Last week there was lots of jubilation in the Mann-world PR headquarters because a judge had ruled that his defamation lawsuit could proceed. Except, there’s this inconvenient glitch. It seems that the judge got the actions of the two defendants mixed up in the ruling, kinda like that upside down Tiljander proxy thing.
From Andrew Lawtons “Landmark Report“:
Dazed and Confused: Steyn files motion for reconsideration on Mann lawsuit based on Clinton judge’s error in fact
Below are the public court documents submitted by Mark Steyn’s attorney moving for reconsideration by Clinton-appointed D.C. Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene as a result of her decision to allow the lawsuit by climate scientist Michael Mann against Mark Steyn and National Review to proceed.
Interestingly, it appears that Judge Combs Greene has mixed-up the defendants in the court’s ruling, attributing actions taken by the Consumer Enterprise Institution [sic] to Mark Steyn and National Review.
Mann v. National Review – Reconsideration Motion (fr0m Scribd)
Defendants National Review, Inc. (“National Review”) and Mark Steyn respectfully request that the Court reconsider its July 19, 2013 Order denying their prior motions to dismiss(the “Order”). A proposed order is attached.First, and as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, theOrder appears to be based in part on material mistakes of fact. Specifically, the Order conflates the conduct of co-defendant Competitive Enterprise Institute (“CEI”) with that of National Review and Steyn, who never petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate Plaintiff or otherwise pressured the agency concerning Plaintiff’s research. Similarly, National Review and Steyndid not criticize Plaintiff’s scientific research for years, as CEI did. Nevertheless, the Order relies on these points to bolster its conclusion that National Review’s brief criticism of Plaintiff’s research was defamatory speech, not protected rhetorical hyperbole. See Order, at 17. (“On the other hand, when one takes into account all of the statements and accusations made over the years, the constant requests for investigations of Plaintiff’s work, the alleged defamatory statements appear less akin to ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ and more as factual assertions.”). In addition, the Order relies on these erroneous facts in concluding Plaintiff met his burden under the Anti-SLAPP Act of demonstrating that National Review published the statements at issue with actual malice. Indeed, the Order asserts that several investigations of Plaintiff’s work were prompted by allegations leveled by National Review and Steyn. See Order, at 21 (“It follows that if anyone should be aware of the accuracy (or findings that the work of Plaintiff is sound), it would be the NR Defendants.”). Yet there are no facts –in the record or otherwise –that suggest National Review and Steyn ever called for or prompted any investigation of Plaintiff’s research. Consequently, the Order should be reconsidered in light of the apparent confusion of facts pertaining to each set of Defendants.
Given that sort of quality judicial work, I suppose it is no surprise that Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene is rated in the bottom ten judges of the Washington D.C. area by the Robing Report.
The comments left about her professionalism are quite something.
@Alan Watt,
I’m no lawyer. But, I’ve followed a few libel cases over the years. And from what has been filed in the original suit. Dr Mann’s lawyers allege that he is nothing but a disinterested scientist whose been smeared by political activists. That entire contention will come under fire – any lawyer worth his salt will begin to attack that premise. Ergo, what Mann has said, wrote and published will come under scrutiny. And don’t think for a moment that the Climategate emails won’t be entered into the court’s records. It is all fair games. Additionally, NRO’s lawyers can subpena a whole host of people who have experienced the Wrath of Mann. No, this isn’t about the Hockey Stick. But, NRO’s lawyers will demonstrate to the Court that Mann is just as much as a partisan hack as any activist.
The downfall of the late actress and New York City power broker, Lillian Hellman comes to mind. For years she routinely sued her critics for slander and libel. Most people gave her a wide birth. She could make or break a person. But, she went too far going after Mary McCarthy. And during the libel suit, McCarthy’s lawyers unearthed enough of Hellman’s dirt and mendacity that it irreparably destroyed her reputation.
Mann risks much by pressing this lawsuit. He would be wise to drop it.
Theo Goodwin,
“Dr. Richard Muller of BEST had/has a video on youtube in which he graphically illustrates “hiding the decline” and labels it fraud. There are many matters of near criminality that were not addressed during the several whitewashes following Climategate.”
