Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
The Courts Earth

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann 497

ideonexus (1257332) writes In January of 2014, the American Traditions Institute (ATI) sought climate scientist Micheal Mann's emails from his time at the University of Virginia, a request that was denied in the courts. Now the Virginia Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling that ATI must pay damages for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

Comments Filter:
  • by rgbscan ( 321794 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2014 @10:04AM (#47414873) Homepage

    The 97% number is not nonsense, as you claim, it comes from this widely cited peer-reviewed study.

    After reviewing over 11,000 scientific papers on climate change, of the papers that took a position on climate change (either for or against), 97% concluded it was indeed happening and induced by man.

  • by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2014 @10:08AM (#47414923)

    In Mann vs Steyn the NR will be able to troll through all of Mann's emails and data.

    Mann is in favor of his proceeding with discovery against Steyn - "The fact that Mr. Steyn has not appealed the denial of the motions to dismiss counsels further against a discovery stay. Mr. Steyn, like Dr. Mann, has made clear his desire to have this Court resolve this lawsuit and to move forward with discovery immediately. As such, there is no reason for this Court to delay discovery further."

    On the other hand, Mann is totally opposed to Steyn's proceeding with discovery against him - "While Dr. Mann agrees with Mr. Steyn that discovery should move forward on Dr. Mann's claims, discovery cannot move forward on Mr. Steyn's counterclaims."

  • by roccomaglio ( 520780 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2014 @10:17AM (#47415025)
    The statistic is not 97% of Scientists then is it. It is 97% of papers or 97% of scientist that published on global warming. That is not what the statistic claims to be.
  • by rgbscan ( 321794 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2014 @10:36AM (#47415191) Homepage

    Have you actually read the paper and the rebuttal in the blog you posted? The scientific paper specifically says says they removed the papers that did not take a position on AGW. Then the blog post comes along and says OMG! They threw out some papers and sensationalizes the very thing the scientific paper was up front about. How can the research paper count something in the for or against column (the very point of it's study) if no position is taken? It's a stupid sensationalist strawman.

    Scientific Paper: We removed from our study the papers that took no position for or against AGW. Here are the results of the papers with a position. This paper is not about how severe the conditions are, just tabulating the percentage of papers that conclude climate change is man made, and those that are not. That is the purpose of this research. Here is our data, linked to for your review. You can even download the PDF's and spreadsheets and review it in the linked data section.

    Your lame blog rebuttal: A sensationalized OMG! The scientific paper EXCLUDED papers that didn't take a position. How can their data possibly be credible now???? And even worse, they won't even say if its dangerous or not!!! This paper is a crock! Your lame blog then cites a letter from a scientist who asked for the data (even though it is all linked to and available on the IOP website) and the stufy authors didn't get back to them. The blog then cites this as daming proof that the study must be a joke. Because no one hand fed this guy data he could have downloaded off the site.

    You see why people can't take you seriously? Get yourself some peer reviewed data and we'll talk.

  • by FirstOne ( 193462 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2014 @11:04AM (#47415525) Homepage

    "Current CO2 concentration is 380 ppm or so."

    You're a bit out of date(2010), I see. Atmospheric CO2 has been crossing the 400ppm [] mark lately, (avr 399 ppm)

    Over the last year(june2013-june2014) it climbed by 2.56ppm, and that rate of increase appears to be accelerating, thus humanity is going to be in deep doo-doo real soon if we don't stop burning fossil fuels.

    The other facts you seam to be missing, Our star(SOL) was somewhat dimmer in the past, thus requiring much higher CO2 levels to keep the earth from freezing over. And that humanity is totally dependent on the current climate patterns..

  • by i kan reed ( 749298 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2014 @11:11AM (#47415581) Homepage Journal

    Plants are not the primary living consumers of CO2 on this planet. That'd be ocean-borne algae.

  • by rgbscan ( 321794 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2014 @12:54PM (#47416579) Homepage

    I didn't really mean to yell at you. I was characterizing the fervor of the blog you linked.

    If you feel it was sloppy, that 's the great thing about peer reviewed science. You are welcome to re-do it yourself. This was a simple study, with an easy to understand methodology, so I'm not sure what you find "sloppy". Please do elaborate.

    Repeat the experiment yourself.....

    Step 1) Researchers made a list of scientific papers from peer reviewed journals that search keywords found to match something about climate change. 11,000-12,000 of them. Here is the raw data (the one that your linked blog said the Norwegian scientist just couldn't somehow get his hands on, no matter how hard he tried or emailed, that your blog implied was a coverup).

    Step 2) Review and determine if the paper takes a stand on global warming. Exclude the papers that do not. (Since the whole point of this experiment is to determine that percentage of papers for or against AGW)

    Step 3) Determine the percentages of the remaining papers. Are they for or against? Publish result.

    All this other stuff you and the blog bring up... is it dangerous? how much is man made? etc, etc is outside the scope of the study. The point of *this* one particular study is to find out what percentage of published, peer reviewed papers, attribute AGW to man made causes. Coming up with the "consensus" of scientists. If you have other questions, look to other research, but don't knock this paper or setup straw man arguments based on something it's not. That's just shady.

  • Re: (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rei ( 128717 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2014 @03:38PM (#47418293) Homepage

    AEI, for one []. $10k for any paper that attacks the IPCC reports. There's other public offers out there, too. And I'm sure they're outnumbered 100 times over by not-so-public ones.

"I have not the slightest confidence in 'spiritual manifestations.'" -- Robert G. Ingersoll