A Famous Climate Scientist Is In Court With Big Stakes For Attacks On Science (npr.org) 272
Julia Simon reports via NPR: In a D.C. courtroom, a trial is wrapping up this week with big stakes for climate science. One of the world's most prominent climate scientists is suing a right-wing author and a policy analyst for defamation. The case comes at a time when attacks on scientists are proliferating, says Peter Hotez, professor of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology at Baylor College of Medicine. Even as misinformation about scientists and their work keeps growing, Hotez says scientists haven't yet found a good way to respond. "The reason we're sort of fumbling at this is it's unprecedented. And there is no roadmap," he says. The climate scientist at the center of this trial is Michael Mann. The professor of earth and environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania gained prominence for helping make one of the most accessible, consequential graphs in the history of climate science. First published in the late 1990s, the graph shows thousands of years of relatively stable global temperatures. Then, when humans start burning lots of coal and oil, it shows a spike upward. Mann's graph looks like a hockey stick lying on its side, with the blade sticking straight up. The so-called "hockey stick graph" was successful in helping the public understand the urgency of global warming, and that made it a target, says Kert Davies, director of special investigations at the Center for Climate Integrity, a climate accountability nonprofit. "Because it became such a powerful image, it was under attack from the beginning," he says.
The attacks came from groups that reject climate science, some funded by the fossil fuel industry. In the midst of these types of attacks -- including the hacking of Mann's and other scientists' emails by unknown hackers -- Penn State, where Mann was then working, opened an investigation into his research. Penn State, as well as the National Science Foundation, found no evidence of scientific misconduct. But a policy analyst and an author wrote that they were not convinced. The trial in D.C. Superior Court involves posts from right-wing author Mark Steyn and policy analyst Rand Simberg. In an online post, Simberg compared Mann to former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, a convicted child sex abuser. Simberg wrote that Mann was the "Sandusky of climate science," writing that Mann "molested and tortured data (PDF)." Steyn called Mann's research fraudulent. Mann sued the two men for defamation. Mann also sued the publishers of the posts, National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, but in 2021, the court ruled they couldn't be held liable.
In court, Mann has argued that he lost funding and research opportunities. Steyn said in court that if Penn State's president, Graham Spanier, covered up child sexual assault, why wouldn't he cover up for Mann's science. The science in question used ice cores and tree rings to estimate Earth's past temperatures. "If Graham Spanier is prepared to cover up child rape, week in, week out, year in, year out, why would he be the least bit squeamish about covering up a bit of hanky panky with the tree rings and the ice cores?" Steyn asked the court. Mann and Steyn declined to speak to NPR during the ongoing trial. One of Simberg's lawyers, Victoria Weatherford, said "inflammatory does not equal defamatory" and that her client is allowed to express his opinion, even if it were wrong. "No matter how offensive or distasteful or heated it is," Weatherford tells NPR, "that speech is absolutely protected under the First Amendment when it's said against a public figure, if the person saying it believed that what they said was true."
The attacks came from groups that reject climate science, some funded by the fossil fuel industry. In the midst of these types of attacks -- including the hacking of Mann's and other scientists' emails by unknown hackers -- Penn State, where Mann was then working, opened an investigation into his research. Penn State, as well as the National Science Foundation, found no evidence of scientific misconduct. But a policy analyst and an author wrote that they were not convinced. The trial in D.C. Superior Court involves posts from right-wing author Mark Steyn and policy analyst Rand Simberg. In an online post, Simberg compared Mann to former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, a convicted child sex abuser. Simberg wrote that Mann was the "Sandusky of climate science," writing that Mann "molested and tortured data (PDF)." Steyn called Mann's research fraudulent. Mann sued the two men for defamation. Mann also sued the publishers of the posts, National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, but in 2021, the court ruled they couldn't be held liable.
In court, Mann has argued that he lost funding and research opportunities. Steyn said in court that if Penn State's president, Graham Spanier, covered up child sexual assault, why wouldn't he cover up for Mann's science. The science in question used ice cores and tree rings to estimate Earth's past temperatures. "If Graham Spanier is prepared to cover up child rape, week in, week out, year in, year out, why would he be the least bit squeamish about covering up a bit of hanky panky with the tree rings and the ice cores?" Steyn asked the court. Mann and Steyn declined to speak to NPR during the ongoing trial. One of Simberg's lawyers, Victoria Weatherford, said "inflammatory does not equal defamatory" and that her client is allowed to express his opinion, even if it were wrong. "No matter how offensive or distasteful or heated it is," Weatherford tells NPR, "that speech is absolutely protected under the First Amendment when it's said against a public figure, if the person saying it believed that what they said was true."
Free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's fair, but what exactly were defendants' claims? They never really claimed that Mann was a child molester, the most they claimed was than Mann's research (the results of which went public and started effecting countries' policies and peoples' lives) could be false or at least flawed. And freedom of speech protects them making such claims, on the basis that they believed that their claims were true. And it's pretty reasonable to think that they really believed that, as "right-wing" people.
Re: (Score:2)
Mark Steyn claimed that Mann was faculty at Penn State who molested data and was protected by the same university administration -- specifically including the university"s president -- that protected Jerry Sandusky. That was the substance and sting of the "Sandusky of climate science" comment, as clearly indicated by the context of that epithet.
It's a travesty that the defendants have had to spend 12 years of their life on this, while Mann has not spent a dollar of his own money. His case is being funded
Citation? [Re:Free speech] (Score:2)
while Mann has not spent a dollar of his own money. His case is being funded entirely by third parties.
Would be interested in seeing your source for that statement (and also seeing whether that source says whether Steyn and Simberg's legal expenses are also funded by third parties).
Re: (Score:2)
It was Mann's own testimony during the trial. From https://www.thegatewaypundit.c... [thegatewaypundit.com] :
An attorney for Simberg asked Dr. Mann how much Mann was paying for his attorneys and if Mann would have any legal debts from the case.
Michael Mann admitted that he hadnâ(TM)t paid a penny for the several law firms representing him over the past 12 years or to the four lawyers (and several staff people) representing him at trial.
And Mann said he would have no legal debts from the case regardless of whether he won or lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the citation and link.
Is the same true for Steyn and Simberg?
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that Steyn is representing himself, at least right now. I don't know how long that has been true. I have no information as to Simberg's lawyers.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
> They never really claimed that Mann was a child
> molester,
They almost never actually do... directly and overtly anyway. The republicans mastered the art of plausible deniability long ago and are applying it to their current, and very despicable, talking point that anyone who disagrees with them or fail to hate on LGBT people enough is out there raping children.
No, they donâ(TM)t accuse. They use codewords like âoegroomersâ (When I was a kid, it was âoerecruitersâ and then
Re: (Score:2)
A very orange man has been in the news a lot recently for this same thing not once, but twice.
Scientists Have A Credibility Problem (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Scientists Have A Credibility Problem (Score:5, Informative)
This OP is highly biased. I really hope Steyn wins his case and can't figure out how a DC court would have jurisdiction.
That's an easy one. The jurisdiction is DC because the purported libel was published in DC.
That being said, do your own google search on scientific fraud and retraction of scientific papers.
The paper in question was not retracted. There were investigations of the allegations of fraud done by both the National Academy of Sciences [scientificamerican.com] and by the University [science.org], and the investigations all concluded that there was no fraud in the research.
(the problem here, of course, is that no number of investigations will ever satisfy ideologues who think that there's a conspiracy to commit fraud. They shout "we need an investigation!", but when there actually is an investigation, they just dismiss it with "that's a cover up" and demand another one.)
If I recall correctly, Mann refused to share his research data which would lead a thinking person to be suspicious. If you want to validate your research, then just fully publish the data and not just what you got from a struggle session with it.
The critical element of science is replication. The paleoclimate graph showing a hockey-stick-like shape has been replicated many times by other workers independent of Mann's work.
https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com]
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
https://www.livescience.com/29... [livescience.com]
If you want the actual climate reconstructions, look here: https://nap.nationalacademies.... [nationalacademies.org] (you have to sign in, but it's free if you do)
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, no. It was published online and in National Review, a New York-based publication.
The publishers of the purported libel were Competitive Enterprise Institute [wikipedia.org], with offices in Washington DC, and National Review, wholly owned by the National Review Institute, with offices in New York and in Washington DC. [nonprofitlocator.org].
...
You have missed his point.
His point was, direct quote, "Foundational research is being retracted in many important fields at many prestigious universities due to fraud." The paper in question was published 26 years ago and has not been retracted. His point is not applicable.
The university "investigation" was done by the same crew who cleared paedophile Jerry Sandusky. In fact the president of the university served time for obstructing justice.
So, the NSF investigation was a cover u
ExxonMobil: Oil giant predicted climate change (Score:2)
“ One of the world's largest oil companies accurately forecast how climate change would cause global temperature to rise as long ago as the 1970s, researchers claim”
Re: (Score:2)
Virology, you don't say (Score:3, Interesting)
https://disinformationchronicl... [substack.com]
Please don't sue.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would he sue you. Did you equate him with a child molester in an unsubstantiated way? Are you so desperate to shoot the messenger that you didn't even bother to understand what we are talking about?
Re: (Score:3)
He is not a messenger of fact, he is the bearer of opinion. If you think Lancet should have published Daszak letter without reporting conflict of interest and the WHO should have put him on the fact finding mission then you have reason to think his opinion about what constitutes an attack on science worthy of consideration.
PS. I did not from the outset recognise the name and had never read this particular article. It was just my knee jerk Bayesian prejudice that a virologists talking about attacks on scienc
The specific vs the general (Score:2)
People's positions on the Michael Mann trial are too much informed by their position on the general issue.
It appears Mann was not honest or rigorous in is work in his eagerness to prove the climate change emergency.
That does not mean there is no such emergency, but there is this instant polarisation that some defend him because they want to defend the general position and others make him representative for climate science and use the case to dismiss the results of climate scientists.
That's all there is to i
Re: (Score:3)
And, of course, on the flip side of the very same token, there are some who attack him "because they want to defend the [aLTeRNaTiVE] position and [they made themselves] representative (sic) for climate science negation and use the case to promote the criticism of climate scientists."
Data point (Score:5, Informative)
I am very much not an expert on this, please do NOT take my word as correct on this topic.
I believe the science in question here is what's known as "Mike's trick" or "Mike's Nature trick". In the infamous hockey stick graph, Mr. Mann took high-quality reconstructed temperature data going back about a thousand years and stuck it on the same graph as modern high-quality measured temperature data starting in the late 1900s. This kind of graph should make it easy to see long-term climate patterns including global warming. The "trick" at issue is how they handled the transition from reconstructed to modern data. Their reconstructed data showed a significant temperature decline in the late 1900s that created a discontinuity with the modern data. They chose an arbitrary point to connect these two datasets with solid lines and smoothed the curves between them in a way that obscured this.
This probably would have disappeared as a two-line correction in a journal, but Mr. Mann's group refused to disclose their data under a FOIA request, then it was either hacked and stolen or leaked and there was an email that used the phrase "hide the decline with Mike's trick". That's the kind of tabloid intrigue that we're still talking about it 25 years later.
There is an older video with some discussion on this from Richard Muller here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] The specific graph in question is on the screen at 30:45 and at 32:16 a graph shows the data "hidden" by "Mike's trick". The discussion of "Climategate" starts at 30:00, if you want Mr. Muller's full discussion.
(This is informational. I do not take a position here on the veracity or urgency of climate change or the ethical or scientific merit of how this data was presented. Please ask; Don't assume.)
Re: (Score:2)
I note that parent has to say he takes no position, since he obviously fears nukes (or soup?) being dropped on his house by climatists, not to mention being sued by Mann.
Maybe it is time to go back to (Score:2)
Re:Take it to the court of public opinion. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is this thing in science called "peer review", where a "peer" means arguing your case before people who are equipped with the toolkit to understand what you're talking about.
"The 'court' of public opinion" is not that people. In fact, the 'court' of public opinion is an amalgamation of a large number of idiots and a small number of shrewd manipulators, who milk the idiots for their money.
You're a part of the idiot group, as you begin with "show us your data". One of the hats I have is that of an experimental particle physicist. So I do experiments and I have a sea of data, the smallest experiment I participate in has amassed something like 400 TB of them over the last year only. The data are measurements of timestamped electric waveforms.
Suppose I give you all this 400TB. What can you "understand" from it without knowing enough QFT (and all its prerequisites) to understand the theory behind the experiment, without enough knowledge about the detector and its operation to calibrate and make sense out of the data, and without enough knowledge of statistics and numerical methods to understand if the data is processed right?
The evaluation of the conclusions I derive from my data before it goes to publishing is evaluated by:
- the peers on my team - this is the most robust critique, we're all digging hard at the results of each other, so that we do not publish something stupid
- a review committee of people outside the project, from our institutions, who are also thorough, as our mistake will reflect poorly on the institution as well
- review and critique from experts in our field when we present at conferences - these are pretty tough as well
- reviews in the form of private communication with other people in our area
- finally, editors and, when research is published, practically the whole world
Everyone above has the qualifications to understand our argument, yet there are not a small number of times when they misunderstand, and need explanation.
Few of those above can compare in the shrewdness, required to tell shit to idiots, like the person that is being sued. Why? Because being able to lie convincingly to idiots isn't a highly valued skill in our profession.
That's why there are courts - there at least, the 'public opinion' part is moderated by the incentive for the judge to make sense out of the argument with at least a degree of impartiality and an attempt to understand the presented arguments and facts, and not to respond do dog whistling and their prejudices 100% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
There is this thing in science called "peer review", where a "peer" means arguing your case before people who are equipped with the toolkit to understand what you're talking about.
And the process is broken because most research is so far down in the weeds, that only the researchers actually working on the project have that toolkit. Peer review has devolved into proofreading and a quid pro quo.
Re: (Score:2)
most research is so far down in the weeds, that only the researchers actually working on the project have that toolkit
LOL. No. You can always do your own project, collect your own data and dispute the results of any other project. With the proper ethics procedures in place, you can even do it with money from a party that is interested in a particular result, provided they are willing to agree to leaving you independent ;)
For example, you're more than welcome to perform proper research that exposes the failure in Dr. Mann's conclusions. I'll help you draft a grant agreement that you can carry to the anti-climate science lob
Re: (Score:2)
There is this thing in science called "peer review", where a "peer" means arguing your case before people who are equipped with the toolkit to understand what you're talking about.
And the process is broken because most research is so far down in the weeds, that only the researchers actually working on the project have that toolkit. Peer review has devolved into proofreading and a quid pro quo.
I see - has this happened to your own research papers?
Re: (Score:2)
There is this thing in science called "peer review", where a "peer" means arguing your case before people who are equipped with the toolkit to understand what you're talking about.
"The 'court' of public opinion" is not that people. In fact, the 'court' of public opinion is an amalgamation of a large number of idiots and a small number of shrewd manipulators, who milk the idiots for their money.
You're a part of the idiot group, as you begin with "show us your data". One of the hats I have is that of an experimental particle physicist. So I do experiments and I have a sea of data, the smallest experiment I participate in has amassed something like 400 TB of them over the last year only. The data are measurements of timestamped electric waveforms.
Suppose I give you all this 400TB. What can you "understand" from it without knowing enough QFT
Exactly. In my own field of electromagnetics, virtually no one outside of a small group even understand anything about it. The people I'm working with now, think I'm performing witchcraft or some dark art. I'm not writing papers these days, but do make presentations, and while everything is based on real physics, it can sound like utter bullshit.
