Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by ian005

0
0

The rules of civil procedure for DC (based, apparently, on the same rule in the Federal courts), clearly makes the lawyers responsible for the pleadings that they file. See Rule 11 “Signing of Pleadings … Representations to Court; Sanctions” at: http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/Civil-Rules-Jan-2012.pdf

If Mann has submitted an affirmative affidavit (as suggested by Texas95 may sometimes occur) then he would be on the hook for any false factual claims for which he was responsible, if such affidavit is filed with the court. Such affidavits, however, do not appear specifically to be required: Rule 11(a) “…Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. [...]”

The obligation with respect to factual contentions is as follows:
“11 (b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other filing, including an electronic filing, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, [...]
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.”

On the narrow point of direct responsibility for the pleadings, absent a supporting affidavit from Mann which includes untrue statements (and otherwise falls afoul of the exceptions in 11(b), and subsection 3 and 4 of the rules), the law firm is on the hook for the pleadings, not Mann (though, the lawyers may be very unhappy with their client).

There is a process for correcting pleadings and sanctions do not bite until after that process is completed. Rule 11(c) reads:

“(c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.”

(1) How Initiated.
(A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. […]”

Note that the sanctions on “parties” appear to bite only when the party is representing himself or herself.

At this point in time, notwithstanding Nick’s speculative attempt to infer that the pleadings are drafted almost solely by the lawyers (comment on 11 Sept at 6:36) without reference to Mann (because Nick believes that much of the information is based on public documents), we do not have sufficient information on the process at work to arrive at such a conclusion. My experience (largely Canada and the UK; some experience with American pleadings as an off-shoot of work on a large international fraud case), is that lawyers always review the pleadings in detail with the clients. This is particularly true where factual claims about the client (and matters such as his role/involvement in certain matters) are being made. Such an approach is good practice and a law firm takes a great risk if they haven’t confirmed such information with the client in detail. Identification of the various inquiries which are claimed to have “exonerated” Mann (even though most such inquiries did not actually review his work), were likely identified initially by Mann to the lawyers. The content of the pleadings would then have been reviewed with him – in other words, he would have been asked by the lawyers to confirm that their interpretation was correct. While local practice may vary (and there may be nuances which have developed in the application of these rules of which I’m not aware), it’s would be a very brave or foolish lawyer who files principal documents in a case without a close and detailed review with the client.


Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by thisisnotgoodtogo

0
0

Actually, what happened, Padbrit, is that you just unknowingly “dropped a dime” on yourself.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

Here’s what AK refers as an acknowledgement:

First of all, in the last 15 years, there have been plenty of opportunities for climate academics to plot an unexpurgated comparison of the Briffa reconstruction to the other reconstructions, but NONE have done so. Do you agree on this.

Second, you purported to justify AR5’s failure as follows: “Well, so are MBH98 and 99. IPCC reports are basically supposed to report what is new since last time.” I observed that Table 5.A.6 listed the Wahl-Ammann version of MBH98-99. Table 5.A.6 states that it listed “Hemispheric and global temperature reconstructions assessed in Table 5 1 .4 and used in Figures 5.7–5.9.”. I had assumed – incorrectly as it turns out – that IPCC’s list was accurate. However, it turns out that (as you observed) the Wahl-AMmann version of MBH was not shown in Figure 5.7, despite its inclusion in the IPCC list. I stand corrected and concede that the WA version of MBH was not shown in Figure 5.7 despite its inclusion in Table 5.A.6 as being used in Figure 5.7. I should have known better than to rely on an IPCC list.

In return, I presume that you will agree on the original point that no academic article has shown a direct comparison of the Briffa MXD reconstruction to other reconstructions without hiding the decline.

http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/10/inventory-of-hide-the-decline/#comment-728995

The IPCC Made the Auditor Do It in between two squirrels.

Perhaps we don’t share the same paradigm about acknowledgments, AK.

***

If you could tell me where the Auditor admitted anything about Wegman’s fig. 4, AK, that would be nice. Please beware that unless the Auditor explicitly repudiates (or is it only disavows?) any porky it may contain, etc.

Comment on Week in review by John Smith (it's my real name)

0
0

tonyb
I don’t think markus is going to reply
excuse me for interjecting
just read your very interesting post “Long Slow Thaw” (that is you, right?)
fascinated by the winter scene painting
recently visited Hagia Sophia and saw the 12th c mosaics of
Christ and was overwhelmed at how realistic and life like they appear in person
I think we tend to discount medieval and later accounts and art as untrustworthy because they appear primitive to our modern senses
it just struck me that the Bruegel painting may a very realistic portrayal of that very cold LIA period … a sky and light not known to us in the modern era
more to learn from them than many think

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Don Monfort

0
0

Nice work Rick, but jimmy says Broecker’s predictions have been realized. We know, with the exception of CO2 reaching 400 ppm, they haven’t panned out. We know about the pause. We know that CO2 is not dominating the climate. Jimmy is impervious to reality. He will just keep repeating the same tedious and disingenuous claptrap. It seems to be his reason for living. Pathetic.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by tetris

0
0

It seems to me that we are all engaging in some serious fly f…. or what the French so poetically call mental masturbation.

Demonstrate to the court the realities of “hide the decline” ask McIntyre and JeanS to testify and educate the judge/jury on how Mann did it and with what intent, overlay this with a demonstrably similar case in corporate accounting that has gone before the courts and lead to a conviction, and you have all you need to demonstrate fraud.

