Hmm...

Views on climate change skewed by 'false consensus'

Originally Posted by Agnotologist

The affidavit states that Mann and his colleagues received the Nobel Prize. That is accurate. The IPCC, in itself did not. It was the body that combined the efforts of many scientists not the winner in itself.

It may appear as an exaggeration, as Barry said, but it is not untrue.

Wrong. The IPCC received the prize and the only name mentioned is Al Gore.

In Manns affidavit under "Introduction" where he is describing the alleged defamation he says:

"......the professional and personal defamation of a nobel prize recipient."

Originally Posted by Agnotologist

And where, realist, is there anything saying that the Nobel Board denied it. It appears to be just editorialising by yourself.

Mann will not back down and will win.

List of nobel prize winners.
All Nobel Peace Prizes

And also from their website:

Until 1968, in principle more than three persons could share a Nobel Prize, but this never happened in practice. The previous wording of paragraph 4 of the Statutes governing the Nobel Prize was: "A prize may be equally divided between two works, each of which may be considered to merit a prize. If a work which is to be rewarded has been produced by two or more persons together, the prize shall be awarded to them jointly." In 1968 this section was changed to read "In no case may a prize be divided between more than three persons".

Originally Posted by Agnotologist

Further, the Courts have already ruled that the emails that are relevant do not have to be disclosed. The Penn State Attorney General has already found that to his cost. There is no analogy between Mann's work and the criminal communications of a paedophile.

The emails were not the criminal communications of a paedophile. Alledgely they are the emails of those who were aware of his actions and did not report them.

Originally Posted by Agnotologist

And, no matter how you read the Affidavit, Mann did nothing but include himself in the group that was awarded the Nobel. As he was.

I have written hundreds of affidavits and read many more (including quite a number of falsifications. There is nothing wrong with that Affidavit.

I would suggest you read it again.

Originally Posted by Agnotologist

The most interesting aspect of all this is not the Affidavit;that is a minor question. It is the trial itself. This trial may well turn out to be the one that puts science on trial . If it does, then it will be the burial ground of denialism in the US.

I wonder whether Mann has not considered this likelihood.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by realist

My you are an old charmer! I was actually wondering the other day - what happened to "denialist"? That seemed to be the popular denigratory expression of choice from your ilk last year.

In fact it is anything but irrelevant and in my opinion was a huge mistake on his part. The same scroll was presented by the IPCC to numerous people who worked on their reports and the Nobel Institute have clarified he did not receive the prize. In his affidavit he clearly states that he is a nobel prize winner presumably to add weight to his credentials. I am pretty sure the US courts do not take lightly false claims entered as fact.



I agree.

Denialists? They are still around, but ideologically more threadbare that ever.

No point in pre-empting Judge & Jury. But ....

Mann can call the world' top paleoclimateologists, while the defendant has ... well, a pretty motley band of fossil fuel shills, really, who will only made a negative impression when their lack of credentials and special interests are shown.

Mann's lawyers can also argue that the plaintiff has been already cleared by over 6 enquiries, so it is wasting the court's time to re-hash them. Scientifically speaking, he has been found innocent many times over so it is unfair to put him on trial.

It should be interesting. Mann has nothing to lose.

PS The IPCC Nobel Scroll was presented to the Lead Authors, of which there were at least a dozen. Out of an enterprise of a few thousand, that signifies work of special merit.

Of course, it is typical denialist bullcrap to make a big issue of this, which is irrelevant to the case. They were never heard to complain when one of their own (Viscount Monckton) claimed to have won the Nobel Prize (or to have cured cancer, incidentally).

Monckton has a gold Nobel prize pin – Deltoid

Costa Rica now has over 90% of its energy from renewable sources.

About to become the world's first carbon-free economy.

And civilization, apparently, has not collapsed, as the denier-"alarmists" claimed it would.

Costa Rica: committed to renewable energy

Originally Posted by realist

List of nobel prize winners.
All Nobel Peace Prizes

Thanks for that list, I see Yasser Arafat was named as a recipient in 1994.
Says something about the whole organization that someone who devoted
his life to murdering Jews would be awarded a Nobel prize.

You're right, Michael Mann doesn't appear on the list. Considering the company
he would be keeping if he did ought to give him some relief.

[I'm out of here until next week]

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Costa Rica now has over 90% of its energy from renewable sources.

About to become the world's first carbon-free economy.

And civilization, apparently, has not collapsed, as the denier-"alarmists" claimed it would.

Costa Rica: committed to renewable energy

from the article: 'it’s no surprise that over 80% of Costa Rica’s electricity is generated by hydro facilities'

If we could have more hydro facilities in Ireland that would be a great thing. Unfortunately we don't have the landscape for it.

BTW, I thought ye enviromentalists were against hydro facilities as they clogg up rivers with slit and damage the environment?

Originally Posted by Mossy Heneberry

from the article: 'it’s no surprise that over 80% of Costa Rica’s electricity is generated by hydro facilities'

If we could have more hydro facilities in Ireland that would be a great thing. Unfortunately we don't have the landscape for it.

BTW, I thought ye enviromentalists were against hydro facilities as they clogg up rivers with slit and damage the environment?

I have no problem with hydro facilities, nor does anyone I am aware of.

I thought ye denialists insisted that the only viable modern society was one dependent on dirty fossil fuel, and the dirtier the better. CO2 being plant food, and all that, you know.

The environmentally aware argue for a balanced portfolio of energy sources that do no net damage to the earth. Eminently sensible, and indeed, conservative.

Costa Rica has of course a major advantage in the availability of hydro - it is the additional renewable energy resources they have brought on line that makes them special, and proof that the carbon-worshipping lobby is fundamentally wrong.

Whats the potential of hydro power along our west coast? I would have thought there is some potential at least?

Originally Posted by Dan_Murphy

Whats the potential of hydro power along our west coast? I would have thought there is some potential at least?

Paging Pat Gill!

Spirit of Ireland - National Project for Energy Independence