James Delingpole

The martyrdom of Mark Steyn

I envied him for getting sued by Michael Mann. But now he needs all the support we can give

15 February 2014

9:00 AM

15 February 2014

9:00 AM

When I first read, many months ago, that the notorious US climate scientist Michael Mann was suing the notorious right-wing bastard Mark Steyn for defamation, I admit that I felt a little piqued.

Obviously a libel trial is not something any sane person would wish to court; and naturally I’m a massive fan of Steyn’s. Nevertheless, after all the work I’ve dedicated over the years to goading Mann, I found it a bit bloody annoying that Steyn — a relative latecomer to the climate change debate — should have been the one who ended up stealing all my courtroom glory.

What made me doubly jealous was that this was a case Steyn was guaranteed to win. In the unlikely event it came to court — which I didn’t think it would, given Mann’s longstanding aversion to any form of public disclosure regarding his academic research — the case would fall down on the fact that defamation is so hard to prove in the US, especially when it involves publicly funded semi-celebrities who are expected to take this sort of thing on the chin.

Since then, though, much has changed. It now looks — go to Steynonline.com for the full story — as if Steyn is going to be up there on his own, fighting and financing his case without the support of his magazine, National Review; that the outcome is not as certain as it seemed at the beginning; and that this hero deserves all the help we can give him.

Why? Well, the fact that I even have to explain this shows what a cowardly, snivelling, career-safe, intellectually feeble, morally compromised age we inhabit. By rights, Mann Steyn should be the 21st-century equivalent of the Scopes monkey trial, with believers in free speech, proponents of the scientific method and sympathetic millionaires and billionaires all piling in to Steyn’s defence with op eds, learned papers, and lavish funds to buy the hottest of hotshot lawyers.

[Alt-Text]


Instead, what do I read? Crap like, ‘Steyn’s out of order: he shouldn’t have been so rude about the judge who mishandled the initial hearing.’ (OK, maybe he shouldn’t — but what are you supposed to say about judges who mishandle your case? ‘Nice job, ma’am’?) Crap like, ‘And he’s going to take the National Review down with him.’ (No he isn’t. That’s what libel insurance is for.) Crap like, ‘Well, he shouldn’t have used such-and-such a word or written that polemic in quite so inflammatory and offensive a way.’ (Yes that’s right. Polemics should be cautious, dry, legalistic, tame. Otherwise people might read them and have their minds changed.)

So let’s just cut through that crap and remind ourselves briefly what we know about the plaintiff. Michael Mann was an obscure young physicist-turned-climatologist who rose without trace in 1998 with the publication in Nature of his ‘hockey stick’ chart showing dramatic and apparently unprecedented late-20th-century global warming.

There followed almost instant fame, on which Mann has traded ever since — gaining tenure at Penn State University, drawing millions in public funding for research, often called on by the Guardian and the New York Times to sum up the state of climate science. Al Gore used a version of Mann’s hockey stick in his Oscar-winning An Inconvenient Truth. The IPCC used it five times in its Third Assessment Report and promoted Mann to lead author.

But the hockey stick, on which Mann’s reputation largely rests, was and is a nonsense. It obliterates the medieval warm period; it is unduly reliant on proxy data — bristlecone pine samples — which are known to be unreliable; it is dependent on a flawed algorithm which, according to every statistical authority who has ever looked at the subject, creates the same hockey-stick data almost regardless of the information you feed into it.

Surely if you’re going to sue someone for defamation, this must involve an examination of the reputation said to be worth defending. What would this say about Mann, onlie begetter of arguably the most comprehensively discredited artefact in recent climate science history?

And if Mann’s scientific reputation really matters to him so much, maybe he ought first to do a bit of reading on how world-class scientists actually behave. He could do worse than read Paul Johnson’s account in Modern Times of how Einstein proposed his general theory of relativity. Einstein insisted that before his claims were taken seriously, they must first be verified by empirical observation, in the form of three specific tests. Of the final one — the red shift — Einstein wrote: ‘If it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature then the whole theory would have to be abandoned.’

Einstein’s rigour and integrity inspired Karl Popper to form his influential theories on falsification: that a scientific theory is only useful if it contains the key to its own destruction. This, critics argue, is the fundamental flaw with anthropogenic global warming theory: it has been couched in such a way as to be unfalsifiable; it is being kept alive not by science and free enquiry, but by the kind of appeals to authority we see exemplified by Mann’s response to Steyn’s criticisms.

Mann may or may not have a case against Steyn on technical grounds; but in terms of the bigger argument about empiricism, free speech and the scientific method, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Steyn gets this and — as he did in his case against the Ontario Human Rights Committee — is laying his neck on the line not solely because he’s a show-off and an awkward sod but for the greater cause of western civilisation. Now go to his website Steynonline.com and read what you can do to support him.


More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.

Show comments
  • Nordog6561

    Thank you for your support of Steyn.
    As an American I like to refer to him as the odd American phenomenon: A foreigner who happens to be a national treasure.
    I fear we live in dark times and this case is like the coal mine canary.
    Or something like that.

    • Jeannie Vargo Veegh

      My husband, also a “foreigner,” noticed several years ago a shift towards Banana Republic that others, he said, didn’t seem to notice. What frightens me is that now that it’s squarely in our face, they still aren’t noticing. Indeed, Steyn is a treasure…who needs our support.

      • Anoelg

        It is very sad. As someone who grew up under Communist oppression, I have been sounding the alarm from even before Obama was elected. Unfortunately, it was and still is NOT to be heard by many. It, apparently, is not in our face enough just yet. When it will be, even for the sycophants, it will be too late to do anything about it.

        • Ogrrre

          Anoelg, the biggest part of the problem is that American leftists think they are so much smarter than European leftists. Those Russian commies just weren’t smart enough to get it right but, hey, American commies have it all figured out.

          What they are intentionally closing their eyes to is human nature. Marxism/socialism is great for bees and ants, but it won’t work for humans. As E. O. Wilson said, “Wonderful theory; wrong species.”

          American leftists aren’t anywhere nearly as smart as they think they are.

          • Anoelg

            Ogrrre, that is my alarm – VERBATIM. Arrogance is dangerous and they are prime example of it. They think that “it wasn’t done right” in the past exactly as you say. What do you think they would say if someone came out and said that “slavery was not done right”? I cannot tell you how angry it makes me to see these people freely talk about socialism and communism that murdered, tortured, ruined millions and millions of lives!

          • Ooh!MePurse!

            An excellent post. Where abouts did you grow up? We need more people like you, who experienced the truth, to have a bigger platform and a louder megaphone

          • Chris Sposato

            I believe your name fits you.

            I’m assuming you’re at least 60+, thus why you like saying “commie”
            Mccarthy is dead and so is his paranoid Mccarthism

          • Ooh!MePurse!

            What’s wrong with ‘commie’? It’s what they are.

          • AndrewMelville

            Quite right. Commie is just a friendly word for communist. Like freckle or spangle. It’s much nicer than alternatives such as idjit, totalitarian nitwit or Satan’s spawn.

          • Ogrrre

            Chris, it is evident that ignorance is well and residing in the American Left. McCarthy is, indeed dead. However, old KGB records revealed after the fall of the Soviet Union proved that McCarthy was exactly right about communist infiltration of US institutions. Of course, you on the Left, being Communist in everything but name, wish to deny, deny, deny reality.

          • Chris Sposato

            Ignorance is you, especially about me. And your prejudice is very evident.

          • Ogrrre

            Oh! Such a witty riposte! I can safely assert ignorance on your part, since the old KGB records revealed that McCarthy was correct in his assertions, and that it was not a case of his being “paranoid”. Do you have reliable information that the KGB records were lies? If so, what is that information? If not, then man up and admit to your being not only ignorant of historical fact, but that you are willfully ignorant, and in denial of reality. My so-called “prejudice” is evident only to you, Chris, since my post was based on historical facts that you do your best to deny.

          • Chris Sposato

            Thanks. =) You have no idea. You, yourself, don’t have the evidence. So you’re just clinging to the old ideals of hating “them”, and now you’re just projecting that onto others those that you identify as with ignornant derogatory slur.

          • Barbara Tucker

            Ahhh! No answer is a very telling answer.

          • Todd Aldrich

            There is PLENTY of evidence to back up what Ogrrre said. Go look up the Venona files.

          • doowleb

            Well now, with reasoned logic like yours, I stand corrected.
            Your “I know you are but what am I” debating prowess has changed my mind. Bravo on your intellect.

          • alwanderer

            McCarthy was exactly right about communist infiltration:
            Harry Hopkins was President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s closest aide and confidante. Formally, his two top positions were first as director of the Works Progress Administration and later as head of the Lend-Lease Program. With his heavy involvement in key areas of both domestic and foreign policy and his close association with the president and especially with the very influential first lady, Eleanor, he was actually as near to being an assistant president as anyone in the United States has ever been. The evidence is accumulating that he was also an agent of the Soviet Union.

            Their evidence is, first, that Soviet KGB defector, Oleg Gordievsky, said that Hopkins was in regular communication with top Soviet covert operative, Iskhak Akhmerov, in New York City

          • Viclad

            Give it up Chris, you’re out of you league.

          • MichaelKennedy

            So is Harry Dexter White who was the communist assistant to Secretary Morgenthau who wanted to destroy Germany after WWII. I wonder why White was so interested in Germany after the war ? Stalin’s instructions ?

          • CharlestonBoy

            Thanks for the history lesson.
            You are obviously one of those “ejukatid” libs.

          • brickman

            At least he didn’t spell Landrieu as McCaskill. :-)

          • CharlestonBoy

            Thanks for giving new definition to the term “anal retentive”. I’ll bet you’re a delight at parties!

            In spite of suffering your childish posts, however, I’m going to do you a favor. And that is to inform you that, under Obamacare, folks like you can undergo a procedure in which a surgeon extricates your cranium from your posterior orifice with little or no pain, and it only requires a small copay.

            BTW, I run I-95 all the time, from SC to NC to VA, and I’ve never seen the “piles of …tires” you referred to in one of your other posts.

            Well, I’d better let you go now so you can go rearrange your sock drawer.

          • brickman

            You get on other people for their mistakes but expect mercy on yours. Oh, and I forgot you’re smarter than everyone else.

          • CharlestonBoy

            Are you serious?
            I would only “expect mercy” from my “betters”, which you are certainly not.
            Moreover, I am not “smarter than everyone else.”
            Just you.

          • brickman

            I’m smart enough to know the difference between Claire McCaskill and Mary Landrieu. I also can tell the identities of different women, even if they’re in pantsuits.LOL.

            The US Army was confident enough in my intelligence and stability that they trusted me with nuclear missiles. What did you do in the war, daddy?:-)

          • CharlestonBoy

            Your first sentence proves you are exceptional.
            To the majority of American males, most of the women on your team all look the same. McCaskill, Landrieu, Hillary, the lovelies of Code Pink. As Hillary might put it, “What’s the difference?” (“Even if they’re in pantsuits” – Do Liberal women wear anything else?)

            Wow!
            The US Army “trusted {you} with nuclear missiles”?
            I’m not sure what that has to do with your inability to mount a rebuttal, but whatever makes you feel relevant is okay with me.
            The only nukes the Army ever had were limited range tactical (Honest John, Snark, Redstone, etc.). The Air Force held the real killers, like the Minutemen, Atlas, and other ICBM’s, and the Navy had the Tridents and Polaris.
            Are you saying that you were one of the thousands of soldiers who serviced and transported them?
            Again, wow!
            (Something makes me think they didn’t let you take the launch codes home at night.)
            Still, that must’ve been pretty dangerous work!
            Did you have to “dodge sniper fire”?
            USAR 69-75.
            I’m pretty sure I saw as much combat as you did “in the war, daddy.”

          • Ty in TX

            I think it’s rather telling that there’s been no response since this post.

          • brickman

            I’m not on the net 24 hours a day. I watched St.John’s beat Georgetown instead of waiting for his reply. Go Red Storm.

          • Argus

            Go Redmen !

          • brickman

            I actually rubbed for good luck the cigar store wooden Indian that was the inspiration for the original nickname as a student. We changed because a group of people asked us kindly. They felt hurt. We didn’t feel our manhood threatened. Our university’s student body is composed of the sons and daughters of immigrants who were called many derogatory names and were the subject of offensive images. We understood. It was no big deal to change. Plus we beat Butler last night.

          • brickman

            The usual response is to thank me for my service instead of trying to belittle it. I thank you for yours. Yes, I manned a battery of tactical missiles in West Germany. I did my job. The Warsaw Pact never attacked.

          • brickman

            This my second reply. I replied three days ago and saw it printed but this site has since made it go away. Yes, I manned tactical weapons in West Germany during the Cold War. The usual response is to thank me for my service. I thank you for yours. I didn’t have to dodge sniper fire because my job entailed protecting our side of the Iron Curtain from Warsaw Pact forces.

            I am shocked that you belittle the efforts of the men who served this country in military assignments crucial to our security.

          • CharlestonBoy

            In all due respect, you need to get a life.
            I saw your original reply.
            A reiteration was not necessary, especially three days later.
            I merely responded to your taunt of “What did you do in the war, daddy?” (Which, BTW, is quite hackneyed.)
            Implicit in your statement is the notion that you served in combat, which, by your own admission, you did not.
            Reminiscent of the scene in “Full Metal Jacket”, as Matthew Modine banters with a line Marine, introducing himself as “a Combat Journalist”, whereupon the line Marine asks mockingly, “Well, have ya seen a lot of combat?”

          • brickman

            You need to learn to pay closer attention to detail. You confused Landrieu and McCaskill. Then tried to BS your way around it rather than tell the truth. I never said or implied that I served in combat, show me where I did. I served in the Cold War helping to deter the Warsaw Pact until they collapsed. You denigrated the service of all of us who served in West Germany. Why? To make a point in a blog.

          • CharlestonBoy

            “You need to” avoid asking others “what did you do in the war, daddy?”, particularly since you didn’t serve in one.
            I know plenty of guys who worked in Germany during the “Cold War”. In fact, some of the older guys in my unit participated in the Berlin Airlift.
            They and those who followed them would tell you, despite your self-delusion, that sitting in a warm Conex hut along the West German/East German line in the Sixties was a far cry from running LRRP missions at night across the Cambodian border.
            BTW, how many KIA did your outfit sustain “deter{ing}’ the Warsaw Pact?
            How many shots did you actually fire at them?
            How many missiles were launched from your battery?

      • squareWave

        The reason people aren’t noticing is because human beings have a disturbing tendency to not notice danger — as long as they like the ideological window dressing it comes with.

      • Chris

        But your Michi is a bit of a banana as well, sometimes…

        • Jeannie Vargo Veegh

          True. I’m realizing every family has a measure of fruits & nuts :)

    • Marky_D

      As a brit I see Mark Steyn as an International Treasure. In reality I guess he is a defender of the anglosphere and the mores and traditions born of that shared culture, which unfortunately are under differing but similar attack everywhere.

      • Nordog6561

        Nicely put Marky.

      • Tweety58

        Mark is CANADIAN,old boy.

        • Moa

          I think Marky_D knows that, but he sees Mark Steyn in the same way I do (I’m a New Zealander) – as a hero of 21st Enlightenment Culture, and exemplifies the qualities that the British Commonwealth stands for. That is what makes Mark Steyn an “International Treasure” – which is earned, rather than based solely on the melanin concentration on his skin.

          Mark Steyn is the Churchill of our age in oratory and literary skill and acerbic wit.

          Similarly, Ted Cruz is the Reagan of our age in the political sphere, battling the Cultural Marxists that infest the Democrat Party and academia.

          • Chris Sposato

            I’m sorry , the Hell you Say! Ted Cruz isn’t good enough to spit shine Bonzo’s shoes! let alone Reagan’s! And Reagan has been put on an idol for falsely perceived notions!

          • Ogrrre

            Chris, according to you and the others on the left, God himself is unworthy to “spit shine Bonzo’s shoes.” According to you and Pissy Chrissy Matthews, only Bonzo is fit to spit shine Bonzo’s shoes, and he is not going to stoop so low.
            Is Ted Cruz perfect? Oh, hell no! But he is light-years ahead of Barky Obama. Was Reagan perfect? Oh, hell no. No human is perfect. But, at least Reagan was a darn sight more ethical and moral than Democrat currently holding office, especially Barry (Il Douche) Obama.

          • Chris Sposato

            I’m sorry, did you sleep through Iran-Contra … and Reagan’s disconcerting ineptness concerning AIDS epidemic when it was starting , and there are other issues

          • Ogrrre

            “Reagan’s disconcerting ineptness concerning AIDS epidemic…” What would you have him do? Hmm? When the AIDS epidemic first started, it was primarily a disease of homosexuals, spread by their behavior. Should Reagan have signed an executive order telling the virus to stop?
            No, I did not sleep through Iran-Contra. Are you saying Iran-Contra excuses Obama and all of his scandals? Are you saying that Iran-Contra is the moral equivalent of all of Obama’s scandals, including F&F, Benghazi, IRS targeting, and the rest of the graft and corruption in the most corrupt administration in the history of this country? Is that what you are trying to say? If so, I call BS!
            Additionally, in the case of Iran-Contra, Congress appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the matter. How many convictions resulted that were not overturned on appeal? Now, how many special prosecutors have Congress appointed to investigate the much worse and much more numerous criminal activities of “the most transparent administration evah!”

          • iamstopper

            Chris,
            Read Ogrrre’s reply, you absolutely got taken down boy!!! You want to say Reagan was bad because of Iran-Contra? LOL!!!!!!!! You are an ideologue with no knowledge of the facts, and Ogrrrre made you look like a feeble child.

          • Ofay Cat

            What did you want Reagan to do … go around and console every Faqqot in San Fran to be seen to be doing something?

            Smarten up.

          • Todd Aldrich

            I am sorry that you think freeing hostages while undermining communist dictators who are spreading revolutions is a bad thing. He had ZERO ineptness regarding AIDS. He was the first to fund it – and WHY should it take precedent over other diseases that kill so many more people. ESPECIALLY when AIDS can be prevented ALMOST 100% with responsible behavior.

          • David Funk

            “ineptness concerning AIDS epidemic when it was starting” Are you referring to the part about stating that the San Francisco Bath House culture had nothing to do with the spread of the disease? I don’t think that was Reagan, think it was Progressive.

          • jamson64

            Funny-men have sex with other men is the President’s fault?

          • Iain Hill

            This is what is left of Britain. Who are all these nonentities?

          • happylada

            Morons don’t usually know they’re morons. But you should, it is SO obvious

            Cruz is the real thing – Obama is a fictional work – w know NOTHING of his background – he spent millions to have it sealed so we cannot. We do know he surrounded his law license, as did Michelle, under a dark cloud – that his tenure as a lecturer – he never WAS a professor – rated him a D from his students.

            The black follow him like the Pied Piper, but the Pied Piper did SOME good. Obama has destroyed the black community, and why NOT – he’s NOT black in the American sense of the word, and cares NOTHING for American blacks except for their votes. He is a dark-skinned Arab, and a Muslim by conscience – explaining why he has done just what he claimed in his book he would do – throw his lot in with the muzlims.

            And people are surprised he actually did what he said he would do – he ONLY lies about policy, never direction.

            His grade as President is no better than F – but if possible, I think Z is appropriate

          • Chris Sposato

            Wow, don’t hold back your racism nor your islamophobia.

            you do know that Rafael Cruz is Koch’s brothers’ puppet;
            And that he’s Cuban Canadian-born {I’m surprised your racism isn’t short-circuiting}

          • Ogrrre

            Since you “know” all this about Cruz, I’m sure you have citations and evidence to back all your allegations? Chris, do you think that everyone opposed to Obama is only opposed because of the melanin content of his skin? Do you think most, if not all, of those opposed to Barky the Cipher would be just fine with all his corruption, Marxism, and criminality if only he were white? If so, that shows YOUR racism.

          • Barbara Tucker

            Chris is obviously in the “don’t confuse me with the facts” crowd. He attacks because he believes if he insults you enough you’ll back off. As short sighted as they all are.

          • Chris Sposato

            I believe that is your all’s mantra;
            where facts and science doesn’t matter to you.
            But you all apparently like being spoon-fed your hypocrisy.

          • MichaelKennedy

            Whoops ! One more sweet spot- hypocrisy. Sort of like attacking the rich whilst cashing their checks.

          • global city

            It is you who comes across as the spoon fed cliche.

          • Barbara Tucker

            You talk about “facts and science” and all Ogrrre asked for was the same – “citations and evidence”. I’m open to re-evaluating my positions on whatever with VALID evidence, nothing less. From the tone of most of your posts I doubt very seriously if valid evidence refuting your positions would change yours.

          • Chris Sposato

            Go to google.com and type in Ted Cruz birth certificate.

          • ptm

            Google Sposato and you’ll find an Ape climbing trees.

          • watcherofolde

            That’s three cards.

          • ptm

            You just HAVE to keep up, THEY just published a poll designating Democrats to be the LEAST SCIENTIFIC Believers – stick that where the sun doesn’t shine!

          • Chris Sposato

            How stupid and ignorant you must be, to think polls are true and reliable. In essence, they are tools and ploys to get a tiny sampling of anyone surveyed, who may or may not have given a truthful answer.

          • Chris Sposato

            He showed his Canadian birth-certificate (not an allegation)

            He says he’s part of the Tea Party {Caucus}.
            The Kochs are in-charge of the Tea Party.
            Therefore, Rafael Cruz is the Kochs’ bitch.

          • Dan

            No more than Obama is George Soros’ bitch.

          • Ogrrre

            And, your lord and savior, lightbringer, healer of the planet and lowerer of the seas, Barak Obama, has not shown his birth certificate, and has spent, from some estimates, over a million dollars to keep his birth certificate and other records sealed from the citizenry. The two versions of his birth certificate he as released online have been proven to be photoshopped fakes.
            As for your second paragraph, your logic is a non-sequitor. Your second premise is an allegation, and an unproven one, at that.
            I could follow that logical pattern and declare “Obama says he’s part of the Democrat Party. George Soros is in charge of the Democrat Party. Therefore, Obama is Soros’ bitch.” See how that works?

          • Chris Sposato

            No, it is not a fake : http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

            “In April 2011, Fuddy confirmed Obama’s “long form” birth certificate as part of the state’s effort to put to rest questions about whether he was really born in the United States.

            “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawaii,” she said at the time.”

          • Rational_Db8

            Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate Signs affidavit declaring long-form, hospital-generated document absent

            Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities…

            High court justice: Obama birth certificate fishy Says evidence raises ‘serious questions about authenticity’

            Whistle Blower Claims She Forged Obama’s Birth Certificate, Guess Who It Is? .

            It is important to note that the only person to “see” and authenticate the long form birth certificate of one President Barrack H. Obama is now dead in a plane crash…

            Obama’s own website, “Fight the Smears” states that he was a dual citizen until 1982. http://web.archive.org/web/20120107072837/http:/www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

            Arpaio: ‘Probable cause’ Obama certificate a fraud Team wants investigation elevated to criminal-forgery probe – person of interest ID’d

            Hawaii State Registrar does not verify authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate

            Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery.

          • Todd Aldrich

            Which Tea Party Chris, there are only several hundred groups that go by that moniker – and NONE of them are headed by either of the Koch Brothers.

          • MichaelKennedy

            “The Kochs are in-charge of the Tea Party.”

            Where do I apply for my check ? You really can’t be this dumb. The Tea Party is a spontaneous movement that has no “in-charge.” They (we) scare the heck out of Democrats hence the IRS gambit. Before you say “phony scandal” why did Lois Lerner take the 5th Amendment if there was no risk ?

          • Chris Sposato

            Weird that the Ohio IRS office manager is a conservative Republican.

            I bet they would have continued to interview ALL political “tax-free” groups, to reclassify them, because these political groups mistakenly labeled themselves as tax-free, when they clearly were operating in a manner not consistent in being tax-free organizations in the first place. They were just trying to get-around the law. Karl Rove just pissed that he got caught.

          • ptm

            Like you’re O Bumbler’s Richard sucker!

          • David Funk

            Where is the statement from “The Tea Party” saying that Koch is in-charge. First, there is no ‘Tea Party’, but a bunch of organizations following the same general ideas. There are a number of people, some rich, some not so, who support one or more ‘Tea Parties’ or other people or organizations that hold, more or less, to those ideas. There is no CPUSA for the Tea Party. The Tea Party and the Republican Party are different organizations, who, right now, are not in full agreement. There is (sorta) a Tea Party caucus, but is is NOT in charge of the Tea Party.
            The Tea Party is what the Democrat Party claims to be. It is a populist movement. It also hates Communism/Socialism/Marxism/Progressivism and makes no bones about that.
            It does not hate Blacks, Latinos, or anyone because of their ethnic background. To say that it does is racism. Shall we list the non-white conservatives who have received racist treatment from the American Progressive Movement?

          • Robert Reed

            Maybe we could make the argument clearer if we emphasized “TEA” means “Taxed Enough Already” … this assemblage has gathered together because government is taking TOO MUCH!! (notice I did not add “& returning too little”)
            The TEA Party is about reducing the taxation burden of the federal, state & local governments for the purpose of people using the resources which they have earned & acquired to supply for the needs which they have or are obligated/compelled internally to cover.
            Would there be disparity? Yes, but there is not inherent evil in disparity. There is inherent evil in taking what is not yours by force or threat of force (IRS).

          • David Funk

            Robert, There is nothing you say that I can disagree with. However for me the argument is not the taxes, which are a part of or symptom of the problem. Progressiveism, Communism, Socialism, Marxism are the problem. Taxes are, in and of themselves, are not evil. Communism, under whatever name, is evil. It must be recognized as evil and called out as such. The tax, spend, and control Progressive mantra is evil not in that they are taxing, but it is the goal, which is the destruction of America to replace it with Amerika. The establishment of Communism that most of the world has tried and found not wanting, but evil. Taxes are part of the way and should be fought, but should be fought because the establishment of those taxes was done contra the constitution and it is the braking of our bedrock law that was the crime, the taxes are merely a way step to a workers’ paradise, a paradise for our betters.

          • NigelFoster

            So, the worse excesses of Wall Street are all Marxist inspired, are they? Interesting. And I suppose Communism is to blame for the recent Afghan war.

          • mark abrams

            no one is charge of the tea party. your posts reveal a brainwashed stooge.

          • Rational_Db8

            You’ve lost it. The Koch’s aren’t “in charge” of the TEA party. Nor do they compare in donations to those from the left – in fat the Koch’s rank 59th for largest donors, and 6 of the top 10 are liberals donating almost entirely to liberals/democrats/progressives/marxists/socialists. And so what if Ted Cruz happened to be born in Canada? His mom was a US citizen, and his Dad a naturalized US citizen, so he is by birth also – and he was raised from age 4 on entirely within the USA. Are American parents who happen to work outside the USA for a few years now no longer USA patriots simply because of that in your eyes? Talk about a nutty proposition.

          • Chris Sposato

            You should check your facts about who’s actually in-charge of the Tea Party.

            And, yes he’s a citizen of the US … but not a “natural-born citizen” as it is required by our Constitution {as well as a citizen of Canada}.

            http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
            “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

            And “natural born Citizen” refers to being born within the United States, and it has been extended to US Embassies, US Bases, or aboard US ships.

          • Rational_Db8

            Sorry, but you’re the one who needs to check your facts. There are a huge number of non-profits and other organizations that support the ideals of the TEA party, but the TEA party isn’t a single organization and it’s not controlled by any one person or group. Claiming it is just shows you don’t know what you are talking about.

            And if you want to talk about being a natural born citizen, you’d best study up some. One does not have to be born on USA soil to be a natural born citizen, only born to USA citizen parents. Simply being born on USA soil, with foreign parents, in fact is NOT sufficient to be a “natural born citizen. Whether a single citizen parent is sufficient or if it has to be both has never been determined. In fact, because of various laws at the time of his birth, and his mothers age, etc., Obama’s status as a natural born citizen is more questionable than Cruz’s.

          • Chris Sposato

            Tea Party Patriots, an organization with more than 1,000 affiliated groups across the nation[160] that proclaims itself to be the “Official Home of the Tea Party Movement”.[161]

            Americans for Prosperity, an organization founded by David H. Koch in 2003, and led by Tim Phillips. The group has over 1 million members in 500 local affiliates and led protests against health care reform in 2009.[158]

            FreedomWorks, an organization led by Matt Kibbe. Like Americans for Prosperity, the group has over 1 million members in 500 local affiliates. It makes local and national candidate endorsements.[158]

            Tea Party Express, a national bus tour run by Our Country Deserves Better PAC, itself a conservative political action committee created by Sacramento-based Republican consulting firm Russo, Marsh, and Associates.[162][163][164][165]

          • Rational_Db8

            So?

          • Chris Sposato

            you need to do better research … or actually just do research:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

            “term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to foreign parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth”.”

            So, yes, a child born in the US or US “soil” can become president.

            “The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence. Alexander Hamilton, a Convention delegate from New York, wrote in Federalist No. 68about the care that must be taken in selecting the president: “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”[5] St. George Tucker, an early federal judge, wrote in 1803 that the natural born citizen clause is “a happy means of security against foreign influence”, and that “The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against.”[6] Delegate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina said in a speech before the Senate, “to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible.”[7]

            There was also a perception that a usurper from the European aristocracy could potentially immigrate and buy his way into power.[8] Constitutional scholar Akhil Amar points out that the laws of England specifically allowed a foreign-born head of state, and that this had been an unhappy experience for many who had immigrated to the United States.[8]”

            U.S. government officials in the Civil War era

            John Bingham

            John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:

            The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen of the United states’ appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens.[17]

            He reiterated his statement in 1866:

            Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.[18]”

          • Rational_Db8

            Of course being a “natural born citizen” is all about allegiance. But again, being simply born on USA soil isn’t nearly enough. If it were, a child could be born on USA soil, of two non-citizen parents, raised in a foreign country with allegiance entirely to the nation of his parents and where raised and none to the USA, and be president of the USA. That was EXACTLY the sort of situation the “natural born citizen” clause was intended to prevent. At least one, and possibly both parents must also be USA citizens. The issue of whether one is sufficient or not has never been legally determined. That it has to be at least one, has been.

          • Chris Sposato

            Stop being stupid and ignorant. And again, actually do some research.

            an US Citizen is “natural-born citizen” if born in the US, thus eligible to be President.

            What you seem to be advocating, is if a US-mother bared her child in another country’s soil, that child can be President, which most of Tea-Party people are claiming and clawing at President Obama for that very thing. Then, you’re advocating any US citizen with a US parent can be President.
            So, if so, and you don’t think President Obama can be President but you think Rafael Cruz is eligible, then you are a hypocrite.

            President Obama was born in Hawai’i, United States.
            Rafael Edward Cruz was born in Canada.

          • Rational_Db8

            You seem to be suffering from some pretty severe psychological projection. Basically, that’s when you accuse others of what you yourself are in fact guilty of.

            Take your own advice and do some research – in fact, quite clearly simply being born on USA soil does NOT qualify one as a “natural born citizen.” It only qualifies one as a citizen, which is quite different.

            “bared” isn’t a word.

            Clearly you also don’t understand the basis of the “birther” claims either, because you haven’t bothered to research the issue or haven’t understood what you read.

            Where did I ever say that Obama wasn’t eligible but Cruz is? Oh, that’s right, I never said anything like that.

            Take your own advice and do some research on this issue – then perhaps you won’t appear to be so stupid and ignorant yourself.

          • Rational_Db8

            From your own quoted material: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty

            Parents who aren’t citizens of the USA but are citizens of other nations owe allegiance to other foreign sovereignty. That is why simply being born on USA soil isn’t sufficient to make one a “natural born citizen.”

          • Chris Sposato

            Jane Mayerhas argued that the Koch brothers were essential in funding and strengthening the movement, through groups such as Americans for Prosperity.[71][72] In 2013, a study published in the journal Tobacco Control concluded that organizations within the movement were connected with non-profit organizations that the tobacco industry and other corporate interests worked with and provided funding for,[73][74] including groups Citizens for a Sound Economy (founded by the Koch brothers)

          • Rational_Db8

            You gotta be kidding me. You try to pretend that saying the Koch’s are in charge of the TEA party to ‘gee, a single person claims they provided funding’ is somehow equivalent??? Your initial claim was utterly bogus. And golly gee, now you’re claiming that because some NON-PROFITS that at some time supposedly worked with tobacco industry and OTHER corporations somehow goes to prove the Koch’s provided some funding to TEA party interests? Can you get any more vague and questionable?

            And if you’re going to cut and paste, at least provide the link to the original article so people can check the references. Otherwise, your posted stuff is worthless.

          • Chris Sposato

            then it’s a bandwagon-effect, and everyone of you is piling on

            started out with the Kochs, Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, etc, and Fox News fanning the flames, and now your leadership can’t control you all, because of the so many heads

          • Rational_Db8

            Dude, it started as a grass roots movement that had no leaders. Your claim that the leadership “can’t control you all, because of the so many heads” is nonsensical – it’s a populist movement.

          • Chris Sposato

            Americans for Prosperity, an organization founded by David H. Koch in 2003, and led by Tim Phillips. The group has over 1 million members in 500 local affiliates and led protests against health care reform in 2009.[158]
            Tea Party Patriots, an organization with more than 1,000 affiliated groups across the nation[160] that proclaims itself to be the “Official Home of the Tea Party Movement”.[161]
            FreedomWorks, an organization led by Matt Kibbe. Like Americans for Prosperity, the group has over 1 million members in 500 local affiliates. It makes local and national candidate endorsements.[158]

            Tea Party Express, a national bus tour run by Our Country Deserves Better PAC, itself a conservative political action committee created by Sacramento-based Republican consulting firm Russo, Marsh, and Associates.[162][163][164][165]

          • Chris Sposato
          • Rational_Db8

            Why am I not surprised it’s from the left leaning and oh-so-often incorrect wikipedia? Its still ONE person making the claim. But thanks for providing the reference for your earlier cut and paste anyhow.

          • Chris Sposato

            So, you wouldn’t be complaining, if someone else born in another country with dual-citizenship would run for Presidency?

          • Rational_Db8

            Where did you ever get that idea from? Certainly not from anything I said.

          • jamson64

            You’re hilarious. I bet you think you actually have an original thought. Just more talking points. Not much with you.

          • watcherofolde

            The Kochs are rated 59th in political campaign giving. All the big unions are the top five.

          • Chris Sposato

            Yes, I do believe you all have been hammering at him, because he is black and because og his name.

          • Ogrrre

            If you really believe that, then you are a fool. It is his policies, not his skin that we object to.

          • doowleb

            Kindly refer us to ANY previous president that sealed his own past records as his first executive order.
            Now tell us why that act shouldn’t be questioned by any reasonable person.
            It never ceases to amaze that a country that elected a black president keeps being accused of racism. 2+2 = 4 except for communists like you.

          • Chris Sposato

            I am not a Communist. {And you all calling me one , won’t make it true}

            This country is bring torn apart, as limitedly seen here

          • ptm

            You’re a COMMUNIST in your philosophy.

          • Chris Sposato

            You have no idea.

            Would you please learn what the word means.

          • ptm

            Oh yes your a Communist, living in your mother’s basement earning your $60 from Soros by posting.

            When YOU’VE lived under Communism like I HAVE, you can preach to me about your knowledge of the subject, until then STHU!

          • Chris Sposato

            I am not a Communist. You don’t know shit about me! So, You can shut the Fuck Up! =D

          • ptm

            Unfortunately I know enough to know that you’re a Communist, not necessarily in your membership, even Van Jones now claims he didn’t sign up – but the records show HE DID, and you learned your lesson from his ILK not to put your name on the dotted line but work it from behind the screen you little Commie! So STFU and quit hiding.

          • Chris Sposato

            Again, {because apparently you don’t listen}, no matter how much you scream and whine and type, saying that I am, won’t make me one. So, please quit.

          • ptm

            You’ve already proved yourself a Believer of the Marxist persuasion so quit denying it.

          • Chris Sposato

            I have proved nothing of that sort, and you have not proved the opposite.
            Now, please quit trying to bully me. And leave me the Hell alone!

          • ptm

            Quit responding with your EMPTY rhetoric.

            When YOU’VE lived under Communism like I HAVE, you can preach to me about your knowledge of the subject, until then STHU!

          • Chris Sposato

            Communism is dead. Please let it die.

          • ptm

            Tell that SHEET to the Humans in Cuba, N Korea, Vietnam, China and elsewhere trying to raise its ugly head in Venezuela.

          • doowleb

            I notice you sidestepped my assertion that Obama is hiding his past from the American people.
            That act alone should put chills up the spine of any true patriot.
            Deflect, obfuscate, project, …anything but answer the question.
            All Alinsky tactics for a successful communist.
            As Patton said about Rommel’s tactics….you stupid ba….rd we’ve read the book!

          • David Funk

            Except, Barry is not black.

          • Robert Reed

            Chester Arthur

          • MichaelKennedy

            We all know you believe it. That is what is so amusing.

          • ptm

            Arse hole, if it weren’t for the WHITE vote he wouldn’t be president.

          • Demoriot

            I also hate Hillary because she is a woman and I secretly wish I was a man. The Koch brothers send me checks for each Tea Party rally I go to, as well.

          • Barbara Tucker

            Well Demoriot – seems as though I’m missing out! Where do I sign up? Oh yes, I know, my check’s “in the mail”.
            This whole thing would be hilarious if we didn’t know Chris was so misguided and really believes all this bilge.

          • mark abrams

            you mean if were named thomas sowel or clarence thomas instead of barry soweto people would think his destructive imbecility would be fine ?

          • Rational_Db8

            I’m sorry, sir, but there is a problem with your Race Card®.

            It’s been declined, and is badly overdrawn.

            Perhaps you could actually try to formulate a relevant argument instead.

            Now grow up and actually try to make an argument.

          • Major

            He’s not black partner…he’s the first mixed race “potus”…period. I’m blacker than he is and I think he’s a clown and a lawn jockey. We call that Hi yeller.

          • minaka2

            Is it all right if we hate the policies of his white half?

          • Chris Sposato

            Do you pay into social security and Medicare?
            And expect to use it when you retire?
            If so, you’re a socialist.

            Do you drive on roads, expect pot-holes to be fixed?
            If so, you’re a socialist.

          • brian

            You’ve got to be trolling. No one able to turn on a computer is this ignorant.

