Scientist sues conspiracy theorists…and wins!


In a bit of happy news:

In a victory for climate scientists, jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments made in 2012.

In a unanimous decision, jurors agreed that both Simberg and Steyn defamed Mann in blog posts that compared Mann to convicted sex offender Jerry Sandusky, former assistant football coach at Penn State University. They announced that Simberg will pay $1,000 in punitive damages and Steyn will pay the larger $1 million.

Before the free speech fanatics start whining, this is something more than a guy suing someone to stop them calling him names. Simberg & Steyn were trying to undermine significant scientific claims by using ad hominems (hey, I’m actually applying that logical fallacy correctly) against Mann by defaming him. They can’t defeat the science with evidence, so instead they accuse a scientist of pedophilia…with absolutely no evidence for that, either.

Mann’s lawyers pointed this out, too.

“One million dollars in punitive damages makes a statement,” he said in an exclusive interview. “This is about the defense of science against scurrilous attacks, and dishonest efforts to undermine scientists who are just trying to do our job.”

Mann also noted that the trial was about defamatory statements made in an effort to discredit scientists “whose findings might prove inconvenient to certain ideologically driven individuals and outlets.”

“It’s about the integrity of the science and making sure that bad actors aren’t allowed to make false and defamatory statements about scientists in their effort to advance an agenda,” he added.

More than a defense of Mann, this was a trial about defending science. Simberg & Steyn’s lawyers, though, simply resorted to more personal attacks against Mann. Even if those criticisms were valid (they aren’t), they wouldn’t have constituted a good defense of the climate deniers claims. It was just more ad hominem!

But in the trial, these questions about “tenor” around the time of so-called “Climategate” seemed designed to legitimize attacks on Mann.

Roger Pielke Jr., another witness for the defense, called Mann “thin skinned” and “quick to attack.”

Much of the defense testimony seemed designed to “victimiz[e] the victim,” Williams said in his closing argument. For those who oppose climate action, “Michael Mann has become a huge target.”

This strategy of “victimizing the victim” not only shifted days of trial away from Simberg and Steyn’s articles comparing Mann to Sandusky — it also gave the defense an opportunity to put the hockey stick chart, and climate science more broadly, on trial.

My one complaint would be that the award of $1.1 million was not adequate. The bad guys, Simberg & Steyn, are backed by a whole vast industry with deep pockets, and that much money is just loose change to them — they’ll extract that much from their sofa cushions.

It’s no reward for Mann, either. I’ve been through this particular wringer with one petty, low profile accusation, and it required paying a lawyer hundreds of thousands of dollars to win. This was a big case — I imagine all Mann has won financially is more debt. But it was worth it!*

* At least, that’s what the lawyers say.

Comments

  1. gijoel says

    I wonder if Simberg & Steyn are going to continue making ad ad hominem a la Trump, or pretend their bankrupt so they don’t have to pay anything.

  2. Akira MacKenzie says

    Why should lying be protected speech?

    And no, I’m not at all satisfied with the excuse I usually hear: “Do you want the government to decide what is and isn’t true.”

    Yes! Who the fuck else is going to? (That’s not a rhetorical question, BTW. If not the state, then who?)

  3. cheerfulcharlie says

    Michael Mann should also get legal costs on top of this. Years ago, a court allowed National Review, that had published articles by Steyn off the hook for publishing defamatory attacks on Mann. Mann is now appealing that. So this all may not be over just yet.

    As for Mark Steyn, when Rush Limpbrain was still alive, Steyn occasionally sat in for Limbaugh as a substitute shock jock. That should tell you a lot about Steyn.

  4. JM says

    @3 Akira MacKenzie: Reality should be the primary arbiter of truth. Follow that up with courts in cases where it has to be determined. Then science only because the courts have to have precedent for legal determination. The government barely makes the top 10.

  5. says

    @3, @5:

    As a lawyer now who’s been stuck dealing with these sorts of things since long before becoming a lawyer, and in places other than the US with our First Amendment:

    The fundamental problem is that “speech” costs less to utter than its effects. That necessarily means that there is no one clear, appropriate, and not-self-interested arbiter of when speech goes “too far,” and what the appropriate remedy is when it goes too far and how to get it. Living in the UK during the Thatcher years shows how one “alternative” to the US context… doesn’t work. And the rest of Europe is worse; and most of the rest of the world…

    Which is only to say that the “Rule of Law sets the context, and individual legal proceedings determine whether there will be consequences” is the least-imperfect path, with probably least-imperfect-available setting of the contexts. The real difficulty is that the “objectively correct” attack in this instance on Simberg and Steyn motivations and supporters is itself an ad hominem attack — and it’s one that resonates McCarthyism, the jailing of Eugene Debs, and more to the point the AIDS crisis (in which those attacks transferred one aspect of “socially unacceptable” behavior and views to all scientists attempting to study the issue, at a time when attacking that particular behavior was quite popular among a loudmouthed, statistically significant portion of the population and even large portion of those in power) and “porn” (I will not mention certain renowned visual artists who, under carefully constructed pseudonymous alternate identities, make their actual living doing “glamour photography” — lawyer, ya know).

    The takeway is, or should be, that “free speech” eventually has consequences, especially when used to promote the speaker’s hidden agenda (often, as in this instance, not so hidden after all) instead of the actual subject of the speech, and that the rules and procedures for determining that are horribly imperfect and largely based (pretty constantly, in pretty much all Western nations) on what ruling elites who are now in their 50s to 70s recall as unacceptable from their respective misspent youths. There just isn’t a better alternative that doesn’t look an awful lot like Iran (pick any period since the early 1920s…). It’s ok to throw up your hands at how hard this is, because it is.

  6. Akira MacKenzie says

    @ 5

    Reality should be the primary arbiter of truth

    .

    When last I looked. “reality” was not a conscious entity with the ability to punish liars, grifters, and idiots who want to claim up is down and left is right. It doesn’t have the power to decide or hold liars accountable.

  7. numerobis says

    I remember the case that Mann lost because the court found nobody would believe Tim Ball’s libel. I’m glad this new court is able to accept that actually, people do believe insane things.

  8. nomdeplume says

    I can never decide whether the First or Second Amendment has caused the most damage to America.

  9. says

    PZ has made a huge logical error. Under what molested and tortured logic was Mann accused of pedophilia?

    “They can’t defeat the science with evidence, so instead they accuse a scientist of pedophilia…”

    Also: “This was a big case — I imagine all Mann has won financially is more debt. But it was worth it!*

    At least, that’s what the lawyers say.”

    Where did the lawyers say that? Mann was asked under cross examination what he has paid or owed and he pretty much said nothing.

  10. raven says

    Canman unable to read simple English:

    PZ has made a huge logical error. Under what molested and tortured logic was Mann accused of pedophilia?

    No.
    You made a simple error.
    You assumed you were able to read English despite being nearly illiterate.

    In a unanimous decision, jurors agreed that both Simberg and Steyn defamed Mann in blog posts that compared Mann to convicted sex offender Jerry Sandusky, former assistant football coach at Penn State University.

    They compared Mann to Jerry Sandusky.

    Who is now in prison for sexually assaulting children.

    In 2011, following a two-year grand jury investigation, Sandusky was arrested and charged with 52 counts of sexual abuse of young boys over a 15-year period from 1994 to 2009. Sandusky met his molestation victims through the Second Mile, the organization he founded in 1977.

    Jerry Sandusky – Wikipedia
    Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Jerry_Sandusky

    I realize canman the near illiterate won’t be able to read this Wikipedia excerpt.

    Shrug. Maybe someone can find his Thinking Brain Service Dog and have the dog read it to him.
    Maybe. I don’t blame his Thinking Brain Service Dog for running away. Even they must get frustrated sometimes.

  11. raven says

    Illiterate troll:

    At least, that’s what the lawyers say.”

    FFS, go back to an Adult English as a First Language school and learn to read. In a decade or two those funny squiggles on pages will start to make sense.

    PZ: It’s no reward for Mann, either. I’ve been through this particular wringer with one petty, low profile accusation, and it required paying a lawyer hundreds of thousands of dollars to win.

    For Canman’s Thinking Brain Service Dog if they ever find it.

    PZ was sued by a creepy guy whose name I will omit as being not worth it, and Freethoughtblogs and PZ Myers won.
    Won what?
    It still ended up costing him and us hundreds of thousands of dollars.
    Us because many of us contributed to the legal defense fund.

    The lawyers who said it was worth it were…those lawyers, PZ versus Creep.
    They are right but it was still an expensive and unnecessary expense.

  12. raven says

    Raven,
    Here’s some more English that perhaps you can help me with:

    Naw.

    They gave you a Thinking Brain Service Dog.
    If it ran off, that is your problem.

    Canman, you are obviously a very stupid troll.
    I’m not wasting another second on you.

  13. Brad Keyes says

    PZ Myers:

    “They can’t defeat the science with evidence, so instead they accuse a scientist of pedophilia…”

    Canman:

    No, they didn’t accuse him of pedophilia.

    raven:

    No. You made a simple error. You assumed you were able to read English despite being nearly illiterate. I realize canman the near illiterate won’t be able to read this Wikipedia excerpt. Shrug. Maybe someone can find his Thinking Brain Service Dog and have the dog read it to him. Maybe. I don’t blame his Thinking Brain Service Dog for running away. Even they must get frustrated sometimes. Illiterate troll: FFS, go back to an Adult English as a First Language school and learn to read. In a decade or two those funny squiggles on pages will start to make sense. For Canman’s Thinking Brain Service Dog if they ever find it. They gave you a Thinking Brain Service Dog. If it ran off, that is your problem. Canman, you are obviously a very stupid troll. I’m not wasting another second on you.

    PZ Myers:

    “so instead they accuse a scientist of pedophilia…”

    Poor, poor raven. What profiteth a man to be able to read, if he chooseth not to read the OP? Man, or bird? Or beast? Be this word our sign of parting, take thy beak from out this thread and thy adult reading refusal from out my face.

  14. says

    Calling someone the Jerry Sandusky of some endeavor unrelated to being a pedophile is not the same as calling them a pedophile, just like calling someone the Michael Jordan of bowling is not calling them a basketball player.

  15. John Morales says

    True, comparing is not calling.
    Still, comparing someone to a pedophile — however spurious the comparison — is indeed comparing someone to a pedophile. As per that legal brief.

    (Pretty clearly an insinuation about someone’s character, no?)

  16. says

    On another note, half a decade ago, PZ did a couple posts on a review at skeptic.com of a book claiming Jerry Sandusky was innocent. PZ and the post’s commenters were understandably skeptical and very dismissive of it. I was very surprised by this review and found it very well argued. It made a bunch of claims that I’d never heard before. I kept up with comments and anything else I could find about this new information. I found lots of derision, but nothing that looked like a refutation of this new information. At the time, I really didn’t know what to make of this so I couldn’t really make any comments on it, but I’ve followed new developments ever since and there’ve been lots of them. I’ve been hoping PZ would post something related to this so that I could try and argue this new information.

    Here’s the posts:

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/01/06/skeptic-magazine-rots-from-the-head/

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/01/08/hard-to-believe-the-attempt-to-vindicate-sandusky-retroactively-continues/

  17. says

    John M,
    Yes they were making insinuations about Mann’s character. That’s a major part of blogging! It seems like PZ in impugning someone’s character every other post.

  18. Rob Grigjanis says

    canman @18:

    Calling someone the Jerry Sandusky of some endeavor unrelated to being a pedophile is not the same as calling them a pedophile

    Your middle name must be ‘Disingenuous’. Calling someone the Hitler of some endeavour unrelated to being a genocidal maniac is not the same as calling them a genocidal maniac. Of course! They could be referring to Hitler making trains run on time!

  19. John Morales says

    Yes they were making insinuations about Mann’s character.

    Specifically, insinuations comparing him to a pedophile. Which is not very nice, is it?

    This is the actual quotation: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data”.

    It seems like PZ in impugning someone’s character every other post.

    Um, probably not as frequently as that, and generally on a good basis such as what they advocate or what they do. Like, say, comparing a scientist to a pedophile in order to dispute their work.

    (You, of course, aren’t impugning PZ’s character, right?)

  20. cheerfulcharlie says

    “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data”.

    There are two parts to this. One, stating Mann had lied about the data demonstrating humans caused climate change.
    Two. Doing so in a manner that demonstrated Styer had malicious and malevolent intent in regards to smearing Mann’s reputation.

    And number 2 is what cost Styer $1 million dollars.

    Many well regarded climate scientists have long stated Mann’s claims were correct and well done science that over the years stood the test of time and further research. Styer ignored that and one’s mere opinion ignoring well established face of facts, repeated in most incendiary terms can be a costly procedure.

  21. says

    I’m definitely impugning PZ’s logic. Simberg did not call Man a Pedophile. I’d call what Simberg said extreme hyperbole and in bad taste, just like Larry Flynt’s parody of Jerry Falwell. I don’t think bad taste should be illegal or evidence of malice, especially on an editorial on a blog post.

  22. says

    Cheerful Charlie,
    There’s plenty of serious writing on Mann’s hockey stick papers that would make most people (including me) think Mann did very poor work and tried to hide it. Two examples: Undisclosed, erroneous FORTRAN code that unambiguously mines for hockey sticks and unreported failing R squared results.

    Steve McIntyre has a blog full of posts about it. It’s summarized nicely in Andrew Montford’s book, The Hockey Stick Illusion. If you want a more condensed version, there’s Brandon Shollenberger’s 99 cent books:

    https://www.amazon.com/s?i=digital-text&rh=p_27%3ABrandon+Shollenberger&s=relevancerank&text=Brandon+Shollenberger&ref=dp_byline_sr_ebooks_1

  23. John Morales says

    canman:

    I’m definitely impugning PZ’s logic.

    Not very successfully, it has to be said.
    Still, at least you tacitly concede that impugning is not a bad thing per se.

    I don’t think bad taste should be illegal or evidence of malice, especially on an editorial on a blog post.

    Well, you don’t, but evidently the Court did. Thus the judgement.

  24. cheerfulcharlie says

    @ Canman

    The fact is, we are now facing record high temperatures as climate
    is warming up. And climate scientists agree, it is caused by human activities.
    The Hockey stick graph has stood the test of time. Of course like any
    complex scientific investigation, evidence accumulates and minor errors are corrected.

    However, the Mann case here was not about that. In fact the judge in that case warned the jury that this was not about Mann’s hockey stick graph. It was about defamation and maelovence on the part of Mann’s detractors in this case.

    In biology, likewise, PZ’s bailiwick, we have similar contraversies. Ove for example, junk DNA, epigenetics et al. Bad science seems always to accompany good science. This myth that cliamate science is a fraud is widespread among the kooks.

  25. John Morales says

    Feel free to edit Wikipedia yourself, it’s quite doable, canman.

    It does mention his awards, though:

    The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other “scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports”, with a personalized certificate “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”, celebrating the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore.[89][90][91][92]

    In 2012, he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union[1] and awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union for “his significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions.”[7][88]

    Following election by the American Meteorological Society he became a new Fellow of the society in 2013.[93] In January 2013 he was designated with the status of distinguished professor in Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.[94]

    In September 2013, Mann was named by Bloomberg Markets in its third annual list of the “50 Most Influential” people, included in a group of “thinkers” with reference to his work with other scientists on the hockey stick graph, his responses on the RealClimate blog “to climate change deniers”, and his book publications.[95][96] Later that month, he received the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science.[97][98]

    On April 28, 2014, the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley.[99] In the same year, Mann was named as a Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). In 2015 he was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and in 2016 he was elected Vice Chair of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate (GPC) at the American Physical Society (APS).[88]

    On June 19, 2017, Climate One at the Commonwealth Club of California said that he would be honored with the 7th annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Science Communication.[100]

    He received the James H. Shea Award from the National Association of Geoscience Teachers for his “exceptional contribution in writing or editing Earth science materials for the general public or teachers of Earth science.”[101]

    On February 8, 2018, the Center for Inquiry announced that Mann had been elected as a 2017 Fellow of its Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.[8]

    On February 14, 2018, the American Association for the Advancement of Science announced that Mann was chosen to receive the 2018 Public Engagement with Science award.[102]

    On September 4, 2018, the American Geophysical Union announced Mann as the 2018 recipient of its Climate Communication Prize.[103]

    On February 12, 2019, Mann and Warren Washington were named to receive the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement.[104]

    In April 2020, he was elected member of the National Academy of Sciences.[5] Along with Antonella Santuccione Chadha, he also received the World Sustainability Award from the MDPI Sustainability Foundation.[105]

    In 2022, the American Physical Society recognized Mann with the Leo Szilard Lectureship Award “for distinguished contributions to the public’s understanding of climate science controversies, and to how our individual and collective actions can mitigate climate change.”[106]

    In 2023 the American Humanist Association gave Mann their 2023 Humanist of the Year award.[107]

    Not exactly scientifically-discredited, is he? Rather, the opposite.

  26. says

    I’m not one for non-literal uses of pedophilia or child molestation (I think they add noise to the social milieu when a social problem needs signal), and the extent of the comparison amounts to “treated data very badly”. I don’t see how this relates to character outside of data. Otherwise Mann has plenty of good rational disparaging, impugning comparisons to choose from. It’s bad for other important reasons.

  27. John Morales says

    I don’t see how this relates to character outside of data.

    Neither would Forrest Gump, Brony.

    (See what I did there?)

    Otherwise Mann has plenty of good rational disparaging, impugning comparisons to choose from.

    Um, Mann was the one impugned and disparaged — the recipient, not the issuer.

  28. says

    I’ve been arguing about the hockey stick on the internet so long that I’ve really gotten bored with it. What I really want to argue about is the Jerry Sandusky case. Peoples minds are politically aligned and set in stone on the hockey stick, but the new information on the Sandusky case has something for everyone. Graham Spanier was unjustly railroaded. He had a political battle with republican governor Tom Corbett over education funding. There was actually a federal investigation into whether Spanier should have his top secret security clearance renewed. NCIS agent, John Snedden, found there was no coverup because there was nothing to cover up and Spanier’s clearance was renewed.

    The thing most people remember about the scandal is that Mike McQueary saw Sandusky sodomizing a boy in a Penn State shower. No he didn’t. In fact, of all the charges at trial, the sodomy charge in that instance was one of the 3 or 4 on which he was acquitted. There’s actual email record of McQueary complaining to prosecutor, Jonelle Eshbach that his words were twisted and that he did not see sodomy. Eshbach tells him to keep quiet about it:

    https://www.bigtrial.net/2017/10/penn-state-confidential-prosecutor-told.html?m=1

    What people remember is the leaking of a Grand Jury presentment (a felony BTW) that caused a moral panic, the firing of Joe Paterno, a witch trial, an ambulance chasing frenzy and lingering mass hysteria.

  29. John Morales says

    What I really want to argue about is the Jerry Sandusky case.

    <snicker>

    Then you went about it entirely the wrong way with all your preceding comments, no?
    And it’s got nothing to do with the topic at hand, can’tman.

    You’ve already been exposed, and this tack you’re taking is not exactly helpful.

    (“A man’s got to know his limitations” — Dirty Harry)

  30. nomdeplume says

    WTAF – a climate change denier on Pharyngula?! A “hockey stick” denier who has obviously not bothered to look at what is happening to world temperatures?

  31. says

    I want to emphasize that there are mountains of new information on the Sandusky case and new stuff is always coming up. And it’s really interesting and important stuff. It’s not just about a few people being railroaded. It has a lot to say about politics, the courts, the media, sports, humanity, science, … It’s also a really great story! I like to call it the best mini-series on the internet! Do you miss new episodes of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul? There’s a (probably up tp 100 hours by now) podcast series called With the Benefit of Hindsight. There’s amazing interviews with people connected to the case. You probably remember Sandusky’s telephone interview with Bob Costas where he gives the stumbling answer to whether he’s sexually attracted to young boys. Bob Costas called in on his own to be included for an interview. You can hear taped sessions with a fake accuser and one of the chief lawyers anrd a epressed memory therapists. You can hear a mistakenly recorded argument between John Ziegler (it’s his podcast series) and Scott Paterno.

    You people don’t know what you’re missing!

  32. Brad Keyes says

    “My one complaint would be that the award of $1.1 million was not adequate. The bad guys, Simberg & Steyn, are backed by a whole vast industry with deep pockets, and that much money is just loose change to them — they’ll extract that much from their sofa cushions.”

    Ah, I see. This is parody. I can’t believe I missed it the first time.

    For those still taking the OP at face value, it may help you to note that THREE law firms represented Michael Mann at zero cost to him. Someone with deep sofa cushions indeed was on his side.

    The defendants, meanwhile, had to pay for their own counsel.

    So PZ was making a clever play on the absurd trope of the massively-funded denial machine.

    Chapeau bas, PZ

  33. raven says

    To give you an idea of what being a climate scientist in the USA is like, most climate scientists have gotten death threats.
    Not just a few but many.
    Michael E. Mann is one of them.

    The Washington Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com › 2016/12/16

    I’m a scientist who has gotten death threats. I fear what may …

    I’m a scientist who has gotten death threats. I fear what may happen … Michael E. Mann is a professor of atmospheric science at Penn State …

    A lot of scientists get death threats.
    The other favorite To Kill group are evolutionary biologists.

    Death threats are felonies but they are so common, the police rarely investigate them.
    It helps a lot if you are a powerful politician or judge.

    I know of one climate scientist who checks under his car every morning for planted bombs.
    He says he has been doing this for so long it seems normal.

  34. John Morales says

    You people don’t know what you’re missing!

    “You people”? Heh. You specimens do like that locution, don’t you?

    You’re just trolling, now. Looks like Raven got you right away, no?

    Anyway. If those things amaze you, I definitely won’t be impressed by them.

    (Hey, did you know I’ve never seen any of Breaking Bad or Better Call Saul? Australian, here)

  35. says

    John M,
    If you ever decide to go on a TV bender, Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul are not bad choices, but With the Benefit of Hindsight is better. It’s all real reporting and you can put in on your phone or ipad. You can even get a feeling of exclusivity, at least until the story gains critical mass and finally breaks into the mainstream media.

  36. says

    Raven,
    Yes death threats are despicable, but I’m not aware of many scientists actually being murdered. Whatever you think of Mark Steyn (I certainly don’t agree with him on Graham Spanier and the Freeh Report) he has spoken at events with cartoonists who have had their colleagues murdered.

  37. John Morales says

    Already know the gist of that show, canman. Not for me. Too USAnian for me to appreciate.

    Thing is, you can’t hide from your earlier claims by trying to whistle innocently and indulging in chitchat.

    Here:
    “In a victory for climate scientists, jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments made in 2012.”? That’s the topic of this thread.

    You thought PZ was baselessly impugning, yet he had good reason to do so, and you yourself are in the impugning game.
    You thought Mann’s work was suspect, yet he was vindicated in the 12 years since that accusation.
    He has been given civic and social and ethical awards, so you are in the contrarian minority.

    So. In your estimation, is anthropogenic global warming real or not?

    To be blunt, are you also a climate change denialist, as your comments suggest, or are you merely trying to pick on PZ, as is quite evidently the case?

  38. says

    I certainly agree that CO2 is increasing and causing temperatures to go up, but it’s far from clear how much or how detrimental it is. I’ve been commenting on the subject on the internet for well over a decade. I tend to agree more with writers like Matt Ridley and Willis Eschenbach. I’ve actually had climate skeptics get irked at me for not completely discounting Hansen’s scenario in his book of the Earth turning into Venus and posting Potholer’s video with the Sun getting brighter over geologic time. I’m one of the bloggers at Cliscep.com (Mike Dombroski). You can go there, check out my posts and ridicule me all you want.

    What really bothers me about the climate movement is the religious fervor and intolerance of dissent. Judith Curry and Roger Pielke Jr. come to mind. I think this is polluting the science. As full of themselves as I think the political and academic establishment has become on climate, they’re even worse on energy policy. I think they’re recklessly putting all the chips on wind, solar and batteries.

  39. John Morales says

    Thanks, canman. Your honesty about your science denialism is refreshing.

    (Are you also a flat-earther? Antivaxxer? Creationist?)

    <

    blockquote>You can go there, check out my posts and ridicule me all you want.<a/blockquote>

    But I’m already ridiculing you here all I want; thing is, you came here just for that.
    Were I to go there, then I’d be a bit like you, and I respect myself too much to do that.

  40. John Morales says

    [ack! — fat-fingers when I enthusiastically clackety-clack away]

    Thanks, canman. Your honesty about your science denialism is refreshing.

    (Are you also a flat-earther? Antivaxxer? Creationist?)

    You can go there, check out my posts and ridicule me all you want.

    But I’m already ridiculing you here all I want; thing is, you came here just for that.
    Were I to go there, then I’d be a bit like you, and I respect myself too much to do that.

  41. says

    Wish someone would challenge me on the Sandusky stuff. That’s what I really came here for and it is tangentially related to the case.

  42. Russell says

    . I tend to agree more with writers like Matt Ridley and Willis Eschenbach. I’ve actually had climate skeptics get irked at me ”

    Ridley is a fine science writer abd loyal to his people, who for generations owed their living to the coal on his lands.
    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-glenda-slag-geoengineering-prize.html

    Eschenbach is at times as hilarious as Steyn, though given what the two of them dispense, its a wonder so few have died in consequence.
    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2020/04/of-quinine-and-chloroquine-willis.html

  43. nomdeplume says

    Seeing a climate change denier in full 2000 plumage is like seeing a dinosaur in full 65 million years BP plumage.

  44. Brad Keyes says

    Mann claimed repeatedly, in court documents(!), to have received the Nobel Prize.

    When forced by skeptics to backtrack on this, he claimed it was an [honest] “mistake.”

    Just in case it wasn’t obvious, here’s the definitive proof that this was a lie: the IPCC certificate he received, and on which he based his claim to be a Prize winner, didn’t come with a check. Did it?

    Yet, as Mann himself is acutely aware, more aware than anyone, Prizes are (by definition) accompanied by money:

    “Those are medals not prizes. They have different meanings. Prizes comes with a cash award.”
    (Mann under cross examination by Steyn.)

    He could not possibly have mistaken a cashless certificate for a Prize.

  45. John Morales says

    I do appreciate your honesty, canman. I’m not being sarcastic, it’s actually nice to see.
    Kudos for that.

    Still.
    Have you considered that your perplexity might be due to your misapprehension of the facts at hand?
    That it may be you, rather than the scientific community at large that is getting it wrong?

    I mean, it’s not just the National Academy of Sciences, is it?
    As per my #31, it’s a shitload of institutions, including the American Meteorological Society and the European Geosciences Union and the National Center for Science Education among numerous others.

    Even you noticed that: Now days [sic] we seem to be living in the age of the science communicator. Search for “Michael Mann” at the NCSE site, and you get 6 pages of hits with lots of awards, such as: [excerpt]

    Still, I do admire your self-confidence, that you think you know better than all those institutions and organisations, and are bewildered by their stance.

    The only analogy I can come up with is people supporting Donald Trump.

    Interestingly, those people tend to also be climate change deniers, and very much pro-fossil fuels.

    But hey, I read your effort in your denialist site.

    Mann is a communicator? The only thing I find notable about his writing is that it’s whiny and ranty. Otherwise, it’s mostly bland talking points.

    It is indisputable, however, that those mostly bland talking points exercised Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn so much that the legal system penalised them around $1 million in punitive damages for their defamatory comments. Kinda an over-reaction for bland talking points, no?

    PS When I came back to start wading through the thermonuclear fallout, I was surprised to find their was hardly any. — see your typo, there? I did.

    BTW, I do think you should put a link there to this thread; surely your readers will be most impressed as to how you handle we people — you know, those who don’t deny the science. Heh.

  46. StevoR says

    @ ^ nomdeplume : Climate Deniers are a literally dying “breed” – especially in light of continuing screaming graphs and extreme weather events. Problem is they are killing us and taking us, taking everyone with them despite our opposition to them -if they haven’t doomed us all already.

    Which given the lag time and cumulative effects of C2 and other GHGs they probly have..

  47. StevoR says

    @52. canman : “I’ll have to admit I’m perplexed by all Mann’s awards or how he made it into the NAS.”

    Ever considered that perhaps its becuase you are totally wrong and the actual climatologists who dedicated their lives to understanding their field and have spent years leaning and studying and learnt to know what they are actually talking about might be right and you might be wrong?

    I wonder what made you into a Climate Science Denier here and also why you seem so keen to defend a convicted child rapist? ( See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky#Further_allegations_and_investigations ) Don’t spose you’d tell us why here maybe please?

  48. StevoR says

    Great news that Michael Mann won this. Well deserved – unlike the decades of harrassment and hate he (& other Climate Scientists) have recieved from the ideologically blinkered partisan, deluded otr atbets badly disinformed haters who have kept trying to destroy him for telling the truth.

    See among other places Michael Mann: The Hockey Stick Under Oath

    & The Emotional Cost of Climate Change: How Scientists are Coping – 4.34 mins .secs long

    PS. In other news a satellite to study our homeworld has now been launched despite Trumplethinskin’s attempts to stop it :

    https://phys.org/news/2024-02-nasa-climate-satellite-blasts-survey.html#google_vignette

  49. StevoR says

    Plus on the death threats to Mike Mann and other scientists see also Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack: The Wrap by Greenman3610 – just over 9 mins long.

    As well as what even conservative, evangelical climate scientists have faced here :

    Katharine Hayhoe: “..Much of This is Intended to Intimidate.” again from same channel & this time tena nd a half minutes long.

    Great, old clip on the hockey stick here too as the title tells :

    Global Warming: It’s Not About the Hockey Stick by greenman3610 – 5 minutes 38 secs long. As Greenman3610 has noted there’s not just a hockey stick there’s whole hockey team.

  50. says

    Jesus. Not just climate denialists, but defenders of Jerry Sandusky?
    Look, guys, announcing both that Steyn/Simberg didn’t literally call Mann a pedophile and declaring that a convicted pedophile like Sandusky was innocent makes it sound like your actual interest here is in soft-pedaling child sex abuse.

  51. StevoR says

    @ Brad Keyes :

    The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other “scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports”, with a personalized certificate “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”, celebrating the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore.[90][91][92][93]

    Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#:~:text=The%20IPCC%20presented%20Mann%2C%20along,the%20IPCC%20and%20to%20Al

    Plus :

    Email this page
    Press release
    English
    Norwegian
    The Norwegian Nobel Committee logotype

    The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

    Indications of changes in the earth’s future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world’s most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

    Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

    Source : https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/press-release/

    In addition to :

    He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007. He is also co-founder and contributor to the award-winning science website RealClimate.org. Mann is best known for his work reconstructing climate fluctuations over the past one thousand years

    Source : https://ncics.org/news/events/cics-nc-hosts-dr-michael-mann/#:~:text=He%20shared%20the%20Nobel%20Peace,the%20past%20one%20thousand%20years.

  52. Brad Keyes says

    StevoR, thanks for the contribution.

    Just so I know your position, are you at the

    Mann received/was honored by/shared/co-won/was among those awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

    or

    it was all a misunderstanding

    phase?

  53. Brad Keyes says

    PZ:

    “Jesus. Not just climate denialists,”

    I denialize nothing, let alone the climate. The only people in denial here are those who still insist Mann’s conduct around the turn of the century was within the acceptable limits for a scientist.

    “announcing both that Steyn/Simberg didn’t literally call Mann a pedophile”

    Yes. What? You think they DID literally call Mann a pedophile? You’re doubling down on that fantasy, PZ? I assume you’re educated enough to know what the adverb “literally” means so all I can do is wish you luck and hope that hill is worth it.

    Who’s “declaring that a convicted pedophile like Sandusky was innocent”?

    Canman is raising doubts as to the propriety of the conviction of Sandusky—not “a convicted pedophile like” Sandusky, but Sandusky himself—and he’s raising them with an exactitude of language far worthier of a scientist than your rather sloppy hyperboles, with all due respect.

    “makes it sound like your actual interest here is in soft-pedaling child sex abuse.”

    No, not to anyone capable of reason on this topic. Someone questioning whether Lee Harvey Oswald really killed Kennedy is not minimizing or euphemizing or seeking to rehabilitate the act of assassination. They’re not saying, hey, shooting the President in the head isn’t all THAT bad. You might accuse an Oswald Innocence Project member of being way off. You might accuse them of being some sort of bot. But if your brain worked on this topic, you wouldn’t hear such revisionism as some sort of plea to society to rethink whether the murder of a serving President is really all that big of a deal.

    And for what it’s worth, the evidence against Sandusky is objectively far, far wobblier than that against Oswald.

  54. says

    You seem to be hung up on this minor and irrelevant point. He was acknowledged for his contributions to the work that won the Nobel prize.
    I assure you that every Nobel prize is the product of numerous people who don’t all get a lump of money. Your concern does not matter and is stupid.

  55. says

    Oh, I get it. You’re one of those people trying desperately to shift the conversation to petty word games.
    I’ll make it simple for you.
    Michael Mann is a highly qualified scientist who has been doing important work on analyzing climate change and in popularizing public awareness. He is correct. He has the evidence.
    Simberg/Steyn are right-wing hacks who engaged in character assassination to cast doubt on the empirical facts because the science shows they are wrong.
    You are here to squink up a lot of noise to support the hacks and oppose the science.
    FUCK OFF.

  56. raven says

    Whether Jerry Sandusky is innocent or not is completely irrelevant to whether Simberg and Steyn libeled Dr. Mann.

    This is already a settled point.
    They just lost in court in a jury trial and are now libel for damages. Steyn is going to have to come up with $1 million dollars.

  57. StevoR says

    @ 68. Brad Keyes :

    “StevoR, thanks for the contribution.

    Just so I know your position, are you at the

    Mann received/was honored by/shared/co-won/was among those awarded the Nobel Peace Prize or it was all a misunderstanding phase?”

    The first “Mann received/was honored by/ shared/co-won/was among those awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” one because as my comment at #67 should have demonstrated to you that is simply historical fact. Whether you accept the scientific reality of it or not.

    Do you deny that and if so, why and wit what supporting evidence?

    Your failure to answer my earlier request for that is observed and noted. I do not know if you are able tor reply or not now.

    Do you think Professor Mann was NOT awarded the Nobel prize along with the other IPCC members or not?

    Do you accept the reality that the Hockey Stick graph is proven etablished science or not and, if not, why not and what extraordinary evidence do you offer to prove your extraordinary claim per theSagan standard?

  58. StevoR says

    Also anglais / eigo / espanol why the non-phonetic spellings and needless silent letters?

    Oky my “mother tongue” steals from other klanguages & all but does it have to still be so messed up?

    Oh and, keyboard / computer can you work right please? Ditto my half-asleep, maybe two thirds or so brain? (I’mn guessing no they won’t?) / meta, no not the company one..

  59. StevoR says

    PS. Okaay, espanolis spanish oe spanish? Francias fro spanish not english. English in Spanish is inglés /
    inglesa and anyhow.. hope yáll get the gist..

  60. raven says

    The claim that Jerry Sandusky was innocent is laughably wrong.
    It’s right up there with the “The earth is flat” or “Climate Change isn’t happening”.

    Paterno told a grand jury in 2011 that he first learned in 2001 of inappropriate sexual contact by Sandusky involving young boys.

    Testimony in documents allege Joe Paterno knew of … – ESPN
    ESPN https://www.espn.com › college-football › story › testim…

    His boss, head coach Paterno knew as did a lot of other people.
    That is why when the case opened up, he promptly retired.

    Jerry Sandusky never testified in his own trial.

    That was because the prosecutors had a lot of other evidence besides the large amount they had already presented and were prepared to bring it up.
    One of his adopted kids was prepared to testify.

    “Oct 7, 2019 — Jerry Sandusky’s adopted son, Matt Sandusy, opens up about the sexual abuse he said the infamous coach put him through.”

    This is a classic example of crank magnetism. I’m sure the current trolls believe a lot of other things that have no basis in reality.

  61. StevoR says

    Correction for clarity, spacings and a keyboad I swear switches letters on me :

    Espanol is Spainish for Spainish? Francais for Spainish?

    . Anyhow. Sure wish wish we could edit as well as preview comments here. But fair ’nuff. Sigh.

    Lung-wizzticks iz wyerd..

  62. wobbly says

    Uh, boy, bounding into a thread to proudly proclaim your crank-cred by repeatedly announcing the length of time you’ve spent as an internet anti-climate kook, then immediately following that up with a hand-break turn into Jerry Sandusky defense is not quite the intellectual flex that someone seems to think it is…

  63. says

    I have feelings about tactics involving arguing about child abuse cases in global warming posts. Other eyes wandering the internet see people defending bad things in global warming posts.
    Maybe not, but people interested in miscarriage of justice and child abuse can go elsewhere to do that, but they came here.

  64. Russell says

    There will be a brief pause while ResearchGate checks a few tens of thousands of science and policy journals to collate Brad Keyes bibliography

  65. Brad Keyes says

    StevoR, thanks for clarifying.

    “Do you think Professor Mann was NOT awarded the Nobel prize along with the other IPCC members or not?”

    It doesn’t really matter what I think. What matters is what the Nobel Prize committee says. To quote Geir Lundestad, Director of the Nobel Institute in Oslo:

    “Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.”

    As Catallaxy Files reports:

    “Some time ago I contacted the Nobel Committee and asked whether a person who was employed by an organisation can claim to have won a Nobel Prize. The reply I received stated:

    “‘An award of the Nobel Prize to an organisation does not under any circumstances permit an employee or other agent of that organization to claim to share a Nobel Prize. Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize.'”

    Mann was neither named in the cited nor given a check, so by definition, he did not win even a tiny fraction of the Nobel Prize. As he well knows, being acutely conscious of the monetary profits of prizewinning.

    That the IPCC was awarded half a Nobel Prize, does not mean it can distribute that prize as it sees fit (minus the cash, naturally). The Nobel Prize is not transferable.

    PZ will no doubt dismiss this as “word games,” but where I come from, precision matters. Facts matter. But then I’m a skeptic, not a believalist.

    How many languages do you speak? Remember the character Salvatore in the Name of the Rose? Now there’s a book.

  66. John Morales says

    Brad:

    PZ will no doubt dismiss this as “word games,” but where I come from, precision matters. Facts matter. But then I’m a skeptic, not a believalist.

    That should be ‘believer’ in actual English instead of your personal cant.
    I mean, I get you are trying to do a neologic analogue of ‘denialist’, but the difference is between established usage and a feebly idiosyncratic effort.
    Also, you’re most evidently not a skeptic, rather, you are a contrarian; scepticism is about justified doubt, not about denial of established conclusions.

    Are you sceptical about this?
    “In a victory for climate scientists, jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments made in 2012.”

    What about this?
    “On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of the 48 remaining charges. Sandusky was sentenced on October 9, 2012 to 30 to 60 years in prison. He has been incarcerated in the Pennsylvania prison system since October 31, 2012.”
    … or this?
    “Criminal status Incarcerated at State Correctional Institution – Laurel Highlands; earliest possible release October 9, 2042”

    Look at my #31: do you believe all those awards? Because they’re all real.
    Factual, not opinion.

    Do you disbelieve that the scientific community has vindicated Mann and granted him numerous awards for his excellence at science and its communication? Truefax.

    (heh)

    It doesn’t really matter what I think.

    But it surely amuses me, and shows that you are a bit of a sap. So it matters to that extent.

    (Credulous, yet obstinate, a lovely combo!)

  67. says

    John M, are you skeptical of the OJ Simpson verdict or the Salem Witch trial verdicts?
    Sandusky had his name smeared by an inflammatory, false, leaked (a felony) grand jury presentment. His name is now so toxic that major media outlets are afraid to publish any new information on the case.

    Also, where are the books from the prosecution’s side from what had to be the high points of their careers? Oh, wait. I found one. Silent No More by Aaron Fisher and his therapist. It explains how Fisher only had to answer yes or no to questions from his therapist. It exposes how Sandusky sabotaged Fisher’s car so that he would have a terrible accident that would almost kill him and three friends. It also exposes how the Philadelphia Phucking Eagles were involved!

  68. Brad Keyes says

    John Morales,
    “but the difference is between established usage and a feebly idiosyncratic effort”
    The difference is between cliche and wit.
    “you are a contrarian”
    You don’t know me, so it’s unsurprising that your best guess is wildly inaccurate. What’s more surprising is that you gambled on making it out loud. That was silly.
    “Are you sceptical about this?
    “In a victory for climate scientists, jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments made in 2012.””
    The first six words are wrong, because Mann is a serial defamer of climate scientists. The monetary figure is wrong, but close enough for government work. The word ‘defamatory’ is wrong, because the comments in question were true. Overall grade: C.
    “On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of the 48 remaining charges. Sandusky was sentenced on October 9, 2012 to 30 to 60 years in prison. He has been incarcerated in the Pennsylvania prison system since October 31, 2012.”
    Sounds plausible. Sounds like something that more-or-less occurred on Earth. Given your track record, you likely got a couple of details wrong but as to which ones, don’t ask me.
    “do you believe all those awards? Because they’re all real.”
    Unfortunately for you, I won’t be distracted by shiny objects. The question is about one and only one Prize (not medal, not award: PRIZE) and whether you can overcome your powerful need to deny the fact that Mann was lying about winning it.

    But if you’re still willing to say either that

    — he really was co-awarded the Nobel Prize
    — or OK, that was obviously not true, but it was an honest mistake on his part, because it’s all so confusing

    then I’ll applaud you for having (if nothing else) the courage to make yourself a hostage to posterity.

  69. John Morales says

    cantman:

    John M, are you skeptical of the OJ Simpson verdict or the Salem Witch trial verdicts?

    Wow. No, of course not. They are on record as having been the verdicts.

    Don’t you get by now that being in doubt about actual established facts is just being denialist?

    Sandusky had his name smeared by an inflammatory, false, leaked (a felony) grand jury presentment.

    In your opinion. Alas, your opinion is worthless in this case, is it not? It changes nothing.

    His name is now so toxic that major media outlets are afraid to publish any new information on the case.

    The case was 12 years ago, you know. He languishes in prison, now. No news there.

    So. You explicitly claim his name is now toxic, so how can you not see how being compared to him by someone who can’t dispute the actual science (you know, the science which has been thoroughly vindicated and for which he has won numerous awards by prominent civic and scientific bodies) and so resorts to that was seen by the court to be defaming Mann?

    It also exposes how the Philadelphia Phucking Eagles were involved!

    So, you have nothing. Can’t actually dispute the facts, so you go on about some sports team. heh.

    Brad,

    The difference is between cliche and wit.

    Oh, I can for sure see how witty you are. It’s been established usage in that denialist site for many years now, no?

    (Do you even know to what ‘cant’ refers?)

    You don’t know me, so it’s unsurprising that your best guess is wildly inaccurate. What’s more surprising is that you gambled on making it out loud. That was silly.

    <snicker>

    You don’t even get you’re doing that right there, do ya? Heh.

    The first six words are wrong, because Mann is a serial defamer of climate scientists. The monetary figure is wrong, but close enough for government work. The word ‘defamatory’ is wrong, because the comments in question were true. Overall grade: C.

    Heh. You can’t avoid the weight of the claim, can you.

    Try this one:
    “In winning a $1 million verdict against a pair of right-wing bloggers on Thursday, climate scientist Michael Mann scored a victory that is reverberating through a world of climate discourse that many say is no less disputatious than when the bloggers penned their attacks 12 years ago.

    “I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech,” Mann said in a statement following the unanimous decision of a six-person jury in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

    After a four-week trial, the panel deliberated for a day before delivering its decision that Mann had been defamed by Rand Simberg, a former adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Mark Steyn, a contributor to National Review. The jury awarded Mann $1 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.The bloggers alone faced the judgment; a court three years ago ruled that the publishers could not be held liable for the writings of their part-time contributors.”
    (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09022024/michael-mann-defamation-verdict/)

    Sounds plausible. Sounds like something that more-or-less occurred on Earth. Given your track record, you likely got a couple of details wrong but as to which ones, don’t ask me.

    Aah, such scepticism! No way for you to check the claims, is there? Just, ”Sounds plausible”.

    (You so very clearly have nothing, and even your attempted bluster is feeble)

    But if you’re still willing to say either that

    — he really was co-awarded the Nobel Prize
    — or OK, that was obviously not true, but it was an honest mistake on his part, because it’s all so confusing

    then I’ll applaud you for having (if nothing else) the courage to make yourself a hostage to posterity.

    Still? Quote me, if you dare try to attempt it. That’s purely wishful thinking on your part, which is understandable, since that’s all you have. Wishful thinking and opinion.

    You know what I actually say? I say Michael Mann has won his defamation case, that he’s been awarded $$$ in damages, that he has been the recipient of numerous awards, and that his science and integrity has been lauded and rewarded.

    You are trying to be evasive, but that’s counter-productive; your attempted prevarications merely show you have nothing with which to sustain your purported scepticism about either the facts at hand or the established science.

    BTW, are you a flat-earther, too? Antivaxxer? Creationist?

    (I notice the canman carefully avoided responding to that question, I expect you will do likewise)

  70. says

    Raven @77, your link doesn’t work, but I’m guessing it’s this one:

    https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17015181/testimony-unsealed-documents-alleges-joe-paterno-knew-jerry-sandusky-abuse-1976

    That typically poor reporting from ESPN is very unclear about what Paterno said, most likely because there’s no clear record of what he said. It is also about accusers looking for settlements after the trial. Journalists John Ziegler and Ralph Cipriano were leaked all of the settlement documents (along with Freeh Report documents) which show how laughable these accuser’s claims are. There are multiple episodes in With the Benefit of Hindsight:

    https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/episode-twelve-part-i-the-settlements/id1562078872?i=1000524514855

    Yes Jerry Sandusky did not testify at his own trial, because he was very naive and did what his incompetent lawyer (as opposed to OJs dream team) told him to do. His lawyer, Joe Amendola, actually tried to back out, but the judge wouldn’t let him.

    You: “That was because the prosecutors had a lot of other evidence besides the large amount they had already presented and were prepared to bring it up.”

    The only stuff I can find that they didn’t bring up looks like exculpatory stuff. Matt Sandusky made a sworn statement in support of Jerry. There was a videotaped police interview with the Janitor who witnessed a man performing oral sex with a boy in a Penn State shower. He said multiple times that the man was NOT Jerry Sandusky. At the trial, the prosecutors said he had dementia, so they used hearsay testimony from another janitor. Yes, some of Sandusky’s convictions are from hearsay testimony with no victim or date! They also did not use a sworn statement from Alan Myers, the boy Mike McQueary saw in the shower. When Meyers heard of the leaked grand jury presentment, he recognized himself as the boy in this incident and wrote letters to editors and the sworn statement to Sandusky’s lawyer saying nothing happened in the shower. Alan Myers then disappeared for the rest of the trial. His mother worked for a lawyer who would go on to get multi-million dollar settlements for several accusers, including Alan Myers. In their closing statements, the prosecutors said his identity was known only to God.

    Why did Matt Sandusky flip? He found out that Myers had flipped and saw where things were going.

  71. John Morales says

    Heh heh heh. You sure do try to evade the actual issue in favour of your hobbyhorse.

    Such an obsession with the supposed innocence of a convicted pedophile, which has nothing to do with this post, and nothing to do with climate science, is rather suggestive. Any opportunity to plead the kiddie-diddler’s case, for you, however tangential.

    Thing is, the topic on this post is Michael Mann being awarded $1M in punitive damages.
    Clearly, his science has been vindicated, and clearly, this successful court case outcome vindicates his accusation that he was defamed.

    But hey, I get it. You feel stressed-out that a pedophile was jailed. Obsessed about it, quite evidently.

    Fact:
    “On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of the 48 remaining charges. Sandusky was sentenced on October 9, 2012 to 30 to 60 years in prison. He has been incarcerated in the Pennsylvania prison system since October 31, 2012.” Not much doubt about it, is there? Other than from you.

    I get that you imagine you know better than scientists about science, and you also imagine that you know better than lawyers and judges and jurors about the law. What I don’t get is your belief that you will ever convince others who don’t share your admiration for convicted kiddy-diddlers or climate science denialism.

    Mate!

    You are, in short, exposing yourself, and it’s not a pretty sight.

    Anyway. Obvious facts are obvious, no? Can’t dispute the court outcomes, can’t dispute the facts regarding Michael Mann.

    Michael Mann has been vindicated about the science by the scientific community, and he has won his court case regarding his being defamed by people who could not dispute his science on the basis that they insinuated he was akin to a pedophile.

    (You sure like pick losing positions!)

    So. Since you are otherwise concede your science denialism and your advocacy of false narratives about climate science, do you care to come clean as to your personal opinion about pedophiles and the legal system? Do you really think they should get away with it? Can any accusation ever be proven, in your mind?

    Just saying.
    Be aware that you are beginning to come across as quite creepy with your obsession about the purported innocence of someone convicted of 45 charges.

  72. Brad Keyes says

    “Clearly, his science has been vindicated”

    By the vote of 6 non-scientists plucked from the phonebook? Who knew it was that easy? Scientists really need to stop waiting around for nature to vindicate them and just phone a lawyer.

    ‘“I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech,” Mann said in a statement following the unanimous decision of a six-person jury in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.’

    Yeah nah. Why would he wish to be held accountable for smearing Judith Curry? Surely he’s terrified by the removal of the impunity that shields his lies about climate scientists.

    “Heh. You can’t avoid the weight of the claim, can you.”

    Can anyone guess what John is trying to say here? Help him out if you can.

    I skipped the rest of your rant, John. I suspect it wasn’t written to be read anyway. Now that you’ve got it out of your system, wanna actually do something useful? Please copy and paste Michael Mann’s official celebratory tweet. He’s blocked me in the name of outreach and excellence in communication.

  73. John Morales says

    Heh, Brad. You sure are a sucker for punishment.

    By the vote of 6 non-scientists plucked from the phonebook?

    Nope. By the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Fact.

    I refer you to my #32, which you are trying so very hard to ignore, unlike your pedophile-supporting fellow traveler, who at least shows a modicum of self-awareness and honesty.

    Here is an indication (not the entirety) of what those “6 non-scientists plucked from the phonebook” achieved with their “vote”:

    “he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union;
    Following election by the American Meteorological Society he became a new Fellow of the society;
    the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley;
    Mann was named as a Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information;
    elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science;
    he was elected Vice Chair of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate (GPC) at the American Physical Society (APS);
    Climate One at the Commonwealth Club of California said that he would be honored with the 7th annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Science Communication;
    He received the James H. Shea Award from the National Association of Geoscience Teachers for his “exceptional contribution in writing or editing Earth science materials for the general public or teachers of Earth science.”;
    the American Association for the Advancement of Science announced that Mann was chosen to receive the 2018 Public Engagement with Science award;
    the American Geophysical Union announced Mann as the 2018 recipient of its Climate Communication Prize;
    Mann and Warren Washington were named to receive the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement;
    he was elected member of the National Academy of Sciences;
    the American Physical Society recognized Mann with the Leo Szilard Lectureship Award “for distinguished contributions to the public’s understanding of climate science controversies, and to how our individual and collective actions can mitigate climate change.””

    Not too shabby, eh?

    Scientists really need to stop waiting around for nature to vindicate them and just phone a lawyer.

    Oh, I see. You don’t think much of scientists. Makes sense, since you are a AGW denialist.

    (You don’t realise you’re implicitly conceding that his case had legal merit, do you?)

    Yeah nah. Why would he wish to be held accountable for smearing Judith Curry? Surely he’s terrified by the removal of the impunity that shields his lies about climate scientists.

    Um, I refer to this universe and this timeline, not some alternate reality.

    You know, the one where he is triumphant and vindicated and lauded, not your counterfactual wishful reality.
    Where he won a sizeable punitive payout.

    Can anyone guess what John is trying to say here? Help him out if you can.

    You sure can’t; obviously, being explicit and unambiguous is still too complicated for you to nut out.
    Basically, I’m saying you are a dolt and that you are wrongity-wrong about basically everything, and that you imagine you are a sceptic whereas in reality you are a sap.

    (I know, too many words for such as you)

    I skipped the rest of your rant, John.

    Yeah, I get it. Not much fun being shown to be a bit of a clueless clown, is it?
    There, there. If you ignore me, you’ll be just peachy, others will buy into your bullshit. Perhaps, anyway.

    Fact is, you got nothing but your attempted bluster. Can’t dispute me, so you have to try to ignore me.
    Thing is, you can’t. Reality is what it is, I am what I am.

    You do get I’m enjoying myself immensely, no?
    Just remember, you came here, I did not come to you.

    (Your cowardice is quite evident; at least as much as your competence at disputation, not to mention your, ahem, wit)

  74. John Morales says

    Aww, I can’t help but be moved by such piteousness:

    Please copy and paste Michael Mann’s official celebratory tweet.

    I can do better than that: see my #59. His official CNN celebratory interview.

  75. says

    John M,

    But hey, I get it. You feel stressed-out that a pedophile was jailed. Obsessed about it, quite evidently.

    What I don’t get is your belief that you will ever convince others who don’t share your admiration for convicted kiddy-diddlers or climate science denialism.

    You should really find a better place to hang out. PZ’s faulty logic is starting to creep in by osmosis (” .. they accuse a scientist of pedophilia ..”).

  76. John Morales says

    canman, you are undoubtedly a most satisfactory chew-toy. I do appreciate that.

    You should really find a better place to hang out.

    Um, you’re hanging out here right now. That’s a fact.

    (Do you know to what the term ‘hypocrisy’ refers? :)

    PZ’s faulty logic is starting to creep in by osmosis (” .. they accuse a scientist of pedophilia ..”).

    You’re akin to a GOTO loop, ain’t ya? That’s how you began, now you want to recapitulate?
    Sure; GOTO 11.

    Anyway, allow me to inform you to what logic refers: it’s a process of inference, based on a set of premises and an inference system. There are multiple types, of which the main categories are deductive, inductive, and abductive.

    None of those are mere statements, such as the one PZ provided. Those are claims, not logic.
    I hope you can at least learn something from your venturing into this den of less-clueless people that the one which you find familiar and comforting. You know, the denialist site where you belong.

    I do get such as you don’t understand the difference between assertions, propositions, premises, inferences or conclusions. I do get you don’t understand natural language particularly well, so that you imagine an insinuation is not effectively an accusation; the court did, though — thus the damages awarded.

    Still. Hang around some more, and I reckon even such as you can’t help but learn something.

  77. says

    John M,

    As for logic, this is Simberg’s exact sentence:

    Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.

    Note the “except that instead of ..” — sort of the exclusive ‘or’ of sentence structure. From there it’s straight deductive logic that Simberg did not say Mann molested children. PZ’s sentence also has another logical error:

    They can’t defeat the science with evidence, so instead they accuse a scientist of pedophilia…with absolutely no evidence for that, either.

    He’s making a generalization from Simberg’s quote to include (I suppose) Mark Steyn. And now it looks like you’re infected with his illogic. I hope you don’t do mission critical applications that people depend on.

  78. Brad Keyes says

    John:
    “Nope. By the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Fact.”

    Science by opinion survey. Love it! I’m not even going to point out that no such survey actually exists; that would risk dignifying this pre-scientific reasoning system you’ve got going on.

    “Here is an indication (not the entirety) of what those “6 non-scientists plucked from the phonebook” achieved with their “vote”:
    [followed by a dazzling list of awards, medals and prizes]

    The jurors won all that? They enabled Mann to win all that? What, if anything, do you mean by “achieved”?!

    Oh, wait, I don’t care.

    “Not too shabby, eh?”
    Assuming you mean all the things Mann has won, as opposed to whatever you think the jury “achieved,” yes, I must admit his trophy shelf is impressively groaning.

    In fact the only higher achievements any scientist could strive for would be:
    1. winning a Nobel Prize
    2. actually discovering something

    So Mike’s still got something to aim for, which is always helpful for a man his age.

    “Oh, I see.”

    Well I doubt it. But let’s read on and discover what you think you “see.”

    “You don’t think much of scientists.”

    Aw. Wrong as usual.

    “….you are a AGW denialist.”

    Aw. You’re hallucinatory to boot. What else do you hear my voice denializing in your head, out of curiosity?

  79. says

    Brad quoting John:

    “Here is an indication (not the entirety) of what those “6 non-scientists plucked from the phonebook” achieved with their “vote”:
    [followed by a dazzling list of awards, medals and prizes]

    Did this involve time travel?

  80. John Morales says

    Ah, the gift that keeps on giving. I love it.

    canman:

    John M,
    As for logic, this is Simberg’s exact sentence:

    Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.

    Heh. You emphasised the wrong bit; “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” was the insinuation and the bit that was defamatory, and which any ordinary person (and most importantly the court and the jury) would know was effectively a defamatory accusation.

    Note the “except that instead of ..” — sort of the exclusive ‘or’ of sentence structure. From there it’s straight deductive logic that Simberg did not say Mann molested children. PZ’s sentence also has another logical error:

    They can’t defeat the science with evidence, so instead they accuse a scientist of pedophilia…with absolutely no evidence for that, either.

    He’s making a generalization from Simberg’s quote to include (I suppose) Mark Steyn. And now it looks like you’re infected with his illogic. I hope you don’t do mission critical applications that people depend on.

    Not even slightly. For it to be a deductive logical argument, the premises would need to be explicitly stated, and the inferential chain explicitly adduced. You know, things like conjuntion elimination or disjunction introduction and so forth. Your cargo-cult version doesn’t cut it.

    As for the “they” you about which are so excited, again: “In a victory for climate scientists, jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments made in 2012.”
    I mean, it could have been sorta semi plausibly the singular they, but clearly is a reference to the fact that the case was against two people, not just one. So plural it is.

    I hope you don’t do mission critical applications that people depend on.

    Not any longer; I am retired. I get to amuse myself, these days. Self-funded retiree.

    Brad:

    John:

    “Nope. By the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Fact.”

    Science by opinion survey. Love it! I’m not even going to point out that no such survey actually exists; that would risk dignifying this pre-scientific reasoning system you’ve got going on.

    To what supposed opinion survey do you refer? I spoke of awards given by scientific and civic institutions.

    The IPCC; the American Geophysical Union; the American Meteorological Society; Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science; the National Center for Science Education; the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI); the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Physical Society (APS); the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; the Center for Inquiry; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Geophysical Union; the National Academy of Sciences; etc.

    No survey there, that’s your hopeful misreading of what I wrote.

    “Here is an indication (not the entirety) of what those “6 non-scientists plucked from the phonebook” achieved with their “vote”:
    [followed by a dazzling list of awards, medals and prizes]

    The jurors won all that? They enabled Mann to win all that? What, if anything, do you mean by “achieved”?!

    Oh, wait, I don’t care.

    First of all, if you didn’t care, you’d not be posting and asking questions, would you? That you do that means that you obviously care.
    Second, by “achieved”, I mean he did it on his merits. What else could it mean?

    “Not too shabby, eh?”
    Assuming you mean all the things Mann has won, as opposed to whatever you think the jury “achieved,” yes, I must admit his trophy shelf is impressively groaning.

    Indeed. And I’m pretty sure the award for damages won’t hurt his financial position, either.

    In fact the only higher achievements any scientist could strive for would be:
    1. winning a Nobel Prize
    2. actually discovering something

    So Mike’s still got something to aim for, which is always helpful for a man his age.

    Fair enough. So, in your estimation he has not reached the apex, the acme of scientific achievement, but is at the penultimate rank of achievement. That’s still much higher than just about any other scientist, no?

    “Oh, I see.”

    Well I doubt it. But let’s read on and discover what you think you “see.”

    “You don’t think much of scientists.”

    Aw. Wrong as usual.

    Well then, you intimate that you do in fact think much of scientists.
    So you must be rather impressed with Michael Mann, who has achieved the rank below the ultimate best possible rank.

    Didn’t seem to be the case until you just conceded that.

    “….you are a AGW denialist.”

    Aw. You’re hallucinatory to boot. What else do you hear my voice denializing in your head, out of curiosity?

    Ah, OK.
    Again, until now, it sure seemed that you did not accept the overwhelming scientific consensus about the reality of anthropogenic climate change, and of the significance of Mann’s work.

    So… what’s your beef with this judgment and with his achievements, then? :)

    cantman:

    Did this involve time travel?

    No, it’s historical. You yourself claimed “I’ll have to admit I’m perplexed by all Mann’s awards or how he made it into the NAS.”

    (Did you time-travel? ;)

  81. Brad Keyes says

    John, everyone is perplexed—not just Canman and me, but I think I can safely say the Anglosphere itself—by your statement that the jury “achieved” the fact that Mann won all those things.

    And I was being sarcastic about his achievements. He hasn’t discovered anything this millennium. Or if he has, you should have skipped the credentialism and told me what he’s added to human knowledge. That’s how normal scientists measure their success, not by the cheap counterfeit that is social cachet.

    “So… what’s your beef with this judgment and with his achievements, then? :)”

    I have no beef, not even veal, with his accolades. If science organizations want to associate their names with his, let them.

    “This judgement” on the other hand perversely enriches a fake scientist and obligate thug at the deep personal expense of writers whose only mistake was to call him out. The Hockey Stick might tell the truth about the last millennium of temperature to the nearest decimal point but Mann’s version of it is still fraudulent. He made a public virtue out of unreplicability. He actively evaded auditing. He withheld enabling details. The end result was to immortalise an erroneous result and thus delay the progress of climate science by years. I don’t understand why people fall for the conflation of pro-climate-science with pro-Mann.

  82. John Morales says

    O Brad, your feistiness is most welcome, though your repertoire sadly appears exhausted already.
    Maybe a bit more poking will elicit some different posturing, though. Let’s see…

    John, everyone is perplexed—not just Canman and me, but I think I can safely say the Anglosphere itself—by your statement that the jury “achieved” the fact that Mann won all those things.

    Again, I quote: “jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments”

    The jury is composed of the jurors, and the jury (I quote yet again!) awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages.

    How you are supposedly perplexed by the plainest of language and the most checkable of facts is not exactly mysterious: you are being disingenuous. Because you have nothing but bluff and bluster.

    You are like that kid that wears the underpants on their head, except you have the skid mark on your nose.
    I know you think that’s impressive, but… well.

    And I was being sarcastic about his achievements.

    Nah. You were being truthful, you just didn’t know it.

    You can try to ignore reality all you want, but you know…

    The IPCC; the American Geophysical Union; the American Meteorological Society; Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science; the National Center for Science Education; the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI); the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Physical Society (APS); the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; the Center for Inquiry; the National Academy of Sciences; etc.

    Those are achievements. You can try to deprecate them, but it’s hollow. So very obvious!

    More to the point: You truly don’t believe scientists when the science is counter to your ideology, and you truly are a AGW denier. You essayed the falsehood that you were (now you call it sarcasm) and I went with it.

    Was the result not to your liking? I took you at your lying word, and I still was showing you up.
    See, you think you know how to argue, how to dispute, how to practice casuistry. Part of your charm.

    He hasn’t discovered anything this millennium. Or if he has, you should have skipped the credentialism and told me what he’s added to human knowledge. That’s how normal scientists measure their success, not by the cheap counterfeit that is social cachet.

    And yet, the IPCC; the American Geophysical Union; the American Meteorological Society; Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science; the National Center for Science Education; the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI); the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Physical Society (APS); the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; the Center for Inquiry; the National Academy of Sciences; etc. have given him awards and plaudits.

    So, it’s you vs. them, no?

    (That’s called denialism, when you can’t even admit those achievements are real and meaningful)

    “This judgement” on the other hand perversely enriches a fake scientist and obligate thug at the deep personal expense of writers whose only mistake was to call him out.

    That’s karma, not perversity. Poetic justice. It would not have happened had the climate denialists tried to impugn his character by comparing him to a pedophile. I’ve explained all that to you already, I’ve adduced evidence, but you just can’t muster the intellectual honesty or the testicular fortitude to concede the evident reality.

    But hey, caper around with that stain on your face. Most amusing.

    The Hockey Stick might tell the truth about the last millennium of temperature to the nearest decimal point but Mann’s version of it is still fraudulent. He made a public virtue out of unreplicability. He actively evaded auditing. He withheld enabling details. The end result was to immortalise an erroneous result and thus delay the progress of climate science by years. I don’t understand why people fall for the conflation of pro-climate-science with pro-Mann.

    Yes, you don’t need to repeat yourself. It is clear that you do not understand, because you do not want to understand.

    Basically, you intimate that all those organisations that gave him awards since 2012 are incompetent, in your opinion.
    Heh.

    Anyway, I know you were bullshitting. It’s all you’ve done, it’s all you have.

    Hey, remember what I wrote, earlier?
    Here: BTW, are you a flat-earther, too? Antivaxxer? Creationist?

    (I notice the canman carefully avoided responding to that question, I expect you will do likewise)

    Vindicated, I am. :)

  83. John Morales says

    Ah well, bit bored, so I suppose I should make it obvious that this ostensible misunderstanding about me supposedly claiming his science was vindicated by this judgement is based on quote-mining, because I can see it has become the single focus of your jiggery. Impressed the hell out of the canman, which is rather indicative.

    Me: “Thing is, the topic on this post is Michael Mann being awarded $1M in punitive damages.
    Clearly, his science has been vindicated, and clearly, this successful court case outcome vindicates his accusation that he was defamed.”

    Most people would get that I am there explicitly distinguing between his science and his defamation case, as per my emphasis. Basically, twice vindicated. First sentence, referring to the awarded damages. Second sentence, reference to the scientific vindication and also to the legal vindication.

    (Such complicated parsing!)

    “Clearly, his science has been vindicated”

    By the vote of 6 non-scientists plucked from the phonebook?

    No. By the fact that the IPCC; the American Geophysical Union; the American Meteorological Society; Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science; the National Center for Science Education; the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI); the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Physical Society (APS); the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; the Center for Inquiry; the National Academy of Sciences; etc. have given him awards and plaudits.

    By the fact that the hockey-stick thing is the accepted reality by every single cretitable organisation.

    But hey, come on.
    Can you point to any actual reputable academic body that currently disputes his science?
    Just one will do. Out of any country in the world, even.

    (I know damn well you can’t — the science is settled)

  84. StevoR says

    The overwhelming empirical evidence for Global Overheating (“Warming” ïs too mild and pleasant a word for it) is literally smashing in doors e.g. here at a US military base in Kwajalein atoll and we have rocket scientists like NASA here :

    https://climate.nasa.gov/

    Plus scientists generally informing us of all of it and being conservative in their estimates.

    But of course the Deniers literally refuse to accept the evidence and the reality even when it is directly put in their hands right in front of them explained carefully to them by renowned experts like shown here (4 minutes, 5 seconds mark onwards especially) right Brad Keyes, right Canman?

    To the latter two I ask what would make you accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here?

  85. Brad Keyes says

    “To the latter two I ask what would make you accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here?”

    When have I disputed, questioned, expressed doubt about, repudiated, gainsaid, dissented from, disagreed with, challenged, contested, opposed, negated, controverted, confuted, rejected, dismissed, demurred against, contradicted, objected to, taken issue with, disbelieved or (more archaically) misdoubted the scientific idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a significant reason why the Earth is warmer than it otherwise would be?

    You seem to find it inconceivable that someone on your “side” regarding the reality of AGW would be offended by Mann’s anti-science shenanigans. I’d work on that if I were you.

  86. Brad Keyes says

    John, your aversion to being “quote-mined” is noted, though objective observers would simply use the word “quoted.”

    Nonetheless, you can’t grow as an individual (something I believe you not only can but should aim to do at every age) without acknowledging your mistakes. Mistakes that include this gibberistic category error:

    Here is an indication (not the entirety) of what those “6 non-scientists plucked from the phonebook” achieved with their “vote”:
    “he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union;
    Following election by the American Meteorological Society he became a new Fellow of the society;,,,,,,,

    Ceasing to defend it, as you clearly have, is not enough. You must repudiate your errors, and you can’t do that—you can’t end their power over you—if you refuse to name them.

    Good luck.

    The IPCC; the American Geophysical Union; the American Meteorological Society; Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; the National Wildlife [….] of Geoscience Teachers; the Center for Inquiry; the National Academy of Sciences; etc.

    Those are achievements.

    Er, no, they’re organizations.

    To avoid such blunders in future, you need to cultivate clear thinking and writing habits. Those are really the same thing: clear thinking and clear writing.

    Take fifteen minutes a day to play word games, especially the one called Let’s Use the Right Word!® in North America.

    It did miracles for my kids, who are now three grades ahead of their chronological age in writing—a damn good achievement, even considering their genetic head-start. It can work for you too.

    (It’s the “junior” version of Let’s Speak English!®, which beginners tend to find too challenging.)

  87. StevoR says

    @ Brad Keyes : “Climategate” LOL. Seriously dude? Cherry-pick much too? Oh and did you happen to eat a thesaururus /Onomasticon or something?

    Check this out – Bad, Badder, BEST – 7 mins 257 secs

    (Twelve years ago now! Yikes time Fuck it flies.)

    Or go directly to :

    https://berkeleyearth.org/data/

    Just how far behind the times are you?

    You seem to find it inconceivable that someone on your “side” regarding the reality of AGW would be offended by Mann’s anti-science shenanigans. I’d work on that if I were you.

    Mann’s “änti-science shennanigans” huh? You wanna scroll upscreen or check out this Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack Part 1 Imean its nearly 15 years old but seems you didn’t actually see or grok it..

  88. StevoR says

    Climategate.. Wow as chewtoys go this one really does have that rare well aged vintage flavour. Bone been buried a long, loo–ong time here.

    See :

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

    Whilst on wiki too:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

    Then there’s this :

    https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/Hockeystick-global-temperature/more/Richard-Muller/Richard%20Muller-%20The%20Conversion%20of%20a%20Climate-Change%20Skeptic%20-%20NYTimes.pdf

    Still thanks for that trip down nostalgia road, Brad.

  89. StevoR says

    PS. Brad Keyes, I noticed you did NOT actually answer my question to you in #103 :

    What would make you accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here?

    Please do so.

  90. Rob Grigjanis says

    Brad Keyes @104: You’re a bit behind the times. The talk you linked to was given before Muller (the speaker) and colleagues did an exhaustive study of the data;

    Led by Professor Richard Muller and backed by funds that included a $150,000 grant from noted climate-crisis denial supporters, the Charles Koch Foundation – the team re-analysed more than 1.6bn land temperature measurements dating back to the 1800s – and came to exactly the same conclusions as Jones: the fairly level temperatures that had continued through the past few centuries began to spike sharply a few decades ago as atmosphere carbon levels rose.

    “Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with warming values published previously,” said Muller. “This confirms these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate-change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climategate-10-years-on-what-lessons-have-we-learned

    The comments to the video are hilarious; apart from the usual crowing by deniers, there are condemnations of Muller, who they say copped out since giving that talk.

  91. Brad Keyes says

    Rob, please direct my attention to the bit where Muller took back his criticisms of the WMO graph’s honesty, apologizes to Jones and Mann and admits he was wrong to say “you can’t do this in science! This is not up to our standards.”

    Cheers.

    PS Muller never copped out; he was always a believer in global warming (read his books Physics for Presidents, published long before Climategate) who went so far as to approve of Gore’s exaggerations given the (supposed) urgency of the (supposed) problem, but even he had his limits. The truth was not infinitely elastic in Muller’s moral system. If he has subsequently renounced the stand that he took against Hiding the Decline, then shame on him. But he hasn’t done so, last time I checked.

