An insider's story of the global attack on climate science
An interesting account here of the New Zealand legal action which spectacularly failed to show that temperature adjustments by their weather bureau were wrong or fraudulent.
I also saw recently that Mark Steyn's lawyers have withdrawn in his defence of defamation action by Michael Mann.
Climate change denialists are too silly to realise when they are on the losing side of legal action.
Update: Hello, Steyn-iacs. There certainly seem to be a lot of you out there....
You need to take a leaf from the likes of Roger Scruton (conservative philosopher), Kerry Emmanuel, Barry Bickmore (Republican climate scientists), Katheryn Hayhoe (evangelical Christian climate scientist): believing scientists is not an intrinsically anti-conservative thing to do.
Your ideological commitment to not believing a well established consensus of scientific opinion is a scandal on the Right of politics in the US and Australia. Just because Al Gore did a documentary (which I never watched, incidentally), you're never going to believe the science?
41 comments:
Puh-leeze. You're an idiot. Mark Steyn hasn't lost anything he has put his mind to. You lying climate freaks, however, are about to lose big time.
"Conservative-leaning" my ass.
Conservative eh. Sure you are. :>)
If you will read the motion that Mark Steyn recently submitted to the court on his own behalf, you will readily see the reason he dumped his lawyers- he is by far a more brilliant writer than anyone on his team. His understanding of the legal principles and his ability to convey the essence of the case is worthy of any legal scholar. He doesn't need the attorneys, he's doing a better job on his own.
Is your team winning? You pathetic loser. Here's a question? How's that successor to the Kyoto Protocols coming?
I came, I read, I left.
“During the first cold-weather Super Bowl, Fox Sports will use an infrared camera that will show how players' body temperatures change throughout the game. And MSNBC will have a simulcast, blaming the changes on global warming.” Fred Thompson
You know how you can tell that the conservative position is the correct position? Because everyone wants to call themselves conservative to make themselves more appealing, even when they aren't conservative. It's quite flattering actually.
It will be interesting to see if "former Nobel Peace prize self nominee" Mike "hockeyschick" Mann will DARE to get on the stand, UNDER OATH.. Steyn will rip him to shreds,, Mate
Wow was there a full moon last night?
Steyn is so brilliant he knows more than his legal team.
Whatta guy!
Equating consensus with science tells me what you know of science, as does equating political leanings with science.
Modelling for reinforcement of theory against non-conforming observation and history is simply playing at a game.
Your faith-based consensus is little more than rent-seeking in the most lucrative game since the military industrial complex.
You wrote, "Believing scientists is not an intrinsically anti-conservative thing to do."
Believing "scientists" is an intrinsically anti-scientific thing to do. As a Christian I happen to believe that the human authors of the Bible were inspired; however, scientists get a lot more scientific skepticism from me.
Science is not about "believing". Science operates on empirical validation (or disproving) a thesis. Prior to Einstein, no one imagined general relativity. One does not "believe" in general relativity. One can accept the accumulated evidence as convincing or find the theory unproven. (No one, to my knowledge, has shown it to be false.) Global Warming upon morphing into Climate Change ceased being science and became a lousy religion which demands "belief".
"Science is not about 'believing'. Science operates on empirical validation (or disproving) a thesis."
Quite so. But we're not talking about science here really, are we? We're talking about scientism: the belief in science.
JJM
There's nothing like the smell of irony in the morning!
Anon at 12.24pm: um, no.
There are a mere handful of climate change contrarian scientists with detailed experience in the field who do not find reason to be concerned about the current trajectory of CO2 emissions.
The great majority have views broadly in line with the IPCC view of the state of the science.
If you don't like use of the word "believe" in relation to science, just substitute "accept".
It has been clear to me for years that those like Steyn who follow the small contrarian view on the matter are the ones who are primarily acting on ideological motivation.
What I wanna know is if it's truly "science", the study of objective data and formulation of theories that can be replicated or disproven, what exactly does a scientist's political leanings have to do with?
Seems to me the emphasis on their politics implies it is first and foremost a political agenda.
Tell me about genetically modified foods, nuclear power, food irradiation, and fracking, then get back to me on that anti science thing. Ps vaccinations.
It has very little to do with science.
This is a free speech issue. Steyn wouldn't be wasting his time on science. That's for the geeks to haggle over.
You wrote, "It has been clear to me for years that those like Steyn who follow the small contrarian view on the matter are the ones who are primarily acting on ideological motivation."
No, crazy climate-changers are primarily acting on ideological motivation. As a Christian I believe the earth is some thousands of years old. God is fully in control of CO2, no matter what the God-deniers say, and there will be must greater concerns that vast CO2 emissions on Judgement Day. Maranatha!
Climate change religion has very little to do with science and a whole lot to do with ideology--and money and power.
I believe that attorney is still representing National Review, so clearly, they believe they are on the winning side. Why would you assume that Steyn is on the wrong side of this case just because an attorney withdrew?
Um...quantum mechanics proves that general relativity is wrong.
The case was thrown out because Mann misrepresented himself as a Nobel Laureate. It now has to start from scratch and the ball is in Mann's court.
Let's see if mans up ;-)
Not likely.
Steyn and the NRO should sue him for grief and expenses.
"If you don't like use of the word "believe" in relation to science, just substitute "accept".
It has been clear to me for years that those like Steyn who follow the small contrarian view on the matter are the ones who are primarily acting on ideological motivation."
Just like the past consensus that the earth is flat? Climate-changers are the flat-earthers of this era simply because they do not know the meaning of empirical proof nor the Scientific Method. Climate has been changing as long as there has been a climate, there is a wealth of empirical evidence demonstrating that the THEORY of significant man-made climate change is just that. The models cannot represent historical data, let-alone predict the future.
Another Anonymous commenter commented, "The case was thrown out because Mann misrepresented himself as a Nobel Laureate."
It's my impression that the case WASN'T thrown out. It should be thrown out because that's what Anti-SLAPP laws were designed to do. However, because of Judge Combs Greene incompetence or sympathy for Mr. Mann--or both?--the Anti-SLAPP laws have ended up doing the opposite of what they were intended to do. The cases has just been dragging out longer and longer.
The process is the punishment. But there doesn't even seem to be much of a process; it's just a meaningless maze of legal language to keep lawyers in business.
Well, I fail to see the connection between a report involving data collection from seven (7) stations - where the raw data was both available for review and the methodology replicated correlates to a Michael Mann's situation.
Has Mann produced his data for review?
Has Mann been able to explain his modeling?
Further, has the graph produced by Michael Mann yielded any valid hypotheses or real-world predictable results?
For the sake of argument - assuming all the data on the graph is accurate, both in terms of measurement and reporting, the scientist is left with the question "There are historically high amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, so what?"
Other than tautology that the level of CO2 is high(er), what is to be made of that datum.
fwiw, there's a strong correlation between the arguments made for global warming and the anti-vax crowd's arguments.
(e.g. studies show that vaccines subject the body to a HUUUUUGE number of toxins which - ipso facto - is bad ... so don't get your get vaccinated.
Because SCIENCE!)
Just one quibble that drives me absolutely nuts in this debate.
It is entirely possible to accept
A) the impact of fossil fuel burning has increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere
B) the climate has measurably warmed in the 20th century
without accepting that the two are related.
That is the core essence of the argument against AGW hysteria, and the scientific piece of the IPCC report was very very careful to show that the linkage of A and B is quite tenuous. the political piece of the IPCC, which the scientists did not have a fianl say in, is largely contradictory to the more balanced bulk of the report blaming B entirely on A. Of course the lay community only knows the summary.
To argue that deniers are denying science is quite false. Deniers are denying the political interpretation of the science. There is a very big difference.
Safer to defame dead scientists, like Stephen J. Gould did in ‘Mismeasure of Man’.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/gould-morton-revisited/
Just because we question the validty of global warming doesn't make us against "science." What does that even mean? You use this word too broadly. Steyn is making a stand for free speech and we stand with him. The point isn't if we're against science (because evidently global warming = all science to you), it's that we're for free speech. Read the case, bro.
Seems to me that because Steyn had one big win on free speech principles in one specific type of legal action, he thinks he can hang his hat on that to win a defamation case, which is a different kettle of fish entirely.
This seems to me to be a very dubious approach.
After Steyn has been throttled, who do we go after next?
Interesting that so many so-called people of science have come out in favor of discrediting hecklers.
So, let's get those creationists next. Now's the chance, because after Steyn gets put down, there'll be no stopping us. Anyone, even a fellow scientist, who presumes to challenge our Climate Change (or any other) prognostications will face the wrath of our righteous indignation. Light the fires and let's get to work!
Only the craziest of crazies fire their lawyers because they think they can do a better job. Science denier, and now law denier. Unfortunately for Steyn, the judge can perform the debating manoeuvre known as "call to authority": his own.
Like Conrad Black and Andrew Bolt, Steyn will get slapped down. He will only have himself to blame. He will blame everyone but himself.
Not science denier nor law denier but free speech advocate. Mark Steyn stands up for a basic human right that Paul apparently takes for granted. Who's misrepresenting whom?
" Anonymous Inane Rambler said...
"Conservative-leaning" my ass.
9:47 AM"
Yes he's been lying about that for years. 'Anything but conservative' is more the truth.
" Anonymous Inane Rambler said...
"Conservative-leaning" my ass.
9:47 AM"
Also claims to be a compassionate conservative Catholic, yet supports full-term abortion...
Ask him about it.
Hello, Catallaxy flying monkeys.
Ah, another very progressive-sounding, climate "science"-obsessed kind of "conservative". You will go far, Opinion Dominion.
Rock on, Steyn.
17 years of cooling in the face of every single climate model and you argue that you have consensus propping them up and that's enough and everybody who doubts the "science" of the modellers is just a denier. How very scientific of you.
Global warming is to climate as Nazism is to political philosophy. There's so little credible evidence supporting global warming discourse, it's like the worst leftist conspiracy theorizing. It's all based on 'models' that reflect nothing, and are disproven time and again by real-world climate outcomes. Climate science is more analogous to psychoanalytic theories where you can say anything about anything and it's true if it's meaningful for YOU. JUNK SCIENCE for junk ideologues.
Perhaps Steyn's mistake here is assuming the courts see the issue as freedom of speech. It's more likely they will insist on seeing it as conservative defamation of a 'scientist'.
The grotesque mistreatment Conrad Black received at the hands of the corrupt, ideologically hard left 'justice' system in the USA is a cautionary tale for Canadians seeking justice in the benighted septic state to the south.
"I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline (in global temperatures)," the email read.
It was that attempt to "hide the decline" through the manipulation of data that helped bring down the global warming house of cards.
Steve, you need to take a leaf from the Cornwall Alliance. Have you read their "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", for example?
Post a Comment