          • Chris Sposato

            *Have you read the conversations?*

            Yay, everyone bully me

          • Kevin Williams

            We all read the real you and you can’t take it
            You are all those things all wrapped up in your own world of lies.The truth is a hard pill to swallow.
            You’re the racist ,communist,marxist all in one.
            Face it you’re the one judging people by skin color and party.

          • Chris Sposato

            Kevin, you are quite stupid.

          • watcherofolde

            Brilliant reposte

          • Jim Denney

            We’re not “bullying” you, oh Indoctrinated one, we’re attempting to present “inconvenient truths” to you.

          • watcherofolde

            He claims to be bullied while name calling. Typical.

          • Todd Aldrich

            Not quite Chris. But nice try.

          • Chris Sposato

            Seriously, you all need to get off this marxist and communism kick

          • ptm

            Not UNTIL every one of you Communists are driven to Cuba so you can experience what you vie for!

          • watcherofolde

            He wouldn’t last a month in Cuba.

          • Kevin Williams

            If the shoe fits.
            The truth is hard for you to take.
            Take a long look in the mirror.

          • TheProudDuck

            As soon as you stop acting Marxist, we’ll stop calling you Marxist.

          • rtj1211

            You’d think the Germans are marxists.

          • Jill

            Why? Our President and many of his closest peers found it quite an interesting topic of study and debate.

          • Tweety58

            Once you quit being a defacto Marxist,Stalin.

            Seriously.

          • rtj1211

            It’s the Americans’ bogey man. They’re too afraid to look at the truth of their nation and how far away they are from the founding fathers’ ideals, so they engage in never-ending scaremongering to stop the people rising up in revolution to overthrow their new rulers from outside their shores (well they live within their shores but refuse to pay taxes).

          • mark abrams

            roads are built by private contractors, and are paid for by both local communities and developers. But we wouldnt expect a jackboot worshiping authoritarian like your self to know much that the state doesnt spoon feed him.

          • Chris Sposato

            Roads are built by the States using tax dollars from both State and Federal sources. They contract out to contractors.
            Now, stop being stupid and ignorant.

          • rtj1211

            Is it more important to you who builds them rather than whether they are built cost-effectively, efficiently and for general good rather than private fiefdoms??

          • Chris Sposato

            I dislike toll roads; just drive on Oklahoma’s and you will see why.

            I much prefer finding the balance between quality, cost-effectiveness, efficient, and environmentally cleaner and safer

          • TexasMom2012

            I have paid into SS and Medicare but I have not believed that they will be in existence by the time hubby retires. At least not in their current form. So since the late 80s we have prepared accordingly…

          • sevanclaig

            Boy was that a stupid response.

          • global city

            what a terrible and inaccurate point to make!

          • TheProudDuck

            Socialism is defined as an economic system where the means of economic production are owned or substantially controlled by the state.

            A system where taxes are imposed on private enterprise to fund public goods like roads is not socialist. Get a clue.

          • Barbara Tucker

            Actually – that would make us TAX Payers!

          • Jill

            Do I have a choice to pay for Medicare or Social Security? No. Therefore, I am a ‘socialist’ simply by government coercion. As for roads and other publicly shared property, built for common use, those predate the income tax by many years. Your entire comment, in light of the subject matter, is not germane and patently false.

          • Chris Sposato

            what I was meaning was that in a socialistic ideal, everyone pays for the roads for everyone to use the roads.

            in a capitalistic ideal would charge you each time you used the roads … ie toll roads

          • happylada

            WHY? We pay for the roads through vehicle taxes, gas taxes, license taxes, and thru the nose taxes, totally apart from personal taxes, so NO reason to pay as in a toll.

          • Chris Sposato

            then don’t drive through Oklahoma; just about everywhere you go there is a toll road.

          • rtj1211

            And in a capitalistic ideal 20 – 30% of people struggle to survive, lose their health both physical and mental and they are paraded by religious nut jobs as feckless and unworthy.

            Is that your dream, Mr Sposato??

          • Chris Sposato

            there is no true form of Capitalism, like there is not true form Socialism … there is only Gov’t on one side and Corporations on the other … and consumers in the middle

          • Chris Sposato

            {for everyone’s sake … I dislike toll roads}

          • OldUberGoober

            What a remarkably ignorant thing to say. Or a lie. Chose one, or both.

            The activities Chris describes are done at the point of a gubmint gun. Thus they indicate nothing except that a person might have a non-critical amount of revolutionary fervor or desire to emigrate to an anarchic locale (should such a place even exist).

            And of course, he’s smirking about how he put one over on the benighted conservatives… Typical Liberal fail.

          • Yardbird

            Oh, wait a minute…we can choose whether to pay into SS or Medicare or not?

            And when I pay my state and local taxes I do expect to have potholes repaired.

          • Adam

            Milton Friedman was an ardent capitalist, but recognizes the desire to have limited government to grease the wheels of commerce. That’s on a different order and magnitude from government run schools, healthcare and retirement planning, tasks for which the state has proven abjectly incompetent and inefficient at great expense. Filling a pothole is the same as cradle to grave entitlements ? Not buying that.

          • Chris Sposato

            Because you don’t know what Marxism is or means, here this will help:
            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

          • Ogrrre

            Really? You use Wikipedia as a reference for something political? I much prefer the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital (translated version) to find out what Marxism is. And, yes, I’ve read both. Have you? Now that you know how to really find out what Marxism is, I define a Marxist as someone who espouses the beliefs and philosophy of Marx, and works to implement those beliefs and that philosophy. Given that definition, Barak (Il Douche) Obama is, indeed, a Marxist.

          • David Funk

            I don’t think many care much about the differences between Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Maoism, Stalinism, Progressiveism. Different roads to the same place.

          • Rational_Db8

            Add fascism to your listing. They’re all hard left tyrannical systems, only with slightly different mechanisms to accomplish the same thing.

          • Chris Sposato

            Fascism is on the other side of the political spectrum … with you all

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

            … or did you not know that

          • Rational_Db8

            ROFLMAO!! You give the left leaning wikipedia as a reference on this issue??? And did you even bother to READ the link you provided? It says “in the simplest form” and goes on to show that there are many different divisions.

            Fascism is a totalitarian system which is very very close to communism. Are you not aware that Hitler felt communism was his greatest enemy because it was so close to fascism that he risked losing supporters to it? Or that the NAZI party was a SOCIALIST party?

            Fascism allows corporations to exist — ONLY so long as they follow the bidding of the government. It’s clearly a stateist totalitarian system, which is very contrary to the right side of the political spectrum. Liberals/progressives/socialists, however, love to try to put it on the right.

            The Concise Encyclopaedia of Economics: Fascism
            As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

            Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

            Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

            Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.

            Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

            To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

            The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition…..

          • rtj1211

            Actually, you need to ask yourself at what point corporations become too big to control and hence take over societies without being run with a societal outlook in mind.

            The way business is discussed by free marketeers is akin to saying that all paedophilia is OK because sex is good.

          • Rational_Db8

            Oh please. Why should I ask myself a question with a flawed premise that’s a strawman to boot? NO ONE is advocating eliminating regulations to stop monopolies, etc. And just how are corporations going to get so large that a government can’t control them within it’s own boundaries, when large corporations are run by boards of directors and owned by millions of shareholders?

            Free market capitalism is responsible for lifting billions of people out of poverty and resulting in the best standards of living that has ever existed – vastly more so than pretty much any other system that has ever existed.

          • Major

            The place where 100,000.000 or so have been murdered on it’s path of human destruction.

          • calhou

            The road to hell has signs from many ideologies

          • rtj1211

            What do you call perpetual overseas warfare against those who have never lifted a weapon in anger against the nation in question??

            I need a label for America, you see…….

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Really? Barak Obama regards commodity fetishism as the great problem of our time? Obama understands that we endow commodities with human attributes, and invest our hopes and emotions in them, while treating other people as mere objects and obstacles to our fulfilment? As you have read Kapital, you will know that this paradox, which he says arises from the transformation of our labour into profit, is the core of Marx’s thinking.

          • Todd Aldrich

            He is right on, it is you that is ignorant. To deny the marxist influence of the Left these days is simply an exercise of hiding from the facts.

          • Chris Sposato

            In the immortalized words from Princess Bride : “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

          • idalily

            Wikipedia? Comedy gold.

          • global city

            but the know what Cultural Marxism is, that’s for sure.

          • JimBob7

            Telling the truth isn’t racist, except to a witless dolt.

          • Chris Sposato

            Not knowing the facts or more to the point not understanding the facts makes you witless dolt.

          • Ogrrre

            So, you are admitting to being a witless dolt? Very good! Acknowledging you have a problem is the first step in fixing the problem.

          • RedDog

            O.,
            Chris said he has a 147 IQ…surely even knuckle dragger a like us can see the brilliance in his writing and reason.

            R.D.

          • ptm

            He forgot to put a decimal point in there, 14.7, making him an IIDDIIOOTT – there it’s fixed.

          • Todd Aldrich

            Thank you for your confession. Now go educate yourself so that you can leave the ranks of the witless dolts.

          • Todd Aldrich

            Lol another liberal moron with a Koch problem. Better lay off the drugs, they are making you delusional.

          • MichaelKennedy

            Are there any leftist sweet spots you neglected there ? Koch brothers-check; racism-check; Islamophobia- check; “Rafael” Cruz-check. Nice job there, Chris.

          • Todd Aldrich

            You can get this response almost word for word from hundreds of leftist robots, it is almost as if they are programmed and controlled by some central authority. Oh wait.

          • 1CatEye

            Wow! He was born both in Cuba AND Canada? For that alone, I say we elect him president forthwith! (Psst, you do know being born in another country doesn’t disqualify you from being an American citizen, right)? Oh, and speaking of puppets, how’s Soros today?

          • Chris Sposato

            He’s father is Cuban, mother is American, and he was born in Canada, and not on US “soil”. So not Natural-born citizen, as per the Constitution … if you were wanting to vote for him 2016.

            And, I was playing up to Ogrrrre’s prejudices, is why I said that.

          • 1CatEye

            No, dearie. If you read, studied and understood the Constitution, you’d know “natural born citizen” was put in to cover all those who were born here, but were British citizens, since we had not yet won our freedom. Either you don’t know that, which makes you stupid; or you are deliberately misrepresenting it, which makes you a liar. If you didn’t know about Soros until recently, better look him up. A nazi sympathizer who turned in his own neighbors. A man who arrest warrants out for him in other countries for destablizing their currency (deliberately). Shades of 2007-2008? By the way, you didn’t answer. How is Soros today?

          • Chris Sposato

            Re-read it … it has both instances, and court cases have allowed those born on US ships, bases, and embassies sre considered “natural-born citizens”

            I don’t know Soros and not his nurse.

          • Ogrrre

            Ummm… Barky’s father was Kenyan, and his mother American. No one knows where Barky was born. His grandmother claimed to have been there when he was born in Nairobi. Newspapers in IL and in Kenya rejoiced at the first Kenyan-born person elected to the U.S. Senate. The short biography written by his book publishers claimed he was born in Kenya. Not once did Barky issue a correction, until it became a liability to his political carreer. Il Douche’s released birth certificates have been held to be forgeries.
            Are you going to be consistent in your application of principle in this matter? I didn’t think so. One thing you might wish to think about is that when McCain was challenged on his being a “natural born” citizen, he immediately produced his birth certificate. Why didn’t Ear Leader do the same? What does he have to hide? Perhaps that he was not born on American soil?

          • Chris Sposato

            So, I’m guessing you’re on board for thinking Cruz can’t be president, else you are a hypocrit.

            Obama was born in Hawai’i, thus natural-born citizen.
            McCain was born on the US Base in Panama, thus natural-born citizen.
            Cruz was born in Canada, thus dual-citizenship … ergo can’t be president, not even vice-president.

          • Ogrrre

            Obama NOW says he was born in Hawaii, despite the fact he cannot or will not produce a valid birth certificate that is not a forgery. His grandmother, his publicist, and various newspapers, both here and abroad, stated he was born in Kenya, and he did not bother to correct those statements.
            I believe Ted Cruz is as qualified to hold the office of President of the United States as Obama is.
            Don’t forget, Chris, it was Hillary’s campaign that brought up the question of Obama’s birthplace. Are you admitting, finally, that Hillary is a liar, just like her husband?

          • Chris Sposato

            You will hear *what* you want to hear.

            Great to know that you feel Cruz can’t be president.
            at least we are on board with that

          • Ogrrre

            Actually, Chris, I don’t know any such thing. I haven’t seen Cruz’ birth certificate. On the other hand, you don’t know that Ear Leader is qualified to be president, as he has concealed all of his records, and has not presented a valid, non-photoshopped birth certificate
            It seems that you are the one who hears only what he wants to hear, sees only what he wants to see, and will not change your mind no matter what evidence is presented.

          • Chris Sposato

            Try using Google.com you actually might learn something.
            And you quit listening to your lying sources.

            Goodnight, Ogrrrrrrre {the name really does fit you}

          • doowleb

            And about Obama’s birth certificate?…crickets from the brainwashed.

          • Chris Sposato

            He has already proved that he was born in Hawai’i and it was Authenticated!

            Get over it and Move on, already!

          • Chris Sposato

            How about you all do your research about Soros?

            And I didn’t know about him until recently

          • ptm

            So then you know he turned his Tribe members in to the Nazis!

          • jamson64

            Shows how ignorant you are.

          • Howienica

            All you are is an ideologue.

            That’s it?

          • David Funk

            Disliking, even hating someone because of his actions is not racism. Calling someone a racist without basis, has become the new American racism. The idea that someone can dislike Obama only because of racism is in itself racism.

          • evangelinebrabant

            Cruz is a saint, and a brave man.

            It is so amazing to me that if you don’t like Obama, (a complete racist) you are a racist. If you don’t like ObamaCare, you are a racist.

            I myself don’t think of him as black. I think of Obama as red, as in communist.

            You yourself are so racist-left that it does not occur to you that those of us who hate Obama do not care about his color. We care about the deliberate dismantlement and destruction of the United States – the end of capitalism, economic prosperity, and our history of lifting people out of poverty, and most of all, our democratic Republic – disappearing in front of our very eyes.

            We have a lawless, out of control president. And isn’t it interesting that if he were white, this would all come to a halt, but no, he is black, so no one can (will) do anything.

            So, the greatest nation the world has ever known, is on a path of destruction and ruin, because of a black president. Because he is black.

          • BostonMary

            “Should the political winds shift, I will stand with the Muslims.” Audacity of Hope. page 261. Barack Hussein Obama

          • Tweety58

            Can’t respond so he uses Alinsky insults to shut down debate-doesn’t work anymore a s s h o l o e -why didn’t you throw HATER in there ?What a simp.

          • watcherofolde

            You hold only 2 cards, and they are both jokers

          • ptm

            We’ll give you Tom Steyer for Koch Bros. and you get Soros as a bonus.

          • sevanclaig

            Cruz always says the right thing, and I truly believe his hearts in the right place. But he’s waxy, if not greasy in his delivery. He almost always looks as if he’s waiting for his next cue to give a canned response. Not saying he is giving one, or that he’s not capable of speaking off the cuff, but the guy was basically right about the Reagan analogy.

          • ricoliv

            Rule #1: Never try to reason with a moron. To do so is an exercise in futility.

          • Andrew MacGregor

            And you my friend are a sad sort of person.

          • happylada

            Pot, meet Kettle

          • rtj1211

            And what are Ted Cruz’ views on the rights of peoples of other nations if US corporations, armaments manufacturers and military hierarchy want to bomb the shit out of somewhere to make money for shareholders??

          • JimBob7

            If you had the IQ of a fern you would not utter such drivel.

          • Chris Sposato

            Mine’s about 147, what’s yours?

          • RedDog

            147? LMAO…who told you that, yo mama?

          • MichaelKennedy

            I thought IQs were racist. You racist !

          • Todd Aldrich

            Sorry BIG TIME fail

          • Barbara Tucker

            I always thought that if you had money you didn’t have to mention it – it would be obvious.

            With an IQ that high you shouldn’t have to tell us about it – your ideas and writings would reflect it – whats up??

          • Sal Minella

            Yes, you are sorry.

          • ptm

            The ONLY thing you’re good for is for the toilet paper needs something to wipe.

          • evangelinebrabant

            You only demonstrate your adherence to leftist rhetoric and a lack of substantial information.

          • Mack

            People have been known to change their national allegiances.

            People have been known to change their religions.

            People have been known to change their political beliefs.

            With the family Cruz, though, all these changes are so common to the familythat no one can be reasonably convinced where their loyalties lie anywhere at any time: Cuba / Canada / USA, Communist / Republican, Catholic / Baptist/ Whatever Papa Cruz Feels This Week.

            The Cruz family need a generation to figure out who they are. In the meantime,let’s position stable candidates for public office.

          • AtlanticMan

            Ted Cruz was born on 22 December 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. He is a Canadian citizen by birth and to date he has not renounced his citizenship.

          • JasonC

            Before his presidency, Reagan was a die-hard libertarian. After Bush’s assassination attempt, the Gipper was cowed into NWO submission and his administration compromised.

          • ptm

            But according to B Clinton, O Bozo wasn’t good enough to “fetch our coffee”.

          • YouThink?

            Yikes

        • Nordog6561

          >>Mark is CANADIAN,old boy.<<

          To borrow from the last line of "Some Like It Hot"…

          Well, nobody's perfect.

          😉

          • Tweety58

            Joe E. Lewis,my Father’s favourite.

        • IainRMuir

          Had to look this up. He was educated in Birmingham (the UK one), which explains why he speaks funny.

        • Marky_D

          I know that. You think CANADA is not part of the anglosphere? Not sure of the point you are trying to make. Erm.. old boy.

        • CrassyKnoll

          Yes, and anyone who reads him knows since he mentions it regularly.

          But otherwise he doesn’t let it hinder him.

          😉

          • Tweety58

            Americans and the English should not throw glass in stone houses.You’re both collapsing.

            :-)

        • ricoliv

          Where does he say otherwise … old boy?

          • Tweety58

            The ussa claims him.As well as the Caliphated Orwellian Brits ………old girl .

      • Ofay Cat

        Mark is CANADIAN.

        I am an observer of both out countries and I can tell you that Canada, at this time, is more like the United States used to be, than the USA. The USA is looking more an more like Nazi Germany. Police State is just the beginning … you better wise up before it’s too late.

        • ADW

          Er, except Canada has been persecuting Steyn through those human rights commission kangaroo courts. Secondly, Mark is a Canadian national but he was educated in Britain (and still pronounces a lot of words in the British way) and lives in America, so can’t all three countries celebrate him as someone standing for the values all three once thought worth fighting for? I am guessing Mr Steyn himself wouldn’t object to that.

          • Rush_is_Right

            And don’t leave the Belgians out! I believe his mother is Flemish.

    • gerontius

      Is there a fighting fund?

      • Nordog6561

        The only thing I have found is an online Mark Steyn store with proceeds from sales going to support Steyn. This can be found at his website, linked about in the original article.

        I would like to see a legal defense fund to which one can simply make direct donations, but I don’t know that one exists. I love Mark Steyn, but truth be told, his website is a mess in my opinion.

    • GloriousCause

      A foreigner who is a national treasure because he is a foreigner who can articulate the greatness of what the Founders set up for us better than the overwhelming of us who were blessed to be born American.

    • calhou

      Mark Steyn, as a foreigner, appreciates even more what it is to be American. It is too bad that so many native born do not.

      • Nordog6561

        Exactly right.

  • skippingdog

    Don’t know where the author is from, but the idea of “libel insurance” is laughable in the U.S.

    • chasrmartin

      I don’t know where you’re from, but it’s apparently somwhere without Google: http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?id=28

      • skippingdog

        Perhaps you didn’t notice the term “student media” in your link? Where does a “professional” writer or journalist or magazine obtain such insurance?

    • bungopony

      Not Mars-you’d know him.

      • skippingdog

        Okay, bungo. Where can you buy “libel insurance” in the U.S.?

        • bungopony

          Wal-Mart?NRO assures us they have it.

          • skippingdog

            Haven’t seen any such assurances from NRO, and they certainly wouldn’t get their insurance from WalMart if they have E&O coverage for their publication.

            In the meantime, it’s fun to watch NRO get their private parts in a ringer over the kooky nonsense Steyn wrote for them.

          • Angie Schultz

            Google is your friend.

          • skippingdog

            No way to tell whether that’s correct or mere posturing. If you’ve ever worked in insurance defense litigation, you’d know that the carrier always wants their own lawyers defending the case, since it’s the carrier that is exposed to bar far the greatest financial risks.

            Why isn’t that happening in the NRO case? Why has Steyn been fired by his lawyers, or fired his lawyers, depending on which story you’d like to believe?

          • bungopony

            Tell you what-I’ll Google libel law&you Google,(w)”‘ringer”.Yeesh!

          • skippingdog

            You can certainly Google whatever you’d like. Maybe you’ll actually learn something.

          • bungopony

            Like how to spell “wringer”?
            NRO has said they have libel ins.Sorry,I can’t be bothered looking for the actual assurances.

  • John Chittick

    Not only is CAGW prone to this sort of pseudo scientific method but Conservation Biology as well. The scenario is typified by an hypothesis which, due to the (well hyped) pressing need for action, skirts past the stage of exhaustive attempts at “testing to disprove” and goes directly to ameliorating political action while lavishly funding “research” aimed primarily at reinforcement of hypothesis criteria. It appears that the military industrial complex was the model for the magnitude of rent seeking that has been accomplished under the guise of the CAGW bandwagon.

  • pettifog

    Great summary, but as for the last paragraph, Mark Steyn’s primary battle was with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

    • Scaramouche

      Actually, complaints had been lodged in three of Canada’s cockamamie “human rights” bodies–the federal one, the Ontario “Human Rights” Commission and the BCHRT. The final one subjected Steyn and Maclean’s Magazine (where Steyn’s “Islamophobic” writings had appeared) to an absurd, five-day long Kangaroo trial, which found him innocent (well, as innocent as one can be in such a proceeding, where guilt is presumed at the outset), whereupon the other two “human rights” bodies declined to go forward with a prosecution.

      • bungopony

        I thought it was Alberta’s.Also,did the national HRK get involved or did Barb Hall just flap her gums afterward?

        • Scaramouche

          No, Alberta’s was after Ezra Levant. His “crime” was daring to publish to notorious Motoons in a magazine he then published called the Western Standard. The national body–the Canadian Human Rights Commission–was then helmed by Jennifer Lynch (who died last year). Barbara Hall remains the crackpot-in-chief (as I like to call her) of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Re the Steyn inquisition, she claimed that her provincial racket had no jurisdiction to proceed. That did not stop her, however, from declaring, a la Lewis Carroll’s White Queen, that Steyn was guilty as charged. As I recall, Steyn referred to it as Hall’s “drive-by sentence.”

          • skara_brae

            The same Barbara Hall who is in large part responsible for foisting the ludicrous Bare Naked Ladies on an unsuspecting public.
            Whilst mayor of Toronto, because of their name, having never heard or seen them perform she banned the then deservedly obscure Bare Naked Ladies from playing a public gig with the inevitable result.
            She’s nuts. Sue me. Go Mark.

          • Scaramouche

            You can blame the hellacious Hall for many things, not the least of which is upping the busybody ante (so to speak) of her gawdawful “human rights” enterprise. And, yes, she was once a Toronto mayor. However, the now mostly forgotten June Rowlands is the mayor who did the BNL “foisting.” Or rather, she banned them from performing at a city event because she thought the then-unknown band’s name was too risqué.

            At a time when Toronto’s mayor has smoked crack and consorted with friends in low places (in the words of that old Garth Brooks song) it all seems rather quaint–even quainter than it did at the time (back in the 1980s).

          • bungopony

            Thanks.I can’t bring myself to feel foolish for failing to keep track of the various bureaucracies,though.Be like naming my bedbugs.

          • Scaramouche

            Yes, they are rather like bedbugs, but if you don’t identify ’em and take measures to defeat the relentless critters, pretty soon you will lose your whole house.

          • bungopony

            Like the Obamas-what’s the difference between Barb Hall et al,and bedbugs?Bedbugs don’t piously lecture you that it’s for your own good.

      • Moa

        Not only innocent, the but obvious bias of the trial was enough to prompt political action to reign the censorship in. Mark Steyn’s victory was decisive and crushing – because he was so massively right, the Commission so massively wrong, and the complainants perpetually offended (which should elicit a massive “so fscking what!” in any society that *practices* Free Speech rather than using it as a marketing slogan).

  • Robbydot1

    James, is there a way we can donate towards Steyn’s legal costs for this?

    • barryobarma

      Go to steynonline.com and buy gift certificates, which don’t expire so you don’t have to rush to use them.

      • Robbydot1

        Thanks, I will.

        • Altesegel

          Also write to local media and US media complaining about the Mann-hunt for Mark. Steyn lives in New Hampshire, pester the media – why is this man being sued? is it true that we can no longer criticize Islam, homosexuality or global warming?

          • Robbydot1

            As to Islam, yes. It’s been true for a long time.

          • mikehaseler

            I think its now OK to criticise islam and Homosexuality.

          • Trapnel

            Not if you are a public figure … and if they are not allowed to who will speak up for the silent majority?

          • SA_NYC

            It always has been. Maybe not culturally acceptable, but we’re talking about the law here, let’s not conflate the two.

  • FickleFinger

    This is far beyond a fight over science. This is a fight over the complete fabrication of reality for political reasons. This is a classic attempt to silence the voice in the crowd who clearly states the obvious truth – “The Emperor is wearing no clothes at all.”

    • 1crappie2

      Is that why he’s storing his ammo with the postal service?

    • hmastercylinder

      “The King is in the altogether
      But altogether the altogether
      He’s altogether as naked as the day that he was born.
      The King is in the altogether
      But altogether the altogether
      It’s altogether the very least the King has ever worn.”
      H/T Danny Kaye and some guy named Andersen (lyrics)

      • RogerKnights

        ICPP

  • barryobarma

    All those taxes and the carbon-footprint scam represent a bulti-billion dollar meal ticket for these frauds, so they can’t afford to let it go. I watched the BBC weather report on the storms last night – patronising nonsense which reminded me of John Craven’s Newsround, and rounded off by an awful woman who heads up the Met Office, with nods and winks to “climate change” being the “cause” of the weather.

    If your pension fund, salary, job or investments depend on this fraud continuing, then you, like the BBC, UN, Al Gore and Mann are going to keep it rolling, just as the Aztecs kept sacrificing people, Oxfam keeps punting African poverty and the Catholic Church keeps people confessing.

    Which is less honest, BitCoin or AGW?

    • sarahsmith232

      Fantastic post. When are we going to get to live in a society with a free media? The BBC would not have a hope of continuing to get away with this constant drip feed of Left-wing propaganda that we have no legal right to refuse to fund.

      • bungopony

        Really?CBS,ABC,NBC,CNN,MSNBC,CTV(I’m Canadian-we also have aversion of BBC-$1.1/annum CBC)…
        Still,they should sink or swim.

      • Tom Tom

        The Media has never been free – it has since the days of The Leeds Mercury ceased to be radical and became a corporate edict sheet for rich men around the time Harmsworth entered the fray

    • johnt

      Good one. But never underrate the propensity to ideological self deceit. Surely many of these loons believe the crap they publish, the fraud Mann does.

    • Rocksy

      I didn’t realize that Reconciliation was affecting anyone but the individual penitent. .

  • JP

    I see Delingpole still believes the hockey stick ‘is dependent on a flawed algorithm which, according to every statistical authority who has ever looked at the subject, creates the same hockey-stick data almost regardless of the information you feed into it.’

    I’d pay very good money to see him defend that statement in court. It’s now well known that McIntyre blundered. But the interpreter of interpretations is immune to information that does not serve the cause. We already knew that too.

    • http://slugmandrew.com slugmandrew

      Care to share your sources for McIntyre’s blunder?

      • Noel Darlow

        Is this the same paper where he got degrees and radians mixed up? (!)

      • ratatosk

        This is hardly

    • mikehaseler

      Are you proposing tennis or squash, because I’ve read the McIntyre paper and there’s no question he is right.

      • JP

        Nope. He mucked up in his handling of red noise. Look it up. Mann’s no poster-boy for science as it should be done, but McIntyre did *not* deliver the coup de grace to the hockey stick(s).

        There have been several solid reviews of his approach and his code. Look ’em up.

        ‘Sceptics’ (what they are is really cynics) need to grow up, quit carping, and do some science that is better than the stuff they don’t like, rather than these half-baked offerings.

        • Fred_Z

          Why should I look anything up? You assert, you prove, not hard, yet no AGW fanatic gets it. Your comment has just exactly the same dismissive, secretive, arrogant tone and manner as Mann.

          What is the exact FTP address for this code? Where are the reviews of this code?

          • ratatosk

            See above. Read the stuff. These are serious issues. M&M’s study is *highly* unreliable.

        • Jeffrey Vernon

          What they might do instead – since few of us can collect and reduce data – is insist that whatever scientists say, the application of science should be a democratic question. It’s up to us what we do about the claims – which might be anything between ignoring them, and carbon capture plus waterwheels.

  • Michael Shaw

    Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Graph may supplant Piltown Man as the greatest scientific hoax of all time.

    • mikehaseler

      May?

      • bungopony

        My only quibble with his comment is with the phrase,”scientific hoax”.No such thing!!

    • andycanuck

      Then it will be “Piltdown Mann”.

      • bungopony

        Do you have this copyrighted/trademarked?Picture the T-shirt!

      • hmastercylinder

        Touche!

    • http://one-shore.com/aaron fijiaaron

      And yet, nearly a century after Scopes we’re still taught men descended from the Piltdown monkey, and forbidden to mention any alternative to the obviously flawed evolution theory.

      • http://www.facebook.com/don.meaker Don Meaker

        No, we are not taught that men descended from Piltdown. That you lie should give us some knowledge of the cause you support.

      • Moa

        > “we’re still taught men”
        FALSE.

        We are taught that we share a common evolutionary ancestor as modern primates.

        Furthermore, the fossil evidence and mitochondrial evidence show that evolution is a much better explanation that any of the superstitions that simply ignore the similarities between species.

        If any superstition is true then my money is one the Flying Spaghetti Monster being the Creator. Otherwise, I’ll stick with the science, thanks.

        • louisianalag

          I am sure we will find that missing link anyday.

    • Tom Tom

      Lysenkoism

  • BillRees

    James, this is one of the best articles you have ever written.
    This is your Henry V moment.
    Anyone who believes in liberty will surely curse themselves if they don’t come to Steyn’s aid in this appalling action by Michael Mann.

  • Foxgoose

    Absolutely agree – anyone who cares about either free speech or the morass of climate bullshit we’re drowning in should support Steyn.

    Being an honest guy – he’s not even asking for handouts. Just for people to by gift vouchers which they can later redeem for his books etc if they wish.

    I think $100 for a Steyn certificate is the best investment around – for anybody who supports truth & freedom over bullshit & bureaucracy.

    • SA_NYC

      I’m a huge fan of Steyn’s writing. But there are libel laws for a reason. You can’t just say or write whatever you feel like that’s untrue about someone. For example, I can’t make demonstrably false written allegations about you being a serial pedophile. Well actually I can, but you might be able to successfully sue me (for financial damages only). In my opinion, that’s a reasonable limit to my otherwise very wide right to free speech. Do you disagree? If not, then I’m not sure what the objection is to Steyn getting brought up on these charges. If you believe in the justice process in this country, then you ought to be OK with it playing out here. Steyn will be fine, or at least, as fine as he deserves to be, under what are some of the least-stringent libel laws in the world.

      • dave

        Completely false accusation, and if you read anything about the case (which I’m sure you have), you know it. So that makes you a liar on top of everything. Steyn never called Mann a serial pedophile. He quoted a blog post that did, and wrote that although he saw what the author was trying to accomplish with the analogy, he would not make it himself.

        • SA_NYC

          I actually wasn’t even referring to the pedophile aspect of this specific case (which I agree is absurd), I was just throwing that out there as an example of a horrible accusation one could make willy-nilly in the absence of any libel laws. Under absolute free speech, I’d have every right to call you a serial pedophile as I saw fit. (And you with me, of course.) I don’t think many people would find that acceptable.

          • Moa

            So you are saying that Free Speech only applies if it is true? then who gets to determine what is true?

            Free Speech never covers slander where it is verifiably false, nor immediate incitement to violence. Everything else must be permitted, and truth must always be a defense (although this can require a court case to establish), otherwise the censors end up determining what is permitted or not. Do you want one of the Muslim Brotherhood guys that Obama has in his White House (eg. Mohammed Elibiary) determining what you can and can’t say?

            Free Speech *must* include insults, opinions, and all sorts of unsavory things – in order to protect the essential thing: the right of people to *listen* to that one dissenting and unpopular voice that is telling the truth. Free Speech covers the right of many people to hear as much as it does for one to speak.

            You are either for Free Speech or you are not. The antidote to bad speech is more Free Speech, telling the truth. Censorship is not the answer!

          • SA_NYC

            Certainly censorship is not the answer. But to your specific question as to who determines what is true, the answer in the case of a libel suit is a court of law. You paint the picture as being pure black-and-white “You are either for Free Speech or you are not” but then you contradict yourself by pointing out that “Free Speech never covers slander where it is verifiably false”. Which is it? Under the current laws in the US, the answer is the latter, more or less. And my point is that I think most people are OK with that, as opposed to an absolutist approach. You yourself seem to be. So I’m just not sure what the fuss is about Steyn getting brought up on these civil (not criminal) charges. If he didn’t libel this Mann character, Steyn will come out fine. He’ll have legal costs, so people are welcome to offer him financial support. But I’m just suggesting we not reflexively put on an outrage act over the free-speech issue, simply because we tend to lean towards Steyn’s political views.

          • ConradCA

            Critcism is intrinsic to the scientific method. If Mann can’t tolerate it then he isn’t a scientist and is not doing science.

          • Moa

            Mark Steyn is so brilliant that not only has he refused your nonsense about “absolutism”, he briefly covers why Mann is wrong too from a Free Speech perspective and from a scientific perspective:

            “http://www.steynonline.com/6079/yes-we-can-say-that”
            http://www.steynonline.com/6079/yes-we-can-say-that

            and covers in more depth here:
            “Michael E Mann, America’s Lysenko”
            http://www.steynonline.com/6084/timing-is-everything

            Incidentally, you might like to check out the scientific observations that show Steyn is factually right (and factual truths cannot be libellous), and Mann is not only wrong, but he was part of a group manipulating data fraudulently to deliberately deceive (which is why he uses junk lawsuits instead of science to force others to shut up):

            “A Good Visualization Of US Temperature Fraud”
            http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/a-good-visualization-of-us-temperature-fraud/

            > ” If he didn’t libel this Mann character, Steyn will come out fine.”

            As Steyn points out, the outcome of the trial is not the punishment, the *process* is the punishment. It takes a huge amount of time and effort to defend yourself and the better part of a million bucks. *That* is what is so wrong with those who are wishy washy about Free Speech and always defer to a full-blown court process. No! the precident needs to be reset that holding a dissenting opinion (especially about anything that is not Government science orthodoxy) and tackling those that enforce the majority opinion is fair game (which is what everyone else in public life expects).

            The line of argument you are taking (“let the official bodies sort it out”) is wrong. It defers what constitutes permitted speech to the Government alone (*always* a bad idea, and I must say, a Marxist one – I’m sorry to say your thinking has still not fully migrated from the Leftism you want to discard), and always ends up in an ‘Inquisitional’ style process. Steyn had this exact thing in Canada where their ‘Human Rights Commission’ busily suppressed the human right to Free Speech when it enforced the Sharia demands of hypersensitive superstitious immigrants. Steyn won so comprehensively that the Canadian Government introduced legislation to stop those commissions from working against the human rights they were created to uphold (and they did this because they were dominated by Leftists that rigidly enforce their orthodoxy; Leftists agree with Free Speech when they want to talk, but viciously negate it when others speak).

            > “”You are either for Free Speech or you are not””

            Just like there are no “half-virgins”. Apart from some tiny exceptions, eg. immediate incitement to violence, verifiably false statements etc then Free Speech is absolutely required and should have massive breadth.

            > ” But I’m just suggesting we not reflexively put on an outrage act over the free-speech issue, simply because we tend to lean towards Steyn’s political views.”

            If you are not outraged by assaults on Free Speech then I’m afraid you simply don’t believe in it as *the most important principle* in 21st Century society. We cannot afford to meekly submit as they erode ‘permitted’ speech in a “death by a thousand cuts” manner. It’s has nothing to do with those that hold different political views to me – it’s not me who’s doing the censorship, and I’m Voltarian in defending the right of those I don’t agree with to speak – to which I’ll retaliate with more Free Speech to give the correct answer :)

            ps. I suggest you simply go to the following two sites and imbibe what is there, one has Steyn’s excellent and very funny articles, and the other covers the climate fraud issue (which is essential to understanding the relative positions of Mann and Steyn):
            http://www.steynonline.com
            http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

            pps. Did you used to go by the nickname EdOfNYC or something similar ?

          • SA_NYC

            Thank you for your well-considered reply, you write well.

            I will still make a few counterpoints. First of all, no, I have not post under any other screen name. Second, thank you for the links to Steyn’s site. I’m a big fan of his oh-so-entertaining writing, and have been for 15 years now. I own nearly every one of his books, several of them personally autographed by him.

            Next, if you are referencing Steven Goddard to support your thesis that “Steyn is factually right” then I would suggest you do a little research on who said Mr. Goddard is and how reliable his work is in the field of climatology. (Spoiler alert: not reliable at all.) I consider myself a strong fiscal conservative, but also a critical thinker, and I simply can’t wish away what I’ve determined is the fact of climate change. I wish it weren’t the case because fossil fuels are an amazing source of energy and contributor to human wealth and progress. But climate change is happening. That’s not to say that anyone has a very clear idea of exactly what is going on or how it will play out, or that there isn’t major room for debate on how we as a human race should respond, if at all. But to simply fudge away the fact that climate change is happening strikes me as ironically a very un-conservative approach.

            Fourth and perhaps most important, you seem unclear as to the relationship between the judiciary and the legislative and executive branches of government in this country. The judiciary is entirely independent from the other two. Of course, most judges are appointed by legislators, but once appointed these judges are strictly independent and apolitical. Even the slightest whiff of attempts at politically-influencing courts are generally met with stern rebuke. (Just this morning I heard a story about New York’s new mayor being questioned about someone in his office putting in a call about a pending case to the police investigating team.) There isn’t an deference on judicial decision-making “to the Government alone” (which I took to mean politicians, i.e. the legislative/executive branches). So trusting cases to our legal system is absolutely not the same thing as deferring to government. (And incidentally, the quote “let the official bodies sort it out” was yours, not mine–I think a reader could reasonably have been confused about that.) I will grant you that Steyn’s run-ins with quasi-governmental “Human Rights” commissions that you mention were a case of the government effectively being judge and executioner, and I certainly would not defend those processes. But this isn’t the same thing.

            Last, on the matter of absolutism in terms of adherence to the principle of freedom of speech: Interestingly, you yourself cite a couple of cases of speech you would forbid. So you actually aren’t an absolutist either. And one of your cases is “verifiably false statements”. Isn’t that basically what we’re talking about here? It’s always been received wisdom that words, like physical actions, can do real and lasting damage. I would argue that in the age of the internet, this effect is magnified. Because it’s so much easier to reach huge numbers of people with words, and because words basically live forever now, in the ethereal world. I’m not a scientist but I also work in a field in which reputation is paramount. And if someone were to publish, falsely and loudly, that I were a fraud, it would cause significant damage to my career and livelihood. Obviously I can’t prevent someone from making public false accusations about me, but I would certainly want for there to be some means for me to go about setting the record straight and undoing the damage to the extent possible. And I’m sorry, but I just don’t think that my own right to publish a rebuttal to this hypothetical false-accuser simply wouldn’t be sufficient.

            I’ll finish by stating that I share your Voltarian desire to defend the right to speech you don’t agree with. And I certainly would not deny Steyn’s right to say exactly what he did. But I do think that there needs to be a legal mechanism by which people accused in clearly- and verifiably-false speech to defend themselves. A civil (non-criminal) court presided over by an independent judge, with a high bar of proof, strikes me as a fairly reasonable means of achieving such, without denigrating our cherished rights to free speech.

        • SA_NYC

          “…a liar on top of everything else”, boy, wish I knew what the “everything else” was, sounds juicy!

          Seriously though, isn’t this article primarily about free speech? My comment about knowingly and falsely accusing someone of being a pedophile actually had nothing to do with the Steyn case, it was merely an example of what would be fully permissible under an absolutist free-speech legal paradigm. As it is, American libel laws are extremely tough to press successfully, particularly for public figures. I happen to think it’s a good thing there are some libel laws on the books. It’s easy to get riled up when one particular cases offends one’s sensibilities, but on balance I would think most people would agree. And since generally speaking I trust the justice system, then if Steyn is so obviously in the right, he’ll come out fine, minus his legal fees of course. (And I would be in favor of a loser-pays system in this country.) If Steyn’s case is so strong, then maybe he barely needs legal counsel. In any case, he’s a big boy who certainly can handle himself, so I don’t understand all the hand-wringing. If Steyn didn’t libel Mann–which everyone on here seems very confident of–he’ll make out just fine and it will be a(nother) PR black eye on the latter.

        • Bart

          Not so. The blog post did not call Mann a serial pedophile. It compared Penn State’s lackadaisical inquiry into Mann’s activities with its inquiry into those of Coach Jerry Sandusky, exonerated by Penn State, but later convicted in court.

      • artyonemanparty

        thanks, but, no one disagrees with any of that. ….and it has nothing to do with the facts of this case.

      • hmastercylinder

        Tell me that once you’ve been through the legal mill. The American legal mill, that is.
        Neither side wins. The lawyers and judges always win. The more hours chalked up, the richer they get. I have seen many cases where summary judgment was well deserved, but nobody makes any money off summary judgment, so it hardly happens any more.
        The process is the punishment.
        American libel is very hard to prove, because of the first amendment. That’s why there are SLAPP laws, to keep very deep pockets from silencing criticism through sheer weight of legal procedure.
        The average American lawyer is one of the stupidest creatures alive. He can’t write a cogent sentence, and has extremely poor reading skills, let alone any vocabulary to speak of. It is due to the Law of Diminishing Returns, like when a pro league expands. There are only so many people who would make good lawyers.
        I’m afraid we went sailing by that number long, long ago. The only thing the dolts worship is power and mammon.

        • nicholasi

          I can support Steyn in principle (though of course he’s no “martyr”), but I also have a principle of welcoming the downfall of jew-propagandists.

          • HardWorkWins

            Steyn isn’t jewish.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            I can only suppose that nicholasi meant ‘a propagandist for jews’ (for the avoidance of doubt, I am not supporting him)

          • ConradCA

            It sickening that you let your racism show by thinking that Jewishness has any relevancy. You should leave the nazi party because it is absolute evil.

          • nicholasi

            By referring to Jews as a race, you are an antisemite, expressing Nazi ideology.

          • nicholasi

            “thinking that Jewishness has any relevancy” — all jews think it does. that’s why the jew funds Steyn, who denied for years that he was jew, but then confessed recently he is “in part”.

          • Ogrrre

            Riiiiight! All Jews think a certain way, as I am sure all blacks are on welfare, all Asians know martial arts, all white Americans are rocket scientists, all Indians still ride horses and raid wagon trains, etc., etc., etc.
            In matter of fact, nicholasi, not all Jews think alike, nor are all blacks criminals or on welfare, not all Asians are proficient in the martial arts, not all white Americans are rocket scientists, and, as far as I know, no American Indians have raided a wagon train in nearly 150 years, plus or minus.

          • nicholasi

            jew is jew

          • nicholasi

            “You should leave the nazi party”

            Please let me know where I can join, so then I can quit.

  • Patty Villanova

    Excellent article. By far one of the best explanations of the case I’ve seen to date. Well written, easy to understand. Thanks!

    • minarchist

      My guess is there is a great deal going on behind the scenes to help Mark. Hugh Hewitt, for example, an extraordinarily gifted lawyer, Rush, Levin — all of them must see what is at stake. It is going to be a very interesting trial.

      • Patty Villanova

        I understand what you’re saying about a lot going on behind the scenes, and I know Levin is probably one of the best lawyers out there. By the way, I didn’t know Hewitt was also an attorney. That being said, a battle for free speech needs to be fought out in the open. Why stay in the shadows? In makes the rest of them look like they’re afraid. I don’t think it accomplishes anything to play coy at this stage of the game. Where am I wrong about this?

        • NewWiseGuy2

          Rush gives Steyn his gigantic radio stage, to use as he sees fit, on a regular basis.

          • Patty Villanova

            I was wondering about that too because if you notice, even though Rush lets Mark fill in for him, he (Steyn) does not use the program as a bully pulpit to make his case to the millions of listeners. The last couple of times Steyn filled in for Rush, he made a tiny mention that he was being sued for something to do with climate change and that was it. I’ve never heard Rush, Levin or Beck discuss the case at all. Which leaves me to believe that for some reason they are all self-censoring.

          • Tom Yoke

            Patty,
            There no need to overthink this. Steyn has already been reamed by his erstwhile lawyers for talking about his case out of court. The traditional thinking is that that is always a bad idea.

            Mark tried to play along with the “expert” advice and it got him nowhere. It may now be that he will start using his bully pulpit whenever he can, but up till now at least, he has accepted the counsel of his lawyers not to do that.

            Personally, I think his new strategy is far better.

  • Rathnakumar

    I guess I shall follow you here, now that you have left Telegraph Blogs. Keep up the good work, James!

  • andycanuck

    Try referring to him as “Piltdown” Mann, Mr Delingpole. Maybe that will get him to sue you too? And thank you for the Karl Popper information.

  • Trapnel

    What if … there is a bad apple president and a steady drift to totalitarianism in the USA

    • SA_NYC

      Ah yes, the source of all ills, in the minds of the anti-Obama fringe…exactly the same sort of claptrap we heard during George W’s tenure, I might add. And now, just as then, the president has exactly zero to do with the goings-on of civil courts.

      • johnt

        Fringe? Your idea of drollery? Do I misread you or do you exculpate Obama for say attempting to shortly control America’s health care, for just one example? Like as you put it, George Bush.. And, though he has nothing to do with it, who gets to nominate appointees to the federal judiciary?
        It must be drollery.

    • johnt

      I assume you reference the various dicta that Boy Obama, lost in his “See Dick And Jane Run” books, issues to and upon a now captive public. In his best totalitarian moments, which sadly are frequent. Unfortunately this is lost on SA NYC, pondering the possibilities of a socialist mayor of New York.
      A new dawn?

      • Trapnel

        Yes, the enforcement of policies by executive fiat. It will all end in the tears of a veritable Obamalypse.

  • lgeubank

    If only Steyn hadn’t used the word “fraud.” Does that have a very specific legal definition?

    Or does it have a different meaning in different contexts, so that scientific fraud is different from financial fraud or business fraud or civil fraud? I’m sure Steyn meant it as scientific fraud, but is that an option?

    • Jeffrey Vernon

      Inside the profession, scientific fraud can cover all kinds of scenarios; deliberate falsification, withholding data, not acknowledging use of other people’s work…

  • Ged Essex

    James Delingpole recently said in the Telegraph “I’m an English graduate and know NOTHING about science apart from, maybe, how to grow copper sulphate crystals”. James now seems to get paid by the Spectator for trolling. I look forward to the day he too is held to account in a court of law.

    • Noel Darlow

      He claims to be an “interpreter of interpretations” 4:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0

      I too prefer a little more intellectual meat in my Spectator sandwich. After reading this simple-minded propaganda, I feel cheated.

      • Dave

        Upset because simple-minded propaganda is your gig? Tell ya what: You want people to convert to your faith, you provide the RAW data upon which your conclusions are based, and let people test your hypothesis. We could call this, I dunno, some kind of “scientific method” or something. Until then, you’re just another Jack Van Impe type, fleecing the gullible to line your own pockets.

        • Noel Darlow

          Read some books. Start with IPCC AR5.

          • Jeremy Klein

            Life is short. You don’t have the credibility it would require to take your word for it that this is worth reading.

          • Noel Darlow

            You presume to make pronouncements about science and yet you won’t take the trouble to inform yourself about the subject…?

          • Dave

            First of all, IPCC AR5 isn’t a book, it’s a report, from the UN, a political body that has a great deal invested in the “climate change” scam. Second, the average global temp hasn’t risen so much as a tenth of a degree in 17 years now, something that even the IPCC “scientists” have admitted is a problem with their models. Third, the raw data on temps has never been released, just “adjusted” data which is useless for verification purposes. In some cases they even claim they “lost” the raw data, that’s the level of “scientific” rigor to which your faith says we should all bow down. Finally, you should know all of this stuff. If you’re going to blindly follow a belief system, it would do you well to understand it’s foibles as well as it’s promise of a shining Utopia if we’d all just begger ourselves, cripple our economy and hobble our future, ESPECIALLY if you’re going to be out

            prosthelytizing on the internet.

          • Noel Darlow

            1. Book, report, pamphlet, or papyrus: you still need to read it.

            2. There are so many things wrong with that statement…

            2.1 You mean the global *surface* temperature record not “global temperatures”. This is an important distinction because the vast amount of the energy imbalance ends up in the sea.

            2.2 15 years is too short to be relevant to climate trends. This is actually a real schoolboy howler of an error which no-one with the least knowledge of climate science would make. It is like throwing a dice twice, getting two ones in a row, and then claiming that the mean score of a six-sided dice is 1 not 3.5.

            Short-term variability is much greater than the long-term trend. It is also irrelevant to the long-term trend, by definition, since it cancels itself out over the long-term. It should be obvious that predicting year-to-year and decade-to-decade extremes of climate is a completely different problem to the accurate prediction of the long-term statistical average. Climate models are very good at predicting the latter, but much less good at predicting the former.

            In fact, much of the short-term stuff has a large random component which is impossible to predict.

            Makes no difference to the long-term trend though, merely our ability to predict the extremes we are likely to experience in a new climate regime.

            2.3 Globally we have in fact continued to warm as expected. An unusual amount of heat has been dumped in the oceans which (obviously) doesn’t show up in the surface temperature record you mentioned.

            Here’s a firm prediction from climate science: this will not continue for much longer. Within a few years, maybe as much as a decade, surface temperatures will start shooting up again.

            I could go on but that will probably do.

            You cannot talk meaningfully about a scientific subject unless you make a proper effort to learn the science.

          • IskurBlast

            You do know that the “30 year climate normal” has no scientific validity. Its purely arbitrary. The 30 year normal was chosen because in 1958 30 years was about as much confidence as they had in the data to date. There was never a scientific basis for the choice.

            Scientvists have been using the 30 year normal for so long that they don’t even know why it was chosen in the first place. Much like religion they simply assume the dogma is valid.

          • Noel Darlow

            Within a short time-frame, the long-term trend is very often overwhelmed by short-term variability – as you can see quite clearly from any temperature graph. It’s very simple.

          • IskurBlast

            What is short term variability how do we define short and long term? In 1989 Hansen had not trouble getting up and telling congress that we were all going to fry. If you can do maths its 2014 we flat-lined in 1997, hansen was speaking to congress about a warming trend that started in approximately 1976.

            Which trend is longer?

            Warmmongers like to play fast and loose with what time periods constitute variability and what constitute climate.

          • Dave

            Ahh yes, I forgot. All of the phantom warming which is going down into the ocean. Funny nobody’s been able to measure it, but they’re all damn sure it’s there somewhere. Captain Nemo’s probably keeping it somewhere on the Nautilus. This is why it’s pointless to try and have a discussion with a cultist. All I’ve asked for is the data. What I get is a lot of hand waving and magic thinking instead. What are you going to say in another 10 years, or another, or another? More importantly, how much money do you want to combat your imaginary giants in the meantime, Mr. Quixote?

          • Roderick

            “…the mean score of a six-sided dice is …. 3.5…”

            That’s useful information. I’ll remember that the next time I throw a 5.5

          • Noel Darlow

            Come on now it’s simple arithmetic:

            mean = n + 2n + 3n + 4n + 5n + 6n / 6n = 3.5

            …where n is a very large number

          • Roderick

            In English it’s the sum of the outcomes divided by the number of outcomes, the very definition of a mean.

            The point I was making is that since a die (the singular of dice by the way) can only score in whole numbers, a mean of 3.5, though it is factually correct assuming a totally unbiased die and an infinity of scores, conveys no useful information. Look up mode and median, and learn something about maths to go with your outstanding mastery of science.

          • Noel Darlow

            None of which is relevant to the point that you can’t infer information about a long-term trend from a short period of time.

          • Roderick

            I didn’t say you could. Only a scientific ignoramus would try to try to link the current localised flooding in England with man-made climate change – if indeed it exists – as opposed to natural climate change which has existed for millenia. The flooding has the EU’s Green-stained fingerprints all over it.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            And yet…at least for public consumption, climate scientists tend to talk about weather on the ground as if it were the same as climate, or a correlate of climatic processes. If there is now more emphasis on the distinction, this could come across as shifty.

          • Noel Darlow

            Every breath of wind, every drop of rain, every degree centigrade on the thermometer is the direct result of the climate regime we’re in and the increasing amounts of energy surging through Earth’s climate systems. There isn’t really such a thing as “normal” weather any more – or rather the new normal is something much more dynamic.

            So it doesn’t really make any sense to ask if an individual storm etc is due to climate change. They all are – and the calm days in between. We’ve been heading off into unexplored territory for some time now.

            You could ask if some individual weather event could have happened in the old climate and the answer is usually yes. To demonstrate a difference between two climate regimes would require some kind of a long-term statistical measurement of each state. No individual event, or brief series of events is definitive. As a rule, if you hear a climate scientist say otherwise, he has slipped up.

            However… there is a new avenue of research where repeated model runs are used to assign probabilities to individual weather events under different climate regimes. Thus you might (or might not) be able to conclude that – say – a particular drought which has been experienced in the real world would have been extremely unlikely without any warming. This stuff is pretty new but we’ll probably see a lot more of it.

            Then there’s the Arctic. Much of the Earth’s weather is defined by cold polar regions squeezing the mid-latitudes between themselves and the equator. What happens when you start to thaw out one of these icy caps? That’s going to screw around with the weather. So, if you some screwy weather turns up which seems to be influenced by the Arctic, you could be forgiven for speculating that this is a direct result of climate change.

            Another thing: climate scientists are acutely interested in the short-term variability even though it isn’t strictly necessary to understand it in order to predict long-term climate change. They would like to be able to predict the weather extremes which we’re likely to experience in future, ie the fluctuations above and below the average. This is where the danger really lies.

            Plus they just like to understand stuff to do with their subject. That’s why they’re scientists.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            I’m with you on the need for peer reviewed publication. But I don’t think that AR5 will do. The IPCC as far as I can tell just weighs two piles of papers and says ‘this one wins.’ They don’t evaluate the data that get published.

        • harebell

          Who would test this hypothesis?
          The bought and paid for ex-tobacco mob, you or any of the other chinless wonders like the ex-Lord currently spouting lies around the world?

          It takes experience to crunch data and understand confounding factors, something sadly lacking amongst deniers.

    • Jeffrey Vernon

      Most people know nothing about science. Even the avid readers of coffee-table books and gee-whizz websites tend to come away knowing a lot of factoids; but few of them understand how you’d do an experiment to test whether (for example) temperatures in the tropopause are changing over time. I don’t mean the engineering details – just elementary matters like sampling, intervention, controls, data reduction, stat testing. Nonetheless – we can’t disqualify the public from having a say about the uses of science. I can show you my data, but only society can decide what to do about it.

  • Noel Darlow

    When it comes to unqualified, anti-scientific blowhards like Deliingpole, what most sticks in the throat are not the many scientific errors and misrepresentations (eg the hockey-stick-shaped temperature record has been verified by numerous independent studies) but the lie that he is standing up for freedom of speech.

    Scientific inquiry is itself a form of free speech but climate science is under constant attack from people like Delingpole who question ideas without understanding and attack individual scientists without reason.

    You can of course question scientific ideas but – this is important – only if you have better science. Valid theories at the very least must be able to survive the process of peer-review and get published in a reputable journal. Anything else is just propaganda and noise.

    • Mark Lice

      “climate science is under constant attack from people like Delingpole”

      If the science cannot be held up to scrutiny and the claims not rebutted with evidence then it’s not worth defending. Anyone using the term ‘anti science’ on Delingpole is just propaganda and noise.

      • Noel Darlow

        Climate science, as explained in the latest IPCC report, has a very solid evidentiary basis. Take your time to read it through and then please do return if there is something you want take issue with – but please remember that you will have to have a solid scientific argument of your own if you want to criticise something.

        • lincolnrhyme

          “Climate science, as explained in the latest IPCC report, has a very solid evidentiary basis.”

          Now you are taking the p1$$.

          • Noel Darlow

            I would like to think that you were about to quote some part of the report, run through all of its supporting evidence, and then provide some new evidence of your own along with a convincing, detailed, scientific argument.

            However, I fear I would be mistaken.

          • lincolnrhyme

            You’re nearly as funny as SteB1 over on the Guardian environmental blogs.

          • Noel Darlow

            Put up or shut up. Them’s the rules.

          • harebell

            It’s funny how deniers expect the rules to only apply one way isn’t it?

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            What’s a denier? Someone that demands evidence of why the West should sell itself down the tubes for no good reason? Basically a ‘denier’ is someone that is not a kneejerk enviro-authoritarian. People that like freedom and reasoned argument. Yep, that is I.

          • harebell

            okay then

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            Good man!

          • harebell

            Irony is like coppery but with iron in your world isn’t it?

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            There’s always hope. If you had any sense, you’d do as I suggest.

          • harebell

            The fact I disagree with you shows I have sense.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            Oh dear, you really are upside down.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            You have a real bullying streak, don’t you? What was that about wanting to hammer nails into me? Can’t you discuss this without being a bruiser? Apparently not.

          • Noel Darlow

            Bright nails of information. It’ll be good for you. Start here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            That’s a good joke: got any others? Wait, I’ve got it: you’re going to direct me to Al Gore’s movie! Brill! I’ll be so full up with thermolefty propaganda, I’ll even forget that you have to a) show the difference between what you claim (prove it!) man contributes and what nature is doing anyway; b) show that most life on Earth fails when temps are higher*; and c) reassure me despite the fact that I’m not interested in political and energy ‘solutions’ that all have Leftist goals attached to them.

            *you can’t, of course

          • Noel Darlow

            My dear Mr Swanky, nobody in the climate science community gives a s**t about Al Gore*. Only you guys do. Thank you.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            Ah, I believe that he and the soft-porn railway man Pachauri got a Nobel prize and are very highly thought of by the IPCC. Or were, before they became so embarrassing….

            And it’s Ms Swanky to you.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            The AGW scam is actually Exhibit A of post-normal science, which is to say politically driven make-it-up-as-you-go-along science. Which is no science at all.

          • Noel Darlow

            This is just bizarre. Are you even qualified to pronounce on the detailed evidence and technical arguments which support current thinking in climate science? If not, why would you presume to make such a comment?

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            You don’t know what post-normal science is, do you? Well ask Michael Mann: he does.

            You really are out of your depth here, baby. As I said, read Watermelons, or the Booker column at the Telegraph if Watermelons has too many pages for you.

          • Noel Darlow

            There is a mountain – no a mountain range – of evidence from a whole variety of disciplines – ecology, atmospheric physics, paleontology, oceanography, glaciaology, etc, etc – ranging from boots on the ground in Antarctica to satellites in space and sensors in the deep oceans. Dismissing all that as a “scam” simply shows that you haven’t got a clue what climate science is.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            Noel darling, we were arguing about this 4 years ago. Your side lost. I’m not going over the same ground again. Read Watermelons.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            I don’t know what watermelons is – of course, I can google and find out – but why are you elevating it over the scientific literature? I am not myself persuaded about AGW, but the technical details are best left to the scientists. Naturally, we can take an interest in coffee table books, but to say that they are the last word in the matter…The best thing that opponents of AGW can do is say that, irrespective of the data, it’s up to society to decide how to act on it (including by ignoring it).

        • Jeffrey Vernon

          This is argument from authority – there must be better evidence in the scientific literature

          • Noel Darlow

            The IPCC report is meticulously referenced to the literature. They didn’t just make it up 😉

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            But a report is by its nature selective. Some evidence does not make the final cut. And a good report evaluates the evidence, but as I understand it the IPCC just summarises the findings

      • Ged Essex

        You Sir, like the Creationists, are not interested in evidence. The great psychologist Leon Festinger observed in 1956 that “a man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.” This is the essence of the problem, and sadly, Festinger’s words ring true today: the conviction of humans is all too often impervious to the very evidence in front of them.

        • lincolnrhyme

          I would say that Creationists and AGWers would be good bedfellows.

          The bed would get pretty wet, though.

    • lincolnrhyme

      He’s right about the falsification of the AGW hypothesis, though, isn’t he?

      It’s not testable.

      • Noel Darlow

        Of course it is. Why wouldn’t it be?

        • lincolnrhyme

          What falsifies the AGW hypothesis, then?

          • Noel Darlow

            No warming in response to increased C02 and, more specifically, no warming within the range estimated by various studies.

          • The Shambolic Skeptic

            So you’d agree it’s been falsified then, eh?

          • Noel Darlow

            You’re going to feel awfully foolish after I expose the anti-scientific nonsense you are about to produce regarding the alleged “pause”…

          • The Shambolic Skeptic

            That’s quite an assertion. Best not to come to a gunfight unarmed.

          • Noel Darlow

            If you think the predicted climate response to C02 has been falsified in some way please do explain.

          • IskurBlast

            The “predicted” climate response absolutely. But as usual with strawman arguments we skeptics don’t say that there is no climate response. We put forcing+feed backs at somewhere between 0.5-1.5C. In other words nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.

          • harebell

            Who are these sceptics you talk of?
            That “we” you promote doesn’t exist. There are many sceptics who do say that there is “no climate response.” Climate change denialism is like a religion – lots and lots of little cults all trying to outdo each other and proclaim the true faith. The ones who claim CC is a myth are equivalent to the evangelical Phelps family or Al Qaeda and your class of denier are similar to the Ayatollahs or the Pope. You are better spoken and educated and your thoughts sound plausible but underneath it all it’s just faerie tales.

          • IskurBlast

            There are also many people on the left who say that “Bush” brought down the towers. But I dont try and equate those stupid people to all leftists. I know that they are small minority and idiots.

            People who try and argue no climate response dont do very well on skeptic blogs.

          • harebell

            Which is why I didn’t equate you with them and rather with the more popey types.
            It’s still based on the same smoke and mirrors but sounds much nicer.
            As for the Bush comparison – I think you’ll find that most of the conspiracy theorists are in fact libertarian types with a penchant for unrestricted gun rights, a belief in the some kind of christianity and a social conservative outlook. Hardly the left wouldn’t you say?

          • IskurBlast

            Micehal Moore is a libertarian type “with a penchant for unrestricted gun rights”.

            lol

          • harebell

            What is it with rightwingers and their inability to actually read what is written?

            Go back and read my comment, then understand why you come across as a poor man’s Delingpole.

            Hint: The word “most” was in there.

            (For every Moore you can proffer, I could show you scores by libertarian types with a penchant for unrestricted gun rights, a belief in the some kind of christianity and a social conservative outlook.)

            I remember when Conservatives actually discussed things honestly, but then Thatcher arrived and honesty went out of the window.

          • IskurBlast

            And I disagree. While I have found a few libertarians like that the vast majority of the people I hear spouting that stupidity are Moore’s flock. In other words liberal douchebags.

          • harebell

            I think what you mean to say “vast majority of” celebrities “spouting that stupidity are Moore’s flock.” And I would agree with that statement to a degree.
            But they aren’t the only form of 911 truthers now are they? The vast majority of 911 truthers are “libertarian types with a penchant for unrestricted gun rights, a belief in the some kind of christianity and a social conservative outlook.”

          • IskurBlast

            And where do you get the support for this argument hat the vast majority of 911 truthers are libertarians? The polls I’ve seen and life experience says otherwise.

          • harebell

            Truther Websites, sceptic organisations and their analysis of truthers and their films, propaganda. Congresswoman Gifford’s shooter was such, Di Lorenzo likewise as was Duensing who founded “the Libertarian 9/11 truth caucus Libertarians for Justice.”

          • IskurBlast

            Ah anecdote.

            Rasmussen found that truthers run 7:1 liberal. I expect you to stop making this argument.

          • harebell

            No not anecdotes – real people and those who investigate them. This is an anecdote, “While I have found a few libertarians like that the vast majority of the
            people I hear spouting that stupidity are Moore’s flock.”

            Rasmussen? If Rasmussen said that 7:1 truthers Lib:Con then I’d need to look at their definitions and methodology because they do use different questions to most other pollsters and target likely voters as opposed to every adult. But the big difference is they use automated polls which are usually ignored by most people, but are answered by those who are engaged with the issue. Lower data and those with an axe to grind, coupled with no ability to clarify a viewpoint usually leads to erroneous results. Rasmussen also produces polls that are very favourable to the Republicans suggesting that their results may be skewed too.

            I never mentioned climate sensitivity, I just compared you all to religious adherents.

            Expect what you want, but you never refuted anything and come off as pompous.

          • IskurBlast

            If you dont like Rasmussen that is fine but it is a hell of a lot more accurate than your anecdote.

            As to my broad church is you paid any attention to the skeptic sphere you would know full well that those who argue for 0 sensitivity are not well received.

          • Dave

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *breath* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Congresswoman Gifford’s shooter was a right wing “libertarian types with a penchant for unrestricted gun rights, a belief
            in the some kind of christianity and a social conservative outlook.” BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            P.S. You really believe that most libertarians are socons? Really? Do you KNOW any?

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            Good Christ hairball, you really are a museum grade idiot.

          • harebell

            Considering the source of that opinion, i’m not unduly worried.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            As a speaker of drivel yourself, I think you ought to be worried.

          • harebell

            Considering the source of that remark etc.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            Drivel redux.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            What is it with your need to call someone that disagrees with you a ‘right-winger’? Play the ball not the man, mate.

          • harebell

            “Leftists have put the cart before the horse because what they’re really interested in is the policy changes”
            physician heal thyself

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            Meaningless drivel. Is that all you’ve got?

          • harebell

            bwa ha ha ha

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            I thought so.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Play the ball; now,where have I heard that before.

            You called warmists left wing above.

            Logically, you must hold no political views (unless you are in the Centre). That will be true for lots of AGW opponents – but it is also true of some warmists.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            What a load of rubbish! And: even if the climate is warming, you have to prove a) the difference between what man contributes and what nature is doing anyway, and b) that any change is actually bad, especially warming which is what we were all meant to panic over — even though most life on Earth prefers slightly warmer conditions.

          • harebell

            Oh good lord, one of the devout has responded to the call.
            Only then will you discuss hey?
            You aren’t the discussing type. From your rant you are already part of the flock and any evidence offered will be shot down as not enough.
            Like I said it’s like trying to talk to the religious about their faith.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            The numerous ironies of that remark, which ignores 100% of my own coherent and accurate assessment, are too precious for words.

            But Lefties don’t do arguments, do they? And in my experience they have very little interest in facts. As you’ve just demonstrated, once again.

          • harebell

            That presumes I’m a lefty
            You really ought to try and stop assuming stuff, it doesn’t do anything for your argument and makes you look the opposite of what you you think you are.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            You aren’t a classical liberal, mate. You have all the confusions of a Leftist. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…. Or you could grow up. Your choice really.

          • harebell

            More BS on the real Liberal crap
            Why am I not surprised

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            You have nothing educated or intelligent to say.

          • harebell

            how would you even know?

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            If Harebell really were a leftist – would this by itself disqualify everything s/he has to say?

          • Noel Darlow

            How has this been falsified?

          • The Shambolic Skeptic

            The models’ predictions for climate sensitivity have consistently overestimated climate feedbacks. AR5 dialed estimates back and current data suggests even the reduced estimate is too high.

            This means that yes there is warming going on but the predicted catastrophic effects (sea level, etc) are wildly misrepresented by the alarmists.

      • Jeffrey Vernon

        Most science is not falsifiable – Popper’s recipe works well for biology, but a lot of observational work (including astrophysics) does not proceed this way

  • Bill Brinsmead

    Memo to Fraser: Please, please sack Delingpole and bring back Mark Steyn.

    Where Steyn made us laugh, Delingpole makes us cringe.

    • harebell

      Indeed

      Both were wrong beyond belief but at least Steyn didn’t possess the elitist drone that Delingpole exhibits. What a pompous, boring ass the man is.

  • ohforheavensake

    Oh, Lord, James. Are you sure Breitbart will get their money’s worth out of you?

    On the Hockey stick (indeed, on the standard climate change denier stuff)-

    http://www.salon.com/2013/12/18/7_ways_to_shut_down_a_climate_change_denier_partner/

  • AlexanderGalt

    Sadly, the idiocy is far from confined to Michael Mann.

    There’s a great take on a tidal wave of idiocy from the left in: “Great Unified theory of idiocy” at:

    http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2014/02/great-unified-theory-of-idiocy.html

  • Gareth

    I became a sceptic largely because the warmists insisted on defending the hockey stick. It is a complete joke.
    Who is funding Mann? somebody should find out. There is something very sinister going on here.

    • Noel Darlow

      Fact: the hockey stick shaped temperature record has been confirmed by numerous independent studies. We don’t even need Mann for that.

      • The Shambolic Skeptic

        Sure you do. His trick hid the decline.

        • Noel Darlow

          Are you saying that they conspired to hide the pause in warming since 1998?

          • IskurBlast

            They hid the fact that their tree rings aren’t very good temperature proxies.

          • Noel Darlow

            It was openly discussed in the literature and the IPCC. That’s an odd way to hide something.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            Talk about missing the point. Ever heard of money laundering? Or the respectable front window and the ‘back room’ where the real business goes on? Don’t be so naive. (I’m assuming you are naive and not actually disingenuous like the thermoleftist crowd.)

          • Noel Darlow

            It WAS openly discussed in the literature and also by the IPCC. Nothing dodgy going on except in your imagination.

            If you would only let me, I would love to hammer bright nails of information into your dull plank of wood.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            Read Watermelons.

          • IskurBlast

            As open as a company discussing accounting problems in the appendix of some office form but failing to disclose it on their 10k.

            The divergence problem has never been openly discussed outside of small circles. When it comes to things like the summary for policy makers they would rather crop it and hide the decline.

            Saying that it was buried and also ignored in the text of the formal IPCC document is kind of the problem. Most people even scientists outside of the field had never heard about the divergence problem because it wasn’t openly discussed.

          • Noel Darlow

            It was not hidden. In fact it was openly discussed in the literature and by the IPCC.

            I don’t want to be all negative though. The mental gymnastics required to describe publishing something openly in a scientific paper as “hiding” are really rather impressive even if your argument is not.

          • IskurBlast

            You keep using that word openly. If a company puts some important information in the appendix of some form yet fails to put it on their 10k they go to jail.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            The IPCC surreptitiously removed the Hokey Schtick from the front of the Report for Policymakers, and have specifically distanced themselves from it in AR5.

          • drewphillips

            Mann’s first hockey stick is more than 15 years old now. Why in the world would the IPCC use an historical graph when there are much more recent hockey stick examples to choose from?

          • ruralcounsel

            Can’t hide anything with contemporary data, because there are too many eyes watching reality. But all that old proxy data? Rife for tampering.

          • Noel Darlow

            Are you saying they might have tampered or that you know for a fact that they have (evidence…)?

      • IskurBlast

        Define independent, you wont find authors of too many hockey sticks that haven’t also authored with Dr. Mann. The field is actually quite small.

        As to hockey sticks. There is an inherent selection bias in all statistical temperature reconstructions that yields hockey sticks as outlined by Stockwell 2007. Until that selection bias is fixed no amount of hockey stick reconstructions proves Mann correct.

        Making the same mistake over and over again doesn’t make it any less of a mistake.

        And even then if it is proven that the past temperature really was a hockey stick that no more justifies Mann’s methods than other people getting the right answer justifies you cheating on a test to get the same answer.

        • Noel Darlow

          “Stockwell 2007”

          You present that as if it were a published paper and suggest that it has refuted every hockey stick study to date.

          What journal did this appear in…?

          • IskurBlast

            No need to be a douche.

            Reconstruction of Past Climate Using Series with Red Noise.
            Australian Institute of Geneticists News 2006; 83: 14.

            I was off on the date by a year.

            And yes it does refute every hockey stick that have been published to date and since. The problem is inherent in the method. Until that is corrected all statistical hockey sticks are just an artifact of the method.

          • Noel Darlow

            Do you have a link? I can’t even find an Australian Institute of Geneticists.

          • Servius
          • Noel Darlow

            That’s alarmingly terse for a scientific paper… Was it ever actually published?

          • harebell

            It isn’t a scientific paper
            It has a section titled results and there are no results there. The least I would have expected was a table of data, but there was nothing.
            Also the Red Proxy theory has been addressed too.
            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/how-red-are-my-proxies/comment-page-1/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

          • IskurBlast

            Geoscientists

            specllcheck error.

      • amwassil

        In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick demonstrated beyond doubt that Mann’s hockey stick was the result of flawed statistical analysis. ANY numbers plugged into the formula resulted in a hockey stick, even computer generated random numbers. If you’re interested enough:

        http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

        • harebell
          • amwassil

            Did you bother to click the link I thoughtfully provided for you? If so, did you actually investigate any of the info so handily provided by U of Gueph? If so, you would have discovered a convenient link to Climate Audit and a link there to McIntyre’s responses to all those who have, in your mind “debunked” his analysis.

            Thanks, but I don’t need a link Real Climate where Michael Mann defends his solitary claim to fame. I’m sure the “Crutape letters” will feature prominently in the discovery portion of the upcoming trial. In his own words, aided and abetted by the American branch of the team, Michael Mann reveals just how fraudulent is his hockey stick and his so-called science. Cheers.

          • harebell

            Please
            Don’t embarrass yourself further.
            M&M have been taken out behind the woodshed so often that it truly is sad that they continue to be taken seriously. Well as seriously as you and the devoted take the misrepresentation of e-mails etc taken in isolation and interpreted with a conspiracy theory mindset.
            your health

          • amwassil

            Hey Mr Hairballs, your choice of pubs and we’ll watch the discovery together over a few brews. I think Steyn will get things in context a lot more convincingly than Mann. As for who is embarrassing himself, time will tell. Won’t it. When you’re freezing your butt, I’ll be there to make sure you remember how much of a fool you made of yourself. Are you man enough to use your real name, Mr Hairyballs?

          • harebell

            Sorry I thought this thread was on the veracity of M&M? Clearly that defence has dried up given this response.

          • amwassil

            Only incidentally. This thread is about a libel law suit brought by your hero Michael Mann in an attempt to silence his critics. McIntyre and McKitrick, Wegman, NAS, the crutape letters and no doubt other materials are likely to feature prominently as evidence against Mann’s allegations of defamation and fraud. Mann can’t be defamed if what was said about him is true. Your attempts to discredit M&M are just a sideshow intended to discredit some of the evidence.

          • harebell

            The article and some of the threads in these comments were about that. This thread addressed M&M’s debunked papers that were introduced by you in an attempt to support Steyn’s allegations of scientific fraud.

          • amwassil

            You’ve been debunked, but you appear too obtuse to notice. With every post banging your “M&M debunked” nonsense drum you simply display your own inability to recognize the argument’s over and you lost. I’m trolling for bigger and smarter fish than you. Cheers.

          • harebell

            Just because you say something doesn’t make it so.
            This argument isn’t about me it’s got far greater consequences than a footy game, but clearly you don’t think so.
            Go on then run along little boy.

        • drewphillips

          Untrue. In a review of Mann’s hockey stick, the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) utilizing 12 (twelve) statisticians found the results do NOT confirm McIntyre and McKendrick’s assessment. In the NAS summary, they also note that studies done after Mann by independent teams of scientists bolstered the work of the results of the original hockey stick.

          • amwassil

            Oh come on. Are you going to force me to look it up?

          • alpha2actual

            Outstanding rebuttal. We live in a republic that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with thermometers. Who’s gonna do it? You, AL ManBearPig Gore? You, Dr Hockey Stick, Hide the Decline Mann? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for those Polar Bears and you curse the temperature takers. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. My existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves useless expenditure of national treasure and retards the genocidal effects of the policies you want to implement.