I don’t mean to be rude, but Richard Muller wouldn’t be the best (no pun intended) choice. This is what Muller had to say this time last year.
“Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.” [16]
In fact if I am right I seem to recall a few here saying (before the report was released) that they would accept the BEST findings….
“And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise.” (Anthony Watts March 6 2011)
….only to run a mile when the report came to the conclusions outlined above. Interestingly they pretty much endorsed the Mann hockey stick.
I don’t think in the history of the climate debate has anyone gone from hero to villain as quickly as Muller did.
JP says:
July 31, 2013 at 1:53 pm
“But, NRO’s lawyers will demonstrate to the Court that Mann is just as much as a partisan hack as any activist.”
What a huge service to mankind that outcome of the trial would be.
…………….In address of Gunga Din, though, medical doctors are – in theory, at least – not debarred from service on petit or grand juries. As a rule, we’re customarily removed from the pool of veniremen because the exigencies of the profession so commonly won’t permit a medical practitioner to be drawn into full-time devotion to this duty without putting his patients at risk. For similar reasons, clergy are usually excused jury duty.
For practical reasons, however, medical doctors are almost invariably challenged during jury selection by either prosecuting/plaintiffs’ attorneys or counsel for the defense, depending upon which side in the adversarial proceedings would be most disadvantaged by empaneling a member of a profession in which emphasis is daily placed on the evaluation of evidence according to each such factor’s reliability before arriving at conclusions.
===============================================================
“Allowed” was a poor, and potentially misleading, word choice on my part. What I was getting at is that, if I was an MD and the target of a malpractice suit I would insist on an MD, a peer, on the jury. Someone who could follow and, if need be, “see through” the testimonies of the MD’s whose only “practice” is testifying as an expert witness for the law firm that hired them. To often the jury sympathizes with the victim whether or not their plight is due to the MD’s mistake or not.
(But we’ve veered from the topic a bit.)
At 3:16 PM on 31 July, Gunga Din had written:
It could go precisely the opposite way.
But medical malpractice – even without a physician or surgeon on the jury – isn’t really a matter of an “MD’s mistake” but rather dereliction of duty to the patient, which tends to be embodied in negligent deviation from those prevailing standards of care which must reasonably be expected of a practitioner in the pertinent specialty in the community where the alleged dereliction of duty had taken place.
Among medical doctors, there’s an expectation that professionals will police each other in terms of such adherence to standards, and while MD types almost never advise people to initiate malpractice lawsuits (we’re all in glass houses, and we’re all reluctant to throw stones), we sit in judgement of each other as a matter of routine. For those of us with hospital staff privileges, these are some of the most miserable “Let George Do It” jobs in the profession, especially the very deadly dull quality assurance and utilization review audits.
(On one occasion, after I’d been tasked with creating a UR study to assess the cost-efficient employment of a relatively new technology in the hospital and running a retrospective analysis of about a year’s worth of all cases in which such use had been made, I had to send myself a formal letter of notification regarding one such case in which I’d over-used the hardware to no objective patient benefit. Damned odd writing that letter, signing it, and receiving it, but it’s how we’re supposed to iron out the wrinkles. For all I know, it’s still on record at the community hospital where I was practicing at that time.)
You’re right about an educated, trained, and experienced physician not being easily flummoxed by “professional expert witness” testimony, but insofar as I know, jurors aren’t allowed to interrogate witnesses directly, and unless the opposing attorney does something in discovery that might impeach such a witness’ qualifications to speak as an expert, an MD juror can’t even get a look at the guy’s curriculum vitae to run a crap detector assessment of the expert’s relative respectability as critic of the defendant’s conduct or the circumstances pertinent to the case at hand.
However, I expect that – even more so than with the average person – no judge’s instructions could likely get a physician juror to accept what he’s told in the courtroom as the sum total of his knowledge on the case at hand. With this in mind, both the plaintiff’s attorney and the defense would have to pitch the technical information at the doctor’s level, risking the strong possibility that everybody else on the jury will wind up swamped into MEGO status, bewildered and resentful.
