I’m not going to talk about Mark Steyn, other than to say that if you know who Rush Limbaugh is, Mark Steyn is a bit to the right and a tad more obnoxious, but not as smart.
You can find out more by clicking here, using the Climate Change Science Search Engine.
I’m also not going to say much about Judith Curry except that, unlike Steyn, she was a regular scientist who did climate science. Over time the material she has written, both in peer reviewed journals and on her blog, has become increasingly aligned with those who are highly skeptical that global warming is real. She has a theory that global warming is an artifact of models (even though we can see it without the use of models), and I’m pretty sure she’s been wrong about almost everything she’s done recently. But, that’s how science works. Sometimes a scientist is wrong. Some are not wrong very often. Some are wrong almost all the time. It’s a thankless job, but somebody’s got to do it. Maybe someday she’ll start getting more useful results with her work.
Anyway, Mark Steyn has recently aligned himself with the Mens Rights Movements, and Slyme Pit (you know who they are), in other words, antifeminist, pro harassment, not-too-concerned-about-rape crowd, in their cottage industry of giving me a hard time on the Internet. That fits since he is, after all, to the right of, and not quite as smart as, Rush Limbaugh.
And now, Judith Curry, has aligned herself with Mark Steyn and his systematic harassment of climate scientist Michael Mann, and to a lesser extent, me.
This is a tweet favoriting a tweet by Mark Steyn pointing to his own blog post in which he carries out obnoxious attacks on Mann and me. For my part, he points to this post on my blog, which he takes to be an indication that I stalked a particular woman. Go read the post. Tell me if shutting down a crazed graduate student who was harassing other grad students, an undergrad, and a few others, using standard procedures (telling mom and dad, in this case) is stalking. It isn’t. Also, tell me if Judith Curry’s favoriting of this tweet indicates her approval of Steyn’s methods. Does it?
This “favoriting” of Steyn’s tweet of his post by Curry seems to align Curry with the worst of the worst. Did she also “like” Rush Limbaugh’s assertion that Sandra Fluke needs to keep an aspirin between her knees, and that the tax payers should not be paying her to have sex? Or Rush Limbaugh’s comments making fun of kids who need help getting a simple lunch at school? I’m hoping, though, that Judith Curry simply was unaware of how much of a misanthrope Steyn is, maybe she’s never heard of him before and doesn’t know that he is this incredibly offensive person, and just saw someone taking a jab at Mike and clicked on the little “favorite” button.
It was after all, just a “favoriting” of a tweet by Steyn. Which means Curry can step back from this with a simple apology to Michael Mann and me. Then, no big deal, I’d move on. Up to her.
Or, she could not do that. But I really didn’t think she was that kind of person. But maybe she is.
(See also this response to Steyn’s tweet.)
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Greg,
Is there a transcript of that? Just curious. Limited data plan here.
======
Cosmic,
Just for the record, I think Mann has a case and I hope he wins decisively.
If you recall we were talking generalities based on the snotty attack against Sou. Something completely different to my mind.
OA:
“Just for the record, I think Mann has a case and I hope he wins decisively.”
Just for the record, I don’t. It will be interesting revisiting this thread in a year or two when the verdict of history is known. 🙂
Obstreperous: No, there never is for that show. The file is 9 megabytes, but I suppose downloading that is not much more efficient than streaming it.
Often cases like this won’t even get to a decision. They’ll be settled along the way. With Steyn as a defendant, that may not be in the cards. I think he’ll want to take it to the end.
That, in itself, I think is going to put the defendants at cross purposes, and since they’re not keeping common counsel, that potentially means different results for each defendant. I’m really not sure how that works but it certainly makes the potential outcome(s) more complex.
My sense is, there’s far more to this case than just Steyn’s libelous statement. Otherwise why even bother with it? It’s a solid enough case to successfully move forward through the courts, and with that there are I believe pretty serious implications for CEI in the discovery process.
My prediction is, as this moves forward, the central figure of this case is going to become CEI rather than Steyn.
This might be of interest: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/10/07/what-is-the-role-of-the-deep-ocean-in-global-warming-climate-science-deniers-get-this-wrong/
Obstreperous Applesauce #351 –
1. Avoid unnecessary irritation. When reproducing an argument, be accurate. Don’t make the other person say: That’s not what I/you said.
2. Avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. Be clear.
Thanks for the link. I think we can agree that a reputation is intangible and that any measure would be subjective. But if you could show that remarks designed to damage another’s reputation had been accepted or acclaimed by a number of others, or given broad media exposure, I imagine you would win your case.
Re. Sou: DonB’s statement was defamatory, but it may not be actionable. In any case, one possible response would be a consistent policy to ban such remarks from a website.
From Climate Science Watch:
“In January 2014 District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Weisberg found that Dr. Mann’s lawsuit should not be dismissed pursuant to the District Of Columbia’s Anti-SLAPP statute. Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently is a factual allegation that can be proven true or false, not mere hyperbolic opinionating. If it is false it is defamatory, and if it is made with actual malice it is actionable.”
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/09/03/michael-mann-dc-appeals-court-brief-sept3-2014/
“Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently is a factual allegation that can be proven true or false, not mere hyperbolic opinionating. If it is false it is defamatory, and if it is made with actual malice it is actionable.”
Hard to disagree with Weisberg. It’s not mere rhetorical flourish. It’s just about the worst factual allegation one can imaginably make against a scientist.
DonB,
good question. My (legally naïve/slash/idealistic) take on this would be that scientific fraud is a Boolean, true or false accusation. This is because science—perhaps uniquely among academic disciplines?—has a set of rules, often known as the scientific method, absolutely forbidding dishonesty. Mann either broke them or left them intact.
I would hope the judge sees it somewhat like a scientist would see it: id est, that dishonesty is as bad as anything a scientist could be accused of, and that such an accusation goes much further than a simple matter of disagreement or “getting the wrong answer.” Being human, most scientists are wrong about most things, but they’re also honest—and to allege otherwise is deeply injurious to a scientist’s character, honor and legacy.
They say (at least if they’re as legally-naïve as me) that truth is an absolute defense in libel cases. Ideal[istical]ly it should be the only defense Steyn, Simberg et al. are allowed to invoke in this particular case. Or if not truth, then at least their own perception of truth at the time of writing. The just-flamboyant-rhetoric defense would leave a bad taste in the mouth of all parties, I think.
Note that my twitter buddy Rand Simberg has scientific training himself, so he must be aware how serious it is to impute that a fellow scientist “molested and tortured data.” Not the kind of thing one would say lightly.
Your feedback welcome!
PS I suspect you know a lot more than me about actual wars, so please excuse in advance any mangling of the metaphor on my part.
Catch up Don, that FUND model was as bent as a 3-bob note.
Here’s a competent model, Don:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DICE_model
And here’s a short summary of what Tol/Lomborg are trying to hide with their dodgy model:
http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.43084.de/diw_wr_2005-12.pdf
“In Germany, a climate protection policy that immediately implements effective measures would cost 5.7 billion US dollars in 2050 and 40 billion US dollars in 2100. At the same time, however, climate change damages amounting to 33 billion US dollars in 2050 and 160 billion US dollars in 2100
would be avoided.”
And here it is in pictures for the dumbulbs who might have been taken in by the dodgy dodgy dodgy Tol/Lomborg crapola:
http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Action_vs_Inaction_500.jpg
DonB… Actually, Carlin’s view is certainly not scientifically based, but I think he’s actually putting forth a position that is fairly consistent with the science. In essence, Carlin is saying we’re too stupid to fix this and Nature will take care of the “human” problem in it’s own way.
My problem is, that view suggests that there is going to be a massive amount of human suffering that occurs while nature fixes things. I have a hard time thinking it’s okay to assume that outcome and do nothing to try to find an alternative path.
Carlin may be right. I hope that we will find the intelligence within ourselves to address the climate problem and avert the worst outcomes.
At very least I want to know that I tried my best to help future generations, rather than giving up while action could still be taken.
Well, I do have this PhD in science. So kiss my ass.
And, of course, DonB is nobody specific.
Don… You might take note of the fact that Dana actually has a growing list of published peer reviewed research on climate change issues.
Can you say the same?
DonB appears to discuss climate change much in the same way that a pigeon may wield a chess piece in its beak with absolutely no idea what it is for.
Time to move on and consign the Luddites and vandals to the trash can of history. We have work to do.
You certainly seem to be.
DonB,
You have apparently wandered into the wrong room. This is a science site. No doubt there are numerous “fucking ass kicking” sites you can visit where you’ll be in your element.
Don… “I am not your regular troll.”
Okay.
Anyway, let us know when you have something of substance to contribute.
But Rob, he did: #394, “let’s just delete [my DonB] comments!”
I’m a little late coming to this party, but I wanted to get this out there.
Laden’s post here could be construed as rather misleading.
The tweet that Curry liked or favorited or whatever was to a post containing the material in a blurb about Laden and Mann. However, it also contained a sizeable blurb specifically dedicated to Curry and her dispute with Mann.
I would suspect it was THAT material at the link Curry was specifically favoriting. And, Laden, being a smart guy, would probably suspect this too. However, giving Curry a fair reading would result in the loss of an opportunity to break out the fainting couch and demand an apology.
Additionally, I’ve read Steyn for years. I have never seen him write ONE WORD on the “men’s rights” movement. He has his hobby horses – global warming alarmism, muslim extremism, the regulatory state, government over-reach, demographics, and fiscal irresponsibility, but “men’s rights” is no where on the list – at least as “men’s rights” is commonly understood. Googling “Mark Steyn and men’s rights” turned up zero hits for this, nor did “mark steyn and father’s rights”. At least on the first page.
Nor have I ever heard him reference “slyme pit” before. And googling Mark Steyn and slyme pit” or “mark steyn and slymepit” has this blog post, or others linking it, as three of the top four links, with the fourth being a comment on a page made by a reader containing a reference to Mark Steyn. I didn’t see any type of direct listing of Steyn with Slyme Pit.
One would think that the blogger’s actions here (making a gross misrepresentation of someone’s actions, while peppering in some misleading cat nip for his readers) would cause some of his staunchest defenders to look again at defending him. The world, and our causes, would be better served by not equating defending our allies with defending our causes.
Greg, you’re an Eco-Leftist. Judith Curry is an expert in her field and was regularly touted by Eco-Leftist warmunists like yourself when her work seemed to support your ideology.
The minute she began to question the ideology and to consider that the prevailing ideology/(lack of)wisdom is wrong, you Warmunists toss her to the curb and then lift your leg on her.
You’re a loser, Eco-Leftist.
Serious scientists started to write odd Curry when her science went off the rails. But thank you for that new word, Warmunists.
With a few notable exceptions, I Have never seen a more immature group of supposed adults in my life. You people, with your cutesy monikers and self righteous indignation are the “scientists” we’re supposed to trust with our research dollars? No wonder you don’t use your real names.
Real science isn’t “settled”. Real scientists question the accepted orthodoxy and try and prove it wrong. Most of the climate “science” I read about is based on the tenuous hypothesis of AGW. Without this, where are you?
Whatever Mark Steyn said about Michael Mann will be settled in court, where adults go and use their real names, and stand behind their statements.
When all is said and done, will the church of climatology shift back to the cooling theory, espoused when I was a kid, if that’s where the grant money is? I’m betting yes.
With a few notable exceptions, I Have never seen a more immature group of supposed adults in my life. You people, with your cutesy monikers and self righteous indignation are the “deniers” we’re supposed to trust instead of our research? No wonder you don’t use your real names.
Real science isn’t “settled”, but evolves as it reveals reality. Real scientists question the accepted orthodoxy and try and prove it wrong. Most of the deniers’ “climate science” I read about is based on bogus hypotheses of CAGW charlatans. Without this, where are you?
Whatever Mark Steyn said about Michael Mann will be settled in court, where adults go and use their real names, and stand behind their statements.
When all is said and done, will the church of climate denierology shift back to yet another hairbrained “theory”, espoused just last week, if that’s where the denier donation money is? I’m betting yes.