Oh Mann…

IPCC, Michael Mann, Videnskab — Drokles on February 27, 2014 at 12:23 pm

Michael Mann er skaberen af den berømte ishockeystavsgraf, der viste en stabil temperatur tusind år tilbage i tiden indtil den industrielle revolution tog fart og tvang temperaturen opad i en stadig stejlere gradient. ’skabt’ var ordet for der er ingen basis for rigtigheden og temperaturen er ikke steget de seneste 17 år, mens CO2 udledningen er acceleret.

Grafen var så stærkt et propagandaredskab at den erstattede hidtidig konsensus om romersk og middelalder varmeperioder og små istider som Maunder og Dalton minimaerne og den blev plastret udover klimapanelets rapport 2001. Den begejstrede modtagelse fra klimaekspertisens konsensus der vendte op og ned på alt, den troede at vide med vanlig skråsikkerhed baseret på en enkelt graf lavet af en mand, der opnåede at blive professor ved samme graf talte sit eget tydelige sprog om confirmation bias, at ville se sin forudindtagethed bekræftet.

Siden er grafen blevet diskrediteret som i det mindste et stykke makværk og Mann har brugt de seneste mange år og trukket på stadigt flere af sine gode kontakter på at smæde enhver der borede i hans metoder og resultater. Manns store netværk af villige journalister og kollegaer og institutioner har endda givet ham mod på at føre law-fare mod kritikere. Men det er et dårligt træk når man ikke har rent mel i posen og folk ikke lader sig skræmme. Principia Scientific skriver

Massive counterclaims, in excess of $10 million, have just been filed against climate scientist Michael Mann after lawyers affirmed that the former golden boy of global warming alarmism had sensationally failed in his exasperating three-year bid to sue skeptic Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. Door now wide open for criminal investigation into Climategate conspiracy.

Buoyed by Dr Ball’s successes, journalist and free-speech defender, Mark Steyn has promptly decided to likewise countersue Michael Mann for $10 million in response to a similar SLAPP suit filed by the litigious professor from Penn. State University against not just Steyn, but also the National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg. Ball’s countersuit against Mann seeks “exemplary and punitive damages. ” Bishop Hill blog is running extracts of Steyn’s counterclaim, plus link.

Mann’s chief undoing in all such lawsuits is highlighted in a quote in Steyn’s latest counterclaim:

“Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its [his science’s] respectability - by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field. See Cuccinelli vs Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia…”

At last, after 3 years of legal wrangling, it is made clear why I was so bold as to formally undertake an indemnity to fully compensate Dr Ball for my own actions in the event Mann won the case.  Respected Aussie climate commentator, Jo Nova was one of the few to commend my unparalled commitment to Ball’s cause.

Steyn’s legal team, aware of the latest developments from Vancouver, have correctly adduced that Ball has effectively defeated Mann after the Penn. State pretender’s preposterous and inactive lawsuit against Ball was rendered dormant for failure to prosecute. Under law, Mann’s prevarications, all his countless fudging and evasiveness in the matter, establishes compelling evidence that his motive was not to prove Ball had defamed him, but more likely a cynical attempt to silence fair and honest public criticism on a pressing and contentious government policy issue.

The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs “in the state pen, not Penn. State.

Mann er som sagt ikke blot en enkelt svindler, der har forurenet den videnskabelige suppe. Han blev ophøjet og fejret fordi han fortalte et konsensus den historie de ville høre. Og den historie var en løgn.

1 Kommentar »

  1. Je vois directement que vous connaissez très bien ce
    que vous avancez

    Comment by Sylvia — June 22, 2014 @ 6:50 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress