Climate Change on Trial

[Geoff.D]

12 years ago, the prime Climate Change Pseudo Scientist, of hockey stick fame, Michael Mann, decided to lay defamation charges against two individuals. The trial finally kicked off about a week ago. The podcast linked below covers the trial and the shenanigans of Michael Mann and his lawyers.

There is now an opening episode and 7 following episodes with one placed each day. The podcasts are re-enactments by actors of each day's proceedings based on the trial transcripts that are made available each day by the Court. It is a fascinating piece of work that highlights the unbelievably very bad attitude that the CC pseudo-scientists all have and how they will go to any lengths to defend the indefensible. Michael Mann is his own worst enemy, and based on what has transpired so far, he is going to lose this case.

Climate Change on Trial is a daily podcast on one of the most significant court cases in America.
It reveals the truth about Climate Change and asks: "Is there really Free Speech in America?

Here is the link. It is important in my opinion to watch them in order from the day one episode.

Climate Change on Trial

Podcast · Unreported Story Society · Climate Change on Trial is a daily podcast on one of the most significant court cases in America. It reveals the truth about Climate Change and asks: "Is there really Free Speech in America?"

open.spotify.com

 

[3WA]

This is going to be interesting because the court case will decide the scientific merits of human-induced climate change.

 

[porchrat]

This is going to be interesting because the court case will decide the scientific merits of human-induced climate change.

This is a great idea that makes so much sense. If there's anyone qualified to make determinations about science it's the true experts in the field... lawyers.

 

[ShaunSA]

tl/dr/dc

 

[ShaunSA]

This is a great idea that makes so much sense. If there's anyone qualified to make determinations about science it's the true experts in the field... lawyers.

If that's the argument we may as well ditch the entire legal system

 

[konfab]

This is a great idea that makes so much sense. If there's anyone qualified to make determinations about science it's the true experts in the field... lawyers laymen on the internet who haven't watched or read the case.

FTFY.

 

[porchrat]

If that's the argument we may as well ditch the entire legal system

Not really.

 

[ShaunSA]

Not really.

Why not? Lawyers aren't experts in anything. It's a tad unfair that they get to decide how the world turns

 

[porchrat]

Why not? Lawyers aren't experts in anything. It's a tad unfair that they get to decide how the world turns

They're deciding on legal stuff. Did this constitute assault under the law etc.. Whether something is scientifically valid is somewhat out of their wheelhouse. The scientific community isn't going to suddenly go "jeepers what a discovery" because some goober judge makes a legal judgement.

(P.S. you're reading waaaaay too much into this joke post making fun of the title talking about a defamation case meaning climate change as a scientific concept is "on trial", but it's hilarious to be a part of, carry on friend, I promise I'm taking this very seriously and care a great deal )

 

[konfab]

Michael Mann’s Defamation Case Against Deniers Finally Reaches Trial​

Michael Mann, one of the nation’s most prominent climate scientists, told a Washington, D.C. jury on Wednesday that he was made to feel like a “pariah” and saw his grant funding plummet after right-wing bloggers sought to discredit his science with vulgar attacks in 2012.
Mann sued the bloggers for defamation after they drew comparisons between his science and a child sex abuse scandal that had rocked his institution, Pennsylvania State University, that year. They wrote that he had “molested and tortured data,” and that the school had engaged in a “whitewash” of his science, much as it had failed to unearth the transgressions of Penn State’s disgraced assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky.
“They crossed a line,” Mann told the jury from the witness stand. “They compared me to a convicted child molester and made false allegations of scientific misconduct against me.”

https://archive.is/LotcV

Yeah, he isn't going to win this. 1st amendment ground and all that.

Mann, who now directs a Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania, needs to show that he was harmed by the 2012 blog posts in order to recover damages. Mann’s original complaint says he is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages “in an amount to be proven at trial.”
Before the jury, he detailed what he said was a marked decline in interest in his work from funders after the blog posts’ publication. In the four years prior to the blogs, he said he won $3.3 million in grants, with nine out of his 15 grant applications being successful. In the four following years, he won only two of seven grants he applied for, with support falling to $500,000, Mann testified.

There is ample cause for anyone to make a comment about this given what was leaked to the public. Look at what the believers in the "science" say:

The most quoted email is from Phil Jones discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine):

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
"Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (aka "trick of the trade") used in a paper published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann (Mann 1998). The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The most common misconception regarding this email is the assumption that "decline" refers to declining temperatures. It actually refers to a decline in the reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem" where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed in the peer reviewed literature as early as 1995, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature. More on the hockey stick divergence problem..

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=120


So a "scientist" engages in manipulating the data, and someone uses a really crude way to describe it? There isn't any way this isn't 1st ammendment protected speech.

Elsewise Linus Torvalds would be in poverty for this gem about a pull request having inefficient code in it:

Kay, this needs to be fixed.

Suggested fix: just use the 'seq_printf()' interfaces, which do the
proper buffering, and allow any size reads of various packetized data.

Of course, I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it
was a good idea to read things ONE F*CKING BYTE AT A TIME with system
calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the **** does
idiotic things like that? How did they noty die as babies, considering
that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/6/495

 

[3WA]

Whether something is scientifically valid is somewhat out of their wheelhouse. The scientific community isn't going to suddenly go "jeepers what a discovery" because some goober judge makes a legal judgement.

Then why does the title say "Climate Change on Trial"? Michael Mann is the physical embodiment of a scientific concept. Beat him at trial, and you've proven the science wrong.

The End.

 

[porchrat]

Then why does the title say "Climate Change on Trial"? Michael Mann is the physical embodiment of a scientific concept. Beat him at trial, and you've proven the science wrong.

The End.

Beat him at a trial and your lawyers beat his. The End.

You challenge science within the scientific community using other science, not in the courtroom.

 

[3WA]

Beat him at a trial and your lawyers beat his. The End.

You challenge science within the scientific community using other science, not in the courtroom.

So what you're saying is that anyone who confuses a defamation trial with climate change being on trial is perhaps a blithering idiot?

 

[Geoff.D]

The title is what it is. There is no other way but to stick to what the podcast crew decided to call their podcasts.

The judge did make it clear at the start of the trial that the trial was NOT about Climate Change or Science but about the defamation charge. But as you will hear when you listen to the podcasts, it is impossible for the plaintiff and his lawyers to not refer to the science when motivating their case.

 

[porchrat]

So what you're saying is that anyone who confuses a defamation trial with climate change being on trial is perhaps a blithering idiot?

I don't know. This issue makes people crazy. Probably because of all the largely ineffective, and very expensive, reactions world governments have to it.

All I know is the idea of a court deciding science is bloody hilarious. Sort of feels like if the world decided not to bother to have a world cup, then let bakers decide who would have won instead.

 

[porchrat]

The title is what it is. There is no other way to stick to what the podcast crew decided to call their podcasts.

The judge did make it clear at the start of the trial that the trial was NOT about Climate Change or Science but about the defamation charge. But as you will hear when you listen to the podcasts, it is impossible for the plaintiff and his lawyers to not refer to the science when motivating their case.

Yea we all know. I'm just making fun of the stupid podcast name

 

[konfab]

Beat him at a trial and your lawyers beat his. The End.

You challenge science within the scientific community using other science, not in the courtroom.

Old skool way.

New way to do it is to accuse your opponents of not abiding by your school's diversity and inclusion policy and get them kicked out.

 

[Moto Guzzi]

Theres one thing that stands out about the human brain, and hell knows where that came from, unlike animals.
The human brain is a concentrator by default:
It will:
1-Concentrate resources physically from earth for a better living, so good it was, we now at 8 Billion plus..
2-Concentrate codes, like Letters, Numbers, Symbols to make up communications.
3-Concentrate knowledge gained.
4-Concentrate education.
5-Concentrate Politics(Abstract diversification),Belief systems, Cultural systems, Monetary systems, Law systems etc.
6-It will concentrate anything it can communicate about in a hole like deep fasion, which will hamper its ability to see a broader common sense picture over time picture, consumed by the "knowledge".
7-The human brain absorbs Abstract Suggestions like a sponge, turn it into Trends, and from that we basicly live by, till its querried for some or other reason.
8-Now feed that brain with drugs or related stuff and see what happens on top of all that already happenning.
9-Now add the binary code on top of all already there, and now that is concentrated in all abstract directions, and this is a fiels of exploitations since 1992(From the 50-Ties WW2+, from the 80-Ties), and here we are today=Utter chaos in all directions.

My prediction is, its not Climate change(The Narrative or the change in climate) thats going to kill the human, but its lack of understanding the relation between money & resources in a closed system like planet earth. It seems the human brain does not have the Social-Intelligence(The intelligence controlling the other types) to control 8 Billion individual similar minds in an orderly way, where theres little EVil(Tolerated) and much Good, and not the other way around.

My question to the narrative based climate changers is: Do you think that any substance or anything mankind concentrate, does NOT came from Earth, does not came fom the Universe in the 1st place, the reality in a closed system-? The impression is given that man invent "new things" that comes from where-?

Yes we live in our minds mostly, till we have a reflex of danger, or Hunger, or Thirst, or extreme Stress, then we kick down back in 1st gear like animals all the time.
So we have reached a point in history, unlike ever before(Becaude of the binary code=Abstract) where we will start to have respect for a closed system, Common Sense, Realities, Resources/Money(Or any other daring product trying to replace money) and population Growth which is an inverse pyramid.
The basics of the game of life for humans:It so simple, its ignored, ignorance of note.
-Water must be cheap.
-Electricity must be cheap.
-Digital must be cheap(Its embedded everywhere already).
-If not,... everything upwards are effected--------You have no choice(Everything becomes a luxury) you going down, even the Ultra rich eventually. The poor is already there.The middle class is following fast, the ultra rich is consuming each other as we speak with consequences.
------If not any monetary system will eventually crash as the cycles getting shorter and shorter....Exponentially!
-----You may not live long enough healthy to recover from this.

 

[Claymore]

Theres one thing that stands out about the human brain, and hell knows where that came from, unlike animals.
The human brain is a concentrator by default:
It will:
1-Concentrate resources physically from earth for a better living, so good it was, we now at 8 Billion plus..
2-Concentrate codes, like Letters, Numbers, Symbols to make up communications.
3-Concentrate knowledge gained.
4-Concentrate education.
5-Concentrate Politics(Abstract diversification),Belief systems, Cultural systems, Monetary systems, Law systems etc.
6-It will concentrate anything it can communicate about in a hole like deep fasion, which will hamper its ability to see a broader common sense picture over time picture, consumed by the "knowledge".
7-The human brain absorbs Abstract Suggestions like a sponge, turn it into Trends, and from that we basicly live by, till its querried for some or other reason.
8-Now feed that brain with drugs or related stuff and see what happens on top of all that already happenning.
9-Now add the binary code on top of all already there, and now that is concentrated in all abstract directions, and this is a fiels of exploitations since 1992(From the 50-Ties WW2+, from the 80-Ties), and here we are today=Utter chaos in all directions.

My prediction is, its not Climate change(The Narrative or the change in climate) thats going to kill the human, but its lack of understanding the relation between money & resources in a closed system like planet earth. It seems the human brain does not have the Social-Intelligence(The intelligence controlling the other types) to control 8 Billion individual similar minds in an orderly way, where theres little EVil(Tolerated) and much Good, and not the other way around.

My question to the narrative based climate changers is: Do you think that any substance or anything mankind concentrate, does NOT came from Earth, does not came fom the Universe in the 1st place, the reality in a closed system-? The impression is given that man invent "new things" that comes from where-?

Yes we live in our minds mostly, till we have a reflex of danger, or Hunger, or Thirst, or extreme Stress, then we kick down back in 1st gear like animals all the time.
So we have reached a point in history, unlike ever before(Becaude of the binary code=Abstract) where we will start to have respect for a closed system, Common Sense, Realities, Resources/Money(Or any other daring product trying to replace money) and population Growth which is an inverse pyramid.
The basics of the game of life for humans:It so simple, its ignored, ignorance of note.
-Water must be cheap.
-Electricity must be cheap.
-Digital must be cheap(Its embedded everywhere already).
-If not,... everything upwards are effected--------You have no choice(Everything becomes a luxury) you going down, even the Ultra rich eventually. The poor is already there.The middle class is following fast, the ultra rich is consuming each other as we speak with consequences.
------If not any monetary system will eventually crash as the cycles getting shorter and shorter....Exponentially!
-----You may not live long enough healthy to recover from this.

What on earth?

 

[WollieVerstege]

What on earth?

No, I don't think he/she/them is from earth.