Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will Steyn now Stick it the O’Sullivan Way to Climate Fraudster Michael Mann?
Principia Scientific International ^ | March 18, 2014 | John O'Sullivan

Posted on 03/23/2014 9:02:04 AM PDT by Twotone

Good news! As I predicted four years ago, alarmist climate scientist, Michael Mann’s gambit of using the courts to silence debate about his faked “hockey stick” graph is backfiring spectacularly. 17 mainstream media outlets now agree Mann should put up or shut up.

(Excerpt) Read more at principia-scientific.org ...


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: algore; algorewarming; climatechange; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; marksteyn; marksteyntrial; michaelmann; science; steyn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 03/23/2014 9:02:05 AM PDT by Twotone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JLS

Mark Steyn court case alert...


2 posted on 03/23/2014 9:02:43 AM PDT by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Mann should be prosecuted worse than Maddof.


3 posted on 03/23/2014 9:07:31 AM PDT by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Mann is truly on the horns of a dilemma. If he refuses to reveal his data and methodology then his theory on climate warming becomes suspect.

If he reveals it—and competent scientists can prove the data and methodology are flawed—then the original source of the climate warming argument that it is human intervention that causes warming is destroyed.


4 posted on 03/23/2014 9:11:35 AM PDT by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Third option: Mann is taken for a visit to Marcy Park.


5 posted on 03/23/2014 9:17:07 AM PDT by ArtDodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

Thanks Twotone.


6 posted on 03/23/2014 9:23:24 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wildbill

He has a third option - drop the lawsuit.

That’s probably what will happen. Hopefully Steyn can recover his legal fees in that event.


7 posted on 03/23/2014 9:52:10 AM PDT by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
Mann is a total idiot and really foolish to tangle with the real man, Mark Steyn.

Mann is a bully and thought he could scare Steyn away with threats of a law suit, but much like Br'er Rabbit, Steyn kept pleading not to be thrown into the briar patch. oooppppssss.

The hockey stick is about to become Mann's butt plug {but I repeat the facts}.

8 posted on 03/23/2014 10:00:54 AM PDT by USS Alaska (Exterminate the terrorist savages, everywhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wildbill

I thought Mann’s methodology was to cherry-pick the 6% of the samples that represent his desired outcome, and ignore the 94% that don’t? (something on the order 5 of 87 tree ring samples)


9 posted on 03/23/2014 10:16:18 AM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Steyn is going to do his own lawyering in court. Meaning he will verbally decimate Mann when he gets him on the witness stand. There will no mercy because Mann has cost Mark so much money and time.

**** I am trusting Mark Steyn has a lawyer working for him behind the scenes


10 posted on 03/23/2014 11:02:01 AM PDT by dennisw (The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wildbill
Mann is truly on the horns of a dilemma. If he refuses to reveal his data and methodology then his theory on climate warming becomes suspect.

Mann doesn't have to worry... he could say anything and democrats will still believe him.

11 posted on 03/23/2014 11:06:42 AM PDT by GOPJ (NASA: N othing A bout S pace A nymore - - FreperClearCase_guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber

I think both Ball and Steyn have filed countersuits for damages. Puts Mann in a whole new squeeze, no?


12 posted on 03/23/2014 11:15:20 AM PDT by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

bttt


13 posted on 03/23/2014 11:20:37 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wildbill

Another option is that he could be proven correct after a peer review...

Sorry, I couldn’t even type that will a straight face. That option has zero percent chance of being true.


14 posted on 03/23/2014 12:06:46 PM PDT by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Twotone; wildbill; BigBobber; dennisw; Dutch Boy
Backfiring spectacularly? I have to say the opposite. Steyn has sunk his case by going Pro Se. He's now been anti-SLAPPed and he's filing weird pseudolegal stuff. A pro se litigant has a fool for a client.
I think it's best summed up by Ken White over at Popehat, though. He's the free speech expert, and he lays it out well:

1) Mark Steyn Has A Fool For A Client
2) Michael Mann Files Anti-SLAPP Motion Against Mark Steyn's Counterclaims
If he refuses to reveal his data and methodology then his theory on climate warming becomes suspect.
Problem is, all of his data AND his methodology has been publicly available for years. You have to download the raw data and apply his formulas yourself, but that satisfies the scientific definition of "released".
He has a third option - drop the lawsuit. That’s probably what will happen. Hopefully Steyn can recover his legal fees in that event.
Nope. See my second link that I just posted - Mann's double-downed on it.
I am trusting Mark Steyn has a lawyer working for him behind the scenes
He does not. He's gone total pro se. And Steyn is refusing any and all offers of assistance so far.
Another option is that he could be proven correct after a peer review...
I do not agree with Mann's conclusions, but his work HAS been independently verified by other climatologists. So either those other climatologists are in on a big conspiracy, or his work is up to snuff. I make no claim to either, myself.
15 posted on 03/23/2014 1:10:23 PM PDT by GAFreedom (Freedom rings in GA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

OK!! Everybody pay attention!

Lesson for today:

1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.

2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.

3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.

4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.

5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.

Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?


16 posted on 03/23/2014 1:34:11 PM PDT by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wildbill
Mann is truly on the horns of a dilemma. If he refuses to reveal his data and methodology then his theory on climate warming becomes suspect.

Could we perhaps say he will be. . . "Gored???"

17 posted on 03/23/2014 2:47:32 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom
Problem is, all of his data AND his methodology has been publicly available for years. You have to download the raw data and apply his formulas yourself, but that satisfies the scientific definition of "released".

Actually, no, he hasn't. Much of his data is still hidden. That is one of the primary complaints on his work. . . and even his supporters admit it. Mann claims proprietary privilege. . . that cannot survive discovery.

18 posted on 03/23/2014 2:59:24 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom
Brandon Schollenburger is compiling a list of Michael Mann's egregious errors. . . And frauds:
Here are some items I’m considering for my list, along with a (relatively) short summary for each (in no particular order): The censored directory, misused PCA and other issues tie into that last one, but really, those two paragraphs are all people need to know. That alone, or perhaps in combination with the hiding adverse results, is easily enough for a person to believe Mann’s work was fraudulent.

(Of course, there are other topics to discuss as well. This is just a beginning of a list.)


19 posted on 03/23/2014 3:10:10 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Actually, no, he hasn't. Much of his data is still hidden. That is one of the primary complaints on his work. . . and even his supporters admit it. Mann claims proprietary privilege. . . that cannot survive discovery.
I'm sorry, friend, but you're wrong there. All of the data used for the hockey stick paper published by Mann in 1998 was publicly available data, which can be downloaded right here. That data is the whole enchilada, straight down to the methods and formulas that he used to get his results. Check it yourself.
20 posted on 03/23/2014 3:13:51 PM PDT by GAFreedom (Freedom rings in GA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Brandon Schollenburger is compiling a list of Michael Mann's egregious errors. . . And frauds:
And Schollenberger has proven this using the data I linked to? And had that confirmed by peer review? Does Schollenberger explain how Mann's work passed peer review by other climatologists? I'd appreciate some links.
21 posted on 03/23/2014 3:15:45 PM PDT by GAFreedom (Freedom rings in GA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom
Gee, isn't it funny then that after McIntyre and McKitrick were being stonewalled by the East Anglia climate fraudsters on their request for the climate data, the hockey-stick-hoaxsters (as revealed by the whistle blown e-mails) were in a panic that FOIA laws would require them to release the data due to the fact they were government funded?
And to perpetrate this fraud, is it believable that the left would stop at merely hiring some scientists to whore their data without also corrupting the peer review process as well?
Os course not. In fact, the AGW peer review process has been as corrupted as anything the left gets its tentacles into, not limited to academia, the MSM, and election stealing. Articles abound on the subject.

22 posted on 03/23/2014 4:03:26 PM PDT by Amagi (Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
 photo LanguageGREENMotivesRED2_zpsa053de7e.jpg
23 posted on 03/23/2014 6:13:08 PM PDT by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amagi
Gee, isn't it funny then that after McIntyre and McKitrick were being stonewalled by the East Anglia climate fraudsters on their request for the climate data, the hockey-stick-hoaxsters (as revealed by the whistle blown e-mails) were in a panic that FOIA laws would require them to release the data due to the fact they were government funded?
I remember ClimateGate very well and I don't recall American researchers being in a panic at all. Can't speak for England. Mann at the time was completely unworried, as Mann's solution, the "Nature trick" was to augment the tree ring proxy data with real and reliable instrumental data in order to reconstruct the end series of the time averaging. There was no manipulation of actual recorded temperature data, only how the reconstructed proxy data was processed to more closely match the accurate data. This is a perfectly valid method of statistics and is accurately pointed out not only in the data link I gave above, but also in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4. Now, East Anglia had withheld about 5% of the data, but that was long after the Mann paper. Which is the only thing I'm talking about here.
And to perpetrate this fraud, is it believable that the left would stop at merely hiring some scientists to whore their data without also corrupting the peer review process as well?
Yes, I've heard that theory, just as I've also heard it's a plot by the UN, the Bilderbergers, the Jews, the Muslims, the Communists, and a bunch of other groups to use climate change to take over the world. But I require more than supposition to believe in a conspiracy that would require the connivance of a few hundred thousand people to make good.
In fact, the AGW peer review process has been as corrupted as anything the left gets its tentacles into, not limited to academia, the MSM, and election stealing. Articles abound on the subject.
Well, since it's Evolution News & Views, I really can't truck with what they say. Being Catholic and a scientific skeptic, I don't follow YEC, though I'll leave my usual commentary on it by the wayside for the sake of our more inclined FR members. I prefer people like this fellow who are a bit more...even-tempered on the subject. I'm not saying I believe that climate change is the big hoopla all the doomsters make it out to be. I am saying that no, I do not believe the peer review process has been corrupted, primarily because I have not received what I consider sufficient proof that would stand up in a court of law. Lot of speculation. Not much solidity.
24 posted on 03/23/2014 7:58:26 PM PDT by GAFreedom (Freedom rings in GA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom
I'm sorry, friend, but you're wrong there. All of the data used for the hockey stick paper published by Mann in 1998 was publicly available data, which can be downloaded right here. That data is the whole enchilada, straight down to the methods and formulas that he used to get his results. Check it yourself.

It's what he left out that he's not reporting, the exculpatory data that DID NOT support his thesis, . . and the facts that the "hockey stick" data is using VERY limited data set chosen from locales that have been generalized so that people think it is valid for the world. An honest scientist includes ALL data, including data that doesn't fit. . . Mann, the Al, agreed to hide data that did not support their over all theory of AGW. . . and Mann, specifically did not include all the dendrochronological data that was available to him, instead cherry picking only those that seemed to show what he wanted, and excluding those that showed nothing or the opposite. . . and even his turned out to not be a good temperature proxy. It is now known that other tree ring data was deliberately excluded because it did not show what Mann wanted it to show. The fact that Mann's tree ring data did NOT model temperatures for the 20th century for the areas where the trees grew—instead representing more closely known drought and wet seasonal patterns, and others turning out to be sampled from differing parts of the trees, I.e. Close to the roots as opposed to farther up the boles—is an extremely difficult issue for Mann that was NOT disclosed in his work. . . as was Mann's impermissible extension of data he did not have to reach 1400 AD. , or the doubling of data sets. The data did not show the Medieval Warm period that is known completely historically which which should cause anyone to question the validity of the basic premise of the proxy. . . and his proxies DO fail to show that well known period. Using his misapplied statistical approach, you can put almost ANY data into his formulas and get a hockey stick (McIntyre). . . as many statistician have said. Data has been hidden, and Mann is refusing FOI releases. . . Including RAW data. He is refusing discovery on why these important data sets were omitted on some in the court cases. He's stonewalling. Why? He dare not allow himself to take the stand.

By the way, some of these data errors Mann has admitted (doubling, extending his data back), but he has not corrected his papers. . . and in fact published again, using the same data, after admitting the errors. No one is using the hockey stick except the popular press. It's been discredited. Drs. Mann, Briffa, and Jones have been caught conspiring to "hide the decline" in their own words. In her testimony before Congress Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry, hardly a AWG denier, said:

"McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this [hide the decline] and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t. Can anyone defend “hide the decline”? I would much prefer to be wrong in my interpretation, but I fear that I am not."
Mann's response to Curry was to call her names and declare her a "climate-denier" and "anti-science," and threaten to file a defamation suit against her! This seems to be his modus operandi. . . someone criticizes his work, attack! Name call! SUE! Thin skinned, isn't he?

Mann spends an inordinate amount of time on Twitter insulting other scientists, and non-scientist including people such as Bill Gates, and the FOUNDER of Greenpeace who have realized the bunk Mann has been pushing and who now disagree with him even though they may still agree with the premise of AWG. . . but he cannot STAND to receive critical fire in return. It seems it's all about his ego.

After all, Mann claims to have been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, claiming "I won the Nobel Peace prize" in his court pleadings against Mark Steyn. . . . an under oath document!. . . when he did not even get a contributor certificate (actually, no one did) with the person and organization who actually DID win that prize. Only Al Gore and the IPCC were actually awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize received "Nobel Diplomas" for that particular 2007 prize, and did NOT include Mann who, according to Geir Lundestad, Director of the Nobel Institute, added his own (vanity) award commendation wording to a copy of the Nobel Diploma! Can you say FORGERY! How egotistical can one get??? This behaviors shows a certain willingness to, shall we say, stretch the truth. . . or shall we be blunt and say LIE? The winners are tolerantly amused. . . Being Liberals.

25 posted on 03/24/2014 12:48:08 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom

Ooooh, I understand now. You are a newby.... Signed up on March 10, 2014.

You didn’t strike me as being conservative. . . now I’m sure. Welcome to FreeRepublic. I have a feeling your stay will not be long. People who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, and swallow that party line won’t last long around here.


26 posted on 03/24/2014 12:55:23 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
It's what he left out that he's not reporting, the exculpatory data that DID NOT support his thesis
OK, I can go with this. What is the exculpatory data that is missing and what instrumentation did it originate from? Tree ring data, I presume?
and the facts that the "hockey stick" data is using VERY limited data set chosen from locales that have been generalized so that people think it is valid for the world.
Yes, McIntyre and McKitrick did claim this in 2003. A rebuttal to that was provided by Wahl and Amman in 2007 in their paper "Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence" I assume you think the rebuttal is insufficient; would you please tell me why?
Mann, the Al, agreed to hide data that did not support their over all theory of AGW. . . and Mann, specifically did not include all the dendrochronological data that was available to him, instead cherry picking only those that seemed to show what he wanted, and excluding those that showed nothing or the opposite
I've seen that accusation before, but I've not seen any type of proof that would stand up to a court of law. And before you bring in ClimateGate and East Anglia, that's a separate issue totally unrelated to the work done by Mann in 1998. If you want to have a separate conversation about that, that will be fine, but I prefer to stick to the on topic. Now, if you have convincing evidence that Mann lied and hid the data - and by convincing proof, I mean documents, videos, audio recordings, so on - please feel free to link me.
It is now known that other tree ring data was deliberately excluded because it did not show what Mann wanted it to show.
OK. What tree ring data and what facility did that data originate from?
others turning out to be sampled from differing parts of the trees, I.e. Close to the roots as opposed to farther up the boles
That wouldn't matter in dendrochronology. Replication would take care of that, and if it didn't, comparison of radiocarbon dating with the dendrochronology would resolve discrepancy.
The data did not show the Medieval Warm period that is known completely historically which which should cause anyone to question the validity of the basic premise of the proxy. . . and his proxies DO fail to show that well known period.
I see you've read the Wegman Report, which was retracted due to plagiarism and Wegman failing to submit it for peer review. Wegman failed to acknowledge that since the Medieval Warm Period (and the Little Ice Age) was a regional and not global phenomenon, they should not be included. If Mann's paper was about the regional temperature record of Europe over time, it would need to be included then.
Data has been hidden, and Mann is refusing FOI releases. . . Including RAW data.
I linked to the raw data, which can both be downloaded from there and freely requested from NOAA. Please explain what data was hidden and which facility/agency that data originated from.
No one is using the hockey stick except the popular press. It's been discredited.
Now that's just plain not true. Aside from the IPCC using it, the North Report put out by the investigation of the National Research Council verified that while there were minor statistical issues with Mann's work, they confirmed his results. I do not know of any major scientific institution that does not currently use the hockey graph. If you are able to name a few, I would appreciate it.
In her testimony before Congress Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry, hardly a AWG denier
Judith Curry was a friend and professor of mine at Tech and I am well-familiar with what she said regarding the decline, which she summarized in her Hiding The Decline posts, the start of which I just linked to. I have had some disagreements with her on the subject, but in general we agree on the original Mann paper. We are in definite agreement that there is a problem with CRU.
Mann's response to Curry was to call her names and declare her a "climate-denier" and "anti-science," and threaten to file a defamation suit against her! This seems to be his modus operandi. . . someone criticizes his work, attack! Name call! SUE! Thin skinned, isn't he?
If someone publicly declared my work with copier technology to be fraudulent, thus impacting my livelihood, you may have no doubt I would file a defamation suit and seek damages. I hold a grudge that way. I understand why Mann did what he did, even if I disagree with him doing it.
Mann spends an inordinate amount of time on Twitter insulting other scientists, and non-scientist
Oh, he's an a-hole for certain. That's generally what a-holes DO, you know. No disagreement there. I even agree that he stretches things in the name of ego.

But that doesn't prove the 1998 paper is wrong, which is what we're focusing on here.
You didn’t strike me as being conservative. . . now I’m sure. Welcome to FreeRepublic. I have a feeling your stay will not be long. People who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, and swallow that party line won’t last long around here.
And this is where I stand up and point at you, shouting, "YOU LIE!"

I AM a conservative, sir. I may disagree with you on points in your argument, but that does not make one a liberal. To believe that everyone who may disagree with you is a liberal is actually liberal thought in and of itself. I advise you to govern yourself accordingly, sir!

I do NOT believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming at all. I state that there will BE NO significant global warming. The doomsters are wrong. It is a lie to say I believe otherwise.

So I ask you, sir, why do you give me the lie? What is your agenda on this matter? Are you shamed by honest discussion and agreement? Tell the truth and shame the Devil!

And now I shall not respond to you for a day or two, because your accusations have made me very hot indeed, sir.
27 posted on 03/24/2014 3:44:41 PM PDT by GAFreedom (Freedom rings in GA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom
If someone publicly declared my work with copier technology to be fraudulent, thus impacting my livelihood, you may have no doubt I would file a defamation suit and seek damages. I hold a grudge that way. I understand why Mann did what he did, even if I disagree with him doing it.

Excuse me, but suing in a court of law is NOT how science is done. . . Nor is threatening lawsuits against other scientists who disagree with you. Nor is it done by suing laypeople who disagree with you. Michael Mann IS a fine piece of work... who has been caught with his fingers in the proverbial cookie jar and is throwing everything at the wall in hopes nobody will notice. I know a lot of scientists... and most of them are holding their collective noses at the NON-science that is coming out of Climate "science" these days. . . and the dancing they climate 'scientists" are doing to ignore the data from the last fifteen years.

28 posted on 03/24/2014 4:01:02 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

I’ve read that Mann has a deep pocket group financing his lawsuits. I know of no good reason why a newbie would show up on FR to defend him.


29 posted on 03/24/2014 4:17:05 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady; Rummyfan; Howlin; riley1992; Miss Marple; Dane; sinkspur; steve; kattracks; ...

Mark Steyn ping.

Freepmail me, if you want on or off the Mark Steyn ping list.

Thanks for the ping Twotone.


30 posted on 03/25/2014 7:34:50 AM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska

Exactly! Mann thought he saw the opportunity to bully somebody, and took the bait. Now he has to get out of it without being wrung out like a wet hanky. And Steyn (be still my heart) is just the man to do it. Hee hee!


31 posted on 03/25/2014 8:00:46 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("See something, say something.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
He has announced his new lawyers on his blog.

http://www.steynonline.com/6201/what-kind-of-fool-am-i

Daniel J Kornstein and his co-counsel Mark Platt were the driving force behind the most consequential free-speech legislation this century.

Dan and Mark's most important client in the last decade or so was Rachel Ehrenfeld, whose book Funding Evil happened to include rather more details of Khalid bin Mahfouz's bankrolling of al-Qaeda than the Saudi billionaire cared to have revealed to the world. So he sued her in a London court. Dan and Mark got Dr Ehrenfeld to countersue in New York to prevent Mahfouz from ever collecting, and, when the court declined to acknowledge it had personal jurisdiction over Mahfouz, they got the legislature to take up the issue and pass "Rachel's Law".

This law prevents New York courts from enforcing libel judgments from other countries with lower standards of freedom-of-speech protection.

32 posted on 03/25/2014 8:14:14 AM PDT by Valpal1 (If the police can t solve a problem with violence, they ll find a way to fix it with brute force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom

Steyn has lawyers now, Kornstein and Platt, and they are really big guns.


33 posted on 03/25/2014 8:28:40 AM PDT by Valpal1 (If the police can t solve a problem with violence, they ll find a way to fix it with brute force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

Good news!!!! I think Mark had to get the donations/funds before he could hire all this great legal talent. I still want to see Mark do some cross examination on Michael Mann (in court)

Mann has some phantom funders for his legal assault on Mark Steyn’s free speech rights. IOW this is not costing Mann much money unless Steyn sues him for damages


34 posted on 03/25/2014 9:11:54 AM PDT by dennisw (The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber
He has a third option - drop the lawsuit.

Since Steyn has counter-sued, doesn't that stop this being a legit option? He'd have to make a deal with Steyn that they'd both drop their suits, which I think is highly unlikely to happen.

35 posted on 03/25/2014 9:14:18 AM PDT by kevkrom (I'm not an unreasonable man... well, actually, I am. But hear me out anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dutch Boy
That option has zero percent chance of being true.

Don't be so sure. The "peers" who review Mann's work are as capably as Mann of lying through their teeth. In fact, I expect them to do just that because their entire house of commie cards is endangered.

36 posted on 03/25/2014 10:10:44 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom
Complete nonsense.

I think it's best summed up by Ken White over at Popehat, though. He's the free speech expert, and he lays it out well:

That post is a month old, and like yours, is mistaken: http://www.steynonline.com/6201/what-kind-of-fool-am-i

Problem is, all of his data AND his methodology has been publicly available for years

This claim is also completely false. Go over to http://climateaudit.org/and read the complete history of the Warmists' conspiracy to deny rightful FOIA [and the UK counterpart laws] over many years, to many different petitioners.

He does not. He's gone total pro se. And Steyn is refusing any and all offers of assistance so far.

Untrue. It wasn't true when Popehat first claimed and posted it 5 weeks ago, and it obviously isn't true now.

So either those other climatologists are in on a big conspiracy, or his work is up to snuff.

They are involved in a conspiracy, which is what the East Anglia email scandals were all about. You need to disabuse yourself of your silly ideas; in particular, have fun reading Steve McIntyre's blog, where he meticulously establishes what the emails say, and in which he completely demolishes Mann's laughable claim that he has been exonerated of scientific wrongdoing by eleven different independent commissions. No. He hasn't. Only the PSU whitewash even mentions "Nobel Prize Winner" Michael Mann. You should also check out Bishop Hill. His timeline and details about the Warmist Cadre's attempt to suffocate debate and violate the law is illuminating as well.

This isn't Daily Kos, DU, or some other dump website where you're used to posting, where you can just post crap. Keep up to date with the facts, or don't post at all.

And Welcome to FreeRepublic, N00b.

37 posted on 03/25/2014 2:13:49 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

I know of ONE good reason. [If by good we mean “nefarious.”]


38 posted on 03/25/2014 2:15:00 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Especially when they post crap that isn’t true.


39 posted on 03/25/2014 2:17:56 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom
Hot on the heels of the environmentalists' Global Cooling fear-mongering of the 1970s they the gave us the Anthropogenic Global Warming scam.

Cui bono?
Who benefits?

(1) The Power/Control Grab
The prescriptions offered for addressing AGW are a liberal tyrant's wet dream, i.e., more power and control over We the People delivered into the hands of the political elites. It is the growth of Bigger Government, and the corollary loss of individual freedom.
The objective of the AGW hoax is exactly the same as the objective for ObamaCare. They are two sides of the same leftwing strategy coin. Despite the Serial Lies of Obama, Pelosi, et al, ObamaCare is a power/control grab of Leninist proportions (my FR tagline --- Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.") If the elites really wanted to insure the uninsured they would be horrified at the number of newly uninsured, legions of whom are also now out a job, or severely downsized in hours directly because of ObamaCare, but the reality of the elites' lack of contrition and their relentless continuing shill for ObamaCare puts the lie of the objective to the Liars.

(2) The Financial Profiteers

Foremost among these, of course, being Al Gore, the perfect point man for the AGW hoax. The bloated buffoon who flunked out of Divinity School, who earned a "D" in science has made himself fitly, filthy rich pushing the AGW scam. The flaming hypocrite who travels in an inefficient private jet, whose limousine runs the motor to keep the heat on while Al is inside addresses the gullible throngs of useful idiots, and whose palatial mansions each burn energy at the rate of a village. Yet he piously intones to a congressional committee that he pays for his lifestyle by purchasing carbon credit offsets, conveniently neglecting to add that he has OWNERSHIP in the carbon credit scam company, from which he is purchasing absolution. Gore also has heavily involved in the failed CCX … and let's not forget the hypocrisy of selling his failed TV network to Al-Jazerra, funded by evil Qatar oil.

A subset of the AGW profiteers is those who would prostitute their scientific credentials to falsify methodology and data to support anthropogenic global warming.
Richard Lindzen (the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT): "It's become standard that whatever you're studying, include global warming's effects in your proposal and you'll get your (government) funding."
According to Paul Driessen (author of "Eco-Imperialism") on the G. Gordon Liddy show 12/1/09, hour 2: The US Big Government had funded $90 billion in GW research over the previous 20 years promoting climate crisis science.
To this end, and if you're in the mood for a chuckle, see Dr. John Brignell's "Complete List of Things caused by Global Warming", most especially when for a single event independent "scientists" ascribe polar opposite results as both being caused by "global warming" --- pure comedy gold.

(3) The Useful Idiots
The scientifically and politically ignorant and gullible who are duped by the lies of the left, but have been so brainwashed they clutch at the mantras and unwaveringly spew them back when confronted by reality. I'm not sure what they get out of the AGW hoax, as I'm not a psychologist. The good news is that despite years of propagandizing most people have not been fooled.

And why should they be fooled? Certainly not by reality. There has been no temperature increase for 17.5+ years now. (Despite official temperature sensors suspiciously placed where they are not recording merely ambient air temperature, but the heat exhaust of air conditioners, reflected convection from nearby surfaces, etc., --- all photographically documented by Watt, plus the decommissioning of temperature sensors disproportionately in cooler locations.)
Moreover, the globe has been in a cooling mode since the Medieval Warm Period, a time when wine vineyards actually existed in the British Isles, now too cold for such activity.

