Comment on Trial of the century? by lolwot

March 27, 2014, 2:08 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trial of the century? by RickA

≪ Previous: Comment on Trial of the century? by lolwot

$

0

0

“As for Mann versus Steyn, Mann should put his full dataset out there with everything in a publicly available form, answer all the accusations once, and then sit back and let his work speak for itself. If you have to sue a journalist to protect your science, you have problems way beyond anything any mere journalist can stir up.”

If Steyn is willing to make fraud accusations he can’t back up in court, then why on Earth do you think he would stop doing so if Mann gave him some vague and unspecified information?

Shouldn’t you be criticizing Steyn for making an accusation he couldn’t support and refusing to retract it?

---

Comment on Trial of the century? by RickA

March 27, 2014, 2:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trial of the century? by Matthew R Marler

≪ Previous: Comment on Trial of the century? by lolwot

$

0

0

Bart R said

“Not one but two judges in Steyn v. Mann have ruled that Mann has a great likelihood of success in his claims. Do you think they need to bone up on Supreme Court precedent regarding Free Speech, Mr. No-No-Pronounce-It-Shourdun-It’s-French??

One thing you need to factor into your analysis to the Judges likelihood of success determinations is that the Judges were required to assume that everything Mann alleged in his complaint was true and correct – and then test whether there was a valid claim.

At the trial phase (after all motions to dismiss case without a trial) Mann doesn’t get all of his factual assertions presumed to be true and correct – but has the burden of proving each one by a preponderance of the evidence standard (slightly more than 50%).

So you shouldn’t look at what has happened so far (Judges not dismissing) and conclude Mann is going to win because the Judges said he was likely to succeed – because that is only if you assume all his pleadings are true as asserted.

Comment on Trial of the century? by Matthew R Marler

March 27, 2014, 2:15 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trial of the century? by Jim Cripwell

≪ Previous: Comment on Trial of the century? by RickA

$

0

0

Michael, here is what I found: Mann and his lawyers doctored a quote and put their own version of it in direct quotation marks. That’s bad enough. But they did it for a specific reason. Because the original makes clear that Sir Muir’s findings apply only to the “CRU scientists” – that’s to say, employees of the University of East Anglia, who are the only people the Russell panel was charged with investigating, and were therefore the only people it was in a position to exonerate. So, as evidence of Michael Mann’s “exoneration”, the best his lawyers can come up with is a fake quote from a report exonerating some people he happens to be acquainted with.

I disagree with your assertion that Steyn made a false claim. The original filing by Mann and his lawyers misquoted the report exactly as claimed by Steyn here. Inside the quote marks they dropped an important modifier without inserting the elision symbol “…” to indicate that they had done so. However, they did so by taking the quote from someone else who made the misquote. Perhaps you might object that Mann and his lawyers were not the original “doctors” of the quote. So maybe only the weaker charge that they “[came] up with … a fake quote” is correct. It was not a one-off mistake, but one in a series of such misrepresentations by Mann.

Comment on Trial of the century? by Jim Cripwell

March 27, 2014, 2:15 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trial of the century? by MJW

≪ Previous: Comment on Trial of the century? by Matthew R Marler

$

0

0

Jim D. you write “Jim Cripwell, maybe you don’t think that the global average temperature rise is scientific evidence in support of the AGW theory, but I have no idea why”

I will tell you why. There is no empirical data that shows that any part of any observed rise in temperature was caused by additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Every observed change in temperature could have been caused by natural effects. We cannot do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere, so there is no way of ever showing that additional CO2 in the atmosphere does anything at all.

In theory, adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise. But there is no empirical data whatsoever to show that this rise in temperature is significant, or can ever be measured.

Comment on Trial of the century? by MJW

March 27, 2014, 2:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trial of the century? by Jim Cripwell

≪ Previous: Comment on Trial of the century? by Jim Cripwell

$

0

0

Bart R:<i> Not one but two judges in Steyn v. Mann have ruled that Mann has a great likelihood of success in his claims.</i> They didn't say "great likelihood." The said "likely to prevail"; that still sounds like a fairly strong statement, until you look at what the judges consider that standard to be. Judge Combs Greene said (beginning on page 9) in her ruling on the CEI's anti-SLAPP motion that to meet the “likely to prevail” standard the plaintiff must merely present a sufficient legal basis for his claims, and the standard is comparable to that which must be met to defeat a a motion for judgement as a matter of law. Even accepting the low standard, I think she misapplied it. She says the standard of proof required is a preponderance of the evidence. However, in <i>Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.</i>, the Supreme Court held that to defeat a motion for a directed verdict in public-figure defamation cases, there must be sufficient evidence that a jury could find actual malice under the "clear and convincing" standard. On page 21 of the that same opinion, the judge says there is not yet clear and convincing evidence of actual malice.

Comment on Trial of the century? by Jim Cripwell

March 27, 2014, 2:20 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trial of the century? by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on Trial of the century? by MJW

$

0

0

Max, you write “Jim Cripwell is right.”

Thanks Max. First I doubt that John Carpenter will give you a reply. The warmists will NEVER admit that the IPOC has not followed the scientific method.

Comment on Trial of the century? by lolwot

March 27, 2014, 2:21 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trial of the century? by Matthew R Marler

≪ Previous: Comment on Trial of the century? by Jim Cripwell

$

0

0

Steyn’s second name is malice.

Good luck.

Comment on Trial of the century? by Matthew R Marler

March 27, 2014, 2:26 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by Pooh, Dixie

≪ Previous: Comment on Trial of the century? by lolwot

$

0

0

Michael: An update and correction is in order. Integrity demands it.

