Michael Mann forced into a “do-over” in Mann -vs- CEI & Steyn

“Michael Mann forced into a “do-over” in Mann -vs- CEI & Steyn” (2013-12-23). This is why prejudiced idiots like Anthony Watts should avoid legal interpretation as well as stay out of science. Did Dr. Mann’s libel case against Mark Steyn, Rand Simberg CEI, and the National Review suffer a serious blow, or has irrelevant legal posturing by the defence been swept aside? Anthony doesn’t seem to actually know.

Sez “citizen scientist”/playground lawyer Anthony about Dr. Michael Mann’s libel lawsuit against denialist hacks (he seems to have forgotten about a couple of the defendants);

What a great Christmas present for Mike. It is back to square one for him with his lawsuit over what he views as libel by Mark Steyn and CEI.

What really happened was that defendant Steyn and his lobbyist pals were told that their appeal was about something that was no longer part of the libel suit. What was that something, you ask? Dr. Mann’s lawsuit initially described him as an Nobel Laureate when in fact he merely received a certificate of thanks from the IPCC for his lead role in their climate change report. It was the IPCC as an organization that actually received the Nobel Prize and they in turn thanked Dr. Mann, therefore everything Dr. Mann has ever said is a lie and so is Global Warming! Or some such Hail-Mary argument.

Lacking from the defence appeal was anything relevant to Steyn’s assertion that Dr. Mann’s research was “fraudulent”.

Here’s another more thoughtful comment on the antics of the defendants from the ;

If I was a judge, and someone filed an appeal with me that lacked jurisdiction due to mootness, and counsel admitted they knew it was moot when they filed it, I would sanction counsel for abuse of process.

You can read Steyn’s own ironically titled legal analysis on the National Review website: Mumbo-Jumbo for Beginners. Or try Rabett Run for a bit more perspective: The Appeals Fairy Declines Jurisdiction

My take on this is Anthony Watts and the defendants are simply expressing a variation of Goreaphobia. Their actions are governed by personality and resentment and all they can do here is squawk about scientific awards.

Funny how Anthony’s silent about denialists trying to use the meaningless “IPCC Reviewer” tag for their own vanity. Or Lord Monckton actually making a fake “Nobel Prize pin.”

My Blog Spawn

“My Blog Spawn”. Thanks, I guess, to What’s Up With Watts for pointing out how Anthony Watts privately obsesses over his critics, in all the completely irrelevant ways possible. What a painful example of projection, resentment, back-of-the-classroom goonery, and (hard for him to fight the compulsion) cherry-picking. If he doesn’t stop Googling he may go blind!

WottsUpWithThat.com

blog_child_wottsupwiththat

Proprietor: Ben Lawson of Toronto, Canada

Some of Ben’s skills: Male modelladies manmarathon runnercookpeach harvester,Bad Santa, snowfall collectora Mac technology specialist and Noble Swan

Reason for creating the blog: he got kicked off WUWT for multiple policy violations, got mad, still trying to get even.

Anthony wants you to know that I frivolously run marathons, but not that I’m a geologist. His way of deflecting my exposure of his bankrupt arguments is troll flickr for photos of me that he thinks are embarrassing, not to point out any actual errors on my part (hey Tony, here’s a tip; I have funnier ones on Facebook). Naturally my motivation, according to him, is revenge over unspecified “multiple policy violations” in my comments on his blog. Not his endless lying and remorseless Nixonian suppression of opponents.

Hats off to fellow “skewered” garbage collectors, currently vvattsupwiththat.comwottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.comwhatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com and hotwhopper.com. These days you have a stronger stomach that I!

Antarctic warming courtesy of Mr. Fix-it

Antarctic warming courtesy of Mr. Fix-it (2012-12-27). Anthony Watts posts some profound scientific analysis – “Just a little something [David Middleton] threw together”.

On the basis of Middleton’s “Mk I eyeball”, careful scientific work on Western Antarctic temperature records is dismissed with a sneer as “manufactured” and denialist cooling (via squinting) replaces objective evidence of significant warming.

So David, did you just “throw it together” or just throw it up?

Here’s Anthony Watts’ own attempt to disparage the study three days earlier, in it’s entirety, supported by a cartoon of Santa’s sleigh:

They can’t find any recent warming, so they took a broken sensor with “intermittent gaps and other problems”, “recalibrated” it, “used computerized analyses of the atmosphere to fill the gaps” and “discovered” warming that “happened in the 1980s”. If you believe that this is science, then I strongly suggest you prep your telescope, lest you miss out on a spectacular sleigh sighting…

If you believe Anthony’s interested in science, you probably believe in the tooth fairy.

Dana Nuccitelli’s holiday trick for sobering up quick: put a little less rum in your egg nog

“Dana Nuccitelli’s holiday trick for sobering up quick: put a little less rum in your egg nog” (2012-12-28). Funny how a post on Anthony Watts’ “uncensored” website attacking Dana Nuccitelli doesn’t have any responses from Dana Nuccitelli. Just sayin’.

So Anthony’s denialist buddy Alec Rawls, a self-appointed whistle-blowing IPCC expert, posted this bunk to lash out at Dana Nuccitelli. Dana had the temerity to ridicule Alec’s idea that there is a lag of secret duration and unknown cause in our climate’s response to “solar variation” (which… doesn’t). Thus proving that it really is all because of the sun and we can go back to our coal-powered land yachts free from communist oppression.

After-all, your level of inebriation can rise even after you stop drinking! And a wacky biological analogy is even better than a physical science proof. To be blunt, you’d know more about solar physics and climate from staring straight into the sun for a minute than Alec could figure out in a lifetime.

If you have the patience the 400+ comments are a comedy goldmine, especially when actual solar scientist Leif Svalgaard pops in for a serious round of whack-a-mole. Paul Vaughan’s wounded howl “Do not ever address me again” seems to capture the flavor of the reactions. Poor Alec must have anticipated an unopposed playing field, because he swaggers and sneers hilariously:

I have to feel bad for Dana on this point. It isn’t his fault. He has been systematically duped by this parade of so-called scientists all telling him that a persistent high level of forcing can’t cause continued warming. Makes me want to put him on a milk carton. The poor guy isn’t just lost, he was kidnapped. Want a piece of candy little boy? Credulous Science indeed.

Leif Svalgaard finally calls a spade a spade:

lsvalgaard says:December 29, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Alec Rawls says:
December 29, 2012 at 2:39 pm
UV-shift effects is one obvious candidate, so the NewScientist actually belittles TWO of the main candidates for this unidentified solar amplification mechanism
The Steinhilber et al. paper you cite, ends with “The UV irradiance may not be the viable solution because its observational data do not show a similar distinct decreasing trend as TSI [Frohlich ¨ , 2009], implying that its level during the MM was similar as in present solar cycle minima.
So you will quote selectively and omit what you don’t like.

University of Graz Responds to Parncutt’s calls for death penalty for “deniers”

University of Graz Responds to Parncutt’s calls for death penalty for “deniers” ()2012-12-27). Yeah! Denialist outrage has led the University of Graz to censor their music professor’s ill-advised ramblings about climate change! Freedom from speech is victorious! Nothing more satisfying than a bit of successful bullying, is there Anthony? Monckton, of course, also got his stick in there.

Also, Skeptical Science and DeSmogBlog haven’t explicitly disavowed Professor Parncutt’s essay suggesting the execution of denialists, so that clearly means they support it.

UPDATE2: 2:55:PM PST In an email received today from Skeptical Science contributor Dana Nuccitelli, he has flat out refused to distance himself or the SkS website publicly from the Parncutt essay. Readers may recall that Parncutt used SkS as a reference in his essay calling for the death penalty. No word yet on whether John Cook (owner of the website) agrees and no word yet from DeSmog blog. – Anthony

Funny, I happen to have Mr. Nuccitelli’s actual response here, which was also posted as a comment that was blocked by Anthony’s censors, which seems a bit more nuanced than Anthony’s “reporting”:

From: Dana Nuccitelli
To: Anthony <xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: still waiting…
We of course don’t agree with giving denialists the death penalty, but we’re also not going to waste our time commenting on what some German musicologist said just because he happens to (correctly) cite SkS as a factually accurate source on climate science.

Given than you frequently allow WUWT guest posts from people like Christopher Monckton, who aside from being a total nutjob (to put it as kindly as I can), says some pretty horrible things on a regular basis, I really don’t think you’re in a position to expect more than that.

-Dana

The IPCC weighs in on the Mann Nobel dilemma, and throws him under the bus

“The IPCC weighs in on the Mann Nobel dilemma, and throws him under the bus” (2012-11-02). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change swats a semantic mosquito and Anthony Watts, as he gets squished like the bug he is, declares victory.

So did Dr. Michael Mann win the Nobel Peace Prize or just help?

Apparently it’s way more important to argue about semantics, comma placement, etc. and use that for personal attacks than it is to discuss climate change science. Honest scientific discussion is a topic of last resort at WUWT, repeatedly chosen “Best Science Blog”, by weblogawards.org. (Funny how in every possible 2012 category denialist bloggers “won”. Like every fraudulent accolade Anthony claims, they aren’t worth the pixels they’re printed on.)

  • Did the IPCC receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their scientific work on Climate Change? Yes. They shared it with crypto-communist Al Gore.
  • Did the IPCC thank key contributors for their work, which resulted in the IPCC receiving the Nobel Peace Prize? Yes.
  • Was Dr. Mann one of those contributors? Yes.
  • Did Dr. Mann, in fit of alleged ego, fabricate his own Nobel Peace Prize certificate? No.
  • Do Anthony and his denialist buddies care? No.

Nobel cause corruption?

“Nobel cause corruption?” (2012-10-31). Anthony Watts knows that Dr. Michael Mann has never claimed to have “won the Nobel Peace Prize.” The editors of The National Review also know this. And yet they are both enthusiastically spreading that false claim.

The National Review is that impartial journalistic enterprise currently being sued for defamation by Dr. Mann. Anthony Watts is just a rabidly partisan blow-hard.

Here Anthony is chortling that the National Review put a snarky advertisement in the Penn State campus paper. You can hold it in your hands! This is even better than that time we hijacked the morning announcements back in high school. Also way better than Anthony’s fake Bloomberg Businessweek cover the next day.

Everyone knows that it’s Anthony’s friend, denialist birther Lord Monckton, who won the Nobel Peace Prize!