But what is it that is said to be causing this Global Warming (GW which can't be verified, at that) as there are a multitude of interacting factors that no yet yet fully understands. Citing just a few, is it the fact that solar energy output fluctuates normally? Is it the eccentricities in the earth's revolution and orbit? Dr. Roy Spencer has posited the fact that the energy of precipitation and its role in climate has not even been studied.

No, we are to believe, greater than solar flux and all the other factors is the Greenhouse effect, and specifically one of the minor in terms of volume (minuscule compared to water vapor) and weaker (as compared to methane, for example) greenhouse gases but the one most advantageous for a political power/control grab --- namely CO2, a by-product of mankind's use of the engines of productivity that have advanced civilization and freedom --- both of which liberals can't abide.

After all, what's the use of being a liberal if you can't lie, cheat, and steal?

40 posted on 03/25/2014 4:16:28 PM PDT by Amagi (Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom
I've seen that accusation before, but I've not seen any type of proof that would stand up to a court of law. And before you bring in ClimateGate and East Anglia, that's a separate issue totally unrelated to the work done by Mann in 1998. If you want to have a separate conversation about that, that will be fine, but I prefer to stick to the on topic. Now, if you have convincing evidence that Mann lied and hid the data - and by convincing proof, I mean documents, videos, audio recordings, so on - please feel free to link me.

Scientific proof is NOT required to "stand up in court," GAFreedom, it merely has to falsify the thesis. . . and when data that falsifies the thesis is systematically excluded from the presentation, not reported in the studies, and then actively hidden to prevent the contrary data FROM falsifying the thesis, that is serious.

In the mid 1990’s the Polar Urals were the place to be for interesting tree rings, but then as the data got updated and yielded a medieval warm period that Team AGW preferred to ignore, they moved their focus to the Yamal Peninsula. There was plenty of data to pick from, but that’s the point. They chose 10 data sets from 1990, and only 5 post 1995. Which seems curious as presumably there is no shortage of 20 year old trees on the Yamal Peninsula. As Ross McKitrick notes, a small sample may have been passable, but it appears that these trees were not selected randomly.

Thus the key ingredient in a lot of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series (red line above) depends on the influence of a thin subsample of post-1990 chronologies and the exclusion of the (much larger) collection of readily-available Schweingruber data for the same area.

All of this, and more, in the form of other dendrochronological data from OTHER trees from the same periods, in different locations, that DO NOT SHOW the same climatological (general temperature proxy) data, have been repeatedly been brought forth. . . many of which were close to the same trees that Mann claimed showed good proxy representations. . . But these don't. Why not?

. Many question if tree ring data are even good proxies for temperature changes. . . and since the data for twentieth century tree rings DO NOT correspond to temperature variation, why should it be assumed that it does for any previous era???

That wouldn't matter in dendrochronology. Replication would take care of that, and if it didn't, comparison of radiocarbon dating with the dendrochronology would resolve discrepancy.

What???? That has nothing to do with this issue. The issue has to do with the comparable WIDTH of the rings on the same tree—and using the widths to claim greater width as a proxy greater temperature—but it is well known that rings from near the roots grow considerably wider than do rings higher up the bole given similar conditions. . . but Mann did not adjust for the discrepancy, assuming the later sampled root rings, with their greater widths, meant warmer, than the earlier sampled, but narrower rings from higher in the same tree. Carbon-14 would not help on any of this. . . bad assumptions are bad assumptions.

One other issue that archaeologists are well aware of is that dendrochronological data is basically about merely counting rings of growing seasons. . . But the rings' thicknesses represent a relationship to Draughts, no necessarily temperature. That is a leap of logic that is hard to make.

Wegman failed to acknowledge that since the Medieval Warm Period (and the Little Ice Age) was a regional and not global phenomenon, they should not be included.

Say what?! Let's see, since the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice age—both of which occurred during the last 600 years—are "regional" and not "Global" affecting only the North American Continent and much of Europe, then they should be excluded from a data set and graph representing temperature claiming to show "global" temperature increases over 600 plus years using data COMPILED ONLY from the NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT and EUROPE??? You want to run that one by me again???? Do you realize how completely nutty that is?

Re: Liberal... Fine you be hot. But we have a LOT of experience with trolls who write and claim to be conservative exactly as you are. . . They were trolls. Time will tell. so far I see no difference between them and you. I would prefer to be wrong. . . But, frankly GAFreedom, the odds don't trend well for you.

41 posted on 03/25/2014 8:39:24 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Was there anything the N00b posted that was accurate? Anything?


42 posted on 03/25/2014 8:56:02 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

Not as far as I could tell. I seriously doubt he’ll be back...


43 posted on 03/25/2014 10:08:23 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

bkmk


44 posted on 03/25/2014 10:54:40 PM PDT by AllAmericanGirl44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1; FredZarguna; Swordmaker
@Valpal1:
Steyn has lawyers now, Kornstein and Platt, and they are really big guns.
Yup, if the motions are approved he should be good to go, so long as he doesn't argue with them.

