Shorter Mark Steyn: It's OK for me to defame him because Michael Mann is a public figure. And what's worse, he doesn't behave like the "real man" that I am.
--
B) Is it really true that Mann's lawyer says "Ca Ching!" every time Steyn rants online?
Nothing could be further from the truth.
ReplyDeleteIs Steyn directing his minions here to defend him?
ReplyDeletemark steyn should be looking at THIS
ReplyDeletewhitewash
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/16/243669_senates-inquiry-into-cia-torture.html?rh=1
Tony, you're right. But if he can't blame it on Muslims, Steyn isn't interested.
ReplyDeleteWay to post the gist of the article. Would it have been better if Steyn just called him a whinny bitch?
ReplyDeleteI don't know what Mann's lawyers hear except crickets at the lines where people that filed briefs in support of Mann were supposed to form.
Sad little blog...
ReplyDeleteB) Is it really true that Mann's lawyer says "Ca Ching!" every time Steyn rants online?
ReplyDeleteYes... everytime Steyn rants about another lie submitted in Mann's legal briefs (Nobel Laureate, et. al), the lawyers salivate at the prospect of further delay and therefore greater cost to Mann.
Of course they risk their own reputations by filing knowingly false legal briefs to the court...
Sim: Are you aware Fred Singer made the same claim about him and John Christy?
ReplyDelete"John Christy, my fellow skeptic and fellow co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize (by virtue of having our names listed in IPCC reports) in the WSJ [ITEM #4]"
http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2007/November%203.htm
David: Fred was mistaken. John did make it clear that he was not a Nobel Laureate in the referenced piece, which is good.
ReplyDeleteNeither of them were making the claim in a court of law, where I understand that false statements are frowned upon, to say the least.
Sim: So Fred Singer was allowed to "mistaken," but no one else is?
ReplyDeleteYou're not being consistent, and your bias is obvious.
"allowed" ? That is a strange comment. Can you expand on what you mean by 'allowed'?
ReplyDeleteI most certainly am being consistent. We were presented with 3 people... Mann, Singer, and Christy.
One outright lied, in a court of law, about being "a Nobel Laureate". That is Mann. I did not criticize Mann at all, but merely noted that his lawyers benefit from the lie monetarily, but risk their reputations.
Another person referred to "my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." 'Slice' is an informal term used to convey association with, but not ownership or reception of, the IPCC's Peace Prize. To make it extra clear that this is his meaning, he specifically notes said 'slice' to be unofficial. This person is of course Christy. There is nothing to criticize here as he was entirely factual, as I'm sure you'd agree, and so I did not criticize him.
The final person claimed to be a "co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize (by virtue of having our names listed in IPCC reports)." This person is Singer. His claim is false, like Mann's. I criticized Singer as being mistaken, since he indeed was wrong.
Finally, I noted that lying in official legal briefs submitted to the court by the plaintiff of a lawsuit is worse than lying in a throwaway comment on a tiny blog.
So where exactly is your point of disagreement? I suppose a pedant might disagree with the preceding paragraph, though and I'd be happy to concede the point for argument's sake.
After all, in my initial comment mocking Mann, I never claimed that his mistake has never been made by anyone else in the entire world. I addressed only Mann as engaging in deceptive behavior and you have not disagreed or refuted my point. And despite the fact that you responded with a non sequitur, I answered your comment honestly and without bias, as the above analysis shows.
Given the above, and with all due respect, I think if anyone here is showing bias, sir, it is you. But I am happy to continue discussion of the question further.
If Singer can call himself a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize, why can't anyone who's contributed to the IPCC (pre-2007) claim the same thing.
ReplyDeleteAnd what's wrong with people who have done great work and are proud of it call themselves a Nobel laureate? Science is increasingly being done by collaborations, but there is no word for a member of a group that won the Nobel Prize. The default is "laureaute."
If you weren't complaining about this, you'd be complaining about something else -- anything to take the focus off of our rapidly warmng world.
If Singer can call himself a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize, why can't anyone who's contributed to the IPCC (pre-2007) claim the same thing. "can" is as strange a word as "allowed". He can do it, but it's false, a lie, as I said.
ReplyDeleteAnd what's wrong with people who have done great work and are proud of it call themselves a Nobel laureate?
It's fraudulent David. Nobel Laureate has a very specific meaning. The Nobel Committee themselves has stated that Mann is not a Nobel Laureate, and that he should stop calling himself that.
Science is increasingly being done by collaborations, but there is no word for a member of a group that won the Nobel Prize.
The IPCC didn't win the Nobel award for any scientific work. They won the Peace Prize. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand why that distinction matters.
The default is 'laureaute'
Actually no.
Each recipient, or "laureate", receives a gold medal, a diploma, and a sum of money, which is decided by the Nobel Foundation, yearly.
A laureate is an officially designated person by the Nobel committee. They have an official diploma certifying them as such. If the Nobel committee chooses to recognize a team of researchers, the team all get diplomas.
If you weren't complaining about this, you'd be complaining about something else
I'm not complaining about anything. Of the two of us, you seem the whiner. I merely stated a fact: Mann lied in his legal briefs to the court. You have not disputed this fact.
-- anything to take the focus off of our rapidly warmng world.
Please define 'warming' and 'rapidly', and then provide evidence that 'our rapidly warming world' is an accurate statement of the state of the earth's climate over the last two decades.
This is science and the law we are speaking of, David. Vague and squishy thinking has no place here.
Sim K, as far as I can see you outright lied above when you claimed that Mann, in a court of law, said anything about being "a Nobel Laureate".
ReplyDeleteMann's original complaint raised in court, written by Cozen O'Connor, said that "Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize" and discussed "personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient", this was apparently withdrawn in the revised complaint that now stands before another court.
While the wording has been criticized, the Nobel award was originally announced as "Gore, scientists share Nobel Peace Prize" and the IPCC chairman stated "All the scientists that have contributed to the work of the IPCC are the Nobel laureates who have been recognized and acknowledged by the Nobel Prize Committee".
It was only in October 2012, after Mann's court case had started, that the IPCC issued its "clarification" that the "prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organisation, and not to any individual involved with the IPCC".
So that's the straw that Steyn is clutching, a common misunderstanding that has now been clarified by all concerned, including Mann. Big deal.
the silly assertion that Mann is fraudulently calling himself a nobel laureate, rather shows the hollowness of the denier position. While it may be an overextended claim, it is not fraudulent. The IPCC DID win a nobel prize and Mann's contribution to that is real. Mann and other scientists have received acknowledgment from the IPCC.
ReplyDeleteI just posted Mann's talk in Bristol and compared it to this rather obscene screed from Steyn. He thinks he is a bad ass rebel. Kind of the way I think Ted Nugent and Rush Limbaugh think they are bad asses.
Except Mann;s talk was all scientifically accurate.e No lies no distortions. Reasonable no rhetoric.
steyn's post is all rhetoric and mockery.
Good points, Tony. Harpng on the Nobel Prize indicates a weak hand.
ReplyDeleteAnd mockery is about all Steyn has ever had.
David,
ReplyDeleteGreat comment of yours at Curry's blog.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/18/back-from-the-twitter-twilight-zone-responses-to-my-wsj-op-ed/#comment-639264
I can no longer comment there as I am banned, so I appreciate others such as yourself pointing out her politically-guided and lame (?) attempts at doing science.
Thanks WHT, I appreciate your comment. Afterward I thought perhaps I went a little too far, but perhaps not.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know Curry banned people. Anymore she she looks WUWT-like blog, not a scientist.
And now I'm on moderation at Curry's blog. Reminds me of other denier blogs that do that.
ReplyDeleteyup, that could likely be permanent moderation, which is essentially the same as being banned. Welcome to the club.
ReplyDelete