BREAKING – Warning to Michael Mann: apologise for your lie or risk facing from me what you’ve done to SteynPosted: February 25, 2014
BREAKING via Andrew Bolt Blog :
Normally I do not sue, but this seems to me a special case.
Mann has published an outright lie that defames me, and should face the same punishment he wishes to mete out on Steyn for mere mockery.
I do not lie and Murdoch does not pay me to do so. Nor has Mann singled out a single “lie” I’m alleged to have committed.
In fact, Mann is so reckless with the facts that his tweet links to an obvious parody Twitter account run by one of my critics, clearly believing that it’s actually mine.
MUST READ also : Steyn et al. versus Mann | Climate Etc.
UPDATE via Bolt
I have sent Mann the following email:
I note your publication of the following defamatory tweet:
You have published an outright lie that defames me.
I do not lie and am not paid by Rupert Murdoch to lie. You have not identified in your tweet a single example of an alleged lie, which suggests you simply made up this defamatory claim.
Indeed, you were so reckless with the facts that your tweet links to an obvious parody Twitter account run by one of my critics which you have clearly believed is mine.
Your other link is to the website of a warmist journalist who for years was a Murdoch columnist, too, writing on climate change. Was he, too, paid by “villainous” Rupert Murdoch to “lie to public”?
I’ve since learned that you last year retweeted another defamatory comment: “No other media organisation in any other civilised nation would employ #AndrewBolt as a journalist”.
As it turns out, that, too, is incorrect. I am not only employed by News Corp but by Australia’s Network 10 and Macquarie Radio Network, where I host a weekly television show and co-host a daily radio show respectively. I have also appeared as a commentator on other media outlets, including the state-owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Al Jazeera, the BBC and Canadian radio stations. I am very confident I would be able to find work as a journalist in another “civilised nation”.
I note this because repeated defamations under Australia’s law is evidence of malice – and your history of defaming me shows a complete disregard for the facts.
It is appalling that you could be so reckless, so spiteful, so destructive and so ill-informed. I have long doubted the rigor and the conclusions of your work as a climate scientist and often deplored the way you conduct debate, but even I had never before today considered publically calling you a liar.
I demand you delete your tweet and issue a public apology on the same Twitter account within 24 hours. Failure to do so will not only cast doubt on your commitment to truth in debates on global warming, but expose you to legal action.
Mann gives a very grudging “not necessarily” apology for his brazen lie (and follows it up elsewhere with a string of insults):
Too late. His mask has slipped. What else has he repeated – whether “science” or personal calumnies – that was false and motivated by spite or self-protection?
Now, how to get Mann to apologise for his “hockey stick” as well?
It’s a “jump the shark” moment for Mann.
As if taking a cue from yesterday’s essay The Merchants of Smear in deciding “enough is enough”, Herald Sun Journalist Andrew Bolt has decided to stand up to him for defamation. He did so in a most professional but firm way. I repeat what he writes in:
Open and shut case. Michael Mann is a liar:
Normally I do not sue, but this seems to me a special case.
Humans don’t have much control over the climate outside of their living room, so all large scale climate changes are natural variability
This entire climate conversation is a bunch of contrived BS, with idiotic words like “forcing” We don’t push the climate around, the climate pushes us.
“When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself.” – Mark Twain
“There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.” Richard Feynman, Letter to Armando Garcia J, December 11, 1985
US educator & physicist (1918 – 1988)
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
– Albert Einstein
No empirical evidence exists proving mankind’s extra carbon dioxide caused slight warming from 1976 to 1998, or whether humanity’s 3% addition to total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused, or will cause, significant climate change.
The IPCC has spent upwards of one hundred billion dollars over the past twenty five years on climate research, energy studies and climate policy, and is still yet to identify a human signature in the global temperature record.
The only area where the effect of man-made CO2 has been detected is in the climate models which show, predictably, lots of warming. But models are assertions, not evidence, and the real world is falsifying the models and the assertions — all of them.
‘That, of course, doesn’t mean that humans have no effect on global temperature, because we know that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas, and we can also measure the local temperature effects of human activity, which are both warming (from the urban heat island effect) and cooling (due to other land-use change, including irrigation). Sum these effects all over the world and obviously there must be a global signal; that we can’t identify and measure it indicates that the signal is so small that it is lost in the noise of natural climate variation.’ (Bob Carter, Quadrant)
‘Scientifically’, alarmists have failed to make their case. However, ’emotionally’, they have captured the world’s intimate attention.
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russell
It is scepticism that keeps science honest. And given the billions of dollars that are being poured into policies and research on the basis of alarmist model forecasts, people need to be asking a lot of questions about the science.
Here are some questions that sceptics have been waiting for years to receive answers :
- Why has there been no global warming for 17 years?
- Why have 97% of the climate models failed to foresee this?
- Why has Antarctic sea ice been well above normal for more than 2 years?
- Why are northern hemispheric winters getting colder?
- What makes the present warm period any different from that of the Medieval warm period?
- Why is it that CO2 has been suddenly assumed to be the major climate factor and the rest like the sun and oceans are dismissed?
- If there is consensus on manmade climate change, then why is there so much controversy over it?
- Do you think that it’s not necessary to have sceptics in order for science to progress?
- If human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is 3%, how much should we attribute mother nature’s 97% to any ‘change’ of climate?
- By how much will the temperature of the globe change if we commit to a 20% reduction of world emissions by 2050?
- By how much will a doubling of CO2 increase global temperature?
- Why has the rate of sea level rise decelerated since 2004, despite rising CO2?
- Why has global ocean heat content, 0-700 metres, failed to rise since 2004?
- What evidence would falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming?
*Questions 1-8 via NoTricksZone. (Climatism links added)
15. What is the ideal temperature of the planet and who determines it? And what happens if the ‘ideal’ temperature changes?
H/t to John R. Bolton
See also :
- South China Morning Post : People would be idiotic not to question climate science | Climatism
- THE TIMES : The sceptics are right. Don’t scapegoat them | Climatism
- Is there any evidence? « JoNova
- Man Made Global Warming Disproved « JoNova
- The Missing Hot Spot | Climatism
- NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago | Climatism
- Establishing Propaganda Is Vital For Climate Action | Climatism
IPCC Failed Climate Models :
- 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | Climatism
- A must read: Why Secretary of State John Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate Change | Climatism
- US SENATE : 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims | Climatism
- Former NASA Scientists Reject Global Warming Crisis | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
Climatism Trending :
- The Worst Scientific Scandal Of Our Generation | Climatism
- Socialism Masquerading As Environmentalism | Climatism
- Driessen : A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude | Climatism
- Global Warming Was Never About Science. It Was Always About Power And Money | Climatism
- Prestigious German Research Centre Endorses “The League Of Deniers” | Climatism
Sea Level Rise Related :
- Rate of global sea level rise decelerating this century
- No Sea Level Rise Along The Western Coast Of North America Since The Start Of Satellite Records
- Scientists Find That Sea Level Rise Is Much Slower Than Expected…No Human Fingerprint
- Global Sea Level Trend – 1.08 mm/year – NOAA records
- NEW PAPER : The global mean sea level started decelerated rising since 2004 with the rising rate 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012.
- NEW PAPER : Sea level rise slowed from 2004 – Deceleration, not acceleration as CO2 rises.
- NEW PAPER : New paper finds global sea levels rising at only 7 inches per century or 1.5mm/yr – THE HOCKEY SCHTICK
- Pacific Island Nations Are Growing Not Sinking
- The Maldives Are Not ‘Sinking’, They Are In Fact ‘Growing’
The most sophisticated satellite for measuring sea level was the EU’s Envisat. It was delivering non-scary data, so they killed off the satellite and altered the pre-existing data to nearly triple the rate of sea level rise.