30 thoughts on “The Mann Lawsuit and Server Problems”

  2. Turns out that Mann’s defenders over at politico don’t know about throwing out tree ring data that contradicted the other data or be able to grasp the simple concept that PSU was more concerned about money and prestige than doing the right thing in their internal investigations.

  3. Mr. Simberg:

    Any friend of Mark Steyn is a friend of mine! Post an address or account number and you should have all the funds you require! As you say, it will be interesting to see how they try to evade the constraints of a civil lawsuit. One wonders if you were sufficiently prescient to have maneuvered Mann into this situation? 😉

    Good luck, and I hope you have an opportunity to beat him about the head and shoulders with his bloody “hockey stick”!(Metaphorically, that is!)

    Yours in Apollyion,

    Joe Dolan

  6. One of the funniest aspects of the comments in the Pete Sinclair post was: “More publicity would only help the climate change cause.”

    Has there been another scientific theory in history whose proponents referred to as a “cause”?

    1. Yes, because climate change has been so under-reported. Why, if we could just get the media to pay attention, people might become aware of climate change. [/sarc]

  9. Seems to me that the focus of the attacks in the hockey stick controversy have been directed far more at Mann personally than at the claimed fraud, usually there’s a brief discussion of the “hiding the decline” phrase, followed by length accusations of “whitewash” and “fraud” or “alleged fraud”, then claims of “cover-ups” then lots of innuendo, with attempts to liken Mann to Sandusky, follow by more blah, blah, blah innuendo and claims that the hockey stick is broken, when in fact further studies have only strengthened the case that the warming over the last half century is unprecedented when compared to temperatures and temperature trends over the last 500 to a thousand years.

      1. “Shhh! The wall of text is how the troll builds its nest in the wild,” he interrupted, whispering like David Attenborough.

    2. I’m sure it seems that way to you, but that’s not the reality. On anything you said.

    3. I know virtually nothing about Mann personally; I think I’ve seen his face once. No, this is about a bastardization of science being used to drive policy. Penn State’s investigation of Mann that supposedly exonerated him of any academic wrongdoing amounted to a whitewash.

      Since global climate is by definition global, I’m sure Lord Monckton would love to be a witness for the defense.

    4. “…further studies have only strengthened the case…”

      Not hardly. The “hockey stick” has been thoroughly debunked.

      “…the warming over the last half century is unprecedented when compared to temperatures and temperature trends over the last 500 to a thousand years.”

      Except, the data clearly show that the rise from 1910 to 1940 was precisely the same as the rise from 1970 to 2000. So, unprecedented in the last 500 to 1000 years, give or take 470 to 970 years.

      1. “The “hockey stick” has been thoroughly debunked.”

        And you link to a blog post by Fred Singer to prove it?? If its been “thoroughly debunked” surely you can find a peer reviewed scientific paper in a reputable journal to support your claim?

        “Except, the data clearly show that the rise from 1910 to 1940 was precisely the same as the rise from 1970 to 2000.”

        Except even with cherry picking the dates and source, what you’ve linked to doesn’t support that claim.

        1. “…surely you can find a peer reviewed scientific paper in a reputable journal to support your claim?”

          Surely, if your claim has merit, you can do better than ad hominem.

          “Except even with cherry picking the dates and source, what you’ve linked to doesn’t support that claim.”

          Perhaps you need to see an eye doctor.

          1. “Surely, if your claim has merit, you can do better than ad hominem.”

            I’ll take that as an acknowledgment that you can’t find a peer reviewed scientific paper in a reputable journal to support your claim.

        2. “…even with cherry picking the … source…”

          It is to laugh. GISTEMP not reliable, eh? I’m amenable to that. HADCRUT4 is even more supportive – the earlier period of marked increase even eclipses the latest.

        3. Geez Bart, you the master. In just one post, you managed to get Andrew to resort to the very tactics he just denounced.

  11. So the AGW alarmists have an issue with the Mann investigation being compared to the Sandusky investigation because as Rand stated and was reported in the Political article, Mann did not molest any children. They are pretty upset. This is beyond the bounds of civil discourse and then they go on to call people deniers without any sign they recognize the hypocrisy.

    2. I would argue that many more children than Sandusky harmed have been harmed, up to and including death, by hairshirt environmentalism run amok.

  12. Pretty rich irony, coming from people who have spent the last decade conflating skeptics of their theory with Holocaust deniers. No skepticism about their gall!

    The problem with “independent investigations found no fraud or scientific misconduct” is they were generally by people/institutions who were not independent — like Penn State, most had nothing to gain and a lot to lose if Mann were found to have behaved unethically. Typically, the people who discovered Mann’s alleged ethical lapses were not even interviewed, and many of the serious issues they raised were never even investigated.

    That’s why despite documented evidence of conspiring to suppress skeptics, refusing to provide data to skeptics trying to replicate his results, and referring to his preferred results as “the cause,” Mann’s behavior was ruled to be totally ethical, normal scientific practice. That’s either corruption, incompetence or a terrible indictment of the state of science.

    Climate science is a great example of why politics and science don’t mix. Scientists are rational and sensible. Advocates do crazy things like get arrested in front of coal plants, call for war crimes trials of people who question their theories, and, yes, conflate their opponents with Holocaust deniers. Scientists test hypotheses, and if the results don’t fit, discard them; advocates massage the data till they get the result they want. Scientists are objective, advocates have a “cause.” Scientists give you all the facts, advocates give you only those that support their position.

    You cannot be both a good scientist and a good advocate.

  14. Pingback: Steyn to Mann … bring it on | pindanpost

Comments are closed.