27 Replies to “Climategate 2.0: Man to Mann”

  1. EEEEEEEEEE, discovery would be SO much fun. Too bad MM doesn’t have the cahones to go through with it.

  2. Very encouraging that NRO is fighting back. The discovery process would be devastating for Mann and I suspect that suddenly the suit will be dropped.
    Of course, that would assume one is dealing with a reasonable Mann and we’ve seen that to not be the case. Only strategy I can see for MM to follow is to get the most innumerate judge in the country to preside over the trial.

  7. Mann wouldn’t be having this discovery problem if his research wasn’t fraudulent. Waiting for John Cross to say its no big deal in 3, 2, 1…

  8. Well, hopefully Mann continues the suit, discovery could be very damaging to him. I am a bit surprised that NRO threatened him with thoroughgoing discovery, it might have been better to have him totally committed to a lawsuit before dropping the gloves.
    I hope he is arrogant enough to press on. It would be good to see him thumped.

  9. It recapitulates the fun Tim Ball is having with Mann. Mann launched the lawsuit. Ball refused to back down. Then came the first set of discoveries. From a source close to the action, Mann’s team came out looking rather pathetic. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

  10. // It recapitulates the fun Tim Ball is having with Mann. //
    Let’s home for our Mark’s sake that that’s not true.
    Discovery goes both ways.
    And even though the action is against the Magazine, not the man, remember that Mark had to take a good long “hiatus” after the Maclean’s business. Rogers Cable doesn’t need that sort of PR.

  11. Mann is just incredibly thin-skinned and petty. What a weak man.
    Didn’t later studies vindicate the hockey stick? Mann’s research was garbage but I think the hockey was sort of right…?

  13. Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
    Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
    replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
    Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf D. Tscheuschner
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
    No Need to Panic About Global Warming
    There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.
    “Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.”
    Inherent in ecology are three assumptions: “natural” conditions are optimal, climate is fragile, and human influences are bad. Physics makes no such assumptions. By assuming climate is fragile, the global warming supporters have assumed their conclusion. In fact, the climate is not fragile. It is stable. The non-adherence to physical logic in the global warming camp is what makes many physical scientists say that global warming is a religion.
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group “True North”

  15. “Didn’t later studies vindicate the hockey stick? Mann’s research was garbage but I think the hockey was sort of right…?
    Posted by: LAS at August 22, 2012 5:17 PM ”
    You are so right. The hockey stick,with the blade broken off at the shaft,is what should have been depicted. Libertarians are stupid.

  17. No, LAS, the hockey stick was never vindicated. It excluded the Mediaeval Warming Period via statistical manipulation.
    On the main topic, I’m betting this lawsuit never happens. Mikey seems to have pretty good survival instincts thus far. Certainly some of his fellow members of The Team may get nervous about some of the crud that might float to the surface.

  18. And this is where you come in. If Mann goes through with it, we’re probably going to call on you to help fund our legal fight and our investigation of Mann through discovery. If it gets that far, we may eventually even want to hire a dedicated reporter to comb through the materials and regularly post stories on Mann.
    I find it entirely too hard to believe that National Review does not hold a proper Professional Liability insurance policy. For if they did, the carrier would pick up the legal costs to defend Mr. Steyn and NRO. I suppose there is the possiblity of a Self-insured retention plan up to an certain limit. But, I think NRO should be more clear about that.
    I’m starting to get cynical about some of these beg posts.
    Cheers,
    The Worm

  21. Mann is seeking a village which is short one i&*^t. May he be successfull.
    There, that wasn’t malevolent at all….

  22. “No, LAS, the hockey stick was never vindicated. It excluded the Mediaeval Warming Period via statistical manipulation.”
    Cgh. That and they tried to say it was a “local event.” Like the vast majority of warmist research, it’s disproven/discredited later. What needs to be made clearer is their predictions/findings are not scientifically observed but only predicted in some model/statistical study. The climate catastrophe is always in the near future, so we must “act” now.
    That shouldn’t be a surprise since we’re talking about a science in infancy, which, is becoming increasingly clearer each day with each additional bogus study/paper.etc, is a science in infamy, with sloppy research and zero review or audit. (Hansen: well I only went back to 1950 to “prove” AGW, but that is a sweet statistical period; IOW it means nothing).
    We are not observing anything close to dangerous AGW, it exists in Mann’s models and other junk science tied to a common source.
    I’m amazed this pseudo-scientific argument is given such credibility. What if a group of economists published a study that purported to predict, exactly, the minimum wage in 30 years? They would be ridiculed and rightly so because the precision does not exist in economic science to ensure that kind of accuracy. Climatology isn’t that precise/rigorous either. Even physicists are willing to admit they don’t actually know for sure when they talk about their high level science, like other universes or ours being alive.
    Climatologists and their rent seeking friends think they can alter the world’s temperature, like there’s some kind of global thermostat they can reset. It’s mind boggling western democracies have fallen for this guilt trip.
    The AGW “consensus” is this IMHO – there has been increasing warming over the last 50 years (the end of a 150-200 years overall warming period that is), and humans have put larger amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Humans might be responsible for a small amount of warming , but not anywhere near the catastrophically irresponsible argument of permanent 4 deg temp rise, or continually postponed tipping points and various other junk science.
    The watermelons played this one to a tee, as they’ve been known to do: Talk about pollution, slowly move the definition around to CO2, so it becomes a “pollutant.” Then, as per SOP blame the unjust capitalists, who now should do their part and buy Chinese wind turbines (40% of world market) with money borrowed from them.
    Taxing nothing – as stated earlier every tax and spender’s dream come true.
    Sorry for the rant, it amazes and yes frustrates me that these loons still get attention and yes, massive funding and anyone who questions their veracity is some kind of pariah who wants to s**t on the planet.
    The great irony of this is following Kyoto type solutions that impoverish societies will greatly weaken their ability to be “progressive.” Watch out for the human hating watermelons; they are more than willing to make the poor poorer to make the rich poorer.
    Oh, of course they will be well taken care of, those flaming hypocrites.

  23. To be fair, the initial evidence pointed to MWP being local. Now it appears to be global. However, that does not rule out man’s influence. Muller’s recent study seemed to vindicate the notion that temperatures have increased significantly during the 20th century and it does seem to have a causative relationship with CO2.
    Doesn’t matter. There’s only one nation reducing its CO2 output and that’s America-CO2 output is lowest since 1992. And that’s basically all because of Natgas. The AGW wars are almost over and methane won.

  26. From Michael Mann”s Facebook page —
    // People have been asking for my reaction to the recent response by the National Review. Here is a statement from my lawyer John B. Williams of Cozen O’Connor:
    ********
    The response of the National Review is telling with respect to the issues it did not address. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s research has been extensively reviewed by a number of independent parties, including the National Science Foundation, with never a suggestion of any fraud or research misconduct. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s conclusions have been replicated by no fewer than twelve independent studies. It did not deny the fact that it was aware that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated of any fraudulent conduct. It did not deny the fact that it knew its allegations of fraud were false. Rather, the National Review’s defense seems to be that it did not really mean what it said last month when it accused Dr. Mann of fraud. Beyond this, the response is little more than an invective filled personal attack on Dr. Mann. And further, this attack is coupled with the transparent threat that the National Review intends to undertake burdensome and abusive litigation tactics should Dr. Mann have the temerity to attempt to defend himself in court.
    *********
    We intend to file a lawsuit. //

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation