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:
Speaking of ‘paleoMann’, the Flintstone’s were to blame for ‘ancient’ climate change and we should worry. http://pindanpost.com/2014/02/18/fred-and-barney-to-blame/
From an “ancient DNA Professor” at Murdoch Uni, another from Denmark and published in Nature. Possibly embellished about climate change today by SNWA, as is often the case, be warned, that CO2’s gonna destroy us! Those poor endangered white possums, SNWA: http://pindanpost.com/2013/12/08/scary-graph-threatens-climate/
Mann has become a parody of his own ineffectual pomposity.
His pretentiousness knows no bounds, and he is destined to
be immortalised as an advocate of the worst mountebankery
ever seen in the field of scientific endeavour.
QED
For jai mitchel – you quote…. ‘intended to imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately misleading’
This does not mean the research was correct or soundly based. Your implication by leaving your quotes is totally bogius – a bit like the claims of AGM.
jai mitchell says at February 17, 2014 at 7:48 pm
You may not have heard that the UK House of Commons recently had a briefing on AR5 from noted “sceptics” such as Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, Professor Myles Allen, University of Oxford University, and Dr Peter Stott, Met Office.
These gentlemen were asked about the hockeystick in AR3 by the MPs.
And did the experts mention the plethora of subsequent studies using a multiplicity of other proxy sources and data that all reproduce the hockey stick curve?
No.
They said, “mistakes were made”.
Now a mistake isn’t deliberately misleading.
But it is still misleading.
@pottereaton, 02/17, 1040
I propose a new acronym: HICC: Human Induced Climate Change. (thanks I like it), …But
Me? I wonder what Mann has to say after his HICC “UP” didn’t happen ? Did somebody pound him on his back?
And if so did he or she not pound hard enough on his back? Is that why he is still waiting for the “UP”?.
Henry Galt says:
February 18, 2014 at 2:23 am
“Sorry, but it must be Global Warming. It is the stick with which we were originally beaten and it has gone away.”
—-l
CAGW will never be abandoned by the truly faithful and is easy to falsify, but CACC will be useful when the more intelligent shift the goalposts (the whole movement started as mere global cooling ). I think it best to be prepared on all fronts, since we cannot always choose our terrain 🙂
Saying that your right because you’ve been exonerated in more that six investigations for scientific fraud is kind of like saying that you’re completely sane, and have a psychiatrist’s report to prove it.
I’m afraid Ludicrous Lew has got that spot sewn up.
willardgibbs says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Looking forward to Mann bankrupting Steyn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you also looking forward to the Elite reducing the earth’s population by 6 billion? That means you have a one in 7 chance of being starved to death. I suggest you read DEMOCIDE: Death by Government by Dr. R.J. Rummel
Mann is a high-horse / low-road rider.
Joe Chang says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 9:09 pm
Does anyone have a link to the original article that provoked the lawsuit?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
did Steyn likened Mann to Sandusky, or was it that the PS investigation of Mann was like their investigation of Sundusky, in which case it is the university that is being criticized – but deservedly so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The comparison was the Sandusky cover-up to the Mann cover-up. Actually Steyn was quoting a blogger and pointing out the conclusion that if the University would turn a blind eye to what Sandusky was up to their exoneration of Mann was worthless.
“I wish that Mann would disappear quietly, and hang his head in shame.”
Not me. I hope to see “Dr.” Mann exposed for the fraud that he is, and his “work” exposed for the unscientific garbage that it is.
Joe Chang:
At February 17, 2014 at 9:09 pm you ask
It is here.
Richard
joe_dallas says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 8:12 pm
Unless the appeals court steps in and dismisses the case, the case will go likely to trial and which point it will go before a very liberal DC jury…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The jury selection is going to take forever. Steyn’s lawyer will want skeptics and Mann’s lawyer CAGW Disciples. They are going to have to sift through and find the 6% to 7% of the population who think weather is caused by other reasons besides planetary trend or Mankind and are not completely barmy.
Actually coming up with a jury with an IQ above 80 who has not heard of the climate wars epecially in DC is going to be nearly impossible.
I am sure that is one of the things Mann is counting on. Too bad the trial can not happed right now just after DC got plastered with snow. The weather at the time of the trial will also be a factor and that is where a liberal DC judge can become an additional factor.
willardgibbs says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Looking forward to Mann bankrupting Steyn.
————————————————————-
It’s not enough for you that big government, the courts, academia & big business are united against liberty, but you want the free press shut down, too?
What happened to ‘in the pay of big oil’? Steyn could sure do with some of that money
@richardscourtney (February 18, 2014 at 4:20 am)
Thanks for that link. Just read the article and now I’m totally convinced that Steyn will win.
What a sore loser Mann will be. (Already is.)
[snip – libelous statements, policy violation. Bill you are skating on thin ice, tone it down or end up in the permanent troll bin – Anthony]
Mike Wilson says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 9:42 pm
The Mann’s obviously a delusional nutjob….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are missing the obvious.
The only reason Mann is suing is because he has a multi-billionaire footing the bill. A billionaire who is neither friend not family. Therefore the question is WHY? One answer is that the millions spent will have a return of billions of OUR MONEY funneled into the billionaires pockets. The other answer is the billionaire is a power hungry would be king — or both.
Scientists do not sue over scientific theories. Scientists provide all data with their published papers and are not secretive. The fact Government Scientists are now forming a Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, and have been manipulating data for years. The fact that the University of Virginia was willing to hand over Dr. Michaels information to Greenpeace but not willing to hand over Dr. Mann’s to ATI. The fact that corporations no longer are willing to recruit new hires from US campuses tells us we no longer have science and education we have Propagandists and Indoctrination Centers.
(SEE: Can US Students Survive On Junk Food? )
I think it is time for tax payers to tell the politicians to De-fund science and Universities. Why should we pay for Propaganda and the Indoctrination of our young people? Why should we allow a self aggrandizing bureaucracy to determine who is funded and who is not? It is time for citizens to determine who their money is given to and cut out the parasitic middleman.
The University of Virginia Hypocrisy
The purpose of Lawyers when using the Law is not to find the Truth, nor to seek Justice, but to Win.
A good lawyer will have written his closing speech before working out how to get there…
jai mitchell says:
February 17, 2014 at 7:48 pm
“…not to mention the plethora of subsequent studies using a multiplicity of other proxy sources and data that all reproduce the hockey stick curve.”
Everyone, except Mother Nature.
Jimbo,
Can you imagine the outrage if one of the Koch brothers were leading the investigation?
pottereaton says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:40 pm
I propose a new acronym: HICC: Human Induced Climate Change….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No do not let them change the playing field. Stick with CAGW and then stick them with no Climate Change (Temperature) for 17 plus years, no increase in tornadoes no increase in hurricanes no increase in wild fires.
Do not let them Morph the argument. This what ‘Democrats’ have been doing for years in the USA. link
M Courtny,
“Now a mistake isn’t deliberately misleading.”
In light of the fact that Mann is exaggerating the number of investigations exonerating him, it leads one to believe that Mann has a tendency to exaggerate and would imply that his mistake was deliberate.
Mann will be just fine. Why? Because:
Barron joined Penn State’s faculty in 1986 as director of the Earth System Science Center and associate professor of geosciences. In 2002, he was elevated from director of the university’s Earth and Mineral Sciences Environment Institute to dean of the school’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.
In 2006, Barron left State College to become dean of the Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin. In 2008, Barron became director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., where years earlier, he was a geology graduate student. Two years later, he moved on to Florida State, where he became the university’s 14th president.