The link is the quality of Penn State initial ‘investigation’ into Sandusky and the their quality ‘investigation’ into Mann . Any fair person would regard asking the accused if they do anything wrong and just taken their word for it that they had not , has a poor ‘investigation’ to say the least. In addition it seamed that the money they brought into the university has factor into way the university ‘investigation ‘ their cases. A factor which should have had no bearing on the cases.
That Mann barefaced lied to them and they refused to follow this lie once they became aware of it , really shows how much ‘investigation ‘ they actual did in his case. In short, in both cases the university did a poor job of ‘investigating ‘ concerns of the behaviour of its staff members.
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by knr
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by timg56
Mann’s push back is so stunning that military historians will be writing about him for centuries.
Ok, maybe not. Only Mann thinks he’s a warrior king. Sad, really.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by timg56
If I got a nickel for identifying each time Josh showed his ass, I might be a millionaire.
But as it is a free market, guys like Mosher would have me on a freeway off ramp holding a cardboard sign.
↧
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by wrhoward
Actually I haven’t talked about forward projections yet, except in my comment about sea level.
↧
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by wrhoward
That’s a very good article IMO. Hope more people read it. I have been recommending it.
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by timg56
Josh,
begging to be molested are you?
Mosher points out the obvious. Nobody at PSU is defending Sandusky. Some are questioning how internal investigations could have missed what now appears obvious.
Steyn simply pointed out the parallel.
↧
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by wrhoward
Donald Rapp, in response to my statement:
“ over the past 50 years each successive decade has been warmer than the previous one.”
says
“That is simply not true.”
OK Donald,
Here’s the data from the GISTEMP synthesis (but feel free to pick your own favourite), decadal averages referenced to 1951-1980 (feel free to pick your own reference period)
Decade Decade Average Temperature Difference from 1951-1980 period
1883-1892 -0.241
1893-1902 -0.245
1903-1912 -0.403
1913-1922 -0.3
1923-1932 -0.18
1933-1942 -0.034
1943-1952 -0.038
1953-1962 -0.018
1963-1972 -0.027
1973-1982 0.088
1983-1992 0.246
1993-2002 0.429
2003-2012 0.584
Here’s a link to the data
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt
Donald Rapp, over to you …
↧
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Katisha
- How to Talk About Climate Change So People Will Listen
– Environmentalists warn us that apocalypse awaits.
The truth is noone has the faintest idea yet, least of all environmental scientivists.
– Economists tell us that minimal fixes will get us through.
In facts it’s pretty clear to all that the fix – hugely increasing energy prices one way or another – will have anything but a minimal impact.
So the basic problem is they want us to listen to politically-motivated garbage. Whereas the way to get people to listen, is to STOP talking garbage, and STOP being devious and political.
↧
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Rob Ellison
Apparently – according to the article – the new way to sell alarmism is to invoke fleets of aircraft dumping sulfuric acid in the atmosphere.
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by climatereason
Nick Stokes
There was a very good British TV Programme some years ago called ‘Yes Minister’ and Yes Prime Minister’ in which the machinations of politicians and civil servants was laid bare. The British can conduct superb in depth investigations but are also capable of investigations intended to ‘kick the ball into the long grass’ or apply a thick coat of whitewash to subjects they would rather not be seen again.
I would suggest that those investigation held to investigate Mann/climate science-in the UK at least-were worthy of an episode of Yes Minister. It was hardly detailed, or in depth, nor were searching questions asked.
I don’t have this visceral dislike of Mann that some others here do, but having read many of his works in connection with carrying out my own research I see him as nothing more than a mediocre (but not bad) climate scientist with a tree ring fixation that others in the industry should have relegated to his proper mid league position years ago.
Perhaps some are in awe of his reputation but it’s about time he was given more scrutiny by those in his profession and his occasionally mediocre work-such as the hockey stick-was relegated to the history books.
Ps Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister are available as Dvd;s from the BBC. Would you like me to send you one as a present as it would give you a better insight into the British (and I dare say US and Australian) establishment. Genuine offer as you are often given a hard time especially over at WUWT.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by climatereason
Faustino
Thanks for that
Loved this sentence from the abstract.
‘This result has a huge implication on coastal management that should be based on observationally derived forecasts rather than “projections” of models lacking validation.’