            You don’t want the truth. Deep down, in places you don’t talk about when your are sleeping alone late at night after those Georgetown cocktail parties after chowing down on limp quiche and swilling a third rate California Chardonnay devoid of pretension, you want me on that wall you need me on that wall. We use words like Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming Period, and Toga Parties …we use these words as the backbone to a life devoted to taking temperature. We don’t use terms like grant chasing, rent seeking, transnational progressivism, or Crony Socialism. You use them as a punch lines. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the electric blanket powered by the very electricity I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I’d prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a thermometer and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to

      • ruralcounsel

        Horseshit. Unadulterated horseshit.

      • http://www.facebook.com/don.meaker Don Meaker

        Fact: The Navier Stokes differential equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, chaotic and show sensitive dependence on initial conditions. No finite set of past states is sufficient to predict future states. This has been known since Edward Lorenz’s 1963 paper “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow”. When considering predictions of future temperature you must ask first “Did the author start with a finite set of data?” if so, then no prediction is possible. If he pretends to predict future temperature and density states after that you have a choice: He is either incompetent, or a fraud.

        • harebell

          ha ha
          Next you’ll be whipping out Hume and the problem of induction.
          Nobody can make any predictions ever because justifying their decision is impossible.
          But I’m going with the prediction that the sun will rise tomorrow anyway.

        • Noel Darlow

          That’s fascinating. I’d encourage you to write a paper showing how this affects previous analyses in any (or all) of the hockey-stick-shaped temperature reconstructions which we now have and submit this to a major journal.

          IE: put up or shut up.

      • RogerKnights

        But those confirmations usually used the same unreliable proxies Mann used (e.g., striped-bark bristlecone pines) or his flawed statistical methods, or both. And “independent” is questionable, since the authors were often linked to Mann. E.g., Ammon & Wahl (sp?) were his students.

        • Noel Darlow

          That’s fascinating to hear that they all used the same unreliable proxies and flawed statistical methods. Can I encourage you to write up a paper which explains these arguments in more detail and submit it to a reputable journal?

          If you’re not qualified to do so, and you are arguing at second-hand, perhaps you could explain the original source for these claims?

          • RogerKnights

            My source was A. Montford’s book, The Hockey Stick Illusion. Judith Curry, summarizing its claims in a book review, wrote:

            7. The Mann et al. 2008, which purports to address
            all the issues raised by MM [McIntyre & McKitrick] and produce a range of different reconstructions using different methodologies, still do not include a single reconstruction that is free of questioned tree rings and centered PCA [a flawed statistical method].

            Mann’s 2008 paper claimed that he could obtain a hockey stick by an alternative route, by using Tiljander’s proxy data. WUWT commenter “Smokey” said of that attempt:

            Dr Tiljander had informed Mann before he published that she discovered that her sediment proxy was corrupted. But MANN USED IT ANYWAY because it gave him the hockey stick shape he wanted.

      • Ogrrre

        You are incorrect. The hockey stick has been debunked several times over, and even the anthropogenic global warming cheerleaders at the IPCC abandoned it years ago, and it no longer appears in their literature. Mann produced a program that always, or nearly always returns that hockey stick shape, even if random information is entered. Mann structured the program so it completely ignores both the medieval warm period and the little ice age. The hockey stick is a fraud, just as Mann is a fraud.

        • Noel Darlow

          In fact it hasn’t been “debunked” it has repeatedly been confirmed – there is a whole hockey league now not just a hockey stick. False skeptics like to pour scorn on Mann but strangely have been unable to publish any valid science of their own which might support their outlandish claims.

          • amwassil

            Your turn to put up or shut up. Be certain that I will fact check every link you list to support your contention. Go for it!

          • Noel Darlow

            See http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-or-hockey-league.html. There are a bunch of them listed in the graphic at the end of the article .

            Someone posted a great comment about false skeptics and their loathing of Mann’s original hockey stick:

            “Science has moved on but they cannot”

          • amwassil

            Give me a specific reference, please, not a page at SS. That’s the deal.

            I agree with the commenter, only he got it backwards. We already know CO2 is not the culprit. Human activity has pumped as much CO2 into the atmosphere since 2000 as was pumped into the atmosphere from 1945-1999. The planet is no warmer now than then. In fact colder. Oh, I know, the heat is hiding in the oceans. Kevin Trenberth says so.

          • Noel Darlow

            I gave you the information you asked for – a range of temperature studies are listed in the graphic at the bottom of the page. All you are doing is flat out denying that something exists when it patently does exist.

            The dessicated old hack Lawson recently made exactly the same painfully naive argument about C02 in a radio discussion where he had the gall to lecture the real scientists present about their own area of expertise. I’d recommend that you seek out better sources in future, people who actually know what they are talking about.

            Adding C02 isn’t like turning up a temperature control which instantly changes the temperature everywhere by exactly the same amount. Climate scientists have produced many studies modelling the transient/equilibrium/effective and earth system climate sensitivities. The answers are in there, in the real science, not in cheap sound bites deliberately designed to mislead.

          • amwassil

            Still waiting for your list. Maybe these will help you compile it:

            http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/29/the-impact-of-yamal-on-the-spaghetti-graph/

            http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/28/response-to-briffa-on-yamal-impact/

            Only go to Sep and Oct, 2009 respectively; still gives you a hint of where we’re going with this claim of yours. Rest assured there is more on every other so-called “confirmation” to date.

            Recommend you read the above links carefully. I will interpret no further response from you as your concession that, in fact, there is no “independent” evidence to support Mann’s thoroughly debunked hockey schtick. Cheers.

          • Noel Darlow

            I gave you a list – that’s some gold-medal winning denial you’ve got on display right there.

            With breathtaking levels of self-regard, Steve McIntyre appointed himself as some kind of “auditor” of climate science (!) despite being woefully unqualified to do any such thing.

            Real scientists publish formal, detailed arguments in reputable journals. An internet blog is really just another form of vanity publishing. That’s not how science works.

            Unfortunately there are legions of gullible people who don’t understand that: this is McIntyre’s audience, people who don’t know any better than to see through his bullshit. The real, hard, academic work of understanding and discussing climate takes place elsewhere.

          • amwassil

            I presume you missed my response to you on Sunday because it got flagged for some reason, possibly because it contained a number of links. I’m not going to repeat it here, but will incorporate relevant parts. Maybe eventually a moderator will review it and let it appear, in which case you could do yourself a valuable service and follow the links.

            First: No, you have not given me a list. You have given me a link to a page in SS. You did so even after I told you explicitly I wanted a list of specific articles and not simply a link to SS. So either your reading comprehension is limited, you’re lazy or you don’t know what you’re talking about. Rather than back up your contentions with verifiable specifics that I’ve asked for, you continue to spout generalities.

            Nonetheless, I will tell you that you will search in vain for any “independent” verification of Mann’s hockey stick graph, either the original or it’s mutations, or the catastrophic climate change it advocates. The reason is very simple: Mann is either the co-author, advisor, reviewer and/or the datasets contain the same discredited bristlecone pine series and others upon which Mann’s hockey stick depends. If you had bothered to follow the two links I gave you in my post last night, you would be aware of that. You didn’t so you’re not.

            Two: Mann’s original hockey stick (98 and 99), which dropped the MWP and the LIA, and appended a totally unrelated thermometer record at the end, to accentuate the appearance of the temperature rise since 1850, was discredited a decade ago. It had featured prominently in the Third Assessment Review, but in both the Fourth and Fifth reviews the IPCC added the MWP and LIA back. They did this because not only McIntyre but both the Wegman and NAS reports had rendered the original untenable, and they couldn’t rewrite a thousand years of history in which both the MWP and LIA were prominent. Even Mann put the MWP and LIA back in for his 2008 rendition. If you want to present denial awards, step up to the platform and get yours. The science has moved on, get over it.

            Three: You apparently have no understanding how science really works. Nor apparently does Michael Mann. Paleoclimatology uses statistics to analyze samples of stuff collected, dated and catalogued by others and presents the results of its statistical computations. McIntyre is a mathematician and statistician and he had every qualification required to analyze the statistical work and results presented by Mann. He performed his analyses in full public view, revealing both the data and methods he employed and invited critical input from other mathematicians and climate scientists at every step of the process. He did this purposely to ensure full transparency. And if you ever bothered to investigate you would see how critical discourse works.

            That’s how real science is done, not by playing ring-around-the-ftp-site and sharing data and methods with your trusted pals only. McIntyre documented what he had to go through to get Mann’s data. Mann still hasn’t provided some of it and never provided his methods of analysis, which McIntyre had to reverse engineer in his attempts to duplicate Mann’s results. Real scientists are appalled by Mann’s actions.

            Both Wegman and NAS agreed with McIntyre’s assessment of Mann’s statistical analyses, as did also the Royal Commission’s statistician in their review of CRU at UEA. I quoted extensively from the NAS report and the Congressional Committee Report of Wegman re NAS in my response to drewphillips on Friday last. You might want to read that before again displaying your own ignorance.

            Four: As is documented quite thoroughly in the first and second email releases referred to variously the “CRUtape Letters” and “Climategate”, Mann and other members of the “Team” in conjunction with Phil Jones and other members of the “Crew” at UEA, conspired to control access to climate related journals to anyone who challenged their pretensions. If you are unaware of the severity of the attempts to blackball individuals, editors and entire publications, I strongly recommend you educate yourself. You may be aware this material is now public domain. In addition, Mann and the Team, Jones and the Crew, conspired to delay and prevent data and methods of analysis from being obtained by anyone not in their groups, McIntyre particularly but not exclusively. The relevant emails confirm McIntyre’s version in Mann’s own words.

            Unfortunately, there are legions of gullible people like you, who don’t understand science or scientific method and don’t possess the ability to think critically. The real, hard, academic work of understanding and discussing science takes place in the glare of discourse and critical exchange. It does not protect pretentious ideas from challenge and rebuttal, nor hide data and calculations from all but a small cadre of cheerleaders.

            If you learn nothing else from this exchange, I hope you learn that. Cheers.

    • IskurBlast

      His funding interests me too?

      The CRU e-mails show that Mann has wanted to sue people since the mid 00s. One can suspect that Penn State kept him from doing so. Here comes Steyn rubbing salt in the Sandusky wounds and suddenly Mann sues.

      Being related to a tax accountent it never sat right with me that Mann can use gifts to sue other people. So I did some investigating on IRS rules. The key issue with legal funds is donative intent. The person giving the money or aid must be doing so altruistically such as with the charity “legal aid” if they have a vested interest in the outcome then it isn’t altruistic and donative intent is broken so its income.

      Its plainly obvious the his employer Penn State gave him the go ahead. IRS law gets very tricky when it comes to free legal aid. If the parties have a vested interest in the outcome then it isn’t a gift as there isn’t donative intent. If Penn state is working behind the scenes to help Mann on this(the founder of his legal defense fund is a Penn State grad FYI) then trying to call it a gift pretty much a cut and dry violation of IRS rules and its not a gift but taxable income.

      I would love to see Mann get hit with a multimillion dollar tax bill on this.

      • cremaster

        Ah, if only. But the IRS are too busy hounding Republicans for that!

        • IskurBlast

          I know. Mann sleeps easy knowing that he can claim millions in legal aid as a tax free gift because he is a liberal hero and the IRS is on his team.

        • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

          Should be a national scandal. Instead the media says ‘nothing to see hear, folks’. Meanwhile it’s the crime of the century because a few lanes in Jersey were blocked temporarily. None of this should go on: it’s just the Left gives its own side a free pass on everything!

      • Jeffrey Vernon

        see my reply to Gareth – funding is transparent in science publishing and is acknowledged in journal articles.

        • IskurBlast

          You missed the point entirely.

          The issue is who is funding his legal battle. There is a controlling IRS case on this where an employer was working behind the scenes to fund a legal battle of their employee. Since the employer stood to benefit from the outcome of the case the IRS ruled that “donative intent” was broken and the legal defense fund and all free aid the employee had received were not gifts but taxable income.

          If Penn State has been involved behind the scenes on this its a clear violation of IRS rules to not claim it is income. Mann could be facing a huge tax bill if he isn’t careful.

          This case is going to run over a million maybe even two. If its income then between federal and state Mann could be looking at a 42% tax.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Oh I see. I thought you were wondering who funded his research, and whether they were aware that (at least on this page) it’s considered so flimsy.

    • louisianalag

      I believe the (once) pervert protectors at Penn State are backing Mann.

    • Jeffrey Vernon

      Who is funding him? This is easy to find out. Go to his webpage, and all his papers are listed there. Click on the link. *Published papers always have to acknowledge the grant authority*. For example, his 2012 paper (first author Steinman) in PNAS journal carries the statement ‘This work was funded by the Paleo Perspectives on Climate Change and the Atmospheric Sciences programs of the National Science Foundation.’

  • Ryan Jim

    James, I just bookmarked you and comparing icons on my favorites bar it looks like you have a bigger S than Mark does. So there’s that.

  • http://marconidarwin.myopenid.com Marconi Darwin

    Accusing a scientist of fraud is different than accusing him of molesting data. Steyn now knows the difference. And all you have to do to get his spot is, well, pick another scientist and accuse him of committing fraud.

    Oh, Einstein was not accused of fraud, but nice try. ‘If it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature then the whole theory would have to be abandoned.’ applies to AGW just the same way. “Mann committed fraud” is not that proof, though.

    • Antony Gilbert

      ‘Accusing a scientist of fraud is different than accusing him of molesting data.’

      Says who? You sound like a fraudulent human being. Were you born a robot?

    • Tom Yoke

      Mann committed fraud. There. Do I have the right to say that or not? If not, and government scientists no longer have to face the rough and tumble of life in a free society, with salaries paid by the taxpayer, then America is done. Fini.

  • Argus

    James et al…any sense of imminent foreboding, at this point, is, IMHO, just a bit too apprehensive and generally without caveat.

    Please bear in mind that the judicial setbacks endured thus far couldn’t even have occurred in a jurisdiction that doesn’t provide anti-Slapp refuge…and those that do are I believe (someone please correct me if I’m misinformed), still the minority. Your observation that a libel claim brought by any public figure is likely to “fall down on the fact that defamation is so hard to prove in the US” remains just as strong and vigorous despite a lower court ruling mandated, by the anti-Slapp law itself, to be adjudicated in a “light most favorable to the plaintiff”. Nor is it foregone that this initial ruling itself will survive appeal.

  • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

    Attaboy, James! One contributes by buying a gift certificate to the online store that one then redeems — or not. I shan’t be redeeming mine.

    Does anyone know why NR has backed away? I know there were tensions of late between Mark and some editor over there (of whom I know nothing: a bit of a Johnny-come-lately, it seems). But the last I saw, NR was seeking donations for the case.

    • Tom Yoke

      There was a dispute over legal strategy, and Steyn and NR parted ways. Mark is a very public polemicist who strongly believes in being able to talk about the issues. That is his living, after all.

      National Review hired lawyers who wished to pursue a very traditional (and expensive) strategy of procedural moves. They insisted on complete silence on the part of the defendant since they, the lawyers, were now in charge.

      As Steyn has pointed out, NRs strategy has blown through half a million bucks and has brought the case no closer to resolution. In addition, insisting on silence by Steyn in a free speech case is a fundamentally wrong-headed tactic.

      • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

        I see. Thanks very much, Tom, for filling in the gaps.

  • johnt

    The giveaway is the jump from Global Warming to the neutral Climate Change. Of course climates change, thru history and provably before that. The Warmists may be crazy, certainly are vicious, but they have easy incomes and false reputations to protect, plus the inner knowledge for some of them that they’re pulling a scam. All the more reason to fight like cornered rats.

    • Noel Darlow

      You do realise that it was a Republican political strategist, Frank Luntz, who first suggested that climate change should be the preferred term because it sounded less threatening?

      The two terms have been somewhat interchangeable in the scientific community for some time (as can easily be demonstrated) although strictly speaking global warming refers to an increase in the planet’s energy budget and climate change is one of the consequences which flows from that.

      • IskurBlast

        You realize the the CC in IPCC stands for climate change. That predates Frank Luntz by a country mile.

        Nice to know you believe anything no matter how stupid.

        • Noel Darlow

          Er… doesn’t that confirm that climate scientists have historically used both terms (the IPCC was named in the 80’s)? If you are still in doubt, you can read through any number of older publications.

          Here’s what Frank Luntz had to say in 2003:

          http://web.archive.org/web/20040203162027/http://www.ewg.org/briefings/luntzmemo/pdf/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

          As you can see, the memo outlines a deliberate strategy to mislead the public. In one section brazenly titled “Redefining Labels” he specifically recommends that:

          “Climate change is less frightening than global warming.”

          • IskurBlast

            So what if Luntz said that in 2003 that doens’t prove causation about the term at all. Its just something someone said.

            Since the warmmongers were already pushing the climate change label on their own over a decade before Luntz your entire argument is falsified.

            You cant say something originated in 2003 when its been around since the 80s.

          • IskurBlast

            I dont really care. You show no causation. I dont see how a republican strategists convinced liberal scientists and bureaucrats to start using the term climate change.

            You offer an explanation with no causation. Its a stupid point.

          • IskurBlast

            And?

            All you have shown is that some conservative had an idea in 2003. But time line wise warmmongers were already moving towards climate change as the main lexicon at by that time.

            You provide no causation what so ever.

          • Noel Darlow

            The only documented instance we have of “climate change” being chosen for an assumed propaganda value (because it sounds “less frightening”) comes from the republican strategist, Frank Luntz.

            False skeptics like to say that climate scientists switched to climate change to hide the fact (as they claim) that the globe isn’t actually warming and yet there are numerous documented instances of the term being used by mainstream climate science long before the recent alleged “pause”. For example, the IPCC was named in the ’80s.

            Both terms have continually been used by climate scientists for a very long time. Go and read some old publications if you don’t believe me.

      • ruralcounsel

        Pointless semantics from power hungry political ruling elites or their wannabes. Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Fascists; same shit, different piles.

    • bugsy33333

      Watch out below as climate nazis argue the “climate change” nomenclature.
      If “climate change” and Global Warming” are interchangeable, why did they need to be changed? Because if the planet warms AND chills, the Climat-eers can never be wrong. That’s called covering your frigid ass.

    • drewphillips

      The phrase climate change occurs in scientific literature since the 1950’s and of course, there is the IPCC (note the “CC” in the title). FYI, climate change is the result and global warming is the cause.

  • jack_foobar

    On what planet is this article posted on “15 February 2014”. It’s 2/13 today, and I’m the last one to read the thing.

    • janvones

      Seriously? Cover dates usually post-date the day a magazine shows up in your mail box. Not that I expect you to know what a mailbox is.

  • janvones

    I agree Steyn’s right. And he and National Review defamed Newt Gingrich and foisted Mitch what’shisname on us as the crumbling last candidate for president on the GOP ticket.

    Steyn has my sympathy on principle and not a dime from my long-memoried pocket.

  • snort

    Wow, this is ignorant. Just one example:

    “Surely if you’re going to sue someone for defamation, this must involve an examination of the reputation said to be worth defending.”
    Well, no, actually – in defamation law, reputation is presumed, and saying that the plaintiff doesn’t have a reputation at all is considered an aggravation of the defamation. So – no. If you’re going to sue someone for defamation, you don’t do that at all.
    Of course, you’d know that if you knew anything about law, but I guess a medicore Second in English only qualifies you to talk about science, right?
    And, of course, the judge’s findings have now been upheld by a second judge, so where does that leave Steyn’s unhinged rant?
    Here’s a secret – it’s possible to write a polemic which isn’t dry and legalistic without comparing your opponent to a child molester (you have form here, as does Steyn). All you need is a bit of talent.

    • IskurBlast

      If you paid any attention to the judges ruling the complaints about being compared to Sandusky were thrown out because they were hyperbole. All that is left is the question of if people loose the right of free speech because a quasi government body says so.

      Mann says he was exonerated by the EPA of all things. Since when do people have to agree with EPA rulings?

      These arent’ event courts. They are witewash panels. Every single one of us has refused to recognize the ruling of a court as the truth. Between Zimmerman and OJ on those two alone just about everyone has refused to agree with the ruling of a court. We don’t have to its our right. I’m entitled to say that OJ is a murderer despite the court saying otherwise. That is my right because he is a public figure and I believe it to be true.

      • harebell

        No, all that is left is the accusation that Mann committed scientific fraud. It doesn’t get much worse than that for a scientist in an academic setting.

        • IskurBlast

          In the case of a public figure you do. You need some education on the law. The standard for public figures is “actual malice” meaning you knew it to be false. So if you believe it there is no actual malice.

          • harebell

            It doesn’t stop being untrue just because you believe it to be true.
            There are only a few defences in a libel or slander case and “but I believed it” is not one of them.

          • janvones

            You are obviously unfamiliar with US law, which differs from, and is much more liberal on defendants versus public personalities. Indeed, part of Mann’s suit is to claim he is not himself a public figure!

          • harebell

            Well I’ll put my hands up to not being as familiar as you are, no problems.
            Celebrity might be an avenue, but if Mann is decreed to be a celebrity then anyone who has been published in a journal, posted on-line or has a blog is a celebrity and the term is fast becoming meaningless.

          • ceili_dancer

            But, he claimed he was a Nobel Prize winner. Not that many people running around with that.

          • harebell

            And your point is?

          • ceili_dancer

            He is not some anonymous “scientist”, therefore a public figure.

          • harebell

            then that makes any published scientist a public figure

          • ceili_dancer

            If they have a nobel prize, yes.

          • harebell

            But he doesn’t does he?
            He was part of the team awarded such a prize.

          • ceili_dancer

            But his original claim was he was a nobel laureate(sp?)

          • harebell

            which part of reality are you having a problem with?

          • ceili_dancer

            Whatever, you can keep moving the goalposts, I’m done with you. Bye.

          • IskurBlast

            The standard was set in tge Sulivan decision. Sulivan was the public safety comissioner of Montgomery Alabama. If the law calls sulivan a public figure thrn the world renowned scientists Dr. Michael Mann is.

            its also a moot point because the court already rejected Manns claim yhat he wasnt a public figure.

          • harebell

            I know about Sullivan, but a full time public employee providing services to the public on a full time basis is in a somewhat different position to Mann.

            But as you say it’s moot, meaning anyone on benefit with a BLOG IS NOW A PUBLIC FIGURE.

          • IskurBlast

            Yes it is a different position.

            Mann writes editorals for the Times and Guardian, authors books intended for the general public, claims to be a nobel peace prize winner, charges $10,000 speaking fees, is a keynote speaker are major political events.

            He is a public figure.

          • IskurBlast

            Showing your ignorance of US law.

            ‘Actual Malice’ means you knew it was false. So if you believed it to be true then its not actual malice.

            Why do you not get this concept?

          • harebell

            “Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently,
            manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.”
            To allow the case to proceed the court must have thought that there was an clear chance by Mann’s team to show malice; otherwise it would have been dismissed as frivolous. Or did this Judge not “get this concept” either?

    • Prolix

      Indeed Snort. As I mentioned above, these two gents are so focused on what they think to be witty and cutting remark that they lose sight of what is actually under consideration. Play the ball and not the man always rings true.

      • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

        Read Watermelons.

    • janvones

      Comparing him to a child molester, or calling him a child molester? The second never happened, the first is free speech, and the case should have been laughed out of court.

      As for reputation, Mann opened that up when he said Steyn defamed him as a Nobel Laureate. Steyn’s got a perfect right to say that’s the plaintiff’s own delusion,one contested by the Nobel committee itself, not a fact.

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      “without comparing your opponent to a child molester (you have form here, as does Steyn).”

      Liar (what a surprise!).

      Steyn did not compare Mann to a child molester, in fact he specifically distanced from that allegation.

  • Prolix

    Ok, I will be the odd man out here. I can well understand the call for a rigorous examination of the topic of climate change (or call it what you wish), but in my exceedingly humble opinion both Delingpole and Stein continue to diminish themselves greatly by the level of snark that they introduce into the debate.
    I realize that this is an affairs magazine that I quite gladly subscribe to and read, but I must admit that I cheered the day when I was able to open its august pages and not see Steyn’s writing therein as his overweening support of all things war in Iraq in his snarky manner were tiresome. Great–if he supported the war he could have put out his reasons without constant name calling.
    Either way, I guess this snark is great for some people as entertainment, but from my low station in life I need to be educated and bettered, not to see who can be more flippant when referring to others…
    As for science, I will get that from those who are actually skilled and practiced in it. I remember Delignpole writing a few months ago about how many books he had read at Oxford. Interestingly enough not one of them, if I remember correctly, was a scientific text…

    • BMB

      It’s not reading scientific texts which makes one a scientist but accepting and following the scientific method. Mann and his ilk purport to promote their hypotheses to the rank of theory without any experimental proof whatsoever (computer games don’t count) by political means.

      • harebell

        Running computer models is not the same as playing computer games. So straight away you have shown yourself to not be worth listening to.
        I’ve used computer models that have then transferred their products to real life and I’m not the only one.

        • BMB

          Right, I only have 35 years of software experience so am not worth listening to. Those routers delivering internet content to you would run my code regardless if you listen or not. I’d venture a guess however that simulations you’ve used were not based on approximations for Navier-Stokes equations.

          • harebell

            It’s the internet man, you can be anything you want on here. That’s why an appeal to authority is useless as there is no way to verify it. You could be a twelve year old in Bergen who has quickly pulled up a web-page from a University web site for all I know.
            And I could be Steven Hawking slumming it for the day for all you know.
            Showing sources is all we have in terms of argumentation here, not an appeal to credentials we have no way of verifying so stop being naive.
            Oh and running models is still not the same as playing games.

      • Prolix

        Ah, but it that not a logical impasse? Reading a scientific text might not make one a scientist, but scientists had to have read scientific texts to have become scientists!
        Also, have you taken a close look at Mann apart from what Steyn and Delingpole say? I would be interested in reading what his scientific peers say about his methods and if they were “scientific” enough.
        Perhaps you do not have as much faith as I do in science, but I have more faith in it than I do in two practitioners of the put-down.
        As I said, Steyn was so seriously wrong about much of the Iraq and Afghanistan lead-up and execution (and I was in uniform albeit not in theatre) that I am justified in questioning his analysis of other topics. He is the least likely to practice the “scientific method” so I can I be sure that he is correct when he criticizes those who know it well?

        • BMB

          Please my friend don’t have “faith”. It is too easily exploited.

          • Prolix

            Ok, confidence then…

          • BMB

            Confidence is fine. In fact I agree with you that confidence in Steyn and Delingpole would be misplaced because they are just journalists expressing opinions.
            But a thing of it is that there is no science on Mann’s side either, just another opinion. His methodology has already been proven unreliable.
            My confidence is in living for another 100 years to see for myself who’s right and who’s wrong.

        • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

          The takedown of Mann’s “hide the decline” by Dr Muller is classic

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

        • Jeffrey Vernon

          They read some texts – but preferably sooner rather than later they designed and interpreted their own experiments. Study nature, not books!

      • BvggvrdMotherboard

        Oh yeah. Sounds good, for a second. But the next steps in this lovely little chain (as it usually develops) end up with the wholly illogical demonstration that Delingpole is a scientist (because he ‘accepts’ a scientific method there’s no evidence he actually empirically gets), whereas people who actually do science are not.

        At that point, you realise: yes, it’s nothing to do with science. It’s all about politics. And it’s clear as mud.

        Thanks Delingpole, your political simplifications really add to the debate.

        • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

          It’s actually about the law and the truth. The truth is that Mann’s manipulation to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Climate Optimum is just wrong. The historical data is persuasive and the flawed proxies he’s using have multiple decade records of failing to catch elevated warm periods. He’s been caught out in funny business with “hide the decline”. He is guilty as sin and Steyn’s rightly called him out on it.

      • Jeffrey Vernon

        Yes: if reading texts were enough we could all accumulate thousands of factoids without knowing how to design or interpret an experiment.

      • Prolix

        I have absolutely no disagreement at all with following the scientific method–I thought that was all rather implicit in this discussion.

        A close reading of my comment would reveal that I am not taking a position on Mann’s propositions but rather that I find Steyn’s and Delingpole’s snark to be rather odious and not adding to the debate. The point of my posts was that gents who argue as they do raise great suspicion with me. Speak to the methods and the science and despatch with the polemic. Delingpole maintains that this makes the topic dry…so? If I want cracking excitement I will look elsewhere than Steyn’s tiresome rants. I gave up on him after he, in so many words, kept maintaining that those of us who advised caution in the run up to the war in Iraq (II) were just gents who wet our beds in fear as we cowered under the covers. Intelligent stuff that…so why should I trust him on questioning a more difficult topic?

    • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

      It’s not about science, you poor innocent lamb. It’s about politics, and always has been: AGW/ MMCC, or call it what they will, is a Trojan horse for the Leftist project of re-making the West as it would like the West to be (poorer and less free).

      • Jeffrey Vernon

        Why would the left want to give up on human potential, elevate Nature over class, hand over authority to technocrats, and replace productive forces with watermills? It’s not classic socialism. Personally, I’ve always seen greenery as a strand of small-is-beautiful conservatism.

    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

      So a bit of education is what you’re after? I’ll try to oblige. You might hear, if you follow the issue enough, the insider famous phrase “Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline”. Mike would be Mike Mann and hide the decline would be the problem of certain proxies not being accurate for the past few decades. They match fine with the temperature record up to then but they don’t after about 1940. The temperature record starts about 1880 so that’s good match for about 60 years and a decline in matching ability of about 70 years and use as proxy for hundreds of years prior to that by the litigious Dr. Mann.

      So the proxy is used for temps prior to 1880 and on through 1940 and then actual temps are grafted on after 1940 on the same line and smoothed which has the effect of making the obvious discontinuity at the join not so obvious. Mann not only is saying that this is legitimate science but to mock it for the idiotic pantomime of actual science that it is should be punished by a libel judgment.

      Go talk to scientists and lay out what Mann did without using names and obscuring the field that it happened in. I think you’ll be surprised to find them mostly lining up on Steyn’s side.

      • BvggvrdMotherboard

        The decline (to which you refer) began in the 1960s.

        • BvggvrdMotherboard

          As in, “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.”

        • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

          That’s fine. I just did a quick lookup to refresh my memory and the 1940s was what came up on google. I’m willing to grant that you have the truth of it, especially since it doesn’t matter to the legal case.

          Do we agree that the temp. record where we can check that declining proxy started in 1880? That would mean that 80 years of accuracy was followed by 50+ years of declining accuracy taking your start date. I could see a decade of divergence, even two if the divergence went away thereafter, but half a century is just too much divergence for a proxy where the use of it for hundreds of years is uncheckable and is contradicted by historical records (the medieval warm period for example).

          Remember, we’re talking about a legal standard of whether this is “torturing data”, not directly whether the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming scenario is right or wrong. Dr. Muller’s takedown of this behavior pioneered by Mann (which should be introduced at trial if the case gets that far) didn’t stop Muller from turning right around and saying that global warming was real when he got his BEST group running in competition with Mann.

          Libel is rightly made a hard thing to prove in the US. The facts do not support Mann.

        • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

          Disqus seems to have eaten my reply so I’ll do it again.

          I grant you the 20 years. Now will you grant me that a 50 year decline in accuracy invalidates a proxy’s validity for the hundreds of years prior to the modern temperature system that started in the 1880s? If you agree with that, Mann loses, Steyn wins on truth grounds. If you don’t agree with that, could you please explain how you can legitimately toss out the Roman climate optimum and the Medieval Warm Period based on the strength of those proxies and contravening the historical record of what grew where and for how long?

          This is the data torture that Steyn accuses Mann of and really, Mann doesn’t have a leg to stand on without those proxies whose accuracy has declined over the last 50 years.

    • Jeffrey Vernon

      Expertise is of course indispensable. But the public is entitled to argue about the *use* of scientific data (I wish they’d do this more rather than get into arguments from authority). I agree with you about Steyn: it’s amusing the first few times, but after six columns it’s easy to write a parody.

      • Prolix

        Indeed Jeffrey. I did not mean to imply that we should not have a scientifically literate and engaged public that questions the use of data. I also agree that the argument from authority is a particularly weak technique.
        I think my frustration with Steyn and Delingpole is that when they resort to the bully-boy tactics and snark that I am immediately suspicious as to how authoritatively they can speak on the matter. Maybe they can, maybe they cannot. I have seen them employ these tactics in the past when they turned out to be demonstrably wrong.
        Delingpole cleverly tries to head this point off at the pass by saying that a polemic, by its nature, need not be as dry as dust etc. Unfortunately he is trying to be too clever by a half. He knows darn well that in the matters of science one must, almost by the definition of the scientific method, steer clear of the polemic.
        Delingpole should know better as an Oxfordian (I am not sure what Steyn’s excuse is) but perhaps he has realized that playing to the galley on this point with snark and bite earns a loyal corps of followers. Sad, as we could do with a little more of the dryness of the scientific paper….

        • Jeffrey Vernon

          For me, Delingpole does not have even the attraction of good style (never mind the content). That clever-clogs 6th form manner can only persuade the persuaded. (Who will persuade the persuaders?)

          • Prolix

            Exactly, if one is to engage in such rhetorical trickery then one should at least do it with style and panache. The constant assumption that one posses Oracle of Delphi wisdom in the matter and that those who think differently are base idiots grows very thin…usually after three sentences.

  • BMB

    There’s nothing new about Mann and his likes. There used to be alchemists promising kings and barons gold from iron or whatever other plentiful metal and meanwhile making a comfortable living from their “research”. Mann and company simply upgraded that claim, they promise our barons gold from thin air (breathing tax anyone?).

  • David Webb

    The spelling is “mediaeval”.

  • brock2118
  • suqsid4

    Thanks for posting this, Delingpole, and bringing it to our attention, Gutfeld.

  • seksivitez

    The left will understand one day, just because you silence a person, does not mean you changed their mind.

    • idalily

      THIS. I would upvote this 1000x if I could.

  • Helios Megistos
  • BlueScreenOfDeath

    I see the Mann Hokey Schtick apologists are out in force again.

    Here’s the definitive debunk, courtesy of Professor Richard Muller:

    “McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used,
    and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do
    conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can
    only be described as mistaken.

    Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure
    tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to
    suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and
    McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no
    trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo”
    analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical
    analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these
    random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

    That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having
    the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the
    poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an
    artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?”

    • Noel Darlow

      If it was so obviously flawed, you have to wonder why Muller didn’t publish his critique of Mann’s hockey stick. If you are not prepared to publish a detailed argument, it’s hardly a “definitive debunk” is it?

      • amwassil

        Someday, maybe not tomorrow or the next day, but someday, you will read all the ridiculous nonsense you posted here and be very embarrassed. And if you have an ounce of self respect you will edit every single post to return it to an empty space. I know you don’t believe me now. But you will. The kicker is: it won’t make any difference because the Wayback Machine will save it all – forever. Cheers.

        • Noel Darlow

          Pick one and see if you can take me on.

        • Jeffrey Vernon

          I thought Noel made a reasonable suggestion. Or are you saying that Muller’s criticism was in fact published (in a scientific journal)? Science loves controversies and debunking – he would not have had a problem placing his article where other scientists could argue about it.

      • BlueScreenOfDeath

        “you have to wonder why Muller didn’t publish his critique of Mann’s hockey stick”

        No, *I* don’t have to wonder anything of the kind, because unlike you I can use Internet search engines.

        • Noel Darlow

          I’m sorry I thought you would understand that I meant publish a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal, you know, like all science is done.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Quite. Science by press conference is a disease of our time.

    • BvggvrdMotherboard

      Or to put it another way:

      “Suppose . . . future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously — that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small — then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.”

      • BlueScreenOfDeath

        “a few years of random cooling”

        That would be the “few years of random cooling” that is already well beyond the predictive scope of the Xbox games computer models and has triggered a wave of consternation and perplexity amongst the climate McScience fraternity leading to articles such as this in ‘Nature’, would it?

        Climate change: The case of the missing heat

        Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.

        http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

        Note that the article is entirely speculative and does NOT assert that the “missing heat” is in fact hiding in the deep oceans, only that scientists hope it is.

        It is but one of a number of competing explanations, including at least one that questions the validity of the radiative science upon which all of the GHG hypothesis is based.

        • BvggvrdMotherboard

          You were the guy who quoted Muller. It’s disingenuous of you not to represent his views properly. But frankly you lot are so Machivellian a little thing like this hardly matters. It’s all about politics, I hear, and if your political credentials are right, you can say what you like, misquote who you like, and ignore whatever you like, as you like. Fine by me. I’m more of a wait and see kind of person. The pause is a real problem, that hyperventilating over current weather won’t fix. But Delingpole and the pilgrims from the Daily Telegraph bring no clarity to the muddy waters.

  • Margo Epperson

    I love it when Mark Steyn takes over for Rush. He is brilliant!

  • BumbaK

    The science is irrelevant in this issue. Mann is not even arguing that; he is suing for defamation. His feelings are hurt because Stein used some rough rhetoric. Were he a confident man, he would have ignored the piece. Were he a worthy scientist, he would have refuted it with his brilliant science. Instead, he uses libel law to shut up his opposition. What is at stake is whether a person can express his opinion in an opinion piece. Steyn recognizes this; way too many others do not.

    • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

      I would substitute ‘judgement’ for ‘opinion’ in Steyn’s case. An opinion may be ill-founded and ignorant. Steyn’s was not.

    • idalily

      Exactly. Well said.

  • Anthony DuLac

    What an intellectual coward Mann is…pathetic.

    • harebell

      The coward is Steyn who thought he’d attack a person as a fraud and that he would not have to justify it. Freedom of speech means you are allowed to say whatever you want, it doesn’t mean that you will not be held accountable for it and have to justify it when questioned.

      • amwassil

        We’re all waiting for the discovery process. Mann has already outed himself as a fraud. The only question is how much this frivolous law suit will cost him and I think Steyn intends to make it very painful.

        • Argus

          On the lawsuit-funding aspect, wouldn’t the provision of $$$ from whatever the source be reportable and a subject of interest to the IRS?

        • harebell

          If it was frivolous then it would have been halted already.
          If Steyn was never going to lose then he might still have joint representation with NRO.
          Someone somewhere thinks that him losing is a strong possibility.

          I admire your confidence, but this noise looks familiar to me and it brings to mind the antics Conrad Black displayed prior to his trials. (Different scenario of course but same bluster and expectations.)

          • amwassil

            It hasn’t been halted because Mann is using the process of the suit in an attempt to silence critics. Mann will try to drag this out as long as he can in the hope to discourage anyone else saying anything he doesn’t like. The longer it lasts, the bigger the cost of fighting it rises and he hopes that fact will discourage anyone else from risking his ire. I think to Mann’s chagrin, Steyn refuses to play the game as expected. He’s not shutting up during the process because he knows the process itself is being used to try to shut him up. That’s why he has said that Mann must lose, must be seen to lose and must lose big. As cynical as one may be about the US legal system, Mann is skating on very thin ice.

          • harebell

            That’s a lot of handwaving and speculation there. Unless you are Mann I can’t see how you can be so sure about what he is thinking.
            Steyn opened his mouth with out evidence of fraud and in fact in direct contradiction to any inquiry that had discussed this issue to that date. Free speech is not the same as consequence free speech.

      • londondave

        Oh let me see, Steyn (the alleged by you “coward”) versus the massively state funded con Mann.

        What a perverted warped view of life you must have when the “David” in a contest is the “coward” when facing the “Goliath”.

        We’ll see what happens when Mann is under oath and forced to disclose all sorts of things in the discovery phase.. Starting with the East Anglia emails.

        • harebell

          Steyn was the one with the bully pulpit. He was a contributor to a widely read magazine whereas Mann had what? The magazine knows this which is why they are doing their own thing. Anyone who uses such a position to malign someone does so knowing that the person they are attacking is unable to respond effectively, sounds like the definition of cowardice to me.
          As for the e-mails – I’m pretty sure a judge understands the difference between quote mining and looking at things holistically.

          • londondave

            “Bully pulpit” — aw diddums did you hear that somewhere.

            Whereas (con)-Mann had what?

            You’re a joker. Or more than likely being deliberately obtuse to the point of idiocy.

            Get outta here.

          • harebell

            That’s it hey?

    • Noel Darlow

      The real intellectual cowardice lies in the deliberate attempt to attack Mann’s reputation and credibility rather than debating the merits of the science.

      http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/023115254X

      • amwassil

        Excuse me. Focus the spot lights. It was Michael Mann who refused to debate the merits of the science. It was Michael Mann who refused to publish his data and methods. It was Michael Mann who tried to silence any who questioned his results. It was Michael Mann who helped corrupt the peer review process. It was Michael Mann who leaned on journal editors to blackball those who disagreed. It was Michael Mann who forgot that science demands skepticism.

        You and Hairyballs are really not well informed. You ought to read up more before sticking your foot in your mouth.

        • Noel Darlow

          Climate research is a constant process of public debate which is carried out, in the first instance, via scientific papers which set out detailed, technical arguments and supporting evidence. Anyone can read them and anyone can criticise them – providing they understand them.

          False skeptics like to do a lot of hand-waving and are rather promiscuously fond of character assassination but then they go all quiet whenever we try to drill down to the science.

          Filtering out obviously bad science is exactly what the peer review process is supposed to do. I assume you are referring to some of the climategate allegations:

          https://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm

          • Steve Gregg

            Peer review does not filter out obviously bad science but does a coarse check of a paper. It does not repeat the experiment or challenge the facts.

          • harebell

            You are right, but at least it is a check of sorts. A lot of those who wish to counter the science don’t even do that though.

            It also ensures that the methodology and assumptions of the original authors are made public so that anyone else looking to repeat the process can do so. It is a first stage filter and a very important one.

          • Steve Gregg

            False. People have submitted papers that are complete gibberish to peer reviewed journals and they were published, even though they were complete nonsense.

          • harebell

            “You are right, but at least it is a check of sorts.”

            See I wrote that.

            Like any process that involves human beings it is not perfect, but it is one of the initial important filters in the process. So not false

            Planes crash due to mechanical failure, does that mean that all planes fail because of mechanical failure? No it doesn’t, flying is still one of the safest ways to travel.

          • Steve Gregg

            It is not a check at all if you can submit complete nonsense and the peer review approves it. You claim AGW papers are true because they have been peer reviewed, which is a false claim. You claim you are right because your opposition does not understand science, yet you do not understand what peer review is. And you have not told us what the falsifiable proposition of AGW is. If there is none, then AGW is not science, but a faith.

          • harebell

            So routine maintenance checks on aircraft are not a check at all because some fail to stop planes crashing. Nice logic there Steve.

            I did not claim that AGW papers are true because they are peer reviewed, I just commented on the procedure. Unless you can find a place where I did say that, you are just making stuff up.

            Noen has replied to your inquiry on falsifiability many times and you have ignored each of their explanations. So me answering this question is probably not going to help either is it? But I’ll cut and paste it for you here:

            “what is anthropogenic global warming’s falsifiable proposition?” — If the climate were not in fact warming that would falsify the warming aspect. If we could not find CO2 with the radiological fingerprints thatlink it to fossil fuels that would falsify the human origin aspect.

            “What is the test, which if true, would prove AGW false?” — If the earth were not warming and if there were no CO2 of human origin in the atmosphere.

            Feel free to ignore it once more and ask the same stupid questions elsewhere though.

          • Steve Gregg

            I have made no argument about maintenance checks on aircraft, so you are ascribing an argument to me I did not make. This false charge reeks of desperation. Nor is a peer review a maintenance check, but rather more like sprinking holy water on a jet. I see you are now running away from claiming peer reviews are any kind of proof. That’s good.

            The climate in fact has plateaued, temperature-wise, for the last fifteen years, so the claim that a warming Earth is proof of AGW is false. Likewise, a warming Earth would not be proof of AGW since there are any number of causes for that, foremost the Sun and eccentricities in the Earth’s orbit. So, you have not offered a falsifiable proposition yet, but you have demonstrated that you don’t understand the science.

          • harebell

            Dear me.
            The plane metaphor was a metaphor, so no you didn’t mention planes and clearly have no idea how a metaphor is used to illustrate things.
            ” I see you are now running away from claiming peer reviews are any kind of proof.” I’m not running away because I never said that. You invented this and then patted yourself on the back… weird. Here’s what I said about peer review:
            “Like any process that involves human beings it is not perfect, but it is
            one of the initial important filters in the process. So not false”

            As to the rest of it, you clearly cannot read what is written and just produce verbiage that you have cut and pasted from a site like Watt’s up with that.

            Try and focus and discuss what is actually written not what you wish was written.

          • Steve Gregg

            I still have made no argument about the value of maintenance checks on aircraft, no matter how much you want that to be true. And that remains a bogus analogy to peer reviews, which have no value as proof. It is not an important filter, as I have shown by the example of scientific papers submitted as a prank that were full of gibberish.

            You still have not submitted a valid falsifiable proposition for AGW, because it is not science but a faith. If you wish to focus on something, focus on producing that. Global warmers claim everything proves AGW, which shows that their claim does not rest on science.

            Snark is not a rebuttal. Posing as superior is phony when you don’t have the evidence to back it up.

          • harebell

            You clearly can’t comprehend what is written so having any form of conversation with is doomed to failure; but I’m persistent. I never said you said anything about aircraft maintenance and the fact that you said you didn’t think it worked as an analogy indicates that you kind of know that.

            I never said that peer review acted as proof, but a filter and the fact you said it wasn’t a good filter also indicates that you know that.

            The gibberish I think you are referring to was the submission by Sokal to Post Modernist journals of stuff he made up. These were not scientific journals, but journals in the Arts. Sokal was a scientist. This doesn’t mean that gibberish doesn’t get past the peer review filter and into science journals, but your use of the word gibberish leads me to believe you have confused Sokal with another event. please feel free to enlighten me as to your source for your statement if this is not so.

            On falsifiability – you didn’t read noen, nor the part I copied from him and you didn’t address those points. So why should I attempt to explain further to you when you don’t read what is already given you?

            You don’t respect evidence or read what is written all that is left is snark.

          • Steve Gregg

            I respect a valid falsifiable proposition for AGW. You have submitted none. As I’ve written, the Earth can warm from a number of causes, so a continued warming does not prove AGW. However, a falsifiable proposition is about DISPROVING a thesis. If you have a superior grasp of science, you should be able to provide this easily. So where is it? What is the test that would disprove AGW, Mr. Science?

          • harebell

            If the climate were not in fact warming that would falsify the warming
            aspect. If we could not find CO2 with the radiological fingerprints
            that link it to fossil fuels that would falsify the human origin aspect.

            Test:
            If the earth were not warming and if there were no CO2 of human origin in the atmosphere.

            The climate is warming and CO2 linked to fossil fuels is abundant.

          • Steve Gregg

            The climate is not warming, as I have pointed out before. The temperature has stayed the same for 15 years. Honest environmentalists say that puts it in the 5% range of predictions.

            If the Earth were warming, that would not prove AGW. The Earth could be warming due to a number of causes, such as sunspots and the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. You are making a propter hoc error. It’s like claiming that if the light is on in the bathroom, your wife must have turned it on, when it could have been the kids or guests.

            However, let us take your fallacious reasoning and accept it. Since the climate has not warmed for 15 years, AGW is false, right?

            It has long been debunked that CO2 causes global warming. Atmospheric CO2 increases AFTER global warming, probably because it is degassed from the warmer oceans, which, having 250 times the mass of the atmosphere, hold more CO2. I thought you said you knew the science better than we right wing troglodytes.

            You’re floundering on this exercise.

          • harebell

            It has not “long been debunked” and that is your problem. You cite wishful thinking or complete rubbish as fact.

          • Steve Gregg

            In fact, it has been debunked. Most famously, an English court cited exactly the fact that CO2 levels rise after warming, not before, when it ruled that Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” could not be shown in classrooms as a science documentary, but rather as a political polemic.

            You are devoted to a false religion.

          • harebell

            oh a court said so hey? A government in one of the Carolina’s also made it illegal to talk about sea levels rising in order to protect real estate investments – so I guess Cnut’s courtiers did reproduce and are alive today.
            Didn’t hear the free speech warriors stand up for freedom of expression when that decision came down either… odd that.

          • Steve Gregg

            A non sequitur, part of a stream of fallacious arguments made to defend AGW. If the facts were on your side, you would not need to resort to rhetorical arguments.

          • harebell

            So you didn’t bring a decision by a non-scientific entity in to support your side of the discussion then?
            Clearly you have an issue of dealing with your own arguments if you have an issue with mine.

          • Steve Gregg

            In fact, scientists have found that higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere follow global warming, rather than precede it. Gore claims otherwise in his propaganda film. The English court acknowledged that when it ruled his film a political statement rather than science.

          • harebell

            And you carefully ignored your own point and my using of it against you.

          • Steve Gregg

            Whatever point you art trying to make is lost on me. I’ve pointed out that scientists have debunked the CO2 theory. If you’re claiming only scientists’ arguments are valid, that is false, too. Anyone can come up with a valid argument if he has the evidence to back it. Einstein was a clerk in the patent office, not a scientist, when he dreamed up his theories on the nature of time and light.

          • harebell

            Scientists have not debunked the CO2 theory – whatever that means. CO2 causes climate change and most scientists are totally on board with that.
            Einstein was a patent clerk and was a scientist, there is no problem with being both. In fact as early as sixteen he was pretty advanced in knowledge of physics and maths. Your argument makes no sense, he was as much a scientist as Hawking, Bohr, Rutherford etc.

            Also it doesn’t matter how you arrive at your theories as long as they can be replicated and be used to make valid and useful predictions.

          • Steve Gregg

            Actually, they have. They have found that higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere follow global warming, probably because a warmer client degasses CO2 from the oceans, which, having 250 times the mass of the atmosphere, also contain far more CO2.
            Einstein was not making a living as a scientist when he dreamed up his theories. Lots of people have all kinds of special knowledge about problems who are not scientists. Something is true on its own merits whether a scientist says it or a beggar says it.
            I see in your last sentence that you agree with me.

          • harebell

            oh and as for your point about CO2.
            The people who actually acquired the core samples and analysed the gas within them explained that wonderfully. It involves science where basic physics meets climate science and the issue of feedback. CO2 once released causes a greater rise in temperature and relaeses more CO2 and so on.
            And unlike you I’ll give you a link to the piece in Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            He might have been referring to Andrew Wakefield’s paper on measles vaccine; no control group. It was published in The Lancet, a top medical journal. Beneviste’s ‘memory of water’ homeopathy paper was published in Nature.

          • harebell

            I remember Wakefield’s paper and it really only came to light after it was queried by those who read it along with the methodology and problems with consent and money came to light. Some of the others involved rapidly backtracked too.
            I wouldn’t describe it as gibberish though, fraudulent yes but it was put together quite well. It just wasn’t reproducible.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Not so. I read it when it was published, and I was surprised it was accepted. He examined a small number of autistic children who had received MMR. That was it. Even 6th form biologists know that he should also have examined children without autism who had received the vaccine; and children with autism who had not. Nonetheless, it was peer reviewed and accepted by the editor. Incidentally – Japan banned MMR for different reasons in the late 80s, and the rate of autism went up! There was no causal connection, of course.

          • harebell

            Case studies tend to get treated differently, because they usually do involve a few cases and controls can be tough to come by.
            Interestingly when Japan banned MMR the rates of those diseases went through the roof, but the vaxers conveniently forget this.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Well…lots of science is not done in a Karl Popper way, including most physics and astronomy. Falsifiability would discount a lot of physics, if it relied on just one ‘black swan’.Unlike biology/medicine, positive and negative controls are often absent in physical experiments and observations.

          • Noel Darlow

            Peer review is a basic sanity check. That’s all. It doesn’t guarantee an idea is correct, but it does establish that there is (apparently) a coherent, scientific argument to support it. This argument may be refuted later – but only with better science.

            This process has some very important implications.

            At a stroke, it makes life very, very difficult for the snake-oil salesmen. On the internet you can find hundreds of blowhards with a blog pontificating about climate – Steve McIntyre, Bishop Hill, Anthony Watts, and all the other usual suspects – but unless an opinion about a scientific subject can be shown to relate to published science, it doesn’t mean a damn thing. The limits of what you can reasonably argue about a scientific subject are defined by the set of published (and unrefuted) papers for that subject. That’s it. There’s a good reason why the false skeptics of the world lurk on blogs and are not active in cutting-edge research.

            There is some scope for informed speculation which goes a little way beyond the literature but only if it is clearly identified as such.

            As well as filtering out the charlatans, peer review also improves the quality of honest science. Arguments and evidence have to be set out in detail and have to stand up to a tough critique by the community before they are accepted.

            Science is a search for objective truths and you only have to look around at the world you live in to see how well the scientific process can work if right-wing bigots (it’s always the right…) would only butt out and let them get on with it.

          • Steve Gregg

            Noel,

            The reason why conservatives like me question AGW is that it is not science, but rather leftist politics. The AGW answer always seems to be to grant some unaccountable body vast amounts of wealth. Much of the AGW science stinks of deception, such as the Hockey Stick. It is telling when a statistician such as Bjorn Lomborg examines AGW stats and finds every single one of them false. It is also telling when AGW proponents label critics as bigots, ie infidels who don’t accept their religion. Real scientists and intellectuals welcome debate. AGW proponents do not, but rather seek to slander and silence them. That anti-intellectual approach undermines their claim to rationalism.

          • Noel Darlow

            Real scientists welcome scientific debate. Important qualifier there.

            Can you show me a paper of Lomborg’s which is claimed to refute a significant idea in climate science?

            Science is the search for objective truths, ie you must bring evidence and solid arguments to the table. The right’s problem, their original sin if you like, is that they have lost all touch with objective reality – so much so that they don’t even believe in objective reality any more. It’s all about who can shout the loudest because the other guy, well, he’s just shouting too, right?

            Trouble is, reality has a habit of bursting that bubble.

          • Steve Gregg

            I’m glad you prefer scientific debate. So, tell us what is the falsifiable proposition of AGW.

            Lomborg has written a rather fat book, “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” that details the flawed stats of environmental and AGW proponents by the dozen. Have at it.

            Your opposition to conservative critics is obviously partisan, nor rational. I’d say the AGW is burst by reality. Their arguments fall apart with even gentle prodding. They have yet to demonstrate any effect on Earth that can not be easily explained by natural causes.

            The bottom line is that the Earth is immense and indifferent to our puny human presence. The climate of the Earth is the product of titanic forces on the Earth working over millions of years. We have but a trivial ability to add nor detract from it.

          • Noel Darlow

            The falsifiable proposition is that climate will not warm in response to C02 as predicted.

            Scientific ideas are proposed with detailed, formal arguments submitted for peer-review and published in reputable journals. Not books. Can you show me any paper authored by Lomborg which refutes a single significant idea in climate science?

            You say that human activities do not cause warming. On what basis? What effort have you made to learn about climate science? What sources would you wish to present to back up your claims?

            You see how this works? Science is a search for objective truths. You have to be able to back up what you say. Put up or shut up.

          • Steve Gregg

            The climate has not warmed for the last fifteen years. Therefore, AGW is disproved.

            No, humans do not warm the Earth. At best, they warm local areas, such as cities, and affect local weather. But we are too insignificant to warm the planet.

            If you are the rational party, as you claim, then you should know that you can not prove a negative. Demanding your debate opponent do so is demagoguery, not rational debate.

            Of course, science can be conveyed in books. Scientists learn their science from books. A true thing is true no matter how it is conveyed. And, of course, a false thing is false even if it is published in a scientific paper. Were the scientific papers on eugenics true? The Piltdown Man? That light is conveyed by an invisible ether?

            If science is the search for objective truth, then AGW is not science. It is mostly science prostituting itself to serve a political end.

          • Noel Darlow

            “The climate has not warmed for the last fifteen years. Therefore, AGW is disproved.”

            Thank you for at least presenting a rational argument. I am afraid it is wrong though.

            There is a huge amount of short-term variability in temperature records. In order to see the long-term trend, you have to look at periods much greater than 15 years.

            Suppose you have a six-sided dice. If you roll it twice, and get two 1’s, you get an average score of 1. If you tried that another day, you might get a 4 and a 6 – average score of 5. Now suppose you decide to roll the dice 200 times each try. The average will always be close to 3.5 every day of the week.

            You have the same kind of problem trying to measure the climate trend. Despite this, numerous commentators have claimed that warming has paused but you can’t say that. If temperatures stay down well into the 2030’s, *then* you can call it a pause.

            There’s actually a whole lot more that is wrong with the idea of a “pause” but I’ll leave it there for now.

            Am I asking you to prove a negative? Not really. There is a mountain – no, a mountain range – of evidence to support AGW from many different disciplines: ecology, glaciology, oceanography, paleontology etc etc. We’ve gathered evidence with boots on the ground in Antarctica and satellites in space. The IPCC AR5 report conveniently provides a (rather conservative) summary of all the evidence.

            We’ve produced our evidence. Where is yours?

          • Steve Gregg

            I was mocking you, but I’ll roll with the argument. First, I note the slipperiness of your argument. Had the climate warmed for the last fifteen years, you most certainly would have claimed it as proof of global warming. You just want to keep extending the period until there is a warming trend. That is the problem with AGW. It’s proponents assume it is true so they construct their claims so that it is unfalsifiable.

            Unfortunately for the global warmers, the long term trend will be colder. We are overdue for an ice age. However, the trend in deep time is in your favor. The Sun is slowly getting hotter. In a billion years, the Sun will start vaporizing the oceans and blowing them off into space. The Earth will be bone dry in two billion years.

            In five billion years, the Sun will run out of hydrogen fuel and switch to helium, forcing it to expand into a red dwarf and consume Mercury and Venus, scorching Earth to a cinder. So, you have that going for you. In the end, the climate will go hot, very hot. The bad news for AGW is that the hotter climate will be due to natural causes.

            So, if you want to extend your sample domain out from fifteen years to a billion years, you might finally get a warming period in your favor.

          • Noel Darlow

            The “slipperiness” is entirely in your imagination. This is bog-standard, routine climate science: 15 years is too short a timespan to say anything meaningful.

            I also mentioned there are a whole range of things wrong with the idea of a “pause”. Here’s another one: the pause refers to the surface temperature record but the vast majority of the energy imbalance ends up in the oceans. It was long suspected that this lay behind the slowdown in surface temperatures (at least in part), and a mechanism for unusually strong ocean warming has recently been confirmed:

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-warming-pause-trade-winds-pacific-ocean-study

          • Steve Gregg

            A pause in climate is entirely normal. There were a billion years in the middle of the Earth’s history when nothing happenned, everything stayed about the same. Geologists call it the boring billion.

          • londo

            So you write all those wise statements about peer review and the scientific process, but in one instance where it suits your agenda you throw it away just like that. It passed only (to use your own words) “… a basic sanity check. That’s all. It doesn’t guarantee an idea is correct, but it does establish that there is (apparently) a coherent, scientific argument to support it. This argument may be refuted later – but only with better science.”. Yet, a week after publication it is the truth for you. You know, the only requirement for “better science” to come later is that the science it disputes was poor in the first place.

          • Noel Darlow

            Publication is a bit like sitting an entrance exam. It raises the standard required to propose a new idea. You must make a detailed, formal argument, deal adequately with other conflicting possibilities, and provide relevant evidence. Then it has to pass peer review and be accepted for publication.

            After that, if it’s an important paper, it will be widely read and no doubt criticised. Formal criticism will take the form of other peer-reviewed papers – the minimum requirement for any scientific proposal. Or perhaps other studies will add support to the theory. Or maybe both: ie two or more valid schools of thought will emerge and we might have to wait a while to find out who (if anyone) is right. When we do, it will only be after the publication of further studies and formal, detailed arguments.

            Note that there are no two schools of thought in climate science. The common objections which we so tediously have to keep debunking are a media phenomenon only, the bloviations of blowhards with internet blogs or the bizarre utterances of unqualified individuals like Nigel Lawson asked to contribute opinions on radio and TV programs for reasons best known only to the producer. They do not exist in the literature.

            The fact that ideas can change and evolve over time is the power of science, not its weakness. It’s lucky that they do otherwise we’d still be as much in awe of flint-ignited fires as if they were a form of nuclear fusion – and if we’d listened to people like you we would be.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Fat books – however fat – are not scientific articles. I enjoyed the Sceptical Environmentalist, but in the end it’s a coffee table book. Lomborg ought to submit his analysis to a statistical journal. His website doesn’t list any papers at all, and he now works for a cost/benefit thinktank. His last academic post was in a department of political science, some years ago.

          • Steve Gregg

            It’s hardly a coffee table book. When Lomborg shows that EVERY environmentalist mangles his statistics, that demonstrates the lack of academic rigor in the field. It shows that environmentalism is a cargo cult science.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            I know, I read it and liked it. He takes the same data that the environmentalists use, and comes to different conclusions. But I call it a coffee table book because we don’t have the details of his statistical treatment of the raw data, and it has not been recommended for publication in a stats journal, where other statisticians can reply to it and criticise it. The book has no more scientific status than a well-informed column in a newspaper. I’d class it alongside The Selfish Gene and Consilience and things of that sort. Since Lomborg has published hardly anything in academic journals, he is vulnerable to attack.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            I don’t know why the left gets blamed for AGW. Pessimism about the human future, technological fixes, malthusian claims, government by wonks – none of this is classic socialism. In fact, it’s a strand of conservatism that wrings its hands over human potential and wants a low-growth economy.

          • Steve Gregg

            The Left gets blamed for AGW because when the Soviet Union failed and discredited socialism, socialists adopted environmentalism as socialism by other means. The Green Party in Germany are all socialists. Greenies are watermelons, green on the outside, pink on the inside.

            Conservatism believes in growth, not low-growth. It is not conservatives who are trying to hamstring the economy and decrying capitalism and raging about urban sprawl. It is not conservative trying to outlaw fracking and stop the Keystone pipeline.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            At least in the UK. it was the conservative governments of Thatcher and Major that turned greenery into international politics and obtrusive legislation. I thought at the time that it went along with their campaign against socialism; ‘look, here’s a cross-class issue with no social implications. Even if you’re not a conservative, you can support our fight to save the planet. It’s Our Common Heritage and we must all look after it’

            There is certainly a school of conservatism attracted to the status quo, rural england, under-development, window boxes, not-in-my-back-yard. In the same way, there is a (large) Left contingent that puts humans above nature, and debate above authority, and industry as a way of increasing the division of labour. I’d be amazed if the FrackOff gang did not contain left and right, but also a large collection of disaffected anarchists who mistrust both traditions.

          • Steve Gregg

            You have not made a persuasive case that the planet needs saving. Furthermore, it is suspicious that the global warming solution to this contrived crisis is an authoritarian and unaccountable body to which we should feed trillions of dollars. We conservatives don’t see that as the solution to anything but rather the problem itself.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Why do you ask me to make a case for saving the planet? I was writing about the appeal of greenery to all parts of the political spectrum

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Let me endorse that. Even at its best, peer review says ‘yes, these methods could have produced these data, and the interpretation is reasonable.’ Even the top journals like Science and Nature publish work with design flaws not picked up by reviewers, or work done well that is nonetheless never reproduced independently.

          • harebell

            Yup there’s a couple of them whose posts I read from the bottom up and if there’s a childish insult then I know they have nothing.

          • amwassil

            Can you actually read, or just copy/paste? Michael Mann and the other members of the US branch of the team are the guys who refused public debate, engaged in pal review of each others’ papers, cherry picked and fudged data to support their assertions. They altered and ignored historical temperature records to fit their theory. They are the guys who attempted to prevent anyone not on the team evaluating their data and methods. They forced others to use FOI to get their data for analysis. They are the ones who engaged in character assassination and intimidation of journal editors to attempt to stifle anyone who questioned anything they asserted.

            They, and you, are the reality deniers. You can’t face the truth that your precious little CO2 theory is brain dead and already on a ventilator. So keep copy/pasting nonsense from skeptical science and real climate. It’s a great example of climate derangement syndrome

          • Noel Darlow

            “Can you actually read, or just copy/paste?”

            See now, reading and comprehension is what it’s all about. If you would only read some books, you would know that Mann hasn’t done any of the things you are accusing him of. The Skeptical Science article explains quite clearly that Mann etc were acting to defend scientific integrity against unequivocably bad science.

            I honestly can’t believe that people are still trying to make something out of McIntyre’s FOI bullshit. Do you realise that all the data was freelly available from the original sources to anyone who wanted it? Or that Mann wasn’t *allowed* to hand over some of it to third parties for contractual reasons? Steve McIntyre was perfectly free to do his own research if he wanted to. He didn’t. All he wanted to do was harass and bully Mann. It’s a win-win for him. If he got the information he wanted, he could trawl through it to find something to pick on and make spurious claims (which he’d never actually submit to peer-review…). If he didn’t get the data – as actually happened – he can play to the gallery, pretending that Mann is being secretive and hindering the process of science.

            To say that this is a highly unusual way for an scientist to conduct an honest enquiry would be a gross understatement. Of course McIntyre is neither honest nor a climate scientist, a factor which made his requests for information seem all the stranger.

          • amwassil

            Get real. McIntyre’s FOI requests are a matter of public record. Mann’s efforts not to comply are also a matter of public record. Obviously, you are too obtuse even to recognize how ridiculous are your assertions. Let us know how it’s going after you graduate. Cheers.

          • Noel Darlow

            All the data was freelly available from the original sources: why didn’t McIntyre go there?

            McIntyre likes to claim that he was acting out of scientific interest but that is a simple lie. This is not how science is done and Mann quite correctly recognised the hostile intent of these highly unusual requests.

            Although technically FOI grants certain rights, McUntyre abused these rights to in an attempt to further his attacks on climate science. That’s all he does.

            I honestly can’t believe that we still have to go through all this crap, so many years later.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            All you say about cronyism and fudging might be true. Mann’s opponents and casualties have gone public. But are the technical rebuttals published in journals? (This is not a rhetorical question; I’m relying on you to find out so that I don’t have to – )

          • amwassil

            Do your own homework. You probably already know how to use Google. One of the greatest online resources for climate data and information is WUWT. Start there. And don’t be dissuaded by the AGW trolls patrolling this comment thread. If you want to gain a truly objective understanding of the controversy, then Skeptical Science and Real Climate are the last places to look. They are both only megaphones for the team. As for journals, we’ve known since the first batch of CRUtape letters that Mann and the rest of the team have corrupted the journal and peer review process. So you might have to dig a little deeper. Cheers and best wishes.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            I’m wary of lobby groups selecting their facts and setting up websites, so I wouldn’t rely on those blogs in any case. There is not an easily-searchable physics abstract service like Pubmed for the biological sciences. I was curious to know whether the opponents of Mann had an audience among other scientists.

          • amwassil

            Excellent attitude! Skepticism is the essence of science. If you investigate you will soon discover that the actual proponents of (C)AGW are a relatively small number of “scientists”. They make a lot of noise which is why their numbers may seem larger. The vast majority are either non-committal because they know little or nothing about it in particular, or skeptical because the evidence so far presented is not convincing and skepticism is the default position until demonstrated with a high level of confidence otherwise.

            Yes, we will soon hear from the AGW trolls about the “98% consensus” I’m sure. So here’s the truth about that:

            http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

            I don’t know about services like Pubmed, but I bet if you post that question to WUWT you will quickly get an answer. Many knowledgeable people, including a large number of scientists contribute there. And BTW, as I mentioned, WUWT is a great resource site. If you maintain your skeptical attitude you will not be led astray.

          • Prolix

            “False skeptics like to do a lot of hand-waving and are rather promiscuously fond of character assassination but then they go all quiet whenever we try to drill down to the science.”

            Exactly! Good post Noel

  • localman22

    What this article does not explain are the key elements of a defamation law suit. To win, Mann must show that Styne made a false statement of fact about him with actual malice which resulted in damage to his reputation and income. So, what exactly did Mark Styne say about Mann? Was it a false statement of fact, or was it opinion/satire? Because Mann is a limited public figure, Mann must prove actual malice under the Gertz standard.

    • Argus

      Judge Weisberg’s judicial rationales and rulings, perhaps honestly made
      utilizing an over-inflated perception/application of “light most favorable to the plaintiff”, will surely be argued on appeal and probably should not
      withstand further judicial scrutiny.

      The very idea that an alleged defamatory “statement of fact” might be made by an OPINION writer/satirist, practicing his rhetorical “art” in the same universe that countenances the rhetoric of a “Media Matters” and its scatological brethren, seems, on its face, other-worldly and rather frightening in what it might portend.

  • Tom Tom

    The legal system is a theatre group run for the benefit of lawyers with judges as stage-directors. It is simply a means of extracting money by fabricating disputes and spinning them into gold thread to weave new tapestries for the Lords of Misrule. It has evolved into the Inquisition imposing heresies as truths and developing its own Codex and Soteriology – it is no wonder Robespierre and Lenin were both lawyers

  • QuantumVerp

    NASA was the spring board for this current politicalization of science. I had some pictures of Mars as a screen-saver in the mid ’90s. On their site at the time they admitted the Sun must have emitted .01% more energy as Mars was warming up also. I watched them change their story and reap their political cha-ching as they assisted the depraved ‘scientists’ who are trying to lead the masses to their much-needed and glorified depopulation of the planet they dream of.

    Carry on with your plans. Go ahead. You all will be the last to die deep down in them well-provisioned holes you have funded.

  • Knives_and_Faux

    It’s all bullshit, release the raw DATA or until then just fuck off. The climate changes are down to non-taxable sun spots and too many ‘scientists’ are entrenched in their cul-de-sac of lies to admit it now.

  • SarahKentucky

    Government and private grants covertly push for a particular outcome in research to match self interests. Scientists are only trying to make a living like the rest of us. If you want funding today, you have to go along with socially conscious trends like “climate change.” It’s called the great “collective lie”, all perpetuated for job security. Who can blame them? Steyn is just pointing out the obvious to those of us inside this game. Going into scientific research can be one of the most depressing experiences of one’s life when you find yourself kowtowing to political pressures and basically whoring yourself for grants.

    • Jeffrey Vernon

      Did this happen to you? Certainly there are bandwagons in science, and you see colleagues ‘conforming’ their work to match funding calls announced by bureaucrats with no interest in basic science. But you’re not under an oblligation to find a pre-conceived result when you accept the funding.

  • LazyGepid

    Has anyone ever found out who is financing Michael Mann’s lawsuit?

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      Whoever it is has deep pockets.

      Mann’s legal team is drawn from the company that made their money defending Big Tobacco – somewhat ironic when you consider it.

      • LazyGepid

        And I can’t find the answer anywhere. I would think that would be pertinent at least from a political aspect. It seems every single thing the Koch brothers do is reported, but there just doesn’t seem to be any interest in who’s putting up the money here.

    • londondave

      I imagine the same type of Plutocrats as are invested to the tune of billions in the man-made global-warm mongering scam, like Buffet, and Pickering.

  • john

    Steyn’s a victim of the greatest and most fraudulent enterprise in human history, to wit, the Warning Industry, which supports and provides sustenance for millions of liars, layabouts, and ne’er-do-wells of all stripes.

    • Argus

      Billions (yes BILLIONS) already stolen by this Gov’t/Academia/”Science” cabal and what do we have to show for it? Bupkis…that’s what.

      NOT . ONE . PRACTICAL . ADVANCEMENT of the human condition has emanated from this “Climate Science” black hole.

      ENOUGH!

  • noen

    “But the hockey stick, on which Mann’s reputation largely rests, was and is a nonsense.”

    Actually it isn’t. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t understand the facts. You don’t understand the science. Not only is this going to trial. Mark “the human” Steyn is going to lose and rightly so.

    • londondave

      Jesus, what a complete richard-head.

      Why don’t you do your bit for the “environment” and stop pumping out that carbon dioxide every time you exhale your yap.

      For the kidz.

      • noen

        What I said is true. Climate change is real. It is caused by human activity. Mark “the human” Steyn libeled Mann and he is going to pay for his lies. You don’t understand the science. You don’t know what you are talking about.

        • londondave

          What you said is bollocks. You don’t understand any science.

          • noen

            “What is the test, which if true, would prove AGW false?” — Actually I do. As you will discover.

            “Climate changes as it has only been changing for about 3 billion years.” — So what? The fact the climate changed in the past is how we know that the changes we observe today are due to human sources of CO2 and not a natural event. We know this as a FACT.

            “MORE CO2 will be great” — No, in fact, it will not.

            “98% of Carbon Dioxide is produced naturally” — So what? Again, more evidence that you do not understand even the most basic science. It isn’t the percentage that is most important. It is what effect the percentages we observe will have on the global climate. For that the evidence is in and the science is SETTLED.

            “Don’t you have some witches to burn.” — Science is not religion and science is the very opposite of fear and ignorance.

            again, you know nothing. You do not know anything about science. You are scientifically illiterate. Sit down and let your betters handle this. You are out of your depth in 8th grade science class.

          • harebell

            You’re dealing with a true believer of this secular religion called denialism. Science, facts and any manner of rational discourse are not going to sway them.
            Even the projection of their own dogmatic adherence to doctrine wrt to the witch burning is lost on them.

            I applaud you for keeping on going though.

          • noen

            I know. I have dealt with denialists on Phil Plait’s “Bad Astronomy” blog in the past. btw, I highly recommend it. In addition to posting great pics of astronomy he also debunks climate denialists and anti-vaccine conspiracy theories too.

            I like to keep practice. Keeps me on my toes.

          • harebell

            I saw him debunk the “not real snow” myth after the Atlanta snow falls; it was some good stuff.
            These guys would fit in with the snow denialists as well as the truthers; their zeal is positively evangelical.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            You applaud him for being a foul-mouthed ignoramus? Well done, at least we know who we’re dealing with.

          • harebell

            Is that it?
            I saw no foul mouthing in that comment.
            But I have read you and the guy he was replying to use insults and words like bollox as well as illustrate an inordinate level of ignorance.
            As I said before “physician heal theyself”

          • londo

            Well, I guess “FUCKING MORON” is not the intellectual punchline it used to be in preschool.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            This is called argument from authority. The scientists you like have settled the matter for ever, you say. No real science proceeds like this. There are very few scientific fundamentals beyond question; climate change is not like the speed of light in a vacuum, or the conservation of angular momentum.

          • noen

            No it isn’t Jefferey. There are no scientists that “I like” versus the ones “you like”. There are ONLY the scientists who agree that climate change is real and it is cause by humans. PERIOD. And yes, this is how real science is done. No that you could possibly know. You can’t read a college textbook on physics much less a published paper on climate.

            “climate change is not like the speed of light” —- Actually it is Jefferey. That is why I treat you like the ignorant fool you are. Calculations in quantum mechanics show how CO2 absorbs and then emits a photon of infrared radiation. Then this info. is put into equations that model the earth’s atmosphere, Many other facts of basic PHYSICS are used and the mathematical model is run on powerful computers. They get very good results that closely reflect real world observations.

            You have been LIED TO Jefferey. The people you trust are LIARS. They lie to you because they know you are a fucking moron and so fucking stupid you will believe ANYTHING they tell you. I bet you are so fucking stupid you still believe Obama’s birth certificate is fake.

            You and your party are nothing but a bunch of marks. You are fools. You are fucking morons duped by con artists and grifters selling you snake oil because you just fucking cannot stand it that a fucking ni@@er got elected president. That is all you are. A piece of shit. Nothing more.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            If it was all settled for ever, there’d be no funding for the research. And the nature of research is that there is no natural endpoint. People in my institute are stlll studying the effect of glucose on insulin – surely that was all settled 40 years ago?

            Quantum physics does not help your argument. The AGW opponents make use of exactly the same physics. It is not a matter of competence.

            I recommend that you respond to what people write, rather than presume their views on Obama, their party, etc. I’ve never said what I think about AGW. I was merely questioning your reliance on authority/expertise.

          • Argus

            You have him (it) foaming at the mouth. Well done.

            Being new to this forum, my presumed expectation of moderation is, apparently, erroneous.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            The bottom half of the Spectator page is a bearpit. I drop by sometimes to see if there are any intelligent pungent right-wingers to argue with. Sometimes there are, but you have to find hte right topic. Alas, there’s a high quotient of name-calling, conspiracy theory, wilful misreading and insecurity. Do you read Spiked? The stakes are lower on that blog, and it doesn’t get nearly so unpleasant, but the same four faults recur; plus indignation, which you don’t get so much here. Thanks for reading.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            Stop slurring people. ‘Right-wingers’ is a misnomer ever since Germany’s Weimar Republic.

            WE are classical liberals. You’d be a better man if you were, too.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            I din’t realise it was a slur (particularly since I meet people on this page that tell me the nazis were socialists). I don’t care what you call yourselves – ‘intelligent pungent classical liberals,’ if you like.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Is right-wing a slur? I’ll call you a liberal if you prefer it.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            Yes I think it is. I’m a classical liberal.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Then I want to argue with intelligent pungent liberals.

            I keep being told that the nazis were left-wing and their descendants are today’s socialists, presumably by people who want to keep ‘right-wing’ free of unfortunate associations. I assume that they want to reclaim the label rather than reject it. But each to their own.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            I haven’t said the Nazis were left-wing. They were totalitarian, however, and cared nothing for the individual or for freedom. Politics isn’t a line, it’s a circle, and if you go around far enough you meet the other side.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            Drunk? Probably. Take two aspirins and the day off.

            Oh, and don’t call us: we won’t call you.

        • Steve Gregg

          Actually, we do. If Mann’s hockey stick graph is valid, why has Al Gore dropped it? And all the other warmers have, too. But, if you know the science better than we do, then what is anthropogenic global warming’s falsifiable proposition? What is the test, which if true, would prove AGW false?

          • noen

            “If Mann’s hockey stick graph is valid, why has Al Gore dropped it” — Al Gore did not drop the hockey stick graph. Once again you don’t know even the most basic facts.

            “what is anthropogenic global warming’s falsifiable proposition?” — If the climate were not in fact warming that would falsify the warming aspect. If we could not find CO2 with the radiological fingerprints that link it to fossil fuels that would falsify the human origin aspect.

            “What is the test, which if true, would prove AGW false?” — If the earth were not warming and if there were no CO2 of human origin in the atmosphere.

          • londondave

            Such a laughable cretin, it’s almost amusing.

          • Pete222

            No he’s not: he’s dead right – and your guy will get slaughtered in court. Phil Jones should take the same move Mann has made…but presumably doesn’t have the dosh.

          • ceili_dancer

            And the activity from the sun had nothing to do with this of course.

      • noen

        Why don’t you do your bit for the “environment” — I do. I do not own a car. I take the bus or ride my bike or I just walk. And I’m 57.

        • JabbaTheCat

          I own two cars, a van, a motorcycle and a boat with a petrol outboard motor. I use all of them with pleasure and a clean conscience. I only use public transport when I go to collect a new car…

    • londo

      You are aware that Mann is a coauthor of a paper, published just a few years later, where the mediaeval warm period was back on par with the current warming (albeit his paper put the the mediaeval warm period at slightly lower temperature than current). So not even he stuck with the hockey stick for very long. Seems to me Manns hockey stick is firmly embedded within you where sticks (of any size) shouldn’t be, and that is a really big stick.

      • noen

        And yet again you do not know what you’re talking about. The evdience suggests that the medieval warm period was warmer in the North Atlantic but you know what YOU FUCKING MORON? The North Atlantic is not THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD. Some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

        “Seems to me” — Nobody cares. You’re a moron. You don’t know anything. You don’t know anything beyond 8th grade math and science. You’re a fucking clown. NOW SHUT UP AND SIT THE FUCK DOWN.

  • 3rdjerseyman

    Let us quote Mel Gibson as William Wallace: “FREEDOM!”

    How we have fallen from the honored estate of our father’s when we endure this nonsense.

    Coal plants are being shut during one of the coldest winters this century while massively un and under-employed Americans struggle with inflated utility bills.

    I despise the mandarin class of the interlocking media/political/academic conglomerate.

    • harebell

      It’s not that cold in terms of global averages and even in Alberta we had two weeks in January where daytime highs were above zero as well as the odd positive daily low. Admittedly we just had a week and a half where we were returned to the freezer. The jet stream is behaving very oddly.
      But your claim based on weather could be undercut by a very warm spell in the Yukon and Alaska.

      • IskurBlast

        What does someone who is freezing and facing higher energy bills due to your stupidity care about global averages?

        • noen

          What we do is we take ourselves off fossil fuels gradually. Passive solar is actually very good at heating a home. No one is saying we have to quit cold turkey.

          • IskurBlast

            “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”

            Not good for people who are freezing.

        • harebell

          In one sentence you have destroyed your own insistence that real figures about the changing climate matter.
          Global averages track climate change, local weather changes as a result of this. Keep addressing the symptoms and ignoring the underlying cause if you want, but that won’t make that cause go away and the symptoms will only return with a vengeance.

    • noen

      This is flat Earth levels of stupidity and sheer ignorance. Climate change does not predict that we will no longer have WINTER.

      • Tacoma Gonzalez

        “Climate change” is the natural state of nature. It doesn’t predict anything, it is an irelevant restatement of what is, and always has been.

        • noen

          My god you’re a fucking clown. Nature doesn’t have “natural” states. Things happen if something else causes them to happen. Past climates changed for various reasons. Meteors, super volcanoes, the earth’s wobble, all can contribute to a changing climate. Today we have DIRECT observation that the climate is warming. We have DIRECT observation that the CO2 is of human origin. We know from FUCKING PHYSICS that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Therefore it is an ironclad logical conclusion that the climate is warming because of human produced CO2.

          You know nothing of what you are talking about. SIT DOWN and let the adults talk.

          • Jeannie Vargo Veegh

            “Therefore it is an ironclad logical conclusion that the climate is warming because of human produced CO2.”

            Then you must be the court jester calling the clown funny.

          • noen

            No Jeannie. I know what I’m talking about. The science of climate change is settled. Global warming is a FACT. That it is caused by humans burning fossil fuels is a FACT.

            Science is not a democracy. If you believe climate change is not real then YOU ARE WRONG. It’s as simple as that.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            I think that’s called ‘argument from authority.’

          • noen

            No it isn’t. It’s called an argument from expertise. There is nothing wrong with citing an expert in a field to support your claim. Besides. Facts are facts. It isn’t an argument from authority for me to say the Earth revolves around the sun and that is you disagree with me you are simply wrong. Why? Because it is true. The earth really does revolve around the sun. Therefore my claim that it does is TRUE. Someone else’s claim that it does not is FALSE. that is how science works Jeffrey. It is not a democracy.

          • ceili_dancer

            You must be Mr. Mann, your arguments have no facts, just appeals to authority and shouting someone out of the room.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            No-one disputes that the earth goes round the sun. Climate change does not have the same status. Whether I accept AGW is beside the point; there are plenty of people who don’t. That’s why it’s not a contribution to the debate simply to write it’s a fact, it’s settled, it’s true. If you want to persuade all the morons who disagree with you, you have to say why the experts have persuaded you.

          • noen

            Yeah it actually does Jefferey. Want to know why? Because like the fact the earth goes around the sun the fact that the earth is warming both are OBSERVATIONS. We can see them happen and measure them.

            “there are plenty of people who don’t.” — So what? The experts do. There is a 97% consensus among scientists that global warming is a fact.

            “you have to say why the experts have persuaded you.” — Why? The facts are out there. Does the internet not work for you? If I want to know a fact about science or math I go first to wikipedia. I read the article and then I follow the links to read their citations if I need to. Why don’t you do that? It is not my job to educate your stupid ass. I am not your mother. I do not have to treat you kindly. It is YOUR responsibility to find out the facts. I don’t have to teach you and I don’t think you are teachable so my goal is to embarrass you and get you to SHUT THE FUCK UP.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Let’s agree that 97% of scientists agree with strong global warming. We are left with the problem that there is a public debate. The debate won’t go away by you telling everyone to shut up and believe the experts. I try to persuade believers in homeopathy, acupuncture and traditional chinese medicine that they’re mistaken. I don’t call them effing morons, insinuate that they’re members of the republican party, and tell them that it’s all been disproved by clever people on wikipedia. They won’t shut up just because I’d like them to.

          • noen

            “The debate won’t go away by you telling everyone to shut up” — Your stupidity and ignorance is destroying the land and the world I love. So yeah, I feel I have a right to yell at you and all the others. I know it won’t make a bit of difference but I feel better.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            It MIGHT make a difference if you picked your targets more wisely. You don’t know my view on AGW, but you’ve made up your mind that i’m in the enemy camp. Second, you should keep up your end of the debate rather than insisting that it’s beyond discussion . It plainly isn’t, or we wouldn’t be talking about it.

          • ceili_dancer

            Pharmacy called and said your meds are in.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            Your last sentence sums up your whole M. O. : when the other guy out-argues you and beats your prejudice with reason, just shout obscenities at him.

            Where’s that gulag you’ve got to run, eh?

          • Andy Del Tor

            Jeff, you have the patience of an angel. Noen might have been seen as an angry guy who nevertheless knows something, until he brought up the idea of plants losing their effect on climate if they are submerged in oceans which is truly an inane idea, betraying an ignorant demagog.

          • Steve Gregg

            Science is never settled and certainly not climate change science. Saying so is a distinctly unscientific notion. It is the classic fallacy of argument by assertion, ie declaring the argument is over and you’ve won.

          • ceili_dancer

            Especially if they keep moving the goalposts.

          • noen

            Not true Steve. Somethings are settled. Evolution is a FACT. Heliocentrism is a FACT. and yes, climate change is a FACT. Appealing to facts and to the proper experts is not the appeal to authority fallacy. Authority doesn’t makes something true of course but you are allowed to cite relevant experts.

            And in this crowd they reached the height of their intellectual career in the 8th grade. They don’t know calculus or physics or chemistry. They cannot read a high school science text much less anything harder. Most of the people here can barely mange to run their computers.

          • Steve Gregg

            OK, I’ll accept some sience is settled, while reserving the right to remain skeptical of even settled science. Heliocentrism can be considered settled because it is well studied and astronomers can predict. I have shot the sun with a sextant from books which predict where the sun will be every ten minutes of the year.

            Evolution is very probably true. The DNA proves that every living thing has a common origin and that we can identify species that have diverged from common ancestors. Breeders can predict the characteristics of plants and animals they mate and modify.

            AGW is not in this category. What evidence there is anecdotal and speculative. Worst of all, the climate change models can not predict the past even given all the data. They must use mathematical shims to make their predictions match reality. That tells you that they have not identified all the variables and their interactions, let alone measured them.

          • noen

            “What evidence there is anecdotal and speculative.” — Are you insane? There have been close to 14,000 papers published. All of them except for one, ONE, agree that climate change is real. ALL OF THEM.

            “Worst of all, the climate change models can not predict the past even given all the data.” — How would you know? This is a LIE that gets passed around in denialist circles. It isn’t true. Here is a basic elementary model. If you can handle the math in that follow the links in the article to more advanced models. Simple Models of Climate Change

            “If they can not predict the known past, they can not be relied upon to predict the unknown future.” — You are wrong Steve. The models DO predict the past and when turned to predict the future climate they have been very accurate. You see, your problem is you don’t know jack shit. You trust people who are LIARS. There are people who have an interest in deceiving you, in lying to you, to make money selling you crap or to prevent you from knowing the truth because it benefits them. They hire people to LIE TO YOU.

            YOU ARE A MARK.

          • londo

            Your trinity of facts reminds me of a joke about polish police officers and why they always patrol in groups of three. The answer is that the first one can read, the second write and third, he just likes to hang out with intellectuals.

          • londo

            And mantra is a valid scientific argument…

          • Jude O’Connor

            Your forgetting that plants and trees need CO2 to live, go back to school.

          • noen

            So what? What relevance does that have? If plants are underwater due to floods from rising oceans what good does it do? If plants are in a drought because of global warming what good does that do? Some plants cannot tolerate increasing CO2. Did you know that? Some plants become more vulnerable to insects. Did you know that?

            No, you don’t know. You’re just repeating talking points like a good OBEDIENT dog. Congratulations. Now go lick your butt.

          • Steve Gregg

            Over time, the oceans rise and fall over a range of 600 feet and have done so long before humans existed. Ocean levels vary naturally. Rising and falling oceans were the mechanism by which coal was formed. It is a grandiose notion that humans raise and lower the oceans.

          • ceili_dancer

            And algae, as a plant, sucks up quite a bit of that same CO2.

          • inyouri

            You best get inside because the sky is falling.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            We know from effing physics that water vapour is a greenhouse gas as well. AGW might well be real, but not solely because effing physics tells us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

          • noen

            Congratulations Jeffrey. You graduated from third grade earth science. Why yes, it never occurred to scientists with PhD’s in PHYSICS that water vapor is is a greenhouse gas. Have you noticed that water vapor tends to condense and FALL OUT OF THE SKY YOU FUCKING MORON? Have you noticed that? Huh???? Have you? Well other people have and they already figured that fact of third grade science into their theory.

            Now run along. Isn’t there a jar of paste you should be eating?

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            You wrote that CO2 is a greenhouse gas – therefore the climate is warming because of CO2. I wrote that water vapour is also a greenhouse gas, so logically the climate is warming because of water vapour. The fact that it rains makes no difference – CO2 doesn’t stay in the atmosphere, either. I remember from my 3rd grade earth science that there’s a cycle of CO2 through plants and animals and the ocean carbonates.

          • Steve Gregg

            I’m curious, Noen. What is natural if not a state of nature?

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            Don’t be curious, Steve: his mind was abducted by slime moulds at least twenty years ago. He won’t be able to give an answer that either you or I could understand.

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            I read your first line and my brain put the intelligence shields up because it can’t take that much concentrated inanity at one time. Did you attain the ignorance at a special school or was it just the 20 years learning cognitive skills from anteaters?

          • rule0flaw

            You areare an ignorant and obnoxious waste of carbon. It would be a wonderful thing to hear of your demise.

          • londo

            But what we don’t know from FUCKING PHYSICS is that CO2 must bring about a water vapour enhanced warming of about a factor of 3, but what we see from FUCKING OBSERVATIONS is that it doesn’t and without the coupling to water vapour, the point is essentially moot. So will the real adults please stand up and the F…G naive children, please, sit down and listen and don’t open your mouth until you get at least half of the picture.

          • londo

            Let me add one more aspect to your moronic and demonstratively insane statement. Ever heard of the El Niño or ENSO? What causes it? What causes PDO and AMO. During the entire late 20th century warming we had predominantly El Niño weather patterns. If they are so easily captured by a cause, why aren’t they captured in the climate models.
            And since when is a correlation an iron clad logical conclusion of anything except in moron class. Ice cream consumption and drowning accidents are also correlated but every child will know that his risk of drowning is not affected by eating an ice cream (except perhaps you).
            Actually, the temperature record will show just how wrong your argument is by observing the log(CO2) record and the temperature. They should follow according to the transient sensitivity, but they DON’T. So, either the effect does not exist or the effect is masked by NATURAL VARIATION!
            You would say that you don’t have a leg to stand on but it seems so superfluous when you don’t even have pants.

          • noen

            “why aren’t they captured in the climate models.” — You are wrong. Data analysis, physical observations and basic arithmetic all show ENSO cannot explain the long term warming trend over the past few decades.

            “since when is a correlation an iron clad logical conclusion of anything” — When we know the cause.

            “Ice cream consumption and drowning accidents are also correlated” — Ice cream does not cause drowning. CO2 does cause warming. Since we know that CO2 causes warming and we observe an increase in CO2 and also observe an increase in warming, the conclusion that increasing CO2 caused the observed increase in warming is a valid logical conclusion.

            “by observing the log(CO2) record” — This is taken from known clown and fool Lord Monckton. Monckton claims that an exponential increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration would result in a linear increase in global temperature. But of course that depends on what the exponent is in the exponential increase. Monckton is referring to the logarithmic relationship between radiative forcing (which is directly proportional to the change in surface temperature at equilibrium) and the atmospheric CO2 increase. Note that we are not currently at equilibrium as there is a planetary energy imbalance, and thus further warming ‘in the pipeline’ from the carbon we’ve already emitted. Therefore, estimates of the rate of warming due to CO2 thus far will will be underestimates, unless accounting for this ‘warming in the pipeline’ (which Monckton does not).

            “you don’t even have pants” — You don’t know what you are talking about. You do not understand the science involved. I know you think you do because you read something on the internet but you don’t. I actually do know what I’m talking about and that is why refuting you and everyone else here, including the author, is but child’s play for me.

            You are children playing in traffic with NO understanding of what is going on around you. Don’t make me come over and spank you.

          • londo

            “wrong. Data analysis, physical observations and basic arithmetic all show ENSO cannot explain the long term warming trend over the past few decades.”

            You are simply ignoring the fact that it is a well known published result that en ENSO index has been predominantly in the El Niño phase between the 70s to the 2000 and correlates to temperature to the order of 70%.

            Your Moncton argument is simply useless. Look it up in IPCC reports. Yes, there is something calle ECS but the is also a transient climate sensitivity that is spectacularly proportional to log(CO2) and in amount to 65-75% of ECS in amplitude. I recommend that you at least read the publications of the warmist side before you make your argument.

            Apart from innuendo, you have been shown to have nothing to offer. Spank me, really, is that your best shot. Impressive.

          • noen

            This is the climate sensitivity argument. The idea is that the sensitivity to CO2 is low therefore we don’t need to do much about it right now. This is false. All the models and evidence confirm a minimum warming close to 2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 with a most likely value of 3°C and the potential to warm 4.5°C or even more. Even such a small rise would signal many damaging and highly disruptive changes to the environment.

          • londo

            98% of the models fail to predict a 17 year hiatus – and that is according to the climate modellers themselves. All arguments based on models have been shown to be useless by no lesser authority than mother nature herself. Beyond failed models you and nobody else has a shred of evidence and everybody is supposed to believe it based on authority. Thats is simply not science. Do show us the evidence if you have seen it!

          • noen

            “98% of the models fail to predict a 17 year hiatus” — WRONG. HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. – “the global surface warming trend for 1997–2012 is approximatley 0.11 to 0.12°C per decade.”

            “All arguments based on models have been shown to be useless” — WRONG. Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean. AR4 Models

            “Do show us the evidence if you have seen it!” — You are too stupid to understand it. You are an illiterate moron and you don’t know or understand even 8th grade science let alone post doctorate studies in climatology. You don’t know the science, you don’t even know the math. I doubt you would even be able to read the English text in published science journals because their English is college level and that is utterly beyond your 8th grade level of understanding.

            You are a drooling fool. Shut up and sit down.

          • londo

            Really, 0.11?

            Have a look at Hadcrut4 for that last 17 years. Download raw, insert into excel. Do the linear regression. What do you get?

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2014

            0.005K

            How about RSS for the last 17 years:

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2014

            -0.001K

            Would you like me to serve you UAH? Completely different method and coverage but on the scale of anything done in climate science, exactly the same result.

            One paper exploiting a LACK OF DATA. Wow, believers eat just about anything the priests are feeding you.

          • noen

            “Have a look at Hadcrut4 for that last 17 years.” — Yes, you are right. If you cherry pick the data you will get cherry picked results. And yes, if you are a fucking MORON like you one might think that was relevant.

            But people who are not COMPLETE FUCKING MORONS know that if you look at the full data it looks a little different. HadCRUT4

            Do you notice how that full dataset goes from the 1860s to the present? Do you also notice that little dip at the far right? That is the last 15 years or so. Do you know what happens if you average out that last little bit? It flattens out. Now…… guess how significant that is. Go ahead, guess…… IT ISN’T FUCKING SIGNIFICANT MORON.

            “How about RSS for the last 17 years:” — Yes, same thing. Same thing. YOU ARE A MORON LONDO. A TOTAL FUCKING MORON. You are so fucking stupid that you actually believe you are doing something intelligent. YOU ARE NOT. Not even a high school sophomore is as fucking stupid as you are. That is how mind boggling unbelievably dumb you are. People laugh at you. The WHOLE WORLD LAUGHS AT YOU. That is how big of an embarrassment you are. You actually believe that if you take that tiny little bit at tthe end of the graph I linked to above and then average that little bit, that you have refuted people with Ph.D.s and Masters degrees in physics and math and chemistry. MY GOD YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID.

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

          • londo

            Jesus man, you better take a pill or something. You cited a paper that uses the last 15 years and then go ballistic when I use the last 17? had I used the period of the article you cited, the result happen to be the same.
            But more importantly, are you ok? Is like you’ve gone off a cliff.

  • john53

    Please the very idea that you would consider a fraud like Mann to Enstein or even Johnson is appaling. Science today have receive a black eye from all of the politicall correct nonsense that it is producing without any factual basis.

    Someday in the future a real scientist using real science will discover a real problem and after this last decade or so, no one will believe him.

    Most science now is viewed as if it had no credibility because of the poor performance and lack of ethics in the current “Theory Storm”. Many theories no supporting data and no factual data, but it sound good to the politicians and can be turned into a sound bit on the evening news.

    • nicholasi

      Einstein : mega-con-man. Jew, of course.

      • noen

        Always nice to see the true conservatives crawl out from under their rocks and show us what they really look like.

        • ceili_dancer

          Not a conservative, just a Moby. Either that or an inmate from an asylum got some time on the computer unsupervised.

        • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

          Another jerk posing as a citizen of the free world. Where do all you gits come from? As if you’d know a conservative or a gay pride day parader from a communist! Go back to sucking lollipops, little boy.

  • Andrew Nelson

    Great article. I am headed over to the Steyn link and make a $$ contribution for his defense today. All patriots should do the same.

    • nicholasi

      Why not just give your $$$ directly to B’nai Brith, insteading of going through the middle man?

      • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

        Hey N: don’t you have a gulag to run, or something? Come back when you get civilization or not at all.

    • Brett G

      Conservative think tanks and propaganda outlets suck at winning elections, suck at enacting policy into law, and suck at persuading anyone of anything who was not already favoring their point of view….. But boy are they good at extracting donations from their base!

  • Jack_nSlvrSprng

    Mr. Delingpole: Terrific!!

  • noen

    Oh look at all the mouth breathing morons run away. Run Away morons. Your day is OVER. Sit down and shut the fuck up. It’s over.

    • ceili_dancer

      How can that be true if you’re still here?

    • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

      Do you have a point, or is this just entertainment for your fellow baboons?

  • Roguewave1

    The benchmark of scientific fraud in the 20th century was the Piltdown Man early in that century which consisted of a purported fossilized early human skull that turned out to be a deliberate conglomeration of modern human skull and the jawbone of an orangutan meant to deceive.

    Mann’s hockey stick graph is a deliberate conglomeration of different proxy data and modern measurement meant to deceive, hence the term “Piltdown” Mann describing the fraud who perpetrated the benchmark scientific hoax of the 21st century.

    The big difference in the two hoaxes is that it took forty years for the truth to catch up with the Piltdown Man fraud, but only six years for Steve McIntyre & Ross McKitrick to expose the truth of the Michael’s “Hide The Decline” Nature Trick as his fellow Warmists cult members chose to secretly call his tactics.

  • WillardGibbs

    Looking forward to Mann bankrupting National Review et al.

    • ceili_dancer

      Not going to happen. 2 reasons, his case is spotty at best and libel insurance.

      • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

        Mann’s case is nonexistent and should have been struck down at the first ‘hello, I’m the receptionist’.

        • fedupMan

          BUT today with all the left lib agenda judges in every court the truth is not what it used to be.

        • andrewp111

          The Judge is on Mann’s side. Mann will win the case.

    • Roguewave1

      Truth is complete defense in the U.S.

      • WillardGibbs

        Then Mann wins triple damages!

        • ladykrystyna

          You are delusional.

          • WillardGibbs

            We’ll see, Lady!

          • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

            WE already know. YOU are the numpty in the dark.

          • WillardGibbs

            Sure, Swanky, just keep listening to the voices in your head.

        • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

          Ignoramus.

          • WillardGibbs

            How do you come up with these replies? You must be the pride of your shantytown!

    • BrigidBernadette

      Did you even read the article? Geez.

      • WillardGibbs

        Why, yes I did. Did you? No, really, did you? Can you?

        • http://ajbrenchley.com/ Swanky

          Jerk.

          • WillardGibbs

            Coming from trailer park trash like you, I take that as a compliment.

        • Ironside

          You must have missed the libel insurance part.

          • WillardGibbs

            I realize that NR has libel insurance, but I am not sure Steyn does. At any rate, the fact NR et al. are pathetically begging for pennies to pay their lawyers is awesomely entertaining enough.

    • Tacoma Gonzalez

      Libel insurance. If NRO fails, it will be because it is insipid, not due to any lawsuit. It had one thing that made it interesting enough to follow regularly, Mark Steyn.

      It no longer has him. As an American Conservative, I’ve actually added NRO to a redirection in my system’s hosts file so that I don’t even go there accidentally. NRO is not merely insipid, it is an abusive place to visit at all if you enjoy commenting online.

      Not a place for decent people.

      • WillardGibbs

        Sure, NR has libel insurance, but does Steyn have it? Whatever the case, the fact that NR and their fools-in-arms are begging for spare change to pay their lawyers, and the possibility of them losing this case, makes it all worthwhile.

    • Carbonicus

      Looking forward to discovery and Mann being shown to have engaged in scientific fraud.

      • WillardGibbs

        Dream on! By the way, what are your scientific credentials? (Beyond being the water diviner of your trailer park.)

    • AuldGuy

      go and say a prayer at your church… an abortion clinic, right?

      • WillardGibbs

        What a brilliant response! No, wait, it is totally moronic, just like you. However, I can believe you are the towering intellect of your shantytown. Let me guess: you are from the South and maybe even “educated” there. Am I right? If not, what explains the idiocy of your many posts?

  • bleedinell

    Steyn once again martyrs himself for the free speech we have. Hoping Mann loses and gets sent up the river.

  • Gl Remote

    Dr. Mann and several of his alarmist colleagues are fighting in court to oppose allowing the public to see their data and the research-related e-mails. What criteria of the Scientific Method including full disclosure does that meet.

  • obadiah_edomite

    It’s a fight! The know-it-all delusional scientist meets the insulting doctrinaire ignoramus. Science wins again!

  • libertees

    Everyone knows that free speech is now reserved only for the State.

  • Poppa

    After Mark wins this he should go after the University that has covered up for Mann and gained millions in tax dollars by fraud.

    • andrewp111

      Everyone knows Mann is going to win, at least at the first round. When the Judge is on your side, you tend to win the case.

      • http://www.thefoxnation.com/ keltic1

        Sad that courts have become so political, but you are probably correct.

      • Argus

        And it is being tried in a Washington DC local court, not a Federal court. There is no way Steyn can win it.

        Perhaps so, perhaps not…but NRO’s most recent attorney of record, Anthony J. Dick of Jones/Day, apparently has expertise in the appeal process, certainly federal up to Supreme Court levels and likely local district as well.

        This suggests that NRO is likely in this for the long haul…as is, assumedly, Steyn.

  • IndependentEddie

    If the National Review does not support Steyn then today was my last visit.
    I recommend a boycott.

  • mac mac

    Steyn is no hero. Climate change deniers are just as wrong as holocaust deniers and evolution deniers. Science is a matter for scientists, not right wing ideologues who know nothing on this subject. The evidence for climate change is overwhelming. If you are ignorant on this subject, simply read the wikipedia article and stop peddling this BS once and for all.

    • londo

      What a load of cr..p. If science is a matter for scientists then science has become equivalent to a religion. If you don’t get that, then just stick your head in the sand where it belongs. Everybody with even a minor amount of education should know the difference between doing science in the form of creating theories, making predictions and evaluating them and just evaluating the predictions. When the prediction of a theory fail then (if it is science we are talking about), the theory must be abandoned. If a theory is unfalsifiable then it is simply not science.
      And, b.t.w. what evidence. Do show it, with your own arguments and reference to any data.

      • AuldGuy

        exactly. if it’s true, then why all the fakery?

      • mac mac

        I don’t need to prove anything to you. Science has not become like religion, it simply requires expertise. My opinion does not matter and neither does yours, unless you’re a climate scientist, which I strongly doubt.

        • inyouri

          You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand the scientific method or lack thereof.

        • londo

          You seem to forget that although it may require a scientist to make a thought provoking observation and prove its usability for making predictions, to understand that argument almost never requires one unless you subscribe to the idea that we put thousands of people through higher education and they simply get nothing from it because by a simple counting exercise, the majority of them will not become scientists.
          And since you ask, I do essentially have the same credentials as the Mann him self namely in physics.

        • Prospector

          If we are paying for climate science research, we damned well have the right to an opinion about it.

    • AuldGuy

      you’re an idiot. you’re the ideologue. even the people faking this data (like mann) and making megabucks over it (gore) and the politicians using it to seize power (the watermelon lefties) don’t actually BELIEVE it. they are using it to advance their own agenda. you, on the other hand, are a scientologist about it. dumb@ss!

      • mac mac

        Stop talking about Gore! The IPCC is the internationally accepted authority on climate change producing reports, which have the agreement of the world’s leading climate scientists. The USA is the only country where you still find a lot of climate change deniers. Not coincidentally, it’s also the home of most creationists, pre-enlightenment thinkers and god fearing bible thumpers. too bad science passed you by.

        • Andrew_DeMoray

          Nice appeal to authority. I do not accept the IPCC’s authority. Science is not consensus. Science is observation, collection of data, postulating a theory and testing of that theory. If your experimental results cannot be independently replicated, your results are not valid. Where is the testing of anthropogenic climate change? Models are not testing.

          • noen

            “Nice appeal to authority.” — WRONG. Appeal to expertise is a valid logical argument.

            “I do not accept the IPCC’s authority.” — TOO BAD. Your opinion does not count.

            “Science is not consensus.” — Actually it is. Consensus of scientific opinion is a valid argument that a claim is more likely to be true.

            “Science is observation, collection of data, postulating a theory and testing of that theory.” — Climate change due to human produced CO2 is a valid scientific theory.

            “If your experimental results cannot be independently replicated” —- They have been.

            “Where is the testing of anthropogenic climate change?” — Argument from ignorance fallacy. They are In the 14 thousand papers published in scientific journals. Your stupidity and ignorance does not make them false.

            “Models are not testing.” — Actually they are. That is in fact how science works. By constructing mathematical models and comparing them to real world observations.

            You don’t know what you’re talking about. You do not understand the science. You do not understand even the most basic facts. You are an ignorant fool pontification about things you do not understand. SIT DOWN, SHUT THE FUCK UP and let the adults talk you ignorant child.

          • MrPancks

            The F word in caps implies the opposite of what you appear to think it does.

          • Carbonicus

            Even the IPCC admits in AR5 that there’s been no statistically significant warming in over 15 years. Over 90% of IPCC scientists models failed to predict this, while atmospheric CO2 levels continued to rise.

            Models are not testing and science is NOT consensus. Politics is consensus. You and your ilk have been here before: when the Catholic church, acting as “scientists” purely from authority, told you and your fellow eco-congregants that the earth was the center of the universe. Copernicus and Galileo had that church “consensus” against them, and it was a helluva lot more than “97%”. And yet, they were right and you and the anti-science eco-theologians were wrong.

            And here you are making the same mistake, using the F bomb, and accusing others of being ignorant children. 400 years later, you and your foul-mouthed eco-religionists have learned nothing.

            That’s OK. Science doesn’t discriminate between the Kool Aid drinking brainwashed and the stupid. Either way, you and those who believe as you will be a laughingstock in future scientific history. Or, as one of the world’s leading climate scientists (and former IPCC science participant) put it quite nicely: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

            Aren’t you late for that Greenpeace meeting?

          • noen

            “Even the IPCC admits in AR5 that there’s been no statistically significant warming in over 15 years.” — FALSE. The IPCC did not actually say this. It is not in fact true that there has been no warming in the last 15 years and a recent study refuted even the bad data on which this false meme was based in the first place.

            “Models are not testing and science is NOT consensus.” — Actually they are. You make observations, then you construct a model based on those observations, then you test your model by seeing if it conforms to past observations as well as subsequent ones. Consensus doesn’t make things true but it is how science progresses because everyone, including scientists, has to rely on the expertise of other experts. We can’t know everything therefore we have to rely on the consensus of other experts.

            “Politics is consensus.” — And there is a political aspect to science. What makes something TRUE isn’t politics but political concerns are unavoidable. What scientific communities have is a mechanism for making sure that politics is kept to an absolute minimum. It works very well.

            “when the Catholic church, acting as “scientists” purely from authority” — The Catholic church never acted as a scientific authority. There was no such thing then. Galileo was placed in house arrest because he insulted to pope. And finally, even if your version were true it would not mean denialists are right. The fact that Galileo fought religious authority and he was right doesn’t mean that when you fight scientific authority you are right.

            “using the F bomb” — I use the F-bomb because you deserve to know how stupid, ignorant and foolish you are.

            “Either way, you and those who believe as you will be a laughingstock in future scientific history.” — Wanna bet? I will. I will bet real money on it. Pony up coward.

            “Future generations…………… ” — Dr. Lindzen has been roundly debunked.

          • Buzz

            The distinguished MIT meteorologist/climatologist Richard Lindzen has not been “debunked” (as if it were possible to “debunk” a person rather than his or her studies, statements, etc.), though there are whole AGW alarmist propaganda sites dedicated to silly ad-hom attacks on scientific skeptics like Lindzen, Singer, Spencer, Curry, Christy, Pielke Sr, Michaels, Happer, Wm Gray, Ball, and a host of other climate experts.

            The “denier” and “denialists” tags AGW alarmists like to fling out at will show their ignorance, for none of the above skeptics “deny” some influence of AGW on global climate, but they do reject the histrionic/catastrophic claims made by publicity and power-hungry global warming zealots.

          • londo

            “Nice appeal to authority.” — WRONG. Appeal to expertise is a valid logical argument.

            You just don’t have a clue. Ever heard of epicycles?

            “”Science is not consensus.” — Actually it is. Consensus of scientific opinion is a valid argument that a claim is more likely to be true.

            And here I present to you Eugenics.

            “Climate change due to human produced CO2 is a valid scientific theory.”

            Then why does it fail to make any correct quantitative predictions!

            “”If your experimental results cannot be independently replicated” —- They have been.”

            Not even at its core, the prediction that relative humidity stays unchanged. It actually falls, or the enhanced tropical warming of 1.4 at altitude relative to the surface, or not even the most trivial, temperature.

            Now, these so called scientist resort to hope for an El Ninõ event during 2014 just to have something to show although El Niño proves absolutely nothing. Their theory has no bearing on El Niño frequencies or intensities and in addition has by the most outspoken of them been discounted as a long term climate driver.

            They, and by association, you are simply pathetic.

          • noen

            “You just don’t have a clue.” — Appeal to expertise is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority. Notice also I am not making a deductive argument. I am merely saying that when there is a high degree of consensus among experts they are more likely to be right than non-experts.

            “Then why does it fail to make any correct quantitative predictions!” — But it does. You are simply ignorant of the current state of the science.

            “El Ninõ … blah blah blah….” — You don’t know what you’re talking about. Lord Monkton is fool and has been debunked countless times.

          • Prospector

            This is classic dogma. Consensus is not a scientific process. It is a political process where all dissenting thought is eliminated, thus making for a consensus.

            Anyway, it’s good that you can at least acknowledge that AGW is a scientific theory. The rest of your post is purely bullying conjecture.

          • noen

            “Consensus is not a scientific process.” — It is part of how science works. A physicist cannot know everything a biologist knows but he might rely on the results a chemist or biologist or mathematician gets in order to conduct his work.

            “It is a political process where all dissenting thought is eliminated” — In science dissenting views are resolved by rational debate. Over time a consensus forms because certain views have won the debate. There was a time when evolution was not the majority view. There is a consensus now because evolution won the debate. The same is true about climate change caused by human activity. There was a time when this was by no means the majority view. Now it is and it is because that theory WON THE DEBATE.

            So when people say that 97% of scientists all agree that climate change is cause by humans they are not saying it is true because 97% of scientists agree. They are saying that because it is true, 97% of all scientists agree it is true……. and so should everyone else.

          • Prospector

            This is worse than horse-shit. I believe a consensus supports this conclusion. You do not understand what “science” is. It is certainly not a debate.

            Please post a link that supports your “97% of scientists agree” statement. I’ve heard this before, but never with any support or evidence for this claim.

          • noen

            “You do not understand what “science” is.” You are a fool, a clown, a fucking moron. Science is absolutely a debate. That is what every published scientific study is. A study is a rational argument for a particular theory. Before it ever even gets published it is reviewed by many other scientists all of whom try to tear it apart and discredited the author.

            Even after a study is published the debate continues. Other studies may try to refute the claims made in the previous one. Others will try to give support to the results. Over time all the objections are either shown to be false or correct or accounted for. Sometimes the opponents win, sometimes they lose. In the climate debate the opponents to the theory LOST the scientific debate long ago.

            “Please post a link” — 97% of climate scientists agree “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”

            You don’t know what you’re talking about. You know NOTHING about science. You know NOTHING about climatology. You are a complete and utter fool and a clown. SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            “SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.”

            As you do not appear to have the slightest idea of what you are talking about and depend on shouting, obscenity and bullying instead of rational debate, I think it is you that ought to do that.

            Basically, you wouldn’t recognise science if it ran under your bridge and bit you on your snout, and that is evident to absolutely everyone except you.

            So get your mummy to give you a nice glass of warm milk and tuck you up in bed, perhaps you will feel better in the morning.

          • noen

            “I think it is you that ought to do that.” — Make me you fucking moron. I use obscenity because that is the only level of discourse you are able to understand. You are obviously too fucking stupid to understand anything else. You do not understand science. You do not understand math. You can’t even talk at a college English level. I have to talk to you using childish, 8th grade English because any advanced concepts or words that are more than two syllables are beyond your comprehension. Do you even know what a syllable is? I bet you don’t without looking it up.

          • Buzz

            More verbal tantrums and puerile insults offering zero arguments, examples, or evidence of anything but the unhinged nature of the traducer.

          • noen

            Actually I give plenty of evidence in addition to the insults. But you see, you deserve the insults. You don’t understand anything more complicated.

          • Buzz

            Not at all do you give “plenty of evidence.” Your linked source has only a couple of lines with the real sources for the so-called “consensus” studies as footnotes (I’ve seen them before). On the other hand, the links I provided are detailed expositions on the “consensus” issue, and you show no signs so far of having engaged with them.

            I suspect your interest in the whole debate over the global warming issue is far less than that of fog-horning out ignorant, blustering insults at sensible skeptics. Your poorly-written screed reminds one of Matthew Arnold’s oafish blusterer who, with his mouth full of bread and cheese, pounds the table and shouts he’ll stand for no more of this damned nonsense!

          • noen

            You have not given any links AT ALL in this thread Buzz. The consensus issue is merely to show that among scientists there is an overwhelming consensus. And given they are indeed scientists that should count for something in the popular debate. The same is true for evolution. Evolution isn’t true because there is a consensus among scientists. Just that it is more likely to be true and that the testimony of experts really does count more than that of some gap toothed cracker sitting in his underwear.

          • Buzz

            False, as are most of your lying, profanity-drenched posts. My links that discount the consensus claim were posted next to yours (about 10 posts up) on the useless “97% consensus” link you gave and precede this post by at least an hour. Lazy liar.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            “Make me you fucking moron.”

            Oooh, another Interweb hard man, I’m shaking in my boots, LOL.

            I bet you aren’t any where near as belligerent when you’re not behind a keyboard, your sort of tosser never are.

            In any case, it is generally acknowledged that the use of foul language is a sign of having lost the debate, and that counts for you in spades.

            Now take your nice medication, nurse will be along to tuck you in shortly.

          • noen

            Would you like to know just how little I care? You see, I know that facts and reason do not matter at all to you clowns on the extreme right. (there are intelligent conservatives, but that ain’t you). But what does matter to you is your honor and reputation. So I don’t just poke fun at you, I show exactly how wrong and stupid you are and then I laugh.

            Why? Because there are other people reading this who never comment and they are laughing at you too Blue Screen. In fact, you are the laughing stock of the whole world. There are people in other countries who look at you and laugh and laugh and laugh. You are all morons bluescreen. And the entire world is laughing it’s ass off at you.

            Hell, even your former leaders can’t stand to be seen with you any more. Mitch McConnell, Boehner and the rest of the GOP leadership has had enough of you. They are going to cut you out and leave you alone in the political wilderness.

            Say goodbye to being relevant bluescreen. The world took one look at you and said “Fuck no”. Now we will move on without you. Goodbye and good riddance.

          • Buzz

            Amusing verbal tantrum from “noen” that defies scientific explanation of how it can take up space and yet have no weight.

          • Prospector

            What makes you think I stand while I type on this keyboard? Is this one of your models that you are currently debating, or is there a consensus conclusion?

          • noen

            “What makes you think I stand while I type” – HAHAHAHA
            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            My God!!! Are you really that fucking stupid??? Really??? It’s a metaphor you fucking imbecile. Now sit down and shut up. Your betters are talking.

            Good dog.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            Still believe that effing and blinding and calling people names is an effective substitute for informed debate, you silly little man?

            Perhaps if you learned some science instead of concentrating on invective and ad homs, your opinion might be worth something.

            As it is, you’re just another irrelevant, insignificant little Internet “hard man” (LOL!), almost with an – er, shall we say – magnitude problem.

            Dear me, what a sad troll you are.

          • noen

            Bring it.

          • Buzz

            Here’s a couple of links debunking the bogus “97% consensus” claims of AGW alarmists and their odious blogging shills:

            http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10772757.htm

            http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/02/prweb11550514.htm

            An accomplished climatologist weighs in on “consensus” claims:

            http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/13/no-consensus-on-consensus-part-ii/

          • Andrew_DeMoray

            Expertise: Substitute whatever work you for “authority” and it is the same weak argument.

            Consensus: All the idiots in the world agreeing does not get you any closer to the truth.

            Theory: an unproven theory does not equate to the scientific method.

            Models: Projections from a model is not proof, especially when reality has not comported with the projections.

            I understand science as it is, not as your frustrations indicate that you wish it would be.

            You might want to exhibit some knowledge and maturity before accusing others of being an ignorant child.

    • Tacoma Gonzalez

      Science is the disciplined application of rational skepticism. Absent skepticism is absent science. Your comment is thus absent a plea for anything scientific.

      • mac mac

        Rational skepticism must be grounded in scientific expertise, it’s not a matter of personal opinion. Anyone can use the bogus “rational skepticism” excuse to deny the holocaust, the theory of evolution or climate change.

        • inyouri

          If you like your climate, you can keep your climate. Get it now, or would like to buy the bridge I have for sale.

        • Prospector

          It’s good that you can at least acknowledge that evolution and climate change is based on theories. The Holocaust, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory, but an historical atrocity. Get your accusations straight, mac mac. Conflating the Holocaust with science is stupidly, silly.

        • Carbonicus

          Is empirical evidence “grounded on scientific expertise” enough for you?

          Do you trust NOAA, NASA, UK Met Office/Hadley Center? Well their data sets plus the two worldwide satellite data sets all show that there’s been no statistically significant warming for 18-23 years, depending on data set:

          For RSS the warming is not statistically significant for over 23 years.
          For RSS: +0.120 +/-0.129 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
          For UAH the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
          For UAH: 0.141 +/- 0.163 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
          For Hadcrut3 the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
          For Hadcrut3: 0.091 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
          For Hadcrut4 the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
          For Hadcrut4: 0.092 +/- 0.106 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
          For GISS the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
          For GISS: 0.104 +/- 0.106 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
          For NOAA the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
          For NOAA: 0.085 +/- 0.102 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

          If you want to know the times to the nearest month that the warming is not statistically significant for each set to their latest update, they are as follows:
          RSS since August 1989;
          UAH since June 1993;
          Hadcrut3 since August 1993;
          Hadcrut4 since July 1994;
          GISS since January 1995 and
          NOAA since June 1994.

          In this case, our “rational skepticism” is based on something we can measure, not the output of a computer model. But then you Kool Aid drinkers don’t care about observed measurements. You have your computer models (bibles) and your “scientists” (priests).
          Remember Copernicus and Galileo? Remember how they made the church look scientifically stupid? You’re making the same mistake.

      • noen

        “Science is the disciplined application of rational skepticism.” — No it isn’t. Science is the application of empiricism which is most certainly NOT skepticism. Skepticism claims that we cannot know if other people or other minds even exist or not. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      “Climate change deniers…”

      Please point out just one individual who denies that the climate changes.

  • whataworld37

    Mark Steyn – a victim? He’s an arrogant, know-it-all, constantly insulting aggressor. And now we are supposed to feel sorry for this bully? I thought he was a conservative, an individualist who could stand up on his own two feet like a man? Ends up he’s just another sniveling coward when the person he attacks strikes back. This is the way of all bullies. Let him tough it out on his own. He’s the kind of cruel, soulless, predator that I would hand an anchor to if he was drowning. Keep working on your dog paddle, Markie Mark.

    • Tacoma Gonzalez

      Arrogant cowardice does not logically preclude victimization. If it did, we would all quickly become arrogant cowards as a matter of self-defense.

    • Carbonicus

      Think I’ll donate money to his defense fund just to spite your Collectivist ass.

  • inyouri

    “This, critics argue, is the fundamental flaw with anthropogenic global warming theory:it has been couched in such a way as to be unfalsifiable; it is being
    kept alive not by science and free enquiry, but by the kind of appeals to authority we see exemplified by Mann’s response to Steyn’s criticisms”.

    When science is not true science, it is either politics or crap. In Mann’s case it is both.

    • Carbonicus

      better way of looking at the quote; when everything is proof of your hypothesis, NOTHING IS……

  • http://www.thefoxnation.com/ keltic1

    The Ministry of Truth shall soon reveal all the truth you will ever need.

  • Stoneyjack

    “Climate-change” is a hoax, a scam, gobbledy-gook junk & bunk, snake-oil science based on doctored data, and a huge profit-driven fraud. The Warmbaggers who believe in climate change are cultists as deluded as Jim Jones’s followers in Guyana.

  • Mister Lackey

    Remember, James: Steyn is not the one bringing the suit — it’s that egomaniac Mann who’s putting his own neck on the line.

    May Steyn’s axe be dull, requiring a serious hacking of Mann’s neck, so that his “scientific” career dies a slow, painful, ugly death that nobody wants to revisit.

    • Carbonicus

      We will make sure it is revisited over and over and over again, in the face of the AGW Thermageddon religious congregation who held up Mann’s work as dispositive that humans emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels are responsible for dangerous global warming.

      For the record, for you religious believers who think you know something about science, according to 6 major data sets used by all climate scientists, there’s been no statistically significant “global warming” in 18-23 years, depending on data set.

  • Lee Bowskee

    Steyn accused Dr Mann of fraud. Mann’s suit says: ‘Prove it or STFU’ – which seems reasonable since being accused of fraud harms his professional reputation and earning ability.

    So all Steyn has to do to prevail is prove Mann is in fact a fraud. What is he waiting for? The defense is the side seeking to delay discovery. WTF?

    • Dougal

      Steyn doesn’t have to prove fraud. The case law is consistent. Mann is a prominent figure who has myriad avenues to debate these issues in public, to prove they are scurrilous charges. He has to prove the charge of fraud was made with malice, i.e. that those making the charge knew it was false, which will be impossible to prove since many people do believe the Hockey Stick is, if not conceived fraudulently (Mann may have believed in it when formulated the graph), then certainly referenced fraudulently since it was discredited by McIntyre and McKittrick in 2006.

      This should have never ended up in court. Steyn called Mann a fraud back around 2009, shortly after the ClimateGate affair, and Mann could have sued him then. But no, he waited for a more opportune time, when people had forgotten how back-stabbing and double-dealing he was and he could link NR and Steyn to a more tasteless quote that Steyn actually backs away from in his column.

      Oh, and give up the semantic nonsense. Steyn and his attorneys were not seeking to “delay discovery.” They were seeking to have the anti-SLAPP law invoked, which protects journalists and and others from crushing harassment suits such as this one. The judge’s opinion denying the motion is a farce and a comedy of errors. The law is now null and void, because if you don’t apply it in this case then it will never be applied.

      • Lee Bowskee

        > Steyn doesn’t have to prove fraud.

        No, not yet anyway. So far the defense is 0-2 on that count, one more appeal and we’ll see if he’s forced to prove what he said was true or not. Doesn’t look good for Steyn though.

        My question is; why doesn’t Steyn want to prove Dr. Mann is a fraud? This is his chance to prove that climate change, the hockey stick, the whole thing is a hoax in a court of law which would end this nonsense once and for all. Why isn’t he leaping at the opportunity to save humanity from the misguided environmentalists?

        > Steyn and his attorneys were not seeking to “delay discovery.”

        Wrong. They filed a Motion for a Protective Order Enforcing Stay of Discovery Proceedings which was denied as moot by Judge Weisberg because their appeal grants them another automatic stay.

        http://c0.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/WeisbergOrderdenyingMTD.pdf

        Steyn and NR are doing everything they can to delay discovery. Why? Are they afraid that they will be the ones exposed as frauds?

        • Argus

          “They could drop their appeal and begin discovery immediately but Steyn and NR are doing everything they can to delay it.”

          Do try to keep up before commenting. According to D.C. Court Cases Online (and Steyn’s own declaration of non-intent to appeal Weisberg’s ruling), it is only NR among the named defendants who have, thus far, filed an appeal.

          • Gl Remote

            They could be waiting on the outcome of Va Supreme Court in EE vs UVA/Mann. If Mann looses, the hidden records of his data may have to be exposed. Oh the horror. Having to fully disclose your “Scientific” method.

        • Argus

          “…one more appeal and we’ll see if he’s forced to prove what he said was true or not. Doesn’t look good for Steyn though.”

          You seem to be laboring under a misperception that what is required of Steyn is to thoroughly debunk Mann’s “science” in court to the satisfaction of a jury. Simply not true.

          It is Mann who brought the suit and it is up to Mann to make the case that Steyn et al, beyond a REASONABLE doubt, could not have actual cause to BELIEVE that characterizing Mann’s “hockey stick” as a “fraud” was a false reflection of their own opinion.

          • Lee Bowskee

            That’s why Mann’s lawyers included a list of 9 or 10 independent investigations that have cleared Dr Mann of any accusations of fraud. At that point they could have ended it with a retraction and an apology but they doubled down, dared him to pursue the case, and the offending post calling Mann a fraud is still online today. So after being put on notice that Mann had been cleared multiple times they’re still calling Mann a fraud with reckless disregard of whether it’s true or not

            And then there’s this…

            “Having been investigated by almost one dozen bodies due to accusations of fraud, and none of those investigations having found Plaintiff’s [Mann’s] work to be fraudulent, it must be concluded that the accusations are provably false. Reference to Plaintiff, as a fraud is a misstatement of fact.”

            — DC Superior Court ruling Mann’s defamation suit against National Review and CEI, July 2013

            So in order to prove that Mann is a fraud, or that they still have a resonable reason to think he is, the defendants will need to show why they think all of those investigations clearing Mann were wrong.

          • Argus

            “…the defendants will need to show why they think all of those investigations clearing Mann were wrong.”

            Nope. Simply suspect, IMHO, will do rather nicely for the purpose…and that “opinion” is, I believe, demonstrably shared among some rather reputable climate science “deniers”, is it not? We know, for a fact, that at least 3% are already acknowledged by warm-mongers as being like-minded, no?

          • Gl Remote

            One of the things that have been disclosed as a result of a FOIA request is that researchers at the University of Virginia apparently did not keep research logs, which are crucial to allowing other scientists to reproduce and confirm the original work. Without these logs, the credibility of climate change research conducted by Dr. Mann and his colleagues is seriously diminished

          • Lee Bowskee

            I guess we’ll have to wait for the courts to determine what ‘reasonable suspicion’ and ‘reckless disregard’ mean.

            In the meantime it doesn’t bode well for the defense that a superior court judge has rulled that referring to Mann as a fraud is a misstatement of fact, ie; a lie.

          • Gl Remote

            All that might change rapidly if the data from the UVa backup server is ordered released by the Va Supreme Court. This is high stakes for Mann as well as Steyn. Mann and co. have more to loose.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            ” Mann and co. have more to loose.”

            Not just Mann, but the entire “Hockey Team” and the entire AGW cabal.

            If Mann goes down, the foundations of the whole AGW edifice will become very shaky indeed.

          • Gl Remote

            It will still be spun for the true believers to indulge.

  • inyouri

    Ever notice arguing with a climate change zealot is like arguing with a religious fanatic.No amount of logic ,facts or common sense matter. You have a better chance at convincing a rock.

  • scott63

    Climate scientist of today and their political enablers are the priest and cardinals of the catholic church during the dark ages. Our way is the true way and any and all opposition will be silenced and dealt with harshly. Human nature never changes.

    • Carbonicus

      Good analogy and the right one. Copernicus and Galileo had a helluva lot more of a “consensus” against them than “97%”. And they were right nonetheless.
      Belief in AGW Thermageddon is eco-religion, not science.

  • Gl Remote

    One of the things that have been disclosed as a result of our FOIA request is that researchers at the University of Virginia apparently did not keep research logs, which are crucial to allowing other scientists to reproduce and confirm the original work. Without these logs, the credibility of climate change research conducted by. Mann and his colleagues is seriously diminished. Court records reveal that counsel for the University has indicated that the Mann-related records do in fact exist, on a backup server. The trial court held that every email E&E Legal sought can be withheld because the University owns it. This decision is a set-up to have the Virginia Supreme Court decide the issue. Mann will have to prevail and continue to hide his work to maintain his credibility. This is the “smoking gun that AGW believers base their position on. How Scientific.

    • Carbonicus

      One correction: AGW theologians.
      Otherwise spot on.

  • T Clark

    I don’t like Mr. Steyn. He is certainly no “hero.” No “international treasure.” He distorts the truth. It’s not that he doesn’t believe in global warming, it’s that he doesn’t care. On the other hand, I agree with Mr. Delingpole that he shouldn’t have been sued. Politics is ugly and if you put yourself in the public light, you take what you get. I hope Steyn wins his court case.
    I do think the argument made in this article is wrong-headed. In defending the content of what Steyn has said, it seems to imply that it matters whether he is right or wrong. It doesn’t.

    • Prospector

      Steyn is a satirist, in the tradition of Jonathon Swift. I can certainly appreciate his art of its own sake. I do appreciate your sentiment on the wrongheadedness of Mann’s suit. You are absolutely right that it doesn’t matter if Steyn’s satirization of Mann is right or wrong, but that a decision in favor of Mann is a dangerous precedent and harkens elements of the Inquisition.

    • Dougal

      Of course it matters. What if the climate self-adjusts to, say, a slight increase in a trace gas in the atmosphere? What if anthropogenic climate change is either a trifling problem or not a problem at all? Trillions have been or will be spent on mitigating a problem that doesn’t exist. That’s money that could have been spent battling epidemics, plagues, catastrophes, conflagrations and environmental crimes.

      And please cite one instance where Steyn distorts the truth. He’s the most brilliant polemicist of our age and yes, occasionally he engages in hyperbole to emphasize his points. But Mann will rue the day he decided to pick on Steyn. Of the hundreds of people who have “defamed” (i.e. told the truth about) Michael Mann, why did he pick on Steyn?

      Because he is so effective, that’s why.

      In your defense, you at least see the stupidity and depravity of suing over something that should be argued in public without resorting to the courts to punish your enemies. Mann is a coward, who has now proven himself to be an intellectual thug using other people’s money to persecute those he disagrees with. He’s always had ample opportunity to debate the issues. People would have lined up to debate him, and he could have chosen his opponents carefully, if he had wished. He could have rigged the process, and debated powder-puffs. He didn’t even do that. Gore is the same way. Never engage because if the truth becomes known, your gravy train is re-routed elsewhere.

      Science is self-correcting, but Mann refuses to correct his science or allow it to be corrected after it has been pointed out to him ad nauseam that it is lacking. His science as advertised by his own IPCC doesn’t deliver. This was determined in Congressional testimony, whereupon Mann’s supporters began a campaign of harassment against the nation’s most widely respected statistician for his testimony confirming McIntyre’s findings.

      This is just another chapter Mann’s application of Lysenkoism to modern sicence. We can only hope it will be the concluding chapter.

      • Carbonicus

        Here, here.

      • T Clark

        I guess I was unclear. When I said it doesn’t matter whether what he has written is true or false, I meant it doesn’t matter in relation to whether or not he should be sued. I’ll try to be clearer in the future.

    • freedomliberty13

      The antidote to speech you don’t like is your own free speech to counter it. Not suing or threatening your critics into silence.

    • fuchsiaribbons

      I don’t like T Clark. He is certainly no “hero.” No “international treasure.” He distorts the truth. Hummmmm…. “it seems to imply that it matters whether his is right or wrong. It doesn’t.” … spoken like a true Democrat Liberal idiot – what the hell does TRUTH matter, T Clark – it is all about winning, isn’t it – lying, equivocation, deceit – exactly what Obama and the DemoRAT Party are all about – WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE, T Clark – ONE HELL OF A DIFFERENCE TO ME – TRUTH, HONOR, OATHS must be taken seriously or else we do live in a tyrannical parallel universe where nothing is of any consequence such as the murder of MILLIONS and MILLIONS of babies and an agreement that infanticide is just perfectly fine, but OMG save the baby whales…. Mark Steyn is brilliant and part of his brilliance is that he has a backbone and isn’t afraid – that true marks of a leader.

  • freedomliberty13

    This scenario reminds me of Galileo being forced by The Church to retract his claim that the Earth was round. Political power can crush free speech if we let it.

    • MontyBurnz

      The Pope never required that Galileo retract his claim that the Earth was round. Galileo wrote a satirical pamphlet in which the main character was supposed to be the Pope and was portrayed as a complete fool. He also was asked not to state his scientific positions as superior to theology and other scriptural religious truths. The Pope at the time was not only the head of the Church but was the head of the Papal States in Italy and had a standing army and actual political power. Galileo was placed under house arrest in his loft mansion in Naples, he was not tortured or executed. The treatment of Galileo was not anti-scientific, he got himself into trouble by ridiculing a powerful head of State in an age where the punishment for such insolence was usually a prompt hanging.

      The commonly told story of Galileo and his treatment by the Church is often oversimplified and distorted to make the Church seem anti science when relatively contemporaneously Copernicus, a Polish Catholic priest, wrote his famous scientific work De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelistium in which he propounds the heliocentric view of the Earth in direct contradiction to the Ptolemaic view which had been in place for a thousand years and fit more closely with the Christian position that man was made in the image of God and the Earth stood at the center of all creation. Copernicus was neither persecuted or sanctioned by the Church because he kept his work strictly scientific and did not ridicule a head of state or develop his own heretical views on christian theology based on his findings as Galileo did. Copernicus’ work was in fact dedicated to the Pope and received the full blessing and support of the Church.

      • Prospector

        Excellent. Thank you.

  • Gl Remote

    This reminds me of the justification behind the 18 year old vote. It was pushed by the anti war left because the draftees would possibly be killed before they could vote. The draft is now gone but the 18 year olds, who are considered not reaponsible enough to drink still get to vote. They are easy to manipulate by the left. By the same principle, AGW will eventually be debunked but the rules implemented because of it will live on.

  • leisureguy

    Based on what you’ve written, Mr. Delingpole, I can see why Steyn’s case is so scary to you. Apparently, Steyn is fighting for everyone’s right to spout hurtful non-sense. If we lose it, columns like yours above will be history.

    • MrPancks

      Pope Gregory IX would applaud your sentiments.

      • leisureguy

        The Torquemada in this case is Steyn. Steyn is ever attempting to humiliate opponents into compliance. Mann just wants to save the planet.

        • Gl Remote

          Save it, as in The Messiah. Seems a fitting role for him. Now where are those Romans when we need them.

          • leisureguy

            Are you another one of those guys obsessed with Jodie Foster?

        • mmercier0921

          The epitome of human arrogance.

          We can’t feed the poor, but one man shall save a planet.

          You annoy, no doubt your high.

    • Carbonicus

      “…spout hurtful non-sense”.

      You mean the truth, in this case.

      Yes, the truth hurts, especially to children still believing in the tooth fairy…..

    • MNJAM

      Well put. Steyn is an ignorant loudmouth who does little more than insult people he doesn’t like (thinks he doesn’t like because he generally has no idea of what he is excoriating or mocking).

      • Life of Brian

        Steyn is an ignorant loudmouth who does little more than insult people he doesn’t like

        Oh, the irony. LOL

      • Katherine

        Lucky for you, being an ignorant loudmouth is protected by the First Amendment.

        • MNJAM

          The First Amendment does not protect slander. Accusing someone of falsifying data is slander. That’s not just a ‘difference of opinion.’

          • w8n4snow

            Says the troll who knows not the difference between slander and libel. Oh, you are such fun.

      • w8n4snow

        Do all loudmouth pundits get comments like this from you? Or just the loudmouths you disagree with. Any posts from you ever, regarding Martin Bashir, Ed Schultz, Melissa Harris-Perry, or Bill Maher? I somehow doubt it.

        • MNJAM

          Steyn might be in a class by himself for boorishness.

          • Buzz

            Compared with MSNBC’s rogues’ gallery, Steyn is an exemplary figure of humour, wit, and good sense.

          • mmercier0921

            The boorish point out flaws, granted, in coarse manner.

            There are times when daddy comes home, and the mayhem in the playpenn ends. Mommy is likely out cold on the couch, resorting to martini and vicoden.
            To retain sanity.

      • mmercier0921

        You are obviously an objective observer of a phenom surrounding your orb.

        The fact that you demonstrae exactly what you criticize speaks volume of intellectuals.

    • Katherine

      If he loses, posts like yours will be next.

      Be careful what you wish for.

      • leisureguy

        Do you want some hot-head fabricating and spreading character damaging lies about you just because you hold a differing opinion?

        • w8n4snow

          That privilege is reserved for Ed Schultz, Bill Maher, Martin Bashir, and all of your cute liberal friends.

          • leisureguy

            I’d never describe those guys as “cute” myself; but I fully support your right to find them attractive.

          • w8n4snow

            I actually liked your post! You do have a sense of humor leisure! All kidding aside, I was being facetious about calling them cute. I do hope you caught that.

    • w8n4snow

      What “hurtful nonsense” is Steyn “spouting?” You are quick with your ignorant post, yet have not cited a single example. Obviously you are a leisureguy. Anything requiring dealing with facts is above your pay grade.

      • leisureguy

        Steyn’s hatefulness was so extreme even his editor at the National Review couldn’t take it anymore.

        The court just found that what Steyn wrote appeared potentially slanderous enough they allowed the court case to go forward.

        Other publications have dumped Steyn was they got tired of being splashed with his slime; he’s noted a few on his home page.

        Steyn is an ever bubbling over stew pot of invective aimed indiscriminately at whoever he chooses. Steyn doesn’t appear to much care about the targets. Like kids dropping lit dog droppings on a random stranger’s porch.

        • mmercier0921

          Invective speech must be controlled by leagal mechanism… except yours.

          Burning bags of dog crap… really..? I did that a few times… wish I knew where you lived back then.

  • akprb

    When living in New Zealand as an ex-pat American Steyn’s articles would inexplicably find there way to the papers down there, was such a breath of fresh air!

  • MNJAM

    Steyn is an anti-intellectual and anti-science clown. Steyn as “Scopes?” Try Steyn as William Jennings Bryan (who deserves better than this odious comparison)

    • gripples

      Dude/Dudette, spend about 4 hrs naked in the middle of the Great Lakes. Maybe, just maybe, the Icebreakers will be able to get to you.

      • MNJAM

        It’s always cold somewhere. It’s always warm somewhere. The question is average temperature taking the entire planet into account.

    • oi812

      but he is pro data-the earth has not warmed for 17 years

      • MNJAM

        The Earth is warming. Sea temperatures are going up instead of land and air. It will switch back to land and air at some point.

        • w8n4snow

          Yes. At some point it will be summer.

    • w8n4snow

      “A theory is only useful if it contains the key to its destruction.”
      – Karl Popper, intellectual
      Global Warming’s fundamental flaw is that is has been couched in such a way so as to be unfalsifiable.
      We see this regularly: No matter if it’s a heat wave, or the “polar vortex,” or anything at all to do with weather, we get told it’s due to “global warming.” It is this absurdity that is anti-science.

      • MNJAM

        Popper was naive. He claims to have developed an evolutionary epistemology following Darwin. Yet Darwin said that ““a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of the question.” Darwin 1859, p. 2. In short, hypothesis, like individuals, compete against one another.

        A fact cannot falsify an isolated hypothesis. Rather, facts tend to confirm one hypothesis while falsifying a rival. Popper’s greatest follower and critic, Imre Latakos, pointed this out. An example is the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was not seen to falsify Newton until thirty years later, when Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity was published.

        Global warning is similar. The contest is between two explanations for recent global warming: (1) greater solar output and (2) increased retention of solar energy due to increased CO2 levels due to human fossil fuel burning. Decades of measurements all over the globe show rising surface temperatures AND FALLING temperatures in the higher atmosphere — refuting hypothesis 1 and confirming hypothesis 2.

        • w8n4snow

          I am not here to debate Popper, I am responding to your comments about Mark Steyn, and this article. You called Steyn “anti-intellectual,” and “anti-science.” I posted a comment from Popper, who is an intellectual, and a scientist. You may have your opinions about Popper, but he is both of those things. Yet Michael Mann’s “hockey stick,” regardless of the proxy data and flawed algorithms he used, is a standard of genius?

          • MNJAM

            Steyn is an anti-intellectual in my opinion — an utter joke — the worst of today’s “pundits,” left or right, unless Glen Beck counts as a “pundit.”

          • w8n4snow

            And you are a useless troll, incapable of staying on-topic. You still have not responded to what I actually posted. Since you are in such desperate need for attention, post on with your schoolyard name calling. Play on, mental midget. I am done with you.

          • MNJAM

            I did respond to you. No isolated hypothesis falsifiable. Rival hypotheses compete against fact, one is falsified and one is confirmed. Global warming is no different: there are two rival hypotheses and so far AGW is winning the contest. You just don’t like my answer and thus resort to insult (while accusing me of it).

          • Major

            Point us to some of your very own ‘intellectual’ writings then to bolster your claim. You must have tangible evidence to back up such a scurrilous charge, right? Unless of course. your surname is Mann.

  • Carbonicus

    Good article on the subject, as usual, JD.

    What’s happening here is the modern-day, soft version of eco-Goebbels Brownshirts silencing critics of the Regime (eco-Leftism), only using the court system instead of gulags and secret police with batons and guns.

    In a modern “civilized” world, we don’t bust down doors in the middle of the night and make dissidents disappear. We bring them to court on “libel” charges, and shout them down as evil “deniers” so as to render their opposition to the Regime’s policies unworthy of even acknowledging (even when the dissident’s OBSERVED measurements destroy the Regime’s political science).

    But at the end of the day, CAGW will be viewed by future science historians in the same manner as eugenics and Lysenkoism: politics masquerading as science. BAD science.

  • s_c_f

    This is one of your better articles ever written, Delingpole. I would hope that it would be read as evidence in the courtroom.

  • Papa Mincho

    “[Thomas Mann is] the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.” — Mark Steyn

    What a brilliant polemical argument! No wonder James Delingpole is defending this dude.

    It’s like James Delingpole is a pedophile, only instead of locking up and raping children, he’s locking up and raping his critics. And logic!

    • Prospector

      Hilarious. Do you feel that Delingpole has a civil libel case against you?

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      “[Thomas Mann is]”

      Not the sharpest knife in the block, are you?

    • w8n4snow

      What a brilliant post! Your expertise is stunning! Your ability to reason and make such analogies is amazing! – Maybe over at Media Matters or HuffPo. The only thing that is brilliant, is your lack of reading skills, your ignorance, and complete lack of critical thinking skills.

  • Lee Bowskee

    The First Amendment does not grant you the right to lie with impunity.

    Why shouldn’t Mr. Steyn, or anyone else, be required to prove what they say about someone else is true?

    Put up or shut up. I thought that was a philosophy conservatives could understand.

    • John Say

      What Steyn and many many other have said about Mann is true, and truth is an absolute defense against defamation in this country.

      Further, we do not conduct scientific debate in court.

      I would say that Mann’s is amount the worst of the CAGW cabal – but there are actually loons even more divorced from reality.

      Mann’s “science” is crap. His methods are unsound, his data unreliable. He has repeatedly refused to publish his raw data, and methods. Most have been determined through reverse engineering. This is not how real science is conducted. We expect better even from out politicians.
      In any profession with real ethical standards with teeth he would be censured and barred from publication. Instead those are the tactics he uses on those more able than he.

      And just for the record, the first amendment does allow you to lie with impunity. The punishment for people with poor credibility is that we pay no attention to them because they are know liars.

    • w8n4snow

      Michael Mann has had a longstanding aversion to public discourse about his so-called “research,” and has had to change his title from “scientist” to “activist/scientist.” Mann is resorting to suing Steyn for defamation, because he doesn’t want to have to be publicly called out as a fraud, particularly in court. Yes, conservatives understand “put up or shut up,” and Michael Mann better prepare to do so.

  • Glenn Koons

    Good for Mark. Dem libs love Mann even though he lies. Oh wait, so does King Obama. The Liars in Chief seem destined to punish hard working Americans, business, and free enterprise. I hope Mark wins this case though nowadays, one has doubts about all the leftist jurists that seem to rule America.

    • MNJAM

      The entire world despises the way conservatives compulsively tell the truth — like the Jim Carey character in the movie LIAR.

      • w8n4snow

        To the resident genius on this thread known as MNJAM: Please cite your data to back up your claim that the “entire world” despises conservatives. Compulsive truthtelling? Would that be all the “truths” such as “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?” (In the interest of data and intellectual integrity, I am happy to list more of these “compulsive truths”)

  • Gl Remote

    One good thing might yet come out of this case. Mann might have to cough up some of his secrets at dicovery.

  • BlueScreenOfDeath

    Astonishingly, it seems there are still a few “pause” AKA “hiatus” deniers infesting the blog.

    Perhaps they might consider the highly regarded periodical ‘Nature’ as a sufficient authority to convince them that Global Warming – and that includes the much-heralded “Anthropogenic” variety – has currently ceased, and so far, no totally convincing reason for this cessation is evident, only theories.

    Climate change: The case of the missing heat

    Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.

    http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

    For the benefit of those who assert that the “missing heat” is somehow hiding in the deep oceans, the first line of the last paragraph may supply pause for thought.

    “Scientists may get to test their theories soon enough” indicates that there is more than one theory as to the cause of the “hiatus”, and none of them are currently proven.

    • Argus

      But but but…weren’t we recently advised by the highest authority that the “science is settled”?

      • BlueScreenOfDeath

        Indeed we were, Argus.

        Here is an anecdote from Roger Harrabin the BBC’s chief climate science correspondent, for example:

        I remember Lord May leaning over and assuring me: “I am the President of the Royal Society, and I am telling you the debate on climate change is over.”

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10178454

        Somehow, I suspect May is regretting that…

  • Gl Remote

    Steyn has alread won in the court of public opinion. He has forced Mann to renounce his title of Scientist and replace it with Activist/scientist. On it’s face an Oxymoron.

    • Argus

      Excellent point. REALLY excellent.

      This vulgar AGW scam is being revealed for the shameless house of cards that it is. I look forward to the media/sycophant rats scurrying for cover before its inevitable collapse.

      • Gl Remote

        All that remains is for the Climate Science community to change their name to Climate Activism/science. Kinda like Christian Science, or maybe Scientology.

        • Katherine

          How about Political Science Science?

          • Gl Remote

            Maybe Climate Political Science?
            Sounds like a perfect discipline for an Ivy League PhD.

          • w8n4snow

            For which the morons who get such a PhD will have gone to said Ivy League school on a student loan for which they will never pay back! :)

  • Cleetus

    I have known a fair number of scientists like Mann in my 30+ career of doing research. Invariably, the vast majority of them are shown to be frauds who are shamed and forgotten. Those few who are vindicated go on to greatness. By the Mann has created his chart, the methods he used to torture the data, and his thin skin lead me to believe he will eventually end up as the former group. Perhaps it will be this lawsuit that breaks his back and forces him into anonymity.

    • Gl Remote

      There’s always talk shows, and MSNBC.

    • Stephen

      Witness Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb”.

  • gripples

    When the counter suit is filed, I want Algore to be charged as an appliance.

    • Katherine

      As a toaster? Microwave, perhaps?

      • gripples

        I was thinking something more intimate.

      • Stephen

        Nothing more sophisticated than as a simple tool.

      • gripples

        Reminds me of my favorite riddle…..
        Q: How do you make pickle bread?
        A: You have to start with a Dill Dough.

      • Major

        A bidet?

        • w8n4snow

          Can a computer be considered an appliance of sorts? Because after all, Algore did invent the internet.

          • Major

            Yes…it can also be a waste distributor too.

          • w8n4snow

            Can’t argue with that.

  • Beau Toxx

    This is a much bigger case than Styne vs. Mann. The underpinnings of the global warming theory and all its political implications are at stake. There probably is serious money and power behind Mann as the “front-man” for global warming. If it is proven he was defamed, it supports his research as truth and validates the global warming theory. If Steyn loses this case it will be touted as proof global warming is real. Even if Steyn wins, global warming skeptics will be reluctant to be open opponents of the theory for fear of being dragged into a legal quagmire. Either way, the Progressive/Marxists, with this legal maneuver, have again out strategized the conservatives. The GOP remains the ‘dumb party’ for not getting behind Steyn in this critical battle.

    • Gl Remote

      The battle is E&E Legal v. Uva/Mann.
      If the Va Supreme Court rules, Mann and co will have to release the contents of the backup server that has his data. As an Activist/scientist, he should have ensured all his notes were deleated.

    • Argus

      “If it is proven he was defamed, it supports his research as truth and validates the global warming theory.”

      Piddle. That you actually might find the judicial system to be a legitimate arbiter of scientific credulity is scary indeed.

      • MNJAM

        The judicial system is an “arbiter of scientific credulity” all day long. They do it every time they determine whether or not the testimony of some scientific expert is admissible.

  • MNJAM

    Why doesn’t Steyn flee persecution and go back to Canada? He will be safe in the Great White North.

    • w8n4snow

      I knew it wouldn’t be long before your “science” mumbo-jumbo would devolve into the usual troll commentary.

      • MNJAM

        When in Rome, do as the Romans.

        • w8n4snow

          This isn’t Media Matters or HuffPo. You are definitely not in “Rome.”

          • MNJAM

            This is your typical conservative echo chamber.

          • Major

            And you? the typical Non Sequitur of a kumquat.

          • w8n4snow

            Thank you.

          • Major

            Happy to Help.

          • w8n4snow

            This mental midget has yet to comment on Michael Mann’s science; the actual subject of the article. In typical Bill Ayers, Alinsky fashion, it’s about Mark Steyn; not about the whole reason Mark Steyn spoke out, which is Michael Mann’s flawed so-called science. I fully expect more vapid posts coming up shortly.

          • Major

            IT…offers nothing more. And empty low info vessel.

          • w8n4snow

            Thanks again for the assist!

          • Major

            As I said to IT….GTMA!

          • noen

            But you don’t know anything about science. So you wouldn’t even understand the answer even if you could by some miracle even read it. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t know the math. You don’t even understand the basic science behind it.

          • w8n4snow

            noen darling: MNJAM and I had an exchange way down the thread, which I was referring to in my post to major. I am not here to have a science pissing contest with you.

          • noen

            So you can’t make your case. I understand. It is hard to defend pseudo science. So I will just consider this a victory for me then. Once again when asked to defend their views climate deniers CANNOT and WILL NOT defend their bogus unscientific theories.

            Thanks!!

          • Major

            On what basis in fact do you base that nonsense? Cause you made up crap from whole cloth? Show us the proof, kumquat…the proof.

          • w8n4snow

            I’m truly at a loss.

          • Major

            This is prima facia evidence of degeneracy and of our Nations descent into ignorance, slander, hysteria, lies, the cult of personality, the destruction of morality and family. The end of education and the praise of nothingness with the adoration and Exhalation of socialism, racism and the bankruptcy of ideas and truth. We’re screwed.

          • noen

            But…. you’re the moron Major. The Major moron in fact. You don’t know anything about this.

          • Major

            Try me child…let’s get together for a beer and a little conversation. Show some GD respect too…even if you were picked from a litter.

          • noen

            Go ahead. Bring it fool. Defend your pseudo science. But I know you can’t. You don’t know anything. You just like to talk big. I do talk big but I can also bring the facts and cannot.

          • Major

            I wasn’t thinking about facts just yet. First a little well deserved lesson in manners. Then the facts after a good sit down. That’s how we in the service do it. Then we can”chat”. And one day sonny…you’ll meet up with someone very unlike me, the Gentleman. Cause it’s little snots like you that can’t keep their mouths shut in public either…I hear you in Starbucks all the time. You can’t help it…you’re all born to bloviate and lie. Your day will come…and you’ll wish it hadn’t.

          • noen

            Still got nothing huh? You are out of your depth Major. Now go get drunk and dream of glory days before I have to embarrass you.

          • w8n4snow

            He is a piece of work, all right.

          • Gl Remote

            What I would like is a definition of Activist/science.
            Mann has renounced his title as Scientist. He now calls himself an Activist/scientist.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            “climate deniers”

            Please point out one person who has ever denied the existence of climate.

            You’re not very good at this, are you?

          • w8n4snow

            Hang on, he’s on hold with the OFA help desk. If it’s as efficient as the Obamacare website it might take awhile.

          • w8n4snow

            Just curious if any of the troll brain trust has bothered to respond to the article you cited from “Nature?” Or am I asking a rhetorical question? :)

          • w8n4snow

            The “climate denier” thread is over at HuffPo. I know it’s difficult, by try to stay on topic. The subject of this article is Mark Steyn calling out Michael Mann’s flawed science. It is very telling that you demand “climate deniers” (cute – did you learn that from your OFA handbook?) prove their science, and you are silent about Michael Mann having to prove his.

          • noen

            Michael Mann doesn’t have to prove anything. His results are open for anyone to see. His papers are published in reputable journals and have been gone over with a fine toothed comb and survived. His data is in fact freely available for anyone to download. Not that you would know what to do with it.

            No, it is the denialists who bear the burden of proof. Go ahead. Make your case or else STFU.

          • Gl Remote

            One of the things that have been disclosed as a result of a FOIA request is that researchers at the University of Virginia apparently did not keep research logs, which are crucial to allowing other scientists to reproduce and confirm the original work. Without these logs, the credibility of climate change research conducted by Dr. Mann and his colleagues is seriously diminished

          • BumbaK

            Totally wrong. Michael Mann is the one suing. He has to prove that Steyn and National Review libeled him. The science does not come into play. This is a case about whether a person who places himself in the public debate can shut up an opponent who disagreed with him by resorting, not to science, but to libel law.

          • w8n4snow

            darling noen: I understand. Your science teacher at community college told you how smart you are, and it was super duper awesome! So cute. You go ahead with your cute victory dance, sweetie. You have made it very clear that it is very important to you to be right. Did your science teacher teach you that if you present something as fact, that you must cite references? Wikipedia, HuffPo, or East Anglia University do not count. You go ahead and have fun here for the rest of the night.

          • gripples

            Finally a sane comment! “Science” is not involved in this pissing contest!!! Thank you.

          • Major

            Oh please….enlighten us with an Al Gore fantasy then. Other wise, do what all lille “intellectuals” do….go choke your chicken.

          • w8n4snow

            Do you remember the movie “Airplane,” when Leslie Nielsen says, “I guess I picked the wrong week to quit drinking?” That about sums it up. :)

          • Major

            Nice metaphor, isn’t it?

          • ceili_dancer

            Quick correction, Lloyd Bridges.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            “But you don’t know anything about science.”

            You still here, funny little troll? Isn’t it past your bedtime?

            You wouldn’t recognise science if it ran into your cave, jumped up, and bit you on the snout.

            Your sort never does, of course.

          • Major

            Their “science” is a meth lab…which explains half their idiocy and ravings here. The other half….IQ’s of a pumpkin.

          • noen

            Still nothing from you. Come on. What are you afraid of? Make your case. Oh wait. you can’t even do that. You can’t even make a BAD case for your pseudo science. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            What would be the point?

            Any scientific argument would be so far above your head i might as well debate quantum physics with a lamp post.

            Actually, I’d probably get more sense out of the lamp post, at least it wouldn’t be actively pig ignorant.

          • noen

            HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You don’t know anything about QM. Oh… ok, I’ll give you a shot. Please tell me your opinion about string vacua. What do you think? Don’t hold back now. What do you think of F-theory and its relation to M-theory and perturbative IIB string theory? Or what about F-theory flux vacua and moduli stabilization scenarios? I’d love to hear your input.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            Been Googling, little troll?

            That’s the only way you would have acquired that information.

          • noen

            Still waiting for you to bring it. What a coward.

          • w8n4snow

            He’s sure to win a Nobel Peace prize!

          • w8n4snow

            Troll noen must be googling some more. Can’t wait to see the next fun post!

          • w8n4snow

            Is the data as well as the algorithm Michael Mann used to come up with his “hockey stick” theory flawed?

          • noen

            Sorry, your talking point is wrong. Mann’s algorithm is not flawed.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            ” Mann’s algorithm is not flawed.”

            As if you would know.

            Here’s Professor Richard Muller:

            “McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

            Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

            That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?”

            Gosh, who to believe, Professor Richard Muller, or a silly troll who believes swearing and cursing is a valid substityute for civilised debate?

            It’s a mystery!

          • w8n4snow

            You are prepared for the sound of crickets, or sheer crazy, yes?

          • noen

            “This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape”

            Mann stopped using the criticised statistical method in 2001, when he changed over to the RegEM climate field reconstruction method. “Red noise for surrogate datasets should have the characteristics of natural variation, but the statistical method used by McIntyre and McKitrick produced “persistent red noise” based on 20th century warming trends which showed inflated long-term swings, and overstated the tendency of the MBH98 method to produce hockey stick shapes. Their use of this persistent red noise invalidated their claim that “the MBH98 15th century reconstruction lacks statistical significance”

            You’re wrong. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You really don’t.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            “You’re wrong. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You really don’t.”

            Yeah, yeah, yeah!

            You just keep right on telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

            AGW = It’s All Gone Wrong!

            LOL © soosoos

          • w8n4snow

            As an self-proclaimed science expert, surely you know about citing your references. Where did you cut and paste this from while you were googling? You told me that the algorithms Mann used were not flawed (according to whom, you do not cite, but oh well). If they were not flawed, Professor noen why would he need to discontinue using them in 2001 (again, according to whom, you do not cite)?

          • Argus

            Where did you cut and paste this from while you were googling?

            He lifted it from Wikipedia’s global warming propaganda mill, where else.

          • w8n4snow

            Classic! I just re-read his posts: “I am a science expert.” “Bring it, cowards, make your case.” Argus, thank you for brightening up my day!

          • w8n4snow

            Major, it has been an honor serving with you this evening. Press on, patriot! Have a great weekend.

          • w8n4snow

            “When in Rome, do as the Romans.” If this is a “conservative echo chamber, then you should be agreeing with everything here. Your ADD, combined with your ignorance and complete inability to deal in facts, has grown tiresome. You have fun contributing to your global warming using electricity to power your little troll computer to post your garbage.

          • MNJAM

            Major and w84snow: the echo chamber at work.

          • Major

            And it’s clear you’re a solo hack and fake if there ever was one.

            GTMA, kumquat.

          • Major

            Please…get over to Huff and feed the rest of the maggots. They’ll appreciate your buzzing and dropping excrement there.

          • w8n4snow

            You truly are a special kind of stupid. You posted: “When in Rome, do as the Romans.” If this is Rome, and you are calling it a conservative echo chamber, you should be in complete agreement on this site. But alas, that totally escapes your little skull full of mush.

    • gripples

      Dude/Dudette, do you understand Stein was charged with hate speech in Canada and was vindicated? Now, the less learned US courts are about to rule the same.

      • w8n4snow

        Prepare to hear the sound of crickets, or to be barraged with troll crazy! :) Great post, btw.

        • gripples

          Gracias, (I am practicing my Mexican)

          • w8n4snow

            keep up the good work!

      • Major

        Bbbbbbuuutttt….down here in the lower unwashed masses….It’s People magazine or Rolling Stone that are the final arbiters of truth.

        • w8n4snow

          Yes, Rolling Stone with its cover featuring one of the Boston bomber brothers is the moral compass for the low info crowd. :)

          • Major

            He’s not guilty you know? He’s just misunderstood.

          • w8n4snow

            How callus of me! I am glad you pointed that out. Come to think of it, that’s probably why they tried to make that two-bit terrorist look like some type of Bob Dylan folk singer.

          • Major

            Yes…he haas a recording out too I hear that RS wants to distribute for him….kind of like the Garfunkel “sounds of silence”?

          • w8n4snow

            I just had an exchange with troll “noen,” in which he informs me that I am wrong; that Mann’s algorithm was not flawed. Care to jump in? Scroll down a bit to find it.

          • w8n4snow

            Grammy nominations sure to follow.

          • gripples

            Dude/Dudette, Do you understand that W8n4snow is a member of Low Info Crowd?

          • w8n4snow

            I am? I thought we were friends!

          • w8n4snow

            Dear gripples: How is it that I am low info?

  • kellyslane

    That Steyn guest hosts the Rush Limbaugh radio show should tell you everything you need to know about both those blowhards. Pure dreck.

    • Major

      Lacking above your neckline too. Guess you need help from Randi Roades?

    • gripples

      Kelly,
      I am optimistic. LISTEN and THINK, then OPINE. Instead of Obey… and try to humiliate.

      • w8n4snow

        I am optimistic that I am going to win the Publisher’s Clearinghouse sweepstakes tomorrow as well. :) But I do get your point!

        • gripples

          Keep standing at your door waiting for the PCH rep to arrive and we will all be HAPPY !!!!

          • w8n4snow

            I am as optimistic about winning PCH, as I am about Kelly taking your wise advice. But I will remain hopeful that Kelly will come around.

    • w8n4snow

      That you make this about Mark Steyn, and say nothing about Michael Mann’s flawed science, is far more telling. Pure dreck.

  • evangelinebrabant

    There are pivotal moments in history where later, people will look back and wonder why no one did anything to stop the coming disaster.

    This is one of those times.

    With an out-of-control lawless president, who tells us every week that he can do what he wants, we are sliding more into the horror of tyranny, every day.

    And, unlike other threats and catastrophes in recent times (WWII, Cold War) we won’t be there to rescue us.

    The problem is not just Obama. The problem is the American voters who were so ignorant, so ungrateful, and so foolish as to elect a man like Obama, not once, but twice, to the most important position in the world.

  • Winston Smith

    I say the author is a nasty Brit who is a show-off and an awkward sod and green with envy re Mark’s success in the colonies.

    • gripples

      Exactly right….. The fact the HE instead Steyn should have been charged with Climate abuse is sooo telling.

      • Gl Remote

        Climate abuse! It that a new form of perversion?

    • csmats

      I read the author’s words as good-natured jabs meant to wryly convey the exact opposite connotation of the literal words themselves. I think it’s a dry British wit thing.

  • jamson64

    Chris Sposato has the talking points down.

  • brickman

    In the United States truth is a defense from defamation or libel charges. If Steyn can show he’s telling the truth, he’ll win. If not, he doesn’t deserve to win.

    • noen

      It doesn’t have anything to do with truth. The suit is over libel. The Human Steyn compared Mann to a pedophile. The courts will decide if that is libelous. Either way the judgment will say nothing about climate change.

      • brickman

        I didn’t say the judgment will say anything about climate change. I don’t expect any court to render that decision. If Steyn compared Mann to a pedophile he should have to prove THAT. Frankly, I’ve had my fill of people who think they can say anything about anyone and then hide behind the First Amendment.

      • w8n4snow

        Professor noen: Please cite the references to your genius cut and paste scientific brilliance, so that I may study them and proceed to pay you all respect due. Calling me a “climate denier” is not citing your references, no matter what your 8th grade environmental activist P.E. teacher tells you.

      • Argus

        “The suit is over libel. The Human Steyn compared Mann to a pedophile.”

        I had previously assumed that your understanding of the salient libel claim at issue here would likely be more informed than your grasp of the science.

        I was, apparently, quite quite wrong.

  • Gl Remote

    Steyn should quote Mann in his defense. Mann now says he is not just a Scientist, he is an Activist/scientist. We now must not only peer review his work but allow him to campaign for it’s acceptance.

  • csmats

    Mann is a public figure and Steyn is a satirist. Given the Flynt-Falwell case, I don’t see what Steyn could have said that’s worse than Flynt saying Falwell had an incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse.

  • Brian Allan Cobb

    I’ll save feeling compassion for one who himself displays compassion for others, which Mr. Steyn does not.

    Humor is often cruel and Mr. Steyn is laceratingly funny.

    (And, along with Ann Coulter, a favorite read of this liberal.)

    But a martyr? Please.

    • w8n4snow

      A British writer, writing for a British publication would never be at all cheeky, now would he?

      • Brian Allan Cobb

        Were I on the jury with only what I’ve read so far, I would find for the defendant and award Steyn court costs.

        But when one writes:

        “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for 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.”

        Them’s fightin’ words and Steyn ain’t no martyr. Were Mann to challenge Steyn to a duel and somehow kill him, I wouldn’t convict Mann, either.

    • csmats

      “I’ll save feeling compassion for one who himself displays compassion for others, which Mr. Steyn does not.”

      Wait, isn’t the defense of free speech precisely to protect the speech of those many find “cruel?” After all, it’s easy to defend the free speech of the nice; no one’s objecting to the things they say. If free speech doesn’t apply to “cruel” satirists like Steyn, then it applies to no one because if only nice speech is worth protecting, no protection is needed in the first place.

      • Dan Kimble

        Yes, and there is noting “cruel” about exposing a science fraud. In fact, it is VERY dangerous if the science frauds are NOT exposed and ridiculed.

        Societies fail because of mis-allocated resources. That was what the fall of communism was all about, and why Russia under communism did so poorly, and Eastern Europe was at a standstill from 1939 to 1990.

        What is happening to America is that political correctness is calling the shots, and TRILLIONS of dollars are being wasted on all these directives from the government, such as anti-poverty, EPA, federal education dept., etc. If Global Warming pseudo-science is incorporated into federal spending agendas, and misdirection of resources of both the government and private industry, and this warps our energy industry, the MOST fundamental industry of our economy, the consequences will be devastating to our economy.

        Ever since I became aware of the shale oil and gas industry revolution, I have been studying this area, and I simply had not been aware of how critical the oil and gas industry has been for modern society. The discovery and use of oil and natural gas has actually made the whole modern age possible.

        If the political correctness gang of leftist democrats gets their way, the consequences will likely be wasting of our nations resources on a monumental scale, similar to the disasters imposed by communism on all of Eastern Europe and other countries over this past century.

        So, Steyn has performed a hero’s task by exposing this type of fraud with the most effective weapon, ridicule.

        • w8n4snow

          The IPCC has stated more than once, global warming’s main goal is the redistribution of wealth. The whole global warming issue is about politics, using “science” to hide its agenda.

        • Argus

          Examplary, thoughtful, illuminating and provocative post. Thank you for penning it (and I’d urge others not to be dissuaded by a necessary more

          • w8n4snow

            Going to steynonline.com to donate to his legal fund right now.

      • Brian Allan Cobb

        Government not coming after Mr. Steyn.

        Private suit, very free enterprise.
        Felt the same way about Whoopie Goldberg losing her Weight Watchers gig (or whatever it was) for making fun of President Bush’s name sounding like female pubic hair.

    • BumbaK

      Compassion has become as conditional as liberty has. Waste it only for those who “earn” it, just as freedom can only be rationed to those who know how to use it properly.

  • BlueScreenOfDeath

    Funny thing, it appears that quite a large proportion of the contributors to this blog seem unable to grasp that the whole purpose of free speech legislation such as the First Amendment is to enable speech that some might find offensive.

    There would be no point in such legislation otherwise.

    • w8n4snow

      Read an article in “Investors Business Daily” from 2/13/14, titled, “The FCC Plan to Police the Newsrooms.” The First Amendment is hanging by an ever-thinning thread, my friend.

  • Gl Remote

    Mann is sure to be the looser in this fisco. Winning in court will hardly be worth the ridicule he faces by having all his work displayed as the Activist dogma that is is. He even had to renounce his title as a Scientist fo continue his mission. Now taking on the mantle of Activist/scientist. Will he now wear Purple and Daffodil in place of Amaranthe at commencement.

    • Skep41

      Discredited? Dont bet on it. Mann will have his picture on the cover of The New York Times Sunday Magazine while Steyn goes broke paying legal bills. Mann is a hero of ‘settled science’, just like Lysenko was and Steyn is a Climate Criminal.

      • Gl Remote

        Universities can now name a College of Activist/science after him.

      • w8n4snow

        The NYT is going broke, readership is down to elitist, ivory tower Obama cronies. Steyn has been through worse in Canada. Whatever the outcome, Mann’s reputation will be in dispute, and Mann has long been averse to public discourse about his “scientific theories.” This case has a ways to go, and it will be interesting to see if Mann will be up for the personal scrutiny, regardless of his “science.”

      • w8n4snow

        Don’t get me wrong; your point is well taken, and it is going to get ugly to say the least.

    • leisureguy

      I left my heart

      In Mike Mann’s fisco

      (Sorry, couldn’t resist)

  • Skep41

    This is how one party ‘democracy’ works. A corrupt legal system run by ideological judges tilts every ruling in favor of political correctness. Steyn will be muzzled or impoverished one way or another until the Keynesian economic policies he criticizes finally cause a collapse and all pretense of democracy is abandoned.

    • csmats

      Don’t give up hope. The Ninth Circuit just overturned California’s draconian concealed carry rules. The Ninth Circuit! That’s big.

      • Skep41

        I live in this whacky left-wing state and I can assure you that the Ninth Circuit ruling will not be followed, even if it is what you say it is. I find it hard to believe that judges who are ordering the release of thousands of violent criminals because the prisons arent up to hotel standards of comfort have ruled that their intended victims can legally protect themselves. We shall see.

        • csmats

          Yes, we shall see, but the Ninth Circuit decision almost ensures a Supreme Court case because there are contradictory concealed carry decisions at the appellate level.

          After what Roberts did on Obamacare I have like zero faith in the Supreme Court, so I feel your pain there. My point was merely that the Ninth Circuit handing down this decision is cause not to abandon all hope.

          • Skep41

            The Supreme Court is one vote away from being forever in control of the left. President Elizabeth Warren, winner of the rigged 2016 ‘election’, will be sure to appoint some leftist zombie after the tragic auto accident that kills one of the conservative justices. The Living Constitution will then allow the victims of ‘Political Schizophrenia’ (aka conservatives) to be treated for free with electric shocks and mind-bending drugs under Obamacare until they see the error of their ways.

        • w8n4snow

          But are you allowed to use the bathroom opposite of your gender, if you don’t “self identify” as that gender, especially at school?

    • Carbonicus

      There’s always John Galt.

      • Skep41

        In a leftist dictatorship John Galt will be joining you and I in our reeducation camp.

        • ceili_dancer

          But they won’t make anything off of our labors.

  • WBC

    The judge is a moron. There are a lot of morons on the federal bench. It is a sad fact of life.

  • leisureguy

    Looks to me like National Review plunked out. They dropped their defense of Steyn in shock; they were shocked that anyone would take a clown like Steyn seriously enough to think he could libel anyone.

    I think they just kept him on to entertain the kids; like Oscar The Grouch.

    • csmats

      Dude, that’s just weak. If you’re gonna attack Steyn as a writer, at least have some idea of his actual reputation. Coming across as not having any idea what you’re talking about is not a good look for you, or anyone else.

      • leisureguy

        He’s well reputed as a clown. You learn nothing reading him other than how to write a nasty insult. Or express towering self-regard.

        • csmats

          So, you have no understanding of the power in the well-placed insult? You do not recognize the importance of drawing your enemies’ ire as well as your supporters’ affection? Again, ignorance is not a good look…

          • leisureguy

            Insults is all he has. Have you ever found him to illuminate any issue? I haven’t.

            His insults are shallow; I’ve seen no evidence of Steyn having depth.

            His whole defense in this matter is “I obviously don’t know what I’m talking about, and that should be obvious to anyone.

            I can’t libel people because I’ve never given anyone cause to think I know anything about the target of my vituperation.

            I only know how to vituperate.”

          • csmats

            If Steyn is such a nobody, why’d you see his name in a headline and then come on over to comment? He hits a nerve with you libs, that’s why. Pretending otherwise is pathetic. I see right through you. Sorry ’bout that.

          • leisureguy

            I see you luxuriate in dealing the easy and baseless insult in lieu of the hard argument as well. Steyn must be a hero.

            He does “hit a nerve” with me. He’s an obnoxious bully. He seems psychotic in his ability to believe he can dish stupidity without come uppance.

            I doubt Mann will win, but I’ve a sense Steyn is feeling the kind of pain he’s dumbly inflicted on others. A sweet sense that Karma may be allright after all.

          • csmats

            Where did I “baselessly” insult you? I merely pointed out that (1) you think Steyn is a nobody, yet (2) here you are commenting on him. Maybe my use of the word “pathetic” does constitute an insult, but it isn’t “baseless.” Sorry, lib. Might I suggest that you Google “critical thinking?”

          • leisureguy

            You know what you’re doing here? You’re making sure that Conservatism remains clownish and irrelevant.

            Somewhere along the way, some Conservative scribe or talker got hold of the Golden ring of power. They discovered they could be rich and famous by snapping at liberals the way German immigrants used to conger up jokes about poles. Maybe Limbaugh was the first? There’s millions now, Coulter, Hannity, Goldberg, Levin, Beck, on and on. In his dottage, George Will has decided to join this insane clown posse. (Too bad Coulter doesn’t have good Juggalos.)

            The price? Conservatism is no longer an ideological store of ideas. It’s just whiny insults against Liberals.

            Steyn is one of these. When you call me “lib”, and expect it to sting, you’re Juggaloing off to intellectual irrelevancy.

          • csmats

            Dude, call the orderly for a Xanax. Maybe they can loosen the buckles on the straitjacket just a little bit so you can get some circulation into your hands. Lack of circulation is not good…

          • leisureguy

            Insulting ; but you’re no Steyn.

          • csmats

            LOL! Touche. I am indeed no Steyn, because he’s great, not a nobody like you tried so pathetically to portray. And so you lose. Sorry clown.

          • w8n4snow

            leisureguy sure has a lot of leisure time! He’s been on this thread for the past 12 hours and counting. His posts are like lipstick on a pig. He tries to pretty them up with his wannabe smarts, positioning his opinion as undisputable fact, solely because he deems it so. He is full of himself, as well as a few other things.

          • csmats

            Now now, leisureguy is stupid and he can’t help that. We must be benevolent in our assessment of him. He’s completely unable to think coherently, and apparently he has no life. Oh, was that mean? And not benevolent? Oopsie!

          • w8n4snow

            I just took out my etiquette for trolls manual, and I promise to do better next time! :) He is quite a character!

          • w8n4snow

            leisureguy has a strange obsession with Mark Steyn. By the way leisure tries to dazzle with his wannabe wit and smarts, it’s like he wishes he was Mark Steyn! (just my theory, mind you)

          • Gay Rapist 69

            I know you have lots of leisure time because you have posted so much faggotry in these comments, so obviously your social calendar is rather empty

          • leisureguy

            You’re no Steyn either. However, I took some time to look at Steyn’s self-declared “best of” on his web-site. With a little practice, you guys could easily achieve his level of sprawling, aimless, unpleasantness.
            Seriously, does he ever write anything witty? I thought Lewis Black was a pointless ranter, but this guy – Steyn, he takes the cake.

          • w8n4snow

            Back at it, are we? Do we need to review?

          • Gay Rapist 69

            lol do you just keep getting more long-winded

          • w8n4snow

            Perhaps you should adjourn to NPR, and enjoy fellowship with other non-clownish intellectuals such as yourself. Why are you spending so much time posting here, when you have repeatedly articulated your disdain for Mark Steyn, Conservativsm, and conservatives in general? Are you a missionary of some kind, looking to recruit converts? Do you need someone on this thread to tell you that you are right, to give you some type of validation? Are you just plain bored?

          • leisureguy

            I wasn’t bored until I read your comments.

          • w8n4snow

            I am so sorry I have been so dismissive of the vast degree of your intelligence. You are so intelligent, that your opinion is to be accepted as fact, simply because you say it is so! Well, how could anyone compete with that?! Post on, and I hope you are accorded the adoration and respect you are due sir.

          • w8n4snow

            There are a whole slew of liberal “clowns” who saw money to be made by insulting Conservatives. Would you like an itemized list? We can go back and forth for days playing the “I know you are but what am I game,” for what purpose? You post your ideological, myopic opinion, couched in erudite language, and somehow expect that it will be accepted as fact on your say so. At the end of the day, your posts really aren’t any different than the sophomoric postings of the garden variety trolls that come here to play. If you want to have an intelligent debate based in fact, let me know. Otherwise, your output of hot air has grown tiresome.

          • leisureguy

            Who? What liberal has made zillions with the equivalent of Hannity’s “deliver us from evil”. Coulter’s “how to talk to liberals if you must”, Goldberg and Levin and Beck’s and Malkin’s anti-liberal screeds?

          • w8n4snow

            I pointed out to you, correctly, that numerous liberals have seen the opportunity to make money with screeds of their own. And predictably, you turn this into an equality issue? Yes, I know you believe that anti-conservative screeds deserve to make as much money as those critical of liberals. You really are a genius.

          • leisureguy

            I’m not a genius; I’m puzzled in fact. I can’t think of any purely conservative bashing screeds along the lines of forests slain for the liberal bashers I listed.

            Al Franken had “Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot” – which only targets Mr. Limbaugh.

            James Carville had “we’re right they’re wrong” which I believe mostly covered why liberal policies are best for the US.

            The closest I could think of was Chuck Thompson’s “better off without em”, which went after the fundamentalism and racism of the south, America’s most conservative region.

            Taking a look at the current NYT best-sellers, I see that Charles Krauthammer’s compendium of anti-Obama attacks sits on the best seller list.

          • w8n4snow

            Go back and read your post. I’m serious. Your comment was that conservative “clowns,” be they scribes or talkers, saw an opportunity to make money. I then responded that liberals do the exact same thing. All of a sudden, it’s not about the fact that liberals seize upon the same opportunities, it becomes an income equality issue. Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, David Brooks, (the list goes on and on) do not work for free. Why don’t you enlighten me as to what you deem an appropriate amount of success and income is for pundits with whom you disagree and/or do not like.

          • leisureguy

            1) Name some books by Schultz or Matthews that are substantially anti-conservative screeds. For bonus points, find some that announce their conservative bashing in the title ala Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, Malkin, Levin, etc.

            2) David Brooks is a conservative. I’m wondering if the reason you identify him as liberal is that he is fairly polite?

          • w8n4snow

            Did you not post that conservative “clown” scribes and talkers make money? Whichever it is, books, radio, television, web site, liberals do not

          • w8n4snow

            leisure: Do liberals make money doing what they do, whether it’s books, radio, websites, etc? The answer is yes. So you then shift gears: It’s no longer about the fact that liberals found the same opportunities as conservatives to make money, You now take issue with the fact that Conservative pundits make more money than liberal pundits.
            Now you want to debate who is substantially more “anti?” Really? Besides the obvious lack of objectivity in that, what is your point? Do you want me to reiterate each and every vitriolic thing Chris Matthews et al, has ever said? Shall we have a “pundit audit?” I may vehemently disagree with liberals, but I love a free market even more, and I support their right to find a market for what they do, and make a go of it. The fact that they are not as successful money-wise is a useless argument.

          • ceili_dancer

            Who needs to write when yopu can just throw all that fecal matter out on MSNBC?
            Just because Brooks calls himself a conservative doesn’t make it so.

          • leisureguy

            when you’re sentence subject is “fecal matter” I find the typo “yopu” hilariously Freudian.

          • w8n4snow

            leisure, c’mon now. What’s the deal?

          • w8n4snow

            leisure, I must commend you on the fact that you have become much more civil and open to intelligent debate. Good on ya! That said, I want make a suggestion. Read Thomas Sowell’s writings. He is an intelligent, thoughtful scholar, and a free market conservative. One thing about you has popped out at me. You have a vast knowledge of a variety of conservative books, personalities, etc. Do you follow them to find ways to discredit them? Or is there the possibility that maybe you find some truth in there somewhere? Whatever the case, get away from the noise for awhile, and read Thomas Sowell. I gotta go; you take care.

          • w8n4snow

            Yes, soon your beloved government friends will pass legislation requiring all of us subjects to purchase one Ed Schultz book for every Mark Levin book. What utopia!

          • Carbonicus

            Gore, Soros, Rachel Madcow, Carville, need I go on???

          • Carbonicus

            Leftism isn’t an ideological store of ideas, it’s merely whiny insults against Conservatives.

            There, I fixed it for you.

          • leisureguy

            You replaced the word “liberal” with “conservative” in my post – more or less

            Genius

            Let me tell you right now, folks that thought Einstein was going to live on forever as our time’s insurmountable genius have got another think coming. When the future looks to our time for our great genius, they’ll all agree

            “Carbonicus”

          • w8n4snow

            Just can’t let it go can you, leisure? I had hopes that you would actually move past your foolishness. Are you having fun here tonight?

          • Cyril Sneer

            Bitter much liberal?

          • leisureguy

            Sorry Sir; again, your insult does not rise to Steyn’s level.

          • 11bravo

            Hey leisure, is Steyn right about mann made global warming – or is Mann?

          • w8n4snow

            Prepared to be dazzled by the sheer intellect that is leisureguy!

          • leisureguy

            Hey Groundpounder

            Mann’s correct.

          • Carbonicus

            Then you’re an activist fool like Mann.

          • w8n4snow

            If it was Martin Bashir, Ed Schultz, Bill Maher, or anyone he agrees with making what he deems are baseless insults, what is your estimation of how many posts we would we see from him?

          • Carbonicus

            Yes, he’s quite illuminative when it comes to describing the dangers of the Collectivism you and the rest of the Collectivist parasites like you are attempting to impose on America, and the history of such Collectivism all across the globe.

        • w8n4snow

          He’s well reputed as a clown by whom? Mother Jones? NPR? You must not like stand-up comedians either, because they wrote the book on nasty insults. Wait, I got it! Nasty insults are OK, as long as they are coming from people with whom you agree!

          • leisureguy

            No, no you don’t have it.

            National Review has a pretty good pedigree. If Steyn was pronounced “stain” I’d think Steyn’s whole National Review tenure was a fiction about the collapse of a well regarded institution following the death of its founding light.

          • w8n4snow

            Yes, your posts are all about what you’d think. Unfortunately they are opinion you try to sell as fact. A writer and a magazine have a falling out, and part ways! Who could imagine that something like that has ever happened?! What a uniquely conservative problem! Your sheer genius wins again!

          • w8n4snow

            What a revelation! Mark Steyn is the first writer in the history of writers working for a “pedigreed” publication, to be fired! Oh my goodness, I had no idea.

    • 11bravo

      Hey, look! Hillary has been fundraising and organizing, so it is no surprise the “allegedly” intellectual and witty trolls are popping up everywhere.
      It is almost like just prior to Obama’s re-election trolls got up to steam.
      It is happening all over the conservative boards.

      • w8n4snow

        Oh yes indeed. And it’s going to be even more fun when the cries of “Global Warming is a racist, homophobic war on women!!”

        • calhou

          ….isn’t it?

          • w8n4snow

            According to whom?

    • CountMahdrof

      “I think they just kept him on to entertain the kids; like Oscar The Grouch.”

      That’s what I’ve been saying for 5 months now – about Obama. The sad thing is the “kids” are America’s progressives.

  • bluesdoc70

    AGW is a religion backed by interests that stand to make billions from carbon exchange trading. Steyn is a vocal heretic. The inquisition is out to silence him.

  • Sarah Snow

    0bama and the CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange) Billy Ayers/Al Gore/ Maurice Strong/Richard Sandor killed off 1142 people on 9/11/2001 in direct completion with the CCX,,They killed off Carlton Bartels and gave his CO2 carbon trading computer system to Franklin Raines of FM/FM

    .

    http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2013/03/11/follow-the-money-chemtrails-911-climate-change-trillions-in-carbon-trading/

  • goodbyecountry

    Mark Steyn makes me laugh about things I would otherwise cry over.

    • w8n4snow

      Excellent post! And boy did I laugh a lot while reading his book “After America.”

  • 11bravo

    In the end Steyn will win (as truth always does) if he/you have enough money. I think Mark didn’t agree with NRO’s tactics on the case, not because they simply abandoned him.
    I hope not anyway. Or, I will never read NRO again, or any of their people who do not resign in support of Mark.
    Mann-made global warming is a hoax!!

    • jimini9

      NR has been faltering since BB sailed away. I stopped reading it until Mark Steyn appeared in NRO. I’ll read Mark wherever he resides, but I would not be surprised if NR abandons him. Like the Beltway Republicans, NRO is spineless.

  • Argus

    And now out trots John Kerry and his impeccable credulity. He does, after all, have THE HAT to prove it (ever more moldy and still kept in a secret briefcase compartment that even his best friends don’t know about…just ask him)…

    John Kerry to make clarion call for more action on climate change

    What a perfect spokesman for the integrity of warm-mongering.

  • brickman

    So when was Einstein compared to a pedophile?

    • Carbonicus

      don’t conflate Mann with Einstein. One was brilliant and made major contributions to the human race.

      The other is an embarrassment to science and is a political activist.

      • Gl Remote

        Einstein was an embarrassment to the established science. More than 97% of the Newtonians consensus thought he was wrong. Evidence saved him. Evidence dooms Mann but the media hasn’t let it out.

    • csmats

      Einstein wasn’t as far as I know, and Carb’s post below hits the nail on the head, but let me point out as well that Larry Flynt, in his Hustler porn rag, portrayed Jerry Falwell as having an incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse. Not “compared,” mind you, but directly “portrayed.” The Supreme Court ruled that Falwell is a public figure while Flynt was engaging in satire and thus ruled against Falwell on free speech grounds.

      If the same doesn’t apply to Mann as a public figure and Steyn as a satirist then our justice system is beyond repair. This should be something on which liberals and conservatives are in complete agreement.

    • w8n4snow

      brickman, should the tea party sue MSNBC, CNN, and every other media outlet, for calling them “terrorists,” “arsonists?” See, the law does not exist for only those with whom you agree.

      • brickman

        If Chris Matthews calls Victoria Jackson a pedophile and she wants to sue. I would be OK with that.

    • falstaff77

      “So when was Einstein compared to a pedophile?”

      Apropos question. Einstein was in fact viciously attacked with all kinds of personal calumnies by the antisemitic German scientific community. He made the mistake of objecting to them in writing. Later, and wiser, he commented on his response:

      “Everyone has to offer his sacrifice at the altar of stupidity from time to time, for the amusement of God and man”

      • brickman

        Great post. I noticed your screen name. I just finished reading Henry IV Part 1. Ripping good stuff.

  • 9Thomas_LaBelle

    Just so. Like Spartacus, we should all claim to be Mark Steyn. The freedom to agree with authority isn’t much of a freedom at all.

  • Kathy Jung

    Replace the word “denier” with “heretic” and the phrase “libel suit” with “Salem Witch Trial” and you’ll see much more clearly.

    AGW is the the new Catholic Church. And any who blaspheme against the Church’s handed-down Dogma are excommunicated.

    If you don’t understand this simple fact about today’s world, then you don’t understand anything.

    • FreedomFan

      CAGW = Creationism for Democrats

  • The Demon Slick

    Free speech is for all speech. Speech people like doesn’t need to be protected.

  • Faith Wano

    When Mark wrote that the Boston bombers stole a car with a “Peace” bumper sticker, my husband and I didn’t notice until we read him and still smile at this image. We bought a gift certificate, thanks for this article in support of our friend Mark.

  • formonitoring

    You say:

    “Einstein insisted that before his claims were taken seriously, they must first be verified by empirical observation, in the form of three specific tests….”

    Then you say

    “Einstein’s rigour and integrity inspired Karl Popper to form his influential theories on falsification: that a scientific theory is only useful if it contains the key to its own destruction”

    So you have gone from verification to falsification in one paragraph. You clearly don’t understand what Popperian falsification is. It means that no theory is ever verified – it simply remains the unfalsified theory that best fits the evidence.

    That means that no theory we work with – why bridges stay up, why chemo cures some cancers – are ever verified. General relativity may be displaced, just as it displaced Newtonian mechanics.

    However, Newtonian mechanics remains a better theory, rendering better predictions than does Ptolemaic astronomy; and general relativity renders better predictions than Newton;s theory.

    AGW theory is completely falsifiable, over a significant period; but it remains by far the best fit to the available evidence – just as Darwinian evolution remains the best fit to the fossil record, in a way that could only be falsified with difficulty.

    We steer our actions with regard to evolution – testing medications on the animals most similar to us, for example – and falsifiability tells us we should steer our actions by the theory of AGW, and only alter that if a better theory comes along.

    Thanks for the contribution change – oh, and Popper got his falsification theory from working on logical positivism in Vienna. It was a series of philosophical reasoning not some lightbulb moment.

    • FreedomFan

      “AGW theory is completely falsifiable, over a significant period; but it remains by far the best fit to the available evidence ”

      Bunk. Over what “significant period” exactly? What Warmist has ever specified ANY criteria that would falsify CAGW?

      • formonitoring

        Well, that’s the difficulty with managing long term change. There’s plenty of criteria that would falsify AGW – if the termperature went down sharply and consistently, as the ratio of C02 and other gases in the atmosphere continued to rise. The criteria are implicit in the AGW hypothesis. The scientist drafting them doesnt have to specify them.

        The same is true on a different scale with the human body. The theory is that high cholesterol will increase your chances of death over a longish period. So most people take statins, even though they have seide-effects, and may hasten fatal liver damage. The cholesterol-heart disease theory is far from fully proved, and could – in its current form – be falsified within the next 5-10 years.

        But it is still rational to take statins now, rather than waiting to see what turns up. And the same goes for addressing AGW

      • Carbonicus

        IPCC scientist Ben Santer. Said if we went 17 years from (???) it would prove the IPCC models were wrong. And it’s been about 17 years.

        • formonitoring

          source, please and link. otherwise of no use.

    • Gl Remote

      “Newtonian mechanics remains a better theory, rendering better predictions than does Ptolemaic astronomy; and general relativity renders better predictions than Newton;s theory” Punxsutawney Phil remains a better theory rendering better predictions than Mann’s “Hocky stick” video game.

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      Arrant nonsense.

      Stop making stuff up.

    • glashoppah

      The author did not say that Einstein’s *theory* had been verified, only that his claims about it had. Oops.