@ cSteele,

<<yada yada yada ... and anyone with half a brain will realise that>>

But anyone with a FULL brain would have seen/read it my way!

Poirot,

You are determined to defend one of your high-priests to the end I see.

If you check the text of his lawsuit against Steyn you'll see within it he three times mentions the Nobel winner status. Or this from his press release announcing the lawsuit:

"Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming."

I know you'll want to play with words to claim that black is white but if you go to the Nobel website you won't see Mann listed as a winner. If we go by the twisted logic that being a member of a winning organisation makes you a winner then every EU citizen is a Nobel recipient after the EU won the prize last year :)

Oh and by the way, has anyone told you that temps haven't risen for the last two decades or are you determined to ignore unsavoury facts.

Well hello there CSTEELE...

I see you've assumed the mantle of learned silk in this thoroughly monotonous topic, CSTEELE - having savoured yet another modicum of fine Sherry perhaps ? I've been awaiting your return with patience, where once more we can amuse ourselves by again discussing the many exemplars of unabashed media partisanship, as evidenced by their continued blathering about unfounded climate change ?

Being just your basic, pragmatic sort of fellow myself, the only 'change' I'd bet on CSTEELE, is that of government in about seven months time ? Provided it receives assent from our august Parliamentry Press Gallery, of course ?

Seriously though, it's good to see you back ol' man. On another related matter, it's interesting to see they've (journalists) closed 'out' one of their own ? An alleged 'Red Neck' journalist by the name of Andrew BOLT, a hitherto naysayer, 'climate change' denier ? Who apparently, had a Current Affairs programme on Ch.10 on Sunday mornings in 2012 ? How the mighty have fallen, by all acounts Mr Bolt had a huge following ? There's no accounting for the tastes of these 'Red Necks' Emmmm ?

Poirot, csteele, qanda, wobbles and warmair,

Lots of links to someone else’s opinion but still no answers?

<<The question was, and still is, that during the period of the last 17, 18, 19, or 23 years (take your pick), each of these scientific establishments have now told us that “during that period” there was no global warming.

The issue remains that during this very same period we were told there was global warming. That was a lie because they have now admitted it.>>

All you have to do is tell us for that period, which was true. Was the world warming during that period or was it not?

csteele has gone into deep denial and refuses to even accept the public statements. He/she/it wants the links to the evidence? Just how lazy can you get?

csteele, the “yes but” response has no legal precedent, unfortunately for you the answer in a court of law is yes or no. No “buts”.

Ah well, I guess we never really expected any answer. OLOers must be starting to wonder what sorts of intellects are driving your absent argument.

So which statements were true, is the world warming or is it not? Do we believe those who told us it was warming or do we believe those who now tell us it isn’t. Or are we all screwed up because the same people gave us both answers

mhaze,

Looking at the complaint wherein Mann is represented:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf

Paragraph 1. states:

"Dr Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. Along with other researchers, he was one of the first to document the steady rise in the surface temperatures during the 20th Century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950's. As a result of his research, Dr Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize....."

Paragraph 2 states:

"It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel Prize recipient...."

Paragraph 17 states:

"The work of Dr Mann and the IPCC has received considerable accolades within the scientific community. In 2007, Dr Mann shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the other IPCC authors for their work on climate change..."

Thus his description as being a "Nobel Prize recipient" is sailing close to the semantic wind.

However, the other two statements reference his colleagues and the Nobel accolade as being a shared or collective distinction - and nowhere does he claim to be a Nobel Laureate".

In your first post on this issue, mhaze, you said that Mann claims to be a "Nobel Laureate". Taking you at your word, I expected to discover that Mann had actually referred to himself as such.
What do I find instead? That while defending his reputation against ongoing defamation, he refers to his significant participation in the work that led to his organisation receiving the Nobel Peace Prize - for which he was recognised as a major contributor.

He could be excused, under the circumstances, for feeling that he and his colleagues, who make up the IPCC, are the recipients of the accolade - even if only under the organisational umbrella..

He did not claim to be a "Nobel Laureate" as you claim he did.

See how easy it is to be taken at your word - even if you meant it to be a tad nebulous?

If it pleases the court m'lord I would like to ask the defendant what he thinks his brain is 'full' of to be seeing direct quotations where there are none.

Sorry m'lord I didn't quite catch your last remark, I thought from this distance there may have been a bovine reference but I am unsure.

Yes m'lord I will move right along. Forgive me.

Well actually m'lord I will admit to finding myself a little perplexed as to how exactly to proceed. One defendant has obviously taken a vow of silence, yes m'lord small blessings indeed, and the other has his thumb in his mouth, rocking back and forth mumbling yada yada yada while clutching to his breast notes of some kind.

I am a little loathed m'lord to approach him too closely m'lord but the papers appear to be the transcripts of Mr Jones' first interview with the BBC. Yes m'lord one must assume they are very precious to him.

Oh yes perfectly appropriate m'lord, delusions should be allowed to remain while they are important to the recovery process and he should be allowed to keep the papers until he feel strong enough to part with them.

Indeed m'lord, a very long time indeed up to 17 years in some cases I believe, but with the appropriate professional help perhaps a more speedy recovery might be hoped for.

Yes m'lord I think the officers have all of his things, oops wait, nearly forgot his bat and ball. There we go.

I fully concur m'lord, guilty as sin as you said but judgement should indeed be reserved until the proper assessments have been done.

Thank you m'lord.