Unclear On the Concept
As many bunnies are aware, Mark Steyn is not only being sued by Michael Mann, but has decided to defend hisself. This may be a landmark event for the popcorn industry. Steyn has just filed an answer and counterclaim in the suit. As somebunny remarked, if nothing else it establishes Steyn as a world class denialist (Roy SpencerTM) , cause half of the thing is given over to how he denies knowledge or information on this and that. There are some goodies like
103. Denies the allegations in Paragraph One-Hundred-And-Three of the Amended Complaint, except admits that Dr Mann’s colleague Sandusky is presently serving a lengthy gaol sentence for child rape and multiple other sex crimes against children.Now some, not Eli to be sure, but certainly the head auditor we know would be out there busy denouncing this "improper statistics", given that Sandusky retired from his coaching position at Penn State in 1999, when Mike Mann had just started as an assistant prof at UVa. Mann moved to Penn State in 2005. A real head auditor could work up a mouthful of spit on that one.
But wait, there is more
30. Denies the allegations in Paragraph Thirty, especially the allegation that obscure unread losers at whatever “Discover Magazine” is are in any sense “respectable and well-regarded journalists”.Egad, Steyn got something right! Mercy Mom Rabett!!!
But, you knew there was another but, it is the counterclaims that have the World of Derpnial up in the rafters cheering on. Well, except that Steyn pretty much shows that he needs a lawyer, very, very bad.
As Eli pointed out to Lucia and the assembled pickers of nits, the first counterclaim is
As a result of Plaintiff’s campaign to silence those who disagree with him on a highly controversial issue of great public importance, wrongful action and violation of the Anti-SLAPP Act, Steyn has been damaged and is entitled to damages, including but not limited to his costs and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and will incur in the future in defending this action, all in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million, plus punitive damages in the amount of $5 million.Now some, not Eli to be sure, but maybe Mark Steyn, may have not noticed that the court has denied their special motion to dismiss under the DC Anti-SLAPP act. Still pretending that nothing has happened Steyn’s first claim for damages, based on the DC Anti-SLAPP act appears to find something in that law that is not there, e.g. the possibility of an award for damages based on a violation of the anti-SLAPP act. Popcorn please.
The second is even better
Plaintiff’s wrongful interference with Defendant Steyn’s constitutionally protected rights of free speech and public expression and his engagement and use of the courts as an instrument of the government to carry out that wrongful interference violates the First Amendment and constitutes a constitutional tort for which Defendant Steyn is entitled to be compensated.Eli is no lawyer, but the Rabett does remember the First Amendment. Steyn appears to believe it reads
Michael Mann shall make no law suit respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of my telling porkies about him. . .Sadly for Canadian Marky, it really says that the Congress of the United States is the one in charge of not making such laws. Popcorn bunnies, invest your last carrot in popcorn.
Posts
102 comments:
I'm sure Steyn's reasoned, competent comments will further endear him to the judge.
I liked this comment:
111. Denies the allegations in Paragraph One-Hundred-And-
Eleven of the Amended Complaint, and feels Plaintiff is
going round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a
wheel, like the circles that you find in the tree-rings of
your mind.
John Mashey @ #1:
Indeed. I hear that most judges have endless patience and enjoy wordy, irrelevant, disrespectful amateur submissions to the court. Often they may hide their amusement under stern, cutting words or judgments against such defendants, but under all that they are chortling.
Oh man.
Courts do not like making a tort out the action of filing litigation (Steyn's first counterclaim). Not impossible in theory, I suppose, but pretty close to impossible in practice. A judge might generously toss out 90% of this claim and consider the rest to be a poorly done restatement of anti-SLAPP position. Sanctions are allowed, rarely, but that's not the same as damages and punitive damages from a tort claim.
The second claim is even worse.
Mann's lawyers will attempt to talk directly to Steyn and convince him to withdraw the counterclaims. If he doesn't, they'll bring a motion to dismiss and sanctions for frivolous claims.
gosh, stein's submission is worse than mann's submission.
you know, the one where he falsely claims to be "exonerated" by investigations that never exonerated him?
yeah, the one where he falsely claimed to be a nobel prize winner?
yup, it looks like stein is MUCH, MUCH worse than mann.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/
@rspung:
yeah, the one where he falsely claimed to be a nobel prize winner?
The denialosphere just loves to hold onto any old irrelevancy for as long as they can, don't they? 5 years after this case is over, you and the Auditor will still be harping on about that. Just like you're still trying to somehow refute a 15-year old ground breaking paleo paper, the results of which have been reproduced over and over again by many teams from around the world using all different kinds of proxies.
But I can understand that. When ya got nothing, nitpicking irrelevant things to death is your only option.
Thirteenth Affirmative Defence is a doozy.
"126. Plaintiff has said the same or worse as the statements at issue about many fellow scientists, statisticians and other prominent figures, none of whom has sued him. Plaintiff is seeking to impose restraints on freedom of speech on political opponents and others who disagree with him that he himself does not abide by."
Aside from some indifferent grammar, this raises a defence which is not a defence (other people's action or inaction is not a defence for your action) by means of a fiction (that Mann has made the same statements, or worse, about others).
Shorter Steyn: Its okay for me to be mean to him, because he was mean to other people. So very lame...
FrankD
I always did think there was something seriously wrong with Steyn. None of this represents a departure from form for him, but one might have thought (until now) that it was all a show. The crazy runs deep in this one.
Barry Bickmore's blog has been flypaper for the fans of the crazy lately. Courtesy of his commenters, I see "CO2Science" has done a pricey professional-looking overhaul of their misinformation page.
You have some of the same commenters here.
Steyn appears to have failed to observe Rule One:
Don't Drink and Draft.
rspung:
You seem to be influenced by Climate Audit. I am a Canadian and am more ashamed of McIntyre than I am of Rob Ford.
Please get someone to read the Muir/Russell report to you. Pay carefull attention to the part where they agree that Figure 6.10 of the IPCC's AR4 is accurate.
The MBH is a part of figure 6.10. If this is not validatiom, what is?
Fraud: since this word has been raised, do any real* people disagree with an allegation that statistical fraud is an appropriate allegation against McIntyre's 100:1 cherrypick in MM05, i.e., see analyses by Deep Climate and Nick Stokes.
The numerous other statistical problems in MM05 might conceivably be defended as total incompetence, but if someone wants to defend the cherry-pick, they will review the R code (as I have) and explain how that explicit code was anything but deliberate fabrication to create the claim that MBH99 process created hockeystick from noise.
* Internet handles unattached to real people: why would one ever care?
I've followed this pretty closely and I watched Wegman testify before Congress, and considering what McIntyre has been up to lately, yes, I would say deliberate fraud. Ditto Wegman. At least Wegman had enough sense to shut up and lay low on this. McIntyre, not so much. I've come to the conclusion that he simply doesn't care about his reputation except with believers.
John Mashey,
IIRC, I think McIntyre's figure was included without any claim about it. He seems to have fashioned it to allow others to make claims about it. (Call it the Pecksniff Defense.)
Jeffrey:
see the May 11 2005 presentation by McIntyre & McKitrick for CEI & GMI, which also happens to be the "blueprint" for the Wegman Report, PPT file provide to Wegman ~Sept 2005 by Joe Barton's staffer Peter Spencer.
See
p.10: false citation, 1995
and the image itself did not actually come from IPCC(1990() either.
p.11 A use of Huang et al (1997) that Huang et al had effectively disclaimed by 1998.
p.12 A fabricated claim that Deming's infamous 2005 MWP quote in my favorite dog astrology journal actually came from Science in 1995. Oddly, McKitrick got that right in a similar talk a few weeks earlier for Australians, but by May, JSE changed to Science. Of course, the Deming piece hadn't actually been published yet by JSE, but just "prepublished" a few months before on Fred Singer's website.
p.13: "1998-1999 - Problem Solved"
Lamb(1965), or IPCC(1990) Fig. 7.1(c) was surrounded by caveats, and was long gone by MBH99 was invented in 1998 to dispell a then-current belief could be created by McI+McK. The evidnece is that neither of them had actually looked at either IPCC(1990) or IPCC(1995) at that point, given the false citation.
p.14 The instant consensus
Nonsense, anyone who actually knows even a little about the history and reads the various IPCC documents knows that IPCC(1990) showed there had been little serious effort to reconstruct global temperature history over the lat few thousand years, and people started a long serious of successively-better apprcximations, including Bradley & Jones(1993), used as IPCC Fig 3.20, which included both reconstruction *and* "Recent instrumental data for Northern Hemisphere summer temperature anomalies (over land and ocean are also plotted (thick line)."
p.17 Corrected version
Wrong.
p.18 4 of the selected graphs, claims '"detects" hockey sticks as dominant pattern (PC#1) even in red noise.'
Given DC's finds, I'd call that either deliberate fraud or total incompetence, since since it needed misapplication of PCA (only one PC), generated graphs with overlong persistence, and the noise was not simple red noise. Even that wasn't enough, McI had to use a 100:1 cherrypick.
===
Of course, the Adoration of the Lamb continues to this day.
Please, please, let this case get to discovery.
I brought this up over as Ms. Curry's blog and it took me exactly two posts to get banned, before I could even get a word in about your own expose' of the horrid situation.
obviously, nobody here has figured out what is going on in this case. let me spell it out for you. this is exactly what will happen in the case:
1. steyn did some research and discovered that mann lied about being "exonerated" by every investigation he cited in his original pleading.
2. steyn filed a countersuit, which locks mann into the case. previously, mann could withdraw or refuse to answer discovery requests (as he is currently doing in the tim ball case) if he saw things weren't going his way. no more.
3. discovery will continue, including depositions.
4. the defendants will then file another anti-slap motion (asm) that include new evidence showing mann misled the court about all of his phantom "exonerations". not only does this destroy mann's defense of the previous asm, it also destroys his libel case. without any "exonerations", it will be impossible for mann to show malice, and his libel case will become moot.
5. there will be a hearing on the asm. the judge will receive evidence that mann misled the court with regard to his "exonerations". since mann now has no defense against the asm, it will be granted.
6. mann's case will be dismissed. the judge will award the defendants cost and, depending on how angry he is with mann, punitive damages.
7. mann's reputation and career will disappear. it will be an exact repeat of what happened to ward Churchill and Michael belessiles. all careers of all three were destroyed by the deadly combination of dishonesty and out-of-control ego.
if any of you can provide evidence that casts doubt on this prediction, feel free. but i'm not interested in listening to fact-free bloviating. if you can link to one investigation that (a) examined mann's coding, equations, data usage and sources, in-depth and (b) specifically stated in its conclusions that mann's methods were sound and free of any defects, you win.
however, you're not going to find any. they simply don't exist. every investigation cited by mann either severely criticized his work or didn't examine it. NONE of them offered an explicit "exoneration" of mann's hockey stick graph.
mann is toast. game over. but eli's correct about one thing- the spectacle will definitely threaten the world's supply of popcorn! ha.
steyn did some research
Translation : Steve McIntrye is flailing around trying to cover his ass for the inevitable discovery.
Can I help you with the caps key?
I learned a long time ago to pay no attention to people like rspung who claim clairvoyance, especially when it comes to legal matters.
You know how to recognize the moment when deniers are being hit at a painful point ? They begin to shout "look ! a squirrel ! and Al Gore is fat !"
Happens everytime.
Bratisla
I, for one, really appreciate rspung's masterful "unskewing" of all the court docs and available evidence! Can you say "inside the bubble"...?
It's quite something to read the confident predictions and sweeping comments made on this topic on websites that need not be named by people who clearly have as much knowledge of the law as they do of the physical sciences.
rspung was kind enough to provide a representative sample.
I am not a lawyer but have read enough laws, regulations and judgements to realize that the law operates with its own largely consistent logic and adherence to a reasonably clear set of rules (even if by the standards of science they are often arbitrary).
Steyn has fallen back on the old legal cliche: "When you don’t have the law on your side, pound on the facts; when you don’t have the facts on your side, pound on the law; and when you don’t have either, pound on the table."
Anon-101a here:
"Shorter Steyn: Its okay for me to be mean to him, because he was mean to other people. So very lame..."
Na, it's even more laughable than that!
Shorter Steyn: It's OK for me to be mean to him because he was mean to other people, and for being mean to people HE deserves to pay me for being mean to him!
"Steyn has fallen back on the old legal cliche: "When you don’t have the law on your side, pound on the facts; when you don’t have the facts on your side, pound on the law; and when you don’t have either, pound on the table.""
Yes, but with your head!?
On the other Canadian front, see Roger McConchie on Mann vs Ball.
Now, some people may be unfamiliar with Roger McConchie:
1) See Canadain Libel and Slander Actions a 1000-page book on the topic. I own a copy. It's actually quite readable, with much good advice, including not pursuing libel cases unless eminently winnable. I learned a lot from studying it. Of course, real skeptics actually look for real experts and learn from them, rather than spouting nonsense about topics in which demonstrably lack even a whiff of expertise.
2) See McConchie Law, including Cyber Libel and Canadian Courts, with links to Canadian libel decisions.
3) It is also worth knowing that Roger is handling Andrew Weaver's cases against Ball and the NP.
But Tim Ball has big Slayers O'Sullivan & Schreuder with him ... great for moral support, but might not help much in Canadian court.
As Eli might say, popcorn futures look good.
well, I see nobody was able to offer any evidence that mann was telling the truth about any of his "exonerations". so far, mann has been caught lying about three "exonerations": the nas, oxburgh and muir Russell.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/there-he-goes-again-mann-claims-his.html
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/
it is pretty much a guarantee that he will get caught lying about the penn state "exonerations", because they never bothered to examine his data, coding, equations, sources or methodology.
as time goes by and discovery proceeds, more of the documentation will become established. it will be interesting to see if mann didn't mislead the court about ANY "exoneration".
like I said, feel free to offer any evidence supporting mann's claims. so far, it looks like all of you have come up dry.
shorter rspung : "the Black Knight is invincible !"
But please go on. You entertain us.
Bratisla
After reading the counterclaim, I'm not sure the judge will appreciate Steyn's poor attempts at "humour" found at some places in the document.
Especially when he has to crosscheck over one hundred of elements to understand what Steyn admits or denies. A sensible mind in this case likes to have information at its dryest level, not blurred in allusive sentences.
A competent lawyer would have been much more efficient. A pity no one wants to handle this case, I really wonder why if Mann "surely" will loose. After all, there must be "skeptic" lawyers somewhere willing to assist Steyn, no ?
bratisla
Bratisla
Whatever became of the lawyer Fred Singer used to squelch the expose' of his hounding of Revelle?
Could there be a method in the madness? Perhaps the Steyn strategy is to annoy the judge to the point where he visibly shows his displeasure. Any adverse ruling could then be explained/appealed as bias on the judge's part.
Are you thinking of the (quite successful) Microsoft Get Out Of Gaol Free method?
I.e. make the judge so pissed off they can't help but release the pent up frustration in public and then their expensive lawyers claim that the judge must recuse.
It's a hilarously expensive ruse, though. Your solicitors have to be willing to never work again and become a laughing stock in the legal trade.
A lifetime's wages for a team of lawyers doesn't come cheap.
Bratisla, the shorter rspung is "..."
rsprung, do you wear a bib to catch all the drool and spittle?
I sure hope you are the only one using your keyboard and monitor.
the number of lies mann used in court filings regarding "exonerations" is now up to five. investigations that mann falsely claimed "exonerated" him now include the nas, oxburgh, muir Russell, the uk commons committee and the uk dept of energy and climate change.
some investigations didn't even cover mann's activities, others covered him but severely criticized his data usage, data selection, methods, calculations and results.
links to the two newest documented lies are:
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/24/mann-misrepresents-the-uk-commons-committee/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/25/mann-misrepresents-the-uk-department-of-energy-and-climate-change/
in addition, steyn posted a great column this morning, outlining numerous criticisms of mann by his fellow global warming believers. all their comments were made on an sks forum. here are some of them:
Robert Way:
I don't mean to be the pessimist of the group here but Mc brought up some very good points about the original hockeystick. The confidence affirmed to it by many on our side of the debate was vastly overstated and as has been shown in the recent literature greater variability on the centennial scale exists than was shown. The statistical methodology used by Mann did rely too much on tree rings which still are in debate over their usefulness to reconstruct temperature and particularly their ability to record low-frequency temperature variations. I've personally seen work that is unpublished that challenges every single one of his reconstructions because they all either understate or overstate low-frequency variations.
Even his newest reconstruction doesn't validate past 1400 if you don't include disputed series (which I have no idea why he's including them at all).
Neal King of UC Berkeley:
The real question is, Why would you believe the tree-ring proxies at earlier times when you KNOW that they didn't work properly in the 1990s?
John Cook:
I have to tell you that you should warn those doing that particular one to stay away from Mann's 2008 paper if they take this topic as it seems it has actually been invalidated by climate audit (as much as I hate to admit it they are right about the issue of the study failing verification statistics past 1500 for one)
Without even bothering to get on top of all the back and forth about statistical and mathematical methods used by Mann, isn't it a simple matter that, regardless of any legitimate academic doubts about aspects of a scientist's work, it is one thing to say that a scientist's results are in error, but another thing to say that it is fraudulent.
I presume National Review's defence is the essentially the same that it first ran when it publicly told Mann to "get lost": that "fraudulent" in context does not have its dictionary meaning:
"In common polemical usage, “fraudulent” doesn’t mean honest-to-goodness criminal fraud. It means intellectually bogus and wrong. I consider Mann’s prospective lawsuit fraudulent. Uh-oh. I guess he now has another reason to sue us."
It was crazy for them to double down on this in the way they did.
