Posted on 12/30/2013 11:33:52 AM PST by neverdem
A propos the big campaign here to fight off Michael Mann’s assault on free speech, several readers have asked me directly and also inquired in comments on NR’s fundraising post below what the appeals court judges’ ruling actually means in English. I agree that it’s helpful, when one is soliciting donations for a legal campaign, to provide an update on how the battle’s going, so I don’t know why one of NR’s editorial staff could not have posted the court order with an accompanying explanation. But what it means is this:
- Dr Michael Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, filed a fraudulent complaint falsely representing his client as a Nobel Laureate, and accusing us of the hitherto unknown crime of defaming a Nobel Laureate.
- After Charles C W Cooke and others exposed Dr Mann’s serial misrepresentation of himself as a Nobel Prize winner, Mann’s counsel decided to file an amended complaint with the Nobel falsehood removed.
- Among her many staggering incompetences, DC Superior Court judge Natalia Combs-Greene then denied NR’s motion to dismiss the fraudulent complaint while simultaneously permitting Mann’s lawyers to file an amended complaint...
Heh. I guess I'm less patient. I cancelled mine when Buckley left. It was nowhere near as much fun after that. ;-)
After reviewing a quick Google search of the "Judge," I'd say Steyn is perfectly correct to conclude she's going to screw him over no matter what he says or does. He had nothing to lose here, and he ought to know. Rating almost dead last in the DC Superior Judge ratings is quite an accomplishment. They must do all the testing in cursive.
I looked at the pictures, and she looks stoned as all get-out to me. Looks like pot.
The judge has made up her mind already it sounds like
Then 'tis as I suspected.
bump
I agree! Just like I think cops and teachers and others who abuse people should pay out of pocket instead of taxpayers, the same thing should happen in court. These kinds of lawsuits should never be filed in the first place IMO.
5.So everyone is starting afresh with a new judge, a new complaint from the plaintiff, and new motions to dismiss from the defendants. That’s the good news.
6.The bad news is that Mann’s misrepresentation of himself as a Nobel Laureate and Combs-Greene’s inept management of her case means that all parties have racked up significant six-figure sums just to get back to square one. In a real courthouse – in London, Toronto, Dublin, Singapore, Sydney – Dr Mann would be on the hook for what he has cost all the parties through his fraudulent complaint. But, this being quite the most insane “justice system” I have ever found myself in, instead the costs of the plaintiff’s vanity, his lawyer’s laziness and the judge’s incompetence must apparently be borne by everyone.
Tell us how you really feel. :-)
In a world where a corporation can wield enormous funds to stiff a legitimate litigant, what would you propose as a means to just recourse?
get a process in place to punish people who use the legal system as a tool to harm people. It happens every day, and it’s fostering a general disrespect for the law.
^^^^^
Loser pays fees and court costs would stop a whole lot of ‘frivolous’ lawsuits.
The argument is that would deprive poor people of the opportunity to take someone to court. You raciss.
The judge Steyn said that about has retired.
thx
This specific area is a pet peeve of mine. The article you linked does not address basic research, but epidemiological--large scale observational--studies. And, unfortunately, since it is impossible to set up real control and experimental groups in those studies, those studies are flawed from the get-go. Add to that that most "researchers" conducting those studies are not trained PhDs (who are trained specifically in research methodology), but MDs--and that those MDs very often initiate those studies on the basis of preconceived biases--which means that they are not trying to reveal any new knowledge, but to confirm whatever beliefs they have--well, it all just adds up to problems.
Epidemiological studies rely on heavy-duty statistics to determine whether there is a difference between the groups in the study, and if there is a (often minuscule) difference, they are then touted as "proof" of something, when in reality, they only identified an area in need of more research.
Basic research is far more rigorous. When I set up control group A and test groups B, C, and D, I know that they are identical in every respect except for the experimental treatments. I can then be sure that, for example, the change I observe in expression of gene X is really a consequence of exposure to chemical Y. Where epidemiological studies use statistics to "demonstrate" that something is going on, I use statistics to validate results that are already fairly straightforward.
What kind of science is "climate change" science?
A serious question, since you seem to have knowledge of the topic.
To me, computer models are not science. To me, "consensus" is not science.
Climatology is observational, not experimental, science.
One of the major problems in this area is that climate is affected by many factors, some acting on a time-scale of millenia. A complication is that we have only had extremely precise methods of measurement for a few decades. Many of the anthropogenic global warmists (AGWs) combine estimates of pre-historical temperatures (determined by proxies such as tree ring thickness, quantity of CO2 frozen in ice cores, etc.), historical measurements using inaccurate non-standardized thermometers (recorded in old ship's logs and so forth), and modern high-accuracy measurements (e.g. satellite data) to show that "global warming" is occurring. However, one cannot mix data measured with different methods--especially where method accuracy is so varied--in that fashion.
And you are correct, computer modeling is not science. Computer models are helpful for simple predictions and for data analysis, but they are not substitutes for actual experimentation.
Which is exactly how Michael Mann manufactured his "hockey stick" graph.
What about the effects of grant money on scientific research? For instance, if there is lots of grant money to conduct research that "proves" global warming, but no grant money for research that questions it, does that affect the type of research subjects that get chosen by scientists?
The effect of grant money is not so clear-cut. Scientists typically choose the kind of research they want to do, and look for funding sources to support the research. Some kinds of research have no funding, so will not be done or will be conducted through private donations. With respect to AGW, politicians decide to make more money available for research, but scientists then say that everything is related to AGW... whether it is or not. What I have seen a lot of is that scientists talk about their work, discuss what their results mean, and then toss in the phrase "because of global warming"--which often is completely irrelevant to their work. But if they can tie their work to AGW, they are more likely to get funding.
Although politicians decide what kinds of research get funded, it is scientists who recommend specific projects for funding during grant reviews. Now we get into personalities, rivalries, competitions... Certainly, the grant review process is far from perfect, and some projects get funded that shouldn't, while others that should be dropped get funding. But no one has come up with a better process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.