There is a great editorial in the Columbus Dispatch by Jay Amrose about the abuse of the legal system by Michael E. Mann and his legal actions to try to stifle debate. More on that below, but first, the history of Mann in the context of debate.
Michael Mann once famously said that ‘robust debate’ was a good thing in science:
Source: [ https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/139734953742188546 ]
Also from Dr. Mann’s Twitter feed, he declares that ‘robust debate’ is only good when it’s not with a “denier” scientist or on a network he doesn’t like.
Source: [ http://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/316260453770723328 ]
And Mann himself is no stranger to libelous speech in the context of “honest debate”, as the climategate emails show: (bold mine)
From: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
Phil, I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud. You’ve probably seen now the paper by Wahl and Ammann which independently exposes McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is–pure crap. Of course, we’ve already done this on “RealClimate”, but Wahl and Ammann is peer-reviewed and independent of us. I’ve attached it in case you haven’t seen (please don’t pass it along to others yet). It should be in press shortly. Meanwhile, I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad things can come of that. The last thing this guy cares about is honest debate–he is funded by the same people as Singer, Michaels, etc… Other than this distraction, I hope you’re enjoying the holidays too… talk to you soon, mike
Jay Ambrose at the Columbus dispatch writes of the latest episode from “robust debate” Mann:
[Libel] is hard to prove, which is how the court wanted it. In the written decision, Justice William J. Brennan observed, first, that error is inevitable in broad-based argumentation, and then, employing eloquence, made it clear we don’t want the fear of courtroom retaliation to rob us of the kind of public debate we need: “uninhibited, robust and wide open.”
Now come those who would render it a meek whisper. Supported by errant judges, Michael Mann, a climate scientist, is pursuing a libel suit with targets including Mark Steyn, an unbelievably talented and thoughtful writer, and National Review, a terrific magazine.
Mann is well-known for his “hockey stick” graph maintaining that temperatures on this earth were roughly level for eons and then shot up dramatically because of greenhouse gas emissions. Although his graph came in for some lambasting criticism, a significant number of researchers have agreed with his results, even if some questioned aspects of his methodology. He himself has been fiercely antagonistic toward scientists on different pages, referring to the exceptional Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology as a “serial climate misinformer.”
You would think someone dishing it out that way could take it, but a chief thrust of the Mann suit is that Steyn, in a blog for National Review, used the word fraudulent to describe some of Mann’s work. There are lots of researchers backing Mann up, one judge says, as if that legitimizes the suit. There are also researchers who seriously question his work, and the law says the suit can go on only if Steyn was in doubt. Why would anyone assume he was?
There is a ton more here there’s not space to explore, but the short of it is that a vital principle has as much as been ignored and what’s at risk is conceivable ruination of a superb journalist, the demise of a fine magazine and a major deterrence to uninhibited, wide-open speech. Even if Mann should lose the suit, the expensive defense process is itself punishment, as Steyn has written.
Read it all here, and props to Jay Ambrose for making himself the next target of the wrath of Mann.
Let us hope that Steyn prevails, and that his victory comes with a nice big fat legal bill that the loser (Mann) has to pay. Though, I doubt that Mann himself will be financially damaged, as he has the full backing of the Climate Science Legal Offense Defense Fund.
If that gets tapped out, he can always ask Tom Steyer for money.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I got no problem with folks investing in green tech. Got ZERO problem with people wanting to divest from “dirty” energy.
I have HUMONGOUS problems with the government forcing the issue, giving the likes of Solyndra my money, and then shrugging when it disappears etc.
The greenies who ask me “what’s wrong with trying to have a cleaner planet?” do not even begin to get it – or they’re liars on par with Obama and his ilk, who know they’re engaging in criminal activity with public monies.
Invest in whatever you like. Develop whatever you want. Just don’t ****ing do it with my tax money! And then act like you’re doing me a favor.
And then complain about “big oil” who at least PAYS taxes AND produces things I willingly buy and use.
Thugs.
The list of lost money is long . .
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Rest-in-Peace-The-List-of-Deceased-Solar-Companies
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2013/04/09/solar-companies-continue-to-go-bankrupt/
http://clui.org/ludb/site/abandoned-solar-power-plant
http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/
No one wants t address cost and competitiveness without direct government money hidden from the taxpayers. No single technology has been able to produce electricity as cost effective as Nuclear, coal and then natural gas. The alternatives based on real cost and useful life, maintenance, actual output average, range from 5 to 30 times the cost of existing power plants. Nuclear produces no CO2 and the others produce a lot of toxic waste in making and decommissioning.
has Mann released his meta data and modeling code yet?
“has Mann released his meta data and modeling code yet?”
Of course not. Silly you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBsVjD-6YE
-Tom Trevor says:
June 28, 2014 at 9:24 am
Has Roy Spencer ever said he denies evolution? If not, doesn’t he have a libel case. I don’t think he does, but a person like Mann would think so.-
Caling someone a denier is like calling someone a Yankee Doodle. Or it’s slogan
Roy Spencer “crime” as far as lefties are concerned is he is Christian- a Christian who is
openly a Christian and who a scientist.
The Left is filled ignorant and racist people who are Anti-American and anti-Christian. The Left
imagines that are superior human beings. And the 80% of Americans are have some kind of christian faith are the main problem with this world [as far as the lefties are concerned].
So majority of Americans are the threat, or if everyone would simply stop having silly beliefs which include “outdated morality” then the world would a better place.
Yankee Doodle, wiki:
“As a term Doodle first appeared in the early seventeenth century,[4] and is thought to derive from the Low German dudel or dödel, meaning “fool” or “simpleton”. The Macaroni wig was an extreme fashion in the 1770s and became contemporary slang for foppishness. The Macaronis were young English men who adopted feminine mannerisms and highly extravagant attire, and were deemed effeminate. ”
So British army were sing songs about Americans being sissies. By rejecting the British Empire
which was at one of the world’s superpower, how could independence be anything other than being misguided and silly?
Science has always been about challenging the orthodox, that is not what is meant by he slogan
denier, it’s suppose to suggest that one is Holocaust Denier. Which is historical event, which was well documented. The main lesson of Nazi totalitarian State, should be mostly about totalitarian states. Hell, not paradise is the result of a State with total power.
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
June 28, 2014 at 9:52 am
Don’t forget, you can support Mark Steyn and his fight against the “climate mullahs” by purchasing something or just buying a expire-never gift certificate here .
—
Alan Watt, is everyone certain that state escheat laws don’t come into play here, even with “expire-never” gift certificates?? Because I think they would. Mark Steyn could be in for a real nasty surprise in a few years.
IANAL…. But if I were Mark I would seriously check this out and make sure I’m not setting myself up for another legal battle.
Cheers!
Why yes he has, and has stated that he is more inclined to believe in “intelligent design”, which as the judge in Dover v Kitzmuller remarked was simply disguised and repackaged creationism – a religious belief not a scientific one.
Which goes to show that academics can be storied and rigorous in one area of science and be completely clueless in another. Roy Spencer demonstrates that as part of a long list of scientists and academics with wacked-out theories and belief systems.
Of course, you have someone like Michael Mann being clueless in his own area of supposed expertise…
Amusing.
A daughter coached high school debaters.
She tells me that some competitions required the team to be able to take either side of a subject.
That’s much to ask in general, but I think they were graded on their ability to organize and present an argument.
thefordprefect says:
June 28, 2014 at 9:41 am
Something tells me you wouldn’t extend the same consideration to Donald Sterling.
Re. thefordprefect
Donald Sterling’s lawyers would like your legal advice concerning use of dubiously obtained information: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/sports/basketball/nba-donald-sterling-los-angeles-clippers.html?_r=0
The “Climate Science Defense Fund” is backing Mann’s legal bills. Reminds me of the “Council on Foreign Relations”, Bilderberg Group, Knights Templar, or some other shadowy political / business / religious group… (or maybe all three)
Someone who was or had made a genuine mistake, would save himself all the trouble of court cases and accept it and make amends to data. But a fraud will go on believing his own lies to the very end or bankrupsy? One tree doesn’t make a forest, everyone in archaeology knows dendrochronology will monitor a particular trees growth but mainly from the point of view of environmental conditions that trigger tree growth. But if one was to go 100 yards away and get the same or different species of tree, the results can be quite different.
Mann is undoubtedly the best “live” argument in favour of scepticism for CAGW – rock on Mann keep kicking own goals.
Toto says:
June 28, 2014 at 9:53 am
There is an abuse that was left out. Mann is trigger-happy about starting suits, but then he prevents them from going to trial. Mann has no risk of losing that way. He wins if there is no trial. He shuts down free speech and he forces the people he sues to pay huge legal bills to prepare for the trial, but the trial never comes. Kafka comes to mind.
——————————————————————
Not so this time.
Mark filed a counter suit in which he is demanding Mikey go to discovery.
I believe Mark has filed a Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
Even if Mikey drops his suit Mark can go forward.
Mark wants to stop Mann and his litigation BS.
I’m grinning while I’m typing.
cn
Typo alert:
Probable cause is the reason that most search warrants are issued (or should be). Given that a group of scientists have among themselves put forth such theories that are untested, tried to silence others, and generally tried to effect political change based on those theories, is hacking into those emails to find out what the scientists were really after that much of crime? Which law enforcement is responsible for policing scientific research, and who decides? This entire endeavor by the IPCC and associated organizations has opened a Pandora’s box. We have, by law a separation of church and state, will we need a separation of science and state? In fact many have called the science of AGW a cult and religious doctrine. Debate is ok as long as it is not heretic. And if reality differs from the mantra, then the leaders are tasked with fixing the perception of reality. Is that what we are witnessing? Take some more LSD, I’m sure that door opens somewhere.
JP: The problem with evolution is how do we get from amino acids to DNA. As far as I know, no one has a clue or even a good guess. Once we have DNA evolution works rather well. One big question with DNA is why do we have a digital storage in an analog world? Presently, the belief of evolution and/or intelligent design are religions: there are no solid or proven scientific facts to support one or the other.
We do know DNA life can evolve within the limits of DNA. Yet we are still searching for a bridge species which we have not found yet! We have no examples of pre-DNA life, no example of bridge species yet the Mitochondrial DNA shows such a path. Other than that, no other hard evidence has been found.
So the belief that evolution has been proven is a “religion”. I grant you that it is the best theory going, but I will not concede that it has been proven by any standard. We also know intelligent design works since we are using now using it. GMO anybody? But to claim we are creators would be absurd since we are only using DNA as it is. We are only modifying what is there just like the DNA evolution process. Intelligent Design cannot be proven by any standards which means it will always be unscientific. Its biggest problem is who created the creator? So, until you can give me the answer as to how the amino acid to DNA process problem works and is proven, do not think you are not touting a religion. Because the question as to where life comes from is far from answered.
Mark Luhman, you should study more as Many years ago, scientists recreated amino acids using a simulated lightening bolt. I think your judgement is not right at all, there are many papers and studies, that have simulated that all life came from a form of algae or slime. During a time when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere.
It has also been suggested that meteorites can carry some form of frozen bacteria. If there was intelligent design promoting this, it would not have taken so long to terra-form the planet to support even the basic forms of so called life. Thank plants for supplying us with oxygen. Also human DNA is present in many life forms including fungi. Obviously and believe it or not, the chimps and gorillas have more of our DNA as we are primates. But would you believe whales have a good dose too. It has been an interesting study that shows the early human and primate embryos have gills, and early primate fetus’ of chimp and human babies look identical in early months. All life comes from a common source billions of years ago, but environmental conditions selected who would survive and evolve and why others became extinct.
One of my long lost creationist friends argued with me that we shared DNA with chimps. So being sarcastic I sent her a letter with a picture of a family of chimps with the caption, “Some scientists state we share 98.5% of our human DNA with chimps. ….. Thank God for that 1.5% so Viva la difference!
..’
O/T.Of course there could be ET interference too! LOL. Bored with TV last night, I hunted out an old video to watch. ‘Arrival’ with Charley Sheen. ET’s had landed and were increasing greenhouse gases into our atmosphere and our temps were rocketing. The aim was they were suited to higher CO2 and nitrous oxides and hot temps, Some important people were aliens who dictated our atmospheric greenhouse gases, they had taken on human form. (of course) however, cold weather killed them off. I wonder if all these pseudo AGWs got the idea from Hollywood. LOL, well one alien said to Charley, ‘What we are doing in 10 years would take you 100 years to complete, if you can’t look after your planet you don’t deserve to live here..” The mind boggles, eh? All the pseudo explanations of how we can reverse global warming? Or even prove it it is actually happening?
Mark Luhman,
“One big question with DNA is why do we have a digital storage in an analog world?”
Where did you get the idea that the world is analog? The world [universe] is quantum.
Most of the comment was ignorant. Point after point you got wrong.
I would literally pay admission to see Mann debate Curry or Lindzen. But we all know that little mann won’t engage with someone in climate science that isn’t part of the “consensus” circle-jerk.
Mann.
“Group Think” personified!
(Though I think his group is shrinking.)
Mark Luhman says:
June 29, 2014 at 12:27 pm
“So the belief that evolution has been proven is a “religion”. I grant you that it is the best theory going, but I will not concede that it has been proven by any standard…”
Antibiotic resistant ‘superbugs’ are clear evidence of evolution, they weren’t around 40 years ago, they have evolved from bacteria that were not resistant, except all the less resistant ones were killed early in the infection and treatment, the patient feels better and stops taking the antibiotics before all the bacteria are killed, leaving only the mutations that resisted the antibiotics to multiply and pass on their mutation, after a number of cycles of this we have ‘superbugs’.
It is in order to prevent this that antibiotics always carry the warning “please finish the course”
Barbara Skolaut says:“has Mann released his meta data and modeling code yet?”
He has offered on his website a MatLab program for downloading and data, with the assurance that you can see for yourself that you will get the same result he does. Of that I have no doubt.
But it won’t be a full fledged GCM or Earth Model; such things require enormous computing power.