  92. Brad Keyes says

    StevoR,

    “Climategate” LOL. Seriously dude?

    Thanks for making it clear as day that you haven’t watched a single hour of the trial you’re commenting on. Climategate was a central theme.

    Climategate happened in 2009.

    “FIFTEEN YEARS AGO! Get over it, doodz!”

    (And hasn’t climate science learned so much since then!)

    Mann’s spent 12 years in court defending the honor of a graph he produced in 1998. TWENTY SIX YEARS AGO.

    If someone’s behind the times, it ain’t us skeptics.

    By the way StevoR, what will it take to make you accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here? I’m dying to know.

  93. Jim Balter says

    But it was worth it!*

    *At least, that’s what the lawyers say.

    Where did the lawyers say that?

    Good gawd but you are stupid, Canman. It’s “say”, not “said” … a joke about lawyers’ self interest, you cretin. That you’re too stupid to understand this indicates that there’s no point in attending to anything else you say.

    And Brad Keyes is a notorious climate science denier of the lowest order, a smarmy shitstain on humanity who has been telling the same lies for decades. Best not to feed the trolls.

  94. Jim Balter says

    Canman and Keyes hang out at places like Judith Curry’s blog, where likeminded lying scum congregate. Other science blogs have wisely banned these maggots, who will invite their friends and overrun your blog if you let them. You can find mention of Keyes at https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/the-calibre-of-climate-skepticism/

    Who is Bad Keyes? Seems he got some sort of degree from Sydney Uni and then some sort of Masters from who knows where. One thing he does have in spades is verbal diarrhea, making him an exponent of bullshit.

    Mike, Bad Keyes is on my kill file list. His style of engagement is really about filling a comment thread with crap. Yours or his, it doesn’t matter. He certainly doesn’t care what he’s talking about, and he’s very very rude.

    Brad Keyes? I get the impression that he did not study science at Sydney University despite his frequent invocations of “Feynman”. His rather pompous and verbose style laced with long winded insults suggests something from the Arts department. (Which is fine by the way but leaves him at somewhat of a disadvantage when discussing climate.)

    e.g. here he is recently announcing that a butterfly can change the climate by flapping its wings.

    “When you announced a truism that follows from the fact that a butterfly can change the climate by flapping its wings, the banality was on purpose?”

    https://theconversation.com/consensus-confirmed-over-90-of-climate-scientists-believe-were-causing-global-warming-57654#comment_952769

    @BradPKeyes all I know is he must be retired as he works really hard to waste a lot of people’s time @shubclimate @omnologos @nevaudit

  95. says

    If someone cares about a false conviction they go work with people already concerned with false convictions. Organizations that care about child molestation care about our legal system getting it right. They are the best people to talk to about Sandusky.

    I only see political behavior in pressuring people who care about global warming and climate scientists to look at an unrelated child molestation accusation. There are are so many climate denier benefits to getting us to argue about the asserted innocence of a child molester instead of the legal victory.
    This isn’t helping anyone who is falsely accused. This is creating political noise.

    And there’s the issue of the climate deniers using child molestation victims as political tools in their comparison. Same category as “Pedo Joe”. Using the pain of others as political gain. Pointing that out and shaming it helps victims of molestation.

  96. Rob Grigjanis says

    Brad Keyes @111:

    If he has subsequently renounced the stand that he took against Hiding the Decline, then shame on him.

    Jesus, mate, can’t you read?

    “This confirms these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate-change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.”

    If he has subsequently renounced the stand that he took against Hiding the Decline, then shame on him.

    Right. An expert is an expert until they disagree with you.

  97. Jim Balter says

    The ultra-smarmy ever in bad faith Keyes is the darling of other science-denying (“lukewarmers” are definitely that, regardless of whether they deny AGW) scum, especially his idiot sidekick canman who has been so inseparable from Keyes for decades that one might suspect, well, something:

    https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/climate-blogger-of-the-year-2015/

    Perhaps one of the strongest arguments in favor of Keyes as this year’s winner is the complete lack of charts, tables or graphs, with Mr. Keyes making the bold editorial decision to replace those irrelevant fripperies with GIFs of one of his favorite targets, Stefan Lewandowski.

    Such criteria.

  98. says

    Brony @115:

    If someone cares about a false conviction they go work with people already concerned with false convictions. Organizations that care about child molestation care about our legal system getting it right. They are the best people to talk to about Sandusky.

    I have a link @14 with a list of people investigating the case which includes legal professionals doing just that, but that is not the only reason to be interested in this case. This was a major story where the media got everything wrong, including giving young reporter, Sara Ganim, a Pulitzer prize and making her the heroine of an Al Pacino movie. Where is her book? Shouldn’t the Pulitzer organization have higher standards?

    I only see political behavior in pressuring people who care about global warming and climate scientists to look at an unrelated child molestation accusation.

    Yes, it is only tangentially related, but back when Michael Shermer posted Frederick Crews’ review of Mark Pendergrast’s book, PZ was one of the few bloggers writing about it. I have two links @21. There’s been lots of new information that’s been coming out since then. I’m wondering if he might consider updating his position or if he’s going to stand by what he wrote back then. He backed up his stance with a blog post by a blogger named Christopher Tevuk. I wasn’t that impressed with Tevuk. I made a couple comments and thought his responses along with his post amounted to little more than sneering. Tevuk abruptly closed his comments. Later, it looks like he took his blog down and scurried away. The post is still on the Wayback Machine so you can judge for yourself:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/http://christophertevuk.com/index.php/2018/01/08/why-skeptics-defending-jerry-sandusky-is-ludicrous/

  99. says

    The child molestation conviction hand-wringer can go to a group interested in these things if they care.

    They ignore the reasons mentioned about not doing it here. They can take their link there instead of pressuring people who aren’t interested while they ignore the political use of molestation victims, and turning discussion from that to a big complicated story that would fill the comments with defense of people claimed to have done the bad thing used as a metaphor.

    They came here. To the post about the legal victory, to hand-wring discussion about assertions about convicted child abusers.

    No. Fuck no. No because of all the reasons I mentioned especially the one involving the political use of victims.

  100. Brad Keyes says

    Rob,

    my mistake: I assumed everyone here was as familiar as folks on my side with the basics of paleo reconstructions. Let me spell it out a bit better for you. When you quote Muller saying….

    “This confirms these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate-change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.”

    …the demonstrative “This” refers to his own work on BEST which looked at temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age, i.e. a span of less than three centuries.

    Whatever he’s talking about when he says “these studies were done carefully” (the Guardian journalist is too sloppy to ask for specifics) he can’t possibly be talking about the Hiding of the Decline in the Hockey Stick, which entailed

    To repeat:

    If he has subsequently renounced the stand he took against Hiding the Decline, then shame on him.

    But I’m still waiting for a scintilla of evidence to that effect.

    An expert is an expert until they disagree with you.

    It doesn’t take much expertise to stand up for bedrock scientific ethics as Muller did in his righteous phiippic video. You just have to be a scientists in, well, any field. If Muller should ever fall back from that position a million other scientists will hold the line.

  101. John Morales says

    Brad, still capering? No worries.

    Ceasing to defend it, as you clearly have, is not enough.

    You exhibit utter bad faith, of course. Transparent lies.
    Ceasing to defend what? I’m not defending anything, I am explaining in detail.
    Your persistence in pretending to misunderstand lacks any credibility.
    It’s a very, very stupid appeal to misunderstanding me since obviously his scientific vindication and awards were given well before his legal vindication when the jury awarded him the $1M in damages.

    (Your crowing is a bit diminished with that shit-stain on your face, you know. Already told you)

    You know the beauty of a text medium? I can repeat myself very, very easily, with a few clicks.

    Me: “Thing is, the topic on this post is Michael Mann being awarded $1M in punitive damages.
    Clearly, his science has been vindicated, and clearly, this successful court case outcome vindicates his accusation that he was defamed.”

    Most people would get that I am there explicitly distinguing between his science and his defamation case, as per my emphasis. Basically, twice vindicated. First sentence, referring to the awarded damages. Second sentence, reference to the scientific vindication and also to the legal vindication.

    (Such complicated parsing!)

    “Clearly, his science has been vindicated”
    By the vote of 6 non-scientists plucked from the phonebook?

    No. By the fact that the IPCC; the American Geophysical Union; the American Meteorological Society; Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science; the National Center for Science Education; the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI); the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Physical Society (APS); the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; the Center for Inquiry; the National Academy of Sciences; etc. have given him awards and plaudits.

    You: “Er, no, they’re organizations.”
    Yes. Reputable organisations that have given him a heap of awards and plaudits, as I’ve posted multiple times by now. They’re not the jurors, those are the ones that awarded him $1M.

    To avoid such blunders in future, you need to cultivate clear thinking and writing habits. Those are really the same thing: clear thinking and clear writing.

    The only blunder is in your attempted baseless claim based on your supposed misunderstanding of perfectly clear writing.

    Again, he was vindicated legally (that’s his post), and he was vindicated scientifically (as those awards indicate). All you have is lying and wilful misunderstanding.

    Meantime, reality continues on its merry way, and you flat-earthers become a little clique of fantasists.
    (I noticed you didn’t deny also being a flat-earther, even with prodded)

    Here, for you — read it and weep:
    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/

    AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023
    The IPCC finalized the Synthesis Report for the Sixth Assessment Report during the Panel’s 58th Session held in Interlaken, Switzerland from 13 – 19 March 2023.

  102. John Morales says

    Brad, you do get your avoidance of the reality is most apparent, no?
    Mann’s science has been vindicated. Turns out, he was right all along. Thus the plaudits.

    “Clearly, his science has been vindicated”
    By the vote of 6 non-scientists plucked from the phonebook?

    No. By the fact that the IPCC; the American Geophysical Union; the American Meteorological Society; Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science; the National Center for Science Education; the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI); the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Physical Society (APS); the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; the Center for Inquiry; the National Academy of Sciences; etc. have given him awards and plaudits.

    By the fact that the hockey-stick thing is the accepted reality by every single cretitable organisation.

    But hey, come on.
    Can you point to any actual reputable academic body that currently disputes his science?
    Just one will do. Out of any country in the world, even.

    (I know damn well you can’t — the science is settled)

  103. John Morales says

    It doesn’t take much expertise to stand up for bedrock scientific ethics as Muller did in his righteous phiippic [sic] video. You just have to be a scientists in, well, any field.

    Heh. Most amusing that you’re trying to tell a scientist that.

    Exactly the same as when a creationist tries to dispute the science and hectors an actual scientist.

    (I know the difference between nouns and verbs, unlike you, Brad the Pompous)

  104. John Morales says

    Brad, you sure look funny with those underpants on your head; whenever you want to avoid seeing stuff, you just pull them over your eyes and claim there’s nothing there to see. Heh.

    To repeat:

    If he has subsequently renounced the stand he took against Hiding the Decline, then shame on him.

    But I’m still waiting for a scintilla of evidence to that effect.

    You mean, where he concedes there was no decline, but rather a rise? A rapid rise?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

    The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

    By Richard A. Muller

    July 28, 2012

    Berkeley, Calif.

    CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

    My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
    […]

    (That’s a bit more than a scintilla, no? Bit more of a nova)

  105. says

    Those massive jaw muscles some of you are getting from these chew toys are a but scary.

    I don’t give a damn about Sandusky, or that Mann hasn’t won a Nobel prize. You know if I ban you, you’ll never get to comment here again, and my readers will have to start chomping on other obtuse objects, right?

  106. Rob Grigjanis says

    Brad Keyes @121:

    …the demonstrative “This” refers to his own work on BEST which looked at temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age, i.e. a span of less than three centuries.

    Did you even watch the video you linked to? Muller’s main point there was the recent (last hundred years or so) spike in temperature. You know, the blade of the hockey stick. That’s the part (well, that and the previous couple hundred years) he changed his mind on, based on intensive analysis. If you dispute his volte face on this, provide evidence.

    FWIW, I have a PhD in theoretical physics, and can at least follow most relevant papers. What are your qualifications?

  107. says

    How about Mann’s MBY98 paper? Could someone explain how undisclosed FORTRAN code that contains an incorrect modification of PCA that mines for hockey sticks and undisclosed, failing R squared results is not fraud?

  108. John Morales says

    canman, yes. Yes indeed. Most fucking certainly.

    You just choose to avoid reading the current science, and the history of that science since 1998.

    Here, for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_temperature)

    Plenty of citations there for you to follow. Scientific ones.

    Here, in plain English: “Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”

    This is Muller in 2012 (see my citation above):
    “I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

    You do get that science progresses over time, no? Methods get refined, get improved.
    You do get we know a fuckload more than we did in 1998, no?
    You do get Muller recanted because he independently got basically the same results 14 years later, no?
    When do you reckon Muller last tried to make an issue of it? :)

    I notice you don’t deny you are a flat-earther, by the way.
    Makes sense, there’s this thing called kook magnetism.

    Also, have you ever wondered why all those organisations gave him awards and fellowships and whatnot, if they somehow thought he was a fraud?

    This is you: I’ll have to admit I’m perplexed by all Mann’s awards or how he made it into the NAS.
    Then you linked to a post you made in 2020.

    Have you even tried to get to the bottom of your perplexity? Tried to examine why you are flummoxed?
    All very mysterious, no? Unfathomable!

    Well, I can tell you right now: because you are ignoring the actual science, and going by an opinion piece from 26 years ago which turned out to be the equivalent of claiming a typographic error invalidated a thesis. You are stuck in the past and lack the intellectual fortitude to acknowledge you’ve been and remain wrongity-wrong wrong. You’d rather keep embarrassing yourself in public than admit to your mistake.

    It’s very obvious to anyone who is not beholden to an ideology and actually knows anything about the science.

  109. John Morales says

    Heh. Perfect clip of the underpants gnome that accompanied you here.

    All pretend indignance, no substance. Most mockable.

  110. Brad Keyes says

    sorry, distracted.

    Whatever he’s talking about when he says “these studies were done carefully” (the Guardian journalist is too sloppy to ask for specifics) he can’t possibly be talking about the Hiding of the Decline in the Hockey Stick, a sleight of hand where they epoxied a proxy shaft 800 years long onto an instrumental blade.

    Muller is simply acknowledging recent warming, as if that were a live controversy. He’s rather good at grabbing headlines for banal reasons. What his Damascene epiphany does NOT portend is any kind of rethinking of the “list of scientists I’m no longer willing to work with.”

    PS this Jim character above is clearly a longtime reader of mine, first-time heckler with some kind of tumor pressing on his swearing cortex. If his apoplectic typings contain anything relevant to this discussion, someone else is going to need to summarize it for me. Otherwise I’m sure they will be a diagnostic goldmine for his oncologist, but not much else.

  111. Rob Grigjanis says

    Brad Keyes @132:

    Muller is simply acknowledging recent warming, as if that were a live controversy.

    Recent warming was a major part of the video you linked to. Now you’re saying it’s not a “live controversy”. Do you even care about consistency? Rhetorical question.

  112. John Morales says

    Ah, the feeble Brad and his caperings return. Excellent!

    sorry, distracted.

    Nope. Obviously not sorry, and obviously not distracted.

    Lip-trembling sweaty effort to have some sort of comeback, is what you had to endure.

    You shot your credibility long ago, and your weak attempts at argumentation are there for anyone to see.
    Again, this is a nice feature of the written medium, no?

    Whatever he’s talking about when he says “these studies were done carefully” (the Guardian journalist is too sloppy to ask for specifics) he can’t possibly be talking about the Hiding of the Decline in the Hockey Stick, a sleight of hand where they epoxied a proxy shaft 800 years long onto an instrumental blade.

    <snicker>

    He can’t possibly have been talking about anything else, since the very thesis of Hiding of the Decline is that there was a decline in temperature that was being hidden by a fraudulent artefact.

    No decline there to hide, is the very point!
    And yes, I’m familiar with the disingenuous claim the decline was about tree rings after it was shown to be without merit, because blatant back-pedalling is all people like you have.

    Muller is simply acknowledging recent warming, as if that were a live controversy. He’s rather good at grabbing headlines for banal reasons. What his Damascene epiphany does NOT portend is any kind of rethinking of the “list of scientists I’m no longer willing to work with.”

    Heh. In 2012, Muller acknowledged there was no decline that was hidden.
    And he’s been most conspicuously quiet about any supposed fraud Mann did, hasn’t he?

    Here, for you:
    “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
    By Richard A. Muller July 28, 2012” — link above.

    So. When do you reckon was the last time Muller intimated there was sommething fraudulent about Mann’s work? When was the first time, even?

    PS this Jim character above is clearly a longtime reader of mine, first-time heckler with some kind of tumor pressing on his swearing cortex.

    Heh. Walter Mitty could not do better than that; nope. You could hardly be more wrong.
    He just knows how to use the internet and thus discover information.

    (a mysterious skill!)

    If his apoplectic typings contain anything relevant to this discussion, someone else is going to need to summarize it for me.

    Apoplectic? Heh. You’ve not seen him in his pomp. It’s called ‘dismissive’.
    That was the barest touch of asperity, by his standards.

    Anyway, summarising stuff for you is utterly pointless, you will just pretend to misunderstand and resume your robotic and repetitive claims, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. You’ve made that more than clear.

    Anyway, have you yet grokked what I wrote?

    It was not the jurors who vindicated his science, it was the plaudits he received and the analysis of his work (“Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”).
    The jurors vindicated his legal claim.

    You can try to keep ignoring that, yet there it is. For the umpteenth time.

    (Even your sidekick is mocking you; see #129)

  113. Brad Keyes says

    John, pro tip: when you’re trying to look down your nose at Canman, you’re looking in the wrong direction. He’s way ahead of you on all these familiar, well-litigated issues. I know you think you’re in possession of some sort of anti-skeptical gotcha but you need to get over that.

    Here, in plain English: “Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists

    Why would any skeptical person read any further?

    Wikipedia or whoever you’re quoting is unashamedly editorializing by dismissing the disputes as ‘political.’ On a normal Wiki page. in a non-pathological issue, that would get flagged by an editor immediately. But if scientific integrity is a ‘political’ issue to you people, that tells me a lot…. none of it flattering.

    This is Muller in 2012 (see my citation above):
    “I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”
    You do get Muller recanted because…

    Don’t be so credulous, John. You were played.

    To quote Muller:

    I was never a [climate] skeptic — only a scientific skeptic… Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.

    Geddit now?

    We like riling you Mann apologists up with Muller’s denunciation of the Hockey Stick’s decline-hiding ways NOT because Muller doesn’t believe in AGW, but because his belief in AGW wasn’t enough to make him turn a blind eye to scientific misconduct.

    He’s no saint—God knows, he’d sell his own mother for a book deal—but he has SOME standards, and Hide The Decline isn’t up to them. At the end of the day, Muller is still a scientist.

    Cue another torrent of unresponsive schoolyard rhetoric from the locals. It’s true: it’s far easier to scam a person than to convince him he’s been scammed.

  114. Rob Grigjanis says

    Otherwise I’m sure they will be a diagnostic goldmine for his oncologist, but not much else.

    One difference between you and Balter is that he can, at least on occasion, admit that he was wrong. I suspect your tumour is inoperable.

  115. Brad Keyes says

    This is just getting embarrassing:

    the very thesis of Hiding of the Decline is that there was a decline in temperature that was being hidden by a fraudulent artefact.

    If you’re not even on top of the basic arguments, what Dunning-Krugerism is possessing you to try to hold forth about it, and under your own name?

    There was no DECLINE IN TEMPERATURE, there was a decline in the proxy signal of temperature, in this case MXDs, which contradicted (“diverged” from) the real-world RISE in temperature.

    Have you even invested three minutes familiarizing yourself with the issues?

    Why are you doing this to yourself, John? You might be a nice guy, despite appearances, but you’re making your ancestors and descendants cringe. Either educate yourself or switch to a pseudonym before you say another word.

  116. Brad Keyes says

    Rob, when you find an example of me being wrong (they’re out there, believe me!) you’ll notice I pride myself on saying so, preferably before someone beats me to it. I think I said a few things wrong, and owned up to them, in a thread about Oreskes’ errors in Merchants of Doubt (where she claims among other things that neutral pH is 6.0). It was a few years ago but I’ll find it for you if you want.

  117. Brad Keyes says

    John ,

    You do get we know a fuckload more than we did in 1998, no?

    Climate science knew about AGW last millennium.

    Since then, we’ve learned. um, various things about the climate, in fact where do I even start? Well, so I guess, to name but a few out of the too-many-to-list things we now know about the climate that we didn’t know then, do you want them alphabetically? OK, let’s see. Starting with A. Oops, I think there’s a tumbleweed salesman at the door, BRB

  118. John Morales says

    Brad, your puffing and your huffing is most entertaining.
    You really should put a link to this thread on your site of saps, so they can be impressed at how you’re pwning everyone here. Heh.

    John, pro tip: when you’re trying to look down your nose at Canman, you’re looking in the wrong direction. He’s way ahead of you on all these familiar, well-litigated issues.

    Look, mate — I don’t need to know how you make your pocket money (not that there’s anything wrong with that), but when discussing the canman (you do get that’s how the nym is written by the individual themself, no? Have a look: no capital letter) I hardly need to look down my nose, as you put it. No shit-stain on it, see? ;)

    As for him being way ahead, that’s quite contrary to all the evidence at hand. For example, he has no clue as to why Mann was given all those laurels (I’ve noticed your efforts at trying to use ye olde classical terms). Said so himself. Perplexed, he is. Stymied!

    Here, in plain English: “Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists

    Why would any skeptical person read any further?

    Well, an actual sceptical person would read further to know what the panel of scientists determined, no?
    You, on the other hand, are doing what you’ve been doing all along; pulling those streaky underpants over your eyes so you can keep on claiming to be unaware of the actual evidence and thus “still waiting for a scintilla of evidence”.

    Which makes it most obvious you are not sceptical (or even skeptical!).

    Wikipedia or whoever you’re quoting is unashamedly editorializing by dismissing the disputes as ‘political.’

    Nah, any dismissal is being attempted by you, but to do that you are forced to ignore the actual text and every single citation and link to the bases for those claims.

    Again: underpants on your head, “la la la I can’t hear or see!” caperings.
    To quote Muller: “I was never a [climate] skeptic ”

    To quote Muller:
    CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.

    He could hardly be any plainer, no? Any more precise. And it’s quite factual.
    Someone you respect wrote “but where I come from, precision matters. Facts matter.”

    We like riling you Mann apologists up with Muller’s denunciation of the Hockey Stick’s decline-hiding ways NOT because Muller doesn’t believe in AGW, but because his belief in AGW wasn’t enough to make him turn a blind eye to scientific misconduct.

    <smirk>

    Do you seriously imagine I seem riled? I am having the time of my life, mate!
    Willing chew-toys such as you are rare in these parts these days; had a couple of goddists on another thread a few days ago, get the odd transphobe here and there, but you are a goldmine for mockery.

    Cue another torrent of unresponsive schoolyard rhetoric from the locals.

    <snicker>

    Oh, sure, directly quoting you and addressing everything you write and pointing you to sources and so forth is what you call “unresponsive”.

    Here, let me show you unresponsive:

    Have you yet grokked what I wrote?

    It was not the jurors who vindicated his science, it was the plaudits he received and the analysis of his work (“Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”).
    The jurors vindicated his legal claim.

    You can try to keep ignoring that, yet there it is. For the umpteenth time.
    You have yet to respond.

    (Even your sidekick is mocking you; see #129)

  119. John Morales says

    Brad, your inanity is ever more exposed. I like that. Keep going, please.

    Well, so I guess, to name but a few out of the too-many-to-list things we now know about the climate that we didn’t know then, do you want them alphabetically? OK, let’s see. Starting with A. Oops, I think there’s a tumbleweed salesman at the door, BRB

    Heh heh heh. Pants on head, shit-stain on nose, “la la la can’t hear you” is what I see.
    You’ve given up even pretending to try to dispute me.
    Ah well, chew-toys only last so long before they crumble.

    Here, for you — read it and weep:
    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/

    AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023
    The IPCC finalized the Synthesis Report for the Sixth Assessment Report during the Panel’s 58th Session held in Interlaken, Switzerland from 13 – 19 March 2023.

  120. Brad Keyes says

    Rob, I’m gonna extend you the presumption of good faith w.r.t. the Muller video and urge you to watch it with the audio on this time. The ONLY controversy about the decline was how scientists could get away with pretending their proxy signals agreed with the real-world warming trend. Nobody disputed that recent temperatures have gone up. That’s something only a Fox news anchor disputed, and they stopped disputing it a few days later once somebody explained to them what the HTD email actually meant. The only debate is whether it’s acceptable as a scientist to cover up (hide) the fact that your proxy model—on which you’re relying to deny the MWP and the LIA and to tell us the temperature during the Battle of Hastings, FFS—falsely implies a downward trend in recent years, since the 1960s, when we know the temperature has gone up. No other field of science has this debate. It’s not a debate. It’s unacceptable. Full stop.

  121. Brad Keyes says

    “Here, for you — read it and weep:”

    I think you misspelled “yawn”.

    Your abject failure to list something we now know about the climate, that we didn’t know last millennium, is noted. You needn’t feel obliged to reply until you can regain some face by answering that challenge (or, failing to do so, admit it).

    A link to a document in which, according to your blind faith, there must presumably be a whole gamut of answers to my question is ignored. It’s amusing how nobody on your side reads their own tedious literature. It reminds me of the debates I had against devotees of Mohammed back in the day, who’d invariably never read the whole book they purported to defend.

  122. John Morales says

    “Nobody disputed that recent temperatures have gone up.

    Except for Muller.

    CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.

    See, the sequence of letters that constitutes the expression “three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.” is specifically and unambiguously stating that the very existence of global warming is doubtful.

    It’s unacceptable. Full stop.

    Evidently not, since (need I list the lengthy list of encomia Mann has received from organisations — not jurors!) nobody but you denialist types carry on about it, and Muller himself has not said a word about it since.

    If only you’d looked at what the panel of scientists which was convened because denialists like you politicised the science determined or followed the citation.

    Here, in plain English: “Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”

    See, the scientists wrote “there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result”, not that there was fraud or that it was unacceptable. Full stop.

    Hey, regarding responsiveness:
    Have you yet grokked what I wrote?

    It was not the jurors who vindicated his science, it was the plaudits he received and the analysis of his work (“Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”).
    The jurors vindicated his legal claim.

    You can try to keep ignoring that, yet there it is. For the umpteenth time.
    You have yet to respond.

    (Even your sidekick is mocking you; see #129)

  123. Brad Keyes says

    John, since I can’t resist trying to help those who least want to be helped, you wrote

    To quote Muller: “I was never a [climate] skeptic ”

    To quote Muller:
    CALL me a converted skeptic.

    As though his self-contradictions are any of my business.

    I’ve already explained to you that Muller is no paragon of integrity.

    But being a scientist, he has SOME ethical standards, and he draws the line at Hide the Decline. That oughtta tell you something. If it’s not up to Muller’s standards, it’s not up to ANY scientist’s standards.

  124. John Morales says

    Ah, the flailing gets weaker by the minute.

    “Here, for you — read it and weep:”
    I think you misspelled “yawn”.

    Translation: you have nothing and even your bluster is becoming more of a zephyr.

    Your abject failure to list something we now know about the climate, that we didn’t know last millennium, is noted.

    Your cargo-cult style of attempted argumentation is weak as fuck. You have nothing.

    You needn’t feel obliged to reply until you can regain some face by answering that challenge (or, failing to do so, admit it).

    LOL. What part of “I am having the time of my life, mate!” did you misunderstand.

    I’m not obliged to enjoy my deriding of the underpants gnome, I do it because I can.
    While it lasts, which clearly shan’t be long now.

    A link to a document in which, according to your blind faith, there must presumably be a whole gamut of answers to my question is ignored. [blah blah]

    So, down to the generic boilerplate.

    Again, I urge you to link to this thread in your denialist site; surely they will be impressed by your caperings.

  125. John Morales says

    Heh. Brad the Brave perseveres.

    As though his self-contradictions are any of my business.

    Hey, you quoted him, I quoted him in return, vitiating your own quotation.
    See, when you adduce a quotation that is contradicted by the same source, you are making it your business.
    You didn’t have to quote that, yet you did. That’s how making it your business works!

    But being a scientist, he has SOME ethical standards, and he draws the line at Hide the Decline.

    Being a wanker and a denialist, you lack ANY ethical standards. That much is evident.

    And you’re an intellectual coward.

    But sure… you keep telling yourself Muller thinks Mann is a fraud. It’s your little safety blanket.

    (For you, it will forever be 1998)

  126. John Morales says

    [since this comment thread has gone into the weeds a bit, a quick recap of what the post is about]

    In a victory for climate scientists, jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments made in 2012.

    In a unanimous decision, jurors agreed that both Simberg and Steyn defamed Mann in blog posts that compared Mann to convicted sex offender Jerry Sandusky, former assistant football coach at Penn State University. They announced that Simberg will pay $1,000 in punitive damages and Steyn will pay the larger $1 million.

    In his own words:
    https://youtu.be/a_O9sDNMF98

  127. John Morales says

    Can’t be that devastating, since Mann is not devastated. Not even slightly.
    Rather, the opposite.

    Praised and showered with encomia, yes.
    A winner. Famed. Vindicated.

    Just won the court case, in case you hadn’t heard, canman.

    Hey, do you know the concept of “motivated reasoning”?
    It explains how you are flummoxed the many accolades Mann has received from scientific bodies.

    (Helpful, that’s me)

  128. John Morales says

    Aaw, Brad is having another lip-quivering session, while here I wait with baited breath.

    Still… though I have no need, it is fun to poke the specimen. So.

    “This is just getting embarrassing:”

    Me @134: “And yes, I’m familiar with the disingenuous claim the decline was about tree rings after it was shown to be without merit, because blatant back-pedalling is all people like you have.”
    Brad @137: “there was a decline in the proxy signal of temperature, in this case MXDs”

    (prescient, I)

    If it’s not up to Muller’s standards, it’s not up to ANY scientist’s standards.

    Datum for you:

    https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/michael-mann-awarded-2019-tyler-prize-environmental-achievement/

    UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science, Penn State, has been awarded the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement. Founded in 1973, the Tyler Prize — often referred to as the “Nobel Prize for the Environment” — remains the premiere international award for environmental science.
    […]
    Mann is honored with this award not only for his research in reconstructing the Earth’s past climate and placing modern climate change in a long-term context, but also for his communication and outreach efforts.

    Heh.

  129. John Morales says

    Ah, one more, why not.

    https://www.aps.org/programs/honors/prizes/prizerecipient.cfm?last_nm=Mann&first_nm=Michael&year=2022

    Citation:
    “For distinguished contributions to the public’s understanding of climate science controversies, and to how our individual and collective actions can mitigate climate change.”

    Selection Committee:
    E. William Colglazier, American Association for the Advancement of Science (2020 FPS Chair), Robert Semper, Exploratorium (2021 Burton Award), Steve Fetter, University of Maryland (2021 Szilard Award) Tony Fainberg, National Academy of Sciences, (FPS Secretary Treasurer)

    (Cue underpants firmly pressed over eyes)

  130. says

    John M,
    Me @128: “Could someone explain how undisclosed FORTRAN code that contains an incorrect modification of PCA that mines for hockey sticks and undisclosed, failing R squared results is not fraud?”

    You (John M) @130:

    canman, yes. Yes indeed. Most fucking certainly.
    ..
    Here, in plain English: “Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”

    Whether or not these statistical “failings” had little effect on the result is beside the point. These “failings” were supposed to be investigated! The NAS panel was clearly dissembling. Here’s a devastating comment by Steve McIntyre:

    https://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/looks-like-steynnrceisimberg-dont-get-their-anti-slap-dismissal/#comment-123101

    Lucia, another backstory on the NAS panel workshop. In our presentation to the NAS panel the previous day, we demonstrated that Mann et al 1998 said that they used verification r2 statistics and even showed a figure showing verification r2 statistics for the AD1820 step. And yet the NAS panel did not follow up Mann’s lie. No one pointed to the figure in Mann et al 1998 contradicting his claim not to have calculated the verification r2 statistic.

    The panel was set up so that the panel got to ask Mann questions and, for other witnesses, after the panel finished their questions, others could comment or ask questions. But in Mann’s case, he hared out of the room the minute that the panel ended their questions, denying others any chance to ask him questions. Mann claimed at the time that he had a plane to catch, but I recall someone saying at the time that they saw him walking around outside afterwards with his NSF handler.

    When I got a chance to comment, I sharply criticized the NAS panel for sitting there like bumps on a log and not resolving a simple question that could have been resolved (and which they had been asked to resolved.)

    Afterwards, panelist Doug Nychka told me that they had noticed Mann’s answer and their silence didn’t mean that they hadn’t noticed it. However, they also failed to grasp the nettle in their report, completely neglecting the issue, even though it was one of the main questions in the original Barton letter. According to Cicerone in JUly 2006, the House Science COmmittte, which had commissioned the NAS panel (not the House Energy and Commerce Committee) refused to pay NAS for the project because they had failed to deal with the issues that they had asked about.

  131. John Morales says

    canman, thanks. I was beginning to think you were already broken, which was sad because mocking you is most entertaining. And worthwhile! Gotta combat disinformation and lunacy, for the betterment of society, you know. So I feel quite virtuous when I get to disparage your puny attempt at some sort of relevance, other than for amusement’s sake. It’s nice to be able to indulge my predilections whilst improving the world at the same time.

    Ta.

    So…

    Whether or not these statistical “failings” had little effect on the result is beside the point. These “failings” were supposed to be investigated! The NAS panel was clearly dissembling.

    Right. The National Academy of Sciences just doesn’t get the science, or so you believe.
    No investigation took place! A whitewash! A coverup! Scientific malfeasance!

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

    :)

    Here’s a devastating comment by Steve McIntyre:

    I think I’ll channel Inigo Montoya here (being Spanish by birth, myself), old though the meme may be:
    “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”

    So, who or what has been devastated? Is something that does not actually devastate devastating?
    Are you devastated? Am I? So many questions!

    Hey, did you see the awards that I just cited? In 2019 and in 2022?

    (So, he got turned into a newt back in 2014, but got better, right? ;)

  132. John Morales says

    [as an aside, it does amuse me that one of the few things Richard Dawkins fancied he had introduced into the scientific concept-space was the idea of a meme as a social and informational analogue of a gene, but which nowadays just means a little internet joke]

  133. says

    John M @150:

    Can’t be that devastating, since Mann is not devastated. Not even slightly.
    Rather, the opposite.

    Praised and showered with encomia, yes.
    A winner. Famed. Vindicated.

    IOW he got away with it, just like OJ! And no, that’s not calling Mann a murderer.

  134. John Morales says

    Oh, the canman can’t can the can, can he?

    So, in what particular sense do you think getting away with it (to run with your little delusion) means he was devastated? And if he was not devastated, how can it have been devastating?

    (What happened to this linguistic precision your mob purport to exalt?)

    And no, that’s not calling Mann a murderer.

    Gotta love your little tush skip.
    So, you thought OJ was exonerated by the National Academy of Sciences too?

    Perhaps you are you still all confused over the distinction between a legal process and a scientific one.
    Understandable, for someone who shows such comprehension, and who self-confessedly remains perplexed by the numerous awards Mann has won since that, ahem, devastating comment in 2014.

    (I don’t reckon you get even half the allusions I’ve been throwing in, but that’s OK. Others do)

  135. John Morales says

    Oh, come on! Don’t go away so quickly! A bit more stamina would be nice.

    Here, let’s poke some more:
    IOW he got away with it, just like OJ!

    Here’s the thing: “just like OJ” would mean that over the next decade or so, OJ got numerous awards and accolades. Because you are comparing Mann to OJ, no?

    (Still, you are probably wise not to compare him to your prized whatshisname, the convicted rock spider — wiser than some, anyway)

  136. says

    John M,
    When I say Mann got away with it, just like OJ, the analogy should be pretty obvious. It’s the dirty deeds they got away with: Murder in OJ’s case and hiding crappy statistics in Mann’s case. The accountability part was comparing OJ’s trial to the NAS panel.

    Was Steve McIntyre’s comment devastating? I think it made BBD lose his composure in this Rabett Run thread:

    BBD said…
    You guys didn’t address any of my points about the NAS Panel.

    Because:

    Effect on scientific understanding of climate = zero

    Effect on Mann’s conclusions = zero

    Effect on climate policy = zero

    You need to understand that your worthless little FUD-slinging games are toxic rhetoric with no purpose except to push a rotten little political peanut. And I’m not going to give your guff the time of day because that helps you keep the propaganda war on climate science on the road.

    but that skeptics have a right to be irritated because it was emphasized so much

    Another self-serving lie from the denialist / useful idiot camp.

    https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-most-important-political-takeaway.html?showComment=1484593558662#c5309384117714071641

    If you’ll read that thread, you’ll see I engaged in a little bit of name calling fun just like you. Verbal battling is a lot more interesting and satisfying when it’s done like Brad does it, using wordplay and ideas with a minimum of direct insults. When the other guy gets flustered and starts throwing insults, it feels like a win.

  137. Jim Balter says

    PS this Jim character above is clearly a longtime reader of mine, first-time heckler with some kind of tumor pressing on his swearing cortex. If his apoplectic typings contain anything relevant to this discussion, someone else is going to need to summarize it for me. Otherwise I’m sure they will be a diagnostic goldmine for his oncologist, but not much else.

    I repeat: an ever in bad faith shit stain on humanity–which is the only thing relevant to the discussion, as having a discussion with someone acting in bad faith is like playing chess with a grizzly bear–they aren’t confined by the rules.

    And saying I’m a longtime reader of his is like saying that someone who has been mugged is a longtime follower of the mugger … no, you cretin, I have simply been present when you made yourself an unwelcome presence on science blogs in the past, as you have here. You’re such a smarmy creep that you made a lasting impression, but I haven’t had a thought about you for a decade, until I stumbled into your despicable ass again here.

  138. Jim Balter says

    Verbal battling is a lot more interesting and satisfying when it’s done like Brad does it, using wordplay and ideas with a minimum of direct insults. When the other guy gets flustered and starts throwing insults, it feels like a win.

    But the game that matters is science, you dumb fuck, and that one you lose. For decades you have browned your nose in Brad’s crevice because you so adore his smarminess, as you lay out above. Thus while you clowns deny that you are deniers, you crowed that Brad was most qualified to be lukewarm (a particularly chickenshit form of science denial) blogger of the year because you so admired the smarmy way he pretended to criticize deniers while actually lauding them … from the link I provided earlier where I noted that you have long been his faithful ball (and other “bits”) licker:

    https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/climate-blogger-of-the-year-2015/

    Canman | January 25, 2016 at 10:04 pm
    Some of my favorite Brad bits:

    Denialists aren’t very good at uncritical reasoning.
    Denialists generally show a gift for easy hypocrisy. Despite their so-called “science denial,” they are exasperatingly sporadic in their rejection of science. In fact, just about the only science they can all be counted on to disbelieve is the existential threat of AGW. Having snubbed the science on climate change, the average denialist will then admit to accepting the science on most, virtually all, other questions! I’ve long ago given up trying to hold them to a minimum standard of intellectual consistency—even on evolution or vaccines, it’s rare to find a climate denier principled enough, when challenged, to follow through on rejectionism. I’m sorry to say this, but from frustrating experience I have to conclude that “science denial” is almost totally false advertising.
    Denialists have an absolute, arrogant sense of entitlement to know stuff—even information that would mislead them, even maths they wouldn’t know what to do with if they tried, even data that could easily be misunderstood in such a way as to give false comfort to delayers.

    From this WUWT thread:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/21/quote-of-the-week-sensationalizing-for-the-greater-good/#comment-1545274

    WUWT being climate science denial central. The geniuses who hang out there were apoplectic, thinking that Brad had actually attacked them. The thread itself puts the lie to Brad’s “bits”.

  139. Brad Keyes says

    John:

    “No decline there to hide, is the very point!”

    So your claim is that Phil Jones was lying when he claimed to have hidden it?
    (Don’t say that unless you’ve got a good defamation lawyer on speed dial.)

    I asked ChatGPT to explain this to you, because I’ve always felt that one of the jobs machines should take from humans is the attempt to educate the ineducable. Look how denialism has infiltrated OpenAI:

    Brad
    What “decline” was hidden in Phil Jones’ WMO graph?

    ChatGPT
    The “decline” hidden in Phil Jones’ WMO graph refers to the practice of “hiding the decline” in tree ring temperature reconstructions post-1960, mentioned in the context of the Climategate scandal (2009). Tree ring data, which were used to reconstruct past climate temperatures, showed a divergence or decline in temperatures after 1960, contradicting the rising temperatures measured by thermometers. This discrepancy was not clearly presented in the graph published by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), leading to accusations of data manipulation. The phrase “hide the decline” comes from a leaked email, sparking debates on climate data transparency and integrity.

    Once you’ve lost the language models you’ve lost America. Better luck next movement.

  140. John Morales says

    canman:

    When I say Mann got away with it, just like OJ, the analogy should be pretty obvious. It’s the dirty deeds they got away with: Murder in OJ’s case and hiding crappy statistics in Mann’s case.

    <snicker>

    Intended analogy, you mean.

    Here, for you (courtesy of Wikipedia):
    “On February 5, 1997, a civil jury in Santa Monica, California, unanimously found Simpson liable for the wrongful death of and battery against Goldman, and battery against Brown. (The Brown family had not filed a wrongful death claim.)[94] Simpson was ordered to pay $33,500,000 in damages: $8.5 million in compensatory damages to the Goldman family, and $12.5 million in punitive damages to each family.”

    Just like Michael Mann, far as you are concerned.
    Well, other than OJ having his reputation ruined and losing a civil case as opposed to Mann having his reputation enhanced and getting much praise and approbation.
    Just like OJ losing his career thereby and Mann having his enhanced thereby.

    But other than that, just the same. Gotcha.

    (Hey, what happened to the Salem Witch trials? Weren’t those just the same, too, last time you brought this up?)

    If you’ll read that thread, you’ll see I engaged in a little bit of name calling fun just like you.

    <smirk>

    You sure fancy yourself, canman. Sure, you’re just like me. In your mind.

    Thing is, this is 2024, and this is this thread.
    Do show me your technique.
    Go on, don’t be shy!

    Verbal battling is a lot more interesting and satisfying when it’s done like Brad does it, using wordplay and ideas with a minimum of direct insults.

    Battling? I’m mocking. Trying to evade the issue and making shit up is now wordplay.
    Brad has nothing but robotic repetition and inane bullshit.
    That, and an obvious visit to a thesaurus (see below).

    When the other guy gets flustered and starts throwing insults, it feels like a win.

    LOL.

    I think you misspelled “yawn”., quoth your hero.

    Nah. This is how it’s done:
    “When have I disputed, questioned, expressed doubt about, repudiated, gainsaid, dissented from, disagreed with, challenged, contested, opposed, negated, controverted, confuted, rejected, dismissed, demurred against, contradicted, objected to, taken issue with, disbelieved or (more archaically) misdoubted the scientific idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a significant reason why the Earth is warmer than it otherwise would be?”

    See, Brad is a wannabe. Weak. But quite manipulable.

    I got him to endorse the reality of AGW. Never has he doubted it! :)

    (Hey, to what does the domain Cliscep refer? Heh)

  141. Brad Keyes says

    You think about my a$$ a lot, don’t you, Jim?

    If a phrenologist cut open your brain-pan, would they find that your Brad’s A$$ lobe was even bigger than your Brad’s Other ‘Bits’ lobe?

    The dollar signs are an in-joke for the benefit of the only other person on this thread who knows the first thing about what happened during the trial.

  142. John Morales says

    Ah, Brad, about fucking time!

    So your claim is that Phil Jones was lying when he claimed to have hidden it?

    What, Phil Jones is the one claiming to have hid it?
    Aren’t you supposed to be disputing Mann’s work?

    I asked ChatGPT to explain this to you, because I’ve always felt that one of the jobs machines should take from humans is the attempt to educate the ineducable.

    Heh heh heh. Only a stupid person would try to educate the ineducable — words mean things, you know.

    Still, I quote your sidekick: “When the other guy gets flustered and starts throwing insults, it feels like a win.” He’s a bit dim, doesn’t get you’ve been doing your damnedest to insult me.

    BTW, speaking of responsiveness:
    Have you yet grokked what I wrote?

    It was not the jurors who vindicated his science, it was the plaudits he received and the analysis of his work (“Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”).
    The jurors vindicated his legal claim.

    You can try to keep ignoring that, yet there it is. For the umpteenth time.
    You have yet to respond.

    (Even your sidekick is mocking you; see #129)

  143. John Morales says

    canman: “When the other guy gets flustered and starts throwing insults, it feels like a win.”
    Brad: If a phrenologist cut open your brain-pan, would they find that your Brad’s A$$ lobe was even bigger than your Brad’s Other ‘Bits’ lobe?

    Most amusing. Laurel and Hardy.

    (BTW, Brad — phrenologists measured, they didn’t cut)

  144. Jim Balter says

    Brad continues to demonstrate why I call him a bad faith shitstain on humanity.

    The funny thing is that by directing his juvenile retorts at me he just increases my standing among people like Rob Grigjanis who would not normally be inclined to support me.

    These idiots don’t seem to grasp that they are in the wrong place. Even if they were completely right in all their arguments, no one here would be on their side … they not only have no friends here, but no one they can influence in their direction.

    I’m out of here. I will leave JM et. al. to play with these chew toys.

  145. John Morales says

    The dollar signs are an in-joke for the benefit of the only other person on this thread who knows the first thing about what happened during the trial.

    I know what happened after the trial; it’s part of the OP.
    “In a victory for climate scientists, jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments made in 2012.”

  146. Jim Balter says

    One more thing … about losing the language models:

    https://g.co/gemini/share/f14047f00568

    The claim that climate scientists “hid the decline” in global temperatures is a misconception based on misinterpretations and selective presentations of scientific data and processes. Let’s break down the claim, the defense, and the validity of both:

    Conclusion:

    The claim that climate scientists “hid the decline” is based on misunderstandings and misinterpretations. Scientific evidence strongly supports global warming, and the vast majority of scientists agree on its human-caused nature.

    So FOAD, Brad, you lying denier and shitstain on humanity.

  147. Jim Balter says

    And here is what Gemini has to say about Brad’s slanted invocation of ChatGPT:

    https://g.co/gemini/share/a0b1ad9750af

    While the text you provided accurately highlights the core of the “hidden decline” claim, it omits some important details and nuance relevant to understanding the controversy and its lack of validity. Here’s a breakdown with additional context:
    Missing Nuances:

    By providing a more balanced perspective, we can avoid perpetuating misleading narratives about climate science.

    One could similarly use Gemini to refute every single lie that Keyes and canman have told here and elsewhere.

  148. Jim Balter says

    I’d call what Simberg said extreme hyperbole and in bad taste, just like Larry Flynt’s parody of Jerry Falwell. I don’t think bad taste should be illegal or evidence of malice, especially on an editorial on a blog post.

    The jury called it defamation, dumb fuck. That’s because Nimberg and Steyn accused Mann of scientific malpractice, which affects his livelihood, you cretin, and because the claim was false and knowably so (see the above Gemini output), you stupid maggot.

    So go argue with them, you imbecile. Or maybe you can send Steyn a $1 million check to show your support. Or if you’re cheap, send a $1000 check to Nimberg.

  149. Jim Balter says

    Steve McIntyre has a blog full of posts about it. It’s summarized nicely in Andrew Montford’s book, The Hockey Stick Illusion.

    Brad repeatedly says that AGW is real, that the temperatures rose while the proxies didn’t (omitting that the tree ring proxies were local and that numerous other proxies reflect the temperature rise). So perhaps ask him to explain to you that the Hockey Stick is not an illusion and that Montford is an incompetent lying git, just like you. Or you could have an LLM explain it to you, you stupid fucking denier sack of shit.

  150. John Morales says

    [aaw — I knew I’d get through]

    Mike Dombroski says:
    11 Feb 24 at 7:48 pm

    Thanks John Morales for finding my typo:

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2024/02/09/scientist-sues-conspiracy-theoristsand-wins/#comment-2211033

    To everyone else, you’re all invited to check out Brad Keyes and my invasion of this Pharyngula thread.

    My pleasure, canman. You are most welcome.

    Gotta admit, now days is nearly as good as “raisin date”, and evinces your lexical lack.

    Well, I hope a few more specimens come here. Getting bored, again.
    However, since the last of the very few comments there was 03 May 20 at 6:10 pm, my hopes are unlikely to manifest. Nevertheless, fingers crossed, eh?

    I’ll surely have fun pointing out how Brad has most emphatically and verbosely asserted he never had and does not currently have any doubt at all about the reality of AGW and the reality of the science.

    (Here’s hoping! After all, these two have hardly any stamina and their repertoire is very limited)

  151. Jim Balter says

    I’ve been arguing about the hockey stick on the internet so long that I’ve really gotten bored with it.

    And you have always been wrong. You continued to argue even after being proven wrong over and over again because you are stupid ignorant dishonest denier shit, which is why you always lean on other denier shit like Montford, McIntyre, Shollenberger, and Curry.

    Real Climate did a post on it and I found Judith Curry’s comment, with Gavin Schmidt’s inline responses to be sureal (sic).

    That’s because you’re an ignorant cretin and a dyed-in-the-wool climate science denier, Mike.

    As full of themselves as I think the political and academic establishment has become on climate, they’re even worse on energy policy. I think they’re recklessly putting all the chips on wind, solar and batteries.

    And you’re a right wing or libertarian ideologue which is what drives you to make such profoundly stupid, ignorant, and dishonest statements.

  152. Jim Balter says

    I’ll have to admit I’m perplexed by all Mann’s awards or how he made it into the NAS. Here’s my post on it

    There’s a simple explanation, Mike. It’s because you’re stupid, as is so evident from this idiotic piece of trash you wrote:

    https://cliscep.com/2020/04/30/hows-a-mann-get-into-the-nas/

    Other than the same old talking points, all the other activist/scientists have

    That is, all the peer-reviewed science that the hundreds of thousands of other climate and climate-related scientists have produced.

    The actual supposed science behind the hockey stick is so bad, extensive and arcane, that these charges seems implausible to the casual observer (they did to me).

    Yes, you’re a “casual observer”, a stupid ignorant but oh so arrogant ideologue who lacks even the most basic understanding of climate science, Mike Dumbroski. (Oh, see how clever I am in the Brad Keyes style.)

  153. Jim Balter says

    To everyone else, you’re all invited to check out Brad Keyes and my invasion of this Pharyngula thread.

    More like an infestation … and you’re actually inviting other cliscep cockroaches to join you here? You’re like a caricature of the worst of you people.

  154. John Morales says

    Hm. Here’s a thought.

    Hey, canman. Your gracious acknowledgement about me noting your grammatical error makes me predisposed to return the favour. Fair’s fair, as we say around here.

    Tell ya what: if you care to invite me there, I’d be happy to go to your featured thread and comment there.
    Obviously, I’d acknowledge that it was at your invitation were it to occur, so as to reassure your resident mob that I had been invited instead of invading. You surely could show me up, right in your own demesne.

    I could be your punching bag. A target for your wit and your precision of language, even.

    One-time offer, though, and only because I feel generous right now.

    (BTW, surely you’re not so cynical as to think I’m trying to manipulate your vanity with this munificent offer, or maybe just bored and looking for other specimens to mock while feeling virtuous; perish the thought!)

  155. Brad Keyes says

    Balter, you and Gemini are made for each other.

    You asked it…..

    What is the defense to the claim that climate scientists “hid the decline”, and is the claim valid or is the defense valid?

    ,,,,and it dutifully strawmanned your own question before giving you the negative answer you so desperately craved! LOL

    The claim that climate scientists “hid the decline” in global temperatures is a misconception….

    No shit, Sherlock. I could play that game too:

    The claim that climate scientists “hid the decline” in Apple stock prices is a misconception….

    The claim that climate scientists “hid the decline” in number of days elapsed since Battle of Hastings is a misconception….

    …if self-soothing and rocking in the darkness were my idea of a good night.

    What a solace Gemini must be to you. When everyone of real intelligence turns their back, you can always count on your Artificial $tupidity powered friend. It’s a confederacy of A$$es!

  156. John Morales says

    The claim that climate scientists “hid the decline” in global temperatures is a misconception….

    No shit, Sherlock.

    Exactly.
    But you did inadvertently claim it was Phil Jones who hid it when you imagined I had somehow intimated Phil had not.

    When everyone of real intelligence turns their back, you can always count on your Artificial $tupidity powered friend.

    Heh. Look back at this thread (did I mention how much I love a textual medium?) — you yourself were the first person to appeal to a LLM for help. Your hypocrisy, of course, eludes you.

    So, care to tell me more about why you sought such help to try to attempt to educate the ineducable?

    Also, O most cowardly Brad, I see you keep trying ever so hard to avoid responding to me.

    Again:

    Have you yet grokked what I wrote?

    It was not the jurors who vindicated his science, it was the plaudits he received and the analysis of his work (“Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”).
    The jurors vindicated his legal claim.

    You can try to keep ignoring that, yet there it is. For the umpteenth time.
    You have yet to respond.

    (Even your sidekick is mocking you; see #129)

    Tell ya what, how about you invite me, since canman can’t? That’ll do.

    Surely you can be amused by me when I quote you there. We may even be able to engage!

    (and your friendly LLM can always be there for you :)

    By the way, are you aware that here in Oz an ass is a donkey, whereas an arse is a bum?

  157. John Morales says

    I think the first quotation will be… <drumroll>

    “When have I disputed, questioned, expressed doubt about, repudiated, gainsaid, dissented from, disagreed with, challenged, contested, opposed, negated, controverted, confuted, rejected, dismissed, demurred against, contradicted, objected to, taken issue with, disbelieved or (more archaically) misdoubted the scientific idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a significant reason why the Earth is warmer than it otherwise would be?”

    Whaddayareckon, Brad?

  158. Brad Keyes says

    Note that I am not recommending Gemini as a therapy animal to John Morales, and he should not trust it, because it will only upset him by blurting out facts like:

    The “decline”:

    It’s crucial to remember the decline wasn’t about global average temperatures, which have increased since the pre-industrial era.

    Instead, it referred to a decrease in tree-ring growth observed in some high-latitude locations since the 1960s.

    Repeat after me, John, it wasn’t about tree rings! It wasn’t about tree rings!

    Keep going until you believe it.

  159. John Morales says

    Second quotation, I reckon, will be… wait for it…

    Assuming you mean all the things Mann has won, as opposed to whatever you think the jury “achieved,” yes, I must admit his trophy shelf is impressively groaning.

    Your very own words, Brad.

    Yes, yes… I know. You now say it was sarcasm. But it’s a deadset true quotation, is it not?

  160. John Morales says

    Note that I am not recommending Gemini as a therapy animal to John Morales, and he should not trust it, because it will only upset him by blurting out facts like:

    You really have fuck-all idea of what a large language model is or how it functions, do ya?
    That’s perfectly evident.

    Repeat after me, John, it wasn’t about tree rings! It wasn’t about tree rings!
    Keep going until you believe it.

    Sure.
    It wasn’t about tree rings! It wasn’t about tree rings!
    Keep going until you believe it.

    Did that help you?

    Now… tell me more about what Michael Mann (the highly lauded and most celebrated scientist who won his court case quite recently) supposedly hid. Not about what Phil hid, what Mann hid.

    Tell me more about his supposed fraud, that no single scientific organisation has ever claimed existed.

    Go on. I dare you.

    Also, since you are most evidently and most conspicuously avoiding it:
    Have you yet grokked what I wrote?

    It was not the jurors who vindicated his science, it was the plaudits he received and the analysis of his work (“Political disputes led to the formation of a panel of scientists convened by the United States National Research Council, their North Report in 2006 supported Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12]”).
    The jurors vindicated his legal claim.

    You can try to keep ignoring that, yet there it is. For the umpteenth time.
    You have yet to respond.

    (Even your sidekick is mocking you; see #129)

    See, every single time I ask you and you run, run away from it (underpants gnome’s superpower!), it’s another tick in the column. Are you keeping count?

    (Oh, wait, no need. Textual medium. At some point I’ll run a little search script to count how many times I’ve confronted your weak effort and challenged you, and how many times you’ve bravely ignored that because of how embarrasing it would be to be shown as a simpleton)

  161. John Morales says

    Heh. While you’re still here, Brad:

    Me @134: “And yes, I’m familiar with the disingenuous claim the decline was about tree rings after it was shown to be without merit, because blatant back-pedalling is all people like you have.”
    Brad @137: “there was a decline in the proxy signal of temperature, in this case MXDs”

    (prescient, I)

  162. John Morales says

    But hey, why not a spot of science:

    “Information about annual to centennial scale climate dynamics relies on indirect climate recorders, so-called natural proxy archives that capture climate information in their physical and chemical properties due to a lack of reliable instrumental precipitation and temperature measurements prior to the 19th century (Böhm et al., 2009). Proxy-derived, high-resolution climate reconstructions over the Common Era (CE), especially the past millennium, are crucial for placing the ongoing recent warming (Crutzen, 2002) in a long-term context of natural climate variability (Büntgen et al., 2011), and to assess whether the 0.8–1.2 °C warming since 1880 (IPCC, 2018), due to increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, is unprecedented compared to past climatic changes (Morice et al., 2012). The current understanding of annually resolved long-term European temperature variations derived from tree-rings relies on a handful of (near) millennium-long temperature sensitive tree-ring records from high-elevational tree line sites in the Alps (Büntgen et al., 2005, 2006b; Büntgen et al., 2011), Carpathians (Popa and Kern, 2009), Pindus (Esper et al., 2019; Klippel et al., 2018), Pyrenees (Büntgen et al., 2008, 2017; Dorado Liñán et al., 2012), and Tatra (Büntgen et al., 2013), and from the northern tree line sites in Scandinavia (Esper et al., 2012; Gunnarson et al., 2011; Linderholm and Gunnarson, 2019; Melvin et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2015a), and Scotland (Rydval et al., 2017). More than half of these records are maximum latewood density (MXD) or blue intensity (BI) based, whereas particularly in eastern Europe, records rely on the more commonly used dendrochronological parameter tree-ring width (TRW).”

    (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1125786520300126)

    So, Brad. What exactly did Phil hide? Or was it Michael? Well, you’ve claimed both, no?

  163. John Morales says

    Hey Brad, I here point out that should you or canman invite me, that I have asked you already “What part of “I am having the time of my life, mate!” did you misunderstand.”

    After those quotations, that would be a good one. That’s how upset I am ;)

  164. John Morales says


    Bah.

    So, Brad. You do get I’m just having fun with you, now, no?

    Quick question: when you wrote (more archaically) misdoubted, did you intend to intimate that the other terms were also archaic, but less so? Because if you’d intended to express that it was, unlike the others, an archaic term, the comparative would have been unnecessary.

    To rephrase (I don’t need primitive language models for this any more than I need a thesaurus to simulate my swollen lexicon): did you intend to mean that all the terms were archaic, but that ‘misdoubted’ was even more so?

    Come on, impress the canman with your devastating retort!
    (or, of course, provide another cute quotation for my future visit to your sty, should I be invited — either suits me)

    My bet? As usual, you will ignore the thrust of my questions and of my observations, because you are Brave Sir Brad, who Bravely Runs, Runs away.

    (95% confidence interval, there)

  165. says

    From this post:

    It’s no reward for Mann, either. I’ve been through this particular wringer with one petty, low profile accusation, and it required paying a lawyer hundreds of thousands of dollars to win. This was a big case — I imagine all Mann has won financially is more debt. But it was worth it!*

    I’m aware of PZ being sued at least once by someone for defamation, which would put him in the position of Simberg and Steyn rather than Michael Mann. Is there a case where he sued someone else because of “one petty, low profile accusation” and if so, could I have some details or is this just another example of PZ’s faulty logic?

  166. Brad Keyes says

    canman,
    I’m not sure PZ even grasps that someone else paid Michael Mann’s legal bills. It’s more likely a failure of research, rather than logic, on his part I think. After all, he still thinks Mann was literally accused of pederasty.

  167. says

    That’s some sour sour grapes. All of this fake hand-wringing over an error involving a child molestation when the political use of such comparisons is far worse. Peck Peck Peck at the minor error, gossip about a lawsuit involving another abusive person…

    The minor error doesn’t matter to the child molestation enablers, the political noise about it matters and it’s delicious because they will fail at their political goals. All they can do is kinds of whatabouts.

    Whatabout the minor error? It changed what functionally? What about the other lawsuit? Neither of them matter to the lost case involving climate deniers using sexually molested children as political tools, or to climate science.

    Sputtering desperation. It’s useful.

  168. says

    There’s a lot in John’s comments that these two haven’t responded to yet. Maybe they can do some of that if they’re bored.

    Lots of focus of that one thing in PZ’s post. The rest of the post must be terrifying if one of them has to make implications instead of showing more from the post itself. Go on, canman. You’ve responses that are personal, not logical yourself.

  169. Brad Keyes says

    Brony, which unmet challenges by Messrs Morales and Balter would you like me to meet? I’m the first to admit I didn’t manage to machete my way through the fullness of their fibrous verbiage, so if you could direct me to the caloric bits I’d be obliged.

    On a different note, I don’t quite understand your refrain about child-molestation apologists. I doubt anyone here, even the rear-fixated Mr Balter, is in the business of minimizing, trivializing or rationalizing that worst of crimes. But if someone is serving a custodial sentence for something he didn’t do—note I said IF—then the American courts have perpetrated an even worse-than-worst crime by their own standards, which have long held that it’s better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be made a convict.

  170. Jim Balter says

    Heh. Look back at this thread (did I mention how much I love a textual medium?) — you yourself were the first person to appeal to a LLM for help. Your hypocrisy, of course, eludes you.

    It doesn’t elude him; it’s his stock in trade. The whole point of my posting the Gemini output is to refute his ChatGPT post. He can’t respond substantively so he responds as he did. He is not a serious person, he’s not engaging in good faith, he has no scruples, he’s a worthless shitstain on humanity.

  171. Jim Balter says

    I’m aware of PZ being sued at least once by someone for defamation, which would put him in the position of Simberg and Steyn rather than Michael Mann.

    Only if the suit were valid, you dumb fuck.

    Morales, Balter, wake up. We’re back.

    You’re not, since you addressed nothing I wrote, you maggot.

    You and Brad are vile scum. He’s a psychopath while you’re just an imbecile, but you’re both unscrupulous and worthless.

    I’m not a regular here (I was long ago), I just pop in here once in a while when this site is in my feed for some reason. The next time I’m here this thread will have long dropped off the queue and you shitstains will again be forgotten, as you should be.

  172. John Morales says

    Morales, Balter, wake up. We’re back.

    With nothing new to say, and everything you claimed still well and truly shown for the claptrap it is.
    Just going through the motions now.

    Also, my invitation was yesterday, your window of opportunity has closed.

    (And I slept rather well, thankyou. The sleep of the virtuous! Time for brekky)

    Brony, which unmet challenges by Messrs Morales and Balter would you like me to meet?

    You are so predictable. Also, so cowardly. And can’t even keep your bullshit straight. And laughable.

    The answer should be evident to you: every one of them. From start to finish.
    For example, do you still maintain I claimed that the jurors scientifically vindicated Mann? :)
    (or you know, naming one (1) scientific institution that has a problem with Mann, as another example)

    As Jim notes, you’re probably not quite as stupid as your sidekick, so it is obviously the case that you know you are doing everything you have been shown to be doing. Lying, basically.
    Trying to pose as someone with some small skill at arguing, when the reality is so very apparent, and whenever (that is, every single time) you get called out on your bullshit carefully pulling your underpants over your eyes.

    Relax; to me, you shall ever be the underpants gnome. You have earnt your soubriquet, your cognomen.

  173. Brad Keyes says

    Hi Brony, it’s difficult to tell whether you’re replying to Balter’s scatological rant but from experience i’d suggest you’re wasting your time doing so, and I’d rather hear from you about my questions (sincerely). Cheers!

  174. John Morales says

    canman, I’m not sure PZ even grasps that someone else paid Michael Mann’s legal bills.

    Heh. This sure sounds like another one of your bullshit claims.
    Care to try to attempt to substantiate it, O coward?

  175. John Morales says

    Hi Brad, I see you are still a cowardly coward, and your nasal shit-stain is getting very crusty.

  176. John Morales says

    could I have some details or is this just another example of PZ’s faulty logic?

    Most certainly and indubitably no, since you have yet to provide one single example of PZ using faulty logic.

    Ignorantly asserting that is the case doesn’t cut it, you know!

  177. John Morales says

    Bah. Refractory period is getting longer and longer.
    Looking rather sickly, outside its natural environment.
    Let’s try poking a bit more, see if the specimen can still at least twitch a bit.

    Hi Brony, it’s difficult to tell whether you’re replying to Balter’s scatological rant

    As Jim noted, no, it’s not. Not even one bit.

    Every single reader can see your transparent dishonesty, you know, not just yourself.

  178. John Morales says

    Aaw, entertainment is totally moribund, maybe even over, apparently.
    Oh, sorry, the “invasion”. :)

    Anyway. Facts are in. None has been rebutted, but then, they are facts.

    Michael Mann has been awarded a good bit of money in damages. Yay!

    Climate science stands strong and becomes ever more accurate and definitive.

    And Michael Mann has most excellent scientific standing and has gone from strength to strengh in the years after the initial “hockey stick” controversy.

    Of course, since he is one of the poster people for that scientific enterprise and its dissemination, the only people who now have a beef with him are the climate change denialists, in particular those who so very obviously lie and claim they are not in denial, while all the time denying, as the two specimens herein featured demonstrated so ably.

  179. Brad Keyes says

    John,

    canman, I’m not sure PZ even grasps that someone else paid Michael Mann’s legal bills.

    Heh. This sure sounds like another one of your bullshit claims.
    Care to try to attempt to substantiate it

    If you’re seriously suggesting PZ was aware that this 12-year forensic odyssey hasn’t cost Mann a cent, then perhaps you think he was just lying to his blog readers when he wrote:

    My one complaint would be that the award of $1.1 million was not adequate. The bad guys, Simberg & Steyn, are backed by a whole vast industry with deep pockets, and that much money is just loose change to them — they’ll extract that much from their sofa cushions.

    It’s no reward for Mann, either. … This was a big case — I imagine all Mann has won financially is more debt.

    I get the feeling PZ is sincere. He really does, honest to god, inhabit a childlike cartoon world where the Denialist Machine is shoveling cash at Steyn and Simberg to Attack the Science.

    Now if you prefer to think PZ knows better, and is merely pretending to confuse paranoia with reality, then go ahead. Make your case that he’s a liar. I prefer to take people at their word, absurd as it is, until proven otherwise.

  180. John Morales says

    Underpants gnome, I had faith that sufficient poking would elicit at least some feeble spasms, and lo!

    If you’re seriously suggesting PZ was aware that this 12-year forensic odyssey hasn’t cost Mann a cent

    <snicker>

    Nope, not even slightly, you dolt. I’m seriously suggesting canman is full of shit, and that as usual he’s making a claim that he shan’t even attempt to try to sustain.

    Your feeble efforts at ostensible misunderstanding are getting trite, you know.

    … then [blah]

    Since the conditional is false, there is no applicable ‘then’ — that’s how logical implication works.
    Heh.

    I get the feeling PZ is sincere.

    Heh heh heh. You long ago pissed away any possibility of honest interlocution, what with your persistent lying and dishonest style. So, maybe you do, maybe you don’t

    I know damn well you are not, Brad.

    Now if you prefer to think PZ knows better, and is merely pretending to confuse paranoia with reality, then go ahead.

    Nah. I much prefer to mock you and your stupidity.

    So, Brad, when are you gonna stop trying to avoid responding to me and my so-called challenges?

    (Here’s another — when you wrote more archaic, what did you mean?)

    Make your case that he’s a liar.

    I thought that was supposed to be what you were trying to do… what, you want my help with your bullshit?

    Tell ya what, beg me and I might consider it.

    I prefer to take people at their word, absurd as it is, until proven otherwise.

    LOL. Your preferences are most evident throughout this thread.

    Still, let’s test you; here is my word:

    Facts are in. None has been rebutted, but then, they are facts.

    Michael Mann has been awarded a good bit of money in damages. Yay!

    Climate science stands strong and becomes ever more accurate and definitive.

    And Michael Mann has most excellent scientific standing and has gone from strength to strengh in the years after the initial “hockey stick” controversy.

    What do you have to say to that, Brad?

  181. John Morales says

    BTW, Brad: are you even aware that you fucked up your first quotation @209?

    The first sentence in it was yours, but you didn’t show that, and instead melded it with my response.

  182. John Morales says

    Let me quote your sidekick, Gnome: “I hope you don’t do mission critical applications that people depend on.”

    (Yeah, sounds like quite the stupid thing to say, no?)

  183. John Morales says

    Ah well. So much for being back, eh?

    (The feebles, they are; no guts, no stamina, no fucking competence)

  184. Brad Keyes says

    What aspect of reality are you quarrelling with, exactly, John? Is it that you don’t believe Mann had a free ride? You could have saved yourself a lot of ignorance by actually researching the trial. Weatherford pro Simberg cross-examining Mann:

    Q: Okay. Now, let’s look at your response to interrogatory number 22. Um, I need to turn back to this. I apologize. I think there were just a lot of a lot of different numbers in here. I’m going to move on. Now, before we broke, I asked you a question about the attorneys’ fees that you have paid out of your pocket today to date. How much is that? For this for this litigation.

    MANN: Thus far, I don’t believe that I have made payments, but I’m not sure. I don’t think I have.

    Q: So you don’t think you’ve paid any money in 12 years for your lawyers in this case. Is that right?

    MANN: As of yet, not to my knowledge.

    Q: Okay. And you don’t have a financial debt to any of these lawyers or their law firms for your legal fees that you’ll have to pay, win or lose, after this trial?

    MANN: I’m not sure about that. I don’t think I do.

    Q: Okay. You’re not aware of any debt that you currently have, a legal debt that you have to any of these law firms.

    MANN: I’m not aware of it. Yeah.

  185. John Morales says

    Aha! Got a bite. Excellent! I knew you’d be frantically Googling.

    What aspect of reality are you quarrelling with, exactly, John?

    None whatsoever, unlike you, Gnome with the Underpants.

    Is it that you don’t believe Mann had a free ride?

    What? No, it’s that I didn’t believe your sidekick would essay any attempt to try to sustain that claim.
    So far, I am 100% correct, no? ;)

    You could have saved yourself a lot of ignorance by actually researching the trial.

    <snicker>

    Ignorance is not something one spends or saves, it’s a state of being.

    Weatherford pro Simberg cross-examining Mann:

    Where? When? Can you provide a citation? Are you just lazy, or merely incompetent, or just ignorant of how these things work?

    You could have saved yourself a tiny bit of work by, you know, actually providing a citation.
    That’s how it’s normally done by competent people.

    More to the point, what exactly made you imagine you could get away with supposedly misinterpreting my retort to the canman? It was pretty damn clear.

    That’s another one you’ve ignored. Quite the list, by now.

  186. John Morales says

    Good grief! I’ve just got back from walking the dog, and still nuthin’

    Right. Need to poke even harder.

    So, Googling with a criterion of 24 hours for the string “michael mann judgement” indicates it’s newsworthy:

    Past 24 hours

    About 2,130 results (0.22 seconds)

    US climate scientist wins $1 million defamation verdict
    Times Higher Education
    https://www.timeshighereducation.com › news › us-cli…
    17 hours ago — US climate scientist wins $1 million defamation verdict · Penn’s Michael Mann, long-time warrior against fossil fuel denialism, hopes jury repudiation of …

    Jury awards climate scientist Mann $1 million in defamation …
    Free Speech Center
    https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu › News
    8 hours ago — 8 awarded $1 million to climate scientist Michael Mann, who sued a pair of conservative writers 12 years ago after they compared his depictions of global …

    Penn professor, renowned climate scientist Michael Mann …
    The Daily Pennsylvanian
    https://www.thedp.com › article › 2024/02 › penn-pro…
    23 hours ago — Penn professor Michael Mann was awarded more than $1 million in a defamation lawsuit last week. … “[The] verdict vindicates Mike Mann’s good name and reputation …

    Michael Mann’s $1 Million Defamation Verdict Resonates in a …
    michaelmann.net
    https://michaelmann.net › content › michael-mann’s-1…
    13 hours ago — Michael Mann’s $1 Million Defamation Verdict Resonates in a Still-Contentious Climate Science World (Feb. 9, 2024) ; By Marianne Lavelle for Inside Climate News.

    D.C. Jury Awards $1M to Climate Scientist Michael Mann …
    Democracy Now!
    https://www.democracynow.org › headlines › dc_jury…
    14 hours ago — A jury in Washington, D.C., has awarded $1 million to the climate scientist Michael Mann, who had sued two right-wing critics for defamation.

    Scientist awarded $1 million in lawsuit against writers over …
    Yahoo News
    https://news.yahoo.com › scientist-awarded-1-million-l…
    17 hours ago — Mann brought a lawsuit against two writers 12 years ago after they alleged his work was “fraudulent” and compared him to convicted child molester and former …

    Michael Mann Wins Defamation Lawsuit
    BNN Breaking
    https://bnnbreaking.com › World
    16 hours ago — Mann’s attorney hailed the verdict as a victory for truth and science. The ruling sends a clear message that those who spread misinformation and slander …

    Prof Michael E. Mann
    X · MichaelEMann
    2 likes
    “US climate scientist wins $1 million defamation verdict” by Paul Basken for The Times Higher Education. @timeshighered.

    Climate Scientist Wins $1M in Defamation Suit Against …
    The Daily Beast
    https://www.thedailybeast.com › climate-scientist-mich…
    10 hours ago — The jury awarded Mann $1,000 from Simberg, who was cleared of other allegations of defamation in the case, and $1 million from Steyn. After the month-long trial …
    Missing: judgement ‎| Show results with: judgement

    Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins $1 Million in Defamation …
    wallstreet-now.com
    https://wallstreet-now.com › articles › 2024/02/12 › cli…
    15 hours ago — Climate scientist Michael Mann wins over $1 million in a defamation lawsuit against conservative writers criticizing his global warming research. The court …

    US Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins $1m in …
    SoylentNews
    https://soylentnews.org › article
    8 hours ago — The case stretches back 12 years. In a statement posted on Mann’s X account, one of his lawyers said: “Today’s verdict vindicates Mike Mann’s good name and …

    How Things Stand
    SteynOnline
    https://www.steynonline.com › how-things-stand
    22 hours ago — How Things Stand. Mann vs Steyn: The Judgment February 12 … a) plaintiff Michael E Mann had suffered no actual damages from Steyn’s National Review post; but.

    Famed climate scientist wins million-dollar verdict against …
    MSN
    https://www.msn.com › en-us › news › world › famed…
    24 hours ago — Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist, won his long-standing legal battle against two right-wing bloggers who claimed that he manipulated data in his …

    Dr. Mann discusses the jury verdict defending his climate …
    michaelmann.net
    https://michaelmann.net › content › dr-mann-discusses…
    12 hours ago — Mann discusses the jury verdict defending his climate change data from defamatory attacks and explores what it means for science (Feb. 10, 2024). Posted Mon 12 …

    Prominent Climate Scientist and Penn Professor Michael …
    MONTCO.Today
    https://montco.today › 2024/02 › michael-mann-wins-…
    8 hours ago — Michael Mann, a climate scientist, sued two … Read more about Michael Mann’s defamation case and the ramifications of the verdict in the Associated Press.

    Climate Scientist Wins Landmark Defamation Case
    HPAC Engineering
    https://www.hpac.com › home › article › climate-scien…
    9 hours ago — … ruling that Public.Resource.org could continue to make certain … This is a long-running case, having been originally filed in 2012 as Mann PhD, Michael E.

    Climate scientist awarded over $1 million in defamation …
    wallstreet-now.com
    https://wallstreet-now.com › articles › 2024/02/12 › cli…
    15 hours ago — This verdict not only vindicates Mann’s reputation but also serves as a beacon of truth in the ongoing battle against climate change misinformation. Michael …

    Climate justice of another sort
    The Manila Times
    https://www.manilatimes.net › opinion › columns › cli…
    12 hours ago — … Michael Mann, awarding Mann $1 million in damages. Although Steyn said he would appeal the verdict, it likely brings to an end a case that has dragged on …

    (And so forth, I just copypasted the first bit)

  187. John Morales says

    This is like trying to get blood from a stone.

    <pout>

    So much for being back.

    I kinda feel ripped off… like I was promised fun, but then the clowns kept disappearing just as I was about to dunk on them.

    Ah well, Can’t expect much from such a types.

    (How do USAnians put it? Ah, right. All hat and no cattle)

  188. John Morales says

    Ah well. Maybe poke the other specimen? Hope springs ever eternal.

    Hey, canman, did you know ellipsis is usually denoted by three full stops?

    Obs, there are HTML entities and unicode and so forth, but I do like how you try to employ only two full stops (as per #94, unlike the gnome, I am not that incompetent as to be unable to cite).

    (And yes, I know StevoR basically is the chosen of the God Tpyos — of course, that never b othye rs me and he knows it)

    Hey, canman, aren’t you supposed to be back? Like, a mere attemptedly triumphant declaration just doesn’t cut it, when you fucking disappear into the greenery pretty much instantly.

    Here in Oz, where both I and StevoR reside, it is the evening. Soon, it will be the crepuscule.
    It has become evident that ever more stimulus is required for ever lesser responses, and that the end is in sight.

    Still, not like such perfectly typical specimens will wander here any time soon again, no?
    Might as well squeeze as much out of them as possible.

    BTW, mancan: when I wrote “here I wait with baited breath”, that was not a typographic error or a malapropism. It was one of the many, many allusions to various jokes that you clearly missed.

    (To be fair, it’s somewhat possible (however unlikely) that you did not miss it, but evidently you didn’t think its drollery was sufficient to merit mention)

  189. John Morales says

    [poke the other one. Obs, more stimulus is needed]

    I mean, seriously. There’s a bunch of text adduced, but the citation remains problematic.

    (O Brad lad, do ya know anything about the burden of proof?)

  190. John Morales says

    Aaw, gonna have to go AFK for a while.

    So, maybe a dual stimulus?
    Who knows, the recorders might show some response by the time I get back.

    citation (heh): https://skepticalscience.com/

    Story of the week

    This past week Professor Michael Mann successfully concluded his lawsuit against fossil fuel industry proxies Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, who dragged Mann’s reputation through the mud with false information while working to deceive the public about the threat of climate change. After hearing testimony about the disgusting tactics employed by the defendants, the jury swiftly returned their judgement: the accused are indeed guilty of smearing Mann’s character and owe him $1M in damages. No surprise, this all-too-rare example of reckless accusations being assigned a fair price tag is our story of the week. Our colleagues at DeSmog have done the best job of covering the entire affair. See Michael Mann Wins $1 Million Verdict In Defamation Trial for excellent coverage of the trial’s conclusion and background. For our part we’ll observe that Prof. Mann has a long memory and attention span. Meanwhile, prolonging justice delivered only hurt the defendants; Simberg and Steyn would have been smarter by settling years ago.

  191. John Morales says

    :|
    No signs of life. Hmm.

    <gets another beaker, pours another couple of drops of solution>

    https://www.democracynow.org/2024/2/12/headlines/dc_jury_awards_1m_to_climate_scientist_michael_mann_for_right_wing_smear_campaign

    A jury in Washington, D.C., has awarded $1 million to the climate scientist Michael Mann, who had sued two right-wing critics for defamation. In a statement, Mann said, “I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.”

  192. John Morales says

    Hmm. Not looking good.

    Try this (gets the cannula):

    stewgreen says:
    12 Feb 24 at 11:16 pm

    Tweets today seem to say that Steyn intends to take it to the Supreme court
    Others point out that will cost a heap
    Steyn does have a new article up

    I think people put too much faith in courts , the establishment have always cheated.

    When I was a student a friend said that in his area an old lady got a big offer for her building, and her lawyer told her to say the young tenants hadn’t paid the rent. Then in court the judge just accepted that lie and ignored their protests that of course they ha paid and evidence of their cheques.

    I am more than happy to provide a citation upon request.

    (hint, hint — a particular site to which I was somehow not invited, though I offerered, where citations apparently are deprecated)

  193. John Morales says

    Heh heh heh. Same site.

    Brad Keyes says:
    25 Jan 24 at 6:34 pm

    Just commented at Judy’s:

    It’s NOT looking good for Team Mann.

    Not looking good, other than a million dollars or so.

    (Such acumen!)

    Weatherford is exposing, one after the other, every failure of Mann and his team to truthfully respond to interrogatories in the early days of this trial.

  194. John Morales says

    We’re back.

    <poke>

    <poke>
    <poke>

    <poke>
    <poke>
    <poke>

    <poke>
    <poke>
    <poke><poke>

    Well, for certain values of “back”.

  195. Brad Keyes says

    John,

    It WASN’T looking good for Team Mann, as you’d have known had you taken the time to follow the trial. For fox ache, you’re not only retired, you’re so retired you can spam this thread with what lawyers would euphemistically call cumulative testimony. So what’s your excuse? Meh, it’s hard to stay mad at someone who injects the wisdom of Mark “Chopper” Read into a discussion of scientists so fragile they have to go on venue-shopping libel-tourism mental-health leave every time someone breaks their stick.

    You have to pay for the transcript. Within 20 days of the trial there might (might!) be a free transcript online. But you’d recognize the passage I quoted instantly had you bothered to watch the trial you’re opining at such length about.

  196. John Morales says

    Aaaah. Excellent! Twitchings!

    Excellent, O crusty-nosed gnome.

    You have to pay for the transcript

    Citation for this claim?

    Within 20 days of the trial there might (might!) be a free transcript online.

    Citation?

    But you’d recognize the passage I quoted instantly had you bothered to watch the trial you’re opining at such length about.

    Citation?

    I do love that claim that I’m somehow opining, when what I actually did is quote people and ask for citations for a purported quotation.

    It WASN’T looking good for Team Mann, as you’d have known had you taken the time to follow the trial.

    I didn’t bother, I didn’t even know about it. But the results are in, no?

    Team Mann won ‘bigly’.

  197. John Morales says

    So what’s your excuse?

    Boredom. Frustration. Yearning. Hopefulness. Desire.

    Claims of invasion when it’s more like whack-a-mole, thus making the most of it when you venture your head out of your hole.

    Dealing with a coward, gotta get in quick.

    (To be fair, that’s not an excuse, it’s more of an explanation)

    … scientists so fragile they have to go on venue-shopping libel-tourism mental-health leave every time someone breaks their stick

    Gotta love it.

    Citation? To what scientists do you intend to refer?

    (Also, it’s ‘schtick’, not stick)

    Meh, it’s hard to stay mad at someone who injects the wisdom of Mark “Chopper” Read

    <snicker>

    Is that what you imagined I did? Heh.

    Nope. I could have hardly been more direct: comedy.
    That was never Mark “Chopper” Read, nor his wisdom.

  198. John Morales says

    [BTW, maybe an hour, maybe a bit more before I retire for the night. But, you know, baited breath]

  199. John Morales says

    Gotta admit, that was a really good one.

    See, Mark “Chopper” Read got that soubriquet because he lopped off much of his ears.
    Snippety snip, loppity lop.

    (But you’d recognize that instantly had you bothered to watch the video you’re to which you refer)

  200. John Morales says

    Gotta love it. You, O underpants gnome, are condemned to do this day after day, forever more.

    (Me, I will take such joy as I can in this life, especially when it makes me feel virtuous)

  201. Brad Keyes says

    But, you know, baited breath

    You should really brush your teeth after eating worms, John.

  202. Brad Keyes says

    Citation for this claim?

    If you ask nicely, sure, I might do your homework for you. But you’re not asking nicely. You’re not even using full sentences.

  203. John Morales says

    You should really brush your teeth after eating worms, John.

    Probably, but since you’re not a worm (you’re a slack-jawed gnome with underpants on their head) nor have I eaten you (you only wish), that ain’t applicable, is it?

    Citation for this claim?

    If you ask nicely, sure, I might do your homework for you. But you’re not asking nicely. You’re not even using full sentences.

    Heh. Your cargo-cult version of disputation is catching up, no?

    You were the one who tried to adduce claims, but never cited them
    Remember my reference to the burden of proof?
    You clearly either know nothing about it, or you’re doing the thing where you pretend to be even more stupid than your now-cowering sidekick.
    And I’m using sentences that only an idiot would fail to grasp.

    So. Citations. You know, what you are so fucking blatantly avoiding to try to do.

    Here’s how that works (cf. #17)

    The petitioners in this matter accused a distinguished
    scientist, Michael E. Mann, of fraud, data
    manipulation, academic misconduct, and scientific
    misconduct. They compared him to a convicted pedophile,
    Jerry Sandusky, because “instead of molesting
    children, he has molested and tortured data.”

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1477/104466/20190628130353819_Consolidated%20brief%20in%20opposition.pdf

    BTW, be reassured.

    When I mentioned Laurel & Hardy, I think of you as Hardy.
    Of course, I could talk about Abbott & Costello (you’d be Abbott) or Dumb & Dumber (you’d be dumb).
    Etc.

    So, you know, you’re not the most inferior of the specimens who ventured here, and you have the most stamina, so far. Which is nice, I do like mocking you.

  204. Brad Keyes says

    Which is nice, I do like mocking you.

    I bet you do. I pound the facts, because the facts are on my side. You, understandably, pound the table. Then you realize that’s not on your side either, so you pound the man. Yawn. Better trolls please.

  205. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Ah, right. You’re so ignorant you haven’t seen the little cartoon, right Brad?
    I shall explain.

    It depicts a cat with a piece of cheese in its mouth standing by the mousehole.

    (I’m the cat, you’re the mouse)

  206. John Morales says

    Shit-nosed gnome:

    I bet you do.

    <snicker>

    Good bet, since I’ve been telling you that for a couple of days now.

    I pound the facts, because the facts are on my side.

    <smirk>

    Nah. You pound your pudding.

    What facts do you imagine are on “your side”?

    (Such a stupid locution! It should be that you are on the side of the facts)

    Then you realize that’s not on your side either, so you pound the man.

    You’re not a man, you’re a gnome with underpants on their head.

    Whenever I refer to facts (like, you know, Mann’s many awards) you pull those pants over your eyes.

    Look at this thread; that is an established fact.

    Yawn. Better trolls please.

    You’re doing the best you can, Brad. Don’t blame me that it’s such a feeble effort.

    Here, @92:
    “You do get I’m enjoying myself immensely, no?
    Just remember, you came here, I did not come to you.”

    What part of that was confusing to you?

    Heh.

  207. says

    John M:

    “could I have some details or is this just another example of PZ’s faulty logic?”

    Most certainly and indubitably no, since you have yet to provide one single example of PZ using faulty logic.
    Ignorantly asserting that is the case doesn’t cut it, you know!

    PZ’s molested and tortured paragraph:

    Before the free speech fanatics start whining, this is something more than a guy suing someone to stop them calling him names. Simberg & Steyn were trying to undermine significant scientific claims by using ad hominems (hey, I’m actually applying that logical fallacy correctly) against Mann by defaming him. They can’t defeat the science with evidence, so instead they accuse a scientist of pedophilia…with absolutely no evidence for that, either.

    The pedophilia accusation claim is clearly faulty logic, but how about PZ’s claim that he correctly applied a logical fallacy (ad hominems)? I’ve been looking up definitions of “ad hominem” and I’ll have to confess that I’m not sure. Ad hominem is supposed to be an irrelevant attack on a person rather than address the claims. I suppose the claims would be the integrity of Mann’s hockey stick papers. Simberg and Steyn certainly attack Mann, but are they irrelevant attacks? Simberg implies Mann manipulated data, which should be obvious to anyone but a DC jury. Steyn calls the hockey stick fraudulent, not Mann.

    You guys look like experts at employing ad hominems. What do you think?

  208. John Morales says

    Pounding, eh? Good idea!

    #140:

    We like riling you Mann apologists up with Muller’s denunciation of the Hockey Stick’s decline-hiding ways NOT because Muller doesn’t believe in AGW, but because his belief in AGW wasn’t enough to make him turn a blind eye to scientific misconduct.

    <smirk>

    Do you seriously imagine I seem riled? I am having the time of my life, mate!

  209. John Morales says

    canman, excellent! Refractory period over, eh? I’ll fix that.

    PZ’s molested and tortured paragraph:

    Nah. You might have tried your very best (weak as you are) to molest and torture it, but there it is, unmolested and not tortured.

    The pedophilia accusation claim is clearly faulty logic [blah]

    Good grief, this again? Ah well, did I mentioned how much I like a textual medium?

    #95: “You’re akin to a GOTO loop, ain’t ya? That’s how you began, now you want to recapitulate?
    Sure; GOTO 11.”

    You guys look like experts at employing ad hominems. What do you think?

    I think you’re even more doltish than your hero, the Underpants Gnome. That’s what I think.

    Do you even get to what an argumentum ad hominem refers? PZ actually mentioned it in the OP.

    But, since you did ask, here: What I think is that did you even have a glimmer of a clue, you’d get that refers to arguing that because someone is $something, they are wrong, whereas I note that because you are wrong, you are $something, for values of $something of idiotic, foolish, ignorant, clueless, and so forth

  210. John Morales says

    BTW, mancan, are you still perplexed by Mann’s groaning trophy shelf, to use Brad’s lovely imagery?

    (“How could that be?”, you think. Perplexing for you, yet how could I draw conclusions from such a claim?)

    So, do you reckon there’s any difference between argumentum ad hominem and sententiam ad hominem? I mean, they’re both “ad hominems”, as you wrote.

    (Or is there only one kind, in your expert opinion? :)

  211. says

    John M @241, Yes I’m still perplexed by Mann’s trophy shelf, just like I’m perplexed by the minions who adore John Smith or L Ron Hubbard. There’s a reason people chuckle at the expression climate scientologist.

  212. StevoR says

    @ 238. canman : “Simberg and Steyn certainly attack Mann, but are they irrelevant attacks?”

    Yes, yes they are.

    “Simberg implies Mann manipulated data, which should be obvious to anyone but a DC jury. Steyn calls the hockey stick fraudulent, not Mann.”

    Manipulating data is one thing. Doing so without valid basis or using to to misinform rather than accurately inform is a whole other thing. Mann did good scence which passed peer review and earnt him the plaudits of his fellows and the world generally. A handful of denialist cranks aside. Steyn is wrong and falsely insulting to say the Hockey stick is”fraudulent” which is a serious false allegation versus the reality that the Hockey stick has been backed up and supported by the evidence and follow up science. See :

    https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

    Plus :

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/11/scientists-extend-and-straighten-iconic-climate-hockey-stick/

    Oh and apparently there’s even been a BBC TV drama written about it called The Trick which I’ve just learnt about here – 36 seconds long trailer. Sheesh, you Deniers really are stuck in the past aren’t you? Must say, I thought “Climategate” had been relegated to history – and it now seems the odd historical drama – long ago.

  213. says

    How does canman suspecting there’s a problem with the ad hominem claim they chose anything?

    It’s tangent to the original issue. I can and have already acknowledged that it was a comparison that amounted to “treaded data badly” so choosing a thing related to that is cowardly. Same logical issue. No points.

    What about the second ad hominem farther down?

  214. says

    That should be “How does canman suspecting there’s a problem with the ad hominem claim they chose CHANGE anything?” in the first sentence.

    Seriously. Even as a comparison to child molestation it’s an irrational non-literalism made by social cowards in addition to being sickening political theft of the pain of others.

  215. says

    And Brad is down to simple territory marking now. I notes all the things they didn’t respond to earlier, now they type they “pound facts” instead of showing where they did.

    I’ve this idea about people getting less literal under pressure. What matter is if the sensory or anatomy reference actually goes somewhere real.

  216. Brad Keyes says

    “Seriously. Even as a comparison to child molestation it’s an irrational non-literalism made by social cowards in addition to being sickening political theft of the pain of others.”

    Brony, pay attention to the context. There was no attempt to exploit victims of child abuse for cheap points. The point was as serious as possible: that it’d be no surprise Penn did a corrupt investigation in favor of Mann, IF they were willing to do the same for Sandusky.

    The fact is that Mann was exonerated by Graham Spanier, and kept thanking Spanier in the dedications page of his books long after Spanier had gone to prison for child endangerment, so it’s a little precious of him to claim to be offended by the association made by Steyn and Simberg when he goes out of his way to make that association himself, in his own books. But of course you didn’t realize that because you didn’t follow the trial, did you?

    It’s not too late: you can always listen to Phelim McAleer and Ann McIlhenny’s authoritative daily podcast, Climate Change On Trial. Unlike the rest of the media world, they bothered to actually witness the testimony live, day after day.

  217. says

    Don’t care. Do you even realize that even if you got every climate scientist locked up for every heinous crime you can imagine, it wouldn’t change the reality of climate change? You keep making these pointless claims that aren’t at all relevant to the matter at hand.

  218. says

    The child abuse enabler can keep enabling child abuse. It’s a great look. Like “Pedo Joe”. All I have to do is keep pointing out the disgusting political use of the behavior of others and it doesn’t change when people define in about whatever “point” was being made with the act of political theft.

  219. Brad Keyes says

    I notes [sic] all the things they didn’t respond to earlier, now they type they “pound facts” instead of showing where they did.

    I asked you which points you think I haven’t responded to. Hell, give me your top 3 requests. If you can’t be bothered sifting John’s prolix drivel for substance, I can certainly relate to that, but you can hardly expect me to do it if you won’t.

    I’ve this idea about people getting less literal under pressure. What matter is if the sensory or anatomy reference actually goes somewhere real.

    There could be something to that. Mind you there was nothing anatomical about my image of “pounding the man,” it was just a play on the old lawyers’ joke, so your hypothesis doesn’t apply to me. But it would tell us some suggestive things about Balter, who comes straight out of the gate with the shit that, ass this, nose that, as if he’s acutely aware he’s losing the argument before he even starts.

    And Brad is down to simple territory marking now

    Oh dear oh dear. I wasn’t expecting a resort to the urological so soon from you of all people, Brony. Feeling under pressure? There’s no need to. You haven’t made an opponent out of me yet.

  220. says

    You can sarcastically tell someone respects your side of a potential argument when they ignore the thing you are concerned about (political use of child molestation) to shove the other thing (supposed bad treatment of data) at you.

    If there was any truth they would not need to steal from abused children. They acknowledge even if they disagree, abandon the non-literal thing, do the supposed real version. It shouldn’t matter anyway since it’s the non-literal part, but no. They need to save the molestation reference too. Ick.

  221. says

    I’m not interested in actually taking you seriously Brad. Go up thread to see why. Imagine there is someone else reading and you might be able to convince them of something. Otherwise John has been plenty specific.

    I ignored your request for any clarification about the issue of using child abuse politically. I won’t be arguing that.

  222. Brad Keyes says

    Brony,

    I’ve this idea about people getting less literal under pressure.

    In my experience they just start writing really poorly. Consider PZ’s latest contribution: he can’t even seem to tell us who he’s responding to. For all we know he’s as thoroughly sick of John Morales’ irrelevantia as the next guy, and is letting him have it. I could hardly blame him, I just wish he’d be more lucid about it.

  223. Brad Keyes says

    Anyway if Canman’s sources are right, it won’t be long before Steyn and Simberg are apologizing to Sandusky for mentioning his name in the same sentence as Mann’s.

  224. Brad Keyes says

    Brony, boredom is one of the masks defeat wears. It’s awfully convenient the way you claim to lose interest in a debate just after performing badly in it. Oh well. It’s no shame being out-reasoned by Canman and me.

  225. Brad Keyes says

    StevoR,

    the BBC drama about Hide the Decline came out just a couple of years ago. Remind me, who’s obsessed with the past, exactly? I’d tell them to get over it, but then they wouldn’t have given the world their unintentionally comedic masterpiece, The Trick. You really should check it out.

  226. says

    John M, are you skeptical of the OJ Simpson verdict or the Salem Witch trial verdicts?

    WTAF does that have to do with the Sandusky verdict? Looks like someone is suddenly realizing his bullshit’s been debunked, and falling back on defensive flailing. Oh, and you forgot to mention Galileo!

    Also, where are the books from the prosecution’s side from what had to be the high points of their careers?

    Is there any court system on Earth that uses number of published books to determine whether a prosecutor has a solid case?
    That’s the best defense you can flail up? That’s not just ridiculous, it’s embarrassing.

  227. says

    There was no attempt to exploit victims of child abuse for cheap points.

    Utter bullshit. Comparing someone’s actions to those of a child-abuser is, pretty much by definition, an attempt to exploit child abuse, and its victims, for cheap points.

  228. says

    It’s not too late: you can always listen to Phelim McAleer and Ann McIlhenny’s authoritative daily podcast, Climate Change On Trial.

    What makes that podcast “authoritative?” Because you said so?

    Unlike the rest of the media world, they bothered to actually witness the testimony live, day after day.

    “Witness the testimony live?” What the hell does that even mean? That sounds like something people do in a loony-Christian megachurch.

  229. says

    Raging Bee @260,
    “That’s the best defense you can flail up? “

    Absolutely not! @14 I put this link in, which lists a lot (not all) of serious, accomplished people looking into the case. There’s probably more new material on the Sandusky case than any other major crime case of the millennium. It’s all available, just not widely known.

    PZ, you should really take another look at the Sandusky case. The claims of all the accusers collapse under scrutiny. What really happened is a few dozen adult men and their lawyers fleeced $100 million out of Penn State. A republican governor got revenge on Graham Spanier for blocking his effort to cut Penn State’s funding. That’s the conclusion of an actual federal investigation of whether to renew Spanier’s top secret security clearance.

    https://frankreport.com/2024/01/18/renowned-academics-and-investigators-challenge-jerry-sanduskys-conviction/

  230. says

    StevoR @245,
    Sorry about the delay. I fell asleep rereading your Skeptical Science link. That piece doesn’t come anywhere near addressing the issues brought up in the second half of the short video I posted a@149.

  231. says

    In a thread involving people using sexual molestation of children as political tools it’s just plain insensitive and shitty at best to push Sandusky assertions. The polite thing to do is email PZ privately.
    Unless it’s an at worst situation and this opposite set to the political use of children is just climate denier political manipulation. I keep them both in mind. Now go be decent canman. Or be even more decent and go see some professional organizations interested in accuracy in sexual abuse convictions. They are the most capable. Not PZ.

  232. says

    Go on canman. Which is more logical? PZ? Or people professionally involved in accuracy in sexual abuse convictions?

    Which is more logical? Derailing a thread involving people using the sexual molestation of children politically with assertions about someone being innocent of actual child molestation? Or privately emailing PZ about it so you don’t twist the topic into it’s opposite?

  233. says

    Brony @266, I don’t think it’s insensitive to bring up my Sandusky assertions and I have emailed PZ privately. I asked for another post and this is probably the last chance I’m going to get. Sincere thanks PZ. As for insensitivity, journalists John Ziegler and Ralph Cipriano were leaked all of the settlement documents, undoubtedly by an outraged Penn State Board of Trustees member. Ziegler’s epic (probably up to 100 hors by now) podcast series has some episodes on these accuser settlements. This bunch can use all the insensitivity they got coming to them.

    https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/episode-twelve-part-i-the-settlements/id1562078872?i=1000524514855

  234. says

    I had no idea whether I would be derailing the thread and I don’t think that’s the end result. In principle, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with derailing a thread if it leads to interesting discussion or even another post. I pretty much got what I wanted to say in on this thread. It’ll probably just be sneered at and forgotten, but I really would like to see PZ do another post on the Sandusky case.

  235. says

    Jesus. The Sandusky case is settled. Done. Over. Grow up and move on, because no, unless there were surprising and massive new evidence sufficient to trigger a retrial or dismissal, NO I AM NOT WASTING TIME ON IT.

  236. John Morales says

    mmm… toast, marmalade and a nice strong cuppa. So, what happened overnight?

    <checks>

    Heh. So there’s still life in the specimens, though the gnome is not doing quite as well as the mancan.
    It is now evident that a diet rich with feculence indeed sustains them.
    Excellent!

    So, a bit more feeding and poking, though I think their behavioural repertoire is indeed exhausted.

    Yes I’m still perplexed by Mann’s trophy shelf, just like I’m perplexed by the minions who adore John Smith or L Ron Hubbard.

    What, you think science is a religion?

    (You do get that was the gnome’s coinage, no? I even made it clear)

    There’s a reason people chuckle at the expression climate scientologist.

    Obviously; it should be ‘climate scientist’. Goes to show how much some people know.

    John M, I haven’t been able to find sententiam ad hominem on Google. What’s that refer to?

    Heh. You asked for clarification, I provided it @241.
    I am trying to show you that the term ad hominem means ‘to the person’, and doesn’t need to be an argument. Could be, say, an insult.

    Anyway if Canman’s sources are right, it won’t be long before Steyn and Simberg are apologizing to Sandusky for mentioning his name in the same sentence as Mann’s.

    But right now, they have been directed to financially “apologise” to Mann for just that. Heh.

    It’s no shame being out-reasoned by Canman and me.

    Um, you don’t get it, do you? Brony is not neurotypical, he sees things you don’t see, thinks in a different manner, provides a different perspective.

    It’s not to your shame that you failed to get that, but it is that you thought your lack of perception was somehow your interlocutor’s lack of reasoning.

    canman @264:

    PZ, you should really take another look at the Sandusky case. […] frankreport.blah

    GOTO 14

    I fell asleep rereading your Skeptical Science link.

    <snicker>

    That’s what passes for wit in your estimation?

    I don’t think it’s insensitive to bring up my Sandusky assertions and I have emailed PZ privately.

    You are so unintentionally funny!

    Also, GOTO 89.

    I had no idea whether I would be derailing the thread and I don’t think that’s the end result.

    GOTO 37.

  237. StevoR says

    @265. canman

    StevoR @245,
    Sorry about the delay. I fell asleep rereading your Skeptical Science link. That piece doesn’t come anywhere near addressing the issues brought up in the second half of the short video I posted a@149.

    Huh. Funny you should say that after this :

    @ 258. Brad Keyes

    Brony, boredom is one of the masks defeat wears. It’s awfully convenient the way you claim to lose interest in a debate just after performing badly in it. Oh well. It’s no shame being out-reasoned by Canman and me.

    From your mate earlier..

  238. StevoR says

    Incidentally, if you fell asleep reading the Skeptical Science page(s) debunking yet aagin that fallacious idea that the Hockey Strick is “broken” how would you know if it “didn’t address” the bulldust in your old youtube clip by a scientist (Richard Muller) that has now now reversed his position and disagrees with you both anyway.

    @ 260. Brad Keyes :

    StevoR, the BBC drama about Hide the Decline came out just a couple of years ago. Remind me, who’s obsessed with the past, exactly? I’d tell them to get over it, but then they wouldn’t have given the world their unintentionally comedic masterpiece, The Trick. You really should check it out.

    Says someone arguing that Climategate was a real serious thing literally decades after that nasty ideologically driven nonsense was disproven and after a court case again confirmed Mann did nothing wrong and was correct and the defaming Deniers have lost on it again. After the science has long since repeatedly confirmed Mann was right as well.

  239. Brad Keyes says

    StevoR,

    Muller hasn’t reversed his position on the [im]propriety of Hiding the Decline, and he doesn’t disagree with me about HTD in any way. Nor could he conceivably change his mind on that, since it’s a question of fundamental scientific ethics that you don’t hide things. You can’t do that in science. It’s not up to our standards.

    You could prove me wrong with a single quote by Muller saying that he now considers Hiding the Decline a valid manoeuvre (and at that point I will resign myself to the sad fact that being a climate alarmist and having scientific-ethical standards really are mutually exclusive).

    But you do realize he was never a climate skeptic, right? I know this because

    he was never a climate skeptic
    he was always a climate alarmist (see Physics for Future Presidents, published before Climategate, wherein he approves of Al Gore’s habit of exaggerating and distorting the science because it gets results)
    he wrote in an email to HuffPo, quote, I was never a skeptic, end quote.

  240. says

    PZ and StevoR @276-277, Sorry about the snark. I was actually rather tired and really did doze off. I’d read the links before and wanted to refresh my memory so I could compare them to the last half of the video @149.

  241. says

    JohnM, I don’t know if my snark is as strong as yours, but I’m sure my ad hominems aren’t,

    PZ, I would be interested in your thoughts Frank Parlato’s post. even shat makes it boring.

  242. says

    Errrr! Rewrite:

    JohnM, I don’t know if my snark is as strong as yours, but I’m sure my ad hominins aren’t.

    PZ, I would be interested in your thoughts on Frank Parlato’s post, even in what makes it boring.

    My keyboarding is definitely not that strong.

  243. John Morales says

    Wow, the canman sure can’t.

    JohnM, I don’t know if my snark is as strong as yours, but I’m sure my ad hominins aren’t.

    Heh. You didn’t even get my explanation, did ya? Fucking clueless, you are.

    (Look up “hominins”, if you want to know why I am smirking as I type this)

    I can see how the underpants gnome thinks some people are ineducable.

    So. Care to try to quote me making one (1) argumentum ad hominem, even though you confess to being confused about what they may be?

    Hey, do you even know the difference between a formal and an informal fallacy? I’m pretty sure you don’t, based on your efforts hitherto, though it was you who attempted to claim logical knowledge right from the start.

    (That’s the trouble with being a poseur)

    PZ, I would be interested in your thoughts on Frank Parlato’s post, even in what makes it boring.

    You would be interested, would you?
    Under what hypothetical circumstance or circumstances would that interest manifest?

    After all, were you currently interested, you’d have written ‘I am interested’ instead, no?

    My keyboarding is definitely not that strong.

    Mate! That is the least of your weaknesses. :)

  244. John Morales says

    In the news: Right-wing bloggers set to appeal $1 million verdict in climate scientist defamation case

    Christopher Bartolomucci, Steyn’s attorney of firm Schaerr Jaffe, told Courthouse News his client intends to file a motion for judgement as a matter of law and will consider filing appeal. Steyn has until March 8 to file the motion, Bartolomucci said.

    Simberg plans to appeal the jury’s verdict, his attorney Mark DeLaquil of Baker Hostetler said Tuesday.

  245. Rob Grigjanis says

    One more thing: Muller “quoted” Phil Jones as writing “Let’s use Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. That’s wrong, and misleading. The actual text was

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline

    Whatever you think of “hide the decline”, it is not “Mike’s trick”. Muller fucked up, and you approve. Good work.

  246. John Morales says

    Rob, I already posted that @125, and repeated it since.
    StevoR also cited it @108, BTW.

    Well, there goes another little trap for the gnome (“GOTO 140”), who wondered about why wanted citations :|

    Yeah, I know… probably wouldn’t have been triggered, I sense a certain reticence when trying to address me. But still.