Observations? Whatever next?
tonyb
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Pointman
I think people need to readjust their expectations. The belated intervention of heavy-weight news organisations and the ACLU, even if through gritted teeth because of their dislike of Steyn, combined with blatant and demonstrable falsehoods in the pre-trial statements, have in all probability lost him the case. But then again, OJ was found innocent.
Despite what some my be hoping, I don’t think that result will deliver Mann nailed to a cross, though the Steyn counter-suit might possible do just that.
However, there’s a bigger victory than just defending the fourth estate’s ability to vigorously comment on public figures. The novel ploy of using a court to decide on the scientific merits of a controversial branch of science looks to be stillborn.
Support for Mann has always been hesitant, even with the climate science community; the perception has always been he’s too much of a loose cannon. My feeling is they’ll walk away for good now.
Pointman
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Rob Ellison
‘… Krugman argues that the current campaign to deny climate change is steeped more in political ideology than in industry-funded opposition.’
Climate science is one thing. The ability to predict the future reliably is massively overstated. Both models and climate are multiply coupled, nonlinear systems. Climate prediction is theoretically impossible. Attribution of recent – and indeed ancient warming – is impossible without understanding the changeable role of clouds, dust, ice and vegetation. The proof is that climate chaotically shifted last around the turn of the century – and the planet is thus is unlikely to warm for 2 to 4 decades at the least. The only guarantee is surprises – and the continued science denial insanity of Michael Mann and his ilk.
The real denial however – steeped in rational political and economic theory – is a fundamental opposition to taxes and caps – something that is much more clearly a failure than a success at any rate. The alternative is and always has been fast mitigation and adaption options using development and economic growth strategies linked to population, land use, ecological restoration, building organics in agricultural soils and reducing methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone and black carbon emissions. Along with investments in energy innovation.
The only important question left is where the denial, delay and obfuscation is coming from?
↧
↧
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by phatboy
Oh I do so love these bun-fights over semantics :popcorn:
↧
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by mosomoso
Beware of sheer pottiness over carbon.
Remember when the outback took wing and headed to the surf back in 2009? That enormous tonnage of dust was iron rich, the result of interior rain at the right time, drying of the silt, and followed by spring westerlies. Natural event, very untidy, alarms people…but all part of the plan, just like the El Nino which nudged it along.
Well, you would think that people doing iron fertilising (LOHAFEX experiment) around that time would have said: “We’re so silly. We could use a whole fleet and do this indefinitely and we couldn’t achieve what Lake Eyre and surrounds have just done for free.”
But they didn’t.
They were potty, you see. Just like the people who wanted to soot the poles back in the 1970s to stop global cooling (well, that ice had been increasing – but sssh!).
As a total skeptic, I don’t care if temps go up or down, since they can’t really stay the same or go sideways. I’m concerned that we have not reached Peak Pottiness, and that there are many more billion dollar white elephants on the way. After Timmy’s Geothermia and Woodchips-to-Drax, you really do have to wonder if there are any limits at all.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by pauldd
Curious as to why you believe most judges will err on the side of a trial? GRanted, the standards for dismissal on the pleadings or summary judgment are difficult to meet. Judges, however, generally prefer to avoid protracted trials when a case can be disposed of by other means.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by phatboy
Jim D, making a mistake may be forgivable. Going to great lengths to defend your mistake after it’s been pointed out – not so much.
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Nick Stokes
Tony,
Thanks – response in moderation
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse
FOMD notes “• The scientific works of Mann, Hansen, and Oreskes keep on being cited, without pause or obvious limit.”
——-
knr responds “Sadly it not the first time rubbish keeps getting cited long after its been proven has rubbish , science has apoor historyexcellent history when it comes to its ability accept fair challenge to poor consensus.”
Example The scientific community has utterly rejected the works of Nobelist Ilya Prigogine, on the grounds that Prigogine’s good early work was not original, and Prigogine’s later original work was not good.
As long as the oceans keep heating, the sea-level keeps rising, and the polar ice keeps melting, we need not fear that the works of Hansen, Mann, and Oreskes will meet the same dismissive fate as Prigogine’s.
knr, it is a pleasure to increase your knowledge of scientific history … and the knowledge of Climate Etc‘s many denialist Prigogine fans.
Summary Hansen’s, Mann’s, and Oreskes’ science is proving to be good, Progogine’s science has proved to be bad.
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by phatboy
Joshua, now apply the same logic to “denier”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