===

@FredZarguna:
That post is a month old, and like yours, is mistaken:
You missed his post from March 18th there, bud. Steyn only posted today, too. I don't think Ken White can see into the future from March 18th, do you? Or did you notice my commentary was before Steyn posted? I'm guessing not.
This claim is also completely false. Go over to http://climateaudit.org/and read the complete history of the Warmists' conspiracy to deny rightful FOIA [and the UK counterpart laws] over many years, to many different petitioners.
From Climate Audit's own FAQ: Earlier, Mann et al. made public the address for the data actually used in MBH98, rather than the address which they had previously provided us. The present articles reflect detailed study of this new material. In particular, we are now able to precisely diagnose the problems with the principal component series in MBH98, which previously were simply noted as being incorrect.

The public address for the data actually used in MBH98 is the link I posted previously. McIntyre fully agrees that this is the complete data set used by Mann in MBH98 and that it is complete. You can check this for yourself in previous articles on Climate Audit. I will go so far as to email McIntyre myself for verification and screenshot his reply. Do you require me to do that? I have absolutely no problem doing so.
Untrue. It wasn't true when Popehat first claimed and posted it 5 weeks ago, and it obviously isn't true now.
Steyn went pro se on January 24th. Several conservative and libertarian attorneys specializing in free speech issues offered their services pro bono between January 24th and March 24th, when he ren-engaged counsel according to his own documents. He refused all of those offers of help from other attorneys, before engaging Kornstein, Platt, et al., on his own. Those are matters of fact.
They are involved in a conspiracy, which is what the East Anglia email scandals were all about.
As I've said previously, East Anglia has nothing to do with MBH98. Separate issues, separate nations.
This isn't Daily Kos, DU, or some other dump website where you're used to posting, where you can just post crap. Keep up to date with the facts, or don't post at all. And Welcome to FreeRepublic, N00b.
My, such Christian behavior. Your greeting is noted and taken in the vitriolic spirit that it was intended. I turn the other cheek, as I am instructed to by God.

===

@Swordmaker:
Scientific proof is NOT required to "stand up in court," GAFreedom, it merely has to falsify the thesis
So long as it is rigorously tested, peer-reviewed, and has repeated experimentation, I certainly agree. But any proof that DOES undergo that process WILL stand up in court, simply by virtue of having been tested and forged in the fires of scientific inquiry.
Many question if tree ring data are even good proxies for temperature changes. . . and since the data for twentieth century tree rings DO NOT correspond to temperature variation, why should it be assumed that it does for any previous era???
Well, with this question what you are essentially doing is stating that the science of dendrochronology is not accurate and cannot be relied upon, specifically the Uniformitarian Principle.
What???? That has nothing to do with this issue. The issue has to do with the comparable WIDTH of the rings on the same tree—and using the widths to claim greater width as a proxy greater temperature—but it is well known that rings from near the roots grow considerably wider than do rings higher up the bole given similar conditions. . . but Mann did not adjust for the discrepancy, assuming the later sampled root rings, with their greater widths, meant warmer, than the earlier sampled, but narrower rings from higher in the same tree.
Replication WOULD take care of this, as it involves sampling more than one stem radius per tree, and more than one tree per site. Obtaining more than one increment core per tree reduces the amount of "intra-tree variability", in other words, the amount of non-desirable environmental signal peculiar to only tree. Obtaining numerous trees from one site, and perhaps several sites in a region, ensures that the amount of "noise" (such as variations from where the sample is selected) is minimized.

This is also assisted by using the formula for Aggregate Tree Growth, in which any individual tree-growth series can be divided into an aggregate of environmental factors that affected the patterns of tree growth over time. This obviates the differential between selection in various locations of the tree.
One other issue that archaeologists are well aware of is that dendrochronological data is basically about merely counting rings of growing seasons. . . But the rings' thicknesses represent a relationship to Draughts, no necessarily temperature. That is a leap of logic that is hard to make.
...that would be very incorrect. It's more than counting rings. Specifically, it's R(t) = A(t) + C(t) + ϬD1(t) + ϬD2(t) +E(t), where A is the age-related growth trend due to normal aging processes, C is the climate that occurred during that year, D1 is the occurrence of disturbance factors within the forest stand, D2 is the occurrence of disturbance factors outside the forest stand, and E accoints for random processes not accounted for by the other variables. Ϭ indicates either a "0" or absence or "1" for presence fo the disturbance signal.
Say what?! Let's see, since the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice age—both of which occurred during the last 600 years—are "regional" and not "Global" affecting only the North American Continent and much of Europe, then they should be excluded from a data set and graph representing temperature claiming to show "global" temperature increases over 600 plus years using data COMPILED ONLY from the NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT and EUROPE??? You want to run that one by me again???? Do you realize how completely nutty that is?
If you look at the link to the MBH98 data that I posted, you will see the data was not compiled only from North America and Europe, but included data from all continents. And as I stated to FredZarguna, McIntyre states that the complete data set. Would you please provide your sources that the data set only covers North America and Europe, please?
Re: Liberal... Fine you be hot. But we have a LOT of experience with trolls who write and claim to be conservative exactly as you are. . . They were trolls. Time will tell. so far I see no difference between them and you. I would prefer to be wrong. . . But, frankly GAFreedom, the odds don't trend well for you.
Your insinuations and threats have been noted, sir. Etiquette and God forbid me response aside from denial of your claims on that matter.
45 posted on 03/26/2014 2:33:19 AM PDT by GAFreedom (Freedom rings in GA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom
I didn't miss any of Popehat's blogs. They aren't any more pertinent than the nonsense you've posted, since they are based on nothing more than speculations about Steyn's legal circumstances, which were nothing more than self-congratulatory bloviating, and in the event, not true.

As I've said previously, East Anglia has nothing to do with MBH98. Separate issues, separate nations.

