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:
willardgibbs says: @ur momisugly February 17, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Looking forward to Mann bankrupting Steyn.
————————————————————-
milodonharlani says: @ur momisugly February 18, 2014 at 4:42 am
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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is too late we lost our free press in 1915 when JP MOrgan bought up all the important papers in the USA.. link (Mine is the first comment with all the gory details)
Gail Combs says:
February 18, 2014 at 5:42 am
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/18/billionaire_targets_14_races_in_climate_change_fight_121618.html
Mann is a little, little Mann(BearPig).
One thing I have learned following the AGW debate over the years – never, ever, ever argue with Steve McEntyre.
Gail Combs says:
February 18, 2014 at 5:42 am………..
Oh boy, Gail. You just said it all. Rock on!!!
The report you quote from is titled Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit.
There’s no mention of Michael Mann or his paper, specifically. Was Michael Mann teaching at CRU then? Was his paper written with CRU scientists? (I don’t know the answer.)
Their statement that they didn’t intend to imply fraud is hand-waving toward the field of climate change in general: “[not] intended to imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings. They do, however, stick to their guns about statistics, and that was the gist of what Oxburgh panelist David Hand said about the statistical methods used in Mann’s paper leading to “exaggerated” results. That’s a direct cause and effect that does not apply to the general field.
People posting here have to remember that this lawsuit has little/nothing to do with the science. It has everything to do with whether Steyn libelled Mann. My opinion is that it was “fair commentary”, as Mann is a “public figure” ( Mann’s own words), as is Penn State, and is subject to criticism, and mockery. If you are in a controversial field, you should be able to weather the storms, if you’ll pardon the pun.
OT I know and I apologize in advance but just couldn’t resist. I noted a this in one of the comments above …. “The CCS Association has stated that carbon capture could become a “trillion dollar industry” by 2050,…..”
While not related to the Steyn lawsuit, couldn’t help but pointing out that this represents how
much the CCS Association expects our energy bills to go up by 2050. CCS doesn’t not provide any energy, its ALL our money literally down a hole.
jai mitchell says:
February 17, 2014 at 7:48 pm
While telling us the opposite publicly, this is what was said in private communications. From the Climategate emails (Tom Wigley):
Steyn compared the Penn State investigation of Mann to their investigation of Sandusky. He contrasted Mann’s molesting of data to Sandusky’s molesting of boys. Both seem to be eminently defensible. The more serious challenge is that he accused Mann of scientific fraud or fraudulent conduct. While ‘fraud’ has a relatively clear definition in a legal context, it is capable of a broader interpretation when a commentator uses it to attack a public figure. I suggest that it is just another way of saying Mann molested the data, but it is capable of a more damaging interpretation, too. That’s why the motions judge refused to throw out the case – he had to give Mann’s suit its more favourable interpretation.
Re Walt The Physicist says: February 18, 2014 at 6:25 am
The plot thickens. This morning’s Wall Street Journal caries an item on Page 3: “Penn State Taps Climatologist as President”. A brief excerpt:
“Mr. Barron, whose five-year appointment to the $800,000-a-year job will take effect in the spring, has lectured on scientific models he says show that a buildup of greenhouse gases will result in a warming of Earth’s temperatures during the next century.”
Full story here:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB20001424052702304899704579389111499941716?mod=index_to_people&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB20001424052702304899704579389111499941716.html%3Fmod%3Dindex_to_people
Kiddoes, including Jai M and policycritic: There is an effective and persuasive deconstruction of all of the so-called exonerations of Michael Piltdown Mann. Plaintiff’s counsel would do well to avoid the strategy of depending upon those exonerations.
Fortunately, one of the most egregious, that of Penn State, is likely to come under the microscope. Penn State has paid the price for the whitewashing of a serial sexual molester; the bill for their whitewashing of this serial data molester is still in the mail, or rather, in the email.
===================
And as several others have noted, use of the meme of the hockey stick being reproduced by subsequent studies is a strategic pratfall, too, since it will lead to testimony about upside-down varves and split-bark bristlecones doing their stealth hockey stick work, fraudulently.
=======================
Al Capone cleared of all charges by a panel of peers, including John Dillinger, Bonnie Parker, George Nelson, Bugsy Seigel, Ma Barker, “Lucky” Luciano, and “Pretty Boy” Floyd.
Read all about it.
Yale Law School prof Steven Carter, who got into an email discussion with Bickmore, had this to say about the case:
“The trouble is (to put on my lawyer’s hat), the judge didn’t hold that the charges against Dr. Mann were libelous per se. He ruled that a jury could reasonably find them to be so. That’s where the danger arises. The exceptions the Supreme Court has carved out for commentary about public figures is intended to keep such questions from the jury in cases touching the public interest.”
followed by:
“Even if Dr. Mann wins the case (and I’m quite confident it will be settled; nobody wants to put it in front of a jury), the tenor of debate won’t change.”
If he’s right, then freedom of speech will eventually prevail although Steyn will probably have to go the distance. He should get the cheapest attorney he can find until then. The case should have been Anti-Slapped, but our legal system likes to waste other peoples money (half a million bucks down the rabbit hole and the Judge still couldn’t identify Steyn in a lineup).
http://www.steynonline.com/6093/the-future-is-another-country
near the bottom.
Well with respect to the NAS panel I’m wondering how Mann will deal with his admission in the climategate e-mails that it was an intended whitewash.
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> I think you really *should* do this if you possibly can. The panel is
>> entirely legititimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood
>> Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in
>> the whole Barton affair. The assumption is that an honest
>> review of the science will buttress us against any attempt for Barton
>> to continue his attacks (there is some indication that he hasn’t
>> given up yet). Especially, with the new Science article by you and
>> Tim I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all
>> possible.
>>
>> I’m scheduled to arrive Thursday March 2rd, and give a presentation
>> friday morning March 2nd. I believe Malcolm is planning on
>> participating, not sure about Ray. I would guess that Tom C and
>> Caspar A have been invited as well, but haven’t heard anything.
>>
>> The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing
>> this, and the other members are all solid. Chrisy is the token
>> skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check:
“Addendum to report, 19 April 2010
For the avoidance of misunderstanding in the light of various press stories, it is
important to be clear that the neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to
imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately
misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings.
Rather, the aim was to draw attention to the complexity of statistics in this field, and
the need to use the best possible methods.”
This is supposed to be exoneration? By the use of the words “deliberately” and “intentionally” It looks more like the panel was saying that the lack of proper use of statistics and failure to use the best possible methods was unintentional and not deliberate but rather came out of incompetence and lack of understanding of statistics.
Taphonomic,
Very good point. However, it appears that Mann in order to cover up his “incompetence” has “deliberately” lied on many occasions, i.e. spreadsheet, R^2 calculations, etc. This is where Styen is accurate in describing Mann’s work as “fraud”. As we see on many occasions, it’s the cover-up that get’s you.
Let the Mann keep talking.
He is a gift that just keeps on giving.
He has been so effective in giving scepticism of climatology booster shots.
I could not have invented this guy, fiction falls short.
I hope this makes it to discovery soon, but the mann should beware, it may benefit the cause more if he was removed from their star media team.
If I was him, it is not the sceptics I would be watching.
Steyn’s article was quite mild. As for the allusions to Sandusky, it wasn’t even Steyn who used it. Steyn was quoting Simberg who called Mann “the Sandusky of climate science.” This was clearly a quotation with a citation. At the end of the quote, Steyn adds “I’m not sure I’d extend that metaphor all the way to the locker room. . . ”
Steyn’s only “offence” is to have used the adjective “fraudulent” to describe the hockey stick saga.
Thanks for the alert. I’ll rtwt.
The proxy data has, without fail, verified the Michael Mann hockey stick curve. This train has left the station, though it warms my heart that you are all still obsessing on this as a drowning man might desperately grasp a bit of cloth.
Eventually, and without fail, you will recognize that you were both deceived and self-deluded.
The proxy record is very clear, the instrumental record, when compared to the proxy record is devastating.
When the skeptic community came out with raging attempts to discredit the Marcott et. al. graphic, one that used over 73 globally distributed records to ensure the veracity of their findings, they passed into the realm of obvious irrelevance.
I expect that it will only be a few more years before these “skeptic” arguments are all played out, as the rate of deep ocean warming belies a rapidly increasing TOA imbalance that will soon produce a catastrophic anthropogenic global warming effect over the course of only a few years.
This high profile case, likely coinciding with more and extreme weather phenomenon, is going to sink the climate skeptic’s dingy.
view, as evidence, the recent move of extreme weather to the forefront of the nation’s consciousness.
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xQf8FOrBT4 ]
REPLY: For the record, using Heidi Cullen (a paid propagandist, Climate Central is that and only that) as a source for an extreme weather claim (that the IPCC and Nature don’t even endorse) indicates what a hopeless true believer you are.
Given that you spend much of your working day commenting here, I often think you are paid to be here by the very same people. – Anthony
Re jai mitchell says: February 18, 2014 at 11:02 am
Here are two photos of your climate train leaving the station:
http://www.wpyr.com/rotary/IMG_2864m.jpg
http://www.yukondiver.com/Images3/rotarydeepsnow.jpg
jai mitchell says:
February 18, 2014 at 11:02 am
So are you saying that my evaluation that the improperly applied methodology of the Marcott paper produces substantially underestimated error bounds is wrong?
Perhaps you could indicate why I am wrong… 🙂
“I expect that it will only be a few more years before these “skeptic” arguments are all played out, as the rate of deep ocean warming belies a rapidly increasing TOA imbalance that will soon produce a catastrophic anthropogenic global warming effect over the course of only a few years.”
So, jai predicts that in “a few more years” the deep oceans will give up the hidden heat into the atmosphere breaking all records producing catastrophe. To be catastrophic it will need to be 2 to 3 degrees C warming than it is now world-wide. That’s much faster than even the IPCC predicts.
How much do you want to bet jai that it will be that much warmer? Name your amount, I’ll give you odds.