Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Pro Se CEI NR Michael Mann


So Eli went down to the DC Court of Appeals to listen to CEI and NR tell why they are allowed to tell lies (or at least opinionated prefabrications) about Mike Mann in the pursuit of the First Amendment.  The First Amendment was hiding out in the coffee shop across the street hoping not to be recognized.  There was some interesting stuff, not all of it concerning climate change.

The Court of Appeals is housed in the original city hall which has been fantastically restored.

Before Eli gets to fillet the arguments a brief aside about the first case to be heard, an an appeal Vasile Graure vs. the United States.  Graure, after being tossed out of a strip club came back and set the bouncer Vladimir Djordjevic on fire, gravely injuring him.  Graure was convicted and sent to jail for essentially forever, but when Djordjevic died two years later Graure was tried on a charge of murder.  Seems like Mark Steyn is not the only one to think representing himself was a good idea, and Graure did.

The appeal of his conviction was on a strange ground.  It seems that at trial, when Graure was being transported from the jail, the marshall only allowed him to take one inch of paper from the bankers box in which he was storing his material.  The attorney representing Graure on appeal took this to be a reversible error (there was a few minutes of muttering at the end about whether the murder charge was double jeopardy but no one took that very seriously.  Anyhow, turns out that the judge offered Graure a couple of choices, to have someone else move the box every day, or for him to get copies from the prosecution and Eli forgets the third.  Somehow Graure's attorney forgot to mention that in her presentations.  Eli has learned to his cost that you listen to what lawyers don't say, not to what they do say, which is the point of this small digression.  The only prediction of the day that the Rabett will offer is that  Graure will spend the rest of his life in jail and that is no problem.

Which brings us to Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review vs. Mann.  The court was not jam packed but about a third filled with lots of folks in suits and a few scraggly bloggers, Eli amongst them, so you may be hearing more of this elsewhere.  As a marker of how the law has changed, the three judges and the three lawyers in the first case were all women.  The three judges stayed the same, but the second case was argued by Andrew Grossman, and Michael Carvin, for CEI and NR and John Williams, for Michael Mann.  Williams was accompanied by a woman lawyer but she did not present.  For those of you interested in change of life issues, Eli suggests the twitter hashtag #feministhackerbarbie cause this is just gonna be same old same old.

What was impressive was how well informed the judges were about the general issues surrounding the case, perhaps not the science part but certainly the public to and fro.

There was a short digression while Mumbles from the DC Government made a presentation about whether the Court was correct in hearing a direct appeal of a ruling based on the DC Anti-Slapp Statute.  He said yes, but the judges were much more interested in talking about what the standard should be for granting such a motion for dismissal based on the law.  There was back and forth about smell tests, likelihood to prevail criteria and more.

This got hammered in the presentations by the others.  CEI made an interesting claim that in the interest of First Amendment Freedom to tell lies (or at least prefabrications) the DC Council accepted that some valid law suits would be quashed that would have prevailed if allowed to come to trial.  CEI also conceded that where material facts are in dispute the trial judge will have to weigh the evidence.  Something that the trial judges specifically did in denying the Anti-SLAPP motion.

Everyone pretty much agreed that no matter what the standard for allowing a libel suit to go forward, the standard for proving malice should be much higher.  Frankly no one actually had a cut and dried answer for what the standard should be, and this is something the Court of Appeals is going to have to settle if it allows (and it seems it has based on some earlier cases) appeals from Anti-SLAPP statute cases to go forward.  The court kept trying to get a clear statement, asking for comparisons with the standards for other motions to dismiss and frankly got nowhere.  They are going to have to do it themselves probably settling for preponderance.

To give a flavor of the back and forth, CEI asserted that there was nothing to distinguish Simberg from any other pundit in the newspapers or on the internet.  That what he wrote was a matter of subjective interpretation, and over there the Climategate Emails.

One of the judges broke in and pointed out that Simberg said Mann was a falsifier, to which the CEI lawyer hemmed: "Not really".  The judge then pointed out that the trial judge has said as much in his ruling, receiving in return the haw that what Simberg wrote was a subjective interpretation of facts.  The judge asked if subjective interpretation was opinion, and was told that interpretation was too subjective.  The CEI lawyer was then asked if the distinction was that opinion required a factual basis.

The reply to this was that opinion is supportable when the writer reveals the facts on which the opinion is based and this immunizes the writer from libel suits.  We then went down the Climategate Email hole for a while.  The Court asked if the Emails were the facts.  CEI responded that the Emails were evidence of conspiracy and pulling tricks.  The Court pointed out that this reply was the equivalent of accusing Mann of fraud, and the response was read the Emails, which, of course was not a response because, as the bunnies will see, most of CEI and NR's pleading is that juries should not be asked to draw conclusions about such things because they are matters of dispute not facts.

NR was next up, and FWIW, the NR lawyer, called NR hereafter, was much better at pleading his case.

To give nothing away, Eli heard time and again that NR was not claiming that Michael Mann falsified the data, rather that he messed with it.  Of course, a constant reprise of how dishonest Mike's trick, joining the dendrology data to the instrumental record, was.  No one pointed out that the instrumental data is the most reliable data we have.  NoNoNo, and the Court appeared to miss this too, also that the instrumental data shown in the various figures extended back to 1880 or so.   This is rather an own goal because both NR and CEI in their pleadings denied that there has been any change in global temperature since like forever, or a millennia (OK, lawyers, not bloggers).

The Court pointed to a couple of places where whether writing by Steyn and Simberg on its face claims that Mann has committed provable fraud, but with a charitable reading would only be a caustic claim of opinion.  Much back and forth on this, an injection from NR that if their appeal is not granted, that their writers frequent claims that Obama committed this or that would clog the courts.  Besides which Climategate and Michael Mann distorted and cherry picked the data,

Since this is an appeal against the denial of relief under the anti-SLAPP statute, the court asked, ok, why not let a jury decide if this was distortion or not?  NR said that, well we don't let juries decide about whether one opinion or the opposite is correct and then the Court brought the hammer, pointing out that Rich Lowry had written in NR challenging Mann to meet NR in court so what are they doing here in the Court of Appeals.

Well harumphed the NR, these are not objectively verifiable things, or at least not objectively verifiable as a matter of opinion, and in that case as far as the law is concerned they are not objectively verifiable and therefore cannot be decided by a jury.

The Court had some thoughts on the matter, for example, does that take science out of court, well yes says NR.  Does that mean there is a First Amendment exception for science asks the Court, well only for matters of public concern.  The Court points out that accusations of academic misconduct and calling for investigations are not debates about science.  NR says, yes they are.  The Court demurs softly.  NR goes full Climategate and says anyhow, the stuff they imagine in those Emails, whether that happened or not is not for juries to decide.

So thence comes John Williams (JW) who has 30 minutes, and a good lawyer he is.  Speaks slowly but continually which limits the opportunity of the Court to throw questions at him, and frankly they appeared less interested in doing so than for the other two.  Williams starts by pointing out that the NSF IG report specifically cleared Mann of "falsifying data, concealing, deleting or otherwise destroying emails, information or data, misusing privileged information or seriously deviating from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research and other scholarly activities", which, of course NR and CEI in their presentations did accuse him of, well maybe not the first.

JW pointed out that Simberg continuously said the nasty about Mann and that CEI's complaints to the EPA about Mann were accusations of mopery and more.  So what about all those investigations asks the Court.  NR and CEI believes they are all whitewashes.  JW points out that in their briefs neither CEI or NR argue that their charges against Mann are true.  Well, he says a bit later in response to the Court pointing out that neither NR or CEI believe that humans cause climate change, that does not immunize them.  Purposeful avoidance of truth is sufficient to establish actual malice.

The rebuttal by NR degenerated into table pounding on the WMO report cover, perhaps a sign that he knew they were in trouble, but the Court needs sufficient background to see through it.

And so to bed.

SMALL FACTUAL UPDATE:

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.

PAGES 2k is the most recent and complete multiproxy paleoclimate reconstruction of global temperatures in the last millenia.  MBH 99 was the first.

UPDATE:  Somebunnies have been posting some of the stolen Emails as proof of whatever.  A number of the folks who comment here regularly  object to this as encouraging thievery.  Having been involved in sharp Email exchanges in real life, Eli kind of agrees, so if the fences want to post elsewhere (Eli is sure they can find places and link back to their now defenestrated headers, that's OK.

154 comments:

Magma said...

Thanks for the detailed coverage. Do arguments continue tomorrow or are matters in the judges' hands until a decision is handed down?

EliRabett said...

Case is submitted. Each side had 30 minutes and the government 5. The court was not very strict with cutting people off so a lot of it went over, except the NR rebuttal which ended with about a minute left. Make of that what you will.

Anonymous said...

Did you figure out how to hide the decline?

Anonymous said...

You failed to mention the lies Mann has made.

1

EliRabett said...

Well, you know the rules.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Unknown said...

Amici for Steyn: CEI, Simberg and NR include: American Civil Liberties Union, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, American Society of News Editors, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia, the Association of American Publishers, Inc., Bloomberg L.P., the Center for Investigative Reporting, the First Amendment Coalition, First Look Media Inc., Fox News Network, Gannett Co. Inc., the Investigative Reporting Workshop, the National Press Club, the National Press Photographers Association, Comcast Corporation, the Newspaper Association of America, the North Jersey Media Group Inc., the Online News Association, the Radio Television Digital News Association, the Seattle Times Company, the Society of Professional Journalists, Stephens Media LLC, Time Inc., Tribune Publishing, the Tully Center for Free Speech, D.C. Communications, Inc. and the Washington Post.

Amici for Mann:

Rob said...

Interesting how "anonymous" here has managed to not understand a single word of the Rabett's post.

caerbannog said...


Anonymous said...
'It would be nice to try to contain the putative “MWP”'


Mann was talking about extending paleoreconstructions back far enough to capture the entire MWP from beginning to end. That's what he meant by "contain".

Mann's original reconstruction didn't "contain" the MWP for the same reason that a 1 gallon jug can't "contain" 2 gallons of whiskey.

I hope this all isn't too complicated for you to comprehend...

--caerbannog the anonybunny

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rob said...

RE: Steyn amici...

The ACLU statement in the case was the strongest defense I've read to date (really sharp people there!), but I doubt it's going to be enough to stop the case from moving forward.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rob said...

Anonymous... What does any of this have to do with what Eli Rabett has written about the appeal?

Magma said...

It's probably been discussed here before, but based on their submissions to the court the amici for the defendants have entirely missed the point that Mann is suing for defamation based on attacks on his personal character and actions, NOT on his scientific research and hypotheses.

For a scientific researcher the accusation of fraudulently altering data is exactly on a par with a journalist plagiarizing material or fabricating sources, a judge taking bribes, a prosecutor suborning perjury... i.e. if proven it is a career-killer and can and often does lead to termination of employment (and for bribery or subornation, jail).

That media organizations want to tilt the field in their favor when it comes to defamation is understandable but regrettable inasmuch as it may be used to cover lazy or sloppy journalism. That the ACLU weighed in shows a disappointing lack of judgement on its part.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
BF said...

The quotes interjected by anonymous provide an enlightening back-story to Mann's constant bluster.

Pete Myers said...

Anyone contributing to this comment stream who continues to resort to remaining anonymous has no credibility.

BBD said...

So let's imagine - against all the evidence - that there was a global and synchronous 'MWP' as warm as or warmer than the present.

What does that tell us about the climate system sensitivity to radiative perturbation?

It tells us that the climate system is at the very least moderately sensitive to radiative perturbation.

What does that imply about the climate system response to a massive and ongoing increase in radiative forcing from CO2... ?

Try joined-up thinking for once.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous seems to think that spamming the comments with normal water cooler discourse will somehow get Steyn et al. off the hook for calling Mann a fraud, despite the fact that none of his spam supports that accusation.

If the researchers whose stolen emails he's selectively quoting really felt that Mann did something scientifically illegitimate, they would have said as much and in the open. They'd have nothing to gain by not bringing an actual example of malfeasance to light.


-WheelsOC

Pete Myers said...

BBD's ID is no better than anonymous. Who are you? Whom do you represent? For whom do you work? Who pays your salary?

BBD said...

Pete Myers

What possible relevance does that have to the issue about climate sensitivity raised by the claim that there was a global and synchronous 'MWP'?

Anonymous said...

Pete -

why do you care less about what is said than who says it?

Pete Myers said...

Because people are paid to say things that are not true. And the tone of your comments suggests that that is what is happening here. Reveal who you are and who is paying your salary. Or for other favors. Who are you and what are your interests in this. Why do you remain anonymous. Are you afraid?

BBD said...

Pete

Because people are paid to say things that are not true. And the tone of your comments suggests that that is what is happening here.

My earlier question was not addressed to you but to the Anonymous denier(s) present. I think there's been a misunderstanding.

Would you be kind enough to re-read what I wrote earlier?

Rob said...

Pete Myers said...
"Reveal who you are and who is paying your salary."

Apparently Pete is unfamiliar with the intertubes. Anyone can claim to be Pete Myers and claim to be employed by whomever they make up on the spot.

It would be far more interesting to merely engage in a conversation about the issues at hand.

Rob said...

I'm also trying to figure out what "tone" BBD's comments had that was objectionable or looked as if someone might have paid for.

Anonymous said...

"For a scientific researcher the accusation of fraudulently altering data is exactly on a par with a journalist plagiarizing material or fabricating sources, a judge taking bribes, a prosecutor suborning perjury... i.e. if proven it is a career-killer and can and often does lead to termination of employment (and for bribery or subornation, jail)."

So are all of you upset with Mann for calling Judith Curry a fraud? Should she sue Mann? Nah, your duplicity and cheerleading trumps any value you place on applying ethics equally.

Steyn WANTS to go to trial, he is not part of this appeal, but Mann is delaying like a spineless little weasel. Goes well with being a liar. It is hilarious how Mann wants to enrich himself financially and stroke his ego and add to the size of his head and you all treat him like he is the holy crusader of honest science! lol What a joke. How so many "smart people can be fooled so easily.

1

Victor Venema said...

Eli, I know you Prefer to be light on the moderation, but I feel that each time stolen emails are reprinted this makes the original crime worse.

Anonymous said...

Did I miss the investigation results, court case and conviction for the person(s) that "stole" the emails?

Thought not.

1

EliRabett said...

Hmm, ! appears to believe that if something is stolen unless the thief is found the dog did not bark in the night.

Rob said...

Anonymous said... "...Mann is delaying..."

I'm curious. How is CEI and NR appealing the anti-SLAPP ruling (against them) supposed to be a delaying tactic by Mann?

Everett F Sargent said...

Anonymous goes full Climategate and says anyhow, the stuff Anonymous imagine in those Emails, whether that happened or not is not for Anonymous to decide.

Anonymous said...

"My earlier question was not addressed to you but to the Anonymous denier(s) present. I think there's been a misunderstanding."

..says BBD, who is anonymous and hands out the word 'denier" like most people hand out candy to kids on Halloween.

Irony completely escapes that one.

Rob said...

Well, anonymous, do you deny the overwhelming consensus that human's are responsible for most or all of the warming of the past 50 years?

Anonymous said...

"A number of the folks who comment here regularly object to this as encouraging thievery."

Yes we may encourage Peter Gleick to steal & forge again.

If the court has the emails and there is no restriction from the court on posting them, they should be no restriction on posting them. But less transparency is always good.

Here Rob let me repeat this for you so you may understand.

"Steyn WANTS to go to trial, he is not part of this appeal, but Mann is delaying like a spineless little weasel."

Are all of you encouraging Dr. Curry of suing Mann for calling her a fraud? What an affront to the sanctity of scientists!


1

Anonymous said...

Remind us how this is MANN delaying anything?


-WheelsOC

riverat said...

Dr. Curry has accused Mann of fraudulent science as well so maybe they can call it a draw. )

Rob said...

Anon... How is Mann delaying when it's CEI and NR filing the appeal?

Rob said...

And we know Steyn "wants to go to trial," but that doesn't mean that Mann is delaying.

KR said...

@1 - Your claim that Mann is delaying is entirely false; he's not the one filing all the appeals. Care to acknowledge your error? Or are you going to continue changing the subject when caught out spouting nonsense?

Anonymous said...

"Well, anonymous, do you deny the overwhelming consensus that human's are responsible for most or all of the warming of the past 50 years?'

No, I don't deny that and never have. Not here, not anywhere.

I also don't deny that "anonymous" applies to everyone here who does not use their full name.
To deny that is just absurd.

Russell Seitz said...

It may be too late for further amicus briefs, but Steyn's website still speaks for itself , ad rem.

Rob said...

So, Anonymous (which is all we can call you since you don't sign in with any name)...

You then agree that there is a broad consensus in the published research that humans are largely or entirely responsible for warming of the past 50 years.

KR said...

There's quite a difference between posting anonymously and posting pseudonymously - in the latter case, you own your words, and it's possible to carry on a coherent conversation.

Nik said...

(A) You are censoring Climategate e-mail with a truly bizarre excuse about stolen correspondance of items that were being illegally withheld from FOIA inquiries, only not convicted due to a statute of limitations.

(B) You all insider types know full well hockey sticks are a fraud, since whenever corrected to use proper math they restore the MWP (Mann or PAGES2K etc.) or they evaporate altogether (Marcott). The vast majority of proxy series that do show modern warming also show a MWP, falsifying claims of certain human attribution. That Marcott 2013 remains unrestracted is the kiss of death of the climate cult, it's Achilles heal that renders the whole field ridiculous, as you are all fully aware.

(C) You lot are helping pull down the whole progressive wing of politics, affording science authority to a bunch of Bible thumping creationists! Yeah, you built that situation, willfully, pretending the Internet didn't exist to expose hockey stick corruption.

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)




BBD said...

Dear Anon.

..says BBD, who is anonymous and hands out the word 'denier" like most people hand out candy to kids on Halloween.

Irony completely escapes that one.


Why have you not answered the question I asked many hours ago?

I repeat:

So let's imagine - against all the evidence - that there was a global and synchronous 'MWP' as warm as or warmer than the present.

What does that tell us about the climate system sensitivity to radiative perturbation?

It tells us that the climate system is at the very least moderately sensitive to radiative perturbation.

What does that imply about the climate system response to a massive and ongoing increase in radiative forcing from CO2... ?

BBD said...

(B) You all insider types know full well hockey sticks are a fraud

I think the word you should have used is 'obsolete'.

And you can answer the sensitivity question as well. It might prompt you to think, for once.

BBD said...

Dear Anon.

I also don't deny that "anonymous" applies to everyone here who does not use their full name.
To deny that is just absurd.


We've been through this. You don't understand the difference between anonymous and pseudonymous.

Everbody - including Eli - knows I am BBD. I have a consistent pseudonym.

Only you are anonymous.

If you lack the intellect to follow this discussion, please leave.

If you are simply using standard troll tactics of never admitting fault and repeating debunked crap, please leave.

andrew adams said...

Given that the emails have been in the public domain for so long I don't think it's necessarily wrong to quote from them, but it would only result in a tedious re-run of arguments which have happened a million times already so I'm not sorry they have been ruled out of bounds in this discussion.

On the FOI issue, whilst it's true that UEA were found to have not followed the proper procedures when responding to the FOI request for the emails it doesn't necessarily follow that if they had done so the emails would have to have been released.

Russell Seitz said...

"You lot are helping pull down the whole progressive wing of politics, affording science authority to a bunch of Bible thumping creationists! "

Mixing metaphors is one thing, mylonizing them is another-- is there a name for this sort of thing ?

BBD said...

Nik The PhD bellows:

That Marcott 2013 remains unrestracted is the kiss of death of the climate cult, it's Achilles heal that renders the whole field ridiculous, as you are all fully aware.

I don't think Nik The PhD has ever read the paper:

Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard 5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.

Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario (35) based on our Standard 5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack (Fig. 3).

bob goodwin said...

Bob Goodwin (not Anon).

The reference to Mylonizing is an ad hominem attack on a legitimate argument, that the Climate Science wars have done great damage to the claim of liberalism through the use of tactics of past intolerance by the religious right. Did you mean to deflect from the argument because it was inconvenient, or are metaphors your core area of interest?

mickey, Minnie and Mouse.

Please.

Sou said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sou said...

A most interesting report, Eli. Congratulations and thanks.

[Removed my snark, realised there was probably already sufficient misunderstanding in the thread.]

Barton Paul Levenson said...

Anonymous, Nik: Please read and learn.

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Climategate.html

And don't accuse Dr. Mann of lying. I know him. He doesn't lie about his work.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Because people are paid to say things that are not true.

I think that's why we have education and blog comment forums. What do you think we are, doofuses? Hint: People who educate themselves can determine for themselves what is a lie and what has some truth.

Anonymous said...

Eli say, "PAGES 2k is the most recent and complete multiproxy paleoclimate reconstruction of global temperatures in the last millenia."

I take it that you have not been following "The Auditors" posts recently. Tsk - PAGES 2K is not correct.

Anonymous said...

Why should anyone care what "The Auditors" have to say?

-WheelsOC

BBD said...

Dear Anon.

So McI asserts but does not by any means convincingly demonstrate. If his area weighting for Arctic is wrong - and he himself admits he has only *approximated* P2K - then he has demonstrated exactly nothing.

McI seems to crave recognition, so if he has something substantive he will publish. If not, he won't and all we will get is more blog science. I await his publication of a response to P2K13 in a mainstream climate journal.

You might also want to bear in mind that in the unlikely event of McI being correct, he will have modified P2K13 from "late C20th warmest in ~1400y" to "late C20th warmest in ~1100y".

A pyrrhic victory if there ever was.

Which returns us to your allergy to questions about the 'MWP'.

I repeat (again):

Let's imagine - against all the evidence - that there was a global and synchronous 'MWP' as warm as or warmer than the present.

What does that tell us about the climate system sensitivity to radiative perturbation?

It tells us that the climate system is at the very least moderately sensitive to radiative perturbation.

What does that imply about the climate system response to a massive and ongoing increase in radiative forcing from CO2... ?

Russell Seitz said...

Bob Goodwin:

Could you please explain what you just wrote?

the grammar is less mylonized than metamict.

Anonymous said...

"Your claim that Mann is delaying is entirely false; he's not the one filing all the appeals. Care to acknowledge your error?"

In Mann versus Steyn, Steyn has completed the requests for discovery and is ready to go to court, but Mann and his tobacco lawyer have not made any attempts to complete / comply with the discovery and are delaying going to court with Steyn. Steyn as I have said twice before is not part of this appeal. The fact that you are to dense to understand this is not my problem.

"Mann has no interest in getting his hockey stick on the stand. If he did, he would have supported my motion asking Judge Weissberg to let Mann vs Steyn proceed directly to trial. He refused to do so." Mark Steyn

1

Anonymous said...

I guess this case is not very important to Mann. The big baby was not even in court.

1

Rob said...

Anonymous.... Steyn just happens to be clueless about how the process works.

Mark Steyn is under the mistaken impression that the world revolves around him and his over inflated ego. It doesn't. There are other defendants in the case and there would be no logical rationale for one defendant's case to move forward without the others. That just makes more work for everyone and acts to clog up the court system.

Dr Mann's work has been reviewed repeatedly already it has stood multiple other legal tests and been just fine. There's unlikely to be anything new that comes to light here. Mann's work has also stood an even higher standard, the test of time in the scientific field. Every subsequent multiproxy reconstruction has come up with virtually the same answer as his work from 15 years ago. That, my nameless friend, is what is called robust.

Ed Darrell said...

In listing the amici filers, Unknown (above) makes a good point: Liars run in packs, and like each other's company.

If it's not legal to lie about people for profit, many of those filing amici briefs could be hounded out of business.

What sort of business relies on making false charges against good people? Not a good and noble enterprise, surely.

Anonymous said...

Rob,

Your mistaken beliefs about Mann's work and the work itself are not what this case is about. You have shown to not understand simple topics (how the defendants may separate in legal proceedings) and points. You are a mindless lemming follower.

While Mann is a liar, fraud and a big baby. What a weak soul he must have to not show up to court Monday.

Mann does appreciate lemming followers/supporters like you, it provides him lots of income.

1

caerbannog said...

For those who haven't read it already, Dr. Grant Foster's demolition of the Montford/McIntyre/etc attacks on Mann's hockey-stick is definitely worth looking at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/?wpmp_tp=1

Mann's attackers are not simply malicious; they are also incompetent.

Rob said...

Anonymous... I did not say that the defendants were not allowed to separate. I said, why would they want to? There is no benefit for Mann's side to split up the cases. There's no benefit for the court.

And I happen to be well informed about Mann's work and you've stated nothing, in this entire thread, that would suggest you know even the first thing about his work or about millennial reconstructions in general.

The only thing you seem capable of doing is tossing around child-like taunts.

Bob K. said...

Quite a Thanksgiving stew of fresh ideas here.

First, let's all agree that the First Amendment should be amended to protect "freedom to speak the truth" only. Wanna take a vote on that?

Second, let's further agree that the First Amendment should be amended so that its protections do not apply to criticisms made of papers that appear in academic, peer-reviewed journals. There’s no need to criticize them, right? Because they’ve gone through peer review! All legitimate criticisms have already been raised by the referees and addressed by the authors otherwise the paper would not have been published. So let’s not have any more criticism of peer-reviewed papers under the color of protected speech. We don’t need it and the only kind of speech that deserves protection is speech that we need. So if a paper appears in a peer-reviewed journal such as Nature or Journal of Creation Science anyone who critizices it should be subject to tort action.

Third, the rabbit-hole denizens should erect a shrine to Nixon, Haldeman, and Ehrlichman and keep a perpetual flame of votive candles going at its base. Aversion to civil liberties and the ACLU makes soul brothers of you all.

Marco said...

Bob K is yet another one who tries to move the goalposts in his attempt to claim it is about criticism of a paper. Mann is not going after anyone who criticizes his paper, but after those who claim he fraudulently handled the available data.

If Bob K thinks that that is just fine, too, perhaps Bob K can tells us his full name and where he works, and applaud all suggestions in newspapers that he is a child molester. After all, that is just fine with Bob K, free speech being in the First Amendment and all that...

Of course, no complaining when people then start to believe that, the police come and raid your computers, and nutcases attack you physically.

Marco said...

And to those who claim Mann called Curry a fraud: "citations please!"

Anonymous said...

Rob,

You are dense. This post is about the case Mann has filed claiming he was libeled. It is not about rehashing Mann's work, it is about what freedom of speech means in this country. Something you are avoiding, because of your tribal loyalties to a very unstable and selfish person (Mann).


Steyn has clearly stated why he wants to separate from CEI and NR. Perhaps you should listen to what the DEFENDANT says on this topic rather than your own speculations.

1

steven said...

" I await his publication of a response to P2K13 in a mainstream climate journal. "

timing is everything....

since p2k was rushed in..

history repeats..

Rob said...

Bob K... There have always been limitations on free speech, but courts are very very careful about how those limitations are applied since the freedom to speak one's mind (even when wrong) is extremely important.

There are very specific elements to the Steyn et al v Mann case that are being adjudicated here. One of the limits to free speech is that you can not willfully ignore facts in order to cause harm to another person's reputation.

The defendants have claimed that Mann "tortured data" and produced "fraudulent research" when, in fact, Mann's research has been through numerous investigations and each time the investigations have said there was no problem with his research. As well, Mann's original findings have been consistent with a couple of dozen subsequent millennial reconstruction projects.

Rob said...

Anonymous... "It is not about rehashing Mann's work..."

The issue is that Steyn et al published articles stating that Mann's work was fraudulent. That requires understanding the actual research.

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.

Rob said...

Anonymous... "Perhaps you should listen to what the DEFENDANT says on this topic rather than your own speculations."

"The defendant" is just going to have to come to terms with the fact that the entire universe doesn't revolve around what he wants.

BBD said...

History repeats

And bullshit walks, Steven.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Rob believes the lies that 8 (11) investigations have exonerated Mann. Even one of the three judges has referred to CEI lawyers as tearing that apart.


"When Williams claimed that eight separate investigations had exonerated Mann, one judge asked, 'What if CEI sincerely believes that those investigations are flawed? They take them apart quite thoroughly in their reply brief.'"

Waiting for Rob's hand waving reply, so I can lol, again.

1

Rob said...

Anonymous.... Well, at least you now agree with me that the validity of Mann's work is very much core to the case.

And regarding your quote, I would not trust Steyn's retelling of Sam Kazman's retelling of the story. I'd like to see an actual transcript of the exchange.

If you didn't notice, Eli posted the NSF findings in the body of his blog post. I'd suggest you take a moment to read through it.

Rob said...

I'm curious, if CEI lawyers so "thoroughly took apart" the claims of exonerations, why was the original anti-SLAPP rejected? Remember, this is an appeal.

Anonymous said...

Rob,

If you read Judge Comb-Greene's ruling you would not have to ask. She erred then retired.

"When Williams cited one Supreme Court case as being directly on point, a judge asked, "how is that the right fit for this case?" Another noted that, under Williams' approach, the Anti-SLAPP law "wouldn't be doing very much work." And when Williams claimed that preponderance of evidence should suffice, a judge asked, "but you need clear and convincing evidence for malice." And the judge noted that Williams failed to ask for the directed discovery that is expressly allowed under the Anti-SLAPP law. Finally, when Williams argued that a jury could evaluate misleading effect, all three judges made some rolling-eye expressions."

And when the transcript comes out and confirms some of this what will you say?

"Well, at least you now agree with me that the validity of Mann's work is very much core to the case.
"

Nope, it is not. Just another part of exposing Mann's lies. "I am a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. 11 separate investigations have exonerated me." By tearing apart Mann's claim that multiple investigations exonerated him, the defendants can easily support the position that they believed what they said about Mann. Not too difficult to follow.

The core or the case is free speech and Mann will lose.



1

AndyL said...

How do people here think Mann will meet the "actual malice" conditions for his case to succeed?

In his court submissions, Mann based his argument for malice on the multiple "exonerations" which he claims the defendents ignored. However as CEI have highlighted, and the jugdes apparently agree, the investigations were not about Mann at all - with the exception of Penn State of course. It was the comparison of the Penn State investigation into Mann with their Sandusky investigation that caused this fracas in the first place.

Russell Seitz said...

"I am a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. 11 separate investigations have exonerated me."

By tearing apart Mann's claim that multiple investigations exonerated him, the defendants can easily support the position that they believed what they said about Mann. Not too difficult to follow."

What's to follow?

The onstitution of Anonymia may require 11 successive acquitals to exonorate , but here in the land of English law, that's 10 too many.

.

Rob said...

Anonymous... I have read Judge Comb-Green's ruling. You may not like it but it is the ruling in the case. Tough.

And as for transcripts, I sincerely doubt that any transcript is going to confirm such bizarre statements as "... all three judges made some rolling-eye expressions."

As was pointed out in the other thread related to this case, Steyn et al have a propensity for using the cover of "opinion" in order to alter reality to conform to their ideology in ways that their readers clearly cannot distinguish from fact.

I will eagerly await the transcript to compare Steyn's version to the overall content of the proceeding. Eli's version here seems to suggest that the Judges had a fairly good grasp of the overall issue. They are, of course, going to ask hard questions of both sides, but I got the sense that the tougher questions were being directed at the defendants.

Here I would also note that, through this entire conversation with you I've maintained decorum in relation to your comments, and toward anything related to Steyn, NR and CEI... whilst you have constantly resorted to derogatory rhetoric in each and every comment. This makes amply clear the difference between the two sides of this issue.

Rob said...

Anonymous... "The core or the case is free speech and Mann will lose."

I'm curious, do you believe that Steyn et al's statements are true and therefore protected as free speech? Or, are you defending their right to lie about Dr Mann's research?

Anonymous said...

"I'm curious, do you believe that Steyn et al's statements are true and therefore protected as free speech? Or, are you defending their right to lie about Dr Mann's research?"

I believe that at the time Steyn et.al. made those statements they believed them to be true. I also believe Mann cannot prove them to be malicious and Mann is a public figure. So, Mann will lose this case.


Are you upset I said you were a mindless lemming and that you are dense from your inability to quickly grasp the subjects being discussed? Are you new to RR? Much much worse has been thrown my way. Glad to know the next time someone calls me names here at RR you will jump in and admonish them for their behavior.

Or else toughen up buttercup.


Final point since you stated (repeated) that I used derogatory rhetoric in each and every comment I'll just post this.

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Did I miss the investigation results, court case and conviction for the person(s) that "stole" the emails?

Thought not.

1

25/11/14 5:00 PM"


So Rob was your statement a lie or an exaggeration?


1

Rob said...

Anonymous... So, you're defending Steyn et al's right to be completely ignorant and misinformed? So, you believe, as long as you are genuinely oblivious to actual facts, then it's okay to say whatever you like?

Pete Myers said...

This is a ridiculous thread. Some anonymous person unwilling to identify himself or his/her conflicts of interests but who also reveals really profound misunderstandings of climate science gets the attention of serious people? Give me a break. Walk away from this. It's not worth any one's time. Anonymous, keep bloviating. To the vacuum. Think of George Clooney drifting off to oblivion. Happy trails.

willard said...

Dear Pete,

I don't know you, and I don't care. All I need to know is that you're on the Internet, which proves you're a dog with a name. Even if it's your real name, it says nothing about you. May I have your credit cards numbers, pretty please with sugar on it?

Please, don't confuse anonymity and pseudonymity.

Thank you for your concerns,

W

EliRabett said...

Dear Willard,

As you know dogs have left the blogs for twitter. All we have here are bunnies with the occasional cat taking time off from Gawker video duty.

Thank you

bob goodwin said...

Russell Seitz

I enjoyed reading the physics if microbubble backscatter deflection of energy for anthropomorphic global cooling.

Given you considerable skills, I was pointing out that your use of logical fallacies was at odds with the image you are trying to project. Your grandiosity and simultaneous belittling are in fact forms of logical fallacy, despite you obvious ability to engage on a higher plane.

As for my disgraced prose, I will try to dissect it into points that may not be correct, but attempt to lack logical fallacy:


"The reference to Mylonizing is an ad hominem attack on a legitimate argument."

In other words you were belittling someone for their use of language while using language that was meant to demonstrate superiority. While you likely are superior, it is still a logical fallacy.

" that the Climate Science wars have done great damage to the claim of liberalism"

Claims of human caused human warming may (or may not) be established as scientific fact, however there it is not under dispute that belief in the claim is highly correlated with political leanings. Thus it is a wedge issue, in addition to science. As a wedge issue it is a factor in future generations judgment of the entire ideology.


"through the use of tactics of past intolerance by the religious right."

Suppression of dissent, punishment of dissenters, and ridicule of differences is a form of intolerance that was one derided by liberals because it was common in the past amongst the religious right. It is now occurring amongst people we once would have considered liberal, and it is undermining liberal values by being illiberal.


"Did you mean to deflect from the argument because it was inconvenient, or are metaphors your core area of interest?"

Your choice of an ad-hominem against a legitimate argument is what my rhetoric began with. Of course, as with all debates involving logical fallacies, it is necessary to use them in response, which I did by ridiculing your peculiar penchant for linguistic criticism.

"Micky, Minnie"

If you look at the comment box, it asks users to use words like Micky, Minnie to avoid spambots.

Best regards,

Bob Goodwin

Anonymous said...

"So, you're defending Steyn et al's right to be completely ignorant and misinformed? So, you believe, as long as you are genuinely oblivious to actual facts, then it's okay to say whatever you like?"


It is not libel in this case. Your personal opinions of what has taken place are irrelevant.


1

Anonymous said...

Pete,

Please show me an example of "Some anonymous person unwilling to identify himself or his/her conflicts of interests but who also reveals really profound misunderstandings of climate science gets the attention of serious people?"

Please tell all the profound misunderstandings I have revealed in my words on this thread.

You are mistaken or telling lies, which?

1

adelady said...

For pity's sake.

For the benefit of dopey who seems to think that A Person's Real Name is a protection for others dealing with them, a reality check is in order. In an international environment, you'd be hard-pressed to find an ordinary name that isn't shared by some or many people.

In my own case, using my given name instead of my pseudonym would put the career of another woman on the line. She happens to be a freelance writer for scientific magazines. If I were to comment here and elsewhere using that name, someone I've never met could lose a possible contract just because someone else I've never met doesn't like the way I expressed myself that day.

I can avoid that by calling myself by another version of my names - which neither I nor anyone else uses - which would be just as pseudonymous as the ones I do use.

Drop it. Forever.

MinniesMum

BBD said...

bob goodwin

Suppression of dissent, punishment of dissenters, and ridicule of differences is a form of intolerance that was one derided by liberals because it was common in the past amongst the religious right. It is now occurring amongst people we once would have considered liberal, and it is undermining liberal values by being illiberal.

I thought that was what you probably meant.

Claims of human caused human warming may (or may not) be established as scientific fact

The problem here is simple: the scientific evidence is sufficient for a strong scientific consensus to have arisen.

Rhetoric like 'claims' and 'may nots' is no longer part of reasonable, evidence-based discourse.

It is reasonable to be angry with and even dismissive of those who deny the scientific evidence.

Such reasonable anger does not equate with repressive, illiberal behaviour in the way you suggest.

The repressive, illiberal behaviour is exhibited by those who deny scientific evidence and seek to distort public policy on the basis of their anti-science prejudice.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

It is not libel in this case. Your personal opinions of what has taken place are irrelevant.

First you give your own personal opinion, and then you deem other personal opinions to be irrelevant.

There are words for that, I think. Authoritarian, dictatorial, etc., come to mind. Why do you hate us for our freedoms? Is your cave not comfortable enough? Do you not have enough cooked dinosaur? Does your herd of goats not obey your commands?

Rob said...

Anonymous said... "It is not libel in this case. Your personal opinions of what has taken place are irrelevant."

So far, several rulings suggest this very well could be libel. But moreover, you're avoiding answering any of the questions I'm posing.

There very much is a thing called libel that is against the law. I'm trying to ask questions here to determine what you think rises to that level and why you believe Steyn et al's actions do not rise to that level.

Anonymous said...

I am not avoiding answering your questions, Eli is deleting some of my posts.

Hard to have a two way conversation that is being suppressed by a 3rd party.

"So far, several rulings suggest this very well could be libel."

Uh no.


Steyn's action do not rise to that level because an additional bar must be hurdled when a person is a public figure, which Mann is of course. That is malice, Steyn knew what he was saying was false and did so anyway. That is what Mann and his tobacco lawyer have to prove. The reason a public figure has a higher bar set is they have access to answer the speech they consider false through media that an average Joe does not. (Hint paid speeches, books, interviews on radio and networks, all of which Mann has done. But since Mann is too weak to fight his own battle he wants the government to do it for him, like a good little programmed liberal.

1

EliRabett said...

No, not in the spam folder either

Mal Adapted said...


"-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)"

That just makes your enlistment in the AGW-denial campaign the more dishonorable.

bob goodwin said...

BBD:
I respect your opinion, and know this site has a dominant position. I can however say the illiberal tactics are indistinguishable from past illiberal tactics which were also based on a controlled consensus. I have tried to make my own judgment on tree ring accuracy, and honestly concluded only a small set of people were capable of having an informed opinion, just as I was unable to prove or disprove to myself that man-made microbubbles could cool the earth by 1C. However it is very possible to find well placed scientists who dissent, and also easy to find scientists performing illiberal political discourse. So for me it is not possible to make the same conclusion that you have that oppression is always valid if you think you certain that you are correct.

Bob Goodwin. Micky and Minnie and Mighty and Fred.

willard said...

Since you ask so gently, dear 1, I'd point at this:

> Your personal opinions of what has taken place are irrelevant.

And I'd point at the sentence that precedes it:

> It is not libel in this case.

That is all, for now.

Thanks for playing.

BBD said...

bob goodwin

I can however say the illiberal tactics are indistinguishable from past illiberal tactics which were also based on a controlled consensus.

Acknowledging the scientific evidence isn't an 'illiberal tactic'. Denying it and arguing policy in the same breath is.

The notion of a 'controlled consensus' is a conspiracy theory. The scientific consensus arises from the totality of the scientific evidence. Nobody 'controls' that except in fevered imaginations.

However it is very possible to find well placed scientists who dissent, and also easy to find scientists performing illiberal political discourse.

The few qualified contrarians haven't produced a coherent, evidence-based body of work showing where the standard view is wrong. In science, this is required before dissenting voices can make a difference.

Scientists vigorously rebutting non-arguments isn't 'illiberal discourse'.

So for me it is not possible to make the same conclusion that you have that oppression is always valid if you think you certain that you are correct.

Oppression? Provide a good scientific argument and it will out. Help, help, I'm being oppressed doesn't cut it :-)

bob goodwin said...

BBD,
I am quite sure that you are mistaking liberal with correct and illiberal with incorrect.

You are asserting you are correct and have the facts on your side. Your side is gaining little political ground, the issue is highly polarized, and the debates are filled with logical fallacies. I believe that the 'left' is increasingly being seen as illiberal. That is my opinion, not a fact. And your core response is to call me a crybaby?

I think that you are a true believer, and although I cannot find either proof or consensus, I do not deny there is a real issue here with carbon emmissions, but you seem to deny there is a problem the current mixing of dogma, science and politics, and the parallels with past dogmatic disputes.

Bob Mickey, Mighty, and Fred

BBD said...

:You are asserting you are correct and have the facts on your side.

The evidence is what it is. I 'assert' nothing.

I think that you are a true believer

In the evidence.

you seem to deny there is a problem the current mixing of dogma, science and politics

The problem is with political arguments that run counter to the evidence.

The contrarian argument is hampered by an absence of evidential support.

In science, this is all that matters.

Rob said...

Anonymous... Each time the judge has rejected the anti-SLAPP filing that has come with the statement that "the case is likely to succeed on it's merits."

Anonymous said...

Each time the judge has rejected the anti-SLAPP filing that has come with the statement that "the case is likely to succeed on it's merits."

Each time? You mean once and you forgot the part about putting the plaintiff in the most favorable view.

1

bob goodwin said...

BBD,

You throw around the word 'evidence' exactly the way the evangelists throw around the word 'bible'. There is not an actual rhetorical statement made by you except that you believe what you believe. I have spent significant time with the evidence, and unlike you, I don't speak in tongues, so have not been able to buy into the overall religion. An evangelist would blame me for being to stupid to understand the bible, too close minded not to believe the church leaders, or led astray by the apostates who were former leaders of the church. As a liberal thinker, I don't want others to tell me to believe evidence that is written in tongues, interpreted by elders, and where logical fallacies are commonly in use.

micky, Minnie, mighty or fred

BBD said...

bob goodwin

You throw around the word 'evidence' exactly the way the evangelists throw around the word 'bible'. There is not an actual rhetorical statement made by you except that you believe what you believe. I have spent significant time with the evidence, and unlike you, I don't speak in tongues, so have not been able to buy into the overall religion.

The evidence is what it is. You are free to review it in your own time. Everyone is.

Your rhetorical framing of scientific evidence as a 'belief' and 'religion' preached by 'evangelists' is a logical fallacy of false equivalence.

Contrarians have no scientific argument, only political ideology and dishonest rhetoric. Nothing you can say will change this. Everything you say demonstrates it.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Bob Goodwin would be nice enough to post a representative sampling of what he considers the evidence supporting his skepticism to be? Please give us a spread of scientific studies coming at the question from a variety of disciplines and methods which cast significant doubt on the mainstream position.

Open Access would be preferred, but paywalled material is fine too (though I personally won't be able to read beyond the abstracts).

-WheelsOC

Mal Adapted said...

Bob Goodwin:

Consider Feynman's dictum "The first principle [of Science] is not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool". You say you "have spent significant time with the evidence", but "have not been able to buy into the overall religion." How do you know you're not fooling yourself?

Bob, the difference between religious believers and scientists is that scientists are trained to avoid fooling themselves, and disciplined by their peers. The language they speak isn't divinely-inspired glossolalia, it's a shared vocabulary intended to enforce clear and concise communication with each other. And because their objective isn't mutual affirmation of faith but accurate knowledge of the Universe (and because they are a competitive lot), they don't spare each other's feelings!

A trained, disciplined scientist follows the most rigorous empirical principles when gathering evidence, and carefully identifies all possible sources of error. She analyses the evidence using the most appropriate statistical techniques and rules of inference. And because she knows she is the easiest person to fool, she relies on her equally-well-trained scientific peers to find the errors she's missed. She exposes her evidence and analysis to their merciless (hoo-boy!) scrutiny by presenting at conferences and submitting papers for publication, using that shared language. That's what peer review means. If she can't convince her peers she's right, she's most probably fooling herself.

So apply Occam's Razor, Bob. What's more likely: that you're right and the overwhelming consensus of trained, experienced climate scientists is wrong, or that you're fooling yourself?

Rob said...

This is a good one: "You throw around the word 'evidence' exactly the way the evangelists throw around the word 'bible'."

In other words, scientists use actual evidence to prove their claims... the way evangelists use a lack of evidence to support their's.

And for using this "evidence" thingy, scientists are suspect.

[sigh]

bob goodwin said...

I find this discussion fascinating. There is zero discussion of specifics of the evidence anywhere on this thread. There is an assertion that the evidence is good. I am well trained at evidence, and follow most of it. It is a logical fallacy to shift the responsibility to disprove something to others, so I will not try to disprove. I am saying that some of the evidence is not believable. I am a liberal thinker, so refuse to let you tell me that evidence is good. Good science is good and religion is not good science. But just because someone says they are a scientist does not give them the right to declare what is good evidence.

As I am not up to the task of understand how people can reasonably splice tree ring data with thermometer data with ice core data and call it factual, or to understand whats up with the pause, or the medieval warming period, I am expected to rely on experts. But there are many experts who also don't buy the consensus.

So your entire logical argument lies on the foundation that you have the evidence on your side, and those that disagree with you are by definition anti-evidence. That (in my mind) makes you religious and illiberal, even if you are right.

BBD said...

I am saying that some of the evidence is not believable.

That would be the logical fallacies of argument from ignorance and from personal incredulity. Logical fallacies render your position invalid.

As you have said, you aren't qualified to make this judgement. So don't.

I am a liberal thinker, so refuse to let you tell me that evidence is good.

I am not telling you anything. The expert scientific consensus that has arisen from the scientific evidence is a clear indication that the evidence is robust. Unless you are a conspiracy theorist, which I rather suspect you may be.

But there are many experts who also don't buy the consensus.

No, there aren't. There are virtually none, and the tiny contrarian minority has never produced a coherent, evidentially-supported hypothesis to counter the standard position. A few bad papers count for nothing in science.

I repeat: the 'sceptics' have no scientific case *at all* upon which to base their arguments. All they have is empty rhetoric, as you are demonstrating here.

BBD said...

So your entire logical argument lies on the foundation that you have the evidence on your side, and those that disagree with you are by definition anti-evidence. That (in my mind) makes you religious and illiberal, even if you are right.

It makes me *logical*.

Your incessant framing is getting tiresome. I know it's all you've got. Your position is clear. You can stop now.

Anonymous said...

Bob, what we're doing here is adhering to the strictures of the Burden of Proof. There are some variations on this rule of rational debate, but the general shape of it is that people who make extraordinary claims are required to support those claims when questioned.

What you're arguing for is essentially a contradiction of the established wisdom. Therefore, YOU are the one who bears the burden of proof to support your arguments.

We take it as a given that the evidence is on "our side," because that's what the overwhelming majority of the relevant experts believe. The people who work with this stuff day in and day out have all weighed in on this, and some 97% of them are convinced that the evidence goes one way, not the other.
We can see this manifest in numerous studies which have tried to measure this consensus. We can also appeal to the vast number of professional scientific organizations around the world which have thrown their weight behind it, and note the total absence of such bodies going to the other way. We can examine the scientific literature itself to see which way the evidence has fallen on the issue.

When all of these things are done, they all tell us the same story. The evidence points towards AGW and dangerous levels of warming if we don't rein in our GHG emissions.

This is nearly a unanimous conclusion whether we're talking about the scientific papers in favor of it, the number of scientists who accept it, the number of scientists who tell you that this is what the evidence says, or the number of scientific orgs that support it.

See for yourself.

There is no getting around the fact that this mainstream position is so well-supported and vetted from every direction that it has become the default position.

As such, if you want to challenge the default position then you must bear the Burden Of Proof.

Besides, you are so convinced that the evidence against the mainstream opinion is strong. Surely you have come to this conclusion after looking at some kind of evidence yourself. What did you use to draw your conclusions, Bob? Perhaps if you shared that with us, we would become convinced ourselves.


-WheelsOC

Mal Adapted said...

Bob Goodwin: "But there are many experts who also don't buy the consensus."

How do you know who is a genuine expert and who isn't? If you don't trust the aggregate expertise of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society, why would you trust anyone? Many of us who aren't expert in climate science are willing to accept the lopsided consensus of those who are, because we are scientifically meta-literate. With all due respect, Bob, your assertion demonstrates that you are not.

If you can't tell who the genuine climate-science experts are, you have no choice but to become an expert yourself, or you're at risk of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You'll need the equivalent of at least a Bachelor of Science degree in a relevant Natural Science discipline to understand the basic principles. Earning a Doctorate would give you the best opportunity to familiarize yourself with the entirety of the evidence, and with the modern culture and practice of Science as well. The latter is important, because before you can consider yourself an expert you'll have to subject your interpretations of the evidence to criticism by other experts. Good luck!

Bob, I'm sorry, but if you're not up to that much time and effort, you will always be vulnerable to any self-interested charlatan with the ability to sound like he knows what he's talking about, because you simply have no way to know when you're fooling yourself!




Graeme said...

isn't PAGES2K the worst reconstruction ever attempted? They don't know which way to place the data series. they have no prima facie reasons toi do things the weay they do. It ms just utter bullshit

BBD said...



Nope. That would be Loehle (2007).

Now that really was a pig's breakfast. And Loehle is a 'sceptic'. One of your own. So why do we hear fuck-all from McI about Loehle's garbage?

McI needs to publish his insinuations in a mainstream climate journal or it's nothing more than blog science - of which we've all seen more than enough.

Marcel Kincaid said...

"Did you figure out how to hide the decline? "

You still haven't figured out what declined.

"You failed to mention the lies Mann has made."

So did you.


Now here's a relevant question: What does the abysmally low mental functioning of deniers and pseudo-"skeptics" tell us about the validity of their position?

Marcel Kincaid said...

As always, the deniers here have shown themselves to be ignorant, dimwitted, dishonest, and all around bad people. It isn't fruitful to debate them.

Marcel Kincaid said...

"So your entire logical argument lies on the foundation that you have the evidence on your side, and those that disagree with you are by definition anti-evidence."

No, that's not the foundation of his argument. Rather, it is an incredibly stupid, ignorant, and intellectually dishonest misrepresentation of his argument.

"That (in my mind) makes you religious and illiberal, even if you are right."

Your mind is full of irrational junk and so its conclusions are worthless.

Anonymous said...

Since Marcel just wants to make things up and label people, I shall return the favor.

Marcel is a hand loving single person who enjoys coming on the internets and spew his idiocy while trying to appear superior. This is a cover for his worthless life where every week he makes a choice to live or not live. Still waiting for the other choice to happen

1

Susan Anderson said...

Every effort to hide the incline has failed. Evidence forthcoming in a crescendo as the bad choices pile up.

Anonymous said...

Bob Goodwin

BBD has adopted the role of Eli's junkyard dog, a role which he relishes. (he should probably change his initials to JYD)

If you want to provoke a rabid attack, merely say something that criticizes something that Eli has said.

BBD said...

Dear Anon.

You are *trolling* again. Are you so lacking in self-awareness that you don't actually realise that you are doing it?

Anonymous said...

Shorter BBD: "woof, troll, woof"

BBD said...

Thank you for proving my point, Anon.

Please review this thread and quote the 'rabid attacks' by me on other commenters.

I can't find a single one.

Anonymous said...


Unfortunately, your junk yard doggerel is not confined to this thread. You are barking -- and shitting -- all over the yard.

Please review this thread '


When I pointed out on that thread that Eli was stealing bandwidth by hot-linking to images on other sites (something that is obviously above your ability to comprehend), you chimed in with

"Dear Anon.

If you want to defend the vile hypocrisy of mitigation sceptics, then do so.

Show some backbone. Trolling simply underscores that you are a coward as well as an apologist for sickening behaviour."


After I stated that "My comments about about stealing bandwidth" have nothing to do with climate change, on which I happen to accept the scientific consensus."

you chimed in with

'Dear troll

I think you are a liar as well as an anonymous, trolling coward. But it's hard to tell, since you are an anon.'


You then further hounded me to further indicate my "loyalty to the cause"

But even after I had stated "I have always considered people like Pielke, Lomborg and Co to be liars who basically use the poor as an excuse to do nothing. Lomborg has been playing that game since Skeptical Environmentalist"

you said

"You get the treatment you deserve, Anon.

Suck it up."


You are King of the Junk yard dogs. Junk yard dogs everywhere must go to you for training.

And it's now also clear that you are a liar, implying that you do not attack people.

A pathetic, lying junk yard dog. JYD.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anonytroll (shorter): "Waaaaa-aaaaah!!!"

Anonymous said...

What's that I hear?

More barking in the yard?

BBD said...

So the Anonytroll is upset because I objected to its trolling a previous thread with some diversionary irrelevance or other.

Boo-hoo indeed.

If you cannot deal with the direct consequences of your trolling, then stop trolling.

Or it will only get worse.

BBD said...

Now, troll, speaking of liars and lies, you said this:

If you want to provoke a rabid attack, merely say something that criticizes something that Eli has said.

And I asked you to review *this thread* on which I am supposed to have made "rabid attacks" and quote them.

Off you go.

Or shall we agree that you lied?

Anonymous said...

LJYD (Lying Junk yard Dog) Read again what you quoted me as saying

"If you want to provoke a rabid attack, merely say something that criticizes something that Eli has said."

I never claimed you had made a rabid attack in "this thread"

That was your pathetic (but,alas failed) attempt at misdirection.

But nice try, lying junkyard dog.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anonytroll once again demonstrates its astounding and unique ability to focus on the trivial and the personal at the expense of the truth. No wonder it's so dim.

BBD said...

Oh, so now the story is that you were just mentioning to Bob that I do "rabid attacks" on other threads. I see.

This would be because Bob would have noticed that I wasn't "rabidly attacking" him on this thread. You were just being a bit over-protective.

How sweet.

BBD said...

a_ray

But, but the horrors of bandwith theft *far* outweigh the trivial matter of using human misery as a cheap debating tactic...

Anonymous said...

...and Ray once again demonstrates his unique ability to make insipid comments on blogs during work hours at the expense of his employer (NASA) and the American taxpayer.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Ever hear of lunch, assclam?

Anonymous said...

"Anonytroll once again demonstrates its astounding and unique ability to focus on the trivial and the personal at the expense of the truth. No wonder it's so dim."

lol a_ray personifies his own comment. Project much? LMAO

a_ray works for NASA? Gubbermint job, figures. He was probably on the Challenger and Columbia last missions.


BBD "Or it will only get worse." You are a kitten, really.

1

BBD said...

Miau

xxx

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

1,
Wrong. But you're used to that. It doesn't phase you, and you don't learn from it.

Anonymous said...

Well a_ray since you are a liar and have projected once again, your words mean nothing, again.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Imbecile1,
Got anything more than "I know you are, so what am I?" I mean, I could get that from Peewee Herman, dude.

BBD said...

BTW this is one of the most gratuitously offensive things I have seen on a climate blog, which sets the bar pretty high:

a_ray works for NASA? Gubbermint job, figures. He was probably on the Challenger and Columbia last missions.

I enjoy childish blog hair-pulling as much as the next man, but come on. This goes over the line.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

It's childish in a Dunning Kruger sort of way. It really doesn't even apply to Dunning Kruger humor. Seriously playground fodder. Anonymous is the poster child for anonymous posters everywhere.

Anonymous said...

Poor babies. Don't dish if you do not like to be served.

a_ray imbecile, wow talk about juvenile name calling. No surprise that is always the extent of your comments here. You get what you serve.

I guess BBD missed Rabett Run serving up comments about all young people who choose to serve in the military are baby killers and have the blood of millions of innocents on their hands. Spare me your faux outrage kitten.

!

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Oh childish one, there is a difference between adult criticism and childish lame playground jokes. Adult criticism of our government, our police forces and our military including idiot US bureaucrats includes things like facts and cites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

Based on several studies of casualties, deaths in the Vietnam War for the years 1955 to 1975 may have exceeded 2 million persons in the countries of Vietnam (both North and South), Cambodia, and Laos. Civilian deaths caused by both sides amounted to a significant percentage of total deaths, perhaps from 30 to nearly 50 percent. Civilian deaths caused by communist forces, which included the Viet Cong, North Vietnamese Army, Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge, mostly resulted from assassinations and terror tactics. Civilian deaths caused by the armed forces of the governments of South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, the United States, South Korea, and other allies were primarily the consequence of extensive aerial bombing and the use of massive firepower in military operations conducted in heavily populated areas. The nature of the war often made it difficult to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.

18.2 million gallons of Agent Orange (Dioxin) was sprayed by the U.S. military over more than 10% of Southern Vietnam,[29] as part of the U.S. herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam's government claimed that 400,000 people were killed or maimed as a result of after effects, and that 500,000 children were born with birth defects.

So when I call a group of unnamed US fascists 'baby killers' I guess I have the facts to back that up. I also have the right to do that, but not because 60,000 US soldiers dies in a last war in the jungles of Asia for no reason.

Neener, neener, neener.

Anonymous 1 has issues. Youth and a short memory being two of them.

BBD said...

Troll 1

Spare me your faux outrage kitten.

It was a vile and stupid remark. The civilised thing to have done would be to admit it.