Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against National Review and Mark Steyn continues. National Review, while having walked back some of the early claims to square one, failed to get the suit dismissed. But Steyn is going on his own path and says he will fight in court for a verdict.
Anyone so inclined can help at: http://steynonline.com
[Note: I’ve removed the direct email address and most of the original comment, as it is creating an overwhelming response.
It seems that that best way to support Steyn’s effort is with a donation, see this:
Some readers have asked about that, Steyn says
As I’ve said, in previous battles I’ve never asked for money, and always responded simply by asking supporters to buy a book or a subscription to Maclean’s or whatever. But the scale of things is different down here: Michael Mann has Big Tobacco lawyer John Williams (before the hockey stick, his previous fictional client was Joe Camel) and at least three other named attorneys working on his case. So, for the moment, we’re asking those who “don’t need a coffee mug” to consider buying one of our new SteynOnline gift certificates either for a friend or for yourself, to be redeemed down the line in the event that we improve our mug designs. I’ve been heartened to see they’re being bought in places where I was barely aware I had readers, including the remoter Indonesian provinces, a couple of Central Asian stans, and dear old Vanuatu (for fellow old-school imperialists, that was pre-1980 the Anglo-French condominium of the New Hebrides). They never expire, so you can put it to one side and redeem it when my new book comes out later this year.
===========================================================
I’d suggest NOT leaving your questions in comments, since that may provide an unfair preparation advantage to the plaintiff. – Anthony
Phil. says:
February 6, 2014 at 7:03 am
philincalifornia says:
February 5, 2014 at 7:46 pm
(Interesting fact: Commenter “Kyle” posts from the same computer as “Phil.” does, in the Josh cartoon article. ~ mod.)
MOD. If this is really from a mod please recheck your data, I am the only one who posts from my computer and I only use one name, Phil. I have no idea who ‘Kyle’ is.
So I would like this incorrect statement removed and an apology for your error would be appreciated.
[Same computer URL was used for posting. ~ mod.]
Really, that’s interesting since those posts weren’t made on my computer. I guess it’s not a unique identifier?
[Reply: Maybe not. WP lists both as: 173.61.148.42 ~ mod.]
Phil.
OK. I have waited and read all your posts.
You have reverted to refuting the clear truth that Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” and the invention and its use is scientific fr@ud.
For your refutation to have any credibility you need to specifically state whom you think to be the “Mike” who did invent “Mike’s Nature trick”. And if you want to persist in talking about Briffa then please provide some evidence that he has changed his name to “Mike”.
Also, I am not “blind” to the ridiculous nature of your assertions.
Richard
Phil. says:
February 7, 2014 at 1:54 pm
Phil. says:
February 6, 2014 at 7:03 am
philincalifornia says:
February 5, 2014 at 7:46 pm
(Interesting fact: Commenter “Kyle” posts from the same computer as “Phil.” does, in the Josh cartoon article. ~ mod.)
MOD. If this is really from a mod please recheck your data, I am the only one who posts from my computer and I only use one name, Phil. I have no idea who ‘Kyle’ is.
So I would like this incorrect statement removed and an apology for your error would be appreciated.
[Same computer URL was used for posting. ~ mod.]
Really, that’s interesting since those posts weren’t made on my computer. I guess it’s not a unique identifier?
[Reply: Maybe not. WP lists both as: 173.61.148.42 ~ mod.]
Interesting, that doesn’t bear any resemblance to any number at this end?
richardscourtney says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Phil.
OK. I have waited and read all your posts.
You have reverted to refuting the
clear truthassertion that Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” and the invention and its use is scientific fraud.Correct, that ‘truth’ is a fabrication by you.
For your refutation to have any credibility you need to specifically state whom you think to be the “Mike” who did invent “Mike’s Nature trick”.
I have done so here multiple times.
And if you want to persist in talking about Briffa then please provide some evidence that he has changed his name to “Mike”.
Briffa and Jones were the ones who instituted ‘hide the decline’ as I have documented here multiple times.
Also, I am not “blind” to the ridiculous nature of your assertions.
You are blind to the facts at issue, were Steyn to raise this issue in court the way you have it would be demolished.
MJW says:
February 7, 2014 at 12:57 pm
Phil.: Plotting data from different sources on the same graph and indicating that you’ve done so is hardly ‘an invention’.
It’s hardly a trick, either. If that’s all he was talking about, he wouldn’t have called it “Mike’s trick,” because there’s nothing the least bit clever, unusual, or tricky about it.
Agreed it’s not much of a trick, but apparently to Phil Jones who was looking for a way to deal with the issue of truncating the reconstruction post-1960 it was an inspiration.
Phil;
I dread to think about the length to which your nose has grown as a result of your posts in this thread.
I wrote
and in reply you lie
Merely tell the truth. Is that really, really so hard for you?
What is the name of this “Mike” whom you claim to have named “multiple times” but have yet to mention?
Or, if you cannot being yourself to do that, then accept the reality that Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature trick” to “Hide the decline” and the invention and use of that “trick” is scientific fr@ud.
As for being laughed out of Court, one can only hope that the lawyers representing Michael Mann adopt your ploy of claiming Mann was not “Mike” because that was someone else whom they have named “multiple times” but cannot say where or when and cannot now name. The damages awarded to Steyn will surely be immense if they do.
Richard
Agreed it’s not much of a trick, but apparently to Phil Jones who was looking for a way to deal with the issue of truncating the reconstruction post-1960 it was an inspiration.
From the email, it appears like he was looking for a way to deal with the issue of hiding the decline.
richardscourtney says:
February 8, 2014 at 7:31 am
Phil;
I dread to think about the length to which your nose has grown as a result of your posts in this thread.
I wrote
For your refutation to have any credibility you need to specifically state whom you think to be the “Mike” who did invent “Mike’s Nature trick”.
and in reply you lie
I have done so here multiple times.
Merely tell the truth. Is that really, really so hard for you?
What is the name of this “Mike” whom you claim to have named “multiple times” but have yet to mention?
Yet another lie from you richard!
See: Phil. says: February 7, 2014 at 3:10 am
Phil. says: February 6, 2014 at 10:59 am
Phil. says: February 6, 2014 at 6:51 am
Or, if you cannot being yourself to do that, then accept the reality that Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature trick”
to “Hide the decline” and the invention and use of that “trick” is scientific fraud.No, that statement is a fabrication by you, specifically the stuck out part is an untrue invention by you.
As for being laughed out of Court, one can only hope that the lawyers representing Michael Mann adopt your ploy of claiming Mann was not “Mike” because that was someone else whom they have named “multiple times” but cannot say where or when and cannot now name. The damages awarded to Steyn will surely be immense if they do.
Answered, multiple times!
To rebut it perhaps they would subpoena Steve McIntyre:
“In my opinion, locating the earliest known example of “hide the decline’ in Jones et al 1999 (Rev Geophys) places hide the decline in a remarkable new light. I think that it’s fair to say that most of us have assumed that “hide the decline” originated with Mann or Briffa. However, it seems to me that this new evidence suggests that the lead author of Jones et al 1999, Phil Jones himself, may have been responsible for CRU’s decision to hide the decline in the spaghetti graph comparisons – initially Jones et al 1999 Figure 6, later, as we all know, IPCC TAR Fig 2.20.”
“The IPCC spaghetti graph in its First Order Draft (October 1999) adopted a hide-the-decline strategy modeled on the techniques “pioneered” in Jones et al 1999 and Briffa and Osborn 1999”
” not everything is Mann’s fault. I think it was more that CRU had their own trick to hide the decline – I was going to include a discussion of funct_decline in this post, but it is deferred for now. Mann’s trick was a little different and Jones decided to use it (or what he thought it was), rather than the CRU trick in the WMO graphic.”