Because if Mann had done what he did in a corporate setting, he would have wound up behind bars a long time ago. Only in climate “science”…

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by thisisnotgoodtogo

0
0

Kevin argues “fraud” by proxy. Using his style we can surely say that he welches on wagers. See “Climate Sanity/ Kevin “O”Neil.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by thisisnotgoodtogo

0
0

Stiffing “Save the Children”. How low can you go?


Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler

0
0

Fernando Leanme: WHT, you run CSALT, right? Does CSALT run forward projections?

In his model, the effect of a change in CO2 is 3 ln(new CO2/old CO2), so the effect of a change from 400 to 620 by 2100 is + 1.3C. WebHubTelescope has told us on numerous occasions that the background oscillations, specifically including ENSO, balance out, so figure, as a first degree of approximation, that they all balance out over that time.

The CSALT model aggregates land use changes and CO2 changes. If half of the increase in temp since 1880 is actually due to land use changes, then the forecast change in temp due to an increase in CO2 to 620 by 2100 is close to 0.65C.

If I remember correctly, the idea of simulating a few future ENSOs and such has been suggested to WebHubTelescope a few times already.

My guess, based on graph reading, is that CO2 concentration is growing at a rate of 0.4% per year. If maintained (not likely on grounds such as you cite in your other posts), that would produce a CO2 concentration of 566 in 2100, with a correspondingly smaller CO2-related model temp increase by 2100.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Jim D

0
0

Perhaps I am biased, but you can judge for yourself. It looks like 0.7 C since 1950 to me, which would make it a correct 35-year prediction that started from a period of flat or cooling temperatures in 1975.

Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler

0
0

a fan of *MORE* discourse: Available scientific evidence suggests that hominid-habitable biomes are scarce and fragile. That’s why rational conservatism and traditional morality alike require scrupulous stewardship of the biome that sustains humanity!

Earlier Buckley, now Quakers. Notice that the Quakers conflate CO2 with “climate change”. I am glad that you favor “stewardship”, a concept that can be publicly debated; and I am glad that you favor “sustain[ing] humanity!”, unlike the writers who liken humanity to a cancer on the Earth. Do you also take seriously the idea that increased CO2 might increase forest growth, increase crop growth, and promote drought-resistance. “Scrupulous stewardship” and “sustain[ing] humanity!”would seem to require attention to that detail of the possible consequences of CO2 increase.

Comment on Week in review by John

0
0

*yawn!*
Blablabla…”Skeptics”….blabla

Comment on Week in review by jim2

0
0

From the article:
How To Annoy A Peak Oil Theorist: The Soft Patch In Oil Prices Is Here To Stay

The result of the increased capex is increased oil production, which is growing faster than oil demand. It turns out that the world wasn’t running out of oil, after all. It was running out of easy and cheap oil, but as the economics of the U.S. oil patch demonstrate, even the new and unconventional sources of supply are seeing production costs decline.

So it would appear that we are at the beginning of what could well be an extended patch of soft oil prices. Strong EM demand growth probably precludes a return to an era of overtly “cheap” oil, but don’t expect much upside from these levels. Indeed, there is plenty of oil that is being kept off the market by geopolitics, which, if conditions change, would return to the export channels, and imply an extended period of soggy oil prices.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2492405-how-to-annoy-a-peak-oil-theorist-the-soft-patch-in-oil-prices-is-here-to-stay

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

0
0

Matthew Marler, in the last year it rose 3 ppm, which is 0.75%. Ignoring that the global emission rate is still increasing and using a 0.75% growth rate gives over 750 ppm by 2100. It is very sensitive to your assumptions and, as a consequence, to policy.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by David Springer

0
0

Not even close, Markus. Temperature of ice in Greenland indicates it was 1C or more warmer, plus or minus 0.3C, than today both 1000 and 2000 years ago.


Comment on Week in review by PA

0
0

It was an interesting article – particularly that the source of the original 3°C estimate for doubling was originally just a guess.

I personally believe the spreading of the CO2 absorption spectrum with an increase in concentration has some effect (the saturated parts of the spectrum are a wash).

But the increase in warming has been disappointingly low. I’m giving the global warmers 4 years to show warming in the raw data or RSS. No warming – failed theory.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Padbrit (@Padbrit)

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Kevin O'Neill

0
0

AK – Does the caption for figure 4.4 misrepresent what was actually done? Yes. In not one, but two regards: the noise model used was not what was claimed and Wegman did not independently verify the results.

Fraud.

That doesn’t even get into the plagiarism that was rampant throughout the document.

More fraud.

All of this has been known for years. The echo chamber of places like this seem immune to the facts of the matter.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by AK

0
0

I stand corrected

Right in your blockquote. That’s what he acknowledged. Now, just because a dwarf claimes there was a mistake…

Let Nick show on Climate Audit where these “tricks” take place. In fact, the inventory thread is a perfect place. Then we’ll see what Steve says.

Comment on Week in review by Howard

0
0

Stephen:

Off the top of my head

restoring Ogallalla Aquifer
restoring San Joaquin Aquifers
reducing agricultural nutrient pollution of surface water and ocean dead zones
reducing ocean bacteria from leaking sewers
restoring freshwater fish habitat
reducing industrial particulate emissions
reducing industrial ozone precursor emissions
minimizing coal mining impacts

Instead of blame-gaming we need to move forward by horse trading.

For instance:

I’ll give up coal if you accept fracking.

I’ll require tougher emission standards if you will build more reservoirs

I’ll accept smart growth if you will upgrade infrastructure

I’ll accept higher water quality standards if you support nuclear energy

I’ll accept habitat restoration if you cut out subsidizing low concentration “green” energy.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images