Penn State climate scientist files defamation suit

Oct 24, 2012 by Renee Schoof, Mcclatchy Newspapers

Penn State University scientist Michael Mann, whose work showed that Earth's temperatures have risen along with increased fossil fuel use, announced Tuesday he had filed a lawsuit against the conservative National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute for defamation, complaining that they falsely accused him of academic fraud and compared him to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky.

Organizations denying that is a serious problem have condemned Mann for years.

Mann was one of the scientists whose emails were hacked from a climate research center at Britain's University of East Anglia in 2009. Climate skeptics quoted portions of the emails in an attempt to discredit the scientists in what the critics dubbed "Climategate." But government and university investigations found no misconduct.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, argued that the two conservative outlets and two writers named in the suit, Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, "maliciously accused (Mann) of academic fraud, the most fundamental defamation that can be levied against a scientist and a professor."

Simberg, in a Competitive Enterprise Institute blog post in July, wrote that "Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of , except for instead of molesting children, he molested and tortured data."

Competitive Enterprise Institute general counsel Sam Kazman said the institute withdrew the offending sentence within days when Mann's attorney complained. He said it was "an episode of rhetorical hyperbole." The institute didn't apologize, Kazman said.

"I do not believe he did anything wrong," he said of Simberg, an adjunct at the institute. Simberg said in an email his attorney advised him not to comment, "but I do stand by what I wrote."

In a blog post in National Review Online, Steyn quoted the Competitive Enterprise Institute blog's Sandusky comment in full.

"Not sure I'd have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph," Steyn wrote, referring to Mann's graph showing steady temperatures over centuries and a sudden rise in the 20th century. " ... And when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to 'investigate' Professor Mann. ... And, as with Sandusky and (football Coach Joe) Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing."

David Rivkin, an attorney for National Review, said, "The lawsuit is utterly lacking in merit and we are comfortable predicting that we'll prevail."

Mann is the director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State and shared with other climate scientists in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

"There is a larger context for this latest development, namely the onslaught of dishonest and libelous attacks that climate scientists have endured for years by dishonest front groups seeking to discredit the case for concern over climate change," Mann said in an email. "It's why I wrote my book 'The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars' about my experiences as a public figure in the climate change debate, and it's why I filed this suit."

His book, published this year, was about being at the center of attacks on science.

Explore further: Five anthropogenic factors that will radically alter northern forests in 50 years

4.4 /5 (14 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

University hit by new climate leak ahead of talks

Nov 22, 2011

(AP) -- The British university whose stolen emails caused a global climate science controversy in 2009 says those behind the breach have apparently released a second and potentially far larger batch of old ...

Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails

Dec 03, 2009

(AP) -- House Republicans pointed to controversial e-mails leaked from climate scientists and said it was evidence of corruption. Top administration scientists looking at the same thing found no such sign, saying it doesn't ...

Penn State scientist at center of a storm

Dec 09, 2009

A few words culled from some hacked e-mails in Britain have generated chaos in the world of climate science -- throwing dark clouds over Pennsylvania State University and stirring up negative publicity for the field that ...

Recommended for you

More, bigger wildfires burning western US, study shows

15 hours ago

Wildfires across the western United States have been getting bigger and more frequent over the last 30 years – a trend that could continue as climate change causes temperatures to rise and drought to become ...

User comments : 144

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (22) Oct 24, 2012
Its about time someone stood up to these outfits that use innuendo, bullying tactics and outright lies to attack the people presenting the science instead of dealing with the science.

Good on you Mike, and good luck.
TrinityComplex
3.5 / 5 (13) Oct 24, 2012
...the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing."


The difference being that further investigations by a multitude of outside organizations also found no fault. It may have been bad science, but if that's the case show why it was, and offer data from experiments that show conflicting findings instead of resorting to what amounts to name calling.

The emails from 'climategate' used to be available online. Extremely boring reading, but there was nothing damning when read in full, especially without having intimate knowledge of exactly how the experiments were run, which would have required actually being there.
Lurker2358
3.5 / 5 (24) Oct 24, 2012
This goes beyond mere "name calling," as the quote is despicable.

If I was him I'd sue too.

Comparing someone to a known hideous child molester and claiming he "molested" data is very much slanderous/libelous IMO.

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (25) Oct 24, 2012
Has anyone read De Tar Baby?

Mann will have to release all data requested by the defendants.
lengould100
3.3 / 5 (16) Oct 24, 2012
Competitive Enterprise Institute .... National Review Online
What a bunch of frauds. Coal lobby money.

All those idiots who've been sucked into an anti AGW extremism froth by the coal lobby should get to pay a share of the lawsuit settlement. Only problem is, the coal lobby will hire expert lawyers and drag this suit out for decades.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (13) Oct 24, 2012
Has anyone read De Tar Baby?

Mann will have to release all data requested by the defendants.


Obfuscation. Your innuendo is both insulting and lacking in evidence.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (23) Oct 24, 2012
How long did Penn State cover for Sandusky?
How can an internal Penn State investigation be trusted?

And I guess you have never read De Tar Baby either Maggy.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2012
Strawman.

I looked for De Tar Baby, couldn`t find anything. Can you link?
ScooterG
1.5 / 5 (24) Oct 24, 2012
Mann will have to release all data requested by the defendants.


Shining light into all the dark corners is exactly what AGW needs - let's hope the attorneys capitalize on this opportunity.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (14) Oct 24, 2012
Shining light into all the dark corners is exactly what AGW needs - let's hope the attorneys capitalize on this opportunity.


What light do you think will be shone? Other than on legal issues arising from libel and slander?
VendicarD
3 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2012
Rand Simberg like Rand Paul was named in honor of Ayn Rand, who's best friend was a child murderer who chopped the legs off of a 10 year old girl to get better access to her genitals.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is of course a Libertarian propaganda group, along with the CATO Institution.

These dishonest Libertarian organizations - are the origin of much of the Cancer that has destroyed America.
Mayday
2.4 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2012
Hmmm. Taking science into a court of law can backfire. See recent news from Italy. I might rethink this strategy.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2012
Strawman.

I looked for De Tar Baby, couldn`t find anything. Can you link?


I don't believe you looked.

This is the FIRST item that pops up on google:

http://xroads.vir...aby.html
rubberman
2.6 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2012
Hmmm. Taking science into a court of law can backfire. See recent news from Italy. I might rethink this strategy.


Mann will be fine, this isn't Italy. The burden of proof will be on the defendants to prove validity in their accusations. Because of the strong nature of what was said the defendants evidence will have to be very convincing....perhaps Uba and NotParker can provide their "evidence" to the defence team. I'm sure it will stand up under scrutiny.

If things look like they are going bad for the defendants Rygg could chime in with the Chewbacca defence...it never fails.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 25, 2012
"In a libel case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the following:
(42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8343) In a libel case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the following:

1. The defamatory character of the communication (including printed statements).
2. Its publication by the defendant.
3. Its application to the plaintiff.
4. The understanding by the recipient (such as a reader) of its defamatory meaning.
5. The understanding by the recipient of it as intended to be applied to the plaintiff.
6. Special harm resulting to the plaintiff because of its publication (such as impairment of reputation and standing in community, personal humiliation, mental anguish and suffering, and any other injury of which libel is legal cause).
7. Abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion (for example, if a newspaper publishes an article that creates the impression that the plaintiff's actions were worse than what a complaint about the plaintiff implies, Pennsylvania's "fair re
ScooterG
1.5 / 5 (19) Oct 25, 2012
Shining light into all the dark corners is exactly what AGW needs - let's hope the attorneys capitalize on this opportunity.


What light do you think will be shone? Other than on legal issues arising from libel and slander?


Don't know - email, financial sources, meeting minutes - one thing leads to another.
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2012
Don't know - email, financial sources, meeting minutes - one thing leads to another.


Ah, I see, another obscure reference to a non-existant conspiracy or some such.

I don't believe you looked.

This is the FIRST item that pops up on google:

http://xroads.vir...aby.html


Ok, I expected more than some obscure reference to folklore. I suppose you have some point you are trying to make, but I don't see it.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 25, 2012
, but I don't see it.

I am not surprised.
rubberman
3 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2012
Rygg, the quote in the article:"Simberg, in a Competitive Enterprise Institute blog post in July, wrote that "Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he molested and tortured data."

This covers 1-5 and 7 of your criteria for libel, for #6 Mann just has to prove the what was said made his life harder....as I said he has nothing to worry about.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Oct 25, 2012
he molested and tortured data."

That's what the NAS and others found.

Mann will have to prove he did NOT molest and torture the data.
rfw
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2012
This is GREAT!!! Its way past time that the science community starts fighting back in the courts. The deniers amount to a conspiracy that has seriously degraded the credibility of science and education worldwide. Additionally the damage they have done to our ability to respond to ecological destruction has been substantial. Michael Mann should sue their collective socks off for huge settlements, at least 10-20 million bucks each coupled with serious jail time. I hope the rest of the science community is paying supportive attention because many of them could do, and need to do, the same.

Maybe the Bush Administration could be sued as well...
VendicarD
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2012
"1-7" - RyggTard

On all counts then Cato, The Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the others, are all guilty as accused.

Filth.

VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2012
Actually they vindicated his analysis and methods.

"That's what the NAS and others found." - RyggTard

You are a liar of course.

I have never encountered a Randite who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

"Mann will have to prove he did NOT molest and torture the data." - UbVontard

After a half dozen investigations by his university and other academic establishments, that found that the accusations against him were fraudulent, the proof is readily available.
ScooterG
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 25, 2012
"Ah, I see, another obscure reference to a non-existant conspiracy or some such."

If there are no dark corners, then all is well. What are you worried about?
VendicarD
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2012
There seem to be an awful lot of whining denialists here.

"What are you worried about?" - ScooTard

How dare the groups that feed them their anti-Science propaganda not be allowed to slander scientists and science.

Whatever happened to the CEI's freedom to slander honest people?

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2012
Has Mann ever released the data and the analysis code used in his well published, NAS discredited hockey stick?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2012
"We find that the particular "hockey stick" shape derived by MBH98 is primarily an
artefact of poor data handling and use of obsolete proxy records."
"CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998)
PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES"
Energy & Environment · Vol. 14, No. 6, 2003

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2012
"Finally, we comment on several policy issues
arising from this controversy: the lack of consistent requirements for disclosure of
data and methods in paleoclimate journals, and the need to recognize the
limitations of journal peer review as a quality control standard when scientific
studies are used for public policy."

"In addition, we are struck by the lack of policy both in paleoclimate publications
and in climate policy reports (e.g. IPCC, ACIA) regarding the reporting of results
adverse to their claims. While it may be assumed that results adverse to their claims
would be generally disclosed, we are unaware of any paleoclimate journal which
explicitly articulates this as a requirement to authors"
The M&M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index
Energy & Environment · Vol. 16, No. 1, 2005
ScooterG
1.5 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2012
There seem to be an awful lot of whining denialists here.



Who's whining? I think the lawsuit is a great idea, and if Mann can prove he was slandered/libeled, then more power to him. If it is discovered that Mann has "molested" the data as claimed, then we need to know that as well.

The whole problem with AGW is the lack of credible data and credible people. Since we can't rely on the integrity of the scientists or their "peers", we need the courts to get involved.
VendicarD
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2012
What RyggTard fails to mention is that the "journal" Energy and Environment has a poor reputation for publishing poorly reviewed claptrap. Such as his reference below.

"CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998) PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES" - RyggTard

Energy and Environment – "journal of choice for climate skeptics" Analysing the 900+ skeptic papers part III

The list of '900+' papers linked to by the Global Warming Policy Foundation as supporting climate scepticism included more articles published in Energy and Environment than any other journal.

Energy and Environment's editor Sonja-Boehmer Christiansen has said that she is "following [her] political agenda" in editing the journal, which is co-edited by Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

http://www.carbon...0-papers
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2012
The piece RyggTard is quoting from is not from any of the reports that analysed Mann's work. But from a review of his work written by an economist and a college dropout.

"Finally, we comment on several policy issues" - Energy and Environment

Sorry RyggTard. But no matter how you try to paint it any other way, Mann's work and analysis was vindicated by the NRC.

Cont...
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 25, 2012
"What was clear to us was that McIntyre got the cold shoulder when he requested the data and the computer code used by Mann et al. to create the hockey stick. The replies that he got (which I paraphrase here) made little sense to any one who does computer modeling and data analysis. In essence, he was told that it would not be easy to give him the data, because it wasn't all kept in one place. The response that we all had to hearing that was, "So, how'd you run the model if you didn't have all the data on a single computer?" Mann should have been able to provide what was requested very quickly, and it should have amounted to nothing more than dragging folders onto a CD and burning a disk."
http://neverendin...92333908
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 25, 2012
"The big question that McIntyre wanted to ask when he met with us was why hadn't any one in the climate change field noticed the mistake in Mann et al.'s calculations. The answer we gave him was revealing to him and to us- to truly check the calculations that Mann et al. had made would take a reviewer several months, and the research science business isn't set up to do that. If you peer review some one's paper in Science, Nature, or any journal, you rely on the authors' reputations first. You ask yourself whether they do good work, and are they careful. If you find out that yes, they do and the are, then you check a few calculations to see if they are accurate, and then you review the paper for readability and typos. That's about it."
http://neverendin...92333908

This how Madoff was able to con so many. He had a rep certified the SEC.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2012
At the press conference the three NRC panellists said they found no evidence supporting the allegations of inappropriate behaviour such as data manipulation, or "anything other than an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure". Bloomfield as a statistician considered all the choices of data processing and methods to have been "quite reasonable" in a "first of its kind study". He said "I would not have been embarrassed by that work at the time if I'd been involved in it". In response to a question from Edward Wegman on the MBH use of principal components analysis, Bloomfield said this had been reviewed by the committee along with other statistical issues, and "while the issues are real, they had a very minimal effect, not a material effect on the final reconstruction.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2012
What Mann knew - and which history has shown to be correct - is that the request was for the purpose of nit picking, and then using whatever minor flaws that were found in attempts to discredit the analysis.

"What was clear to us was that McIntyre got the cold shoulder when he requested the data and the computer code used by Mann" - RyggTard

What the NRC Analysis showed was that there were some minor flaws in the Mann Analysis and that the graph without error bars was presumed to be more significant than Mann's analysis suggested, but that the overall conclusion was correct.

A conclusion that has been further vindicated by dozens of subsequent analysis using different data and different techniques.

Poor RyggTard. He is living in a Fool's Fantasy.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2012
Madoff was an economist who knows nothing about science.
So is Steve McIntyre, the person whom RyggTard Trusts more than 98 percent of the worlds scientists.

"This how Madoff was able to con so many. He had a rep certified the SEC." - RyggTard

It is laughable how Randites like RyggTard continually place their own faith in people like Ayn Rand are unworthy, even of respect.

Her continuous villification of the medical scientists for linking smoking to lung cancer and her subsequent death from lung cancer due to smoking was the ultimate in poetic justice.

It is just a shame she didn't die in the gutter where she would have told you others in her condition belonged if they could not pay their medical bills.

Of course, she chose to have her medical care paid for by the American state, rather than lying in a gutter herself.

Maggnus
2.8 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2012
he molested and tortured data."

That's what the NAS and others found.

Mann will have to prove he did NOT molest and torture the data.


Typical. I see you have no understanding of law either.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2012
How many climate scientists, or any scientist, is an expert statistician?
Look at any science curricula and how many data analysis courses and statistics courses are required?
Engineers are required to take at least 5 courses in calculus based mathematics and as a graduate, must take a few more.
Take a look at a Math Physics book. Not much on stats.
rubberman
2 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2012
How many climate scientists, or any scientist, is an expert statistician?
Look at any science curricula and how many data analysis courses and statistics courses are required?
Engineers are required to take at least 5 courses in calculus based mathematics and as a graduate, must take a few more.
Take a look at a Math Physics book. Not much on stats.


The equations physicists work with make statistics look like a kid counting on his fingers. Engineering is a science, but our university engineering programs in North America, although difficult, do not have truly difficult math requirements. In South Korea, they learn the same math from the same texbook in grade 10 that a university student studying civil engineering uses for their second year calculus course.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Oct 26, 2012
The equations physicists work with make statistics look like a kid counting on his fingers.

"Courses in engineering and surveying led me to the theory of errors, and in studying physics and mathematics, I learned a lot of probability. Kinetic theory of gases is a theory of probability. So are thermodynamics and astronomy. And so is geodesy, involving measurement of the earth's surface for the purpose of figuring the curvature or other characteristics of the earth. It makes use of least squares. And I had very good teachers in least squares.

"When people had problems with experimental data, I just worked on them and found myself able to make a contribution, of thought anyway. And I suppose that's the way I eased into it.""
"throughout his life, he championed the belief that statistical theory shows how mathematics, judgment, and substantive knowledge work together to the best advantage. "
http://www.amstat...;BioID=4
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Oct 26, 2012
Knowing how to drive a car does not make one an expert race car driver.
rubberman
2.2 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2012
Knowing how to drive a car does not make one an expert race car driver.


Correct, as with anything there are several variables that need to combine in order to be an expert at anything. But the fundamental ability required is where an expert evolves from.
VendicarD
3.5 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2012
You are... Of Course.

"Who's whining? " - ScooTard
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2012
"Carson's reputation, writing skill, and connection with deep religious themes in American life thus positioned Silent Spring to have a major impact on Americans' thinking about the environment. Unfortunately its message was deeply flawed."
http://www.thefre...0-years/

Anyone bother to take look at Mann's web site? There is a quote from Silent Spring. A book by a non-scientist on dubious crusade.
Mann's hero is crusader promoting non-science?
http://www.eesi.psu.edu/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2012
http://www.eesi.psu.edu/

Anyone know who funds Mann's Institute?
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2012
You know Ry, you almost started to present a cognizant argument. It is unfortunant that your pre-conceptions blind you so completely.

Take some time to look up "Logical Fallacies". You might also spend a couple of days reviewing "critical thinking". Then finally, take some time to review the terms "preconceived" and "bias".

Not that I expect you will, but it would help you to streamline your arguments, give you the basis upon which to judge the material you link to, and perhaps remove, or at least disguise, the inherent bias you display.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2012
Those climate scientists who don't agree with Mann are accused of being paid off.
How is Mann funded?
Or Anderson? http://www.arp.harvard.edu/
For an academic, it's a pretty sweet deal to have a research institute affiliated with a university and you don't have to teach.

Anyone remember Prof. Hathaway in "Real Genius"? Who says science doesn't pay?
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2012
Laughably, this is where RyggTard gets his entire knowledge of science.

"Anyone remember Prof. Hathaway in "Real Genius"? Who says science doesn't pay?" - RyggTard
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2012
Most of the Scientists who disagree with Mann, aren't even scientists.

"Those climate scientists who don't agree with Mann are accused of being paid off." - RyggTard

The now .DISGRACED. Patrick Michaels is of course a well paid as a CATO Shill, who has now been associated with yet another act of Libertarian Fraud.

http://www.desmog...congress

VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2012
"Carson's reputation" - RyggTard

Is Stellar.

Meanwhile...

Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy

http://www.scient...emocracy
VendicarD
2.5 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2012
Fifty Years After Silent Spring, Assault on Science Continues - Yale University

http://e360.yale....es/2544/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2012
" "The ban on DDT," says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, "may have killed 20 million children."
"
http://ngm.nation...xt4.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Oct 28, 2012
"As I neared the middle of the book, the feeling grew in my mind that Rachel Carson was really playing loose with the facts and was also deliberately wording many sentences in such a way as to make them imply certain things without actually saying them. She was carefully omitting everything that failed to support her thesis that pesticides were bad, that industry was bad, and that any scientists who did not support her views were bad."
{Sounds just like AGW supporters}
"I next looked up some of the references that Carson cited and quickly found that they did not support her contentions about the harm caused by pesticides. "
http://www.21stce...son.html
orti
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2012
This is how real climate change science is done. Threaten and intimidate those who disagree with you with bombast and financial harm. Maybe now those deniers will shut up and we can get on with some real consensus.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2012
" "The ban on DDT," says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, "may have killed 20 million children."
"
http://ngm.nation...xt4.html


Red herring.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2012
"As I neared the middle of the book, the feeling grew in my mind that Rachel Carson was really playing loose with the facts and was also deliberately wording many sentences in such a way as to make them imply certain things without actually saying them. She was carefully omitting everything that failed to support her thesis that pesticides were bad, that industry was bad, and that any scientists who did not support her views were bad."
{Sounds just like AGW supporters}
"I next looked up some of the references that Carson cited and quickly found that they did not support her contentions about the harm caused by pesticides. "
http://www.21stce...son.html


Appeal to higher authority.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 28, 2012


Appeal to higher authority.

The essence of the AGW argument. Mann et al are the highest author and cannot be challenged.
"The science is settled"
"The evidence is incontrovertible:..."
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 28, 2012
No one is concerned that a university research center extols a quote from a non-scientist who wrote a controvertible, political book?
djr
5 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2012
"No one is concerned that a university research center extols a quote from a non-scientist who wrote a controvertible, political book?"

Let's have a look at this subversive quote shall we - "In every out thrust headland, in every curving beach, in every grain of sand there is the story of the earth." Yes Rygg - is definitely sounds like something to have a coronary over.....

Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2012
The essence of the AGW argument. Mann et al are the highest author and cannot be challenged.


This is simply not true. Again, you are either deliberately obtuse or you honestly do not understand how science works.

Either way, you are wrong.

Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2012
No one is concerned that a university research center extols a quote from a non-scientist who wrote a controvertible, political book?


False Analogy.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2012
Poor RyggTard. There was no BAN ON DDT in Africa.

DDT has been used in Africa since it's creation.

Poor RyggTard. He just can't escape the fantasy land prison that his masters have created for him.

"The ban on DDT," says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, "may have killed 20 million children." - RyggTard

Rachel Carson, Mass Murderer?
The creation of an anti-environmental myth

http://www.fair.o...age=3186
VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2012
The quote is factually correct.

"No one is concerned that a university research center extols a quote from a non-scientist " - RyggTard

What is your objection to it?
VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2012
RyggTard can't tell the difference between a scientific challenge to Mann's work and a slanderous, and baseless claim that he has fradulently manipulated data and is no better than a child molester.

"The essence of the AGW argument. Mann et al are the highest author and cannot be challenged." - RyggTard

The reference to child molestation is an interesting one, because of course one of Ayn Rand's closest friends was a child molester and murderer, who cut the legs off a 10 year old girl in order to get better access to her genitals.

Rand referred to her child molesting/murdering friend as a "moral superman".

Ayn Rand is RyggTard's moral mentor.
VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2012
"The science is settled" - RyggTard

Correct.

"The evidence is incontrovertible:..." - RyggTard

Correct again.

Well done Tard Boy.
VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2012
"As I neared the middle of the book," - RyggTard quoting from an article written by J. Gordon Edwards in the Lyndon LaRouche quack publication 21st Century,

Edwards was prominent as a supporter of the use of DDT and critic of Rachel Carson. He was active as a member of, or consultant for, a wide range of lobby groups opposed to environmental regulation, including the American Council on Science and Health.

Edwards is a quack who has also been featured in the publication "The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons", which like 21st Century, is a conservative quack publication which for various reasons regarding dishonesty, fraud, and political advocacy among them has been repeatedly refused entry into major academic literature databases such as MEDLINE.

So once again we see RyggTard supporting his lunacy with QuackTard references to publications engaged in political and scientific Fraud.

He will never learn.

VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2012
RyggTards own reference doesn't even support his own assertion that some fantasy DDT ban killed 20 million children.

From his own source....

"... the chemical was eventually outlawed by most of the world for agricultural use. Exceptions were made for malaria control"

Fraud and coersion through lies is the only tool Libertarais and Randites have left to promote their Nonsense Ideology.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2012
"No one is concerned that a university research center extols a quote from a non-scientist who wrote a controvertible, political book?"

Let's have a look at this subversive quote shall we - "In every out thrust headland, in every curving beach, in every grain of sand there is the story of the earth." Yes Rygg - is definitely sounds like something to have a coronary over.....


And you think there is nothing else in the book they like?
I am sure they could have found come flowery quote from the Bible. But that would have been nothing to have a coronary about would it?
djr
5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2012
"I am sure they could have found come flowery quote from the Bible."

Well - I guess Rygg the quotation police would have to approve what they put on their web site first - we would not want freedom of thought would we? I think this quote from the bible would be fitting - "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:" I imagine the point is lost on you Rygg.
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2012
And you think there is nothing else in the book they like?
I am sure they could have found come flowery quote from the Bible. But that would have been nothing to have a coronary about would it?


Non-sequitar.
VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2012
As Scientists, they probably like it's honesty.

"And you think there is nothing else in the book they like?" - RyggTard

But you are repeatedly caught lying and trying to support your fantasy world view with quotes from industry hacks, and nonsense bloggers found on Conservative Quack Sites.

And you still haven't told us why your Mentor Ayn Rand had as one of her best friends someone she referred to as a "moral superman", for having the guts to chop off the legs of a 10 year old girl in order to gain better access to her genitals.

We are waiting.

djr
5 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2012
"But that would have been nothing to have a coronary about would it?"

Rygg - are you implying that anyone would be upset if Michael Mann chose to put a quote from the bible on his web site? Surely what is really important is the content of the quote. If he quoted this verse from Deuteronomy 25 - I might have a chuckle - "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2012
are you implying that anyone would be upset if Michael Mann chose to put a quote from the bible on his web site?


All the 'progressives' would be very upset.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2012
How about this:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20
djr
5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2012
"All the 'progressives' would be very upset." I think you project way too much - most people I know who would probably be called 'progressives' don't seem to have your need to control how others think.

I did not chuckle nearly as much at your verse - way too serious.

Remind me to explain the problem of infinite regression to you some time.....
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2012

Remind me to explain the problem of infinite regression to you some time.....


Kaff!! snort!! BAWHAHAHAW!
Almost blew my gatoraide through my nose!
Good one!
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (11) Oct 28, 2012
I think you project way too much -

Just observing the way 'progressives' think and act. Here and in the real world.

My other question is still actively being ignored. Who funds Mann's institute? No data is available on his web site. It's a public university no?
VendicarD
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2012
RyggTard's question is of course being ignored because Mann does not run an institute.

Poor RyggTard. Delusional as always.

Death will be his only release from his life of pure ignorance.
VendicarD
2 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2012
How about it? It is a pointless and meaningless as any of your other posts.

"How about this:" - RyggTard

Poor RyggTard. He is the enemy of Christ but insists that he is a Christian.

Lucifer is his true God.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2012
"Silent Spring didn't condemn millions to death" - New Scientist

"in 1972, the recently created US Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT for most domestic uses, this ruling had no force in other parts of the world, so the insecticide remained part of the international anti-malaria arsenal. The US continued to manufacture and export DDT until the mid-1980s, and it has always been available from pesticide makers in other countries."

http://www.newsci...l?page=2

"Rachel Carson was really playing loose with the facts" - RyggTard

Poor RyggTard. Caught lying again.
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2012
My other question is still actively being ignored. Who funds Mann's institute? No data is available on his web site. It's a public university no?


