0
lawrocket

Leading climate scientist threatens lawsuit over parody

By lawrocket, in Speakers Corner

Recommended Posts

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
I cannot post a link (on my blackberry and it's a pain) but apparently a video (I haven't seen it) has been circulating by a group called "Minnesotans for Global Warming." According to a Cease & Desist letter, the video makes use of the parodied image of Michael Mann - the climate scientist whose "hockey stick" graph is literally the symbol for AGW.

From what I've been able to digest, the crux of the C&D is that the makers of the parody have misappropriated Mann's image and have defamed his character. The dudes who made the video immediately withdrew it - lacking money for litigation. But some other groups found out about the letter and said, "we'll defend you and we'll post the video ourselves."

Their reasoning? If Mann doews, in fact, sue, then the process of discovery may give attorneys access to Mann's research files. If the reason for the lawsuit is that they accused Mann of being a liar, truth is a defense. The defense gets access to the files to find proof that Mann was lying.

Now Mann is in a rought position. If he sues, then he'll probably have to release his files for discovery. If he doesn't sue, then he's going to catch hell with the spin that Mann knows he'll be disgraced.


Of course, my personal thought is something else. I've frequently mentioned that scientists are into science for themselves, too. They are human. For present day climate scientists, their jobs are predicated upon there being a climate problem.

No longer is this the day of the basement scientist tinkering in a lab. Science funding is political in nature - inevitable when governments provide funding.

And many of these climate scientists get funding, receive granys and salaries, and feed their families on the basis of their names and reputations. Mann is saying his reputation of being harmed - much like the case where Jerry Fallwell sued Larry Flynt for a dirty parody.

The things is Mann is making a living on the basis of his positions. Mann made his reputation on the basis of his research. Mann makes his money on the basis of being a very public advocate for AGW.

The C&D letter is, in effect, an admission that he has staked his career on this and that such a dissenting viewpoint causes HIM damage.

It's not about the science. It's about him. And it is a reflection again that scientists are people. He is not just a scientist - he is a politician. He is an advocate. His livelihood depends on it. He's not a scientist - he's a public figure.

This, as much as anything, is why I approach BOTH sides of this issue with a grain of salt. There are personal interests at play. And much to lose for guys like Mann.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy9o8    0

Andy9o8
Quote

It's not about the science. It's about him. And it is a reflection again that scientists are people. He is not just a scientist - he is a politician. He is an advocate. His livelihood depends on it. He's not a scientist - he's a public figure.



Right, which is why Mann's case is a loser (legally): it's a parody of someone who holds himself out as a public figure.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

VTmotoMike08    0

VTmotoMike08
So they think he is wrong. OK. Good science is repeatable. They should be able to do the same experiments themselves and come to the same conclusions. One of three things will happen:

1. They can't replicate the experiment- so his method was flawed. Therefore, discount his conclusions
2. The can replicate it and his results don't hold up- then discount his conclusions and feel free to call him a liar now that you can back it up.
3. The can replicate it and his findings are repeated- then give credit where it is due. (or forget about anything that conflicts with your current views, your choice)

Then write a book about whatever you find and get rich!

I don't see any reason to bring courts and lawyers into this. If you have the money for a lawsuit, then you have the money for some lab time.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
Quote

So they think he is wrong. OK. Good science is repeatable. They should be able to do the same experiments themselves



Yes. Of course.

[Reply] and come to the same conclusions.



Yes. If the do it the same way. But that's where things differ. Because with matters such as this factoring, weighting and presumptions come in. So if I add additional weight to Yamal over other tree ring adjunct, one could run the simulations and get different results. But this wouldn't be repeating the experiment, would it? It adds subjective values to it.


[Reply]1. They can't replicate the experiment- so his method was flawed. Therefore, discount his conclusions



Yes. That is one method.

[Reply]2. The can replicate it and his results don't hold up- then discount his conclusions and feel free to call him a liar now that you can back it up.



Not necessarily. Assuming, for example, that forcing effect of precipitation is weighed more highly. Do the simulations assume decreasing sulfate aerosols? Do they weigh water vapor in one way or another?

One can replicate an experiment and reach the same conclusions. I, however, am personally more interested in the threshold questions, presumptions amd interactions.


[Reply]3. The can replicate it and his findings are repeated- then give credit where it is due.



Not necessarily. The conclusion is correct assuming all underlying presumptions are true. I can put a car on a dynamometer and get 25 mpg at 65 mph and record how I did it. The experiment can be replicated with the same result. I can then predict 25 mpg highway mileage. Then a driver may get 23 mpg at 65 mph. Does that invalidate my conclusion of 25 mpg at 65 mph? No, it does not. If I accounted for wind drag on the vehicle woth the dynamometer and still got 25 mpg, my science is not invalidated.

It's just that I may not have properly weighted tire pressure, tire contruction, road surface, surface temperatures, altitude, etc.

My exact conditions may be replicated and my conclusion valid. It doesn't mean that you'll get 25 mpg on the highway because my predictions and weigh given to various forcings may not have been accurate.


[Reply] (or forget about anything that conflicts with your current views, your choice)



I prefer not to do that. I simply think it's arrogant to suggest that we are completely correct.

[Reply]Then write a book about whatever you find and get rich!



I'd like to. I could say, "my experiment can be replicated and my conclusion is accurate." And you may say, "um, there's more to it."

I'm not going to be the person who says, "but you replicated my experiment."

Make sense?

[Reply]I don't see any reason to bring courts and lawyers into this. If you have the money for a lawsuit, then you have the money for some lab time.



I concur. It's why I think Mann made a grave political and PR error.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites