Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Merry Christmas, Mr Steyn

Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice

http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/14-CV-101_14-CV-126.pdf.

Dec 22, 2016 at 11:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

You won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with their ladyships. The "sufficient evidence" Dr Mann has supplied are a series of mendacious claims to have been "investigated" and "exonerated" by multiple Anglo-American bodies that did, in fact, do neither.

Mark Steyn

Dec 22, 2016 at 11:53 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Phil Clarke, what are you so pleased about?

http://www.steynonline.com/7643/walking-in-a-legal-wonderland

Dec 23, 2016 at 12:10 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Piltdown Mann won't you come out tonight, come out tonight, come out tonight?
Frolic with the friends of the court and dance in the light of your doom.
==========================

Dec 23, 2016 at 4:04 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Hi Phil, Steyn didn't take part in the appeal, he wants discovery, which means Michael Mann will have to provide all the requisite data,. Don't look for a trial anytime soon. As Martin A has pointed out none of the UK investigations looked into Mann's hockeystick and the only one that did with any expertise was Wegman who declared it a crock.

So you hero worship a man who falsely claims to be a Nobel Laureate, falsely claims to have had his work endorsed by numerous UK investigations and has had his work repudiated by an eminent statistician. Good for you.

Dec 23, 2016 at 8:18 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

An Unhappy New Year awaits Climate Science Mr Clarke. Had you noticed that this ruling did not involve Mr Steyn at all?

Mann has still not revealed his own supporting evidence even though he launched this legal action, and has delayed it, ever since.

Is it possible that Mann possesses some top secret evidence that proves him right, that he couldn't reveal before? If so, why is he hanging on to it for his own protection as Climate Science is about to suffer "Divestment" by US Taxpayers?

Dec 23, 2016 at 8:51 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

As Martin A has pointed out none of the UK investigations looked into Mann's hockeystick and the only one that did with any expertise was Wegman who declared it a crock.

Wegman is UK? Who knew? Pea and thimble.I refer you to the US NAS panel investigation, inter alia. Oh, and this, from the judgement

The University of East Anglia Independent Climate Change Emails Review, Penn State University, the United Kingdom House of Commons, and the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. National Science Foundation, all conducted investigations and issued reports that concluded that the scientists’ correspondence in the 1,075 CRU emails that were reviewed did not reveal research or scientific misconduct. Appellants do not counter any of these reports with other investigations into the CRU emails that reach a contrary conclusion about Dr. Mann’s integrity.

[...]

Appellants argue that the investigatory reports could not be relied upon by a jury because the investigations Dr. Mann claims exonerate him of misconduct “take no ultimate position,” but only indicate that there was “no evidence” of fraud. This is a quibble about wording that does not call into question the import of the investigations’ conclusions. An investigatory body can report only on what it has found; a determination that there is “no evidence” of fraud is an ultimate conclusion that investigation has not turned up any evidence of misconduct.

A joyous Noel to all.

Dec 23, 2016 at 11:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

GC Had you noticed that this ruling did not involve Mr Steyn at all?

His name appears 48 times in the ruling, starting on Page 4.

Dec 23, 2016 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

At the press conference the three NRC panellists said they found no evidence supporting the allegations of inappropriate behaviour such as data manipulation, or "anything other than an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure". Bloomfield as a statistician considered all the choices of data processing and methods to have been "quite reasonable" in a "first of its kind study". He said "I would not have been embarrassed by that work at the time if I'd been involved in it". In response to a question from Edward Wegman on the MBH use of principal components analysis, Bloomfield said this had been reviewed by the committee along with other statistical issues, and "while the issues are real, they had a very minimal effect, not a material effect on the final reconstruction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegman_Report#National_Research_Council_Report

Bloomfield is Peter Bloomfield, Professor of statistics at North Carolina State
University.

Dec 23, 2016 at 11:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

…concluded that the scientists’ correspondence in the 1,075 CRU emails that were reviewed did not reveal research or scientific misconduct.
Only 1,075 CRU emails reviewed? Out of… how many? Odd, how they missed the ones about “Mike’s nature trick” and “hiding the decline”; curious that they should overlook the extensive conversation regarding the destruction of the career of one peer-reviewer who bucked the trend, and questioned “the cause” (their term, not mine, and also used extensively through the leaked emails). What “cause” could they be referring to?

Dec 23, 2016 at 11:45 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

That's actually one mail. Do you know what the phrase means?

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

Whose career was destroyed? That's a serious charge.

Dec 23, 2016 at 11:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

GC Had you noticed that this ruling did not involve Mr Steyn at all?

His name appears 48 times in the ruling, starting on Page 4.

As Martin A has pointed out none of the UK investigations looked into Mann's hockeystick and the only one that did with any expertise was Wegman who declared it a crock.
Wegman is UK?

Phil, no offence but do you have a problem with English comprehension?

Dec 23, 2016 at 12:20 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin,

Rather than try and misdirect, perhaps you could deal with the point that the NSF panel, which contained two distinguished statisticians, found nothing of consequence wrong with MBH.

Dec 23, 2016 at 12:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Only 1,075 CRU emails reviewed? Out of… how many?

That would be all the hacked mails in the first release.

Dec 23, 2016 at 12:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

That would be all the hacked mails in the first release.
Ahh... so that's OK, then...

Dec 23, 2016 at 12:43 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Phil Clarke, I am no lawyer, but I presume you are clueless.

You have not thought this through have you?

Mann instigated this legal action. Steyn declined to be a party to this latest round. Mann has still not revealed the documentation as part of "Discovery", that he will rely on in court.

I you think that relying on Wikipedia entries and other writings by Hockey Teamsters, will prove robust in court, I suggest you and Mann enjoy this Christmas.

Mann has stalled the Legal Action that he started. By the time it gets to court, Climate Science will be bust anyway.

Dec 23, 2016 at 12:51 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf charlie

I AM a lawyer, though I confess to finding the US Court system to be baffling. The crucial point remains the one that you highlighted - Mann is the plaintiff, yet his making of disclosure (i.e. revealing his written evidence in support of his case - technically his revealing of ALL evidence in his possession, which is relevant to his case, whether supportive of it or not) has still not occurred and is, I believe, 3 years overdue.

I struggle to understand how Phil can turn a decision which removes two of the defendants from the ongoing litigation (will Mann have to pay their costs?) into a good day for Mann.

I also believe that Mann saw a Canadian case he instigated some time ago thrown out for failure to make disclosure. It seems odd behaviour to me to issue proceedings if you're not going to comply with a Court order for disclosure, when making disclosure is an essential pre-condition to the case getting to trial. If and when Mann ever does make disclosure, as required by the Court, then we will all have a better idea as to what might ultimately happen at the trial.

In any event, a Merry Christmas to all Bishop Hillers, Phil Clarke and Entropic Mann cordially included.

Dec 23, 2016 at 1:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mark Hodgson, I know you are a Lawyer! (I thought I had posted/misposted to you earlier)

Mann started this Legal Action, but has not acted in good faith. He has backed himself into a corner, and with this action, has just thrown away the key to the Emergency Exit, and burnt any remaining bridges.

If Phil Clarke thinks Mann can rely on Wikipedia entries to save him, that is ok with me. I don't expect it is reassuring to 97% of climate scientists though.

Dec 23, 2016 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I also believe that Mann saw a Canadian case he instigated some time ago thrown out for failure to make disclosure

Memory can play tricks. You're probably thinking of Tim Ball. Mann sued the Canada Free Press over an interview given by Ball, as did Andrew Weaver. Mann wanted the article removed, Weaver wanted an apology. The CFP complied with both requests, in fact it scrubbed everything by Ball from its website.

http://carbonfixated.com/andrew-weaver-wins-one-against-canada-free-press-no-news-on-national-post-libel-case/

Dec 23, 2016 at 4:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil, @ 12:25 points unconsciously, and ironically, to the problem. There IS something terribly wrong with MBH. Try to figure out what, Phil.
===========

Dec 23, 2016 at 4:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

kim 4:43,

Phil Clarke at 12:27 still believes the ClimateGate E-Mails were hacked.

Phil Clarke knows more than Norfolk Police, and US Lawyers.

Phil Clarke knows Climate Science was settled long ago.

Phil Clarke also believes Gergis 2016 proves Mann's Hockey Stick was correct.

Phil Clarke also believes the fabricated 97% Consensus.

Dec 23, 2016 at 5:07 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

gc, the straight shaft, erasing natural variability, was the Big Lie, now permeated global consciousness. It was hubris, and Phil and the whole rest of the world now suffer nemesis.
================

Dec 23, 2016 at 5:15 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Heh, the ash heap of natural history.
=======

Dec 23, 2016 at 5:20 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

"Rather than try and misdirect, perhaps you could deal with the point that the NSF panel, which contained two distinguished statisticians, found nothing of consequence wrong with MBH."

But Wegman did so let's take a look at the transcript of what the NAS and NSF said at the Barton hearlngs:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?

DR. NORTH.No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.But again, just because the claims are made, doesn't mean they are false.

CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right conclusion and that it not be–

DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann's methodology is incorrect. Do you agree with that? I mean, it doesn't mean Dr. Mann's conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann's methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified by independent review.

DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.

MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

In his report Wegnman expressed surprise that North et al agreed that the methodology was wrong, but that the results should be accepted as being correct.

"I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway."

That was the true position of the NAS and NSF. They admitted the method was wrong, but said the answer was correct anyway, Wegman, like probably all of us outside the global warming alarmism tent, was surprised that a result given by the wrong method could be taken as the right result. Don't forget there was no body of work on hockeysticks for the NAS panel and NSF to compare the result with. But it was helping the "Cause".

Dec 23, 2016 at 5:46 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

geronimo, so the panels were unanimous in a 100% Consensus sort of way, about Mann being wrong?

Dec 23, 2016 at 5:57 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie