JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Legal warfare against skeptics: one win, one needs support…

The Big Scare Campaign is desperate, when they can’t win with reason, they can always find a reason to sue and hope to silence their critics. Their deep pockets make them an ominous foe, and the legal battles are running hot. Actions are running against Andrew Bolt, and Tim Ball (see below), and we only just found out, that one was launched against James Delingpole by the East Anglia CRU.

It’s very significant that James Delingpole has won and won well, as James says:

If it sounds like I’m overdoing it, consider this: the PCC’s ruling must be among the first by any quasi-official body anywhere in the world to take the side of a Climate Change sceptic rather than that of the Warmist establishment. This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

The Commissions ruling:

In particular, the complainants were concerned that the blog posts described Professor Phil Jones as “disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method abusing”.  They explained that Professor Phil Jones had been exonerated of any dishonesty or scientific malpractice by a series of reviews.

Through its correspondence the newspaper had provided some evidence in support of the statements under dispute, and the columnist had included some of this evidence in the second blog post under discussion.  In relation to the columnist’s description of Professor Jones as “FOI-breaching, email-deleting”, the newspaper had provided extracts from an email from Professor Jones in which he had written “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone”, and another email in which he had written “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”

With respect to the columnist’s assertion that Professor Jones was “scientific method-abusing”, the newspaper had provided an extract from an email from Professor Jones in which he had written “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”.  In view of this, the Commission considered that there were some grounds for the columnist’s opinion – which readers would recognise was subjective – on these points.

But as Andrew Bolt says: I’m glad for James, but the problem is that even when you win, you lose. I can only guess at the stress and cost James has suffered. Who’d dare to go through that themselves?

Tim Ball faces legal action from Michael Mann

The suit is over a comment Tim Ball made and a veritable who’s who of skeptics behind the scenes are coming from far and wide to help him. See Help asked for Dr. Tim Ball in legal battle with Dr. Mann on WUWT.

Top Climate Skeptic Seeks Help in Double-barrel Courtroom Shootout

By John O. Sullivan

 

Esteemed climate scientist, Tim Ball faces two costly courtroom libel battles. Here he reveals his concerns and appeals for help with his legal fees.

Dr. Tim Ball is widely recognized as one of Canada’s first qualified climate scientists and has long been one of the most prominent skeptics taking a stand on corruption and unethical practices. Two exponents of the global warming scare Ball has targeted, professors Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver, are now suing him for libel.

Many suspect the David Suzuki Foundation is funding Vancouver libel specialist, Roger D. McConchie who is representing both Weaver and Mann against Ball. Suzuki is reported as wanting skeptics like Ball “put in prison.”

Savvy skeptics suspect that Ball, a 72-year-old pensioner, was singled out as a target because he has no big corporate backers and will capitulate under the emotional and financial strain before the case even gets to trial as his legal fees spiral. Such a fate befell Ball in a prior libel suit in 2006.

But buoyed by the public sympathy Ball is now gaining he is confident an appeal for donors will make all the difference. He is adamant that this is the perfect opportunity skeptics have been waiting for to expose climate change fraud in a court of law and he won’t be bounced out of this most crucial contest.

UPDATE: you can donate through Dr Ball’s website – paypal http://drtimball.com/

Plus: Glenn Beck’s enormously popular Fox show has been axed, or he’s moved on (it’s hard to say). It was the third highest-rated in all of cable news. Glenn seems to be comfortable with it.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/28/35274.htm
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Legal warfare against skeptics: one win, one needs support…, 1.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3zq8pzx

77 comments to Legal warfare against skeptics: one win, one needs support…

  • #
    Todd

    I sent Dr. Ball $75 yesterday! Well, $75 USD ain’t what it used to be, but it’s better than nothing…

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Mann, as I have said before, will not go through with the threat because he will not want to have his data and methods “exposed” in a court of law – he is just waving something around, that would best not be exposed.

    If Tim Ball gets sufficient support to hold his nerve, then Mann will back down. Mann will not want to face the risk of an all-or-nothing role of the dice.

    But other things are more pressing:

    Suzuki is reported as wanting skeptics like Ball “put in prison.”

    And from that referenced piece:

    It was reported the audience of 600 students cheered wildly at the suggestion to throw non-believers in the green gulag.

    This is what is really frightening. This is the degree to which the propaganda campaign as been successful.

    David Suzuki will have heard the cheers, he will have felt the warm glow of approbation, and he will believe that his destiny is the worlds’ destiny. Hitler must have had the same impression after the Nuremberg rallies.

    The propaganda generated by this scam has infected and mutilated a whole generation of thinkers, many of whom will never fully recover.

    00

  • #
    janama

    I”ll donate to Dr Ball but these days I find WUWT very hard to access. It just sits there saying waiting for wordpress.com

    00

  • #
    bill

    Hi

    I read Mann’s original paper and I must say it was underwhelming as far as proof of anything. I was surprised it even got through peer review. But I can imagine, even forgoing the massive error bars and the fact that his final graph was a composition of tree rings and actual temperature, there was some sympathy for the amount of work measuring tree rings only to find the correlation failed for the last 30 odd years.

    In other words it had very limited scientific relevance. It was the likes of Gore and the ipcc that put it on the front pages before those talented statisticians shot it down. But by then the damage had been done. IN fact Mann should be pursuing Gore and IPCC for giving it credence it did not deserve thus setting him up to be shot at.

    State Penn instead of Penn State! Obviously lost his sense of humour and a retort acknowledging the joke would have put him in a much better light. His attitude is steadily digging his grave where he will lose all credence he might have had.

    00

  • #
    Jack Savage

    I am retired and skint but still sent some money.
    I even think Tim Ball was a bit silly and over the top.
    Nevertheless, the bluff needs to be called.
    Get your wallets out!

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Janama you can donate through Dr Ball’s website – paypal
    http://drtimball.com/
    when Climategate occurred I started to look into the evidence substantiating AGW and non AGW
    And I found Dr Ball’s articles most illuminating
    I’m donating a large amount (for me) and will continue donating
    I do thank the scientists including of course Dr Ball who were not influenced by the money trail
    they deserve our support

    00

  • #
    janama

    Thanks for the link Val – done.

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    In David v Goliath legal battles David will invariably win if he knows he’s right and has credible professional witnesses – as long as he can keep his nerve. It’s a game of bluff, as others have noted.

    I’m speaking from personal experience. It’s important that donations are seen to be coming from all over the world, as they were for the Thompsons. Mine to Dr Ball is on its way.

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    You might watch for something like this

    “Facebook Treating Skeptic Blog Articles as “Abusive”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/09/facebook-treating-skeptic-blog-articles-as-abusive/

    00

  • #
    kevin moore

    What is the ideology of those behind this sort of action?

    There are any number of sites on the internet sprouting the Marxist/Socialist ideology on Climate Change.

    Reading their stuff will bring to mind George Orwells “Animal Farm” for those who are familiar with his book.

    Here is one such site: “In Defence of Marxism – Environment”

    http://www.marxist.com/environment/page-2.htm

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    In return for the very hard work of correcting errors in science people like Dr. Tim Ball are called “denier”. This is done with the deliberate intention and purpose of harming the scientist and exposing him to hatred, ridicule and contempt, lowering the scientist in the estimation of others, and causing him to be shunned and avoided.
    http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/28/35274.htm

    Donation $100 CAD sent.

    00

  • #
    Socold

    good luck to Mann from me, hope he wins

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    You’re a real class act Socold.

    00

  • #
    Paul79

    Re bill@4

    The Mann et al papers were reviewed by their own ‘gang.’ Had an expert in historial climate data been given the task, these papers would never had seen the light of day.

    00

  • #
    lolwot

    Re 14:

    You mean “Had they been reviewed by different experts in historical climate data”

    And the answer is they would have seen the light of day if they had, because the papers were clear advances to the field. The fact is that prior to Mann there weren’t any millennium hemispheric temperature reconstructions, let alone global ones.

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    kevin moore@10
    I think you have answered your question yourself regarding the ideology of those taking legal action against Bolt, Dellingpole and Bell.
    Marx was anti-capitalist for some very good reasons, but I think what he neglected to consider is that capitalism involves freedom of trade. Democracy is based on an individual’s freedom of speech, an individual’s freedom of thought, and within the constraints of the law, an individual’s freedom of action.

    If you were to publish on this site something like: MaxL you are an idiot!
    I would have to respond with: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – S. G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)

    If however I were to apply for a job and my intended employer said: I can’t offer you the job because Kevin Moore said you were an idiot. Then I think I would have a case to bring against your comment. The question is then, do those taking legal action against Bolt, Dellingpole and Bell have such a case? If not then they are simply trying to silence any opposing views. In which case, control is the ideology, not freedom.

    00

  • #
    william gray

    lolwot says:
    And the answer is they would have seen the light of day if they had.

    Mann chose the worst of proxies finally selecting one tree and a lake sediment core that had undergone regular disturbance from human activities. He knew these proxies were crap, and thats exactly why he chose them.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/09/the-pre-climategate-issue-that-is-the-issue/

    Lolwot, his code produces a hockey stick if you type in phone directory numbers.
    I propose you are paid to blogg, there can be no other reason for your total ignorance.

    00

  • #
    Mike

    Off-topic but I’ve seen a lot of people posting on forums links to websites which “debunk” the missing hotspot. As someone who fights the AGW crowd all around the internet, it get’s tiring, I really need some ammunition against this.

    Has the debunking been debunked?

    Is there a definitive source (non-skeptic, non-believer) that we can point to in this regard?

    Is there an site where it that we can link to, where it is clearly said by the proponents of AGW that the hot-spot would be a prediction of their theoretical models. Again, non-skeptic if possible.

    The facts are that I am not heavily into climate science, nor do I want to study it, but at the moment it’s just pointing at links refuting each other. Which is just frustrating as hell when they come up with something that hasn’t been debunked.

    Thanks.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Steve McIntyre is revisiting the subject at his website.

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/04/09/yamal-and-hide-the-decline/

    On the basis that Mann wasn’t taken out, hanged, drawn and quartered, his supporters claim he was vindicated. His methods were heavily criticised and McI and McK were vindicated instead.

    Mann and his supporters seem to make too much of the word “plausible” which was used to describe his work. This is clutching at straws, trying to salvage some credibility from the savaging he received.

    00

  • #
    Mike

    For example that deltoid article with the image that looks like a hotspot.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Mike: #18 & #20

    I once went to look at a house that was advertised by the agent as having “harbour views”.

    The house was quite nice, but not up to the asking price, so I asked about the views. The response I got was, “Well, if you open that window, and lean out far enough, and if your neighbour doesn’t have the washing hanging outside to dry, then you can see a patch of water – that is the harbour”.

    Most of the claims that the “hot-spot” has been observed, follow the same line of reasoning.

    You can quote the above if you like, but you will not convince the unconvincable, because they wear their inconvincability like a shield. ;-)

    00

  • #
    Iren

    I”ll donate to Dr Ball but these days I find WUWT very hard to access. It just sits there saying waiting for wordpress.com

    Jamana, I’ve had the same problem lately. In fact, I just called my internet service provider about it this morning. They suggested I try another browser. I’m now using Firefox for WUWT and its quick as a flash. I suggest you try that.

    00

  • #
    janama

    I’m already on Firefox Iren :)

    00

  • #
    janama

    I suspect that WUWT’s increasing traffic is now putting pressure on WordPress’s resources.

    00

  • #
  • #
    janama

    This article really shows us what we are up against on a daily basis – in this case it’s Senator Boxer in the US but if could easily be our PM.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/senator-boxer-dangerously-ignorant-on-co2/?singlepage=true

    00

  • #
    Graham

    Ball… won’t be bounced out of this most crucial contest.

    Distressing and draining though this experience must be for the good man, I’m sure that will draw a smile!

    00

  • #
    Graham

    janama @#3

    I”ll donate to Dr Ball but these days I find WUWT very hard to access.

    Interesting. This disturbing report may be relevant, janama.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Interesting Graham – but you linked me to another wordpress site that doesn’t want to open to me. Maybe I have a wordpress virus.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Graham – even Adobe is censoring what I access these days.

    00

  • #
    Jim

    The warmists always play dirty, abusing the legal system is just their latest tactic, but it is a risky one especially if they are challenged on all the lies they have told over the years. They are betting that the skeptics will fold be for the science ever gets challenged in court.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Seems the IPCC (Independent Press Complaints Commission) – no relation of that other lot – wasn’t on message. Did nobody think to brief them, to expect this kind of thing ? How careless !

    Well someone will no doubt be having a quiet word so this kind of thing doesn’t happen again (Allegedly).

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Defamations always a tricky one to win, even if there is inaccuracy, whereas clear intent to harm or malice, as in the prospective ANZ case, would be another matter (IMHO).

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    “19 Mark:
    April 10th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
    Steve McIntyre is revisiting the subject at his website.

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/04/09/yamal-and-hide-the-decline/

    On the basis that Mann wasn’t taken out, hanged, drawn and quartered, his supporters claim he was vindicated. His methods were heavily criticised and McI and McK were vindicated instead.

    Mann and his supporters seem to make too much of the word “plausible” which was used to describe his work. This is clutching at straws, trying to salvage some credibility from the savaging he received.”

    Reminds me of that saying that

    “For every happening there is an explanation which is neat, plausible and wrong”

    00

  • #
    Graham

    janama @#29, #30
    Daft on my part, janama. In error, I linked you to the very site that you couldn’t access. Moderators permitting, the unformatted copy of the report on WUWT follows. It may or may not be directly relevant to your experience, but it’s clear that something sinister is brewing.

    Facebook Treating Skeptic Blog Articles as “Abusive”
    Posted on April 9, 2011 by mikelorrey

    It came to our attention yesterday when we were sharing WUWT articles, that Facebook now treats WUWT articles as “abusive”. Apparently this is a new tactic of the warmists to abuse the FB abuse process in order to suppress free speech. WUWT readers have reported that this has also started happening on other skeptic blogs with their articles.

    Until Anthony gets back, when we can see about a more permanent solution, we want to encourage our readers to all share WUWT articles via your Facebook accounts, and when FB gives you “this is an abusive site” pop-up, as seen in the graphic above, to click the “Let us know” appeal link to submit an appeal. Hopefully if FB staff start seeing enough appeals from enough of our readers, that they will realize that their system is being gamed by our opponents.

    While on FB, we encourage you to join the WUWT FB group.

    UPDATE: As of this moment, new WUWT articles are posting to FB without the abuse warning, but anything from yesterday or days prior is getting the warning and requires an appeal. Apparently whoever has been up to these games hasn’t gotten online yet today. We still encourage our readers to help ensure that WUWT articles are able to be shared on FB without interference, and to ensure that other skeptic blogs are also able to be published on Facebook. It’s clear that the warmists are engaging in guerrilla tactics now.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    I dontaed to Tim Ball but Paypal somehow stated that it wasn’t being received. So I cancelled the PP transaction. Something odd is going on.

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Louis, it worked fine for me using the link provided by val @6, although that was about 12 hours ago.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    CORRECTION:
    32Joe V.:
    April 10th, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    Seems the IPCC (Independent Press Complaints Commission) – no relation of that other lot – wasn’t on message. Did nobody think to brief them, to expect this kind of thing ? How careless !
    Well someone will no doubt be having a quiet word so this kind of thing doesn’t happen again (Allegedly).

    That was of course the Press Complaints Commission. I was confusing them with the Independent Police Complaints Commission , who it is that share their moniker with the IPCC.

    The Press Complaints Commission are a somewhat toothless organisation, set up to avoid every complaint about an overbearing Press having to go to court to be heard.
    While it might have been comforting for Phil to get their ruling in his favour, and the MSM will generally go along with their rulings, by printing apologies etc., if only to protect the PCCs credibility as it protects the Press from legal pursuit, it wouldn’t really have proved anything. I doubt if that prospect would have had JD quaking in his boots ‘though. (IMHO)

    It may of course have been a precursor for further actions , if indeed it is part of a concerted campaign & we may see more examples as every printed and broadcast word is trawled through for suitable material to act on.

    It does seem a bit unfair that these hapless academics are taking all the attention, when they were only apparatchiks for the cause – or am I just being too soft.

    00

  • #
    handjive

    O/T Apologies if already noted:

    Top Indian space boffin beams down climate shocker 21 January 2011

    U R Rao has analysed 45 years of data and declared that the forcing from charged particles is higher than previously thought, at 1.1Wm-2, and human-forcing lower than the IPCC “consensus” of 1.6Wm-2.

    Rao should know his muons. He launched India’s satellite program in the 70s, and became head of the Indian Space Agency in the 1980s; many of his 350 published papers are about galactic cosmic rays (GCRs).

    The influence of charged particles on climate is controversial, not least because it’s based on observation and physics experiments, rather than trick cycling computer modelling.

    Full results have yet to be published, but confirm the relationship.
    Others argue that cosmic ray penetration to surface level is merely a proxy for solar magnetic activity.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Here Is the trouble with going through quasi- official bodies.

    With respect to the columnist’s assertion that Professor Jones was “scientific method-abusing”, the newspaper had provided an extract from an email from Professor Jones in which he had written “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”.  In view of this, the Commission considered that there were some grounds for the columnist’s opinion – which readers would recognise was subjective – on these points.

    They can come back with lots of quasi-, subjective considerations in their rulings that nevertheless give credence to previously questionable assumptions.

    What I always thought to be a plausible claim about the use of ‘Mike’s Nature trick’, being a clever method rather than a deception, even if it were entirely untrue, has now been damaged beyond all redemption, by this quasi-official body citing it in their ruling.

    This ruling will now be cited forever more as evidence of its less favourable interpretation.

    It might also establish a precedent in referring officially to these supposed ‘private’ e-mails as evidence.

    Well done Phil.

    Don’t give this man a loaded weapon.

    00

  • #
    nnNomnom

    “Mann chose the worst of proxies finally selecting one tree and a lake sediment core that had undergone regular disturbance from human activities. He knew these proxies were crap, and thats exactly why he chose them.”

    Mann’s reconstruction was a lot better than the preceding work on the subject. Later reconstructions, including ones by Mann himself, have improved on Mann’s earlier reconstruction too. Few people want to talk about Mann ’08, and just want to focus forever on Mann ’99. The bulk of your argument however is based on mind reading, which is a skill I doubt you possess. Just because a study has flaws doesn’t mean it’s a fraud. Science progresses, the establishing work in the field turns out to not be the final answer.

    “Lolwot, his code produces a hockey stick if you type in phone directory numbers.
    I propose you are paid to blogg, there can be no other reason for your total ignorance.”

    If I recall correctly, the hockey sticks produced by random data were statistically insignificant whereas the ones produced by temperature data were statistically significant.

    You know part of the reason I think Tim Ball is in hot water is that over the years he has made a number of bad arguments against manmade global warming. Everything from arguing that CO2 can’t cause global warming because CO2 lags temperature in records, to arguing that CO2 levels didn’t drop during the financial crisis – as if that proves CO2 rise has nothing to do with human emissions.

    If skeptics had given him a friendly nudge to correct his mistakes he might have learned. But they didn’t, in fact they paraded his arguments around and gave him a false sense of expertize on the issue. Skeptics have also over-egged the man’s credentials.

    Basically you’ve given him delusions of grandeur. You’ve turned him into some kind of past famous climate scientist when really his only claim to fame is his public outbursts against climate science. Now when he looks at his simplistic and wrong arguments he thinks they are right because no-one on his “side” is willing to tell him otherwise. As the arguments are so simple he assumes that climate scientists must realize them, and so jumps to the conclusion that scientists are committing fraud.

    His next mistake is to level glaring public accusations of fraud against scientists.

    All this is exhibited in the following article on his website:

    “The 2007 IPCC Report claimed with over 90% certainty that human produced CO2 is almost the sole cause of global warming. But the evidence shows this can’t be true; temperature changes before CO2 in every record of any duration for any time period; CO2 variability does not correlate with temperature at any point in the last 600 million years; atmospheric CO2 levels are currently at the lowest level in that period; in the 20th century most warming occurred before 1940 when human production of CO2 was very small; human production of CO2 increased the most after 1940 but global temperatures declined to 1985; from 2000 global temperatures declined while CO2 levels increased; and any reduction in CO2 threatens plant life, oxygen production, and therefore all life on the planet.”

    It’s a smorgasbord of bad arguments.

    And bad argument of the year is further down:
    “Equally important, the recent economic downturn was not anticipated, which is a measure of the failure of the entire IPCC approach. They claim that economic activity is the key to human production of CO2, which causes warming. Over the last 18 months the dramatic increase in gasoline prices and then the serious recession should have caused a measurable drop in CO2 levels. It didn’t!”

    I mean really. But then after working himself up the next header is “Ignoring the Obvious”. Yes these arguments are obvious, but Ball doesn’t realize they are also wrong. So the conclusion he reaches is that scientists must be deliberately ignoring these obvious arguments.

    He opens with “At what point does misrepresentation of facts become lies?”

    This is probably a hint at how he gets himself in legal hot water.

    But it is fitting that the skeptics who set him up are having to pay into his defense fund.

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    With respect to the columnist’s assertion that Professor Jones was “scientific method-abusing”, the newspaper had provided an extract from an email from Professor Jones in which he had written “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”.  In view of this, the Commission considered that there were some grounds for the columnist’s opinion – which readers would recognise was subjective – on these points.

    00

  • #

    Actions are running against Andrew Bolt…

    So, a racist comment made by a narcissistic bigot, which clearly breaks Australian communications regulations, relates to climate change debate… How exactly?

    While I defend Mr Bolt’s right to say anything he wants in public or private(bring back free speech please), broadcast or not, the law as it stands is pretty clear. I don’t think trying to defend Andrew in this forum progresses either his case, or the climate change argument.

    Here’s Bolt doing what he does best. Painting a broad brush and letting others who have some insight into the subject fill in the details(“I told you so.” – Andrew Bolt):

    Go to the link for the judgment. I’m glad for James, but the problem is that even when you win, you lose. I can only guess at the stress and cost James has suffered. Who’d dare to go through that themselves?

    What was the loss? Well, I didn’t read too far down into Bolts comment section to find anyone who could spot the misdirection. So here it is:

    The Commission was satisfied that readers would be aware that the comments therein represented the columnist’s own robust views of the matters in question. Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code permits the publication of such comment provided it is clearly distinguished from fact and does not contain significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.

    So it seems that all the rubbish you get straight from the MSM is now fact and anything you read on blogs can only be fiction. That’s news to me. Maybe we can bundle RealClimate up into the definition and call it a draw. Biodiversity anyone?

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Handjive@ #39

    U R Rao has analysed 45 years of data and declared that the forcing from charged particles is higher than previously thought, at 1.1Wm-2, and human-forcing lower than the IPCC “consensus” of 1.6Wm-2.

    From the linked article:-

    The report was commissioned by Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh, who has described the manmade global warming hypothesis as a “religion”.

    One has to wonder if that Voodoo Science jibe has inspired some determination for real research.;-)
    “We’re not denying the contribution of greenhouse gases — we’re only trying to expand the scientific debate to look at some non-greenhouse gas factors that may also influence global warming,” Ramesh told the Telegraph of India. ®

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I can understand Bolt’s statement,

    I’m glad for James, but the problem is that even when you win, you lose. I can only guess at the stress and cost James has suffered. Who’d dare to go through that themselves?

    It’s easy to speak against evil when we can sit in our comfortable homes and bang away on a keyboard. That’s no test at all. The real test comes when trouble is beating down your front door. What do you do then?

    I don’t know — and no one knows for sure what they’ll do in such a circumstance. I intend to fight if it comes to that. I can’t speak one way then act another and keep my self-respect. But I haven’t been tested yet. I hope it never happens. But…

    So I say thank you to Tim Ball, Andrew Bolt and James Dellingpole.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Thank you Graham @ 35.

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    In America Man would have to demonstrate damages.
    Man has damaged his own reputation. How can he say it was caused by only one 3rd party?

    Is he going to sue the AG in court for damage to his reputation in Virginia?

    00

  • #
    Sandy

    The irony here is that it was Moonbat (Monbiot Guardian zealot) that effectively got Delingpole off. Moonbat had slagged off Dr. North of EUReferendum who complained to the Press Complaints Com.
    Needless to say they found for Moonbat on the grounds that it was clearly personal opinion under Moonbat’s byline.
    So when this came up Dr. North showed Dellers the judgment who presented the PCC’s own words to them as his defence, leaving the PCC stitched up like a kipper.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Of course HOUSEHOLDS will pay under this carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax – and so will Labor………

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/of_course_well_pay_and_so_will_labor/

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Janama try this free program CCleaner: http://www.filehippo.com/download_ccleaner/ the problem you describe sounds like a problem within your computer. I’ve been using the above for several years and I run it at least every other day.

    Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with the above software company. This post is not spam and I post it here freely of my own will. I receive no gain whatsoever for posting the above link. I further disclaim any liability for the use of above software that I’m not affiliated with. Further, if anyone chooses to download the above free software that I am not affiliated with, by doing so they automatically agree to hold me harmless and defend me against any and all lawsuits for any and all things that I said, May have said, May have thought of saying at any time, place or locale but especially here at JoNova.

    00

  • #
    william gray

    nnNomnom:
    April 10th, 2011 at 10:26 pm says:

    The bulk of your argument however is based on mind reading, which is a skill I doubt you possess. Just because a study has flaws doesn’t mean it’s a fraud. Science progresses, the establishing work in the field turns out to not be the final answer.

    Mann said this:
    Whether we use all data, exclude tree rings, or base a reconstruction only on tree rings, has no significant effect on the form of the reconstruction for the period in question. This is most probably a result of the combination of our unique reconstruction strategy with the careful selection of the natural archives according to clear a priori criteria.

    However way you think he knew tree ring data was suspect. Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 963 individual scientists from 556 research institutions in 43 different countries …

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    nnMetc @41 regurgitates a gladbag of tripe to castigate professor Ball; n says:

    “You know part of the reason I think Tim Ball is in hot water is that over the years he has made a number of bad arguments against manmade global warming. Everything from arguing that CO2 can’t cause global warming because CO2 lags temperature in records, to arguing that CO2 levels didn’t drop during the financial crisis – as if that proves CO2 rise has nothing to do with human emissions.”

    Actually they are pretty good arguments; at every time interval CO2 either lags temperature or goes in the opposite direction; how can therefore CO2 increase be said to be a cause of temperature increase if it happens after or moves in opposite directions; the best that can be said is that temperature increase causes increases in CO2 or more likely that the 2 are unrelated in any MEASUREABLE way.

    In respect of the financial crisis it is also beyond dispute that human emissions of CO2, ACO2, were reduced but that both temperature and CO2 concentrations continued to climb; again that is a pretty good argument that ACO2 increase is neither a cause of temperature increase or the increase in CO2 concentrations.

    In actual fact Professor Ball is in hot water because he has made good arguments against AGW; the people suing him would not care otherwise.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Waffle@43; when you say: “a racist comment made by a narcissistic bigot” are you speaking of something said by Bolt? If so, what?

    00

  • #
    Paul S

    Whatever one may think of Dr Ball’s individuasl arguments, or of his personal style, surely the point is that a group with great political and financial clout is setting out to silence a critic with verty limited resources with which to defend himself. If Michael Mann really wanted to make a point, there are far more prominent and powerful opponents and critics in the scientific establishment he could go after. That he has not done so, but has decided to attack an elderly retired man with no money suggests a calculated cowardice on his part, typical of the schoolyard bully – pick on the weedy kid and put the fear of god into everyone else. If a man can be sued for voicing an opinion, where do we, who comment daily on these matters on public fora such as this, stand?

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Why doesnt Mann go after M&M arent they the ones that exposed the fraud, maybe you are right Paul.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    nnNomnom in 41 said

    “But it is fitting that the skeptics who set him up are having to pay into his defense fund.”

    You can sleep well at night with the knowledge that when it is AL Gore’s turn to face the music he will be able mount his own defence (with a C) due to the squillions he has made from the work of Mann.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Are there any legal experts out there as i need some advice:

    If i called Al Gore a lier and a con artist and should be put in jail for therest of his life due to many lives he has ruined via deception and misappropriation of funds can he take me to court?

    My defence would be based around his Arctic ice predictions which are as follows:

    1, In December 2008 he said all Arctic ice will be gone in 5 years (2013)

    2, He then revised his drop dead date in April 2009 by claiming a possible ice free Arctic by 2014

    3, He then revised this date again in October 2009 by claiming it could be completely gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years (2014 to 2019)

    Would i have a leg to stand on?

    00

  • #
    LevelGaze

    I now have uneasy memories of the Creationists vs Ian Plimer case…

    This could get very ugly.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    There is information regarding an Australian tour by Lord Monckton, Joanne and others, providing sufficient funds can be found through donations………….

    http://justgroundsonline.com/group/climatscepticsparty/forum/topics/lord-monckton-tour

    00

  • #
    LevelGaze

    Self-correction. It was Plimer vs Creationists.
    Anyway, the outcome was not good for Ian.

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    Plimer v Creationists is a great example of just how difficult it is for science to win in a court of law. Now we can add Jones v Dellingpole to that list.

    00

  • #
    manfred listing

    I have thought ever since the creationist case that Plimer deserves to be considered Australia’s foremost scientist, though he won’t be recognised as such by the conformist horde which calls itself scientists in Australia.

    Don’t dare, MattB to categorise Plimer with jones, and don’t dare claim him for your side, he has too much sense.

    (And now for something completely different, can someone of a mathematical bent please let me know for future reference how much carbon there is in a tonne of “carbon”?)

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    I know this is off topic for this thread, but it’s worth sharing.

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/letter-to-combet

    00

  • #
    Paul S

    Matt b @ 61:
    Your’re comparing apples and oranges. Evolution as a theory has been tested over time and has withstood the test of falsifiability. There is ample empirical evidence and observation to support it and nothing but hopeful conjecture on the side of creationism. AGW hasn’t really progressed to the stage of being a theory – it relies on models and hopeful conjecture rather than direct, verifiable, tested observation. In that sense it is rather closer to the creationist position in that it seeks to impose a theory of the world based on an a priori ontological position about man’s place in it. That it conveniently meets the needs of both radical environmentalism and international capital is one of history’s more interesting conjunctions. Dellingpole’s arguments are based on the flaws in the science, the steady accretion of political power to the IPCC and associated organs, and the skewed economic arguments used to justify it all.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Paul S… I guess it depends if you are asking creationists or scientists!

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    @crakar24:
    April 11th, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    Why doesnt Mann go after M&M arent they the ones that exposed the fraud, maybe you are right Paul.

    Suing a wealthy patrician business executive who just happens to be a mathematical genius – like McIntyre – isn’t very wise is it?

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    I can’t wait to hear Mann explain why his PhD wasn’t awarded until two years after he defended it.

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    The Plimer defamation case really had nothing directly to do with evolution. It was about a narrow legal definition of the Trade Practices Act. Ian Plimer was very badly advised by his legal team and was forced to settle out of court.

    00

  • #
    LevelGaze

    bananabender@68 is absolutely correct. Court is a very chancy thing. Let’s see how it works out for Mann.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bender in 68… a bit like Dellingpole’s case having nothing to do with climate science… more the right of an opinion piece writer to have his opinion on science even if based on a very loose interpretation of the science.

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    I have already made an initial donation of CAN$100.00 to Tim Ball’s legal fund and I encourage everyone here to do the same. If 5,000 people around the world donated CAN$100.00 each, the fund would receive CAN$500,000, which is a good start. My hope is that Dr Tim Ball’s supporters around the world donate generously, so that he can effectively meet all his legal costs for the two defamation cases brought against Tim.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    MattB:

    I rarely thank you for your posts, but your example of ridiculous desperation in #70 is so funny I really have to.

    You have given me the best laugh I have had for weeks. Thankyou.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Louis Hissink:
    April 10th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
    I dontaed to Tim Ball but Paypal somehow stated that it wasn’t being received. So I cancelled the PP transaction. Something odd is going on.

    I had the same problem.

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    How amazing… the tact to try and silence skeptics through the court system!

    Yet meanwhile, real climate change charlatans continue to be protected as demonstrated by the article “Climate science and the litany of unaccountability” found at the following link:

    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/climate-science-and-the-litany-of-unaccountability/

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Put Mann in prison along with Gore for international fraud of the highest level. Mann has no leg to stand on.

    00

  • #
    Von Monckhofen

    James Dellingpole is [snip... got any content?]

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    I hope the difficulty in getting on to the site is because he is being swamped by donations and not due to an attack from the alarmist camps to try to shut it down? I finally managed to make a donation.

    Please keep us updated on this Jo. It seems crazy that any scientist who disagrees with the CO2 positive feedback tipping point alarmism can be dismissed as heretics and deniers, yet someone who has abused the scientific process and got things totally wrong, can be funded to shut down his detractors. Even the IPCC had the good sense to dump Mann’s Hockey Stick, and I’m sure no new PhD students are silly enough to cite it unless they are doing a thesis on data manipulation!

    00