UPDATE: it seems the language was lifted from a “Skeptical Science” web page, see below.
Steve McIntyre had a busy day yesterday. While yesterday there was an incorrect story called “Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse“ being pushed by John O’Sullivan at Principia Scientific International (aka PSI and The Slayers) claiming Dr. Tim Ball had defeated Mann’s lawsuit, Ball confirms through communications with McIntyre yesterday that while stalled, Mann’s lawsuit is still very much on. Also, for those who don’t know, we’ve heard that Dr. Mann’s legal bills are being paid by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, where we’ve been told there are some deep green pockets contributing, so he isn’t facing bankruptcy, at least not yet.
I find the name a bit of a misnomer, since AFAIK, no climate skeptic scientists are suing alarmist climate scientists, We have only Dr. Mann’s and Dr. Weaver’s lawsuit (also against Tim Ball). Perhaps it should be named the Climate Science Legal Offense Fund.
In a parallel Mann legal arena, Steve McIntyre now shows that in his legal reply to the NRO/Steyn lawsuit, Dr. Mann or his attorneys altered a quote from the Muir Russell inquiry that didn’t exist. Add this to the fake “Nobel Laureate” claim in Mann’s original lawsuit (a claim which he eventually removed in an amended complaint, on Facebook (before and after), and at RC without notice), and a pattern begins to emerge that might not be looked on too kindly by a presiding judge.
He writes:
In my most recent post, I showed that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Oxburgh inquiry had no more validity than Mann’s claim to have won a Nobel prize. In today’s post, I’ll continue my series on the “investigations” by showing that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Muir Russell inquiry is equally invalid.
In their memoranda supporting their original motions to dismiss, both National Review and CEI had observed (correctly) that the Muir Russell panel had limited their findings to “CRU scientists” and contested Mann’s assertion that the Muir Russell panel had made any findings regarding Mann himself, let alone “exonerated” him.
In Mann’s Reply Memorandum, he vociferously rejected the (correct) assertion that the Muir Russell had not exonerated Mann himself, describing such assertion as merely an attempt to “obfuscate and misrepresent”. Mann supported this bluster with an apparent quotation from the Muir Russell report, but the phrase within the quotation marks does not actually occur within the Muir Russell report. As shown below, Mann and/or his lawyers subtly altered the quotation to more supportive language.
Full story: http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/
Manwhile: Steyn countersues Mann for 10 millon dollars (hilarious reading, highly recommended)
UPDATE: Shub Niggurath finds the apparent source of the language, he writes:
The doctored quote in Michael Mann’s legal reply brought to attention by Climateaudit is doing its rounds now.
Doctored quotes? Guess where my first reaction was to look.
Sure enough, this is what one finds on Skepticalscience:
See his post here: http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-michael-mann-scientists-rigor-and-honesty-quote/
UPDATE2: Some language was updated and added in the Nobel Laureate paragraph for accuracy and broader citation.
Richard Courtney,
Hi Richard,
What you are describing (way up top in this thread now) in the UK is the process of discovery – each party provides documents to form a trial bundle – and these must be documents relevant to the issues before the court that either support your case or don’t – you are not allowed to cherry pick.
What we are talking about here are the pleadings – the “statements of case” which set out what the claim is about, what the issues are and what is being claimed/denied. These come before discovery.
In the England/Wales jurisdiction the relevant civil procedure rules allow a statement of case to be amended after its been served either with the written consent of all parties or with the permission of the court.
Judges don’t generally “assess” documents before a civil trial – they read them, but the pleadings are the responsibility of each party/lawyers. Having said that our civil rules give extremely wide case management powers to our judges and any judge can and may well raise an issue from the pleadings that was not clear or understood or that seemed to be wrong. The lawyers might when faced with such a query at the commencement of a trial concede an issue or clarify it but they won’t be allowed to change it to mean their case is different from their pleaded case and still proceed with the trial (although they might seek an adjournment and permission to amend, usually paying the costs thrown away).
The bundles contain the documentary evidence the trial will assess, but much of the meat of evidence is given orally in chief or in cross examination, albeit that it arises from the trial bundle.
The judge may well demand explanation of errors in the bundle but it would be expected that lawyers would identify these and raise them in evidence and in cross examination. Mann’s “error” is good gravy for any lawyer preparing cross examination.
I don’t know about the US but there must be a mechanism to amend pleadings if required.
Whether the pleadings are amended to remove the “error” or left to be dealt with at trial – the “error” is on the record and it cannot be removed without some explanation.
Larry Ledwick:
Thankyou for your posts at February 22, 2014 at 12:03 pm and February 22, 2014 at 12:14 pm.
Richard
Remember, it seems like a long time ago, when the consensus opinion was Mark Steyn representing himself was a huge mistake?
I bet the phrase “…has a fool for a client was kicked about a bit.
Look how things change.
Mann has fallen victim to one of the classic blunders – The most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia” – but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go in against Mark Steyn when freedom of speech is on the line”!
RB:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at February 22, 2014 at 12:19 pm.
Yes, that fleshes-out the understanding I have of the UK system which I outlined in my original post. Hopefully your post will help people to understand why I was so puzzled at the “disclosure” phase of the American system.
Richard
They won’t like Steyn OR Mann, then.
He should also ask how his hockey stick could be plausible given the recent pause showing us that variability is greater than his analysis shows or climate sensitivity much lower than calculated.