Ok, even though I am probably going to regret this, I have to ask--given Dr. Mann is currently head of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State, what institute, exactly, are you talking about?

Your motive is, of course, transparent, but please do humour me by answering my question.
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2012

Has anyone read De Tar Baby?

Mann will have to release all data requested by the defendants.


No, but I did read your autobiography, "Retard Baby".

Now, why don't you continue on with your indefatigable stupidiosity and reprise its contents for us?

Caliban
3 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2012

And this one --even for you, Retard Baby-- is simply too stupid to be passed up:

How about this:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—


"invisible qualities" --their words, not mine, yes?

"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20


I would say that the "people" would have a pretty goddam good excuse for not seeing these "qualities", since they are INVISIBLE, wouldn't you?

Alas, Retard Baby, I realize that this distinction may be far more than your limited intellect is capable of discriminating.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2012
How long will it be before Sally is blamed on AGW?

Maggie, I posted a link to the institute a while back. Do some research.
ScooterG
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 29, 2012
@ ryggesongn2: Take comfort knowing "to whom much is given, much is expected".
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2012
@ ryggesongn2: Take comfort knowing "to whom much is given, much is expected".

I take little comfort as few follow the advice of Ben Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility."

I have been stating AGW, and much science today, is a religion and here is another scientist who agrees:
"But the questions that science can tackle are nonetheless limited in scope. For most people, the deep questions of science do not shape their lives. For example, science does not touch on whether the universe has any point to it and it cannot even hope to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing."
"Certainly, years of being a scientist have led me to doubt pretty much everything I thought I knew. "
{But the science is settled.}
http://www.guardi...uestions
fraudbuster
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2012
Climate world is full of fraud scientists who get millions from the government but they fool public in the name of research and use the money for personal fame and power. Someone file a case against David Barber of university of Manitoba! This guy gets huge money from the government to save the Arctic, but is working with oil companies in setting up oil rig in the Arctic. Misuse of money and power; and making fool of innocent public!!
full_disclosure
1 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2012
RyggTard's question is of course being ignored because Mann does not run an institute.

Poor RyggTard. Delusional as always.

Death will be his only release from his life of pure ignorance.

Wretched childishness.....
djr
5 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2012
"science does not touch on whether the universe has any point to it"
Why does it have to have a 'point' to it - who made up that rule Rygg? I read your article - and I think it is drivel - lazy lazy drivel. You would do well to read the responses after the article. The first three responses are very poignant. You make up questions Rygg - and then feel like you have said something profound by claiming that science cannot answer your questions. As I have said to you before - and I think you cannot comprehend what I am saying - it is total hubris to claim that we can know what science will and will not be able to answer 100 million years from now.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2012
it is total hubris to claim that we can know what science will and will not be able to answer 100 million years from now.


It's hubris to think humans will be around to care.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2012
"It's hubris to think humans will be around to care."

Why is it hubris to think that humans will survive into the future? I of course recognize the possibility that we will annialate ourselves, or that a meteor will do that for us. Anything is possible - but I don't understand your accusing me of hubris for believing in the possibility that we will survive, and transcend. Please explain your logic - it makes no sense to me.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2012
transcend.

Transcend what?
Sounds quite religious.
Science is your religion?
After all, as the article I referenced earlier stated, the universe began from nothing, just as the Bible stated.
Maggnus
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2012
I have been stating AGW, and much science today, is a religion and here is another scientist who agrees:


You have been "stating" no such thing ryg. You are best described as a contrarian--you simply disagree with everything.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2012
I have been stating AGW, and much science today, is a religion and here is another scientist who agrees:


You have been "stating" no such thing ryg. You are best described as a contrarian--you simply disagree with everything.

Maggie, you have not been paying attention.
I have referred to AGW as a religion for quite some time. Their followers are AGWites.
Maggnus
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2012
I have been stating AGW, and much science today, is a religion and here is another scientist who agrees:


You have been "stating" no such thing ryg. You are best described as a contrarian--you simply disagree with everything.

Maggie, you have not been paying attention.
I have referred to AGW as a religion for quite some time. Their followers are AGWites.


If you ahd any idea of what you were talking about when you toss around this random jargon I might agree. However you show no such understanding, and parrotting the comments of others you find intriging does nothing to help your case.

You disagree for the sake of disagreeing. Nothing more.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2012
"Transcend what?
Sounds quite religious.
Science is your religion?"

I asked you a very specific question - I asked you to explain your logic - and you totally ignored the question - can you not read?

Transcend what? I am talking about transcending our current state of ignorance - a state in which we kill each other in large numbers for stupid reasons - such as 'I am from one religious sect, and you are from a different one - therefore I hate you - and will enjoy killing you.'

"sciece is your religion" Please define religion for me. I do not have a religion. I am an atheist. I do not go to any church - or worship on deities. Science is not a religion - it is an approach to thinking - it is based on some well documented principles of observation, experimentation, replication, etc. It seems you are very confused.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2012
dj, this essentially how the former atheist, CS Lewis, described how God could know, He was outside our spacetime.

"Either way, it would mean that the Universe is fundamentally nonlocal, in the sense that every bit of the Universe can be connected to any other bit anywhere, instantly. That such connections are possible defies our everyday intuition and represents another extreme solution, but arguably preferable to faster-than-light communication. "Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,"

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"

I do not have a religion.

Yes, you do. You don't want to admit your faith in science but it IS faith. Even Max Planck called it faith.
Atheism is a belief system and a religion: SCOTUS.
Science is a process. As Billy Koen likes to say in Discussion of the Method, science is a heuristic.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2012
dj, I asked what you mean by transcend because there are all sorts of ideas of humans evolving or like Star Gate SG1, ascending, implying a soul and another plane of existence, which is not denied by current physics.
Or in Fringe, or Star Trek with the Q or ...
After all 100 million years is a long time to evolve. Why do you expect humans to remain as we are now?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2012
You don't want to admit your faith in science but it IS faith.

There is a fundamental difference her:
A faith is something you stick to no matter what.

Science is a matter of 'going with what works'.
'Going with what works' is something you do UNTIL it doesn't work anymore. You continually put it to the test. As such there does not need to be a faith involved at all. When science turns out to be the wrong approach it will be dumped faster than you can say "What?".

Having 'faith' in science would be as nonsensical as having faith in bacon. It's there. It works. When it's not bacon anymore then you stop eating it.

ascending, implying a soul and another plane of existence, which is not denied by current physics

That goblins walk behind you that turn invisible every time you look is also not denied by current physics. Just because something is thinkable doesn't mean its sensible.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2012
A faith is something you stick to no matter what.

Really?
People with strong faith might stick to it, like AGWites or socialists.
It's there. It works.

