Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Little more from Mann/news,…..

Michael Mann, known for his work on the “hockey stick” analysis of global warming, can proceed with defamation claims against writers who called him the “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” and characterized his work as fraudulent.

WASHINGTON — Climate scientist Michael Mann, known for his work on the “hockey stick” analysis of global warming, can proceed with defamation claims against two writers who accused him of fraud and academic misconduct, an appeals court in Washington ruled on Thursday.

Mann brought the case against Rand Simberg, writing for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Mark Steyn, writing for the National Review. CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said in a statement that they were confident they would ultimately win the case.

And

Michael Mann - Some Key Additional Excerpts From Today's Appeals Court Decision Affirming My Right to Proceed With Defamation Suit Against The Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review

42. in this case there is, at this point, no similar evidence that Mr. Simberg, Mr. Steyn, CEI, or National Review conducted research or investigation that provided support for their defamatory statements that Dr. Mann engaged in deception and misconduct. The only support cited in the articles are the CRU emails, with primary reliance on the language in one email that referred to “Mike’s Nature trick.” But what the court noted was missing in Jankovic III to support a finding of actual malice is present here: evidence that there was reason to doubt the emails as a reliable source for the belief that Dr. Mann had engaged in misconduct. That evidence has been presented in the form of reports from four separate investigations that debunked the notion that the emails and, specifically the reference to Dr. Mann’s “trick,” revealed deception in the presentation of data and scientific misconduct. (pp.100-101)

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Because this thread started with a couple articles related to Michael Mann’s work,…….

The opinion, written for the three judge panel by Senior Judge Vanessa Ruiz, states:

To the extent statements in appellants’ articles take issue with the soundness of Dr. Mann’s methodology and conclusions — i.e., with ideas in a scientific or political debate — they are protected by the First Amendment. But defamatory statements that are personal attacks on an individual’s honesty and integrity and assert or imply as fact that Dr. Mann engaged in professional misconduct and deceit to manufacture the results he desired, if false, do not enjoy constitutional protection and may be actionable.

The court's majority opinion also found that making statements to gain advantage in a "no-holds-barred debate over global warming" are typically protected under the First Amendment. However:

... If the statements assert or imply false facts that defame the individual, they do not find shelter under the First Amendment simply because they are embedded in a larger policy debate.

Court ruling provides new way for climate scientists to fight intimidation

In a legal first, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that a climate science researcher can proceed with defamation claims against writers who made false allegations about his scientific work.

The ruling by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, found that a "reasonable jury" could find that two writers defamed Michael Mann — known for the famous "hockey stick" graph showing that modern climate change is unprecedented in human history — by making false claims about his work, and comparing him to a notorious child molester.

The court found that two writers for the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, may have defamed Mann by comparing him to Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, who was convicted of molesting dozens of children in 2012.

Mann has been the subject of extraordinary criticism since his research was used as part of the foundation of a 2001 climate science report that found that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases are the most likely cause of global warming.

Mann said he is "pleased" with the decision, and looking forward to moving on to a jury trial.

"We are particularly pleased that the court, after performing an independent review of the evidence, found that the allegations against me have been 'definitively discredited,'" he said in a statement.

__________

Michael Mann - “Denial will never be completely dead.,…..There’s still people who think the moon landing was a hoax.”

__________

The Arctic could end a year of record-breaking temperatures with a heat wave

Another sign that not all is well in the Arctic.

In a year of record-high temperatures and record-low sea ice, the Arctic appears poised to witness another frightening scenario: temperatures at the North Pole so high that they might even swing above freezing, something not typically seen until May.

For the second year in a row, December temperatures in the Arctic are much higher than normal. On Thursday, it’s possible that temperatures could climb as much as 50° F (about 28° C) above normal, bringing temperatures close to, or potentially above, 32° F.

Record-low levels of Arctic sea ice might be at least partly responsible for the high temperatures. Ryan Maue, a meteorologist with WeatherBell Analytics, told the Washington Post that the temperatures are being brought to the North Pole by a storm east of Greenland, and that record-low sea ice makes it easier for warm air to travel northward unencumbered.

Since roughly September, the Arctic has experienced much warmer than normal temperatures — November was a record 18 degrees above normal, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s annual arctic report card, released December 13, surface air temperatures for the Arctic this year have been “by far” the highest since 1900.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said in a statement that they were confident they would ultimately win the case.

Michael Mann: Six to nil

Professor Mann has been targeted and harassed by unscrupulous people for around twenty years, and is standing tall. A recent article at the Washington Post gives some clues to what he has endured, simply for doing scientific research to expand our understanding of climate. This is now the sixth case that Professor Mann has won, including some that have been brought by others, attacking him:

Cuccinelli v. UVA/Mann,
Cuccinelli v. UVA/Mann supreme Court Appeal,
ATI v. UVA/Mann,
ATI v. UVA/Mann Supreme Court Appeal,
Mann v. CEI/NRO/etc DC District Court,
Mann v. CEI/NRO DC Appeals Court

Maybe that's the reason there's nothing (yet) on the blogs of the usual suspects (like WUWT and ClimateDepot. Even several hours later, there's not even been a tip to Anthony Watts from a WUWT reader.). It might be that climate disinformation bloggers are realising they can no longer post their defamatory articles without consequence.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

what people deny is that it is man made and man can change the climate.

Do you have any proof to back up your claims that is what I asked you imbecile. You don't have any. Almost the entire world scientific community says you are wrong.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

That it is man made is a scam that lots of people have made money from and continue to do so because of fukwits like yourself.

You are an epic level retard to buy into that tin foiled nonsense. You really deserve the teakdoor village idiot award.

You lalalanders could be right about man made climate change, but getting it right would a first for you lot. When I read landreth's stupid graphs I am totally convinced by them, but if I go to a more skeptical source of info eg wattsupwiththat, they are also equally convincing, and their graphs are just as good.

eg https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/...atest-results/

However they find no causal link, but a correlation

It follows that this synthesis of empirical data conclusively reveals that CO2 has not caused temperature change over the past 38 years but that the rate of change in CO2 concentration may have been influenced to a statistically significant degree by the temperature level.

Moving onto Mann and his hockey stick.

Mann has been the subject of extraordinary criticism since his research was used as part of the foundation of a 2001 climate science report that found that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases are the most likely cause of global warming.


Mann said he is "pleased" with the decision, and looking forward to moving on to a jury trial.

"We are particularly pleased that the court, after performing an independent review of the evidence, found that the allegations against me have been 'definitively discredited,'" he said in a statement.

There is even something about that there written by Steyn, the one of the guys he is suing.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/...ey-stick-case/

Er, no. It wasn’t my motion. Nothing to do with me. In fact, I objected to it. As I said above, I thought the appeal was a waste of time, and filed a motion to proceed to trial three years ago. Mann filed a motion objecting to that, a position the judge found “ironic“

It was Mann who objected to going to trial! So there is more to this story that the one Landreth is portraying, and it becomes harder to have any faith in his stupid graphs.

Steyn also adds:

In a third of the time it took the DC Court of Appeals to issue their ruling, I managed to write an entire book on the subject (dealing in part with all those faux exonerations): “A Disgrace To The Profession”: The World’s Scientists – In Their Own Words – On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick, And Their Damage To Science – Volume One.

^^ I am just trying to see what the other side says. Landreth's stuff is convincing, but I dont think it is cut and dried as you make out.

For example, I remember you making a diatribe about Pelke. I looked him up, and he seems quite reasonable, nothing like the impression I had from you.

He believes in man-made climate change, but does not agree that there is enough evidence to show that it is causing the number of storms to increase, and he has been villified, not for disagreeing with the narrative, but merely deviating from it.

It doesn't make you guys look good, very much like your post just makes you look like you belong to a religious cult that cannot abide even the minutest deviation from certain proscribed POVs.

There is so much money in global warming now that its totally corrupted the science on it, for example Obama has increased govt grants bye 1300% except if your work doesn't prove global warming is man made. That alone should send shivers down peoples backs, the left has created a new threat to democracy and freedom other then eisenhowers beware the military industrial complex. Its now beware the left wing climate science complex. Both are fueled bye govt money. But the goals of the left wing are much more nefarious then just take our money tho they love doing that too. Its globalization through making the western world poorer bye shipping all our industry to the 3rd world.

For example Obama has just closed off massive areas for oil searching and production. Oil will just be searched for and produced in other countries, thus all the companies, job, taxes, incomes, technology, will go to other countries not us. And there goes our future given to them. When they raise pollution standards in our western countries it forces many companies to choose going bankrupt or leaving for the 3rd world where they can pollute to there hearts content. Again we lose the companies, the jobs, incomes, taxes, technology and the future. With our business tax rate set at 35% we force companies to go bankrupt or leave, again sending our companies, jobs, incomes, taxes, technology the future to the 3rd world. And for all 3 of these points we are cleaner, less polluting, more green then the 3rd world, but the companies moving can now pollute to their hearts content. These points all reveal the lies in the greens and lefts policies. They only talk green, there actions are all anti green and that is the truth.

The really funny thing about the lefts actions is the kickback to it, the American industrial heartland Wisconsin to Pennsylvania has abandoned the dems because of their globalization polices and thus the dems lost the election. Its payback time, elections have consequences, your anti working class globalization policies have had consequences.