Steve McIntyre writes:
The Mann libel case has been attracting increasing commentary, including from people outside the climate community. Integral to Mann’s litigation are representations that he was “investigated” by 6-9 investigations, all of which supposedly gave him “exonerations” on wide-ranging counts, including “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data” and even supposed findings that his work was “properly conducted an fairly presented”. Mann also represented that these investigations were widely covered in international and national media and thus known to Steyn and the other defendants.
In today’s post, I’ll look closely at the Oxburgh panel, one of the investigations cited in Mann’s pleadings. However, contrary to the claims in Mann’s litigation, not only did the Oxburgh panel not exonerate Mann, at their press conference, Oxburgh panelist David Hand, then President of the Royal Statistical Society, made very disparaging and critical comments about Mann’s work, describing it as based on “inappropriate” statistics that led to “exaggerated” results. These comments were widely reported in international media, later covered in a CEI article that, in turn, was reported by National Review. Moreover, information obtained from FOI in the UK a couple of years ago shows that Mann objected vehemently to criticism from an Oxburgh panelist, which he characterized as a “rogue opinion” and unsuccessfully sought a public apology.
Mann’s claim that the Oxburgh panel “exonerated” Mann on counts ranging from scientific misconduct to statistical manipulation to proper conduct and fair presentation of results has no more validity than his claim to have been awarded a Nobel prize for his supposedly seminal work “document[ing] the steady rise in surface temperatures during the 20th Century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s.”
Read it all here:
I wish that Mann would disappear quietly, and hang his head in shame.
“However, contrary to the claims in Mann’s litigation, not only did the Oxburgh panel not exonerate Mann, at their press conference, Oxburgh panelist David Hand, then President of the Royal Statistical Society, made very disparaging and critical comments about Mann’s work, describing it as based on “inappropriate” statistics that led to “exaggerated” results.”
Oops.
I finally figured out what CAGW stands for: Climate Activist, Global Windbag, and a leading emitter of hot CO2.
I just bought 3 of Steyn’s books in support of his side in this dispute. Mark Steyn is a funny and insightful writer. Mann’s attempt to muzzle him is an assault that any thinking person should recognize and help to repel. Free speech is the prerequisite to all freedoms.
I hope Mann loses decisively. But it’s the courts, isn’t it, and nothing is a given.
What we are seeing here is the meaninglessness of anti-SLAPP. All the plaintiff has to do is make things up and the judge has to take them as fact.
bushbunny says: @ February 17, 2014 at 6:27 pm
I wish that Mann would disappear quietly, and hang his head in shame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bullies don’t go away, they just get nastier.
“independent investigations” like Penn State, an employer, which already trashed its credibility with the Other Diddler and has an inherent conflict of interests ?!? UEA, a major source of the CAGW advocacy whose funding has been a sizable fraction of the budget with an even larger conflict of interest ? Just a bunch of bull from the Piltdowners.
I used to be surprised at the vitriol Piltdown’s targets have had to endure with his attacks and personal remarks. I think anyone would be within their rights to engage in open mockery of these actors at this point.
None of Mann has been exonerated. If it does come to trial, I think Steyn will. get costs. Mann is hoping against that and that is what his money bags are counting on.
In their 2010 addendum to their findings the Oxburgh Panel provided the following clarification to their report:
Addendum to report, 19 April 2010
For the avoidance of misunderstanding in the light of various press stories, it is
important to be clear that the neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to
imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately
misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings.
Rather, the aim was to draw attention to the complexity of statistics in this field, and
the need to use the best possible methods.
–It seems clear that this is the complete exoneration that Michael Mann was looking for.
not to mention the plethora of subsequent studies using a multiplicity of other proxy sources and data that all reproduce the hockey stick curve.
philjourdan says: @ February 17, 2014 at 7:37 pm
What they are counting on is a corrupt legal system and given my recent experience I am afraid the word corrupt is a very accurate description.
The best bit is the postscript.
Can you imagine Mann’s reaction if that happened? It might be like Krakatoa 2.0
Dr. Mann may regret this yet.
Looking forward to Mann bankrupting Steyn.
If Mann prevails but is awarded by a jury only $1 in “damages”, the effect will be no better than losing outright. Indeed, maybe worse since the implied moral judgement by the jury discrediting his grounds for laying suit would leave Mann with only a cratered-out Pyrrhic victory. That would also pretty much immunize anyone else from any fear to call out Mann as a phony.
Philjourdan
There is virtually no way for steyn to recover costs.
A couple of points to keep in mind. Unless the appeals court steps in and dismisses the case, the case will go likely to trial and which point it will go before a very liberal DC jury and before a new judge (the current one that replaced green-combs) that has shown some sympathy for the claim. Even if the appeals court vacates the jury award in favor of mann, It becomes very difficult to recover costs since you have a judge that rules and the trial court level that there is a case to be decided by the jury. (Mann winning at the trial court level is the likely result – I am being a realist )
I also think the likely result is that the appeals court will vacate any award, post trial.
In my opinion, the case should have been dismissed almost immediately under the anti slapp rules
1) Mann is definitely a public figure
2) there is considerable documentation that Mann both cherrypicked the data sets used and that the statistical methods were suspect and
3) The only moderately investigation of Mann’s work – The NSF acknowledged that statistical methods used were subject to scientific debate.
Remember the Emperor’s new cloths anyone?
I just read most of Mann’s book, ‘The Hockey stick and the climate wars, dispatches from the front lines’.
My opinion is that Mann lives in a dreamworld.
He reminds me a little of those atomic scientists who sold secrets to the Russians, whose understanding of social issues and politics was so bad, someone who dealt with the Fuchs case remarked “I’ve never met someone who was such a good scientist, and so bad at understanding society and politics”.
Mann is terrible at understanding people and politics. There is little hope for him to mellow out. He simply believes that those who agree with him are right, and those who don’t have something wrong with them. He is very much an ‘us and them’ sort of person. Establishment and the rest. He also describes Greenpeace as ‘oft criticised but ever gutsy’, as if what they do and believe doesn’t really matter, its the emotion behind it that counts. ‘The cause’. He frequently can’t relate to what is really going on, and therefore frequently misrepresents what occurs.
This sort of problem occurs in science, people can be reasonable at the science, and terrible at people and politics, which of course can then affect their science. Nothing new. Atomic scientists selling secrets to the Russians on some kind of misguided crusade was a similar sort of issue.
LOL…every time I think of Micky Mann getting mad I picture Yosemite Sam from Bugs Bunny!
@thingadonta Do not forget that the innocence of the atomic spies, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, was an article of faith for American leftists until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the (brief) opening of the archives proving their guilt.
willardgibbs says:
“Looking forward to Mann bankrupting Steyn.”
Why would that be?
Is it because you want pseudo-science to trump honest science? Or are you just bitter because Steyn pointed out the truth?
Anyway, I doubt that anyone is going to be bankrupted. Sorry to spoil your fevered wet dream.
Watch the alarmist conspiracy theories fly, if the Mann lawsuit bounces! 🙂
Does anyone have a link to the original article that provoked the lawsuit?
did Steyn likened Mann to Sandusky, or was it that the PS investigation of Mann was like their investigation of Sundusky, in which case it is the university that is being criticized – but deservedly so.
All of which used either the suspect Bristlecone proxies, the suspect Tiljander proxies, and/or the invalid PCA methods of Mann. See The Hockey Stick Illusion.
Steyn is a folk hero of the highest order, acting upon a sense of high moral principle. It is of greatly pleasant surprise that skeptics now have such a prominent conservative activist dragging Mann into an attempted public defense of his reputation. Mann has a bluff to be called, and any jury seeing the likes of his active promotion of the Marcott 2013 hockey stick as vindication of his own work will plainly understand that there simply is no hockey stick in any of the input data, and thus climate “science” is tainted by fraud.
Mr. McIntyre addressed the addendum of April 19th, 2010 by the Oxburgh panel and notes that subsequent comments by Mann show he expected much more including an apology and concurrence with Mann’s position that Hand was all wrong. That never happened. The addendum by the Oxburgh panel maintains the record that Mann’s use of statistics was inappropriate and that it resulted in exaggerated results.
jai mitchell says:
“neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to
imply…”
“Intended”? “Imply”? Both are weasel words that mean nothing.
But not surprising, since Muir Russell is such a weasel.
I smell smoke From the same direction.
The Mann’s obviously a delusional nutjob and not as we thought just a conniving attention-grabbing pseudo-scientist
Steyn can depose and do discovery on all those “exoneration entities”. They’re gonna love that.
I bet they didn’t prep too well for impeachment.
PS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment
…… for those who think it just pertains to Presidents
I radically disagree with Mark Steyn’s taste in music but it will be a sad day for the world if that little lying toad, Michael Mann, wins his monkey trial. Steyn is one of the few with guts to tell them how it really is, while Mann is just one of many heads on ever-growing Totalitarian State’s Hydra.
P.S. Catastrophic Climate Change Propaganda yields a symbolic abbreviation.
Since a jury of random 8-year olds would be able to see through the hockey stick sh!t (especially if Marcott et al. is brought into evidence), the only way Mann can win in a jury trial (long way to go for that) is if he gets his Mom, his sister, his dog, Jai Mitchell, Joel Shore, Tamino and Jan Perlmann and other similar non-scientists and pretend bullsh!t scientists on the jury.
Ain’t gonna happen.
I propose a new acronym: HICC: Human Induced Climate Change.
The warmists are usurping the term “climate change,” as if it is some kind of new phenomena when we all know it’s the natural order of things. So, to keep the terminology accurate and the debate comprehensible, those of us who doubt the theory of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) should use the term “HICC”in place of “climate change,” which is so general a term as to be meaningless in this debate.
Human-Induced Climate Change (HICC) is something all together different from natural climate and has never quantified or even verified as an actual scientific fact, “consensus” climate science notwithstanding.
We have to keep up with the warmists’ attempt to manipulate the language in this debate.
willardgibbs says:
February 17, 2014 at 8:01 pm
“Looking forward to Mann bankrupting Steyn.”
It’s not warming, operative. You’re defending a political pseudoscientist. Why would you do that?
willardgibbs says:
February 17, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Looking forward to Mann bankrupting
I for one would dig deep to ensure that never happens.
willardgibbs says:
February 17, 2014 at 8:01 pm
>>Looking forward to Mann bankrupting Steyn.<<
Oh well, each to their own opinion. I'm looking forward to immediately removing the front teeth of the likes of Mann, Hansen, etc., or indeed any of the fraudulent climate 'non-' scientists upon any direct contact, should the chance arise! As for their 'followers', the gullible sheeple and crass ignoramii taken in by such poor excuses for scientists – I wouldn't waste the energy.
Union of Concerned Scientists weights in a Live Science open editorial:
http://news.yahoo.com/why-climate-scientist-39-libel-case-matters-op-232605756.html
The author: “Seth Shulman is a senior staff writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a veteran science journalist and author of six books.”
“Sadly, we have been living in a period during which many parties — often with funding from the fossil-fuel industry — have knowingly spread disinformation about climate change. They have sown confusion about scientific facts and damaged our discourse on the topic just as they have — in the personal smears Mann has endured — arguably harmed his reputation. In so doing, there is no question that this disinformation has been used to knowingly and seriously erode the public’s understanding of an issue with immense consequences for society’s future.”
Seth… Borenstein or Shulman, same B.S.
“for his supposedly seminal work”
I don’t think there’s any supposition in describing Manns’s work as “seminal”, although opinion is fluid on the matter.
first, you have to convince yourself, then you can start of convincing others.
jai mitchell’s comment proves that he didn’t bother reading the full analysis by Steve Mc, else he would be embarrased to highlight that clear non-apology.
I love the bit about “Britain’s climatologists” found to be “scatterbrained and sloppy”.
The whole Mannian stance seems to be “Don’t criticise me, I’m right” rather than “I’m right and here is why”.
It would be really interesting to subject the whole thing to the rigours of the Scottish legal system, but that’s just wishful thinking.
Oxburgh knows no shame either: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/global-warming-the-oxburgh-inquiry-was-an-offer-he-couldnt-refuse/
Let’s take a closer look at Lord Oxburgh himself. Whether paid or not he is concerned enough about carbon dioxide. Can Lord Oxburgh have been an impartial and objective chairman of the CRU investigation panel?
Here is one new report in 2010.
Who were they trying to kid?
Anthropogenic Global Warming is the result of Anthropogenic Information Distortion.
Unfortunately, this dispute will be decided in an anthropogenic court. Not a court of justice. Those went by the wayside decades ago.
I fear for the anthropogenic political influence in the court room.
The Oxburgh Panel:
“We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians”
The panel is saying, in the nicest possible way, that Mann c.s. were out of their depth. This remark alone should have been fatal for his reputation, lest anyone in the press had realized what it meant.
Never forget what Prof Muller had to say:
pottereaton says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:40 pm
I propose a new acronym: HICC: Human Induced Climate Change. …”
—-l
I suggest sticking with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC), since it seems to foucus more accurately on their goals, which is to induce fear while holding humanity responsible.
Sadly, for me, I can imagine the whining as he pushes out more ‘seminal’ work – “but, but, but everyone else has gotten away with their lies …”. Poor me syndrome. In spades.
negrum says:
February 18, 2014 at 2:06 am
pottereaton says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:40 pm
Sorry, but it must be Global Warming. It is the stick with which we were originally beaten and it has gone away.
Mike Ozanne says:
February 17, 2014 at 11:32 pm
It’s mostly that he’s such a jerk about it.
Speaking of ‘paleoMann’, the Flintstone’s were to blame for ‘ancient’ climate change and we should worry. http://pindanpost.com/2014/02/18/fred-and-barney-to-blame/
From an “ancient DNA Professor” at Murdoch Uni, another from Denmark and published in Nature. Possibly embellished about climate change today by SNWA, as is often the case, be warned, that CO2’s gonna destroy us! Those poor endangered white possums, SNWA: http://pindanpost.com/2013/12/08/scary-graph-threatens-climate/
Mann has become a parody of his own ineffectual pomposity.
His pretentiousness knows no bounds, and he is destined to
be immortalised as an advocate of the worst mountebankery
ever seen in the field of scientific endeavour.
QED
For jai mitchel – you quote…. ‘intended to imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately misleading’
This does not mean the research was correct or soundly based. Your implication by leaving your quotes is totally bogius – a bit like the claims of AGM.
jai mitchell says at February 17, 2014 at 7:48 pm
You may not have heard that the UK House of Commons recently had a briefing on AR5 from noted “sceptics” such as Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, Professor Myles Allen, University of Oxford University, and Dr Peter Stott, Met Office.
These gentlemen were asked about the hockeystick in AR3 by the MPs.
And did the experts mention the plethora of subsequent studies using a multiplicity of other proxy sources and data that all reproduce the hockey stick curve?
No.
They said, “mistakes were made”.
Now a mistake isn’t deliberately misleading.
But it is still misleading.
@pottereaton, 02/17, 1040
I propose a new acronym: HICC: Human Induced Climate Change. (thanks I like it), …But
Me? I wonder what Mann has to say after his HICC “UP” didn’t happen ? Did somebody pound him on his back?
And if so did he or she not pound hard enough on his back? Is that why he is still waiting for the “UP”?.
Henry Galt says:
February 18, 2014 at 2:23 am
“Sorry, but it must be Global Warming. It is the stick with which we were originally beaten and it has gone away.”
—-l
CAGW will never be abandoned by the truly faithful and is easy to falsify, but CACC will be useful when the more intelligent shift the goalposts (the whole movement started as mere global cooling ). I think it best to be prepared on all fronts, since we cannot always choose our terrain 🙂
Saying that your right because you’ve been exonerated in more that six investigations for scientific fraud is kind of like saying that you’re completely sane, and have a psychiatrist’s report to prove it.
I’m afraid Ludicrous Lew has got that spot sewn up.
willardgibbs says: @ February 17, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Looking forward to Mann bankrupting Steyn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you also looking forward to the Elite reducing the earth’s population by 6 billion? That means you have a one in 7 chance of being starved to death. I suggest you read DEMOCIDE: Death by Government by Dr. R.J. Rummel
Mann is a high-horse / low-road rider.
Joe Chang says: @ February 17, 2014 at 9:09 pm
Does anyone have a link to the original article that provoked the lawsuit?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
did Steyn likened Mann to Sandusky, or was it that the PS investigation of Mann was like their investigation of Sundusky, in which case it is the university that is being criticized – but deservedly so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The comparison was the Sandusky cover-up to the Mann cover-up. Actually Steyn was quoting a blogger and pointing out the conclusion that if the University would turn a blind eye to what Sandusky was up to their exoneration of Mann was worthless.
“I wish that Mann would disappear quietly, and hang his head in shame.”
Not me. I hope to see “Dr.” Mann exposed for the fraud that he is, and his “work” exposed for the unscientific garbage that it is.
Joe Chang:
At February 17, 2014 at 9:09 pm you ask
It is here.
Richard
joe_dallas says: @ February 17, 2014 at 8:12 pm
Unless the appeals court steps in and dismisses the case, the case will go likely to trial and which point it will go before a very liberal DC jury…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The jury selection is going to take forever. Steyn’s lawyer will want skeptics and Mann’s lawyer CAGW Disciples. They are going to have to sift through and find the 6% to 7% of the population who think weather is caused by other reasons besides planetary trend or Mankind and are not completely barmy.
Actually coming up with a jury with an IQ above 80 who has not heard of the climate wars epecially in DC is going to be nearly impossible.
I am sure that is one of the things Mann is counting on. Too bad the trial can not happed right now just after DC got plastered with snow. The weather at the time of the trial will also be a factor and that is where a liberal DC judge can become an additional factor.
willardgibbs says: @ February 17, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Looking forward to Mann bankrupting Steyn.
————————————————————-
It’s not enough for you that big government, the courts, academia & big business are united against liberty, but you want the free press shut down, too?
What happened to ‘in the pay of big oil’? Steyn could sure do with some of that money
@richardscourtney (February 18, 2014 at 4:20 am)
Thanks for that link. Just read the article and now I’m totally convinced that Steyn will win.
What a sore loser Mann will be. (Already is.)
[snip – libelous statements, policy violation. Bill you are skating on thin ice, tone it down or end up in the permanent troll bin – Anthony]
Mike Wilson says: @ February 17, 2014 at 9:42 pm
The Mann’s obviously a delusional nutjob….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are missing the obvious.
The only reason Mann is suing is because he has a multi-billionaire footing the bill. A billionaire who is neither friend not family. Therefore the question is WHY? One answer is that the millions spent will have a return of billions of OUR MONEY funneled into the billionaires pockets. The other answer is the billionaire is a power hungry would be king — or both.
Scientists do not sue over scientific theories. Scientists provide all data with their published papers and are not secretive. The fact Government Scientists are now forming a Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, and have been manipulating data for years. The fact that the University of Virginia was willing to hand over Dr. Michaels information to Greenpeace but not willing to hand over Dr. Mann’s to ATI. The fact that corporations no longer are willing to recruit new hires from US campuses tells us we no longer have science and education we have Propagandists and Indoctrination Centers.
(SEE: Can US Students Survive On Junk Food? )
I think it is time for tax payers to tell the politicians to De-fund science and Universities. Why should we pay for Propaganda and the Indoctrination of our young people? Why should we allow a self aggrandizing bureaucracy to determine who is funded and who is not? It is time for citizens to determine who their money is given to and cut out the parasitic middleman.
The University of Virginia Hypocrisy
The purpose of Lawyers when using the Law is not to find the Truth, nor to seek Justice, but to Win.
A good lawyer will have written his closing speech before working out how to get there…
jai mitchell says:
February 17, 2014 at 7:48 pm
“…not to mention the plethora of subsequent studies using a multiplicity of other proxy sources and data that all reproduce the hockey stick curve.”
Everyone, except Mother Nature.
Jimbo,
Can you imagine the outrage if one of the Koch brothers were leading the investigation?
pottereaton says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:40 pm
I propose a new acronym: HICC: Human Induced Climate Change….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No do not let them change the playing field. Stick with CAGW and then stick them with no Climate Change (Temperature) for 17 plus years, no increase in tornadoes no increase in hurricanes no increase in wild fires.
Do not let them Morph the argument. This what ‘Democrats’ have been doing for years in the USA. link
M Courtny,
“Now a mistake isn’t deliberately misleading.”
In light of the fact that Mann is exaggerating the number of investigations exonerating him, it leads one to believe that Mann has a tendency to exaggerate and would imply that his mistake was deliberate.
Mann will be just fine. Why? Because:
Barron joined Penn State’s faculty in 1986 as director of the Earth System Science Center and associate professor of geosciences. In 2002, he was elevated from director of the university’s Earth and Mineral Sciences Environment Institute to dean of the school’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.
In 2006, Barron left State College to become dean of the Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin. In 2008, Barron became director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., where years earlier, he was a geology graduate student. Two years later, he moved on to Florida State, where he became the university’s 14th president.
willardgibbs says: @ February 17, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Looking forward to Mann bankrupting Steyn.
————————————————————-
milodonharlani says: @ February 18, 2014 at 4:42 am
It’s not enough for you that big government, the courts, academia & big business are united against liberty, but you want the free press shut down, too?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is too late we lost our free press in 1915 when JP MOrgan bought up all the important papers in the USA.. link (Mine is the first comment with all the gory details)
Gail Combs says:
February 18, 2014 at 5:42 am
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/18/billionaire_targets_14_races_in_climate_change_fight_121618.html
Mann is a little, little Mann(BearPig).
One thing I have learned following the AGW debate over the years – never, ever, ever argue with Steve McEntyre.
Gail Combs says:
February 18, 2014 at 5:42 am………..
Oh boy, Gail. You just said it all. Rock on!!!
The report you quote from is titled Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit.
There’s no mention of Michael Mann or his paper, specifically. Was Michael Mann teaching at CRU then? Was his paper written with CRU scientists? (I don’t know the answer.)
Their statement that they didn’t intend to imply fraud is hand-waving toward the field of climate change in general: “[not] intended to imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings. They do, however, stick to their guns about statistics, and that was the gist of what Oxburgh panelist David Hand said about the statistical methods used in Mann’s paper leading to “exaggerated” results. That’s a direct cause and effect that does not apply to the general field.
People posting here have to remember that this lawsuit has little/nothing to do with the science. It has everything to do with whether Steyn libelled Mann. My opinion is that it was “fair commentary”, as Mann is a “public figure” ( Mann’s own words), as is Penn State, and is subject to criticism, and mockery. If you are in a controversial field, you should be able to weather the storms, if you’ll pardon the pun.
OT I know and I apologize in advance but just couldn’t resist. I noted a this in one of the comments above …. “The CCS Association has stated that carbon capture could become a “trillion dollar industry” by 2050,…..”
While not related to the Steyn lawsuit, couldn’t help but pointing out that this represents how
much the CCS Association expects our energy bills to go up by 2050. CCS doesn’t not provide any energy, its ALL our money literally down a hole.
jai mitchell says:
February 17, 2014 at 7:48 pm
While telling us the opposite publicly, this is what was said in private communications. From the Climategate emails (Tom Wigley):
Steyn compared the Penn State investigation of Mann to their investigation of Sandusky. He contrasted Mann’s molesting of data to Sandusky’s molesting of boys. Both seem to be eminently defensible. The more serious challenge is that he accused Mann of scientific fraud or fraudulent conduct. While ‘fraud’ has a relatively clear definition in a legal context, it is capable of a broader interpretation when a commentator uses it to attack a public figure. I suggest that it is just another way of saying Mann molested the data, but it is capable of a more damaging interpretation, too. That’s why the motions judge refused to throw out the case – he had to give Mann’s suit its more favourable interpretation.
Re Walt The Physicist says: February 18, 2014 at 6:25 am
The plot thickens. This morning’s Wall Street Journal caries an item on Page 3: “Penn State Taps Climatologist as President”. A brief excerpt:
“Mr. Barron, whose five-year appointment to the $800,000-a-year job will take effect in the spring, has lectured on scientific models he says show that a buildup of greenhouse gases will result in a warming of Earth’s temperatures during the next century.”
Full story here:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB20001424052702304899704579389111499941716?mod=index_to_people&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB20001424052702304899704579389111499941716.html%3Fmod%3Dindex_to_people
Kiddoes, including Jai M and policycritic: There is an effective and persuasive deconstruction of all of the so-called exonerations of Michael Piltdown Mann. Plaintiff’s counsel would do well to avoid the strategy of depending upon those exonerations.
Fortunately, one of the most egregious, that of Penn State, is likely to come under the microscope. Penn State has paid the price for the whitewashing of a serial sexual molester; the bill for their whitewashing of this serial data molester is still in the mail, or rather, in the email.
===================
And as several others have noted, use of the meme of the hockey stick being reproduced by subsequent studies is a strategic pratfall, too, since it will lead to testimony about upside-down varves and split-bark bristlecones doing their stealth hockey stick work, fraudulently.
=======================
Al Capone cleared of all charges by a panel of peers, including John Dillinger, Bonnie Parker, George Nelson, Bugsy Seigel, Ma Barker, “Lucky” Luciano, and “Pretty Boy” Floyd.
Read all about it.
Yale Law School prof Steven Carter, who got into an email discussion with Bickmore, had this to say about the case:
“The trouble is (to put on my lawyer’s hat), the judge didn’t hold that the charges against Dr. Mann were libelous per se. He ruled that a jury could reasonably find them to be so. That’s where the danger arises. The exceptions the Supreme Court has carved out for commentary about public figures is intended to keep such questions from the jury in cases touching the public interest.”
followed by:
“Even if Dr. Mann wins the case (and I’m quite confident it will be settled; nobody wants to put it in front of a jury), the tenor of debate won’t change.”
If he’s right, then freedom of speech will eventually prevail although Steyn will probably have to go the distance. He should get the cheapest attorney he can find until then. The case should have been Anti-Slapped, but our legal system likes to waste other peoples money (half a million bucks down the rabbit hole and the Judge still couldn’t identify Steyn in a lineup).
http://www.steynonline.com/6093/the-future-is-another-country
near the bottom.
Well with respect to the NAS panel I’m wondering how Mann will deal with his admission in the climategate e-mails that it was an intended whitewash.
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> I think you really *should* do this if you possibly can. The panel is
>> entirely legititimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood
>> Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in
>> the whole Barton affair. The assumption is that an honest
>> review of the science will buttress us against any attempt for Barton
>> to continue his attacks (there is some indication that he hasn’t
>> given up yet). Especially, with the new Science article by you and
>> Tim I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all
>> possible.
>>
>> I’m scheduled to arrive Thursday March 2rd, and give a presentation
>> friday morning March 2nd. I believe Malcolm is planning on
>> participating, not sure about Ray. I would guess that Tom C and
>> Caspar A have been invited as well, but haven’t heard anything.
>>
>> The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing
>> this, and the other members are all solid. Chrisy is the token
>> skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check:
“Addendum to report, 19 April 2010
For the avoidance of misunderstanding in the light of various press stories, it is
important to be clear that the neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to
imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately
misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings.
Rather, the aim was to draw attention to the complexity of statistics in this field, and
the need to use the best possible methods.”
This is supposed to be exoneration? By the use of the words “deliberately” and “intentionally” It looks more like the panel was saying that the lack of proper use of statistics and failure to use the best possible methods was unintentional and not deliberate but rather came out of incompetence and lack of understanding of statistics.
Taphonomic,
Very good point. However, it appears that Mann in order to cover up his “incompetence” has “deliberately” lied on many occasions, i.e. spreadsheet, R^2 calculations, etc. This is where Styen is accurate in describing Mann’s work as “fraud”. As we see on many occasions, it’s the cover-up that get’s you.
Let the Mann keep talking.
He is a gift that just keeps on giving.
He has been so effective in giving scepticism of climatology booster shots.
I could not have invented this guy, fiction falls short.
I hope this makes it to discovery soon, but the mann should beware, it may benefit the cause more if he was removed from their star media team.
If I was him, it is not the sceptics I would be watching.
Steyn’s article was quite mild. As for the allusions to Sandusky, it wasn’t even Steyn who used it. Steyn was quoting Simberg who called Mann “the Sandusky of climate science.” This was clearly a quotation with a citation. At the end of the quote, Steyn adds “I’m not sure I’d extend that metaphor all the way to the locker room. . . ”
Steyn’s only “offence” is to have used the adjective “fraudulent” to describe the hockey stick saga.
Thanks for the alert. I’ll rtwt.
The proxy data has, without fail, verified the Michael Mann hockey stick curve. This train has left the station, though it warms my heart that you are all still obsessing on this as a drowning man might desperately grasp a bit of cloth.
Eventually, and without fail, you will recognize that you were both deceived and self-deluded.
The proxy record is very clear, the instrumental record, when compared to the proxy record is devastating.
When the skeptic community came out with raging attempts to discredit the Marcott et. al. graphic, one that used over 73 globally distributed records to ensure the veracity of their findings, they passed into the realm of obvious irrelevance.
I expect that it will only be a few more years before these “skeptic” arguments are all played out, as the rate of deep ocean warming belies a rapidly increasing TOA imbalance that will soon produce a catastrophic anthropogenic global warming effect over the course of only a few years.
This high profile case, likely coinciding with more and extreme weather phenomenon, is going to sink the climate skeptic’s dingy.
view, as evidence, the recent move of extreme weather to the forefront of the nation’s consciousness.
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xQf8FOrBT4 ]
REPLY: For the record, using Heidi Cullen (a paid propagandist, Climate Central is that and only that) as a source for an extreme weather claim (that the IPCC and Nature don’t even endorse) indicates what a hopeless true believer you are.
Given that you spend much of your working day commenting here, I often think you are paid to be here by the very same people. – Anthony
Re jai mitchell says: February 18, 2014 at 11:02 am
Here are two photos of your climate train leaving the station:
http://www.wpyr.com/rotary/IMG_2864m.jpg
http://www.yukondiver.com/Images3/rotarydeepsnow.jpg
jai mitchell says:
February 18, 2014 at 11:02 am
So are you saying that my evaluation that the improperly applied methodology of the Marcott paper produces substantially underestimated error bounds is wrong?
Perhaps you could indicate why I am wrong… 🙂
“I expect that it will only be a few more years before these “skeptic” arguments are all played out, as the rate of deep ocean warming belies a rapidly increasing TOA imbalance that will soon produce a catastrophic anthropogenic global warming effect over the course of only a few years.”
So, jai predicts that in “a few more years” the deep oceans will give up the hidden heat into the atmosphere breaking all records producing catastrophe. To be catastrophic it will need to be 2 to 3 degrees C warming than it is now world-wide. That’s much faster than even the IPCC predicts.
How much do you want to bet jai that it will be that much warmer? Name your amount, I’ll give you odds.
My comment seems to have disappeared into cyber-space (twice)…
[nothing pending in hold. mod]
You are too easily ‘bought’ when it comes to this kind of thing, “Ida” …
.
M.Mann to participate in an AMA at Reddit /r/science. February 21 @ 1300 EST
Your thoughts will be moderated, don’t even think about posting….sad.
A “cheerleader” (literally: ‘a pretty face and an empty head’) and not a principal on this issue; your word therefore (in any kind of summary judgement or evaluation) means less than nothing, and is, as a matter of fact, a net ‘drain’ on the overall discussion of this issue (one on this side of the issue can quite figuratively feel one’s brain ‘leaking out one’s head and onto the floor’ having to ‘read’ your posts).
He!!, you can’t even be trusted to properly present, characterize or frame ‘your’ side of the argument!
.
jai mitchell says:
February 18, 2014 at 11:02 am
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/13/marcott-mystery-1/#comment-404356
Unfortunately, Marcott himself admits that that particular portion of the reconstruction is “not robust” so any comparison of the two is spurious.
As far as the handle of his stick is concerned, you might also look here:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/04/marcott-monte-carlo/
Do you agree with my evaluation that the improperly applied methodology of the Marcott paper produces substantially underestimated error bounds is incorrect?
If not, perhaps you could indicate why I am wrong… 🙂
Oops, rewrote the end of the comment and screwed it up. It should read:
Do you agree with my evaluation that the improperly applied methodology of the Marcott paper produces substantially underestimated error bounds?
Every American who cares about national security must.demand Kerry’s resignation. A delusional secretary of state is dangerous to our safety.
— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) February 18, 2014
Gingrich calls for Sec Kerry to resign over global warming remarks
Whereas jai mitchell’s “devastating link” to Marcotte et al is pay walled into obscurity, Nature provides a link which is truly devastating to all of the sundry paleo tree studies.
Trees maintain their own internal temperature.
No paywall. Out in the open.
Measuring climate with a tree rings is akin to measuring room temperature with cats by rectal thermometer.
The Emperor’s New Clothes:
http://www.itsnotclimatescience.com/0014.html
People, thanks for answering my questions. I agree that the Steyn accusation of fraud could be problematic. Serious error do occur periodically in scientific publications. An error however serious does not imply fraud. One possible explanation is general incompetence and there may be sufficient evidence to support such an assertion though I doubt the plaintiff would use this argument. I would suggest arguing that an incompetent but honest person could made any number of errors of no particular orientation. But for a series of errors all aligned to a specific objective should be sufficient to support a preponderance of evidence toward fraud and not incompetence.
On the McIntyre website, I asked a question that was not answered, needing a legal opinion. “Would it be necessary at some to provide evidence of damages? I would imagine that damages to a university professor’s reputation would include his ability to publish papers and get grants? has this been harmed? Also, given that the attack was made by a non-academic, would it carry weight within academic circles? Do other professors (or climate researcher now) avoid his company, or does he not get invited to parties since publication of the defamatory article?”
@ Gail. 5.42,
I followed both links. I was a skeptic re the NWO then sitting on the fence for a few years , but I am truly scared after reading those, FYI when I tried getting on the roendaneducation .org I got the now more frightening 5-10 second delay before it connected and that happens only when I go to conservative sites. Adding to that what was said that the GOP in Washington is actually not standing in the way of the IRS etc to stop the Teaparty from various exemptions only adds to that (Pat Caddel on fox news I think it was Sunday’s FOX Report also talked about on Limbaugh on Monday).
Gail, some bullies go away when their victims fight back, others only go away when they are thrashed soundly enough often enough. Mann is the latter. Probably egged on by other alarmists, and maybe funded by some.
Some people don’t learn to stop and think, unfortunately Steyn fell into that category when the columnist he quoted retracted the ridiculous analogy but Steyn did not retract his reference to it. Steyn deserves huge praise for fighting the anti-speech hate laws in Canada, but he seems to have gotten too full of himself.
jai mitchell one small problem , the reviews themselves made it clear they did not look at the science, therefore than cannot be used to validate nor refute that which they did not consider .
Besides you can still be wrong and rubbish without being corrupt , with Mann who knows which two out these three three he was given he is always trying to achieve 3 out 3 .
Keith Sketchley says:
February 18, 2014 at 3:46 pm
“Steyn fell into that category when the columnist he quoted retracted the ridiculous analogy but Steyn did not retract his reference to it.”
Hasn’t the judge already ruled that the Sandusky/Mann analogy was protected free speech and that only Simberg’s accusation of Mann “manipulating data” and Steyn’s ‘fraudulent hockey-stick’ are potentially libelous? Isn’t that kind of ironic? The part that gets all the alarmists panties in a twist is the part that is “obviously protected free speech”. Steyn’s going to win. He knows he’ll either win the trial or win on appeal. The Supreme Court is not about to toss 200 years of first ammendment case law to protect Mann’s feelings. The ACLU and media attorneys will plead Steyn’s case before his lawyer even rises to address the court. If Mann takes this thing to trial, he’s going to have to get on the stand and answer hostile questions for days on end that will be discussed on the internet for decades. Mann’s climatologist friends will also get sucked into the fray. He’ll never do it. I predict Mann will offer to pay Steyn off to avoid going to trial after his attempts at delaying discovery fail (Styen will simply say, okay, we’ll do it with just the climategate emails). I also predict that Steyn won’t let Mann off the hook that easily.
As long as there is one child on the planet who lacks food, shelter, education, medicine, clean water, the expenditure of even $1.00 on “climate change” or ‘global warming” must be seen as a crime against humanity.
Maybe Mann will disclose and explain the “dirty laundry” in open court? The secret residuals probably make the fraud claim a slam dunk.
@ Joe Chang:
February 18, 2014 at 1:43 pm
Even if Mann honestly erred, the way that the hockey stick kept being promoted after its shortcomings had come to light certainly makes it “fraudulent”.
@HowSmart, Talk about one sore nail head!
RomanM says: February 18, 2014 at 12:12 pm
“jai mitchell says:
So are you saying that my evaluation that the improperly applied methodology of the Marcott paper produces substantially underestimated error bounds is wrong?
Perhaps you could indicate why I am wrong… :)”
It’s done here.
I suspect libel and slander defamation suits are different around the world. But in Australia if a paper prints what can be sued on the grounds it is untrue, then the plaintiff can get some compensation. But is Mann a ‘real’ scientist? And more importantly has he made a substantial money from his dodgy research and data. There is something in academic circles that is called ‘Corrupting the data to suit the hypothesis’. When an academic gives a talk and lecture, and says ‘we haven’t compiled enough data to prove this’, the response is ‘why, are you just speculating at this point? Sounds to me like the dark ages, when persons presented information that went against the catholic church dogma, they got burned at the stake, and all their papers burned, as did the Nazis of course. Luckily this is America, the land of the free and not North Korea or China.
This thread is not the place to continue this somewhat off-topic discussion, but the point should be made that the post at your link does not address the meat of the issues with the Marcott paper.
The methodology of the paper was intended to address all sources of possible error inherent in the reconstruction. These include the uncertainty as to how the proxy values relate to temperature, dating errors and the smoothing due to the interpolation to a 20 year grid of data measured at longer intervals. Monte carlo techniques using estimates of the variabilities of the first two components mentioned were applied to create a multitude of individual “reconstructions” which were then used to calculate a single reconstruction along with error bounds.
In my analysis I pointed out that the estimate of the variability of the proxy value to temperature relationship omitted the component due to the property that in a regression relating the two variables, even when the coefficients of the regression equation are known exactly, two proxies formed at the same temperature will generally differ from each other. Marcott estimated only the relatively minor uncertainty due to estimation of the coefficients and ignored the substantially greater one due to the fact that the relationship between the two variables is far from linearly exact.
Your link does not address any of these issues. You calculate a reconstruction using another technique (which can’t possibly include the uncertainties the monte carlo analysis attempts to address) and declare that the results look the same. In your post, you state:
Unfortunately, this shows a lack of understanding of regression models and how they are applied since the “variation of the residuals” is exactly what measures how much a proxy value may vary for a given fixed temperature value and it is the central part of the overall uncertainty structure of the proxies. Nick, I have been a statistics professor for almost forty six years. Would you not think that I might have learned something about simple regression during all that time? Enough with this side issue.
As usual nick is only interested in trolling outside if his own blog.
Nick if you thought you had a good argument post it in the discussion at CA. Running off to yout own blog where yoi can control the debate is cowardly. You are a coward. Post your arguments at CA dont run off and post them at your own unread blog and act like romman has been refuted. That is tje same as running off and talking behind someones back. That is oure cowardice.
I would not criticize Nick for doing a post on his own blog. It requires a lot of technical control to put together a complete analysis along with plots so this sort of material cannot be entered as comments on someone else post. Besides, he did put a link to it on my original post on CA:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/04/marcott-monte-carlo/#comment-412594
At the time I had arguing with him for over a week without success and didn’t feel like doing so further so I ignored it.
If nothing else, Nick is an honest guy – hard-headed and won’t admit being wrong 😉 – but certainly not sneaky in his behavior.
Congrats to Sherry Moore, who’s been awarded the Purple Zamboni Medal for valor in battle.
=================
A peculiar honesty, which cannot admit being wrong. Does he understand when he’s wrong? I think so.
============
RomanM
your analysis is focused entirely on .2% to .5% of the proxy record, over a period that is already covered by the instrument record.
Therefore, the entire concern that you have with the marcott record is a nit-pick and red-herring. It is not a valid criticism and does nothing to impact the overall gravity of the work. The curve verifies the Mann 1998 curve and the projections of future warming of 2-4C on a global scale within the next 85 years or so yields the following curve.
so remember, even if the .2% to .5% is not robust, that means that 99.5% to 99.8% of the proxy record IS,/b> robust!
jai mitchell says:
February 19, 2014 at 12:33 pm
Are you kidding me? Where did you get that idea? I would guess that you haven’t read the Marcott paper or at best not understood what you did read because the analysis has to do with error bounds over the entire series.
The lack of robustness is a separate issue having to do with an inability to relate the reconstruction properly to the modern temperature record. I love the logic in your statement: if someone tells you that part of something is terrible, that must automatically imply that the remainder must be excellent! Is that what one learns in climate science school? 🙂
OMG. Dufus just called the validation period (at which tree rings failed) a nit pick and a red herring!
Well, given that state sponsored political activists alter the historical instrument record at will, how much more so is it embarassing that the paleo camp and the instrument camp can’t get their lies to match up in the overlap?
so remember, even if the .2% to .5% is not robust, that means that 99.5% to 99.8% of the proxy record IS,/b> robust!
roflmao
Keep up the good work jai, I’m sure your comrades @ sks pulling their hair out. (perhaps to empathize with mikey)
RomanM
I have read it, you bring up a non-issue when compared with the error range provided by the authors. Again, you are nitpicking. Your undue concern about this region of the graph, when it is well-contained within the error bounds of the results, is a method of substituting the idea of “uncertainty” with that of “doubt”. You are concern trolling and exaggerating the impact of this issue, as Dr. Marcott’s glib response to your query clearly shows. Since we now know what the range of temperatures are for the 11,300 years of global history is, with error bars that completely contain your issue with the content,, we know what the comparison with modern, and projected future, temperature increases will looks like.
Your argument, in this case, is a gross attempt to generate a false controversy, using exaggerated claims, to attempt to discredit another independent reconstruction of Holocene temperatures. You have to do this because, if you don’t, then the MANN hockey stick curve is further verified and the entirety of your “skeptic” argument is completely invalidated.
jai mitchell says:February 17, 2014 at 7:48 pm
“not to mention the plethora of subsequent studies using a multiplicity of other proxy sources and data that all reproduce the hockey stick curve.”
—————————————————
You left out the part about the input of random numbers also reproducing the hockey stick curve…
A Swing And A Miss…
jai mitchell says:
February 19, 2014 at 2:31 pm
This is probably the biggest pile of unscientific BS I have been unfortunate enough to witness. You have demonstrated neither sufficient knowledge to understand what the issues are here nor to understand their implications. Imagine a considerably less smooth reconstruction. Imagine a powder blue area in your linked image that could have a width of perhaps three times what it is now. That would be the result of making the changes that I have indicated.
Have I missed something? What “glib response” from Dr. Marcott are you talking about? As far as I am concerned, these are technical issues with the paper that need to be addressed since they are a reasonably serious invalidation of the main results.
I googled your name this afternoon and I ran across this particular quote in the first link:
http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/watt-about-global-warming-climate-change/
Did you write that yourself? Seems like this might be a bit of an exaggeration…
Mods: How come I keep getting put into moderation?
(posted several hours ago – still in moderation)
jai mitchell says:
February 19, 2014 at 2:31 pm
This is probably the biggest pile of unscientific BS I have been unfortunate enough to witness. You have demonstrated neither sufficient knowledge to understand what the issues are here nor to understand their implications. Imagine a considerably less smooth reconstruction. Imagine a powder blue area in your linked image that could have a width of perhaps three times what it is now. That would be the result of making the changes that I have indicated.
Have I missed something? What “glib response” from Dr. Marcott are you talking about? As far as I am concerned, these are technical issues with the paper that need to be addressed since they are a reasonably serious invalidation of the main results.
I googled your name this afternoon and I ran across this particular quote in the first link:
But really, it’s because if you want to know the problems with this Ed Hoskins post all you really need to do is look through the comments and search for those written by Jai Mitchell. Whoever Jai Mitchell is, they seem to actually understand the science very well and typically write comments that make sense and attempt to, quite politely, discuss the science and related data analysis.
http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/watt-about-global-warming-climate-change/
Did you write that yourself? Seems like this might be a bit of an exaggeration…
Could you please remove my last two comments (the one asking about moderation and the duplicate of the previously moderated comment) along with this one? Thanks.
RomanM
No, I did not write it, I don’t have any idea who that is.
I do know, however, that your supposed tripling of the error uncertainty for the marcott monte carlo series, because of proxy drop at the last 0.2% of the series, is beyond a gross exaggeration.
The raw data was made available to the public, They passed peer review. They have verified the original Mann series as well as many others. These are all individual points of reference. They come from varied proxy records including seafloor and lakebed core data, ice core data, coral records and tree ring density data. They come from varied locations all over the globe.
They ALL match, without significant deviation.
The modern temperature record is clear, the science is settled. We are on the edge of a massive shift in the climate. The amount of heat energy that has warmed the upper 2000M of the earth’s oceans in the last 8 years is enough to warm the earth’s TOTAL ATMOSPHERE by 38 degrees Fahrenheit. (10×10^22 joules)
This rate of measured ocean heat accumulation is growing at an exponential rate.
A doubling every 10 years or so.
There will be no adaption without significant mitigation efforts on a global scale.
jai m doesn’t seem to absorb what has been repeatedly said here, that the ‘plethora of subsequent studies’ supposedly confirming the hockey stick have an unholy dependence upon upside down varves and split bark pines. Let’s hope Mann’s legal team stays just as much in the dark.
This is a desperate and incorrect meme, the deconstruction of which further exposes the fraud.
=============
jai mitchell says:
“The modern temperature record is clear, the science is settled. We are on the edge of a massive shift in the climate.”
jai, have you saved any money? Say, ten thousand dollars?
If so, are you a betting man? There is a site called Long Bets that takes wagers. The winner gets his money back, and the loser’s money goes to the winner’s charity, with the winner getting the tax deduction.
See where I’m going with this? You say we’re on the edge of a massive climatic shift. That means by next year at this time, if you’re right global temperatures will surely have skyrocketed. Maybe by as much as 1ºC.
So, how about it? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Because I am.
jai mitchell says:
February 19, 2014 at 6:53 pm
You still don’t get it. The errors apply to the entire reconstruction and not just to any particular portion. Try reading what I wrote in the CA post linked to earlier.
Many of the people who write climate science papers lack the necessary skills to fully appreciate the nuances of the statistical procedures they use when they are analyzing their data. Peer review is no guarantee of the quality of a paper since it often is these same people who are doing the reviewing. Rather than blindly accepting anything that fits your alarmist viewpoint, you should be encouraging people to ensure that the published results are scientifically correct. To understand the true state of the world, we need good science not ideologically directed propaganda.
I understand that the current standard units for heat measurement in climate science are Hiroshimas (63×10^12 joules). 10^23 joules would then translate to 1587301587 H. That is so much more impressive.
I could us a bit of that to get rid of some of the enormous piles of snow around my home. 😉
Steyn posted his Response to Mann Amended complaint at
http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6109.pdf
Skip the boilerplate and jump to paragraphs #25, #103, then #111 and on.
He list 14 Affirmative Defenses and 2 Counter Claims.