In a bit of happy news:
In a victory for climate scientists, jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments made in 2012.
In a unanimous decision, jurors agreed that both Simberg and Steyn defamed Mann in blog posts that compared Mann to convicted sex offender Jerry Sandusky, former assistant football coach at Penn State University. They announced that Simberg will pay $1,000 in punitive damages and Steyn will pay the larger $1 million.
Before the free speech fanatics start whining, this is something more than a guy suing someone to stop them calling him names. Simberg & Steyn were trying to undermine significant scientific claims by using ad hominems (hey, I’m actually applying that logical fallacy correctly) against Mann by defaming him. They can’t defeat the science with evidence, so instead they accuse a scientist of pedophilia…with absolutely no evidence for that, either.
Mann’s lawyers pointed this out, too.
“One million dollars in punitive damages makes a statement,” he said in an exclusive interview. “This is about the defense of science against scurrilous attacks, and dishonest efforts to undermine scientists who are just trying to do our job.”
Mann also noted that the trial was about defamatory statements made in an effort to discredit scientists “whose findings might prove inconvenient to certain ideologically driven individuals and outlets.”
“It’s about the integrity of the science and making sure that bad actors aren’t allowed to make false and defamatory statements about scientists in their effort to advance an agenda,” he added.
More than a defense of Mann, this was a trial about defending science. Simberg & Steyn’s lawyers, though, simply resorted to more personal attacks against Mann. Even if those criticisms were valid (they aren’t), they wouldn’t have constituted a good defense of the climate deniers claims. It was just more ad hominem!
But in the trial, these questions about “tenor” around the time of so-called “Climategate” seemed designed to legitimize attacks on Mann.
Roger Pielke Jr., another witness for the defense, called Mann “thin skinned” and “quick to attack.”
Much of the defense testimony seemed designed to “victimiz[e] the victim,” Williams said in his closing argument. For those who oppose climate action, “Michael Mann has become a huge target.”
This strategy of “victimizing the victim” not only shifted days of trial away from Simberg and Steyn’s articles comparing Mann to Sandusky — it also gave the defense an opportunity to put the hockey stick chart, and climate science more broadly, on trial.
My one complaint would be that the award of $1.1 million was not adequate. The bad guys, Simberg & Steyn, are backed by a whole vast industry with deep pockets, and that much money is just loose change to them — they’ll extract that much from their sofa cushions.
It’s no reward for Mann, either. I’ve been through this particular wringer with one petty, low profile accusation, and it required paying a lawyer hundreds of thousands of dollars to win. This was a big case — I imagine all Mann has won financially is more debt. But it was worth it!*
* At least, that’s what the lawyers say.
I wonder if Simberg & Steyn are going to continue making ad ad hominem a la Trump, or pretend their bankrupt so they don’t have to pay anything.
Agreed, $1.1M wasn’t enough.
Should have been in the $50M range.
Why should lying be protected speech?
And no, I’m not at all satisfied with the excuse I usually hear: “Do you want the government to decide what is and isn’t true.”
Yes! Who the fuck else is going to? (That’s not a rhetorical question, BTW. If not the state, then who?)
Michael Mann should also get legal costs on top of this. Years ago, a court allowed National Review, that had published articles by Steyn off the hook for publishing defamatory attacks on Mann. Mann is now appealing that. So this all may not be over just yet.
As for Mark Steyn, when Rush Limpbrain was still alive, Steyn occasionally sat in for Limbaugh as a substitute shock jock. That should tell you a lot about Steyn.
@3 Akira MacKenzie: Reality should be the primary arbiter of truth. Follow that up with courts in cases where it has to be determined. Then science only because the courts have to have precedent for legal determination. The government barely makes the top 10.
@3, @5:
As a lawyer now who’s been stuck dealing with these sorts of things since long before becoming a lawyer, and in places other than the US with our First Amendment:
The fundamental problem is that “speech” costs less to utter than its effects. That necessarily means that there is no one clear, appropriate, and not-self-interested arbiter of when speech goes “too far,” and what the appropriate remedy is when it goes too far and how to get it. Living in the UK during the Thatcher years shows how one “alternative” to the US context… doesn’t work. And the rest of Europe is worse; and most of the rest of the world…
Which is only to say that the “Rule of Law sets the context, and individual legal proceedings determine whether there will be consequences” is the least-imperfect path, with probably least-imperfect-available setting of the contexts. The real difficulty is that the “objectively correct” attack in this instance on Simberg and Steyn motivations and supporters is itself an ad hominem attack — and it’s one that resonates McCarthyism, the jailing of Eugene Debs, and more to the point the AIDS crisis (in which those attacks transferred one aspect of “socially unacceptable” behavior and views to all scientists attempting to study the issue, at a time when attacking that particular behavior was quite popular among a loudmouthed, statistically significant portion of the population and even large portion of those in power) and “porn” (I will not mention certain renowned visual artists who, under carefully constructed pseudonymous alternate identities, make their actual living doing “glamour photography” — lawyer, ya know).
The takeway is, or should be, that “free speech” eventually has consequences, especially when used to promote the speaker’s hidden agenda (often, as in this instance, not so hidden after all) instead of the actual subject of the speech, and that the rules and procedures for determining that are horribly imperfect and largely based (pretty constantly, in pretty much all Western nations) on what ruling elites who are now in their 50s to 70s recall as unacceptable from their respective misspent youths. There just isn’t a better alternative that doesn’t look an awful lot like Iran (pick any period since the early 1920s…). It’s ok to throw up your hands at how hard this is, because it is.
@ 5
.
When last I looked. “reality” was not a conscious entity with the ability to punish liars, grifters, and idiots who want to claim up is down and left is right. It doesn’t have the power to decide or hold liars accountable.
I remember the case that Mann lost because the court found nobody would believe Tim Ball’s libel. I’m glad this new court is able to accept that actually, people do believe insane things.
Nice, hope it didn’t cost him too much money.
I can never decide whether the First or Second Amendment has caused the most damage to America.
PZ has made a huge logical error. Under what molested and tortured logic was Mann accused of pedophilia?
“They can’t defeat the science with evidence, so instead they accuse a scientist of pedophilia…”
Also: “This was a big case — I imagine all Mann has won financially is more debt. But it was worth it!*
At least, that’s what the lawyers say.”
Where did the lawyers say that? Mann was asked under cross examination what he has paid or owed and he pretty much said nothing.
No.
You made a simple error.
You assumed you were able to read English despite being nearly illiterate.
They compared Mann to Jerry Sandusky.
Who is now in prison for sexually assaulting children.
I realize canman the near illiterate won’t be able to read this Wikipedia excerpt.
Shrug. Maybe someone can find his Thinking Brain Service Dog and have the dog read it to him.
Maybe. I don’t blame his Thinking Brain Service Dog for running away. Even they must get frustrated sometimes.
@Raven — That… was ableist as fuck. Wow. I expected better from you.
Raven,
Here’s some more English that perhaps you can help me with:
First a review, by an emeritus English professor, of former Penn State’s president Graham Spanier:
https://www.bigtrial.net/2022/10/a-shower-of-lies.html
… And a listing of accomplished people who are challenging the Sandusky verdict:
https://frankreport.com/2024/01/18/renowned-academics-and-investigators-challenge-jerry-sanduskys-conviction/
FFS, go back to an Adult English as a First Language school and learn to read. In a decade or two those funny squiggles on pages will start to make sense.
PZ: It’s no reward for Mann, either. I’ve been through this particular wringer with one petty, low profile accusation, and it required paying a lawyer hundreds of thousands of dollars to win.
For Canman’s Thinking Brain Service Dog if they ever find it.
PZ was sued by a creepy guy whose name I will omit as being not worth it, and Freethoughtblogs and PZ Myers won.
Won what?
It still ended up costing him and us hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Us because many of us contributed to the legal defense fund.
The lawyers who said it was worth it were…those lawyers, PZ versus Creep.
They are right but it was still an expensive and unnecessary expense.
Naw.
They gave you a Thinking Brain Service Dog.
If it ran off, that is your problem.
Canman, you are obviously a very stupid troll.
I’m not wasting another second on you.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1477/104466/20190628130353819_Consolidated%20brief%20in%20opposition.pdf
PZ Myers:
“They can’t defeat the science with evidence, so instead they accuse a scientist of pedophilia…”
Canman:
No, they didn’t accuse him of pedophilia.
raven:
No. You made a simple error. You assumed you were able to read English despite being nearly illiterate. I realize canman the near illiterate won’t be able to read this Wikipedia excerpt. Shrug. Maybe someone can find his Thinking Brain Service Dog and have the dog read it to him. Maybe. I don’t blame his Thinking Brain Service Dog for running away. Even they must get frustrated sometimes. Illiterate troll: FFS, go back to an Adult English as a First Language school and learn to read. In a decade or two those funny squiggles on pages will start to make sense. For Canman’s Thinking Brain Service Dog if they ever find it. They gave you a Thinking Brain Service Dog. If it ran off, that is your problem. Canman, you are obviously a very stupid troll. I’m not wasting another second on you.
PZ Myers:
“so instead they accuse a scientist of pedophilia…”
Poor, poor raven. What profiteth a man to be able to read, if he chooseth not to read the OP? Man, or bird? Or beast? Be this word our sign of parting, take thy beak from out this thread and thy adult reading refusal from out my face.
Calling someone the Jerry Sandusky of some endeavor unrelated to being a pedophile is not the same as calling them a pedophile, just like calling someone the Michael Jordan of bowling is not calling them a basketball player.
True, comparing is not calling.
Still, comparing someone to a pedophile — however spurious the comparison — is indeed comparing someone to a pedophile. As per that legal brief.
(Pretty clearly an insinuation about someone’s character, no?)
On another note, half a decade ago, PZ did a couple posts on a review at skeptic.com of a book claiming Jerry Sandusky was innocent. PZ and the post’s commenters were understandably skeptical and very dismissive of it. I was very surprised by this review and found it very well argued. It made a bunch of claims that I’d never heard before. I kept up with comments and anything else I could find about this new information. I found lots of derision, but nothing that looked like a refutation of this new information. At the time, I really didn’t know what to make of this so I couldn’t really make any comments on it, but I’ve followed new developments ever since and there’ve been lots of them. I’ve been hoping PZ would post something related to this so that I could try and argue this new information.
Here’s the posts:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2018/01/06/skeptic-magazine-rots-from-the-head/
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2018/01/08/hard-to-believe-the-attempt-to-vindicate-sandusky-retroactively-continues/
John M,
Yes they were making insinuations about Mann’s character. That’s a major part of blogging! It seems like PZ in impugning someone’s character every other post.
canman @18:
Your middle name must be ‘Disingenuous’. Calling someone the Hitler of some endeavour unrelated to being a genocidal maniac is not the same as calling them a genocidal maniac. Of course! They could be referring to Hitler making trains run on time!
Specifically, insinuations comparing him to a pedophile. Which is not very nice, is it?
This is the actual quotation: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data”.
Um, probably not as frequently as that, and generally on a good basis such as what they advocate or what they do. Like, say, comparing a scientist to a pedophile in order to dispute their work.
(You, of course, aren’t impugning PZ’s character, right?)
“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data”.
There are two parts to this. One, stating Mann had lied about the data demonstrating humans caused climate change.
Two. Doing so in a manner that demonstrated Styer had malicious and malevolent intent in regards to smearing Mann’s reputation.
And number 2 is what cost Styer $1 million dollars.
Many well regarded climate scientists have long stated Mann’s claims were correct and well done science that over the years stood the test of time and further research. Styer ignored that and one’s mere opinion ignoring well established face of facts, repeated in most incendiary terms can be a costly procedure.
I’m definitely impugning PZ’s logic. Simberg did not call Man a Pedophile. I’d call what Simberg said extreme hyperbole and in bad taste, just like Larry Flynt’s parody of Jerry Falwell. I don’t think bad taste should be illegal or evidence of malice, especially on an editorial on a blog post.
Cheerful Charlie,
There’s plenty of serious writing on Mann’s hockey stick papers that would make most people (including me) think Mann did very poor work and tried to hide it. Two examples: Undisclosed, erroneous FORTRAN code that unambiguously mines for hockey sticks and unreported failing R squared results.
Steve McIntyre has a blog full of posts about it. It’s summarized nicely in Andrew Montford’s book, The Hockey Stick Illusion. If you want a more condensed version, there’s Brandon Shollenberger’s 99 cent books:
https://www.amazon.com/s?i=digital-text&rh=p_27%3ABrandon+Shollenberger&s=relevancerank&text=Brandon+Shollenberger&ref=dp_byline_sr_ebooks_1
canman:
Not very successfully, it has to be said.
Still, at least you tacitly concede that impugning is not a bad thing per se.
Well, you don’t, but evidently the Court did. Thus the judgement.
PS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#Controversy_over_hockey_stick_graph
(TLDR; he has been scientifically vindicated)
I note that Wikipedia entry doesn’t mention Montford’s book (I suppose I could’ve missed it). Real Climate did a post on it and I found Judith Curry’s comment, with Gavin Schmidt’s inline responses to be sureal.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/comment-page-4/#comment-181895
@ Canman
The fact is, we are now facing record high temperatures as climate
is warming up. And climate scientists agree, it is caused by human activities.
The Hockey stick graph has stood the test of time. Of course like any
complex scientific investigation, evidence accumulates and minor errors are corrected.
However, the Mann case here was not about that. In fact the judge in that case warned the jury that this was not about Mann’s hockey stick graph. It was about defamation and maelovence on the part of Mann’s detractors in this case.
In biology, likewise, PZ’s bailiwick, we have similar contraversies. Ove for example, junk DNA, epigenetics et al. Bad science seems always to accompany good science. This myth that cliamate science is a fraud is widespread among the kooks.
Feel free to edit Wikipedia yourself, it’s quite doable, canman.
—
It does mention his awards, though:
Not exactly scientifically-discredited, is he? Rather, the opposite.
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Consensus of Climate Scientists overwhelming supports the claim that climate warming is occurring and it is caused by humans.
The occasional nitpicking by critics mean little in the overall picture.
I’m not one for non-literal uses of pedophilia or child molestation (I think they add noise to the social milieu when a social problem needs signal), and the extent of the comparison amounts to “treated data very badly”. I don’t see how this relates to character outside of data. Otherwise Mann has plenty of good rational disparaging, impugning comparisons to choose from. It’s bad for other important reasons.
Neither would Forrest Gump, Brony.
(See what I did there?)
Um, Mann was the one impugned and disparaged — the recipient, not the issuer.
I’ve been arguing about the hockey stick on the internet so long that I’ve really gotten bored with it. What I really want to argue about is the Jerry Sandusky case. Peoples minds are politically aligned and set in stone on the hockey stick, but the new information on the Sandusky case has something for everyone. Graham Spanier was unjustly railroaded. He had a political battle with republican governor Tom Corbett over education funding. There was actually a federal investigation into whether Spanier should have his top secret security clearance renewed. NCIS agent, John Snedden, found there was no coverup because there was nothing to cover up and Spanier’s clearance was renewed.
The thing most people remember about the scandal is that Mike McQueary saw Sandusky sodomizing a boy in a Penn State shower. No he didn’t. In fact, of all the charges at trial, the sodomy charge in that instance was one of the 3 or 4 on which he was acquitted. There’s actual email record of McQueary complaining to prosecutor, Jonelle Eshbach that his words were twisted and that he did not see sodomy. Eshbach tells him to keep quiet about it:
https://www.bigtrial.net/2017/10/penn-state-confidential-prosecutor-told.html?m=1
What people remember is the leaking of a Grand Jury presentment (a felony BTW) that caused a moral panic, the firing of Joe Paterno, a witch trial, an ambulance chasing frenzy and lingering mass hysteria.
<snicker>
Then you went about it entirely the wrong way with all your preceding comments, no?
And it’s got nothing to do with the topic at hand, can’tman.
You’ve already been exposed, and this tack you’re taking is not exactly helpful.
(“A man’s got to know his limitations” — Dirty Harry)
@John Morales
I see, I got who rationally impugned who backwards in the legal context here. Thank you.
I think Forrest Gump comparisons are don’t work for similar reasons.
WTAF – a climate change denier on Pharyngula?! A “hockey stick” denier who has obviously not bothered to look at what is happening to world temperatures?
I want to emphasize that there are mountains of new information on the Sandusky case and new stuff is always coming up. And it’s really interesting and important stuff. It’s not just about a few people being railroaded. It has a lot to say about politics, the courts, the media, sports, humanity, science, … It’s also a really great story! I like to call it the best mini-series on the internet! Do you miss new episodes of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul? There’s a (probably up tp 100 hours by now) podcast series called With the Benefit of Hindsight. There’s amazing interviews with people connected to the case. You probably remember Sandusky’s telephone interview with Bob Costas where he gives the stumbling answer to whether he’s sexually attracted to young boys. Bob Costas called in on his own to be included for an interview. You can hear taped sessions with a fake accuser and one of the chief lawyers anrd a epressed memory therapists. You can hear a mistakenly recorded argument between John Ziegler (it’s his podcast series) and Scott Paterno.
You people don’t know what you’re missing!
“My one complaint would be that the award of $1.1 million was not adequate. The bad guys, Simberg & Steyn, are backed by a whole vast industry with deep pockets, and that much money is just loose change to them — they’ll extract that much from their sofa cushions.”
Ah, I see. This is parody. I can’t believe I missed it the first time.
For those still taking the OP at face value, it may help you to note that THREE law firms represented Michael Mann at zero cost to him. Someone with deep sofa cushions indeed was on his side.
The defendants, meanwhile, had to pay for their own counsel.
So PZ was making a clever play on the absurd trope of the massively-funded denial machine.
Chapeau bas, PZ
To give you an idea of what being a climate scientist in the USA is like, most climate scientists have gotten death threats.
Not just a few but many.
Michael E. Mann is one of them.
A lot of scientists get death threats.
The other favorite To Kill group are evolutionary biologists.
Death threats are felonies but they are so common, the police rarely investigate them.
It helps a lot if you are a powerful politician or judge.
I know of one climate scientist who checks under his car every morning for planted bombs.
He says he has been doing this for so long it seems normal.
“You people”? Heh. You specimens do like that locution, don’t you?
You’re just trolling, now. Looks like Raven got you right away, no?
Anyway. If those things amaze you, I definitely won’t be impressed by them.
(Hey, did you know I’ve never seen any of Breaking Bad or Better Call Saul? Australian, here)
John M,
If you ever decide to go on a TV bender, Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul are not bad choices, but With the Benefit of Hindsight is better. It’s all real reporting and you can put in on your phone or ipad. You can even get a feeling of exclusivity, at least until the story gains critical mass and finally breaks into the mainstream media.
Raven,
Yes death threats are despicable, but I’m not aware of many scientists actually being murdered. Whatever you think of Mark Steyn (I certainly don’t agree with him on Graham Spanier and the Freeh Report) he has spoken at events with cartoonists who have had their colleagues murdered.
Already know the gist of that show, canman. Not for me. Too USAnian for me to appreciate.
Thing is, you can’t hide from your earlier claims by trying to whistle innocently and indulging in chitchat.
Here:
“In a victory for climate scientists, jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments made in 2012.”? That’s the topic of this thread.
You thought PZ was baselessly impugning, yet he had good reason to do so, and you yourself are in the impugning game.
You thought Mann’s work was suspect, yet he was vindicated in the 12 years since that accusation.
He has been given civic and social and ethical awards, so you are in the contrarian minority.
So. In your estimation, is anthropogenic global warming real or not?
To be blunt, are you also a climate change denialist, as your comments suggest, or are you merely trying to pick on PZ, as is quite evidently the case?
I certainly agree that CO2 is increasing and causing temperatures to go up, but it’s far from clear how much or how detrimental it is. I’ve been commenting on the subject on the internet for well over a decade. I tend to agree more with writers like Matt Ridley and Willis Eschenbach. I’ve actually had climate skeptics get irked at me for not completely discounting Hansen’s scenario in his book of the Earth turning into Venus and posting Potholer’s video with the Sun getting brighter over geologic time. I’m one of the bloggers at Cliscep.com (Mike Dombroski). You can go there, check out my posts and ridicule me all you want.
What really bothers me about the climate movement is the religious fervor and intolerance of dissent. Judith Curry and Roger Pielke Jr. come to mind. I think this is polluting the science. As full of themselves as I think the political and academic establishment has become on climate, they’re even worse on energy policy. I think they’re recklessly putting all the chips on wind, solar and batteries.
Thanks, canman. Your honesty about your science denialism is refreshing.
(Are you also a flat-earther? Antivaxxer? Creationist?)
<
blockquote>You can go there, check out my posts and ridicule me all you want.<a/blockquote>
But I’m already ridiculing you here all I want; thing is, you came here just for that.
Were I to go there, then I’d be a bit like you, and I respect myself too much to do that.
[ack! — fat-fingers when I enthusiastically clackety-clack away]
Thanks, canman. Your honesty about your science denialism is refreshing.
(Are you also a flat-earther? Antivaxxer? Creationist?)
But I’m already ridiculing you here all I want; thing is, you came here just for that.
Were I to go there, then I’d be a bit like you, and I respect myself too much to do that.
Wish someone would challenge me on the Sandusky stuff. That’s what I really came here for and it is tangentially related to the case.
” when Rush Limpbrain was still alive, Steyn occasionally sat in for Limbaugh as a substitute shock jock. That should tell you a lot about Steyn.”
It says a lot about Rush’s disinterest in reality:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/02/a-hard-act-for-mark-steyn-to-follow.html
And Mark’s capacity to add to the already ample sum of climate hogwash
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/06/mark-steyn-medieval-cooler-than-now.html
. I tend to agree more with writers like Matt Ridley and Willis Eschenbach. I’ve actually had climate skeptics get irked at me ”
Ridley is a fine science writer abd loyal to his people, who for generations owed their living to the coal on his lands.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-glenda-slag-geoengineering-prize.html
Eschenbach is at times as hilarious as Steyn, though given what the two of them dispense, its a wonder so few have died in consequence.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2020/04/of-quinine-and-chloroquine-willis.html
Seeing a climate change denier in full 2000 plumage is like seeing a dinosaur in full 65 million years BP plumage.
Mann claimed repeatedly, in court documents(!), to have received the Nobel Prize.
When forced by skeptics to backtrack on this, he claimed it was an [honest] “mistake.”
Just in case it wasn’t obvious, here’s the definitive proof that this was a lie: the IPCC certificate he received, and on which he based his claim to be a Prize winner, didn’t come with a check. Did it?
Yet, as Mann himself is acutely aware, more aware than anyone, Prizes are (by definition) accompanied by money:
“Those are medals not prizes. They have different meanings. Prizes comes with a cash award.”
(Mann under cross examination by Steyn.)
He could not possibly have mistaken a cashless certificate for a Prize.
John M @31,
I’ll have to admit I’m perplexed by all Mann’s awards or how he made it into the NAS. Here’s my post on it:
https://cliscep.com/2020/04/30/hows-a-mann-get-into-the-nas/
The only analogy I can come up with is people supporting Donald Trump.
I do appreciate your honesty, canman. I’m not being sarcastic, it’s actually nice to see.
Kudos for that.
Still.
Have you considered that your perplexity might be due to your misapprehension of the facts at hand?
That it may be you, rather than the scientific community at large that is getting it wrong?
I mean, it’s not just the National Academy of Sciences, is it?
As per my #31, it’s a shitload of institutions, including the American Meteorological Society and the European Geosciences Union and the National Center for Science Education among numerous others.
Even you noticed that:
Still, I do admire your self-confidence, that you think you know better than all those institutions and organisations, and are bewildered by their stance.
Interestingly, those people tend to also be climate change deniers, and very much pro-fossil fuels.
—
But hey, I read your effort in your denialist site.
It is indisputable, however, that those mostly bland talking points exercised Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn so much that the legal system penalised them around $1 million in punitive damages for their defamatory comments. Kinda an over-reaction for bland talking points, no?
PS — see your typo, there? I did.
BTW, I do think you should put a link there to this thread; surely your readers will be most impressed as to how you handle we people — you know, those who don’t deny the science. Heh.
@ ^ nomdeplume : Climate Deniers are a literally dying “breed” – especially in light of continuing screaming graphs and extreme weather events. Problem is they are killing us and taking us, taking everyone with them despite our opposition to them -if they haven’t doomed us all already.
Which given the lag time and cumulative effects of C2 and other GHGs they probly have..
Huh. Shoulda known I shoulda refreshed.
@52. canman : “I’ll have to admit I’m perplexed by all Mann’s awards or how he made it into the NAS.”
Ever considered that perhaps its becuase you are totally wrong and the actual climatologists who dedicated their lives to understanding their field and have spent years leaning and studying and learnt to know what they are actually talking about might be right and you might be wrong?
I wonder what made you into a Climate Science Denier here and also why you seem so keen to defend a convicted child rapist? ( See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky#Further_allegations_and_investigations ) Don’t spose you’d tell us why here maybe please?
Great news that Michael Mann won this. Well deserved – unlike the decades of harrassment and hate he (& other Climate Scientists) have recieved from the ideologically blinkered partisan, deluded otr atbets badly disinformed haters who have kept trying to destroy him for telling the truth.
See among other places Michael Mann: The Hockey Stick Under Oath
& The Emotional Cost of Climate Change: How Scientists are Coping – 4.34 mins .secs long
PS. In other news a satellite to study our homeworld has now been launched despite Trumplethinskin’s attempts to stop it :
https://phys.org/news/2024-02-nasa-climate-satellite-blasts-survey.html#google_vignette
Plus on the death threats to Mike Mann and other scientists see also Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack: The Wrap by Greenman3610 – just over 9 mins long.
As well as what even conservative, evangelical climate scientists have faced here :
Katharine Hayhoe: “..Much of This is Intended to Intimidate.” again from same channel & this time tena nd a half minutes long.
Great, old clip on the hockey stick here too as the title tells :
Global Warming: It’s Not About the Hockey Stick by greenman3610 – 5 minutes 38 secs long. As Greenman3610 has noted there’s not just a hockey stick there’s whole hockey team.
Great. I’ve summoned a couple of climate denialist wackaloons. Sorry, everyone.
Two? Two chewtoys? Yay!
Jesus. Not just climate denialists, but defenders of Jerry Sandusky?
Look, guys, announcing both that Steyn/Simberg didn’t literally call Mann a pedophile and declaring that a convicted pedophile like Sandusky was innocent makes it sound like your actual interest here is in soft-pedaling child sex abuse.
@Brad Keyes : Citations please?
Also relevance here?
@ Brad Keyes :
Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#:~:text=The%20IPCC%20presented%20Mann%2C%20along,the%20IPCC%20and%20to%20Al
Plus :
Source : https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/press-release/
In addition to :
Source : https://ncics.org/news/events/cics-nc-hosts-dr-michael-mann/#:~:text=He%20shared%20the%20Nobel%20Peace,the%20past%20one%20thousand%20years.
StevoR, thanks for the contribution.
Just so I know your position, are you at the
Mann received/was honored by/shared/co-won/was among those awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
or
it was all a misunderstanding
phase?
PZ:
“Jesus. Not just climate denialists,”
I denialize nothing, let alone the climate. The only people in denial here are those who still insist Mann’s conduct around the turn of the century was within the acceptable limits for a scientist.
“announcing both that Steyn/Simberg didn’t literally call Mann a pedophile”
Yes. What? You think they DID literally call Mann a pedophile? You’re doubling down on that fantasy, PZ? I assume you’re educated enough to know what the adverb “literally” means so all I can do is wish you luck and hope that hill is worth it.
Who’s “declaring that a convicted pedophile like Sandusky was innocent”?
Canman is raising doubts as to the propriety of the conviction of Sandusky—not “a convicted pedophile like” Sandusky, but Sandusky himself—and he’s raising them with an exactitude of language far worthier of a scientist than your rather sloppy hyperboles, with all due respect.
“makes it sound like your actual interest here is in soft-pedaling child sex abuse.”
No, not to anyone capable of reason on this topic. Someone questioning whether Lee Harvey Oswald really killed Kennedy is not minimizing or euphemizing or seeking to rehabilitate the act of assassination. They’re not saying, hey, shooting the President in the head isn’t all THAT bad. You might accuse an Oswald Innocence Project member of being way off. You might accuse them of being some sort of bot. But if your brain worked on this topic, you wouldn’t hear such revisionism as some sort of plea to society to rethink whether the murder of a serving President is really all that big of a deal.
And for what it’s worth, the evidence against Sandusky is objectively far, far wobblier than that against Oswald.
You seem to be hung up on this minor and irrelevant point. He was acknowledged for his contributions to the work that won the Nobel prize.
I assure you that every Nobel prize is the product of numerous people who don’t all get a lump of money. Your concern does not matter and is stupid.
Oh, I get it. You’re one of those people trying desperately to shift the conversation to petty word games.
I’ll make it simple for you.
Michael Mann is a highly qualified scientist who has been doing important work on analyzing climate change and in popularizing public awareness. He is correct. He has the evidence.
Simberg/Steyn are right-wing hacks who engaged in character assassination to cast doubt on the empirical facts because the science shows they are wrong.
You are here to squink up a lot of noise to support the hacks and oppose the science.
FUCK OFF.
Whether Jerry Sandusky is innocent or not is completely irrelevant to whether Simberg and Steyn libeled Dr. Mann.
This is already a settled point.
They just lost in court in a jury trial and are now libel for damages. Steyn is going to have to come up with $1 million dollars.
@ 68. Brad Keyes :
The first “Mann received/was honored by/ shared/co-won/was among those awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” one because as my comment at #67 should have demonstrated to you that is simply historical fact. Whether you accept the scientific reality of it or not.
Do you deny that and if so, why and wit what supporting evidence?
Your failure to answer my earlier request for that is observed and noted. I do not know if you are able tor reply or not now.
Do you think Professor Mann was NOT awarded the Nobel prize along with the other IPCC members or not?
Do you accept the reality that the Hockey Stick graph is proven etablished science or not and, if not, why not and what extraordinary evidence do you offer to prove your extraordinary claim per theSagan standard?
Fer clarity here altho’ expect most already know :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard
Also anglais / eigo / espanol why the non-phonetic spellings and needless silent letters?
Oky my “mother tongue” steals from other klanguages & all but does it have to still be so messed up?
Oh and, keyboard / computer can you work right please? Ditto my half-asleep, maybe two thirds or so brain? (I’mn guessing no they won’t?) / meta, no not the company one..
PS. Okaay, espanolis spanish oe spanish? Francias fro spanish not english. English in Spanish is inglés /
inglesa and anyhow.. hope yáll get the gist..
The claim that Jerry Sandusky was innocent is laughably wrong.
It’s right up there with the “The earth is flat” or “Climate Change isn’t happening”.
His boss, head coach Paterno knew as did a lot of other people.
That is why when the case opened up, he promptly retired.
Jerry Sandusky never testified in his own trial.
That was because the prosecutors had a lot of other evidence besides the large amount they had already presented and were prepared to bring it up.
One of his adopted kids was prepared to testify.
“Oct 7, 2019 — Jerry Sandusky’s adopted son, Matt Sandusy, opens up about the sexual abuse he said the infamous coach put him through.”
This is a classic example of crank magnetism. I’m sure the current trolls believe a lot of other things that have no basis in reality.
Correction for clarity, spacings and a keyboad I swear switches letters on me :
Espanol is Spainish for Spainish? Francais for Spainish?
. Anyhow. Sure wish wish we could edit as well as preview comments here. But fair ’nuff. Sigh.
Lung-wizzticks iz wyerd..
Uh, boy, bounding into a thread to proudly proclaim your crank-cred by repeatedly announcing the length of time you’ve spent as an internet anti-climate kook, then immediately following that up with a hand-break turn into Jerry Sandusky defense is not quite the intellectual flex that someone seems to think it is…
@ ^ wobbly : Trewth. Er, Truth. Capitalisation deliberate.
It’s always a spectacular self-own when these kinds of cranks show up.
I have feelings about tactics involving arguing about child abuse cases in global warming posts. Other eyes wandering the internet see people defending bad things in global warming posts.
Maybe not, but people interested in miscarriage of justice and child abuse can go elsewhere to do that, but they came here.
There will be a brief pause while ResearchGate checks a few tens of thousands of science and policy journals to collate Brad Keyes bibliography
StevoR, thanks for clarifying.
“Do you think Professor Mann was NOT awarded the Nobel prize along with the other IPCC members or not?”
It doesn’t really matter what I think. What matters is what the Nobel Prize committee says. To quote Geir Lundestad, Director of the Nobel Institute in Oslo:
“Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.”
As Catallaxy Files reports:
“Some time ago I contacted the Nobel Committee and asked whether a person who was employed by an organisation can claim to have won a Nobel Prize. The reply I received stated:
“‘An award of the Nobel Prize to an organisation does not under any circumstances permit an employee or other agent of that organization to claim to share a Nobel Prize. Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize.'”
Mann was neither named in the cited nor given a check, so by definition, he did not win even a tiny fraction of the Nobel Prize. As he well knows, being acutely conscious of the monetary profits of prizewinning.
That the IPCC was awarded half a Nobel Prize, does not mean it can distribute that prize as it sees fit (minus the cash, naturally). The Nobel Prize is not transferable.
PZ will no doubt dismiss this as “word games,” but where I come from, precision matters. Facts matter. But then I’m a skeptic, not a believalist.
How many languages do you speak? Remember the character Salvatore in the Name of the Rose? Now there’s a book.
Brad:
That should be ‘believer’ in actual English instead of your personal cant.
I mean, I get you are trying to do a neologic analogue of ‘denialist’, but the difference is between established usage and a feebly idiosyncratic effort.
Also, you’re most evidently not a skeptic, rather, you are a contrarian; scepticism is about justified doubt, not about denial of established conclusions.
Are you sceptical about this?
“In a victory for climate scientists, jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments made in 2012.”
What about this?
“On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of the 48 remaining charges. Sandusky was sentenced on October 9, 2012 to 30 to 60 years in prison. He has been incarcerated in the Pennsylvania prison system since October 31, 2012.”
… or this?
“Criminal status Incarcerated at State Correctional Institution – Laurel Highlands; earliest possible release October 9, 2042”
Look at my #31: do you believe all those awards? Because they’re all real.
Factual, not opinion.
Do you disbelieve that the scientific community has vindicated Mann and granted him numerous awards for his excellence at science and its communication? Truefax.
(heh)
But it surely amuses me, and shows that you are a bit of a sap. So it matters to that extent.
(Credulous, yet obstinate, a lovely combo!)
John M, are you skeptical of the OJ Simpson verdict or the Salem Witch trial verdicts?
Sandusky had his name smeared by an inflammatory, false, leaked (a felony) grand jury presentment. His name is now so toxic that major media outlets are afraid to publish any new information on the case.
Also, where are the books from the prosecution’s side from what had to be the high points of their careers? Oh, wait. I found one. Silent No More by Aaron Fisher and his therapist. It explains how Fisher only had to answer yes or no to questions from his therapist. It exposes how Sandusky sabotaged Fisher’s car so that he would have a terrible accident that would almost kill him and three friends. It also exposes how the Philadelphia Phucking Eagles were involved!
John Morales,
“but the difference is between established usage and a feebly idiosyncratic effort”
The difference is between cliche and wit.
“you are a contrarian”
You don’t know me, so it’s unsurprising that your best guess is wildly inaccurate. What’s more surprising is that you gambled on making it out loud. That was silly.
“Are you sceptical about this?
“In a victory for climate scientists, jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments made in 2012.””
The first six words are wrong, because Mann is a serial defamer of climate scientists. The monetary figure is wrong, but close enough for government work. The word ‘defamatory’ is wrong, because the comments in question were true. Overall grade: C.
“On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of the 48 remaining charges. Sandusky was sentenced on October 9, 2012 to 30 to 60 years in prison. He has been incarcerated in the Pennsylvania prison system since October 31, 2012.”
Sounds plausible. Sounds like something that more-or-less occurred on Earth. Given your track record, you likely got a couple of details wrong but as to which ones, don’t ask me.
“do you believe all those awards? Because they’re all real.”
Unfortunately for you, I won’t be distracted by shiny objects. The question is about one and only one Prize (not medal, not award: PRIZE) and whether you can overcome your powerful need to deny the fact that Mann was lying about winning it.
But if you’re still willing to say either that
— he really was co-awarded the Nobel Prize
— or OK, that was obviously not true, but it was an honest mistake on his part, because it’s all so confusing
then I’ll applaud you for having (if nothing else) the courage to make yourself a hostage to posterity.
cantman:
Wow. No, of course not. They are on record as having been the verdicts.
Don’t you get by now that being in doubt about actual established facts is just being denialist?
In your opinion. Alas, your opinion is worthless in this case, is it not? It changes nothing.
The case was 12 years ago, you know. He languishes in prison, now. No news there.
So. You explicitly claim his name is now toxic, so how can you not see how being compared to him by someone who can’t dispute the actual science (you know, the science which has been thoroughly vindicated and for which he has won numerous awards by prominent civic and scientific bodies) and so resorts to that was seen by the court to be defaming Mann?
So, you have nothing. Can’t actually dispute the facts, so you go on about some sports team. heh.
—
Brad,
Oh, I can for sure see how witty you are. It’s been established usage in that denialist site for many years now, no?
(Do you even know to what ‘cant’ refers?)
<snicker>
You don’t even get you’re doing that right there, do ya? Heh.
Heh. You can’t avoid the weight of the claim, can you.
Try this one:
“In winning a $1 million verdict against a pair of right-wing bloggers on Thursday, climate scientist Michael Mann scored a victory that is reverberating through a world of climate discourse that many say is no less disputatious than when the bloggers penned their attacks 12 years ago.
“I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech,” Mann said in a statement following the unanimous decision of a six-person jury in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
After a four-week trial, the panel deliberated for a day before delivering its decision that Mann had been defamed by Rand Simberg, a former adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Mark Steyn, a contributor to National Review. The jury awarded Mann $1 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.The bloggers alone faced the judgment; a court three years ago ruled that the publishers could not be held liable for the writings of their part-time contributors.”
(https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09022024/michael-mann-defamation-verdict/)
Aah, such scepticism! No way for you to check the claims, is there? Just, ”Sounds plausible”.
(You so very clearly have nothing, and even your attempted bluster is feeble)
Still? Quote me, if you dare try to attempt it. That’s purely wishful thinking on your part, which is understandable, since that’s all you have. Wishful thinking and opinion.
You know what I actually say? I say Michael Mann has won his defamation case, that he’s been awarded $$$ in damages, that he has been the recipient of numerous awards, and that his science and integrity has been lauded and rewarded.
You are trying to be evasive, but that’s counter-productive; your attempted prevarications merely show you have nothing with which to sustain your purported scepticism about either the facts at hand or the established science.
—
BTW, are you a flat-earther, too? Antivaxxer? Creationist?
(I notice the canman carefully avoided responding to that question, I expect you will do likewise)
Raven @77, your link doesn’t work, but I’m guessing it’s this one:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17015181/testimony-unsealed-documents-alleges-joe-paterno-knew-jerry-sandusky-abuse-1976
That typically poor reporting from ESPN is very unclear about what Paterno said, most likely because there’s no clear record of what he said. It is also about accusers looking for settlements after the trial. Journalists John Ziegler and Ralph Cipriano were leaked all of the settlement documents (along with Freeh Report documents) which show how laughable these accuser’s claims are. There are multiple episodes in With the Benefit of Hindsight:
https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/episode-twelve-part-i-the-settlements/id1562078872?i=1000524514855
Yes Jerry Sandusky did not testify at his own trial, because he was very naive and did what his incompetent lawyer (as opposed to OJs dream team) told him to do. His lawyer, Joe Amendola, actually tried to back out, but the judge wouldn’t let him.
You: “That was because the prosecutors had a lot of other evidence besides the large amount they had already presented and were prepared to bring it up.”
The only stuff I can find that they didn’t bring up looks like exculpatory stuff. Matt Sandusky made a sworn statement in support of Jerry. There was a videotaped police interview with the Janitor who witnessed a man performing oral sex with a boy in a Penn State shower. He said multiple times that the man was NOT Jerry Sandusky. At the trial, the prosecutors said he had dementia, so they used hearsay testimony from another janitor. Yes, some of Sandusky’s convictions are from hearsay testimony with no victim or date! They also did not use a sworn statement from Alan Myers, the boy Mike McQueary saw in the shower. When Meyers heard of the leaked grand jury presentment, he recognized himself as the boy in this incident and wrote letters to editors and the sworn statement to Sandusky’s lawyer saying nothing happened in the shower. Alan Myers then disappeared for the rest of the trial. His mother worked for a lawyer who would go on to get multi-million dollar settlements for several accusers, including Alan Myers. In their closing statements, the prosecutors said his identity was known only to God.
Why did Matt Sandusky flip? He found out that Myers had flipped and saw where things were going.
Heh heh heh. You sure do try to evade the actual issue in favour of your hobbyhorse.
Such an obsession with the supposed innocence of a convicted pedophile, which has nothing to do with this post, and nothing to do with climate science, is rather suggestive. Any opportunity to plead the kiddie-diddler’s case, for you, however tangential.
Thing is, the topic on this post is Michael Mann being awarded $1M in punitive damages.
Clearly, his science has been vindicated, and clearly, this successful court case outcome vindicates his accusation that he was defamed.
But hey, I get it. You feel stressed-out that a pedophile was jailed. Obsessed about it, quite evidently.
Fact:
“On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of the 48 remaining charges. Sandusky was sentenced on October 9, 2012 to 30 to 60 years in prison. He has been incarcerated in the Pennsylvania prison system since October 31, 2012.” Not much doubt about it, is there? Other than from you.
I get that you imagine you know better than scientists about science, and you also imagine that you know better than lawyers and judges and jurors about the law. What I don’t get is your belief that you will ever convince others who don’t share your admiration for convicted kiddy-diddlers or climate science denialism.
Mate!
You are, in short, exposing yourself, and it’s not a pretty sight.
Anyway. Obvious facts are obvious, no? Can’t dispute the court outcomes, can’t dispute the facts regarding Michael Mann.
Michael Mann has been vindicated about the science by the scientific community, and he has won his court case regarding his being defamed by people who could not dispute his science on the basis that they insinuated he was akin to a pedophile.
(You sure like pick losing positions!)
So. Since you are otherwise concede your science denialism and your advocacy of false narratives about climate science, do you care to come clean as to your personal opinion about pedophiles and the legal system? Do you really think they should get away with it? Can any accusation ever be proven, in your mind?
Just saying.
Be aware that you are beginning to come across as quite creepy with your obsession about the purported innocence of someone convicted of 45 charges.
“Clearly, his science has been vindicated”
By the vote of 6 non-scientists plucked from the phonebook? Who knew it was that easy? Scientists really need to stop waiting around for nature to vindicate them and just phone a lawyer.
‘“I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech,” Mann said in a statement following the unanimous decision of a six-person jury in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.’
Yeah nah. Why would he wish to be held accountable for smearing Judith Curry? Surely he’s terrified by the removal of the impunity that shields his lies about climate scientists.
“Heh. You can’t avoid the weight of the claim, can you.”
Can anyone guess what John is trying to say here? Help him out if you can.
I skipped the rest of your rant, John. I suspect it wasn’t written to be read anyway. Now that you’ve got it out of your system, wanna actually do something useful? Please copy and paste Michael Mann’s official celebratory tweet. He’s blocked me in the name of outreach and excellence in communication.
Heh, Brad. You sure are a sucker for punishment.
Nope. By the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Fact.
I refer you to my #32, which you are trying so very hard to ignore, unlike your pedophile-supporting fellow traveler, who at least shows a modicum of self-awareness and honesty.
Here is an indication (not the entirety) of what those “6 non-scientists plucked from the phonebook” achieved with their “vote”:
“he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union;
Following election by the American Meteorological Society he became a new Fellow of the society;
the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley;
Mann was named as a Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information;
elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science;
he was elected Vice Chair of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate (GPC) at the American Physical Society (APS);
Climate One at the Commonwealth Club of California said that he would be honored with the 7th annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Science Communication;
He received the James H. Shea Award from the National Association of Geoscience Teachers for his “exceptional contribution in writing or editing Earth science materials for the general public or teachers of Earth science.”;
the American Association for the Advancement of Science announced that Mann was chosen to receive the 2018 Public Engagement with Science award;
the American Geophysical Union announced Mann as the 2018 recipient of its Climate Communication Prize;
Mann and Warren Washington were named to receive the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement;
he was elected member of the National Academy of Sciences;
the American Physical Society recognized Mann with the Leo Szilard Lectureship Award “for distinguished contributions to the public’s understanding of climate science controversies, and to how our individual and collective actions can mitigate climate change.””
Not too shabby, eh?
Oh, I see. You don’t think much of scientists. Makes sense, since you are a AGW denialist.
(You don’t realise you’re implicitly conceding that his case had legal merit, do you?)
Um, I refer to this universe and this timeline, not some alternate reality.
You know, the one where he is triumphant and vindicated and lauded, not your counterfactual wishful reality.
Where he won a sizeable punitive payout.
You sure can’t; obviously, being explicit and unambiguous is still too complicated for you to nut out.
Basically, I’m saying you are a dolt and that you are wrongity-wrong about basically everything, and that you imagine you are a sceptic whereas in reality you are a sap.
(I know, too many words for such as you)
Yeah, I get it. Not much fun being shown to be a bit of a clueless clown, is it?
There, there. If you ignore me, you’ll be just peachy, others will buy into your bullshit. Perhaps, anyway.
Fact is, you got nothing but your attempted bluster. Can’t dispute me, so you have to try to ignore me.
Thing is, you can’t. Reality is what it is, I am what I am.
You do get I’m enjoying myself immensely, no?
Just remember, you came here, I did not come to you.
(Your cowardice is quite evident; at least as much as your competence at disputation, not to mention your, ahem, wit)
Aww, I can’t help but be moved by such piteousness:
I can do better than that: see my #59. His official CNN celebratory interview.
John M,
You should really find a better place to hang out. PZ’s faulty logic is starting to creep in by osmosis (” .. they accuse a scientist of pedophilia ..”).
canman, you are undoubtedly a most satisfactory chew-toy. I do appreciate that.
Um, you’re hanging out here right now. That’s a fact.
(Do you know to what the term ‘hypocrisy’ refers? :)
You’re akin to a GOTO loop, ain’t ya? That’s how you began, now you want to recapitulate?
Sure; GOTO 11.
Anyway, allow me to inform you to what logic refers: it’s a process of inference, based on a set of premises and an inference system. There are multiple types, of which the main categories are deductive, inductive, and abductive.
None of those are mere statements, such as the one PZ provided. Those are claims, not logic.
I hope you can at least learn something from your venturing into this den of less-clueless people that the one which you find familiar and comforting. You know, the denialist site where you belong.
I do get such as you don’t understand the difference between assertions, propositions, premises, inferences or conclusions. I do get you don’t understand natural language particularly well, so that you imagine an insinuation is not effectively an accusation; the court did, though — thus the damages awarded.
Still. Hang around some more, and I reckon even such as you can’t help but learn something.
John M,
As for logic, this is Simberg’s exact sentence:
Note the “except that instead of ..” — sort of the exclusive ‘or’ of sentence structure. From there it’s straight deductive logic that Simberg did not say Mann molested children. PZ’s sentence also has another logical error:
He’s making a generalization from Simberg’s quote to include (I suppose) Mark Steyn. And now it looks like you’re infected with his illogic. I hope you don’t do mission critical applications that people depend on.
John:
“Nope. By the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Fact.”
Science by opinion survey. Love it! I’m not even going to point out that no such survey actually exists; that would risk dignifying this pre-scientific reasoning system you’ve got going on.
“Here is an indication (not the entirety) of what those “6 non-scientists plucked from the phonebook” achieved with their “vote”:
[followed by a dazzling list of awards, medals and prizes]
The jurors won all that? They enabled Mann to win all that? What, if anything, do you mean by “achieved”?!
Oh, wait, I don’t care.
“Not too shabby, eh?”
Assuming you mean all the things Mann has won, as opposed to whatever you think the jury “achieved,” yes, I must admit his trophy shelf is impressively groaning.
In fact the only higher achievements any scientist could strive for would be:
1. winning a Nobel Prize
2. actually discovering something
So Mike’s still got something to aim for, which is always helpful for a man his age.
“Oh, I see.”
Well I doubt it. But let’s read on and discover what you think you “see.”
“You don’t think much of scientists.”
Aw. Wrong as usual.
“….you are a AGW denialist.”
Aw. You’re hallucinatory to boot. What else do you hear my voice denializing in your head, out of curiosity?
Brad quoting John:
Did this involve time travel?
Ah, the gift that keeps on giving. I love it.
canman:
Heh. You emphasised the wrong bit; “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” was the insinuation and the bit that was defamatory, and which any ordinary person (and most importantly the court and the jury) would know was effectively a defamatory accusation.
Not even slightly. For it to be a deductive logical argument, the premises would need to be explicitly stated, and the inferential chain explicitly adduced. You know, things like conjuntion elimination or disjunction introduction and so forth. Your cargo-cult version doesn’t cut it.
As for the “they” you about which are so excited, again: “In a victory for climate scientists, jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments made in 2012.”
I mean, it could have been sorta semi plausibly the singular they, but clearly is a reference to the fact that the case was against two people, not just one. So plural it is.
Not any longer; I am retired. I get to amuse myself, these days. Self-funded retiree.
—
Brad:
John:
To what supposed opinion survey do you refer? I spoke of awards given by scientific and civic institutions.
The IPCC; the American Geophysical Union; the American Meteorological Society; Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science; the National Center for Science Education; the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI); the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Physical Society (APS); the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; the Center for Inquiry; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Geophysical Union; the National Academy of Sciences; etc.
No survey there, that’s your hopeful misreading of what I wrote.
First of all, if you didn’t care, you’d not be posting and asking questions, would you? That you do that means that you obviously care.
Second, by “achieved”, I mean he did it on his merits. What else could it mean?
Indeed. And I’m pretty sure the award for damages won’t hurt his financial position, either.
Fair enough. So, in your estimation he has not reached the apex, the acme of scientific achievement, but is at the penultimate rank of achievement. That’s still much higher than just about any other scientist, no?
Well then, you intimate that you do in fact think much of scientists.
So you must be rather impressed with Michael Mann, who has achieved the rank below the ultimate best possible rank.
Didn’t seem to be the case until you just conceded that.
Ah, OK.
Again, until now, it sure seemed that you did not accept the overwhelming scientific consensus about the reality of anthropogenic climate change, and of the significance of Mann’s work.
So… what’s your beef with this judgment and with his achievements, then? :)
—
cantman:
No, it’s historical. You yourself claimed “I’ll have to admit I’m perplexed by all Mann’s awards or how he made it into the NAS.”
(Did you time-travel? ;)
John, everyone is perplexed—not just Canman and me, but I think I can safely say the Anglosphere itself—by your statement that the jury “achieved” the fact that Mann won all those things.
And I was being sarcastic about his achievements. He hasn’t discovered anything this millennium. Or if he has, you should have skipped the credentialism and told me what he’s added to human knowledge. That’s how normal scientists measure their success, not by the cheap counterfeit that is social cachet.
“So… what’s your beef with this judgment and with his achievements, then? :)”
I have no beef, not even veal, with his accolades. If science organizations want to associate their names with his, let them.
“This judgement” on the other hand perversely enriches a fake scientist and obligate thug at the deep personal expense of writers whose only mistake was to call him out. The Hockey Stick might tell the truth about the last millennium of temperature to the nearest decimal point but Mann’s version of it is still fraudulent. He made a public virtue out of unreplicability. He actively evaded auditing. He withheld enabling details. The end result was to immortalise an erroneous result and thus delay the progress of climate science by years. I don’t understand why people fall for the conflation of pro-climate-science with pro-Mann.
O Brad, your feistiness is most welcome, though your repertoire sadly appears exhausted already.
Maybe a bit more poking will elicit some different posturing, though. Let’s see…
Again, I quote: “jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments”
The jury is composed of the jurors, and the jury (I quote yet again!) awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages.
How you are supposedly perplexed by the plainest of language and the most checkable of facts is not exactly mysterious: you are being disingenuous. Because you have nothing but bluff and bluster.
You are like that kid that wears the underpants on their head, except you have the skid mark on your nose.
I know you think that’s impressive, but… well.
Nah. You were being truthful, you just didn’t know it.
You can try to ignore reality all you want, but you know…
The IPCC; the American Geophysical Union; the American Meteorological Society; Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science; the National Center for Science Education; the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI); the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Physical Society (APS); the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; the Center for Inquiry; the National Academy of Sciences; etc.
Those are achievements. You can try to deprecate them, but it’s hollow. So very obvious!
More to the point: You truly don’t believe scientists when the science is counter to your ideology, and you truly are a AGW denier. You essayed the falsehood that you were (now you call it sarcasm) and I went with it.
Was the result not to your liking? I took you at your lying word, and I still was showing you up.
See, you think you know how to argue, how to dispute, how to practice casuistry. Part of your charm.
And yet, the IPCC; the American Geophysical Union; the American Meteorological Society; Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science; the National Center for Science Education; the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI); the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Physical Society (APS); the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; the Center for Inquiry; the National Academy of Sciences; etc. have given him awards and plaudits.
So, it’s you vs. them, no?
(That’s called denialism, when you can’t even admit those achievements are real and meaningful)
That’s karma, not perversity. Poetic justice. It would not have happened had the climate denialists tried to impugn his character by comparing him to a pedophile. I’ve explained all that to you already, I’ve adduced evidence, but you just can’t muster the intellectual honesty or the testicular fortitude to concede the evident reality.
But hey, caper around with that stain on your face. Most amusing.
Yes, you don’t need to repeat yourself. It is clear that you do not understand, because you do not want to understand.
Basically, you intimate that all those organisations that gave him awards since 2012 are incompetent, in your opinion.
Heh.
Anyway, I know you were bullshitting. It’s all you’ve done, it’s all you have.
—
Hey, remember what I wrote, earlier?
Here: BTW, are you a flat-earther, too? Antivaxxer? Creationist?
(I notice the canman carefully avoided responding to that question, I expect you will do likewise)
Vindicated, I am. :)
Ah well, bit bored, so I suppose I should make it obvious that this ostensible misunderstanding about me supposedly claiming his science was vindicated by this judgement is based on quote-mining, because I can see it has become the single focus of your jiggery. Impressed the hell out of the canman, which is rather indicative.
Me: “Thing is, the topic on this post is Michael Mann being awarded $1M in punitive damages.
Clearly, his science has been vindicated, and clearly, this successful court case outcome vindicates his accusation that he was defamed.”
Most people would get that I am there explicitly distinguing between his science and his defamation case, as per my emphasis. Basically, twice vindicated. First sentence, referring to the awarded damages. Second sentence, reference to the scientific vindication and also to the legal vindication.
(Such complicated parsing!)
No. By the fact that the IPCC; the American Geophysical Union; the American Meteorological Society; Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science; the National Center for Science Education; the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI); the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Physical Society (APS); the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; the Center for Inquiry; the National Academy of Sciences; etc. have given him awards and plaudits.
By the fact that the hockey-stick thing is the accepted reality by every single cretitable organisation.
But hey, come on.
Can you point to any actual reputable academic body that currently disputes his science?
Just one will do. Out of any country in the world, even.
(I know damn well you can’t — the science is settled)
The overwhelming empirical evidence for Global Overheating (“Warming” ïs too mild and pleasant a word for it) is literally smashing in doors e.g. here at a US military base in Kwajalein atoll and we have rocket scientists like NASA here :
https://climate.nasa.gov/
Plus scientists generally informing us of all of it and being conservative in their estimates.
But of course the Deniers literally refuse to accept the evidence and the reality even when it is directly put in their hands right in front of them explained carefully to them by renowned experts like shown here (4 minutes, 5 seconds mark onwards especially) right Brad Keyes, right Canman?
To the latter two I ask what would make you accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here?
StevoR,
I couldn’t agree more:
But of course the deniers literally refuse to accept the evidence and the reality even when it is directly put in their hands right in front of them explained carefully to them by renowned experts like shown here.
“To the latter two I ask what would make you accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here?”
When have I disputed, questioned, expressed doubt about, repudiated, gainsaid, dissented from, disagreed with, challenged, contested, opposed, negated, controverted, confuted, rejected, dismissed, demurred against, contradicted, objected to, taken issue with, disbelieved or (more archaically) misdoubted the scientific idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a significant reason why the Earth is warmer than it otherwise would be?
You seem to find it inconceivable that someone on your “side” regarding the reality of AGW would be offended by Mann’s anti-science shenanigans. I’d work on that if I were you.
John, your aversion to being “quote-mined” is noted, though objective observers would simply use the word “quoted.”
Nonetheless, you can’t grow as an individual (something I believe you not only can but should aim to do at every age) without acknowledging your mistakes. Mistakes that include this gibberistic category error:
Ceasing to defend it, as you clearly have, is not enough. You must repudiate your errors, and you can’t do that—you can’t end their power over you—if you refuse to name them.
Good luck.
Er, no, they’re organizations.
To avoid such blunders in future, you need to cultivate clear thinking and writing habits. Those are really the same thing: clear thinking and clear writing.
Take fifteen minutes a day to play word games, especially the one called Let’s Use the Right Word!® in North America.
