In the comments at Pro Se, Eli read what Rob wrote
The issue is that Steyn et al published articles stating that Mann's work was fraudulent. That requires understanding the actual research.Well, not quite, the ACLU and those that joined with them said that it was Steyn's opinion and opinion has no requirement to conform to reality. Still and Eli wondered where he had heard that before. Oh yes
Steyn is trying to claim that free speech means he can say absolutely anything he likes. It's even been stated by the ACLU that Steyn's writing cannot possibly be construed as having any basis in reality. But you, yourself, are ample evidence that is incorrect. YOU have actually come to believe that Mann's work is fraudulent in spite of the fact that numerous investigations and subsequent research have shown otherwise.
That is the very heart of the libel case.
Bjorn Lomborg as the Wikipedia puts it
They demurred, on the grounds that the outcome would be the same.In January, 2003, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) released a ruling that sent a mixed message, finding the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question. That February, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD's decision, with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which had oversight over the DCSD. In December, 2003, the Ministry annulled the decision made by DCSD, citing procedural errors, including lack of documentaion of errors in the book, and asked the DCSD to re-examine the case.
The problem is that this
ReplyDeleteSteyn's writing cannot possibly be construed as having any basis in reality
... is NOT true. Playing spot the false premise is a sort of a game.
The effect is that Mann is damaged.
That it is not a matter of something he has done and IS a matter of what Steyn and NR have said about him, makes it libel and therefore necessary for the court to rebuke them.
Whether this pig will get airborne is another question entirely :-)
The question is whether the credibility of Mann's work has been diminished by Mark's cruel but scarcely unusual fantasy writing.
ReplyDeleteScant damage to personal repute is done by fantasy writers because in the long run their disconnect from the historical record leaves them with only fatasists and true believers as fans.
Which is why lawbooks are full of cases in which libel perps are found guilty and ordered to pay a shilling in damages atop a mountain of cout costs.
...the Ministry annulled the decision made by DCSD, citing procedural errors, including lack of documentaion of errors in the book, and asked the DCSD to re-examine the case.
ReplyDeleteThey demurred, on the grounds that the outcome would be the same.
It would be a bit late to restart now anyway. The field is crowded. Two of the more comprehensive entries:
The Lomborg errors website
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
The Lomborg Deception
http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300161038
This is the passage I was referring to...
ReplyDelete"The language of the commentaries similarly confirms that they are opinions. They describe Mann variously as “unscientific” and “the ringmaster of a tree-ring circus” and compare him metaphorically to both Jerry Sandusky and Bernie Madoff. And they criticize the official reviews of his methods, using terms like “scandal,” “whitewash,” “cover up,” and “Climategate.” No one reading these pieces would reasonably understand them to be fact-based news reporting." [emphasis added]
It seems to me readers of Steyn, NR and CEI actually do believe such claims to be fact-based news reporting.
OTOH it is mighty peculiar that no less than Kofi Annan rewarded the presiding judge in this self-appointed scientific Star Chamber, a Swedish prison warden whose metier is Balkan traditional law, with an ad litem appointment as a World Court judge--
ReplyDeleteSome revolving doors turn left instead of right
Magma links to The Lomborg errors website. I had to click through page after page of shrill ad hominem rhetoric to find six examples of errors. They all involved long convoluted minutia that required paragraph length summaries. Can anyone give me any succinct criticisms of Lomborg comparable to these:
ReplyDelete> Michael Mann omitted adverse R squared results.
> Mann used the Gaspe series twice.
> Mann extended the Start of the Gaspe series by four years so he could include it in a calculation.
> Mann did not disclose his modification of Principle Component Analysis.
> Mann forwarded Phil Jones request to delete emails.
> Mann referred to himself as a Nobel prize winner.
Canman
ReplyDeleteIf your reading of the Lomborg errors website didn't persuade you that Lomborg's work is profoundly flawed and misleading, they you are beyond the reach of reasoned discourse.
Michael Mann is not a proxy for the entire field of climate science. Attacking an obsolete study is an exercise in the rhetoric of misdirection.
To summarise: Lomborg is discredited and Mann is irrelevant.
Here is Lombord being caught repeating Julian Simon's untruth about the Schneider quote:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.plos.org/retort/2013/08/13/a-correction-on-lomborg-and-schneiders-quotation/
"No one reading these pieces would reasonably understand them to be fact-based news reporting."
ReplyDeleteI'll that as a general disclaimer for the NR.
Here is Lomborg being caught misrepresenting the IPCC about sea level:
ReplyDelete> As a lead author of the last IPCC report, I find it gratifying that Bjørn Lomborg sings the praise of the "careful work" of the "hugely respected" IPCC. However, Lomborg misrepresents what we wrote in the report. It did not conclude that sea level will stay within the bounds of 18-59 cm by 2100. Rather, effects of sliding ice will come on top of this, which are too hard to predict to give an upper limit. So the IPCC forecast is 18-59 cm plus an unknown extra rise.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/09/climate-change-copenhagen
Here is Richard Tol being caught with a Gremlins invasion:
ReplyDeletehttp://andrewgelman.com/2014/05/23/gremlins-iffy-statistics-drive-strong-policy-recommendations/
Lomborg's policy recommendations and Senate testimonies are based on a consensus of Gremlins.
Here is Lomborg caught entrapping himself in an interesting clique:
ReplyDelete> Table 1 presents the number of citations of selected authors. Lomborg has multiple citations to several well-known climate skeptics, but none to the work of many of the best-known climate scientists. While stating in the text that there is no consensus on the relationship between hurricanes and climate change, Lomborg cites 11 works by Roger Pielke Jr., a leading figure on one side of the debate, and none from Kerry Emanuel, a leading scientist on the other side. A similar bias appears in the treatment of economics, heavily favoring those whose analyses call for doing very little, while ignoring those whose analyses support doing a lot about climate change. This one-sided bibliography refutes Lomborg’s claim to provide an authoritative summary of the state of knowledge about climate change.
http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Ackerman_CoolIt.pdf