Steve McIntyre writes:
The Mann libel case has been attracting increasing commentary, including from people outside the climate community. Integral to Mann’s litigation are representations that he was “investigated” by 6-9 investigations, all of which supposedly gave him “exonerations” on wide-ranging counts, including “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data” and even supposed findings that his work was “properly conducted an fairly presented”. Mann also represented that these investigations were widely covered in international and national media and thus known to Steyn and the other defendants.
In today’s post, I’ll look closely at the Oxburgh panel, one of the investigations cited in Mann’s pleadings. However, contrary to the claims in Mann’s litigation, not only did the Oxburgh panel not exonerate Mann, at their press conference, Oxburgh panelist David Hand, then President of the Royal Statistical Society, made very disparaging and critical comments about Mann’s work, describing it as based on “inappropriate” statistics that led to “exaggerated” results. These comments were widely reported in international media, later covered in a CEI article that, in turn, was reported by National Review. Moreover, information obtained from FOI in the UK a couple of years ago shows that Mann objected vehemently to criticism from an Oxburgh panelist, which he characterized as a “rogue opinion” and unsuccessfully sought a public apology.
Mann’s claim that the Oxburgh panel “exonerated” Mann on counts ranging from scientific misconduct to statistical manipulation to proper conduct and fair presentation of results has no more validity than his claim to have been awarded a Nobel prize for his supposedly seminal work “document[ing] the steady rise in surface temperatures during the 20th Century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s.”
Read it all here:
jai mitchell says:
“neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to
imply…”
“Intended”? “Imply”? Both are weasel words that mean nothing.
But not surprising, since Muir Russell is such a weasel.
I smell smoke From the same direction.
The Mann’s obviously a delusional nutjob and not as we thought just a conniving attention-grabbing pseudo-scientist
Steyn can depose and do discovery on all those “exoneration entities”. They’re gonna love that.
I bet they didn’t prep too well for impeachment.
PS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment
…… for those who think it just pertains to Presidents
I radically disagree with Mark Steyn’s taste in music but it will be a sad day for the world if that little lying toad, Michael Mann, wins his monkey trial. Steyn is one of the few with guts to tell them how it really is, while Mann is just one of many heads on ever-growing Totalitarian State’s Hydra.
P.S. Catastrophic Climate Change Propaganda yields a symbolic abbreviation.
Since a jury of random 8-year olds would be able to see through the hockey stick sh!t (especially if Marcott et al. is brought into evidence), the only way Mann can win in a jury trial (long way to go for that) is if he gets his Mom, his sister, his dog, Jai Mitchell, Joel Shore, Tamino and Jan Perlmann and other similar non-scientists and pretend bullsh!t scientists on the jury.
Ain’t gonna happen.
I propose a new acronym: HICC: Human Induced Climate Change.
The warmists are usurping the term “climate change,” as if it is some kind of new phenomena when we all know it’s the natural order of things. So, to keep the terminology accurate and the debate comprehensible, those of us who doubt the theory of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) should use the term “HICC”in place of “climate change,” which is so general a term as to be meaningless in this debate.
Human-Induced Climate Change (HICC) is something all together different from natural climate and has never quantified or even verified as an actual scientific fact, “consensus” climate science notwithstanding.
We have to keep up with the warmists’ attempt to manipulate the language in this debate.
willardgibbs says:
February 17, 2014 at 8:01 pm
“Looking forward to Mann bankrupting Steyn.”
It’s not warming, operative. You’re defending a political pseudoscientist. Why would you do that?
willardgibbs says:
February 17, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Looking forward to Mann bankrupting
I for one would dig deep to ensure that never happens.
willardgibbs says:
February 17, 2014 at 8:01 pm
>>Looking forward to Mann bankrupting Steyn.<<
Oh well, each to their own opinion. I'm looking forward to immediately removing the front teeth of the likes of Mann, Hansen, etc., or indeed any of the fraudulent climate 'non-' scientists upon any direct contact, should the chance arise! As for their 'followers', the gullible sheeple and crass ignoramii taken in by such poor excuses for scientists – I wouldn't waste the energy.
Union of Concerned Scientists weights in a Live Science open editorial:
http://news.yahoo.com/why-climate-scientist-39-libel-case-matters-op-232605756.html
The author: “Seth Shulman is a senior staff writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a veteran science journalist and author of six books.”
“Sadly, we have been living in a period during which many parties — often with funding from the fossil-fuel industry — have knowingly spread disinformation about climate change. They have sown confusion about scientific facts and damaged our discourse on the topic just as they have — in the personal smears Mann has endured — arguably harmed his reputation. In so doing, there is no question that this disinformation has been used to knowingly and seriously erode the public’s understanding of an issue with immense consequences for society’s future.”
Seth… Borenstein or Shulman, same B.S.
“for his supposedly seminal work”
I don’t think there’s any supposition in describing Manns’s work as “seminal”, although opinion is fluid on the matter.
first, you have to convince yourself, then you can start of convincing others.
jai mitchell’s comment proves that he didn’t bother reading the full analysis by Steve Mc, else he would be embarrased to highlight that clear non-apology.
I love the bit about “Britain’s climatologists” found to be “scatterbrained and sloppy”.
The whole Mannian stance seems to be “Don’t criticise me, I’m right” rather than “I’m right and here is why”.
It would be really interesting to subject the whole thing to the rigours of the Scottish legal system, but that’s just wishful thinking.
Oxburgh knows no shame either: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/global-warming-the-oxburgh-inquiry-was-an-offer-he-couldnt-refuse/
Let’s take a closer look at Lord Oxburgh himself. Whether paid or not he is concerned enough about carbon dioxide. Can Lord Oxburgh have been an impartial and objective chairman of the CRU investigation panel?
Here is one new report in 2010.
Who were they trying to kid?
Anthropogenic Global Warming is the result of Anthropogenic Information Distortion.
Unfortunately, this dispute will be decided in an anthropogenic court. Not a court of justice. Those went by the wayside decades ago.
I fear for the anthropogenic political influence in the court room.
The Oxburgh Panel:
“We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians”
The panel is saying, in the nicest possible way, that Mann c.s. were out of their depth. This remark alone should have been fatal for his reputation, lest anyone in the press had realized what it meant.
Never forget what Prof Muller had to say:
pottereaton says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:40 pm
I propose a new acronym: HICC: Human Induced Climate Change. …”
—-l
I suggest sticking with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC), since it seems to foucus more accurately on their goals, which is to induce fear while holding humanity responsible.
Sadly, for me, I can imagine the whining as he pushes out more ‘seminal’ work – “but, but, but everyone else has gotten away with their lies …”. Poor me syndrome. In spades.
negrum says:
February 18, 2014 at 2:06 am
pottereaton says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:40 pm
Sorry, but it must be Global Warming. It is the stick with which we were originally beaten and it has gone away.
Mike Ozanne says:
February 17, 2014 at 11:32 pm
It’s mostly that he’s such a jerk about it.