More lies and distraction.

The Climategate emails proved that "The Team" engaged in a systematic conspiracy to deny publication to AGW skeptics, and to thwart the law with respect to FOIA requests, a pattern of behavior in which Mann himself participated. Your attempts to claim otherwise is typical of your leftist ilk, and interesting in light of your defense [by way of a supposed "non-defense"] of Mann, who himself has actually claimed that the East Anglia Whitewashes were in fact instances of commissions that "cleared" his name.

No such thing: "I am in the process of writing a post showing that Mann’s claim that he had personally been exonerated by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (report here) of a wide range of counts was also untrue. It’s so untrue that it’s hard to even make an interesting post of it."

href=http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/25/mann-misrepresents-the-uk-department-of-energy-and-climate-change/

http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/24/mann-misrepresents-the-uk-commons-committee/

http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/22/the-source-of-manns-doctored-quote/

As for the 2005 FAQ you think is dispositive of "something." Interestingly, it is: "Since then, and largely because of the effect of the original article, a great deal of new information about MBH98 has been made available. In July 2004, at the direction of Nature, Mann et al. published a Corrigendum, which included a voluminous archive on data and methods used in MBH98.

So Mann's methods and data were not "available for years." They were made available under pressure from Nature as a direct result of AGW skeptics and the force of FOIA requests, and not out of any scientific ethos.

Nice try, lefty.

46 posted on 03/26/2014 9:52:30 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom; All
Just randomly cherry-picking a very well-written comment, as I'm way over my head on this, BUT, here goes (emphasis mine):

"...the "Nature trick" was to augment the tree ring proxy data with real and reliable instrumental data in order to reconstruct the end series of the time averaging...

Reading this in plain every day English language, I just want to say I'm instinctively suspicious of "augmenting proxy data in order to reconstruct the end averaging".

Of course, I don't understand the nuances of these words in the scientific community, but a plain reading using commonly understood English words suggests that you can't "reconstruct" something that hasn't happened yet (?), "proxy" data means "stand-in evidence", and "augmenting" said data with some other measure predictions which might be deemed reliable but are not actual things adds something that is not there in fact...

Then throw in "the end averaging"...

So, why do they (or at least this scientist) talk this way? It makes me very suspicious that "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance (in plain language), then baffle them with B. S."...and by all means, let's swerve the national and global energy policy to accomodate the postulated coming warming...GO GREEN!! Windmills (never mind any birds, wildlife and domestic creatures), algae fuel (non-renewable and expensive), no more "dirty coal" (no more coal fired power plants - Obama did warn us), natural gas power plants and fuel, except not if fracking is involved, and by ALL means, more corn ethanol (despite it will ruin older car engines, costs a lot to process for refineries and at the pump, and critically reduces the available food crop)...and etc.!

Maybe this is all on the up-and-up, but it doesn't look that way to me, in "fly-over country"...I'm just saying we shouldn't be setting binding stringent policies on hypothesis (sic). YES, the climate is changing, yet again. So what else is new? LOL!

47 posted on 03/26/2014 10:44:45 PM PDT by 88keys (hard times we're living in...broken-glass GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom
I do not agree with Mann's conclusions, but his work HAS been independently verified by other climatologists. So either those other climatologists are in on a big conspiracy, or his work is up to snuff. I make no claim to either, myself.

Of course not, but welcome to FR anyways.
48 posted on 03/26/2014 11:19:09 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the Occupation Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA; Swordmaker
Was there anything the N00b posted that was accurate? Anything?

Nope. We owe Swordmaker for the patience of a saint.
49 posted on 03/26/2014 11:33:27 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the Occupation Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GAFreedom
...that would be very incorrect. It's more than counting rings. Specifically, it's R(t) = A(t) + C(t) + ϬD1(t) + ϬD2(t) +E(t), where A is the age-related growth trend due to normal aging processes, C is the climate that occurred during that year, D1 is the occurrence of disturbance factors within the forest stand, D2 is the occurrence of disturbance factors outside the forest stand, and E accoints for random processes not accounted for by the other variables. Ϭ indicates either a "0" or absence or "1" for presence fo the disturbance signal.

Excuse me, SIR! Dendrochronological studies, until Mann stuck his nose into it, did not assume your lovely formula as so important, especially the primacy of climate. That is an example of begging the question! petitio principii The ring pattern in a tree are created EVERY growing season. . . and the issue of how robust the ring is in any given season has more to do with the availability of water than temperature. Mann's confabulated the variation of tree rings widths with temperature variation due to climatological, I.e. TEMPERATURE variations, were NOT born out in studies of modern tree ring cores where KNOWN temperature variations had occurred! It was not even close to a significant correlation. Irrigation, snow pack, humidity, number of sunny days, length of the rainy season had far more impact on the width of the tree rings than any fluctuations in temperatures. The minor temperature changes that possibly could have been noted were lost in the noise of the other environmental inputs!

The deliberate exclusion of data from trees from the same areas and ages that DID NOT show the same results, and NOT including that exclusion, or the reasons for omitting these data, is still unexplained. . . and the cover-up and efforts to hide it. . . Unexcusable. The impermissible fabrication of data to extend it backwards to reach the 1400 AD target date he needed to make data set "more robust" . . . Reprehensible. The addition of "real instrument temperature" to "adjust" modern tree core data when they didn't fit his theory. . . Unheard of fudging of data! Why should we believe this fraud who had the gall to claim a Nobel Peace prize for himself?

50 posted on 03/27/2014 1:07:36 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson