More Left-Wing Abuse of the Courts for Political Repression Mann v. Steyn

[maxparrish]

You do know the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a guest lectureship at a Mechanical Engineering Seminar Series? I'm not sure what mechanical engineers know about climate change or how the fields are related, maybe someone can enlighten me?

Also one of the journals his articles are in has an explicitly stated bias toward climate change denial.

I skimmed the PDF MAX posted and found what I expected to find...a lot of data mining and selective data publishing on the part of the deniers. Court on this will be mildly interesting. The hockey stick was very much involved in triggering a lot of newer more accurate forms of monitoring. The proxy modeling was simply the best information Mann had at the time he did his work. You cannot expect proxy modeling to be entirely accurate. The fact is that later modeling of actual measurements taken by NOAA and NASA probes are supporting the portion of the hockey stick in which we find ourselves today. We are grossly increasing the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere and our climate is being modified by this addition. That is clear.

I see your skimming was sufficient to let your mischaracterizations 'sound' like you knew something of import. Had you read it, you would know that there were plenty of criticism around Mann's selection of proxy's, his statistical blundering, and the implications of his seeming 'covering up' of failed validation statistics.

Other than that, I am pleased to see you are open minded.

 

[arkirk]

Maxparrish: What is your "opinion" on Global Warming? Do you think it is cause for concern? Do you think it will lead to rising sea levels, massive weather disturbances, crop failures, and other very serious environmental changes predicted by experts like Bill McKibben? Do you think we ought to be building more coal fired power plants? What is your thinking on this? I am aware you already haltingly admitted that you accepted that human activity has an effect of climate. Is your concern that we may overreact to this and do a lot of things that we don't need to do? In short do you deny that man's effect on the atmospheric environment is significant and needs to be brought under control?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I am reviewing them now, but still really wonder what mechanical engineering has to do with climate change and why a scientific journal is claiming a political bias. It would be nice if you can link to the papers you are referring to.

There is nothing to "wonder". McIntyre was invited by a Ohio State entity to make a presentation on his work. He provided an overview that helps the unfamiliar understand why folks like Steyn and National Review believes he is a mountebank.

But what does climate change have to do with mechanical engineering? This brings up red flags, like when a economics Ph.D. gives lectures on relationship advice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You do not settle scientific issues with law suits attempting to chill free speech, assuming you have respect for the first amendment. Why is that so hard for to understand?

The suit is an attempt to chill libelous speech.

Free speech does not mean every kind of speech is allowed. Using lies to discredit research that shows the entire planet is in danger is far more dangerous than yelling fire in a movie theater.

Yeah, what the conservatives are trying to do is bash him for yelling "Fire!" when there really is one but they don't want the patrons running away.

 

[maxparrish]

Maxparrish: What is your "opinion" on Global Warming? (yes) Do you think it is cause for concern? (yes) Do you think it will lead to rising sea levels (yes), massive weather disturbances (no), crop failures (yes and no), and other very serious environmental changes predicted by experts like Bill McKibben? (No idea who he is). Do you think we ought to be building more coal fired power plants? (yes) What is your thinking on this? I am aware you already haltingly admitted that you accepted that human activity has an effect of climate. (nothing halting about it) Is your concern that we may overreact to this and do a lot of things that we don't need to do? (yes) In short do you deny that man's effect on the atmospheric environment is significant and needs to be brought under control?(not really)

Global warming cannot be stopped except perhaps by geo-engineering. All other efforts are futile and pointless. In the meantime, we adapt as we always have.

 

[maxparrish]

There is nothing to "wonder". McIntyre was invited by a Ohio State entity to make a presentation on his work. He provided an overview that helps the unfamiliar understand why folks like Steyn and National Review believes he is a mountebank.

But what does climate change have to do with mechanical engineering? This brings up red flags, like when a economics Ph.D. gives lectures on relationship advice.

The "red flag" maybe the department that invites the economist, not the economist. Perhaps you ought to send them a note asking them what business is of theirs to invite presentations not directly applicable to mechanical engineering - OR is it WHO they invited (a critic of the hockey stick) that vexes you?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Here is a link to the Wikipedia article on the hockey stick controversy to track the timeline of all of that, which underlies this lawsuit. Bring coffee, its a long and very detailed read. Can charges of misleading the world with this science be seriously upheld. No. But bad claims just won't die.

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

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I skimmed the PDF MAX posted and found what I expected to find...a lot of data mining and selective data publishing on the part of the deniers. Court on this will be mildly interesting. The hockey stick was very much involved in triggering a lot of newer more accurate forms of monitoring. The proxy modeling was simply the best information Mann had at the time he did his work. You cannot expect proxy modeling to be entirely accurate. The fact is that later modeling of actual measurements taken by NOAA and NASA probes are supporting the portion of the hockey stick in which we find ourselves today. We are grossly increasing the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere and our climate is being modified by this addition. That is clear.

I see your skimming was sufficient to let your mischaracterizations 'sound' like you knew something of import. Had you read it, you would know that there were plenty of criticism around Mann's selection of proxy's, his statistical blundering, and the implications of his seeming 'covering up' of failed validation statistics.

Other than that, I am pleased to see you are open minded.

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

There was no blundering, etc, except it seems by Mann's bitterest opponents.Mann's findings have stood the test of time and have been corroborated by other researchers using other data.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Here is a link to the Wikipedia article on the hockey stick controversy to track the timeline of all of that, which underlies this lawsuit. Bring coffee, its a long and very detailed read. Can charges of misleading the world with this science be seriously upheld. No. But bad claims just won't die.

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

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maxparrish: What is your "opinion" on Global Warming? (yes) Do you think it is cause for concern? (yes) Do you think it will lead to rising sea levels (yes), massive weather disturbances (no), crop failures (yes and no), and other very serious environmental changes predicted by experts like Bill McKibben? (No idea who he is). Do you think we ought to be building more coal fired power plants? (yes) What is your thinking on this? I am aware you already haltingly admitted that you accepted that human activity has an effect of climate. (nothing halting about it) Is your concern that we may overreact to this and do a lot of things that we don't need to do? (yes) In short do you deny that man's effect on the atmospheric environment is significant and needs to be brought under control?(not really)

Global warming cannot be stopped except perhaps by geo-engineering. All other efforts are futile and pointless. In the meantime, we adapt as we always have.

The immortality of youth.

We always have adapted because we are descended from those that were able to adapt. The ones that couldn't find a solution are generally only looked at by archeologists.

 

[maxparrish]

Here is a link to the Wikipedia article on the hockey stick controversy to track the timeline of all of that, which underlies this lawsuit. Bring coffee, its a long and very detailed read. Can charges of misleading the world with this science be seriously upheld. No. But bad claims just won't die.

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

I hope you are aware that this article, and the subject of climate change, is one of the top ten subjects that have fueled "edit wars". On the subject of climate change a Mr. William Connolley was a self-appointed climate change gate-keeper, editing over 5000 articles on the subject and with his administrator status banning over 500 editors who tried to give a balanced view. Eventually Wikipedia banned him but he is still active under one of his sock puppets.

In any event, having attempted to edit the Hockey_stick_controversy for accuracy (several years ago) I ran afoul of the fellow and quickly gave up. In short, on this subject Wikipedia is very unreliable and is only useful as an outline of the issues. For more on the war over wiki:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=William+Connolley

 

[maxparrish]

I see your skimming was sufficient to let your mischaracterizations 'sound' like you knew something of import. Had you read it, you would know that there were plenty of criticism around Mann's selection of proxy's, his statistical blundering, and the implications of his seeming 'covering up' of failed validation statistics.

Other than that, I am pleased to see you are open minded.

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

There was no blundering, etc, except it seems by Mann's bitterest opponents.Mann's findings have stood the test of time and have been corroborated by other researchers using other data.

Prove it. Quote SOMETHING SOMEWHERE that proves it...still waiting...besides, that only goes to show WHY the courts are, in the end, not going to deal with a scientific controversy.

 

[RavenSky]

I am reviewing them now, but still really wonder what mechanical engineering has to do with climate change and why a scientific journal is claiming a political bias. It would be nice if you can link to the papers you are referring to.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Von Storch, Burger and Chumash didn't call Michael Mann "Doctor Fraudpants" in their peer-reviewed papers.

 

[RavenSky]

Where did you find that the ACLU filed multiple amicus briefs 'on both sides', not from the op sources? The ACLU filed on behalf of many groups who support the defendants. Have you even bothered to read the brief (or my summary?) ...I fear the question is rhetorical.

I've read the briefs. I've ignored your summary, as I ignore almost everything you post. The reason I generally ignore you? Because of your pathetic attempts to be insulting as evidenced by the way you addressed me above. When you apologize and revise your words to me, I will consider having a serious discussion with you.

 

[maxparrish]

Where did you find that the ACLU filed multiple amicus briefs 'on both sides', not from the op sources? The ACLU filed on behalf of many groups who support the defendants. Have you even bothered to read the brief (or my summary?) ...I fear the question is rhetorical.

I've read the briefs. I've ignored your summary, as I ignore almost everything you post. The reason I generally ignore you? Because of your pathetic attempts to be insulting as evidenced by the way you addressed me above. When you apologize and revise your words to me, I will consider having a serious discussion with you.

I have found, as in posts 155, 158, 159, 189 (etc.) of the thread on Perry, that regardless of the blandest possible tone of my posts you won't respond. So if you are asking me to be less sarcastic, I'd been more than happy to strive for the tone in those messages, assuming you will respond seriously. If you meet me halfway, no problem. Absent a response in the affirmative I will assume that you will continue to ignore my comments, no matter how they are expressed.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Here is a link to the Wikipedia article on the hockey stick controversy to track the timeline of all of that, which underlies this lawsuit. Bring coffee, its a long and very detailed read. Can charges of misleading the world with this science be seriously upheld. No. But bad claims just won't die.

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

I hope you are aware that this article, and the subject of climate change, is one of the top ten subjects that have fueled "edit wars". On the subject of climate change a Mr. William Connolley was a self-appointed climate change gate-keeper, editing over 5000 articles on the subject and with his administrator status banning over 500 editors who tried to give a balanced view. Eventually Wikipedia banned him but he is still active under one of his sock puppets.

In any event, having attempted to edit the Hockey_stick_controversy for accuracy (several years ago) I ran afoul of the fellow and quickly gave up. In short, on this subject Wikipedia is very unreliable and is only useful as an outline of the issues. For more on the war over wiki:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=William+Connolley

Look at how you titled this thread you started. I can understand how your edits may have been rejected.
No, this article gives a sober timeline. Numerous studies have demonstrated no major errors,and especially no sort of fraud an the part of Mann and his compatriots. Alternatives to Mann's approach support his conclusions. That is all. I pointed out this article for its timeline overview for those who may want such a thing. And for the mentions of attempts to debunk the hockey stick that ended up poorly and incompetently done.

I will let anybody interested read and decide for themselves.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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

There was no blundering, etc, except it seems by Mann's bitterest opponents.Mann's findings have stood the test of time and have been corroborated by other researchers using other data.

Prove it. Quote SOMETHING SOMEWHERE that proves it...still waiting...besides, that only goes to show WHY the courts are, in the end, not going to deal with a scientific controversy.

This article is all I need to quote. There are enough links for followups to keep one reading for days. Today, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is serious global warming and it is largely man made.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
"Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree"

How many dozen citations do I have to post just to see you ignore the facts? Are these 97% of scientists all lying, wrongheaded left wingers?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

"Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made
Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it"

Yeah all these fool scientists are wrong! Only those in the pay of Exxon/Mobil or the Kook brothers can be trusted!

 

[maxparrish]

Prove it. Quote SOMETHING SOMEWHERE that proves it...still waiting...besides, that only goes to show WHY the courts are, in the end, not going to deal with a scientific controversy.

This article is all I need to quote. There are enough links for followups to keep one reading for days. Today, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is serious global warming and it is largely man made.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
"Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree"

How many dozen citations do I have to post just to see you ignore the facts? Are these 97% of scientists all lying, wrongheaded left wingers?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

"Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made
Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it"

Yeah all these fool scientists are wrong! Only those in the pay of Exxon/Mobil or the Kook brothers can be trusted!

You don't need to post "how many dozen" links on an issue not in dispute - the Mann suit is not over human caused global warming. To crank out more irrelevant links is a strawman. The issue is over Mann's credibility as a researcher and the basis for mocking him as a fraudster.

You claim is work has been validated and supported. FINE, give us an instance (e.g. A QUOTE) where that is true, where his "hockey stick" work is valid, and I will demonstrate your error. But I'm not going to look for evidence on your behalf.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

Several studies have shown that people who are aware of scientific consensus on human-caused global warming are more likely to support government action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This was most recently shown by a paper just published in the journal Climatic Change. People will generally defer to the judgment of experts, and they trust climate scientists on the subject of global warming.

However, vested interests have long realized this and engaged in a campaign to misinform the public about the scientific consensus. For example, a memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans,

"Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate"

This campaign has been successful. A 2012 poll from US Pew Research Center found less than half of Americans thought scientists agreed humans were causing global warming. The media has assisted in this public misconception, with most climate stories "balanced" with a "skeptic" perspective. However, this results in making the 2–3% seem like 50%. In trying to achieve "balance", the media has actually created a very unbalanced perception of reality. As a result, people believe scientists are still split about what's causing global warming, and therefore there is not nearly enough public support or motivation to solve the problem.

And this is what it is all about. Scientific consensus is that there is excellent evidence to support climatic warming caused by humans. The denialists ignore the massive scientific literature demonstrating that. And a few commit libel and defamation in their efforts to muddy the waters and get sued for their efforts. The science is good. The legal theories put forth on part on denialists about this lawsuit are proving to be as bad as their science to date. If they cannot halt this trial, then they will have to prove Mann is a fraud, and the consensus among scientists suggests that isn't going to fly. And that folks, is how the cow ate the cabbage.

 

[maxparrish]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

Several studies have shown that people who are aware of scientific consensus on human-caused global warming are more likely to support government action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This was most recently shown by a paper just published in the journal Climatic Change. People will generally defer to the judgment of experts, and they trust climate scientists on the subject of global warming.

Exactly what about "the Mann suit is not over human caused global warming. To crank out more irrelevant links is a strawman. The issue is over Mann's credibility as a researcher" do you not understand? Mann used bogus methods to create a bogus study to make a bogus historical chart of temperatures. I believe global warming is partially and substantially human caused BUT that is irrelevant to this issue.

Until you cease evasion, I will not respond to your strawmen.