  247. John Morales says

    [old fart’s anecdote]

    Rob, back in 1978 or so I worked a summer at Flinders University (South Australia) digitising tidal charts.
    In those days, the recorders were clockwork-driven and there’d be a timing drift over time, so that when processing that data, one had to allow for that drift. Correct for the bias, that is to say. Recorders’ intervals would sometimes be staggered, so that one could verify the correction, though it was more work and more expensive. But, science.

    So I am familiar with that sorta thing.

  248. StevoR says

    @ 293 Rob Grigjanis & John Morales : it bears repeating for the slow of cognisance e.g. our pair of Climate Deniers here. Its not like they haven’t being spouting the same drivel repeatedly.

    @280 Brad Keyes :

    But you do realize he was never a climate skeptic, right? I know this because
    he was never a climate skeptic
    he was always a climate alarmist

    Again see #289. Rob Grigjanis :

    Brad Keyes @280: “he (muller-ed.) wrote in an email to HuffPo, quote, I was never a skeptic, end quote.

    Muller, NYT;

    CALL me a converted skeptic.

    Emphasis for the slow of comprehending. Do you accept and admit that fact now?

    See also what #290. Rob Grigjanis noted : “Whatever you think of “hide the decline”, it is not “Mike’s trick”. Muller fucked up, and you approve.”

    Again, emphasis again my question to you, do you now get that and understand how you’ve gotten things wrong?

    Do you think maybe its time you got over a few comments Muller said – before he learnt better – in a (probly?) two decades old posted by some rando youtube Science Denier named 1000frolly PhD and accepted that you got thsi very wrong in all sorts of ways. Remember :

    104. Brad Keyes :

    StevoR,
    I couldn’t agree more:
    But of course the deniers literally refuse to accept the evidence and the reality even when it is directly put in their hands right in front of them explained carefully to them by renowned experts like shown here.

    Well, here we are well over a hundred comments later, you’ve been shown to be wrong about pretty much everything, doesn’t that make you stop and reconsider your views at all? Does evidence have any impact on your thought processes at all?

    Mann has been cleared by the other scientists, by his uni, by peer review, by the court so do you still want to ignore allt hat & keep claiming / believing the..

    “..HTD (bullshit) in any way. Nor could he (Muller -ed) conceivably change his mind on that, since it’s a question of fundamental scientific ethics that you don’t hide things. You can’t do that in science. It’s not up to our standards.

    Clearly you’re wrong and clearly you’re in a tiny mminority of Deniers who think Mann did something wrong. Does that not cuase youany reflection or reconsideration of your views?

    As I originally asked you back in #103 What would make you accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here?

    As for Climate “alarmist” term youve been using, for starters they’ve been shown to be right as you’d know if you’d follow the actual science where things have been getting dramatically worse. You know how many records have been broken lately climate-wise incl of course hottest year ever last year? For second, why is raising the alarm wrong when there’s good scientific reasons to do so? Finally, are you going to rethink that in light of what you’ve had shown to you here and if not why not?

    One mroe time since seems you do need telling thrice or more – what would make you reconsdier your erroneous Cliamet Science denying views?

  249. says

    Absolutely not! @14 I put this link in, which lists a lot (not all) of serious, accomplished people looking into the case. There’s probably more new material on the Sandusky case than any other major crime case of the millennium. It’s all available, just not widely known.

    If it’s not enough to support a serious move to retry the case or toss out the verdicts, then it’s not enough, period. Is anyone bringing this to an actual court, or are they all just complaining to the media and pushing asinine conspiracy theories?

    I’ve been following new developments in the Sandusky case for over half a decade now…

    So…five years of “new developments” and no new motions to dismiss or retry?

  250. says

    From the article cited by canman:

    He condemns the lawyers and therapists who represented the alleged victims, who typically told authorities that Sandusky had never abused them. Then, they changed their stories and made millions.

    Does this guy really believe anyone can simply make up a story of sexual abuse, or start parroting someone else’s made-up story, and really expect to “make millions” in short order with no risk or effort? Have any of Sandusky’s victims (actual or alleged) “made millions?”

  251. John Morales says

    Fucking feeble specimens, these. Plenty of feculent succulents, plenty of time for recovery.
    Let’s prod a bit more, see if I can at least get a twitch:

    Via Wikipedia:

    Following a four year investigation, Parlato and business partner Chitra Selvaraj were federally indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York in November 2015.[43] Charges included fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion relating to Parlato’s ownership and management of the One Niagara Building (former headquarters of Occidental Petroleum).[44]

    The matter was still in pretrial phase, with Parlato released on bond, when he was summoned by the federal court in Buffalo to appear November 2021 following an alleged incident in Florida with a girlfriend involving “battery, false imprisonment, and witnessing tampering”.[45][46] The event was investigated as a bail violation.[47] The arrest warrant was rescinded, and the Court ordered Parlato undergo an anger management evaluation.[47]

    Parlato accepted a plea agreement in August, 2022, pleading guilty to the willful failure to file an IRS Form 8300 (26 U.S.C. § 7203 and § 6050I) when he accepted a cash rent payment of $19,000 from commercial tenants of the One Niagara Building.[48] The agreement also requires Parlato forfeit $1,000,000 originally seized during the investigation and to pay over $180,000 in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service.[49] A sentencing date has been postponed several times, most recently to July 31 , 2023

    So, mancan, a little more elucidation of a difficult (for you) concept:

    Were I to argue that because he’s accepted a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to being a money-seeking crook that his claims about Sandusky must therefore be flawed, I’d be making an ad hominem argument. But to note that because he pleaded guilty to being a money-seeking crook he is a money-seeking crook, that would not be an ad hominem argument, but a character assessment.
    And if I then call him a convicted crook, I’d be making an assessment ad hominem, but not an argument. Also: one million dollars! :)

    (Hey, canman, in passing, did it ever occur to you to Google the latin translation of my apparently-obscure neologic but analogic term?
    I reckon not, that was too far a reach for your limited capacities.
    Go on, try it!)

  252. John Morales says

    [poke, poke]

    Come on, lads! You are supposedly invading!

    (So frustrating; fun was promised, but is hardly to be had. So fucking disappointing, this is)

  253. John Morales says

    [well, can but try to get a response, any response, but it’s looking kinda sad]

    but where I come from, precision matters

    Heh. Not ‘would matter’? Present tense is not unknown to you, O he who would be interested.

    I denialize nothing

    I smirkate you. :)

  254. Silentbob says

    Fucking feeble specimens, these. Plenty of feculent succulents, plenty of time for recovery.
    Let’s prod a bit more, see if I can at least get a twitch

    Seriously, can anyone still conceive of Morales as anything other than the most pathetic troll in the history of Pharyngula. I mean, c’mon people, look at the fucking state of this! This is dialogue (monologue) that wouldn’t have been out of place ascribed to the villain of a Saturday morning cartoon when I was a kid – but we’re expected to take this utter wanker loser fuckwit seriously in the year 2024?! Why is this idiot buffoon still humoured when so many others were banned for very much less trolling?

  255. John Morales says

    Seriously, can anyone still conceive of Morales as anything other than the most pathetic troll in the history of Pharyngula.

    Yes. I can. And I am someone, bobiferous.

    I mean, c’mon people, look at the fucking state of this!

    What, the invasion? cf. my #174. Need a link, LoquaciousBub?

    Why is this idiot buffoon still humoured when so many others were banned for very much less trolling?

    To what supposed idiocy and buffoonery do you refer?

    This. Is. Pharyingula.

    So, it’s like that, bobous. No worries.

    Tell me more about how you imagine I am trolling, and have been since 2009. :)

  256. John Morales says

    Ah well, I’m in the mood, self-proclaimed invaders properly cowed, but my old self-imagined nemesis is back for more abuse. Yay!

    I’m quite up to it, of course — as always, only ever in response to their weak attempted jibes, never the initiator, but ever the responder.

    So.

    … but we’re expected to take this utter wanker loser fuckwit seriously in the year 2024

    Heh. You imagine that there is some expectation at hand? From whom, and in what manner, pray tell?

    No, there is no such expectation, O doltish one. There never was.

  257. says

    Raging Bee @298,

    Sandusky has been appealing every chance he gets in Pennsylvania. The only problem is all of Pennsylvania’s judges have to face reelection. None of them want releasing the worlds most hated “pedophile” on their record. Sandusky has not tried for a federal appeal where he only gets one chance.

    @299,

    Does this guy really believe anyone can simply make up a story of sexual abuse, or start parroting someone else’s made-up story, and really expect to “make millions” in short order with no risk or effort? Have any of Sandusky’s victims (actual or alleged) “made millions?”

    Have any of his “victims” not made millions? Well, I suppose Matt Sandusky only got a $300 K settlement. All his accusers got confidential settlements from Penn State. Journalists John Ziegler and Ralph Cipriano were leaked all of the settlement documents when they were working on their ill fated Newsweek cover feature (spiked at the last minute). The legacy media really is terrified of the toxic “Sandusky” name.

  258. John Morales says

    Ah, hey, man the can, I’m here now.

    Have any of his “victims” not made millions? Well, I suppose Matt Sandusky only got a $300 K settlement.

    <snicker>

    So, Matt Sandusky is, as you imagine it, one of his “victims” who has not made millions.

    Journalists John Ziegler and Ralph Cipriano were leaked

    What, after being blended into liquid? Kind of hard to leak a person, otherwise.

    (linguistic precision is supposed to be a thing where you come from, no?)

  259. John Morales says

    Have any of his “victims” not made millions?

    Citations would be nice, but are beyond you, no?

  260. says

    John M @300,
    You found Parlato’s Wikipedia entry. He’s had legal problems with his business dealings involving substantial fines. What that shows is that he’s ambitious. The Wayback Machine shows that his Frank Report has been around since the start of the millennium. His stock and trade is lurid crime stories. With the Sandusky case, he’s hit a gold mine!

  261. John Morales says

    Excellent, canman. Don’t go away, let’s share some badinage.

    You found Parlato’s Wikipedia entry.

    Heh. That somehow impressed you? It was easy, I selected the term, right-clicked, then went to the Wikipedia entry.

    He’s had legal problems with his business dealings involving substantial fines.

    Yes, and he’s pleaded guilty. Like, either he was guilty, or he was lying when he pleaded guilty.

    (Neither is a great look, is it?)

    The Wayback Machine shows that his Frank Report has been around since the start of the millennium.

    And so has the Church of Scientology. So?

    His stock and trade is lurid crime stories. With the Sandusky case, he’s hit a gold mine!

    Right. Pedophilia, just gold.

    (citation?)

  262. says

    JohnM @313,
    “Yes, and he’s pleaded guilty. Like, either he was guilty, or he was lying when he pleaded guilty.”
    Doesn’t mean he can’t do good journalism. Can you find any slime to stick to the people listed in the second of my links @14?

  263. says

    JohnM @315,

    Says nothing about a gold mine there, mancan.

    Again: citation?

    I’ve seen this gold mine and walked through it for the last half decade. I just don’t have Parlato’s expertise and infrastructure.

  264. John Morales says

    Excellent! Well done, canman.

    Doesn’t mean he can’t do good journalism.

    Whyever do you say that?
    I never claimed that; I claimed that either he lied when he pled guilty, or he was actually guilty, and either case is not a good look. Do you think otherwise?
    I can speculate (but probably very accurately, given your knowledge of informal fallacies) why you imagined that, though.

    Can you find any slime to stick to the people listed in the second of my links @14?

    Are you asking me to do so? Remember, that has nothing to do with anything other than whether they’ve been slimy or otherwise, nor to the merits of the case unless such slime is relevant to it.

    Tell ya what; provide an enumeration of those people, and I’ll consider your request.
    Pretty fucking fair that, no? Not like I’m gonna listen to some podcast to satisfy your neediness.

    I mean, suggesting that I should listen to an episode of a show that you claim has been around since the start of the millennium merely to determine that the claim is that there is not one of his “victims” (your very term, which presumes they are not actually victims) who has not made millions is a pretty hefty request, no?

    Quick question: does he enumerate each and every one of what you term “victims” and show that they made millions? With citations?

  265. John Morales says

    I’ve seen this gold mine and walked through it for the last half decade.

    I see. So, you wroteWith the Sandusky case, he’s hit a gold mine!, and so this gold mine that you have trodden for the last half decade is the Sandusky case.

    I suppose you can hope it carries on for the next half decade, so you can keep wading through it.

    I just don’t have Parlato’s expertise and infrastructure.

    Well, there you are. The first time I can’t dispute you in any way, shape or form.

    I also don’t reckon you have any expertise or infrastructure about anything at all, let alone that of a confessed felon.

  266. John Morales says

    [fixing my missing tag close, since I can’t imagine the mancan gets what happened]

    I see. So, you wrote With the Sandusky case, he’s hit a gold mine!, and so this gold mine that you have trodden for the last half decade is the Sandusky case.

    I suppose you can hope it carries on for the next half decade, so you can keep wading through it.

  267. says

    JohnM @318,

    Tell ya what; provide an enumeration of those people, and I’ll consider your request.
    Pretty fucking fair that, no? Not like I’m gonna listen to some podcast to satisfy your neediness.

    I mean, suggesting that I should listen to an episode of a show that you claim has been around since the start of the millennium merely to determine that the claim is that there is not one of his “victims” (your very term, which presumes they are not actually victims) who has not made millions is a pretty hefty request, no?

    Quick question: does he enumerate each and every one of what you term “victims” and show that they made millions? With citations?

    It’s the Frank Report that’s been around since the start of the millennium. Ziegler’s podcast series is a few years old.

    Actually this post enumerates and refutes all the trial accusers:

    https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/trial-by-therapy-jerry-sandusky-case-revisited/

  268. Brad Keyes says

    Rob G,

    how do you tell when Muller was lying and when he was telling the truth? Simple, you just put the bit you want to believe in bold.

    HuffPo:

    he wrote in an email to HuffPo, quote, I was never a skeptic, end quote.

    Muller, NYT;

    CALL me a converted skeptic.

    Alternatively, if your desire for knowledge exceeds your will to believe, you could take a more analytic approach and look at Muller’s actual stated views over time, which, like most people’s, have barely changed.

    This is what he said in an interview at Grist in 2008, before Climategate:

    “The important thing is not getting Al Gore out of his jet plane; the important thing is solving the world’s problem. What we really need are policies around the world that address the problem, not feel-good measures. If [Al Gore] reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion — which he does, but he’s very effective at it — then let him fly any plane he wants.”

    If you believe a climate skeptic said this, you’ll believe anything. But you don’t seem as devout as John Morales, so I’m sure you’re capable of critically thinking your way to the right answer. Good luck.

  269. John Morales says

    It’s the Frank Report that’s been around since the start of the millennium.

    Heh. You: You found Parlato’s Wikipedia entry.

    Yes, and I even told you how I did it. Was very easy.
    There it says: “The Frank Report began publishing blogs and stories on Nov. 30, 2015”

    It logically follows (you’re Mr. Logic, no?) that the start of the millennium, as far as you are concerned, began on Nov. 30, 2015.

    Actually this post enumerates and refutes all the trial accusers:

    Does it?
    So, your actual request was “Can you find any slime to stick to the people listed in the second of my links @14” and my retort to which you are ostensibly responding was “Tell ya what; provide an enumeration of those people, and I’ll consider your request.”

    I’m not seeing an enumeration of people who about whom I am supposed some slime at your request.
    Do you imagine you’ve somehow provided one?
    What I see is a claim that you are citing a post that “enumerates and refutes all the trial accusers”.

    (Copypaste is a thing, you know)

    More to the point, this little bit of banter began with me writing
    “Quick question: does he enumerate each and every one of what you term “victims” and show that they made millions? With citations?” after you wrote Have any of his “victims” not made millions?

    So. Get this straight, Mr. Logic: you are there asking whether any of his “victims” (not victims) did not made millions. You, essentially, are insinuating that every single “victim” (you think there were zero victims, that much is clear) made millions.

    Prove it.

  270. John Morales says

    Brad, the Underpants Gnome:
    how do you tell when Muller was lying and when he was telling the truth? Simple, you just put the bit you want to believe in bold.

    So, you are outright claiming that Muller sometimes lies, and sometimes tells the truth.

    Yet, he is your go-to for your particularly dated and idiosyncratic view that Michael Mann is some sort of scientific fraud, though of course over the years so very many organisations (not jurors! ;) have given him awards and accolades.

    Perhaps a reminder:

    The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other “scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports”, with a personalized certificate “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”, celebrating the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore.[89][90][91][92]

    In 2012, he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union[1] and awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union for “his significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions.”[7][88]

    Following election by the American Meteorological Society he became a new Fellow of the society in 2013.[93] In January 2013 he was designated with the status of distinguished professor in Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.[94]

    In September 2013, Mann was named by Bloomberg Markets in its third annual list of the “50 Most Influential” people, included in a group of “thinkers” with reference to his work with other scientists on the hockey stick graph, his responses on the RealClimate blog “to climate change deniers”, and his book publications.[95][96] Later that month, he received the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science.[97][98]

    On April 28, 2014, the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley.[99] In the same year, Mann was named as a Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). In 2015 he was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and in 2016 he was elected Vice Chair of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate (GPC) at the American Physical Society (APS).[88]

    On June 19, 2017, Climate One at the Commonwealth Club of California said that he would be honored with the 7th annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Science Communication.[100]

    He received the James H. Shea Award from the National Association of Geoscience Teachers for his “exceptional contribution in writing or editing Earth science materials for the general public or teachers of Earth science.”[101]

    On February 8, 2018, the Center for Inquiry announced that Mann had been elected as a 2017 Fellow of its Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.[8]

    On February 14, 2018, the American Association for the Advancement of Science announced that Mann was chosen to receive the 2018 Public Engagement with Science award.[102]

    On September 4, 2018, the American Geophysical Union announced Mann as the 2018 recipient of its Climate Communication Prize.[103]

    On February 12, 2019, Mann and Warren Washington were named to receive the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement.[104]

    In April 2020, he was elected member of the National Academy of Sciences.[5] Along with Antonella Santuccione Chadha, he also received the World Sustainability Award from the MDPI Sustainability Foundation.[105]

    In 2022, the American Physical Society recognized Mann with the Leo Szilard Lectureship Award “for distinguished contributions to the public’s understanding of climate science controversies, and to how our individual and collective actions can mitigate climate change.”[106]

    In 2023 the American Humanist Association gave Mann their 2023 Humanist of the Year award.[107]

  271. John Morales says

    Oh, right.

    But you don’t seem as devout as John Morales

    <snicker>

    You are so clueless!

    (devout about what, I’d ask, except you’re like the quiet bubulum: run, run away when I confront)

  272. Brad Keyes says

    Rob G.

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline

    Whatever you think of “hide the decline”, it is not “Mike’s trick”. Muller fucked up, and you approve. Good work.

    Muller parsed the sentence according to the rules of our language, which state that a sentence of the form:

    I’ve just used A’s B trick of doing X and Y to do Z

    logically entails that the function of A’s B trick (which involved doing X and Y) was to do Z. Now it may well be the case that Phil Jones, who’s not the most literate man, intended to put some grammatical wall between “Mike’s Nature trick” and the concealment of the decline, but he failed to do so, so we’ll never know. All we can do is read his sentence in the language it appears to be written in, which is English.

  273. Brad Keyes says

    I should say, the function of using A’s B trick was to do Z. If you want to argue that Mike’s Nature trick was originally designed for good, not evil—science, not deception—and that Jones was misusing it, you can do so. But the fact remains that Mann never dissociated himself from Phil’s misuse, and he had every opportunity to do so, having received the same email as his colleagues.

  274. John Morales says

    Such bullshit!

    Muller parsed the sentence according to the rules of our language, which state that a sentence of the form:

    I’ve just used A’s B trick of doing X and Y to do Z

    logically entails that the function of A’s B trick (which involved doing X and Y) was to do Z.

    <snicker>

    Care to attempt to try to essay a citation to that particular rule?

    (This should be most amusing)

  275. John Morales says

    Underpanter:

    But the fact remains that Mann never dissociated himself from Phil’s misuse, and he had every opportunity to do so, having received the same email as his colleagues.

    But the fact remains that

    The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other “scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports”, with a personalized certificate “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”, celebrating the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore.[89][90][91][92]

    In 2012, he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union[1] and awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union for “his significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions.”[7][88]

    Following election by the American Meteorological Society he became a new Fellow of the society in 2013.[93] In January 2013 he was designated with the status of distinguished professor in Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.[94]

    In September 2013, Mann was named by Bloomberg Markets in its third annual list of the “50 Most Influential” people, included in a group of “thinkers” with reference to his work with other scientists on the hockey stick graph, his responses on the RealClimate blog “to climate change deniers”, and his book publications.[95][96] Later that month, he received the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science.[97][98]

    On April 28, 2014, the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley.[99] In the same year, Mann was named as a Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). In 2015 he was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and in 2016 he was elected Vice Chair of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate (GPC) at the American Physical Society (APS).[88]

    On June 19, 2017, Climate One at the Commonwealth Club of California said that he would be honored with the 7th annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Science Communication.[100]

    He received the James H. Shea Award from the National Association of Geoscience Teachers for his “exceptional contribution in writing or editing Earth science materials for the general public or teachers of Earth science.”[101]

    On February 8, 2018, the Center for Inquiry announced that Mann had been elected as a 2017 Fellow of its Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.[8]

    On February 14, 2018, the American Association for the Advancement of Science announced that Mann was chosen to receive the 2018 Public Engagement with Science award.[102]

    On September 4, 2018, the American Geophysical Union announced Mann as the 2018 recipient of its Climate Communication Prize.[103]

    On February 12, 2019, Mann and Warren Washington were named to receive the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement.[104]

    In April 2020, he was elected member of the National Academy of Sciences.[5] Along with Antonella Santuccione Chadha, he also received the World Sustainability Award from the MDPI Sustainability Foundation.[105]

    In 2022, the American Physical Society recognized Mann with the Leo Szilard Lectureship Award “for distinguished contributions to the public’s understanding of climate science controversies, and to how our individual and collective actions can mitigate climate change.”[106]

    In 2023 the American Humanist Association gave Mann their 2023 Humanist of the Year award.[107]

    All very stupid organisations (not jurors! ;) in your estimation, gnomish one.

    <sniff, sniff> oof!
    Wipe your nose, perhaps?

  276. John Morales says

    Hey, Brad:
    Whatever happened to I pound the facts, because the facts are on my side.?

    Facts are, Michael Mann has received Lo! those many laurels, unlike Muller, who you reckon sometimes lies and who contradicts himself.

    (Want me to repost the facts, for the umpteenth + umpteen timeth?)

  277. John Morales says

    Ah, might as well fill in the gaps. Bedtime soon.

    @324: @320, Nutter: “[mutter]”

    Quite evidently, my #322 failed to make any dent in the smooth brain.

    (phrenologists’ delight, is the man of the can — as close to a perfect sphere as can be)

  278. says

    JohnM @326,

    Heh. You: You found Parlato’s Wikipedia entry.

    Yes, and I even told you how I did it. Was very easy.
    There it says: “The Frank Report began publishing blogs and stories on Nov. 30, 2015”

    It logically follows (you’re Mr. Logic, no?) that the start of the millennium, as far as you are concerned, began on Nov. 30, 2015.

    The Wayback Machine has Frank Report caps from the early 200x’s. Perhaps he started calling it a blog in 2015 or your favorite source (Wiki) is not so reliable.

    So, your actual request was “Can you find any slime to stick to the people listed in the second of my links @14” and my retort to which you are ostensibly responding was “Tell ya what; provide an enumeration of those people, and I’ll consider your request.”

    From the Parlato link:
    Frederick Crews
    Ralph Cipriano
    John Snedden
    Chris Barden
    Mark Pendergrast
    Rev. Joseph Stains
    John Ziegler

    I’ll throw in a few more:
    Elizabeth Loftus
    Carol Tavris
    Malcolm Gladwell

    And to give you a head start, Mark Pendergrast, who has written extensively about repressed memory, had his daughter accuse him of abuse based on repressed memory.

  279. John Morales says

    Excellent response, canman. I like it.

    The Wayback Machine has Frank Report caps from the early 200x’s.

    Does it? Citation, please. After all, it’s your claim — burden of proof and all that.

    From the Parlato link:
    Frederick Crews
    Ralph Cipriano
    John Snedden
    Chris Barden
    Mark Pendergrast
    Rev. Joseph Stains
    John Ziegler

    I’ll throw in a few more:
    Elizabeth Loftus
    Carol Tavris
    Malcolm Gladwell

    Again: good work!

    So, I’ve now considered your request, as I promised, and decided to decline it.
    Tough shit, mate.

    Looks like you will have to find any slime without my aid.

    And to give you a head start, Mark Pendergrast, who has written extensively about repressed memory, had his daughter accuse him of abuse based on repressed memory.

    Head start to what? Already told you, I’ve declined your request to try to find slime for you.

    Now…

    More to the point, this little bit of banter began with me writing
    “Quick question: does he enumerate each and every one of what you term “victims” and show that they made millions? With citations?” after you wrote “Have any of his “victims” not made millions?”

    So. Get this straight, Mr. Logic: you are there asking whether any of his “victims” (not victims) did not made millions. You, essentially, are insinuating that every single “victim” (you think there were zero victims, that much is clear) made millions.

    Prove it.

  280. Brad Keyes says

    Perhaps a reminder:

    The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other “scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports”, with a personalized certificate “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”…

    Perhaps a reminder: Michael Mann went on to claim he was a recipient of the Nobel Prize. Why you would repeatedly give me the chance to mention one of your idol’s more embarrassing lies, I don’t know. He was crucified over this repeated fib in court, but of course you don’t know that.

  281. Brad Keyes says

    John Morales:
    (devout about what, I’d ask, except you’re like the quiet bubulum: run, run away when I confront)
    You’re a climate believalist. I thought this was self-explanatory. And SilentBob probably just has a life, John. I wouldn’t hold his lack of replies to your obsessive, excessive thread-bombing against HIM. Unfortunately for you, I’m not busy this week and can occasionally respond to you.

  282. Rob Grigjanis says

    Brad Keyes @325:

    how do you tell when Muller was lying and when he was telling the truth? Simple, you just put the bit you want to believe in bold.

    I didn’t bold it. StevoR did. This whole business of “who said what and what did they mean?” gets complicated, eh?

    @329:

    Muller parsed the sentence according to the rules of our language, which state that a sentence of the form:

    I’ve just used A’s B trick of doing X and Y to do Z

    Hm, I don’t think we’re using the same language. Anyone but an obsessive with a weird agenda would parse Jones’ sentence as involving Mike’s trick from 1981 onwards, and Keith’s trick (re tree ring data) from 1961 onwards. The possessive apostrophes (Mike’s, then Keith’s) make that clear. And they are very different tricks. How does ‘adding in the real temps’ (Mike’s trick) hide the decline? Tree ring proxies are unreliable after 1960. They give a (demonstrably) spurious decline. That’s Keith’s trick.

  283. says

    Is that a threat, Brad Keyes? Because I see that as a threat that you’re going to continue to be repetitive and tedious for a week, and I’m bored now. You and canman are probably going to be banned soon.

  284. Rob Grigjanis says

    Brad Keyes @338: You’re obviously not a regular reader here. Before his recent, all-too-brief period of actually living up to his nym, SilentBob obsessively pestered John at every turn, utterly oblivious to the irony of calling John a troll. One had hoped he had actually found a life, but it seems not.

  285. Brad Keyes says

    PZ:
    Is that a threat, Brad Keyes? Because I see that as a threat that you’re going to continue to be repetitive and tedious for a week
    Rest assured, I have no intention of mirroring John’s worst qualities. I’ve read my Nietzsche and am well aware of the danger of staring into the abyss.

  286. Brad Keyes says

    Rob Grigjanis @341: yep, you’ve got me correctly pegged. In fact I doubt I’ve ever been here before. Thanks for filling me in on the local characters. Cheers!

  287. Brad Keyes says

    Rob Grigjanis:

    I didn’t bold it. StevoR did. This whole business of “who said what and what did they mean?” gets complicated, eh?

    I was well aware you hadn’t done it, but I’ll try to be clear about that in future.

    As for Phil’s sentence, I think you’re allowing your knowledge of whose trick is what to color your parsing of the sentence. The problem is not that we’re reading different languages, it’s that he didn’t write it in English, not really. There’s too many concepts left dangling. As a challenge, rephrase it the way you think he would have put it if he were competent in technical writing, doing only as much violence as necessary to the original words and word order. I’m curious to know how the sentence looks to you. Thanks for disagreeing with me substantively, it’s a refreshing change. Cheers.

  288. Brad Keyes says

    Rob, I see now why you thought I was accusing you (2nd person singular) of self-comforting by typography. But when I used you I was using the you of “one.”

  289. Brad Keyes says

    It’s an informal email between colleagues, Brad, not a fucking paper.

    You mean it’s a work email.

    When I write a work email I write it unambiguously, with correct punctuation, syntax and spelling. Don’t you?

    Regardless, once it was released to the public, all they had to do was say “this sentence was badly punctuated or constructed and it should have said XYZ.”

    Instead they made a strawman out of the word “trick” and then pretended “hide” meant… er… something. It wasn’t clear.

    Meanwhile we who speak English know exactly what that verb means, and that it’s incompatible with the profession of science—the only question being who was and wasn’t complicit in the concealment.

  290. fal1 says

    well thats a couple of hours i’m never getting back. train journey flew by. wth did i just read 300 posts of…

  291. John Morales says

    Brad:

    You’re a climate believalist.

    Fine, if that’s what you want to call not denying the reality of climate science, I’m that.

    I wouldn’t hold his lack of replies to your obsessive, excessive thread-bombing against HIM.

    He’s not an “invader”, Brad. You’re the special one.

    Rest assured, I have no intention of mirroring John’s worst qualities.

    This is my anti-troll mode, gnome. As you sow, so shall you reap.
    Remember how I told you quite early on “Just remember, you came here, I did not come to you.”? :)

    Meanwhile we who speak English know exactly what that verb means, and that it’s incompatible with the profession of science—the only question being who was and wasn’t complicit in the concealment.

    Again, only you obsessive climate denialists go on about that, because it’s all you’ve got.
    Because you’re quite clearly a conspiracy theorist.

    See, this is what you do. You harp on ad nauseam about your claim, you pretend to misunderstand stuff, but the moment you’re challenged, it’s “look over there at the birdie!” type of thing.

    For example, do you still maintain I claimed that the jurors scientifically vindicated Mann? :)
    (or you know, naming one (1) scientific institution that has a problem with Mann, as another example)

    The headline truly says it all:
    Scientist sues conspiracy theorists…and wins!

    (But hey, their lawyers are making noises about appealing, so there’s that little straw to which you can still cling about that aspect — see my #287)

  292. John Morales says

    PS
    Unfortunately for you, I’m not busy this week and can occasionally respond to you.

    How can you still imagine that’d be somehow unfortunate for me?

    I could not have been any more unambiguous or more explicit regarding how I feel about interacting with you. It’s not like there’s a dearth of evidence that I very much mean it when I say I enjoy it greatly, and that it makes me feel virtuous. Talk about living in fantasy-land!

  293. Rob Grigjanis says

    Brad @344:

    I think you’re allowing your knowledge of whose trick is what to color your parsing of the sentence.

    Yes, I’m allowing my knowledge to colour my parsing. That’s what reasonable people do. You’re implying that you don’t allow your knowledge to colour your parsing. That’s become clear.

  294. Jim Balter says

    Geez, is this still going on? Fun is fun, but surely the invaders have overstayed.

    Meanwhile we who speak English know exactly what that verb means, and that it’s incompatible with the profession of science—the only question being who was and wasn’t complicit in the concealment.

    Brad is an English Lit major with no technical background or understanding, which partially explains why the worthless shitstain on humanity has been pushing this same idiotic talking point for 15 years despite numerous refutations over that span, e.g.,
    https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4601 which lays it out pretty clearly. There’s also the realclimate thread that canman referenced earlier, the one where Judith Curry destroyed her career as a scientist: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

    Muller parsed the sentence according to the rules of our language, which state that a sentence of the form:
    I’ve just used A’s B trick of doing X and Y to do Z
    logically entails that the function of A’s B trick (which involved doing X and Y) was to do Z

    What a fucking cretin. Despite being an English Lit major Brad does not understand the English language, or pretends not to.
    I’ve used Tom Duff’s trick of doing loop unrolling in C by combining a switch statement with a do loop to calculate hash codes for strings … but the function of Duff’s trick was not to calculate hash codes. He used the trick to transfer data from main memory to a display device.

    If you want to argue that Mike’s Nature trick was originally designed for good, not evil—science, not deception—and that Jones was misusing it, you can do so.

    The only one who is evil and deceptive here is Brad Keyes, as that Skeptoid piece makes clear.

    And his comments about silentbob vs. JM and accusing JM of “thread bombing” is hilarious … does Brad now think this is his blog? The owner of the thread has threatened to ban invader Brad and explicitly supported JM’s use of Brad as a chew toy. Brad sides with the troll silentbob who idiotically calls JM a troll because Brad has no scruples; he’s a sophist as bad as any of the Creationist trolls who have appeared here.

    Speaking of religion … I’m a “believalist” in heliocentrism, evolution, germ theory, cell theory, 1+1 = 2, and that Booth shot Lincoln. What sort of dishonest imbecile would therefore call me “devout”? The kind Brad is, of course.

  295. Brad Keyes says

    I’ve used Tom Duff’s trick of doing loop unrolling in C by combining a switch statement with a do loop to calculate hash codes for strings … but the function of Duff’s trick was not to calculate hash codes.

    Yes it was. By definition. If that’s how it functioned when you used it, that’s what its function was.

    Whether Duff intended it to have that function is another question. It may or may not have been his purpose in inventing the trick.

    But for fifteen years and counting, Mann has been blamed for the misuse of his trick even though his trick didn’t even have the function of hiding the decline, and it’s all because Jones couldn’t be arsed to write properly:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards), and I’ve also added them from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

    See how easy it is to explain why Mann is innocent of hiding the decline? All you have to do is admit that a climate scientist, Phil Jones, can’t write English good.

    The fact that his colleagues probably knew what he meant isn’t enough to salvage a passing grade. You’re not supposed to write just well enough to be comprehended. You’re supposed to exceed that standard. You’re supposed to write properly. One of the many advantages of doing so is that in fifteen years’ time you’ll still understand what you meant.

    But if they knew what Jones meant, why didn’t a single recipient of the email object to his concealment of the decline? Did none of them understand basic Feynmanian standards of honesty?

  296. Brad Keyes says

    PZ,
    Fuck off Brad.

    LOL. Without me you’d still be embarrassing yourself by demanding legal expenses for Mann. Heck, you’d probably donate so that he doesn’t have to sell his second house to pay off his ruinous attorneys’ fees.

    And this thread would be as anemic as the others on your blog.

    Face it, PZ. You need me.

  297. Brad Keyes says

    Balter:

    I’m a “believalist” in heliocentrism

    Meh. I prefer the fringe new idea that the Sun and all the planets in our solar system orbit the same focus, their common barycentre, which is sometimes—but not always—located within the Sun’s surface.

  298. Rob Grigjanis says

    Brad @356:

    the Sun and all the planets in our solar system orbit the same focus, their common barycentre, which is sometimes—but not always—located within the Sun’s surface.

    This is just useless pedantry. The focus is never much more than about two solar radii from the sun’s centre. Mercury is never closer to the sun’s centre than about 65 solar radii. You think you’re being clever. You’re not.

  299. Rob Grigjanis says

    @354:

    why didn’t a single recipient of the email object to his concealment of the decline?

    Because they knew he wasn’t concealing anything. The utterly inexcusable dishonesty is on your side, which includes intellectual leading lights like Jim Inhofe and Sarah Palin. You’re in good company!