The true context is that we already know from the blogosphere that a large percentage of the climate change denying crowd do consider Mann "fraudulent" in the full, dictionary sense, and their belief has obviously come from their interpretation of the writings of the likes of McIntyre, Monckton, and other contrarians, including Steyn.
For National Review and Steyn to think that they could be safe from losing on defamation by arguing something like "well, maybe when our readers call him 'fraudulent', they mean it in the full sense. But Mann shouldn't take our use of 'fraudulent' to mean he really is 'fraudulent'" just shows they have no common sense.
steve, if mann's errors were only mistakes that would be one thing.
but there is a ton of evidence that mann knew he was improperly using data. for one thing, some of the tree ring data he used came from a source that specifically stated the data was not to be used for temperature reconstructions.
another example is how he consciously made the choice to use tree rings that gave "hockey stick" shapes but he didn't use tree rings that didn't give "hockey stick" shapes. and i'm talking about tree rings that were in the same data set.
there are many more examples of him improperly combining data to create the graph. the documentation of the deceptive methods he used is available if you want to read it. if you can't find it, let me know and I will look up some examples and link them.
Please spare me, I read the peer reviewed literature and some very good gray literature as well.
You're a delusional idiot. And I mean that in a generous way.
prove i'm wrong.
oh wait, you can't.
By all means, buy yourself a full page spread in the New York Times and bring this matter to Dr. Mann's immediate attention. Or better yet, publish! Try Pattern Recognition in Physics, I hear they are under new ownership.
excellent response. evidently, you have nothing.
thanks for confirming it.
Not really, as the gold standard of the gray literature on this subject I cite Deep Climate, Tamino and Mashey. It will all come out in discovery, so no worries there. You guys can legislate yourselves back to the dark as far as I'm concerned.
awesome, three blogs. well, you're right. that's DEFINITELY the gold standard.
i'll bet they even have all those missing "exonerations" nobody can find. lol...
Anon-101a here:
" 25/2/14 5:51 PM
Blogger rspung said...
prove i'm wrong."
Wrong about what?
Mann has been cleared multiple times. Here's one:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-muir-russell-report/comment-page-2/?wpmp_switcher=mobile&wpmp_tp=1
"Investigations that mann falsely claimed "exonerated" him now include the nas"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/comment-page-2/?wpmp_switcher=mobile
"oxburgh,"
???
" muir Russell,"
See above
"the uk commons committee"
http://www.desmogblog.com/phil-jones-exonerated-british-house-commons
"and the uk dept of energy and climate change."
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf
Is about CRU. Not Mann and the Hockey Stick.
Mr. Sprung, in America you are allowed to express any opinion or belief you wish, but we are also allowed to disrespect them. In science and mathematics, we are given clear evidence to back up our expressions of disrespect. So suck it up.
Deep Climate, Tamino and Mashey gives me everything I need to know to freely express my opinions about Curry, McIntrye, Lindzen, Christy, Wegman, etc and their band of cranks and deniers. That's because I know a little bit about calculus, multilinear algebra, physics, signal processing and statistics. It doesn't take much.
You are a delusional freak. Sue me.
thomas, I am a chemical engineer with a degree from the highest ranked undergraduate engineering school in the states. I was awarded u.s. patent #5348662 several years ago. in high school my sat score was about 1400 and my act score was 32.
so I know a little bit about calculus, multilinear algebra, chemistry, physics and statistics as well.
and anyone who uses the term "delusional freak" towards a person who supports every argument with a citation proving the veracity of his verbiage, is, by definition, an incredibly dense fool.
but if that's your preferred style of discussion, you can keep it. i'll stick with stating the facts and backing them up.
the insults and the holier-than-thou attitude only confirm how small of an individual you really are.
have a nice day.
Anon-101a here:
"thomas, I am a chemical engineer"
So you say.
However, not only do we only have your word for that, you already believe that it is common for people to lie and cheat and fake stuff in science to get grants, so we know you can salve your conscience with "But everyone else is doing it" and lie to us.
So you're really not making any case at all here.
"so I know a little bit about calculus, multilinear algebra, chemistry, physics and statistics as well."
Not enough, though, for the purposes of discerning what's going on here in the face of your political bias and outlook.
Indeed you're setting yourself up as a false authority here.
"and anyone who uses the term "delusional freak" towards a person who supports every argument with a citation proving the veracity of his verbiage"
Except that you haven't managed that, you've managed citations that, as usual for deniers, doesn't do as you claim it does.
Evident belief that you have is why "delusional freak" is apt and deserved for you, springy.
lol...
https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/14517_10202765225999084_205245234_n.jpg
http://www.google.com/patents/US5348662
you are laughable. when I link proof backing up what I said about mann lying about "exonerations", you refused to read the link and then incorrectly claimed the link said the opposite of what it said.
all you had to do was stop throwing grade-school level insults for 60 seconds ("springy"? hahaha) and read the verbiage in the link, which was nothing more than a direct quotation of the contents of investigation's report (with a link to verify the truth of what was said).
you are the most ridiculously dishonest person I've ever met.
were you looking in the mirror when you typed the word "delusional"? if you had been, it would be the most accurate thing you've ever said, by far.
Anon-101a here:
"when I link proof backing up what I said about mann lying about "exonerations""
When those links do not back up your claims on these exonerations having to have quotation marks around them, you do not get to keep pretending they help your case.
All you have to do is actually read for yourself the offical reports and what Mann says of them, as opposed to getting all your thoughts second or third hand from blogrolls that pander to your bigotries.
"When those links do not back up your claims..."
ah, but they do. every link says exactly what I said and you will never be able to prove any link I use does not back up my claims.
go ahead and try. and it is impossible for a blog to "pander to my bigotries" when the blog is quoting both mann and the report verbatim.
it is amazing the lengths you will go to, to avoid dealing with such an easy and transparent process.
Anon-101a here:
PS patents should be for novel and unique things not things obvious extensions of other people's work.
Nowhere is there any indication you "know a little bit about calculus, multilinear algebra, chemistry, physics and statistics as well" to enough to make claims on the subject as you have been doing.
So, please, get back to me with an ACTUAL INVENTION. Not a bloody "process patent".
PS Pat Michaels has many qualifications, none of which stopped him lying to congress under oath. So, again, why should your claims be considered true and valid merely because it's you who claim them with "a prestigious engineering degree"?
Anon-101a here:
""When those links do not back up your claims..."
ah, but they do."
No they don't. None of those links gave evidence that the exonerations were "non-exonerations" of Michael Mann's work on the hockey stick, the claim you make of them.
Stop reading blogrolls of filth, read the actual raw data.
awesome. so your strategy is to ignore all links I provide, stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and scream "no!"
because that's exactly what you are doing. every link is verbatim. every investigation I referenced either did not include mann (and didn't even mention him in the report) or found fault with his data handling, data sourcing, methods and/or results.
every single one. and the proof is right there.
go ahead and remain in denial and delusion. i'm not going to bother with you any more.
you are obviously not interested in the truth and you are mot worth any more of my time.
Anon-101a here:
"awesome. so your strategy is to ignore all links I provide"
Nope, I went to the actual sources rather than click on the "first google link" which goes to a denier blog *talking* about what it says.
This is how you do actual research.
I realise someone whose proudest work is a rehash of a process thousands of others did before probably hasn't actually done a lot of actual research, but this is what *real* scientists do.
Go read the raw stuff, don't just accept some claptrap blog's opinion on it.
Anon-101a here:
"every investigation I referenced either did not include mann (and didn't even mention him in the report)"
Except there are billions of reports worldwide and through the entire history of recorded time that do not mention you.
However, not one of us has had the idiocy to claim this proves you a bad person.
Admittedly, your actions here have been enough to do that, so a claim could be made that it was for reasons of paucity of necessity rather than any actual moral superiority.
rspung:
"so I know a little bit about calculus, multilinear algebra, chemistry, physics and statistics as well."
But not law. Which explains everything …
Anon-101a here:
Quote:
+++
The North Report concluded "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries", justified by consistent evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies, but "Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600".[165] It broadly agreed with the basic findings of the original MBH studies which had subsequently been supported by other reconstructions and proxy records, while emphasising uncertainties over earlier periods.[166] The contested principal component analysis methodology had a small tendency to bias results so was not recommended, but it had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results.[167][168]
+++
Or read the report for yourself:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676
Anon-101a here:
He may know a little about them, but that neither indicates he's exercising his knowledge, nor that he knows enough to make the claims he does.
Facts he desperately avoids facing.
@rspung:
You guys just love to project, don'cha? Even though McIntyre has all his sycophants convinced that Mann is a fraud, It's McI that's really the fraud, as well demonstrated here:
Replication and due diligence, Wegman style
The supposedly masterful statistician Wegman based all of the statistics for the report on work done by Steve McIntyre without bothering to actually check his work first.
The whole mess was a politically motivated stitch-up of Mann from the get go. And it was used as the basis for Wegman to testify before congress. He should be done for perjury.
For the record, McIntyre made two fundamental statistical errors in his stitch-up of Mann:
1. He used Mann's data that *had climate signal in it* to generate his so-called "trendless red noise".
2. He over-cooked the noise so much that it rendered his simulations useless for PCA purposes.
And then he also did something extremely disingenuous, which is where the fraud aspect comes in: he cherry-picked the top 100 most hockey-sticked shaped PCs from his 10,000 simulations, and presented that 1% cherry-pick as representative of what Mann's PCA method produced.
And Wegman missed all that. Some 'masterful' statistician he is, huh? Or, was it *intentional*?
So every time you guys whinge that 'hockey stick is brokennnnn!!!", I'm going to rub this in your face. Sick of it.
John, Eli is a bit uncomfortable with that.
I agree.
No good can come from deniers attempting to learn anything from legitimate sources.
I mean, who's liable when their head explodes?
check:
I've offered similar recommendations to many others, whether they seemed strong pseudoskeptics or not, and from experience, some are willing to learn. Of course, any onlookers are to be encourages to do the same, and the general advice is not as useful as the specific.
Some people are indeed lucky enough to live near enough schools with strong climate science departments where one can interact with experts, a very useful complement to reading books and papers. "Figure out who the experts are and go talk to them" was something encouraged on first job after school.
well, another day, another mann lie exposed. the number of investigations mann lied to the court about remains at five, but there are some new developments:
mann now admits that the nas investigation did NOT "exonerate" him. the findings of the nas investigation are summarized here:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/there-he-goes-again-mann-claims-his.html
the nas investigation is interesting in that it states he used fraudulent data (strip bark data is widely accepted as unusable for temperature reconstruction), his analysis was flawed (pca tends to bias the shape of reconstructions) and the chairman of the nas panel testified before congress that mann's methodology was "bad mathematics". furthermore, the nas concluded that mann underestimated the uncertainties in the data, the hockey stick had no statistical significance and mann's methods had no validation skill.
the latest investigation mann lied to the court about is the one conducted by the NOAA Office of Inspector General (OIG). in fact, the noaa's scope was limited to activities of its employees and mann never worked for them. compounding his dishonesty, mann deliberately misquoted the noaa oig's findings to the court to make it appear that their statement of finding "no evidence of inappropriate manipulation of data" applied to mann, when it was obvious from the actual quote that it did not. details available here:
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/27/mann-misrepresents-noaa-oig/
so far the list of investigations mann misled the court about includes the oxburgh panel, the first muir Russell inquiry, the uk commons committee, the uk dept of energy/climate change and the noaa oig.
I will add more details to the list when they become available.
and, of course, my offer to all of you still stands: if you can supply proof and a factual source that any of my statements here are untrue, I will gladly admit that you are correct. to help you with your research, here are links to the five investigation reports discussed so far:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/crustatements/sap
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
http://www.climateaudit.info/proceedings/inquiries/uk%20parliamentary%20scitech%20committee/387i.pdf
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf
http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/Response-to-Sen.-James-Inhofe's-Request-to-OIG-to-Examine-Issues-Related-to-Internet-Posting-of-Email-Exchanges.aspx
Our dear unsprung,
I'd submit that the proofs of Mann's "exoneration" as you put it are that he is not the subject of any ongoing investigations into the allegations of fraud against him; the various inquiries that you dispute took no adverse actions against him; he remains a distinguished professor in good standing; he is still very highly regarded among his peers (with very few exceptions who have clear biases); his work is frequently cited and has been repeatedly supported by independent studies; he continues to receive funding and publish research; and there is no case against him to answer for.
Your insistence on citing a hodgepodge of denialist (or if you prefer, pseudoskeptic) blogs among your references to back up your ridiculous claims against Dr. Mann only serves to confirm your ignorance and that you have a highly biased interpretation of what is a closed case. If you have some substantial complaints against Dr. Mann, bring them up with the institutions which have the authority to do something about it, sue him, or find a journal stupid enough to publish your rubbish allegations. Your claims have as much relevance or importance as a fly buzzing in an outhouse. You're simply an ignorant, annoying fool, Chem. E. degree notwithstanding.
Taylor B
Looks like rspung desperately wants his own day in court. After all, why else make the claim that "the nas investigation is interesting in that it states he used fraudulent data".
Of course, rspung gets his information from serial liar John O'Sullivan, whose involvement with Tim Ball caused the latter much problems when O'Sullivan misrepresented his legal qualifications.
Marco
the "proofs" cited by taylor are not "proofs" of anything. I asked for "proofs" of his "exoneration" by the investigations he claimed "exonerated" him. nothing said in the comment has any meaning in that regard.
the insults spewed by marco are laughable. nothing I wrote or linked to came from either Sullivan or ball. that much is obvious to anyone who actually took the time to READ WHAT I WROTE.
I notice that both comments since my latest post are full of immature name-calling.
from here on out, if you cannot discuss this issue with me like a mature, rational, educated adult, then you are automatically disqualified from the conversation and I will not acknowledge anything you say.
I have not used disrespectful language towards anyone on this comment thread and I expect the same courtesy from anyone who wants to engage with me.
If you act like an eight-year-old, you will be treated like one and sent out of the room while the adults talk amongst themselves.
on the other hand, if you think I am wrong about anything THAT I WROTE ON THIS COMMENT THREAD, feel free to post facts and a verified source to show where I made any mistake ON ANYTHING I WROTE ON THIS COMMENT THREAD.
see how easy that is?
Our dear unsprung,
As I said, if you have a case against Dr. Mann, feel free to bring it. The facts I stated are as clear a set of proofs as any that could be provided. You're asking for "proof" that Dr. Mann has stopped beating his wife. There are no standing allegations against Dr. Mann of any merit whatsoever. He is as free as any citizen on this planet can be. If that doesn't meet your personal definition of exoneration, that's your problem, not Dr. Mann's or ours. Stamping your feet and ranting like an uneducated twit only earns you the lack of respect you deserve.
Taylor B
"As I said, if you have a case against Dr. Mann, feel free to bring it."
there is already a case against mann and it has already been brought. it's the subject of the blog post above. and that's why I am here, commenting on it.
"He is as free as any citizen on this planet can be."
no, he sued four parties, and he is currently being countersued by one of the parties for $20 million dollars. there is ongoing litigation occurring.
i'm done with you now. you had two chances and you used both of them to throw insults. bye.
"there is already a case against mann and it has already been brought. it's the subject of the blog post above. and that's why I am here, commenting on it."
Just highlighting the best part of rsprung comment. The one that finally gave me the keys to understand rspung's comments.
Popcorn is disappearing too fast - someone has spare for the moment when Steyn's delirious claims for reparation damages up to $ 10 millions ?
bratisla
"...of any merit whatsoever."
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Taylor B
Anon-101a here:
"there is already a case against mann and it has already been brought..."
Scores have been brought. To nothing. There's no reason why this one (whatever it is: you can sue for ANYTHING in the USA, even if it's a load of codswallop) will do any different.
Meanwhile, note the discrepancy.
Steyn is being bullied because he's told lies, but "in his opinion", ergo, since it's opinion, it's free speech.
But Mann's work is, in his opinion, correct, so surely all this shitstorm denier morons are raising against him are an attack on free speech.
Anon-101a here:
"the "proofs" cited by taylor are not "proofs" of anything. "
IN YOUR OPINION.
However, to the rest of the world, they are.
Live with it.
Worried about bloated budgets, declining industrial competitiveness, and citizen backlash, European nations have been retreating from green energy for the last four years. Spain slashed solar subsidies in 2009 and photovoltaic sales fell 80 percent in a single year. Germany cut subsidies in 2011 and 2012 and the number of jobs in the German solar industry dropped by 50 percent. Renewable subsidy cuts in the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom added to the cascade.
Spending on renewables is in decline. From a record $318 billion in 2011, world renewable energy spending fell to $280 billion in 2012 and then fell again to $254 billion in 2013, according to Bloomberg. The biggest drop occurred in Europe, where investment plummeted 41 percent last year. The 2013 expiration of the US Production Tax Credit for wind energy will continue the downward momentum.
Today, wind and solar provide less than one percent of global energy
http://www.commdiginews.com/environment/renewable-energy-in-decline-less-than-1-of-global-energy-11004/
"However, to the rest of the world, they are."
lol, what have you been smoking? mann's hockey stick was dropped by the ipcc and al gore. dozens of leading climate researchers and spokespeople are criticizing his work and erratic behavior. he is a laughingstock on twitter after having to publicly apologize to Andrew bolt. hundreds of peer-reviewed, published papers dispute his hockey stick work. several investigations found numerous deficiencies in his hockey stick methods. and world governments around the globe are rejecting his call for more renewable energy.
Anon-101a here:
"Worried about bloated budgets"
Yeah, I am.
Like the 1/5 trillion dollars handed out to the fossil fuel industry after the crash in 2008.
Anon-101a here:
" mann's hockey stick was dropped by the ipcc and al gore. "
Yeah, right. They used more recent graphs that show the same thing, spring.
Scientists, unlike you deniers, move on when there's newer data, rather than keep banging on about decade old proven science.
Anon-101a:
You ought to know by now that some people would rather use third-hand cherry picks filtered through pseudoskeptic blogs ... than actually go meet the scientists they think they are quoting and see what they think.
Funny, I never see these folks at AGU... Sauron-class Morton's Demons. Sigh. It's really too bad.
"Funny, I never see these folks at AGU"
Evidently, you're not paying attention. Anthony Watts is a member and attends every year.
"They used more recent graphs that show the same thing"
impossible. accurate graphs show the mwp and lia. that's why the hockey stick had been discredited.
Please send us a link to the abstract of his paper just the second he submits it, ok? Thanks.
I thought you said you were done.
I said I was done with YOU.
rspung tells nothing but lies:
"hundreds of peer-reviewed, published papers dispute his hockey stick work"
Prove me wrong, list a few of these papers so we can critique them.
Oh my! Well good luck with your quest, I'm sure you will garner many fans. Probably not too many bunnies, but that's your problem isn't it.
only a fool issues an accusation before he knows the facts.
mann's hockey stick claims the mwp and lia did not exist world-wide. hundreds of papers prove the mwp DID exist world-wide. a depository of some, but not all, papers is here:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
the mwp has been thoroughly documented in Europe, North and South America, Africa, Australia, Antarctica and Asia.
in other words, on every continent. I tell nothing but the truth and I back up everything I say with hard evidence. the only liars here are people like you who spew garbage without bothering to do any research.
Er ... it's a graph. A visual expression and representation of the data. I'm not aware it made any claims, that would require it to be some kind of animated being. In fact I'm pretty sure these kinds of things are presented to allow you to make your own interpretation, which you certainly have in this case.
Rspung, Uh, dude, look at some of those papers--the times of warming are not contemporaneous. So no, the MWP was not global. Own goooooooaaaaaallllll!
Uh, dude, they all took place during the mwp. Own goooooooooooooooal!!!!
rspung says: "only a fool issues an accusation before he knows the facts."
Then gives us this link: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Obviously rspung doesn't follow his own advice - only a fool would believe anything on the CO2 Science site. I followed one branch of this denialist cesspool Cold Air Cave, Makapansgat Valley, South Africa, it's the typical twisting of words, handwaving, taking valid science and abusing (some might say torturing) the evidence.
For instance we are told: "Peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period was as much as 2.5°C warmer than the Current Warm Period (AD 1961-1990 mean). Yeah, I see a peak of about 2.5C around 900 AD, but by many reckonings that's actually *outside* the timeframe for the MWP. On the otherhand, I see a dip around 1100 AD that's *below* the 1961-1990 mean - and 1100 AD is by every reckoning I've seen during the MWP.
Oh, BTW - that graph *is not* from the actual paper. It's another of the infamous 'based on' graphs. Notice how they write MWP right above the 900 AD peak. Hmmm, but wasn't the MWP from 950 to 1250 AD (wikipedia), or 900 to 1300 (Mann) or a range of some??? years. Why didn't they write MWP above the 1100 AD dip?? An attempt to confuse, mislead, or otherwise shade the truth?? No, tell me it ain't so.
What the data on this chart shows is that temperatures widely varied at this location over the several centuries collectively known as the MWP. It does not support a thesis that the MWP was global in nature.
Nice fail rspung. Next time you ought to check the facts before sending us on a wild goose chase.
lol, 900 ad is not outside the mwp. you just admitted it. and the temperatures fluctuated during the mwp just like they did during every several hundred year time frame.
and you're mad because they labeled a peak at 900 ad as occurring during the mwp, even while you admit the mwp started right around that time?
that's the weakest attempt at debunking I've ever seen. you took one paper out of hundreds, admitted it was accurate and used it to claim... what?
somethingsomethingsomething???
and then you accuse me of failing, because you found something that confirms what I said.
and to top it off, you're mad because a study done in south Africa didn't confirm the mwp was global. well, duh. the papers are grouped according to where their geographical subject area was. their totality confirms the mwp was a period when temps equal to, or higher than, today occurred all over the globe.
You've totally convinced me, carbon dioxide is not an infrared active greenhouse gas. So pass the koolaide and crackers, cudos all around.
Watts attended this year as a member of the press. The AGU comped him. He was not grateful. - Eli
Anon-101a here:
"only a fool issues an accusation before he knows the facts."
So when you've found and understood the facts, come back to us, eh?
"mann's hockey stick claims the mwp and lia did not exist world-wide."
Well, since the fact is that this is a complete lie, you need to wait until you come back with the facts.
"the mwp has been thoroughly documented in Europe, North and South America, Africa, Australia, Antarctica and Asia."
At the same time?
No.
Please learn the facts.
"I tell nothing but the truth and I back up everything I say with hard evidence."
Nope, you parrot what you've been told by liars is the truth and you've credulously believed every word of it. Your hard evidence would require a link to the original sources, NOT to a blogroll co2science.
Anon-101a here:
"lol, 900 ad is not outside the mwp"
Since that must be a reading of this statement
"I see a peak of about 2.5C around 900 AD"
From a misunderstanding of the English language, I think you deserve a LOL here.
"that's the weakest attempt at debunking I've ever seen"
Because he didn't link to a blogroll but the actual papers supposedly (but not in actuality) included in the co2science fraudulent proposition?
Anon-101a here:
""They used more recent graphs that show the same thing"
impossible."
Nope, it's true. just because you wish to believe it's impossible for the MWP to be smaller than the current warming and that it's only "possible" to disprove MBH98/99 doesn't mean reality agrees with your demands.
Anona0191a gere:
unsprung says "and to top it off, you're mad because a study done in south Africa didn't confirm the mwp was global"
Uh, you seem to be the one with a problem that the MWP wasn't found global, dearie.
rspung - yes, the *paper* is accurate - in fact I linked to it (more than either you or the CO2 Science site did, perhaps because I actually read it). The interpretation of it - by you and the CO2 Science website - is inaccurate.
The thesis of a global MWP is not supported by one spike at 900 AD followed by decreasing temperatures for several centuries. As I pointed out some sources don't even *start* the MWP until 950 AD. For those using the wikipedia definition the 900 AD spike isn't even relevant.
One paper out of one. CO2S (and you by proxy) are batting 1000 in the disinformation game. Do you want me to pick another? What do you think the odds are I'll find the same game being played. I'm guessing the probability is 100%.
Overlay the CET graph for the MWP and the Coldair Cave graph and tell me the correlation.
Argh. Travel for a day and things get crazy.
1) Watts @ AGU (with his case labeled W U W T in big letters); although he is Emperor or WUWT, in the real world, AGU scientists don't care, and I guess he was unhappy about that.
2) MWP, whatever and whenever it was:
a) Was warmer than the post-Roman centuries and the LIA, for which Bill Ruddiman has a pretty good explanation: humans diddled CO2/CH4 to raise it well beyond where it would have been naturally and then drop it ~9ppm (followed by volcanoes and Maunder Minimum, hence LIA ... especially noticeable in areas where snow-albedo feedback might matter, like N. Europe.)
b) Every credible reconstruction, including MBH99 has a MWP and LIA, although reconstructions differ in part because one *ought* to get different curves from 30-90degN, 23.5-90degN, NH, NH+SH ... and people don't read the fine print.
c) MBH99 and IPCC TAR's use of the graph had a sloping regression line. The cover of Montford's book misrepresented it by drawing it horizontal. I wonder of that was fraudulent or merely total incompetence?
d) But, most (pseudoskeptic) dismissives cling to Lamb(1965), i.e., sketch of a tiny fraction of the Earth, caveated in IPCC(1990) and long gone by IPCC(1995). Hence, anyone who says MBH99 made the MWP go away really means:
they believe in a sketch from 50 years ago, and no amount of research since that will convince them that that flat-earth map is anything but Eternal Truth.
Well, TX is pretty flat, but fortunately, TX has some pretty good scientists who know better :-)
3) But, Dunning-Kruger is everywhere. For fun but be polite if you comment, see discussion on Amazon review of Salby's book. That's 100 comments into a bizarre discussion.
Briefly, 2 Dunning-Kruger afflictees are appalled at the review, assert Salby's greatness and correctness of all he says. Gavin Cawley (@ UEA and well-published, see Google Scholar) patiently tries to lead them through a reasoned analysis. They squirm, issue insults, including to Gavin's mustache,
One writes a polemic, then edits most of it away, not realizing that anyone who followed it would have gotten an email copy. The other (who has mostly reviewed DVDs @ Amazon) posts his (not overly-strong on relevant science) college transcript and says he will not debate with anyone who doesn't post their transcripts.
Neither seems to have Googled Salby lately. :-)
https://twitter.com/USthermophysics/status/442819692013445120/photo/1/large
hahahahahaha
climate temperature prediction models are hopelessly broken, fictional pieces of bullshit. every year they get further from reality.
In contrast, the denialist models...oh, wait, you guys don't have models because you don't bother with science.
Here's a revelation, spunghole, there are no "climate temperature prediction models". There are models of Earth's climate. Come visit our planet come day, and we'll show them to you.
What I find fascinating about cranks like spung who know nothing at all about a subject is that they don't realize that people who do know about it can tell.
I know plenty about it. the problem is, you can't rebut my criticisms, so you have to resort to name-calling instead.
"In contrast, the denialist models...oh, wait, you guys don't have models because you don't bother with science."
lol, that's a completely ridiculous statement. why should we try to model temperatures, when we know there is naturally unpredictable variance?
"Here's a revelation, spunghole, there are no "climate temperature prediction models". There are models of Earth's climate."
...that predict temperatures. you are an incredibly stupid person.
Richard, models are math based computer programs that run on deterministic von Neumann machines.
At most they round off numbers. Models, like computer programs and computing machines, are tools for human understanding. Whether you are able to understand or choose to try and understand is totally up to you.
I understand that. but models are only as good as the assumptions and weightings programmed into them and the data they receive. and when the models have a 100% failure rate, it is obvious that they need to be overhauled and redesigned to better understand the phenomenon they are trying to quantify.
I find it particularly disgusting that the agw crowd simultaneously claims the science is settled while being hopelessly unable to quantify the science behind climate fluctuations.
it smacks of arrogance, insecurity, a lack of understanding of the subject matter and hubris.
a little humility would go a long way on the part of the global warming crowd when faced with criticisms of their failures. instead, what generally happens is a lot of bullshit insulting and holier-than-thou crawfishing.
mann is a textbook example. it is completely incomprehensible why so many of you need to blindly support his obvious failings. if you admitted his dishonesty and his data torturing and his fraudulent methodology, you would not be conceding one inch of ground on whether agw is a valid theory.
just because one bad actor is called to account for his horrible behavior does not destroy the entire industry or the entire concept of agw.
in fact, it can strengthen the integrity of the agw work products, by purging the bad actor so he doesn't continue being a distraction from the work being done.
" if you admitted his dishonesty and his data torturing and his fraudulent methodology, you would not be conceding one inch of ground on whether agw is a valid theory."
Yeah, sure you believe that...that's why one 15-yr old paper on an obscure topic like dendrochronology is so important to you, because you think it doesn't matter.
How ironic that the one clearly correct thing you have said on this thread you have said as a lie! That paper does not matter to the case for AGW, but you do in fact think it does.
but models are only as good as the assumptions and weightings programmed into them
Those are generally described as physics and equations of physics. What that has to do with Mann's work is only imagined by your feverish mind. You are flailing around and by doing so publicly you are revealing your profound misunderstandings of science. Mann's data manipulations are in the realm of linear algebra and statistical analysis and most of those equations come in the form of theorems with are rigorously proven results. What you have said so far around here only shows me that you aren't following the math very well, nor even the physics.
Post a Comment