Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against National Review and Mark Steyn continues. National Review, while having walked back some of the early claims to square one, failed to get the suit dismissed. But Steyn is going on his own path and says he will fight in court for a verdict.
Anyone so inclined can help at: http://steynonline.com
[Note: I’ve removed the direct email address and most of the original comment, as it is creating an overwhelming response.
It seems that that best way to support Steyn’s effort is with a donation, see this:
Some readers have asked about that, Steyn says
As I’ve said, in previous battles I’ve never asked for money, and always responded simply by asking supporters to buy a book or a subscription to Maclean’s or whatever. But the scale of things is different down here: Michael Mann has Big Tobacco lawyer John Williams (before the hockey stick, his previous fictional client was Joe Camel) and at least three other named attorneys working on his case. So, for the moment, we’re asking those who “don’t need a coffee mug” to consider buying one of our new SteynOnline gift certificates either for a friend or for yourself, to be redeemed down the line in the event that we improve our mug designs. I’ve been heartened to see they’re being bought in places where I was barely aware I had readers, including the remoter Indonesian provinces, a couple of Central Asian stans, and dear old Vanuatu (for fellow old-school imperialists, that was pre-1980 the Anglo-French condominium of the New Hebrides). They never expire, so you can put it to one side and redeem it when my new book comes out later this year.
===========================================================
I’d suggest NOT leaving your questions in comments, since that may provide an unfair preparation advantage to the plaintiff. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phil.
I,too, write to offer my thanks for you at last having admitted that the “Mike” of “Mike’s Nature Trick” was Michael Mann.
And the clear effect – and probable intent – of “Mike’s Nature Trick” was to mislead by stitching two selected pieces of two different items of information together. I objected to this within a week of his publishing MBH 1998 and somebody sent a copy of my objection to him. Some years later I learned on WUWT that he responded by writing a circular email which was leaked as part of climategate. His email gave no rebuttal of my objection but consisted of a series of personal insults about me. Had I known that Michael Mann would behave like that then I would have been much stronger in my objection.
Michael Mann was not the first to stitch two selected pieces of two different items of information together as a method to provide a misleading scientific indication. The Piltdown Man consisted of exactly the same “Trick” and is the most famous scientific fr@ud in history.
Richard
Steyn suggested that Mann had “molested and tortured data.” Does anybody think that is even actually possible? Waterboarding?
richardscourtney says:
February 6, 2014 at 7:28 am
Phil.
I,too, write to offer my thanks for you at last having admitted that the “Mike” of “Mike’s Nature Trick” was Michael Mann.
I never denied it, you for some reason chose to equate ‘Hide the decline’ which I was talking about with “Mike’s Nature Trick”.
And the clear effect – and probable intent – of “Mike’s Nature Trick” was to mislead by stitching two selected pieces of two different items of information together. I objected to this within a week of his publishing MBH 1998 and somebody sent a copy of my objection to him.
While you may have indeed objected, your characterization is inaccurate the data were plotted on the same graph and clearly indicated as such, they were not ‘stitched together’
Some years later I learned on WUWT that he responded by writing a circular email which was leaked as part of climategate. His email gave no rebuttal of my objection but consisted of a series of personal insults about me. Had I known that Michael Mann would behave like that then I would have been much stronger in my objection.
Michael Mann was not the first to stitch two selected pieces of two different items of information together as a method to provide a misleading scientific indication. The Piltdown Man consisted of exactly the same “Trick” and is the most famous scientific fr@ud in history.
Your analogy would be appropriate if the lower jawbone of the orangutan and the skull of the modern human were colored distinctly and clearly and accurately labelled! We both know that wasn’t the case!
ttfn says:
February 6, 2014 at 7:24 am
Phil. says:
February 6, 2014 at 6:51 am
So when Mann writes:
From: “Michael E. Mann”
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999
“I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith’s series in the plot, and can ask
Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the plot he has been preparing (nobody
liked my own color/plotting conventions so I’ve given up doing this myself).
The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable
way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s,
we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean
values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.”
he’s talking about some other hockey stick? Maybe this was one of those independent sticks that verified Mann’s work?
No, he’s talking about putting together a composite graph containing a set of available reconstructions for the IPCC report. There was a debate about which reconstructions to include, whether to separate tree-only from multi-proxy etc.
I think it was this one:
Figure 2.21: Comparison of warm-season (Jones et al., 1998) and annual mean (Mann et al., 1998, 1999) multi-proxy-based and warm season tree-ring-based (Briffa, 2000) millennial Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions. The recent instrumental annual mean Northern Hemisphere temperature record to 1999 is shown for comparison.
Phil.
Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong point!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suggest that there are two possibilities:
1. You believe that I am so stupid that I might believe you when you claim to not have said something you just said; or
2. I am so stupid that I believe you when you claim to not have said something you just said.
I might observe that “said” is not the correct term here as the entire exchange is in writing, documented for all to peruse at their leisure and draw their own conclusions. I suppose too that there may also be a third option:
3. You are so stupid that you believe yourself when you claim to not have said something you just said.
I shall not insult you by voting for the third option. If anyone else wants to vote, they are free to do so, but I would urge them to choose between one of the first two. My vote is for 1.
Thanks for clearing that up, Phil. I’m sure a lot of those climategate emails will be put into the proper context by Dr Mann when he’s on the stand and look forward to reading the transcript.
davidmhoffer says:
February 6, 2014 at 8:55 am
Phil.
Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong point!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suggest that there are two possibilities:
1. You believe that I am so stupid that I might believe you when you claim to not have said something you just said; or
Or what actually happened, that whenever I refer to ‘Hide the decline’ you read it as ‘Mike’s trick’ and then claim I said something that I did not! Those two terms do not refer to the same thing and you are in error when you treat them as such. Despite my clearly explaining the distinction to you, you appear to be unable to understand it.
Phil. says:
February 6, 2014 at 9:36 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You give me no choice but to change my vote to 3.
Phil.:
I am replying to your laughable post addressed to me at February 6, 2014 at 8:25 am.
Firstly, I wrote
and you have replied
SAY WHAT??!!!
Much of this thread has been your refusal to answer my question and my pressing it!
Then you lie
They were plotted over one another such that the ‘treemometry’ after 1966 was obscured by the ‘thermometer’ data. Indeed, it was this method which was used to “hide the decline”; n.b. it was hidden behind the ‘thermometer’ data.
Importantly, having hidden the decline in the graph, MBH did not discuss the decline in their text. They mentioned it in another paper in a more obscure journal so if ‘called’ on it they could claim they had reported the matter although it was somewhere else.
The MBH ‘hockey stick is precisely the same type of fr@ud as Piltdown Man.
The only difference between these scientific fr@uds is that
(a) we know Mann, Bradley and Hughes constructed their ‘hockey stick’ by combining two different parts of two different pieces of information,
but
(b) to this day it is not certain who constructed the Piltdown man skull by combining two different parts of two different skulls.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
February 6, 2014 at 9:56 am
Phil.:
I am replying to your laughable post addressed to me at February 6, 2014 at 8:25 am.
Firstly, I wrote
I,too, write to offer my thanks for you at last having admitted that the “Mike” of “Mike’s Nature Trick” was Michael Mann.
and you have replied
I never denied it, you for some reason chose to equate ‘Hide the decline’ which I was talking about with “Mike’s Nature Trick”.
SAY WHAT??!!!
Much of this thread has been your refusal to answer my question and my pressing it!
You brought up “Mike’s Nature Trick” not I. I was discussing ‘Hide the decline’ which as I pointed out was something that Jones and Briffa did, not Mann. Please quote my statement that denied that the “Mike” of “Mike’s Nature Trick” was Michael Mann.
Then you lie
“While you may have indeed objected, your characterization is inaccurate the data were plotted on the same graph and clearly indicated as such, they were not ‘stitched together’”
They were plotted over one another such that the ‘treemometry’ after 1966 was obscured by the ‘thermometer’ data. Indeed, it was this method which was used to “hide the decline”; n.b. it was hidden behind the ‘thermometer’ data.
Importantly, having hidden the decline in the graph, MBH did not discuss the decline in their text. They mentioned it in another paper in a more obscure journal so if ‘called’ on it they could claim they had reported the matter although it was somewhere else.
There’s a very good reason for that, there was no decline to discuss, the ‘hide the decline’ refers to a later paper by Jones and Briffa, where they removed the results post-1960 which showed a decline. They discussed it in their paper and subsequent papers and other authors such as D’Arrigo also published about it (see Phil. says: February 6, 2014 at 6:51 am). You appear to be confusing the two papers Richard. Where do you get the 1966 date from, Mann shows a reconstruction to 1980 and starts the thermometer data in 1902?
The MBH ‘hockey stick is precisely the same type of fr@ud as Piltdown Man.
The only difference between these scientific fr@uds is that
(a) we know Mann, Bradley and Hughes constructed their ‘hockey stick’ by combining two different parts of two different pieces of information,
No we know that they plotted two different sets of data on the same graph because they told us so in the paper and indicated the two sets on the graph!
but
(b) to this day it is not certain who constructed the Piltdown man skull by combining two different parts of two different skulls.
Indeed because unlike Mann they didn’t tell us that they had done so nor marked the two parts distinctly.
Phil.:
You are incorrigible.
I write to state that I read your post at February 6, 2014 at 10:59 am and I have not ignored it.
I am content to allow others to read it and themselves to
laugh atassess it.Richard
I guess the truth hurts Richard? Your confusion about the different papers will be apparent to all (except hoffer who appears to be beyond hope).
Phil.:
At February 6, 2014 at 1:06 pm you ask me
No, I am not hurt. You have told a long series of lies in this thread as everybody who reads the thread can see. Indeed, I have stated several of these lies in the thread.
The truth is that Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” and the invention and its use is scientific fr@ud.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
February 6, 2014 at 2:51 pm
Phil.:
At February 6, 2014 at 1:06 pm you ask me
I guess the truth hurts Richard?
No, I am not hurt. You have told a long series of lies in this thread as everybody who reads the thread can see. Indeed, I have stated several of these lies in the thread.
I have told no lies in this thread, you are confusing two different papers!
The truth is that Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” and the invention and its use is scientific fr@ud.
Now that is a lie!
Phil.:
I see that at February 6, 2014 at 3:02 pm you have again reverted to Square 1.
I wrote the factual statement
You have replied
Really? A lie? How so
If – as you claim – Michael Mann did not invent “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” (the invention and use of which is scientific fr@ud) then who was the “Mike” who did invent and use it?
Richard
Hi Mark Steyn,
A few weeks ago, I read your piece about the ‘ship of fools’ incident. I especially liked the part about Mawson’s footprint. I hope that you’re as brilliant at legal strategy as you are at political satire.
I’m a compleat idiot about the fantasy world that lawyers have created, and insist on living in. If I were in your shoes, I’d look for a competent lawyer to make the best possible case in court. Even if my attorney I was out-gunned by Mikey’s lawyers.
Sometimes common sense intersects with the law, and sometimes it does not. Best wishes.
richardscourtney says:
February 6, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Phil.:
I see that at February 6, 2014 at 3:02 pm you have again reverted to Square 1.
I wrote the
factualstatementThe truth is that Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” and the invention and its use is scientific fr@ud.
You have replied
Now that is a lie!
Really? A lie? How so
If – as you claim – Michael Mann did not invent “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline”
Michael Mann did not do this, he plotted his reconstruction along with thermometric data to show the continuation beyond the end of the multi proxy series. Just like Craig Loehle did in his reconstruction on Climate Audit. ‘Hide the decline’ refers to something that Jones and Briffa did in a later paper, which included adding thermometric data to replace the data post-1960 that they had removed because it ceased to correlate with temperature (‘the divergence problem’, ‘the decline’).
(the invention and use of which is scientific fr@ud) then who was the “Mike” who did invent and use it?
Plotting data from different sources on the same graph and indicating that you’ve done so is hardly ‘an invention’. The problem is with your attribution of motive, you think that Mann did it in his MBH98 paper where there was no decline, so that it would be available for Jones and Briffa to use in a later paper where they truncated their reconstruction to ‘hide the decline’.
Phil.:
re your post at February 7, 2014 at 3:10 am.
It seems that you are not content with merely going back to where you started, you want to go through your entire saga of obfuscation and falsehood with which you have polluted this thread.
I cannot be bothered to go through it all again.
Reality is not altered by you choosing to delude your self about it and/or you proclaiming false hoods. And the reality is clear; viz.
Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” and the invention and its use is scientific fr@ud.
Richard
“In my opinion, locating the earliest known example of “hide the decline’ in Jones et al 1999 (Rev Geophys) places hide the decline in a remarkable new light. I think that it’s fair to say that most of us have assumed that “hide the decline” originated with Mann or Briffa. However, it seems to me that this new evidence suggests that the lead author of Jones et al 1999, Phil Jones himself, may have been responsible for CRU’s decision to hide the decline in the spaghetti graph comparisons – initially Jones et al 1999 Figure 6, later, as we all know, IPCC TAR Fig 2.20.”
From http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/15/new-light-on-hide-the-decline/
Phil. (February 6, 2014 at 10:59 am) “…There’s a very good reason for that, there was no decline to discuss, the ‘hide the decline’ refers to a later paper by Jones and Briffa, where they removed the results post-1960 which showed a decline. They discussed it in their paper….”
They did not discuss it in this paper: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/papers/Jones-etal-1999.pdf in section 5.6 (May 1999), the one that McIntyre is referring to in the post I linked above, It is a rather short summary, so perhaps there was not enough space to discuss the truncation of the data. It is also notable that Jones et al are fixated on the warmth of 1998 which is verboten for skeptics now that 1998’s has not been equaled for 16 years.
eric1skeptic says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:33 am
Phil. (February 6, 2014 at 10:59 am) “…There’s a very good reason for that, there was no decline to discuss, the ‘hide the decline’ refers to a later paper by Jones and Briffa, where they removed the results post-1960 which showed a decline. They discussed it in their paper….”
They did not discuss it in this paper: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/papers/Jones-etal-1999.pdf in section 5.6 (May 1999), the one that McIntyre is referring to in the post I linked above, It is a rather short summary, so perhaps there was not enough space to discuss the truncation of the data.
That paper is not about tree chronology and only refers to temperature measurements so there is no decline or divergence to discuss.
Try this one: http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Briffa_et_al_PTRS_98.pdf
Title: Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?
They say in their abstract:
“However, a dramatic change in the sensitivity of hemispheric tree-growth to temperature forcing has become apparent during recent decades, and there is additional evidence of major tree-growth (and hence, probably, ecosystem biomass) increases in the northern boreal forests, most clearly over the last century. These possibly anthropogenically related changes in the ecology of tree growth have important implications for modelling future atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Also, where dendroclimatology is concerned to reconstruct longer (increasingly above centennial) temperature histories, such alterations of `normal’ (pre-industrial) tree-growth rates and climate^growth relationships must be accounted for in our attempts to translate the evidence of past tree growth changes.”
eric1skeptic says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:03 am
“In my opinion, locating the earliest known example of “hide the decline’ in Jones et al 1999 (Rev Geophys) places hide the decline in a remarkable new light. I think that it’s fair to say that most of us have assumed that “hide the decline” originated with Mann or Briffa. However, it seems to me that this new evidence suggests that the lead author of Jones et al 1999, Phil Jones himself, may have been responsible for CRU’s decision to hide the decline in the spaghetti graph comparisons – initially Jones et al 1999 Figure 6, later, as we all know, IPCC TAR Fig 2.20.”
There’s no doubt that Jones originated it, Briffa had already encountered the ‘divergence problem’ and felt he had an explanation, some on the IPCC committee weren’t happy with including the tree data which had that problem. As indicated in the ‘Climategate’ emails Phil Jones came up with the idea of ‘hiding the decline’ by truncating the data after 1960 and using thermometer data to fill up the gap. Craig Loehle did the same as Mike Mann had done previously, with his non-tree proxy study on Climate Audit, his data ended in 1935 and in order to link his data with current temperatures he added the thermometer data.
richardscourtney says:
February 7, 2014 at 3:20 am
Phil.:
re your post at February 7, 2014 at 3:10 am.
It seems that you are not content with merely going back to where you started, you want to go through your entire saga of obfuscation and falsehood with which you have polluted this thread.
I cannot be bothered to go through it all again.
Reality is not altered by you choosing to delude your self about it and/or you proclaiming false hoods. And the reality is clear; viz.
Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” and the invention and its use is scientific fraud.
“There are none so blind as those who will not see” Richard, it is you who are deluding yourself and proclaiming falsehoods. Look at the literature and ‘Climategate’, the chronology is clear, it is you who is trying to rewrite history.
Phil.: Plotting data from different sources on the same graph and indicating that you’ve done so is hardly ‘an invention’.
It’s hardly a trick, either. If that’s all he was talking about, he wouldn’t have called it “Mike’s trick,” because there’s nothing the least bit clever, unusual, or tricky about it.
Somehow in my previous comment, I omitted “Nature” from “Mike’s Nature trick.”