Until it doesn't, then what?

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'
Max Planck "
"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.
Max Planck "

djr
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2012
"I do not have a religion - Yes you do" No I do not..... Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc. are all religions. They involved the worship of a deity. I do not worship a deity - I do not attend a place of worship. I do not consider myself a part of a group. Calling science a religion - is like calling math, or the English language a religion. Math is a system of thought - not a religion. Why can you not understand the difference? Could it be you do not wish to? You keep quoting Max Planck. Do you not understand that he is just one person - yes a scientist - but you see I do not see science as a religion - therefore I am very comfortable with the idea that a scientist may be very wrong - and I certainly believe that Max Planck was wrong if he considered science a religion that required faith. Define faith! I see it as the belief in things that have no evidence. I do not have faith. Can you understand this?
djr
5 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2012
"After all 100 million years is a long time to evolve. Why do you expect humans to remain as we are now?" I do not - and have never said that I do. You have a comprehension deficit. I do not know if we will survive 100 million years. I hope we do. The point I am making is that we have evolved a great deal as a species over the past millennia. The last few hundred have seen an acceleration in terms of our development of science and technology. IF we survive thousands or millions more years - I cannot imagine what we will become. My point to you is that it is hubris to try to define what science can or cannot know as we continue to evolve - and advance our intelligence. Machines will soon exceed the computing capacity of the human brain. They may become self aware, and super intelligent - I hope to live to see that day.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2012
it is hubris to try to define what science can or cannot know as we continue to evolve

Not really. It's mathematics.
If you assume time is continuous and let's assume the universe is finite in that all matter/energy can be counted and quantified,
how can you create an equation or a model to predict behavior?
Pick any time t1 and t2 and if time is continuous there is always a time between, to infinity. The model explodes.

I do not see science as a religion -

So? Do you define the mass of electron differently than everyone else?
The first step in any science is to standardized terminology and units of measure.
But dj can define language and religion the way he 'feels'. Not very scientific.
I do not have faith. Can you understand this?

No, and I don't think you do either.
As Planck said, you have no reason to believe the laws of physics won't change tomorrow. You have faith they won't change.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2012
Until it doesn't, then what?

As I said: If it doesn't then it will be dumped in a microscond. (unlike a faith which you can't really dump if better facts come along.)

People with strong faith might stick to it, like AGWites or socialists.

There is no such thing as an 'AGWite'. Either you look at the data and come to a conclusion or you don't. By all criteria of logic AGW is the conclusion that is supported by the facts. There's no faith involved here. It's like Relativity or Newtonian laws of motion. You don't need to believe in them. The data just bears them out (and Newton turned out to be a bad approximation for the more extreme cases so he got dumped in those cases without a second glance. If better data comes along against AGW then that, too, will be dumped. Currently it just doesn't look like there is any)
djr
5 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2012
"So? Do you define the mass of electron differently than everyone else?" No - and I don't believe that I define science differently than everyone else. Where do you find this definition of science that everyone else agrees on - that includes the term faith? Don't quote Planck - he is just one person. Where is this universal definition of science that you claim I violate?
djr
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2012
"I do not have faith. Can you understand this? 'No, and I don't think you do either'." Please define Faith for me. I regard faith as a belief in things for which there is no evidence. I do not have faith. Stop trying to tell me what I think. You talk out of your ass Rygg. If you have faith - that is your business - but it makes it you an idiot in my view to try to project your belief in fairy tales on me.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2012
"Not really. It's mathematics. If you assume time is continuous and let's assume the universe is finite in that all matter/energy can be counted and quantified, how can you create an equation or a model to predict behavior? Pick any time t1 and t2 and if time is continuous there is always a time between, to infinity. The model explodes."

What model explodes? Your paragraph above makes no sense at all to me - and it certainly does not relate to the topic under discussion - which is the statement of mine that "it is hubris to try to define what science can or cannot know as we evolve" What exists outside of our universe? Currently we do not know. Will we ever know? That is currently not knowable. Again Rygg - you talk out of your ass - and ramble on about things that do not relate to the question posed.

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2012
AGW is the conclusion that is supported by the facts.

What facts?
Since when do global climate models produce facts?

dj, do you have faith science can know all? Do you believe in a deterministic universe?
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2012
What facts?
Since when do global climate models produce facts?

Have you ever even looked at the climate trends?
I know you have a learning disability when it comes to distingusihing the words 'climate' and 'weather' - but still: you must be as blind as a bat if you don't see it in every graph that is based on MEASURED data out there.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2012
"dj, do you have faith science can know all? Do you believe in a deterministic universe?"

Rygg - I am sorry to be frank - but you really are dumb as a rock. I have said over and over that I do not have faith (ie the belief in things that we do not have evidence for). Can science know all? That is a question outside of my ability to know. Again - what is outside of our universe? - we do not know. Will we ever know? That is not known - just speculation at this point. Do I believe in deterministic universe? Honestly - not a question I have spent time thinking about. I have just done a little reading on your question. This sounds like a pretty good position to me - "So yes, randomness and determinism can both exist." From - http://answers.ya...9AAQ9a6q If you are asking if I believe in an intelligence behind the universe - my answer would be no - I am an atheist.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2012
It is interesting to me how far off topic Rygg has managed to pull this conversation.

The hallmark of being a contrarian--argue against everything until the original point of the discussian has been lost.

People with strong faith might stick to it, like AGWites or socialists.


AGWites? What are you talking about? Laughable.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2012
"It is interesting to me how far off topic Rygg has managed to pull this conversation. "

Totally agree. The other interesting thing is that if you look back through this kind of thread - Rygg is often asked very direct questions of clarification - and there is almost never a response. For example - I asked Rygg for his logic when stating that it was hubris to suggest the human race would not be here millions of years in the future. Total silence. I wonder if it is just a game to Rygg - or if I am trying to talk with someone who has a serious mental disorder - more the fool me.....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2012
I do not have faith

And I submit you are lying or are not human.

"This sentiment was expressed in the last century by Santayana, who argued that faith lies at the very core of human activity. For Santayana, like Hume before him, the uncertainties of human existence demanded a commitment to a set of assumptions that, while unprovable, made human action possible. As Hume demonstrated, we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but we act as if it will. This, for Santayana, was the essence of human faith. "
http://www.qcc.cu...Hope.htm

Have you ever even looked at the climate trends?

Yes. 12000 years ago most of my ancestor's homeland was covered in ice hundreds of meters thick. Now it is not. There has been a warming trend for several thousand years before humans started burning coal and oil.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2012
I do not have faith

And I submit you are lying or are not human.


You don't know what faith means... no one has to have faith in anything

"This sentiment was expressed in the last century by Santayana..."

He also didn't know what faith meant... believing that the sun will rise tomorrow requires no faith, it is a reasoned belief based on evidence.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2012
What does dj think of those scientists who have faith in string theory, or any theory yet to be falsified?
Maggnus
3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2012
What does dj think of those scientists who have faith in string theory, or any theory yet to be falsified?


Wow best example of begging the question I have seen in a long time.
djr
4.6 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2012
"And I submit you are lying or are not human" I am not lying, and I am human - therefore - you are wrong - and talking out of your ass.

If you really want to pursue this thread - you need to define faith. I have given you my understanding of the word faith several times. I see it as the belief in things for which we have no evidence. I repeat - I do not have faith. I do not believe in any deities, in prayer, in astrology, in tarot cards, in psychic mediums etc. etc. I do not have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. It may not. A huge black hole may have already swallowed the sun up - and in about 8 minutes we will all cease to exist. I think that you are incapable of understanding that someone else may not share your belief in fairy stories - so you accuse them of lying.
djr
5 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2012
"What does dj think of those scientists who have faith in string theory, or any theory yet to be falsified?"

What do you mean when you say they have faith in string theory? - I do not understand your question. I do not have an opinion on the subject of string theory - it is beyond my comprehension at this point. Why not concern yourself with answering the questions asked of you in previous posts (such as what is your definition of faith?)- rather than continually jumping into new areas that would require whole new threads? It seems you are not really interested in exchanging thoughts - just spreading random chaos.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2012
belief in things for which we have no evidence.

Who is 'we'?
This means then you have faith in, or trust those who provided the evidence.
Why do you trust them? Why should Mann be trusted if no one in the peer reviewed, scientific process you have faith in, no one has duplicated his experiment?
How do you trust, believe, have faith in anyone's experiment and data in which you personally did not conduct and analyze for yourself?
I do not have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Why do you bother to live?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2012
It appears some scientists are not as rigorous as dj:

"What We Believe But Cannot Prove"

http://en.wikiped...ot_Prove

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2012
What does dj think of those scientists who have faith in string theory, or any theory yet to be falsified?

What does faith have to do with (string) theory? Some theories look interesting. Scientists like to work on interesting things. If they'd pan out the value would be enormous. So it's worth a shot.

It's like going to the store and buying a new brand of ice cream. Will you like it? You don't know. You might lose money on buying something horrible. But you'll buy it anyways to TEST it. Then you'll know if it's any good or not. No faith in the taste of the product required at any point (other than that it looks good at first glance).

The only (marginal) difference is that with scientific theories you have to think up a test first. But the method of HOW to test it doesn't present itself UNTIL you know what the theory predicts (you know: the thing AGAINST which you can then test).

So that's why they work on it. To find a test.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2012
If they'd pan out the value would be enormous. So it's worth a shot.

Lot's of things are worth a shot. Why do some people pursue new ideas when no one else does or they are ridiculed for doing so?
Such individuals have faith in their ideas and are eager to pursue them.
You atheists seem to have some psychotic issue with the word 'faith'.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2012
"Who is 'we'?" We is us - humans. This means then you have faith in, or trust those who provided the evidence. Now you are using faith in a different manner. Why not stay with the word trust. Yes I trust in the scientific process - and in the integrity overall of scientists. Of course there are bad apples - and they usually get caught by the process - study Ponz/Fleishman (sp). Here is a specific question I asked you - and instead of answering the question - you bounce off into other areas - do you have ADHD? What do you mean when you say they have faith in string theory? "Why do you bother to live?" I like beer, ice cream, and sex - so I can generally find a reason to get up in the morning and enjoy my life. Why do you ask stupid questions?
djr
5 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2012
You atheists seem to have some psychotic issue with the word 'faith'.

I certainly do. Why? When I talk to people of 'Faith' - they think they are so superior - because they have this magical characteristic called 'faith'. They say dumb things to me like 'I do not have to have evidence for my belief in God - I just have to have 'Faith'. I am not impressed with this strange phenomena they call 'faith'. They do not understand that their 'Faith' does not impress me. In fact it does the opposite. It causes me to lose respect for them - as I feel it is lazy to base your existence on something like 'faith'. I prefer a rigorous and tangible system such as an evidentiay based system of knowlege. Why do you not answer the questions posed to you on these threads Rygg - do you not understand the concept of dialogue?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2012
as I feel it is lazy to base your existence on something like 'faith'

Then you are lazy as you have faith scientists and the peer review process are correct.

You confine the definition of faith. I don't because the meaning is not changed whether you refer to God or to science.

This is a dictionary definition of faith:

"a high degree of trust or confidence in something or someone"

I am not impressed with this strange phenomena they call 'faith'.

Too bad. Many very successful people only had faith in themselves and their ideas when they started down their path to success.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 31, 2012
" Setting up Science as the opponent of religion has the same fundamental problem: it becomes a pseudo-religion based on science. Science with a capital S would assert that science can explain (or will ultimately explain) everything – we just need the time to get there. However, this stance is faith, not science, or rather "faith in science", which is not science but a belief."
http://www.guardi...cal-cool

And this is from a scientist, if you care.
Maggnus
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2012
And this is from a scientist, if you care.


You are talking in circles. I think you are as confused about how the scientific method works as you are about global warming.
djr
4.8 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2012
"it becomes a pseudo-religion" No it does not. Science is a way of thinking - not a blind adherence to a book of fairy stories. Maggnus is correct - you are talking in circles - you do not have any grasp of the concepts being discussed. Science is not the opponent of religion - it is just a framework. Religion is the opponent of religion. How many people today believe in the old Greek gods? They have been dropped into the dustbin of history. The tide of history cannot be stopped - and today's religions will also be dropped in that dustbin. Remember Harold Camping? If you want an interesting read - look at this article on Camping's followers. http://www.religi...hey_now/
VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2012
A Randite talking in circles? Impossible.
He is talking in knots.

Too bad he won't tell us why his hero Ayn Rand took as her best friend a "moral superman" as she called him, who cut off the legs of a 10 year old girl to get better access to her genitals.

RyggTard will never respond to that fact of history, but if he did, it would be fun to see how tightly he can talk himself into knots.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2012
Science is a way of thinking

Science is a process.
Popper's view of science is a hypothesis must be falsifiable to called science. This is a challenge to conduct science on emergent systems like climate and economics.
Kuhn had a different perspective. His observations were more descriptive of how people do science and how a societies of scientists interact.
dj, and many others here, appear to follow Science, not science,as the author suggested.
Billy Koen in Discussion of the Method views science as a heuristic. The Method is engineering since humans have been engineering long before they were doing science.
Since no human can ever know what another human thinks, believes or feels (no mind melds) how and why people have faith in God or science or any other process is their heuristic.
Jodi Foster's character, a 'faithless' scientist, in Contact spoke with an alien, but couldn't prove it to anyone.
Science has limits.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2012
"dj, and many others here, appear to follow Science, not science" I don't 'follow' anything. I have tried explaining that to you over and over. As you correctly state - 'science is a process'. Algebra is also a process. I don't 'follow' algebra. You are incapable of understanding such a simple point. I will ask you a very simple question - that you will proceed to ignore. What do you see as the difference between engineering and science? You say we have been doing engineering much longer that we have been doing science. I don't see that at all - and think we do not agree on the definitions of science and engineering. A chimp is doing science when he/she uses a simple tool to catch termites and eat them. Observation, hypothesis, testing - it is not as complex as you want to make it. You just cannot conceive of a world in which people are content to think - and do not need the comfort of a magical god.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2012
"Science has limits." Does algebra have limits, or is it just limited by the frail human mind that tries to understand it? Humans definitely have limits. Science and engineering is already pushing back those limits. We have glasses, hearing aids, prosthetics, brain implants etc. Will we one day remove all of those limits? I can conceive of a day when we will. You keep trying to limit the future. You have no imagination.
TrinityComplex
5 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2012
I'm not opposed to conversations like this most of the time, but this one is not going to go anywhere. Neither side is going to convince the other of anything at this point, per trends in similar conversations on prior threads. This is probably a good time for everyone to move on to other articles.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2012
A chimp is doing science when he/she uses a simple tool to catch termites and eat them.

No, it is not doing science.
That is engineering. It's doing what it takes to get the job done.
people are content to think -

Why DO people think?
Does algebra have limits

Algebra would not exist without human thought.
You keep trying to limit the future.

Not me. Just don't be too surprised when science can't solve all the mysteries of the universe.

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
Max Planck "

In every Star Trek series one character was 'logical' and trying to be or understand illogical humans. Roddenberry created these characters to show there are limits to logic/science and human irrationality, faith, are important and necessary.
dj can choose his irrationality any way he wishes.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2012
"Neither side is going to convince the other of anything at this point"

Convincing Rygg of something is not my intent. I don't see this as a battle to win or lose - rather an opportunity to take a stand. Rygg and his ilk often have unfettered freedom to plaster their nonsense on sites like Physorg - once in a while I take the time to practice my thinking skills - and let them know there are others out here who have strong beliefs - and will take the time to communicate.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2012
" You keep trying to limit the future. - Not me." Yes you....

"Just don't be too surprised when science can't solve all the mysteries of the universe."

Once again - we cannot currently know what science will or will not be able to do in the future. You limit the future by claiming that you know what science can and cannot answer. As you said - science is a process - we have no way of knowing what will be uncovered in the future. What lies outside of our universe? We do not know. If you understood this point - you would shut up - and let history take it's course.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2012
others out here who have strong beliefs -

How objective are those beliefs?
djr
5 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2012
"How objective are those beliefs?" They are not at all objective. I am a human - so my thoughts and beliefs are of course subjective. I don't believe the universe cares about what I think - but I care, and others I interact with care. I use a rational - evidentiary based system of thinking - that I think is defensible. The difference between you and me - is not objective vs subjective, it is rational vs. superstitious.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2012
"How objective are those beliefs?" They are not at all objective. I am a human - so my thoughts and beliefs are of course subjective. I don't believe the universe cares about what I think - but I care, and others I interact with care. I use a rational - evidentiary based system of thinking - that I think is defensible. The difference between you and me - is not objective vs subjective, it is rational vs. superstitious.

How can you be certain of any rationality from a subjective POV?

"In today's unpredictable and chaotic world, we look to science to provide certainty and answers--and often blame it when things go wrong. The Blind Spot reveals why our faith in scientific certainty is a dangerous illusion, and how only by embracing science's inherent ambiguities and paradoxes can we truly appreciate its beauty and harness its potential."
http://books.goog...13r0IgYC
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2012
How can you be certain of any rationality from a subjective POV?

Are you trying to use logical argumentation to attack the notion of logical argumentation?

I think that's the main reason why people are exasperated with the stuff you post: you claim to use (rational) thought to come to your conclusions - but all your arguments revolve around claiming that people who do use rational thought (and have the data and work to back it up) are wrong.

It's these very basic failures in understanding that lead to you not being taken seriously.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2012
How can you be certain of any rationality from a subjective POV?

Are you trying to use logical argumentation to attack the notion of logical argumentation?

I think that's the main reason why people are exasperated with the stuff you post: you claim to use (rational) thought to come to your conclusions - but all your arguments revolve around claiming that people who do use rational thought (and have the data and work to back it up) are wrong.

It's these very basic failures in understanding that lead to you not being taken seriously.

"Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it.
Max Planck "
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
Max Planck "
djr
5 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2012
How can you be certain of any rationality from a subjective POV?

Because rationality - and objectivity are two different things - which is why we have two different words - as Anatalias points out - your failure to understand very basic concepts - leads us to not take you seriously.....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2012
AGWites? What are you talking about? Laughable.

"ONCE upon a time when Christendom was at its peak, missionaries would be dispatched to the four corners of the globe in search of converts. They believed their mission would expand the influence of Rome and save heathens from eternal damnation."
"Climate science is a bit like that - push the rewards and the catastrophes far enough into the future, and have faith that the prophecies will come true. However, unlike heaven, which we may reach at any time, climate prophecies need to be distant enough to make them hard to challenge yet sufficiently close to generate urgent action."
"When Mother Nature decided in 1980 to change gears from cooler to warmer, a new global warming religion was born, replete with its own church (the UN), a papacy, (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and a global warming priesthood masquerading as climate scientists."
http://www.austra...climate-
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2012
However, unlike heaven, which we may reach at any time,


Given the frequency with which you break the lord's commandment not to lie( and, I'm sure, several of the others), I wouldn't be looking for that to be the place of your final rest, Swenson.

More news stories

China says massive area of its soil polluted

A huge area of China's soil covering more than twice the size of Spain is estimated to be polluted, the government said Thursday, announcing findings of a survey previously kept secret.

There's something ancient in the icebox

Glaciers are commonly thought to work like a belt sander. As they move over the land they scrape off everything—vegetation, soil, and even the top layer of bedrock. So scientists were greatly surprised ...

Six Nepalese dead, six missing in Everest avalanche

At least six Nepalese climbing guides have been killed and six others are missing after an avalanche struck Mount Everest early Friday in one of the deadliest accidents on the world's highest peak, officials ...

Clean air: Fewer sources for self-cleaning

Up to now, HONO, also known as nitrous acid, was considered one of the most important sources of hydroxyl radicals (OH), which are regarded as the detergent of the atmosphere, allowing the air to clean itself. ...

Scientists tether lionfish to Cayman reefs

Research done by U.S. scientists in the Cayman Islands suggests that native predators can be trained to gobble up invasive lionfish that colonize regional reefs and voraciously prey on juvenile marine creatures.

Leeches help save woman's ear after pit bull mauling

(HealthDay)—A pit bull attack in July 2013 left a 19-year-old woman with her left ear ripped from her head, leaving an open wound. After preserving the ear, the surgical team started with a reconnection ...

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...