Ocean acidifcation .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

https://www.whistleblower.org/genera...-michael-mann/

Curry chose to resign and start a private business.
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798

Ridd's case is still before the courts.

I'll need you toquote the part of that link of yours where it says Mann was sacked. I can't seem to find it.


Curry diplomatically explains how she jumped before she was pushed

Judith Curry, one of climate science's most vocal critics, is leaving academe because of what she calls the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around human-caused global warming.

Ridds day in court was in April.

The Federal Circuit Court today delivered a judgement in favour of Dr Ridd, finding that any action taken by the University, dating back to 2016, was not within the enterprise agreement.
Although the matter was about enterprise agreement interpretation, the judgement does not refer to any case law, nor any authority in Australia to support its position.
We disagree with the judgement and we maintain we have not taken issue with Dr Ridd's nor any other employee’s rights to academic freedom.
Much has been published about Dr Ridd being disciplined for his views on climate change and quality assurance. We do not agree that the media has accurately reflected the facts in this case.
The University determined that Dr Ridd engaged in serious misconduct, including denigrating the University and its employees and breaching confidentiality directions regarding the disciplinary processes. That conduct was a serious breach of the Code of Conduct and that is why the University dismissed him as an employee.
Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his scientific views. Peter Ridd was never gagged or silenced about his scientific views, a matter which was admitted during the court hearing.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Exile

Here, maybe I can help. Happer was/is a highly respected prof from Princeton. Physics as I recall. His real crime is having the temerity to refuse to call CO2 a "pollutant," and also claim it's necessary & healthy for the planet, even though he's warned about all the other actual pollutants emitted from fossil fuels which are harmful.

After retirement he started an educational charitable foundation. (Evil) oil interests have donated (surprise, surprise). No evidence he gets anything out of it except reimbursement for expenses and maybe a stipend. End of story.

Oh wait, almost forgot -- he's an outspoken skeptic/denier/dismissive/whatever. 'Nuff said?

[newhaul]

Mann vs Steyn
- Bishop Hill blog - Steyn'sÂ*counterblast

134.Plaintiff’s lawsuit was designed to have and has had the effect of inhibiting legitimate debate on the issues and public policy surrounding the theories expounded by Plaintiff and others and of restricting the free flow of ideas concerning the merits of those theories...

135. It is already having the desired effect. This very week, on February 19th, enraged by a Pennsylvania weatherman’s Tweet, Plaintiff instructed his acolytes through his Facebook and Twitter pages to call the CBS affiliate and demand to know whether this was “acceptable behavior”. Several went further and made threats to “add him to the lawsuit”, and similar. In the event that Mann succeeds in delaying discovery as he has in British Columbia, there will be three years for him and his enforcers to bully weathermen, parodists, fellow scientists and many others by threatening to “add them to the lawsuit”.

136. More particularly, Plaintiff’s lawsuit, with the intent to silence Plaintiff’s critics, has targeted Defendant Steyn, who has written articles critical of Plaintiff and his theories.

137. Such improper chilling of free, robust and uninhibited public debate over climate change taints and skews the democratic process and distorts the resulting governmental public policy response to alleged global warming.

138. Plaintiff’s lawsuit has damaged Defendant Steyn by interfering with his right to express opinions on controversial matters and causing him to expend time, money and effort in having to respond to this lawsuit.

139.The claims in Plaintiff’s lawsuit arise from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on an issue of publicinterest and Plaintiff’s lawsuit therefore violates the Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Act (Anti-SLAPP Act) ...

140. As a result of Plaintiff’s campaign to silence those who disagree with him on a highly controversial issue of great public importance, wrongful action and violation of the Anti-SLAPP Act, Steyn has been damaged and is entitled to damages, including but not limited to his costs and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and will incur in the future in defending this action, all in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million, plus punitive damages in the amount of $5 million.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

https://www.whistleblower.org/genera...-michael-mann/

Curry chose to resign and start a private business.
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798

Curry testified at length and under oath before the US Congress about the reasons behind her "choice" to resign. You can find it on youTube.

Ridd's case is still before the courts.

Quote:
From the ruling (Reasons):

2. Though many of those issues ((freedom of speech and intellectual freedom) were canvased and discussed throughout the hearing of this matter, this trial was about none of the above. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement. Whilst the Court acknowledges that there may be consequences that touch upon these other issues because of the Court’s construction of that clause, none of those consequences can play any part in the determination of the proper construction of that clause.

Ridd's case is still before the Australian Federal courts on appeal. He already won on all of his claims at trial.

Although the ruling was ostensibly only about Ridd's employment contract, the clause (Enterprise Agreement) and the Univ.'s Code of Conduct, both of which the Univ. relied on for the termination, necessarily implicated (contractual) rights of intellectual freedom. As the court explained, for example, here:

296. To use the vernacular, the University has “played the man and not the ball”. Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom. In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth. [emphasis mine]

Of course, it should be no surprise that, along with pursuing an appeal, there is an effort afoot to remove the trial judge from the bench on the grounds that he is not "fit" for judicial service given his ruling. It's the same old pattern we see again & again from CC diehards “play[ing] the man and not the ball” as the judge said, whether it be Ridd, Happer, Lindzen, Spencer, or anyone else who dares voice a different opinion. If they cannot discredit the scientific theory, they go after the scientist or advocate promulgating it. I'll take my chances, thanks, with humanity adapting to a (potentially) warmer (but hopefully freer) world.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Mann vs Steyn
- Bishop Hill blog - Steyn'sÂ*counterblast

134.Plaintiff’s lawsuit was designed to have and has had the effect of inhibiting legitimate debate on the issues and public policy surrounding the theories expounded by Plaintiff and others and of restricting the free flow of ideas concerning the merits of those theories...

135. It is already having the desired effect. This very week, on February 19th, enraged by a Pennsylvania weatherman’s Tweet, Plaintiff instructed his acolytes through his Facebook and Twitter pages to call the CBS affiliate and demand to know whether this was “acceptable behavior”. Several went further and made threats to “add him to the lawsuit”, and similar. In the event that Mann succeeds in delaying discovery as he has in British Columbia, there will be three years for him and his enforcers to bully weathermen, parodists, fellow scientists and many others by threatening to “add them to the lawsuit”.

136. More particularly, Plaintiff’s lawsuit, with the intent to silence Plaintiff’s critics, has targeted Defendant Steyn, who has written articles critical of Plaintiff and his theories.

137. Such improper chilling of free, robust and uninhibited public debate over climate change taints and skews the democratic process and distorts the resulting governmental public policy response to alleged global warming.

138. Plaintiff’s lawsuit has damaged Defendant Steyn by interfering with his right to express opinions on controversial matters and causing him to expend time, money and effort in having to respond to this lawsuit.

139.The claims in Plaintiff’s lawsuit arise from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on an issue of publicinterest and Plaintiff’s lawsuit therefore violates the Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Act (Anti-SLAPP Act) ...

140. As a result of Plaintiff’s campaign to silence those who disagree with him on a highly controversial issue of great public importance, wrongful action and violation of the Anti-SLAPP Act, Steyn has been damaged and is entitled to damages, including but not limited to his costs and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and will incur in the future in defending this action, all in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million, plus punitive damages in the amount of $5 million.

To be clear, these are Steyn's claims/allegations and not any ruling from a court, right?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'll need you toquote the part of that link of yours where it says Mann was sacked. I can't seem to find it.


Curry diplomatically explains how she jumped before she was pushed

Ridds day in court was in April.

The latter link was the Univ.'s news release after losing at trial.

From your Curry link (all bolding mine & for L-E's continuing benefit ):

"Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise.

Where many scientists say that humans are the primary cause of warming, Curry believes natural forces play a larger role. She also believes that uncertainty around climate models means we don't have to act so quickly and that current plans would do little to mitigate warming. She also questions the assertion made by a majority of climate scientists who believe humans have significantly contributed to climate change."

For JC Reefer & Hardhead:

"In announcing her retirement, Curry wrote about what she called her 'growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists.' She said a deciding factor for leaving the ivory tower was that 'I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science,' adding that research and funding for it are highly politicized." [Capitalization in original].

More for L-E:

In an interview with E&E News, Curry said she would like to see a greater focus on the uncertainties of climate science and a better exploration of them through scientific debate free of politics.

'Once you understand the scientific uncertainties, the present policy path that we're on doesn't make a lot of sense,' she said. 'We need to open up policy dialogue to a bigger solution space. So I'm just looking to open up the dialogue and to provoke people into thinking.'"

And finally for Jack: Looks like just a tad more went into Dr. Curry's "choice" to retire than a desire to go into the private sector. You got it right perfunctorily, but left out the "rest of the story."

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

To be clear, these are Steyn's claims/allegations and not any ruling from a court, right?

correct this is the suit brief
Pay close attention to section 135

135. It is already having the desired effect. This very week, on February 19th, enraged by a Pennsylvania weatherman’s Tweet, Plaintiff instructed his acolytes through his Facebook and Twitter pages to call the CBS affiliate and demand to know whether this was “acceptable behavior”. Several went further and made threats to “add him to the lawsuit”, and similar. In the event that Mann succeeds in delaying discovery as he has in British Columbia, there will be three years for him and his enforcers to bully weathermen, parodists, fellow scientists and many others by threatening to “add them to the lawsuit”.

In it is the description of people with differing opinions to Mann being threatened with being added to the suit if they don't shut up and stop posting views against MMGW .

[Wotname]

I'm curious, does anyone still see any value in this thread after 937 posts, the vast majority written by a handful of posters?

Me, I still reading it (or perhaps described as scanning it) but for the life of me, I haven't seen anything significantly new after say the first 50 or 100 posts.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I'm curious, does anyone still see any value in this thread after 937 posts, the vast majority written by a handful of posters?

Me, I still reading it (or perhaps described as scanning it) but for the life of me, I haven't seen anything significantly new after say the first 50 or 100 posts.

So, typical of these then.


Anyway, I'm off sailing or something.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'll need you toquote the part of that link of yours where it says Mann was sacked. I can't seem to find it.

Mann was not sacked.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

To be clear, these are Steyn's claims/allegations and not any ruling from a court, right?

That is true.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is true.

hopefully soon they will rule against Mann purely on first amendment grounds if nothing else. Would be nice if they also find against him on the intimidation as well.
I hope they put him in jail on the contempt in B.C. .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

hopefully soon they will rule against Mann purely on first amendment grounds if nothing else. Would be nice if they also find against him on the intimidation as well.
I hope they put him in jail on the contempt in B.C. .

Well, there’s nothing intimidating nor contemptuous about your comments. [sarcasm]
FWIW: A few narrow categories of speech are not protected (under the U.S. First Amendment) from restrictions, including: incitement, defamation*, fraud*, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats.
* Defamatory lies (which are called “libel” if written and “slander” if spoken), lying under oath, and fraud may be punished. In some instances, even negligent factual errors may lead to lawsuits. Such exceptions, however, extend only to factual falsehoods; expression of opinion may not be punished even if the opinion is broadly seen as morally wrong.
IIRC, defamation lied (pun intended) at the heart of Mann's lawsuit(s?).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Well, there’s nothing intimidating nor contemptuous about your comments. [sarcasm]
FWIW: A few narrow categories of speech are not protected (under the U.S. First Amendment) from restrictions, including: incitement, defamation*, fraud*, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats.
* Defamatory lies (which are called “libel” if written and “slander” if spoken), lying under oath, and fraud may be punished. In some instances, even negligent factual errors may lead to lawsuits. Such exceptions, however, extend only to factual falsehoods; expression of opinion may not be punished even if the opinion is broadly seen as morally wrong.
IIRC, defamation lied (pun intended) at the heart of Mann's lawsuit(s?).

yes kind of the suit against Dr ball is over a joke stated during a speech

The suit involving Steyn is actually a satirical piece that was published in a magazine.

Both are frivolous suits brought by Mann to use to silence persons with views that don't align with his .

[JC Reefer]

The “follow the money” position goes both ways. No doubt that there are some people pushing some bad science. But the thing about science is that it can be tested and retested.

Wouldn’t businesses be hurt if additional red tape is added because of the universal acceptance of MMGW? Seems like there is a reasonable number of people who’d benefit from an overall acceptance that Global warming is not even happening.

In order for a MMGW conspiracy to work you’d need the majority of the scientific community, global organizations, even countries in on it.

I get that there is probably more research dollars flowing toward the study of finding Man made global warming sources but it doesn’t fully hold water that the other side is as shut out as it’s being suggested here.

It’s not like the people doing the research getting really rich off the scheme. Some might be, but again that goes both ways. Not sure I see it.