  300. John Morales says

    Ah, gnome has nothing new to say, but still bravely tries to puff its underpants from its shit-stained nose, with a mighty huffing and puffing and snuffling. The sad spectacle that presents itself is quite entertaining for me, but I do like slapstick. Flappity-flap go the underpants, floppity-flop go its feet as it tries to moondance away from its previous mistaken caperings.

    So. How fortunate for me! I can play with it (using a poking-stick, of course — that shit is nasty stuff!).
    Today is a good day.

    Yes it was. By definition. If that’s how it functioned when you used it, that’s what its function was.

    You very clearly imagined the that the purpose was the trick, then Jim revealed it’s a technique, and so you’re now trying to do a semantic switch and pretend you knew that all along.
    Alas for you, everyone can read what you initially wrote.

    See how easy it is to explain why Mann is innocent of hiding the decline? All you have to do is admit that a climate scientist, Phil Jones, can’t write English good.

    Ah, the robotic repetition of points long ago refuted.
    The explanation is, of course, that there was never any guilt there and people misunderstood what was being done.

    GOTO 121

    LOL. Without me you’d still be embarrassing yourself by demanding legal expenses for Mann.

    Making shit up is stupid; everyone can read what PZ wrote, and he made no such demand.
    Without me, of course, you’d still think you had some aptitude at linguistic precision and logic and that you could hold your own in a disputation.

    I prefer the fringe new idea that the Sun and all the planets in our solar system orbit the same focus

    Your doltishness is there for anyone to see; quite obviously, ‘heliocentrism’ here is used as a contrast to ‘geocentrism’, that is, whether the Earth orbits the Sun or the Sun orbits the Earth.

    Heh.

    Now, this is what you yourself call a believalist, Brad the shit-nosed:
    When have I disputed, questioned, expressed doubt about, repudiated, gainsaid, dissented from, disagreed with, challenged, contested, opposed, negated, controverted, confuted, rejected, dismissed, demurred against, contradicted, objected to, taken issue with, disbelieved or (more archaically) misdoubted the scientific idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a significant reason why the Earth is warmer than it otherwise would be?

    heh heh heh… “more archaically”!

  301. Brad Keyes says

    Rob, you earned a glorified Comic Sans blockquote for this one:

    Because they knew he wasn’t concealing anything.

    So they thought he was lying when he admitted hiding the decline?

    If you can point out The Decline on Phil Jones’ graph—the one he’s just completed making when he writes that email—I’ll be the first to admit he didn’t really hide it and was just telling pork pies. Good luck!

    Given that you’re a decline-hiding-denier, why do you even care whether Mann is blamed for a crime nobody committed? After all, you think the decline is clearly visible in the WMO presentation. It must be one of those Magic Eye things, because I’ve stared at it for hours and I can’t make it out.

  302. John Morales says

    Gnomish eructions are quite stinky.

    So they thought he was lying when he admitted hiding the decline?

    Such an idiotic attempt at trying to misrepresent plain English.

    GOTO 111

    Given that you’re a decline-hiding-denier, why do you even care whether Mann is blamed for a crime nobody committed?

    <snicker>

    The only one who cares about your imaginary “crime” is you, and only hardcore idiots would try to maintain the ostensible belief that there is any blame attached to scientific work that has been examined and was vindicated well over a decade ago now.

    Are you aware of how many times now I’ve asked you whether you care to try to name but one (1) scientific institution that has a problem with Mann? Anywhere in the world.

    Ah well, persistent pretend stupidity in the face of its ineluctable failure is truly a sign of actual idiocy.

    That you imagine you’re somehow perhaps fooling anyone is kinda cute, but quite pathetic, Brad.

    Also, your cowardice is most evident, since you so obviously ignore any challenge regarding your lies.

    For example, do you still maintain I claimed that the jurors scientifically vindicated Mann? :)

    Heh heh heh

  303. John Morales says

    A dose of reality:

    Press release, Feb 15, 2024
    https://pennrecord.com/stories/654726322-cozen-o-connor-secures-victory-for-climate-change-scientist-dr-michael-mann-in-decade-long-defamation-case-jury-awards-over-1-million-in-punitive-damages

    Cozen O’Connor secured a decisive victory for a prominent climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann, in a long-running defamation claim against an adjunct scholar with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and a TV/radio personality who wrote for the National Review. Following a four-week jury trial, Dr. Mann was awarded over $1 million in punitive damages by a jury in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
    […]
    Dr. Mann, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and currently a Presidential Distinguished Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, was a lead author along with Dr. Raymond Bradley and Dr. Malcolm Hughes of groundbreaking research in 1998 and 1999 that demonstrated a sharp increase in global temperatures linked to increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Dr. Mann’s research reconstructed historical temperatures over the past 1,000 years using natural temperature archives. That temperature reconstruction is represented on a graph shaped like a hockey stick lying on its side with the blade pointing upward. The graph, which came to be known as the “Hockey Stick” graph, was prominently featured by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2001 report.

    Dr. Mann filed his defamation suit in 2012 after Rand Simberg writing for CEI and Mark Steyn writing for National Review published articles comparing Dr. Mann to the convicted child molester and former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky. The articles asserted that Dr. Mann had falsified his Hockey Stick research and called Dr. Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” who “molested and tortured data” and committed “scientific and academic misconduct.”

    Under the Supreme Court’s New York Times v. Sullivan standard, Dr. Mann was required to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants published their writings with “actual malice,” a heavy burden under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The trial team showed that the defendants either knew or recklessly disregarded multiple investigations clearing Dr. Mann of misconduct in the wake of the 2009 Climategate controversy involving stolen emails from a research unit in the United Kingdom. Two of those investigations were key pieces of evidence in the case: one completed by Pennsylvania State University (where Dr. Mann was a professor for 17 years) and a second by the National Science Foundation, which funded the research.

    (My emphasis)

  304. John Morales says

    Again:
    The trial team showed that the defendants either knew or recklessly disregarded multiple investigations clearing Dr. Mann of misconduct in the wake of the 2009 Climategate controversy involving stolen emails from a research unit in the United Kingdom.

  305. John Morales says

    Heh. Reality must suck for such as the stinky gnome.

    Another poke:
    https://mashable.com/article/climate-change-science-bet

    This scientist keeps winning money from people who bet against climate change
    “It’s like taking candy from a baby.”
    By Mark Kaufman on October 19, 2018

    Most recently, Annan won $10,000 from two solar physicists at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Russia — Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev — on a wager agreed upon 10 years ago.

    But now that the results have come in (showing that 2012-2017 was warmer than 1998-2003), his fellow gamblers won’t pay up.

    “I was pretty confident in winning,” Annan said in an interview. “Now, they’re refusing to reply — I’m a little disappointed.”

    “They had 10 years to save up,” he added.

    Ah well.

  306. John Morales says

    Heh. Citations, of course.

    The original bet: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/aug/19/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment

    Russian pair challenge UK expert over global warming

    Two climate change sceptics, who believe the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade.

    The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.

    […]

    Dr Annan, who works on the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer, in Yokohama, said: “There isn’t much money in climate science and I’m still looking for that gold watch at retirement. A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension.”

    To decide who wins the bet, the scientists have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature recorded by a US climate centre between 1998 and 2003, with temperatures they will record between 2012 and 2017.

    If the temperature drops Dr Annan will stump up the $10,000 (now equivalent to about £5,800) in 2018. If the Earth continues to warm, the money will go the other way.

    The bet is the latest in an increasingly popular field of scientific wagers, and comes after a string of climate change sceptics have refused challenges to back their controversial ideas with cash.

    Well, duh. Can’t trust them to pay up, obviously, any more than I can trust Brad to try to respond when challenged by me.

    <poke, poke>

    Hey, gnomish one, your own precise language indicates you believe that ‘challenged’ is an archaism, no?

    (Gotta love cowards’ cowardice)

  307. John Morales says

    Q: What’s the difference between a climate change denialist and a flat-earther?
    A: Flat-earthers have been around longer.

    Heh heh heh

  308. John Morales says

    Quoth the coward gnome, all puffed-up with braggadocio:

    John Morales: [irrelevant stupidity elided]
    Unfortunately for you, I’m not busy this week and can occasionally respond to you.

    Heh heh heh.

    I can see that, and so can everyone. Even the canman can. :)

    (You’re half right about your wit, at least)

  309. Rob Grigjanis says

    Brad @360:

    So they thought he was lying when he admitted hiding the decline?

    I sort of understand. You’ve been doing this schtick for so long, it must be really difficult to admit it was all for nought.

    We went through this earlier. The decline is spurious. ‘hide the decline’ means precisely this; exclude tree-ring data which gives demonstrably wrong temperature values. Demonstrably wrong because we have actual temperature measurements for the period in question: 1960 onwards.

    Of course, now you will go back to the ‘Phil Jones can’t write good English’ schtick. Sad, really. You could have spent all this time so much better; learning French, or calculus.

    If you can point out The Decline on Phil Jones’ graph—the one he’s just completed making when he writes that email—I’ll be the first to admit he didn’t really hide it and was just telling pork pies. Good luck!

    Muller shows the spurious post-1960 decline in the talk you linked to way upthread. Didn’t you notice?

  310. says

    These are still wonderful climate-denier sour grapes. Not only do they lose the court case and look like political child molester enablers, but they’ve all this pointless displacement about Mann when the climate science has progressed past him.

  311. StevoR says

    Since this is still going and before you are very likely banned Brad Keyes priobly for being a tedious bore who doesn’t listen or heed warnings – & Canman too ( which reminds me of the little town and geological formation of Kanmantoo FWIW : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanmantoo,_South_Australia ) is there any chance you’ll actually answer the questions I asked back at #297? :

    .1 Do you accept and admit the fact that Muller himserlf has admitted he was a “skeptic” but has since said “CALL me a converted skeptic” now?

    .2 Do you think maybe its time you got over a few comments Muller said – before he learnt better – in a (probly?) two decades old talk posted by some rando youtube Science Denier named 1000frolly PhD and accepted that you got this very wrong in all sorts of ways?

    .3. Here we are well over a hundred comments later, you’ve been shown to be wrong about pretty much everything, doesn’t that make you stop and reconsider your views at all? Does evidence have any impact on your thought processes at all?

    .4 You know how many records have been broken lately climate-wise incl of course hottest year ever last year? Why is raising the alarm wrong when there’s good scientific reasons to do so? In light of that and what we’ve since learnt will you reconsider your views here and if not why not?

    .5 As I asked back in #103 What would make you accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here?

  312. StevoR says

    PS. Literally victime blaming the victims of a known convicted pedophile and wanting him released despite the lack of sufficient evidence to warrant reconsidering his case? That’s just gross dude. Also why?

  313. Brad Keyes says

    StevoR:

    “Literally victime blaming”

    Who’s doing that? Canman raises legitimate questions about whether the alleged victims WERE victims.

    Believe all victims, but don’t necessarily believe all claimed victims is my philosophy—especially when the very same people previously claimed they weren’t victims.

    incl of course hottest year ever last year?

    I’d hardly say that’s a matter “of course.” What do you mean “ever”? Do you mean it was the hottest year in the very brief thermometric era? That wouldn’t surprise me. After all, the globe is warming.

    Was it the worst year ever, by the way? Does warmth equal badness in some way yet to be explained?

    .1 Do you accept and admit the fact that Muller himserlf has admitted he was a “skeptic” but has since said “CALL me a converted skeptic” now?

    Admitted he was a climate skeptic? Don’t you mean claimed he’d been a climate skeptic?

    Yes, I do accept and admit that Muller has naughtily pretended to have been a climate skeptic at one point, a conceit that achieved the aim of free publicity for him, but the falsity of which he soon admitted when he said, “I was never a skeptic.”

    And he never was. No climate skeptic would ever have said what Muller said in an interview with Grist:

    The important thing is not getting Al Gore out of his jet plane; the important thing is solving the world’s problem. What we really need are policies around the world that address the problem, not feel-good measures. If [Al Gore] reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion — which he does, but he’s very effective at it — then let him fly any plane he wants.

    He said this in 2008, before the Climategate emails caused him to catch ethics when it came to Hide the Decline.

    Do you admit and accept that his own words prove he was never a climate skeptic? Or do you intend to assert with a straight face that a climate skeptic could have expressed the above quoted views to Grist? Because I can mock that all day, but i suspect PZ doesn’t need such nonsense on his blog.

    Do you think maybe its time you got over a few comments Muller said – before he learnt better – in a (probly?) two decades old talk posted by some rando youtube Science Denier named 1000frolly PhD and accepted that you got this very wrong in all sorts of ways?

    What Muller said in the YouTube clip is absolutely true in an a priori way and is not subject to revision by subsequent “learning better,” because it goes straight to the heart of scientific ethics, which is why Muller has never retracted his criticisms of HTD. But it would be true even if he hadn’t said it. I’m just glad he did say it because it enrages and confuses believalists no end when a climate-convinced scientist repudiates the behaviour of Jones et amici.

    Why on earth would a science denier upload Muller’s lecture, when his remarks constitute a lambent affirmation of the ethics all scientists are sworn to uphold? Science deniers hate Muller’s criticisms of HTD.

    What would make you accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here?

    Merely waking up in the morning does the trick, I find. During REM sleep I can’t guarantee I accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here, but the rest of the time I generally tend to accept it. What about you? What are the sufficient conditions for your acceptance thereof? Don’t be shy about answering just because you’re not a scientist. I’m interested in your opinion all the same.

  314. John Morales says

    Heh. More bilious vomitus from the Underpants Gnome.

    Canman raises legitimate questions about whether the alleged victims WERE victims.

    No; you say that, but of course that’s absolute crap.
    I’d hardly say that’s a matter “of course.” What do you mean “ever”? Do you mean it was the hottest year in the very brief thermometric era? That wouldn’t surprise me. After all, the globe is warming.

    Which means there was never any decline to hide.

    And, of course, the rate of increase of the warming is increasing, leading to a “hockey stick” when graphed.

    As Mann showed back in the day, to be befuddlement of mathematically and scientifically-illiterate people such as you, Brad.

    Yes, I do accept and admit that Muller has naughtily pretended to have been a climate skeptic at one point, a conceit that achieved the aim of free publicity for him, but the falsity of which he soon admitted when he said, “I was never a skeptic.”

    Your idiocy is quite evident, because you keep trying to repeat your oft-refuted bullshit.

    GOTO 125

    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

    The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

    By Richard A. Muller

    July 28, 2012

    Berkeley, Calif.

    CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

    My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
    […]

    He said this in 2008, before the Climategate emails caused him to catch ethics when it came to Hide the Decline.

    Heh heh heh. GOTO 32

    Why on earth would a science denier upload Muller’s lecture, when his remarks constitute a lambent affirmation of the ethics all scientists are sworn to uphold?

    Because such as you try to fill the information space with your stinky effusions, obviously.
    Because you think he somehow proved some sort of nefarious intent by Mann, of course, so sometimes you praise him, other times you diss him.
    And so forth.

    Don’t be shy about answering just because you’re not a scientist.

    You, of course, imagine you know what constitutes scientific merit better than every single scientific institution in the entire world, and what constitutes legal merit better than the justice system.

    Pray, do tell: what scientific credentials do you bring to the table whereby you can (O so very transparently mendaciously) pretend you know better than anyone else?

    Not just a lying liar and a cowardly coward, you, but a most ridiculous one.
    Your corpus of infamy grows by the comment, you know.

    Heh. Remember #97?

    Quoth you:

    “Here is an indication (not the entirety) of what those “6 non-scientists plucked from the phonebook” achieved with their “vote”:
    [followed by a dazzling list of awards, medals and prizes]

    The jurors won all that? They enabled Mann to win all that? What, if anything, do you mean by “achieved”?!

    Not only have I explained what went on multiple times, but I have challenged you to either sustain that claim or admit you were entirely misrepresenting my claim, whether or not intentionally.

    (I mean, I know you’d do it intentionally if you could in a heartbeat, since lying and bullshit are second-nature to you, but I still think you just misapprehended it initially and of course your fragile ego can’t cope with admitting to your feeble intellectual status)

  315. Brad Keyes says

    Rob G,

    We went through this earlier. The decline is spurious.

    Spurious or not, it was sufficiently existent to require either concealing or admitting.

    ‘hide the decline’ means precisely this; exclude tree-ring data which gives demonstrably wrong temperature values. Demonstrably wrong because we have actual temperature measurements for the period in question: 1960 onwards.

    Exactly. It means hide the problem with your tree-ring-to-temperature mapping.

    Which is a no-no, as you’d be aware if you were a scientist. There is no excuse for concealing the problems in your model. Phil Jones would never have done so if he were an honest scientist, and everyone CC’ed into his email would have advised him against doing so (or, if he refused be reasoned with, would have reported him to his superiors) if they were honest scientists.

    I’m using the past subjunctive of counterfactuality, obviously.

    Of course, now you will go back to the ‘Phil Jones can’t write good English’ schtick. Sad, really. You could have spent all this time so much better; learning French, or calculus.

    I’m flattered that you think I could have “learned” either of those subjects, to the extent that I haven’t already, in the few minutes I’ve spent explaining to you the consequences of Jones’ inability to string a sentence together.

    Muller shows the spurious post-1960 decline in the talk you linked to way upthread. Didn’t you notice?

    Sigh. It wasn’t in Jones’s WMO graph, was it? Or did you get confused and think Jones had prepared some sort of GIF that alternated between the honest and the dishonest versions?

    He didn’t. He only showed the decline-hiding version.

    “This is the data as any Berkeley scientist would have presented it,” is what Muller says when he shows the graph Jones SHOULD have presented to the WMO. Perhaps Muller should have made himself so clear that even random people not in attendance at his lecture could follow what he was doing via YouTube. Not to worry, I got his point and am happy to explain it, and any other aspect of the lecture that confused you.

  316. John Morales says

    Ah, well. PRATTs are all the gnome has. Nothing new.

    Still.
    “This is the data as any Berkeley scientist would have presented it,” is what Muller says when he shows the graph Jones SHOULD have presented to the WMO.

    Gotta love how Brad alternates between claiming Muller is a liar who contradicts himself and claiming Muller is authoritative about the claim he made over a decade ago which has been well and truly shown to be mistaken.

    (I suppose the idiots over at the denialist sites lap that vomit up, clueless as they are)

  317. John Morales says

    Yeah, thought as much. Only phatic, repetitive squeakings remain. You are broken, Brad the Gnome.

    So, Brad, care to try to articulate your intended purpose in continuing to come here and post the very same refuted claims ad nauseam? Obviously, I will mock and ridicule and expose your feeble flailings, and obviously I will outlast you.

    I mean, all you’ve got is your inchoate and unsustainable (and counter-evidential) claim that Mann somehow cheated based on a claim Muller made a very long time ago. Muller, who you have right here on this thread claimed is a liar, and who contradicts himself, somehow is only credible in about the one claim he has specifically repudiated (see link above) as far as you are concerned.

    Do you even get how grotesque it is to claim both that Muller is an exemplar of scientific integrity whilst simultaneously holding that he lied when he explicitly repudiated his own mistake and conceded that, having done the same sort of study for himself, the results matched and that the rate of increase was correct etc?

    (A more perfect example of supposed doublethink would be harder to find)

    Anyway, it’s quite obvious by now that you are either a masochist who likes to expose themself to ridicule and mockery, or that you truly are such a feeble intellect that you think you’re somehow cogently disputing the scientific community’s consensus or the recent legal judgement in Mann’s favour.

    Me, I think it’s a bit of both; after all, there aren’t many people like me who both have the time to invest in hammering such a fool as you or the expertise to run rings around you in what you (doubtless fondly) imagine is your domain of expertise.

    (Heh heh heh)

  318. John Morales says

    [and for whom it is quite the fun activity; but I mentioned that several times already]

  319. John Morales says

    “There once was a gnome, quite a sight,
    With underpants worn not quite right.
    On his head they did sit,
    In a fashion quite fit,
    Causing laughter from morning till night!”

  320. Brad Keyes says

    John,

    sigh. As Muller told the Huffington Post in 2011, “I was never a [climate] skeptic.

    Either he was lying then, or he was lying (by implication) when he said “call me a converted skeptic” to the New York Times in 2012. And no, you can’t square this circle by supposing that he only became a skeptic after his statement to HuffPo, because in the NYT piece he claims it happened “three years ago,” i.e. in 2009.

    I’ve never said he was authoritative. I’ve repeatedly pointed out that he’s a little bit dodgy, a little bit werrr, a little bit weeey, he’ll nick anything he will. But even he has some standards. And Hiding the Decline is beyond the pale even for Muller.

    That’s why mentioning his video in these parts is like throwing a smilodon amongst the pigeons.

    Scientists don’t hide things.

    That gnomic enough for you?

  321. John Morales says

    No, Brad Lad, not even slightly gnomic.

    Tired, repetitive, facile, weak, yes.

    GOTO 111

    (“There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe.”)

  322. John Morales says

    That’s why mentioning his video in these parts is like throwing a smilodon amongst the pigeons.

    <snicker>

    I have rarely come across such a weak and meritless attempted metaphor.

    (More like throwing a coprolite — just as shitty, just as fossilised)

    Again:
    The trial team showed that the defendants either knew or recklessly disregarded multiple investigations clearing Dr. Mann of misconduct in the wake of the 2009 Climategate controversy involving stolen emails from a research unit in the United Kingdom.

    GOTO 29

    So, Brad, once again: care to try to articulate your intended purpose in continuing to come here and post the very same refuted claims ad nauseam?

    Got anything new to say, anything at all that has not been repeatedly refuted already?

  323. John Morales says

    Heh.

    If only they’d shown that video in the courtroom, surely Dr. Mann would not have prevailed, right Brad?

    So.
    Are you aware of how many times now I’ve asked you whether you care to try to name but one (1) scientific institution that has a problem with Mann? Anywhere in the world.

    (One more than the last time, obviously :)

  324. Silentbob says

    I remember once a troll – “Morales” was his hailing,
    Always trying to be clever,
    And invariably failing.

    Once when mocked in verse,
    He cried, “A sonnet in my name”!
    Then pathetically tried (and botched),
    To do the very same.

    For while the original mocked behaviour,
    Exactly as was said,
    This fool invents some fantasy,
    Of underpants on head.

    Sad child has yet to learn,
    That though I hit him in the feels,
    He’ll not equal the same,
    With concoctions lacking reals.

  325. says

    So, Brad, where’s this “decline” you keep on accusing a mere handful of climate scientists of “hiding?” Has global warming gone into reverse?

    Even if anyone “hid a decline” over ten years ago, it’s pretty obvious there hasn’t been any significant “decline” since then; which makes your obsessive harping on that one old fake-scandal all the more pathetic.

    Global warming is happening, and it’s bad for all of us. The climate scientists have proven spot-on about that, and all you so-called “skeptics” have been proven dead wrong. Your obsessive escapist axe-grinding doesn’t change any of that. Grow the fuck up and move the fuck on.

  326. StevoR says

    @372. Brad Keyes : Why, what a lot of waffling words and nit-picking to basically say, no you won’t ever reconsider your erroneous opinions despite being proven wrong by the scientifically observed empirical evidence!

    “incl of course hottest year ever last year?” – StevoR

    I’d hardly say that’s a matter “of course.” What do you mean “ever”? Do you mean it was the hottest year in the very brief thermometric era? That wouldn’t surprise me. After all, the globe is warming.

    I mena the hottest we’ve recorded in our histpory and actually for many thousands of years -and part of a consistent rising trend.

    t’s official: 2023 was the planet’s warmest year on record, according to an analysis by scientists from NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).

    Along with the historic heat, Antarctic sea ice coverage dropped to a record low in 2023.

    “After seeing the 2023 climate analysis, I have to pause and say that the findings are astounding,” said NOAA Chief Scientist Dr. Sarah Kapnick. “Not only was 2023 the warmest year in NOAA’s 174-year climate record — it was the warmest by far. A warming planet means we need to be prepared for the impacts of climate change that are happening here and now, like extreme weather events that become both more frequent and severe.

    Source : https://www.noaa.gov/news/2023-was-worlds-warmest-year-on-record-by-far

    Plus see :

    Global temperatures reached exceptionally high levels in 2023. The Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), implemented by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts on behalf of the European Commission with funding from the EU, monitored several key climate indicators throughout the year, reporting on record-breaking conditions such as the hottest month on record and daily global temperature averages briefly surpassing pre-industrial levels by more than 2°C. Unprecedented global temperatures from June onwards led 2023 to become the warmest year on record – overtaking by a large margin 2016, the previous warmest year. The 2023 Global Climate Highlights report based mainly on the ERA5 reanalysis dataset presents a general summary of 2023’s most relevant climate extremes and the main drivers behind them, such as greenhouse gas concentrations, El Niño and other natural variations.

    Source : https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-record

    In addition to :

    The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has officially confirmed that 2023 is the warmest year on record, by a huge margin.

    Source : https://wmo.int/media/news/wmo-confirms-2023-smashes-global-temperature-record

    Alll a bit more relevant, recent and significant than one or two cherry-picked statements that one now long since converted scientist said decades ago posted on youtube by some rando klown huh?

  327. StevoR says

    @372. Brad Keyes :

    StevoR: “Literally victime blaming”

    Who’s doing that? Canman raises legitimate questions about whether the alleged victims WERE victims.

    Believe all victims, but don’t necessarily believe all claimed victims is my philosophy—especially when the very same people previously claimed they weren’t victims.

    A court found that the victims were believable. There’s no good evidence otherwise. I disagree strongly that there’s any “legitimate” reasons to doubt them here – just the usual tired, yes, victim-blaming and casting aspersions.

    Over the course of the trial that lasted eight days, jurors heard from eight witnesses who testified that Sandusky sexually abused them.[73] Jurors also heard testimony about assaults committed against two other victims who were never identified.[73] Of the eight males who gave testimony, each explained that they met Sandusky through The Second Mile organization; their individual accounts spanned from the mid-1990s until 2009.[74][75] The witnesses testified to similar stories of being abused in the football locker room showers or in the basement of Sandusky’s home. … On June 21, 2012, after the case had gone to the jury, Matt Sandusky, one of Sandusky’s six adopted children, stated through his attorney that he was also a victim of the former coach’s sexual abuse. He had been ready to testify for the prosecution, but did not do so

    Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky#Trial

    There’s far more than enough evidence and far too clear a pattern here proving Sandusky’s guilt. But then you don’t want to face that reality either now do you I wonder why and I find it disturbing.. Why this obsession of yours with supporting and arguing in favour of this particular pedophile convicted on multiple counts of child sex abuse? I don’t suppose you’ll surprise me with a good and actual answer here however.

  328. Brad Keyes says

    “If only they’d shown that video in the courtroom, surely Dr. Mann would not have prevailed, right Brad?”

    The Muller video? They did show it. The jury didn’t care. They’d already decided the defendants were liable during opening statements, when Michael Mann’s tobacco lawyer John B Williams (the same guy who got Joe Camel off on charges of advertising to minors) explained that Mark Steyn was a former Fox News host and collaborator of Tucker Carlson and Rush Limbaugh. DC juries, what can I say?

    Actually, the case was probably decided on October 27, 2014, the day Defendant’s motion for a change of location was denied. God bless venue shopping, libel tourism, lawyer’s fees and the American way.

  329. Brad Keyes says

    Raging Bee,

    So, Brad, where’s this “decline” you keep on accusing a mere handful of climate scientists of “hiding?” Has global warming gone into reverse?

    Serenity now. Serenity now.

    Listen:

    Nobody’s “accusing” Phil Jones of hiding the decline. He admitted it. In writing. To his work colleagues.
    It wasn’t a decline in temperatures that he concealed, it was a decline in the response to temperatures of MXD (maximum latewood density). Temperatures went up, but the dendro proxy signal went down. Because the dendro proxies were crap—a fact it was not convenient for Jones to admit.

  330. StevoR says

    @372. Brad Keyes : “Science deniers hate Muller’s criticisms of HTD.”

    You know you refute that by being the person posting and arguing it right? The HTD was a nothing burger, its been debunked, there’s no decline in temperatures being hidden (see #387 and all the relevant graphs you’re going to ignore..) and HTD was never anything more than a stupid semantic game of malevolent misconstrual for PR purposes.

    Everyone but you accepted that reality a long time ago. You know if its allthe scientists versus you maybe its time you accepted it was you? But you really think you know better -why? Because something Muller said otherwise – in a talk ages ago posted on a youtube clip by “1000frolly PhD” – you believ it, that settles it huh? Gospel?

    During REM sleep I can’t guarantee I accept the scientifically observed and quantified reality here, but the rest of the time I generally tend to accept it.

    Except you’ve already proven that’s false. LOL!

    What about you? What are the sufficient conditions for your acceptance thereof? Don’t be shy about answering just because you’re not a scientist. I’m interested in your opinion all the same.

    Evidence, lots of it from a variety of credible sources. Backed by sound logic and reasoning.

  331. StevoR says

    There was a Denier named Keyes
    Who from Climate reality flees
    The canman cannot
    Mann won so he’s hot
    And Brad’s dribble on the blogs he still pees

    (Okay, that’s a limerick but still.. )

  332. Rob Grigjanis says

    Brad @374:

    It means hide the problem with your tree-ring-to-temperature mapping.

    Right. Hide the problem which had been discussed in the literature for years. Hiding in plain sight! Those devious climatologists.

  333. Brad Keyes says

    Rob, nice try:

    Right. Hide the problem which had been discussed in the literature for years.

    I don’t really blame you for peddling these excuses, since the people you mistake for scientists regularly resort to them. But as any real scientist will tell you, you’re not allowed to draw a half-true graph just because the other half of the truth is revealed in some article somewhere.

    Real scientists have zero tolerance for such shenanigans.

    Jonathan Jones, Professor of Physics at Oxford University, is a real scientist and therefore believes in relation to Hide the Decline that:

    This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science. The significance of the divergence problem is immediately obvious, and seeking to hide it is quite simply wrong.
    ….
    The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an [ethical] error, have endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science. If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question.

    Even some climate scientists get it. Paul Dennis, a climate scientist at Phil Jones’ own university, wrote about the WMO graph that:

    The ‘hide the decline’ graph splices together the modern temperature record and a proxy temperature curve based very largely on tree ring data. But we have direct observation that tree rings don’t always respond as we might think to temperature, and thus shouldn’t be splicing the two together without a very large sign writ large which says ‘Caveat Emptor’. This is especially so when preparing material for NGOs, policymakers etc. This is what Bishop Hill argues is indefensible and I agree with him.

    ‘Climategate’ was nearly 12 years later.

    I hate to break it to you but the rules of science don’t change over time, Rob. Want to know what some other climate scientists think of Climategate?

    Dr Eduardo Zorita writes:

    Complete Statement of UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Eduardo Zorita on “ClimateGate”.

    CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.

    Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

    Professor Hans Von Storch:

    Another conclusion [from the CRU emails] could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC.

    But I’m sure you know better than climate scientists, right, Rob?

    ROFL

  334. Brad Keyes says

    Rob,

    I’m not sure how many scientists it would take to convince you that you can’t do that in science, but here’s a simple experiment for you:

    Ask PZ to state publicly that he’s fine with Hide the Decline and he’d do the same thing in biology, and if anyone complained that his graph was concealing a massive flaw in his model he’d just tell them they should have read some article somewhere, then they wouldn’t have been fooled

    Then keep your ears peeled for that rare species of cricket which exclusively lives inside tumbleweeds.

  335. Rob Grigjanis says

    But I’m sure you know better than climate scientists, right, Rob?

    Which climate scientists? The tiny minority who say things you approve of (or, like Muller, only occasionally say things you approve of)? But you know better than the vast majority of climate scientists, right Brad?

  336. says

    Can’t do what in science Brad? You didn’t specify. I can’t if your acting request for PZ has any relation to what it’s referring to.

    What decline? Not the global temperature average certainly. We’ve lots of data and melting icebergs and glaciers and…

    I see hand-wringing over tree ring data. No acknowledgement about how tree ring data can be faulty though. Layers of implications.

  337. says

    That J Jones quote did not specify which decline either or explain why. Maybe because they’d look silly acting outraged about problem tree ring data? Unless the quote is misused somehow that’s not impressive.

    As far as I’m concerned the purpose of citing an expert is because they have an explanation and not just an assertion.

  338. says

    Brony: It’s a game he lost a long time ago, but he’s still trying to brag about that one time he was able to pretend he was kinda sorta right about something.

    Sort of like Charlie Brown standing on the pitcher’s mound and reliving the memory of that time he threw a strike…

  339. says

    @Raging Bee
    I wonder what the hang up is? I’m not even sure when they were right about something. Global warming data isn’t my thing and I’m still reading but if tree rings got complicated in later decades it happened.

    Language manipulation and negative feelings about the word “hide” while equivocating over what objective “decline” in text is what I see. What rules of science?

  340. says

    StevoR @388, your source, Wikipedia, is not my thing, but there are people trying to get new information about the case in. They apparently have self appointed gatekeepers (like William Connolley used to do on climate). When you have a contested issue, one side can take over an entry. There’s mountains of information on all aspects of the case that are linked here:

    https://www.framingpaterno.com/

    Now that Frank Parlato has taken an interest in the case, about every third or forth post he’s done for the last month has been on it and he’s far from done:

    https://frankreport.com/

  341. John Morales says

    So, what’s my brekky reading today?
    Aawww… the caperings are exactly the same as always. Nothing new.

    “If only they’d shown that video in the courtroom, surely Dr. Mann would not have prevailed, right Brad?”

    The Muller video? They did show it. The jury didn’t care.

    That was actual sarcasm, Brad. A rhetorical question, thus functionally a statement.
    Tricky for you, I know… some of us don’t claim ‘sarcasm’ to try to backpedal from our lies. :)

    (Donald Trump does, of course, as do you)

    This thread could benefit from more of silentbob’s poetry.

    <snicker>

    That obsessive fool? Heh.
    Look at his link; I mocked him by calling something a sonnet and he bought it, then imagined my limerick was also an attempted sonnet. But hey, his doggerel ostensibly impressed you, no surprise there.

    (Logically, either you’re stupidly ignorant of the form, or you’re stupidly pretending to be)

    So, Brad, once again: care to try to articulate your intended purpose in continuing to come here and post the very same refuted claims ad nauseam?

    I reckon it’s stupid obstinacy and wishful thinking that persistently pestering will eventually lead people to ignore you, so you can salve your bruised ego by imagining you “won”. Pretty routine specimens, those.

    (Never ever works)

  342. John Morales says

    Rob didn’t bother, but I shall:

    Rob,

    I’m not sure how many scientists it would take to convince you that you can’t do that in science, but here’s a simple experiment for you:

    See, O gnomish one, Rob is actually a scientist (well, retired, but still), and he’s probably forgotten more about science that you, who lacks any knowledge or credentials at it, have or shall ever learn.

    (Also, you obviously have no idea of how an actual experiment is designed)

  343. John Morales says

    Ah, canman found time to kick the can:

    Find something like this on the other side:

    GOTO 59

    … Ah, who am I kidding? That will never happen.
    Here:

  344. John Morales says

    Gotta love how the cantman imagines adducing an 8-year old video from the eventual loser somehow proves something. But, to be fair, the video I adduced was from a winner instead of a loser and actually topical, so I failed to literally match his criteria.

    Ah well, dated references from proven losers, that’s evidently all such as the mancan have.

    You know, it’s so much better to be on the side of science and of justice and up-to-date than to be otherwise. Well, less stressful, surely, though perhaps not so special as being a flat-earther and a AGW-denier and a child-molester supporter. And boy oh boy, are you special in that way, man of the can.

  345. says

    They’re still defending convicted child molesters in a post involving the political use of child molestation. Multiple victims, in a nation with an established track record of not caring about sex abuse, and hiding abuse among sports authorities (among other similar authorities). I don’t believe it. Again, the thing to do is go to people who care about these things professionally, not a post where you can politically interfere.

  346. Brad Keyes says

    Rob:

    But you know better than the vast majority of climate scientists, right Brad?

    Er, no. What are you going on about? Perhaps you can tell us all what exactly I disagree with “the vast majority of climate scientists” about. I wasn’t aware that “the vast majority of climate scientists” was wrong about anything in particular.

    Brony:

    Can’t do what in science Brad?

    What Phil Jones did. Hide the decline. I thought that was self-explanatory.

    You didn’t specify.

    Hide the decline.

    I can’t if your acting request for PZ has any relation to what it’s referring to.

    It’s relevant to Phil Jones hiding the decline.

    What decline?

    The decline in MXD during a period when temperatures are doing the opposite (increasing; going up; rising; ascending an incline; tracking a positive gradient w.r.t. time; etc. etc.).

    Not the global temperature average certainly.

    Nothing gets past you, does it? THAT’S RIGHT. It’s not a decline in temperature that was hidden. I feel I’ve been explaining this for 15 years. Maybe it’ll sink in now.

    No acknowledgement about how tree ring data can be faulty though.

    I feel like whatever I say, no matter how slowly and monosyllabically I say it, you’ll think I’m saying the polar opposite. Listen, Brony. Listen carefully. The only person failing to acknowledge that tree ring data can be faulty is the person who CONCEALED this fact from his readers. Can you remember who that person was? I’ll give you a hint. He bragged about hiding it, in an email. His name rhymes with Jill Phones. No? Any ideas yet?

    Language manipulation and negative feelings about the word “hide”

    I’m the first to admit scientists do tend to feel negatively about colleagues who “hide” things. Maybe they should just accept the existence of corruption and get over it. Who knows.

    What rules of science?

    ROFL… OK, well that ought to be turned into a T-shirt and worn by all climate believalists to signify tribal membership. I’ve suggested this before, actually. I might start a GoFundMe and just donate the T-shirts to you folk whether you ask for them or not.

    Thing is, most people on your team know better than to blurt it out like that. What rules of science indeed! Start here and once you’ve grasped these ones, we can start talking about the deeper rules.

  347. John Morales says

    Repeat, repeat, repeat.
    Every single time the repeated claim is refuted, pull those stained underpants over the eyes.
    Repeat, repeat, repeat.
    Every single time the repeated claim is refuted, pull those stained underpants over the eyes.
    Repeat, repeat, repeat.
    Every single time the repeated claim is refuted, pull those stained underpants over the eyes.
    Repeat, repeat, repeat.
    Every single time the repeated claim is refuted, pull those stained underpants over the eyes.
    Repeat, repeat, repeat.

    Not much of a repertoire, gnome.

  348. says

    Brad, what kind of decline? I’m serious. MXD? Which one is that? I see a specific tree ring data set mentioned. That’s it. Nothing that connected that to anything else worth this intensity.

    What concealment?

    What corruption?

    You can turn your rhetorical science rule reference into your own shirt.

  349. says

    I’m not starting anywhere Brad. You can bring up the rule in question and describe a problem. You do your political work. I’ll criticize it. If you are right people will see it. It’s just not really worth it to you otherwise I guess.

  350. John Morales says

    Ah well. Here is a rather lengthy extract of a salient portion of the exceedingly clear and precise explanation by Brian Dunning that Brad desperately refuses to understand, as it would shoot down his one and only basis for his perverse and stupid (and very dated!) claims.

    Source: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4601 as adduced by Jim Balter @353

    — begin extract —

    Here’s what happened. Cutting straight to the chase, 99% of Climategate focused on one single email. It had been sent 10 years earlier, in November 1999, by Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, to five colleagues. It is six sentences long, but this one sentence is the culprit:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

    This has been interpreted as “I used a trick to hide declining temperatures.” If true, it would indeed be damning, not just to Phil Jones, but to climate science as a whole, given the who’s-who of climatology who were the email’s recipients. But is that a truthful analysis of the email? Does it really prove that climatologists knew that the Earth is cooling, and so invented tricks to deceptively portray the data to advance their warming agenda?

    To find out, let’s parse out this sentence that rocked the world. The email was discussing the author’s progress creating a temperature graph intended for the cover of a report made for the World Meteorological Organization. The graph covered the past 1000 years, overlaying three data sets showing the fluctuating global temperature anomaly within a range of about 1 degree. And, of course, it jumps up sharply in the latest 50 years, about 3/10 of a degree.

    Although we have many lines of evidence for historical temperatures which all track well with one another, most aren’t complete. Most are available over a given time range. For example, an ice core tells us about the time period for which that ice has existed. Cave formation data covers the time period for which that cave was wet. Tree rings go back as far as the trees were alive. Instrumental data goes back as far as thermometers have been reliable. There is plenty of overlap, which allows us to say that these lines track one another, but in order to build a complete timeline, we rely on multiple data sets.

    “Mike’s Nature trick” refers to what climatologist Michael Mann did for a 1998 article in the journal Nature. In the article, Mann and his co-authors displayed a reconstructed historical data set, known as MBH98. This temperature data extended only up until 1980. Before the article was published, Nature’s peer reviewers suggested also displaying the modern instrumental temperature record, which extended all the way until the present, for context. This was done. The two curves were shown on the same graph, each clearly labeled, and the data for both curves was already public domain. This, and this alone, constituted the entirety of “Mike’s Nature trick.”

    So by employing Mike’s Nature trick in his graph for the World Meteorological Organization, Phil Jones was simply adding the instrumental data. That’s all.

    This brings us to “hide the decline”. What was Phil talking about here? Turns out there was indeed a problem with one of the data sets he wanted to include, and it’s called the divergence problem.

    To understand the divergence problem, we first have to make a few basic points about dendroclimatology — the science of using tree rings to indicate historical temperatures. Dendroclimatology is one of the many lines of evidence for determining the planet’s climate history prior to the age of thermometers; others being glacial ice, corals, cave formations, sea levels, glacial extent, and others. Generally a tree ring represents one year, and when we look at the tree rings of a given year from all over the planet, we can see how climate varied across different regions. Each tree ring gives us two primary pieces of data: its width and its density. Generally, a wider ring usually means a wetter growing season. A longer, warmer summer results in a denser late seasonal growth period, manifested as the dark part of the ring. So the density of the ring tells us about temperature and cloud cover. Historically, all of these lines of evidence have tracked one another very well. Since the dawn of reliable direct measurements with thermometers in the 1800s, both tree ring density and tree ring width have tracked extremely well with temperatures all over the world.

    And this leads us to the divergence problem. In the 1990s, it was noticed that after 1960, the relationship between temperature and tree rings started separating. While temperatures rose, tree rings continued to indicate cooler temperatures, in defiance of all other measurements. We don’t see this divergence in any other lines of evidence; tree rings are the only climate indicator that has done this, and only in the northern hemisphere. Why is it happening? Well, that’s why we call it the divergence problem. We don’t know. Likely candidates include fractionally diminished sunlight caused by sulfate aerosol pollutants, warming-induced drought, increased ultraviolet radiation caused by ozone depletion, even loss of permafrost. But the bottom line is that in the past few decades — and only in the past few decades — tree rings in the northern hemisphere have indicated cooler temperatures than what the thermometers have shown, so we know them to be wrong. If you want to combine all the lines of evidence to build the best possible picture of climate history, you have to stop using dendroclimatology right around 1960 for temperature, or else your graph will be wrong and misleading.

    This is what Phil Jones was referring to when he wrote “from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” He was talking about Keith Briffa’s tree ring data, known to be inaccurate since 1961. Jones elected to display the correct instrumental temperature data instead. And if you look at some global warming temperature graphs that overlay multiple lines of evidence, you’ll see that the tree ring temp series stops around 1960, just as the modern instrumental series stops before 1860 or so. To make a useful graph, we show the data that we have.

    Deniers often claim that we only display tree ring data until 1960 because we know it proves temperatures are actually declining since then. That’s because they’re unaware of the divergence problem, or they think it’s something we made up as an excuse for the Climategate revelations. This claim can be easily disproven by picking up the literature. The first two major papers about the divergence problem were both published in 1995, four years before Phil Jones wrote the infamous email, and fourteen years before the alleged scandal. Proof that dendroclimatology data became unreliable after 1960 was fully public and well known to everyone in the field, and had been for years.

    Claims that “hide the decline” meant “hide the fact that global temperatures have been declining” are also unraveled by the timeline. Phil’s email was 1999, and 1998 had been the hottest year on record, peaking a global rise throughout the 1990s that nobody disputed, as it was all instrumental data. There had been no decline of global temperatures to hide.

    If you do any search for this online, you’re quickly going to see that most of the climate change denialist writing contracts Jones’ email into the following: “Mike’s trick to hide the decline.” As is obvious by now, Michael Mann’s multiple data sets on one graph has nothing at all to do with the tree ring divergence problem. That’s why neither Phil Jones nor anyone else who knew what they were talking about ever used the phrase “Mike’s trick to hide the decline”; there was no such thing. The phrase had to be manufactured by deniers by cherrypicking words out of unrelated parts of Phil’s email.

    — end extract —

  351. Rob Grigjanis says

    Brad, you poor twit. 15 years based on a three-letter phrase in an email. That is beyond pathetic.

    The only person failing to acknowledge that tree ring data can be faulty is the person who CONCEALED this fact from his readers.

    Which readers? The recipients of his email knew about the tree ring problem. In which articles or papers for a wider audience did Jones actually ‘hide the decline’?

  352. Rob Grigjanis says

    Regarding the 2000 WMO report;

    The figure developed for this WMO report is unrelated to the IPCC process. While it would have been clearer about its sources if the graph had overlaid the instrumental record using a separate color rather than merging the instrumental and proxy records together, this is an issue for WMO to address, considering the purpose of the report and the role of the graph on the cover. However, the graph and the method used to prepare the graph bear no relationship to the detailed technical discussion found in the assessment reports which EPA relied upon in the development of the TSD, which addressed all of the evidence and discussed the issue of tree ring data in the context of the entire body of paleoclimate evidence.

    In fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or concealing them. The figure as developed for the WMO report was not used by the IPCC. Rather, the Third Assessment Report, published in 2001 (IPCC, 2001), had a full paragraph on “important caveats to be kept in mind” regarding paleoclimate reconstructions that use tree rings. The paragraph included a discussion of the divergence and concluded that tree rings were best used as one of multiple proxies rather than being the sole source for a climate reconstruction. The AR4, published in 2007, addressed the divergence issue in a paragraph that began “Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades….” Figure 6.10 in the AR4 and Figure S-1 in the NRC report (which was replicated in Figure 4.3 in the EPA TSD) both clearly show a separate line for the instrumental temperature record and the lines provided by proxy reconstructions, unlike the WMO figure. Hence, the IPCC and additional assessment literature relied on by EPA transparently document, illustrate, and discuss the divergence issue, as did EPA in Volume 2 of the RTC document. The evidence (the CRU e-mails) the petitioners cite on this issue have no relevance on the Administrator’s Findings.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20101029162546/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/volume1.html#1-1-4

    So again, what exactly was being ‘hidden’?

  353. says

    Brad: Reading your latest comment after reading the refutations of said comment (esp. #418 and #421) is really hilarious, in a pathetic sort of way. Clearly NOTHING AT ALL was ever “hidden” from anyone.

    I guess you’re following the first rule of con-artists: Never stop talking.

  354. says

    Now that Frank Parlato has taken an interest in the case, about every third or forth post he’s done for the last month has been on it and he’s far from done…

    Yeah, sure, just like the birthers are far from done with their campaign to prove Obama was a Kenyan sleeper-agent…

  355. says

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

    I’m not Dr. Evil, but I’m pretty sure that “Yo, I’m hiding this thing!” is not what someone says when he’s trying to hide it. He’d probably say something more like “As we can see here, the thing doesn’t seem to exist.”

  356. John Morales says

    What the can’tman can’t get is that the convicted child abuser was a convicted child abuser at the time Dr. Mann was compared to him. Whether or not the trial was properly conducted, therefore, in no way mitigates the nastiness of the comparison.

    And, of course, Dr. Mann has been vindicated both scientifically and legally.

    Entirely off-topic, then:
    “Cleland [Senior Judge John Cleland] left no doubt that he believes Sandusky is the most dangerous type of pedophile, the kind skilled in manipulation of the young and trusting while presentijng a benevolent, respectable face to the community.”

    (https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2012/10/jerry_sandusky_sentence_of_30.html)

  357. says

    Raging Bee @425, Gladwell included his chapter on John Ziegler’s work in his book, Talking to Strangers. Carol Tavris wrote a review focused on this chapter for the Wall Street Journal:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/talking-to-strangers-review-fool-me-once-shame-on-me-11568387290

    Gladwell was in touch with Ziegler for probably most of a year before his book came out. It was a very inconvenient thing for him to include this toxic case. Why did he go to all this trouble? I suspect he wanted to ease his conscience and right past wrongs. About seven years earlier, he wrote a piece for the New Yorker on pedophiles that featured Jerry Sandusky:

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/24/in-plain-view

  358. John Morales says

    What the can’tman can’t get is that the convicted child abuser was a convicted child abuser at the time Dr. Mann was compared to him. Whether or not the trial was properly conducted, therefore, in no way mitigates the nastiness of the comparison made at the time.

    And, of course, Dr. Mann has been vindicated both scientifically and legally.

    So, let’s take a look at the article which canman adduced:

    When monsters roam free, we assume that people in positions of authority ought to be able to catch them if only they did their jobs. But that might be wishful thinking. A pedophile, van Dam’s story of Mr. Clay reminds us, is someone adept not just at preying on children but at confusing, deceiving, and charming the adults responsible for those children—which is something to keep in mind in the case of the scandal at Penn State and the conviction, earlier this year, of the former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky on child-molestation charges.

    […]

    On the afternoon of May 3, 1998, Sandusky called the home of an eleven-year-old boy he had met through the Second Mile and invited him to a Penn State athletic facility. Sandusky picked him up that evening. The two wrestled and worked out on the exercise machines. Sandusky kissed the boy on the top of his head and said, “I love you.” Sandusky then asked the boy if he wanted to take a shower, and the boy agreed. According to the formal investigation of the Sandusky case, conducted by the law firm of the former F.B.I. director Louis Freeh:

    While in the shower, Sandusky wrapped his hands around the boy’s chest and said, “I’m gonna squeeze your guts out.” The boy then washed his body and hair. Sandusky lifted the boy to “get the soap out of” the boy’s hair, bringing the boy’s feet “up pretty high” near Sandusky’s waist. The boy’s back was touching Sandusky’s chest and his feet touched Sandusky’s thigh. The boy felt “weird” and “uncomfortable” during his time in the shower.

    This is standard child-molester tradecraft. The successful pedophile does not select his targets arbitrarily. He culls them from a larger pool, testing and probing until he finds the most vulnerable.

    […]

    Sandusky never accepted any of the job offers that would have taken him away from Penn State, because he could not leave the Second Mile. But he also stayed because of Paterno. What could be better, for his purposes, than a boss with eyes only for the football field, who dismissed him as an exasperating, impulsive knucklehead? Pedophiles cluster in professions that give them access to vulnerable children—teaching, the clergy, medicine. But Sandusky’s insight, if you want to call it that, was that the culture of football could be the greatest hiding place of all, a place where excessive physicality is the norm, where horseplay is what often passes for wit, where young men shower together after every game and practice, and where those in charge spend their days and nights dreaming only of new defensive schemes.

    Huh.
    So, the canman can’t figure out in what possible way that comparison of Dr. Mann to this convicted pedophile was in any way defamatory or even problematic.

  359. says

    JohnM @427, I get perfectly well that this was the perception of Sandusky at the time and still is for most people. It was certainly my perception at the time. I of course changed my perception after researching the case more thoroughly after reading the Skeptic.com piece. It was certainly Michael Mann’s perception at the time and got him mad enough to file his lawsuit. He certainly is claiming that that’s his perception now, but I do have some doubts. He had lots of praise for Graham Spanier in his first book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, written well before the Sandusky scandal. In his subsequent popular books, he included Spanier in his acknowledgements and was mercilessly lambasted for it by Mark Steyn. Mann’s claim at trial is that he paid no attention to who was in his acknowledgement lists. Mann’s lawyer doesn’t have that excuse. Steyn filed a legal brief noting these acknowledgements before Mann’s latest book came out (Our Fragile Moment). Anyway, here’s my conspiracy speculation about it:

    https://cliscep.com/2024/02/05/michael-mann-and-graham-spanier/

    Here’s an earlier post I did:

    https://canmancannedfacts.blogspot.com/2019/04/a-mannly-thing-that-mann-could-do.html

  360. says

    JohnM @429, The Freeh Report is highly disputed. Louie Freeh was paid around $8 million by Penn State’s Board of Trustees. Might the BOT have their own agenda? They fired Joe Paterno a couple of days after that incendiary grand jury presentment was leaked (a felony BTW). The false account of Mike McQueary witnessing sodomy caused the moral panic and national outrage. There are also claims that Freeh was working in collusion with the prosecutors. To me, the smoking gun is on page 12, paragraph 2. Freeh did NOT interview McQueary at the request of the prosecutors!

    John Ziegler and Ralph Cipriano were leaked all the Freeh documents along with the settlement documents. There is a draft of the Free Report with “NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!” scribbled on the cover.

  361. John Morales says

    cantman:

    JohnM @427, I get perfectly well that this was the perception of Sandusky at the time and still is for most people.

    So, regardless of whether the convicted pedophile (which he indisputably is) was innocent or not, it was a rather nasty and therefore defamatory comparison, no? In no way merited, just because they misunderstood his science, and in no way justified. Just, you know, defamatory. Which is what the jury found, as it turns out.

    I of course changed my perception after researching the case more thoroughly after reading the Skeptic.com piece.

    Which is, of course, entirely irrelevant to whether or not Dr. Mann was defamed.

    Anyway, here’s my conspiracy speculation about it: [blah]

    Anyone can be a conspiracy theorist; it’s hardly an achievement, can’tman.

    Tell ya what: it is pretty evident to me that your entire schtick about the purported innocence of Sandusky (you know, the convicted pedophile) is only there because in your wishful fantasy, if Sandusky was somehow innocent then comparing Dr. Mann (the celebrated scientist) to him was not really defamatory.

    You should appreciate my speculation; after all, it clears you of being a genuine apologist for child rapists, and merely paints you as an opportunistic apologist for one particular convicted child rapist.

    And remember, according to the underpants gnome (your hero!), only devout believalists somehow would have disputed, questioned, expressed doubt about, repudiated, gainsaid, dissented from, disagreed with, challenged, contested, opposed, negated, controverted, confuted, rejected, dismissed, demurred against, contradicted, objected to, taken issue with, disbelieved or (more archaically) misdoubted the scientific idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a significant reason why the Earth is warmer than it otherwise would be.

    So, presumably, you also don’t deny any of that.

    Logically (heh) it follows that the “hockey stick” — you know, scientifically vindicated — is not and was not to be disputed, questioned, expressed doubt about, repudiated, gainsaid, dissented from, disagreed with, challenged, contested, opposed, negated, controverted, confuted, rejected, dismissed, demurred against, contradicted, objected to, taken issue with, disbelieved or (more archaically) misdoubted.

    PS thanks for the chuckles.

  362. John Morales says

    JohnM @429, The Freeh Report is highly disputed.

    Is it? I only heard of it from you adducing it.

    Why you would bother to bring in a “highly disputed” report in support of your belief that a convicted kiddy-diddler is innocent is left to speculation.

    Point being, you can’t possibly deny that your gnomish friend (“Brad”) has very explicitly conceded that he is a devout believalist according to his (and presumably your) standards. I’ve quite literally quoted him making that claim.

    So, again: what’s your beef with Dr. Mann’s vindication, both legally and scientifically?

    (You, I predict, will keep trying to evade that, just as Stinkynose the gnome has been doing; prescient, I)

  363. says

    Louie Freeh was paid around $8 million by Penn State’s Board of Trustees. Might the BOT have their own agenda?

    Penn State could simply have fired Sandusky without having to pay anyone half that much money. That would have served their own self-interest. What “agenda” do you think they’d have beyond that?

    Anyway, here’s my conspiracy speculation about it…

    None of that matters. What matters is what Sandusky’s defenders can bring to a court. And so far I’m seeing nothing. Case still closed.

  364. says

    JohnM @432,

    Tell ya what: it is pretty evident to me that your entire schtick about the purported innocence of Sandusky (you know, the convicted pedophile) is only there because in your wishful fantasy, if Sandusky was somehow innocent then comparing Dr. Mann (the celebrated scientist) to him was not really defamatory.

    Not sure is “schtick” is the appropriate characterization of my interest in the Sandusky case, but it is related to the Mann v Steyn case. I started arguing about Mann v Steyn from the very beginning in blog comments. I saw (and still do) it as a threat to the 1st amendment along with the ACLU, the Washington Post and a bunch of other news organizations filing amicus briefs. Interesting that no organizations, scientific or otherwise, filed any for Mann. One of the reasons I took an interest in the new Sandusky information is that I hate seeing my side get details wrong. The new information is also extremely interesting, poignant and even entertaining at times. I like to call it the best mini-series on the internet.

    And as far as shtick’s go, from the late great Max Anacker:

    The Shtick
    (a saga in seven verses)

    A young climate guru named Mick
    Developed a neat hockey shtick
    Using bristlecone pine
    And hiding decline
    In a really bizzare “Nature trick”

    The beauty about his new chart
    Was the warning it meant to impart
    That it really had not
    Ever been quite so hot
    (It was truly a real work of art)

    “This is great!” said the I-P-C-C
    And then stuck it on page one with glee
    Without verification
    In their new publication
    For policymakers to see

    But soon two intrepid Canucks
    Started digging into Mickey’s books
    They found errors galore
    Phony math and what’s more
    A conclusion that basically sucks

    While poor Mick was unhappy, indeed
    Other experts were now all agreed
    The conclusion’s baloney
    The science is phony
    And statistically not up to speed

    Mickey’s shtick is now long dead and gone
    But its memory still lingers on
    With some doomsday believers
    And green eager beavers
    Who still haven’t really caught on

    As a scientist Mick’s defamation
    Has caused him immense consternation
    So to salvage his name
    And win back his fame
    He’s now trying it with litigation.

  365. says

    Raging Bee @434,

    Penn State could simply have fired Sandusky without having to pay anyone half that much money. That would have served their own self-interest. What “agenda” do you think they’d have beyond that?

    Sandusky was not a Penn State employee, even at the time of the McQueary incident. The reason the case made news is because of the leaked grand jury presentment. The account of Mcqueary witnessing sodomy, which he complains in an email to a prosecutor that he didn’t, is what caused a moral panic and national outrage. Joe Paterno’s son (a lawyer) Scott stood in front of the Paterno house and declared Sandusky guilty and led a prayer for the “victims” all based on the incorrect grand jury presentment. The whole case is a mixture of political vendetta (Governor Tom Corbett against Graham Spanier), moral panic, a witch trial, an ambulance chasing frenzy and lingering mass hysteria.

  366. John Morales says

    Heh heh heh.

    Not sure is “schtick” is the appropriate characterization of my interest in the Sandusky case

    I was trying to be generous, but you’re right.
    Attempted schtick, to be fair.

    One of the reasons I took an interest in the new Sandusky information is that I hate seeing my side get details wrong.

    You mean the climate sceptic side, obviously. The losers’ corner.

    And as far as shtick’s go

    Gotta love the greengrocers’ apostrophes, there, O poseur.

    (a saga in seven verses)

    <snicker>

    Such originality!

    In a really bizzare “Nature trick”

    Only bizarre to outright idiots such as you, who are doing their damnedest to ignore reality.

    So to salvage his name

    What, salvage it from being respected by science, lauded by so many organisations, and winning at court?

    Here, let me see you ignore this yet again, it never gets old: care to try to name but one (1) scientific institution that has a problem with Mann? Anywhere in the world.

    Oh yeah: GOTO 36

    Remember, according to the underpants gnome (your hero!), only devout believalists somehow would have “disputed, questioned, expressed doubt about, repudiated, gainsaid, dissented from, disagreed with, challenged, contested, opposed, negated, controverted, confuted, rejected, dismissed, demurred against, contradicted, objected to, taken issue with, disbelieved or (more archaically) misdoubted the scientific idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a significant reason why the Earth is warmer than it otherwise would be.”

    So, quite evidently, you don’t deny any of that, since I’ve already challenged you and you’ve been conspicuously silent. As has the Underpants Gnome, of course.

    Hey, canman, are you still super-impressed by the gnome’s stupid misunderstanding of my claim about the jurors vindicating Dr. Mann in the legal sense, where he imagined that meant it meant his scientific vindication was by the vote of 6 non-scientists plucked from the phonebook?

    You are, of course, still entirely perplexed by Dr. Mann’s large list of accolades.

    (Such a mystery!)

    Nothing ever new, is there?

  367. John Morales says

    The whole case is a mixture of political vendetta (Governor Tom Corbett against Graham Spanier), moral panic, a witch trial, an ambulance chasing frenzy and lingering mass hysteria.

    Yes, and Dr. Mann is somehow a scientific pariah, in your fantasy world.

    (His name sure needs salvaging, eh?)

    Mann’s dissertation was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize in 1997 as an “outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences” at Yale University. His co-authorship of a scientific paper published by Nature won him an award from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in 2002, and another co-authored paper published in the same year won the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s outstanding scientific publication award. In 2002 he was named by Scientific American as one of fifty “leading visionaries in science and technology”. The Association of American Geographers awarded him the John Russell Mather Paper of the Year award in 2005 for a co-authored paper published in the Journal of Climate. The American Geophysical Union awarded him its Editors’ Citation for Excellence in Refereeing in 2006 to recognize his contributions in reviewing manuscripts for its Geophysical Research Letters journal.[89]

    The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other “scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports”, with a personalized certificate “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”, celebrating the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore.[90][91][92][93]

    In 2012, he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union[1] and awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union for “his significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions.”[7][89]

    Following election by the American Meteorological Society he became a new Fellow of the society in 2013.[94] In January 2013 he was designated with the status of distinguished professor in Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.[95]

    In September 2013, Mann was named by Bloomberg Markets in its third annual list of the “50 Most Influential” people, included in a group of “thinkers” with reference to his work with other scientists on the hockey stick graph, his responses on the RealClimate blog “to climate change deniers”, and his book publications.[96][97] Later that month, he received the National Wildlife Federation’s National Conservation Achievement Award for Science.[98][99]

    On April 28, 2014, the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley.[100] In the same year, Mann was named as a Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). In 2015 he was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and in 2016 he was elected Vice Chair of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate (GPC) at the American Physical Society (APS).[89]

    On June 19, 2017, Climate One at the Commonwealth Club of California said that he would be honored with the 7th annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Science Communication.[101]

    He received the James H. Shea Award from the National Association of Geoscience Teachers for his “exceptional contribution in writing or editing Earth science materials for the general public or teachers of Earth science.”[102]

    On February 8, 2018, the Center for Inquiry announced that Mann had been elected as a 2017 Fellow of its Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.[8]

    On February 14, 2018, the American Association for the Advancement of Science announced that Mann was chosen to receive the 2018 Public Engagement with Science award.[103]

    On September 4, 2018, the American Geophysical Union announced Mann as the 2018 recipient of its Climate Communication Prize.[104]

    On February 12, 2019, Mann and Warren Washington were named to receive the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement.[105]

    In April 2020, he was elected member of the National Academy of Sciences.[5] Along with Antonella Santuccione Chadha, he also received the World Sustainability Award from the MDPI Sustainability Foundation.[106]

    In 2022, the American Physical Society recognized Mann with the Leo Szilard Lectureship Award “for distinguished contributions to the public’s understanding of climate science controversies, and to how our individual and collective actions can mitigate climate change.”[107]

    In 2023 the American Humanist Association gave Mann their 2023 Humanist of the Year award.[108]

  368. John Morales says

    heh heh heh — just had a look about this purported appeal that was mooted last week:

    A Se’nnight of Steyn: February 11 – 17

    We are grateful to welcome so many new and returning members to the club following the recent unconstitutional verdict against Mark. This support has lifted Mark’s spirits whilst raising funds necessary for the appeal. If you are already a member, please consider gifting a membership or purchasing a gift certificate.

    Gotta love the begging for $$$ from the saps who support him for the purported “unconstitutional verdict against Mark”.

    Donald Trump is sapping his saps just the same way; idiotic believers will idiotically believe, of course.

    (Maybe you should give him some of your money, cantman. After all, you sure are a True Believer, reality be damned)

  369. John Morales says

    I notice neither you (cantman) or the gnome (“Brad”) can dispute that
    (a) Dr. Mann won his million-dollar case; and
    (b) Dr. Mann is famous and successful and the recipient of many awards, including the 2023 Humanist of the Year award.

    Ah well. Reality bites.

  370. Silentbob says

    Is it just me – or is the comic sans thing such a dated joke that one can immediately be dismissed as an idiot for STILL using it? At least it lacks the gumbys. But dude. Seriously. Get past 2009.

  371. John Morales says

    Hey, canman. I would just love a gift certificate for The Mark Steyn Club.

    I mean, it would help him get some money for his appeal, right? Just what you want.

    If not me, someone else, maybe?

    Still, I doubt you shall; after all, it kinda takes the courage of one’s convictions to put one’s money where one’s mouth is, right?

    (Apostrophes, I can do them!)

  372. John Morales says

    Brad @360:
    Rob, you earned a glorified Comic Sans blockquote for this one:

    Silentbob@441:

    Is it just me – or is the comic sans thing such a dated joke that one can immediately be dismissed as an idiot for STILL using it?

    <snicker>

  373. Silentbob says

    Dude.
    Anyone can do it. The joke is so archaic, that it’s reversed. If you still think in the year 2024 quoting someone in comic sans is funny – you are utterly humiliating yourself in the same way as calling a DVD a “video cassette.
    Time has marched on, my man.

  374. John Morales says

    Silentbob, your obsession with me is obvious and very stupid.

    Also, heh heh heh. cf. #441.

    BTW, the specific term here in Pharyngula is “gumby quotes”, and has been since their inception.

  375. John Morales says

    Aaw. They never last. Still, bored now, and the 500 approacheth. (heh)

    So.
    … you are utterly humiliating yourself in the same way as calling a DVD a “video cassette.

    Ignoramuses are ignorant. Duh.

    Back in the day, when I worked for the government (eventually contracted to EDS because of ideology (our equivalent of the Republicans in the USA)), we used video cassettes as digital storage media with ATL (automated library systems) for our mainframe shops. Jargon, you know.

    We (operators and programmers) filched old ones and used them to record TV shows at home.
    See, the very same medium can be used both for analogue and for digital recordings.

    cf. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4654727B1/en

    (Such humiliation!)

  376. John Morales says

    [still nothing?]

    I have heard people mix up DVRs with VCRs, but I have never ever known anyone to mistake a cassette for a disc. Not even the most clueless.

    (So, I call bullshit on that claim)

  377. says

    The whole case is a mixture of political vendetta (Governor Tom Corbett against Graham Spanier), moral panic, a witch trial, an ambulance chasing frenzy and lingering mass hysteria.

    So why is none of this showing up in an actual court proceeding?

    Case still closed.

  378. says

    Raging Bee @450, The vendetta by Governor Corbett against Graham Spanier is described on pages 29-30 of john Snedden’s report:

    https://frankreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/341764461-Spanier-High-Level-Clearance-FBI-Report-Redacted.pdf

    Sandusky’s appeals were all before Pennsylvania judges that have to face reelection and are almost certainly weary of being associated with this toxic case. In Sandusky’s most recent appeal, prominent psychologist and attorney, Chris Barden, had his 136 page report rejected. He’s profiled in the 2cnd link @14.

  379. says

    Gross. Canman is still hand-wringing about convicted child molesters in a post where climate-deniers use molested children as political tools. They definitely don’t care about even the child molester since they are trying to keep on pushing it here instead of applying effort where it’s appropriate.

    I’ll keep pointing out how gross it is and how canman is avoiding what they could do if they really cared.

  380. says

    I’m no big fan of elected judges, but I find it VERY hard to believe they would all be afraid of rehearing a case that’s as full of holes as you seem to think this one is. Especially at the appellate level; and especially where the defendant was part of an institution as famous and popular as Penn State. Also, it really seems you’re overstating the “hysteria” over child sexual abuse that allegedly makes this case too scary and “toxic” to rehear. So…case still closed.

  381. says

    Seriously, there have been pretty solid-looking cases of child sexual abuse that fell apart in court even during a time when popular hysteria over such crimes was much greater than it is now, or when Sandusky was convicted. So no, the “everyone’s afraid to touch this case” defense doesn’t really hold here.

  382. says

    Raging Bee, you won’t find any other similar case where a name has been so publicized and vilified. The whole world believes McQueary saw Sandusky sodomizing the kid in the shower and that he got convicted of that — both false! That’s one of only 3 out of 54 charges that Sandusky was acquitted on. All the other charges collapse under scrutiny. The trial was rushed during a moral panic. The case is clearly full of overzealous prosecutors, quack therapists and ambulance chasing lawyers!

  383. says

    About Michael Mann getting all these these awards from prestigious scientific organizations. Maybe this reflects more on the state of science organizations than on Michael Mann. Mann was elected into the NAS. They wouldn’t take Carl Sagan, because they thought he was too much of a public celebrity. Is Mann a step up from that? He’s a ridiculous self promoter who spends half his time on Twitter (X) making left wing political tweets and trashing colleagues who have any disagreement with him.

  384. says

    They don’t give a shit at all. I wonder how many times they use their need to cast doubt on molestation victims when other climate deniers use them as political tools? That’s some big insecurity about molestation accusations and a single climate researcher.

    I can’t tell if they care about the substance of their climate views, or molestation victims, or hypothetical accusations victims less. Canman would just go to people professionally working on their issue.

  385. John Morales says

    Heh — morning reading still amuses.

    Raging Bee, you won’t find any other similar case where a name has been so publicized and vilified.

    Other than an obscure musician called Michael Jackson, who hardly made the news in two such cases, and was twice acquitted. No publicisation or vilification, there, nosiree!

    About Michael Mann getting all these these awards from prestigious scientific organizations. Maybe this reflects more on the state of science organizations than on Michael Mann.

    Heh heh heh. There, there.
    Of course all of science all over the world is mistaken, but you know better, just as you know better than a court of law. It is quite evident.

    He’s a ridiculous self promoter who spends half his time on Twitter (X) making left wing political tweets and trashing colleagues who have any disagreement with him.

    Meanwhile, in the real world: https://www.wgbh.org/tv-shows/newshour/clip/attacks-on-science-1707520339

    PBS NewsHour
    About the Episode

    A long legal battle ended Thursday when a jury found that two conservative writers defamed the prominent climate scientist Michael Mann. William Brangham looks at what this verdict means and speaks with another renowned scientist who’s also endured this kind of vitriol, Dr. Peter Hotez.

  386. says

    Raging Bee, you won’t find any other similar case where a name has been so publicized and vilified.

    And why was that name so publicized? Because he was well-established and popular — which should have been a pretty good counterbalance to any rush of hysteria.

    (Also, thanks, John, for remembering MJ — he certainly didn’t have much trouble getting acquitted, even though the case against him was a lot more solid and credible than cantman thinks the case against Sandusky was.)

    All the other charges collapse under scrutiny. The trial was rushed during a moral panic.

    In that case, even the most squeamish elected judge should have PLENTY of good excises to allow at least some sort of rehearing or appeal. There may be a lot of hysteria about child sexual abuse, but there’s also a lot of public skepticism (much of it manufactured) toward sex-crime charges in general — as cantman’s relentless citation of victim-doubting skeptics shows.

Leave a Reply