoscientist in the oil and gas industry. Does your role change between executive and scientist depending on what you want to claim?

    Regardless even if you’re a CEO of a fossil fuel company Hansen expressed his opinion you should be tried for crimes against humanity. He did not say you are actually guilty of crimes nor did he say you should be in jail already for those crimes.

    “I guess fossil fuel industry executives must have thicker skins than academic and gov’t climate scientists… Or, maybe it’s just that we have real jobs and don’t have time for junk lawsuits against people who hurt our feelings.”

    Or maybe you individually have not been accused of being a fraud repeatedly for over a decade without the people making those claims being able to substantiate them in any legal setting.

  31. @Nick Shaw

    “I would think that just sending a copy of Figure One of the BEST study to Mr. Hertzberg’s defense team would be enough to disprove the Hockey Stick. Or am I wrong?”

    The “hockey stick” is concerned with the pre-instrumental record, BEST is concerned with the instrumental record. Perhaps in the future they’ll conduct statistical analysis of proxies as well but not for now.

  32. Bill H says:
    October 25, 2011 at 10:54 am
    More Soylent Green! says:
    October 25, 2011 at 10:49 am
    ___________________________________________________________

    i wouldn’t hack them you might catch a virus… LOL

    I’m not a WikiLeaks fan by any means. I think they’re efforts are juvenile, criminal and anarchist. I’m not sure what their mission is, but them seem to have failed.

    They are also about to join the great Internet graveyard, too, if news accounts are correct.

    http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/24/if-you-strike-me-down-i-shall-etc/

    Serves them right.

  33. sharper00 says:
    October 25, 2011 at 10:50 am
    “[NOTE: Sharper, the quote in this context is a violation of policy. -REP]“

    How so? I was relating David Middleton’s “Falsely accusing us” to the claim in question. I find it difficult to believe anyone is stepping forward to accept membership of that group hence it’s difficult to see who is being libelled.

    The group being libeled by Hansen is fossil fuel industry executives. I am a member of said group.

    @David Middleton

    “His qualification of his call for “high crimes against humanity and nature” trials as his opinion, does nothing to mitigate his lies about fossil fuel company executives.”

    It does everything to mitigate a claim of libel. He clearly states it as his opinion, not as fact. The problem for Ball and Hertzberg is they accused Hansen directly of criminal acts with no such qualifier that they were expressing their opinions. “You are a criminal that should be in jail” versus “In my opinion you should be tried as a criminal and put in jail” are quite different.

    The libel is not in Hansen’s opinion that people like me should be put on trial for “high crimes against humanity and nature.”

    The libel is in his malicious lies…

    “Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer.

    “Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming,” Hansen continues. “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual.”

    The fossil fuel-tobacco analogy is a bald-faced lie. I was a geophysicist/geologist for 26 years before becoming a fossil fuel industry executive. Every scientific opinion I have expressed regarding global warming is based on more than thirty years of experience in Quaternary geology and geophysical signal processing & analysis. Every technical opinion I have ever expressed about “renewable energies” is based on more than thirty years of experience in energy economics – As both energy producer and consumer.

  34. DirkH says:

    October 25, 2011 at 10:58 am

    Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical representation of an observed event. The event does what it does. Just off the top of my head I would think there are a whole lot more photons from the sun interacting with the water vapor and other gases in the atmosphere than the dastardly CO2’s 380 ppm. If I remember correctly it takes one calorie to raise one gram of water one degree. How many calories are released into the atmosphere when a photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule? This is the basic tenet of MMGW. is it not?

  35. Question regarding Canadian Law:

    Is there a loser pays provision? That is if the court rules that Mann must turn over documents through discovery and refuses, then (a) the court dismisses the lawsuit or (b) Mann drops the lawsuit. Would Mann be liable to pay court costs & Ball’s attorney’s costs? Don’t know Canadian law, just askin.

  36. I for one would like to see a strict rules of evidence applied and all data publicly placed on trial. that being said, the refusal should signal forfeit and he should be held to account for his actions and pay back all funding he obtained.

    this is a Canadian court and our treaties will allow for this data to be shared. but it is an unfriendly court which is known for agenda driven activism.

  37. jae says:

    October 25, 2011 at 11:07 am

    Yeppers! I’m a skeptic. Somebody deskepticize me by posting some reproducable evidence.:-)

    PS: Probably ain’t gonna happen, ya know?

  38. In my opinion, the State Pen is way too good for Meltdown Mann. And I don’t see why the State’s honest taxpayers should have to throw further good money after bad.

  39. sharper00 says:
    October 25, 2011 at 11:06 am
    @David Middleton

    “I haven’t sued Hansen over his libel of me and his insinuation that I should be in jail. To my knowledge, no other fossil fuel industry executives have sued Hansen over his “word play.””

    According to the about page for your guest posts you’re a geoscientist in the oil and gas industry. Does your role change between executive and scientist depending on what you want to claim?

    It changes depending on which side of my office I am working. The advantage to working for a small company is that I didn’t have to give up being a geoscientist when I accepted a promotion to VP.

    Regardless even if you’re a CEO of a fossil fuel company Hansen expressed his opinion you should be tried for crimes against humanity. He did not say you are actually guilty of crimes nor did he say you should be in jail already for those crimes.

    This is libel with malice aforethought…
    “Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer.

    “Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming,” Hansen continues. “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual.”

    “I guess fossil fuel industry executives must have thicker skins than academic and gov’t climate scientists… Or, maybe it’s just that we have real jobs and don’t have time for junk lawsuits against people who hurt our feelings.”

    Or maybe you individually have not been accused of being a fraud repeatedly for over a decade without the people making those claims being able to substantiate them in any legal setting.

    Oil industry executives have been falsely and maliciously accused of fraud and numerous other crimes for decades. To the best of my knowledge, we haven’t sued any of the libelers.

  40. henrythethird says:
    October 25, 2011 at 10:09 am

    And if any of those documents were denied or protected under American FOIA, can the Canadian courts compel release?

    They probably can’t compel as such, but they could certainly throw the case out and require payment of the defendant’s legal fees.

  41. Babsy, 25 Oct set out some chemistry using “CHO” and O2 as the reactants. I would like to see his equation (which doesn’t seem to balance in the traditional manner) fully expanded with a bit of the numerical thermo-chemistry too, so that I could try to understand what he’s saying. Can anyone oblige?

    \robin

  42. David Middleton says:

    October 25, 2011 at 11:32 am

    Mr. Middleton, just remeber what Rush says about libs. I know you already know this. To them, the seriousness of the charge far outweighs any evidence they may have. They run on emotion.

  43. @ David Middleton

    “Oil industry executives have been falsely and maliciously accused of fraud and numerous other crimes for decades. To the best of my knowledge, we haven’t sued any of the libelers.”

    I added the “individually” part for precisely this reason. “Scientists” are always being accused of fraud, conspiracy etc as are other groups. You, individually, have not. Mann as an individual has. This seems like a stronger and more demonstrable differentiator than “They don’t have real jobs like we do”.

  44. David Middleton:

    We might be out of luck. Sharper00 (if that is his real name) probably has stamped it, and I am dreading that he will confirm that there are no multiple stamps and no erasies.

  45. Every time I see a photo of Michael Mann, I get the impression this is a man who has a larger environmental footprint than his fare share. Now, this could be considered defamatory to ordnary people, but to someone who claims we should all be reducing our footprint to a fare share, I think this is a fare comment.

  46. Robin Edwards says:

    October 25, 2011 at 11:48 am

    CHO represents dietary carbohydrate and O2 is oxygen and was never intended to be a balanced chemical equation.. When metabolized, they produce CO2 and energy. You can look up your own thermodynamic properties.

  47. Just made a modest donation. I second the questions about Canadian law asked by RandomReal[] above. Also, how are civil awards assessed for libel? Does the plaintiff have to demonstrate actual damages to his reputation (i.e.: can’t get a job, can’t get a date, etc.), or is there an award regardless?

    Love to hear from someone conversant in the relevant law.

  48. Outspoken Climate Skeptic Admits He Was Wrong About Global Warming:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-muller-global-warming-2011-10

    What? No post on this? Kind of a big deal, no?

    Bob Phelan: Sorry old boy, you missed the point. Rusty was just doing the work of trusty J.G., repeating a lie often and long. (Fortunately, not loudly enough.)

    But J.G. never knew of the internet, and he completely underestimated “the masses” ability to become something other than sheep.

    So let Rusty be trusty and bleet his mantra. Ain’t working trusty Rusty!

  49. If a person fails to preduce evidence of possible relevance the assumption arises that if produced it would be unfavorable to his claim and case.

  50. sharper00 says on October 25, 2011 at 11:08 am

    “@Nick Shaw…
    The “hockey stick” is concerned with the pre-instrumental record, BEST is concerned with the instrumental record. Perhaps in the future they’ll conduct statistical analysis of proxies as well but not for now.”

    IIRC, wasn’t the whole bru-ha-ha over the HS the fact that Mann had spliced the instrumental record to his proxy record? Just a thought. Perhaps Nick Shaw was right.

  51. Jay Davis on Oct 25th at 9:58 am, above:

    Jay,

    If Dr. Ball counter-sues Dr. Mann for defamation, etc., then Mike’s legal feet
    will be nailed to the floor, and the Mann couldn’t walk away or back out of
    discovery proceedings.

    No matter how much organic chaff Mike Mann tosses up in letters to editors,
    television interviews, statements from co-authors, university administrators or
    using generic supportive endorsements from organizations whose members ride
    one of the research grant gravy trains, his pile of “truth” has never been
    tested in an legal adversarial forum with subpoenaed documents and his testimony
    taken under oath.

    I think Mann’s attempt to insert himself into the FOI proceedings on the University
    of Virginia e-mails and snuff their release may knock out the foundation of his
    house of cards.

  52. SHarp writes concerning hockey stick:

    “The “hockey stick” is concerned with the pre-instrumental record, BEST is concerned with the instrumental record. Perhaps in the future they’ll conduct statistical analysis of proxies as well but not for now.”

    Then why bother hiding the decline in the proxies vs. instrumental record over last 50 years or so? It wouldn’t be to avoid casting doubt on the validity of those proxies would it?

  53. Max Hugoson says:
    October 25, 2011 at 12:43 pm
    Outspoken Climate Skeptic Admits He Was Wrong About Global Warming:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-muller-global-warming-2011-10

    What? No post on this? Kind of a big deal, no?

    No. The article is correct, but misleading.

    First, it implies Muller doubted that we’ve been warming since the end of the LIA – essentially the start of the recent “global warming”. I do not see where Muller says that in either the BusinessInsider link or the WSJ link it references.

    Second, we all should understand, Muller is only talking about “global warming” over the period of his study. He was very careful and very specific when he says:

    “How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”

    This implication that there is a large group of “skeptics” who have been claiming that we have not been warming since the end of the LIA and through most of the 20th century is both false and misleading.

    What skeptics have been skeptical of is what the cause of the warming is. Muller has chosen his words carefully in order to promote his project – possibly for future continued funding? Dunno.

  54. @Snotrocket

    “IIRC, wasn’t the whole bru-ha-ha over the HS the fact that Mann had spliced the instrumental record to his proxy record? Just a thought. Perhaps Nick Shaw was right.”

    No, the problem depends on which of his papers you’re talking about and which critic. Generally the problem either concerns the statistical methods used to combine the proxies or the choice of proxies. The splicing isn’t particularly an issue with the papers themselves and even if it was BEST didn’t alter anything in that regard.

    @pokerguy

    “Then why bother hiding the decline in the proxies vs. instrumental record over last 50 years or so? It wouldn’t be to avoid casting doubt on the validity of those proxies would it?”

    This still relates to nothing BEST produced. Their work altered little in the instrumental record hence little impact for Mann’s work.

  55. Rusty: Muller was always an AGW believer check his famous video criticizing the hockey stick done 6 months ago. He was NEVER a Skeptic.

  56. Did Mann libel anyone? Did you read what he said about the fossil fuel industry? Perhaps Big Oil should sue Mann. Where’s his evidence they have fueled or funded his critics?

  57. Why are you all so rotten to Michael Mann? He is a decent upstanding scientist who introduced the innovative and brilliant Mannian Mathematics, which completely revolutionised certain areas of statistics making them completely unrecognisable compared to what was previously accepted.

    As for the ‘Hockey Stick’, it is so obviously such an excellent piece of research proving conclusively the Medieval Warming Period never existed. Of course, it didn’t – everyone knows the vikings never visited Iceland and Greenland until after Columbus discovered America. Likewise, there were never any vineyards in the UK until very recently and the Romans only invaded Britain because they liked to see the snow.

    I am sure Michael Mann would warmly welcome the opportunity to discuss his research, produce the basic data along with his brilliant conclusions in any court of law.

    What more honourable and trustworthy group than the IPCC, who whole heartedly support Michael’s research, can you ever hope to find?

    Lazyteenager – this is sarcasm (albeit not very good), just in case you don’t recognise it.

  58. I don’t know a great deal about law, but I would question the logic or sanity of anyone who wants to fight a law suit in a foreign country, where to win his case, he may have to disclose data that he is hiring other lawyers in his own country, to prevent being disclosed.
    As well as financial interest in AGW does Mann have (alleged, I don’t want to be sued) financial interests in lawyers!!
    Round 1: Science 0 Tantrums 1
    Round 2: Science 0 Lawyers 1,000,000 ( as in US$, courtesy of the taxpayer)

  59. Rusty says:
    October 25, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    Outspoken Climate Skeptic Admits He Was Wrong About Global Warming:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-muller-global-warming-2011-10

    What? No post on this? Kind of a big deal, no?

    This has been discussed at length on here and several posts have been dedicated to the issue. Why didn’t you spend 5 minutes looking?

    Muller was never a skeptic. There are several videos of him saying that he thinks that the earth is warming and that humans are causing it. How on earth could he be considered a skeptic?

    Rusty, are you always this easily fooled by media headlines?

  60. sharper00 says:
    October 25, 2011 at 9:54 am

    Where did Mann libel anyone? I don’t see any example or claim of this at all.

    Claiming this about Hertzberg is libel unless it’s true – which it most certainly is not.

    “These are just lies, regurgitation of dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science.”

  61. sharper00 says:
    October 25, 2011 at 10:19 am

    Hertzberg could make a case that he’s being defamed by being accused of telling lies but then you’re making refutation of libel the same as libel.

    First, libel is the written form of defamation. Slander is the verbal form of defamation.

    Second, yes, a written false accusation of libel IS most certainly libel.

  62. David Middleton says:
    October 25, 2011 at 11:32 am

    It changes depending on which side of my office I am working. The advantage to working for a small company is that I didn’t have to give up being a geoscientist when I accepted a promotion to VP.

    David, if you have the authority to make any material decisions on behalf of the company (without approval from someone else or a committee of any type) than you are an executive by definition. This is true regardless of any other functions that you perform at the company.

  63. David Middleton says:
    October 25, 2011 at 11:09 am

    The group being libeled by Hansen is fossil fuel industry executives. I am a member of said group.

    Remember that libel claims are useless unless you can also convince someone that you’ve been damaged. So, without a convincing damage claim then you really have no libel claim.

    Hertzberg most certainly has a convincing damage claim. I’m not sure you do here.

  64. @wobble…

    “Remember that libel claims are useless unless you can also convince someone that you’ve been damaged. So, without a convincing damage claim then you really have no libel claim.”

    Funny thing how one can start out with a tongue-in-cheek comment and wind up in a multi-post debate… ;)

    My contention that Hansen & Mann are libeling people like me was originally meant to highlight the absurdity in Mann’s allegations that Ball and others libeled him. You are correct that fossil fuel industry executives have not suffered any material damages from Hansen’s & Mann’s libelous and defamatory comments… At least we haven’t suffered any material damages yet.

    Of course, Hansen, Mann and the rest of the Warmistas routinely libel and slander skeptics in general with their use of the “denier” pejorative… Which also has yet to cause any material damages.

    Despite the fact that “Mike’s Nature Trick” would be considered fraudulent if used in the private sector to gin up anomalies through spectral shenanigans, I doubt Mann has suffered any material damages as the result of comments like Dr. Ball’s… And I know that Hansen hasn’t suffered any damages from skeptic name-calling… Or even any negative consequences from his own histrionics.

  65. Please donate in contribution to Dr. Tim Ball’s legal defense fund!
    It could have been you instead of Tim, and if we don’t stop this power grab, it will be all of us.

  66. Normally, I would tend to support the mentally weak in formal litigation, but in this case I will make an exception. I will support Dr. Ball.

    John

  67. Babsy:

    You are way OT. If you are not familiar with the engineering of radiant heat transfer and in particular, the radiative properites of participating media, I would suggest a textbook in metallurgy or heat transfer. Much of this work was performed by a nice chap named Hottel who provided the methods (it is a bit more complicated than a single formula) for predicting the increase in an atmosphere’s temperature for varying quantities of water and CO2. Once heat seeking missiles were invented, the US military got involved. They developed this thing called HITRAN. Mostly to be able to know what wavelengths are best for a heat signature (my guess on the motives. Steve Mosher can speak more authoritatively on this). There are many fields besides climate that need to be able to predict these effects. They are real and they are used to design things that work, like (for instance) blast furnaces. If you want a detailed overview of the science or radiant heat transfer, Anthony provides a link on the side bar. Scienceofdoom. It is an excellent site and well researched. If you believe you understand radiant heat transfer, there is a little test on my blog.

  68. Heh, the oil companies are not stupid… It’s probably easier and cheaper just to do “research” and claim to be “greener” than Al Gore. Better PR, and probably more money to be made…what with all the green tax subsidies.

  69. If it looks like the case will lead to real discloser on Manns’ work ,expect it to be drop very quickly indeed .

  70. Sure Paul
    ———
    We have 25 or so years invested in the work.Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
    ———
    You also want to be a player in this so in the name of transparency and good government I think that you should also expose your work to public scrutiny. Including your emails and other confidential strategy documents.

    Of course that means that people you don’t trust will then have the opportunity to go fishing for little tidbits that can be misunderstood or deliberately and maliciously misrepresented for the purpose of discrediting your work and you. But tough bikies.

    Of course if you refuse to expose your confidential documents to public gaze will I make insinuations that: this proves that you have something to hide? No, because I am an honorable man and value personal integrity.

  71. JohnWho says:
    October 25, 2011 at 1:09 pm
    ——————True John but also, whether or not additional CO2 and or heat will be a good or bad thing. I like warm and I like green. So it doesn’t sound so bad.

  72. LazyTeenager says:

    October 25, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    Of course if you refuse to expose your confidential documents to public gaze will I make insinuations that: this proves that you have something to hide? No, because I am an honorable man and value personal integrity.

    ——————

    Lazy Teenager,

    No, I wouldn’t want his assignations. eeeewwww : ( .

    John

  73. LazyTeenager says:
    October 25, 2011 at 3:46 pm
    ————————–
    I believe ALL data gathered, ALL research methods, ALL computations/computer massaging performed and ALL conclusions/recommendations based on that research and data belongs to the people. The US government must take leadership in this area to show the world how our open government works. When our taxpayers provide funding they have the right to see how their billions of dollars are spent. Therefore the people should not only be shown it, they own it.

  74. John Eggert says:
    October 25, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    In which post am I off track?

    PS: I suspect you got it backwards about the heat seeking missiles. One would think the military had hands on design of the weapons from their inception rather than becoming involved after the fact. I seem to recall during the Vietnam conflict (where John Kerry served) the Air Force abandoned guns on F-4s in favor of missles. The outcome of that fiasco was the inaguration of Fighter Weapons School.

  75. LazyTeenager says: October 25, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    It may have slipped your notice, LT, that, unlike Mikey Mann, Paul Driessen is not accepting public monies to push his point of view and is thus under no obligation to reveal anything.

    As for the assertion of personal integrity… many of your less-than-engaging commentaries penned while hiding behind a pseudonym give the lie to that.

  76. LazyTeenager says:

    October 25, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    Sure Paul
    ———
    We have 25 or so years invested in the work.Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
    ———
    You also want to be a player in this so in the name of transparency and good government I think that you should also expose your work to public scrutiny. Including your emails and other confidential strategy documents.

    WOW. What a perfect example of setting up a straw man. Dr. Jones speaks of data. You the speak of e-mails and strategy documents.

    You should review this document (warning, PDF).

    http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/uploadedFiles/NI43-101%281%29.pdf

    When Steve McIntyre publishes something related to HIS field of expertise, he must follow the rules of NI43-101. He must provide his critics, his competitors and everyone else in the world with ALL his data and all his methods. If he is caught withholding information, PARTICULARLY information that runs counter to his desired outcome, he can actually face jail time. Not his e-mails or strategy, but yes, his data and methods. Can you see why Dr. Jones’ comment would be seen as . . . odd . . . at best? If he were in mining in Canada, Dr. Jones’ comment would be evidence of a criminal act.

  77. “In a libel case, the hardest part is trying to interpret the intent of the defendant. If someone’s intent was clearly malicious, then a libel case has a good chance of succeeding. Libel is not libel when it is about [an] un-definable group of people or organization. Saying all “CEO’s are crooks” is not libel, but specifically naming a person who is a CEO, most likely is.

    http://www.personal-injury-info.net/libel-definition.htm

  78. Ah, Michael Mann: The Great Climate Science Communicator! ah, no….

    ….that is Gavin Schmidt, the AGU’s communications poster boy.

    Michael Mann…. Gavin Schmidt…. Possibly identical twins, separated at birth, only to be
    re-united decades later, discovering they have but one mind: not exactly a pretty one.

    I continue to marvel at the extent to which they seem completely interchangeable.
    ….Lady in Red

  79. I met Dr. Ball at the ICCC in Washington in July. He was one of the people I wanted to thank there for the years of work they put in defending science before I began to pull a little share of my own.

    He mentioned that the Mann case might fade away as Mann and his lawyer apparently expected Ball would pay the fine instead of spending more money on an adequate defense. However, the defense fund allowed for a defense, and with Mann on the spot for discovery, Dr. Ball may have the upper hand.

    The Andrew Weaver case was more likely to go to trial, IIRC.

    Dr. Ball is a nice guy, I hope things work out well.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/weaver-sues-tim-ball-libel

    http://drtimball.com/2011/update-on-legal-situation/

    http://drtimball.com/2011/call-for-an-open-debate-on-climate-science/

    Anthony – Paul Driessen refers to you as Dr. Anthony Watts, I know you’ve
    fixed those in the past, so I figure I should point it out.

  80. DJ says:
    October 25, 2011 at 10:07 am
    Re: Bill Cosby and honorary doctorate.

    Cosby has both a Master’s degree and a Ph.D in education from the University of Massachusetts, the latter in 1976. I would be proud to be counted in his company; George Foreman’s too, for that matter. He’s a very bright man.

  81. The text about the Generals, et al thoughts on global climate change hardly appears to endorse the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

  82. Babsy says:

    October 25, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    John Eggert says:
    October 25, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    “In which post am I off track? ”

    OT means off topic, not off track, so basically all of them. You are rambling about radiant heat transfer on a data transparency thread.

  83. pokerguy says:
    October 25, 2011 at 10:58 am
    Call me petty, I probably deserve it. I donated a 100 bucks to Ball some months back and not so much as an acknowledgment, much less a “thank you.” I get that It’s not about me, or my feelings as one individual, but I’m not sure I trust a guy who can’t be bothered to send a two word email. Glad he’s getting the support he needs, but I’m done.

    Like I said, call me petty.

    I never got a response, either. But I figured Dr. Ball doesn’t have a secretary.

    /Mr Lynn

  84. pokerguy says:
    October 25, 2011 at 10:58 am

    Call me petty, I probably deserve it. I donated a 100 bucks to Ball some months back and not so much as an acknowledgment, much less a “thank you.” I get that It’s not about me, or my feelings as one individual, but I’m not sure I trust a guy who can’t be bothered to send a two word email.
    Glad he’s getting the support he needs, but I’m done.
    End
    I don’t know how many people have donated,or if people donating have even given their e-mail address,I donated to the Thompsons.I did not expect thanks,they had a lot more on their mind than that,bit I am sure they thanked those they could.On Dr Ball’s website where he asks for donations he states
    “Thank you for your support”
    That’s good enough for me,I don’t see what trust has to do with it?

  85. I’m sure that many here will be happy to cough up if more funds are needed. An update would be good. Traffic of ~5000 per hour? We are a force. Call and we will answer. Go Tim!

  86. pokerguy says:
    October 25, 2011 at 10:58 am
    Call me petty, I probably deserve it. I donated a 100 bucks to Ball some months back and not so much as an acknowledgment, much less a “thank you.”

    I know exactly what you mean, petty –

    I once put some money in a jar labeled “for Jerry Kids” at a 7-Eleven

    and Jerry still hasn’t either acknowledged it or given me a personal “thank you”.

    Wait, I just checked Dr. Ball’s website, here:

    http://drtimball.com/2011/tim-balls-libel-case-and-legal-defense-fund/

    and he does give us a “TYFYS” (Thank You For Your Support).

    You are very welcome, Dr. Ball.

  87. pokerguy says:
    October 25, 2011 at 10:58 am
    I posted a thank you to all on behalf of my father on that thread. He is extremely grateful to all those who support him. Humbled by it.
    He receives about 200 emails a day on average. At busy times far more than that. He and Anthony Watts are the hardest working people I know. They are not fortified by huge research grants ( try getting grants as a skeptic), or by fossil fuel funding ( a warmist urban legend). They are driven by the pursuit of the truth.

  88. LT;
    since they were produced while on public payroll, they are not “his”. Which is the whole point.

  89. Thank you David. I always wondered if you were Dr. Ball’s relative. I wish him well.

    The legal system works slowly.

    WJD

  90. We the People have a further right, duty and obligation to protect free speech, robust debate, the integrity of the scientific method, our personal freedoms, and our access to the reliable, affordable energy that makes our jobs and living standards possible.

    Hell yeah!

  91. Unfortunately, there will never be enough evidence to bring down Mann. If Mann falls then a whole host of other heavy weight associates and governments will topple like dominos. There is just too much at stake. My tip is that Mann will be given a government directive to drop the case.

  92. Anon and Fat Albert;
    Italian: “He who carries the pickle.”
    I do b’lieve this will go viral. I’ve got my MHT saved on disk, of course.

  93. sharper00 said:

    He clearly states it as his opinion, not as fact.

    That’s what Tim Ball did… stated his opinion. It was done in the form of a joke, no less (a fairly common joke as well). It takes some serious equivocation to avoid the resulting cognitive dissonance.

    wobble said:

    Remember that libel claims are useless unless you can also convince someone that you’ve been damaged. So, without a convincing damage claim then you really have no libel claim.

    In the US this is true. From what I have read, the same is not necessarily true in Canada (nor the UK). Mann’s case would have been thrown out in the US for this and other reasons (in climate circles, of which both Mann and Ball reside, Mann certainly has earned the title “public figure”).

    Mark

  94. And these assholes pretend to be our duly elected leaders. I say they are nothing more than a bunch of self-appointed heirs to the throne of greed, power, and deception.

    And yes, 2012 can’t come fast enough–I’m encouraging everybody I know to vote these dishonest extremists out of office and leave their ill-gotten gain rather than take it with them. Liar, thieves, and warmongers all!

  95. Gras Albert says:
    October 26, 2011 at 1:37 am

    Anon

    I know I shouldn’t but…

    ROFLAMO

    That would be “ROFLMAO”, an acronym for Roll On Floor, Laugh My Ass Off. Just so you know.

  96. Looked high and low but nowhere is to be found what Dr. Ball said or did to tick off Dr. Mann. Anybody? One does want to see for oneself. And draw one’s own conclusions. The article refers to sources but the Vail Voice (?) doesn’t have the letter that Mann replied to so far as I can see. Nor do I see that or the rest of the story here.

  97. Anybody notice that the propublica article came out about a week after CEI reported that the IPCC and Holdren’s OSTP might be scheming to put climate communications on a system that is shielded from FOIA requests?

    Something doesn’t look right here…

  98. RockyRoad says:
    October 26, 2011 at 6:38 am
    Gras Albert says:
    October 26, 2011 at 1:37 am

    Anon

    I know I shouldn’t but…

    ROFLAMO

    That would be “ROFLMAO”, an acronym for Roll On Floor, Laugh My Ass Off. Just so you know.

    True, RockyRoad –

    but, “ROFLAMO” is easier to pronounce.

    LOL

  99. My daughter attends St. Mary’s College of Maryland, the state honor’s liberal arts college.

    Michael Mann spoke there on the 20th, (St. Mary’s City, MD) Oct. 20, 2011— Dr. Michael Mann, a professor of meteorology from Pennsylvania State University and the recent target of skeptics of climate change, will talk about the controversy at 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 26, in Schaefer Hall, room 106, at St. Mary’s College of Maryland. “I will cut through the fog of disinformation that has been generated by the campaign to deny the reality of climate change,” he said. “It is my intent, in so doing, to reveal the very real threat to our future that lies behind it.”

    Hannah asked me to send her my miniature hockey stick from the Chicago ICCC last year. (It has a label on the handle saying “Mann-made warming.”) He declined Hannah’s request to sign it – she wanted to give back to me for Christmas. Pretty cheeky of her, to be sure, especially in a friendly setting, but another example that Dr. Mann doesn’t isn’t into self deprecating humor.

  100. I don’t believe it, I am a lawyer and I have just donated hard earned cash net of usurious taxes, to pay Tom Ball’s bl**&y lawyer. Well no, that’s not why I donated…………….

    There was me trying to save up for a new hockey stick, just supposes that will have to wait.

Comments are closed.