Prof Curry passed on the information that there was a new policy, based on what Rose told her. A thorough review of the previous policy, some deviations from that policy, and a careful reading of the “new” policy discloses that, on some readings, it isn’t exactly “new”, though there is obvious “newness” in the intention to adhere to the policy; or that the policy is “new” in some respects.

On that hangs your case that it was an instance of Prof Curry “spreading disinformation”.

---

Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by Pooh, Dixie

March 28, 2014, 1:32 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trial of the century? by John Carpenter

≪ Previous: Comment on Trial of the century? by Matthew R Marler

$

0

0

Flawless timing!

Comment on Trial of the century? by John Carpenter

March 28, 2014, 1:32 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

≪ Previous: Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by Pooh, Dixie

$

0

0

“The Scientific Method is a unique way of conducting scientific enquiries. I find it incomprehensible that this needs to be written on a science blog like Climate Etc. We are not talking any old scientific approach, We are talking The Scientific Method, developed by Galileo and Newton, and followed by physicists for over 350 years.”

It is evident to me Jim that you read very little of what I offered and have no penchant for learning things outside a very narrow understanding of the world as you know it.

“And it is absolutely true that the alleged physics behind the hypothesis of CAGW does NOT use THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD to try and prove it’s case.”

How true Jim, but for different reasons. There is no hypothesis of CAGW. because 1) one cannot measure the ‘catastrophic’ part of AGW, therefore it is indistinguishable from 0. It can’t even be estimated because it is not a thing, it is a description. It would be like trying to measure or estimate the amount of ‘black’ in the vacuum of outer space. Since one cannot use any scientific method to validate what ‘catastrophic’ means in the context of AGW because one cannot go into a laboratory and measure the amount of ‘catastrophe’ present in the climate then it is cannot be a part of physics. 2) If it not part of physics, it cannot be part of a hypothesis of scientific inquiry.

Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

March 28, 2014, 1:33 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trial of the century? by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Trial of the century? by John Carpenter

$

0

0

We work hard to reduce fossil fuel usage because we are forced to. Liquids such as crude oil are a finite resource and every country that has discovered reservoirs finds out that these don’t last and once gone, that’s it.

Get a dose of reality.

Comment on Trial of the century? by Don Monfort

March 28, 2014, 1:35 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trial of the century? by John Carpenter

≪ Previous: Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

$

0

0

Have you abandoned this thread, barty? I was hoping to hit you with the new paper that found that housecat entrails are a better predictor of climate trends than are the $BILLION$ of DOLLARS worth of GCMs.

Comment on Trial of the century? by John Carpenter

March 28, 2014, 1:38 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by Natalie Gordon

≪ Previous: Comment on Trial of the century? by Don Monfort

$

0

0

“Since one cannot use any scientific method to validate what ‘catastrophic’ means in the context of AGW because one cannot go into a laboratory and measure the amount of ‘catastrophe’ present in the climate then it is cannot be a part of physics.”

Yikes, I should have proof read better, try this…

One cannot use any scientific method to validate what ‘catastrophic’ means in the context of AGW because one cannot go into a laboratory and measure any amount of ‘catastrophe’ present in the climate, therefore it cannot be a part of physics.

Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by Natalie Gordon

March 28, 2014, 1:39 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Trial of the century? by John Carpenter

$

0

0

“Get a dose of reality.” I fail to appreciate your point. What part of reality am I not getting?

Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by Steven Mosher

March 28, 2014, 1:39 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by Natalie Gordon

$

0

0

Max,

he wont get it

---

Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by Wagathon

March 28, 2014, 1:43 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

Larry Bell (More Scientists Debunking Climate Change Myths) wrote in Newsmax about warming-crazed scientists who have since changed their tune–e.g., “Before this century is over,” James Lovelock predicted 8 years ago, “billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where climate remains tolerable.” But now, it is no longer clear to Lovelock that what he and other alarmists believed and wrote about over the last 20 years will happen. “The climate is doing its usual tricks . . . there’s nothing much happening yet even though we were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” says Lovelock. “Yet the temperature has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising . . . carbon dioxide has been rising, no question about that.”

Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by manacker

March 28, 2014, 1:43 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by Wagathon

$

0

0

Natalie

You certainly appear to be “walking the talk” on a personal basis.

And, yes, there is much too much “do as I say, not as I do” hypocrisy in climatology today. (Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, pro-CAGW “media darlings” like Richard Branson, etc. all come to mind).

Max

Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by manacker

March 28, 2014, 1:46 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trial of the century? by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by manacker

$

0

0

Natalie

Don’t worry too much about Webby’s remarks.

He wakes up in a bad mood sometimes and fires off cheap shots.

He doesn’t mean bad by it. It’s just his personality.

Max

Comment on Trial of the century? by Jim D

March 28, 2014, 1:59 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by John Carpenter

≪ Previous: Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by manacker

$

0

0

manacker, your correlation phrase was wrong. Of course the correlation is evidence of a connection especially being 90%. It doesn’t prove causation, but it is evidence that CO2 and temperature are closely tied, which happens to also be what AGW says, so it supports AGW, and can even be used to quantify it. When people like Lewis do this, you don’t complain that they have assumed CO2 emissions are a primary cause of temperature rises. If you are going the Jim Cripwell route and now denying that warming of 0.7 C in the last 50 years is even evidence of AGW, you have to complete that thought and ask Lewis what he is doing, otherwise it just looks like inconsistency and jumping between various sinking ships depending on your mood for the day.

Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by John Carpenter

March 28, 2014, 1:59 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Trial of the century? by Pooh, Dixie

≪ Previous: Comment on Trial of the century? by Jim D

$

0

0

“Air travel is an anthropogenic drop in the ocean.
That’s a fact.
Not an “issue”. – Rev.

Micheal, do take note of yet another climate action delayer. Another denier telling us its useless to even try because it is not worth it. And he held such promise too. Shame.