Medical doctors are entirely too damned much trouble.
As jurors, I mean.
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
July 31, 2013 at 10:22 am
“As I’ve said before, the court is not going to judge the science, so Mann will not have to produce his original data and methods. ”
Completely wrong on this count. Mann suits claims that steyn called him a fraud… in order to prove that mann is not a fraud mann MUST submit documentation PROVING as such, at least so much as they must submit it to the defense so the defense has the chance to prove it wrong. In the US truth is a complete defense in it self. One can not claim “I have be libeled” and then refuse to provide docs that show that the party doing the libeling is right or wrong.
If documents are refused then basically mann has nothing showing in fact he is not a fraud and at best the court must dismiss due to a lack of evidence. Mann claiming he is not a crook do not suddenly mean in the legal system that he is not a crook.
No matter how you cut it under the current suit mann science is front and center of the argument of fraud.
Simon says:
July 31, 2013 at 2:57 pm
Well, I haven’t kept up with Muller. To me, BEST is just more non-empirical work done by statisticians who get totally turned on by their own erudition and suffer under the delusion that other folks will get equally turned on. But his video does make a good, easy to understand case for fraud. I was just making suggestions. But I am confident that Steyn’s lawyers can find people who will make a good case for Steyn.
The really important point is the one I quoted from JP. For that point, the lawyers need only repeat Mann’s own words.
In addition, I cannot wait to see a capable lawyer explain Steyn’s Sandusky hyperbole. The courtroom should be rolling with belly laughs.
Temp
I doubt he will have to front up with any more than he has already. Although it is not acknowledged here, his work is widely acknowledge in the world of climate science as being of a high standard and almost beyond question. While he may not always have got things 100% right, he will have plenty of experts in the field more than willing to tell the judge he is a respected cutting edge scientist, who is far from being a fraud.
Steyn and the team on the other hand are going to struggle to find an acknowledged expert in the field of CS who will say he is a fraud. In fact I can’t think of any. There will be some who say he got things wrong, McIntyre, McKitrick etc, but a fraud…. I don’t think so.
This is where the New Zealand case against NIWA came unstuck. While there was lots of chest beating by the Climate Science Coalition, when push came to shove they had no one with any credibility to tell the judge what NIWA did was wrong.
Theo Goodwin says: July 31, 2013 at 7:45 am
“It is obviously designed as hyperbole. No one in his right mind could interpret it as factual.”
If your defence consists of convincing the judge that you say things no-one should believe, then you have a problem.
But that’s actually her point in the topic of this thread. She says that the allegations of fraud led to at least one inquiry. That implies that they were seen as allegations of fact.
Simon says:
July 31, 2013 at 4:44 pm
“I doubt he will have to front up with any more than he has already. Although it is not acknowledged here, his work is widely acknowledge in the world of climate science as being of a high standard and almost beyond question. While he may not always have got things 100% right, he will have plenty of experts in the field more than willing to tell the judge he is a respected cutting edge scientist, who is far from being a fraud.”
This is a completely meaningless argument. 99% of all fraudsters are “widely acknowledged as having the highest standards almost beyond question”. Thats the fundamental reason they manage to scam millions, billions of dollars. Enron, countless quack medical doctors, thousands of scientists…and of course SANDUSKY. They all met the standard you cite…. until they were forced into a court of law to prove it in a fair trial. Appeals to authority and consensus have zero bearing in a court of law, that is fair and just. Only facts and evidence of which mann will have to produce will matter. Al-gore’s movie was considered the greatest scientific movie EVER!!! until someone in the UK challenged it in court and the court ruled without doubt that much of it was a lie, the rest unproven. You seem to live in the world of logical fallacy where authority and consensus is more important then the scientific method. While law doesn’t follow the scientific method it does have alot of similar features. Mann unless getting a very corrupt judge will not have the benefit of pal review to back him… he will have to argue by himself based on science to prove his point. He will fail horribly in any fair court.
The climategates e-mails alone cast a very long shadow over mann… add in congress. If he purposely created the hockey stick with intent to fraud he not only will lose the but will likely goto jail. Steyn and crew only need to show that he wasn’t being straight forward in his results and they win. Since congress already filed a huge report saying as such mann really doesn’t have much room to work with.
Once again which includes old nick… it doesn’t matter how many football coaches come out, it doesn’t matter how many college deans come out, it doesn’t matter how many sports news casters come out and say sandusy is innocent what matter is what the evidence presented in the court says… and just like the well respected, honorable and epically loved sandusy, mann will be put in the spot light for the first time ever to have a true investigation done on him. Where people are actively able to attack him, where he won’t find protection by censorship and forcing the non-believes out of the room… he will have to win on the merits and that is simply not possible in a fair court hearing.
Once again i ask who has cleared this man, mann of wrong doing? The people who made millions off him? Yes, the people that own him everything? Yes, the people whose whole reputation is based on him? Yes, a fair hearing with combative nay-sayers? No. Congress is the closest we’ve seen to any type of fair hearing on his work…
Mann will wish he was being investigated by congress by the time this is through if steyn’s lawyers have any skill at all.
Another wild card in this is what it we have a penn stategate? Where someone leaks his e-mails from there or VA tech or the password for the last set of climategate e-mails comes out. If steyns lawyers are good they will find someone in either of these colleges will to turn over 1 or 2 e-mails that they can then push for a request for the rest and wipe mann off the map. So many wild cards in this case… and they all go against mann.
Nick Stokes says:
July 31, 2013 at 4:50 pm
“But that’s actually her point in the topic of this thread. She says that the allegations of fraud led to at least one inquiry. That implies that they were seen as allegations of fact.”
Wouldn’t let be congress and it was upheld that the stick was fake and wrong….
Temp
Wow, you certainly have it in for Mann. You keep asking who has cleared him? Read this. I’d say it’s a good example of a time he has been investigated and it pretty much cleared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Report
Simon, I wouldn’t bother touting junk like the North report around here. They have about as much credibility as Al Gore’s concern about people’s “carbon footprints.”
Simon says:
July 31, 2013 at 6:57 pm
Temp
“Wow, you certainly have it in for Mann. You keep asking who has cleared him? Read this. I’d say it’s a good example of a time he has been investigated and it pretty much cleared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Report”
Please do not assign homework. If you have an argument to make based on that report then make it. You need to show that the investigators were independent, in all important ways, and that they put Mann on the hot seat with some of the well known tough questions that no one has asked, and show that Mann’s answers provided powerful evidence in his behalf.
Nick Stokes says:
July 31, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Theo Goodwin says: July 31, 2013 at 7:45 am
“It is obviously designed as hyperbole. No one in his right mind could interpret it as factual.”
“If your defence consists of convincing the judge that you say things no-one should believe, then you have a problem.”
The defense is that you said something that no one could believe. Not ‘should’, but ‘could’. It’s those tricky words again.
Clearly, you do not believe that you should brush up on the law. You believe that your man in the street reaction settles all. There is a long history of rulings on hyperbole and widely accepted standards for what counts as hyperbole. Google “legal rulings on hyperbole in defamation lawsuits.”
Simon says:
July 31, 2013 at 4:44 pm
“I doubt he will have to front up with any more than he has already. Although it is not acknowledged here, his work is widely acknowledge in the world of climate science as being of a high standard and almost beyond question. While he may not always have got things 100% right, he will have plenty of experts in the field more than willing to tell the judge he is a respected cutting edge scientist, who is far from being a fraud.”
His reputation is at issue in the trial. You cannot appeal to his reputation to defend it. His reputation might not survive the trial. Surely, you are not thinking that his reputation is somehow not at issue and will stand apart from the trial? Somebody might give him a job but no one can restore his reputation if the facts revealed in the trial go against him.
It’s called Affirmative Action. It’s bringing down every institution in the nation.
johanna
While I’m sure it’s true that many here don’t accept what is in this report, the point is a judge may well consider it as evidence that Mann’s work (the hockey stick part of it) has been vindicated and certainly is not fraudulent. I guess only time will tell.
Theo Goodwin
“Surely, you are not thinking that his reputation is somehow not at issue and will stand apart from the trial?”
Yes I think his reputation will be on trial, but, this is about whether it was truthful/fair to call him a fraud. Given the very public investigations into Mann and his work (that may have criticised some of his methods, but never accused him of deceit or fraud)and the outcomes that everyone in the CC community knew about, it’s going to be very hard for Steyn and co to prove
a) they had no knowledge of these investigations
b) it was fair to call him a fraud publicly.
Now I get that these investigations hold no water here, but I think they will in a court of law or at least you can bet his council will make sure they are at the forefront of their arguments.
Simon says:
July 31, 2013 at 6:57 pm
“Temp
Wow, you certainly have it in for Mann. You keep asking who has cleared him? Read this. I’d say it’s a good example of a time he has been investigated and it pretty much cleared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Report”
Umm i’m confused a bit about your argument… according to this wiki page says
“Principal component analysis methodology which had been contested by McIntyre and McKitrick had a small tendency to bias results so was not recommended,”
Clearly this report agrees that mann was wrong and used bias data. It says so right in the wiki…
Also lets not point out the wegman report which was also to congress which also said mann was bias…
The report claims It concluded “with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries”, justified by consistent evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies, but “Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600″
So basically they believe that less then 50% of mann work is considered usable. Where mann claims 100%.
Once again the report supports steyn view….
Now heres the big kicker that i like ” but it had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results”
While it stats this… thats mostly an appeal to consensus vs science fact. Picking data that create the effect you want can make other methods on the same data get similar results… A host of bad experiments get the same answer does not result in that being the correct answer.
I would also point out a few other quotes.
” The procedures for dealing with these data are evolving—there is no one “right” way to proceed.”
In basic “we don’t have a clue so were BSing our way through this report.”
” As in all scientific endeavors, research reported in the scientific literature is often “work in progress” aimed at other investigators, not always to be taken as individual calls for action in the policy community.”
Except that exactly what the hockey stick propaganda was and has always been.
“With this as context”
Aka when they did the report they state right up front the context of this report should be viewed that the hockey stick IS NOT SETTLED SCIENCE. Also that IT SHOULD NOT BE viewed for action in the policy community.
So once again in basic the report is very very vague in pinning anything down. They try to make as broad a brush as possible when reporting the results and clearly state as such.
This is by defacto admitting the report is of little value in itself. It repeatedly down plays itself as being some kind of hard standard and reportedly plays up how vague the field is and how it doesn’t want to “claim that some things are right or wrong”.
This report is worthless from a legal standpoint for mann… however in some respects it hurts mann’s case.
Context of “on going science” is generally meaningless in court. Evidence matters, truth matters, facts matter. Unless mann can show his hockey stick is legit which the north report says it is not he’s go nothing.
I’m going to keep running down this thing because i’m sure I can find more BS wishy washy BS in it but frankly this report holds little to nothing of value in “clearing mann”.
Also as a PS when running through this report I really don’t see any info about mann’s method and data or a host of other things. It seems like all of the info has been purposely left out or maybe i haven’t gotten to it thus far. Since this report seems to go out of its way to be vague and very 2nd hand its not so much an investigation as a general review… thus nothing in it should hold much legal weight since they are no point actively tried to find fraud, actively were able to look for fraud or at any point would have pointed out fraud even if found.
“In the Andes, at the same glacier where the dated plant material was exposed (Quelccaya), melting in the 1980s was strong enough to destroy the geochemical signature of annual layers in the ice beneath (Alley 2006; Thompson et al. 2003, in press). An ice core taken from Quelccaya in the late 1970s showed that such melt had not happened in at least the previous millennium. This strongly suggests anomalous warmth in the late 20th century. The Quelccaya ice cap has existed without interruption for more than 1,000 years. If its present rate of shrinkage continues, it will disappear entirely within a few decades.”
Love this quote…creationist nutbags.
Also this one
“Over the last few decades, the floating ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula have been disintegrating, following a progressively southward pattern (Vaughan and Doake 1996, Cook et al. 2005). This is primarily a result of higher temperatures inducing surface melt (van den Broeke 2005). Analysis of sediment cores from the seafloor (Domack et al. 2005) beneath one of the largest former shelves (the Larsen B, which disintegrated in the late 1990s) indicates that this ice shelf had persisted throughout the previous 10,000 years, providing further evidence that recent decades have been anomalously warm.”
How that southern pole ice melting going for you guys hehe
And another fun one
“The variability of proxy reconstructed temperatures will be less than the variability of the actual temperatures and may not reproduce the actual temperature pattern at particular timescales.”
Isn’t this the same and the last moron who came out and said “well the last 50 years aren’t “robust””. Its nice that they admit that basically only some section which could be say 10 years here are good then 100 years are bad then another 50 years are good. Lovely how these guys work.
and yet more fun quotes.
“Most critically, the relatively short instrumental temperature record provides very few degrees of freedom1 for verifying the low-frequency content of a reconstruction.
The differences among a collection of proxy reconstructions that have not been deliberately created as a representative statistical sample may not reveal the full uncertainty in any one of them.”
“The process of reconstructing climate records from most proxy data is essentially a statistical one, and all efforts to estimate regional or global climate history from multiple”
Yeah skeptics been saying that for years.
Just a wee bit of threadjacking here?
“Greenhouse gases and tropospheric aerosols varied little from A.D. 1 to around 1850. ”
Really? I haven’t looked at my CO2 past graph but i have a hard time believing this.
“Computer models can be used to simulate the behavior of the climate system, taking into account both temporal and geographic variability, ”
“Climate models have been used to test various aspects of surface temperature reconstructions”
bahahahaha…hahaha
I really like the graph on 106 how it completely cut off all future projects… aka if extended everyone would see that they are full of BS. Add in almost all of these models to the letter are not well into the completely wrong, badly wrong and just about wrong… the fact they are arguing that bad models somehow support mann is funny.
Once again the report says mann is full of shat
“although their results differ in geographic emphasis and in the details of the time sequence of the temperature changes. Von Storch et al. (2004) used a long-term climate model simulation to produce artificial proxy data and then compared reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature with varying degrees of noise contamination; they found that the full amplitude of century-to-century variations were underestimated to an increasing degree as the noise level was increased. Thus, the reconstruction of century-long trends has substantial uncertainty when it is based on data that exhibit year-to-year variability.”
They clearly say that due to the huge variability mann claims “its the hots in blah blah blah” is meaningless.
and the last bit
”
WHAT COMMENTS CAN BE MADE ON THE VALUE OF EXCHANGING INFORMATION AND DATA?”
This section is great… they basically completely admit mann hide data, that he purposely did so to improve his position and that they think thats bad but ok at the same time because “its complicated”.
The north report as far as I can see is not based in any science rigor but is a general overview of which they take little in the way of poistions except to quote alot of mann’s friends. At no point does this report clear mann of any wrong doing in which in the section about data they all but admit mann purposely hide the data.
Overall I’d say once again the report in no way helps mann but in many way hurts him. The fact that it openly admits that mann hide data even in an insanely round about way means that the report itself can not be considered valid when reviewing mann’s work. About the only thing the report does is say that mann’s buddies all got the same results. Since all his buddies worked together with him to get his and they’re results this is not overly surprising or important.
johanna says:
July 31, 2013 at 11:08 pm
“Just a wee bit of threadjacking here?”
sorry i’m done with it now
temp
I made the comment the report vindicates Mann’s work. This comment is pretty much game set and match…
“The NRC committee stated that “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators”.
Simon says:
“I doubt he will have to front up with any more than he has already. Although it is not acknowledged here, his work is widely acknowledge in the world of climate science as being of a high standard and almost beyond question. While he may not always have got things 100% right, he will have plenty of experts in the field more than willing to tell the judge he is a respected cutting edge scientist, who is far from being a fraud.”
—————————————————————-
I’m glad that you admit that Mann’s work is only “almost beyond question.” Luckily for us, things like McIntyre and McKitrick’s work took it out of the celestially blessed zone and back to practical science. As in, it’s bollocks.
I fear that we do not see you at your best.