So yeah, it isn't difficult to call it bullshit - by people who are completely ignorant of how it works. But I am performing quite well for the people I work for
Re: (Score:2)
So, who has seen his data and vetted it
Check his citations on Scopus, there must be hundreds of people who are familiar with the research and have vetted it.
I'm sure if you ask politely for data access and can explain why, they'll grant it, we provide data access for our data to quite a lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
So, who has seen his data and vetted it
Check his citations on Scopus, there must be hundreds of people who are familiar with the research and have vetted it.
I'm sure if you ask politely for data access and can explain why, they'll grant it, we provide data access for our data to quite a lot of people.
More importantly despite the personal attacks on Mann, they provide very little outside of the fact that they hate him.
Which removes the whole argument from science, and into politics. Which has us discussing his personality.
The energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere being affected by the gaseous, vaporous, and aerosol composition of that atmosphere are long settled science, something that can be proven in a grade school science fair or an enclosed building that lets light pass through, but
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I see that you have totally ignored my advice to look at scopus for citations and retractions of peer-reviewed publications of Dr. Mann.
Instead, you've quoted something from, judging by the URL, the "opinion" section of a random online news outfit, i.e. it wasn't vetted even by its editorial staff. The opinion is from someone who isn't known to Scopus, and therefore is absolutely not qualified to judge on the substance of the research or the propriety of the position of Dr. Mann. https://www.scopus.com/resu [scopus.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Dr. Mann doesn't have "public opinion problems", he's a victim of a vile campaign of lies.
I've already quoted the investigation of fraud allegations against Dr. Mann below.
You could have read it for free and educated yourself on the case.
But you prefer to troll, too.
Re: (Score:2)
I've already quoted the investigation of fraud allegations against Dr. Mann below.
You could have read it for free and educated yourself on the case.
But you prefer to troll, too.
Yeah, you made such a comment, two minutes before I made mine. And now you accuse me of trolling for not having read it? Hold your horses, cowboy. It seems that it's you who are trolling and flaming.
Re: (Score:2)
It took me all of 10 seconds to find and read the report on my own, and about 2 minutes to verify it and read the conclusions.
Did you bother to verify the claim that
"This Michael Mann guy obviously has serious public opinion problems."
Nope.
But yeah, it's me who's "trolling and flaming".
Re: (Score:2)
Did you bother to verify the claim that
"This Michael Mann guy obviously has serious public opinion problems."
Nope.
What? Of course he has public opinion problems, lies or not, litigation or not. You want proof? A glimpse at what the public media writes about him should be enough.
And yes, I understand that you're a professional scientist (I was one too, many years ago), but "unwashed masses" do matter.
Re:Take it to the court of public opinion. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, if you prefer to call an obviously well-funded character assassination campaign that is built on lies and fakes and has been running for nearly two decades just "public opinion problems", then be my guest.
I call it what it is - a well-funded smear campaign and a baseless character assassination attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you bother to verify the claim that
"This Michael Mann guy obviously has serious public opinion problems."
Nope.
What? Of course he has public opinion problems, lies or not, litigation or not. You want proof? A glimpse at what the public media writes about him should be enough.
And yes, I understand that you're a professional scientist (I was one too, many years ago), but "unwashed masses" do matter.
So let's say that he has really big universal public opinion problems. Is it youor premise that his personality is the proximate cause of the fact that atmosphereic energy retention based on composition isa lie?
Do you have that proof? Present it. Because homie, if you think that personality is science, you need to prove that too. Challenge accepted?
Otherwise, you are just using the court of public opinion and personality to determine your beliefs on science.
Both [Re:Take it to the court of public opinion.] (Score:2)
Dr. Mann doesn't have "public opinion problems", he's a victim of a vile campaign of lies.
Both.
He has public opinion problems because he's a victim of a vile campaign of lies.
Editorials [Re:Take it to the court of public...] (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling people trolls for refusing to climb Scopus' paywall and give Elsevier money isn't fair, dude.
No, but criticizing somebody for using an editorial in a small Denver newspaper as if it were a discussion of science is fair.
If you're going to cite editorials, try citing actual science-literate editorials that cite recent work. A quick search would show many:
https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com]
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
https://www.livescience.com/29... [livescience.com]
Re:Take it to the court of public opinion. (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, what a drivel.
1. No, I don't confuse anything with anything. Nobody owes you "all the data, programs and algorithms". If you want to disprove a conclusion of a scientist, collect your own, draw your own conclusion and prove them wrong in another peer-reviewed publication. Then they'll have to retract, and you can claim they were wrong.
Ah, you're saying doing it properly is hard work that you and the asshat you're quoting can't do because you're a useless dumbfuck?
Well, well, well, ain't that the truth, bless your heart!
2. Who "got busted in court" and when? Are you drunk?
3. You want "a link to that published data, code, etc."?
There you go, it was posted by Freischutz here:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
4. " You did not provide such a link." - I did not, see 3. It was provided by someone else.
I provided you with something better - a document that explained to you why you're wrong, written by a panel of scientists and university administrators that had the knowledge, experience, the access to documents and the job to reach a conclusion. Which they did, Dr. Mann's research is proper, valid and free of issues, ethical and otherwise.
You have not read it, because you're trolling.
5. Summa summarum, you keep posting the same bullshit that has already been resoundingly refuted by actual evidence and you refuse to admit facts.
6. Therefore, shoo, lying troll, go back under the bridge whence you came.
Re: (Score:2)
You, sir, are making the classic mistake of failing to not apply logic.
Brilliant! I laughed so hard I almost spilled my popcorn!
Actually, you lied. (Score:5, Informative)
This is the last valid review of Dr. Mann's work, made by a committee of his peers:
https://grist.org/wp-content/u... [grist.org]
It completely refutes the bullshit in the hit piece you quote.
In particular, the following matters were investigated:
1. was there fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that deviate from the accepted standards of scientific work
2. were there ethical issues with the research
3. were there hidden financial influences
4. were there failures to comply with relevant laws
The following allegations were made:
1. Has Dr. Mann engaged in suppression or falsification of data
Decision: No substance in this allegation
2. Has Dr. Mann engaged in "hiding evidence" of manipulations related to the production of AR4 (the climate assessment report)
Decision: No substance in this allegation
3. Has Dr. Mann abused or misused privileged or private information
Decision: Nope, he hasn't.
4. Has Dr. Mann been involved in actions that deviate from accepted academic practices of proposing, conducting and reporting research?
Decision: Nope.
So, yeah, you lied, and the idiots gave you +5 in mod points.
You've won the lottery on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the most recent article I could find. Not a good look for him.
https://gazette.com/opinion/co... [gazette.com]
"Despite much controversy and criticism, Mann has staunchly refused to release all of the data and computer programs for peer review for 18 years now.
This has led to charges that he deliberately suppressed the true extent of what's called the "Medieval Warm Period" to make recent temperature rises look far worse than they really are with respect to the normal swings in global temperatures having nothing to do with human activity.
Mann claims that the data and computer programs are his intellectual property despite the fact that he was paid by the U.S. government to do the research. His unwillingness to allow his data to be examined by his peers has just landed him in hot water in a libel lawsuit he started."
That's an opinion piece that somebody pulled out of his fundament, published on a random news site. This is the public scientific record of Dr. Michael E. Mann Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State: https://scholar.google.com/cit... [google.com]. So, try again. For example, since you have issues with Mann's work, you and mister Weiser, as qualified climate experts, can peer review his work and make your objections known.
Re:Take it to the court of public opinion. (Score:5, Informative)
This is the most recent article I could find. Not a good look for him.
You can't even tell an article from a random opinion piece published online. You're not qualified to comment anything on the subject much less do any research into the matter. Please leave it to people who are actually smarter than you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Citations [Re:Take it to the court of public o...] (Score:5, Informative)
Makes sense.
So, who has seen his data and vetted it?
Take a look. Here are 2,841 papers citing the work: https://scholar.google.com/sch... [google.com]
There's a decent discussion here: https://skepticalscience.com/b... [skepticalscience.com]
Or a more popular-level fact check by Reuters here: https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense. So, who has seen his data and vetted it?
Take a look. Here are 2,841 papers citing the work: https://scholar.google.com/sch... [google.com]
There's a decent discussion here: https://skepticalscience.com/b... [skepticalscience.com] Or a more popular-level fact check by Reuters here: https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
You know of course, they have no intention of actually reading the papers, but someone might cherry pick a typo, and they can imitate a pigeon playing chess, flap their wings, knock over all the pieces, shit on the chessboard and claim they won.
You are trying to use logic and science to people who are trying to use personality and the court of far right wing opinion as disproving science.
I'm waiting for the MAGAs to start voting on the laws of physics. After all, the only science they need is in the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
McMann piped up:
Upon seeing the headline I knew immediately the name of the "prominent climate scientist" it was referring to.
The ONLY reason you "immediately knew" his name is Mark Steyn's baseless accusation of scientific fraud against him, which was amplified by oil industry trolls to the point where he became a public figure. He wasn't one until Steyn and his fellow anthropogenicly-mediated climate change deniers MADE him one by loudly and publicly attacking his professional integrity. Prior to that, he was just a professional climate researcher, toiling away in obscurity.
Steyn et al's attacks on him turned him
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The ONLY reason you "immediately knew" his name is Mark Steyn's baseless accusation of scientific fraud against him,
Have you even bothered to READ his paper and READ the criticisms against it? Baseless? Poppycock. Go to climateaudit.org and read in excruciating detail ( statisticians don't make for the best reading ) on the problems in the methodology, improper use of statistical methods, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty strange that the peer reviewed journals have not retracted the publications, given that such a detailed analysis that proves them wrong is available.
But you know what's even stranger? What's even stranger is the damned snow outside my house, which isn't there, although it seems it should have been if Dr. Mann's conclusion are so wrong.
It is now the beginning of February. In the part of the world that I was born, this time is traditionally called "Little Frost", because the temperatures used to drop n
Re: (Score:3)
I can't find any non-conservative source saying that Mann claimed to have won the Nobel Peace Prize. The anti-climate-science Heartland Institute claims, for example, that
but provides no context or reference to this claimed claim, only a link to Mann's Twitter account where Mann says
That's not what's happening (Score:5, Informative)
He's not taking them to court for questioning his work, he's taking them to court because they suggested he was the equivalent of a child molester.
Re: Take it to the court of public opinion. (Score:2, Flamebait)
A lot of people donâ(TM)t seem to respond to facts.
If you could prove god doesnâ(TM)t exist, that wouldnâ(TM)t end religion, that would just make people angry with you and make them more religious.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people donâ(TM)t seem to respond to facts.
And here you go [imgur.com]. No amount of factual evidence will change some people's minds because they take it as an affront to everything they "know". It's called the Boomerang Effect [psychology.tips].
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to prove a conspiracy theorist wrong is a trap! Nothing you can do will change their mind. A good example of this is Alfred Russel Wallace, who conceived of the evolutionary theory independently at the same time as Darwin, so a smart guy. Took a challenge to prove the world was a globe, won the challenge by showing a curvature in a long canal, but the loser refused to pay up, hounded Wallace and his co-participant with accusations and rumors, and Wallace ended up paying more in legal fees than the s
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively, the "science guy" is a charlatan and he knows he's getting attention to himself this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have good data then how is taking this case to court helpful?
If, as Mann states, Mark Steyn made statements about him that were false, defamatory, and resulted in quantifiable damage, that's libel. He can and should sue for defamation. I my personal opinion would be that comparing him to a convicted child sex abuser would count as defamatory. Maybe you don't think so
....parody is protected since the audience would know the intent is to amuse to the audience than bring harm to the target of the parody.
The statements Steyn made had not been intended as parody, so that's not relevant one way or another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The data is available for a long time. I downloaded a couple of years from an ftp server. That some people still believe otherwise clearly shows that this is about defamation - not science.
Re:Take it to the court of public opinion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Not entirely clear (Score:2, Interesting)
Wouldn't accusing a scientist of lying about their research (which I assume is what molesting the data means), count as defamation if there is no evidence to back up those claims?
Re: Not entirely clear (Score:5, Interesting)
No, those leaked emails reveal that he candidly discussed the limits of their data gathering strategies and findings.
You know, what good honest scientists do.
Re: (Score:2)
No, those leaked emails reveal that he candidly discussed the limits of their data gathering strategies and findings.
You know, what good honest scientists do.
Yes. Cherry picking conversations as raping and molesting data ala Jerry Sandusky is fascinating. Scientists and researchers have very interesting conversations, which when cherry picked can make them seem like they are dissembling.
It's like if we were having trouble getting something work as well as we would like, and I wrote "Isn't there some way to bring this thing up to spec?", could be used by people wanting to discredit me as asking for people to make up shit.
But one of the things we must rememb
Re: (Score:2)
"It's like if we were having trouble getting something work as well as we would like, and I wrote "Isn't there some way to bring this thing up to spec?""
Yes, it is. And in engineering it is not only part of the process but more or less the entire process. But engineering is applying existing science not discovering it and the existing science is the understood and expected conclusion the engineer is starting from. If it is suddenly okay to begin with a conclusion in science and "make it work" then we'll hav
Re: (Score:3)
Citation required.
Court records reflect that Mann lied about his grants to the court, forwarded known-false sexual gossip about a peer who disputed his results, lied about receiving a Nobel prize, and then printed up a fake certificate to back up his lies.
He even tried to corrupt the peer-review process to suppress dissenting viewpoints.
No, not a horrible person at all.
Speaking of citations required.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
^ This. Especially this, "I don't think scientists should be suing their critics, even if the rhetoric gets heated."
First of all, we should not be seriously entertaining obvious flip and heated rhetoric as defamation anywhere. Name calling and flippant remarks may be low class and rude but taking them court for defamation should result in a penalty for a frivolous suit not an award [IANAL, I'm not saying 'should' in terms of law as it sits but law as it should sit]. The only penalty for being low class and
Re:Not entirely clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying that someone's professional behaviour and ethics is the same as a child molester is obviously defamatory. If someone wrote in print that you were the Sandusky of whatever the fuck you do for a living, you'd be devastated and would almost certainly encounter severe career difficulties. This would be true of practically anyone. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.
Re:Not entirely clear (Score:4, Interesting)
Amazing too see how much folks are willing to invest in creating this particular echo chamber, even on a site with relatively low reach like Slashdot. It's a veritable sea of mutually masturbating climate denialists, engorging each other's comments with mod points and appreciative noises, and going after every view that points out they're full of shit with a vengeance.
Re: Not entirely clear (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm sure that made sense in your own head.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not entirely convinced of that. Saying someone is the "Sandusky of climate science," who "molested and tortured data", a clear reading of this in English implies that the person is *not* a child molester, but that the writer is using the term as a metaphor for imagery.
That makes absolutely no sense. You're basically saying that as long as a literary device such as a metaphor or simile is used, defamation is magically transformed into something legally innocuous. As though the literary device has the same legal shield as the legally magical word "allegedly."
That's like saying "His behavior is like a child molester" is materially different than "He is a child molester." While the questions of whether someone is a public figure and whether intent to lie and harm exist, it i
Re: (Score:3)
That makes absolutely no sense. You're basically saying that as long as a literary device such as a metaphor or simile is used, defamation is magically transformed into something legally innocuous.
