Why Mann must be stopped

Doing things outside climate for a while has given me a new perspective. So it was interesting reading the post on Bishop Hill. I’ve never doubted that Steyn would win in a fair courtroom. And when I saw the appalling lies from Mann’s submissions to the court it seemed Steyn would win in even a wholly biased court.
However, from the “body language” described by Bishop Hill, it now appears that most of his “team” (if that is still a relevant term) don’t much care for him either.
And it all seems so civilised – giving him the “cold shoulder” in public. But don’t they see the implications when Mann loses? As far as the public are concerned Mann – or at least the notorious hockey stick is “global warming”. So, when Mann loses, it will show that “global warming” is wrong and every single climate academic from Hansen to Curry to Jones to Spencer will be tarred with the same brush as having been found guilty of … how to put this “it being reasonable to suggest fraud”.
So what are they thinking? The answer seems to me that global warming is more a huge cock-up than any conspiracy. Because if there was some master-mind co-ordinating this scam, then they would have had the sense to ditch Mann a long time ago and certainly would not have gone to the edge like this.
And when the case goes against Mann, there’s no way the academic world of “science” can dismiss its own part in it. Because as Mann has put so well, there have been many investigations which had the opportunity to investigate Mann’s malpractice and not once did any of them do the job thoroughly leaving it eventually to the verdict of the court.
After the court
I’ve no doubt that a host of professional writers are even now beavering away looking to capitalise on the market for climate conspiracy post the Mann trial. And, when others see the success this first group have, then they’ll be joined until there’s a whole genre of “climate/science conspiracy” books and novels capitalising on the freedom to portray climate science as dishonest and corrupt so that soon they will make Dr Strangelove look like a text book.
So what options?

  1. Try to fiddle climate data (I just put this in for a laugh)
  2. Try to persuade Mann to drop the case – and end his career in ignominy. And would he play along? Is he competent enough to play along?
  3. Try to buy off Mann to end the case with some important job (who would give him an important job?)
  4. Try to buy off Steyn – who must now know he will win – so it will be hugely expensive and would he take it?
  5. Buy the court – it will have crossed their minds. I’ve no idea how easy it is to buy US judges, but even if its feasible, this case is too clear cut even for a corrupt judge.
  6. Kill either Steyn or more likely Mann … that seemed the only option … but now I’ve remembered that cases have continued after the litigants death.
  7. Change the law (not easy to do in retrospect)
  8. For the “scientists” to start attacking Mann to portray him as having tricked them. There’s no sign of this and it’s rather late in the day now.

No, the only option I can see, is to quietly suggest to the judge that this case is “kicked into the long grass” in the hope everyone else who will get caught in the shit when this explodes can stay out of the fray until their retirement.

This entry was posted in Academia, Fails. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Why Mann must be stopped

  1. aelfheld says:

    Michael Mann makes the same mistake as Oscar Wilde, thinking his notoriety protects him from repercussions.
    While the available evidence indicates Mann is guilty of gross indecency with his data it’s unlikely we’ll see the equivalent of The Ballad of Reading Gaol come from this.

    • scottishsceptic says:

      I suspect it is far simpler. He is surrounded by green idiots who treat him like some god and really don’t care about the science – and he is deluded enough to think a jury will take the same view.
      Really sad, because what is obvious to you and me is something he just cannot see.

      • Robert Bell says:

        He is surrounded by green idiots, yes, but that is mainly because he has cut off (“blocked”) anyone who has had the temerity to question him. On a par with his efforts to redefine, if necessary, what are reputable publications. So, due to his extraordinary thin skin, there is no hope of saving Dr. Mann. It is for all other climate scientists, rather, to immediately distance themselves as much as possible from him. One possibility would be to testify on behalf of the individuals/organizations Mann has sued.

  2. Pingback: The Mann Lawsuit | Transterrestrial Musings

  3. Drewski says:

    I doubt that Steyn will win or Ball or BR or CEI. Why? Because they all defamed him by saying he is criminal (Ball: “He belongs in the State Penn”) or the rest who said that he molested data and his work was fraudulent. And these statements came that after clamoring for investigations into Mann’s work that, when they did happen, found no evidence of fraud or data molesting. And many of the world’s top scientists and statisticians were part of these multiple inquiries which basically means that Mann was given the scientific seal of approval.
    Mann gave NR and CEI the opportunity to retract their statements, but they refused so it went to court. In court, the defendants tried to get a summary judgement, but two judges said that Mann’s case has merit. Since then, NR and Steyn have parted ways (along with some parting shots) and there have been no further updates from the courts. So how is it you can say that Steyn will win?particualry as Steyn has used some very questionable tactics in his constantly running monologue. For example, Steyn has lambasted the judges that preside over the case (great tactic that) and he makes nonsensical statements about Mann’s work by saying Mann couldn’t predict the future which only proves that he doesn’t understand that Mann’s work is in reconstructing the past.
    No, Steyn, Ball, CEI and NR look like toast to me. The only question that remains is how much they will have to pay.

    • scottishsceptic says:

      23,000 more people a year die in the UK in the winter months. The increasing cost of fuel as a direct result of Mann’s Hockey has undoubtedly resulted in many more deaths.
      UK Bankers were prosecuted for a much less serious crime of just fixing the interbank lending rate. Mann intentionally misled the whole international community, largely for his own gain (to keep his prestigious job) which in most jurisdictions is a crime punishable by prison.
      That kind of misconduct might be tolerated within academia when you are merely presenting papers to other academics, but when you step into the policy arena and cause massive costs and serious personal injury, then you must expect criminal sanctions.
      When Mann loses this case, the next one is likely to be a criminal one.

  4. Drewski says:

    “increasing cost of fuel as a direct result of Mann’s Hockey has undoubtedly resulted in many more deaths”
    How can you expect to be taken seriously with statements like that?

    • scottishsceptic says:

      It is generally accepted that fuel poverty is a major contribution to winter deaths. Mann’s bogus hockey stick was instrumental in getting the kinds of policies that have dramatically increased fuel bills for the poor.
      Mann’s false Hockey stick is therefore very likely to have directly resulted in increased numbers of winter deaths and hardship and poverty for many others.

      • Drewski says:

        Are you sure that it was SPECIFICALLY Mann’s Hockey Stick from last millennium that has caused the recent rise in fuel prices? Maybe it was one of the 24 more recent hockey sticks that are to blame.
        Personally, I think that it probably has more to do with the 1 billion new middle-class citizens that now inhabit the earth comapred to 15 years ago. They all want what we have traditionally had so they push up the price. Supply and demand.
        Or it could be that fuel (oil especially) is getting harder to secure, more expensive to find and recover plus more dangerous (extreme weather and depths).
        Or it could have something to do with the obscene profits some fossil fuel companies make. For example, this past quarter, the top 5 commercial oil companies earned a profit of 19 billion dollars. That works out to $145,000 PER MINUTE!! This does not take into account the profits of oil monopolies like Gazprom, or the dozens of smaller oil companies or the coal industry or the gas industry. I have no doubt that fossil fuel companies make more in one day’s profit than all the wages of all the climatologists that have ever lived over their entire lives.

Comments are closed.