From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN
Readers seem to be enjoying my posts on the Mann v. Steyn trial, so I’m going to continue with one more today. Meanwhile, the court does not hold trials on Fridays, so the proceeding has recessed for the weekend, to resume Monday morning. It’s likely that the trial will get very interesting next week, as the defendants present the heart of their case and as things wrap up. In the interim, I’ll provide some comments on the events yesterday, which was the 11th day of the trial.
My previous post on Wednesday, January 31, was devoted mostly to the issue of plaintiff Mann’s claimed damages in the case. The post described what I found to be an extremely odd back and forth during Mann’s own testimony, where it emerged that Mann during the discovery process had provided three different, inconsistent and contradictory interrogatory answers on the topic of his main theory of damages, namely that he had lost grant funding due to the defamation. After initially being confronted on cross-examination with an interrogatory answer where he had refused to provide any list of allegedly lost grants and said the whole subject was “irrelevant,” Mann then on re-direct (highly unusual) attempted to use a second interrogatory answer as a basis for quantifying his damages from lost grants; only then to be confronted with a third interrogatory answer, which he had never mentioned under questioning by his own lawyer, where he had changed most of the numbers in the second answer, in the most notable case reducing the claimed loss from over $9 million to only about $100,000.
Well, it turns out that that oddity became the subject of extensive argument before the judge, in parts of the trial that were not broadcast to the public viewers. Yesterday, in connection with Mann resting his case, Steyn filed with the court something called a “Motion for Sanctions for Bad-Faith Trial Misconduct” against Mann, addressing many issues about the claimed damages and Mann’s proof of same. Steyn made a copy of that document available via a link on his website. The document gives much history of the subject of Mann’s damages claim in the case, including events that occurred at parts of the trial that have not been broadcast publicly. The document, only 11 pages long, makes for very entertaining reading if you have the time.
But first, some background. The law of defamation is one of the more complex subjects of American law. It arises under state rather than federal law (with D.C. defamation law arising out of D.C.’s role as a state/local governing entity, rather than out of federal law), and differs substantially from state to state. And then there is an overlay of Supreme Court case law interpreting the First Amendment to the federal Constitution, thus impacting the law in every state.
One of the truly odd quirks of defamation law is that some defamation cases require proof of what are called “special damages,” while others permit juries to make arbitrary awards of “general damages.” “Special damages,” are particular items of monetary harm that can be traced to the defendant’s defamation. These could include, for example, lost wages, or expenses of publicizing true statements to counter the libel, or maybe even the cost of mental health treatment or therapy. Mann’s lost grants, if he could prove that that occurred and resulted from the defamation, would be an example of “special damages.” “General damages,” sometimes also called “presumed damages” in the defamation context, are rather some number that a jury can pluck out of the air to compensate a plaintiff for alleged loss of the inchoate value of reputation. They are analogous to damages in a personal injury case, where a jury can select an arbitrary figure to compensate a plaintiff, for example, for loss of a limb, or even for just general “pain and suffering.” Of the $83 million that E. Jean Carroll just got awarded in her case against Trump, about $18 million was in the category of “general” or “presumed” damages, while the rest were punitive damages. Apparently, the court in the Carroll/Trump case determined that proof of “special” damages was not required. An appeals court may not agree with that.
I strongly suspect, without being sure, that Mann’s case against Steyn is within the category that requires a finding of at least some “special” damages. This is a subject that is difficult to research, and even if you research it you can’t necessarily get a definitive answer. There may well be quirks of D.C. defamation law that bear on this. In any event, it is likely that the court has made some ruling on this subject in the course of the 12 years that the case has been kicking around, because such a ruling would be important to guide the parties in what evidence to present at trial. If there is such a ruling, it may or may not stick on appeal. I have tried to find out if there is such a ruling, but unfortunately, even though I subscribe to the online document access system of the federal courts, the D.C. Superior Court for some reason apparently does not participate in that system. However, from the fact that Mann felt under an obligation to present evidence as to lost grants, I think it is highly likely that he has reason to believe — whether from D.C. case law or a prior ruling from this court or both — that he has an obligation to prove at least some “special” damages.
So here is the introduction to Steyn’s latest brief:
“Stunning.” That is the word this Court used to describe the conduct of Plaintiff Michael E. Mann’s counsel at trial on Monday, January 29, 2024. Trial Tr. (1/31/24 PM) 41. On that day, Plaintiff’s counsel presented to the jury evidence concerning Dr. Mann’s claimed loss of grant funding—evidence counsel knew was not true. Plaintiff’s counsel published to the jury an exhibit and elicited testimony from their client concerning Dr. Mann’s alleged grant loss. But, as Plaintiff’s counsel knew, most of the information on the exhibit was wrong, including information about the dollar amounts of the allegedly lost grants.
Plaintiff’s counsel knew that the evidence they offered to the jury was false because it was based on a 2020 discovery response concerning Dr. Mann’s grant-loss claim that counsel had been obliged to revise very dramatically just last year (2023). At trial on the 29th, Plaintiff’s counsel chose to present the wildly misleading and deceptive 2020 data, which counsel for Defendant Rand Simberg had to correct on cross-examination. The difference between the incorrect 2020 data and the corrected 2023 data was striking. This Court noted that “One entry was for nine million, and then it was significantly reduced to something a little over a hundred thousand.” Trial Tr. (1/31/24 PM) 45. On the tenth day of this jury trial, January 31, 2024, this Court asked the parties to address Plaintiff’s falsification of key damages testimony. . . .
As this Court stated, “clearly, the plaintiff was aware that the jury was being presented with an exhibit that contained incorrect information.” Trial Tr. (1/31/24 PM) 42. “And you wanted the jury to take that back to the jury room and deliberate on those figures.”
The portions of those excerpts that reflect the judge’s remarks had not been broadcast to the members of the public watching the trial online.
In his submission, Steyn argues that the court should impose sanctions on Mann and his counsel for his bad faith submission of false evidence, with potential sanctions ranging up to and including complete dismissal of the claims and award of attorneys’ fees to Steyn:
What Dr. Mann and his counsel did amounts to bad-faith misconduct. . . . Rule 3.3 of the D.C. Rules of Professional Responsibility provides that “(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly … (4) Offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false ….” See Tibbs v. United States, 628 A.2d 638, 640 (D.C. 2010) (“In the District of Columbia, as in every other jurisdiction of which we are aware, an attorney has a duty not to present false testimony to a court.”). . . . Dr. Mann is also responsible for the admission of the false evidence. He knew the 2020 information was false but did not say so on the stand when his counsel questioned him. The truth came out only on cross-examination.
I have no idea what Mann’s or his counsel’s response to these matters may be. Experience teaches me that no matter how completely cornered your adversaries may appear to be, they always come up with something that at least sounds plausible. However, in this brief Steyn quotes Mann’s lawyers when confronted by the judge himself on this very issue (again, in a portion of the trial that was not broadcast to the public viewers):
[W]hen the Court confronted counsel with their presentation of false and misleading evidence to the jury, counsel was unrepentant. Instead of owning what they did, lead counsel John Williams doubled down and asserted that they did not present false evidence to the jury. See, e.g., Trial Tr. (1/31/24 PM) 43–44 (“Mr. Williams: No, Your Honor. Please. The numbers on the board were accurate. There had been earlier mistakes that were corrected, and that’s why we gave them the correct numbers.”). Counsel claimed that he was right and the Court was confused. See id. at 45 (Mr. Williams: “So I am sorry that there was confusion on your part, and we will certainly correct it.”) (emphasis added).
Meanwhile, in the part of the trial actually shown to the viewers at home, the main show on Thursday was the testimony of the defense expert witness Abraham Wyner, Professor of Statistics at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania — the same university where Mann teaches.
The key opinions offered by Wyner — that Mann had “manipulated” the data in creating his Hockey Stick graph, and that the graph was “misleading” — had already come out on Wednesday. The direct testimony on Thursday was devoted to going into the details of the basis for those opinions. There was much technical detail in the presentation; however, the gist was that the uncertainties inherent in the data were far greater than what Mann had presented. As a result, Wyner testified, the error range shown on Mann’s Hockey Stick graphs from several papers was much too narrow. And thus, contrary to Mann’s graph, it was not possible to say from the data that time periods hundreds of years ago definitively were cooler than the present.
One of the last questions put to Wyner on direct was whether any statistician on behalf of Mann had offered an opinion contrary to his. Wyner said he was not aware of that. (And indeed, Mann had not offered an expert witness on these statistical issues during his direct case.)
I found the cross of Wyner to be singularly ineffective, although perhaps the jury might find otherwise. The heart of the cross was to confront Wyner with criticisms of his Hockey Stick-related work expressed by other authors in published papers. It emerged that Wyner had published his criticism of Mann’s Hockey Stick papers in a journal article in 2011; and the editor of the journal had decided that this would be a good subject for an entire issue of the journal. So Wyner’s article became the first piece in this issue of the journal, followed by multiple pieces discussing or criticizing Wyner’s article, and followed finally by an article called the “Rejoinder,” where Wyner responded to all the criticisms. One by one, Mann’s lawyer confronted Wyner with the various criticisms from this journal. As to some, Wyner said that the criticism was wrong, and explained why. As to others, he said that the criticism did not go to the heart of his opinion as to why Mann’s work was misleading. And as to still others, Wyner said he did not recall that criticism. In each case, Mann’s lawyer simply read the criticism of Wyner from the article, took whatever Wyner said in response, and moved on to the next item. He never went deeply enough into any issue for an intelligent listener to form any view as to who might be right or wrong on this issue.
Expect more on this trial next week. Meanwhile, I’ll post on something else over this weekend.
Year 12 of The Mann Fraudulent Hockey Stink Chart Tree Ring Circus
Justice moves slower tha a sloth after a long day
The wheels of justice turn slowly but grind exceedingly fine.
Let’s hope the grinds of justice aren’t so fine they end up in the cup’s bottom on this one.
Welcome back. Always happy to see it’s hobby time again.
Mann was (and is) being submitted to politically motivated harassment for being a scientist doing his research. Some people didn’t (and still don’t) like his results. It’s almost beside the point that his research was sound (and it was; pls. remember that it has been checked up and reproduced numerous times with different methods). Even if his research had been bad, the barrage of bs against him wouldn’t have been justified.
The only justification would’ve been if he had distorted data knowingly and maliciously but this case is obviously out of question since his research has been thoroughly verified.
Hide thr decline, no data distorsion ? 🤣😄
Yep, I was talking about politically motivated attacks. These essentially propaganda attacks are well organized and well financed, and are able to reach a certain demographic. Your inability to understand the above line makes you a perfect specimen from this demographic. FYI, this line was about something completely different than you think, and it has been explained to you 100000 times.
The only justification would’ve been if he had distorted data knowingly and maliciously
I stand to my statement following your argumentation 😀
As the Hockey-Stick has been deceived more often than verified I didn’t cite the rest of your claim. 😀
??? What is this supposed to mean in the context of science? Do you accept something if it is verified more times than it’s been found bad? Sorry, this doesn’t make any sense. BTW the “debunkings” of the hockey stick have been all debunked.
All ? Certainely not 😀
I didn’t know that… Just kidding 😉 Climate “skepticism” hasn’t been able to produce anything useful even on the debunking level.
Mann’s junk methodology has been absolutely exposed several times.
You are just so far up his **** that you cannot see the light !
Why is anyone attempting to ‘discuss’ anything with this cretin ‘nyolci’?
nyolci has been exposed several times as a shameless liar.
There may be new comers who are not yet aware of nyolci’s proclivities.
“. . . attempting to ‘discuss’ anything with this cretin . . . .”
My favorite line in the Zork computer word game when you did something you shouldn’t (like burning the book) was: “Wrong Cretin!” And then you died.
Your stupid lies expose you.
Using more pseudo-science to reproduce pseudo-science is no verification.
Those alleged replications were entirely destroyed during Dr. Wyner’s testimony and cross examination.
“Yep, I was talking about politically motivated attacks”
His “research” has immense political consequences so it’s reasonable to evaluate his “research” politically.
Okay, you have touched, at least tangentially, an interesting question, even if you are not right here (‘cos a scientific result in itself is an apolitical thing, you can’t assess it politically just as you can’t assess politically the First Fundamental Law of Thermodynamics). What we research is just as much a political question as it is a scientific one whether we like it or not. Science can tell you what you can’t do (like researching the perpetuum mobile) but choosing direction is not a scientific question (or at least science’s contribution is more like showing the choices).
The real forces behind climate “skepticism” are trying to affect the energy debate, and more broadly, some aspects of our society (no wonder why most of you here have a decidedly libertarian outlook). They are not very lucky ‘cos this is a situation where science tells us what not to do, what we should avoid. In turn, they do the worst possible, attack science.
In turn, they do the worst possible, attack science.
By science 😀
‘cos a scientific result in itself is an apolitical thing,
It has to be but isn’t anymore, you should know that science is used for and in policy.
I have the feeling that you are a burden even to the denialist crowd. If you peddle some scientific looking counter arguments, that’s kinda okay. Science is hard, most people don’t understand it, even scientists only understand their narrower field. But arguing for a scientific result being political is moronic.
But arguing for a scientific result being political is moronic.
In contrast, it’s just more realistic than ever.
You need to learn some history; specifically, back to President Eisenhower’s farewell address. Try looking it up and see what he warned us of in funding science with government money and how it would cause results to be consistent with the desired outcomes of government policy.
“The real forces behind climate “skepticism” are trying to affect the energy debate, and more broadly, some aspects of our society..”
Of course – because we have little confidence in what’s being passed as “climate science”- since the climate is extremely complex and nobody understands it deeply- too many unresolved issues- yet, clowns like Mann and most of the media want us to believe it’s “settled science”. It’s not settled so we shouldn’t be making multi trillion dollar plans based on the limited understanding.
Review of Judith Curry’s book “Climate Uncertainty and Risk – Rethinking Our Response”
Judith Curry’s book deals with the considerable uncertainties surrounding the climate issue and the resulting consequences for a rational approach to “climate change”. As a successful and renowned scientist, the author has been part of climate research for decades and writes as an insider from her own professional experience, based on an enormous wealth of knowledge.
👍
No doubt NYOLCI will order it and “Unsettled” by Koonin today- and read them before he again says anything here.
Like most good leftists, nyolci only reads what the party tells him to read.
If you have scientific arguments against certain studies, you come forward with your own study. This has not been done. Eg. the McI* studies have been debunked. Furthermore, the enormous development in climate science has confirmed and greatly expanded Mann’s (and others’) results. We are far beyond whether the hockey stick shape is right.
Conversely, if you don’t have scientific arguments, you won’t have a place in a scientific debate. No wonder climate “skepticism” boils down to attacks against a field of science and ad hominems against its scientists.
Nyoli, you are riding the donkey backwards. There are thousands of skeptical papers published by highly respected peer reviewed scientists.
The architects of the political agenda of CAGW engage in very typical Alinsky smear and ridicule tactics, falsely claiming these scientists are “big oil shills” and “science deniers”. “They are eminent scientists who are showing that observations do not support the hypothesis that CO2 is significantly or dangerously warming the planet, a hypothesis that is predicated on the false premise that historical climate has remained fixed for millennial, which is in contradiction of overwhelming evidence that temperatures were as warm or warmer than today a thousand years ago. One can point to dozens more papers that show that the medieval warm period was real, global, and as warm or warmer than today.”
As far as debate the Goverment funded scientists are afraid of debate, having been soundly defeated in the few they engaged in.
Let us meet some of the skeptics… Here are Seven Eminent Physicists; Freeman Dyson, (called the Smartest man alive) Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize), Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize), Edward Teller, Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg, past director of the Scrips Institution of Oceanography (1965-1986), all skeptical.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html
A few more for you… Among skeptics there is incredibly well published Professor Richard Lindzen who was the professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He may know more about the atmosphere than anybody else. There’s Shunichi Aksofu (phd), one of the two most cited scientists in the world in Japan who’s deeply skeptical. There are scientists all over the world, and thousands of them now, leading scientists like Roy Spencer and John Christy who do all the atmospheric measurements using balloons, radio signs and satellites, and Fred Singer who established the U.S. satellite weather service.
“Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history . . .When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – stated by UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, and award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. Physicist Dr John Clauser, joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, stated, “Climate science has metastasized into massive shock – jounalistic pseudoscience.” and to emphasise his concern, calling CAGW “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”
There are literally thousands of peer reviewed studies that are skeptical of C.A.G.W. They are published by renown scientists like…
Dr. Tim Ball (Climatology), Dr. Patrick Michaels (Ecological Climatology), Dr. Judith Curry (Geophysical Sciences), Dr. John Christy (Atmospheric Sciences), Dr Kary Mullis, (Nobel Laureate in chemistry) Dr. Roy Spencer (Meteorology), Dr. Sallie Baliunas (Astrophysics), Dr. Willie Soon (Aerospace Engineering), Dr. William Happer (Physics), Dr. Richard Lindzen (Physics and Applied Mathematics), Dr. Don Easterbrook (Geology), and Dr. Jennifer Marohasy (Biology). Freeman Dyson ( physicist and mathematician, called “The smartest man alive” by the New York times) Dr. Bjorn Lomborg ( Environmentalist – One of TIME Magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world ) Kiminori Itoh ( Ph.D. in Industrial Chemistry ) Ivar Giaever ( Nobel prize Physics) Will Happer (highly-respected physicist out of Princeton) Ian Plimer (Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne) Nir J Shaviv ( Israeli‐American physics professor at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Craig Idso ( M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University) MJ Blatt ( Former Professor of and head of the Department of Geology and Geophysics. University of Kashmir India) Siegfried Fred Singer (Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.) Jim Steel (Biology and Environmentalist Professor SFSU) The above is just a small sample of the thousands of highly respected PHD scientist, skeptical of CAGW.
In one strong survey 50% of meteorologists do not accept CAGW, and there are tens of thousands of others who make a robust challenge to the theory of CAGW.
The purely political view of those who promote CAGW is obvious in their own words..
“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family, tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas.”
Brock Chisholm… Quoted in: Davis, Llewellyn B (1991) Going Home to School, p. 69 This quote is old and the providence is well supported but questioned by some. The actions of the WEF and many other quotes supporting like ideas are not disputed at all.
“The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. . . . But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” Otmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC
“ Under my policies energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.” Barack Obama.
At the Copenhagen conference in 2009, Hugo Chavez was repeatedly interrupted by applause and received a standing ovation for ranting that capitalism must be destroyed and socialism installed in order to save the planet. http://climateandcapitalism.com/2013/03/06/hugo-chavez-on-climate-change-and-capitalism/ Venezuela today reflects very typical results of full force socialism.
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First.
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner, Founder of CNN and major UN donor.
“The United Nations could become a comprehensive Planetary Regime which could control the distribution of all natural resources.. and all food on the international market.” – Former President Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Author: “Population Bomb”, “Eco-science”
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on climate models.” Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research (Again see attached graphic)
”We need to get some broad-based support to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, Lead author of many IPCC reports
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer Environmental Defense Fund
”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” Professor Maurice King
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC.
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” David Brower, First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation.
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment.
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environmental Program.
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Author: “Population Bomb”, “Eco-science”
”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit. (There are very well researched reports on why he is wrong)
”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity.” Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute“…
”…the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the nationals auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” ~ David Rockefeller, June, 1991, Bilderberg Conference.
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member.
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land. David Foreman, co-founder of Earth 1st
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society.” –the UN Agenda 21 Report
These static ideals of one world government and depopulation have not gone unnoticed. One response was the Heidelberg Appeal, which was in reaction to the United Nations sponsored “Earth Summit” in Rio-de-Janeiro in 1992. It has over 4,000 signatures from scientists around the world including 72 Nobel Prize winners. Partial text:…”We are, however, worried, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial
Bloomberg estimated $US200 trillion to stop warming by 2050.
In my view the “science” promoting “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” (the correct name for the hypothesis). is severely broken, corrupted, highly polictical, and promoted by the same folk that developed the most likely GOF Covid virus, the Vaccines, and the Covid response. All their projected harms have failed to materialize, and the proposed solutions are not effective. By the year 2100, the Paris accord, if it had been implemented in full, would have lowered the G.A.T. (global average temperature) no more then .3 degrees. That assumption is based on using the IPCC two to three hundred percent inflated (above the observations) climate sensitivity to CO2 estimates. (Thus “catastrophic” warming would have been delayed from only 1 to 4 years by the year 2100.)
There is thus far no global increase in typhoons or hurricanes as measured by ACE – accumulated cyclonic energy. There is no global increase in droughts, floods, tornadoes, or rate of Sea Level rise based on Geo-stable tide gauges and historic records of S.L. rise since the earth emerged from the Little Ice Age. Based on that time frame sea level rise has been 1.4 mm per year, and has not accelerated. Arctic Sea ice has not trended down for 16 years and is not historically low. Indeed, within the current climate epoch, it is very high.
The purported harmful effects of CO2 exhibit a logarithmic decline as CO2 concentration increases. Each CO2 doubling is expected to produce the same initial warming; thus 100 ppm to 200 ppm, increases warming a theoretical amount, and 200 ppm has to double to 400 ppm to have the same effect as the prior 100 ppm increase, and so on – then 400 ppm CO2 concentration must double to 800 ppm to again have the same effect as the initial 100 ppm increase.
While the harms fail to manifest, the benefits increase linearly to concentration levels well above anything likely to occur. These benefits are massive. Currently every crop on the planet grows 12% to 20% more food (conservative estimate) then it would if the atmospheric CO2 level suddenly dropped from 410 PPM to pre-industrial 280 PPM. (280 PPM CO2 is near starvation levels. If CO2 concentration had moved 125 PPM in the opposite direction to only 155 PPM concentration, almost everybody on the planet would starve, and almost all bio-life would cease.) Also, this CO2 caused increased production of bio-life, delivers another stupendous benefit, in that zero increase in water or land acreage is required. Additionally CO2 makes crops more drought, heat, and frost resistant – geographically expanding growing zones and growing seasons!
There are literlly thousasnds of peer reviewed skeptical papers.
David A,
Looks like you nuked NYOLCI. I see no response from him. 🙂
For starters, all he has to read is Koonin’s “Unsettled”. Written for the layman so even NYOLCI could understand it.
Thank you Joseph. He is clearly a troll as shown by being the first to comment, say nothing in response to the actual post, and make false unbacked assertions, and insults.
If past is prologue, nyolci will show up again in a few months and once again proclaim that there is no science that disagrees with him and the other alarmists.
I wouldn’t mind if they suggested that there MIGHT be a problem while admitting how complex the climate is, and how much is not understood- and without having their sirens blasting 24/7. Then it might be possible to have an adult discussion. Instead, if they’re challenged- you’re compared to a holocaust denier. Ticks me off. I’ve been battling these idiots here in Wokeachusetts who present the issue as a justification to end all forestry- and so far, they’re succeeding. The state is now going full blast to locking up the forests- while complaining that there is a housing shortage- partly due to high material costs for new housing- when we could produce lumber here- instead we import it from thousands of miles away.
Well, there are things that are already understood. If your problem is that you don’t like it, that’s bad for you. But it doesn’t affect science.
You’re right here. But this is not science’s fault. If you deny science, the problem (climate change) won’t go away.
Take any science- if some things are understood within the domain of that science- that’s nice- but if much isn’t understood- you can’t claim it’s settled. Idiots like John Kerry claims that- and he’s not just another alarmist- he was the climate czar. Same for Al “the oceans are boiling” Gore.
Nobody around here is denying science. You may not agree- but most of the people active on this site know way more about science than you can imagine. I think I may just ignore your comments unless you raise your level of commentary instead of the classic insults about climate/science deniers. Grow up- start by reading Stephen Koonin’s “Unsettled”. Then come back and talk about it. Or, if you’re brave enough, post a full essay here deconstructing it.
What climate change? The world’s temperature has maybe climbed less than 1C from the coldest time since the beginning of the Holocene, and you want us to start panicking.
What is it about those on the left, and their eagerness to believe that anyone who disagrees with them is first, evil, and second, part of a grand conspiracy.
I think both sides tend to do it. People with strong religious beliefs also do it. People who support different sports teams do it. I think it’s built into our genes. It’s what gossip is all about- that so and so is a sl*t or the boss is a tyrant. Only saints can avoid doing it. It’s all a matter of degree- some people do it more than others. Jesus said “love your enemy”- few people can do it.
What we research
Part of the cause, no wonder you defend fraud 😀
Not only defend fraud.. he is totally for it.
Seems he is a WEF apostle and wants the collapse of western society.
He will still be below the bottom rung of the human ladder, but the sewer will be much deeper.
What is researched is generally what the Government will pay for (via grants) and bolstering the narrative gives more power to government thereby earning the grants from government coffers.
Science has become politicized for the power government gets from enforcing the narrative of impending catastrophe.
If you don’t produce a paper that upholds the catastrophe narrative then you won’t get published in peer reviewed literature and you will find grant money dwindling
Another totally delusions rant from the Mann worshiper.
poor fool has a herd of kangaroos loose in his top paddock !!
Who filed the lawsuit? No statistician for the plaintiff is indicative.
Your use of “100000 times” is on par with Mann’s exaggerations. Nice own goal.
And I will do it again 😉
Without any success. 😀
He/she IS prompting a lot of responses tho’.
he/she/it is only throwing softballs- and the folks here love to hit them out of the park, so easy!
He.
It….. And being an ultra-leftist.. almost certainly trans.
And continue making a complete and utter fool of yourself.
Like you have from your very first comment.
How can you still breathe with a tongue so furry and clagged from licking Mann’s ……..
… boots ?
Just curious: have you won a Nobel Prize for forum posting for this effort?
“And I will do it again”
As will Mann.
If at first you don’t succeed …
Oh Yeah…Sure…The other side (D’Nyers) are ALWAYS “Well Funded”
Pulleeeze!
Only where does their government funding come from and who does it go to?
Big Oil??? Where’s my check? I certainly haven’t seen any oil money!
Exactly. And this fact is well documented.
??? Who is talking about government funding?
Have you heard the term “useful idiot”?
Are you a soliloquist ? 😀
I’m kinda not sure whether you know what this word means.
Seems you are talking to your self :
Have you heard the term “useful idiot”?
Oops, you caught me 😉
It’s quite obvious that you don’t.
more likely an onanist.
AFA Useful Idiot terminology goes, most certainly have heard of it…you demonstrate it well
You do no research without government funding and get no peer review publishing without conforming to the narrative.
And as for Well Funded… Where’s your documented proof? Links please
“Have you heard the term “useful idiot”?”
Yes .. you are commenting.. except you got it wrong… you are a useless idiot
“Useless idiot.”
It’s my new favorite term.
All models are idiots, and all idiots are wrong, but some are useless.
Wanted to say modellers? Anyway, the hockey stick is not a modelling result. This is a common misunderstanding here.
Yes it is. There is a mathematical system to calculate a temperature trend from proxies. These proxies are not calibrated measures of temperature. That system is designed according to assumptions of the researcher on what has happened to get thosd result so it’s still a model.
Looks like, that amongst his many other demonstrated failings, nyolci has no idea what a model is.
Yeah, reflection can do miracles
How would you know?
Can you actually produce this alleged documentation? Or is repeating the latest talking points memo the limits of your abilities?
A little contradictory. You say they are paid, but when they point out they haven’t gotten a cent, you call them “useful idiots”, indicating that you know they aren’t paid.
You should be a climate scientist. They say climate causes everything. You say real scientists are well paid and idiots because they are not paid at all.
You’re not that clever. I do think you are one of Mann’s peers when it comes to intelligence, logic, and wisdom.
“ALWAYS “Well Funded””
Funds in the “climate trough” are magnitudes more than anyone gets for tearing the AGW garbage apart.
Which particular climate trough do you swill from??
They are wasting their money on such a cretin.
Right, that argument of theirs is getting old. We all know that there is now more $$$ in the pro alarmist cause than the skeptical effort. By “100000 times”. 🙂
Do I understand correctly? Only now? Or it always has been like this? You know the denialist shxtstorm was there well before the Green industry, arguably, the only thing that really has anything comparable to the oil(+etc) industry in monetary terms. The Green-thing is a very recent development, 10-15 years at most, well-well before the first denialist bs-storm about MBH9x and the IPCC reports.
Science + Politics = Politics – Science
The oil industry pays people to give the public a product, not fight the Greens. And since when was Mann paid by the Greens? He is paid by grants, and could have been $9 mil, apparently. Which sceptical scientist was given a $9 mil grant to fight the lunacy?
You can’t explain me anything because of your missing understanding, and you didn’t ’til now. 😀
I know. It’s completely hopeless.
You can’t, others can 😀
Good on you 😉
At this rate – you’ll soon be added to the list of fools so stupid as to not be worth responding to.
I’m excitedly waiting for that
You are the one who is hopeless as you ignore the evidence of his frauds and his refusal to obey the Judge in Canada over that lawsuit he lost.
Perhaps a little less Kool-aid
“Perhaps a little less Kool-aid”
He will have to get the 3 intravenous feeds out first.
Hopeless.. look in the mirror, drongo !
I too suspected that this imbecile is an Aussie, probably a student of flim flam flannery.
No, but kinda right. I did spend a lot of time there.
Glad to see your back !!
It really is amazing how ineffective leftists are in actually defending their positions.
It seems that they really do believe that just pointing out that someone has differing political positions is sufficient to disprove anything they say.
I’m proudly ineffective 😉
nyolci, you’ve proudly proclaimed that your comments here at WUWT are ineffective! Yet you continue to waste your time and ours on this thread.
What a maroon!
Adios,
Bob
I don’t know whether you’ve noticed but most of the comments here addressed to anyone who questions the local wisdom are ad hom or just plain silliness like the “ineffective” one. I suppose it’s obvious that I can answer in kind. If it’s waste of time, this whole site is that.
Stop whining.
Huh, I haven’t even started it. But I want to 😉
We can add a total lack of self awareness to the list of nyolci’s charms.
It’s quite obvious that you haven’t bothered to read most of the posts.
At last, something we can agree on.
”Hide the decline” has nothing to do with Mann’s work. The fact that you believe this falsehood speaks to the damaging nature of the defamation he has and continues to face.
Mikes nature trick to hide the decline is not Manns work ?!?! 😀 😀 😀
What are you chewing ?
That is not what the email from Phil Jones said but, again, since you’ve spent years absorbing defamatory misinformation against Mann it’s not surprised that you believe this.
You seem not to know what I know about.
Phil used Mikes Nature trick, but the “trick” is Mikes, what ever you will tell me about 😀
I agree, I do not know all of the lies you have been misled into believing, I only know the facts. Jones’s email read:
So Mike’s Nature trick is to append instrumental temperatures to the MBH98 reconstruction from 1981 onwards. Hiding the decline in Keith’s series from 1961 onward is a separate thing. Of course, this is quite immediately obvious to anyone who knows anything about these studies, because MBH98 doesn’t have a decline, that feature is unique to Briffa’s tree ring chronology. Appending the instrumental record to Mann’s study does nothing more than bring it current with the then present date, since his latest proxies end in 1981. But, again, you aren’t likely to realize this because you’ve spent years and years being fed lies, and have likely never bothered to try to untangle the truth from them. This, again, is why the defamatory attacks against Mann have been so damaging.
Still thinking you can tack instrumental records onto low-res faked proxy data.
No wonder you condone Mann’s statistical fraud.
You are mathematically ignorant moron and have proven so many time.
Do you really still believe all the LIES and maleficence from Mann and his very well paid cronies.. WOW !
You are either totally GULLIBLE or have a herd of kangaroos loose in the top paddock… Most likely both.
Of course you can plot instrumental temperatures alongside a proxy reconstruction. Only a nincompoop would object to this.
1) It wasn’t plotted alongside, it was added to the end.
2) If you think that you can compare daily or yearly data to a proxy with resolutions of 100 to 1000 years, then you know nothing of science.
You really have basically ZERO MATHEMATICAL UNDERSTANDING
FFS, go back and learn some basic principle. You are an embarrassment to yourself.
Except you are a far-leftist, so can never see how shameful and embarrassing your comments are.
Well done… You just proved you are a mathematical illiterate… AGAIN !!
Not true. Some of Mann’s proxies end as late as 1995. The Keystone Lake tree ring chronology is one example.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/chronologies/northamerica/usa/ok007r.crn
It’s not a hockey stick by the way.
The majority end earlier, and the NH reconstruction itself ends in 1980. This is why Mann plotted the instrumental record alongside the reconstruction to bring it current to the then present date. That is what is described in figure 7 of MBH98. That is “Mike’s Nature trick.” The trick is not hiding any decline, because there is no decline in MBH98. The decline is in Briffa’s tree ring chronology.
As always, the attempt here is to divert attention from the main point onto some minor irrelevancy.
Liar.
No, that’s not what Mike’s Nature trick is. Plotting two graphs in the same diagram is not a trick and was not invented by Mann.
Mike’s Nature trick is to pad a reconstruction with instrumental data prior to smoothing.
That’s not a trick either, and certainly wasn’t invented by Mann. If you’re smoothing a series and want the smooth to come up to the end of the data, you have to pad beyond the end of the series, otherwise you get spurious behavior at the end of the smooth that doesn’t follow the data. Doing this is common and completely unobjectionable, and the only reason there is the slightest hint of controversy at all is because Steve McIntyre got butthurt when people objected to his use of the word “grafted,” so he had to scour high and low to find something, anything, he could point to and claim to have secretly been right all along.
Do you know an earlier example?
Still, he padded the reconstruction with observed temperatures and labeled it “RECONSTRUCTED (50 YEAR LOWPASS)”. The final uptick (more noticeable in MBH99) is not a fair representation of the actual proxy-based reconstruction, which plateaus after 1940.
There is abundant existing literature on smoothing time series data, including introductory statistics textbooks. You should start there.
The final behavior of the reconstruction (and the behavior of instrumental temps at this point) is indeed an uptick:
which to my eyes is completely consistent with the behavior if the smoothed series in MBH98:
You have to make a choice about how you will deal with endpoints when you’re smoothing, and Mann made a fair one. Again, there is no actual controversy here, just a manufactured one by McIntyre and his team of auditors who want there to be something that means all their efforts aren’t a waste of time. In this case, McIntyre and his band of sycophants glommed onto the notion of “grafting,” so they had to find something they could classify as a graft.
So no other examples where a proxy-based reconstruction was padded with instrumental data prior to smoothing? Then it’s appropriate to call it Mike’s Nature trick.
So, in your estimate, then, “Mike’s Nature Trick” is a completely innocuous and common statistical technique that has no bearing whatsoever on the implications of his study?
Glad we are aligned in that regard.
Nope – unless you can find other examples (other than Mann’s sycophants doing the same as he did) of scientists grafting thermometer data to proxy data or vice versa, then it remains a unique and aberrant example.
As far as I’m aware, proper procedure would be to present them as 2 distinct, clearly labelled lines of data, side by side where they overlap, showing the complete divergence line and the upwards thermometer line. More could be discovered by scientific enquiry into the divergence than ever could by discarding it – in this, Briffa was correct and Mann wrong.
Of course you will say anyone doing anything similar is a Mann sycophant, neatly ensuring that you could never be shown wrong. But it matters not at all whether you think the smoothing technique was “unique.” Smoothing a time series is common, and padding the endpoints to extend the smooth is also common. Mann made a very sensible choice in how to pad the end of the series to allow the smoothed line to cover the whole period.
Which is precisely what Mann did:
There isn’t divergence in MBH98. As stated above, the “decline” is a feature of Briffa’s tree ring series, not Mann’s reconstruction.
Of course, no one has “discarded” the divergence issue, it’s been intensively discussed in the literature for decades. And Briffa is the one who told scientists not to rely on the post-1960 portion of his tree ring series.
The sheer density of errors-per-sentence you guys manage to pack into your comments never ceases to amaze.
The amazing thing is that you actually believe what you wrote. Mann removed the divergence from his hockey stick and added thermometer data instead, then smoothed the whole thing. Even Dr Abraham Wyner showed this in his work – he’s a proper statistician by the way. The only reason it looks like there was no divergence is because of ‘mikes Nature trick’ – which is exactly what I mentioned here as what proper scientists would NOT do.
He did not. You provide no links, not citations, no novel analysis of your own to substantiate this claim, just repeating the lie, highlighting again how damaging the defamation against climate scientists has been.
Of course, no citation to Wyner’s work or anywhere he has said this. You seemingly think merely invoking his name is somehow adequate.
Have you not read everything about this? The judge examined the qualifications of “expert” witnesses and their expected testimony then dismissed all except for two. Dr. Wyner was one that was allowed to testify. Part of he judge’s criteria was who had actually used the methods in their own work and not just read about it!
I know that Wyner testified at the Mann/Steyn trial, what I do not know, because no one has provided a shred of evidence, is that Wyner has demonstrated or claimed that MBH98 attempts to obscure a decline in his temperature reconstruction by replacing proxy data with instrumental temperatures, as is being claimed. Since you’re so intimately familiar with the particulars, I’m sure you’ll do us all the kindness of providing that reference.
Dr. Wyner obviously testified about the statistical problems with the entire proxy determination. I have no evidence that he was asked about appending a measured scale to the proxy curve.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand that without absolute temperatures being shown it is possible that the entire measured (red) anomalies could be below the proxy absolute temperature. In other words, we may have not even reached the level of temperatures experienced in the past.
This is should be considered shoddy work in anyone’s estimation. I’ll say it again, ΔT’s ARE NOT TEMPERATURES, they are a rate of change. One must be very cautious about equating them without using a common baseline.
That was the claim made when his name was invoked by Richard Page. You really must keep up with the discussion if you’re going to dive in.
And you have no problem with the above?
Well, this is what the defense claims.
Mickey Mann has done VERY WELL financially from his little piece of statistical malpractice.
Mann cherry picked a small number of Siberian tree rings unsuited for temperature guessing, and then ignored US tree rings after 1961 that contradicted the insrtrument average temperature records, … showing that tree rings are not appropriate for temperature guesses. They could be useful for precipitation guesses.
The IPCC previously used a proxy chart with a 1 degree C. range for the past 1000 years. That chart did not support their false claim that all natural causes of climate change were “noise” except in the very long term — far more than one or two thousand years
The 1998 Mann Fraudulent Hocket Stink Chart narrowed the range to 0.4 degrees C. so the IPCC used it in 2003.
Then it disappeared for a while and returned to the IPCC in 2021 with a longer blade.
The Hockey Stink Chart used inappropriate, cherry picked data, and truncated related data that contradicted the earlier data. This TRUTH was hidden from the public
The result was a Tree Ring Circus since 1998.
Also, you are an idiot with no capability for independent thought or a fair and balanced analysis. Your comment is a HUGE pile of farm animal digestive waste products and you come from a family of leftist useful idiot sheep. Your punctuation is excellent, however.
I love to observe you guys here in your natural habitat. I love when you come up with these half a..ed scientific looking sentences as if you had any clue about these. I’m not an expert either but I know what the experts are for, they are the people we’d better listen to. BTW the 1961 thing (as a specific example) is well known, it’s called the “divergence problem”, it’s very easy to get layman level information on this, and it did not affect Mann’s result. Please try to get at least the basics right if you want to bs about some expert topic.
Yeah, facts and data does not affect Mann´s method like real science would be, one of the reasons why it is so bad!
LOL, you can’t address his position at all.
The Bristlecone Tree Ring data was not temperature data it was Dr. Isdo who compiled them in his research to see what increased CO2 does to tree growth.
Exactly. It was tree ring data. FYI, we don’t have direct temperature measurements at all from the past before 17xx (can’t remember). That’s why we use indirect data, otherwise known as proxies. Like tree rings.
Except tree rings aren’t temperature proxies. Even the man who collected the data said they can’t be used as temperature proxies.
Tree rings are not temperature proxies. You simply can not discern absolute temps from them. You may make the case that changes in width might give some evidence of temperature change, i.e., anomaly. The problem there is that other things can also cause growth like more water. The use of tree rings is basically a large guess. The uncertainty interval is tremendous.
I accurately described what Mann did, and kept silent about, and you responded with a HUGE burst of verbal flatulence, apparently trying to clear the room.
Those Yamal tree samples, came from only 12 specimens of 252 in the data set… while a larger data set of 34 trees from the same vicinity that weren’t used SHOWED NO DRAMATIC recent warming, but warmer temperatures in those Middle Ages.
Mann’s 1,000-year-long graph was apparently using various proxy data derived from ice cores, tree rings and written records of growing season dates up until 1961 … where it then switched to using surface instrument temperature data, then
Why change in 1961?
Because that’s when other tree ring proxy data calculations by Keith Briffa at the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) began going the other way in a steady temperature decline.
It’s easy to “cherry pick” your data to produce a desired result.
What does tree ring data, say, from a different part of the world show?
nyolci, with dedication and hard work, someday you may qualify for a job as a bathroom attendent.
Well, no.
This is so symptomatic. From this paragraph it’s obvious that you don’t have a clue, all the while you’re throwing around these scientific looking stuff you and others here have picked up here and there.
Again, I’m no expert but this thing above is something even a layman can understand with very little “research” (eg. google and wiki). It’s called the divergence problem, it doesn’t affect Mann’s work (this is evident from the “hide decline” email), blablabla… I have the bad feeling that it’s almost useless to explain anything to you.
Wow!
Your science references of choice are Google and Wiki!!
William Connelly, is that you?!
No. These are my “references of choice“. Between q-marks, to make it obvious if you can’t follow me.
Let’s see, in your world, the scientific method means that you can discard any disagrees with your thesis.
Mickey must be so miffed.
All that time making up idiot methods, cherry-picking which data to use, even turning it upside-down if necessary.
And all he ends up with is a graph showing the effect of CO2 deficiency on the handle, then rapid growth once enough CO2 is available
Mickey’s little stick is a CO2 growth stick … NOT a temperature one.
Climate defence find must be really scraping the bottom of the sewer is you are the best they can pay to spread Mann’s lies and propaganda here. !
Climate defence Fund… proudly sponsored by all the wind and solar subsidy scammers of the world.
And once again, nyolci reveals that he is unable to defend the claims he makes. Instead all he’s got are more lame insults.
Like an expert 😉 I love when you guys here come up with these scientific looking sentences. I always say it’s better ask and listen to real experts, in this case, climate scientists ‘cos they are, as the name suggests, the experts here. Just as an example, the 1961 thingie you’ve mentioned is the so called “divergence problem”, and it was known and addressed by Mann.
You mean these “experts” using one tree to define global climate ? 😂
Just as an example, the 1961 thingie you’ve mentioned is the so called “divergence problem”, and it was known and addressed by Mann.
The divergence problem is the result of having choosen the wrong or unsuitable proxies.
Good proxies = those that say what you believed before you found them,
From the scientific point of view of course 😀
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Because there are bad proxies. This is the divergence problem. Ie. above certain northern latitudes, after 1961, temperatures reconstructed from tree proxies diverge from the instrumental record. In other words, these are not usable as proxies. Scientists know that and they know how to handle this.
Because skeptics told them, otherwise they weren’t aware.
The divergence problem was being discussed in the literature long before contrarians ever got wind of it.
In science, you have to explain the divergence, you don’t get to just ignore it.
“chosen”… lol
sorry for typo 😀
Did you overdose on stupid pills today or are you always like this?
According to nyolci, only those he agrees with are experts. Everyone else is just spewing scientific looking sentences.
It really is sad how leftism so rots the brain.
Don’t feed the troll.
They can feed each other.
Richard Greene & nyolci (NewYork Office of Lies Collusion, & Incitement) are cousin trolls with big wooden spoons.
I am afraid that Wyner’s critique of missing uncertainty from the proxy selection extends to other reconstructions as well, IPCC graphs before Mann about this are just as wrong.
You are right about being politically motivated harassment; but the political motivation is Mann’s and the climate alarmunists’ desire to hide and obfuscate in order to get more grants and to exercise control.
Somehow I don’t see them getting filthy rich. And they are surely not the ones who control. Just as an illustration, do you know how much money goes to oil related investment annually? (Around $1tr.) And what do most people think about the real reasons of the Iraqi war? (It was all about oil.) Now pls. talk about money and control.
And yet a key part of the case is that Mann claims he has lost out financially from the questioning of his work.
Kinda circular argument, I have the feeling. How about the rest? Oil funding, control?
control of what? The political alarmist proposed solutions ALWAYS engender the political goals of statists, feed hundreds of billions into poverty producing industry destroying “green” energy, while having an immeasurable effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration and G.A.T.
How about you actually answer the question, instead of just repeating your already disproven lies?
I didn’t finish my google serch about funding climate science, climate change research and funding so called Green Funds, funds and subsidies for climate related subjects as energy transitions etc.
But these billions or even trillions oil investiors are dreaming of.
Its funding is minuscule, and it’s so outlandish to claim that solely malicious desire from a lot of people to grant money fuels a 4 decade old debate.
This green thing is a newcomer here, kinda 15 years or so, well-well before the first Hockey-stick “controversy”, and even at the time of the “Climategate” etc. it was a marginal thing. So no, we can safely disregard this.
I have to refer you to the OECD (among others). It’s breathtaking.
“Its funding is minuscule, “
An outright LIE… Funding 12 years of Mickey Mann’s court case.
Green funds are absolutely HUGE.. Billions of dollars at stake.
Money GIVEN to them… political donations.
Backed by the largest funds in the world.
How much are YOU being paid from the climate trough for being totally ineffective with your constant LIES and baseless propaganda ?? ??
And Mann testified he has not paid one cent for his defense (over 12 years!) while both Dr Tim Ball and Mark Steyn paid out of their own pocket. Dr. Ball died bankrupt after WINNING the Mann’s case against him.
See? A smart guy.
I’m not well versed in legal matters but he didn’t actually win, it was more like some procedural thing (case too long or wtf)
Apparently you have run out of rational responses.
But “I’m not well versed in [fill in the blank] matters” comes close.
The advice to not feed the troll is compelling.
He was awarded expenses because MMAN WAS A COWARD
Then Mann was a slimy sewer-rat and refused to pay up.
Do you really condone that sort of disgusting behaviour.
I bet you do. !
That makes you just and unethical, immoral and degenerate as Mann.. if that were even possible.
I see that nyolci, like most leftists, actually seems to believe everything his handlers tell him to believe.
I see a lot of fake scientists getting paid very well for lying through their teeth. I see a lot of Marxists stealing taxes and getting rich off insider trading. I see Obama buying a beach front mansion in spite of claiming to believe the oceans will rise and swamp it.
The Iraq war was all about oil?
You do know that after Saddam was ousted and when the Coalition Of The Willing vested control of Iraq’s oil production and sales in the UN, the UN ran an open auction for bids for ongoing supply contracts for whatever quantities buyers wanted to purchase.
The USA did not offer a bid, because back the US thad all the reserves they needed, and sufficient production to cover their foreseeable needs.
This Iraq oil bullshit has been debunked so many times, anyone who still pushes it must have been living under a rock for these past 30 years.
Or they’re a hockey stick believer . . .
Or they are just another liar…
This is the common wisdom, 4 out of 5 people would answer this that time when asked. For that matter, I think this is much more complicated, but oil (or rather the control of it) did play a significant role.
It’s common wisdom among the far left myrmidon’s, such as yourself.
The rest of the world has grown up.
Saddam invaded Kuwait because he wanted to control, and benefit from Kuwait’s oil.
After the Iran/Iraq war he was desperate for money to rebuild.
“And what do most people think about the real reasons of the Iraqi war? (It was all about oil.)”
A ridiculous statement.
This was the common wisdom, the automatic answer from most people, regardless of the fact that it was true or not.
In other words, this is just another thing that you believe because it’s what you have been told to believe.
As usual, you can’t actually provide any evidence to support your fantasies, so you just repeat the same lies, flabbergasted that there are people who don’t believe them.
“This was the common wisdom, the automatic answer from most people, regardless of the fact that it was true or not.”
So, “regardless of the fact that it was true or not” … it was ‘common wisdom’? So, ‘belief’ (from your perspective), is common wisdom.
You have reached the bottom of the hole. You need to stop digging. No more comments, unless they are in the form of apologies and are intended to fill in the hole.
You wouldn’t have the vaguest clue what “common wisdom” was.
Just pluck whatever suits your putrid little anti-humanism out of your un-wiped posterior.
That was the common leftwing, anti-war propaganda at the time, and still is, apparently.
The U.S. did not take oil away from Iraq.
Instead, the United States removed a murderous dictator from power and gave the Iraqi people the first free elections they had had in their lifetimes.
Then Obama and Biden took control in Iraq and screwed everything up by allowing the Mad Mullahs of Iran to exercise their influence in Iraq. And things went downhill from there, complicated by the rise of the Islamic Terror Army that rampaged all over the Middle East while Obama and Biden sat back and let it happen.
Then Trump came in and wiped out the Islamic Terror Army in a matter of weeks. Trump arranged so that the oil belonging to the Kurds was protected for their use.
Now Biden is back in charge in Iraq and is allowing the Mad Mullahs to have their way in Iraq again. To the detriment of the Iraqi people.
Democrats are a disaster when they are in power.
that trillion dollars produces emense benefit to soctiety and to the global biosphere. A synoptic review of thousands of studies indicate that CO2 is strongly net beneficial, and that those benefits (globally increased bio-mass plant and crop growth, increased crop drought and heat resistance, increased crop cold and frost resistance, expanded growing zones) are increasing on a linear basis as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases, and that the purported harms, increased droughts floods, Sea Level rise, extreme weather, acidic oceans, etc… are greatly reduced from the projections and mostly or entirely fail to appear at all. Where is the Climate Emergency?
And the trillions spent on CAGW are an immense tax on the poor, create tremendous international conflict and poverty, and do virtually nothing to slow the inevitable growth of CO2 as rational nations like India, China, and much of Asia continue to expand fossil fuel use.
Trillions? Taxing the poor?
Whether you like it or not, China is very actively working on transition to non-fossil (I don’t write green ‘cos they are doing, rightly, nuclear and hydro, the last is not considered green nowadays in the West). Considering the fact that when China decides to do something then one can be sure it will be done… I think you understand what I want to say.
Making energy more expensive and less reliable isn’t exactly a benefit for the poor.
Both China and India are building coal based power plants as fast as they can.
No, China is actively working on transitioning its overseas belt and road initiative to non fossil-fuel energy. China’s domestic energy is still overwhelmingly fossil-fuel based and, in fact, with the discovery of a huge oilfield, set to become much more so.
Is there any subject, under which, what you know is actually true?
Or is spouting trite left wing myths, really the best you can do?
Was that a joke?
No.
nyolci, I’m very tired of retrieving your comments from the “pending approval” file, into which all of your comments go. As you can tell from the replies to your comments, trolls are NOT appreciated here at WUWT.
Adios,
Bob
Let them where they are 😀
/Applause/
and the likely paid troll is the first poster, not responding to the article at all, and hijacking the thread with inane assertions and insults.
Why? I reinvigorated this topic.
Making unsubstantiated assertions does not reinvigorate the topic. Instead, it muddies the waters.
Thank you. I was getting tired of skipping through that rubbish.
Although some of the responses where very informative. 🙂
You did get through. ‘Cos you like it 😉
But you are.
None so blind as those who do not want to see. None so dumb as those who do want to know.
It really is amazing how frequently the disproven lie, that Mann’s work has been independently verified gets repeated by those who are desperate to preserve the myth that CO2 is creating problems.
I also like the way they impugn the motives of Mann’s critics, rather than actually deal with the criticisms.
That is an interesting opinion to an article describing how an expert key witness, one of the best statisticians USA has, destroyed Mann´s method!
Wyner testified under oath
“””
that Mann had “manipulated” the data in creating his Hockey Stick graph, and that the graph was “misleading” [..] the error range shown on Mann’s Hockey Stick graphs from several papers was much too narrow. And thus, contrary to Mann’s graph, it was not possible to say from the data that time periods hundreds of years ago definitively were cooler than the present.
One of the last questions put to Wyner on direct was whether any statistician on behalf of Mann had offered an opinion contrary to his. Wyner said he was not aware of that.
“””
However, your opinion is not an answer to that in the slightest way and I am guessing that the jury will see it the same way, so try not to be too disappointed that unjustified opinions might make interesting politics, but do not count much in science or court!
I thought Mann was suing not being sued. If so then he brought this on himself just like he did with Dr. Ball.
His research has been proven to be wrong. Red Noise will give the same hockeystick shape when treated in the Mann-ian manner.
He is well known to be the inventor of “Mann’s Nature trick” that was used to “Hide the decline” because he wanted to mislead. This was found by his own colleagues in their own emails.
So we have a person who is known to be dishonest. We have a person who made a graph that was debunked. We have a person who, knowing that his work was found to be incorrect, did not seek to improve his work but rather, incorrectly, claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner.
He is clearly a weak link in the Climate Alarmist movement.
So you are correct that he is attacked for political reasons. It makes sense that, for political reasons, he would be the target of choice. It’s because he’s a poor scientist.
No-one charges the enemy’s strongest positions.
Your defence of him is a sign of judgment as poor as his science.
That’s right, MCourtney, “Mikes Nature Trick”, from the Climtegate e-mails, is damnification by his own peers as to the validity of the science in the hockey stick.
No he isn’t. Mann is going through a process that hasn’t been but should’ve been done by him before publication, should’ve been done during peer review and, rightly, is being done in critique papers and articles. Mann’s results have not been verified, his methods and analyses are biased (at best) or deliberately manipulative (at worst) and are not scientifically or statistically sound – they are unscientific rubbish that should’ve been binned before publication. How anyone with a shred of scientific knowledge can defend this mediocre charlatan is unbelievable to me.
Mann hasn’t done any science since the early 1990s.
I think it was Mann (among others) that showed the US was warmer in the 1930s.
“remember that it has been checked up and reproduced numerous times with different methods”
That is objectively false. The entire core of the case is that Steyn called Mann’s work false, and Mann claimed he was damaged because of it. If Mann could provide any evidence that his work was valid, the case would have been over on day one and the only question would be the amount of damages.
No, and if it had been the case Mann wouldn’t have sued. They were speaking about fraud, they were comparing him to a child molester etc. That was the problem.
It’s funny that you cannot comprehend that this doesn’t even matter. Fraud and bad research are two different things. A lot of bad research is published, for that matter. Very small portion of it is actual fraud. As an added bonus, Mann’s work has actually been found sound, and this is a scientific thing, you know, a thing for experts. This incidentally automatically excludes fraud.
His similarities to the child molester are valid. Penn covered for both of them.
DonM, That’s where Steyn messed up, and he better hope no one on the jury cared enough about the Sandusky crimes to follow the trial. Penn State (a different university from Penn) was repeatedly told by police and Child Welfare Services that Sandusky was safe to be around kids, allowing him to be a foster parent. Of his 45 convictions, none were crimes committed on campus. The school covered for Mann, but not Sandusky. Being so completely wrong about such a serious topic could prejudice any knowledgeable juror against him.
It depends on what information was being shared at what time. From the UK, the information we had to go on indicated that, based on the Freeh report, Spanier had covered for Sandusky even notifying him of the name of one of his accusers.
I’m not sure it’s going to be an issue as Manns lawyers have never disputed Steyn’s and Simberg’s view of the Sandusky-Spanier investigation, just their view of the Spanier-Mann investigation.
Penn … Penn State … same thing. UPenn … different.
In 2002 an assistant told Paterno about the shower scene. Paterno told Athletic Director about the shower scene. (Don’t know if the school president was notified in 2002 … my guess is someone talked to him in some way)
At that level and time, it was decided that an assistant coach, seeing a naked old guy rubbing up against a kid in the shower, was not clear enough evidence to move forward with further action or investigation.
That’s what I meant by Penn (State) covering up.
Also note that when the shit hit the fan 10 years later, neither Paterno nor the A.D. stood up and said, “Hey, we had witnessed similar 10 years ago.”
You have no credibility when you promote the lie about his HS paper since it has been well exposed as statistical garbage since 2005 and through much subsequent research.
He misused the Bristlecone Pine tree data which wasn’t temperature data at all and was from Dr. Isdo et al who generated the data in their research on Bristlecone tree growth reactions to increasing CO2.
CO2 fertilization effects of Bristlecone Trees.
LINK
You’re an idiot or a bald faced liar. And that is putting it mildly. Honest scientists do not withhold their calculations because they know that a corner stone of the scientific method is the replication of the results by others for a hypothesis to become theory. Mann didn’t only hide his calculations, he said he was withholding them because he feared others would find something wrong with them.
You’re an idiot or a bald faced liar. These are not mutually exclusive in nyolci’s case.
Lots of people lie to hide their idiocy and willful ignorance.
The NewYork Office of Lies Collusion and Incitement do it for all sorts of reasons.
“Mann didn’t only hide his calculations, he said he was withholding them because he feared others would find something wrong with them.”
Yes, him and Phil Jones. Phil Jones is the bastardizer of the instrument-era portion of the bogus Hockey Stick chart. He didn’t want to turn over his data either, for fear someone would find something wrong with it. It’s never been turned over.
Human-caused Climate Change is being promoted by Charlatans pretending to be scientists.
I believe that the Jones quote went something like this:
Why should I release my data to you, when your only goal is to find something wrong with them?
Silly me, I thought reviewing other people’s work in an effort to find something wrong with it, was what peer review was all about. It is also the core of the scientific method.
Wow.. serious DELUSIONAL.
Mann is a climate wastrel and faker.
His chart is one of the most egregious pieces of statistical maleficence ever produced anywhere in any field of “so-called” science.
“the barrage of bs against him wouldn’t have been justified.”
The barrage of continual BS FROM Mickey Mann is totally unjustified.
He is a narcissistic weasel who gets far less criticism than he deserves.
This is the guy who made up world temperatures for a time based on one tree in Canada
But multiple thermometers are not enough data for him to use.
Then assumed trees were accurate ways of measuring temperature when in his own lifetime they are terrible at doing that.
And for the love of god have a look at how he harasses other scientists who disagree with him. He has behaved appallingly and calling this out is not politically motivated. It is calling out a hypocritical scientist who has been caught out manipulating data and then trying to spear people who call him out on it.
Mate, your forgot the sarc flag, viz /sarc
Excuse me, Mr. Mann, but I don’t think you’re supposed to be on here talking about the case while you’re actively engaged in trial……………
“nyolci
February 4, 2024 6:18 am
Mann was (and is) being submitted to politically motivated harassment for being a scientist doing his research.”
Uh … just who instigated this lawsuit? And the one against Dr. Ball? (Which Mann lost but refuses to pay.)
The only “politics” here involves those funding Mann’s lawfare.
Everybody interested in science has a responsibility to check up on the work and be critical of any errors before believing in the assertions. Nothing political. Pure science.
Everybody has a responsibility to make public their concerns. Nothing political in doing so. It’s just science.
Just that a mistake was made justifies criticism. Being humans, we shouldn’t get personal but when the critisized become recalcitrant or you get bullied for doing the right thing, one can’t help oneself.
I shouldn’t find it strange that the only commentator to go into bat for Mann has no idea about the method..
Even Einstein had detractors that criticized his work. It is how science evolves.
Reality is that thousands of scientists have shown that earth’s climate is NOT in runaway warming state, which Mann claims with his ‘hockey stick’ graph.
Reality is that Mann and collaborators actively worked to get challengers blocked from publication (revealed by the ‘Climategate’ leak of documents from the CRU), that alone justifies very strong criticism.
Reality is that temperatures from weather balloons and satellite sensors, and sea level from tide gages collated in PSMSL.org, show only a continuation of the slow rise since the end of a cool era circa 1750AD. Temperature was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period yet climate was stable.
Michael Mann is the poster boy for “bad faith claims”.
In both cases where a defamation lawsuit that involved climate change was filed (Jacobson v NAS AND Mann v. Steyn), it was the climate changers resorting to lawfare.
Sigh! Professor Mann was, and still is, employed by Pennsylvania State University, the (infamous) institution located in the mountains of upper central PA. The Wharton School is part of the University of Pennsylvania, located in/near Philadelphia, a completely different institution. This gives Prof. Winer a different, unsullied, reputation/
Oops, Wyner, sorry.
Mann was at Penn State
Now at U of Penn
Obviously can’t hold a job
Next stop,the State Pen?
Recently overheard in Michael Mann’s office.
Defamation!!!
Expect to be served with your lawsuit on Monday morning.
(Lawyer mumbling in the background.)
Oh, you put a question mark after “Next stop, the State Pen”, perhaps you will escape this time with plausible deniability, but I am keeping an eye on you!
“Infamy, infamy, everyone’s got it in fer me!”
“Mann during the discovery process had provided three different, inconsistent and contradictory interrogatory answers on the topic of his main theory of damages”
I learned a long time ago that it’s easier to always tell the truth than try to remember which lie I told to whom and when. Mann apparently never learned that lesson.
With the left’s dominance of the news media, Mann probably never expected to be confronted over his different answers.
It’s not a good idea to be caught lying to the Court. Judges tend to frown on that.
It’s hard to believe that Mann’s lawyer tried to pass off false information to the Court like this. Sanctions are in order here.
Maybe Mann and Steyn should have a duel and get it over with. Of course Mann would cowardly not show- and Steyn would win! Case closed.
High Noon 😀
Steyn has had 3 heart attacks and is in a wheelchair, and you want to put him through some kind of ‘shootout at the DC corral?’ No Joseph, he is no longer in the best of health.
Obviously, I was joking.
Obviously, so was I.
“”bad-faith misconduct””
Isn’t it perjury or perverting the course of justice?
I’m not an attorney but, it seems to me, bad-faith misconduct = perjury.
It may be legalsleeze wording to avoid calling someone a liar in court because it looks bad. Nothing gets you in more trouble than being truthful and straightforward in many instances.
Hopefully the judge will follow suit with perjury charges against Mann and counsel.
The @ssh@t attorney is not sworn so cannot be charged with perjury, but as explained in the post, he can be sanctioned due to attorney regulations.
Best case, not likely, is eventually the attorney to be disbarred. Case dismissed. All Steyn expenses to be paid by Mann. Any payments by outsiders to be as taxable, including all legal fees provided to Mann, and his “wealth” to be confiscated.
IRS new 83,000 employees need to look into all the legal fees spent to prop up this litigation for Mann and charge him income taxes for every penny spent on his behalf. Set a legal president that when an attorney does a pro-bono or contingency, that the “client” is responsible for the costs as a gift. If the client cannot pay, the attorney must include the gift on their taxes and the associated tax liability. That could put an end to much of the insane US trial lawyer massive money to the Democrat party.
A legal president???
That leaves out Biden.
Perjury would be if you provided knowingly false information when under oath. If his attorneys provided information that they knew was false, that would not be perjury (as they are not under oath). However, attorneys have a legal and ethical obligation of candor to the court, which includes not putting forward information that they know to be false, hence the motions for sanctions (how attorneys who violate their ethical obligations are dealt with).
Steyn could also make complaints to the Bar association that the attorney is licensed at, which could result in disciplinary action up to the attorney being disbarred.
OK… is Michael Mann a professor at U. Penn or is he still Director of Earth System Science Center at Penn State Univ? Please Clarify
Looks like UPenn..
see https://earth.sas.upenn.edu/people/michael-mann
He was at Penn State but recently (in the last few years) moved to U. Penn. One can only imagine how his court antics under oath are being viewed by the University management – he’s fast becoming a liability.
According to his C.V, he joined U. Penn in 2022. Wonder if he voluntarily left PSU or was asked to leave? But it may be that he got a better offer at Penn
If he had been asked to leave Penn State, I doubt that U. Penn. would’ve touched him with a barge pole. No, I think you’re right – he got an offer from a more prestigious school. Mann, in addition to his narcissism and bullying, is a complete snob so the opportunity to lord it over his peers as an ‘Ivy League’ professor was far too good an opportunity to miss. I do, sincerely, hope he loses his position, his funding and his reputation (such as it is) as a result of this lawfare.
Who is paying the attorney fees for Mann’s lawyers?
Don’t know but the prime suspect is the Climate Scientists Legal Defence Fund which, despite strong denials, was primarily set up to cover Mann’s court costs in Virginia.
NOT Mann.
Steyn SHOULD be able to sue them to recoup all his expenses.
Mann should be required to pay taxes on ALL expenses incurred as regular income, both federal and state.
If Mann cannot or will not pay the taxes, the attorneys should be required to show the “gift” on their taxes and pai the required taxes.
As an added bonus, the people who funded the attorneys should also be identified when the US House requires the tax returns of the attorneys to be revealed “for the purpose of creating legislation” as the DC courts allowed for TRUMP!’s tax returns. Then identify every person who contributed to this vexatious lawsuit. Lets see who the perpetrators are. How many from the solar or wind fields? How many are Democrat supporting oligarchs?
Then have congress pass legislation identifying all FREE services of attorneys as gifts with the pertinent tax consequences.
The Climate Scientists Legal Defence Fund. It was established by a mate of Mann (can you believe he has a friend) to enable SLAPP cases from climate scientists without fear of individual climate scientists becoming penniless. Mann has been a major beneficiary.
This was in the public domain but is now common knowledge as it has come up during the Mann v Steyn case.
Even if Steyn and Simberg are awarded costs, Mann will not have to pay. It will come from the CSLDF
In that case I hope Steyn and Simberg are awarded millions each and it bankrupts the silly sods. If they hadn’t set up this slush fund, Mann might’ve thought twice about indulging in this lawfare.
Well.. they don´t necessary need to be friends!
There are a lot of benefactors from this
scamscientific climate concern, they have well paid jobs, travel the world for conferences and eventually write their memoirs.. it´s a billion dollar business which does not have to provide anything real.“read the criticism of Wyner from the article, took whatever Wyner said in response, and moved on to the next item. He never went deeply enough into any issue for an intelligent listener to form any view as to who might be right or wrong on this issue.”
Leaving room for reasonable doubt in the mind of any juror.
I guess the issue never came up that Mann’s hockey stick says nothing about air temperature, because there’s no physical theory to convert proxy metrics into Celsius.
The temperature numbers are assigned by statistical fiat. There’s no science in them at all.
As much as I would like to see this case go on and have Climate Science™ exposed for the misleading and deceptive information and practices it is founded on, there is every chance it will be dismissed as a matter of law on Monday.
Mann has to prove some level of harm and connect that to the blog articles as the principal cause. His lawyer admitted it was impossible to show causation between the loss of Penn State funding and the blog articles. He said there was correlation though, which is not sufficient. Mann’s claim for emotional harm is tenuous – no proof just his word and a story about a harsh stare without any evidence. Mann’s word has less value than a dog turd.
In Steyn’s submission for dismissal he did not comment on the plaintiff witness stating that the funding dried up after Climategate. I thought that was important.
So far only two defence witnesses – Wyner and Curry. The video hook up with Richard Linzden failed so he could yet be called. McKittrick and others are yet to appear. The chart presented by Wyner had one of the equally possible curves showing the medieval warm period warmer than present.
I suspect the defendants would prefer Judge Irving to award them costs rather than having the jury deliberate. But the longer this case goes on, the worse it is for Climate Science™. I would not be surprised if the CSLDF pulled the funding plug on Mann if the case is not dismissed. It would be safer for Climate Science™ to abandon Mann than be dragged deeper into his mire.
The complete failure by Mann to address the many exsistant studies that show show the MWP to be as warm or warmer then the present, not to mention other previous warm periods warmer then the MWP, and past SL considerably higher then now, are all further evidence of a highly biased “science” paper.
Unless I am incorrect Pat, those proxies can not determine absolute temperature, only a highly uncertain ΔT. Joining the proxy record to the instrument record of ΔT does not establish the individual baselines temperature they are created at.
The proxies can’t determine ∆T either, Jim. It’s all statistics, no physics.
Pat, that’s why I called them highly uncertain. I am not an expert at tree rings assessment and didn’t feel I could argue the point. But I can make a knowledgeable assertion that there are many unknowable factors that can affect tree rings growth other than temperature.
A number of years ago, we had a number of articles specifically dealing with using tree rings as thermometers. In the articles, and in the discussion, there were a number of people who were experts.
There are three big problems with trying to use tree rings to measure temperature.
The first is, as you mention, there are many things that impact tree growth. Water, nutrients, sunshine, etc.
The second is that trees only grow during the growing season. There is no growth when they are dormant, so tree rings tell you nothing about what is happening when trees are dormant.
The third is that all trees have a temperature, at which they grow best. Move away from that temperature, either on the hot or cold side, and tree growth decreases. Because of this, if the temperature is above this “best temperature”, a decrease in temperature would result in better growth. Because of this, even if temperature actually was the only thing that mattered, an increase in ring width could mean the temperature is increasing, or it could mean the temperature is decreasing. There simply is no way to determine from just the rings by themselves.
No. Dr. Wyner is a damn good statistician – he was only discussing the hockey stick within the area of statistics, it’ll be up to other witnesses to address the other problems with it in their fields of expertise.
The reality of which the trendologists on WUWT strive to deny.
The climate alarmists have to deny earlier warm periods, otherwise their CO2-is-Dangerous narrative goes up in smoke, since CO2 would be shown to have very little effect on the Earth’s temperatures if the past, with less CO2 in the air, was warmer than today with more CO2 in the air.
In reality, more CO2 in the air does not equal higher, dangerous temperatures, so the Temperature Data Mannipulators sought to eliminate any periods as warm or warmer than today in order to hide the fact that CO2 has made no discernable difference in the Earth’s temperatures. They accomplished this with Mann’s (pre-instrument-era) and Phil Jones’ (instrument-era) bogus Hockey Stick chart.
And neither one of these Charlatans would turn over their data for review by outside scientists. They had something they wanted to hide. This is not science.
You took the words right out of my mouth! I am looking forward to seeing how he determined that.
Is it o.k. for me to file a lawsuit against that guy in the picture at the head of the article? He is giving me a suspicious look, and I’m shivering…
That look reminds me more of a “deer in the headlights” look. He looks like he wants to run away.
Nah – we used to have a dog with a face a bit like that. We always joked that he used to chase parked cars!
I make a prediction. It does not matter what is said in court. The Judge does not want to be seen as “A denier” and so will find for Mann.
If he does then it’ll go to the court of appeal and they won’t be quite so easy to manipulate.
I think the judge is caught between a rock and a hard place – he may want to find for Mann but his case has been so weak that I think he’ll be in trouble if he does. We’ll see what happens but he’s had 3 days to consider the Steyn and Simberg motions, some answer is required on that.
It is a jury trial. So if Irving does not dismiss it, it will go to jury or the defence (read CSLDF) could discontinue.
Judge Irving was Bush appointed. He has been quite scathing of plaintiff witnesses and tactics. Mann’s lawyer begged for the Judge to listen to what he had to say on the matter of the Penn State funding because he believed the Judge had misheard him. This was a major point of Steyn’s submission for dismissal.
Mann’s lawyer was required to give reasons to continue in writing as Steyn was required to give written submission for dismissal. They would have been considered on Friday when there are no court proceedings.
I put the odds of dismissal and defendants costs being awarded better than 50/50. We should know after Monday.
Could the judge delay a decision until the end of the defence case (presumably Wednesday) or is he required to act fairly quickly?
Justice Irving is expediting proceedings as best he can. I could not imagine why he would delay a decision on a point of law. Judges are fully aware of the high costs involved in these cases.
Mann cannot make a causation connection between the Penn State loss of funding and the blog articles. Mann’s lawyers admitted that. That leaves emotional damage, which is just Mann’s word. He provided no independent evidence to that just some sketchy recollection of a nasty stare and hearsay that he was not selected as co-aurthor on a paper because it might discourage other authors from participating after climategate. Again not directly related to the blog posts.
That is why I wrote better than 50/50 that the case will be dismissed. Mann has failed to make his case.
With a jury sitting and waiting, the judge can’t take his sweet time to make a decision.
He absolutely can reserve his response to the motion, and most judges would do just that in this situation. It would be a false economy, to put it mildly, to truncate a 12-year case just to save 2 or 3 days because that exposes any verdict to untold years of appeal. Far more judicially efficient to let the case play out fairly to both sides.
The motions filed by Steyn last week are done largely pro forma; they’re expected, but it’s not expected that the judge rules straight away. You need to file them just in case things go bad subsequently, so you can argue to the Supremem Court that it should’ve been put out of its misery after the plaintiff rested.
Unless the defense witnesses sabotage the defense to the point of snatchting defeat from the jaws of victory, it’s all done. Mann has lost. He’s lost on negative grounds, and after the defense case has been made, I expect he will lose on positive grounds as well.
If it goes to jury and they say Steyn and Simberg are liable, Irving will (on the present trajectory) toss out that verdict. He’s NOT impressed by the plaintiff’s case.
That makes sense and seems to resonate with something I heard a while ago about such cases.
It may also go some way to explain why Mann was in a supremely foul mood on X over the weekend – he knows he’s lost and he knows his MBH98 & MBH99 hockey stick illusion is over, dead and buried.
Good.
Shouldn’t this “Professor Mann” be required to pay legal costs as awarded by the Canadian Court ruling a few years ago before he can initiate another one?
It is a different country with different laws.
Is the judge aware of Mann’s refusal to pay Tim Ball’s costs in the BC case? If not, Steyn’s lawyers should raise the issue.
He is, they did. Because Mann lives in the USA it’s harder for him to avoid any costs from this case. Otoh, Steyn is Canadian and his embassy is directly across the street from the court!
That’s good. I can’t see this fact doing anything positive for Mann’s credibility.