UPDATE: it seems the language was lifted from a “Skeptical Science” web page, see below.
Steve McIntyre had a busy day yesterday. While yesterday there was an incorrect story called “Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse“ being pushed by John O’Sullivan at Principia Scientific International (aka PSI and The Slayers) claiming Dr. Tim Ball had defeated Mann’s lawsuit, Ball confirms through communications with McIntyre yesterday that while stalled, Mann’s lawsuit is still very much on. Also, for those who don’t know, we’ve heard that Dr. Mann’s legal bills are being paid by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, where we’ve been told there are some deep green pockets contributing, so he isn’t facing bankruptcy, at least not yet.
I find the name a bit of a misnomer, since AFAIK, no climate skeptic scientists are suing alarmist climate scientists, We have only Dr. Mann’s and Dr. Weaver’s lawsuit (also against Tim Ball). Perhaps it should be named the Climate Science Legal Offense Fund.
In a parallel Mann legal arena, Steve McIntyre now shows that in his legal reply to the NRO/Steyn lawsuit, Dr. Mann or his attorneys altered a quote from the Muir Russell inquiry that didn’t exist. Add this to the fake “Nobel Laureate” claim in Mann’s original lawsuit (a claim which he eventually removed in an amended complaint, on Facebook (before and after), and at RC without notice), and a pattern begins to emerge that might not be looked on too kindly by a presiding judge.
He writes:
In my most recent post, I showed that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Oxburgh inquiry had no more validity than Mann’s claim to have won a Nobel prize. In today’s post, I’ll continue my series on the “investigations” by showing that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Muir Russell inquiry is equally invalid.
In their memoranda supporting their original motions to dismiss, both National Review and CEI had observed (correctly) that the Muir Russell panel had limited their findings to “CRU scientists” and contested Mann’s assertion that the Muir Russell panel had made any findings regarding Mann himself, let alone “exonerated” him.
In Mann’s Reply Memorandum, he vociferously rejected the (correct) assertion that the Muir Russell had not exonerated Mann himself, describing such assertion as merely an attempt to “obfuscate and misrepresent”. Mann supported this bluster with an apparent quotation from the Muir Russell report, but the phrase within the quotation marks does not actually occur within the Muir Russell report. As shown below, Mann and/or his lawyers subtly altered the quotation to more supportive language.
Full story: http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/
Manwhile: Steyn countersues Mann for 10 millon dollars (hilarious reading, highly recommended)
UPDATE: Shub Niggurath finds the apparent source of the language, he writes:
The doctored quote in Michael Mann’s legal reply brought to attention by Climateaudit is doing its rounds now.
Doctored quotes? Guess where my first reaction was to look.
Sure enough, this is what one finds on Skepticalscience:
See his post here: http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-michael-mann-scientists-rigor-and-honesty-quote/
UPDATE2: Some language was updated and added in the Nobel Laureate paragraph for accuracy and broader citation.
97% of D – Bags agree: “Mann is one of us”.
When we first attempt to deceive.
All down hill from there, all of them.
Lie based total.
And don’t think Mark Steyn and crew won’t pounce on this.
Subtly adjusting the facts to make your case better? Sounds like Mann is demonstrating a pattern. It would appear that he doesn’t think the facts matter.
Yet there will be different “Strokes” from some folks.
Shouldn’t the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund be paying Tim Ball’s defense?
It is an ethical violation to knowingly mislead the court. Altering published statements to appear more supportive than they really are probably qualifies as a violation, but this type of thing happens too often without significant consequences. But, as you noted, it will cut into their credibility with the court.
oops… shoulda read the whole thing :-[ nevermind.
Guess Mann has to amend his complaint. Again.
Only the law abiding abide the law. Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and guns and the Truth.
Friends:
The following is a copy of a post I made in the previous thread because it has not obtained an answer perhaps because nobody can answer it or someone who can has not seen it.
Richard
——————————————————-
richardscourtney says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:17 am
Friends:
I write to ask a genuine question. I am not a lawyer and not an American so I have zero understanding of the US law and US legal system.
In the UK the ‘sides’ in a legal case going to trial each provide a bundle of documents to the judge who assesses those documents before the trial. Any difficulties and/or clarifications are requested by the judge as part of his/her preparations for the trial. Importantly, the bundles contain the evidence which the trial will assess, and the judge needs to agree any additional evidence if it is to presented in the trial. The judge will demand explanation if there are errors of fact in the bundles and – on the basis of the explanations – will permit corrections before the trial or will insist that the errors be put to the trial because the errors are material to the case.
