Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Sue the Bastards!

Michael Mann, professor at Penn State and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State, thinks he was libeled by National Review reporter Mark Steyn and by Rand Simberg of the Competitive Enterprise Instititue (CEI). Steyn and Simberg made "false and defamatory statements", accusing him of academic fraud and improperly manipulating data, and comparing him to Jerry Sandusky, former assistant football coach at Penn State and now a convicted child molester.

Steyn accused Penn State of covering up Mann's "fraudulent" climate-change data.

Mann has sued the two writers and the CEI, requesting both compensatory and punitive damages. CEI has removed the sentences comparing Mann to Sandusky. National Review has not removed that inflammatory and libelous language.

This is, of course, the latest battle of Mann's 1998 "Hockey Stick" paper. After accusations were made against Mann, a number of investigations were conducted, and every single one exonerated Michael Mann. A dozen or so other scientific investigations were conducted by other research teams (not including Michael Mann), and every single one got results in agreement with Mann's result: the 20th century is anomalously warm, compared with the previous 400 years, and perhaps with the past 1000 years.

Mann received the prestigious 2012 Hans Oeshger Medal from his geoscience colleagues, and as a member of IPCC shared in the Nobel Prize. Mann recently authored a book (The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines) on the subject. His Facebook page has more details. (Be sure to search for Michael E. Mann, or you might get the director of the Pink Panther movies).

The climate change deniers are obsessed with the Hockey Stick, thinking that if only that one paper can be refuted, the case for AGW will collapse. In fact there are thousands of papers supporting AGW. If a few papers turn out to be flawed, the central conclusion survives easily.

Again the analogy with evolution: nothing in biology makes sense without the theory of evolution. Evolution is so strongly supported by so many different lines of evidence, that even one actual case of fraud (Piltdown Man) changes very little.

References:

Coverage on Common Dreams
Coverage in Washington Post
The 37-page legal document, filed in DC Superior Court.

68 comments:

David B. Benson said...

I predict failure in the courts. Professor Mann is far too public a figure.

Brian?

John said...

Back in 1964, a magazine claimed that thousands of psychiatrists thought that US Senator (and Presidential candidate) Barry Goldwater was crazy. Goldwater sued. The courts held that a public figure like Goldwater had to tolerate a certain amount of criticism. But the court held for Goldwater anyway. At least, that's how I remember it.

I think Mann can win. A univeristy professor isn't much of a publc figure. Also, even if he is a public figure to some extent, that only sets a bar. Calling someone a fraud, a child molester, etc. exceeds the bar. Especially because Mann was exonerated by every investigation.


Anonymous said...

Of course the issue of how much a public figure Dr. Mann is begs the question: Just who is responsible for making Dr. Mann a public figure in the first place?

If it weren't for deniers attacking and smearing Mann, he'd just be another really smart (but little known) scientist toiling away his office and lab...

The denier logic seems to be: We can continue to smear Mann with impunity because we made him a public figure by smearing him in the past.

--caerbannog the anonybunny

John said...

If this case reaches open court, with our corrupted system, many "interested" & very deep pockets and a fresh gale of fear, superstition and anti-intellect sweeping the country, science may find itself on trial.

John Puma

Jeffrey Davis said...

A non-public figure can't be whipped into a public figure by libeling him. Mann's research was academic until denialist press decided to make him a target.

Anonymous said...

I think Mann will win this,public figure or not.

His 'contentious' work has been subject to endless commentary for over a decade and attacked with every degree of hysteria. Mann has never sought legal redress over any of this,no matter that some of it is personal insult,much of it is mindless and all of it repetitive.

This time one R.Simberg has come up with a smear that can only be seen as defamatory,derogatory and deeply unpleasant. IOW,not run of the mill freedom of expression and crankery.

Simberg and Steyn have also declared 'fraudulent',which is unsupportable. No disinterested scientific study or inquiry has found Mann's work 'fraudulent'.

Maus

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

I am reminded again of the words of Voltaire:

"I was only ruined twice in my life--once when I lost a lawsuit and once when I won one."

trrll said...

Obsession with landmark works seems to be one of the clearest hallmark of crank denial of science. Evolution deniers attack Darwin, HIV/AIDS deniers attack Gallo, germ theory deniers attack Pasteur--and climate change deniers attack Mann. To scientists, this comes across as quite bizarre, because scientists generally are interested in the best evidence related to a theory. Landmark studies, precisely because they are blazing new territory, typically have weaknesses and gaps that are addressed by later work. It seems that deniers envision scientific evidence as a house of cards resting on the landmark work, and imagine that if they can just discredit those early studies that the whole edifice will collapse. Scientists who read the original literature know that it is actually a multiply connected network, with multiple independent lines of evidence supporting a strong theory.

J Bowers said...

Brian Angliss has something to say about Christopher Horner's polemic at WUWT.

Christopher Horner is demonstrably wrong

Anonymous said...

winnebago says:

As several have noted, the Courts have established that 'public figures', those who occupy positions of power or influence and/or those that thrust themselves into a public controversy, have a higher threshold to meet to prove defamation. Precedent excludes the research scientists whose work becomes the center of public controversy from the definition of public figure. However, Mann's actions in starting Real Climate and his many interviews and appearances would more likely than not make him a public figure. Assuming that Mann is deemed a 'public figure' he will have to meet the burden of 'actual malice' on the part of the defendants. The 2-parts of the actual malice standard include a) reckless disregard for the truth and b) willful intent to harm the reputation of the plaintiff. In my view, it seems Mann is on fairly solid ground: a) given the high-profile reporting on the plethora of independent reviews exonerating Mann and the results of the study of any misconduct, the defendants are in a weak position to claim ignorance of the truth, b) the claim of fraud along with the association with a convicted child-molester demonstrates intent of infliction of harm. I'm sure Mann's attorneys are well aware of the high burden and would have counseled against filing suit if there wasn't a chance to win.

Anonymous said...

I guess it's time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4


Dorothy

Anonymous said...

Penn State has quite the track record with investigations.


Prediction = Mann loses.


When your lawsuit has blatant lies in it such as:

"Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming."


It is not a very good start.


Mann was NOT awarded the Nobel Prize.



Back to you high fiving and whooping which will be pointless, as usual.


Mashey I thought you liked to dive into all the details and show where people were not being honest and you missed the above?


Perhaps you should look up the word integrity to determine if you have any left.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 8:46: FAIL!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=437830742939800&set=a.221233134599563.54502.221222081267335&type=1&relevant_count=1

winnebago

Anonymous said...

winnebago, can every citizen of the European Union now say they won the Nobel Peace Price?

Anonymous said...

@Winnebago


You are a good representative of the level of intelligence of this blog.

I commend your attention to detail and the accuracy of your claims.



I am sure Eli, Brian and John all agree with you that thousands of people were AWARDED the Nobel Prize in 2007.



LMAO Thanks what a great way to start a Thursday.

J Bowers said...

"winnebago, can every citizen of the European Union now say they won the Nobel Peace Price?"

Kind of, I suppose. We've managed to not be at war with each other for 70 years, which is a first. Not expecting a certificate, though, UNLIKE MICHAEL MANN WHO GOT HIS CERTIFICATE 'FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THE AWARD OF OF THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE'.

J Bowers said...

Hey John, were you looking for a photo to put at the top of the page? If you were, how about THIS PHOTO?

Jack Ripper said...

The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which raised money to help Mann with his legal expenses in the past when he was on defense, has a homepage which notes that it

"was established to make sure that legal actions are not viewed as an attack against one scientist or institution but as attacks against the scientific endeavor as a whole. Our goal is simple: let scientists conduct research without the threat of politically motivated attacks".

I wonder who will step up to help Mann now that he has taken the logical step of defending himself by putting his attackers on the defensive by taking some of them to court.

The lie about scientific fraud has been so successfully spread one of the official online versions of the 2012 Republican Party National Platform contains it, i.e.:

“We must restore scientific integrity to our public research institutions and remove political incentives from publicly funded research”

(To view this version of the 2012 GOP Platform, go to the GOP Platform homepage and click on the subhead link "America's Natural Resources". The threat does not appear in the only other version of the 2012 GOP Platform I know about, i.e. this 62 page .pdf file which is also called "We Believe in America".)

John Mashey said...

Winnebago obviously knows something about defamation law, unlike a lot of D-K afflictees with opinions all over the blogs, who likely have never talked to the right lawyers and especially confused about public figure rules.

For all, it might be worth perusing the Cozen O'Connor website and checking out Pete Fontaine and John Williams.

In Canada (recall that there are libel proceedings there, also), google: Canadian libel law
Fairly early you'll see hits on Roget McConchie
Google him

What do these guys have in common?

Anonymous said...

Sad John Mashey has no integrity. Who would of thought.

And J Bowers thinks a thank you card from the IPCC is a Nobel Award.





The idiocy, it burns.

Hank Roberts said...

Anonymous Anonymous ... has no integrity.

How many of these drivebys come from the same IP, or from obscured IPs?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.

"The climate change deniers are obsessed with the Hockey Stick, thinking that if only that one paper can be refuted, the case for AGW will collapse. In fact there are thousands of papers supporting AGW. If a few papers turn out to be flawed, the central conclusion survives easily."

It may be one paper but it is about the most important aspect of global warming, manmade or naturally caused?

And Mann's paper made the medieval warm period cooler than present day temperatures so he could say that man has influenced the temperature. If the present day isn't as warm as the medieval warm period, natural forces overpower manmade forces.

Aaron said...

I think a very good lawyer can show that Mann is a public figure because he is always careful to tell the truth, rather than simply inserting himself into controversy. This is different from other public figures that take sides on the basis of religion, ideology, or politics.

That is; it is assumed that different religions, ideologies, and political beliefs are considered equally valid, and thus any particular religion, ideology or political view espoused by a public figure is open to criticism. A Bishop in the Catholic Church can become a Jew and change his views. A Republican can change his views and become a Democrat (or the reverse).

However, a scientist has only one science, and he cannot change his views on a whim. Thus, a scientist that is a public person is inherently different than a public person that became public on the basis of religion, politics, commerce or ideology.

Anonymous said...

Where did the Anonymous (at 25/10/12 8:46 AM, who said the lawsuit had blatant lies, get his quote from regarding Mann's Nobel Prize. I just went through the complaint filed in court and that sentence is not in there.

Instead, on page 6, item 17, "In 2007, Dr. Mann shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the other IPCC authors for their work in climate change....", which is quite accurate.

Is there another official document?

--dan j. andrews

vafreedom said...

why was my prev. Comment deleted? Had issue logging in since posting from phone.... and had an anon post just after the youtube link that seems to have been deleted

Anonymous said...

Ah, never mind. Found it. It is on Dr. Mann's facebook page and not part of a lawsuit, unless it the facebook quote was placed verbatim into an official lawsuit document.

--dan j. andrews

J Bowers said...

"And J Bowers thinks a thank you card from the IPCC is a Nobel Award."

I pointed out "contributing to". Contrast with Monckton who doesn't have one but says he's a Nobel Prize winner.

EliRabett said...

VA: Eli has killed the Captcha, but the price is now that he does not have the time to go back and look at each message that falls into the spam bucket, just wipes them all (They are coming in at 2-300/day.

Anonymous said...

@Dan

The quote was pulled from Mann's press release about the lawsuit. I am quite sure it will be part of the lawsuit to establish credibility, IF it ever gets that far.


@Hank

Can't discuss or counter the points so let's attack or get rid of the messenger. Weak.


John Mashey the crusader of truth, the private eye detective seeking out plagiarism and lies. Just sits idly by as Dr. Michael Mann claims to have been awarded the Nobel Prize.

lol What a joke.

ligne said...

it's funny: the Nobel committee has its fair share of smart people. you'd have thought that if they'd meant to award it only to Al Gore, Rajenda Pachauri and the management and secretariat of the IPCC, that's what they would have said in their citation. and then they compound their mistake by making repeated references to the scientists who wrote the report! silly Nobel committee!

ah well, we all get things wrong occasionally, right?

Anonymous said...

They awarded the Nobel Peace Prize of 2007 to two entitites Al Gore and the IPCC.

Memebers of an organization are not to claim having been awarded the peace prize.


Covering for Mann again with no integrity on Rabett Run.


Makes everyone here a joke and everyhting you type suspect.

Anonymous said...

Since John Mashey the truth seeker has obviosly been busy today trying to find some integrity.

An award of the Nobel Prize to an organisation does not under any circumstances permit an employee or other agent of that organization to claim to share a Nobel Prize. Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize.



"Dear Mr Lazaridis,

Again, let me clarify that the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. and to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the organization. Consequently, the following information is not correct: “Christos Zerefos, president of the National Observatory in Athens, and his colleague, Professor Alcibiades Bais of Thessaloniki University, are the first two Greeks to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, even if they share it with dozens of other scientists.”

The sentence should read “Christos Zerefos, president of the National Observatory in Athens, and his colleague, Professor Alcibiades Bais of Thessaloniki University, have received a certificate commemorating their involvement with the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with former Vice President Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.”

About 2000 personalized copies of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize together with a letter of Dr R.K. Pachauri have been sent worldwide to Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Review Editors, Bureau members, staff of Technical Support Units and of the Secretariat, who have contributed substantially to the work of the IPCC of the last 20 years.

However, the above mentioned figure does not reflect all contributors to the IPCC process. We can estimate that approximately 10’000 scientist and officials have contributed to the work of the IPCC over the last two decades. The only figures we can share with you are related to the publication of the 4th Assessment Report:

2500+ Scientific Expert Reviewers
800+ Contributing Authors and 450+ Lead Authors
130+ Countries
6 years work
1 Report

Best regards,

Francesca Foppiano
IPCC Secretariat
www.ipcc.ch”


Mashey hahahahahaha what a joke.

J Bowers said...

:) John Mashey really rattled someone's cage to be garnering all of this attention.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

J. Bowers,
Well, when one has had a career as successful as John's, it must be difficult for rivals and wannabes to handle the envy and to justify their meaningless and trivial lives. We have a case in point posting prolifically above.

Anonymous said...

"The quote was pulled from Mann's press release about the lawsuit."

So it wasn't part of the lawsuit itself then, as you first said. Thank you for correcting your mistake which I assume was an honest one, and not a blatant lie.

Perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to Dr. Mann and assume if his statement (according to the IPCC Secretariat) was wrong, then it was an honest mistake and not a blatant lie. As a public figure with a big target painted on his back, he wouldn't knowingly make any unfounded claims, especially ones that are so easy to research.

But probably a moot point anyway since that quote on Dr. Mann's FB page has now been modified (unless I'm looking at the wrong section of Dr. Mann's FB page--see the About section which is where I thought I checked earlier).

This modification makes it more accurate. That's what good scientists do...when shown a (possible) mistake, rectify it.

--dan j. andrews

Anonymous said...

@Dan,


No what I said is I copied it from the press release. I just read Mann's complaint and you obviously missed that it was also in there. Claiming he and other scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize.

I should have known better that to take a poster's word for it (you).

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf


I see other rodents are now focused on me that I am being so attentive to the great and successfull Mashey!

Wow are you guys like lined up in front of him waiting to kiss his ring or something?

Facts too much for you to digest?


I simply pointed out Mashey's so called strength of "truth" hunting and how he forgot all about that with Mann.


How many of you have contacted Michael Mann and asked him to stop claiming that he has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? ZERO.


Integrity free zone here at Rabett Run.

J Bowers said...

Anonymous being the one obsessed with John Mashey, and now also his ring. Hmmm. Thanks for sharing. (Why do PR trolls double space their lines?)

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anonymous assclown (and yes, it is obvious who I am addressing),

1)I don't concern myself with what particular climate scientists or climate denialists claim on their personal websites. I am more interested in the quality of their research.

2)The idea that a false claim--albeit one that could be seen as justified by some--justifies comparing said individual to a convicted child molester is ludicrous and a contention one would be ashamed of if one had any shame to begin with.

3)You seem to really resent successful individuals. Perhaps it is because you yourself are an utter failure? Want to talk about it?

J Bowers said...

Did the gazelle just fire a shot across the nose of everyone's favourite hyena?

Anonymous said...

No one compared Mann to a child molestor. Wow you guys are in full crazy mode.

If Mann is going to submit a lawsuit claiming he was libled perhaps it would be best if his legal document did not make false claims.

I might be crazy.


And since the direct name calling (always inevitable on this site when they lose the arguement), ah nevermind I'll pass.



Mashey and his groupies are jokes and lack any basic level of honesty and integrity.

Proven with all of the above.

Anonymous said...

@Bowers

Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, of The Norwegian Nobel Institute emailed me back with the following:

“1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.
3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.

Lundestad goes on to say that, "Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not."


Well the IPCC is the one that made the thing sitting in Mann's office, but it also perfectly clear Mann was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as he claims in his suit he filed.

I am not surprised all the little lemmings here cannot simply say "You're right, Mann was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and it is wrong for him to state otherwise."


Jokes the lot of ya.

J Bowers said...

@ Anonymous, are you insinuating that the sceptics who got exactly the same certificates are all liars, too? Ask Andy Revkin about their certificates.

Anonymous said...

Is Andy Revkin claiming to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?


Did you not read anything I said?

For instance:

"Well the IPCC is the one that made the thing sitting in Mann's office, but it also perfectly clear Mann was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as he claims in his suit he filed."

J Bowers said...

If the best denialists can do is bitch over the Nobel Prize wording, the defendants need to break their piggy banks to see how much they can afford to offer as settlement. They're making the same mistake as they do with the Hockey Stick.

Former Skeptic said...

FFS, anon, no wonder why you didn't link to Mann's press release. The press release says:

'Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming."'

Mann didn't say he had sole ownership of the award which is what you and Morano are trying so hard - and failing miserably - to claim. He is well within his right, as a lead author in the IPCC, to say that he was an important part in contributing to the NPP award to the IPCC.

Besides, the press release is not the critical document. More importantly, the lawsuit - from the link you kindly posted - has this to say in para 17:

'The work of Dr, Mann and the IPCC has received considerable accolades within the scientific community, In 2007, Dr. Mann shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the other IPCC authors for their work, including the development of the Hockey Stick Graph."

Not awarded, as you stated earlier in your posts, but shared. Guess you didn't even read the lawsuit now, did you?

You just got busted, big time. Now shoo off back in the sandbox and let the adults talk.

Anonymous said...

@Former Skeptic,

Try Paragraph 2. After you take reading, reading comprehension, honesty and integrity in public discussion, basic honesty 101, and know what the F you are talking about before you pound your chest courses.

Man was not Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with his colleagues at the IPCC. Al Gore and the IPCC Organization were awarded the prize.



Jeez you guys would lay down in a mud puddle for this guy to walk across. I have not seen this type of cover your "betters" since I saw news program about Jonestown.


Jeffrey Davis said...

Lump,

Mann's paper isn't an important one in the science. Dendrochronology and temperature reconstructions are a minor part of climate science. Besides, there are (at least) 2 Mann papers on the subject, and many others by other scientists. All confirm the anomalous nature of late 20th century warming.

The denialist machine zeroed in on Mann because his work was once the subject of glossy-covered magazines and became embarrassing as a PR issue for denialists. Not as a scientific issue. Remember that AGW was discovered in the 19th century without any historical record to examine.

chek said...

"Jeez you guys would lay down in a mud puddle for this guy to walk across"

Translation: "I've been given my talking point and until I'm told otherwise...."

Anonymous said...

Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.

+10 points to Mr. Watts for fair and accurate reporting!
3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.

(NOTE: on point 3, another example here (PDF) suggests that the IPCC added that text, not Mann – Anthony)

Anonymous said...

Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.

I do want to take the time and thank Brian and Eli (do not know other person, if it's Mashey he get a thanks too) for allowing me to comment here. Even though we are worlds apart on our beliefs, I respect that they allow dissenting opinions. If Watts has indeed blocked Eli, that's bad form. And I'm sure he has, Eli has no reason to make that up.

And frankly I do not think any of us are happy with the current state of politics and science...if the presidential ticket were Romney, Obama and Hilary, I would vote for Hilary in a second. She and Bill are very experienced and they know how to get things done. I think Obama takes a more hands off approach, not that that's wrong or a bad thing but I think he should have taken a more active role in writing the new health law, for example. The controlling party in congress just write bills loaded with things they want and the other side is expected to follow suit to gain 1 or 2 policies that they want.

Anonymous said...

@Chek

Was Mann awarded the nobel Peace Prize?

Lotharsson said...

"It may be one paper but it is about the most important aspect of global warming, manmade or naturally caused?"

Er...if I'm not badly mistaken (a) not really and (b) your implication does not follow.

The one paper in question is primarily about doing a hemispherical historical temperature reconstruction - which had not been done before. One could certainly choose to take Mann's reconstruction on board when seeking to determine - not the false binary dichotomy you posit, but the real question - how much warming is due to anthropogenic activities?

But one can also answer that question without using Mann's paper...so it just isn't the linchpin without which the conclusion of significant anthropogenic influence will fall. In other words you had already undermined your argument when you said "It may be one paper..." and failed to take into account the rest of the evidence.

"And Mann's paper made the medieval warm period cooler than present day temperatures so he could say that man has influenced the temperature."

Er, no. That's almost certainly libellous - unless there's an exception for the scientifically illiterate.

There were no previous hemispherical scale temperature reconstructions over several centuries so you can't claim by comparison to earlier work that he biased "the MWP" cooler - or warmer - than the data shows. Prior to Mann's paper the concept of "the MWP" (as a hemispherical or global scale synchronous event) was a hypothesis with very little to no supporting evidence. The pre-Mann graph from McIntyre is so exercised about on the theory that it shows an MWP that Mann deliberately sought to erase is based on very localised data - from Central England. One locale does not a hemisphere make.

That leaves you arguing (a) that his conclusions are not supported by the data available at the time AND that (b) he deliberately made it so when he knew or should have known better. Given that those conclusions are consistent with a dozen or more subsequent reconstructions - many using entirely different data sets - you're pushing water uphill with your bare hands on that one. (But I bet that won't stop you - or McIntyre - trying.)

"If the present day isn't as warm as the medieval warm period, natural forces overpower manmade forces."

Sigh. Your conclusion does not follow. (If the MWP was warmer than today, that adds more weight to the case that climate sensitivity is on the higher end which merely increases the case for concern. And a small long term unidirectional forcing will ALWAYS eventually outweigh even much larger forces that tend, on average, to have very little long term trend.)

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that someone who is happy to parade their horrible misunderstanding of evolution in public is also happy to do the same with their horrible misunderstanding of basic climate science.

David B. Benson said...

Several useful comments earlier on this thread.

And then...

Anonymous said...

David B. Benson said on 26/10/12 at 7:36 PM...

"Several useful comments earlier on this thread.

And then...


It seems that the WWWTians can't resist a bone(r).

And the anonymous above with a hate-on for John Mashey - is that Ed Wegman perchance, or at least or one of his allies...?

Anonymous said...

And then... Mashey could not find his integrity. All the Rabett lemmings circled around their modern day Jim Jones and protected him and swore that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 because Jim Jones said so and he had a piece of cardboard not saying what he was claiming but the faithful did not care.

They all broke out in a chant and mixed their Flavor Aid.

Anonymous said...

@D Benson,

No. Mashey is Mr detective finding the truth and showing where people have been less than honest. Yet when Jimm, uh I mean Mike Mann claims to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, well he forgets all about his integrity.

Same with everyone else here.


Y'all have no credibility in anything you claim. If you were a witness in a courtroom this one item would taint all your testimony, and rightfully so.


Enjoy the Flavor Aid.

David B. Benson said...

There certainly is a nut anonymouse loose here in the Rabett hutch.

Anonymous said...

At least the anon has integrity, you not so much.

J Bowers said...

I didn't swear he had a Nobel Peace Prize; he contributed to one. Anon has no integrity. Anon is a sad hypocrite dwelling under a bridge. Anon doesn't understand the legal game being played.

Anonymous said...

@Bowers,

But Michael Mann claims to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

I am sure you are concerned about that, not.

J Bowers said...

I couldn't give a flying fuck. If it's the bet you've got then the defendants need to offer to settle pronto.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous denier, above: "Mike Mann claims to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize".

From Mann's facebook post announcing the lawsuit: 'Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming."'

If Mann's wording is read in full, it's clear he's merely including himself among the group that was awarded the prize. Anonymous denier is quote-mining. That's crystal-clear to the rest of us, but anonymous keeps clinging to his rhetorical straw. Does he think that if he can just score a point with this, AGW won't happen? It's too bad all deniers aren't so transparently desperate as he is.

chek said...

*sigh* Is there aznything sadder than the distractosphere in full, self-righteous flight about things at a level they'll never undrestand, or be invited to?

The IPCC (an office) awarded certificates to the lead authors acknowledging their contributions to winning the Nobel.

Independent: As someone who has spent a major portion of his professional career researching climate change and advocating for societal change, what does winning a share of the Nobel Peace Prize mean for you personally?

Running: There was of course a fair bit of buzz that Al Gore might get it. We were really just rooting for Al Gore to get it. That’s why we were all completely stunned Friday when the news started coming up that Al Gore and the IPCC committee had won the prize.

It didn’t sink in for us as individual authors until around 9 a.m. when I got an e-mail from the IPCC head office in Geneva, Switzerland saying, and I quote, “This makes each of you a Nobel laureate.” And that’s when I started going, “Whoa. Wait a minute here.”

Indy: What did it feel like to read those words from the IPCC office?

Running: Well, because this is a shared prize among 600 of us, I’ve kind of continued to oscillate back and forth between a thought that this is all almost kind of a funny game on the one hand, and on the other hand thinking quite profoundly that this is… I read in the last day or two that the Nobel Peace Prize is considered the biggest prize on earth about anything. You start thinking about that and start thinking even one six-hundredth of the biggest prize on earth is just…well, you’re left really speechless. It’s hard to have that sink in.

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/a-nobel-cause/Content?oid=1139384

Really, if this cracker-barrel level flak is the best they can do, the deniers had best tell their backers to dig out the chequebooks with the pre-printed zeroes an book all the front pages they can for a grovelling and self-abasing apology to Dr. Mann.

Jeffrey Davis said...

And, lest the point get lost, Mann isn't suing people over their comments about the Nobel.

Stephen said...

I can also attest to the fact that there are 600+ comments over on WTFIUWT discussing the various subtleties and nuances (NOT) concerning whether or not Michael E. Mann is indeed a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. I know this, because for some reason known only to me, I bothered to read them all (well, TBH, I skimmed through a few of the tl;dr ones). And also the ones that were batshit crazy, which comprised some 23% of the total, by my reckoning.

And after that exercise, I can say without equivocation that... mankind is screwed. That is all. For the moment.

Anonymous said...

Humans are warming the planet.

Michael Mann produced a graph that reflects this.

What more can one say?

There remains only this observation about the Moranos, Moncktons and Watts of the world:

Hy-Brazil is sinking.

Anonymous said...

"2. Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. Along with other researchers, he was one of the first to document the steadt rise in surface temperatures during the 20th Century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s. As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace prize."

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf


No mention of the IPCC. No mention that he contributed to an organization that was awarded the prize. He kust claims he and others were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

They were not.


How all of you dance around this clearly reflects on your lack of integrity.

Since this false statement is in his legal brief, it will come up during any and all proceedings. You think some of you might be concerned about that. They will seek to impeach his credibility from day 1 and you geniuses do not see that. The Flavor Aid is strong in you.


Glad to see Bowers mad and swearing, brought a smile to my face, thanks J!

Anonymous said...

The Hy-Brazil post was me.

And ain't it quaint to see a Hy-Denialist post immediately after with his own sing-song?


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.