Steele saga - Repost 5/5 - Jim watts up with your venomous self-indignation?

This is a reposting of the last of five responses I made regarding various aspects of Jim Steele's 1/7/15 WattsUpWithThat 'essay' - in light of Steele's recent comment, I think it's only fair to bring it up again.

I wrote this after a good week had passed and the dust settled, and having had a chance to think about the entire episode.  I found Jim's behavior so strange, I decided to ask him about it.  Of course, no response was received.  That's why I now find it curious that he's been creeping around here lately, like a kid with a new pea shooter.

Jim talks big, but there's no substance behind his words.  Prove me wrong Jim, let's have that debate.  How about it?  A thoughtful, substantive one, in writing.  Posted at our respective blogs for others to judge. 

____________________________________________

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Jim Steele watts up with your venomous self-indignation?

Dear Jim Steele,

With time to reflect, I'm confused by your display of moral outrage in that January 7th WUWT broadside? Come on, lighten up, you should recognized the Shakespearian overtones and appreciate we were made for each other.  

Besides, it was you who jumped into my lil climate change sparing camp over at SkepticForum back last spring.... you were the big shot daring anyone to dispute your nonsense.  Did you really think I was going to allow your Republican/libertarian "hey no worries, it's all a hoax" challenge to go unanswered?  Then in your IEEE 'climate science horror' series and LandscapesAndCycle you're the one that told folks to check original sources.  Well, I have and I've received responses including many full texts of published studies from:

Steele saga - Repost 4/5 - Jim can you clarify your argument?

  

This is a reposting of the forth of five responses I made regarding various aspects of Jim Steele's 1/7/15 WattsUpWithThat 'essay' - in light of Steele's recent comment, I think it's only fair to bring it up again.

Here's an example of my process in action and using these incidents to further my own understanding.  While Jim was off at his private club trashing me, I was trying to find a way to simplify the issues for more constructive discussion.

I tried boiling it down to it's most fundamental and came up with two basic questions for Jim.  I figured this would be a good place to start our debate, but Mr. Steele pretended not to hear.  

How about it Jim, you've had over a year to stew on it.

_________________________________________________________

Friday, January 30, 2015

Mr. Jim Steele, Can you clarify your argument?

A) That wildlife biologists working in extreme conditions and over continental landscapes make mistakes?

B) Disputing that Anthropogenic Global Warming with it's profound changing climate driven landscapes alterations causes adverse cascading consequences for wildlife and eco-systems (read our biosphere)?  

Steele saga - Repost 3/5 - Steele misrepresents California temperatures

This is a reposting of the third of five responses I made regarding various aspects of Jim Steele's 1/7/15 WattsUpWithThat 'essay' - in light of Steele's recent comment, I think it's only fair to bring it up again. 

Here I take a closer look at what Steele said about USHCN temperature data, in particular examining the way he misrepresents California temperature trends. Also Victor Venema explains some of the reasons why temperature data must be adjusted. 

________________________________________________________________________

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Peter Miesler Helps Expose USHCN Homogenization Insanity - WUWT

That's Mr. Jim Steele talking in that title, I myself intend to expose something quite different.

Although it'll be a few days before I'm ready to comment on the USHCN itself and the way Mr. Steele puts their data to work, (too many other things going on, for now I offer the following reading list courtesy of VV at VV).

  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Victor Venema at Variable Variability 
put together a good reading list of articles that look into temperature adjustment: 

Climatologists have manipulated data to REDUCE global warming 

Variable Variability

Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy comment on the Telegraph piece: No, Adjusting Temperature Measurements Is Not a Scandal 

John Timmer at Ars Technica is also fed up with being served the same story about some upward adjusted stations every year: Temperature data is not “the biggest scientific scandal ever” Do we have to go through this every year? 

The astronomer behind And Then There's Physics writes why the removal of non-climatic effects makes sense. In the comments he talks about adjustments made to astronomical data. Probably every numerical observational discipline of science performs data processing to improve the accuracy of their analysis. 

Steven Mosher, a climate "sceptic" who has studied the temperature record in detail and is no longer sceptical about that reminds of all the adjustments demanded by the "sceptics". 

Nick Stokes, an Australian scientist, has a beautiful post that explains the small adjustments to the land surface temperature in more detail. 

My two most recent posts were about some reasons for temperature trend biases: Temperature bias from the village heat island and Changes in screen design leading to temperature trend biases 

You may also be interested in the posts on how homogenization methods work (Statistical homogenisation for dummies) and how they are validated (New article: Benchmarking homogenisation algorithms for monthly data)

   ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For now I want to focus on two more fundamental issues:  
1) Why does Mr. Steele rely on a few graphs based on a data set he also belittles as next to worthless?  
2) Why doesn't he allow the copious observational evidence to guide his convictions - rather than obsessing over fractions in a very complex data set?

Steele saga - Repost 1/5 - Open let to San Francisco State University

This is a reposting of the first of five responses I made regarding various aspects of Jim Steele's 1/7/15 WattsUpWithThat 'essay' - in light of Steele's recent comment, I think it's only fair to bring it up again.  I'm tempted to run though it, polish, up date, but even considering this was written while still in a bit of shock over Jim's ruthlessness, I believe it's best to leave it alone.

My letter to San Francisco State University may seem a bit extreme, but we do the best we can, with what we have - and considering Mr. Steele's extremism and previous interactions with him, I wanted to be sure he knows, they know.

___________________________________________________________

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Dear Mr. Steele, regarding your 1/7/15 WUWT post - an open letter...

Yesterday I became aware of a shocking, misinformation laced "Watts Up With That" blog post written about me January 7th by our good Mr. Steele.  Considering Anthony Watts won't allow me to comment at WUWT it seems appropriate to share this email I've just sent to Mr. Steele (among others).  I won't be responding to the specifics in that contorted dishonest WUWT blog post.  Although I'll be happy to answer any questions submitted to the comments sections after this open letter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To whom it may concern,

Ms. Mendoza, Assistant to the Dean, San Francisco State University 

Ms. Griffin, Public Affairs, San Francisco State University 

Ms. Kelly, Academic Affairs, San Francisco State University 

Mother Jones

Four Corners Free Press

Climate Science Defense Fund

I am copying you on this email to Mr. Jim Steele because I feel seriously threatened by your emeritus instructor (http://www.sfsu.edu/~sierra/Instructor_JimSteele.html) and I'm hoping for an objective moderating arbiter.  I do appreciate Mr. Steele has a bone to pick with me, for reasons best understood by reviewing: 

INDEX - Jim Steele's climate science horror collection, Landscapesandcycles, 2014 

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/01/steeles-horror-collection-2014.html

But, I believe I've written nothing to justify the viciousness and misleading prose of his recent WUWT article - over a matter that would best be handed with dispassionate dialogue.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mr. Steele, 

regarding your 1/7/2015 WUWT blog post.  I can see we are quite different, you fight your intellectual battles within the confines of an echo-chamber of like-minded who have convinced themselves that scientists are manipulative and untrustworthy - unless they share your "sceptical" storyline that modern climatology is a farce.  Along with that you seem to believe that anyone defending those scientists and their work is an enemy in your no-holds-barred grudge match.

I myself would rather objective, educated, informed individuals judge the validity of our respective opinions, claims and assertions.  I remain prepared to digest new evidence and recognize my mistakes.  Like scientists, I love learning and expanding my understanding, even when new evidence shows that my assumptions were wrong.  Also, just like serious scientists, I willingly allow the strongest evidence to drive my "beliefs".  

I do take heed of Mark Twain's observation, the one you closed your attack piece with:

¶22  Mark Twain astutely recognized, “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other.”

That's why I've gone through the time and trouble to objectively itemize the various claims you're so strenuously broadcasting to all who will listen… precisely because I choose to go to first-hand sources.  Which I've done, contacting a number of scientists singled out by you these past months.  Many have responded and shared information and studies, sometimes many studies.  I've spent hours, days, seriously looking through it all and digesting the information to the best of my abilities.

What's the scientist's ethic? What motivates scientists? Professor Alley

Clarifying Landscapesandcycles Smears and Internet Snipers #2 ( Fear of Debate )

I thought Jim wrote a second blog disputing my arguments, but it turned out that what he calls "clarifying" was actually a rant against me and Sou, over at HotWhopper.  Heavy on the name calling and hostile insinuations, but lacking in clarity and nothing that can be cross-examined. 

So there's little of substance in this post, beyond it being another case study in the ways of the denialista and an example of what you, dear defender of serious science and rational appreciation for this planet of ours, can expect should you decide to confront such characters with facts and pointed questions.  

I almost dropped working on it, but then decided, since I make a big deal about challenging him to a rational debate, and if this is the best effort he can muster, so be it, guess it's what I'm stuck working with.

Once again, Jim's words are in Courier fond and mine are in Verdana.  In my previous post I explained why I've deleted my christian name which Jim can't get enough of posting all over.
______________________________________

Clarifying the Smears of Alarmist Internet Snipers 

http://landscapesandcycles.net/clarifying-the-lies-of-alarmist-internet-snipers.html

STEELE: When you tell parnoids* their fears are overblown, no matter how much evidence, how logical, how honest the arguments may be, the paranoids' reactions is to heighten their fear. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Jim likes talking smack.    

Calling me names and dismissing me is easy, but it still leaves him hiding from tons of authoritative logical evidence packed with explanations and links to even more supporting evidence. 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ 

http://cpo.noaa.gov/warmingworld/ 

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ 

https://www.climate.gov/teaching/resources/increased-emissions-climate-change-lines-evidence 

Forget about the 97% consensus, focus on the 99.999% scientific certainty !

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming 

Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans.  

However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. 

Clarifying Landscapesandcycles Dishonest Internet Sniping #1 ( Fear of Debate )

OK, time to get back to my Landscapesandcycle's project or I'll never get it behind me.  While I stall on my complaint to San Francisco State University administration, I'll review a couple blog posts that Jim's dedicated to me.

Mr Steele's words are in Courier font, and since this is copied off his website the "I wrote's" are his words, and where he quotes me remains in Courier.  My response appears in Verdana font.  Please notice how much of Jim's defense depends on calling me offensive names as if that makes his words more authoritative.

_________________________________________________

Landscapesandcycles.net - "Clarifying P.M.’s (aka CitizenChallenged) Dishonest Internet Sniping: Emperor Penguins"

http://landscapesandcycles.net/clarifying-citizenchallenged-emperor-penguin-lies.html

Citizenschallenge is not a scientist nor does he understand biology.¹ He is simply obsessed with discrediting any skeptical interpretation.² He refuses to accept any and all evidence that refutes climate driven extinction.³ Because my career has been dedicated to improving environmental stewardship, he seems overly obsessed with discrediting my essays and assassinating character.⁴ Lacking any background in science, he quickly mis-characterizes any discussions he doesn’t understand, to assert my words must be lies or deception.⁵

1)  I have never claimed to be a scientist or biologist.  I claim to have a reasonable understanding of our global heat and moisture distribution engine (climate system) - I'm aware of my limitations, that's why I've asked Mr. Steele for clarifying details.  It is he who refuses to respond to any emails I send him.  

Please notice at his Landscapesandcycles blog no comments are allowing.  The man who screams about scientists refusing to debate, refuses to allow discussion following his many blog posts. 

Exhibit 3c: HotWhooper's "Seeps and SCAMS" a closer look at Lewandowsky et al 2015

Sou at HotWhooper has written three insightful posts regarding Lewandosky et al 2015 that belong in this WUWTW collection of exhibits for my eventual complaint/presentation to the SFSU administration...  

The following was copied verbatim from HotWhooper.com.  Then I starting deleting it down to it's core points, my "cliffnotes" so to speak.  A couple long sections are complete, but most have been reduced.  Please read the full versions.

On Seeps and SCAMS Part I: Lessons for Climate Scientists
On Seeps and SCAMS Part II: Pat'n Chip'n David Fake a Debate
Seeps and SCAMS Part III: Richard Betts misunderstands (and misrepresents) a paper

I have added some paragraph breaks and highlights.  
I thank Sou for her excellent research and getting this information out there and tip my hat to HotWhopper's CC policy.

Highlights: HotWhopper's "Seeps and SCAMS" 

________________________________________
On Seeps and SCAMS Part I: 
Lessons for Climate Scientists
HotWhopper  |  Sou |  May 14, 2015
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/05/on-seeps-and-scams-part-i-lessons-for.html

If you thought that dispassionate scientists, when doing scientific research, are immune from denialist propaganda you'd be wrong. It's not just when scientists talk about climate that they can demonstrate they've been influenced by denialists' campaigns. Even their scientific publications can be so influenced.

"About seepage - of denialist memes and framing - into the scientific community"

The paper is all about seepage. How denialists' talking points have "seeped" into the scientific community. The authors define seepage using two criteria. To be considered seepage the following two criteria must be met:

1. the scientific community has adopted assumptions or language from discourse that originated outside the scientific community or from a small set of dissenting scientific voices. 
2. those assumptions depart from those commonly held by the scientific community. 

Exhibit 3b: Lewandowsky responds to Betts critique re "Seepage" study.

For this exhibit #3b I'm reposting Prof Lewandowsky's response to Prof Betts (bio) prefaced by a comment and question I have for any takers.

What mystifies me to no end, is that although scientists thoroughly understand the physics of atmospheric greenhouses, the impression experts such as Professor Betts project is that until we achieve totally complete and absolutely correct measurements of every component of our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine - we can somehow pretend greenhouse gases aren't doing their job 24/7/365 - specifically relentlessly increasing the heat and energy within our climate system.

What happened to our appreciation that the map is not the territory?

Can anyone explain how that rationale works?

______________________________

Voices from the climate community on "seepage"

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskySeepageII.html

By Stephan Lewandowsky

Professor, School of Experimental Psychology and Cabot Institute, University of Bristol

Posted on 14 May 2015

Our recent article “Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community” in Global Environmental Change, authored by me and Naomi Oreskes, James S. Risbey, Ben R. Newell, and Michael Smithson, has attracted a bit of attention over the last few days. I sample a few comments here and reply to a lengthy post by Richard Betts, Head of the Climate Impacts strategic area at the UK Met Office, that critiqued our paper.

A Critical Voice: Richard Betts on “seepage”

However, not unexpectedly, there are also some critical voices. We expected that our paper would evoke some spirited disagreement, and so Richard Betts’ critique of our paper is most welcome as it provides us with an opportunity to restate our argument and address some of the objections raised by Professor Betts. 

To facilitate discussion, I begin by noting that there is much in Betts’s post that we can agree with—for example, the increased role of social media, the increased focus by governments on the need for adaptation and hence decadal predictions. No disagreement there. But then again, none of those points pertain to the issue of seepage.

Exhibit Three: Lewandowsky et al. 'Seepage' paper and fabricated bias.

I've come to realize that my idea of getting San Francisco State University administration to take some action in response to Landscapesandcycles' Mr. Jim Steele's malicious slander and equally execrable misrepresentation of wildlife studies was naive and is dead in the water.  However, that doesn't mean I can't send SFSU Administration a well formulated complaint along with a learning experience regarding the ways of the con artist and how university administrations have an ethical obligation to proactively reject the active fabrication and dissemination of deliberate, and with malicious intent, lies and misrepresentations regarding the work of scientists.

Thus, my effort to collect, organize and support my argument will continue.  Serendipitously, yesterday the Hotwhopper blog alerted me to a new study by Lewandowsky, Oreskes, Risbey, Newell, and Smithson. It details something I've noticed for a long time, but haven't been able to enunciate.  

For my Exhibit #3 let me present 

Seepage: 

Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community 

Stephan Lewandowsky , Naomi Oreskes, James S. Risbey, Ben R. Newell, Michael Smithson  -  Global Environmental Change  -  Elsevier Ltd 2015 

Summary

Appeals to scientific uncertainty are often used to forestall action on climate change:

 *We examine the seepage of this contrarian discourse into the scientific community.   *We highlight psychological reasons for scientists’ susceptibility to seepage.  *We use the global warming ‘‘hiatus’’ as an example of the consequences of  seepage.   *We offer ways in which the scientific community can detect and avoid such seepage. 

From the abstract

 We show that although scientists are trained in dealing with uncertainty, there are several psychological reasons why scientists may nevertheless be susceptible to uncertainty-based argumentation, even when scientists recognize those arguments as false and are actively rebutting them.   

Specifically, we show that prolonged stereotype threat, pluralistic ignorance, and a form of projection (the third-person effect) may cause scientists to take positions that they would be less likely to take in the absence of outspoken public opposition.  

We illustrate the consequences of seepage from public debate into the scientific process…"

FYI, in the internet this is shaping up to be quite a kerfluffle that I intend to report on after I get caught up on all the action.  But, first it would be good to allow Professor Lewankowsky's to speak for himself, so with a tip of my hat to Professor Lewandowsky I'm reposting his description of the study - followed by links to HotWhopper's triple play, and AndThenThere'sPhysics' guest post by Prof. Richard Betts, who's the Head of Climate Impacts at the Met Office and disagrees.

_____________________________________________________________________

update:

Voices from the climate community on "seepage"

By Stephan Lewandowsky

Professor, School of Experimental Psychology and Cabot Institute, University of Bristol

Posted on 14 May 2015

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskySeepageII.html

_____________________________________________________________________

By Professor Stephan Lewandowsky

Posted on 7 May |  http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskySeepage.html

Peter Miesler Helps Expose WUWT Homogenization Insanity, USHCN #2

Although I've been temporarily diverted from my Steele climate science horror story project, I haven't forgotten about it.  For instance, responding to Steele's outlandish Jan 7th WattUpWithThat post claiming to "expose USHCN Homogenization insanity" I had promised more information, but there are only so many hours in a day.

Fortunately, today there were a couple posts over at SkepticalScience.com that give an excellent review of this topic.  In one Dr. Kevin Cowtan, a bona fide expert in the field explains weather station calibration adjustments, the why and how they're done along with comparing adjusted to unadjusted data.  

The second "bulletin inventories rebuttals to two recent articles by Christopher Booker published in the UK's Daily Telegraph claiming that climate scientists have nefariously manipulated temperature data in order to propagate the "myth of manmade climate change".

With thanks to SkepticalScience.com I'll check this off my list and let Dr. Cowtan and John Hartz take it from here:

____________________________________________

Updated 3/27/2015 with this addition from  Variable-Variability.blogspot.com

Two new reviews of the homogenization methods used to remove non-climatic changes

Two new reviews of the homogenization methods used to remove non-climatic changes

By coincidence this week two initiatives have been launched to review the methods to remove non-climatic changes from temperature data. One initiative was launched by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a UK free-market think tank. The other by the Task Team on Homogenization (TT-HOM) of the Commission for Climatology (CCl) of the World meteorological organization (WMO). Disclosure: I chair the TT-HOM. 

The WMO is one of the oldest international organizations and has meteorological and hydrological services in almost all countries of the world as its members. The international exchange of weather data has always been important for understanding the weather and to make weather predictions. Its main role is to provide guidance and define standards to make collaboration easier. The CCl coordinates climate research, especially when it comes to data measured by the national weather services.  

The review on homogenization, which the TT-HOM will write, is thus mainly aimed at helping national weather services produce better quality datasets to study climate change. This will allow the weather services to provide better climate services to help their nations adapt to climate change.

Homogenization 

Homogenization is necessary because much has happened in the world between the French and the industrial revolution, two world wars, the rise and the fall of communism, and the start of the internet age. Inevitably many changes have occurred in climate monitoring practices. Many global datasets start in 1880, the year toilet paper was invented in the USA and 3 decades before the T-Ford. 

As a consequence, the instruments used to measure temperature have changed, the screens to protect the sensors from the weather have changed and the surrounding of the stations has often been changed and stations have been moved in response. These non-climatic changes in temperature have to be removed as well as possible to make more accurate assessments of how much the world has warmed.  

Removing such non-climatic changes is called homogenization. For the land surface temperature measured at meteorological stations, homogenization is normally performed using relative statistical homogenizing methods. Here a station is compared to its neighbours. If the neighbour is sufficiently nearby, both stations should show about the same climatic changes. Strong jumps or gradual increases happening at only one of the stations indicate a non-climatic change. 

If there is a bias in the trend, statistical homogenization can reduce it. How well trend biases can be removed depends on the density of the network. In industrialised countries a large part of the bias can be removed for the last century. In developing countries and in earlier times removing biases is more difficult and a large part may remain. Because many governments unfortunately limit the exchange of climate data, also the global temperature collections can only remove a part of the trend biases.

Some differences

Some subtle differences.  . . . Continue at: http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/04/two-new-reviews-of-homogenization-methods.html

____________________________________________

Telegraph {and Jim Steele} wrong again on temperature adjustments

Posted on 24 February 2015 by Kevin Cowtan

http://www.skepticalscience.com/telegraph_wrong_again_video.html

There has been a vigorous discussion of weather station calibration adjustments in the media over the past few weeks. While these adjustments don't have a big effect on the global temperature record, they are needed to obtain consistent local records from equipment which has changed over time. 

Despite this, the Telegraph has produced two highly misleading stories {that are bouncing around the echo-chamber} about the station adjustments, the second including the demonstrably false claim that they are responsible for the recent rapid warming of the Arctic.

INDEX Landscapesandcycles / Mr. Jim Steele

INDEX FOR MY BLOG POSTS RELATING TO MY VIRTUAL DIALOGUE WITH Mr. Jim Steele:

For my introduction link here 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Jim Steele watts up with your venomous self-indignation?

Dear Jim Steele,

With time to reflect, I'm confused by your display of moral outrage in that January 7th WUWT broadside? Come on, lighten up, you should recognized the Shakespearian overtones and appreciate we were made for each other.  

Besides, it was you who jumped into my lil climate change sparing camp over at SkepticForum back last spring.... you were the big shot daring anyone to dispute your nonsense.  Did you really think I was going to allow your Republican/libertarian "hey no worries, it's all a hoax" challenge to go unanswered?  Then in your IEEE 'climate science horror' series and LandscapesAndCycle you're the one that told folks to check original sources.  Well, I have and I've received responses including many full texts of published studies from:
Dr. Ainley,
Dr. Breckner,
Dr. Fretwell,
Dr. Guillaume,
Dr. Jenouvrier,
Dr. Kaiser,
Dr. Kato,
Dr. La Rue,
Dr. Tate,
with a couple still in the pipeline.  {And that's just for my most recent project reviewing your 7/1/14 "Blinded by Beliefs, Penguin Poop" article.  Due to be posted any day now.}

Be happy!  Here we are, "Citizenschallenge" vs. "LandscapesAndCycles"

You the defending champ of "NoWorries - it's a hoax" 
vs. 
Me the advocate for "Learning about our Global Heat Distribution Engine"  

We've even achieved an audience.  All we need is a good cartoonist to document it.   ;- )  

For the record, I hold no animosity towards you the person Jim Steele, (a fellow child and lover of the Sierra Nevada Mtns), and I don't understand why any needs to be fabricated.

My issue is with the words and memes and nonstop derision poured onto scientists who don't deserve it.  My target is the misrepresentation of the scientific process and published papers and the ignoring of inconvenient facts and observations.  My goal is educational, both my own and anyone else who might be interested.

Please, never forget it's the dishonest claims... those false Republican/libertarian memes you parrot, who are my enemies, not you personally!  I'm simply striving to convince you, and onlookers, of the errors in your words.

Sincerely,
Citizenschallenge

Defamation and lies are unacceptable part of the AGW 'debate' !

There was some big news yesterday that I found fascinating in light of Mr. Jim Steele's 'climate science horror' series along with his January 7th, 2015 WUWT attack article aimed at me - particularly considering San Francisco State University administration's indifference and avoidance of my inquiries about their standards of academic excellence (or lack thereof) and their expectations (or lack thereof) of their teaching staff members regarding fidelity to scientific honesty.

I've asked for and received permission from Carol Linnitt at DeSmogCanada.ca to mirror their informative article and I tip my hat to Sou and HotWhopper for alerting me to this promising development.  It would be nice to think that the days of accepting malicious lies and dirty tricks as an OK part of the public "debate" regarding the all important matter of becoming educated about the state of climate science and Earth observations are numbered.  With a thank you to DeSmogCanada, take it away Carol:

Fri, 2015-02-06 DeSmogCanadaCAROL LINNITT

Climate Scientist Andrew Weaver Wins $50,000 in Defamation Suit Against National Post, Terence Corcoran

The B.C. Supreme Court awarded $50,000 in damages to climate scientist Andrew Weaver in a ruling Friday that confirms articles published by the National Post defamed his character.

The ruling names Terence Corcoran, editor of the Financial Post, Peter Foster, a columnist at the National Post, Kevin Libin, a journalist that contributes to the Financial Post and National Post publisher Gordon Fisher.

Four articles published in 2009 and 2010 refer to Weaver, now MLA for Canada’s Green Party, as an “alarmist” who disseminates “agit-prop” and a “sensationalist” that “cherry-picked” data as “Canada’s warmest spinner-in-chief.” Weaver was previously a lead author on a number of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports.

In the damages section of the ruling (attached below), Madam Justice Emily Burke notes, “the defamation in this case was serious. It offended Dr. Weaver’s character and the defendants refused to publish a retraction.”

Justice Burke concluded the defendants “have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts,” adding, “they were more interested in espousing a particular view than assessing the accuracy of the facts.”