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.
How much is this all costing in lawyer fees and the courts? It might turn out that whoever has the deepest pockets wins.
Deepest pocket approach will work until the judge has a sense of humor failure due to the repeated untruths being provided by one legal team. At that stage the entire suit may be thrown out. Leaving Steyn’s suit in place with the large gift of the repeated untruths.
“overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick”
Funny the WMO description doesn’t mention it being an artistic depiction.
http://nichol.as/papers/wmo913.pdf
Isn’t the real problem that Mann et al are living in a fantasy world? Fantasy theories, fantasy solutions, fantasy results and misery results when the real world has to be acknowledged. We are witnessing the fantasy world suing the real world for having the audacity of not abandoning the messy imperfect and adopting the fantasy. “Oh we are off to see the wizard…….”. How are the Munchkins doing this week?
Imagine being his lawyer.
Thanks… Now I feel so dirty…. Headed home to curl up in the shower and cry…
David Simm.
Ha ha. what a J Arthur
I personally think we shouldn’t use sland, weird terms or obfuscating language to describe this. It is not a porky, or a fib. It is a lie.
Mann lied. Mann is a liar.
We have proof, we can clearly state it because it is established as a fact. Michael Mann is a liar. Plain and simple.
His CV Nobel Prize comment is still completely wrong. He claims he was co-awarded with hunders of authors when the IPCC have stated this. Clearly he is still willing to distort facts to serve his own ends.
The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”
Recent blunders of selection by the Nobel committee may eventually lead to the award being regarded as no more than a booby prize.
As a graduate of the Meteorology Department of Penn State, I have been contacted many times by both students and employees of the university to once again give money to the department. Just yesterday, I was visited by an employee of the department. We had a great chat about old times at PSU but I made it very clear to this person that as long as Michael Mann was still employed there, they would not receive another penny from me. Her response was, “I have heard that said before”. Let’s hope that soon they will get the message.
I’m a graduate of the College of Engineering, and it still makes my skin crawl to see Michael Mann associated with Penn State. I can only imagine what it’s like being in his department.
As a lowly Biology graduate at PSU, I have consistently told them the same thing. The little bit of “science” I did there with parasitic wasp activity when in contact with its host, far and away trumps any science he has ever done. I was meticulous, curious, unbiased and, well, “scientific” in what I did. I earned my A for the work and learned many valuable lessons.
My convictions are diluted somewhat by the contributions to the Track/XC teams I faithfully make. But the University gets nothing else until Mann is gone. And I’m sorry cjames, they will never get the message.
Good for you both. I made the same point last year to my own alma mater concerning their tenured hire of Naomi Oreskes. They have stopped flying down to visit yearly while I bought them lunch. And even the solicitation phone calls and emails are fewer now.
A key point about this particular porkie is that Mann makes a big deal in his court papers suing Steyn that the panels “exonerated” him, but one of the British panels called the WMO cover page graphic “misleading” and bad practice–not exactly an exoneration.
Hello,
Just to be clear, are we completely sure that we are talking about the same publications? It looks to me that WMO 1999 may actually be different from WMO 2000. From the reference name alone, it seems like they are different publications, published in different years. Is it the same, nevertheless? If it is not, do we at least know for sure that the same graph was shown in both, and therefore if Mann was coauthor in the graphic shown in WMO 2000, then he can be accused of being a coauthor as well in the 1999 one?
WMO 1999 is published and copyrighted in 2000. Good to go.
yes, they were preparing it in Nov-Dec 1999 as a publication for the 50th Anniversary commemoration of the WMO in 2000
I do wish that the court was being video recorded, so we could see the judge’s chewing out of Mann et al when the lies are noticed.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=720535558028378&set=gm.762324017168874&type=1
+10
New study finds that even climate change cant make leopards change their spots.
Mann is living out the proverb, “In for a penny, in for a pound.”
Hunter: With any luck the Mann will get a ‘pounding’. 😉
Keep digging and rely on the constancy of human nature. Some people are habitually honest, others …
Pointman
Mann seems to have a certain consistency with others of his mindset.
You’ll recall that Barak Obama conveniently forgot his CV (author’s bio for his book) wherein he described himself as Kenyan born.
What’s with people who “forget” that they have maintained rather important positions in their lives that later become “inconvenient”?
You know, I’m always a little uncomfortable with technical threads like this one with its terms-of-art like “porky” and everything. I mean, like, I’m always just a little apprehensive that the nuances of the language will elude me. That sort of thing. But my “take-away” from this blog-post is that MM has just been caught out flat-footed in some sort of big, fat, what-an-ass!, pantalon-flambe fib-booger, big-time. Hope I got that sorta right, at least.
P. S. I really liked the anecdote-comment, above, about the ice cream cones. Good stuff!
Mikey appears to have forgotten the First Law of Holes:
When you’re in one, stop digging!
– – – – – – – – – –
I googled ‘porky’. It can be taken as a reference to some kind of British rhyming slang, namely, ‘porky pies rhymes with lies’. But, the word porky can also be taken ambiguously in other slang related contexts. So, why not be unambiguous / explicit if someone meant to simply say that Michael E. Mann (director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University) and his lawyers were lying ?
On another thought, I take as a reasonable premise that Michael E. Mann (director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University) knows when his own and his lawyers statements are incorrect / false. That is the crux of his self-created mythology where he is the hero. His self-serving mythology is that his side is on an earth saving crusade justifying that it is OK to say anything, including incorrect or false statements, to further the crusade.
John
further to my earlier post of September 11, 2014 at 5:03 am above: https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/437351706321037
“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”.
this is now archived at https://archive.today/hI21O
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).
All that says though Anthony, is that he was the source of the blue curve, not that he produced the cover, for that you need more.
REPLY: Really? Are you blind or just trying to save your hero from his own stupidity in claiming he had “nothing to do with it”? it says “Front cover: “ It doesn’t say: “Dr. Mann was a partial contributor”, or “only the blue line by Mann”. Climategate emails showed that Jones had corresponded with Mann in the preparation of the WMO cover. Given that he, Jones and Briffa are all listed in the Front Cover credit, and knowing he’d collaborated by a review of the emails, there’s no defending “Mann nothing to do with it”. This sort of herd mentality you exhibit that a science peer needs a higher level of proof that he’s told a porky than the average person is exactly what is wrong with institutionalized science today.
If it was the opposite way around, and Mann wasn’t listed in the front cover art, the herd would all be
mooingscreaming about lack of attribution back then.-Anthony
– – – – – – – – – –
Anthony,
That kind of institutionalized / academic mentality was a major reason why the PSU academic committee investigating some apparent questionable professional behavior of Michael E. Mann (director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University) was intellectually incompetent and why it showed a profound lack of respect for basic concepts of integrity known in our general culture.
John
So, who are the “peers” of Micheal Mann who approved of and “validated” his many claims in his many press releases (er, “scientific papers”) and requests for more funding for Penn State and his CAGW peers?
Oh – Wait! We don’t know “who” does ANY of the “peer-reviewed” so-called “scientific journals” …. They are ALL anonymous invisible, but highly talented and mythically-endowed seers of all-knowledge, known but to a few self-selected editors of a few journals.
Those are the people enabled with control of the world’s energy future. And, of course, they are not only invincible, but are ethically unchallenged and morally pure in all regards.
/sarchasm – That yawning hole between a liberal and and the real world
Hi Phil,
While what you say is true, that WMO only recognises Mann’s contribution to the graphic by providing data, what matters here is what Michael Mann says himself in his own CV. In his CV, he puts himself as one of the authors of the cover, and does so with pride (or else, it would not be part of his CV). Once he has done that, he cannot claim that UEA’s finding that the cover was misleading cannot be used against him. UEA’s investigation found the cover misleading. Mann considers himself one of the authors. Proof exists that he participated in the creation of the cover with more than just the data. There’s nothing more to add to the case, veredict is clear: Mann’s claim that he had nothing to do with the cover is a very obvious lie.
Yes really, we are talking about a court of law.
I’m not blind nor trying to save Mann, if he makes a stupid remark then he can take care of himself. I don’t know where you get the idea that he’s a hero of mine.
You said:
“And here is the cover:
50th-anniversary-WMO-913-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:”
That was what I was referring to.
” It doesn’t say: “Dr. Mann was a partial contributor”, or “only the blue line by Mann””
Actually that’s exactly what it does say, the cover explicitly says that the blue line only is due to Mann et al., and the second page says were the data can be found.
As I said to prove that he produced the cover you need more.
“This sort of herd mentality you exhibit that a science peer needs a higher level of proof that he’s told a porky than the average person is exactly what is wrong with institutionalized science today.”
No, he should get the same level of proof, the cover itself does not meet that standard.
Mann is being paid big money by vague sources. No doubt he is being encouraged to sue people:
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2010/01/21/us-michael-mann-received-500k-economic-stimulus-funds
this is such a dumb ‘error’ on Mann’s part – especially since we now have the WMO document to hand now..
might his lawyers just say – settle!
this is much, much worse than his nobel prize claim, it is about the actual science, and the issues right at the heart of climategate emails.
ie even IF he won in court, dragging out all these ‘errors’ through the court would just be really embarrassing..
Barry, he cannot settle.
Steyn separated himself from the CEI/ NR litigation (SLAPP defense) and has counter sued for lots of damages to Steyn’s reputation as a result of this. even of CEI wins their appeal, the Steyn countersuit goes forward. Contribute to him, so that this goes to discovered and Mann’s blatant falsehoods to the court become indelible legal records.
No matter how deep and cunning the proven lies may be, he’ll keep his perch in academia until he can no longer produce substantial cash flow.
‘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.’
That’s not quite what the Reply Memorandum says: ‘The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him.’
The memorandum is referring to the ‘misleading’ comment by the investigation committee, not the WMO graph. The memorandum goes on to say: ‘Dr. Mann did not create this depiction…’
That may well be correct. The supporting text to the graph that is being displayed says: ‘Sources of data’ followed by the names of the contributors. The data sources did not necessarily create the graph.
Brendan H
Please explain.
You say
1.
The memorandum is on behalf of Mann and (as you say) says, “Dr. Mann did not create this depiction…”
2.
Mann’s CV claims he was a co-author of the graph so must have contributed to it and approved it.
I am not a lawyer so may be unaware a legal interpretation of those two statements, but to this layman there does seem to be a dichotomy between them; i.e.
Mann’s CV is an assertion by Mann that he at least created part of “this depiction” and approved all of it but the later memorandum on his behalf says he “did not create this depiction”.
Can you please explain the matter for me and any others who may share my puzzlement.
Richard
Richard Courtenay: ‘Mann’s CV is an assertion by Mann that he at least created part of “this depiction” and approved all of it but the later memorandum on his behalf says he “did not create this depiction”.’
The CV listing may simply mean that Mann provided the data, not that he created the graph. That’s not the same thing as an ‘an assertion’ that he (part) created the graph.
This is legal stuff, so there’s probably a lot of parsing going on. But that goes all ways, including your own inference about what the CV is claiming.
Brendan H
Thankyou for your explanation.
Your reply is helpful but does not remove my confusion. I am asking you for exposition of your point because I am trying to understand.
Please note that I am not a lawyer and I am not an American so I am very probably failing to recognise issues of American law and culture. Hence, it may not be possible for me to understand the point you are making, but I am making the attempt.
You tell me
OK. But logically
(a) provision of the data is a contribution to creation of the graph
and
(b) citation of the graph as part of his CV is a claim that “he (part) created the graph” and he claims responsibility for that part.
I am NOT claiming those logical deductions are the same as American legal interpretation. I am asking in what way – and why – a legal interpretation could differ from those irrefutable logical deductions.
You say “That’s not the same thing”.
I don’t understand how and why it’s “not the same thing”.
And i am asking you to help me to understand how and why it’s “not the same thing”.
Richard
I believe it means Mann disclaims having produced it with his own hand. Exactly the kind of trifling which marks a shiftless man.
With all this talk of CVs, it would seem that Herr doktor professor Mann should have his vehicle serviced and the CV joints replaced along with the boots and the grease within.
If Herr Doktor Mann practiced what he preached, his vehicle would get serviced at the CATA garage.