Is this similar to the US legal system and if not in what way(s) does it differ?
I ask my question for two reasons. Firstly, the Mann vs Steyn case has importance beyond the US so I would like to understand the issues of the case. And, secondly, there does seem to be a clear error in the information provided by Mann (from his lawyers) in that a misquotation was provided and the reason, purpose and nature of the misquotation would seem to be pertinent to the case: if the misquotation is not pertinent then there would seem to be no reason to have not provided the correct (and full) quotation except incompetence by Mann’s lawyers.
With thanks in anticipation to anybody who can provide an answer to my question with explanation of the answer
Richard
I would not be surprised to read that funders of the “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund” include the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union (AGU), American Meteorological Society and American Institute of Physics (AIP). AGU’s participation would explain AGU’s fees increases (including membership fee) that started at the end of 2012! This year, AGU is doing away with the “complementary” subscription to the AIP “Physics Today.”
Filing a false claim to a court is a serious crime. The attorney will have two choices: 1. Confess to the judge wherupon he will be disbarred and fined, or, 2. Throw Michael Mann under the bus and give him 100% credit for the inclusion of the altered quote. I vote for number 2 with quite a cascade of negative consequences rapidly following, the greatest of which will be the countersuit and subpeonas to both the University of Virginia and Mann to produce all that he is hiding. At this point, “I lost it” will not work, nor will delay, obfuscation and the like. As is always the case, the attempted coverup will ultimately do him in. Lastly, Mr. McIntyre doesn’t miss anything!
There is a wonderful expression “being cavalier with the facts.”
Sounds like Mann is this both in his ‘research’ and his lawsuits.
There is a difference between a “misquote” and one that is intentional. When the misquote takes a negative statement and makes it positive for the litigant, the judge will not see this as an accident, but an attempt to deceive the court and bad things follow. There is a difference between the opinion that the inquiry exonerated you and providing false evidence to support it.
How can Mann’s legal bills be paid by the “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund”, when he is on the offensive in all instances, and just plain offensive otherwise?
This person – Michael Mann, I think his name is – certainly puts on an interesting show.
The name “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund” is appropriate. They’re defending against science.
richardscourtney – In U.S. court proceedings there is a “discovery” phase, during which evidence and documents are gathered and presented. This trial has not yet reached that phase.
Facts, tree rings, at this point what difference does It make?
Both are soluable in the Mikey’s mind.
Hmmm … rather the “Climate Science Legal [strike]Defense[/strike] Offense Fund”
.
The dodging, the weaving, or the artful pirouetting* (‘spinning’) of the truth?
Wait til the kimono is fully opened …
.
* a rapid whirling about of the body; especially : a full turn on the toe or ball of one foot in ballet.
The elegant pirouettes of the prima ballerina.
The “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund” is actually part of PEER, which is a 501 c(3), and contributions to the fund are stated to be tax exempt, under 501 c(3) (Federal EIN 93-1102740)
Here’s their latest (2012) 990 form:
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/931/931102740/931102740_201209_990.pdf
They spent $215,731 on legal and the fund received $222,375.
i thought for 501 c(3) you could not donate for a specific purpose, at least that’s how it was in the one I was involved in.
I wonder what their 1023 form says, it’s not obviously on their website..
AnonyMoose:
Thankyou for your answer to my question which you provide at February 22, 2014 at 9:01 am.
Clearly, that is a fundamental difference which explains my puzzlement.
Thankyou.
Richard
fobdangerclose says:
February 22, 2014 at 8:20 am
Yet there will be different “Strokes” from some folks.
In the “nik” of time.
From the Climate Science Defense Fund Website:
“Climate researchers are in need of immediate legal assistance to prevent their private correspondence from being exposed to Chris Horner and the American Tradition Institute who are using Freedom of Information (FOI) to harass researchers.”
This is very instructive into their thinking. Taxpayer’s freedom of information rights just don’t exist in their minds. If they think they don’t like working in the public sector under scrutiny, wait till they work in the private sector where results and accuracy matter! These guys wouldn’t last a week in the real world. At least not the one I work in.