More on Mann v. National Review et al.

facebooktwittergoogle_plus

Following up on our recent post on Michael Mann's defamation lawsuit against National Review et al., we note this: Mann Vs. Steyn: Steve McIntyre Weighs In,  in response to an item posted by the Volokh Conspiracy, a 'libertarian' online legal issues blog at the Washington Post (Steve McIntyre: was Michael Mann “exonerated” by the Oxburgh Panel?).

We've been posting some of the court documents on developments in this very interesting lawsuit, along with some informational commentary. As we've said, we don't intend to litigate the case here, in either posts or comments. But when the Washington Post gives online real estate to a one-sided item related to the case, based on channeling Steve McIntyre, we thought it worthwhile to call attention to a response.

Also, for scientific perspective on the underlying research issue, see Stefan Rahmstorf, Co-Chair of Earth System Analysis, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick (July 8, 2013):

The past 2000 years of climate change have now been reconstructed in more detail than ever before by the PAGES 2k project. The results reveal interesting regional differences between the different continents, but also important common trends. The global average of the new reconstruction looks like a twin of the original “hockey stick”, the first such reconstruction published fifteen years ago.

78 researchers from 24 countries, together with many other colleagues, worked for seven years in the PAGES 2k project on the new climate reconstruction. “2k” stands for the last 2000 years, while PAGES stands for the Past Global Changes program launched in 1991. Recently, their new study was published in Nature Geoscience. It is based on 511 climate archives from around the world, from sediments, ice cores, tree rings, corals, stalagmites, pollen or historical documents and measurements (Fig. 1). All data are freely available. ... [read the full post, which very concisely synthesizes the state of paleoclimate science understanding, with several illuminating graphics.]

On PAGES, the Past Global Changes project, see here. On the PAGES-2k synthesis, see, e.g., here and here.

A number of Deep Climate posts on on Steve McIntyre, starting with Another “climategate” whopper from McIntyre

Earlier CSW post:

Setting the record straight on misleading claims against Michael Mann (February 25)

This entry was posted in Attacks on Climate Science and Scientists. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to More on Mann v. National Review et al.

  1. Hockey Schtick says:

    You guys are a fraud, claiming to support integrity in climate science, while deleting comments that question your claims.

    Fortunately, the internet is free and your censorship will be reported & exposed to support integrity in climate science.

    • Rick - Climate Science Watch says:

      Hockey Schtick--
      Generally we don't post comments, like the one you sent earlier, whose only purpose is to claim to 'debunk' the work of the leading climate scientists, and to promote climate contrarian websites with views that are well outside the science mainstream. Those sites already have plenty of exposure, and are used by denialist politicians in their attacks on climate scientists and rational climate policy. We're not into inviting you to hijack the discussion into going back to square one on the question of whether anthropogenic climate change is a problem. We're not 'censoring' you, we're just exercising editorial judgment about what belongs on this publication. As you say, the Internet is free, and has plenty of places for you to post.

    • Marcel Kincaid says:

      In fact scientific integrity demands that lies not be published. Even the Los Angeles Times and Reddit no longer post the lies of climate science deniers.

  2. Joe Galliani says:

    My local newspaper, the Los Angeles Times no longer accepts letters from climate change deniers. It isn't censorship, it's what we call sanity. There's no reason those of us who aren't insane should have to listen to or read the rantings of Bizarro World inhabitants about facts which are not in doubt. They may have a right to say it, but we also have a right to say, "talk to the hand."

  3. Bryson Brown says:

    Hey, 'Hockey Schtick'- what makes you qualified to judge climate science? Mann's work has been confirmed and (greatly) extended since it first appeared. The Berkeley 'BEST' group, lauded (before their results came out) by Mr. Watts himself, confirmed (redundantly) the recent temperature increase. Talking so loud and proud looks pretty silly when you haven't got the evidence to back your views up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>