After being caught out claiming he was a “Nobel Prize recipient” in his original complaint (then having to retract it), it seems Mann and his lawyers just don’t have the good sense to know when to stop. In this case Mann has been “hoisted by his own petard”. His very own words condemn him. Again.
Steve McIntyre writes of a find by CA regular, Jean S.:
In Mann’s current Reply Memorandum (using identical wording to the January 2013 memorandum), Mann accused CEI of trying to “obfuscate”, claiming that the “misleading” comment had “absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him”, that the “misleading” comment was directed only to the WMO 1999 graphic, in which Mann had no involvement:
In their brief, the CEI Defendants suggest that the University of East Anglia’s investigation actually found that the hockey stick graph was “misleading” because it did not identify that certain data was “truncated” and that other proxy and instrumental temperature data had been spliced together. See CEI Anti-SLAPP Mem. at 16-17; NRO Mem. at 35. This allegation is yet another example of Defendants’ attempts to obfuscate the evidence in this case. The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him. Rather, the report’s comment was directed at an overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick that was reproduced on the frontispiece of the World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999.41 Dr. Mann did not create this depiction, and the attempt to suggest that this report suggested an effort by Dr. Mann to mislead is disingenuous.
CEI had raised both the WMO 1999 and IPCC 2001 diagrams, but Mann ignored the finding in relation to the IPCC 2001 diagram (where he could not dispute his association) and fired back only on the WMO 1999, claiming with faux outrage that Mann had had nothing to do with the WMO 1999 and was merely an attempt to “obfuscate” – a somewhat ironic accusation given the massive misrepresentation of the inquiries by Mann and his lawyers.
Now Climategate emails (especially CG2) showed that Jones had corresponded with Mann in the preparation of the WMO cover and that Mann had signed off on both Jones’ splicing of proxy and instrumental records and Jones’ truncation of the Briffa reconstruction. So Mann’s outrage seemed pretty stretched.
But Jean S has found something even more damning. In Mann’s own CV, Mann lists himself as a coauthor of the WMO 1999 diagram 🙂 :
Mann’s claim that the WMO diagram “had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann” stands exposed as yet another porky by Mann and his lawyers.
======================================================
Full story here: http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/10/another-porky-from-mann-williams-and-fontaine/
Mann’s CV here: Mann_Vitae (PDF) you can find the reference on page 15.
UPDATE: My check of the WMO website prior to publishing this story found no online version of their 50th anniversary publication. WUWT commenter John West finds the original cover art and citation from another source:
And here is the cover:
[ UPDATE2: WMO link (h/t Barry Woods) to that 50th edition – https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/documents/913_en.pdf ]
Without question, this is Mann’s work, from the document, the citation on page 2, bold mine:
WMO-No. 913
© 2000, World Meteorological Organization
ISBN 92-63-10913-3
Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal.
Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at http://www.pages.unibe.ch) and the National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov).
(Sources of data: P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa and T.J. Osborn, University of East Anglia, UK; M.E. Mann, University of Virginia, USA; R.S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts, USA; M.K. Hughes, University of Arizona, USA; and the Hadley Centre, The Met. Office).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Strictly speaking, either the statement in his CV is a porky or the one in the Reply Memorandum. They can’t both be right. We salute a marvelous own goal by team Mann.
Richard Drake:
The issue is more clear-cut than you say.
It is not relevant which – if either – of the two statements is true. The important point is what Mann claims to be true in his own CV.
Mann is claiming damages because he asserts he has been defamed. It is not possible for Mann to be defamed by a statement of something Mann himself proclaims in his own CV: the statement is merely repetition of – and agreement with – Mann’s claim of his true fame.
At best, Mann’s refutation of his own CV is not relevant to his legal case.
At worst, Mann’s refutation of his own CV is an attempt to mislead the Court.
Richard
Thanks Richard. I certainly agree that the claim he’s been defamed in regard to the cover figure for the WMO 50 year anniversary in 2000 now fails. But Mann’s credibility more generally also fails, because he’s told a porky, in one or the other place. I doubt I’m the only one looking forward to hearing Mark Steyn on this one.
Richard Drake:
It seems that you and I are in a united party celebrating our agreement.
I, too, await Steyn’s response. On the basis of his past writings and actions, his response could be very amusing (for all except Mann).
Richard
The academic community should note that Mann claims that he’s lying in his CV and shun him appropriately.
AnonyMoose
It seems you have joined the party first started by Richard Drake.
This could become a bandwagon, especially if your suggestion is adopted..
Richard
It’s too bad Steyn’s attorneys weren’t able to save that for cross-examination. It works so well when the witness is surprised by proof of dishonesty.
I haven’t seen in the post or following comments any reference to why Dr. Mann brought this case. In the interest of fairness, here in his own words. ” there is no question that Defendants’ assertions were false, and Defendants do not even attempt to argue that their statements about Dr. Mann were true. They have accused him of “academic and scientific misconduct,” “data manipulation,” “molesting and torturing data,” and “corruption and disgrace”—all the while gloating in a disgraceful comparison to Jerry Sandusky, a convicted child molester who worked at the same institution that employs Dr. Mann. And they made these statements knowing that Dr. Mann’s research has been reviewed repeatedly and replicated by other scientists, and that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated: no fraud: no misconduct; no molestation; no corruption. Importantly, Dr. Mann brought this lawsuit not to squelch public debate, but rather to protect himself against those who have recklessly accused him of fraud and misconduct.”
matayaya says:
…Dr. Mann’s research has been reviewed repeatedly and replicated by other scientists, and that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated: no fraud: no misconduct; no molestation; no corruption.
In the immortal words of Miss Mandy Rice-Davies:
Well he would say that, wouldn’t he?
To this day Mann has refused to disclose all of his data and methods, including his “censored” ftp file. How could his work have been replicated without full transparency of all data used, and data rejected?
matayaya
Thankyou for that. The thread needed some levity, and your quotation of Mann’s excuse for bringing the case is really, really funny.
I especially enjoyed your saying you were introducing the quotation of Mann’s words “in the interest of fairness”. It was a bit cruel but nobody can doubt that exposing Mann’s mendacity is always just.
Again, thankyou for the laugh. I enjoyed it.
Richard
A scientific discussion is one thing, comparing someone to a notorious child molester on the public stage, well; that can be considered slander.
Matayaya. Mann was NOT compared to Sandusky; rather the processes which cleared Sandusky and Mann were compared. A totally different matter, I am sure you will agree, comparing processes to comparing people. Best to check carefully what Mann is up to before shooting from the hip on his behalf. He’s slippery, and then some, is the self-proclaimed Nobel Laureate.
Hmm, Lying on ones CV is considered professional misconduct, for a scientist that equates to scientific misconduct which substantiates the Steyn Case. Remember Steyn only has to establish that it was reasonable for him to hold the belief that Mann was guilty of misconduct, he does not need to prove that what he said was actually true, although that would be a nice outcome.
Interesting that the figure (http://nichol.as/papers/wmo913.pdf) is not just Mann et al.’s work, but includes two other data sets showing essentially the same thing. In other words, this is not about the science, but an ad hominem attack on Mann.
I didn’t know Michael had a brother. Interesting.
so how is crediting Mann with his contribution to the graph a slander or and ad hom attack ?
Ah the gift that keeps on giving….. Ben M. do some research, the data sets are spliced and real data is omitted. The graph is a fraud, yet you still believe it. The real data shows a steep decline at the end, yet it is omitted to mislead you into thinking and believing that it means something that it does not. This is a fraud.
Theyt relied on each other’s work. I believe the recent data set was prepared by Briffa from tree rings and Mann used it for his work. If memory serves either WUWT or JoNova had an article on how the rapid rise at the end of the graph was based on one tree in Russia. They make much of the fact that different studies produce the same results without showing where the data comes from; it comes from the same source.
Mann is a litigant in a lawsuit that he initiated. If this qualifies as an ad hominem attack (and I contend that it does not), then it is one which his own willful act initiated. Your “poor li’l Dr. Mann” face slapped himself – get used to it.
Ad hominem being a favourite approach of Dr. Mann. Ref. Judith Curry for starters. Indeed, Ms. Curry notes that if Mann’s case is succesful, then she would have a case for defamation against him. She then notes, bless her (and I’m a Brit), that that is not the American way.
Ah now, I do like to be fair–even to a notorious serial liar like Dr. Mann. One of the major graphs in that report cover is from Dr. Mann as is very clearly shown. It makes sense for him to list that in his CV. This does NOT mean that he was the one to perpetrate that hockey stick or its coverup.
Then again, Climategate made it quite clear that he was indeed consciously involved in the fraud.
And I have noticed a few papers from him in the years since–always with a hockey stick graph, proving McKittrick (I think it was) correct when he said Mann’s statistical methods would always produce a hockey stick. A scientist does not have to understand statistics very well to be competent, but he does have to use them correctly one way or another.
To me, Mann is not a scientist.
I have to agree. Just because someone is listed in the credits as a data source doesn’t mean that they had anything to do with the creation of the diagram.
One doesn’t need to stretch for things in these cases, the proof will be handed over on a silver platter. 😉
What exactly is the “fraud” of Dr. Mann? The hockey stick is a composite of ice cores, lake deposits, corals, tree rings and direct observations. The time line is long so it smooths out. Mainstream science still says the warming over the past 100 years is unprecedented. Independent studies have shown no fraud at East Anglia, the science was certainly not affected. So, where is the fraud? You guys just don’t like the message.
matayaya says:
The hockey stick is a composite of ice cores, lake deposits, corals, tree rings and direct observations… So, where is the fraud?
Can you read? Ladylifegrows reminds you that Mann’s algorithm would always produce a hockey stick shape. That scary ‘hokey stick’ was the basis for the UN/IPCC’s publications — until Mann’s Corregendum in the journal Nature. Since then the IPCC no longer uses Mann’s hockey stick chart. And they loved that chart! It perfectly supported their ‘carbon’ scare. Why would they stop using it, if it was legitimate?
Then there is the Tiljander fraud. I say ‘fraud’ because Mann was told by Ms Tiljander before he published that her proxy was no good. She had found that the lake sediments had been overturned during construction of a road and bridge decades before, so that the older sediments were on top and the more recent sediments were deeper down.
But Mann used the Tiljander proxy anyway because it gave him another hockey stick shape, which had been so beneficial and lucrative to him before.
This case is not up to me. But I see that as fraud. How do you see it? How else can you see it?
[For a more complete rundown on the Mann saga, http://climateaudit.org is worth reading.]
As I recall, in the tale of Pinocchio, telling lies doesn’t merely cause the lad’s nose to grow. He also starts to turn into a donkey and very nearly gets sent to work as a donkey in the salt mines.
Part has already happened, and part I hope for, concerning Mr. Mann.
When one tells a whale of a lie, eventually that whale swallows you.
In climate science, it’s the shaft of the stick that grows.
And it is the honest scientist that gets shafted, in the short term. In the long term, dishonesty leads to disaster.
Mann is amazing. The layers of cognitive dissonance in his brain must be clanging like a metal shop on steroids.
Meanwhile, his lawyers rub their hands with glee at the benefit to their bank balance.
His lawyers are in serious danger of being sanctioned for having violated the DC Rule 11 of Civil Procedures, wherein statements of fact in a pleading must be backed by evidence that can be produced in a deposition or in court.
The Nobel thing was not essential to the pleading. This is. It is plainly false, show able now three ways: Climategate, Mann CV, WMO 99.
From the bits I’ve read, his lawyers give every indication of phoning it in. Or, in Mann’s case, phonying it in.
I’m not a lawyer, but I watch a lot of them on TV. This sounds pretty much on par with legal wrangling. It may be something they put out knowing Steyn’s team would waste time and money on it. Mann’s strategy seems to be delay, delay, delay.
As he is doing with his case against Dr. Tim Ball.
It wasn’t lying that turned him into an ass, it was acting like one. Drinking, smoking, gambling……. If acting like an ass turned you into one Mann would have long ears and a tail by now.
The “serengeti effect” is obvious here. The zebras line up back to back creating a disorienting set of protective lines to the lions looking for a standout to attack. The one that sticks their head out is the one the lions go for.
Mann is fighting for his salary his pension his career and his life.
Understand this: we joke about his unemployability as a scientist if his reputation is destroyed or AGW becomes totally debunked…he has to face the reality of that… Some shambling wino in a Manhattan doorway clutching a bottle of industrial alcohol and mumbling: ‘I was a world famous expert in climate change, once’ as he sits looking at the snow and muttering ‘it can’t be there, it can’t be there’…..
He also starts to turn into a donkey
Starts to? He does. Him and Lampwick. The Fairy with the Azure Hair dies of a broken heart (later revived). Lampwick also dies, of abuse (not later revived).
On the cover page of Mann’s Curriculum Vitae, it states:
” 2007 Co-awarded (along with several hundred other scientists) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for involvement in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (lead author of chapter 2 of the Third Assessment Report, 2001) ”
It almost looks as if the section ” (along with several hundred other scientists) ” was an afterthought.
Since in his original filing of his lawsuit he claimed to have received the Nobel Prize, I wonder what earlier versions of his Curriculum Vitae stated about his involvement with that 2007 Nobel Prize? Is there any way to see earlier publications of his Curriculum Vitae, especially from 2008 onward?
The waybackmachine shows a more bold statement for the 2012 version: “2007 Co-awarded (with other IPCC report authors) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize “
Same claim in evidence at http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Part-1-2012-07-24-Exhibit-1-to-Mann-Affidavit.pdf
… also at https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/437351706321037
Michael E. Mann
23 October 2012 · :
“Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.
Nevertheless, the defendants assert that global warming is a “hoax,” and have accused Dr. Mann of improperly manipulating the data to reach his conclusions.
In response to these types of accusations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation and seven other organizations have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann’s work, finding any and all allegations of academic fraud to be baseless. Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.”
Is it a post modern Mann made science thing to refer to oneself in the third person?
The wayback machine for the 2012 document: “2007 Co-awarded (with other IPCC report authors) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize “
It’s interesting that the “swiftboating” of Mann continues years after many other independent paleoclimate studies essentially reinforce Mann’s initial premise. I guess it is easier to single out one to swiftboat instead of going after all of them.
Swiftboating is a good term. It means to tell the truth when the truth is not popular.
matayaya
It is amazing that there are people who think the execrable Mann is worthy of support and sympathy.
Richard
You sound hopelessly stupid. I saw an interview tonght with the Pakistani girl, Malala, who was shot in the head by the Taliban for encouraging girls to get an education. I recall H. L. Mencken saying from the 1920s Scopes Monkey Trial: “This old buzzard, having failed to raise the mob against its rulers, now prepares to raise it against its teachers.” Attorney general of Virginia Cuccinelli in going after Dr. Mann’s email essentially said to him to not venture down the path of inquiry or you’ll pay with your reputation and career. It is amazing that with the full frontal astroturf campaign against him from all the front men of Koch and Scaife that he held up as well as he did. If the science is of good quality, no amount of trash talk can bring it down.
matayaya
I could not care less what you claim to “think” I “sound”. I doubt you have heard me sing, and your claim to be able to “think” is refuted by your comments in this thread.
You are attempting to defend the indefensible.
Read the replies from all the different people who answered your earlier attempts to defend Mann. Please take especial note of the facts from Ladylifegrows and dbstealey who explain some of what the despicable Michael Mann has done.
Michael Mann is at best an incompetent scientist and is certainly a nasty little man. His so-called science has been repeatedly discredited and in several ways for several reasons. His response to those who laugh at him, at his appallingly bad science, and at his behaviour is to sue them with law cases that cost the sued a fortune but Mann avoids bringing to trial.
Despite your silly arm-waving, I am not aware of Michael Mann or anybody else being assisted by “Koch and Scaife”.
Importantly, I am disgusted that you would raise the name of the courageous Malala (who campaigns for truth and education) in the same sentence as the execrable Michael Mann (who made veiled threats at me for pointing out an obvious error in his ‘hokey stick’ graph).
Richard
Apparently matayaya does not put his reputation where his mouth is: http://www.steynonline.com/6565/the-lonesomest-mann-in-town
He cannot even claim the anonymity of another persona.
Philjourdan, I haven’t followed the court case closely but it seems to have the usual complexity of legality. I would not be surprised if it got thrown out as the constitution leans toward letting people say just about anything, no matter how stupid or inflammatory.
But, it’s a leap to pile all the other stuff on this case that you just did. This case is not about climate science or how the climate science community is or is not supporting Mr. Mann. That is not at issue. What this is about is the denialist community continuing its 15 years jihad toward one of the standout scientist of our time. Avery Harden
Wah, wah, wah! Stop whining. I heaped nothing on you. I pointed out you do not have the courage of your convictions. And I could not care less if you have been following the trial. (in which case the adage of shutting your yap comes into play).
Apparently whining is the only thing you are good at. Fine! Do not expect to be taken seriously since you have no clue what you are talking about – as you just admitted.
Your special brand of spiteful ignorance will always be legal — and profitable.
Ooh! A childish ad hominem! Wow, I bet a “so’s your ma” is coming next!
Stop whining and grow up! The world is full of cowards that do not have the courage of their convictions. That does not make you special. Just a coward.
matayaya,
“Swiftboating” is right. Kerry was swiftboated — his fellow sailors almost universally pointed out that his Purple Heart medals were unearned. That he was a self-aggrandizing fakir. That Kerry took staged videos of himself for propaganda and political use when he returned.
John Kerry was a charlatan. His Winter Soldier testimony was a series of provable lies. He does not have an honest bone in his body.
So yes, Mann is being “Swiftboated”. He is being exposed for the charlatan he is; very similar to John Kerry. Thanks for using the correct term: Swiftboating. Mann is getting Swiftboated, and he richly deserves it.
It amuses me that so many use the word “Swiftboating” without realizing what it means. All they know is that it destroyed Kerry so it must be bad.
“Swiftboating” is merely ACCURATE and TRUE “peer review” by the politician/scientist/military’s actual peers who (in Kerry’s case) were actually with him overseas during those 78 days he spent in Vietnam – before leaving to go into Massachusetts politics back in Boston at the Senator’s office.
By volunteer and un-sponsored/unpaid peers of the politician/scientist/military who were NOT deliberately selected by unseen editors operating in private with unseen comments, “recommendations”, suggestions, and “corrections” before publication. Which is WHY the liberals hate true “peer review” in public: They cannot control who is chosen to make comments, and CANNOT censor the comments from publication!)
… So, matayaya: Do you prefer instead the national press corpse only promote “pal reviews” by sympathetic reporters mindlessly and numbly (dumbly ?) repeating what the democratic party press releases want them to release? Oh, wait. That IS what the CAGW emails DEMANDED of today’s so-called “scientific journal” editors!
I cannot believe that the great “Nobel Laureate” Michael Mann would lie! His hockey stick was the icon that Al Gore used in his “Inconvenient Truth” and the basis for the BBC’s cheerleading!
What is the world coming to! What next – the polar bears are not extinct? – – the ice caps haven’t melted – Santa Claus is not real? What a scarry world!
Any news about the Tooth Fairy?
The “Tooth Fairy” is a horrible lending racket foisted off on children too young to enter into contracts. When I was a child I got a quarter for a tooth that came out naturally, maybe a half dollar. Nowadays I’m expected to pay hundreds to get rid of a tooth with considerably more personal inconvenience involved.
No one told me I was only borrowing Tooth Fairy money! Who would borrow money with such ruinous interest rates?
Kadaka
haha, got to love it.
No, no, no! Not “porkies”. Dr. Mann simply “short centred” evidence prior to his Reply Memorandum.
And the IPCC 2001 diagrams ending up in a “CENSORED” directory? Just an accident, an oversight! You simply must believe Dr. Mann, after all he’s a climate “scientist” and a Nobel laureate!!
Mann brings personal insecurity to a new level. He is amazingly thin-skinned, taking umbrage at any perceived slight, yet his tweets are non-stop rants against “deniers”, “denialists”, “anti-science” scientists, and similar insults against anyone having even a small difference of opinion.
I think he is like that because he knows he is a charlatan who did not earn his high position in the climate world. He did it mainly on the basis of MBH98&99, which produced his repeatedly debunked hockey stick chart.
The guy knows he gets no respect from either side. All he did was fabricate useful propaganda for the rent-seeking IPCC. His trial is being turned into a sideshow by the inimitable Mark Steyn, who appears to be having loads of fun with it.
This movie is just getting started, and it’s getting better with every court filing.
Best thing that Mark Steyn did was to disengage from the joint action … so much more fun now that he has freed himself of the shackles and let rip at that miserable cur.
Mann was always this way in graduate school. Everything was a conspiracy to him and he argued with everyone about everything. For example, he believed the local ice cream shop was forcing people to buy bigger ice cream cones because the sizes listed were child, medium, large. He said adults who wanted a small would be forced to buy a medium because they would not want to order a “child” for themselves. So he would harass the poor teenager working the stand that he wanted a small and the teenager would get confused and mayhem would ensue, mayhem that Mann would create, with a line of people forced to wait on this nonsense.
Any more stories to tell. They shed light on the character we’re dealing with.
Keep the stories coming Bill…………….
And you know this how?
Interesting and insightful anecdote. A shrewish petulant narcissistic pedant? Must have been fun to be around?
Your first paragraph describes narcissism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
I had legal dealings with one such, as a result of exposing his misdoings to his fellow professionals. I might as well have poked a nest of snakes with a stick. Watching the Mann case proceed reminds me very much of what I witnessed. Challenge a narcissist and watch them go.
One look at the beard tells you all you need to know.
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20and%20Politics/Beards.png
Time wounds all heels.
The whole case is absurd, not least because Mann is a self proclaimed Public Figure under NYT vs Sullivan.
Being a “public figure” does not invalidate a pleading for libel; it just makes it more difficult to prove in US courts. But actually winning a verdict is not necessary, and most likely was never Mann’s goal. As Mark Steyn has observed, in US civil actions the process is the punishment. Successfully defending a libel suit entails a six-figure bill for attorneys and experts, not to mention years of your time living under worry and stress. If you can inflict that kind of pain on your critics, most of them will shut up.
Fortunately for all of us, Mark Steyn is not “most of them”. You can support him here Stick it to the Mann with a modest donation in the form of a gift certificate you never use. And he is entertaining and educational to read.
Being a public figure requires a showing of actual malice as well as falsehood, so such a finding causes most cases to be dismissed in my experience as an attorney. Where is Mann getting the money to keep these cases going?
He also faces the possibility of sanctions or attorney’s fees, especially in Canada.
Seven or eight figures.
“The process is the punishment.” Hence, Steyn suing Mann.
Do you think Mann can be sanctioned for trying to mislead the court?
His attorneys can be.
He can be as well, if the judges decide that he’s being contemptuous and cite him for contempt of court, once it gets to that stage.
Oh, another thing. He is responsible, ultimately, for what his attorneys file. He can be prosecuted for perjury, should the judges decide his behavior warrants a referral to the DAs for that.
If the court starts to appear to act “against” him in his eyes, and he indulges in the kind of ranting against the court that he does towards skeptics, he may very well find himself facing contempt charges. His lawyers must be as worried. His behaviour can paint a great big bull’s eye on them. Typically lawyers in cases like this take their client’s word on the truth of the situation. They expect the client to fully inform them of information is relevant to allegations made to the court. I would expect a motion to exclude at least the climategate emails due to their questionable sourcing – the original “release” is of questionable legality, and Mann can simply deny he ever wrote anything in them. However the defense doesn’t need the CG material. Mann has uttered enough publicly to cause no end of difficuties. The civil process is never fun, and rarely “civil.”
Curious find on the search for that WMO cover. Running low on leads, wound up on the WMO Wikipedia page. It gives a simple bare external link for the WMO:
http://www.wmo.int/
I found:
The WMO, a United Nations agency, 404’d their own home page.
‘Nuff said.
kadaka, I clicked the link and went right there.
I wish I hadn’t…. wow.
kadaka, I clicked the link…it works
Link to test:
http://www.wmo.int/
Right-click open in new tab at 5:28 AM EDT:
Home page still 404.
Shift-Ctrl-r (forced reload overriding cache) at 5:30 AM EDT:
Still 404, Not Found.
Allowing wmo.int JavaScript, disabling AdBlock on that page, reloading at 5:33 AM EDT:
https://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html ?
Did some testing, peeked at the 404’d page’s code. There is an automatic JavaScript redirect in place to take you to the other page.
If the JavaScript is not on, the “body” section says what looks like should be displayed, I guess, it’s all that’s in there:
This isn’t working, without JavaScript their home page goes 404 instead.
And all over I find web sites that are smart enough to know I have JavaScript off, that then either recommend or insist I turn on JavaScript to fully enjoy their site. This is the first one I’ve found that outright fails, with nothing for non-JavaScript visitors.
Isn’t there supposed to be someone maintaining their pages? Did the summer intern go back to their technical training school?
Kadaka, the page loads. Your claim of a 404 may only be true in your Internet connection/environment. It works fine for me.
As we’ve said before, if you want things to work, run a modern browser with the proper plugins installed/enabled.
I’m going to snip any further complaints from you (and others) about this since they are off-topic.
Dr Mann needs to get some new lawyers. This current bunch is making him look bad.
honey, does this dress make me look fat? No dear, it isn’t the dress that makes you look fat.
Not the fault of the lawyers. They are documenting ‘facts’ supplied by Mann.
You may also safely assume that Mann read and approved documents given to the court.
Thoughts regarding lipstick and a pig come to mind.
???? You mean because Manniacal’s lawyers take Dr. Doo Mann at his word?
Besides, Manniacal probably told the lawyers just to use the info on Manny’s facebook page and what the sks ‘special’ infants documented on their fan mann.
no, Mann is making his lawyers look bad
well they all make themselves look bad, because Mann tells porkies to his own attorneys, who repeat the nonsense to the court without first engaging in competent factual research
Wait, to express it most accurately, Mann and his attorneys all “look” bad because they “are” bad — incompetent lying charlatans
Cue Bugs Bunny accent. What a maroon.
http://www.hark.com/clips/nsvdjzkfdz-what-a-maroon
For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard, an’t shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 4, 202–209
Wish I knew what that meant.
There is a good explanation here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard
Forsooth.
Hamlet is to travel to another kingdom accompanied by Rosencrantz and Guildestein who carry a letter for the king asking that king to kill Hamlet. Hamlet will alter the letter so that instead it asks the king to kill Rpsencrantz and Guildestein.
Hoist with his own petard — a petard was a bomb. Hoist means to lift up — or in this case blow the engineer into the air.
Originally a petard was a hand bomb with a fuse to be thrown at the enemy. But if you cut to long a fuse the bomb could be picked up and thrown back at the thrower — thus hoisting the thrower with his own petard.
An’t — Here this seems a contraction for — and not — with not meaning naught or nothing.
an’t shall go hard — and nothing shall go hard — Hamlet is saying he will appear to act calmly as if totally unsuspecting the treachery. He will not make trouble during the trip. Hard implies actual fighting.
But I will delve one yard below their mines — This is Shakespeare playing with words. Shakespeare was very fond of creating lines that had an alternate meaning if you were familiar with English dialects or foreign languages, particularly Latin.
One meaning is simply digging one yard under the engineer’s tunnel and planting a bomb.
But “mine” was a dialect spelling for “mien” meaning appearance or behavior — used a couple times by Shakespeare.
But I will delve one yard below — Without spending time in the library I can’t identify the phrase “one yard” but it probably is a phonetic spelling of another word — that made it easy for the actors, some of whom would be confused by a strange word. (In Shakespeare’s time “strange” was also used to mean “foreign” — so I am making a little double meaning word play joke of my own.) “One” is probably “un” and it is most likely a dialect word spelled “unyard”. (though it could be a Latin word.) Probably it means “unsuspected”.
An’t shall go hard but I will delve one yard below their mines == nothing will cause trouble but I will search unsuspected below their (friendly) appearances. That is basically what the line says in my opinion but I would have to sit in a good library for about a week to confirm or refute it.
i feel sorry for Michael, because when governments and supposedly august scientific bodies turn against this scam and they are certain to do, like all politicians and third rate scientists who end up politicking, they will look for a scapegoat, and Michael has been more than willing to offer himself as one.
I feel sorry for his kids.
I feel sorry for the innocent kids sent by ignorant parents to study Climate Science at Penn State.
no kids unless he’s adopted some …
I don’t.
Jimmy Haigh.
September 11, 2014 at 6:03 am
I don’t.
That was in reply to Mike Haseler’s comment: I don’t feel sorry for Michael Mann at all.
Out of interest I followed the link to Mann’s CV. 26 pages. WOW. Now I admit that I’m not familiar with the academic world having spent my working life in industry, but when considering applicants for interview a 26 page CV would have been 1st in the bin. Are CVs of this size normal in academia or is Mann such a mega-star it needs 26 pages to tell us how great he is.
It’s actually not uncommon to have ridiculously long cvs in academia. People list the most mundane things like giving a presentation. I guess a cv to match the ego of some of these guys
Found one quite similar, from someone else who does a lot of “climate change” research. Note the boasting about the grants. Refereed publications start in 1974, he’s been worried about “climatic stress” for a very long time. 24 pages, he did clip “Articles in Proceedings” after two pages with an “Others too numerous to mention.”
http://phydatabase.med.miami.edu/documents/cv/Kalkstein.Laurence_135638_cv.pdf
If grants are that important in academia, maybe they should just tattoo size and length down their arms, simplify the boasting at parties by going sleeveless. Agree on a fixed maximum number of entries per arm, then see who gets to be first to wear shorts at formal events because they ran out of arm space and had to start going up their leg.
One-page resumes are a very American thing. In the real world, a CV is much more common, and is expected to give a much more detailed account of not just the job title, but a reasoned account of what you did in each role, accomplishments and reference.
Of course, the average HR dweeb won’t like these, and they are certainly unsuitable for the automated filtering systems in common use.
Asking for a CV, and getting a competent one, is a much better filtering mechanism than HR and their automated systems. Rather than 10,000 responses, you will get 10, and they will be high quality, and from people that are motivated and articulate.
Probably not suitable if you are looking for a burger-flipper, which unfortunately, is how most employers see most jobs these days.
PhilipPeake September 11, 2014 at 6:49 am
One-page resumes are a very American thing. In the real world, a CV is much more common, and is expected to give a much more detailed account of not just the job title, but a reasoned account of what you did in each role, accomplishments and reference.
So, when you get 120 replies to an engineering position, each of them 20+ pages long, how many months do you spend reading through them, in the “real world”? Or you only get one resume in that said “real world”? Or do you make speed reading a requirement for HR positions?
I assume that either there are no people looking for a job out in that “real world”, or nobody hiring anyone they not already know.
When I was in business, if a CV was longer than 2 pages of A4 it automatically went to the circular filing cabinet.
Life’s too short…
In Academia, the CV is part of the tenure application process. Those folks actually expect to read a book in a CV. If all those grants, speeches, presentations, papers, and courses aren’t in the CV, the person simply will not pass tenure.
The fun part is with applicants for positions. They like to tailor the publications part of the CV to the perceived philosophy of the school, forgetting that the librarians are likely to do a literature search on them and present a complete publication list to the hiring committee before the applicant arrives. The individual’s contrary views as represented by their research sometimes helps them, but usually torpedoes them.
“I have already made this paper too long, for which I must crave pardon, not having now time to make it shorter.” Ben Franklin
Aye.
Even two page submissions were considered onerous by reviewing committees; I’d read the first page word for word, look at the second page and decide ‘insufficient or further review’.
Especially when whittling applicants down to a final three or five; if the applicant can not state their case effectively on the cover page we didn’t consider them competent for a serious position, perhaps an internee but definitely not a career position.
I actually accept resumes that are longer than 2 pages, though I will never read past the 2nd. If you don’t convince me within the first 2, oh well. Mine is a paragraph over 2, with some patent/publication fluff in the final paragraph (which is largely irrelevant, IMO). Rarely do I see resumes longer than 2, quite frankly.
Mark
I too was impressed, mightily impressed ….. at first. Then I got to thinking how incredibly busy this guy has been, teaching, lecturing, collaborating, writing, consulting with lawyers, flying around the country, finding a new house, mentoring, doing research, reviewing papers…….Did he even have time to sleep?
In some way, for some reason, this lengthy CV doesn’t doesn’t seem realistic to me. Perhaps I simply don’t understand academia.
CVgate. The pattern repeats itself of the hockey stick team basically led by Mann, pushing more and more brazen lies, hoping general corruption, careerism and fear of retribution will protect them from whistleblowing. Finally it’s in a court of law though, the likely end of the line! That Mike is trying to distance himself from “Mike’s Nature Trick” that is used to hide a contemporary proxy decline is itself quite telling. His lawyers can’t be happy about this, for it shows they lack independent advisers, who happen to be freely available via blogs. Though so I hear Mann’s lawyer was formerly involved in supporting the Tobacco industry, so perhaps they are used to serving up junk science. Mann may yet turn Steyn into a multimillionaire, though I’m not sure Mann is personally worth the amount of debt he may be put into due to the twenty million dollar counter suit that is suddenly looking much more ingeniously lucrative though Mann’s own doubling down on deception. His Facebook is that of The Hockey Stick in bright satanic red, as he narcissistically revels in attacking his foes. Given how many people support him, the little man was at least really big for a little while.
” 2007 Co-awarded (along with several hundred other scientists) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for involvement in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (lead author of chapter 2 of the Third Assessment Report, 2001) ”
————————————————————————
If that is on his current CV, it is incorrect. The Nobel Prize people have said that no individual who worked for the IPCC can claim to have been awarded (or co-awarded) the Nobel Prize. If he is still claiming this, he is still perpetuating the porky he has already been publicly rebuked for.
Trenberth is also still telling the same porky in his cv; “Nobel Laureate (shared) for Nobel Peace Prize 2007 (as part of IPCC)”
Isn’t that the same figure that Mann uses on the cover of his own book? But now he claims he had no input in constructing the graphic.
What I find amusing is that when you go to the Amazon page for Mann’s book, the arrow on Amazon’s “Look Inside” link points right at the part of the graph where the “incorrect” drop in proxy temperature was deleted and the “correct” adjusted instrumentation graph was added in to give it the needed hockey stick shape.
No. I just checked Amazon. Book cover used the TAR cover. IPCC 2001. Was safer. Still does not get him off his own petard.
I doubt Mann cares mush, he will enjoy the rest of his life with your money.
much*
I like “mush” better.
Sure, now you’ve sobered up.
Was Mann used for the Geico Commercial about Motivational speakers?
roflol 🙂
Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark.
I see what you did there. 🙂
Apart from the obvious thrust of this piece, as a ‘mere’ Brit I am heartened by the use of the expression ‘Porkies’ – an abbreviation of ‘Porky Pies’ meaning lies, which of course has its roots in Cockney rhyming slang…
Mann is of course a ‘Proper Charlie’ (that’s Charlie Hunt – work the rhyme out for yourselves…)
The assumption being that Dr. Mann actually wants his suit to proceed to trial. Without any trial he’s still financially punishing his targets, while he’s supported in his quest by his victimhood status (and outside financial support). So without going to trial, he keeps on “winning” without proving anything. Looking bad with his legal team being less than honest? Why should he care … he’s “winning”.
Steyn’s counter suit assures that Mann will bankrupt himself or his deep pocket backers. This will go to trial with all of Mann’s “credibility” along as baggage.
I hope this information is getting transmitted to Steyn’s lawyers and ultimately, to the judge…