It did miracles for my kids, who are now three grades ahead of their chronological age in writing—a damn good achievement, even considering their genetic head-start. It can work for you too.
(It’s the “junior” version of Let’s Speak English!®, which beginners tend to find too challenging.)
@ Brad Keyes : “Climategate” LOL. Seriously dude? Cherry-pick much too? Oh and did you happen to eat a thesaururus /Onomasticon or something?
Check this out – Bad, Badder, BEST – 7 mins 257 secs
(Twelve years ago now! Yikes time Fuck it flies.)
Or go directly to :
https://berkeleyearth.org/data/
Just how far behind the times are you?
Mann’s “änti-science shennanigans” huh? You wanna scroll upscreen or check out this Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack Part 1 Imean its nearly 15 years old but seems you didn’t actually see or grok it..
Climategate.. Wow as chewtoys go this one really does have that rare well aged vintage flavour. Bone been buried a long, loo–ong time here.
See :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Whilst on wiki too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
Then there’s this :
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/Hockeystick-global-temperature/more/Richard-Muller/Richard%20Muller-%20The%20Conversion%20of%20a%20Climate-Change%20Skeptic%20-%20NYTimes.pdf
Still thanks for that trip down nostalgia road, Brad.
PS. Brad Keyes, I noticed you did NOT actually answer my question to you in #103 :
What would make you accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here?
Please do so.
Brad Keyes @104: You’re a bit behind the times. The talk you linked to was given before Muller (the speaker) and colleagues did an exhaustive study of the data;
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climategate-10-years-on-what-lessons-have-we-learned
The comments to the video are hilarious; apart from the usual crowing by deniers, there are condemnations of Muller, who they say copped out since giving that talk.
Rob, please direct my attention to the bit where Muller took back his criticisms of the WMO graph’s honesty, apologizes to Jones and Mann and admits he was wrong to say “you can’t do this in science! This is not up to our standards.”
Cheers.
PS Muller never copped out; he was always a believer in global warming (read his books Physics for Presidents, published long before Climategate) who went so far as to approve of Gore’s exaggerations given the (supposed) urgency of the (supposed) problem, but even he had his limits. The truth was not infinitely elastic in Muller’s moral system. If he has subsequently renounced the stand that he took against Hiding the Decline, then shame on him. But he hasn’t done so, last time I checked.
StevoR,
Thanks for making it clear as day that you haven’t watched a single hour of the trial you’re commenting on. Climategate was a central theme.
Climategate happened in 2009.
“FIFTEEN YEARS AGO! Get over it, doodz!”
(And hasn’t climate science learned so much since then!)
Mann’s spent 12 years in court defending the honor of a graph he produced in 1998. TWENTY SIX YEARS AGO.
If someone’s behind the times, it ain’t us skeptics.
By the way StevoR, what will it take to make you accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here? I’m dying to know.
Good gawd but you are stupid, Canman. It’s “say”, not “said” … a joke about lawyers’ self interest, you cretin. That you’re too stupid to understand this indicates that there’s no point in attending to anything else you say.
And Brad Keyes is a notorious climate science denier of the lowest order, a smarmy shitstain on humanity who has been telling the same lies for decades. Best not to feed the trolls.
Canman and Keyes hang out at places like Judith Curry’s blog, where likeminded lying scum congregate. Other science blogs have wisely banned these maggots, who will invite their friends and overrun your blog if you let them. You can find mention of Keyes at https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/the-calibre-of-climate-skepticism/
If someone cares about a false conviction they go work with people already concerned with false convictions. Organizations that care about child molestation care about our legal system getting it right. They are the best people to talk to about Sandusky.
I only see political behavior in pressuring people who care about global warming and climate scientists to look at an unrelated child molestation accusation. There are are so many climate denier benefits to getting us to argue about the asserted innocence of a child molester instead of the legal victory.
This isn’t helping anyone who is falsely accused. This is creating political noise.
And there’s the issue of the climate deniers using child molestation victims as political tools in their comparison. Same category as “Pedo Joe”. Using the pain of others as political gain. Pointing that out and shaming it helps victims of molestation.
Brad Keyes @111:
Jesus, mate, can’t you read?
“This confirms these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate-change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.”
Right. An expert is an expert until they disagree with you.
The ultra-smarmy ever in bad faith Keyes is the darling of other science-denying (“lukewarmers” are definitely that, regardless of whether they deny AGW) scum, especially his idiot sidekick canman who has been so inseparable from Keyes for decades that one might suspect, well, something:
https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/climate-blogger-of-the-year-2015/
Such criteria.
Brony @115:
I have a link @14 with a list of people investigating the case which includes legal professionals doing just that, but that is not the only reason to be interested in this case. This was a major story where the media got everything wrong, including giving young reporter, Sara Ganim, a Pulitzer prize and making her the heroine of an Al Pacino movie. Where is her book? Shouldn’t the Pulitzer organization have higher standards?
Yes, it is only tangentially related, but back when Michael Shermer posted Frederick Crews’ review of Mark Pendergrast’s book, PZ was one of the few bloggers writing about it. I have two links @21. There’s been lots of new information that’s been coming out since then. I’m wondering if he might consider updating his position or if he’s going to stand by what he wrote back then. He backed up his stance with a blog post by a blogger named Christopher Tevuk. I wasn’t that impressed with Tevuk. I made a couple comments and thought his responses along with his post amounted to little more than sneering. Tevuk abruptly closed his comments. Later, it looks like he took his blog down and scurried away. The post is still on the Wayback Machine so you can judge for yourself:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/http://christophertevuk.com/index.php/2018/01/08/why-skeptics-defending-jerry-sandusky-is-ludicrous/
The child molestation conviction hand-wringer can go to a group interested in these things if they care.
They ignore the reasons mentioned about not doing it here. They can take their link there instead of pressuring people who aren’t interested while they ignore the political use of molestation victims, and turning discussion from that to a big complicated story that would fill the comments with defense of people claimed to have done the bad thing used as a metaphor.
They came here. To the post about the legal victory, to hand-wring discussion about assertions about convicted child abusers.
No. Fuck no. No because of all the reasons I mentioned especially the one involving the political use of victims.
Social contrasts and political momentum, Overton windows don’t push themselves.
Rob,
my mistake: I assumed everyone here was as familiar as folks on my side with the basics of paleo reconstructions. Let me spell it out a bit better for you. When you quote Muller saying….
…the demonstrative “This” refers to his own work on BEST which looked at temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age, i.e. a span of less than three centuries.
Whatever he’s talking about when he says “these studies were done carefully” (the Guardian journalist is too sloppy to ask for specifics) he can’t possibly be talking about the Hiding of the Decline in the Hockey Stick, which entailed
To repeat:
If he has subsequently renounced the stand he took against Hiding the Decline, then shame on him.
But I’m still waiting for a scintilla of evidence to that effect.
It doesn’t take much expertise to stand up for bedrock scientific ethics as Muller did in his righteous phiippic video. You just have to be a scientists in, well, any field. If Muller should ever fall back from that position a million other scientists will hold the line.
Brad, still capering? No worries.
You exhibit utter bad faith, of course. Transparent lies.
Ceasing to defend what? I’m not defending anything, I am explaining in detail.
Your persistence in pretending to misunderstand lacks any credibility.
It’s a very, very stupid appeal to misunderstanding me since obviously his scientific vindication and awards were given well before his legal vindication when the jury awarded him the $1M in damages.
(Your crowing is a bit diminished with that shit-stain on your face, you know. Already told you)
You know the beauty of a text medium? I can repeat myself very, very easily, with a few clicks.
Me: “Thing is, the topic on this post is Michael Mann being awarded $1M in punitive damages.
Clearly, his science has been vindicated, and clearly, this successful court case outcome vindicates his accusation that he was defamed.”
Most people would get that I am there explicitly distinguing between his science and his defamation case, as per my emphasis. Basically, twice vindicated. First sentence, referring to the awarded damages. Second sentence, reference to the scientific vindication and also to the legal vindication.
(Such complicated parsing!)
No. By the fact that the IPCC; the American Geophysical Union; the American Meteorological Society; Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science; the National Center for Science Education; the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI); the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Physical Society (APS); the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; the Center for Inquiry; the National Academy of Sciences; etc. have given him awards and plaudits.
You: “Er, no, they’re organizations.”
Yes. Reputable organisations that have given him a heap of awards and plaudits, as I’ve posted multiple times by now. They’re not the jurors, those are the ones that awarded him $1M.
The only blunder is in your attempted baseless claim based on your supposed misunderstanding of perfectly clear writing.
Again, he was vindicated legally (that’s his post), and he was vindicated scientifically (as those awards indicate). All you have is lying and wilful misunderstanding.
—
Meantime, reality continues on its merry way, and you flat-earthers become a little clique of fantasists.
(I noticed you didn’t deny also being a flat-earther, even with prodded)
Here, for you — read it and weep:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/
AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023
The IPCC finalized the Synthesis Report for the Sixth Assessment Report during the Panel’s 58th Session held in Interlaken, Switzerland from 13 – 19 March 2023.
Brad, you do get your avoidance of the reality is most apparent, no?
Mann’s science has been vindicated. Turns out, he was right all along. Thus the plaudits.
No. By the fact that the IPCC; the American Geophysical Union; the American Meteorological Society; Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science; the National Center for Science Education; the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI); the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Physical Society (APS); the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; the Center for Inquiry; the National Academy of Sciences; etc. have given him awards and plaudits.
By the fact that the hockey-stick thing is the accepted reality by every single cretitable organisation.
But hey, come on.
Can you point to any actual reputable academic body that currently disputes his science?
Just one will do. Out of any country in the world, even.
(I know damn well you can’t — the science is settled)
Heh. Most amusing that you’re trying to tell a scientist that.
Exactly the same as when a creationist tries to dispute the science and hectors an actual scientist.
(I know the difference between nouns and verbs, unlike you, Brad the Pompous)
Brad, you sure look funny with those underpants on your head; whenever you want to avoid seeing stuff, you just pull them over your eyes and claim there’s nothing there to see. Heh.
You mean, where he concedes there was no decline, but rather a rise? A rapid rise?
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
(That’s a bit more than a scintilla, no? Bit more of a nova)
Those massive jaw muscles some of you are getting from these chew toys are a but scary.
I don’t give a damn about Sandusky, or that Mann hasn’t won a Nobel prize. You know if I ban you, you’ll never get to comment here again, and my readers will have to start chomping on other obtuse objects, right?
Brad Keyes @121:
Did you even watch the video you linked to? Muller’s main point there was the recent (last hundred years or so) spike in temperature. You know, the blade of the hockey stick. That’s the part (well, that and the previous couple hundred years) he changed his mind on, based on intensive analysis. If you dispute his volte face on this, provide evidence.
FWIW, I have a PhD in theoretical physics, and can at least follow most relevant papers. What are your qualifications?
How about Mann’s MBY98 paper? Could someone explain how undisclosed FORTRAN code that contains an incorrect modification of PCA that mines for hockey sticks and undisclosed, failing R squared results is not fraud?
That should be MBH98.
canman, yes. Yes indeed. Most fucking certainly.
You just choose to avoid reading the current science, and the history of that science since 1998.
Here, for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_temperature)
Plenty of citations there for you to follow. Scientific ones.
Here, in plain English: “Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”
This is Muller in 2012 (see my citation above):
“I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”
You do get that science progresses over time, no? Methods get refined, get improved.
You do get we know a fuckload more than we did in 1998, no?
You do get Muller recanted because he independently got basically the same results 14 years later, no?
When do you reckon Muller last tried to make an issue of it? :)
I notice you don’t deny you are a flat-earther, by the way.
Makes sense, there’s this thing called kook magnetism.
Also, have you ever wondered why all those organisations gave him awards and fellowships and whatnot, if they somehow thought he was a fraud?
This is you:
Then you linked to a post you made in 2020.
Have you even tried to get to the bottom of your perplexity? Tried to examine why you are flummoxed?
All very mysterious, no? Unfathomable!
Well, I can tell you right now: because you are ignoring the actual science, and going by an opinion piece from 26 years ago which turned out to be the equivalent of claiming a typographic error invalidated a thesis. You are stuck in the past and lack the intellectual fortitude to acknowledge you’ve been and remain wrongity-wrong wrong. You’d rather keep embarrassing yourself in public than admit to your mistake.
It’s very obvious to anyone who is not beholden to an ideology and actually knows anything about the science.
Heh. Perfect clip of the underpants gnome that accompanied you here.
All pretend indignance, no substance. Most mockable.
sorry, distracted.
Whatever he’s talking about when he says “these studies were done carefully” (the Guardian journalist is too sloppy to ask for specifics) he can’t possibly be talking about the Hiding of the Decline in the Hockey Stick, a sleight of hand where they epoxied a proxy shaft 800 years long onto an instrumental blade.
Muller is simply acknowledging recent warming, as if that were a live controversy. He’s rather good at grabbing headlines for banal reasons. What his Damascene epiphany does NOT portend is any kind of rethinking of the “list of scientists I’m no longer willing to work with.”
PS this Jim character above is clearly a longtime reader of mine, first-time heckler with some kind of tumor pressing on his swearing cortex. If his apoplectic typings contain anything relevant to this discussion, someone else is going to need to summarize it for me. Otherwise I’m sure they will be a diagnostic goldmine for his oncologist, but not much else.
Brad Keyes @132:
Recent warming was a major part of the video you linked to. Now you’re saying it’s not a “live controversy”. Do you even care about consistency? Rhetorical question.
Ah, the feeble Brad and his caperings return. Excellent!
Nope. Obviously not sorry, and obviously not distracted.
Lip-trembling sweaty effort to have some sort of comeback, is what you had to endure.
You shot your credibility long ago, and your weak attempts at argumentation are there for anyone to see.
Again, this is a nice feature of the written medium, no?
<snicker>
He can’t possibly have been talking about anything else, since the very thesis of is that there was a decline in temperature that was being hidden by a fraudulent artefact.
No decline there to hide, is the very point!
And yes, I’m familiar with the disingenuous claim the decline was about tree rings after it was shown to be without merit, because blatant back-pedalling is all people like you have.
Heh. In 2012, Muller acknowledged there was no decline that was hidden.
And he’s been most conspicuously quiet about any supposed fraud Mann did, hasn’t he?
Here, for you:
“The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By Richard A. Muller July 28, 2012” — link above.
So. When do you reckon was the last time Muller intimated there was sommething fraudulent about Mann’s work? When was the first time, even?
Heh. Walter Mitty could not do better than that; nope. You could hardly be more wrong.
He just knows how to use the internet and thus discover information.
(a mysterious skill!)
Apoplectic? Heh. You’ve not seen him in his pomp. It’s called ‘dismissive’.
That was the barest touch of asperity, by his standards.
Anyway, summarising stuff for you is utterly pointless, you will just pretend to misunderstand and resume your robotic and repetitive claims, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. You’ve made that more than clear.
—
Anyway, have you yet grokked what I wrote?
It was not the jurors who vindicated his science, it was the plaudits he received and the analysis of his work (“Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”).
The jurors vindicated his legal claim.
You can try to keep ignoring that, yet there it is. For the umpteenth time.
(Even your sidekick is mocking you; see #129)
John, pro tip: when you’re trying to look down your nose at Canman, you’re looking in the wrong direction. He’s way ahead of you on all these familiar, well-litigated issues. I know you think you’re in possession of some sort of anti-skeptical gotcha but you need to get over that.
Why would any skeptical person read any further?
Wikipedia or whoever you’re quoting is unashamedly editorializing by dismissing the disputes as ‘political.’ On a normal Wiki page. in a non-pathological issue, that would get flagged by an editor immediately. But if scientific integrity is a ‘political’ issue to you people, that tells me a lot…. none of it flattering.
Don’t be so credulous, John. You were played.
To quote Muller:
Geddit now?
We like riling you Mann apologists up with Muller’s denunciation of the Hockey Stick’s decline-hiding ways NOT because Muller doesn’t believe in AGW, but because his belief in AGW wasn’t enough to make him turn a blind eye to scientific misconduct.
He’s no saint—God knows, he’d sell his own mother for a book deal—but he has SOME standards, and Hide The Decline isn’t up to them. At the end of the day, Muller is still a scientist.
Cue another torrent of unresponsive schoolyard rhetoric from the locals. It’s true: it’s far easier to scam a person than to convince him he’s been scammed.
One difference between you and Balter is that he can, at least on occasion, admit that he was wrong. I suspect your tumour is inoperable.
This is just getting embarrassing:
If you’re not even on top of the basic arguments, what Dunning-Krugerism is possessing you to try to hold forth about it, and under your own name?
There was no DECLINE IN TEMPERATURE, there was a decline in the proxy signal of temperature, in this case MXDs, which contradicted (“diverged” from) the real-world RISE in temperature.
Have you even invested three minutes familiarizing yourself with the issues?
Why are you doing this to yourself, John? You might be a nice guy, despite appearances, but you’re making your ancestors and descendants cringe. Either educate yourself or switch to a pseudonym before you say another word.
Rob, when you find an example of me being wrong (they’re out there, believe me!) you’ll notice I pride myself on saying so, preferably before someone beats me to it. I think I said a few things wrong, and owned up to them, in a thread about Oreskes’ errors in Merchants of Doubt (where she claims among other things that neutral pH is 6.0). It was a few years ago but I’ll find it for you if you want.
John ,
Climate science knew about AGW last millennium.
Since then, we’ve learned. um, various things about the climate, in fact where do I even start? Well, so I guess, to name but a few out of the too-many-to-list things we now know about the climate that we didn’t know then, do you want them alphabetically? OK, let’s see. Starting with A. Oops, I think there’s a tumbleweed salesman at the door, BRB
Brad, your puffing and your huffing is most entertaining.
You really should put a link to this thread on your site of saps, so they can be impressed at how you’re pwning everyone here. Heh.
Look, mate — I don’t need to know how you make your pocket money (not that there’s anything wrong with that), but when discussing the canman (you do get that’s how the nym is written by the individual themself, no? Have a look: no capital letter) I hardly need to look down my nose, as you put it. No shit-stain on it, see? ;)
As for him being way ahead, that’s quite contrary to all the evidence at hand. For example, he has no clue as to why Mann was given all those laurels (I’ve noticed your efforts at trying to use ye olde classical terms). Said so himself. Perplexed, he is. Stymied!
Well, an actual sceptical person would read further to know what the panel of scientists determined, no?
You, on the other hand, are doing what you’ve been doing all along; pulling those streaky underpants over your eyes so you can keep on claiming to be unaware of the actual evidence and thus “still waiting for a scintilla of evidence”.
Which makes it most obvious you are not sceptical (or even skeptical!).
Nah, any dismissal is being attempted by you, but to do that you are forced to ignore the actual text and every single citation and link to the bases for those claims.
Again: underpants on your head, “la la la I can’t hear or see!” caperings.
To quote Muller: “I was never a [climate] skeptic ”
To quote Muller:
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.He could hardly be any plainer, no? Any more precise. And it’s quite factual.
Someone you respect wrote “but where I come from, precision matters. Facts matter.”
<smirk>
Do you seriously imagine I seem riled? I am having the time of my life, mate!
Willing chew-toys such as you are rare in these parts these days; had a couple of goddists on another thread a few days ago, get the odd transphobe here and there, but you are a goldmine for mockery.
<snicker>
Oh, sure, directly quoting you and addressing everything you write and pointing you to sources and so forth is what you call “unresponsive”.
Here, let me show you unresponsive:
Have you yet grokked what I wrote?
It was not the jurors who vindicated his science, it was the plaudits he received and the analysis of his work (“Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”).
The jurors vindicated his legal claim.
You can try to keep ignoring that, yet there it is. For the umpteenth time.
You have yet to respond.
(Even your sidekick is mocking you; see #129)
Brad, your inanity is ever more exposed. I like that. Keep going, please.
Heh heh heh. Pants on head, shit-stain on nose, “la la la can’t hear you” is what I see.
You’ve given up even pretending to try to dispute me.
Ah well, chew-toys only last so long before they crumble.
Here, for you — read it and weep:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/
AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023
The IPCC finalized the Synthesis Report for the Sixth Assessment Report during the Panel’s 58th Session held in Interlaken, Switzerland from 13 – 19 March 2023.
Rob, I’m gonna extend you the presumption of good faith w.r.t. the Muller video and urge you to watch it with the audio on this time. The ONLY controversy about the decline was how scientists could get away with pretending their proxy signals agreed with the real-world warming trend. Nobody disputed that recent temperatures have gone up. That’s something only a Fox news anchor disputed, and they stopped disputing it a few days later once somebody explained to them what the HTD email actually meant. The only debate is whether it’s acceptable as a scientist to cover up (hide) the fact that your proxy model—on which you’re relying to deny the MWP and the LIA and to tell us the temperature during the Battle of Hastings, FFS—falsely implies a downward trend in recent years, since the 1960s, when we know the temperature has gone up. No other field of science has this debate. It’s not a debate. It’s unacceptable. Full stop.
“Here, for you — read it and weep:”
I think you misspelled “yawn”.
Your abject failure to list something we now know about the climate, that we didn’t know last millennium, is noted. You needn’t feel obliged to reply until you can regain some face by answering that challenge (or, failing to do so, admit it).
A link to a document in which, according to your blind faith, there must presumably be a whole gamut of answers to my question is ignored. It’s amusing how nobody on your side reads their own tedious literature. It reminds me of the debates I had against devotees of Mohammed back in the day, who’d invariably never read the whole book they purported to defend.
Except for Muller.
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.See, the sequence of letters that constitutes the expression “three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.” is specifically and unambiguously stating that the very existence of global warming is doubtful.
Evidently not, since (need I list the lengthy list of encomia Mann has received from organisations — not jurors!) nobody but you denialist types carry on about it, and Muller himself has not said a word about it since.
If only you’d looked at what the panel of scientists which was convened because denialists like you politicised the science determined or followed the citation.
Here, in plain English: “Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”
See, the scientists wrote “there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result”, not that there was fraud or that it was unacceptable. Full stop.
—
Hey, regarding responsiveness:
Have you yet grokked what I wrote?
It was not the jurors who vindicated his science, it was the plaudits he received and the analysis of his work (“Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”).
The jurors vindicated his legal claim.
You can try to keep ignoring that, yet there it is. For the umpteenth time.
You have yet to respond.
(Even your sidekick is mocking you; see #129)
John, since I can’t resist trying to help those who least want to be helped, you wrote
As though his self-contradictions are any of my business.
I’ve already explained to you that Muller is no paragon of integrity.
But being a scientist, he has SOME ethical standards, and he draws the line at Hide the Decline. That oughtta tell you something. If it’s not up to Muller’s standards, it’s not up to ANY scientist’s standards.
Ah, the flailing gets weaker by the minute.
Translation: you have nothing and even your bluster is becoming more of a zephyr.
Your cargo-cult style of attempted argumentation is weak as fuck. You have nothing.
LOL. What part of “I am having the time of my life, mate!” did you misunderstand.
I’m not obliged to enjoy my deriding of the underpants gnome, I do it because I can.
While it lasts, which clearly shan’t be long now.
So, down to the generic boilerplate.
—
Again, I urge you to link to this thread in your denialist site; surely they will be impressed by your caperings.
Heh. Brad the Brave perseveres.
Hey, you quoted him, I quoted him in return, vitiating your own quotation.
See, when you adduce a quotation that is contradicted by the same source, you are making it your business.
You didn’t have to quote that, yet you did. That’s how making it your business works!
Being a wanker and a denialist, you lack ANY ethical standards. That much is evident.
And you’re an intellectual coward.
But sure… you keep telling yourself Muller thinks Mann is a fraud. It’s your little safety blanket.
(For you, it will forever be 1998)
[since this comment thread has gone into the weeds a bit, a quick recap of what the post is about]
In his own words:
https://youtu.be/a_O9sDNMF98
Devastating video of how Mann used the Gaspe series twice, extended it once and did not disclose this.
Can’t be that devastating, since Mann is not devastated. Not even slightly.
Rather, the opposite.
Praised and showered with encomia, yes.
A winner. Famed. Vindicated.
Just won the court case, in case you hadn’t heard, canman.
Hey, do you know the concept of “motivated reasoning”?
It explains how you are flummoxed the many accolades Mann has received from scientific bodies.
(Helpful, that’s me)
Aaw, Brad is having another lip-quivering session, while here I wait with baited breath.
Still… though I have no need, it is fun to poke the specimen. So.
“This is just getting embarrassing:”
Me @134: “And yes, I’m familiar with the disingenuous claim the decline was about tree rings after it was shown to be without merit, because blatant back-pedalling is all people like you have.”
Brad @137: “there was a decline in the proxy signal of temperature, in this case MXDs”
(prescient, I)
—
Datum for you:
https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/michael-mann-awarded-2019-tyler-prize-environmental-achievement/
Heh.
Ah, one more, why not.
https://www.aps.org/programs/honors/prizes/prizerecipient.cfm?last_nm=Mann&first_nm=Michael&year=2022
(Cue underpants firmly pressed over eyes)
John M,
Me @128: “Could someone explain how undisclosed FORTRAN code that contains an incorrect modification of PCA that mines for hockey sticks and undisclosed, failing R squared results is not fraud?”
You (John M) @130:
Whether or not these statistical “failings” had little effect on the result is beside the point. These “failings” were supposed to be investigated! The NAS panel was clearly dissembling. Here’s a devastating comment by Steve McIntyre:
https://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/looks-like-steynnrceisimberg-dont-get-their-anti-slap-dismissal/#comment-123101
canman, thanks. I was beginning to think you were already broken, which was sad because mocking you is most entertaining. And worthwhile! Gotta combat disinformation and lunacy, for the betterment of society, you know. So I feel quite virtuous when I get to disparage your puny attempt at some sort of relevance, other than for amusement’s sake. It’s nice to be able to indulge my predilections whilst improving the world at the same time.
Ta.
So…
Right. The National Academy of Sciences just doesn’t get the science, or so you believe.
No investigation took place! A whitewash! A coverup! Scientific malfeasance!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
:)
I think I’ll channel Inigo Montoya here (being Spanish by birth, myself), old though the meme may be:
“You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”
So, who or what has been devastated? Is something that does not actually devastate devastating?
Are you devastated? Am I? So many questions!
Hey, did you see the awards that I just cited? In 2019 and in 2022?
(So, he got turned into a newt back in 2014, but got better, right? ;)
[as an aside, it does amuse me that one of the few things Richard Dawkins fancied he had introduced into the scientific concept-space was the idea of a meme as a social and informational analogue of a gene, but which nowadays just means a little internet joke]
John M @150:
IOW he got away with it, just like OJ! And no, that’s not calling Mann a murderer.
Oh, the canman can’t can the can, can he?
So, in what particular sense do you think getting away with it (to run with your little delusion) means he was devastated? And if he was not devastated, how can it have been devastating?
(What happened to this linguistic precision your mob purport to exalt?)
Gotta love your little tush skip.
So, you thought OJ was exonerated by the National Academy of Sciences too?
Perhaps you are you still all confused over the distinction between a legal process and a scientific one.
Understandable, for someone who shows such comprehension, and who self-confessedly remains perplexed by the numerous awards Mann has won since that, ahem, devastating comment in 2014.
(I don’t reckon you get even half the allusions I’ve been throwing in, but that’s OK. Others do)
Oh, come on! Don’t go away so quickly! A bit more stamina would be nice.
Here, let’s poke some more:
Here’s the thing: “just like OJ” would mean that over the next decade or so, OJ got numerous awards and accolades. Because you are comparing Mann to OJ, no?
(Still, you are probably wise not to compare him to your prized whatshisname, the convicted rock spider — wiser than some, anyway)
[so flaccid so quick they are]
John M,
When I say Mann got away with it, just like OJ, the analogy should be pretty obvious. It’s the dirty deeds they got away with: Murder in OJ’s case and hiding crappy statistics in Mann’s case. The accountability part was comparing OJ’s trial to the NAS panel.
Was Steve McIntyre’s comment devastating? I think it made BBD lose his composure in this Rabett Run thread:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-most-important-political-takeaway.html?showComment=1484593558662#c5309384117714071641
If you’ll read that thread, you’ll see I engaged in a little bit of name calling fun just like you. Verbal battling is a lot more interesting and satisfying when it’s done like Brad does it, using wordplay and ideas with a minimum of direct insults. When the other guy gets flustered and starts throwing insults, it feels like a win.
I repeat: an ever in bad faith shit stain on humanity–which is the only thing relevant to the discussion, as having a discussion with someone acting in bad faith is like playing chess with a grizzly bear–they aren’t confined by the rules.
And saying I’m a longtime reader of his is like saying that someone who has been mugged is a longtime follower of the mugger … no, you cretin, I have simply been present when you made yourself an unwelcome presence on science blogs in the past, as you have here. You’re such a smarmy creep that you made a lasting impression, but I haven’t had a thought about you for a decade, until I stumbled into your despicable ass again here.
But the game that matters is science, you dumb fuck, and that one you lose. For decades you have browned your nose in Brad’s crevice because you so adore his smarminess, as you lay out above. Thus while you clowns deny that you are deniers, you crowed that Brad was most qualified to be lukewarm (a particularly chickenshit form of science denial) blogger of the year because you so admired the smarmy way he pretended to criticize deniers while actually lauding them … from the link I provided earlier where I noted that you have long been his faithful ball (and other “bits”) licker:
https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/climate-blogger-of-the-year-2015/
WUWT being climate science denial central. The geniuses who hang out there were apoplectic, thinking that Brad had actually attacked them. The thread itself puts the lie to Brad’s “bits”.
John:
“No decline there to hide, is the very point!”
So your claim is that Phil Jones was lying when he claimed to have hidden it?
(Don’t say that unless you’ve got a good defamation lawyer on speed dial.)
I asked ChatGPT to explain this to you, because I’ve always felt that one of the jobs machines should take from humans is the attempt to educate the ineducable. Look how denialism has infiltrated OpenAI:
Once you’ve lost the language models you’ve lost America. Better luck next movement.
canman:
<snicker>
Intended analogy, you mean.
Here, for you (courtesy of Wikipedia):
“On February 5, 1997, a civil jury in Santa Monica, California, unanimously found Simpson liable for the wrongful death of and battery against Goldman, and battery against Brown. (The Brown family had not filed a wrongful death claim.)[94] Simpson was ordered to pay $33,500,000 in damages: $8.5 million in compensatory damages to the Goldman family, and $12.5 million in punitive damages to each family.”
Just like Michael Mann, far as you are concerned.
Well, other than OJ having his reputation ruined and losing a civil case as opposed to Mann having his reputation enhanced and getting much praise and approbation.
Just like OJ losing his career thereby and Mann having his enhanced thereby.
But other than that, just the same. Gotcha.
(Hey, what happened to the Salem Witch trials? Weren’t those just the same, too, last time you brought this up?)
<smirk>
You sure fancy yourself, canman. Sure, you’re just like me. In your mind.
Thing is, this is 2024, and this is this thread.
Do show me your technique.
Go on, don’t be shy!
Battling? I’m mocking. Trying to evade the issue and making shit up is now wordplay.
Brad has nothing but robotic repetition and inane bullshit.
That, and an obvious visit to a thesaurus (see below).
LOL.
, quoth your hero.
Nah. This is how it’s done:
“When have I disputed, questioned, expressed doubt about, repudiated, gainsaid, dissented from, disagreed with, challenged, contested, opposed, negated, controverted, confuted, rejected, dismissed, demurred against, contradicted, objected to, taken issue with, disbelieved or (more archaically) misdoubted the scientific idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a significant reason why the Earth is warmer than it otherwise would be?”
See, Brad is a wannabe. Weak. But quite manipulable.
I got him to endorse the reality of AGW. Never has he doubted it! :)
(Hey, to what does the domain Cliscep refer? Heh)
You think about my a$$ a lot, don’t you, Jim?
If a phrenologist cut open your brain-pan, would they find that your Brad’s A$$ lobe was even bigger than your Brad’s Other ‘Bits’ lobe?
The dollar signs are an in-joke for the benefit of the only other person on this thread who knows the first thing about what happened during the trial.
Ah, Brad, about fucking time!
What, Phil Jones is the one claiming to have hid it?
Aren’t you supposed to be disputing Mann’s work?
Heh heh heh. Only a stupid person would try to educate the ineducable — words mean things, you know.
Still, I quote your sidekick: “When the other guy gets flustered and starts throwing insults, it feels like a win.” He’s a bit dim, doesn’t get you’ve been doing your damnedest to insult me.
BTW, speaking of responsiveness:
Have you yet grokked what I wrote?
It was not the jurors who vindicated his science, it was the plaudits he received and the analysis of his work (“Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”).
The jurors vindicated his legal claim.
You can try to keep ignoring that, yet there it is. For the umpteenth time.
You have yet to respond.
(Even your sidekick is mocking you; see #129)
canman: “When the other guy gets flustered and starts throwing insults, it feels like a win.”
Brad:
Most amusing. Laurel and Hardy.
(BTW, Brad — phrenologists measured, they didn’t cut)
Brad continues to demonstrate why I call him a bad faith shitstain on humanity.
The funny thing is that by directing his juvenile retorts at me he just increases my standing among people like Rob Grigjanis who would not normally be inclined to support me.
These idiots don’t seem to grasp that they are in the wrong place. Even if they were completely right in all their arguments, no one here would be on their side … they not only have no friends here, but no one they can influence in their direction.
I’m out of here. I will leave JM et. al. to play with these chew toys.
I know what happened after the trial; it’s part of the OP.
“In a victory for climate scientists, jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments made in 2012.”
One more thing … about losing the language models:
https://g.co/gemini/share/f14047f00568
So FOAD, Brad, you lying denier and shitstain on humanity.
And here is what Gemini has to say about Brad’s slanted invocation of ChatGPT:
https://g.co/gemini/share/a0b1ad9750af
One could similarly use Gemini to refute every single lie that Keyes and canman have told here and elsewhere.
The jury called it defamation, dumb fuck. That’s because Nimberg and Steyn accused Mann of scientific malpractice, which affects his livelihood, you cretin, and because the claim was false and knowably so (see the above Gemini output), you stupid maggot.
So go argue with them, you imbecile. Or maybe you can send Steyn a $1 million check to show your support. Or if you’re cheap, send a $1000 check to Nimberg.
Brad repeatedly says that AGW is real, that the temperatures rose while the proxies didn’t (omitting that the tree ring proxies were local and that numerous other proxies reflect the temperature rise). So perhaps ask him to explain to you that the Hockey Stick is not an illusion and that Montford is an incompetent lying git, just like you. Or you could have an LLM explain it to you, you stupid fucking denier sack of shit.
[aaw — I knew I’d get through]
Mike Dombroski says:
11 Feb 24 at 7:48 pm
Thanks John Morales for finding my typo:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2024/02/09/scientist-sues-conspiracy-theoristsand-wins/#comment-2211033
To everyone else, you’re all invited to check out Brad Keyes and my invasion of this Pharyngula thread.
—
My pleasure, canman. You are most welcome.
Gotta admit, is nearly as good as “raisin date”, and evinces your lexical lack.
Well, I hope a few more specimens come here. Getting bored, again.
However, since the last of the very few comments there was 03 May 20 at 6:10 pm, my hopes are unlikely to manifest. Nevertheless, fingers crossed, eh?
I’ll surely have fun pointing out how Brad has most emphatically and verbosely asserted he never had and does not currently have any doubt at all about the reality of AGW and the reality of the science.
(Here’s hoping! After all, these two have hardly any stamina and their repertoire is very limited)
And you have always been wrong. You continued to argue even after being proven wrong over and over again because you are stupid ignorant dishonest denier shit, which is why you always lean on other denier shit like Montford, McIntyre, Shollenberger, and Curry.
That’s because you’re an ignorant cretin and a dyed-in-the-wool climate science denier, Mike.
And you’re a right wing or libertarian ideologue which is what drives you to make such profoundly stupid, ignorant, and dishonest statements.
There’s a simple explanation, Mike. It’s because you’re stupid, as is so evident from this idiotic piece of trash you wrote:
https://cliscep.com/2020/04/30/hows-a-mann-get-into-the-nas/
That is, all the peer-reviewed science that the hundreds of thousands of other climate and climate-related scientists have produced.
Yes, you’re a “casual observer”, a stupid ignorant but oh so arrogant ideologue who lacks even the most basic understanding of climate science, Mike Dumbroski. (Oh, see how clever I am in the Brad Keyes style.)
More like an infestation … and you’re actually inviting other cliscep cockroaches to join you here? You’re like a caricature of the worst of you people.
Hm. Here’s a thought.
Hey, canman. Your gracious acknowledgement about me noting your grammatical error makes me predisposed to return the favour. Fair’s fair, as we say around here.
Tell ya what: if you care to invite me there, I’d be happy to go to your featured thread and comment there.
Obviously, I’d acknowledge that it was at your invitation were it to occur, so as to reassure your resident mob that I had been invited instead of invading. You surely could show me up, right in your own demesne.
I could be your punching bag. A target for your wit and your precision of language, even.
One-time offer, though, and only because I feel generous right now.
(BTW, surely you’re not so cynical as to think I’m trying to manipulate your vanity with this munificent offer, or maybe just bored and looking for other specimens to mock while feeling virtuous; perish the thought!)
Balter, you and Gemini are made for each other.
You asked it…..
,,,,and it dutifully strawmanned your own question before giving you the negative answer you so desperately craved! LOL
No shit, Sherlock. I could play that game too:
…if self-soothing and rocking in the darkness were my idea of a good night.
What a solace Gemini must be to you. When everyone of real intelligence turns their back, you can always count on your Artificial $tupidity powered friend. It’s a confederacy of A$$es!
Exactly.
But you did inadvertently claim it was Phil Jones who hid it when you imagined I had somehow intimated Phil had not.
Heh. Look back at this thread (did I mention how much I love a textual medium?) — you yourself were the first person to appeal to a LLM for help. Your hypocrisy, of course, eludes you.
So, care to tell me more about why you sought such help to try to attempt to educate the ineducable?
Also, O most cowardly Brad, I see you keep trying ever so hard to avoid responding to me.
Again:
Have you yet grokked what I wrote?
It was not the jurors who vindicated his science, it was the plaudits he received and the analysis of his work (“Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”).
The jurors vindicated his legal claim.
You can try to keep ignoring that, yet there it is. For the umpteenth time.
You have yet to respond.
(Even your sidekick is mocking you; see #129)
—
Tell ya what, how about you invite me, since canman can’t? That’ll do.
Surely you can be amused by me when I quote you there. We may even be able to engage!
(and your friendly LLM can always be there for you :)
—
By the way, are you aware that here in Oz an ass is a donkey, whereas an arse is a bum?
I think the first quotation will be… <drumroll>
Whaddayareckon, Brad?
Note that I am not recommending Gemini as a therapy animal to John Morales, and he should not trust it, because it will only upset him by blurting out facts like:
Repeat after me, John, it wasn’t about tree rings! It wasn’t about tree rings!
Keep going until you believe it.
Second quotation, I reckon, will be… wait for it…
Your very own words, Brad.
Yes, yes… I know. You now say it was sarcasm. But it’s a deadset true quotation, is it not?
You really have fuck-all idea of what a large language model is or how it functions, do ya?
That’s perfectly evident.
Sure.
It wasn’t about tree rings! It wasn’t about tree rings!
Keep going until you believe it.
Did that help you?
Now… tell me more about what Michael Mann (the highly lauded and most celebrated scientist who won his court case quite recently) supposedly hid. Not about what Phil hid, what Mann hid.
Tell me more about his supposed fraud, that no single scientific organisation has ever claimed existed.
Go on. I dare you.
Also, since you are most evidently and most conspicuously avoiding it:
Have you yet grokked what I wrote?
It was not the jurors who vindicated his science, it was the plaudits he received and the analysis of his work (“Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”).
The jurors vindicated his legal claim.
You can try to keep ignoring that, yet there it is. For the umpteenth time.
You have yet to respond.
(Even your sidekick is mocking you; see #129)
—
See, every single time I ask you and you run, run away from it (underpants gnome’s superpower!), it’s another tick in the column. Are you keeping count?
(Oh, wait, no need. Textual medium. At some point I’ll run a little search script to count how many times I’ve confronted your weak effort and challenged you, and how many times you’ve bravely ignored that because of how embarrasing it would be to be shown as a simpleton)
Heh. While you’re still here, Brad:
Me @134: “And yes, I’m familiar with the disingenuous claim the decline was about tree rings after it was shown to be without merit, because blatant back-pedalling is all people like you have.”
Brad @137: “there was a decline in the proxy signal of temperature, in this case MXDs”
(prescient, I)
But hey, why not a spot of science:
“Information about annual to centennial scale climate dynamics relies on indirect climate recorders, so-called natural proxy archives that capture climate information in their physical and chemical properties due to a lack of reliable instrumental precipitation and temperature measurements prior to the 19th century (Böhm et al., 2009). Proxy-derived, high-resolution climate reconstructions over the Common Era (CE), especially the past millennium, are crucial for placing the ongoing recent warming (Crutzen, 2002) in a long-term context of natural climate variability (Büntgen et al., 2011), and to assess whether the 0.8–1.2 °C warming since 1880 (IPCC, 2018), due to increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, is unprecedented compared to past climatic changes (Morice et al., 2012). The current understanding of annually resolved long-term European temperature variations derived from tree-rings relies on a handful of (near) millennium-long temperature sensitive tree-ring records from high-elevational tree line sites in the Alps (Büntgen et al., 2005, 2006b; Büntgen et al., 2011), Carpathians (Popa and Kern, 2009), Pindus (Esper et al., 2019; Klippel et al., 2018), Pyrenees (Büntgen et al., 2008, 2017; Dorado Liñán et al., 2012), and Tatra (Büntgen et al., 2013), and from the northern tree line sites in Scandinavia (Esper et al., 2012; Gunnarson et al., 2011; Linderholm and Gunnarson, 2019; Melvin et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2015a), and Scotland (Rydval et al., 2017). More than half of these records are maximum latewood density (MXD) or blue intensity (BI) based, whereas particularly in eastern Europe, records rely on the more commonly used dendrochronological parameter tree-ring width (TRW).”
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1125786520300126)
So, Brad. What exactly did Phil hide? Or was it Michael? Well, you’ve claimed both, no?
Hey Brad, I here point out that should you or canman invite me, that I have asked you already “What part of “I am having the time of my life, mate!” did you misunderstand.”
After those quotations, that would be a good one. That’s how upset I am ;)
…
Bah.
So, Brad. You do get I’m just having fun with you, now, no?
Quick question: when you wrote , did you intend to intimate that the other terms were also archaic, but less so? Because if you’d intended to express that it was, unlike the others, an archaic term, the comparative would have been unnecessary.
To rephrase (I don’t need primitive language models for this any more than I need a thesaurus to simulate my swollen lexicon): did you intend to mean that all the terms were archaic, but that ‘misdoubted’ was even more so?
Come on, impress the canman with your devastating retort!
(or, of course, provide another cute quotation for my future visit to your sty, should I be invited — either suits me)
My bet? As usual, you will ignore the thrust of my questions and of my observations, because you are Brave Sir Brad, who Bravely Runs, Runs away.
(95% confidence interval, there)
From this post:
I’m aware of PZ being sued at least once by someone for defamation, which would put him in the position of Simberg and Steyn rather than Michael Mann. Is there a case where he sued someone else because of “one petty, low profile accusation” and if so, could I have some details or is this just another example of PZ’s faulty logic?
canman,
I’m not sure PZ even grasps that someone else paid Michael Mann’s legal bills. It’s more likely a failure of research, rather than logic, on his part I think. After all, he still thinks Mann was literally accused of pederasty.
Morales, Balter, wake up. We’re back.
That’s some sour sour grapes. All of this fake hand-wringing over an error involving a child molestation when the political use of such comparisons is far worse. Peck Peck Peck at the minor error, gossip about a lawsuit involving another abusive person…
The minor error doesn’t matter to the child molestation enablers, the political noise about it matters and it’s delicious because they will fail at their political goals. All they can do is kinds of whatabouts.
Whatabout the minor error? It changed what functionally? What about the other lawsuit? Neither of them matter to the lost case involving climate deniers using sexually molested children as political tools, or to climate science.
Sputtering desperation. It’s useful.
Maybe it’s not the climate here. Maybe it’s benefitting victims of sexual mistreatment and harassment. That would explain the unnecessary, uncited, desperate mention of the other lawsuit.
Gossip and baiting, no patience. This is personal for these ones and I can gossip too.
There’s a lot in John’s comments that these two haven’t responded to yet. Maybe they can do some of that if they’re bored.
Lots of focus of that one thing in PZ’s post. The rest of the post must be terrifying if one of them has to make implications instead of showing more from the post itself. Go on, canman. You’ve responses that are personal, not logical yourself.
Brony, which unmet challenges by Messrs Morales and Balter would you like me to meet? I’m the first to admit I didn’t manage to machete my way through the fullness of their fibrous verbiage, so if you could direct me to the caloric bits I’d be obliged.
On a different note, I don’t quite understand your refrain about child-molestation apologists. I doubt anyone here, even the rear-fixated Mr Balter, is in the business of minimizing, trivializing or rationalizing that worst of crimes. But if someone is serving a custodial sentence for something he didn’t do—note I said IF—then the American courts have perpetrated an even worse-than-worst crime by their own standards, which have long held that it’s better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be made a convict.
It doesn’t elude him; it’s his stock in trade. The whole point of my posting the Gemini output is to refute his ChatGPT post. He can’t respond substantively so he responds as he did. He is not a serious person, he’s not engaging in good faith, he has no scruples, he’s a worthless shitstain on humanity.
Only if the suit were valid, you dumb fuck.
You’re not, since you addressed nothing I wrote, you maggot.
You and Brad are vile scum. He’s a psychopath while you’re just an imbecile, but you’re both unscrupulous and worthless.
I’m not a regular here (I was long ago), I just pop in here once in a while when this site is in my feed for some reason. The next time I’m here this thread will have long dropped off the queue and you shitstains will again be forgotten, as you should be.
So I’m important with John’s posts.
Interesting.
That how you can tell someone is a good faith communicator. Instead of responding to what you posted they let someone else choose.
With nothing new to say, and everything you claimed still well and truly shown for the claptrap it is.
Just going through the motions now.
Also, my invitation was yesterday, your window of opportunity has closed.
(And I slept rather well, thankyou. The sleep of the virtuous! Time for brekky)
You are so predictable. Also, so cowardly. And can’t even keep your bullshit straight. And laughable.
The answer should be evident to you: every one of them. From start to finish.
For example, do you still maintain I claimed that the jurors scientifically vindicated Mann? :)
(or you know, naming one (1) scientific institution that has a problem with Mann, as another example)
As Jim notes, you’re probably not quite as stupid as your sidekick, so it is obviously the case that you know you are doing everything you have been shown to be doing. Lying, basically.
Trying to pose as someone with some small skill at arguing, when the reality is so very apparent, and whenever (that is, every single time) you get called out on your bullshit carefully pulling your underpants over your eyes.
Relax; to me, you shall ever be the underpants gnome. You have earnt your soubriquet, your cognomen.
Hi Brony, it’s difficult to tell whether you’re replying to Balter’s scatological rant but from experience i’d suggest you’re wasting your time doing so, and I’d rather hear from you about my questions (sincerely). Cheers!
Heh. This sure sounds like another one of your bullshit claims.
Care to try to attempt to substantiate it, O coward?
Hi Brad, I see you are still a cowardly coward, and your nasal shit-stain is getting very crusty.
Most certainly and indubitably no, since you have yet to provide one single example of PZ using faulty logic.
Ignorantly asserting that is the case doesn’t cut it, you know!
Hey dudes, I’m back!
Bah. Refractory period is getting longer and longer.
Looking rather sickly, outside its natural environment.
Let’s try poking a bit more, see if the specimen can still at least twitch a bit.
As Jim noted, no, it’s not. Not even one bit.
Every single reader can see your transparent dishonesty, you know, not just yourself.
Aaw, entertainment is totally moribund, maybe even over, apparently.
Oh, sorry, the “invasion”. :)
Anyway. Facts are in. None has been rebutted, but then, they are facts.
Michael Mann has been awarded a good bit of money in damages. Yay!
Climate science stands strong and becomes ever more accurate and definitive.
And Michael Mann has most excellent scientific standing and has gone from strength to strengh in the years after the initial “hockey stick” controversy.
Of course, since he is one of the poster people for that scientific enterprise and its dissemination, the only people who now have a beef with him are the climate change denialists, in particular those who so very obviously lie and claim they are not in denial, while all the time denying, as the two specimens herein featured demonstrated so ably.
John,
If you’re seriously suggesting PZ was aware that this 12-year forensic odyssey hasn’t cost Mann a cent, then perhaps you think he was just lying to his blog readers when he wrote:
I get the feeling PZ is sincere. He really does, honest to god, inhabit a childlike cartoon world where the Denialist Machine is shoveling cash at Steyn and Simberg to Attack the Science.
Now if you prefer to think PZ knows better, and is merely pretending to confuse paranoia with reality, then go ahead. Make your case that he’s a liar. I prefer to take people at their word, absurd as it is, until proven otherwise.
Underpants gnome, I had faith that sufficient poking would elicit at least some feeble spasms, and lo!
<snicker>
Nope, not even slightly, you dolt. I’m seriously suggesting canman is full of shit, and that as usual he’s making a claim that he shan’t even attempt to try to sustain.
Your feeble efforts at ostensible misunderstanding are getting trite, you know.
Since the conditional is false, there is no applicable ‘then’ — that’s how logical implication works.
Heh.
Heh heh heh. You long ago pissed away any possibility of honest interlocution, what with your persistent lying and dishonest style. So, maybe you do, maybe you don’t
I know damn well you are not, Brad.
Nah. I much prefer to mock you and your stupidity.
So, Brad, when are you gonna stop trying to avoid responding to me and my so-called challenges?
(Here’s another — when you wrote more archaic, what did you mean?)
I thought that was supposed to be what you were trying to do… what, you want my help with your bullshit?
Tell ya what, beg me and I might consider it.
LOL. Your preferences are most evident throughout this thread.
—
Still, let’s test you; here is my word:
Facts are in. None has been rebutted, but then, they are facts.
Michael Mann has been awarded a good bit of money in damages. Yay!
Climate science stands strong and becomes ever more accurate and definitive.
And Michael Mann has most excellent scientific standing and has gone from strength to strengh in the years after the initial “hockey stick” controversy.
What do you have to say to that, Brad?
BTW, Brad: are you even aware that you fucked up your first quotation @209?
The first sentence in it was yours, but you didn’t show that, and instead melded it with my response.
Let me quote your sidekick, Gnome: “I hope you don’t do mission critical applications that people depend on.”
(Yeah, sounds like quite the stupid thing to say, no?)
Bah. That sure didn’t last long.
Ah well. So much for being back, eh?
(The feebles, they are; no guts, no stamina, no fucking competence)
What aspect of reality are you quarrelling with, exactly, John? Is it that you don’t believe Mann had a free ride? You could have saved yourself a lot of ignorance by actually researching the trial. Weatherford pro Simberg cross-examining Mann:
Q: Okay. Now, let’s look at your response to interrogatory number 22. Um, I need to turn back to this. I apologize. I think there were just a lot of a lot of different numbers in here. I’m going to move on. Now, before we broke, I asked you a question about the attorneys’ fees that you have paid out of your pocket today to date. How much is that? For this for this litigation.
MANN: Thus far, I don’t believe that I have made payments, but I’m not sure. I don’t think I have.
Q: So you don’t think you’ve paid any money in 12 years for your lawyers in this case. Is that right?
MANN: As of yet, not to my knowledge.
Q: Okay. And you don’t have a financial debt to any of these lawyers or their law firms for your legal fees that you’ll have to pay, win or lose, after this trial?
MANN: I’m not sure about that. I don’t think I do.
Q: Okay. You’re not aware of any debt that you currently have, a legal debt that you have to any of these law firms.
MANN: I’m not aware of it. Yeah.
Aha! Got a bite. Excellent! I knew you’d be frantically Googling.
None whatsoever, unlike you, Gnome with the Underpants.
What? No, it’s that I didn’t believe your sidekick would essay any attempt to try to sustain that claim.
So far, I am 100% correct, no? ;)
<snicker>
Ignorance is not something one spends or saves, it’s a state of being.
Where? When? Can you provide a citation? Are you just lazy, or merely incompetent, or just ignorant of how these things work?
You could have saved yourself a tiny bit of work by, you know, actually providing a citation.
That’s how it’s normally done by competent people.
—
More to the point, what exactly made you imagine you could get away with supposedly misinterpreting my retort to the canman? It was pretty damn clear.
That’s another one you’ve ignored. Quite the list, by now.
Good grief! I’ve just got back from walking the dog, and still nuthin’
Right. Need to poke even harder.
So, Googling with a criterion of 24 hours for the string “michael mann judgement” indicates it’s newsworthy:
(And so forth, I just copypasted the first bit)
…
This is like trying to get blood from a stone.
<pout>
So much for being back.
I kinda feel ripped off… like I was promised fun, but then the clowns kept disappearing just as I was about to dunk on them.
Ah well, Can’t expect much from such a types.
(How do USAnians put it? Ah, right. All hat and no cattle)
Ah well. Maybe poke the other specimen? Hope springs ever eternal.
Hey, canman, did you know ellipsis is usually denoted by three full stops?
Obs, there are HTML entities and unicode and so forth, but I do like how you try to employ only two full stops (as per #94, unlike the gnome, I am not that incompetent as to be unable to cite).
(And yes, I know StevoR basically is the chosen of the God Tpyos — of course, that never b othye rs me and he knows it)
—
Hey, canman, aren’t you supposed to be back? Like, a mere attemptedly triumphant declaration just doesn’t cut it, when you fucking disappear into the greenery pretty much instantly.
—
Here in Oz, where both I and StevoR reside, it is the evening. Soon, it will be the crepuscule.
It has become evident that ever more stimulus is required for ever lesser responses, and that the end is in sight.
Still, not like such perfectly typical specimens will wander here any time soon again, no?
Might as well squeeze as much out of them as possible.
—
BTW, mancan: when I wrote “here I wait with baited breath”, that was not a typographic error or a malapropism. It was one of the many, many allusions to various jokes that you clearly missed.
(To be fair, it’s somewhat possible (however unlikely) that you did not miss it, but evidently you didn’t think its drollery was sufficient to merit mention)
Howzabout a bit of Aussie comedy?
(Dedicated to our shy specimens)
[poke the other one. Obs, more stimulus is needed]
I mean, seriously. There’s a bunch of text adduced, but the citation remains problematic.
(O Brad lad, do ya know anything about the burden of proof?)
Aaw, gonna have to go AFK for a while.
So, maybe a dual stimulus?
Who knows, the recorders might show some response by the time I get back.
citation (heh): https://skepticalscience.com/
:|
No signs of life. Hmm.
<gets another beaker, pours another couple of drops of solution>
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/2/12/headlines/dc_jury_awards_1m_to_climate_scientist_michael_mann_for_right_wing_smear_campaign
Hmm. Not looking good.
Try this (gets the cannula):
I am more than happy to provide a citation upon request.
(hint, hint — a particular site to which I was somehow not invited, though I offerered, where citations apparently are deprecated)
Heh heh heh. Same site.
Brad Keyes says:
25 Jan 24 at 6:34 pm
Just commented at Judy’s:
It’s NOT looking good for Team Mann.
—
Not looking good, other than a million dollars or so.
(Such acumen!)
Weatherford is exposing, one after the other, every failure of Mann and his team to truthfully respond to interrogatories in the early days of this trial.
<poke>
<poke>
<poke>
<poke>
<poke>
<poke>
<poke>
<poke>
<poke><poke>
Well, for certain values of “back”.
John,
It WASN’T looking good for Team Mann, as you’d have known had you taken the time to follow the trial. For fox ache, you’re not only retired, you’re so retired you can spam this thread with what lawyers would euphemistically call cumulative testimony. So what’s your excuse? Meh, it’s hard to stay mad at someone who injects the wisdom of Mark “Chopper” Read into a discussion of scientists so fragile they have to go on venue-shopping libel-tourism mental-health leave every time someone breaks their stick.
You have to pay for the transcript. Within 20 days of the trial there might (might!) be a free transcript online. But you’d recognize the passage I quoted instantly had you bothered to watch the trial you’re opining at such length about.
Aaaah. Excellent! Twitchings!
Excellent, O crusty-nosed gnome.
—
Citation for this claim?
Citation?
Citation?
—
I do love that claim that I’m somehow opining, when what I actually did is quote people and ask for citations for a purported quotation.
—
I didn’t bother, I didn’t even know about it. But the results are in, no?
Team Mann won ‘bigly’.
Boredom. Frustration. Yearning. Hopefulness. Desire.
Claims of invasion when it’s more like whack-a-mole, thus making the most of it when you venture your head out of your hole.
Dealing with a coward, gotta get in quick.
(To be fair, that’s not an excuse, it’s more of an explanation)
Gotta love it.
Citation? To what scientists do you intend to refer?
(Also, it’s ‘schtick’, not stick)
<snicker>
Is that what you imagined I did? Heh.
Nope. I could have hardly been more direct: comedy.
That was never Mark “Chopper” Read, nor his wisdom.
[BTW, maybe an hour, maybe a bit more before I retire for the night. But, you know, baited breath]
…
Gotta admit, that was a really good one.
See, Mark “Chopper” Read got that soubriquet because he lopped off much of his ears.
Snippety snip, loppity lop.
(But you’d recognize that instantly had you bothered to watch the video you’re to which you refer)
Gotta love it. You, O underpants gnome, are condemned to do this day after day, forever more.
(Me, I will take such joy as I can in this life, especially when it makes me feel virtuous)
You should really brush your teeth after eating worms, John.
If you ask nicely, sure, I might do your homework for you. But you’re not asking nicely. You’re not even using full sentences.
Probably, but since you’re not a worm (you’re a slack-jawed gnome with underpants on their head) nor have I eaten you (you only wish), that ain’t applicable, is it?
Heh. Your cargo-cult version of disputation is catching up, no?
You were the one who tried to adduce claims, but never cited them
Remember my reference to the burden of proof?
You clearly either know nothing about it, or you’re doing the thing where you pretend to be even more stupid than your now-cowering sidekick.
And I’m using sentences that only an idiot would fail to grasp.
So. Citations. You know, what you are so fucking blatantly avoiding to try to do.
Here’s how that works (cf. #17)
The petitioners in this matter accused a distinguished
scientist, Michael E. Mann, of fraud, data
manipulation, academic misconduct, and scientific
misconduct. They compared him to a convicted pedophile,
Jerry Sandusky, because “instead of molesting
children, he has molested and tortured data.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1477/104466/20190628130353819_Consolidated%20brief%20in%20opposition.pdf
—
BTW, be reassured.
When I mentioned Laurel & Hardy, I think of you as Hardy.
Of course, I could talk about Abbott & Costello (you’d be Abbott) or Dumb & Dumber (you’d be dumb).
Etc.
So, you know, you’re not the most inferior of the specimens who ventured here, and you have the most stamina, so far. Which is nice, I do like mocking you.
I bet you do. I pound the facts, because the facts are on my side. You, understandably, pound the table. Then you realize that’s not on your side either, so you pound the man. Yawn. Better trolls please.
[meta]
Ah, right. You’re so ignorant you haven’t seen the little cartoon, right Brad?
I shall explain.
It depicts a cat with a piece of cheese in its mouth standing by the mousehole.
(I’m the cat, you’re the mouse)
Shit-nosed gnome:
<snicker>
Good bet, since I’ve been telling you that for a couple of days now.
<smirk>
Nah. You pound your pudding.
What facts do you imagine are on “your side”?
(Such a stupid locution! It should be that you are on the side of the facts)
You’re not a man, you’re a gnome with underpants on their head.
Whenever I refer to facts (like, you know, Mann’s many awards) you pull those pants over your eyes.
Look at this thread; that is an established fact.
You’re doing the best you can, Brad. Don’t blame me that it’s such a feeble effort.
Here, @92:
“You do get I’m enjoying myself immensely, no?
Just remember, you came here, I did not come to you.”
What part of that was confusing to you?
Heh.
John M:
PZ’s molested and tortured paragraph:
The pedophilia accusation claim is clearly faulty logic, but how about PZ’s claim that he correctly applied a logical fallacy (ad hominems)? I’ve been looking up definitions of “ad hominem” and I’ll have to confess that I’m not sure. Ad hominem is supposed to be an irrelevant attack on a person rather than address the claims. I suppose the claims would be the integrity of Mann’s hockey stick papers. Simberg and Steyn certainly attack Mann, but are they irrelevant attacks? Simberg implies Mann manipulated data, which should be obvious to anyone but a DC jury. Steyn calls the hockey stick fraudulent, not Mann.
You guys look like experts at employing ad hominems. What do you think?
Pounding, eh? Good idea!
#140:
<smirk>
Do you seriously imagine I seem riled? I am having the time of my life, mate!
canman, excellent! Refractory period over, eh? I’ll fix that.
Nah. You might have tried your very best (weak as you are) to molest and torture it, but there it is, unmolested and not tortured.
Good grief, this again? Ah well, did I mentioned how much I like a textual medium?
#95: “You’re akin to a GOTO loop, ain’t ya? That’s how you began, now you want to recapitulate?
Sure; GOTO 11.”
I think you’re even more doltish than your hero, the Underpants Gnome. That’s what I think.
Do you even get to what an argumentum ad hominem refers? PZ actually mentioned it in the OP.
But, since you did ask, here: What I think is that did you even have a glimmer of a clue, you’d get that refers to arguing that because someone is $something, they are wrong, whereas I note that because you are wrong, you are $something, for values of $something of idiotic, foolish, ignorant, clueless, and so forth
BTW, mancan, are you still perplexed by Mann’s groaning trophy shelf, to use Brad’s lovely imagery?
(“How could that be?”, you think. Perplexing for you, yet how could I draw conclusions from such a claim?)
So, do you reckon there’s any difference between argumentum ad hominem and sententiam ad hominem? I mean, they’re both “ad hominems”, as you wrote.
(Or is there only one kind, in your expert opinion? :)
John M @241, Yes I’m still perplexed by Mann’s trophy shelf, just like I’m perplexed by the minions who adore John Smith or L Ron Hubbard. There’s a reason people chuckle at the expression climate scientologist.
John M, I haven’t been able to find sententiam ad hominem on Google. What’s that refer to?
@ 238. canman : “Simberg and Steyn certainly attack Mann, but are they irrelevant attacks?”
Yes, yes they are.
“Simberg implies Mann manipulated data, which should be obvious to anyone but a DC jury. Steyn calls the hockey stick fraudulent, not Mann.”
Manipulating data is one thing. Doing so without valid basis or using to to misinform rather than accurately inform is a whole other thing. Mann did good scence which passed peer review and earnt him the plaudits of his fellows and the world generally. A handful of denialist cranks aside. Steyn is wrong and falsely insulting to say the Hockey stick is”fraudulent” which is a serious false allegation versus the reality that the Hockey stick has been backed up and supported by the evidence and follow up science. See :
https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Plus :
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/11/scientists-extend-and-straighten-iconic-climate-hockey-stick/
Oh and apparently there’s even been a BBC TV drama written about it called The Trick which I’ve just learnt about here – 36 seconds long trailer. Sheesh, you Deniers really are stuck in the past aren’t you? Must say, I thought “Climategate” had been relegated to history – and it now seems the odd historical drama – long ago.
How does canman suspecting there’s a problem with the ad hominem claim they chose anything?
It’s tangent to the original issue. I can and have already acknowledged that it was a comparison that amounted to “treaded data badly” so choosing a thing related to that is cowardly. Same logical issue. No points.
What about the second ad hominem farther down?
That should be “How does canman suspecting there’s a problem with the ad hominem claim they chose CHANGE anything?” in the first sentence.
Seriously. Even as a comparison to child molestation it’s an irrational non-literalism made by social cowards in addition to being sickening political theft of the pain of others.
And Brad is down to simple territory marking now. I notes all the things they didn’t respond to earlier, now they type they “pound facts” instead of showing where they did.
I’ve this idea about people getting less literal under pressure. What matter is if the sensory or anatomy reference actually goes somewhere real.
“Seriously. Even as a comparison to child molestation it’s an irrational non-literalism made by social cowards in addition to being sickening political theft of the pain of others.”
Brony, pay attention to the context. There was no attempt to exploit victims of child abuse for cheap points. The point was as serious as possible: that it’d be no surprise Penn did a corrupt investigation in favor of Mann, IF they were willing to do the same for Sandusky.
The fact is that Mann was exonerated by Graham Spanier, and kept thanking Spanier in the dedications page of his books long after Spanier had gone to prison for child endangerment, so it’s a little precious of him to claim to be offended by the association made by Steyn and Simberg when he goes out of his way to make that association himself, in his own books. But of course you didn’t realize that because you didn’t follow the trial, did you?
It’s not too late: you can always listen to Phelim McAleer and Ann McIlhenny’s authoritative daily podcast, Climate Change On Trial. Unlike the rest of the media world, they bothered to actually witness the testimony live, day after day.
Don’t care. Do you even realize that even if you got every climate scientist locked up for every heinous crime you can imagine, it wouldn’t change the reality of climate change? You keep making these pointless claims that aren’t at all relevant to the matter at hand.
The child abuse enabler can keep enabling child abuse. It’s a great look. Like “Pedo Joe”. All I have to do is keep pointing out the disgusting political use of the behavior of others and it doesn’t change when people define in about whatever “point” was being made with the act of political theft.
I asked you which points you think I haven’t responded to. Hell, give me your top 3 requests. If you can’t be bothered sifting John’s prolix drivel for substance, I can certainly relate to that, but you can hardly expect me to do it if you won’t.
There could be something to that. Mind you there was nothing anatomical about my image of “pounding the man,” it was just a play on the old lawyers’ joke, so your hypothesis doesn’t apply to me. But it would tell us some suggestive things about Balter, who comes straight out of the gate with the shit that, ass this, nose that, as if he’s acutely aware he’s losing the argument before he even starts.
Oh dear oh dear. I wasn’t expecting a resort to the urological so soon from you of all people, Brony. Feeling under pressure? There’s no need to. You haven’t made an opponent out of me yet.
You can sarcastically tell someone respects your side of a potential argument when they ignore the thing you are concerned about (political use of child molestation) to shove the other thing (supposed bad treatment of data) at you.
If there was any truth they would not need to steal from abused children. They acknowledge even if they disagree, abandon the non-literal thing, do the supposed real version. It shouldn’t matter anyway since it’s the non-literal part, but no. They need to save the molestation reference too. Ick.
I’m not interested in actually taking you seriously Brad. Go up thread to see why. Imagine there is someone else reading and you might be able to convince them of something. Otherwise John has been plenty specific.
I ignored your request for any clarification about the issue of using child abuse politically. I won’t be arguing that.
Brony,
In my experience they just start writing really poorly. Consider PZ’s latest contribution: he can’t even seem to tell us who he’s responding to. For all we know he’s as thoroughly sick of John Morales’ irrelevantia as the next guy, and is letting him have it. I could hardly blame him, I just wish he’d be more lucid about it.
@255
“Consider…” No.
Anyway if Canman’s sources are right, it won’t be long before Steyn and Simberg are apologizing to Sandusky for mentioning his name in the same sentence as Mann’s.
Brony, boredom is one of the masks defeat wears. It’s awfully convenient the way you claim to lose interest in a debate just after performing badly in it. Oh well. It’s no shame being out-reasoned by Canman and me.
StevoR,
the BBC drama about Hide the Decline came out just a couple of years ago. Remind me, who’s obsessed with the past, exactly? I’d tell them to get over it, but then they wouldn’t have given the world their unintentionally comedic masterpiece, The Trick. You really should check it out.
John M, are you skeptical of the OJ Simpson verdict or the Salem Witch trial verdicts?
WTAF does that have to do with the Sandusky verdict? Looks like someone is suddenly realizing his bullshit’s been debunked, and falling back on defensive flailing. Oh, and you forgot to mention Galileo!
Also, where are the books from the prosecution’s side from what had to be the high points of their careers?
Is there any court system on Earth that uses number of published books to determine whether a prosecutor has a solid case?
That’s the best defense you can flail up? That’s not just ridiculous, it’s embarrassing.
There was no attempt to exploit victims of child abuse for cheap points.
Utter bullshit. Comparing someone’s actions to those of a child-abuser is, pretty much by definition, an attempt to exploit child abuse, and its victims, for cheap points.
It’s not too late: you can always listen to Phelim McAleer and Ann McIlhenny’s authoritative daily podcast, Climate Change On Trial.
What makes that podcast “authoritative?” Because you said so?
Unlike the rest of the media world, they bothered to actually witness the testimony live, day after day.
“Witness the testimony live?” What the hell does that even mean? That sounds like something people do in a loony-Christian megachurch.
That’s it Brad. Keep making things up about my reasons. Be flawed.
Raging Bee @260,
“That’s the best defense you can flail up? “
Absolutely not! @14 I put this link in, which lists a lot (not all) of serious, accomplished people looking into the case. There’s probably more new material on the Sandusky case than any other major crime case of the millennium. It’s all available, just not widely known.
PZ, you should really take another look at the Sandusky case. The claims of all the accusers collapse under scrutiny. What really happened is a few dozen adult men and their lawyers fleeced $100 million out of Penn State. A republican governor got revenge on Graham Spanier for blocking his effort to cut Penn State’s funding. That’s the conclusion of an actual federal investigation of whether to renew Spanier’s top secret security clearance.
https://frankreport.com/2024/01/18/renowned-academics-and-investigators-challenge-jerry-sanduskys-conviction/
StevoR @245,
Sorry about the delay. I fell asleep rereading your Skeptical Science link. That piece doesn’t come anywhere near addressing the issues brought up in the second half of the short video I posted a@149.
In a thread involving people using sexual molestation of children as political tools it’s just plain insensitive and shitty at best to push Sandusky assertions. The polite thing to do is email PZ privately.
Unless it’s an at worst situation and this opposite set to the political use of children is just climate denier political manipulation. I keep them both in mind. Now go be decent canman. Or be even more decent and go see some professional organizations interested in accuracy in sexual abuse convictions. They are the most capable. Not PZ.
Go on canman. Which is more logical? PZ? Or people professionally involved in accuracy in sexual abuse convictions?
Which is more logical? Derailing a thread involving people using the sexual molestation of children politically with assertions about someone being innocent of actual child molestation? Or privately emailing PZ about it so you don’t twist the topic into it’s opposite?
Brony @266, I don’t think it’s insensitive to bring up my Sandusky assertions and I have emailed PZ privately. I asked for another post and this is probably the last chance I’m going to get. Sincere thanks PZ. As for insensitivity, journalists John Ziegler and Ralph Cipriano were leaked all of the settlement documents, undoubtedly by an outraged Penn State Board of Trustees member. Ziegler’s epic (probably up to 100 hors by now) podcast series has some episodes on these accuser settlements. This bunch can use all the insensitivity they got coming to them.
https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/episode-twelve-part-i-the-settlements/id1562078872?i=1000524514855
Brony @267, I’m not really derailing the thread so much as just adding a minor subthread.
You can tell they are a decent good faith communicator when they just type you are wrong and assume that you accept lies about derailing, and ignore everything you typed in support of it being a bad thing.
Rejected.
And ignore what you type about not arguing the point. No boundary sense, or ignoring them? Hmmmmmmm…..
I had no idea whether I would be derailing the thread and I don’t think that’s the end result. In principle, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with derailing a thread if it leads to interesting discussion or even another post. I pretty much got what I wanted to say in on this thread. It’ll probably just be sneered at and forgotten, but I really would like to see PZ do another post on the Sandusky case.
Jesus. The Sandusky case is settled. Done. Over. Grow up and move on, because no, unless there were surprising and massive new evidence sufficient to trigger a retrial or dismissal, NO I AM NOT WASTING TIME ON IT.
I’ve been following new developments in the Sandusky case for over half a decade now. I’ve found them pretty surprising and massive, not to mention numerous. If you’re not interested, so be it. Thanks for letting me post my thoughts here. One last time, here’s a listing of people who are interested in it:
https://frankreport.com/2024/01/18/renowned-academics-and-investigators-challenge-jerry-sanduskys-conviction/
mmm… toast, marmalade and a nice strong cuppa. So, what happened overnight?
<checks>
Heh. So there’s still life in the specimens, though the gnome is not doing quite as well as the mancan.
It is now evident that a diet rich with feculence indeed sustains them.
Excellent!
So, a bit more feeding and poking, though I think their behavioural repertoire is indeed exhausted.
—
What, you think science is a religion?
(You do get that was the gnome’s coinage, no? I even made it clear)
Obviously; it should be ‘climate scientist’. Goes to show how much some people know.
Heh. You asked for clarification, I provided it @241.
I am trying to show you that the term ad hominem means ‘to the person’, and doesn’t need to be an argument. Could be, say, an insult.
But right now, they have been directed to financially “apologise” to Mann for just that. Heh.
Um, you don’t get it, do you? Brony is not neurotypical, he sees things you don’t see, thinks in a different manner, provides a different perspective.
It’s not to your shame that you failed to get that, but it is that you thought your lack of perception was somehow your interlocutor’s lack of reasoning.
canman @264:
GOTO 14
<snicker>
That’s what passes for wit in your estimation?
You are so unintentionally funny!
Also, GOTO 89.
GOTO 37.
I fell asleep reading his Jerry Sandusky link.
@265. canman
Huh. Funny you should say that after this :
@ 258. Brad Keyes
From your mate earlier..
Also LOL. Out reasoned, I don’t think so..
Incidentally, if you fell asleep reading the Skeptical Science page(s) debunking yet aagin that fallacious idea that the Hockey Strick is “broken” how would you know if it “didn’t address” the bulldust in your old youtube clip by a scientist (Richard Muller) that has now now reversed his position and disagrees with you both anyway.
@ 260. Brad Keyes :
Says someone arguing that Climategate was a real serious thing literally decades after that nasty ideologically driven nonsense was disproven and after a court case again confirmed Mann did nothing wrong and was correct and the defaming Deniers have lost on it again. After the science has long since repeatedly confirmed Mann was right as well.
StevoR,
Muller hasn’t reversed his position on the [im]propriety of Hiding the Decline, and he doesn’t disagree with me about HTD in any way. Nor could he conceivably change his mind on that, since it’s a question of fundamental scientific ethics that you don’t hide things. You can’t do that in science. It’s not up to our standards.
You could prove me wrong with a single quote by Muller saying that he now considers Hiding the Decline a valid manoeuvre (and at that point I will resign myself to the sad fact that being a climate alarmist and having scientific-ethical standards really are mutually exclusive).
But you do realize he was never a climate skeptic, right? I know this because
he was never a climate skeptic
he was always a climate alarmist (see Physics for Future Presidents, published before Climategate, wherein he approves of Al Gore’s habit of exaggerating and distorting the science because it gets results)
he wrote in an email to HuffPo, quote, I was never a skeptic, end quote.
GOTO 140
PZ and StevoR @276-277, Sorry about the snark. I was actually rather tired and really did doze off. I’d read the links before and wanted to refresh my memory so I could compare them to the last half of the video @149.
You mean that was an attempt at snark?
Heh heh heh. So weak.
JohnM, I don’t know if my snark is as strong as yours, but I’m sure my ad hominems aren’t,
PZ, I would be interested in your thoughts Frank Parlato’s post. even shat makes it boring.
Errrr! Rewrite:
JohnM, I don’t know if my snark is as strong as yours, but I’m sure my ad hominins aren’t.
PZ, I would be interested in your thoughts on Frank Parlato’s post, even in what makes it boring.
My keyboarding is definitely not that strong.
Wow, the canman sure can’t.
Heh. You didn’t even get my explanation, did ya? Fucking clueless, you are.
(Look up “hominins”, if you want to know why I am smirking as I type this)
I can see how the underpants gnome thinks some people are ineducable.
So. Care to try to quote me making one (1) argumentum ad hominem, even though you confess to being confused about what they may be?
Hey, do you even know the difference between a formal and an informal fallacy? I’m pretty sure you don’t, based on your efforts hitherto, though it was you who attempted to claim logical knowledge right from the start.
(That’s the trouble with being a poseur)
You would be interested, would you?
Under what hypothetical circumstance or circumstances would that interest manifest?
After all, were you currently interested, you’d have written ‘I am interested’ instead, no?
Mate! That is the least of your weaknesses. :)
In the news: Right-wing bloggers set to appeal $1 million verdict in climate scientist defamation case
Dunno about Frank Parlato, but I really like Gretchen.
Brad Keyes @280:
Muller, NYT;
One more thing: Muller “quoted” Phil Jones as writing “Let’s use Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. That’s wrong, and misleading. The actual text was
Whatever you think of “hide the decline”, it is not “Mike’s trick”. Muller fucked up, and you approve. Good work.
Rob, I already posted that @125, and repeated it since.
StevoR also cited it @108, BTW.
Well, there goes another little trap for the gnome (“GOTO 140”), who wondered about why wanted citations :|
Yeah, I know… probably wouldn’t have been triggered, I sense a certain reticence when trying to address me. But still.
[old fart’s anecdote]
Rob, back in 1978 or so I worked a summer at Flinders University (South Australia) digitising tidal charts.
In those days, the recorders were clockwork-driven and there’d be a timing drift over time, so that when processing that data, one had to allow for that drift. Correct for the bias, that is to say. Recorders’ intervals would sometimes be staggered, so that one could verify the correction, though it was more work and more expensive. But, science.
So I am familiar with that sorta thing.
John @291: Ah, I shoulda caught that.
No worries, Rob. Independent research has its own merit! :)
PS my wife likes that sort of music; I shall show it to her. Thanks for that.
It’s at least as much the “deep rifts”, elevatorgate, and metoo as neurodivergency. Hardware/filters/data…
@ 293 Rob Grigjanis & John Morales : it bears repeating for the slow of cognisance e.g. our pair of Climate Deniers here. Its not like they haven’t being spouting the same drivel repeatedly.
@280 Brad Keyes :
Again see #289. Rob Grigjanis :
Emphasis for the slow of comprehending. Do you accept and admit that fact now?
See also what #290. Rob Grigjanis noted : “Whatever you think of “hide the decline”, it is not “Mike’s trick”. Muller fucked up, and you approve.”
Again, emphasis again my question to you, do you now get that and understand how you’ve gotten things wrong?
Do you think maybe its time you got over a few comments Muller said – before he learnt better – in a (probly?) two decades old posted by some rando youtube Science Denier named 1000frolly PhD and accepted that you got thsi very wrong in all sorts of ways. Remember :
104. Brad Keyes :
Well, here we are well over a hundred comments later, you’ve been shown to be wrong about pretty much everything, doesn’t that make you stop and reconsider your views at all? Does evidence have any impact on your thought processes at all?
Mann has been cleared by the other scientists, by his uni, by peer review, by the court so do you still want to ignore allt hat & keep claiming / believing the..
Clearly you’re wrong and clearly you’re in a tiny mminority of Deniers who think Mann did something wrong. Does that not cuase youany reflection or reconsideration of your views?
As I originally asked you back in #103 What would make you accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here?
As for Climate “alarmist” term youve been using, for starters they’ve been shown to be right as you’d know if you’d follow the actual science where things have been getting dramatically worse. You know how many records have been broken lately climate-wise incl of course hottest year ever last year? For second, why is raising the alarm wrong when there’s good scientific reasons to do so? Finally, are you going to rethink that in light of what you’ve had shown to you here and if not why not?
One mroe time since seems you do need telling thrice or more – what would make you reconsdier your erroneous Cliamet Science denying views?
Absolutely not! @14 I put this link in, which lists a lot (not all) of serious, accomplished people looking into the case. There’s probably more new material on the Sandusky case than any other major crime case of the millennium. It’s all available, just not widely known.
If it’s not enough to support a serious move to retry the case or toss out the verdicts, then it’s not enough, period. Is anyone bringing this to an actual court, or are they all just complaining to the media and pushing asinine conspiracy theories?
I’ve been following new developments in the Sandusky case for over half a decade now…
So…five years of “new developments” and no new motions to dismiss or retry?
From the article cited by canman:
He condemns the lawyers and therapists who represented the alleged victims, who typically told authorities that Sandusky had never abused them. Then, they changed their stories and made millions.
Does this guy really believe anyone can simply make up a story of sexual abuse, or start parroting someone else’s made-up story, and really expect to “make millions” in short order with no risk or effort? Have any of Sandusky’s victims (actual or alleged) “made millions?”
Fucking feeble specimens, these. Plenty of feculent succulents, plenty of time for recovery.
Let’s prod a bit more, see if I can at least get a twitch:
Via Wikipedia:
So, mancan, a little more elucidation of a difficult (for you) concept:
Were I to argue that because he’s accepted a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to being a money-seeking crook that his claims about Sandusky must therefore be flawed, I’d be making an ad hominem argument. But to note that because he pleaded guilty to being a money-seeking crook he is a money-seeking crook, that would not be an ad hominem argument, but a character assessment.
And if I then call him a convicted crook, I’d be making an assessment ad hominem, but not an argument. Also: one million dollars! :)
(Hey, canman, in passing, did it ever occur to you to Google the latin translation of my apparently-obscure neologic but analogic term?
I reckon not, that was too far a reach for your limited capacities.
Go on, try it!)
[little linguistic joke: Parlato is spoken for]
[poke, poke]
Come on, lads! You are supposedly invading!
(So frustrating; fun was promised, but is hardly to be had. So fucking disappointing, this is)
[well, can but try to get a response, any response, but it’s looking kinda sad]
Heh. Not ‘would matter’? Present tense is not unknown to you, O he who would be interested.
I smirkate you. :)
Seriously, can anyone still conceive of Morales as anything other than the most pathetic troll in the history of Pharyngula. I mean, c’mon people, look at the fucking state of this! This is dialogue (monologue) that wouldn’t have been out of place ascribed to the villain of a Saturday morning cartoon when I was a kid – but we’re expected to take this utter wanker loser fuckwit seriously in the year 2024?! Why is this idiot buffoon still humoured when so many others were banned for very much less trolling?
Yes. I can. And I am someone, bobiferous.
What, the invasion? cf. my #174. Need a link, LoquaciousBub?
To what supposed idiocy and buffoonery do you refer?
This. Is. Pharyingula.
So, it’s like that, bobous. No worries.
Tell me more about how you imagine I am trolling, and have been since 2009. :)
Also, welcome back. I’ve missed dissing your even feebler efforts, SoylentBlob.
Ah well, I’m in the mood, self-proclaimed invaders properly cowed, but my old self-imagined nemesis is back for more abuse. Yay!
I’m quite up to it, of course — as always, only ever in response to their weak attempted jibes, never the initiator, but ever the responder.
So.
Heh. You imagine that there is some expectation at hand? From whom, and in what manner, pray tell?
No, there is no such expectation, O doltish one. There never was.
Raging Bee @298,
Sandusky has been appealing every chance he gets in Pennsylvania. The only problem is all of Pennsylvania’s judges have to face reelection. None of them want releasing the worlds most hated “pedophile” on their record. Sandusky has not tried for a federal appeal where he only gets one chance.
@299,
Have any of his “victims” not made millions? Well, I suppose Matt Sandusky only got a $300 K settlement. All his accusers got confidential settlements from Penn State. Journalists John Ziegler and Ralph Cipriano were leaked all of the settlement documents when they were working on their ill fated Newsweek cover feature (spiked at the last minute). The legacy media really is terrified of the toxic “Sandusky” name.
Ah, hey, man the can, I’m here now.
<snicker>
So, Matt Sandusky is, as you imagine it, one of his “victims” who has not made millions.
What, after being blended into liquid? Kind of hard to leak a person, otherwise.
(linguistic precision is supposed to be a thing where you come from, no?)
Citations would be nice, but are beyond you, no?
Come on, canman. Only a couple of hours left in my day. Make it.
(too cryptic?)
John M @300,
You found Parlato’s Wikipedia entry. He’s had legal problems with his business dealings involving substantial fines. What that shows is that he’s ambitious. The Wayback Machine shows that his Frank Report has been around since the start of the millennium. His stock and trade is lurid crime stories. With the Sandusky case, he’s hit a gold mine!
Excellent, canman. Don’t go away, let’s share some badinage.
Heh. That somehow impressed you? It was easy, I selected the term, right-clicked, then went to the Wikipedia entry.
Yes, and he’s pleaded guilty. Like, either he was guilty, or he was lying when he pleaded guilty.
(Neither is a great look, is it?)
And so has the Church of Scientology. So?
Right. Pedophilia, just gold.
(citation?)
JohnM @310,
I put a link @89 to the first of Ziegler’s settlement episodes.
Says nothing about a gold mine there, mancan.
Again: citation?
JohnM @313,
“Yes, and he’s pleaded guilty. Like, either he was guilty, or he was lying when he pleaded guilty.”
Doesn’t mean he can’t do good journalism. Can you find any slime to stick to the people listed in the second of my links @14?
JohnM @315,
I’ve seen this gold mine and walked through it for the last half decade. I just don’t have Parlato’s expertise and infrastructure.
Excellent! Well done, canman.
Whyever do you say that?
I never claimed that; I claimed that either he lied when he pled guilty, or he was actually guilty, and either case is not a good look. Do you think otherwise?
I can speculate (but probably very accurately, given your knowledge of informal fallacies) why you imagined that, though.
Are you asking me to do so? Remember, that has nothing to do with anything other than whether they’ve been slimy or otherwise, nor to the merits of the case unless such slime is relevant to it.
Tell ya what; provide an enumeration of those people, and I’ll consider your request.
Pretty fucking fair that, no? Not like I’m gonna listen to some podcast to satisfy your neediness.
I mean, suggesting that I should listen to an episode of a show that you claim has been around since the start of the millennium merely to determine that the claim is that there is not one of his “victims” (your very term, which presumes they are not actually victims) who has not made millions is a pretty hefty request, no?
Quick question: does he enumerate each and every one of what you term “victims” and show that they made millions? With citations?
I see. So, you wrote
I suppose you can hope it carries on for the next half decade, so you can keep wading through it.
Well, there you are. The first time I can’t dispute you in any way, shape or form.
I also don’t reckon you have any expertise or infrastructure about anything at all, let alone that of a confessed felon.
[mutter]
[Ah, right. The soylent bub always snipes, and then always runs away. I had forgotten]
[fixing my missing tag close, since I can’t imagine the mancan gets what happened]
I see. So, you wrote , and so this gold mine that you have trodden for the last half decade is the Sandusky case.
I suppose you can hope it carries on for the next half decade, so you can keep wading through it.
JohnM @318,
It’s the Frank Report that’s been around since the start of the millennium. Ziegler’s podcast series is a few years old.
Actually this post enumerates and refutes all the trial accusers:
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/trial-by-therapy-jerry-sandusky-case-revisited/
@320,
Nutter: “[mutter]”
Rob G,
how do you tell when Muller was lying and when he was telling the truth? Simple, you just put the bit you want to believe in bold.
Alternatively, if your desire for knowledge exceeds your will to believe, you could take a more analytic approach and look at Muller’s actual stated views over time, which, like most people’s, have barely changed.
This is what he said in an interview at Grist in 2008, before Climategate:
“The important thing is not getting Al Gore out of his jet plane; the important thing is solving the world’s problem. What we really need are policies around the world that address the problem, not feel-good measures. If [Al Gore] reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion — which he does, but he’s very effective at it — then let him fly any plane he wants.”
If you believe a climate skeptic said this, you’ll believe anything. But you don’t seem as devout as John Morales, so I’m sure you’re capable of critically thinking your way to the right answer. Good luck.
Heh. You:
Yes, and I even told you how I did it. Was very easy.
There it says: “The Frank Report began publishing blogs and stories on Nov. 30, 2015”
It logically follows (you’re Mr. Logic, no?) that the start of the millennium, as far as you are concerned, began on Nov. 30, 2015.
Does it?
So, your actual request was “Can you find any slime to stick to the people listed in the second of my links @14” and my retort to which you are ostensibly responding was “Tell ya what; provide an enumeration of those people, and I’ll consider your request.”
I’m not seeing an enumeration of people who about whom I am supposed some slime at your request.
Do you imagine you’ve somehow provided one?
What I see is a claim that you are citing a post that “enumerates and refutes all the trial accusers”.
(Copypaste is a thing, you know)
—
More to the point, this little bit of banter began with me writing
“Quick question: does he enumerate each and every one of what you term “victims” and show that they made millions? With citations?” after you wrote
So. Get this straight, Mr. Logic: you are there asking whether any of his “victims” (not victims) did not made millions. You, essentially, are insinuating that every single “victim” (you think there were zero victims, that much is clear) made millions.
Prove it.
Brad, the Underpants Gnome:
So, you are outright claiming that Muller sometimes lies, and sometimes tells the truth.
Yet, he is your go-to for your particularly dated and idiosyncratic view that Michael Mann is some sort of scientific fraud, though of course over the years so very many organisations (not jurors! ;) have given him awards and accolades.
Perhaps a reminder:
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.[89][90][91][92]In 2012, he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union[1] and awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union for “his significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions.”[7][88]
Following election by the American Meteorological Society he became a new Fellow of the society in 2013.[93] In January 2013 he was designated with the status of distinguished professor in Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.[94]
In September 2013, Mann was named by Bloomberg Markets in its third annual list of the “50 Most Influential” people, included in a group of “thinkers” with reference to his work with other scientists on the hockey stick graph, his responses on the RealClimate blog “to climate change deniers”, and his book publications.[95][96] Later that month, he received the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science.[97][98]
On April 28, 2014, the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley.[99] In the same year, Mann was named as a Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). In 2015 he was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and in 2016 he was elected Vice Chair of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate (GPC) at the American Physical Society (APS).[88]
On June 19, 2017, Climate One at the Commonwealth Club of California said that he would be honored with the 7th annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Science Communication.[100]
He received the James H. Shea Award from the National Association of Geoscience Teachers for his “exceptional contribution in writing or editing Earth science materials for the general public or teachers of Earth science.”[101]
On February 8, 2018, the Center for Inquiry announced that Mann had been elected as a 2017 Fellow of its Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.[8]
On February 14, 2018, the American Association for the Advancement of Science announced that Mann was chosen to receive the 2018 Public Engagement with Science award.[102]
On September 4, 2018, the American Geophysical Union announced Mann as the 2018 recipient of its Climate Communication Prize.[103]
On February 12, 2019, Mann and Warren Washington were named to receive the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement.[104]
In April 2020, he was elected member of the National Academy of Sciences.[5] Along with Antonella Santuccione Chadha, he also received the World Sustainability Award from the MDPI Sustainability Foundation.[105]
In 2022, the American Physical Society recognized Mann with the Leo Szilard Lectureship Award “for distinguished contributions to the public’s understanding of climate science controversies, and to how our individual and collective actions can mitigate climate change.”[106]
In 2023 the American Humanist Association gave Mann their 2023 Humanist of the Year award.[107]
Oh, right.
<snicker>
You are so clueless!
(devout about what, I’d ask, except you’re like the quiet bubulum: run, run away when I confront)
Rob G.
Muller parsed the sentence according to the rules of our language, which state that a sentence of the form:
logically entails that the function of A’s B trick (which involved doing X and Y) was to do Z. Now it may well be the case that Phil Jones, who’s not the most literate man, intended to put some grammatical wall between “Mike’s Nature trick” and the concealment of the decline, but he failed to do so, so we’ll never know. All we can do is read his sentence in the language it appears to be written in, which is English.
I should say, the function of using A’s B trick was to do Z. If you want to argue that Mike’s Nature trick was originally designed for good, not evil—science, not deception—and that Jones was misusing it, you can do so. But the fact remains that Mann never dissociated himself from Phil’s misuse, and he had every opportunity to do so, having received the same email as his colleagues.
Such bullshit!
<snicker>
Care to attempt to try to essay a citation to that particular rule?
(This should be most amusing)
Underpanter:
But the fact remains that
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.[89][90][91][92]In 2012, he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union[1] and awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union for “his significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions.”[7][88]
Following election by the American Meteorological Society he became a new Fellow of the society in 2013.[93] In January 2013 he was designated with the status of distinguished professor in Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.[94]
In September 2013, Mann was named by Bloomberg Markets in its third annual list of the “50 Most Influential” people, included in a group of “thinkers” with reference to his work with other scientists on the hockey stick graph, his responses on the RealClimate blog “to climate change deniers”, and his book publications.[95][96] Later that month, he received the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science.[97][98]
On April 28, 2014, the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley.[99] In the same year, Mann was named as a Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). In 2015 he was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and in 2016 he was elected Vice Chair of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate (GPC) at the American Physical Society (APS).[88]
On June 19, 2017, Climate One at the Commonwealth Club of California said that he would be honored with the 7th annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Science Communication.[100]
He received the James H. Shea Award from the National Association of Geoscience Teachers for his “exceptional contribution in writing or editing Earth science materials for the general public or teachers of Earth science.”[101]
On February 8, 2018, the Center for Inquiry announced that Mann had been elected as a 2017 Fellow of its Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.[8]
On February 14, 2018, the American Association for the Advancement of Science announced that Mann was chosen to receive the 2018 Public Engagement with Science award.[102]
On September 4, 2018, the American Geophysical Union announced Mann as the 2018 recipient of its Climate Communication Prize.[103]
On February 12, 2019, Mann and Warren Washington were named to receive the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement.[104]
In April 2020, he was elected member of the National Academy of Sciences.[5] Along with Antonella Santuccione Chadha, he also received the World Sustainability Award from the MDPI Sustainability Foundation.[105]
In 2022, the American Physical Society recognized Mann with the Leo Szilard Lectureship Award “for distinguished contributions to the public’s understanding of climate science controversies, and to how our individual and collective actions can mitigate climate change.”[106]
In 2023 the American Humanist Association gave Mann their 2023 Humanist of the Year award.[107]
All very stupid organisations (not jurors! ;) in your estimation, gnomish one.
<sniff, sniff> oof!
Wipe your nose, perhaps?
Hey, Brad:
Whatever happened to ?
Facts are, Michael Mann has received Lo! those many laurels, unlike Muller, who you reckon sometimes lies and who contradicts himself.
(Want me to repost the facts, for the umpteenth + umpteen timeth?)
Ah, might as well fill in the gaps. Bedtime soon.
@324:
Quite evidently, my #322 failed to make any dent in the smooth brain.
(phrenologists’ delight, is the man of the can — as close to a perfect sphere as can be)
JohnM @326,
The Wayback Machine has Frank Report caps from the early 200x’s. Perhaps he started calling it a blog in 2015 or your favorite source (Wiki) is not so reliable.
From the Parlato link:
Frederick Crews
Ralph Cipriano
John Snedden
Chris Barden
Mark Pendergrast
Rev. Joseph Stains
John Ziegler
I’ll throw in a few more:
Elizabeth Loftus
Carol Tavris
Malcolm Gladwell
And to give you a head start, Mark Pendergrast, who has written extensively about repressed memory, had his daughter accuse him of abuse based on repressed memory.
Excellent response, canman. I like it.
Does it? Citation, please. After all, it’s your claim — burden of proof and all that.
Again: good work!
So, I’ve now considered your request, as I promised, and decided to decline it.
Tough shit, mate.
Looks like you will have to find any slime without my aid.
Head start to what? Already told you, I’ve declined your request to try to find slime for you.
Now…
More to the point, this little bit of banter began with me writing
“Quick question: does he enumerate each and every one of what you term “victims” and show that they made millions? With citations?” after you wrote “Have any of his “victims” not made millions?”
So. Get this straight, Mr. Logic: you are there asking whether any of his “victims” (not victims) did not made millions. You, essentially, are insinuating that every single “victim” (you think there were zero victims, that much is clear) made millions.
Prove it.
Perhaps a reminder: Michael Mann went on to claim he was a recipient of the Nobel Prize. Why you would repeatedly give me the chance to mention one of your idol’s more embarrassing lies, I don’t know. He was crucified over this repeated fib in court, but of course you don’t know that.
John Morales:
You’re a climate believalist. I thought this was self-explanatory. And SilentBob probably just has a life, John. I wouldn’t hold his lack of replies to your obsessive, excessive thread-bombing against HIM. Unfortunately for you, I’m not busy this week and can occasionally respond to you.
Brad Keyes @325:
I didn’t bold it. StevoR did. This whole business of “who said what and what did they mean?” gets complicated, eh?
@329:
Hm, I don’t think we’re using the same language. Anyone but an obsessive with a weird agenda would parse Jones’ sentence as involving Mike’s trick from 1981 onwards, and Keith’s trick (re tree ring data) from 1961 onwards. The possessive apostrophes (Mike’s, then Keith’s) make that clear. And they are very different tricks. How does ‘adding in the real temps’ (Mike’s trick) hide the decline? Tree ring proxies are unreliable after 1960. They give a (demonstrably) spurious decline. That’s Keith’s trick.
Is that a threat, Brad Keyes? Because I see that as a threat that you’re going to continue to be repetitive and tedious for a week, and I’m bored now. You and canman are probably going to be banned soon.
Brad Keyes @338: You’re obviously not a regular reader here. Before his recent, all-too-brief period of actually living up to his nym, SilentBob obsessively pestered John at every turn, utterly oblivious to the irony of calling John a troll. One had hoped he had actually found a life, but it seems not.
PZ:
Rest assured, I have no intention of mirroring John’s worst qualities. I’ve read my Nietzsche and am well aware of the danger of staring into the abyss.
Rob Grigjanis @341: yep, you’ve got me correctly pegged. In fact I doubt I’ve ever been here before. Thanks for filling me in on the local characters. Cheers!
Rob Grigjanis:
I was well aware you hadn’t done it, but I’ll try to be clear about that in future.
As for Phil’s sentence, I think you’re allowing your knowledge of whose trick is what to color your parsing of the sentence. The problem is not that we’re reading different languages, it’s that he didn’t write it in English, not really. There’s too many concepts left dangling. As a challenge, rephrase it the way you think he would have put it if he were competent in technical writing, doing only as much violence as necessary to the original words and word order. I’m curious to know how the sentence looks to you. Thanks for disagreeing with me substantively, it’s a refreshing change. Cheers.
Rob, I see now why you thought I was accusing you (2nd person singular) of self-comforting by typography. But when I used you I was using the you of “one.”
It’s an informal email between colleagues, Brad, not a fucking paper.
You mean it’s a work email.
When I write a work email I write it unambiguously, with correct punctuation, syntax and spelling. Don’t you?
Regardless, once it was released to the public, all they had to do was say “this sentence was badly punctuated or constructed and it should have said XYZ.”
Instead they made a strawman out of the word “trick” and then pretended “hide” meant… er… something. It wasn’t clear.
Meanwhile we who speak English know exactly what that verb means, and that it’s incompatible with the profession of science—the only question being who was and wasn’t complicit in the concealment.
well thats a couple of hours i’m never getting back. train journey flew by. wth did i just read 300 posts of…
Oh god. Now it’s about imaginary email etiquette.
Fuck off, Brad.
Brad:
Fine, if that’s what you want to call not denying the reality of climate science, I’m that.
He’s not an “invader”, Brad. You’re the special one.
This is my anti-troll mode, gnome. As you sow, so shall you reap.
Remember how I told you quite early on “Just remember, you came here, I did not come to you.”? :)
Again, only you obsessive climate denialists go on about that, because it’s all you’ve got.
Because you’re quite clearly a conspiracy theorist.
See, this is what you do. You harp on ad nauseam about your claim, you pretend to misunderstand stuff, but the moment you’re challenged, it’s “look over there at the birdie!” type of thing.
For example, do you still maintain I claimed that the jurors scientifically vindicated Mann? :)
(or you know, naming one (1) scientific institution that has a problem with Mann, as another example)
—
The headline truly says it all:
Scientist sues conspiracy theorists…and wins!
(But hey, their lawyers are making noises about appealing, so there’s that little straw to which you can still cling about that aspect — see my #287)
PS
How can you still imagine that’d be somehow unfortunate for me?
I could not have been any more unambiguous or more explicit regarding how I feel about interacting with you. It’s not like there’s a dearth of evidence that I very much mean it when I say I enjoy it greatly, and that it makes me feel virtuous. Talk about living in fantasy-land!
Brad @344:
Yes, I’m allowing my knowledge to colour my parsing. That’s what reasonable people do. You’re implying that you don’t allow your knowledge to colour your parsing. That’s become clear.
Geez, is this still going on? Fun is fun, but surely the invaders have overstayed.
Brad is an English Lit major with no technical background or understanding, which partially explains why the worthless shitstain on humanity has been pushing this same idiotic talking point for 15 years despite numerous refutations over that span, e.g.,
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4601 which lays it out pretty clearly. There’s also the realclimate thread that canman referenced earlier, the one where Judith Curry destroyed her career as a scientist: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/
What a fucking cretin. Despite being an English Lit major Brad does not understand the English language, or pretends not to.
I’ve used Tom Duff’s trick of doing loop unrolling in C by combining a switch statement with a do loop to calculate hash codes for strings … but the function of Duff’s trick was not to calculate hash codes. He used the trick to transfer data from main memory to a display device.
The only one who is evil and deceptive here is Brad Keyes, as that Skeptoid piece makes clear.
And his comments about silentbob vs. JM and accusing JM of “thread bombing” is hilarious … does Brad now think this is his blog? The owner of the thread has threatened to ban invader Brad and explicitly supported JM’s use of Brad as a chew toy. Brad sides with the troll silentbob who idiotically calls JM a troll because Brad has no scruples; he’s a sophist as bad as any of the Creationist trolls who have appeared here.
Speaking of religion … I’m a “believalist” in heliocentrism, evolution, germ theory, cell theory, 1+1 = 2, and that Booth shot Lincoln. What sort of dishonest imbecile would therefore call me “devout”? The kind Brad is, of course.
Yes it was. By definition. If that’s how it functioned when you used it, that’s what its function was.
Whether Duff intended it to have that function is another question. It may or may not have been his purpose in inventing the trick.
But for fifteen years and counting, Mann has been blamed for the misuse of his trick even though his trick didn’t even have the function of hiding the decline, and it’s all because Jones couldn’t be arsed to write properly:
See how easy it is to explain why Mann is innocent of hiding the decline? All you have to do is admit that a climate scientist, Phil Jones, can’t write English good.
The fact that his colleagues probably knew what he meant isn’t enough to salvage a passing grade. You’re not supposed to write just well enough to be comprehended. You’re supposed to exceed that standard. You’re supposed to write properly. One of the many advantages of doing so is that in fifteen years’ time you’ll still understand what you meant.
But if they knew what Jones meant, why didn’t a single recipient of the email object to his concealment of the decline? Did none of them understand basic Feynmanian standards of honesty?
PZ,
LOL. Without me you’d still be embarrassing yourself by demanding legal expenses for Mann. Heck, you’d probably donate so that he doesn’t have to sell his second house to pay off his ruinous attorneys’ fees.
And this thread would be as anemic as the others on your blog.
Face it, PZ. You need me.
Balter:
Meh. I prefer the fringe new idea that the Sun and all the planets in our solar system orbit the same focus, their common barycentre, which is sometimes—but not always—located within the Sun’s surface.
Brad @356:
This is just useless pedantry. The focus is never much more than about two solar radii from the sun’s centre. Mercury is never closer to the sun’s centre than about 65 solar radii. You think you’re being clever. You’re not.
@354:
Because they knew he wasn’t concealing anything. The utterly inexcusable dishonesty is on your side, which includes intellectual leading lights like Jim Inhofe and Sarah Palin. You’re in good company!
Ah, gnome has nothing new to say, but still bravely tries to puff its underpants from its shit-stained nose, with a mighty huffing and puffing and snuffling. The sad spectacle that presents itself is quite entertaining for me, but I do like slapstick. Flappity-flap go the underpants, floppity-flop go its feet as it tries to moondance away from its previous mistaken caperings.
So. How fortunate for me! I can play with it (using a poking-stick, of course — that shit is nasty stuff!).
Today is a good day.
You very clearly imagined the that the purpose was the trick, then Jim revealed it’s a technique, and so you’re now trying to do a semantic switch and pretend you knew that all along.
Alas for you, everyone can read what you initially wrote.
Ah, the robotic repetition of points long ago refuted.
The explanation is, of course, that there was never any guilt there and people misunderstood what was being done.
GOTO 121
Making shit up is stupid; everyone can read what PZ wrote, and he made no such demand.
Without me, of course, you’d still think you had some aptitude at linguistic precision and logic and that you could hold your own in a disputation.
Your doltishness is there for anyone to see; quite obviously, ‘heliocentrism’ here is used as a contrast to ‘geocentrism’, that is, whether the Earth orbits the Sun or the Sun orbits the Earth.
Heh.
—
Now, this is what you yourself call a believalist, Brad the shit-nosed:
heh heh heh… “more archaically”!
Rob, you earned a glorified Comic Sans blockquote for this one:
So they thought he was lying when he admitted hiding the decline?
If you can point out The Decline on Phil Jones’ graph—the one he’s just completed making when he writes that email—I’ll be the first to admit he didn’t really hide it and was just telling pork pies. Good luck!
Given that you’re a decline-hiding-denier, why do you even care whether Mann is blamed for a crime nobody committed? After all, you think the decline is clearly visible in the WMO presentation. It must be one of those Magic Eye things, because I’ve stared at it for hours and I can’t make it out.
Gnomish eructions are quite stinky.
Such an idiotic attempt at trying to misrepresent plain English.
GOTO 111
<snicker>
The only one who cares about your imaginary “crime” is you, and only hardcore idiots would try to maintain the ostensible belief that there is any blame attached to scientific work that has been examined and was vindicated well over a decade ago now.
Are you aware of how many times now I’ve asked you whether you care to try to name but one (1) scientific institution that has a problem with Mann? Anywhere in the world.
—
Ah well, persistent pretend stupidity in the face of its ineluctable failure is truly a sign of actual idiocy.
That you imagine you’re somehow perhaps fooling anyone is kinda cute, but quite pathetic, Brad.
Also, your cowardice is most evident, since you so obviously ignore any challenge regarding your lies.
For example, do you still maintain I claimed that the jurors scientifically vindicated Mann? :)
Heh heh heh
A dose of reality:
Press release, Feb 15, 2024
https://pennrecord.com/stories/654726322-cozen-o-connor-secures-victory-for-climate-change-scientist-dr-michael-mann-in-decade-long-defamation-case-jury-awards-over-1-million-in-punitive-damages
(My emphasis)
Again:
The trial team showed that the defendants either knew or recklessly disregarded multiple investigations clearing Dr. Mann of misconduct in the wake of the 2009 Climategate controversy involving stolen emails from a research unit in the United Kingdom.
Heh. Reality must suck for such as the stinky gnome.
Another poke:
https://mashable.com/article/climate-change-science-bet
This scientist keeps winning money from people who bet against climate change
“It’s like taking candy from a baby.”
By Mark Kaufman on October 19, 2018
Ah well.
Heh. Citations, of course.
The original bet: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/aug/19/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment
Well, duh. Can’t trust them to pay up, obviously, any more than I can trust Brad to try to respond when challenged by me.
<poke, poke>
Hey, gnomish one, your own precise language indicates you believe that ‘challenged’ is an archaism, no?
(Gotta love cowards’ cowardice)
Q: What’s the difference between a climate change denialist and a flat-earther?
A: Flat-earthers have been around longer.
Heh heh heh
Quoth the coward gnome, all puffed-up with braggadocio:
Heh heh heh.
I can see that, and so can everyone. Even the canman can. :)
(You’re half right about your wit, at least)
Brad @360:
I sort of understand. You’ve been doing this schtick for so long, it must be really difficult to admit it was all for nought.
We went through this earlier. The decline is spurious. ‘hide the decline’ means precisely this; exclude tree-ring data which gives demonstrably wrong temperature values. Demonstrably wrong because we have actual temperature measurements for the period in question: 1960 onwards.
Of course, now you will go back to the ‘Phil Jones can’t write good English’ schtick. Sad, really. You could have spent all this time so much better; learning French, or calculus.
Muller shows the spurious post-1960 decline in the talk you linked to way upthread. Didn’t you notice?
These are still wonderful climate-denier sour grapes. Not only do they lose the court case and look like political child molester enablers, but they’ve all this pointless displacement about Mann when the climate science has progressed past him.
Since this is still going and before you are very likely banned Brad Keyes priobly for being a tedious bore who doesn’t listen or heed warnings – & Canman too ( which reminds me of the little town and geological formation of Kanmantoo FWIW : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanmantoo,_South_Australia ) is there any chance you’ll actually answer the questions I asked back at #297? :
.1 Do you accept and admit the fact that Muller himserlf has admitted he was a “skeptic” but has since said “CALL me a converted skeptic” now?
.2 Do you think maybe its time you got over a few comments Muller said – before he learnt better – in a (probly?) two decades old talk posted by some rando youtube Science Denier named 1000frolly PhD and accepted that you got this very wrong in all sorts of ways?
.3. Here we are well over a hundred comments later, you’ve been shown to be wrong about pretty much everything, doesn’t that make you stop and reconsider your views at all? Does evidence have any impact on your thought processes at all?
.4 You know how many records have been broken lately climate-wise incl of course hottest year ever last year? Why is raising the alarm wrong when there’s good scientific reasons to do so? In light of that and what we’ve since learnt will you reconsider your views here and if not why not?
.5 As I asked back in #103 What would make you accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here?
PS. Literally victime blaming the victims of a known convicted pedophile and wanting him released despite the lack of sufficient evidence to warrant reconsidering his case? That’s just gross dude. Also why?
StevoR:
“Literally victime blaming”
Who’s doing that? Canman raises legitimate questions about whether the alleged victims WERE victims.
Believe all victims, but don’t necessarily believe all claimed victims is my philosophy—especially when the very same people previously claimed they weren’t victims.
I’d hardly say that’s a matter “of course.” What do you mean “ever”? Do you mean it was the hottest year in the very brief thermometric era? That wouldn’t surprise me. After all, the globe is warming.
Was it the worst year ever, by the way? Does warmth equal badness in some way yet to be explained?
Admitted he was a climate skeptic? Don’t you mean claimed he’d been a climate skeptic?
Yes, I do accept and admit that Muller has naughtily pretended to have been a climate skeptic at one point, a conceit that achieved the aim of free publicity for him, but the falsity of which he soon admitted when he said, “I was never a skeptic.”
And he never was. No climate skeptic would ever have said what Muller said in an interview with Grist:
He said this in 2008, before the Climategate emails caused him to catch ethics when it came to Hide the Decline.
Do you admit and accept that his own words prove he was never a climate skeptic? Or do you intend to assert with a straight face that a climate skeptic could have expressed the above quoted views to Grist? Because I can mock that all day, but i suspect PZ doesn’t need such nonsense on his blog.
What Muller said in the YouTube clip is absolutely true in an a priori way and is not subject to revision by subsequent “learning better,” because it goes straight to the heart of scientific ethics, which is why Muller has never retracted his criticisms of HTD. But it would be true even if he hadn’t said it. I’m just glad he did say it because it enrages and confuses believalists no end when a climate-convinced scientist repudiates the behaviour of Jones et amici.
Why on earth would a science denier upload Muller’s lecture, when his remarks constitute a lambent affirmation of the ethics all scientists are sworn to uphold? Science deniers hate Muller’s criticisms of HTD.
Merely waking up in the morning does the trick, I find. During REM sleep I can’t guarantee I accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here, but the rest of the time I generally tend to accept it. What about you? What are the sufficient conditions for your acceptance thereof? Don’t be shy about answering just because you’re not a scientist. I’m interested in your opinion all the same.
Heh. More bilious vomitus from the Underpants Gnome.
Which means there was never any decline to hide.
And, of course, the rate of increase of the warming is increasing, leading to a “hockey stick” when graphed.
As Mann showed back in the day, to be befuddlement of mathematically and scientifically-illiterate people such as you, Brad.
Your idiocy is quite evident, because you keep trying to repeat your oft-refuted bullshit.
GOTO 125
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
Heh heh heh. GOTO 32
Because such as you try to fill the information space with your stinky effusions, obviously.
Because you think he somehow proved some sort of nefarious intent by Mann, of course, so sometimes you praise him, other times you diss him.
And so forth.
You, of course, imagine you know what constitutes scientific merit better than every single scientific institution in the entire world, and what constitutes legal merit better than the justice system.
Pray, do tell: what scientific credentials do you bring to the table whereby you can (O so very transparently mendaciously) pretend you know better than anyone else?
—
Not just a lying liar and a cowardly coward, you, but a most ridiculous one.
Your corpus of infamy grows by the comment, you know.
Heh. Remember #97?
Quoth you:
Not only have I explained what went on multiple times, but I have challenged you to either sustain that claim or admit you were entirely misrepresenting my claim, whether or not intentionally.
(I mean, I know you’d do it intentionally if you could in a heartbeat, since lying and bullshit are second-nature to you, but I still think you just misapprehended it initially and of course your fragile ego can’t cope with admitting to your feeble intellectual status)
Rob G,
Spurious or not, it was sufficiently existent to require either concealing or admitting.
Exactly. It means hide the problem with your tree-ring-to-temperature mapping.
Which is a no-no, as you’d be aware if you were a scientist. There is no excuse for concealing the problems in your model. Phil Jones would never have done so if he were an honest scientist, and everyone CC’ed into his email would have advised him against doing so (or, if he refused be reasoned with, would have reported him to his superiors) if they were honest scientists.
I’m using the past subjunctive of counterfactuality, obviously.
I’m flattered that you think I could have “learned” either of those subjects, to the extent that I haven’t already, in the few minutes I’ve spent explaining to you the consequences of Jones’ inability to string a sentence together.
Sigh. It wasn’t in Jones’s WMO graph, was it? Or did you get confused and think Jones had prepared some sort of GIF that alternated between the honest and the dishonest versions?
He didn’t. He only showed the decline-hiding version.
“This is the data as any Berkeley scientist would have presented it,” is what Muller says when he shows the graph Jones SHOULD have presented to the WMO. Perhaps Muller should have made himself so clear that even random people not in attendance at his lecture could follow what he was doing via YouTube. Not to worry, I got his point and am happy to explain it, and any other aspect of the lecture that confused you.
Ah, well. PRATTs are all the gnome has. Nothing new.
Still.
Gotta love how Brad alternates between claiming Muller is a liar who contradicts himself and claiming Muller is authoritative about the claim he made over a decade ago which has been well and truly shown to be mistaken.
(I suppose the idiots over at the denialist sites lap that vomit up, clueless as they are)
…
Yeah, thought as much. Only phatic, repetitive squeakings remain. You are broken, Brad the Gnome.
So, Brad, care to try to articulate your intended purpose in continuing to come here and post the very same refuted claims ad nauseam? Obviously, I will mock and ridicule and expose your feeble flailings, and obviously I will outlast you.
I mean, all you’ve got is your inchoate and unsustainable (and counter-evidential) claim that Mann somehow cheated based on a claim Muller made a very long time ago. Muller, who you have right here on this thread claimed is a liar, and who contradicts himself, somehow is only credible in about the one claim he has specifically repudiated (see link above) as far as you are concerned.
Do you even get how grotesque it is to claim both that Muller is an exemplar of scientific integrity whilst simultaneously holding that he lied when he explicitly repudiated his own mistake and conceded that, having done the same sort of study for himself, the results matched and that the rate of increase was correct etc?
(A more perfect example of supposed doublethink would be harder to find)
—
Anyway, it’s quite obvious by now that you are either a masochist who likes to expose themself to ridicule and mockery, or that you truly are such a feeble intellect that you think you’re somehow cogently disputing the scientific community’s consensus or the recent legal judgement in Mann’s favour.
Me, I think it’s a bit of both; after all, there aren’t many people like me who both have the time to invest in hammering such a fool as you or the expertise to run rings around you in what you (doubtless fondly) imagine is your domain of expertise.
(Heh heh heh)
[and for whom it is quite the fun activity; but I mentioned that several times already]
“There once was a gnome, quite a sight,
With underpants worn not quite right.
On his head they did sit,
In a fashion quite fit,
Causing laughter from morning till night!”
John,
sigh. As Muller told the Huffington Post in 2011, “I was never a [climate] skeptic.”
Either he was lying then, or he was lying (by implication) when he said “call me a converted skeptic” to the New York Times in 2012. And no, you can’t square this circle by supposing that he only became a skeptic after his statement to HuffPo, because in the NYT piece he claims it happened “three years ago,” i.e. in 2009.
I’ve never said he was authoritative. I’ve repeatedly pointed out that he’s a little bit dodgy, a little bit werrr, a little bit weeey, he’ll nick anything he will. But even he has some standards. And Hiding the Decline is beyond the pale even for Muller.
That’s why mentioning his video in these parts is like throwing a smilodon amongst the pigeons.
Scientists don’t hide things.
That gnomic enough for you?
No, Brad Lad, not even slightly gnomic.
Tired, repetitive, facile, weak, yes.
GOTO 111
(“There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe.”)
<snicker>
I have rarely come across such a weak and meritless attempted metaphor.
(More like throwing a coprolite — just as shitty, just as fossilised)
—
Again:
“The trial team showed that the defendants either knew or recklessly disregarded multiple investigations clearing Dr. Mann of misconduct in the wake of the 2009 Climategate controversy involving stolen emails from a research unit in the United Kingdom.”
GOTO 29
—
So, Brad, once again: care to try to articulate your intended purpose in continuing to come here and post the very same refuted claims ad nauseam?
Got anything new to say, anything at all that has not been repeatedly refuted already?
Heh.
If only they’d shown that video in the courtroom, surely Dr. Mann would not have prevailed, right Brad?
So.
Are you aware of how many times now I’ve asked you whether you care to try to name but one (1) scientific institution that has a problem with Mann? Anywhere in the world.
(One more than the last time, obviously :)
So bored…
“Slippery little suckers!”
I remember once a troll – “Morales” was his hailing,
Always trying to be clever,
And invariably failing.
Once when mocked in verse,
He cried, “A sonnet in my name”!
Then pathetically tried (and botched),
To do the very same.
For while the original mocked behaviour,
Exactly as was said,
This fool invents some fantasy,
Of underpants on head.
Sad child has yet to learn,
That though I hit him in the feels,
He’ll not equal the same,
With concoctions lacking reals.
Silentbob, your obsession with me is stupid and pathetic.
So, Brad, where’s this “decline” you keep on accusing a mere handful of climate scientists of “hiding?” Has global warming gone into reverse?
Even if anyone “hid a decline” over ten years ago, it’s pretty obvious there hasn’t been any significant “decline” since then; which makes your obsessive harping on that one old fake-scandal all the more pathetic.
Global warming is happening, and it’s bad for all of us. The climate scientists have proven spot-on about that, and all you so-called “skeptics” have been proven dead wrong. Your obsessive escapist axe-grinding doesn’t change any of that. Grow the fuck up and move the fuck on.
@372. Brad Keyes : Why, what a lot of waffling words and nit-picking to basically say, no you won’t ever reconsider your erroneous opinions despite being proven wrong by the scientifically observed empirical evidence!
I mena the hottest we’ve recorded in our histpory and actually for many thousands of years -and part of a consistent rising trend.
Source : https://www.noaa.gov/news/2023-was-worlds-warmest-year-on-record-by-far
Plus see :
Source : https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-record
In addition to :
Source : https://wmo.int/media/news/wmo-confirms-2023-smashes-global-temperature-record
Alll a bit more relevant, recent and significant than one or two cherry-picked statements that one now long since converted scientist said decades ago posted on youtube by some rando klown huh?
@372. Brad Keyes :
A court found that the victims were believable. There’s no good evidence otherwise. I disagree strongly that there’s any “legitimate” reasons to doubt them here – just the usual tired, yes, victim-blaming and casting aspersions.
Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky#Trial
There’s far more than enough evidence and far too clear a pattern here proving Sandusky’s guilt. But then you don’t want to face that reality either now do you I wonder why and I find it disturbing.. Why this obsession of yours with supporting and arguing in favour of this particular pedophile convicted on multiple counts of child sex abuse? I don’t suppose you’ll surprise me with a good and actual answer here however.
“If only they’d shown that video in the courtroom, surely Dr. Mann would not have prevailed, right Brad?”
The Muller video? They did show it. The jury didn’t care. They’d already decided the defendants were liable during opening statements, when Michael Mann’s tobacco lawyer John B Williams (the same guy who got Joe Camel off on charges of advertising to minors) explained that Mark Steyn was a former Fox News host and collaborator of Tucker Carlson and Rush Limbaugh. DC juries, what can I say?
Actually, the case was probably decided on October 27, 2014, the day Defendant’s motion for a change of location was denied. God bless venue shopping, libel tourism, lawyer’s fees and the American way.
Raging Bee,
Serenity now. Serenity now.
Listen:
Nobody’s “accusing” Phil Jones of hiding the decline. He admitted it. In writing. To his work colleagues.
It wasn’t a decline in temperatures that he concealed, it was a decline in the response to temperatures of MXD (maximum latewood density). Temperatures went up, but the dendro proxy signal went down. Because the dendro proxies were crap—a fact it was not convenient for Jones to admit.
@372. Brad Keyes : “Science deniers hate Muller’s criticisms of HTD.”
You know you refute that by being the person posting and arguing it right? The HTD was a nothing burger, its been debunked, there’s no decline in temperatures being hidden (see #387 and all the relevant graphs you’re going to ignore..) and HTD was never anything more than a stupid semantic game of malevolent misconstrual for PR purposes.
Everyone but you accepted that reality a long time ago. You know if its allthe scientists versus you maybe its time you accepted it was you? But you really think you know better -why? Because something Muller said otherwise – in a talk ages ago posted on a youtube clip by “1000frolly PhD” – you believ it, that settles it huh? Gospel?
Except you’ve already proven that’s false. LOL!
This thread could benefit from more of silentbob’s poetry.
There was a Denier named Keyes
Who from Climate reality flees
The canman cannot
Mann won so he’s hot
And Brad’s dribble on the blogs he still pees
(Okay, that’s a limerick but still.. )
PS. You really are some kinda masochist here aren’t ya?
Brad @374:
Right. Hide the problem which had been discussed in the literature for years. Hiding in plain sight! Those devious climatologists.
The decline (divergence between tree-ring data and temperature) is in Figure 1 in this article;
https://skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-intermediate.htm
from a 1998 paper by Keith Briffa. ‘Climategate’ was nearly 12 years later. And sad little people like Brad are still croaking.
Rob, nice try:
I don’t really blame you for peddling these excuses, since the people you mistake for scientists regularly resort to them. But as any real scientist will tell you, you’re not allowed to draw a half-true graph just because the other half of the truth is revealed in some article somewhere.
Real scientists have zero tolerance for such shenanigans.
Jonathan Jones, Professor of Physics at Oxford University, is a real scientist and therefore believes in relation to Hide the Decline that:
Even some climate scientists get it. Paul Dennis, a climate scientist at Phil Jones’ own university, wrote about the WMO graph that:
I hate to break it to you but the rules of science don’t change over time, Rob. Want to know what some other climate scientists think of Climategate?
Dr Eduardo Zorita writes:
Professor Hans Von Storch:
But I’m sure you know better than climate scientists, right, Rob?
ROFL
Rob,
I’m not sure how many scientists it would take to convince you that you can’t do that in science, but here’s a simple experiment for you:
Ask PZ to state publicly that he’s fine with Hide the Decline and he’d do the same thing in biology, and if anyone complained that his graph was concealing a massive flaw in his model he’d just tell them they should have read some article somewhere, then they wouldn’t have been fooled
Then keep your ears peeled for that rare species of cricket which exclusively lives inside tumbleweeds.
Which climate scientists? The tiny minority who say things you approve of (or, like Muller, only occasionally say things you approve of)? But you know better than the vast majority of climate scientists, right Brad?
Can’t do what in science Brad? You didn’t specify. I can’t if your acting request for PZ has any relation to what it’s referring to.
What decline? Not the global temperature average certainly. We’ve lots of data and melting icebergs and glaciers and…
I see hand-wringing over tree ring data. No acknowledgement about how tree ring data can be faulty though. Layers of implications.
That J Jones quote did not specify which decline either or explain why. Maybe because they’d look silly acting outraged about problem tree ring data? Unless the quote is misused somehow that’s not impressive.
As far as I’m concerned the purpose of citing an expert is because they have an explanation and not just an assertion.
Is it like points in games Brad? You have an expert that says different but not why and you get +1?
Brony: It’s a game he lost a long time ago, but he’s still trying to brag about that one time he was able to pretend he was kinda sorta right about something.
Sort of like Charlie Brown standing on the pitcher’s mound and reliving the memory of that time he threw a strike…
@Raging Bee
I wonder what the hang up is? I’m not even sure when they were right about something. Global warming data isn’t my thing and I’m still reading but if tree rings got complicated in later decades it happened.
Language manipulation and negative feelings about the word “hide” while equivocating over what objective “decline” in text is what I see. What rules of science?
StevoR @388, your source, Wikipedia, is not my thing, but there are people trying to get new information about the case in. They apparently have self appointed gatekeepers (like William Connolley used to do on climate). When you have a contested issue, one side can take over an entry. There’s mountains of information on all aspects of the case that are linked here:
https://www.framingpaterno.com/
Now that Frank Parlato has taken an interest in the case, about every third or forth post he’s done for the last month has been on it and he’s far from done:
https://frankreport.com/
Find something like this on the other side:
So, what’s my brekky reading today?
Aawww… the caperings are exactly the same as always. Nothing new.
That was actual sarcasm, Brad. A rhetorical question, thus functionally a statement.
Tricky for you, I know… some of us don’t claim ‘sarcasm’ to try to backpedal from our lies. :)
(Donald Trump does, of course, as do you)
<snicker>
That obsessive fool? Heh.
Look at his link; I mocked him by calling something a sonnet and he bought it, then imagined my limerick was also an attempted sonnet. But hey, his doggerel ostensibly impressed you, no surprise there.
(Logically, either you’re stupidly ignorant of the form, or you’re stupidly pretending to be)
—
So, Brad, once again: care to try to articulate your intended purpose in continuing to come here and post the very same refuted claims ad nauseam?
I reckon it’s stupid obstinacy and wishful thinking that persistently pestering will eventually lead people to ignore you, so you can salve your bruised ego by imagining you “won”. Pretty routine specimens, those.
(Never ever works)
Rob didn’t bother, but I shall:
See, O gnomish one, Rob is actually a scientist (well, retired, but still), and he’s probably forgotten more about science that you, who lacks any knowledge or credentials at it, have or shall ever learn.
(Also, you obviously have no idea of how an actual experiment is designed)
Ah, canman found time to kick the can:
GOTO 59
… Ah, who am I kidding? That will never happen.
Here:
Gotta love how the cantman imagines adducing an 8-year old video from the eventual loser somehow proves something. But, to be fair, the video I adduced was from a winner instead of a loser and actually topical, so I failed to literally match his criteria.
Ah well, dated references from proven losers, that’s evidently all such as the mancan have.
You know, it’s so much better to be on the side of science and of justice and up-to-date than to be otherwise. Well, less stressful, surely, though perhaps not so special as being a flat-earther and a AGW-denier and a child-molester supporter. And boy oh boy, are you special in that way, man of the can.
They’re still defending convicted child molesters in a post involving the political use of child molestation. Multiple victims, in a nation with an established track record of not caring about sex abuse, and hiding abuse among sports authorities (among other similar authorities). I don’t believe it. Again, the thing to do is go to people who care about these things professionally, not a post where you can politically interfere.
At the very least canman cares about hypothetical innocent child molesters more than current political use of child molestation victims.
Rob:
Er, no. What are you going on about? Perhaps you can tell us all what exactly I disagree with “the vast majority of climate scientists” about. I wasn’t aware that “the vast majority of climate scientists” was wrong about anything in particular.
Brony:
What Phil Jones did. Hide the decline. I thought that was self-explanatory.
Hide the decline.
It’s relevant to Phil Jones hiding the decline.
The decline in MXD during a period when temperatures are doing the opposite (increasing; going up; rising; ascending an incline; tracking a positive gradient w.r.t. time; etc. etc.).
Nothing gets past you, does it? THAT’S RIGHT. It’s not a decline in temperature that was hidden. I feel I’ve been explaining this for 15 years. Maybe it’ll sink in now.
I feel like whatever I say, no matter how slowly and monosyllabically I say it, you’ll think I’m saying the polar opposite. Listen, Brony. Listen carefully. The only person failing to acknowledge that tree ring data can be faulty is the person who CONCEALED this fact from his readers. Can you remember who that person was? I’ll give you a hint. He bragged about hiding it, in an email. His name rhymes with Jill Phones. No? Any ideas yet?
I’m the first to admit scientists do tend to feel negatively about colleagues who “hide” things. Maybe they should just accept the existence of corruption and get over it. Who knows.
ROFL… OK, well that ought to be turned into a T-shirt and worn by all climate believalists to signify tribal membership. I’ve suggested this before, actually. I might start a GoFundMe and just donate the T-shirts to you folk whether you ask for them or not.
Thing is, most people on your team know better than to blurt it out like that. What rules of science indeed! Start here and once you’ve grasped these ones, we can start talking about the deeper rules.
Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Every single time the repeated claim is refuted, pull those stained underpants over the eyes.
Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Every single time the repeated claim is refuted, pull those stained underpants over the eyes.
Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Every single time the repeated claim is refuted, pull those stained underpants over the eyes.
Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Every single time the repeated claim is refuted, pull those stained underpants over the eyes.
Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Not much of a repertoire, gnome.
Brad, what kind of decline? I’m serious. MXD? Which one is that? I see a specific tree ring data set mentioned. That’s it. Nothing that connected that to anything else worth this intensity.
What concealment?
What corruption?
You can turn your rhetorical science rule reference into your own shirt.
Also you are typing Brad, not “saying”. Maybe this works better in person when you try to avoid the kinds of tree ring data and concrete references to wrongdoing.
I’m not starting anywhere Brad. You can bring up the rule in question and describe a problem. You do your political work. I’ll criticize it. If you are right people will see it. It’s just not really worth it to you otherwise I guess.
Ah well. Here is a rather lengthy extract of a salient portion of the exceedingly clear and precise explanation by Brian Dunning that Brad desperately refuses to understand, as it would shoot down his one and only basis for his perverse and stupid (and very dated!) claims.
Source: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4601 as adduced by Jim Balter @353
— begin extract —
Here’s what happened. Cutting straight to the chase, 99% of Climategate focused on one single email. It had been sent 10 years earlier, in November 1999, by Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, to five colleagues. It is six sentences long, but this one sentence is the culprit:
This has been interpreted as “I used a trick to hide declining temperatures.” If true, it would indeed be damning, not just to Phil Jones, but to climate science as a whole, given the who’s-who of climatology who were the email’s recipients. But is that a truthful analysis of the email? Does it really prove that climatologists knew that the Earth is cooling, and so invented tricks to deceptively portray the data to advance their warming agenda?
To find out, let’s parse out this sentence that rocked the world. The email was discussing the author’s progress creating a temperature graph intended for the cover of a report made for the World Meteorological Organization. The graph covered the past 1000 years, overlaying three data sets showing the fluctuating global temperature anomaly within a range of about 1 degree. And, of course, it jumps up sharply in the latest 50 years, about 3/10 of a degree.
Although we have many lines of evidence for historical temperatures which all track well with one another, most aren’t complete. Most are available over a given time range. For example, an ice core tells us about the time period for which that ice has existed. Cave formation data covers the time period for which that cave was wet. Tree rings go back as far as the trees were alive. Instrumental data goes back as far as thermometers have been reliable. There is plenty of overlap, which allows us to say that these lines track one another, but in order to build a complete timeline, we rely on multiple data sets.
“Mike’s Nature trick” refers to what climatologist Michael Mann did for a 1998 article in the journal Nature. In the article, Mann and his co-authors displayed a reconstructed historical data set, known as MBH98. This temperature data extended only up until 1980. Before the article was published, Nature’s peer reviewers suggested also displaying the modern instrumental temperature record, which extended all the way until the present, for context. This was done. The two curves were shown on the same graph, each clearly labeled, and the data for both curves was already public domain. This, and this alone, constituted the entirety of “Mike’s Nature trick.”
So by employing Mike’s Nature trick in his graph for the World Meteorological Organization, Phil Jones was simply adding the instrumental data. That’s all.
This brings us to “hide the decline”. What was Phil talking about here? Turns out there was indeed a problem with one of the data sets he wanted to include, and it’s called the divergence problem.
To understand the divergence problem, we first have to make a few basic points about dendroclimatology — the science of using tree rings to indicate historical temperatures. Dendroclimatology is one of the many lines of evidence for determining the planet’s climate history prior to the age of thermometers; others being glacial ice, corals, cave formations, sea levels, glacial extent, and others. Generally a tree ring represents one year, and when we look at the tree rings of a given year from all over the planet, we can see how climate varied across different regions. Each tree ring gives us two primary pieces of data: its width and its density. Generally, a wider ring usually means a wetter growing season. A longer, warmer summer results in a denser late seasonal growth period, manifested as the dark part of the ring. So the density of the ring tells us about temperature and cloud cover. Historically, all of these lines of evidence have tracked one another very well. Since the dawn of reliable direct measurements with thermometers in the 1800s, both tree ring density and tree ring width have tracked extremely well with temperatures all over the world.
And this leads us to the divergence problem. In the 1990s, it was noticed that after 1960, the relationship between temperature and tree rings started separating. While temperatures rose, tree rings continued to indicate cooler temperatures, in defiance of all other measurements. We don’t see this divergence in any other lines of evidence; tree rings are the only climate indicator that has done this, and only in the northern hemisphere. Why is it happening? Well, that’s why we call it the divergence problem. We don’t know. Likely candidates include fractionally diminished sunlight caused by sulfate aerosol pollutants, warming-induced drought, increased ultraviolet radiation caused by ozone depletion, even loss of permafrost. But the bottom line is that in the past few decades — and only in the past few decades — tree rings in the northern hemisphere have indicated cooler temperatures than what the thermometers have shown, so we know them to be wrong. If you want to combine all the lines of evidence to build the best possible picture of climate history, you have to stop using dendroclimatology right around 1960 for temperature, or else your graph will be wrong and misleading.
This is what Phil Jones was referring to when he wrote “from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” He was talking about Keith Briffa’s tree ring data, known to be inaccurate since 1961. Jones elected to display the correct instrumental temperature data instead. And if you look at some global warming temperature graphs that overlay multiple lines of evidence, you’ll see that the tree ring temp series stops around 1960, just as the modern instrumental series stops before 1860 or so. To make a useful graph, we show the data that we have.
Deniers often claim that we only display tree ring data until 1960 because we know it proves temperatures are actually declining since then. That’s because they’re unaware of the divergence problem, or they think it’s something we made up as an excuse for the Climategate revelations. This claim can be easily disproven by picking up the literature. The first two major papers about the divergence problem were both published in 1995, four years before Phil Jones wrote the infamous email, and fourteen years before the alleged scandal. Proof that dendroclimatology data became unreliable after 1960 was fully public and well known to everyone in the field, and had been for years.
Claims that “hide the decline” meant “hide the fact that global temperatures have been declining” are also unraveled by the timeline. Phil’s email was 1999, and 1998 had been the hottest year on record, peaking a global rise throughout the 1990s that nobody disputed, as it was all instrumental data. There had been no decline of global temperatures to hide.
If you do any search for this online, you’re quickly going to see that most of the climate change denialist writing contracts Jones’ email into the following: “Mike’s trick to hide the decline.” As is obvious by now, Michael Mann’s multiple data sets on one graph has nothing at all to do with the tree ring divergence problem. That’s why neither Phil Jones nor anyone else who knew what they were talking about ever used the phrase “Mike’s trick to hide the decline”; there was no such thing. The phrase had to be manufactured by deniers by cherrypicking words out of unrelated parts of Phil’s email.
— end extract —
Brad, you poor twit. 15 years based on a three-letter phrase in an email. That is beyond pathetic.
Which readers? The recipients of his email knew about the tree ring problem. In which articles or papers for a wider audience did Jones actually ‘hide the decline’?
Duh. ‘three-word phrase’.
Regarding the 2000 WMO report;
https://web.archive.org/web/20101029162546/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/volume1.html#1-1-4
So again, what exactly was being ‘hidden’?
Brad: Reading your latest comment after reading the refutations of said comment (esp. #418 and #421) is really hilarious, in a pathetic sort of way. Clearly NOTHING AT ALL was ever “hidden” from anyone.
I guess you’re following the first rule of con-artists: Never stop talking.
Now that Frank Parlato has taken an interest in the case, about every third or forth post he’s done for the last month has been on it and he’s far from done…
Yeah, sure, just like the birthers are far from done with their campaign to prove Obama was a Kenyan sleeper-agent…
Ragomg Bee, did the birthers have a list of accomplished people like this?
https://frankreport.com/2024/01/18/renowned-academics-and-investigators-challenge-jerry-sanduskys-conviction/
Did the birthers have any authors like Mark Pendergrast or Malcolm Gladwell? Did they have a federal report from an investigation like John Snedden’s check into Graham Spanier’s top secret security clearance?
Never heard of either of those, except Gladwell; and what’s so “accomplished” about him?
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
I’m not Dr. Evil, but I’m pretty sure that “Yo, I’m hiding this thing!” is not what someone says when he’s trying to hide it. He’d probably say something more like “As we can see here, the thing doesn’t seem to exist.”
What the can’tman can’t get is that the convicted child abuser was a convicted child abuser at the time Dr. Mann was compared to him. Whether or not the trial was properly conducted, therefore, in no way mitigates the nastiness of the comparison.
And, of course, Dr. Mann has been vindicated both scientifically and legally.
—
Entirely off-topic, then:
“Cleland [Senior Judge John Cleland] left no doubt that he believes Sandusky is the most dangerous type of pedophile, the kind skilled in manipulation of the young and trusting while presentijng a benevolent, respectable face to the community.”
(https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2012/10/jerry_sandusky_sentence_of_30.html)
Raging Bee @425, Gladwell included his chapter on John Ziegler’s work in his book, Talking to Strangers. Carol Tavris wrote a review focused on this chapter for the Wall Street Journal:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/talking-to-strangers-review-fool-me-once-shame-on-me-11568387290
Gladwell was in touch with Ziegler for probably most of a year before his book came out. It was a very inconvenient thing for him to include this toxic case. Why did he go to all this trouble? I suspect he wanted to ease his conscience and right past wrongs. About seven years earlier, he wrote a piece for the New Yorker on pedophiles that featured Jerry Sandusky:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/24/in-plain-view
What the can’tman can’t get is that the convicted child abuser was a convicted child abuser at the time Dr. Mann was compared to him. Whether or not the trial was properly conducted, therefore, in no way mitigates the nastiness of the comparison made at the time.
And, of course, Dr. Mann has been vindicated both scientifically and legally.
—
So, let’s take a look at the article which canman adduced:
Huh.
So, the canman can’t figure out in what possible way that comparison of Dr. Mann to this convicted pedophile was in any way defamatory or even problematic.
JohnM @427, I get perfectly well that this was the perception of Sandusky at the time and still is for most people. It was certainly my perception at the time. I of course changed my perception after researching the case more thoroughly after reading the Skeptic.com piece. It was certainly Michael Mann’s perception at the time and got him mad enough to file his lawsuit. He certainly is claiming that that’s his perception now, but I do have some doubts. He had lots of praise for Graham Spanier in his first book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, written well before the Sandusky scandal. In his subsequent popular books, he included Spanier in his acknowledgements and was mercilessly lambasted for it by Mark Steyn. Mann’s claim at trial is that he paid no attention to who was in his acknowledgement lists. Mann’s lawyer doesn’t have that excuse. Steyn filed a legal brief noting these acknowledgements before Mann’s latest book came out (Our Fragile Moment). Anyway, here’s my conspiracy speculation about it:
https://cliscep.com/2024/02/05/michael-mann-and-graham-spanier/
Here’s an earlier post I did:
https://canmancannedfacts.blogspot.com/2019/04/a-mannly-thing-that-mann-could-do.html
JohnM @429, The Freeh Report is highly disputed. Louie Freeh was paid around $8 million by Penn State’s Board of Trustees. Might the BOT have their own agenda? They fired Joe Paterno a couple of days after that incendiary grand jury presentment was leaked (a felony BTW). The false account of Mike McQueary witnessing sodomy caused the moral panic and national outrage. There are also claims that Freeh was working in collusion with the prosecutors. To me, the smoking gun is on page 12, paragraph 2. Freeh did NOT interview McQueary at the request of the prosecutors!
John Ziegler and Ralph Cipriano were leaked all the Freeh documents along with the settlement documents. There is a draft of the Free Report with “NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!” scribbled on the cover.
cantman:
So, regardless of whether the convicted pedophile (which he indisputably is) was innocent or not, it was a rather nasty and therefore defamatory comparison, no? In no way merited, just because they misunderstood his science, and in no way justified. Just, you know, defamatory. Which is what the jury found, as it turns out.
Which is, of course, entirely irrelevant to whether or not Dr. Mann was defamed.
Anyone can be a conspiracy theorist; it’s hardly an achievement, can’tman.
—
Tell ya what: it is pretty evident to me that your entire schtick about the purported innocence of Sandusky (you know, the convicted pedophile) is only there because in your wishful fantasy, if Sandusky was somehow innocent then comparing Dr. Mann (the celebrated scientist) to him was not really defamatory.
You should appreciate my speculation; after all, it clears you of being a genuine apologist for child rapists, and merely paints you as an opportunistic apologist for one particular convicted child rapist.
—
And remember, according to the underpants gnome (your hero!), only devout believalists somehow would have
So, presumably, you also don’t deny any of that.
Logically (heh) it follows that the “hockey stick” — you know, scientifically vindicated — is not and was not to be .
—
PS thanks for the chuckles.
Is it? I only heard of it from you adducing it.
Why you would bother to bring in a “highly disputed” report in support of your belief that a convicted kiddy-diddler is innocent is left to speculation.
—
Point being, you can’t possibly deny that your gnomish friend (“Brad”) has very explicitly conceded that he is a devout believalist according to his (and presumably your) standards. I’ve quite literally quoted him making that claim.
So, again: what’s your beef with Dr. Mann’s vindication, both legally and scientifically?
(You, I predict, will keep trying to evade that, just as Stinkynose the gnome has been doing; prescient, I)
Louie Freeh was paid around $8 million by Penn State’s Board of Trustees. Might the BOT have their own agenda?
Penn State could simply have fired Sandusky without having to pay anyone half that much money. That would have served their own self-interest. What “agenda” do you think they’d have beyond that?
Anyway, here’s my conspiracy speculation about it…
None of that matters. What matters is what Sandusky’s defenders can bring to a court. And so far I’m seeing nothing. Case still closed.
JohnM @432,
Not sure is “schtick” is the appropriate characterization of my interest in the Sandusky case, but it is related to the Mann v Steyn case. I started arguing about Mann v Steyn from the very beginning in blog comments. I saw (and still do) it as a threat to the 1st amendment along with the ACLU, the Washington Post and a bunch of other news organizations filing amicus briefs. Interesting that no organizations, scientific or otherwise, filed any for Mann. One of the reasons I took an interest in the new Sandusky information is that I hate seeing my side get details wrong. The new information is also extremely interesting, poignant and even entertaining at times. I like to call it the best mini-series on the internet.
And as far as shtick’s go, from the late great Max Anacker:
The Shtick
(a saga in seven verses)
A young climate guru named Mick
Developed a neat hockey shtick
Using bristlecone pine
And hiding decline
In a really bizzare “Nature trick”
The beauty about his new chart
Was the warning it meant to impart
That it really had not
Ever been quite so hot
(It was truly a real work of art)
“This is great!” said the I-P-C-C
And then stuck it on page one with glee
Without verification
In their new publication
For policymakers to see
But soon two intrepid Canucks
Started digging into Mickey’s books
They found errors galore
Phony math and what’s more
A conclusion that basically sucks
While poor Mick was unhappy, indeed
Other experts were now all agreed
The conclusion’s baloney
The science is phony
And statistically not up to speed
Mickey’s shtick is now long dead and gone
But its memory still lingers on
With some doomsday believers
And green eager beavers
Who still haven’t really caught on
As a scientist Mick’s defamation
Has caused him immense consternation
So to salvage his name
And win back his fame
He’s now trying it with litigation.
Raging Bee @434,
Sandusky was not a Penn State employee, even at the time of the McQueary incident. The reason the case made news is because of the leaked grand jury presentment. The account of Mcqueary witnessing sodomy, which he complains in an email to a prosecutor that he didn’t, is what caused a moral panic and national outrage. Joe Paterno’s son (a lawyer) Scott stood in front of the Paterno house and declared Sandusky guilty and led a prayer for the “victims” all based on the incorrect grand jury presentment. The whole case is a mixture of political vendetta (Governor Tom Corbett against Graham Spanier), moral panic, a witch trial, an ambulance chasing frenzy and lingering mass hysteria.
Heh heh heh.
I was trying to be generous, but you’re right.
Attempted schtick, to be fair.
You mean the climate sceptic side, obviously. The losers’ corner.
Gotta love the greengrocers’ apostrophes, there, O poseur.
<snicker>
Such originality!
Only bizarre to outright idiots such as you, who are doing their damnedest to ignore reality.
What, salvage it from being respected by science, lauded by so many organisations, and winning at court?
Here, let me see you ignore this yet again, it never gets old: care to try to name but one (1) scientific institution that has a problem with Mann? Anywhere in the world.
Oh yeah: GOTO 36
—
Remember, according to the underpants gnome (your hero!), only devout believalists somehow would have “disputed, questioned, expressed doubt about, repudiated, gainsaid, dissented from, disagreed with, challenged, contested, opposed, negated, controverted, confuted, rejected, dismissed, demurred against, contradicted, objected to, taken issue with, disbelieved or (more archaically) misdoubted the scientific idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a significant reason why the Earth is warmer than it otherwise would be.”
So, quite evidently, you don’t deny any of that, since I’ve already challenged you and you’ve been conspicuously silent. As has the Underpants Gnome, of course.
—
Hey, canman, are you still super-impressed by the gnome’s stupid misunderstanding of my claim about the jurors vindicating Dr. Mann in the legal sense, where he imagined that meant it meant his scientific vindication was by
You are, of course, still entirely perplexed by Dr. Mann’s large list of accolades.
(Such a mystery!)
—
Nothing ever new, is there?
Yes, and Dr. Mann is somehow a scientific pariah, in your fantasy world.
(His name sure needs salvaging, eh?)
heh heh heh — just had a look about this purported appeal that was mooted last week:
Gotta love the begging for $$$ from the saps who support him for the purported “unconstitutional verdict against Mark”.
Donald Trump is sapping his saps just the same way; idiotic believers will idiotically believe, of course.
(Maybe you should give him some of your money, cantman. After all, you sure are a True Believer, reality be damned)
I notice neither you (cantman) or the gnome (“Brad”) can dispute that
(a) Dr. Mann won his million-dollar case; and
(b) Dr. Mann is famous and successful and the recipient of many awards, including the 2023 Humanist of the Year award.
Ah well. Reality bites.
Is it just me – or is the comic sans thing such a dated joke that one can immediately be dismissed as an idiot for STILL using it? At least it lacks the gumbys. But dude. Seriously. Get past 2009.
Hey, canman. I would just love a gift certificate for .
I mean, it would help him get some money for his appeal, right? Just what you want.
If not me, someone else, maybe?
Still, I doubt you shall; after all, it kinda takes the courage of one’s convictions to put one’s money where one’s mouth is, right?
(Apostrophes, I can do them!)
Brad @360:
Silentbob@441:
<snicker>
FWIW
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2024/02/19/martyn-iles-clarifies-a-few-things/
Dude.
Time has marched on, my man.
Silentbob, your obsession with me is obvious and very stupid.
Also, heh heh heh. cf. #441.
BTW, the specific term here in Pharyngula is “gumby quotes”, and has been since their inception.
(I suppose my allusion to it @444 was too gnomic ;)
Aaw. They never last. Still, bored now, and the 500 approacheth. (heh)
So.
Ignoramuses are ignorant. Duh.
Back in the day, when I worked for the government (eventually contracted to EDS because of ideology (our equivalent of the Republicans in the USA)), we used video cassettes as digital storage media with ATL (automated library systems) for our mainframe shops. Jargon, you know.
We (operators and programmers) filched old ones and used them to record TV shows at home.
See, the very same medium can be used both for analogue and for digital recordings.
cf. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4654727B1/en
(Such humiliation!)
[still nothing?]
I have heard people mix up DVRs with VCRs, but I have never ever known anyone to mistake a cassette for a disc. Not even the most clueless.
(So, I call bullshit on that claim)
The whole case is a mixture of political vendetta (Governor Tom Corbett against Graham Spanier), moral panic, a witch trial, an ambulance chasing frenzy and lingering mass hysteria.
So why is none of this showing up in an actual court proceeding?
Case still closed.
Raging Bee @450, The vendetta by Governor Corbett against Graham Spanier is described on pages 29-30 of john Snedden’s report:
https://frankreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/341764461-Spanier-High-Level-Clearance-FBI-Report-Redacted.pdf
Sandusky’s appeals were all before Pennsylvania judges that have to face reelection and are almost certainly weary of being associated with this toxic case. In Sandusky’s most recent appeal, prominent psychologist and attorney, Chris Barden, had his 136 page report rejected. He’s profiled in the 2cnd link @14.
Gross. Canman is still hand-wringing about convicted child molesters in a post where climate-deniers use molested children as political tools. They definitely don’t care about even the child molester since they are trying to keep on pushing it here instead of applying effort where it’s appropriate.
I’ll keep pointing out how gross it is and how canman is avoiding what they could do if they really cared.
I’m no big fan of elected judges, but I find it VERY hard to believe they would all be afraid of rehearing a case that’s as full of holes as you seem to think this one is. Especially at the appellate level; and especially where the defendant was part of an institution as famous and popular as Penn State. Also, it really seems you’re overstating the “hysteria” over child sexual abuse that allegedly makes this case too scary and “toxic” to rehear. So…case still closed.
Seriously, there have been pretty solid-looking cases of child sexual abuse that fell apart in court even during a time when popular hysteria over such crimes was much greater than it is now, or when Sandusky was convicted. So no, the “everyone’s afraid to touch this case” defense doesn’t really hold here.
Raging Bee, you won’t find any other similar case where a name has been so publicized and vilified. The whole world believes McQueary saw Sandusky sodomizing the kid in the shower and that he got convicted of that — both false! That’s one of only 3 out of 54 charges that Sandusky was acquitted on. All the other charges collapse under scrutiny. The trial was rushed during a moral panic. The case is clearly full of overzealous prosecutors, quack therapists and ambulance chasing lawyers!
About Michael Mann getting all these these awards from prestigious scientific organizations. Maybe this reflects more on the state of science organizations than on Michael Mann. Mann was elected into the NAS. They wouldn’t take Carl Sagan, because they thought he was too much of a public celebrity. Is Mann a step up from that? He’s a ridiculous self promoter who spends half his time on Twitter (X) making left wing political tweets and trashing colleagues who have any disagreement with him.
They don’t give a shit at all. I wonder how many times they use their need to cast doubt on molestation victims when other climate deniers use them as political tools? That’s some big insecurity about molestation accusations and a single climate researcher.
I can’t tell if they care about the substance of their climate views, or molestation victims, or hypothetical accusations victims less. Canman would just go to people professionally working on their issue.
Heh — morning reading still amuses.
Other than an obscure musician called Michael Jackson, who hardly made the news in two such cases, and was twice acquitted. No publicisation or vilification, there, nosiree!
Heh heh heh. There, there.
Of course all of science all over the world is mistaken, but you know better, just as you know better than a court of law. It is quite evident.
Meanwhile, in the real world: https://www.wgbh.org/tv-shows/newshour/clip/attacks-on-science-1707520339
Raging Bee, you won’t find any other similar case where a name has been so publicized and vilified.
And why was that name so publicized? Because he was well-established and popular — which should have been a pretty good counterbalance to any rush of hysteria.
(Also, thanks, John, for remembering MJ — he certainly didn’t have much trouble getting acquitted, even though the case against him was a lot more solid and credible than cantman thinks the case against Sandusky was.)
All the other charges collapse under scrutiny. The trial was rushed during a moral panic.
In that case, even the most squeamish elected judge should have PLENTY of good excises to allow at least some sort of rehearing or appeal. There may be a lot of hysteria about child sexual abuse, but there’s also a lot of public skepticism (much of it manufactured) toward sex-crime charges in general — as cantman’s relentless citation of victim-doubting skeptics shows.
John,
[followed by two facts]
My apologies. I know you want nothing more than for us to dispute reality so that you can finally win an argument, but that’s not how skeptics roll. We save our denials for stuff that’s bullshit.
It’s telling that you consider this a BAD thing.
Rob G @ 5.50pm
Er, the WMO report, Rob. Do you know literally nothing about the Climategate scandal?
Let’s see if you can figure this one out for yourself. It’s been 15 years, so I’ll give you another, shall we say, 32 minutes……
Rob G @ 6.21pm
The what report now? But you assured me it was just a private email to colleagues. You’re telling me he actually hid the decline from the World Meteorological Organization?
I don’t want to alarm you, but you may just be a freakin’ genius, Rob. Calmly proceed to your nearest government testing centre.
Ah, Brad is here.
Well, then.
The reality:
(a) Dr. Mann won his million-dollar case; and
(b) Dr. Mann is famous and successful and the recipient of many awards, including the 2023 Humanist of the Year award.
The mutually-acknowledged facts. Excellent!
You do, do you? Bullshit.
Care to try to prove it? Go on.
What is it that you deny, and on what basis do you claim it’s bullshit?
Bullshitting is not a bad thing, gnome. It’s just fucking stupid.
—
Again:
So, Brad, care to try to articulate your intended purpose in continuing to come here and post the very same refuted claims ad nauseam? Obviously, I will mock and ridicule and expose your feeble flailings, and obviously I will outlast you.
It’s exceedingly obvious just how often and how inevitably you avoid anything direct.
“Slippery little sucker!”
What a fucking sad and stupid performance, gnome. So formulaic!
In the immediately preceding comment:
Underpants on your eyes is a metaphor, but it could not be possibly more true.
That, Mr Idiot Gnome Brad, is to what Rob referred.
You can pretend all you want that you don’t get it, as if being an utter ignoramus that can’t actually read is better than conceding that you can’t justify your dismissal of the reality.
But every single reader can see what you are doing.
They can scroll back as required and see your feeble flailings for what they are.
Only the remarkably stupid people such as those in that stupid denialist site you find comfortable could possibly be impressed by your empty bluster and pompous stupidity.
Rob, the actual scientist, is so far above you that you trying to somehow patronise him looks just like what it is. The caperings of a gnome with streaky underpants on their head.
Bah.
—
You got nothing.
Again:
So, Brad, care to try to articulate your intended purpose in continuing to come here and post the very same refuted claims ad nauseam? Obviously, I will mock and ridicule and expose your feeble flailings, and obviously I will outlast you.
At least the canman was honest @50.
You, Brad, don’t have an ounce of honesty in you. Not the tiniest sliver.
So, the mutually-acknowledged reality:
(a) Dr. Mann won his million-dollar case; and
(b) Dr. Mann is famous and successful and the recipient of many awards.
Yet, both you and the canman are puzzled and bemused by that reality.
At least the canman was honest enough to admit he thinks it’s all a conspiracy by the justice system and by scientific organisations.
For example, you’ve now also indirectly admitted you are a devout believalist, whether or not you realise it.
Once I’d have thought you obviously did, but as time passes and I get to know your behavioural repertoire better, I’m beginning to think that you probably are far closer to the dolt you pretend to be than not.
That’s suggestive, and has plausible explanatory power regarding your sad efforts here.
Anyway.
You, Brad me Lad, obviously have to be pushed and prodded (long stick, but) to acknowledge any such facts, though you are obviously practiced and gifted at persistently and conspicuously ignoring any difficult concessions. But it’s doable, and the more you (heh) stare into the Abyss, the more it will happen.
Remember, I shall do it for as long as it takes. And I feel virtuous thereby.
Only issue is when will PZ get bored, since you haven’t brought anything new to the table for ages, now.
(This is 465, the horizon is at 499)
In the news: Space debris: ‘Grandfather satellite’ ERS-2 due to fall to Earth
Brad @461:
You actually think Jones was a co-author of that? Maybe I missed something (it’s possible!), but as far as I can see, they just used his (and two other groups’) data for their graph (part 12 of the report*). That data comes from a paper, the abstract of which you can read here;
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1191/095968398667194956
I’m not paying the $37 to read the whole thing, but you should, if you want to demonstrate Jones hiding stuff in something he actually wrote.
Or you could just say “the WMO was hiding the decline!” I guess.
*The report;
https://library.wmo.int/viewer/46506/download?file=wcn_17_en.pdf&type=pdf&navigator=1
@435. canman :
Bzzzt! fact check fail on your part. Telling so. Oh & sceince – good science sicne repeatedly confirmed – not subjective art.
Nor did they find “errors galore” or “Phony math” or a “conclusion that basically sucks” instead they found valid graphs matching others datsticks -there’s a whole hockey team or two of grpahs and data such as that compiled by Muller’s BEST project and Mann has been – as has been stated here about umpteen gazillion times already* – vindicated by science, history and the courts.
See my #387 upthread.
Plus :
Source : https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/a-tale-of-two-hockey-sticks/
Plus :
(.. & the jury agreed. Italics and quotation marks added for clarity.)
Source : https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2024/02/09/scientist-sues-conspiracy-theoristsand-wins/
More of Phil Jones ‘hiding stuff’ (that wascally wapscallion)
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.1998.0191
Re:461
Yeah that’s how issue advocacy works. Condescendingly tell your political opponents to look up your point instead of do your own political work an explain it. Political incompetence is the way…
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
StevoR @468,
The limerick verse:
It’s a good summary of Mann’s paper. McIntyre and McKitrick showed it was crap science. They did not say whether the result was true or not. The result is of course the flat handle of his hockey stick. There are of course subsequent results with flat handles, but Mann’s is the flattest. there are also criticisms of these later results, but Mann’s was the first and was used extensively for its promotional value. It’s perfectly reasonable for people to want to try to check and see how well it was done. What McIntyre and McKitrick found is indisputable.
Of the hundred or so proxies Mann used, the flat shape relies on two proxies, a tree ring series from Gaspe and a compilation of tree ring samples in North America called NOMER1 that was compiled using Principle Component Analysis (PCA). The Gaspe series was also included in NOMER1. This has never been explained.
Mann used an incorrect method of PCA that unambiguously mined for hockey sticks. He hid this incorrect method in FORTRAN code which he refused to release, making his result unreproducible until a scrap of code was located in a directory which was pointed to later. McIntyre’s and McKitrick’s 1st paper did not have access to this information and concluded that the PCA was done wrong. Their next paper described this incorrect method and showed that it mined for hockey sticks.
They also found that Mann did not release R squared verification results, but he did compute R squared results in another step. When Wahl and Ammonn reproduced Mann’s results, McIntyre had threaten to make an academic complaint in order for them to release their R squared results and they failed spectacularly! Wahl and Ammann’s replication also matched McIntyre’s replication better than it matched Mann’s.
The Nomer1 also depended on bristle cone pines that were disputed as temperature proxies.
There were also other issues such as series being extended.
To me, it seems perfectly reasonable for someone to conclude this is fraud, especially in a blog post for an opinion magazine.
If you can refute any of the above, please do.
That the science establishment would give awards and a membership is the NAS to someone who did all the stuff in @471 is a disgrace!
canman @471: Here you go;
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/
More on McIntyre and McKitrick (the mining consultant and the economist);
https://www.desmog.com/2014/11/30/mcintyre-mission-obsessive-quest-disprove-michael-mann-hockey-stick/
Weird. I just see canman insisting their unsourced opinions text in 471 is a disgrace for “science establishment” in 172. Can’t tell what something is unless I can see where they see such a thing. That means quotes and explanations.
Why bother? It’s been refuted ad nauseam many times before, and you guys blithely ignore it all and sail on, imperturbable in your ignorance.
Do you have some kind of Accessibility setting on your Mac keyboard that types “political” every time you attempt to say “scientific”?
You clearly didn’t understand #461. Rob….
1. asked a silly question
2. did his homework (belatedly) and discovered what the rest of us have known for 15 years
3. implied it didn’t matter because the IPCC didn’t use the WMO graph, or something
….all without my help. The entire shambolic three-step was started and finished while I was far away, having a life. Whatever research he intended to do, he’d already done by the time I ironically told him he needed to educate himself. Geddit?
Huh. I still don’t give a shit. Especially since it’a Brad. That’s more reason for quotes and explanations. You can sputter Brad.
RobG @473, that Real Climate link is just a dissembling diversion from Michael Mann. He’s making claim about PCA selection rules which have actually been disputed and which have nothing to do with whether his method mines hockey sticks.
Here’s a great quote from the DeSmog link:
He’s, of course, referring to stuff they got published in journals.
But not the stuff in journals….
If your uncited (down to the page and paragraph weakling) has any value you have the stuff from journals.
It’s just interesting how canman is just claiming something about Mann’s words, without showing a dispute or the reasoning and logic of the dispute.
And the quote says nothing about PCA rules, or hockey sticks. The amount of work necessary to figure out what is going on is interesting too.
PZ:
You mean, other than the bits Michael Mann admitted? Things like:
Hang on, do you mean the way StevoR and John Morales ignore you when you say
?
Or did you mean a process more akin to the way you still think (and I’m trying not to laugh here) that Michael Mann lost money suing Steyn and Simberg for 12 years?
I’m trying to get a clear idea of which level of denial you had in mind.
Which part is the admission Brad? And what is being admitted to?
You haven’t done work to show what the errors affected, and I don’t how this is worth the energy given all of the other data sets.
Canman,
Tsk tsk. Take it easy on the science believers. You know how confused and angry they get when we science deniers use science to out-science them.
Brony,
Mann’s most damning admission is that he’s intentionally withholding the information necessary to check his work. Even when Nature demands he explain himself better, we find out his methodological “clarification” is only partial, because he considers requests for enabling detail to be “intimidation tactics.”
That’s mens rea right there. His paper is just grey literature at that point, and has been ever since it was published seven years earlier, and he knows it, and he’s proud of it.
Mystery-meat science: the Mann Way.
canman, you missed the best part of the DeSmog article;
Have to disagree with you there, PZ: they’re not “blithely ignoring” reality, they’re desperately distracting from it. Endlessly crying about “hiding the decline” when they know damn well there never was a “decline” to “hide” is a classic example of this.
Just curious; do either of you (canman and Brad) even know what PCA is and how it works? Could you construct a covariance matrix (cm) from a data set? Do you know what the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the cm represent?
Brad: you quoted an article saying this:
…The correction, however, stated that “none of these errors affect our previously published results.”
Has anything ever been published since then that affected their previously published results?
I don’t see the intimidation tactics Mann is referring to, nor do I know who Mann is referring to. Is it just a specific group? Or have others seen his work?
Again, we have other data sets and models so all this energy on one climate scientists seems wasted, and I don’t care what you find damming based on this.
Maybe I’d defy some dishonest climate deniers who want do who knows what with my data too? If project veritas wants something from me I’d defy them mockingly. And any looking would be with others in parallel if somehow it seemed like a good idea.
Also, Brad keeps banging on and on about someone “hiding the decline.” Can he cite any reputable publication that SHOWS a “decline?”
Brony,
That’s because the gnome is stuck in the past.
It’s from 2005, by which time the so-called skeptics had blown the whole misunderstanding into a political issue after there was a long and concerted campaign to harass and discredit Dr. Mann and his colleagues.
Wikipedia: “On 23 June 2005, Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce wrote joint letters with Ed Whitfield, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, referring to the publicity and demanding full records on climate research, as well as personal information about their finances and careers, from the three scientists Mann, Bradley and Hughes.”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_temperature)#Scientific_debates)
—
I’m going to close this thread when it hits 500.
Uh-oh, I just used one of the few remaining comments to tell you all that!
Heh. You mob don’t even know the terminology: !
(Principally, you lack principle)
—
You keep asserting claims about Dr. Mann that were entirely refuted well over a decade ago.
There is zero (none at all) scientific doubt about Dr. Mann’s excellence, and he has transcended the politically-motivated accusations as much as he has been scientifically-vindicated multiple times.
Your conspiracy about Dr. Mann was all over by 2011:
At the request of Senator Jim Inhofe, who has called the science of man-made climate change a hoax, the Inspector General of the United States Department of Commerce investigated the emails in relation to NOAA, and concluded that there was no evidence of inappropriate manipulation of data.[47][51] The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation also carried out a detailed investigation, which it closed on August 15, 2011. It agreed with the conclusions of the university inquiries, and exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct.[47][52][53](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#CRU_email_controversy)
—
“In 2011, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy think tank interviewed Tim Ball and published his allegations about Mann and the CRU email controversy. Mann promptly sued for defamation[62] against Ball, the Frontier Centre and its interviewer.[63] In June 2019, the Frontier Centre apologized for publishing, on its website and in letters, “untrue and disparaging accusations which impugned the character of Dr. Mann”. It said that Mann had “graciously accepted our apology and retraction”.[64]”
(ibid.)
And so we come to the featured lawsuit:
“As attacks on the work and reputation of climatologists continued, Mann discussed with colleagues the need for a strong response when they were slandered or libeled. In July 2012,[67] Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blogger Rand Simberg accused Mann of “deception” and “engaging in data manipulation” and alleged that the Penn State investigation that had cleared Mann was a “cover-up and whitewash” comparable to the recent Jerry Sandusky sex scandal, “except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data”. The CEI blog editor then removed the sentence as “inappropriate”, but a National Review blog post by Mark Steyn cited it and alleged that Mann’s hockey stick graph was “fraudulent”.[68][69]”
“As attacks on the work and reputation of climatologists continued, Mann discussed with colleagues the need for a strong response when they were slandered or libeled. In July 2012,[67] Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blogger
Rand Simbergaccused Mann of “deception” and “engaging in data manipulation” and alleged that the Penn State investigation that had cleared Mann was a “cover-up and whitewash” comparable to the recent Jerry Sandusky sex scandal, “except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data”. The CEI blog editor then removed the sentence as “inappropriate”, but a National Review blog post byMark Steyncited it and alleged that Mann’s hockey stick graph was “fraudulent”.[68][69]Mann asked CEI and National Review to remove the allegations and apologize, or he would take action.[67] The CEI published further insults, and National Review editor Rich Lowry responded in an article headed “Get Lost” with a declaration that, should Mann sue, the discovery process would be used to reveal and publish Mann’s emails. Mann’s lawyer filed the defamation lawsuit with the DC Superior Court in October 2012.[68][70] Defendants were the National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg.[71][70] ”
—
We all know how that ended:
“Under the Supreme Court’s New York Times v. Sullivan standard, Dr. Mann was required to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants published their writings with “actual malice,” a heavy burden under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The trial team showed that the defendants either knew or recklessly disregarded multiple investigations clearing Dr. Mann of misconduct in the wake of the 2009 Climategate controversy involving stolen emails from a research unit in the United Kingdom. Two of those investigations were key pieces of evidence in the case: one completed by Pennsylvania State University (where Dr. Mann was a professor for 17 years) and a second by the National Science Foundation, which funded the research.”
Heh. Prescient, I (#448).
Brony:
That’s because you don’t inbabit Mann’s paranoid mental cinemascape.
The Ever-Well-Funded Denial Machine is the latest name he’s come up with, if I recall his recent testimony correctly.
Everyone who’s read his paper should have seen his work, and would have if it were a valid scientific document.
Show your working. If you don’t, it’s grey literature.
If only we lived in a world where everyone considered Mann’s work as irrelevant as you do, Brony. It’s a refreshing attitude, I must say.
Well now that’s just rude. You shouldn’t have wasted my time by asking if you didn’t care about the answer. And you SHOULD care about non-science like MBH98 being passed off as science with impunity. If you think it doesn’t matter because it was 26 years ago, then fine, throw it under the bus and we can all drive on.
Mann is just one bad apple….right? If the rest of the barrel is fresh you people should have no problem tossing out the rotten one.
You’re sailing dangerously close to the anti-scientific shoals of “Why should I make my data available to you if your objective is to find something wrong with it?”
Or to take an even clearer self-indictment by one of Britain’s most senior climate scientists:
So it’s not ‘standard practice’ in climate science to do science. Thanks for clearing that up, Professor.
By the way, Brony, I fear the irony of the phrase “dishonest climate denier” is lost on you. Hint: during the act of impugning the probity of others it’s always a good idea to avoid using dishonest language (“climate denier”). One wouldn’t want people outside one’s own clique to get the impression of hypocrisy.
Raging Bee:
So your argument is
1) it wasn’t hidden
2) because it wasn’t shown—oh, I’m sorry, I mean SHOWN?
If you don’t believe Phil Jones hid the decline as he claims, take it up with him. I tend to believe scientists when they say things, but hey, that’s just me being a science denier, right?
<snicker>
John:
Except among scientists.
Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]
Wanner/NCCR:
In my [IPCC-TAR] review […] I crit[i]cized […] the Mann hockey[s]tick […]
My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the
internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these
early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in
Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to
SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.
Briffa:
I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
Mitchell/Met Office
Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
to me that in the case of MBH [Mann, Bradley, Hughes] the answer in each is no
Wilson:
I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[…] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.
Bradley:
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.
Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.
Cook:
One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no
better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not
know where his estimates are coming from.
Cook:
In all candor now, I think that Mike is becoming a serious enemy in the way
that he bends the ears of people like Tom with words like “flawed” when
describing my work and probably your and Keith’s as well. This is in part a
vindictive response to the Esper et al. paper. He also went crazy over my
recent NZ paper describing evidence for a MWP there because he sees it as
another attack on him. Maybe I am over-reacting to this, but I don’t think so.
4369: Ed Cook says I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.
The University of California-San Diego’s Tim Barnett responds,
“not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember. for instance, i seem to remember he used, say, 4 EOFs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors.”
Oxford’s Myles Allen responds to Barnett:
I completely agree with Tim, but the question is whether we have either the energy or thick enough hides. My recollection of the experience of asking (I thought quite politely) Mike about this kind of thing is rather unpleasant.
3373.txt: Raymond Bradley: “ Furthermore, the model output is very much determined by the time series of forcing that is selected, and the model sensitivity which essentially scales the range. Mike only likes these because they seem to match his idea of what went on in the last millennium, whereas he would savage them if they did not. Also–& I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”. ” —This refers to a 2003 paper “Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia” by Mann and Jones, that shows ‘hockey stick’ temperature graphs and was used by the IPCC in its 2007 report.
Keith Briffa (providing a character reference for Mann):
“Mike was certainly not the best collaborator, and in some aspects of his work, not sufficiently aware of the characteristics of some of the data with which he worked. This would not be bad in itself, were allowance made and advice sought and accepted from a wider circle of colleagues or specialists than he was inclined to consult. There was a certain, apparent, overconfidence in his work which bordered on seeming arrogance …”
Trenberth:
“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”
This lot are mostly private admissions that people knew that the Mann HS was BS:
4241: Wilson: “I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. […] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.”
3373.txt: Raymond Bradley: ” Furthermore, the model output is very much determined by the time series of forcing that is selected, …”
1527.txt: Rob Wilson: ” There has been criticism by Macintyre of Mann’s sole reliance on RE, and I am now starting to believe the accusations. ”
4369.txt: Tim Osborn: ” This completely removes most of Mike’s arguments… ”