Observations regarding Sept 7th, Anonymous Comment

I received the following comment which didn't pass muster. 

I accept constructive comments and challenges.  If you want to challenge what I've written do so.  But yelling about rationalists being like a Nazi cult, and such further disconnected from reality ranting ain't an intelligent discussion. Your comment is being REJECTED!

That doesn't mean I'm not willing to discuss it:

COMMENT READS: After looking at the name calling dialog by the two attackers of Dr Holmes 

Can you offer any specifics we can calmly discuss?

and their ferocious need to out him and chastise him for his work and opinions. 

Hold on.  There is a YouTube Channel that goes under the name of Frolly1000 - it spews slander and scientific ignorance (lies and misrepresentations) along with a load of contempt.  It has to do with his politicizing climate science and scaring people out of learning about it in a serious constructive manner.

What’s wrong with outing such a malicious fraud?  

Why shouldn’t we be curious about who the character is behind such a devious attack on serious honest scientists and the work they have done? 

I agree with Dr.Holmes, this climate hysteria has become more of a cult or religion. 

Diary July 31, 2019

This past winter and spring I spent a good deal of time dissecting Jim Steele’s malicious game of deliberate deception in his Pacifica Tribune’s “What’s Natural?’ column and it was taking its toll.

On the one hand, I like the work of studying others’ writings - investigating and searching out new information, double checking my own assertions and recollections, learning, relearning and taking the time to examine, recognize and expose the ‘mechanics of deception’ in action.  In that way it’s my classroom and a positive exercise.

On the other hand, it’s profoundly depressing coming face to face with these real life intellectual zombies that never ever seem to change.  They pompously cry for debate, yet try having a serious constructive dialogue with them.  First comes the attitudes of superiority, then the dismissal, then avoidance, then insults and derision, then they run and hide, but never an adult discussion.  

And no one seems to care much!  Free pass for all.  So they get away with it, over and over like a spreading pathogen, and no one seems capable of doing anything about it.

Ask questions, make challenges, explain the simple and well understood science of Earth’s climate.  Write and rewrite, present evidence, teach, reason, strive till you're blue.  Yet not a word is heard, not a lesson is absorbed.   Absolutely nothing gets incorporated into their understanding.  Utter hopelessness.

Contrarian arguments today are exactly the same as they were ten, twenty and more years ago.  It’s like the immortal words of Homer Simpson: “No Marge, I didn’t learn a thing.”

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 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-intro: Miesler Helps Expose Insanity Illusions

Since Mr Steele went out of his way to remind my readers of his angry guest essay over at Anthony Watts' WattsUpWithThat, (the guy who inspired me to start this 'study' blog).  I went and revisited Jim's January 2015 "essay." 

Rather than focusing on a systematic review and refutation of my claims and pointing out perceived errors.  Steele launches into a personal attack, using every devious trick to demean me and my motives.  He wouldn't dare admit to himself that I'm a respectable, intelligent man with honorable intentions.  Nah, it doesn't work that way in their rule book.  

Eventually he does get around to some issues, but even there, it's so weighted down with pissy rhetoric and in fact some more examples of misrepresenting and slandering a respected productive serious scientist, it all serves to underscore Mr. Steele's disingenuous motives. 

I share some highlights from Mr. Steele's essay that demonstrate what I refer to as science by slander and science by rhetoric:

a “whacko”,

skeptic basher, 

The “whacko” blogger,

blog spawn,

dedicated to assassinating the character of any and all skeptics,

{Actually to expose their base deceptions}

rabid and dishonest of all blogger,

demented obsessions,

alarmists,

precious gloom and doom,

his tirades,

his vacuous tactics,

Gollum-esque traits,

The poet William Shenstone wrote, “A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with making truth itself appear like falsehood.” {A perfect description of what the climate science contrarian movement has done.}

CC's is now on a mission to transform any and all skeptic truths into a falsehoods,  {Actually it's about exposing the falsehoods of the Republican/libertarian's contrived "skeptic truths"}

“modeling whim du jour,”

Lord of the Flies (#8 Poptech's Truth)

(did some morning touch up edits 2/2/16)

I thought I could avoid Anthony Watts and Poptech's attack piece on me, figuring I'd get to it later.  But my old pal AL (a debate mate from this past November 23 to December 13th in the "debating sock-puppet" series.) just couldn't resist rubbing it in my face, and since his link went to Poptech's post, I figured, OK in for a nickel, in for a dollar.  

AL writes Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 1:19 citizenschallengeYT Hahahahaha…:P  http://www.populartechnology.net/2016/01/the-truth-about-whatsupwiththatwatts-et.html?m=1

Oh boy, talk about desperation to dig up shit, well they dug and they dug and oh the facts and links they've unearthed. But, even more impressive than what they unearthed - is the bizarre theatrical spin they put on everything.

All dedicated to maligning me and ignoring the evidence and the ideas I challenge them with.  What they deliberately ignore is that I'm just a messenger talking about the science and I am always ready to support my claims with references back to the authoritative science I learned from.  If you don't believe me, try me.

On the other hand these clowns spend all their effort putting their fantastical labels on people and spinning hallucinatory yarns while claiming superiority and victory... as though it's their's to claim.  They make lots of noise about the science, yet they never produce any serious science when they are challenged.  Instead it always reverts to a malicious mud fight.  It's worth making a big deal about because powerful leaders like Inhofe and Barton and the rest hide behind this sort of insanity to justify doing nothing and wasting precious time.

I've copied Poptech's "Truth about WUWTW" and pasted it below and diluted the 'horror' with some more facts and commentary.  I eliminated some links, but I kept most, to be honest it was cool revisiting some of those pages.

__________________________________________________

The 'poopie' color Comic San font seemed appropriate for Poptech's words.  

Saturday, January 30, 2016

The Truth about What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al. according to Andrew Poptech.

______________________________________

"Your resident dummy reviewer... [referring to himself]"

- Peter Miesler, Skeptical Science Forums

{What's wrong with that?  
At least I don't take myself so seriously, nor do I have illusions about being smarter than actual scientists.  Yo, poppy do you have any sense of humor, or self-skepticism?}

"Keep the Debate Alive!" (#7 moral of the comments)

Thanks to Hotwhopper and it's tracking of Anthony's latest antics, I found out a little while ago that WattsUpWithThat has featured me in a rather scathing post.  I haven't looked at it, no time for that distraction right now.  I'm sure I'll get to it eventually.  

See, I want to stick with some thoughts I woke up with and wrote down before having to run off to get on with other chores.  Now I only have a few moments available and want to keep my eyes on the prize, as some say.
________________

I woke up thinking about the Climate Science Contrarian's plaintive refrain: 

"Keep the Debate Alive!" 

yet when someone like me comes along who wants to debate with them for real, it's always the same song and dance. 

First the self-certain wildly mistaken claims.  

Then, ignoring all the evidence I provide, dismissing my argument with a wave.
Then, the denial and resentment at being questioned.

  

Then rather than counter-arguments, and getting specific about where my errors in logic or facts are, they resort to insults (occasionally threats - kudos to Poptech for not climbing into that gutter.) 
and arm waving, basically whining that - It's not nice to challenge someone's faith.  

Then they back out of the discussion with their chorus of "Debate is healthy - you are stupid..." while their ears, eyes and minds remain firmly plugged.

{Then he/they slink off to their club houses and let me have it.  So it goes.   Poptech and Steele's claims are ever more convincing when kept within the sanctity of their self-imposed echo-chambers.}

_________________________________________

One of the important basic questions Poptech refused to discuss is:

What kind of DEBATE is worth having?

The debate I keep chasing is a constructive affair.  

It's about a willingness to expose one's own ideas/understanding to skeptical reviews. 

It's about considering and better understanding competing information and ideas. 

It's about being willing to hear about flaws in one's own understanding.  After all, that is how we learn!

Poptech's debate is the political/lawyerly affair, where "winning" the argument is all that matters.
  
That sort of debate feeds on conflict and confusion rather than on learning anything constructive.  Nothing more than a sort of ad hoc exercise in self-justification.  

It's a wretchedly dishonest affair, the stuff of power politics.

Not the stuff of learning or understanding.

Ooops! watts posited Anthony? pine beetle and forest fires

Anthony came up with another weird post today, I know.  Using a just released study that claims pine beetle killed forests aren't any more likely to burn than dry healthy forests, he rips Joe Romm for an article he wrote a couple years ago about drying forests, warmer temperatures, and even increased bark beetle infestations, conspiring to increase fire danger as we move forward, and then he tippy toes off stage to let his fans chew on the bones.
______________________________

"Ooops! Posited pine beetle to increased wildfire risk debunked by CU study"

Anthony Watts / March 24, 2015

It has been posited by paid alarmists like Joe Romm that global warming will increase pine beetle outbreaks, thus increasing the chances of wildfire. For example, in April 2013 Romm wailed:

“…the mountain pine beetle, has already killed 70,000 square miles of trees — area the size of Washington state. As winters become milder, weather becomes drier and higher elevations become warmer, bark beetles are able to thrive and extend their ranges northward. 

An increase in some species of bark beetle can actually increase the risk of forest fires in areas affected by the beetle — the study notes an outbreak of the mountain pine bark beetle, which attacks and kills live trees, created a “perfect storm” in 2006 in Washington, where affected lodgepole pines burned “with exceptionally high intensity.” 

From the University of Colorado at Boulder: 

"Western forests decimated by pine beetles not more likely to burn" (see the bottom for quotes from this study)

______________________________

Anthony, nor is it any less likely to burn! 
Bark beetle infestations are continuing to decimate healthy forests throughout the world.
Temperatures continue to increase.
Watersheds continue drying out.
Fire danger continues rising.

Anthony, how is that study supposed to change any of that?  What's with the weird glee?

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 

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

LandscapesAndCycles blinded by belief - The straight poop on penguins indeed ¶1/6

{touch up edits completed}

The following post reviews the first six paragraphs of an essay written by Mr. Jim Steele: "Blinded by Beliefs:TheStraightPoopOnEmperorPenguins."  The essay grossly misrepresents scientific studies and observations; while unjustly slandering honorable trustworthy scientists.  My intention is to outline it's many errors as rationally as possible, while presenting links to many authoritative sources that offer independent learning opportunities to help you decide.

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

LandscapesAndCycles' childish opening shot intentionally trivializes the situation, 

after all penguins have been acclimatized to those harsh weather conditions
and that environment, its food-web, and its seasonal rhythms 
since time immemorial  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

landscapesandcycles.net/resilient-emperor-penguin.html

Blinded by Beliefs: The Straight Poop on Emperor Penguins

  July 1, 2014 {I've added the red highlights}

Adapted from the chapter The Emperor Penguin Has No Clothes in Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism by Jim Steele  

{The essay's text is in courier font) 

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

The essay starts out by constructing a phony, but dramatic, stage setting.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶1  "Two recent press releases concerning the Emperor Penguin’s fate illustrate contrasting forces that will either advance or suppress trustworthy conservation science."

~ ~ ~ 

Think about what's been done with these words.  They artfully imply that there's a struggle going on between a cadre of biased untrustworthy closed minded ('environmentalist'?) scientists and "trustworthy" scientists.  It's pure innuendo with malicious intent, based on misrepresentation, misdirection and ignoring huge swaths of available information.  

Making judgements based on media stories is dishonest.  A serious discussion demands we go to first-hand sources instead of relying on political theater.  Doing so reveals a community of individuals dedicated to learning and understanding.  It is alive with constructive skepticism and honest debate.  With the full scope of available evidence informing the collective state of understanding.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Embodying that truism is a paper by lead author Dr. Michelle LaRue who reports new advances in reading the Emperor Penguin’s fecal stains on Antarctic sea ice that are visible in satellite pictures. Two years ago the fecal stain method identified several large, hitherto unknown colonies and nearly doubled our estimate of the world’s Emperor Penguins.^1,2 
That didn’t mean climate change had necessarily increased penguin numbers, but a larger more robust population meant Emperor Penguins were far more resilient to any form of change.

~ ~ ~

"far more resilient to any form of change."  Nonsense, the study makes no claims about resilience to "any form of change."  

In fact, the LaRue et. al study was about a pioneering method utilizing high resolution satellite imagery to gather a more complete and accurate population count on a continent wide scale.  Dr. LaRue does indeed acknowledge the many developing environmental threats facing penguins.   

What the study means is that some population counts and assumptions need reassessment, but it says nothing about penguin resilience; or the threats they face because of their changing landscape.  Nor does it have anything to say about the 70s population decline around Dumont d’Urville.  Here's what the study actually says {my highlights}:

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.”