If he refuses to reveal his data and methodology then his theory on climate warming becomes suspect.Problem is, all of his data AND his methodology has been publicly available for years. You have to download the raw data and apply his formulas yourself, but that satisfies the scientific definition of "released".
He has a third option - drop the lawsuit. That’s probably what will happen. Hopefully Steyn can recover his legal fees in that event.Nope. See my second link that I just posted - Mann's double-downed on it.
I am trusting Mark Steyn has a lawyer working for him behind the scenesHe does not. He's gone total pro se. And Steyn is refusing any and all offers of assistance so far.
Another option is that he could be proven correct after a peer review...I do not agree with Mann's conclusions, but his work HAS been independently verified by other climatologists. So either those other climatologists are in on a big conspiracy, or his work is up to snuff. I make no claim to either, myself.
Actually, no, he hasn't. Much of his data is still hidden. That is one of the primary complaints on his work. . . and even his supporters admit it. Mann claims proprietary privilege. . . that cannot survive discovery.
Here are some items I’m considering for my list, along with a (relatively) short summary for each (in no particular order):The censored directory, misused PCA and other issues tie into that last one, but really, those two paragraphs are all people need to know. That alone, or perhaps in combination with the hiding adverse results, is easily enough for a person to believe Mann’s work was fraudulent.
- Tiljander – The Tiljander proxies were said by the data collectors to have been corrupted due to human influences, and as such, their data from ~1800 AD was worthless as a temperature proxy. Additionally, there were only two series. Not only did Michael Mann use these series with a methodology that requires proxies measure temperatures in the modern times, he used some of them upside down, and he duplicated information by using four instead of two.
- r2 – Michael Mann calculated statistical verification scores for his reconstruction. He published the favorable results while hiding the adverse results. He did this to such an extent he published some scores for one test (r2) while hiding others from the same test. When challenged on this, he lied by claiming he had never calculated any of the r2 scores (despite having published some).
- Additionally, the IPCC report which made him famous claimed his reconstruction passed multiple verification tests, a claim it couldn’t have made if people had known about the hidden, adverse results. Had he disclosed those adverse results, he would never have received worldwide attention, become a major public figure in the global warming debate, have written a popular book or become a player in political campaigns.
- Gaspe – Michael Mann used the Gaspe tree ring data twice. In one case, he artifically extended the series further back into the past so it could reach the 1400 AD mark his paper aimed for. He did not disclose this extension nor offer any justification for it. Without it, his results would have been notably weaker. Additionally, the Gaspe tree ring data for that period was based upon a single tree. Dendrochronologists say series based upon a single tree are inappropriate for use as temperature proxies.
- Temperature record as proxies – Michael Mann included modern temperature data, measured by man made instruments, in both his original reconstruction and his 2008 reconstruction. In both cases, they were treated as proxy data derived from nature.
- Precipitation record as proxies – Michael Mann has repeatedly used precipitation records as proxies in his temperature reconstructions even though he co-authored a paper criticizing other authors (Soon & Balinaus) for conflating temperature and precipitation proxies.
- Non-robust – In his original work, Michael Mann claimed his temperature reconstruction was robust to the removal of tree ring data. It wasn’t. He now admits (in his book) he knew it wasn’t almost immediately after publishing his original work, but he never corrected it. Instead, he wrote an another paper which built upon the earlier work.
- This last one cannot be stressed enough. Michael Mann knew his temperature reconstruction was dependent upon a small amount of tree ring data from one part of the United States. Knowing this, he allowed his work to be promoted as showing what temperatures were like for the entire northern hemisphere. Had he been honest, people would have known 90% of his data was irrelevant and all that really mattered was a small number of trees in one area.
(Of course, there are other topics to discuss as well. This is just a beginning of a list.)
Steyn has lawyers now, Kornstein and Platt, and they are really big guns.
I think it's best summed up by Ken White over at Popehat, though. He's the free speech expert, and he lays it out well:
That post is a month old, and like yours, is mistaken: http://www.steynonline.com/6201/what-kind-of-fool-am-i
Problem is, all of his data AND his methodology has been publicly available for years
This claim is also completely false. Go over to http://climateaudit.org/and read the complete history of the Warmists' conspiracy to deny rightful FOIA [and the UK counterpart laws] over many years, to many different petitioners.
He does not. He's gone total pro se. And Steyn is refusing any and all offers of assistance so far.
Untrue. It wasn't true when Popehat first claimed and posted it 5 weeks ago, and it obviously isn't true now.
So either those other climatologists are in on a big conspiracy, or his work is up to snuff.
They are involved in a conspiracy, which is what the East Anglia email scandals were all about. You need to disabuse yourself of your silly ideas; in particular, have fun reading Steve McIntyre's blog, where he meticulously establishes what the emails say, and in which he completely demolishes Mann's laughable claim that he has been exonerated of scientific wrongdoing by eleven different independent commissions. No. He hasn't. Only the PSU whitewash even mentions "Nobel Prize Winner" Michael Mann. You should also check out Bishop Hill. His timeline and details about the Warmist Cadre's attempt to suffocate debate and violate the law is illuminating as well.
This isn't Daily Kos, DU, or some other dump website where you're used to posting, where you can just post crap. Keep up to date with the facts, or don't post at all.
And Welcome to FreeRepublic, N00b.