Michael Mann’s court suit under attack


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Good news: Groups from across the political spectrum are expressing their opposition to Michael Mann’s court suit against his critics.

On Monday, The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press — along with 26 other groups including The Washington Post, Bloomberg and Fox News — filed an “amici curiae,” or “friend of the court,” brief with the D.C. Court of Appeals. An amici curiae is a brief submitted to a court to raise additional points of view to sway a court’s decision.

“While Mann essentially claims that he can silence critics because he is ‘right,’ the judicial system should not be the arbiter of either scientific truth or correct public policy,” the brief states, adding that “a participant in the ‘rough-and-tumble’ of public debate should not be able to use a lawsuit like this to silence his critics, regardless of whether one agrees with Mann or defendants.”

Just as Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg said it, I will say it also: Michael Mann is a fraud. He has no idea what it means to be a scientist, and should have been fired by his university after his climategate emails were uncovered. Instead, his university’s investigation was a whitewash and as much a fraud as Mann is.

Share

9 comments

  • Don

    The same university that whitewashed the Mann investigation also covered up for years the sexual abuse by Jerry Sandusky.

  • Yes, I’ve noted that link previously here and on John Batchelor. In particular, the former head of the university was in charge of these investigations and made sure in both cases they were whitewashed. That man is now gone.

  • Cotour

    “Just as Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg said it, I will say it also: Michael Mann is a fraud. He has no idea what it means to be a scientist, and should have been fired by his university after his climategate emails were uncovered. Instead, his university’s investigation was a whitewash and as much a fraud as Mann is”

    Those are very strong and unambiguous words. Its funny, isn’t this strategy being employed by Mann (if I am understanding his position properly) the strategy that company’s like Monsanto use to silence and intimidate their opponents of GMO foods and the insistence on the labeling of GMO foods ?

  • I wrote two articles at the time of the Mann whitewashes….

    “Hockey Stickery Doc” and “Penn Panel Limbos Under the Hockey Stick”

    both in archive at Canada Free Press….my website has multiple articles on a range of FAUX science.

  • Berthold Klein

    Did I give you to much information in my previous post about the fact that the Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect has never been proven by credible experiment. As said by Albert Einstein:
    Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.
    The list of experiments that prove that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist is several pages long.

  • Berthold Klein

    This is a paper I put together for your consideration.
    The 1.5 to 2.0 million scientists that are “skeptics” are accused of ignoring two hundred years of science when they claim that the Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect (GHGE) does not exist. This is a falsehood ,just the opposite is true. To prove this we must start with a definition and procedure of science. Science is never settled!
    A scientist looks at some event in nature and asks why?
    The scientists start to gather data that will help explain the event.
    To organize the data a hypotheses is proposed.
    The data is rearranged to see if it correlates to the hypotheses.
    If the data and the hypotheses seem to agree, more data is obtained and an experiment most be developed to prove the hypotheses.
    The experiment is performed with variations of the perimeters.
    The results are compared to the hypotheses.
    Does results agree with the hypotheses and the original “nature event “
    If the original “nature event” , hypotheses and experimental results agree a paper would be prepared to present to the scientists with the most knowledge of the subject to review and attempt to duplicate the results.
    If the results do not agree with either the” nature event” and /or the hypotheses then back to the drawing board. Many hypotheses fail. Some succeed and go on to further testing and evaluation.
    Progress in science is made from both successful and failed hypotheses. Failed hypotheses can only help if they are analyzed honestly why they failed.

    With this outline as a basis, lets look at the Hypotheses of the Greenhouse effect and then the modified Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect. These are often confused by the public and especially the nitwits in the media. They really don’t understand that a few wrong words make a difference especially in science.
    During the 1800’s it was thought that The greenhouse effect was do to resonance of IR within the glass wall of the structure. IR and visible light passed through the glass, heated the contents, which radiated IR of a different wavelength that did not go through the glass but reflected back to build up the heat within the greenhouse.
    In 1909 Robert W. Wood an expert in both IR and UV radiation did a very simple experiment that proved that the original Hypotheses was wrong. His experiment which can be found on the internet and is listed in the list of references proved that what happens in the “greenhouse or any other similar hot box is “ confined space heating”. This concept is address in many papers and other experiments including The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner and Wood is correct: There is no Greenhouse Effect
    Posted on July 19, 2011 by Dr. Ed (Berry @ www. ClimateClash.com)
    Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909 experiment on the Theory of the Greenhouse (Summary by Ed Berry. Full report here or here. & PolyMontana.)
    by Nasif S. Nahle, June 12, 2011
    University Professor, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet® San Nicolas de los Garza, N. L., Mexico.
    End part 1

    Part 2.
    Although the concept of back radiation (back forcing) is still believed to exist and is covered in the papers of G&T but it can not be proven by experiment.

    Now lets look at the other Hypotheses of greenhouse gas effect.
    The original Hypotheses was proposed by Fourier in 1824. Fourier is a very credible mathematician and physicists but I have not found any indication that he actually attempted to prove the Hypotheses that gases could cause the back forcing of radiation or heating of the gases in the atmosphere.
    In the 1850-60 period John Tyndall a scientists and physicists carried out experiments that proved that certain gases will absorb IR; there is no question about this,every IR spectrophotometer uses this as an analytical tool millions of times a day. A question I ask myself is would the spectrophotometer work if back-forcing exists.
    When I first learned about IR absorption I was told that that only three or more atom molecule would absorb IR. Since doing more research it is shown that both O2 and N2 absorb IR, this has a significant impact on what are “greenhouse gases”.
    When reading the papers of Tyndall he stated that the most significant “GHG is water vapor” This is questionable see the following experiment http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.htmlWater Absorption Spectrum by Martin Chaplin. What phase we are looking at is very important which will be discussed later. Tyndall himself stated that there was not enough “traces gases in the atmosphere “ (including CO2 )to cause measurable temperature change.
    His experiments did not prove that when a gas absorbs IR that it caused gas molecules around it to heat.
    In 1896 Arrhenius gave a paper that “speculated” that increasing the CO2 concentration would cause the atmosphere to heat. Quoting a foot note by the IPCC Fouth Addition-In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”
    Now Arrhenius was a very accomplished Biological physicists having been recognized with a Noble prize for his work. To him more CO2 and higher temperatures were beneficial to growing plants. However in 1903 Knut Angstrom pointed out significant flaws in Arrhenius’s work. Later I ‘ve been told that Niels Bohr told Arrhenius that he was all wrong. Niels Bohr knew something that Arrhenius did not know.( now called quantum physics)
    When Arrhenius did his paper , he did a series of experiments however he was not able to prove that the effect existed. Another failed hypotheses.
    After the turn of the century many significant developments in physics, quantum physics , and thermodynamics changed how we look at the world. The works of R.W.Wood, Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, Max Plank, etc. etc. etc. etc. During this period between 1900 and 1970 there were many paper claiming that based on observations of atmospheric conditions that showed the “greenhouse gas effect” existed. The problem is that observation could not be repeated, because there are to many variable that can not be controlled. These observations are subject to subjective interpretation. Because the researchers had an ax to grind they blamed CO2 and other “GHG’s” for the effect.(They have ignored the fact that O2 and N2 which compose 96% of the atmosphere also absorb some IR thus should be called GHG’s) They never bothered to actually prove that the Hypotheses existed. Experiment after experiment( really only observations) were performed by people that had no business attempting to do scientific experiments, they called themselves “climatologist” most did not have any training in the field that really should be studying “ atmospheric physics “ – physicists, meteorologists, radiation scientists, and mechanical engineers trained in thermodynamics and HVAC. IF any of these observation were meaningful why can’t they decide what the atmosphere sensitivity of CO2 is supposed to be? There is absolutely no reason to spend billions of dollars to control CO2 when there is not one experiment that shows what effect reducing the CO2 will cause. Everything is “speculation” and bad speculation at that.

    End part 2

    Part 3

    In the list of references are experiments that show that mixtures of Water/liquid/ solid and CO2 cause the atmosphere to cool not heat. Again there are experiments that prove that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist. These are experiments not speculation.
    The reference http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html Water Absorption Spectrum by Martin Chaplin. Which is based on experimenters; it is shown that ice absorb significantly more IR that liquid and vapor. This has to be understood when we evaluate the melting of glaciers. Air temperature is insignificant when observing the melting of ice. When it is sunny,snow and ice melts at significant rates even when the air temperature is below 32 degrees F. A simple observation proves this. For those of us that get ice dams and icicle at home go out on a below 32 degree F but sunny day, look at snow and ice in the shade, not a sign of melting. Then go to a part of your house that is in bright sunshine the snow and ice will be melting and flowing like you’re under Niagara Falls.
    It is claimed by the cult of AGW that when the north pole is white it reflects significant visible light thus it does not cause the glaciers to melt and that small changes in average atmospheric temperature are responsible for the loss of the glaciers. They are wrong which is proved by the above. Ice absorb significant IR even when the visible light is reflected. IR melts ice far faster that air temperature. The world is in an inter-glacier period the glaciers are supposed to be receding. The fear -mongers are at it again. If the glaciers had not melted much of the northern and southern hemisphere would be under 2 miles of ice.

    The Greenhouse Effect Explored
    Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
    Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?
    Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment

    Your right : what John Tyndall said in 1850-60 was based on the misconception that the Greenhouse effect was caused by resonating IR within the container. This was proved false in 1909 by Robert w. Wood a professor of Optics at John Hopkins University. His experiment proved that the “greenhouse effect ” is really “confined space heating” a totally different concept. R.W.Woods was a recognized expert in IR and UV radiation, Many of his finding are referenced today in the world of optics ,IR ,and UV radiation.
    The Wood experiment was verified in 2009 referenced below.
    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme Many link are included that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
    R.W.Wood
    from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons
    from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
    Wood is correct: There is no Greenhouse Effect
    Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909 experiment on the Theory of the Greenhouse (Summary by Ed Berry. Full report here or here. & PolyMontana.)
    by Nasif S. Nahle, JunPosted on July 19, 2011 by Dr. Ed
    e 12, 2011
    University Professor, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet® San Nicolas de los Garza, N. L., Mexico

    Science is never settled. When the Cult of AGW goes back 200 years and claims that a Hypotheses or similar reference is valid but does not look at the developments that have occurred since that disprove the old hypotheses then we know they don’t know a thing about science. Science is built on failed and correct hypotheses.
    New information trumps old unprovable data.

  • sayomara

    I’m kinda lost for a point here? Bullies are bullies going back to before recorded history.

    If your trying to say GMO’s are bad because climate change as Mann frames it with his Hockey stick model isn’t real those seem like unrelated ideas.

  • For the record, I’ve never actually used the word “fraud” with reference to Professor Mann.

  • I stand corrected. Sorry about that.

Leave a Reply

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