Guest post by Christopher Horner
Michael Mann has made what will, I expect, prove to be his greatest misjudgment yet. He has filed suit against the Competitive Enterprise Institute (with which I am affiliated), a CEI adjunct, National Review Online and Mark Steyn for libel.
The gist of his claim that negative characterizations of him and his activities are actionable is that he has been “exonerated”. No, he hasn’t.
The truth is he has never even been investigated, and has furiously warded off scrutiny of what he and his allies insisted was the missing “context” explaining away Climategate. This suit, if he continues with it, should put an end to that.
I and my co-counsel encountered this talking point after Mann intervened in litigation against the University of Virginia, seeking to block release of certain public records relating to his tenure there (our judge rightly waived that away as irrelevant to applying the law).
Like so much else in the “climate” realm this claim suffers badly under scrutiny. As I detail, in discussing publicly funded academia’s refusal to self-police, in my new book The Liberal War on Transparency: Confessions of a Freedom of Information “Criminal”.
Exoneration requires investigation; investigation requires pursuit aimed at discovering material facts. Two bodies are actually positioned to pursue and produce such facts. Mann’s employer since 2005 and where he worked when the Climategate leaks occurred, Penn State University, has done no such thing. Neither has the University of Virginia where he worked when first organizing against researchers who were undermining his claims.
Panels in the United Kingdom which Mann often cites, the Muir Russell and Oxburgh inquiries into UK taxpayer-funded operations at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), did not even purport to address U.S. citizen Mann, or validate his work. They respectively inquired into “aspects of the behaviour of the CRU scientists” [sic, emphasis in original], “allegations about CRU‘s impact on climate science” and “to understand the significance of the roles played by those involved from CRU” (see, “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review”); and “to assess the integrity of the research published by the Climatic Research Unit in the light of various external assertions” (see, “Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit”).
Mann is not and was not with CRU, and was not party to or the subject of those investigations. His role in Muir Russell was limited to submitting comments, like 110 other individuals seeking to influence matters, despite, according to Muir Russell, authoring the second-greatest number of relevant emails. Mann’s name does not even appear in the Oxburgh report purportedly “exonerating” him.
It is worth noting that a UK FOI request helped uncover how the Oxburgh panel operated to cover over dissenting opinion in the ranks. See, e.g., “How Lord Oxburgh of Persil washed the Climategate team whiter than white (pt 2)”.
As regards the PSU fiasco, otherwise-sympathetic Clive Crook in The Atlantic styles the Muir Russell effort as being “equally probing” as Penn State’s, whose contortions he elegantly devastated, piquantly summarizing them as “difficult to parody”.
Further as I discuss in The Liberal War on Transparency, I have documents in which a principal in that effort indicates it was orchestrated from behind the scenes to avoid certain people being asked certain things, presumably because that would make the desired outcome impossible. See also Steve McIntyre, “New Information on the Penn State Inquiry Committee”.
Also, subsequent to Penn State’s report a U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General managed to interview Eugene Wahl in the context of federal government involvement in Climategate, which PSU incredibly did not. (“Examination of issues related to internet posting of emails from Climatic Research Unit,”, p. 5). Wahl was someone to whom Mann did forward Phil Jones’s (UEA) request that Wahl hide or destroy records. About this, PSU was remarkably incurious, its unexplained decision to not interview Wahl further making a mockery of its supposed inquiry into whether Mann “engage[d] in, or participate[d] in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to [IPCC] AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones”.
We were not given the opportunity to depose Mann in the UVa case and so are unaware what if any knowledge of this he had at the time or since. We do know that PSU’s effort oddly did not meet the same uproar organized against other efforts to scrutinize the record, for example our various FOI requests. Unlike PSU’s proclaimed instigative tribunal, a simple FOIA request presents no ability to sanction Mann, but only threatens the transparency Mann agreed to as a condition of his employment at UVa. Yet announcement of what proved to be a risibly inept PSU effort, if one nominally with teeth, was greeted with no protest and, we are told, complete cooperation including turning over all requested records. That this behavior is inconsistent is something of an understatement.
The National Science Foundation purported to inquire, as well, but worked (almost entirely) from what PSU provided it. So much for that.
[Update Oct 25, by Chris Horner with thanks to Brian Angliss for inviting this elaboration: It equally failed to conduct a credibly rigorous examination of the evidence and/or key relevant factors. For example, the NSF OIG totally disregarded the findings of the NOAA OIG that Eugene Wahl had destroyed documents immediately upon receiving Mann’s email; Penn State apparently, and incredibly, never asked. Nor did NSF examine or report on whether, despite a conflict of interest, William Easterling had interfered with the Inquiry Committee even after supposedly “recusing” himself, interference which I understand stopped the Inquiry Committee from carrying out its obligation to interview critics, including Stephen McIntyre. Nor did the NSF OIG report directly address any of the contentious issues.]
The special silence, the dog not barking about supposed exoneration is the University of Virginia. Not once has UVA argued that it looked into Mann’s activities occurring on UVA’s watch. In fact, the University apparently was deliberate in its failure to conduct an inquiry. We have been reliably informed that UVA’s Board of Visitors suggested the administration get to the bottom of what transpired on Grounds, only to be rebuffed. The argument they received, we were told, is that the school could not guarantee that the findings would not be made public and as such it could not risk an investigation.
We also wished to depose the University on this matter but were denied the opportunity to confirm this. At our most recent hearing, the University stood and, oddly, denied any claim that the board stopped the administration from inquiring. No one has alleged this.
Regardless, as Mann now seeks to again use the courts to push this claim, the reality is plainly otherwise. Mann has never been credibly investigated. By definition he has therefore not been exonerated. In fact, he and his allies furiously oppose all possible independent inquiries — scrutiny of public, yet still-hidden records providing what they all swear is the missing context that would explain everything away as a big misinterpretation. Only release of UVa and other Climategate-related emails has the potential to actually exonerate the Hockey Team.
Read whatever you wish into their fiercely opposing release of precisely that which supposedly would clear their names. With this latest lawsuit, they may find they have no choice.
Christopher Horner is author of The Liberal War on Transparency: Confessions of a Freedom of Information “Criminal” (Threshold, October 2012).
From: <chornerlaw@aol.com>
To: <awatts@itworks.com>
Subject: Anthony, per this counsel from Steve, would you please update the Mann/investigated post?
Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:12 AM
My thoughts for a response were below, but I am going to go with his “update or ignore”.
Would you mind updating, and it’s obviously fine to note this was updated to resolve a correct statement being read ambiguously, re-characterizing it so as to dismiss the analysis, or something? thx cch
—–Original Message—–
From: Steve McIntyre <smcintyre25@yahoo.ca>
To: chornerlaw <chornerlaw@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Oct 25, 2012 1:01 pm
Subject: RE: I’ve got a speech I’ve only sketched out, for which I leave in hour and a half…can you look at/comment on this reply?
I’d be inclined to make a slight update to your post, but otherwise not engage. Perhaps something like this:
The National Science Foundation purported to inquire, as well, but worked almost entirely from what PSU provided it. [Update Oct 25, with thanks to Brian Angliss for inviting this elaboration: It equally failed to conduct a credibly rigorous examination of the evidence and/or key relevant factors. For example, the NSF OIG totally disregarded the findings of the NOAA OIG that Eugene Wahl had destroyed documents immediately upon receiving Mann’s email; Penn State apparently, and incredibly, never asked. Nor did NSF examine or report on whether, despite a conflict of interest, William Easterling had interfered with the Inquiry Committee even after supposedly “recusing” himself, interference which I understand stopped the Inquiry Committee from carrying out its obligation to interview critics, including Stephen McIntyre. Nor did the NSF OIG report directly address any of the contentious issues.] So much for that.
From: chornerlaw@aol.com [mailto:chornerlaw@aol.com]
Sent: October-25-12 12:26 PM
To: smcintyre25@yahoo.ca
Subject: I’ve got a speech I’ve only sketched out, for which I leave in hour and a half…can you look at/comment on this reply?
And add to/improve as you see appropriate, thx:
A Brian Angliss at ScholarsandRogues takes umbrage at my guest post on WUWT detailing the spectacularly overblown nature of claims that Michael Mann has been exonerated, which requires being properly investigated. Specifically, he objects to this statement:
The National Science Foundation purported to inquire, as well, but worked from what PSU provided it. So much for that.
This statement is true, as the NSF document we both reference notes. I suppose NSF “purporting to inquire” is opinion, dependent upon one’s assessment of the effort’s scope and rigor. That they worked from what PSU provided them is disputed by no one. Angliss says “This is demonstrably false”.
To support this Angliss restates what I wrote, by implication, to charge at a strawman and declare it false: I apparently deny “that the OIG’s investigation went beyond the information provided to the OIG by Penn State.” I do not and did not deny it, but linked to the document saying as much.
For example, information I possess indicates that PSU panelists were instructed from behind the scenes to not interview Steve McIntyre, who was in fact interviewed by NSF (although neither report draws attention to its respective ignorance of or consultation McIntyre).
Angliss slays this allegation never made with aplomb. Allow me to rephrase for him and see which turn his umbrage takes: NSF began with (“worked from”) what PSU provided them. It was facially deficient, as Clive Crook among others noted to devastating effect. For example, on its face it was incredible that PSU did not interview McIntyre. Which NSF apparently agreed. They should have written about that interview. It would help support concerns about its rigorousness.
Regardless, mischaracterizing what I wrote to then say that mischaracterization is knowingly false or spreading false rumors is advocacy, not analysis. In fact, in his effort Angliss becomes what he deplores.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@JC says: October 23, 2012 at 8:41 pm
“The gist of his claim that negative characterizations of him and his activities are actionable is that he has been “exonerated”.”
No. His claim has nothing to do with any “exoneration”. If someone calls him a paedophile, they are libelling him. End of.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Nobody called Mann a paedophile.
Next?
MarkW, I did not say they [PSU inquiry findings] must not be questioned,but they have status,and Mann is clearly entitled to cite the findings. Personal ventings of bystanders are irrelevant. Charges against the PSU investigation’s procedures have not gone anywhere in terms of overturning the inquiry’s findings and getting it redone. You have to deal withe the inquiries that have been done,not the ones that were not done…what is the court to make of defendants attempting a defense by making charges against the validity of findings that the court has not the remit to redo?
As much as Mann’s achievements in generating project ideas and landing funding are derided here, his extensive collaborative record is pretty sweet for someone so universally loathed.
Mann has injected his person into the debate. He’s a self-promoter and a self-aggrandizing climate martyr. It’s not about the science, it’s about Mann (well, Mann’s ego). That makes Mann a public figure, and subject to ridicule and satire just like a political figure is.
Is public money being used to fund Mann’s actions? Could they be that arrogant?
But I doubt it, his buddy George Soros hass veys ouf proffvidink ze zupport for ze cauz.
Mann has manoeuvred himself into a corner. If he is stating that has not lied then he can not logically deny access to any information as all of it must be honest and true and hence available to the court otherwise why would he deny access to it?
I’m not sure that NRO cares whether or not they win the case. That is not their objective. The opportunity for them is discovery, which will give them access to data that skeptics have been after for years. In view of Mann’s past reticence to provide much of this data, he will probably drop the case at some point. The strength of the case is irrelevant, although considering the nature of US libel law, I don’t think he has much chance of winning anyway.
Nick,
Mann is entirely within his rights to claim that the Penn State “investigation” exonerated him and was all the backing he needs. The defendents are, however, entirely entitled to demonstrate to the court that this “investigation” was nothing more than a whitewash. This is what the defendents intend to do, as is clear from the thread here. Do you deny the right of the defendents to challenge the basis of Mann’s case? If you do, then you are defending the right of Mann to avoid the justice of a court by simply referring to his buddies at the same university. How many criminals must there be that would like to escape justice by simply asking the criminal fraternity to speak on behalf of their good character….
So, the Penn State investigation will stand for nothing in court. It will simply be exposed as a sham. The court will demand a higher level of evidence and investigation than was required by Penn State. It is, after all, a court of law. At this point it seems to me that all the defendents need to do is get to the point where they have shown their remarks were “fair comment”. They don’t really need full discovery by Mann to do this and nor should they – after all, their comments were made on the basis of other material in the public domain. So they can just drag Steve McIntyre into court, demonstrate that their questioning of Mann’s science was fair comment on the basis of that work and it’s job done. Or indeed any other climate sceptic that has looked into Mann’s work and challenged it. Mann will then be in the position of having to prove his science is well founded by revealing his data and methods but even that won’t actually win him the case because the defendents don’t actually need to prove they were right all along, they only need to prove that their comments were reasonable based on what they knew at the time (i.e. exactly because Mann has not published his data and methods the defendents were always free to challenge Mann’s assertions based on other information that was in the public domain). In other words, if Person A makes a public claim but fails to support it with evidence, and Persons B,C & D make a counter-claim and provide evidence to back up their counter-claims, is it reasonable for the media to rely on the statements of B,C, and D to infer that person A was a liar? Clearly it is, as many politicians have learned to their cost (I am sure the current presidential battle will give us plenty more examples). So I suspect that Mann will be forced to drop his case, perhaps shortly after reading what is written in this thread, since up till now he has been listening only to a lawyer eager to make money from a case driven forcefully by Mann’s own ego and not by the logic of the case being winnable. He is being a fool and the deeper into this court case he allows himself to be dragged, the bigger fool he will make of himself.
A lawyers success is only as good as his clients input,
is it not amazing what lawyers will do for money ? ( and if this goes, its going to cost someone more than lots. )
Mann has a stage on which to strut and try to play victim without going so far as complying with the discovery requests we’d all like to see compliance with He’s exerienced at it. His last book is all about that. It’s all he has left because his work is visibly wrong despite the prior blessings . Mann should be a bit more resolute about drawing attention to himself, but that always seems to be paying for itself until it doesn’t. Right now, he’s still relatively ahead and it has always depended on not going through discovery..
It looks to me like the Sandusky comparison was in questioning the Penn State investigations, not the Mann. Mann was sharply criticized (allowed if not encouraged) separately from a work that anyone is feel to conclude fraud about. Valid questions raised. Then there’s those troubling elements of proof to deal with. They do not know and do not believe that the hokey stick is not a fraud. Who relied on these representatiions and how was he harmed apart from those myriad of other critics that aren’t named and in a way that freedom of the press and speech permits? And – how is this harm not attributable to someone he already is suing lkieTim Ball. The tricky part will be for CEI, Simberg, NRO and Steyn to avoid getting the case thrown out at the start and to steer the case to the desired discovery.
Doug Proctor says:
“If Mann is to be guilty of fraud, misrepresentation or other types of malfeasance wrt the Hockey Stick, I suggest he has to be found to have:
1. used an inadequate data selection, culling and modification technique that is,
2. generally recognized as not just preferred but required,
3. known about this technique and been able to use it,
4. chose not to use it because
5. he knew that the results of using it would give a result different from and antagonistic to
6. a conclusion he decided should be obtained because
7. that conclusion would support an agenda that
8. he had irrespective of the results of the temperature profile now known as the Hockey Stick.”
You are absolutely correct. If you have read A.W. Montoford’s (Bishop Hill’s) Hockey Stick Wars, and followed this debate at Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit, then like myself and many others here, you would have come to the conclusion that Michael Mann did exactly what you have described above.
I just hope you call Steve McIntyre as an expert witness.
And discovery aside, if this case goes to trial (unlikely if full discovery is allowed) you should sell tickets to the Mann deposition, or at least sell DVDs. When has a member of the Team ever been questioned by someone who even disagreed with them, let alone by a well informed skeptic (by his attorney). And under oath!
Hide the decline, inverted Tijlander, statistical illiteracy, deleted emails. Talk about a target rich environment.
The problem is that the courts (in the USA, at least) don’t exactly have a great record in terms of neutrality and common-sense when it come to climate matters. Having declared co2 to be a pollutant for instance.
Nick,
Just because you don’t take the time to research the facts does not mean that you get to make them up: “PSU did not ‘exonerate’ Sandusky, officially or unofficially. Some PSU officials took negligently minimal action on hearing of allegations,but did not exonerate him because they had no power to. So where is the parallel with Mann? Again,Mann took part in an officially constituted PSU inquiry,with process and public findings. So what is the parallel with Sandusky? It’s not difficult: there is none.”
In fact, PSU was officially and formally notified that Sandusky was suspected of child molestation in 1998. PSU officially and formally carried out an investigation of Sandusky for child molestation in 1998. PSU officially and formally whitewashed the clear evidence of Sandusky’s guilt in 1998, and beyond.
http://yorechildren.com/2012/04/12/the-1998-sandusky-investigation-home-field-advantage/
Graham Spanier became President of PSU in 1995, and was in charge of both the Sandusky and Mann investigations.
“A grand jury said that Mr. Spanier, the university’s president since 1995, was made aware of a report of an incident involving Mr. Sandusky. Upon learning about a suspected 2002 assault by Mr. Sandusky on a young boy in the football building’s showers, Mr. Paterno redirected the graduate assistant who witnessed the incident to the athletic director, rather than notifying the police. Mr. Paterno said the graduate assistant who reported the assault, Mike McQueary, said only that something disturbing had happened that was perhaps sexual in nature. Mr. McQueary testified that he saw Mr. Sandusky having anal sex with the boy. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/-joe-paterno-and-graham-spanier-out-at-penn-state.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
That’s the basics of the PSU cover-up of Sandusky’s crimes. The parallel to the PSU “investigation” of Mann’s alleged crimes is striking.
never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake….
@ur momisugly Dave says: October 24, 2012 at 8:46 am
Yep! But the beauty is, NRO could never BRING a suit to have such an opportunity! They had to rely on the ego of Mann.
If Mann is found to be a “public figure,” (which seems likely to me) then there is a different standard. When it comes to public figures, the first amendment guarantee of free speech comes into play. For that reason, in order to prevail, the plaintiff’s standard is [quote] “actual malice” – knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth – is alleged and proved. [end quote]
So you have to prove that the defendants knew that what they said is false. It’s tough to prove what someone else knows.
Here’s the Supreme Court case that establishes the burden of proof (NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=376&invol=254
EerieParallels:
I write to thank you for your post at October 24, 2012 at 10:36 am. The links are very informative and – as you say – are directly relevant to the Mann vs NRO case.
Not being in the US I was not aware of the details of the case which seems similar (but not as serious) as the Jimmy Saville scandal now raging here in the UK.
I commend reading what you have provided by all interested in the Mann vs NRO case but who like me were not aware of the details of the PSU/Sandusky case. I copy the links you provided here to aid people wanting to read them.
http://yorechildren.com/2012/04/12/the-1998-sandusky-investigation-home-field-advantage/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/-joe-paterno-and-graham-spanier-out-at-penn-state.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Useful information is always a help and I am sure I am not alone in appreciating the valuable input you have provided. Thankyou.
Richard
The problem for Mann is if he drops this case(s), it is tacit admission that he is a fraud — especially given the fact he is not paying for his attorney fees.
What excuse will he have for dropping the case?
I’m sure it will be something along the lines of “This is taking away too much of my valuable research (Facebook) time.”
Nick says:
October 24, 2012 at 7:20 am
—
While you never said directly, that the findings of the “investigations” can’t be questioned, you did state that the findings of investigations are sufficient to force the courts to find in favor of Mann. You have also been vehement in defending those findings as conclusive despite the numerous flaws being pointed out in both method and logic.
That’s a difference without distinction.
I believe these are Mark Steyn’s original comments:
“In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal:
“‘I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.’
“Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.”
—
—
Simberg clearly refers to the whitewash of two scandals at Penn State. Simberg is not calling Mann a pedophile; but says Mann “…molested and tortured data…” The implication is that Mann doens’t give a damn about future ramifications, so long as he gets enjoys immediate gratification. Got that??????
Simberg could have used the proper name “Sandusky” at will, so long as he did not put Mann in the room with Sandusky, or say Mann is Sandusky. It’s a real contorted stretch to read anything else into it unless, of course, Mann harbors some terrible guilt over his own personal behavior.
If Michael Mann insists on claiming libel over the statements, then discovery MUST remand all his data to the defense. It’ll be interesting to see if Mann would prefer being held in contempt rather than exposed as a deceiver or fraud. We may find that Michael Mann is a monster.
Richard,
Happy to help. There is much, much more available, both commentaries and original source material, that should shed light on the two cases, and their eerie parallels. Any objective observer is bound to conclude that the PSU administration actively protected its cash and prestige generators (football and climate “science”) with sham “internal investigations” that could be waved in the faces of anyone who questioned their “heroes.”
A couple of commentaries that pretty much cover all the bases in comparing the two cases of PSU cover-up “investigations” are here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_climategate_and_jerry_sandusky_scandals_a_common_thread.html
http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/johnosullivan-111117.pdf
And the source materials, the PSU “investigative reports” are here:
http://www.research.psu.edu/news/2010/spanier-070110-re-mann.pdf
http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf
http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf
@ur momisugly EerieParallels says: October 24, 2012 at 12:27 pm
You bring up an interesting point. If the discoveries start to turn against Penn State, I wonder how long they will stand idly by before they take action and can Mann, so they can claim privilege on the documents that would tend to implicate them?
Phil,
I’m not a lawyer. But I’ve followed these cases pretty closely.
“Discovery” is a legal process by which each side is required to share with the other documents, witnesses, facts, details, etc that are pertinent to the case. IE: “All work products, emails, drafts, letters, correspondence, phone logs, notes, or any other written or electronic material related to Dr Mann’s climate research during, before, or after his employment at Penn State.”
Conspirators tend to block access to material (as we saw in the Mann-related lawsuit in Virginia), on a variety of legal technicalities. They were successful in the UVA case: http://www.atinstitute.org/virginians-get-first-peak-at-secret-uva-emails/
I guess you could call that “claiming privilege.” Bottom line is that they were able to block the release of most of the emails sought in that case.
It would seem that the Penn State/Mann/Steyn case might target the PSU “investigation.” Steyn should seek full information on the investigation, communications between the “investigators” and Mann and/or Mann’s surrogates, and other supporting and related communications.
Since Mann is the one who is claiming, in effect, that he has nothing to hide, it should be difficult for him to then hide those potentially damning communications.
This is where it can get sticky. Destroying evidence, lying under oath about evidence, and other obstructions are potentially criminal (ask Martha Stewart–she went to prison for that).
Nick’
, On the CRU inquiries? British law,’
no dead wrong the give away being no evidenced was taken under oath . There has yet be no legal investigations into CRU , just the jokes they set up for themselves, which were worthless . Just like Penn State .
Some good comments from JohnC and Australis:
I was incorrect on some points. However ….
Yes, Mann as plaintiff is the one with the problem of proof that the CEI et al knew or should have known that his research methodology (not the data collection but the style of analysis) was correct or sufficiently technically acceptable to be professionally “correct”. But he also says he was defamed/libeled, in that he was said to have conducted some sort of deceptive, purposeful act through his research. This purpose would have been to dismiss evidence that global temperatures have been in the current range or higher within the time of his research AND demonstrably so within the data of his research.
This act to deceive or misrepresent is the intent of all the Mann-bashing: that Mann got rid of the MWP on purpose, to bolster the CAGW narrative going around. But in court he doesn’t have to prove that he didn’t do bad things, but only that the defendants SAID he did bad things. It is then up to the defendants to show that, indeed, he did bad things, in which case there is no defamation but a description of events. Which they have to do with information available to them prior to the ‘suit.
The intent to deceive is critical. To do something incorrectly is a professional and personal failure, but not a crime, unless you did so on purpose. Incompetence does not get you jailed, just fired. So even if CEI can show that the MWP disappeared, there was no culpable action unless Mann could be shown to have known that the MWP should have been left in. He, and other, said that the MWP was regional, not global. So in his mind he could easily argue that all he did was remove a regional signal from a global trend. Data cleaning, like getting rid of outliers. The MWP should have been left in, we’d argue, but on the face of it, not a crime to take it out to fit your .
You are not supposed to have to defend yourself outside of the Napoleonic Code, but in a defamation case you really do have to show that your comments were descriptive, even if they were also demeaning. The Hockey Stick is not really about bad science but about science being profoundly abused for nefarious reasons. Bad science is far easier to demonstrate than scientists acting badly..
Doug Proctor says (October 24, 2012 at 3:39 pm): “Bad science is far easier to demonstrate than scientists acting badly..”
Mann is currently suing Dr. Tim Ball for writing that Mann belongs in the state pen, not Penn State, a charge I consider more serious (and difficult to back up) than the statements by Steyn and NRO. Yet in the Ball case Mann is inexplicably dragging his feet on providing the discovery materials that would supposedly win his suit. If he can’t make his case against Ball, Mann has no case against Steyn.