Global Warming: Man or Myth?

Scientists can also wear their citizen hats

Want to Help Our Climate Scientists? It’s Simple: Here’s How

with 52 comments

Thanks to everyone who has supported our growth and development to date. We have had great successes in our first year and half and  we hope to continue to build on those. To continue our programing through the end of the year we need to raise $35,000 this summer and need your help to reach our goal. The money will go to two projects of ours. First, it will retire the debt owed by Dr. Michael Mann for attorney’s fees in the FOIA case over his UVA emails. Read more about the case here and here.

The money will also go towards continuing our program of sending attorneys to scientific meetings. There we offer confidential pro-bono meetings for members of the scientific community. After meeting with an attorney at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference last December, one scientist wrote us:

I was glad to be able to talk to an attorney who deeply cared about the integrity of the science and helping individual scientists.  I am very grateful to the CSLDF for arranging for these sessions.

We feel that legal defense does not just include blockbuster cases like Dr. Mann’s, but making sure that scientists have the opportunity to discuss their concerns with a legal expert before an issue becomes a problem.

Please consider donating to our summer fundraising drive to make these two programs possible. Donate at http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/. International donors can send a PayPal to info@peer.org (Be sure to put “CSLDF” in the memo box.) You can also receive a t-shirt with your donation by going to: http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/feature/buy-stuff/

Going to the AGU 2013 Fall Conference? If so mark your calendars for Thursday December 12 between 12:30 – 1:30. CSLDF and AGU will be hosting a special brown bag lunch event titled Facing Legal Attack: Scientists Tell Their Stories featuring a panel discussion with Drs. Andrew Dessler, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes, Ben Santer, and Kevin Trenberth, along with a few legal experts.

More details will be posted as the conference approaches.


Also see:

Global warming games – playing the man not the ball - Guardian

Climate Science Legal Defense Fund Summer Fundraiser - CSLDF Blog

Global warming games – playing the man not the ball - Skeptical Science

Want to Help Our Climate Scientists? It’s Simple: Here’s How - Climate Progress

About these ads

52 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Legal fees. It’s what you get when you don’t practice honesty and transparency. I sent money to Cuccinelli’s campaign instead.

    Mike Mangan

    July 15, 2013 at 7:26 am

    • I donated to Dr. Tim Ball, he’s a climate scientist. :)

      pinroot

      July 22, 2013 at 10:02 am

      • How many actual scientific papers has he published? Any recently? I will save you the trouble of looking:

        http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-the-first-canadian-phd-in-climatology

        A SCOPUS search reveals 7 and his h-index is 1.

        Yep, some powerhouse climate scientists he is! /sarcasm

        Scott Mandia

        July 22, 2013 at 10:28 am

      • What h-index did Dr Mann have when he overturned countless studies by showing absence of a MWP and LIA in the physical record? Last I heard, it was his second—yes, second—paper. Yep, some powerhouse scientist he was! /sarc

        Brad Keyes

        September 22, 2013 at 7:24 am

  2. I just donated $50. Thanks for the reminder, Scott (and Mike!). We’ve got the sorry POSs on the run!

    Bob Warneke

    July 15, 2013 at 11:18 am

  3. Real scientists don’t hide behind lawyers.

    Old Mike

    July 15, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    • What a profound comment! We’re all so impressed.

      Bob Warneke

      July 15, 2013 at 4:33 pm

      • It was more impressive than yours that’s for sure.

        klem

        July 16, 2013 at 9:21 am

    • Real lawyers don’t attack scientists. But when they do you need a lawyer.

      John Havery Samuel

      July 22, 2013 at 3:59 am

  4. […] Scott Mandia via his blog,ProfMandia. For background on the legal attacks on various climate scientists,click […]

  5. $5K in the mail. Also to E&EI, Bob Inglis’s organization. Republicans who dare to think will return from the wilderness – soon.

    Charles Zeller

    July 15, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    • Charles, once again you have offered a very generous gift to this cause. Thank you!

      Scott Mandia

      July 15, 2013 at 4:59 pm

    • Blimey — that’s a shedload of t-shirts. I hope they gave you a good discount! ;)

      pendantry

      July 17, 2013 at 9:07 am

  6. […] is a meteorology professor at Suffolk County Community College and has been teaching for 25 years. Reposted with […]

  7. […] Scott Mandia via his blog, ProfMandia. For background on the legal attacks on various climate scientists, click […]

  8. Scientists that are honest don’t need legal protection….give it up already

    Janet

    July 18, 2013 at 9:20 am

    • Sounds like the gang in the Houston cubicles have discovered your blog, Scott.

      Bob Warneke

      July 18, 2013 at 9:53 am

    • Honest scientists attacked by dishonourable lawyers do.

      John Havery Samuel

      July 22, 2013 at 4:00 am

    • Yeah, and if you have nothing to hide, you need no privacy laws,right? Etc.

      Martin Vermeer

      September 8, 2013 at 3:12 am

  9. […] 2013/07/15: SMandia: Want to Help Our Climate Scientists? It’s Simple: Here’s How […]

  10. CEI is going to have a hard time proving they didn’t know about the results of the investigations these insisted on. The persecution is relentless and the money from big fossil huge.

    Interestingly, none of these legal attacks have succeeded – even judges can tell the difference between truth and lies.
    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/07/19/dc-court-affirms-michael-manns-right-to-proceed-in-defamation-lawsuit/

    Having been investigated by almost one dozen bodies due to accusations of fraud, and none of those investigations having found Plaintiff’s work to be fraudulent, it must be concluded that the accusations are provably false.

    Cuccinelli’s nastiness has been legion and defense is necessary. How is a guy to do his job with wealthy interests using every means necessary to distract and prevent real research. Blaming the victim and insisting they be cowed is a coward’s game. How about the truth instead? If these guys call themselves “Christians” and “patriots” how do they come by all this hate and anti-stewardship, anyway? Not from the gospels, that’s for sure.

    Dad and I will be contributing.

    Susan Anderson

    July 24, 2013 at 6:27 pm

    • Susan, your donation is greatly appreciated. BTW, CSLDF is not involved with the CEI/NR case.

      Scott Mandia

      July 24, 2013 at 7:07 pm

    • Agreed, Susan; the money from fossil fuels to pay for academic output on the dangers of climate change IS “huge.” Even Exxon has switched over from the dark side. That was the most encouraging revelation of the Climategate emails—Big Energy works *with* the climate establishment these days. Still, no amount is too much—little people like us should chip in too. Good for you!

      Brad Keyes

      September 17, 2013 at 8:52 pm

  11. More, from a queen of excess:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/23/1225791/-Climate-Scientist-Michael-Mann-Takes-the-Bad-Guys-to-Court

    So, imagine one of Dr. Mann’s attorney’s asking archly, why exactly, is it, National Review, that you don’t believe the conclusions Dr. Mann draws from his science, hmmm? Who exactly is whispering in your ear about this? Is his name David, or Charles? How about Exxon? How about Clean Coal, whatever the hell that is? Whose science do you like better. Why? Who, exactly is advising NR about this issue?

    I’m guessing here that NR will mount an all out discovery assault on every footnote of every paper Dr. Mann ever put his name on, while exploring every conversation and communication he has ever had, while simultaneously and obstreperously obstructing any inquiries into its own editorial process, all in the name of protecting sources and the 1st Amendment. I’m predicting, with considerably greater confidence, that an honest trial judge (the one in this case might just be one of those) will slap NR down in their shoes for the kind of discovery crap I expect them to pull in a case like this.

    Susan Anderson

    July 24, 2013 at 6:35 pm

  12. I hope Dr Mann will hold Phil Jones to account for the original attack on his integrity (the widely-circulated email accusing Mike of having used a “Nature trick” “to hide the decline”). Disgusting.

    Brad Keyes

    September 16, 2013 at 10:01 am

    • A quick stop at Google (or Yahoo, or the search engine of your choice) will help you erase your [likely feigned] disgust, Brad. By the way, science always wins in the end.

      Bob Warneke

      September 16, 2013 at 10:38 am

      • Thanks Bob. I tried Google, Yahoo, Wolfram and my favorite Spanish-language portal just to make sure. Answer is the same. It was definitely Phil Jones who circulated that allegation in the paleoclimate community. It would seem only sensible to take him to court next, if Dr Mann hopes to put an end to the war of attrition on his good name once and for all. Unclear what your objection to this is, Bob.

        Yes, I share your ultimate faith in science, but unfortunately it can take *decades* for the truth to out.

        Brad Keyes

        September 16, 2013 at 10:50 pm

    • I see Brad is trying to claim malfeasance where there is none. In particular, I see Brad Keyes trying to twist Phil Jones to mean something he didn’t say. I love it when pseudoskeptics like Brad Keyes are showing themselves to be such enormous twats. It reveals their true character: ideologues who would lie if it suited their ideology – and mirroring their own unethical behavior onto those who challenge their ideology.

      Marco

      September 18, 2013 at 4:40 am

      • How do you allege I’m “twisting” Phil Jones? By quoting him? He did accuse Dr Mann of exactly what I said, so there’s no twistage on my part, thank you very much.

        By the way, I fully agree with one insightful statement of yours: “ideologues [...] would lie if it suited their ideology.” We’ve seen that the scientific community is far from exempt from this rule.

        And what you call “mirroring” (projection) is indeed a major factor in the toxic nature of the climate conversation, alas. I try never to do it but if you’ve actually spotted me in the act, please do tell us all. No need to be vague about it, we’re all adults.

        Brad Keyes

        September 20, 2013 at 6:13 am

      • Brad, he did not accuse anyone of anything. He did tell us he (thought he) repeated a neat mathematical procedure. This has been explained so many times already that your failure to listen merely reinforces my view that you are just a hopeless ideologue who will never ever learn anything. You’d be the Black Knight who claims he merely has a flesh wound while missing all four limbs.

        Marco

        September 21, 2013 at 4:51 am

      • “Neat mathematical procedure” misses the point. It’s not the word “trick” that ppl object to. It’s the imputation that Mann “hid” something from the audience, which is what magicians do, not scientists. Scientists are consecrated to the increase of human knowledge and are therefore absolutely forbidden to hide things. That’s why Professor Jones’ allegation was so deleterious to Dr Mann’s good name. Pay attention, guys. This is not complicated.

        Brad Keyes

        September 21, 2013 at 10:10 pm

      • By the way, Marco, I’d be fascinated to know what “ideology” you imagine I subscribe to. Hint: if your guess starts from the presumption that I’m oriented to the “right” in politics (or religion, or whatever), you’re already wrong. To be sure, I’m libertarian, but only in the original, correct, J-S-Mill-type meaning of the word, as I assume you are too (being the beneficiary of citizenship of a modern, liberal, uncensored country). *Not* in the sense that I’d vote Ron Paul or anything like that. (Forgive me for any mangled Americanism here—I’m actually Australian.) Also, if you’re tempted to suggest I’m “anti-science,” let me save you some time by recommending going and f___ing yourself in advance.

        So be a dear and tell us, Marco, what is the “ideology” that vitiates my understanding of climate change, hmm?

        Brad Keyes

        September 22, 2013 at 12:29 am

      • Brad, you falsely assume that Phil Jones suggests Mann “hid the decline”. It is clear from the whole chain of evidence that he makes no such claim. This has been pointed out so many times already that the fact that you keep on pushing this meme is borne out of pure ideological bias.

        The ideological bias you assign to is one of “can’t be true, I don’t want it to be true, and therefore it is not true”. It’s not uncommon behavior, I know my share of actual working scientists who suddenly decline a whole field of science because they don’t like its implications. I am not shy pointing them to their hypocrisy and errors either. But at least most of them realize they have an ideological bias. You? You will never be able to do so. You just repeat your talking point, regardless of the evidence provided that contradicts it. That is the hallmark of an ideologist.

        Marco

        September 22, 2013 at 3:42 am

      • No, the hallmark of an “ideologist” (you’re quite the neologist, by the way!) is being unable to parse a simple English sentence if it’s uncongenial to one’s prior commitments.

        “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.”

        Brad Keyes

        September 22, 2013 at 3:59 am

      • Brad, it is clear you have no intention of understanding what Jones said. It has been explained so many times, and you STILL decide to give it an indefensible (from your side) twist. It is clear for any honest person that Jones does not accuse Mann of anything, nor that he suggested Mann “hid” anything.

        Marco

        September 22, 2013 at 1:27 pm

      • Could you link me to your favorite explanation, Marco, instead of continually insisting “it’s been explained”?

        Brad Keyes

        September 22, 2013 at 8:05 pm

      • Still waiting for a link to your preferred explanation, Marco. What’s the difficulty?

        Brad Keyes

        September 25, 2013 at 5:57 pm

  13. On re-reading, I notice you didn’t say “ideologues … would lie etc.” but that “pseudoskeptics like” me are “ideologues WHO would lie…etc.” Sorry for twisting your words into something far more polite than you meant!

    Brad Keyes

    September 20, 2013 at 6:20 am

    • A lot of vitriol, but I’m still waiting for someone—anyone—to say what’s so objectionable about my (seemingly self-explanatory) suggestion of going after the person who first circulated the rumors about Mann doctoring a graph in the first place. If you’ve got something constructive to say, say it.

      Brad Keyes

      September 20, 2013 at 5:49 pm

      • See above, although I *know* you will not understand it, because it contradicts everything you want to be true.

        Marco

        September 21, 2013 at 4:52 am

  14. If you’re suggesting that Jones is ungrammatically accusing *himself* alone of “hiding the decline”, that’s perhaps a defensible parsing of his (apparently inept) English, but you have to come out and say so because otherwise I can’t tell what, if anything, you think his email is saying.

    Brad Keyes

    September 22, 2013 at 4:07 am

    • You know what, Brad? Why don’t you ask Phil Jones himself?

      Come on, don’t be shy, go to the source directly.

      Oh wait, he has already said what he meant, and you have ignored it. Sad.

      Marco

      September 22, 2013 at 1:30 pm

      • I took your advice and asked Professor Jones whether he meant that Mike’s trick was designed to hide the decline, or merely that he’d used Mike’s trick in order to hide the decline. I’ll keep you posted on any reply received.

        Brad Keyes

        September 22, 2013 at 10:04 pm

      • Nope, no reply yet from P.Jones@uea.ac.uk.

        Brad Keyes

        September 25, 2013 at 5:55 pm

      • “Why don’t you ask Phil Jones himself?”

        I have.

        No answer, after 6 days—but then, Professor Jones is probably too busy making the world safe for generations of snow-ignorant children.

        “Oh wait, he has already said what he meant, and you have ignored it.”

        Well, he’s certainly said what he meant by the innocuous noun “trick” … thus answering a question of little interest to anyone.

        And yes, we’re all painfully aware by now of the manner in which Jones “hid the decline” in his WMO presentation—not, however, because Phil Jones told us! We certainly don’t owe our understanding to the uninquisitive, softball “inquiry” that humanely avoided asking him about the phrase at all, do we? (The poor dear was reportedly suicidal at that point, remember—and the UEA’s “investigators” were nothing if not compassionate!)

        Near as I can make out, the only ambiguity left has to do with the semantic scope of the infamous phrase. To wit: was it the purpose of Mike’s trick “to hide the decline,” or was it merely Jones’ own intent (in employing Mike’s trick) to hide the decline?

        You seem oddly reluctant to answer this simple question, Marco.

        I’m beginning to suspect you can’t tell us your preferred interpretation of the email, because to do so would be to admit, at the bare minimum, that Professor Philip D Jones intentionally concealed something—and that would be one too many concessions to reality for you, wouldn’t it?

        Prove me wrong. (As a true skeptic, I’d enjoy nothing more.)

        Brad Keyes

        September 26, 2013 at 5:40 pm

  15. By the way, you write (not particularly felicitously) that

    “The ideological bias you assign to [sic] is one of “can’t be true, I don’t want it to be true, and therefore it is not true”.”

    What is the “it” you think I think can’t be true? What is the “it” I refuse to believe in?

    Brad Keyes

    September 22, 2013 at 4:43 am

    • The “it” quite clearly refers to climate science and it outcomes as summarized by the IPCC.

      Marco

      September 22, 2013 at 1:28 pm

      • But I *do* believe in climate science, to the extent that it’s a science (and not an exercise in consensus formation).

        And the IPCC’s job is not to summarize climate science.

        Brad Keyes

        September 22, 2013 at 8:20 pm

  16. One of the contrarians I debunk, Jane, has repeatedly seemed to “threaten” legal action against my debunkings of Jane’s comments on a public website. I say “seemed” because Jane’s repeatedly seemed to make vague threats, but each time I respond Jane denies making the threat.

    Last year Jane left insulting comments at my website with a link to a screenshot of our conversation, which Jane had named something like “asshole-pseudoscientist.jpg”. That image was hosted at a site called “names.changed.to.protect.contrarians”. Typing that into google showed that it’s owned by Johnny who coincidentally happens to express a wide range of opinions similar to Jane’s. For instance, they’re both Sky Dragon Slayers, Obama Birthers, and 9/11 Truthers.

    I often debunk multiple contrarians at once to emphasize how their arguments are simply cut-and-pasted. So by coincidence I started debunking Jane and Johnny simultaneously. Jane and Johnny reacted strongly, falsely accusing me of “stating right out in print” that they’re the same person, threatening to call the police and repeatedly accusing me of stalking and harassment, etc. (Strangely, Jane quotes illegally obtained “climategate” emails and didn’t seem to agree that quoting private emails is worse than responding to public comments.)

    Jane and Johnny continue to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation, and I don’t want to let them keep doing this unopposed. But I’m not a lawyer; I don’t know if they could actually use the law that way. Does anyone know if they could actually make my life more difficult?

    (I posted this anonymously for obvious reasons. Names were changed to protect the contrarians.)

    Anonymous scientist

    November 22, 2013 at 12:21 am

    • Dear Anonymous scientist,

      If you ever think you are facing a legal challenge please contact your institutional attorney first. If you need a “second opinion” please feel free to contact CSLDF.

      Scott Mandia

      November 22, 2013 at 2:31 pm

      • Sadly, I’m not comfortable discussing my weekend debunking hobby with my institution. I appreciate your advice but I wish an expert could tell me if I could get in legal trouble for debunking public statements about climate science as described above. I thought “fair use” covered these situations but I’m not a lawyer…

        Anonymous scientist

        November 22, 2013 at 4:09 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,834 other followers

%d bloggers like this: