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 ...
Mark Steyn court case alert...
Mann should be prosecuted worse than Maddof.
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.
Third option: Mann is taken for a visit to Marcy Park.
Thanks Twotone.
He has a third option - drop the lawsuit.
That’s probably what will happen. Hopefully Steyn can recover his legal fees in that event.
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}.
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)
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
Mann doesn't have to worry... he could say anything and democrats will still believe him.
I think both Ball and Steyn have filed countersuits for damages. Puts Mann in a whole new squeeze, no?
bttt
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.
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 scenesHe 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.
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?
Could we perhaps say he will be. . . "Gored???"
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.
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.
- Tiljander – The Tiljander proxies were said by the data collectors to have been corrupted due to human influences, and as such, their data from ~1800 AD was worthless as a temperature proxy. Additionally, there were only two series. Not only did Michael Mann use these series with a methodology that requires proxies measure temperatures in the modern times, he used some of them upside down, and he duplicated information by using four instead of two.
- r2 – Michael Mann calculated statistical verification scores for his reconstruction. He published the favorable results while hiding the adverse results. He did this to such an extent he published some scores for one test (r2) while hiding others from the same test. When challenged on this, he lied by claiming he had never calculated any of the r2 scores (despite having published some).
- Additionally, the IPCC report which made him famous claimed his reconstruction passed multiple verification tests, a claim it couldn’t have made if people had known about the hidden, adverse results. Had he disclosed those adverse results, he would never have received worldwide attention, become a major public figure in the global warming debate, have written a popular book or become a player in political campaigns.
- Gaspe – Michael Mann used the Gaspe tree ring data twice. In one case, he artifically extended the series further back into the past so it could reach the 1400 AD mark his paper aimed for. He did not disclose this extension nor offer any justification for it. Without it, his results would have been notably weaker. Additionally, the Gaspe tree ring data for that period was based upon a single tree. Dendrochronologists say series based upon a single tree are inappropriate for use as temperature proxies.
- Temperature record as proxies – Michael Mann included modern temperature data, measured by man made instruments, in both his original reconstruction and his 2008 reconstruction. In both cases, they were treated as proxy data derived from nature.
- Precipitation record as proxies – Michael Mann has repeatedly used precipitation records as proxies in his temperature reconstructions even though he co-authored a paper criticizing other authors (Soon & Balinaus) for conflating temperature and precipitation proxies.
- Non-robust – In his original work, Michael Mann claimed his temperature reconstruction was robust to the removal of tree ring data. It wasn’t. He now admits (in his book) he knew it wasn’t almost immediately after publishing his original work, but he never corrected it. Instead, he wrote an another paper which built upon the earlier work.
- This last one cannot be stressed enough. Michael Mann knew his temperature reconstruction was dependent upon a small amount of tree ring data from one part of the United States. Knowing this, he allowed his work to be promoted as showing what temperatures were like for the entire northern hemisphere. Had he been honest, people would have known 90% of his data was irrelevant and all that really mattered was a small number of trees in one area.
(Of course, there are other topics to discuss as well. This is just a beginning of a list.)
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.
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.