Click images for more details
The definitive history of Climategate.
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
James Delingpole calls for sceptics everywhere to fund Michael Mann's legal fight against Mark Steyn and the National Review Online.
I kid you not.
View Printer Friendly Version
The Cause may or may not be worthy but my wallet is a bit short-centred of principle components at the moment.
I am moved beyond words by Dellers' eloquent plea. I will dig deep into my available resources to help this man fight for justice! Ups.. my resources are currently funding wind farms and a low carbon economy.
What was wrong with Coco the Clown then?
Sadly carbon overheads have drained my war-chest, for the time being, but I can freely offer Dr Mann a suggestion that may help finance his heroic crusade against the heretical, well-funded and organised hordes of anti-science barbarians.Given Michael's genius for attracting funding it should be a doddle.Step 1: Get a grant for the sum of £835 (Hint - use global warming keywords to seduce major funders - failing that, ask JD to call for c?ntrarians to pass the hat)Step 2: Use aforementioned sum to purchase 100 copies (£8.35 each) of the good bishops "HSI" from Amazon.UKStep 3: Annotate the inside cover of each copy with the words "A brilliant book, I learned lots about statistiks. Thanks Bish" and sign it.Step 4: Auction them off, for say £100 each, and you'll be in profit by a substantial amount (Not sure exactly how much but any Excel-Wizard, PJ for example, should be able to fill in the details.Step 5: If outcome is to your liking then repeat exercise (NB- if outcome is unfavorable then don't be shy to invert the figures - The most important bit is to keep on repeating the exercise!)
I've got a penny I can send. A good zinc core American penny should help him far in his cause.
No, I will not write a check; he can have the penny. Maybe he can use his HS statistics when counting it.
After reading Dellers column, I suspect Delingpole wants in on the law suit train. Soon, it will be a mark of pride; "I was one of the first outspoken published sceptics to be sued by the hockey stickiest creator in his futile attempt to silence real climate science".
Roy, I think that you are on to something here. But, as a slight refinement, how about a pyramid selling scheme? All it requires is for MM to have two friends (which is probably feasible), then they each find two friends, and so on.
They could throw in some steak knives if business is a bit slow.
Mann arches his backAnd fluffs his tail, and hisses.Scat, cat, don't come back.==============
I thought Mandy was Mann's official fund raiser, surely there's a couple of shillings left over?
Well I too have a nice shiny penny for the Mr Mann but sadly my bank won't let me send it overseas something about money laundering the nice lady said so I'm leaving it in my will for the Mann made cause !Oh er you don't think one of Manns acolytes will bump me off for the penny do you ?
Seems that its self-declared open season on Mikey the Mann. He can't sue everybody who takes a pop at him. And James (good on you Dellers!) is lining him up front and centre.
But, however much I appreciate JD's journalistic ploy, I cannot in all conscience send good sausage to defend such a noxious sleazebag.
Let him have his day in court. Let him take the stand. Let him be exposed for the prat he is. But not with my money.
I'm happy to spend a penny on his defence to flush him out. I suppose the prosecution could sue me for supporting him if he loses.
My speelchucker now offers Queensberry.
I have to admit what a wonderful piece of anarchy from Mr Delingpole.
Mikey seems to like the encouragement he receives on Twitter. Like 'Go for it, Mike!'.
Am I hallucinating, or is there a certain facial resemblance between Delingpole and JJ Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten)?
Well I have a small problem. I'm not sure I can fund both sides and I've already promised my (meagre) pennyworth to Mark Steyn and the NRO should MM go ahead with the case.Mind you, anything that gets him and his 'evidence' on the stand would be very worthwhile.
What if the judge turns out to be an even bigger warmist, decides to berate Mann and Steyn for their frivolousness (given the future of humanity being at stake) and takes all the funny money as punishment?
Has Tim Yeo got shares or sits on the Board of the company thats building the 3rd runway at Heathrow
On the Wright Stuff this morning paper review they said there was plotting to replace George Osborne and get William Hague in as Chancillor.Whose behind that idea
I have some old Dutch Florijnen (Gilders) I can donate?Oh no wait, I will probably need them pretty soon again I think....
Well, then he can have some of my worthless euros, either or is fine by me...
Warning crazy conspiracy theory
Figured how Yeo will make his money on the 3rd runway.He gets the consultantcy fee for the Company that does the Carbon Impact on the 3rd Runway Common sense another runway bigger Aircraft more passengers moere efficient engines etc etc.But basically bigger Heathrow less number of smalller regional Airports. Yeo top Tory Boy Less Carbon he takes the 3rd runway through parliment.
Justine Greening her constitiuancy is SW london Roehamptom right under the flight path. Yeo the perfect politician Skeptics, NIMBYs, Enviromentalists hes played everyone off against each other. Alistair MaGowen one day he may be doing impressions of Tim Yeo the new Tory Leader contender or even Leader.
The use of the name 'Dellers' makes my eyelashes curl. Isn't it strange that the two AGW protaganists are nasty little right ring, minor public school thugs ? Monbiot and Delingpole. Please remind yourself that Delingpole is a comedy writer who is a very genteel, soft focused, herbal tea drinking upper middle class gentleman in real life. I read an article about him. He has simply adopted this persona from his former psychotic self as a new Oxford undergraduate when he knew Cameron.
I knew a number of thick, major public school thugs from Rugby at Stirling University. Thick because Stirling was the very bottom of the UCCA league table. I was a post grad. They caused alI kinds of mayhem and destruction on the 'do you know who my father is ? ' principle. This was drug and alcohol abuse on an industrial scale. One guy, who's father owned Westclox we called 'rat' was reputed to use his father's wheelbarrow to carry his drugs around back home at Cardross. I can name names. One of them is very big in finance, one has a conservative think tank, one is chairman of a global brand whisky company etc.
I hope Mann gets crucified by the way.
@ Latimer Alder
I can see where you are saying! Both have a highly developed sense for mischief and fun.
Always feel a strong sense of nostalgia looking at the Pistols, what it was to be young (once).
As I see it, the whole Mann-hasn't-a-chance scenario is based on a single, arguable assumption: Mann's lawyers won't be able to restrict the discussion to whether Mann has been found guilty of fraud or any other criminal or civil offense.
Both Ball and Steyn either inferred or used words directly that indicated Mann had breached some legally recognized rule. That is what he is objecting to. To-date no court or panel of inquiry has come to that conclusion or, even if it has privately, said so publicly. No enforcement agency has even collared the Mann in preliminary action to bringing him to court. If the consideration of his lawsuits is that Ball and Steyn claimed that he has committed an illegal act, they first would have to get the courts to agree to determine that his act was illegal (not just unethical or immoral). That would be a trial-within-a-trial. I don't see that happening.
As to whether fraud has actually been committed, nobody who has used his data has complained he conned them. It is the basis of Gore's public life (and fortunes). The IPCC and Hansen have not repudiated his work, they just stopped using it. There is no inherent problem here: science moves forward, data improves, yesterday's graphics are superceded by those of today. Mann could easily get Hansen on the stand to say that he did good work that has been modified since then, but that means nothing.
Still, is the technical "reality" of the Mann-graph relevant to the 'suit? The question is, did Mann commit an act of fraud or any other act that is worthy of incarceration in the State penetentiary? Have any legal authorities even charged him, let alone found him guilty, of such a thing? The answer to both is "no".
If either Ball or Steyn had said Mann was unethical, disenguenuous, immoral, manipulative or just downright sneaky, then the Climategate 1.0 e-mails would be enough to "convict" him. A matter of subjective, philosophically-based judgement. Big deal: the same could be said of George Bush and Lance Armstrong. But an actual "crime": aren't we supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, right? (Outside of Napoleonic law.)
Wilde's case is not an analog. Wilde claimed he had been falsely labeled as a sodomite but was not. He was, and it was proven he was. Mann's "trick" has been described by Jones et al as a perfectly legitimate technical "fix" to a visual difficulty in getting a conclusion across. Even getting rid of the MWP and the LIA was a legitimate (in some minds) position to take at that time. Maybe a questionable one, but not a completely illegitimate one (at least back then). If Bush could say he thought there were WMD in Iraq when he sent in the troops, Mann could say he thought the last thousand years of the world was pretty stable compared to today.
I'm not sure that Mann couldn't win. Delingpole encourages Steyn to go to court as he might encourage his Lieutenant to take point on a jungle patrol. Ultimately, the enemy may withdraw, and Delingpole and his buddies may be made safe, but the Lieutenant is the one likely to end up splayed out on the trail.
"Dellers" is a muppet (again) - they already have a fund, fronted by a man in a superman outfit, fishing waders and holding a hockey stick...
Delingpole has a point. In a court one of the protagonists cannot decide the terms of engagement, nor evade cross examination of claims made. There is no hiding of data. Furthermore claims like "a consensus of scientists agree" or "oil-funded deniers" will be rejected as hearsay.Whatever they might say in public, once Mann's lawyers examine the case - even attempt to read his recent book - they will quickly realize why Delingpole are relishing a court battle, even without full disclosure.
I ran some red noise through a powerful computer model, and it projects that Mann won't sue. He'll bluster and huff, thereby gaining cred' with his 'team.' But when push comes to shove, he'll keep his subpoena in his pants, and his government grant money in his bank account.
This is called the "Michael Mann doesn't want to flush tons of his money down a lawyers rathole, and come out of the process looking like an even larger d-bag" theory. It's sort of like the precautionary principle.
Mickey, it's not his money. The alarmist crowd are awash with cash from various sources.
"They could throw in some steak knives if business is a bit slow."
Third place is you're fired. Oh, if that were only true for Mr. Mann.
Here's the definition of "fraud" from an online dictionary:
fraud [frawd] noun1.deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.2.a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.3.any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.4.a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
Where does it say you have to be found guilty of fraud in a court of law to be one?
Where does it say you have to be found guilty of fraud in a court of law to be one? (Fred 2)----------------------------------------------------Precisely. I think Doug is confusing criminal and civil law. In criminal law, 'fraud' has a very precise meaning, but in a civil case such as this it is the ordinary, generally understood meaning of the word that is relevant. That includes both the technical term used in criminal law and the generic meaning, as per the definition you quoted.
It doesn't seem to occured to many that Delingpole was writing tongue in cheek. On the other hands, if the defendants are intentionally baiting Mann and have their defense and funding in place - and intend to prove the truth of their allegations = well, let's hope Mann takes the bait.
Somebody else may know the law on this but it seems likely to me that if the BBC were to sue somebody for not paying the licence fee and the defence was that the BBC has vitiated its Charter duty of "balance" the defence, under its right of search, should be able to get the court to name the participants, all allegedly "leading scientists" who formed the allegedly balanced committee who advised them that climate scepticism was not scientific & thus should be censored.
Does anybody know?
I don't "know" but as I understand it there is a legal obligation to pay the licence fee if you watch BBC, and it is a criminal offence not to do so. This applies regardless of the content of what is broadcast. The BBC does not sue, the police summon you.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.