Man in the wilderness says:
“This could not have happened to a nicer Mann.”
I say:
This WOULD not have happened to a BETTER Mann.
“Climate Science Legal Offense Fund”
How about the “Offensive Climate Science Legal Fund”?
Michael Mann is a self-promoting serial fabulist with a documented history of concealing evidence in order to ensure that his “analysis” fits predetermined conclusions. For a scientist, this is a mortal, not venal, sin. In science, evidence is sacrosanct.
I support Mark Steyn not merely because free speech is the lifeblood of a democratic society, without which no other freedom matters, but also because Michael Mann is a disgrace to the name of scientist. In a just world, he would be judged and stripped of his doctorate by a jury of his peers.
Rigorgate.
To show good faith and all that we all hope Mann’s attorneys take some time and make sure he quotes the “5th Amendment” escape clause correctly.
I thought the following might be germane here. Please disregard if this has already been addressed.
From within the ICC review (emphasis mine)….
Doesn’t this suggest that the ICC itself dismisses “interviews about conduct” as legitimate indices of scientific work “validity”?
Being unfamiliar with the various purported exoneration content and, If so, were any of Mann’s cited “exonerations” something more than “interviews about conduct”?
If not, is Mann citing these sources for something other than the “validity” of his “scientific work”?
Barry Woods says:February 22, 2014 at 12:05 pm
“It is entirely possible that M Mann gave Skeptical Science the quotes.”
That’s a very interesting take on things, Barry and I can see where that ‘s going: Mann ‘seeds’ the pitch some time ago so that years later he can claim that he has precedence. It’s rather like the circular reasoning of peer review in the IPCC that Della explains (if I get have understood her work): WWF writes an article; warmist scientist references article in his work; what WWF wrote gets referenced in peer review of ‘scientist’s’ work. Ergo, what WWF wrote is ‘peer-reviewed’.
Steyn has a paragraph on his blog that should be in his summation at trial:
Perhaps John Cook just copied the World Resources institute
Perhaps M Mann gave him the reference, who knows
the earliest reference for the phrase I can find (please take into accountonly 10 minutes of google worth)
Note the date (July 2010)
July 12, 2010: World Resources institute:
“The Independent Climate Change Email Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred, and reviewed CRU’s policies and practices for peer review and dissemination of data and findings. It also examined CRU’s compliance with requests to release data. The Review’s findings, released in July, state:
The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.”
http://www.wri.org/blog/summarizing-investigations-climate-science
On November 10th 2010 the phrase then appears in the comments at Skeptical Science (added by an unidentified moderator)
“5: July 2010. University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20101114113611/http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm#30272
It later ( 8 days) appears in an article by John Cook November 18, 2010
“5: In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-question-that-skeptics-dont-want-to-ask-about-Climategate.html
From the actual report:
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
1.3 Findings
13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards
of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific
allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their
rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. “
Baron Mannchausen.
==============
I see the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund’s about-us page says
“Those whose ideas do not live up to the standards of rigorous science have instead chosen to litigate…. Legal actions also have taken many of our brightest scientific minds away from their research to focus on frivolous lawsuits…. The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was established to make sure that these legal claims are not viewed as an action against one scientist or institution, but that they are seen as actions against the scientific endeavor as a whole. “
Rigorgate! lol, Paul
Mann indeed has the personality disorder of a serial fabulist/habitual liar. A similar case emerged recently of a forensic pathologist who could always get the prosecution the result they wanted very quickly. Pity it was all a big fake and hundreds if not thousands were falsely imprisoned on the tainted evidence. This deception went undetected for many years. The MO for Mann is very similar. Here is a result requested, here is the evidence. Those that requested the result they wanted are equally guilty if not more so. In the case of the pathologist, the police prosecutors are culpable , in the case of Mann’s “work” the UN is culpable.
Why would the UN want to plug lies to support cAGW? Let us take a look at the words of the IPCC chief, Christiana Figueres Jan 15th – Democracy is a poor system for dealing with global warming. Communist China is the best model. The UN did not admonish her for this statement that advocates the iron fist of totalitarianism, which implies they condone it. If Mann gets fully discredited, the IPCC and the UN must be flatly asked if they still support all statements relating to cAGW. This is why it is so important for Mann to be exposed- his “evidence” is the linchpin in the IPCC “case.” With key evidence tainted, everything the IPCC has gone on about for many years must be reviewed back to day one and retractions made brought to the attention of all in a timely and proper manner, not just some tiny apology sneaked in on Christmas Day to attempt to fly under the radar.
You can fool most of the people, most of the time, but try slipping something past “Sherlock” McIntyre? Not a chance.
One would have thought that Michael Mann would have figured that out by now. Not very bright, is he?
Another US term, which Mark Twain used often, is (or was, since it’s rare now), is “stretcher” for exaggeration. I think that’s what Mann’s done–he’s stretched the finding to cover himself as well.
arrgh! I said Della. Idiot! DONNA.
Perhaps both WRI and Cook, paraphrased from the Guardian – 7th July
creating the quote used in the lawyer response.
see first few lines of 7th July Guardian article?
Guardian – ‘Climategate’ review clears scientists of dishonesty over data
‘Rigour and honesty’ of scientists not in doubt but Sir Muir Russell says UEA’s Climatic Research Unit was not sufficiently open
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty
Sub editor gave it a headline, and the Guardian quote it accurately 6 paragraphs in:
Guardian:
He added: “The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt … We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.”