A famous climate scientist is in court, with big stakes for attacks on science | Hacker News Reader

A famous climate scientist is in court, with big stakes for attacks on science

npr.org

45 pointspseudolus9 comments

> Mann's graph looks like a hockey stick lying on its side, with the blade sticking straight up.

Is this how “hockey stick graph” is regularly interpreted? I always assumed it was that if you held the blade flat to the ground the handle went up and to the right. I never imagined it lying down nor do I see what that adds to the metaphor.

Edit: The Wikipedia for Hockey Stick Graph (Global Temperature) uses the author’s interpretation, but the more general entry for Hockey Stick Graphs shows my interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_tem...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

> I never imagined it lying down nor do I see what that adds to the metaphor.

I'd always interpreted it the same was as the author, meant to emphasise a long relatively flat period followed by a sudden upwards trend. I think likely because I've mostly heard it used in relation to climate change, rather than economics where it's apparently more often used with your interpretation.

some of the backstory that you arent going to get from npr.org

https://www.technologyreview.com/2004/10/15/274740/global-wa...

I don't think this has any consequences for science.

The question is whether the language / metaphor was too extreme as to be defamation.

"In court, Mann has argued he lost funding and research opportunities"

Seems like there is a strong potential for a chilling effect on scientific enquiry if publishing scientific papers leads to this kind of political vilification.

Hard to attribute that to defamation. Not saying there's no causal link, but funding can be fickle and this could happen if climate change science ever becomes unsexy or saturated.

Hard to claim people like this aren’t in it for the money/as just a job when they then sue for damages in court when attacked for their research. It might not have been a nice way to say it, but scientific discourse is about pushing hard to guarantee accuracy and if anyone believes the data was cherry picked or inaccurate they should have every right to say so. What precedent would it set if you could sue scientific skeptics for damages, what does this accomplish except for disincentivizing healthy scientific discourse?

Name me a case where it was crucial to advancing serious and healthy scientific discourse by comparing one of the researchers a molester. Why would that ever be necessary?

I was talking to a friend a couple of days ago who believes climate change is all wrong science and he brought up that "the guy who 'invented' the hockey curve is being sued because it is wrong".

It doesn't matter whether he wins, the damage is done and now his children believe it is wrong science... That's the damage...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com