As though the literary device has the same legal shield as the legally magical word "allegedly."
It matters whether commentary is construed as a statement of fact or merely an opinion or insult.
That's like saying "His behavior is like a child molester" is materially different than "He is a child molester."
Knowingly making false assertions can be defamation. Simply hurling inflammatory insults and stating opinion that someone is like something bad is not a statement of fact.
While the questions of whether someone is a public figure and whether intent to lie and harm exist, it is very clear that both statements impart harm.
If there are no purported facts there is no defamation. If there is no defamation the issue of harm is moot.
Re:Not entirely clear (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not entirely convinced of that. Saying someone is the "Sandusky of climate science," who "molested and tortured data", a clear reading of this in English implies that the person is *not* a child molester, but that the writer is using the term as a metaphor for imagery.
Mann is just availing himself of the rights of a US citizen. He is widely hated by the far right and denialist culture in no small part because he fights back. We must remember that the far right is big on their free speech, yet hate it when others exercise their free speech.
And the idea that Spanier covered up Sandusky's behavior therefore it follows that he covered up Mann's rape and torture of data, is simply lame - and the first premise is a lie anyhow. Spanier didn't cover up Sandusky's behavior, after DA Ray Gricar's decision not to prosecute Sandusky, which after reading the final report, was nuts. Spanier was kinda stuck, and made some questionable decisions. But not coverup.
But yes, we have a number of people who believe that Mann must present only science, and never strike back at detractors. Which is kind of funny, because many of his detractors are more than willing to perform SLAPP suits in order to silence them. The best case is Robert Murray's SLAPP suit against Comedian John Oliver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . The case was dismissed, and if there is ever a lesson here, it is don't harass a comedian who will stand up to you. Oliver's response to Murray after the dismissal is pretty humorous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
So yes, the lawsuit happy crowd is simply aghast when one of their enemies uses their favorite weapon against them. Sometimes when dealing with bullise, you have to fight back. So it's a really stupid analogy
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
People are starting to wake up, they are beginning to reject en masse all the bullcrap the Davos club is feeding us with.
HA! You wouldn't notice it by looking election results around the world. People are insane right now, and it shows
Re:Take it to the court of public opinion. (Score:5, Informative)
The guy is not a scientist,
No, of course he isn't [wikipedia.org]. All his education, all his awards, all of the papers he's published, which have been peer reviewed and are available for anyone to see, doesn't make him a scientist. All the work he has done, all the data he's sifted through, all the collaboration with other scientists, none of that makes him a scientist.
It's almost as if you're triggered because his research shows something you don't like and are flailing about to find anything to discredit him. You know, like some fat, orange loser who calls women nasty because they're far more intelligent than he is.
Re:Take it to the court of public opinion. (Score:5, Informative)
The guy is not a scientist,
No, of course he isn't [wikipedia.org]. All his education, all his awards, all of the papers he's published, which have been peer reviewed and are available for anyone to see, doesn't make him a scientist. All the work he has done, all the data he's sifted through, all the collaboration with other scientists, none of that makes him a scientist.
It's almost as if you're triggered because his research shows something you don't like and are flailing about to find anything to discredit him. You know, like some fat, orange loser who calls women nasty because they're far more intelligent than he is.
Of course nonBORG is triggered. Mann - who yes - is a scientist of some note, and widely respected outside of Trumpwprld, is performing the ultimate insult to the deniers. Fighting back, and using the courts as a weapon. That is their tool, not some liberal pantywaist who doesn't have the right beliefs.
But what is most interesting to me is that Mark Steyn supposedly an expert on science, would say that Mann was the "Sandusky of climate science".
What people are missing is that he also claimed that Mann's research was Fraudulent. That's something that he will need to prove in court.
Scientists are fired and disgraced when committing fraud. So these denialists will need to bring their A game to show Mann's fraud. Interestingly, and par foro the course, if they lose, they'll blame the jury as some Democrat Hoax that Biden insisted on.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Dear lord, Mann has been fighting this case since 2012? [acs.org]
Are you nuts? He is the PLAINTIFF. It has taken 12 years because HE (Mann/his legal team) has been dragging it out for this long. It is a travesty that things are allowed not to be heard within a year.
I doubt he will be able to skip out like he did for the Canadian suit he lost ( https://climatecasechart.com/n... [climatecasechart.com] ). The guy is a charlatan, and it's amazing that anyone with any ability to do critical thinking wouldn't see him as such. I
Re:So Mann is suing these two because they hurt hi (Score:4, Informative)
The guy is a charlatan, and it's amazing that anyone with any ability to do critical thinking wouldn't see him as such.
He is a major public face of climate science. Such as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do accusations of pedophilia fit into the scientific process?
Re: (Score:2)
Where do accusations of pedophilia fit into the scientific process?
No idea, is that before the court too? I must have missed it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not asking about the lawsuit.
There are no such accusations... (Score:3)
Steyn is a man of words and political/cultural arguments and rhetoric. His initial commentary on Mann was well-aimed and directly argued - the curious should go read it whether you agree or disagree on the whole global warming stuff. Steyn, as a political guy and probably and acquired taste, may not be your cup of tea, but it's good to read such people to see the sort of analysis/arguments one might encounter. He was NOT funded by Big Oil, he was simply a political opponent of Mann and his flawed graph.
Mann
Re: (Score:2)
Steyn is a man of words and political/cultural arguments and rhetoric. His initial commentary on Mann was well-aimed and directly argued
His malicious accusations of pedophilia suggest he is no honest, well meaning critic of the scientific process.
Why are you defending such a characterization?
Re: (Score:2)
Insinuations.
Accusations would need to be defended.
Re: (Score:3)
Dear lord, Mann has been fighting this case since 2012? [acs.org]
Yes, the popcorn gets stale often, but every once in a while we make a new batch. I'm not even a big Steyn fan but this case should still be put out of its misery.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other "scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports", with a personalized certificate "for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC", celebrating the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore.
Re:maybe he has no good science? (Score:5, Informative)
And cows today release double the methane of the wild buffalo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HEY!!
I'm doing MY part!!
I'm doing my very BEST to EAT as many of them as I possibly can.
Re: (Score:2)
I grew up in buffalo country, and I've had to warn multiple people to not attempt to pet them. I mean, I'll barely pet a show dairy cow, with the handler's permission. But there are people who will attempt to pet the wild animals. It generally doesn't end well.
But anyways, buffalo are not the same as cows. While their diet is "basically" the same, there are actually important differences, meaning a buffalo's farts are not the same thing as a cow's, especially when you introduce the distortions to cow die
Re:2 minutes for high sticking (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you saying only the ignorant should be allowed to make political statements or hold political opinions?
Often things are a question of scientific fact, not a question of opinion - even if the ignorant believe them to be a question of opinion.
If we did things your way, there'd be no need for any scientific study at all, only technological development.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the point of having a highly informed opinion if it isn't used for anything?
In the case of climate science the point of your work is to help politicians and interested public to formulate their own policy preferences informed by your data NOT your personal opinions and value judgements.
Are you saying only the ignorant should be allowed to make political statements or hold political opinions?
It isn't about ignorance but rather staying in your lane. I would look at it as something akin to a journalist who insists on pushing their own political narratives instead of simply objectively reporting events. Or a doctor that receives kickbacks from the pharmacy. Perhaps more loosely legitimac
Re:2 minutes for high sticking (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you're saying that Einstein and Szilard stopped being scientists when they made this political statement in 1939, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And you will also affirm your statement that they should have kept their highly informed opinion on the possibility of Germany developing nuclear weapons, expressed in the statement "to themselves"?
Are you sure?
Re: (Score:2)
When a scientist helps themselves to political statements and advocacy they are no longer merely a scientist.
So, you're saying that Einstein and Szilard stopped being scientists when they made this political statement in 1939, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]...
This is clearly not what was said. I neither stated nor suggested anyone stops being a scientist for expressing political opinions nor do I agree the Einstein letter expresses political opinions. The letter is mostly informational in nature.
And you will also affirm your statement that they should have kept their highly informed opinion on the possibility of Germany developing nuclear weapons, expressed in the statement "to themselves"?
Informing politicians about relevant developments in science that could have policy implications is very much the proper role of scientists. Perhaps the letter could have done without the "suggestions" in regards to tasking yet it is mostly laying out Einsteins unders
Re:2 minutes for high sticking (Score:4, Insightful)
You're obviously not aware of what you're saying, so I'll quote you for your reference:
When a scientist helps themselves to political statements and advocacy they are no longer merely a scientist. Leveraging the legitimacy of "science" to shield oneself from their other than science activities or otherwise proclaiming to speak for science only serves to undermine science itself.
In not so many words, you claim that scientists who make political statements disenfranchise themselves from science. No, they don't and they should not.
Informing politicians about relevant developments in science that could have policy implications is very much the proper role of scientists.
Wow, really, now?
All scientists are, first and foremost, full members of their society, with the same rights and obligations that any other citizen, including the president, have.
In a democratic society, therefore, they have an inalienable right to participate in its political life up to and including serving in any public function in any branches of government they qualify for under the same rules as any other "politician". That includes voicing their opinion on policy and supporting those with the specialized knowledge they have.
To claim that the occupation of a scientist means one has some "proper role", which somehow puts a limit on what they can say or do above obeying the same laws as everyone else shows you absolutely do not understand how democracy and modern societies work.
In short, you are a moron.
Re:2 minutes for high sticking (Score:5, Insightful)
When a scientist helps themselves to political statements and advocacy they are no longer merely a scientist.
No one is only a scientist, no one is only any one thing. You appear to be advocating against people who know things being able to express political opinions. That, sir, is a shitty opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is only a scientist, no one is only any one thing. You appear to be advocating against people who know things being able to express political opinions. That, sir, is a shitty opinion.
I reject the overgeneralization "people who know things being able to express political opinions".
Also reject the claim I'm advocating against the ability of scientists to express political opinions. I do not support limiting anyone's ability to express opinions. As the saying goes just because you can doesn't mean you should.
I do very much believe science and ultimately policy is better served when scientists refrain from political statements just as I believe society is better served when justices refra
Re: (Score:3)
This is funny. His political views don't align with yours so you're telling him to shut up.