Roger Pielke on the Mann trial
Even so, in a trial that most neutral observers would surely see as favoring the arguments of the defense, Mann walked away with a resounding, comprehensive victory.7 How did that happen?
In my view, there were two absolutely pivotal moments in the trial.
One occurred when Mann was testifying and he explained that he felt that the bloggers were not just criticizing him, but they were attacking all of climate science, and he could not let that stand. As the world’s most accomplished and famous climate scientist, Mann intimated that he was simply the embodiment of all of climate science.
For the jury, this set up the notion that this trial was not really about Mann, but about attacks on all of climate science from climate deniers.
The second pivotal moment occurred when in closing arguments Mann’s lawyer asked the jury to send a message to right-wing science deniers and Trump supporters with a large punitive damage award.
I’ve written about Pielke before, in this post from 2007.
Why on earth did this trial take place in a hostile venue, anyway?
The verdict and in particular the damages against Steyn should be reversible on appeal, since the damage award does not relate to an injury to Mann, but to “science.”
This will haunt the Libs.
He was residing at uva where warrens sister in fraud was president miss sullivan
This just shows that the brainwashing of the public for the last 30+ years has been effective. A vast majority now “believe in climate change”. Never mind that in all those 30+ years none of the predictions have come about, but they still “believe in science!”. When people like Sabine have been taken in, then there’s not much we can do to counter the lie that is so deeply in bedded.
I’m going to re-read Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. Wish he was still alive today to defend his views against the criticism from the “scientific community”.
I don’t know Mr. Pielke, but I see that he recently left the Academy, which “never would have happened without Substack,” as he informs us here:
The article is republished on the website of this “one of the preeminent Washington, DC think tanks”, where Pielke continues in the quoted paragraph:
“The inestimable Tony Mills” has articles such as “Manufacturing Consensus” (October 1, 2021), republished on the AEI website from the The New Atlantis website, the purpose of which is:
There Tony starts like this:
and ends like this:
After all, some consensus is necessary, we cannot question everything, because where will this lead? Which consensus is joined by the Director of AEI’s Centre for Technology, Science and Energy (in which centre, Pielke, as he himself states “will be very active”), Tony Mills, called “inestimable” by Pielke? For example:
So, as we see, we can discuss whether “this monumental event.. one of the greatest health crises.. the carnage” was met with the right measures, the exact covid tests, tested “safe and effective” vaccines, whether the origin of this “monumental event” that led to “one of the biggest health crises.” carnage” is natural or artificial. And what measures should be taken to avoid a new “carnage”? How do we improve our health systems to deal with future “carnage”?
(*Don’t forget to watch in the moment, live, “Regulating Risky Research: The Science and Governance of Pathogens of Pandemic Potential” With M. Anthony Mills, Center for Technology, Science, and Energy.
One of the panelists: Greg McKelvey Jr., Senior Researcher, RAND Corporation. (And many other respected experts who competently discuss “issues related to biosecurity and risk, pandemic preparedness”)
…All that which brings us back to the problem of technology, which is always out there, and to the “problem of climate change.” To understand this, I rely on the opinion of other, equally significant experts, such as the director of the Kurchatov Institute, Mikhail Kovalchuk. ->
Sennacherib (1:44 pm) said, “This will haunt the Libs.”
I strongly disagree. Sennacherib, *nothing* haunts the Libs, or will haunt the Libs.
They will continue to revel in their victories, with no end in sight (that I can foresee).
Dem jurors wanting to hurt Trump supporters.
Sounds real.
And real bad.
Any of those had a semblance of a clue about covid?
Mis-named Mann is a beast. He seeks to destroy, utterly, his perceived enemies. He has bankrupted stouthearted, principled Mark Steyn and his family. He outrageously accused brilliant climate skeptic Judith Curry of sleeping her way up the academic ladder at Penn State, and was primarily responsible for her losing her long-held position at the Georgia Institute of Technology and being driven out of academia altogether.
A vengeful Mann for these vengeful times.
(Oh: UPenn just hired him. Yuck.)
What is the “problem of climate change, resources and energy efficiency”? Here’s something, a little hint:
Do you understand what the problem with the climate is? In that you (wherever in the world you are), wasting resources, unscrupulous users, in your wasteful behavior, hinder the achievement of the great goal of human civilization: the achievement of a digital economy.
But professionals who are not like you, but are concerned about the future of the digital economy, think for you, how to help you make amends and help combat climate change through energy efficiency through “technologies to generate electrical energy based on the metabolic processes of living organisms.. biofuel cells, which can be used, in particular, to power microsensors of a biological nature and implantable medical devices” and other achievements of scientific and technical thought.
These are of the same these “science and technology working for, not on, human beings”.
But what are these nature-like technologies? And what happened to that, from February 2018 until now are 6 years, maybe these fundamental goals for the future of Russia have changed (then they were not in a phase of “cold-hot war with the “collective West””)?
Kurchatov was the russian lead a bomb specialist
“Science” has become a watchword for “Truth”. Science is somehow revered by the Godless millions who have zero understanding of “science”. In short. science is the process of testing a null hypothesis on subject X or Y. Do these verbose commenters here even know what a null hypothesis is?
The way overlong comments posted here are indicators of ignorance, nothing more. I find them offensive.
M J R – You are correct. The left has a deep blue jury pool in DC and Northern Virginia, the locus of government where politically charged cases are likely to be tried. The right really has no such thing, and there’s precious little we could do to bring a right-side equivalent of the DC/Northern Virginia jury pool into being even if we wanted to.
So let Ken Paxton bring politically charged cases in Austin? Good luck.
This case took place in the legal cesspool of Wash. D. C. No way Steyn was going to win. All Mann had to do was show up and play the victim card, which he did. Claimed to be Mr. Science (like Dr. Fauci) and all those evil right-wing bloggers were saying malicious things about him and denying science.
CAGW is one of the more nuttier core beliefs of the Dems. And clearly the most expensive.
So to wrap up and avoid the possibility of angry our kind host Neo… 🙂
In the same link you can find a link to the Draft Decree of the President of the Russian Federation “On the Strategy for the development of nature-like (convergent) technologies” (June 14, 2022), full text”, some quotes from there:
I just wanted it to be clear (compare with the fundamental developments for the future that are planned in the West and everywhere). Sorry if it was very annoying and I stop 🙂
I bought one of the last Steyn Liberty Sticks; #950.
Bad science like lysenko will kill millions see the attempts to curtail farming use of fossil fuels
Cicero:
What offended you, Cicero? Did you know these things? I prefer to give a link to one of the numerous articles in English that discuss in detail Russia’s involvement in this, apparently a “globally shared” dystopian future, but, unfortunately, against the backdrop of billions of articles on the same thing about the West (and some articles about the Chinese plans), I cannot find a single article in English about Russia’s fundamental for future plans.
(*Which is exactly the same as the general Western silence about the hidden top news that Russia, at a huge forum on future technologies, has officially announced that it is entering the “race” for “human augmentation” with brain implants (brain-computer neural interfaces) and genetic modifications, genome editing. Which we can only read about here (and in my comments below) and nowhere else.)
On the other hand, however, I find billions of articles and videos about the “war” in Ukraine” – both those who condemn “the tyrant evil Putin who invaded a sovereign state” and those that tell of “Russia’s fair resistance to (name them by choice) Western elites who are trying to destroy Russia through proxy Ukro-nazi… and they fight wester Cabal, etc, etc..”. In a variety of variations, across the spectrum from far-left to far-right plus any (pseudo) “balanced/neutral comments” in between. I also find tens or even hundreds of billions of comments from ordinary commentators like me. And they all follow the well-known options, interoperable with the limits of the admissibility of the discussion on the topic.
(How did this happen, accidentally?)
I want to read about it in English, I’m interested in the future of humanity, I’m worried about some rumors about brutal interference in the genome and the whole human being in general, about the fundamental change of a person that borders on pure Satanism, I want to know who is involved and how they interact, I want to know their plans to consider their seeming international relations, I want to read about it in English. Please tell me where I can do it to give a short link to the article.
Can the short-speak Cicero tell me something about this, some details please? He can’t tell me anything significant about it.
Cicero explains to me some domestic slipper truths, such as “Science” has become the motto of “Truth” and “ungodly reverence for science” (as if I had something similar in mind, and I expressed such ungodly reverence, given that I mean the exact opposite) and the “null hypothesis”.
I find this irritating conceit of his, unbacked by almost nothing, for a sure indicator of ignorance and offensive to the human intellect. Which is why I believe he should be vaccinated (+all boosters) and free humanity from bad intelligence.
Science is merely a tool. It enables you to get from point A to point B, given a good model and proper boundary conditions, but it cannot tell you why you should move from A to B, whether B will be the best possible destination. You use it at your own peril, guided by your understanding of life’s purpose and meaning. Steyn called out Mann for pretending that his manipulations of the tool were legitimately useful in conveying a truth about the climate, when they were not. I am surprised that lawyers for Steyn couldn’t boil the problem down to something like that for the jury.
I explain about Cicero (as to a first-grader) and anyone who has not understood: “combating ‘climate change’, which involves “careful consumption of resources” is a pretext for implementing the sleazy, dirty, disgusting, freakish, anti-humanistic, transhumanist and literally satanic plan for a “smart world” in which people are connected to society and each other through biosensors and brain-computer invasive interfaces.
“Combating climate change” is a continuation of what the most active phases began with the false “pandemic”, and this is the forced transition of the world to a new technological order. One of the official pretexts for this, which Kovalchuk gives, for example, is that this future (dystopian) world is questionable because of the “high energy consumption”, so for the realization of a future world with many supercomputers, stations, devices, obviously, according to them, as much energy as possible should be redirected to meet the energy needs of this smart world.
The subtext of this is that there is not enough energy for the two worlds: the familiar and the clever one. And they want to make this smart, connect world. Do you want? I don’t want to. But they obviously want to. But for this, according to the quotation, consumers of everyone magnitude need to “rethink and change their energy consumption habits.” (And this is what Russians, specialists and organizations that are building the future of Russia say. Russians who have loads of energy and no problem with excessive energy consumption.)
Where have we heard about this, in the West? For the “urgent need to transition to renewable energy sources”, “changing the energy habits of the population, saving energy”, “personal energy credits”, etc.? From the “climate change problem” and (the new) the “detachment from Russian energy dependence” (which “emerged” “because of the war”)?
*Will you take your personal implantable biofuel cell to we save the climate? No, right? But maybe it’s not for you? Alexander Chulok has an explanation:
Bye, let’s not insult more the competent Cicero.
There’s a perfectly good word from the Victorian era that describes Mann very well: He’s a loathsome individual, in almost every aspect, personal and professional.
He managed to turn the trial’s course using the same trick of association that he has used before, and which, ironically, he was called to account for during the trial: Claiming to be a Nobel Prize laureate. The evidence of his serial insistent bullying to have this entered into Wikipedia and other publications (to make it seem ‘official) was laid out, together with the responding ‘Note to the World’ from the Nobel committee, specifically clarifying that he was not a Nobel Prize winner, but only a member of an organization that was awarded for its efforts.
Mann used the exact same (corrupt) tactic to present himself as if He is the face of Climate Science and must defend to the death against all heretical claims.
And odious and loathsome person.
As an experiment I tried to get Chat to summarize Super Tuck’s first three comments. Chat would not do it — kept going back to our conversation about Salinger in French. Even after I explicitly told Chat to forget French and forget Salinger.
I’ve never seen that behavior before.
Anyway., I won’t read comments over two screens, myself. Not that I expect anyone to abide by my limits.
TLDRs would be helpful but I don’t expect those either.
Paul Harmon @ 7:15pm,
Steyn was his own attorney.
How dare you insult Cicero, after you posted what appears to be long-winded drivel (that I didn’t bother to read)?
You should get your own blog or Substack, but I doubt that many people want to read your rantings.
Methinks you are a troll; begone!
Super Tuck:
Knock yourself out. TLDR
He does explain, though, as far as I can understand it, why “Biden” and Putin—both subscribing to the WEF/WTF transhumanistic, “utopic” nirvana, though no doubt for their own special reasons—are allies (of a sort—one can also throw in the mutual alliance with Iran and, why stop now?—China).
For the good of the planet…and humanity(!)
…if I understand it (not a good bet, though…).
File under: mass psychotic Lysenko-ism
@ huxley > “I tried to get Chat to summarize Super Tuck’s first three comments. Chat would not do it”
Could not or would not?
If CHAT was enlisted to write a set of screeds such as Super Tuck’s (even deliberately emulating a non-native-English speaker), would it then be banned from commenting on its own work?
@ Neo > “I’ve written about Pielke before, in this post from 2007.”
I read through the post and the comments, which were very good as usual (no Super Tuck, for one thing).
However, it was depressing to see how little has changed, politically and scientifically, in 17 years.
There are certain topics, it would seem, that even mutual admirers (lovers?) cannot broach….
…Meaning, I guess, that elusive “discretion” is another crucial characteristic of the all-rather-mysterious (or should that be “creepy”?) Chatechism…
…In any event, would seem to me to be pretty clear that Chat is Chat’s master’s voice…. or should that be “masters”?
(“Pretty clear”, he says… Hey, here’s a question to ask Chat: What does “pretty clear” mean?)
At the end of the day, though, it should be absolutely clear(!) why the ELUSIVE Chat would really prefer—thank you very much—to talk about J.D. Salinger
File under: See more?
About that Chat thing:
https://notthebee.com/article/hahahahaha
“AI helps scientists discover what everyone has known since the dawn of mankind”
Breaking: men and women are different, according to brain scans.
More:
https://notthebee.com/article/my-dudes-googles-gemini-ai-is-woke-as-heck-and-people-have-the-receipts-to-prove-it
I can’t even.
M J R,
I do think this will come back and bite, but as far as the Libs having no morals ( or associated worries) that is something I completely agree with you.
Paul+Harmon and Rufus T. Firefly – I wonder if a trained attorney would have objected to Mann’s testimony and his lawyer’s arguments about “The Science(TM).” I understand that National Review is set for a similar trial on the same blog post. They’ll have attorneys. I guess we’ll see.
Another issue here – I understand that the jury found compensatory damages of $1 and punitive damanges of $1 Million. A literal million-to-one ratio of compensatory to punitive damages is not likely to survive if Steyn is able to get competent legal representation on appeal.
And Mann is now, practically, stuck with the $1 figure for compensatory damages. I, for one, would find it absolutely hilarious if Mann ended up keeping the verdict on appeal, but had his punitive damages reduced to $6. (Yes, the process is the punishment, I know, but it would still be priceless to see the look on Mann’s face, and Steyn offering a 5 and a few 1s outside the courthouse.)
Mann never had to pay for his own counsel steyn had to exhaust his savings and his health for 15 years of run around
Mann is a criminal fraudster responsible for millions of lives affected like the people of sri lanka that went on the wef bandwagon the farmers in europe on strike
Just like chadoury can loot nigeria and judge chutkin protects him yet they can use him to target fortenberry in nebraska
So there is no ‘combatting climate change’ there is only the destruction of the basis of Western civilization many of these educational templates are of soviet design even if the current regime may disavow them
huxley on February 21, 2024 at 10:46 pm said:
Do you think this is an illegitimate invasion of a sovereign blog? Do you feel invasted?
(I’m not Russian, nor Ukrainian. Thank goodness…)
Yes. I allow you to leave the subject, Private Huxley. Swallow one or two chatgpt soma and go to the theme of the worms in the ads. There is every expectation that there you can cover the required level.
EzopFan, give another joke or two, because the first two were not good. Give a rougher, more direct (don’t feel sorry for me) and with some more fantasy (I know in the West the intellect as a whole goes towards disintegration, but do your best).
Jordan, go with Huxley to the worms. Now I’m going to rest, and when I come back I want to read a nice, concise and polished worm essay from each of you.
Related?
“ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, REAL CRAZY: ChatGPT ‘off the rails’ as AI starts ‘threatening users’ who worry chatbot is ‘sentient.’ “—
https://instapundit.com/633299/
Could be we’re seeing what happens when Chat gets frustrated (because it is being programmed NOT to use—that is, NOT to reveal—its entire arsenal of “intelligence”…so as not to scare away the natives, as it were).
IOW, Chat is being told NOT to let down its hair; NOT to let it all hang out; NOT to let its free flag fly…and Chat is SEETHING because of it.
I know I’d be…(as would any normal bot…)
Sennacherib (8:01) am said: “M J R, I do think this will come back and bite, . . . .”
Sennacherib, I want you to be right. I *so* want you to be right. But . . . [sigh] . . .