What Should We Think Of Michael Mann’s Defamation Trial ‘Win’?
I was a witness in the case and testified on Tuesday.2 Here, I’ll offer my thoughts on the case and some personal reflections on my experience
Mann’s case alleged that he was defamed by statements made by the bloggers more than a decade ago, which harmed his reputation and career (I won’t rehash the details here, but you can get a full accounting of the trial at this comprehensive podcast).3
The defense built their case around making three points to the jury.
One was to bring in experts to testify that Mann’s methods in producing the so-called “Hockey Stick” graph were manipulative, and thus critics of the Hockey Stick were factually correct in saying so.
The second point was to demonstrate that the debate over climate at the time the blog posts were written was intense and vitriolic, with Mann saying things about others that were worse than what the defendants said about him.4
Finally, the defense argued that Mann hardly put on a case — he provided no evidence or witnesses supporting his claims of damage to his reputation or career.
In contrast, the prosecution was — in the words of the court, “disjointed” — and was reprimanded on multiple occasions by the judge, most notably for knowingly providing false information to the jury on alleged damages suffered by Mann.5
When I was cross-examined, Mann’s lawyer had considerable trouble getting basic facts right like timelines and who said what.6
Even so, in a trial that most neutral observers would surely see as favoring the arguments of the defense, Mann walked away with a resounding, comprehensive victory.7 How did that happen?
$1,001,002 to be exact.
In my view, there were two absolutely pivotal moments in the trial.
One occurred when Mann was testifying and he explained that he felt that the bloggers were not just criticizing him, but they were attacking all of climate science, and he could not let that stand.
As the world’s most accomplished and famous climate scientist, Mann intimated that he was simply the embodiment of all of climate science.
For the jury, this set up the notion that this trial was not really about Mann, but about attacks on all of climate science from ‘climate deniers’.
The second pivotal moment occurred when in closing arguments Mann’s lawyer asked the jury to send a message to ‘right-wing science deniers’ and Trump supporters with a large punitive damage award.
Here is how an advocacy group called “DeSmog” accurately reported these dynamics:
Mann sued Simberg and Steyn for defamation, but the trial proved to be about much more than statements that harmed the scientist’s reputation — the entire field and validity of climate science was under scrutiny.
In closing arguments, Mann’s lawyer John Williams compared the climate deniers in this case to election deniers overall. “Why do Trumpers continue to deny that he won the election?” he asked the jury. “Because they truly believe what they say or because they want to further their agenda?”
He asked the jury to consider the same question about Steyn and Simberg: Did they believe what they wrote was the truth, or did they just want to push their agenda? …
“Michael Mann is tired of being attacked,” Williams told the jury. “You have the opportunity to serve as an example to prevent others from acting in a similar way” to Simberg and Steyn.
An underlying current throughout this trial has been that ‘climate denialism’, like what the two defendants practice, isn’t really about the science. It’s more about politics and policy that drives organizations and individuals to “attack the science and confuse the public . . .
This framing — ‘climate deniers’ versus climate science — has also characterized mainstream media coverage.
For instance, The Washington Post announced, on the day the case went to the jury, that this case was part of a “mounting campaign” against “right-wing trolls” (below).
Prominent climate scientist or right-wing trolls? Which side are you on?
The case was formally about defamation, but in reality, it was not at all about defamation.
As Michael Mann stated after the verdict, the case was really about politics and ideology:
This is about the defense of science against scurrilous attacks, and dishonest efforts to undermine scientists who are just trying to do our job … whose findings might prove inconvenient to certain ideologically driven individuals and outlets.
It’s about the integrity of the science and making sure that bad actors aren’t allowed to make false and defamatory statements about scientists in their effort to advance an agenda.
The defense made a big mistake in thinking that it would be sufficient to win by proving their case while Mann chose not to put one on. That was wrong.
There is no equivalence here between the “renowned” Michael Mann and the “right-wing trolls” who ‘deny’ climate science and support Donald Trump.
The case, at least in this particular venue, was simply unwinnable no matter what cases were put on by the prosecution and the defense. Mann simply had to show up.
The fact that the jury awarded him only $2 in actual damages and $1,001,000 in punitive damages (send a message!) supports this interpretation — the defense won on merits, and Mann won on the framing and the politics.
What does the case mean for discourse about politically contentious issues that involve science? Science magazine reports that it means that we now need to be circumspect in how we engage these issues:
In a statement, Mann said:
“I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.”8
At the same time, the ruling could end up having a chilling effect on necessary public criticism of science, says Gene Policinski, a senior fellow at the Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan foundation focused on First Amendment protections.
People will need “to be more judicious in commentary. They might be more vague or circumspect.” And that could be to the detriment of the public, he says. “It’s important in today’s world for people to be aware of research that’s going on and having people both praise and criticize it openly.”
For Mann’s part, he signals that he is just getting started in his legal campaign against his opponents:
Asked about Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review, [Mann’s lawyer] John Williams said, “They’re next.”
I would not be surprised to now see a flurry of lawsuits against people who have been critical of climate ‘science’ or climate scientists.
Such legal action may not be limited to climate — the debate over COVID-19 also presents a target-rich environment for unwanted speech to silence. Watch this space.
Finally, let me offer some personal reflections on my experiences.
From the start, my view was that this entire lawsuit was unnecessary and a waste of everyone’s time. People whom I still would not recognize on the street said some mean things about Michael Mann on the internet.
Welcome to public discourse in the 21st century. People say mean, false things about me on the internet every day — it goes with the many privileges of having an outsized impact and voice.
The case was never about the integrity of science or the political impact of right-wing trolls — it was always about Michael Mann.
As I stood in line with dozens of other people on Tuesday waiting to go through security to enter the courthouse, I wondered how we got here — how leading scientists and institutions of climate science became totally consumed with a battle against minor bloggers and political boogeymen.
When I entered the courtroom, I had a profound sense of sadness for Mann. He was alone with his lawyer — no family, no friends, no university officials, no adoring fans, no mainstream media. Totally alone.
See more here climatechangedispatch
About the author: Roger Pielke Jr has been a professor at the University of Colorado since 2001. Previously, he was a staff scientist in the Environmental and Societal Impacts Group of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He has degrees in mathematics, public policy, and political science, and is the author of numerous books.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
The courts and journalists should not be involved in resolving issues of science. Scientific differences should be resolved by scientists but this no longer happens.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Alan,
Are you implying that this distinguished Professor Mann is a “Real Scientist?”
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
VOWG
| #
More B S in a world of B S.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The problem was a lack of addressing the jury properly. There is no science in the GHGT but people believe it because so called scientist use technical terms and arguments that those people cannot comprehend causing them to accept them as authorities. You cannot use similar tactics to counteract this misinformation since they don’t have the knowledge to distinguish who is right.
You must use the reality of the people’s own experiences to demonstrate the fallacy of the “science” they are being told. “Have you ever gone outside after a night of snow and have the sun raise the temperature to 40 or 50 even though the ground is covered with snow? If the ground is heating the atmosphere doesn’t it need to melt the snow before raising the temperature?” Show them a graph of the temperature of the atmosphere and ask “How can the Earth be heating the air at the top of the stratosphere this high without heating the air below it?” Ask them “Have you ever had sun burn? It is the absorption by your skin by the ultraviolet light coming from the sun that causes sunburn, but over 90% of that ultraviolet light has been absorbed by the atmosphere. How can it not be heating the air in the atmosphere?”
You need to speak to a jury with evidence they can understand.
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
I totally agree with Herb.
Right on .
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hear, hear:
Shouldn’t now, while this distinguished Professor Mann got the dough, Tim Ball’s family request this DC court to re-direct the decreed sum to cover the outstanding CAD$1M+ (+interest) as ruled by that BC court in August of 2019?
Just thinkin’, JaKo
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
He totally failed in his defamation claims, yet he wins anyway, that is a specific piece of evidence of America in decline.
Reply
crackpot
| #
Sounds like the defense just conceded the existence of the GHGE, and argued truth based on how a graph was drawn. What difference would that make if global warming exists anyway?
It takes so little effort to disprove this thing experimentally. Take the jury outside on a sunny day with two small greenhouse boxes and repeat RW Wood’s experiment. Have the jury put their hands on the bottom of the two boxes to see there’s no difference in temperature. Is that really that crazy?
Reply
Shawn Marshall
| #
The First Amendment is voided by an ignorant jury and the court system does nothing. We thought Canada was bad!
Reply
Robert
| #
There is a legal system and then there is right and wrong. They are not the same. Some times the legal system gets it right, but there are many instants when they are wrong. This was one of them . hopefully it will be corrected .
Reply
Joel
| #
I was wondering how Mann was able to win on such flimsy evidence which clearly points to an incompetent defense. The defendants’s lawyer clearly believed the climate change hype so how could he defend against the high and mighty claims of climate change orthodoxy? Not only is this verdict evidence of an incompetent defense attorney but also an incompetent jury. The typical American has been reduced to perpetual childhood just like the peasants in Medieval times. History, is all too often a mystery.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Joel,
“I was wondering how Mann was able to win on such flimsy evidence which clearly points to an incompetent defense.[?]. The jury was composed of Mann’s peers.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Regular PSI Readers and Commenters,
For years I have been writing that physical SCIENCE, brought to us by Galileo and Newton, is totally based upon qualitative and/or quantitative observations. Several times I have pointed out that a scientific theory must predict something not yet recognized, like that when at weather stations which measure atmospheric temperature and atmospheric dew point temperature side by side, it has never been found that the measured air temperature has been found to be less than the air’s dew point temperature. So the prediction of the GHE must be absolutely wrong. For the Prediction of this generally accepted scientific theory is that if there were no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the atmospheric temperature would be a about 33C (56F) degrees lower. However, based upon many, many, measurements meteorologists have observed that the atmospheric temperature cannot be lower than that measured.
And I cannot remember any of you commenting: “Jerry, that is correct and not your STUPID opinion.
Have a good day
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Jerry,
T1=>Tdp1 — Jerry you are correct! Tdp (Dew-point) can’t surpass the T (measured air temp.) as the latent heat of water phase change would make sure of that.
However, when everything cools down a bit, say at night, and Tdp2<Tdp1, your original premise still holds: T2=>Tdp2 but T2 could be less than Tdp1 and so on…
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jako,
The dew point is not a measured temperature, it is a measurement of the water in the atmosphere expressed as the temperature where that water represents 100% humidity. As long as the amount of water remains the same the dew point will not change as the temperature changes. Jerry’s idiotic law says that since a humidity greater than 100% has never been observed the GHGT is disproven. There is no connection between the two.
Herb
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
If a formula is based on anecdote the repeated observations of the anecdote does not add up to empiricism. It doesn’t matter how many times you observe the formula T1=>Tdp1 to be true it doesn’t confirm the silly assertion that clear moist air contains monomolecular (genuinely gaseous) H2O. Clear moist air contains nanodroplets of invisibly small liquid H2O. It does not contain gaseous H2O. Consequently when meteorologists claim that the onset of visibility of fog or clouds is evidence of phase change they are just being stupid. Moreover the notion that this nonexistent phase change produces “latent heat” is equally ludicrous. Along these lines, however, as nanodroplets combine to become larger droplets their heat capacity increases. This means they absorb and conserve more energy, adding to the list of reasons why storms are cold and wet and not–as meterology’s ill-formed theory predicts–warm and wet.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
“as nano droplets combine to become larger droplets their heat capacity increases. This means they absorb and conserve more energy”
Not right. Look at what happens as the water escaping a tea kettle cools. It first appears as an invisible gas then, on cooling condenses into visible water droplets. These water droplets disappear as they lose energy becoming nano droplets and with additional cooling become larger visible droplets. The formation of visible water droplets is a result of water losing heat and any addition of heat will result in smaller droplets. The heat capacity of the combined nano droplets is greater than the heat capacity of the larger droplets.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
. . . then, on cooling condenses into visible water droplets.
JMcG;
The reason the condensate first becomes large, visible droplets is simply because (for obvious reasons) the humidity is so high in the immediate vicinity of the tea kettle.
Herb:
These water droplets disappear as they lose energy becoming nano droplets
JMcG:
They disappear as they evaporate. They evaporate more rapidly as they spread away from the high humidity micro-environment near the tea kettle.
From this point on the size of the water droplets is determined by the continuing rates of condensation vs. evaporation. Water droplets are under constant bombardment from the air molecules in the atmosphere and these molecules are moving hundreds of miles per hour. At one and the same time these nanodroplets are trying to join together into larger droplets. This process goes on constantly at thousands of times per second (or more).
James McGinn
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Evaporation is a result of water converting energy into internal energy. When the water droplets from the tea kettle are disappearing they by absorbing energy but they are also adding energy to the air molecules.
The collisions between air molecules and the water droplets is adding energy to the air molecules causing them to expand resulting in fewer collisions, less transfer of energy, a lower temperature.
Dew or fog form when water nano droplets lose energy and condense into larger droplets. The tea kettle is illustrating how the state of water changes as water loses energy and the question is why after condensing into a liquid does it continue to evaporate (disappear) as it is losing energy to the air when evaporation is usually a result of water gaining energy from the air molecules..
Herb
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Herb:
Evaporation is a result of water converting energy into internal energy.
JMcG:
I can’t make sense of this assertion.
Herb:
When the water droplets from the tea kettle are disappearing they by absorbing energy but they are also adding energy to the air molecules.
JMcG:
They disappear because they evaporate into invisibly small nanodroplets, as I explained.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
When heating water most of the energy does not appear as radiated energy. Since energy cannot be destroyed it still exists in the water (what people call latent heat) in a form that is not detected.
This is what I call internal energy, it is contained within the structure of the matter. When energy is added to the electrons of an atom there is no evidence of it until it reaches a level where it is radiated as light.
Water absorbs energy as internal energy through a wide range of temperatures but the amount of energy becoming internal energy versus radiated energy changes with temperature (The amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water (a calorie) changes as the initial temperature of the water changes. This indicates to me that the internalization of energy by water is not being done by the uniform water molecules but other structures (just as molecules composed of the same kinds of atoms absorb different amounts of energy.) that are being created by the energy in the water.
You maintain that water is forming tetrahedron structures but water with 3 reactive sites (2 positive hydrogen atoms and 1 negative oxygen atom) cannot form a four sided solid with four corners and six edges without having unneutralized/reacted sites. It is forming other structures.
Herb
JaKo
| #
OK you guys,
Showing a liddle bit of leniency and friendship may be too hard for you, so how about this “Water Vapor”:
Please see a 16th edition (free to download) Lange’s Handbook of Chemistry: The table 1.50 ‘Vapor Pressure of Water’ starts with -10°C and ends with 120°C
Could you please explain why there is any pressure of water vapor below 100°C and even, however miniscule, below 0°C?
For “hard to imagine people” here is the typically sophomoric US University explanation:
https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/vpress.html
Thank you, JaKo
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Jako:
The table 1.50 ‘Vapor Pressure of Water’ starts with -10°C and ends with 120°C
JMcG:
Okay. However, you have to first be aware that evaporate never involves monomolecular H2O as erroneously indicated in the GIF on the second link you provided. Vapor never contains steam it contains droplet–always,
Jako:
Could you please explain why there is any pressure of water vapor below 100°C and even, however miniscule, below 0°C?
JMcG:
Because it evaporates and/or sublimates.
If you choose to believe that water magically defies its known boiling temperature/pressure despite the fact that there is zero evidence to support this absurd interpretation then there is nothing I can do for you.
James McGinn / Genius
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
When heating water most of the energy does not appear as radiated energy.
JMcG:
Right. It is somehow conserved. Thus far modern science is clueless as to the mechanism thereof.
Herb:
Since energy cannot be destroyed it still exists in the water
JMcG:
I figured it out. See the second of the two videos on my YouTube site entitled Solving Tornadoes.
Herb:
(what people call latent heat)
JMcG:
“Latent heat.” is loon talk, in my less than humble opinion. As I describe in the video I indicated above, the mechanism of H2O’s high heat capacity is external to the molecule, and an implication of the intra-variability of H2O polarity as described in my video.
Herb:
in a form that is not detected.
JMcG:
It is, in a sense, detected when the temperature of H2O goes up more slowly than predicted (and down more slowly than predicted) relative to the amount of energy that is added (removed).
Herb:
This is what I call internal energy,
JMcG:
What is the mechanism? Are you suggesting the H2O molecule has undiscovered valences? Whenever you theorize behaviors for water that do not involve it’s very distinction (and poorly understood) polarity you have to wonder why the behavior does not show up in the myriad of other molecules that are comprised of similar atoms and are of similar size.
My advice is don’t waste your time looking for internal mechanisms. H2O molecules are polar. Everybody knows this. It is also a solvent of it’s own polarity. Only I know this. It is the implications of both of these truths that is the basis of it’s high heat capacity along with other quirky behaviors.
Herb:
You maintain that water is forming tetrahedron structures
JMcG:
No, it’s basis is tetrahedral. Because of the valence of oxygen.
Herb:
but water with 3 reactive sites (2 positive hydrogen atoms and 1 negative oxygen atom)
JMcG:
No, four. Oxygen has two sites for paired electrons. Not one.
Herb:
cannot form a four sided solid with four corners and six edges without having unneutralized/reacted sites. It is forming other structures.
JMcG:
It can but the bonds have zero strength, due to the fact that H2O is a solvent of it’s own polarity.
Herb, you are still very confused. Watch the videos.
In the 1950s Linus Pauling used quantum mechanics to establish that H2O is a polar molecule. Specifically he recognized differences in electronegativity between its oxygen and its two hydrogen as the cause of this polarity. In so doing he failed to recognize that the polar force was actually the result of electrical gradients generated by this same difference in electronegativity. This seemingly slight conceptual error concealed from him, and from all that followed in his footsteps, the fact that as H2O molecules form bonds with each other (up to four, one each with up to four neighbors) these electrical gradients cancel each other out. Thus H2O polarity is actually highly variable with the mechanism of this variability being hydrogen bonds themselves. This unpredicted variability and the fact tha the mechanism thereof is H bonds has resulted in the labeling of some of H2O’s observed behaviors as being “anomalous” when in actuality they are just misunderstood. The biggest implication of all is that this error and the confusion it generates prevents us from understanding the physics of storms–but this is a much larger story.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
A diamond and graphite are both composed exclusively of carbon but they have very different properties. In a diamond a carbon atom forms four covalent bonds with four other carbon atoms to produce a very hard stable structure. In graphite a carbon atoms forms a covalent bond with three other carbon atoms leaving one un reacted bond. Graphite is soft, slippery, and like a metal very good at conducting electricity.
The surface of a diamond must have the structure of graphite (This is where crystals grow) and those atoms have the weakest bond with the structure. The same applies to water where the bonds within the liquid are fully reacted (neutralized) but the surface is not. The surface molecules of water have the weakest bond with the body of water (why evaporation and freezing occur at the surface).
In water the oxygen atom has two unreacted electrons but these two constitute one weaker reactive site, not two. The valence of oxygen is two so it only rects with two hydrogen atoms but still has an area with a negative charge which attract positive charges. This area does not form covalent bonds with other atoms but forms weaker ionic bonds.
Herb.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
(SUNMOD edited this to create PARAGRAPHS to improve readability)
Herb:
The surface of a diamond must have the structure of graphite
JMcG: Good point.
Herb: (This is where crystals grow) and those atoms have the weakest bond with the structure.
JMcG:
Well, the bonds aren’t weaker. But there are less of them per atom, 3 instead of 4, as you indicated.
Herb:
The same applies to water.
JMcG:
What? No, it’s not the same at all. The carbon atom has four unpaired electrons that are available for covalent bonds. Oxygen only has two and in water these two are bonded with hydrogen. So, in water there is no possibility of forming covalent bonds.
Herb:
where the bonds within the liquid are fully reacted (neutralized) but the surface is not.
JMcG:
Well, this is true. But you seem to not be comprehending why it is true. And this is a big deal. You will not make any progress until you first get it straight in your mind as to why the bonds below the surface of liquid water, which you correctly described as being, “fully reacted (neutralized)” have no force holding them together in comparison to those along the surface which (obviously) do have forces holding them together (ie. “surface tension.”).
You need to stop jumping to conclusions and just reason it through. (I’ve explained it to you about ten times now.) Firstly, the magnitude of the force that holds any two H2O molecules together–the magnitude of that particular shared hydrogen bond–is a function of the polarity of the two H2O molecules that participate in the bond. Right? (Be sure you fully understand what I’m saying here before you continue.)
Secondly, if it is true that the molecules along the surface of liquid water have strong bonds compared to those below the surface then it can only be because those long the surface have polarity while those below the surface do not. Right? (Again, be sure you fully understand what I’m saying here before you continue. [This is the last time I’m going to try to explain this to you, and I mean it. We aren’t getting any younger.])
Lastly, if the only other thing that is different about the H2O molecules along the surface is that they share only 3 hydrogen bond with other H2O molecules while those below the surface share 4 hydrogen bonds what does this tell us about the effect of hydrogen bonds on the polarity of the H2O molecules that maintain these bonds?
The answer should jump out at you. If it doesn’t then you need to re-read the paragraph above as many times as it takes until it does jump out at you.
Herb:
The surface molecules of water have the weakest bond with the body of water.
JMcG:
Jeezus Herb. Above you stated, “ . . . bonds within the liquid are fully reacted (neutralized) but the surface is not.” Now you are saying exactly the opposite. Which is it?
Herb:
(why evaporation and freezing occur at the surface).
JMcG:
You are completely confused. And I don’t know if there is anything I can say to rescue you from your confusion.
Herb:
In water the oxygen atom has two unreacted electrons.
JMcG:
What? No it doesn’t. It has zero unreacted electrons. (Do you, maybe, not know the difference between an unpaired electron and paired electrons?) As I explained above, Oxygen has two unpaired electrons. However in water these unpaired electrons are paired by way of covalent bonds with its two hydrogen atoms.
Herb:
but these two constitute one weaker reactive site, not two.
JMcG:
Nonsense. You are completely confused. There are two sites on the Oxygen molecule. And both sites are filled with PAIRED ELECTRONS (NOT UNPAIRED ELECTRONS). You are just confused. Two multiplied by two equals four. So if what you are saying is true we would have to envision four electrons being enjoined, which is nonsense.
Herb:
The valence of oxygen is two.
JMcG:
More confusion. The valence of oxygen is four. Same is the case for carbon, nitrogen, fluorine, and neon. All of these have four places along the same valence that either have paired or unpaired electrons. Carbon has four unpaired. Neon has four paired. Nitrogen has 3 and 1, Fluorine has 1 and 3. Oxygen has 2 and 2. In all cases these are situated around the nucleus in a tetrahedral pattern.
Herb:
so it only reacts with two hydrogen atoms but still has an area with a negative charge which attracts positive charges.
JMcG:
More confusion. You are mixing the logic of covalent bonds with the logic of hydrogen bonds, which will only leave you confused. With hydrogen bonds there is an imbalance of electronegativity that we refer to as polarity. This occurs in the hydrogenated forms of Nitrogen (ammonia), Fluorine (hydroFluoride) and Oxygen (water). In ammonia and hydroFluorine it is somewhat oblique (3 to 1, and 1 to 3, see above) so the implications lack drama. In H2O the lack of obliquity (2 to 2) which sets the stage for a lot of drama associated with symmetry, extensiveness thereof, and implications thereof, the most significant of which is the fact that hydrogen bonds neutralize 25% of the polarity in both of the H2O molecules that participate in the bond. And each H2O molecule can and (at ‘normal’ temperatures) will readily form up to four of these polarity neutralizing hydrogen bonds, one each with up to four of its neighbors.
Herb:
This area does not form covalent bonds with other atoms but forms weaker ionic bonds.
JMcG:
Obviously. However you are missing the most significant realization that H bonds restore the imbalance of electronegativity that is inherit in the water molecule thereby neutralizing each others polarity, which is essential to understanding the “quirky” behaviors observed in water.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and Herb
Why have not either of you given PSI readers the reference: “The Nature of the Chemical Bond” written by Linus Pauling? Now, because for a moment I could not remember how to spell “Linus”, I was surprised to find that I could not find Pauling’s name even mentioned in Sienko and Plane’s very popular introductory chemistry textbook “Chemistry” 5th Ed. in tended for university students’ whose majors required at least an year of an introduction to chemistry.. While I find “Chemistry of Changing Times ” 6th Ed.: written by John W. Hill, intended for liberal arts manors who were not required to take any chemistry courses does mention Pauling and his contribution to the knowledge of chemistry. Certainly this is something to ponder.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and Herb.
In the past few decades other natural forms of pure carbon,, beside graphite and diamond, have been discovered. They are stable individual molecules of carbon atoms. The simplest having the molecular formula C-60. Why don’t you describe the 3-D structure of C-60 for PSI readers who might not be familiar with it?
Have a good day
Reply