Thanks to the miracle of the Internet, we can listen to the proceedings of the Mann vs. CEI appeal live today via webcast. This is audio only, no video, but it may have some entertainment value.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s (CEI) appeal of the Michael Mann lawsuit against CEI will be argued this morning in the D.C. Court of Appeals. For those wanting to watch live, you may tune into the Ceremonial Courthouse livestream at 9:30 a.m. ET: http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/appellate/oralargs.jsf
Below is a statement from CEI general counsel Sam Kazman.
CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman:
“Regardless of where one stands on global warming, this case is about the First Amendment. Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit is an unfounded attempt to chill speech on a major issue of public concern. Professor Mann is a high-profile figure in the global warming debate, and he himself is responsible for much of the overheated rhetoric in that debate. His complaint about CEI’s criticism of his statistical methods belongs in the arena of public discussion and scientific inquiry, not in the courts.
“This is precisely the type of First Amendment lawsuit that the District of Columbia’s Anti-SLAPP law was designed to stop at the outset, and it is for this reason that CEI and National Review’s position is supported by a wide range of amici, including the Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Cato Institute, and dozens of other organizations. We are hopeful that the Court of Appeals will agree.”
“Professor Mann is a high-profile figure in the global warming debate, and he himself is responsible for much of the overheated rhetoric in that debate.”
————————
Apparently, Mr. Kazman is skilled at understatement.
It should agree. The use of legal threats to suppress freedom of speech is exactly the sort of thing that the US constitution is meant to prevent.
But I’m not hopeful that the Court of Appeals will agree.
I have a low opinion of American lawyers and their integrity. Money talks.
Not even Shakespeare thought too highly of English courts. While greed in the legal process is no doubt a factor, it’s the idealogues on the bench who give sight to the eyes of blind justice.
Agreed. Money is usually contingent on having her look the other way.
“I have a low opinion of American lawyers and their integrity. Money talks.”.
But our politicians are mostly lawyers (oh – never mind).
+10
As a long-retired lawyer, may I politely disagree? Lawyers represent their clients as best that they can. Most of them never see a courtroom. I agree that the plaintiff’s bar sometimes push the limits, but it is the courts that allow (even encourage) them to do so. Look to the bench, not the bar, as a source of the problem.
The folks on the bench, almost exclusively, started their careers at the bar.
Jim
Are you implying that those “on the bench” are not lawyers?
Is not the bar the source of lawyers for the bench?
I think Jim is correct. Many judges are a political appointment and we all know what power does..
Jonathan Swift had many uncomplimentary things to say about the legal profession and judges in particular (not the legal system in the US necessarily), for example:
“… these judges are persons appointed to decide all controversies of property, as well as for the trial of criminals, and picked out from the most dexterous lawyers, who are grown old or lazy; and having been biassed all their lives against truth and equity, lie under such a fatal necessity of favouring fraud, perjury, and oppression, that I have known some of them refuse a large bribe from the side where justice lay, rather than injure the faculty, by doing any thing unbecoming their nature or their office …” (Gulliver’s Travels 1726).
Agree.
So sir what do we do about that? We could elect different people who appoint judges, that would probably mean electing few lawyers, or if judges are elected, we could elect different people to the bench, that probably means electing few lawyers. Well anything that means fewer lawyers can’t be all bad.
Jim Brock
If what you’re saying is lawyers do break the rules, but it’s the fault of the US Government (judges) because they fail to provide proper adult supervision, then that’s yet another problem.
The missing ingredient is “ethics”; some (not all) lawyers simply don’t have any, and are simply self serving…and lots of bad lawyer behavior takes place away from the view of a judge.
Was that “Murphys’ Irish Bar”?
Judges are lawyers as well. Why was there no tort reform pertaining to the medical field? Why is big money able to bury justice in every law field; criminal law, family law, etc. Why is there no detailed ideas from lawyers to reform the system, and greatly expedite the process, as well as make it more effective in pursuit of justice?
Looking at court interpretations of insane arguments, there’s not much difference in “from the bar” or “at the bar” these days.
US prosecutors have a 90+% conviction rate. I’d argue it’s them and not the lawyers.
The linked to link URL east.streamguys.com/dcca is not a valid format at 0850 CST
Much of the nation’s media (and the ACLU) have filed amicus briefs in favor of the defendent (CEI). It seems that Mann has goofed up. This should not be too long a hearing, because it seems that the trial court judge goofed up too.
I forget. Who was that wacko woman judge?
District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Natalia Combs Greene who is held in such high esteem that she received one of the few public reprimands of a D.C. judge in years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/a-look-at-the-group-that-reviews-the-conduct-of-dc-judges/2014/02/09/50fb2d3c-8ea9-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html
http://www.therobingroom.com/dc/Judge.aspx?ID=3789
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/12/dc-judge-reproached-for-inappropriate-comments-.html
I’m getting “status error” from the Appeal Court audio – and live video of a murder trial from the Ceremonial Court feed.
Unless Mikey Mann has finally rum amok with his hockey stick – I guess I’m on the wrong feed 🙂
Just starting now. With audio and video
For the lawyers, it should prove interesting. But these things usually are not decided on the spot, so not a lot for the rest of us.
DC Circuit is in the Progressive’s back pocket….. The Dems loaded the DC Circuit when they resorted to the Nuclear Option for Judicial appointee’s!
But free speech is a progressive argument!
Progressives believe in free speech for themselves.
For others, not so much.
This case is about the difference between free speech and slander.
Libel actually. Slander is the oral word, libel is the written word.
@ur momisugly Avery Harden
Slander is a crime.:a crime is not commited unless a judge has determined so, so speech is not slanderous unless a judge has found it to be so.
The idea of “freedom of speech” is not to protect speech you’d be happy to hear, but to protect
speech you’d be unhappy to hear.
Re Butch’s comment.
The court at issue is the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit
not the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Confusing names, no?
To the extent it is true, his comment applies to the DC Circuit, not to the DC Court of Appeals.
Bob
Will there be a transcript?
All court proceedings are public domain, unless the judge orders the transcript of the proceedings sealed. Grand jury proceedings that return an indictment are sealed from public access. IIRC.
All court proceedings are public documents, unless the judge orders the proceedings sealed. But that only applies to criminal cases. This is a civil suit. You may have to pay a fee to obtain printed docs.
Have been watching, gave up now. The judges are obviously not impartial – they are clearly on Mann’s side. This is a sham.
As was pointed out before, Obama and Harry Reid have been working for years to pack this Court with hard-line “Progressive” judges. This is why people who think this issue isn’t political are wrong – you may not care about Politics, but Politics cares about you, and Politics is all about putting your people in power to force rulings to come down in the way you want them.
And one of the consequences of the last 6 years of our governance is that now the Judiciary is just the third purely political branch. Remember, Joe Romm’s boss is Obama’s personal counselor. Mann isn’t going to lose; our new Emperor has decreed it to be so.
If you want to change things, the Emperor has to be taken down from his perch first.
Wrong Court. This is essentially a state level appeals court for DC. Not the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
I don’t hold out much hope, given the ideological composition of the court, but it’s also the case that you can’t always tell how a judge is going to rule based upon his or her questions to counsel.
why would they file in a District Court that is so obviously packed against them?
mann chose that jurisdiction, not steyn or NR…
It was packed since November 2013, after Harry Reid ended the filibuster against judicial (and executive) nominees.
Wrong court.
Mann’s team went jurisdiction shopping for what they expected would be friendly judges….
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
Have you heard of Tiljander .
It all adds up…
But Mann doesn’t sue Mcintyre.
Think about it.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
McIntyre and associates dissected Mann’s work in exquisite and sometimes excruciating detail and with devastating thoroughness. Evidently, icouldnthelpit is a joke.
All the questions about Mann come back to McIntyre. If McIntyre was wrong then he has ruined the litigious Mann’s career, wrongly.
But the litigious Mann does not sue McIntyre. He does not test take the chance of silencing his greatest critic by proving him wrong.
His colleagues explained why in the Climategate emails. They all knew that Mann was wrong, not McIntyre.
And Mann knows that too. Else he would sue McIntyre.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
The demonstration of hockey stick fraud does not turn on the MacIntyre/McKitrick statistical refutation. It turns upon the contents of Michael Mann’s own, ‘back to 1400 CENSORED’ directory.
That directory has direct evidence that Mann’s MBH98/99 reconstructions failed at least one of his own verification tests.
Mann did the test, had the results indicating failure, can only have known the reconstructions failed, neither reported nor published the failed test, and went ahead and published anyway. Then he lied before Congress about having done the test.
What word would you assign to describe that process?
Ah, but Mann’s entire argument is that the Government has said that his work is true and correct and therefore the citizenry must accept it as true and correct. The trouble for Mann with this argument is that the Government (NOAA specifically) has also said that it is perfectly acceptable for Mann to use the word fraud when criticizing other climate scientists because the word fraud is a common expression within the community of scientists. So if Mann is making an appeal to authority as the basis of his argument, then he has been hoisted on his own petard.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
And you are wrong again. Mann’s argument is that he was intentionally defamed. An accusation of fraud is not defamation unless 2 things can be proven. It is clearly false (that will be almost impossible to prove) and the person issuing the declaration knew that it was proven false.
icouldnthelpit said it is the end of it ,and so it is the end of it, haven’t you learned anything at all ? Never ever disagree with a warmist. They don’t like to have discussions. That is the end of it.
icouldnthelpit :
You assert
Mann has NOT been “accused of fraud”. It has rightly been said that his ‘hockeystick’ graph is “fraudulent”.
The graph is clearly “fraudulent” in that it misleads by conjoining different data sets, selecting misleading data (omitting data in the “CONFIDENTIAL” file, including inverted Tiljander, etc.), hiding the decline’, adopting a novel and faulty statistical method, etc..
If Man is asserting that “he’s been accused of fraud” then he has to prove that those who point to the gross and misleading errors in the fraudulent graph are claiming
(a) the errors were not incompetence
but
(b) the errors were deliberately intended to deceive.
This seems to be too “complicated” for you to understand it.
Richard
Your attacks are ad hominem – you don’t attack the arguments, you attack the person.
Pretty sad. So typical. Like Mann.
John
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
Well, I read Montford’s book. I guess you would attack him too. I don’t know how you could be more detailed and specific than that book. People need to refute those facts I think. And they can’t.
Having read through it carefully I thought the refutation was extremely thorough and careful. I particularly liked their analysis of Mann’s short centered PCA trick an indefensible mathematical method, and the part where they used Mann’s methods to generate hockeysticks from random noise was beautiufully done and cut right to the heart of the matter. While I enjoyed the mathematical bits the best, their critique of Mann’s handling of data was also excellent if you like that sort of thing, particularly with regard to the use of strip bark bristlecone pine data and the strange goings on with Yamal.
I assume you have read M&M’s paper since you seem to have a strong opinion on it. What about M&Ms work do you find so humorous?
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
icouldnthelpit,
care to explain exactly what the peer review process does?
Hint, not what you seem to think it does.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
icouldnthelpit:
I have refuted your daft attempt at defending Michael Mann. However, my refutatation is stuck in moderation probably because it addresses your untrue claim that Mann has been accused of the f word.
If my refutation does come out of moderation then it will probably be here.
Richard
Is Mann’s claim to being a Nobel laureate fraudulent? It’s free speech for him to make that claim, you know, so I’m not particularly bothered about that — it made a good laugh. But can the Nobel Committee sue Mann for defamation, for tainting the prestige of the Nobel Prize?
Steyn has already quoted a number of scientists (in the warming camp, mind you) who said not so nice things about Mann’s work, if you bother to look them up.
Did he knowingly lie to get money?
Thus spake icouldnthelpit: “Not really, no.”
Wow, what high standard of personal and professional integrity.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
icouldnthelpit
November 26, 2014 at 12:40 am
Where do you get your facts? From the Sks-kidz? I think you should read this to avoid any further embarrassment:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf
OK, “I couldn’t help it,” maybe I don’t understand the meaning of fraudulent. McIntyre showed that Mann’s algorithm produces a hockey stick, even when random numbers are input. How is Mann’s algorithm not fraudulent? Isn’t it fraud whenever “science” produces a result based on thin air? How is this different from just making up data?
Isn’t using an algorithm that makes up the result for you is the same as using a good algorithm with bogus inputs?
What am I missing here?
I’m not lawyer, but for fraud in the criminal sense, I think you need to show an intention to deceive and that a financial gain will be made as a result. However, the case appears to hinge on whether it is “scientific fraud”, which seems to be being interpreted as “not the best of standards” – perhaps akin to “diving” in football (pretending you’ve been fouled).
You are missing everything. Suppose you believe you found an arcane system of how to predict the numbers at a game of roulette – except for that everybody with 5 Cents worth of education could tell that you must be insane… So it doesn’t work, ok. If something does not work, it is really just that, and not somehow fraudulent, unless you show that it has been fraudulent.
Mann thought he was up to something, except for it turned out that he wasn’t, if we go by what you have offered in your comment. So yeah, you should revisit the meaning of ‘fraud’.
It is best to avoid using words like fraud that have a specific legal meaning. Lawyers have spent the last 200 years defining and redefining and arguing about every nuance in the meaning of the word fraud.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
FM –
Basically veryone avoided the OTHER thing they might have called Mann, and I think everyone was avoiding it out of some sort of respect.
When Mann’s PC methodology was shown to produce hockey sticks pretty much no matter the data input, what McIntyre showed that Mann basically was over his head on the statistics, allowing Mann to think he was doing things correctly but not knowing the difference between proper statistical method and crap.
In any other discipline that is known as not knowing your ass from a hole in the ground.
Therefore, the term that everyone could be using about Mann is “Stupid”. It is only fraud if you KNOW it id wrong and still use that method. Which Pat Frank pointed out at 2:53: Mann DID find out that the method was crap, but then went ahead with it, anyway. So, is that stupidity or fraud?
All of that, however, is moot. CEI is appealing this as a freedom of speech issue, making it a Constitutional question. Based on things I’ve read about this case, especially some of the amicus briefs, Mann doesn’t have a foot to stand on. If there is precedent – and it looks like there is – the appeals court judges have no recourse but to follow precedence. They can’t invent new law in contravention of precedence. Some people think the judges can do such invention, but not so.
Here’s part of what Judith Curry did say
If you define fraud as Judith Curry did then you would indeed say that Mann did not fabricate, falsify or plagiarise.
Judith Curry also said:
I would interpret that as saying that perhaps we should say that Mann is guilty of fraud.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/11/fraudulent-hockey-stick/
This silly warmist who calls himself ‘icouldnthelpit’ ramblse on about red noise without having the slightest clue about the issues. Uses it like a buzz-word and hopes it means something. Just like ‘peer review’ ..
These kind of activists are a dozen a dime. They get their fodder from some warmist-activist blog, and think repeating phrases they picked up there constitutes an ‘argument’. Quite a sad lot.
There really isn’t any at all. The catch phrase here is that ‘McI:s red noise is awful/funny’ .. allegedly!
So, dear ‘icouldnthelpit’, care to explain how ‘red noise’ or what else you say relates to anything at all, how it helps Manns original stick and somehow erases allt the problems with the Mannian sticks? Rescues its validity?
Or was it really just the words sallad it looked like?
I hear all of what you just said, but I would disagree with Judith Curry, as much as I respect her. On the points about “Scientific misconduct is typically motivated by career advancement; fraud is motivated by inducing someone to act”, I think this flies in the face of the large increase of scientific fraud that has been occurring in the last few years.
Let’s begin with the simple fact that fraud is a subset of misconduct. Thus all fraud is misconduct, but not all misconduct is fraud.
Therefore, to say X about misconduct and Y about fraud is to simply miss the simple fact that fraud IS misconduct. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028.abstract “Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications” Fang et al 2012:
The basic case of Mann’s work came down to the question of Correct? Error? or Fraud?
McIntyre decided in his paper that Mann was at the least in error, because he clearly showed that Mann did choose to use a statistical method that produced the same kind of curve no matter the data input into it. McIntyre’s work was later vetted successfully, making Mann’s work total crap. NO ONE has found McIntyre to have been in error himself about Mann’s work.
That brings it down to Error or Fraud?
But NONE of that is what this appeal is about. The appeal is about the First Amendment right of free speech. THAT has much precedence in the courts, so the case is going to have little to add to the history of free speech cases. Either the court will decide that Mann was a public figure or Mann wasn’t, and based on that, was Mann fair game like other public figures. That is what I’ve seen from what I’ve read of the case in court. If I am right, all of the amicus briefs will show to be correct, and the CEI will win the appeal.
If CEI does NOT win this appeal, I expect them to appeal it “all the way to the Supreme Court” – and they SHOULD, IMHO, because Mann IS a public figure, and all the past precedence is in their favor. It doesn’t make any difference the makeup of this appeals court, I don’t think, because of the conservative lean in SCOTUS.
At that level, Mann will lose.
Mann did advocate based on his science. He pressured governments, he wrote articles for newspapers, and he hassled publishing papers for and against other scientists as well as how various things should be viewed.
So he has two things happening. He’s created poor science. And he’s advocated strongly that society must change based on his science.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
commieBob:
There seems to be a confusion.
Mann’s ‘hockeystick’ graph can be “fr@udulent” but Mann not a fr@ud.
The graph clearly is “fr@udulent” in that it purports to be evidence for a change when it is not. But that does not mean Mann must have been a fr@ud to have presented it: he may have believed the graph was genuine.
Similarly, a forged $10 note is fr@udulent in that it purports to represent a cash value that it does not. But that does not mean a person must have been a fr@ud to have presented it: he may have believed the note was genuine.
The problem for Mann is that if he recognised the graph was fr@udulent then his presentation of it was fr@ud, but if he did not recognise that then his presentation of it was incompetence.
Richard
Commie Bob, the problem with Curry’s and McIntyre’s feelings on the matter are that Mann could not have gotten the results he did without INTENTIONALLY creating those algorithms to do what they did. If he had used standard statistical methods, he wouldn’t have had a paper to publish. It’s blatantly obvious that Mann did things on purpose, and not through incompetence. He did exactly what he wanted to do when he overweighted bristlecone pine cores 491x greater than any other proxy, thus making only those cores have any value in the paper. His co-authors are just as culpable for whatever you want to call it.
Fraudulent data and fraudulent techniques.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
You are very lippy for someone whose main source of information seems to be that a book by Tamino.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/25/michael-mann-lawsuit-appeal-to-be-streamed-live-today/#comment-1798858
Clearly Mann knew all was not right, but published anyway.
Have you actually read what Curry wrote on Mann’s behavior?
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/11/fraudulent-hockey-stick/
She makes a distinction between scientific fraud and how “science” is communicated. She takes notice of Jean S’s shocking finding, for instance.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
icouldnthelpit
Read the whole article. Judith Curry is clear that although Mann may not have committed a narrowly defined version of fraud, he did act with intent to deceive.
“…there is no need for Steyn et al. to ‘prove’ fraud in court; but merely to legitimize a public statement of ‘Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick‘ as not defamatory.” – Curry. The easier thing to do I think.
Could you please explain why the UN IPCC, which so widely trumpeted Mann’s Hockey Stick, suddenly relegated it to the dustbin of history? Because it was such a stellar piece of work that held up rock solid under scrutiny?
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
Glad you admitted that the IPCC is only guessing.
I could help it……spelling intended….
No one asked you to second guess anything.
Explain…….if you understand……Explain why the IPCC dropped the flacid stick.
Go ahead and explain why…..only though, if you understand why the IPCCstopped using the flacid stick of Mann.
If you dont understand….waive your arms and make up some nonresponsive reply again.
Don’t bother replying to ‘icouldnthelpit’, i’m sure it’s just another of Appell’s sock puppet accounts. Fraudulent.
Well, the court has now risen. And it ended with some good,passionate stuff from Steyn’s Amicus.He really stuck it to Mann I guess.
Did they manage to find a court room big enough to fit Mann’s ego in , or is he there only there in the legal sense ?
I didn’t see or hear either Mann or Steyn. Cameras were just of the bench or speaking lawyer (when they were working – lots of loss of transmission or bandwidth issues)
Steyn was there, he just looks older than his picture on the blog, less red. He is about in the middle in the bank of seats behind the NR lawyers about 5th row or so.
Mann’s lawsuit is surreal.
It is an attempt at incompetence,
to conceal.
Against this lawsuit the defendants,
rather than appeal.
Should demand that the court
tell the plaintiffs.
Take your lawsuit,
and repeal.
And do something else with it that I can’t get to rhyme.
Thanks for keeping it, er, real, albeit a bit off-keel 🙂
I think Eric Idle could have put that delightfully to music, Tom!
How about “place it where it makes you squeal”?
You are a better poet than I, sir!
Oh, now you’ve done it, Tom J. As I posted at BH a little while ago …
There was a crooked Mann who walked a crooked mile
At the drop of a virtual puck, a lawsuit he would file
From the safety of his keyboard, how he would primp and preen
Wallowing in his ignorance of how he was rightly seen.
This crooked little Mann indeed was far from lean
In his copious outpourings little truth was there to glean
Perhaps best known to all as a tweeting huffer and puffer
He did not care one bit that his rep would further suffer
This crooked little Mann had built some crooked little moats
From which he’d lurk and lob his self-inflated gloats
But when the time arose to defend his suits and preens
This crooked little Mann in court, alas, was nowhere to be seen!
The only time in my life I wish I didn’t have a Mac.
It will be a brave judge who finds for Mann.
Brave and misguided
Are we allowed to say “Misguided?” wouldn’t that also be libellous if Mann won?
Robert Austin
November 25, 2014 at 9:51 am
… Evidently, icouldnthelpit is a joke.
Yeah, but, well, he/she can’t help it.
/grin
He is either paid or a zealot, why else would someone play the fool in such an absurdly repetitive way.
Steyn is looking very confident in this latest interview apparently after this latest court appearance:
http://www.nasdaq.com/video/opinion-journal–is-questioning-climate-change-illegal–518533520
I did not hear anything particularly encouring in that interview. Steyn even suggested that the case was being side tracked by looking at the splice between tree ring data, and the thermometer record and what size of footnote one should make when making such slice.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
We all note your boundless confidence.
So what does that make Mann?
“Ever since, the hockey stick ‘model’ has been one of the main targets of climate skeptics.” – http://www.livescience.com/29068-hockey-stick-climate.html Model – a set of ideas and numbers that describe the past, present, or future state of something
Ragnaar –
The Hockey Stick SHOULD be the main target of climate skeptics. It alone was the primary reason that I got into the skeptics camp in the first place. Why? Just a cursory glance at the hockey stick curve revealed that Mann had done something VERY odd, in that he had erased both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. I looked at that flat, slightly descending curve and asked “WTF did they do to the MWP and the LIA?!!!!”
When one produces a work that simply blows off existing reality – one that STILL exists everywhere except in the minds of die-hard warmists – OF COURSE people are going to be skeptical.
In producing that hockey stick, Mann had a responsibility to explain what he had done to the MWP and the LIA and why they should not be still used. This Mann never did, and in NOT doing so, he has brought upon him all the skepticism that has occurred.
From what I’ve seen of his work, he actually doesn’t believe that the MWP and LIA were real. In doing so, Mann TOOK – and continues to take – an extreme and extraordinary position. And in taking that position, Mann SHOULD HAVE BEEN required to give an extraordinary explanation for his extraordinary claim – that the MWP and the LIA never existed.
One of my perplexities about both warmists and skeptics is that no one has ever demanded that he explain his erasure of the MWP and LIA. BOTH camps should have asked him back in 1998 why they shouldn’t consider his work total CRAP.
I read once where “Skepticism is the default position of science.” I agree. Both camps should be skeptical about Mann’s hockey stick, as a matter of form. One real question is why the warmists AREN’T.
Steve Garcia:
However this case goes, the Hockey Stick isn’t the most important thing nor is Mann. I had an idea once that Mann has distracted the skeptics from whatever it is they should be doing.
j’accuse I think.
after reading your posts, I think many here feel that way as well…your total lack of self-awareness is amusing..
it is the OUTPUT of models. And some say it is a model. One thing it is not is data. Steyn is closer to the truth than you are.
That would explain your posts.
Here’s an alternative link: http://aol.it/1Cc4WYi
Icouldnthelpit can’t seem to help projecting himself into his comments …
Whether or not the case is sidetracked depends on where you think the track is headed.
Simberg — more or less a science journalist — and his publisher CEI want the track to go to the SCIENCE. They want an (or, another) investigation into Mann and Mann’s methods. They believe, (sincerely, it seems to me) that Mann’s work is incorrect, and that previous scientific critiques have been, er sidetracked. In the particular instance, Simberg believes, apparently sincerely, that Penn State’s investigations were sidetracked by the celebrity and fund-raising success of Mann, and child molester Jerry Sandusky, in the very similar fashion.
Steyn, breaking from his publisher NRO, is more or less a radio disk jockey. He wants the track to go to the FREE SPEECH question. He is concerned about the right for critics and reviewers to say a band sounds like they were on drugs, or an actress must have been selected due to her performance on the couch, or other rather scurrilous, if funny, things about the personalities, particularly public figures, in the news and spotlight. Steyn’s track doesn’t care if the target is science, policy, or music. He fights for the right to critique, using language such as “circus” and “fraudulent” hyperbolically.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
icouldnthelpit:
Post where Steyn said that. Verbatim, please.
actually he can.
then do it, Mosher.
Only a nutter thinks you can’t.
Steyn in the post hearing interview commented several times that he had made a charge of fraud, and he commented that he had done this for many many years without ever (before) being sued.
It seems to me that there is little doubt that Mann’s work is incorrect. Everyone tacitly accepts that to be the case and that is the reason why the IPCC no longer runs with it as its poster child.
However, there is a world of difference between being incorrect and being fraudulent. There is even a world of difference between believing that one is probably incorrect and being fraudulent.
Does Mann now know (or appreciate) that he was incorrect, or probably incorrect, a reasonable person would conclude yes he must do.
Did Mann know at the time? Well that is where the debate centres. Obviously he was aware of the divergence, he was a ware of the need to perform a splice and perform the ‘nature trick’ But is that sufficient to suggest that the work he presented was fraudulent? Personally, I have my doubts, given the legalstic definition and meaning of fraud.
Obviously, a diligent scientist would have been intrigued by the divergence issue. He would immediately want to know why it was occurring, and whether it was real, or whether it was simply an artefact of the data. he would have carried out an investigation and reported upon its findings and the conclusions that should be drawn from the investigation.
Once Mann was aware of the divergence issue, he knew that one of three things was happening, namley that thermometer record was not accurate, or that the tree ring reconstruction was not accurate (perhaps because trees are not thermometers), or that it was due to a combination of both.
Had he adhered to proper principles of science, he would undoubtedly in his paper noted the divergence issue and addressed that in his paper. After all, at the very least, the divergence issue raises issues of error bands, and what error bands he should place on his cobbled together reconstruction.
It is apparent that Judith Curry has had real problems in deciding which way the cookie crumbles, and I understand her dilemna. What Mann did clearly lacked scientific integrity, and is a misleading presentation, and it boarders on being fraudulent, but whether one can reasonably say that it crosses the latter threshhold is, in my opinion, far from clear.
From a legalistic point of view, whilst I am a staunch supporter of free speech, I do not consider that one can expect to accuse someone of fraud, without expecting there to be ramifications.
The problem as I see it is that Steyn could have made the same points almost as forcefully, but slightly toned down his langauge. For example, he could have said that it is tantamount to fraud, or boarders upon being fraudulent, or perhaps even from a scientific perspective is fraudulent etc thereby placing a slight caveat on the accusation. It is the strength of language and the clarity of the accusation that is the problem. The thrust of what Steyn was suggesting would appear sound as demonstrated by tha fact that the IPCC no longer uses the Mann reconstruction as the front cover of its Reports. .
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
In fact accusing people of fraud is what people should do if they see fraud and is exactly what Jose Duarte has done to Lew. Lew is slightly cannier than Mann and refuses to rise to it.
The truth is always a defence in defamation cases.
richard verney November 26, 2014 at 12:34 am :
Thank-you for the calm logical summary. GK
Fraud
“wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.”
One could argue which part of the defination applys to so many of the global warmists.
But Mann was one of the first to put his name to what has commonly called the “global warming fraud”.
Everyone needs to remember that the scientific issues are largely irrelevant to Mann’s libel case. I doubt the science will even be considered by the trial court, if it gets that far. And it certainly won’t be considered by this court, which is deciding an appeal to the trial court ruling denying the defense motion to dismiss the libel case under DC’s anti-SLAPP law (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Persons). The grounds for the appeal are factual errors by the original trial judge.
Also keep in mind Mann’s original libel suit is not because anyone said his science was bad or fraudulent, but because a comparison was made between the Penn State investigation of Mann’s science with an earlier Penn State investigation of Jerry Sandusky (PSU football coach and convicted child molester). Mann took this as a libelous comparison of himself to Jerry Sandusky.
Since then, Steyn has separated himself as a defendant in the libel suit and filed his own countersuit against Mann for attempting to suppress his First Amendment rights of free speech. National Review and CEI are delaying responding to Mann’s discovery motions pending final outcome of the original dismissal motion. Steyn has dropped out of this particular appeal and complied with Mann’s discovery motions. Mann is delaying responding to Steyn’s discovery motions pending the results of this hearing.
In all this mess there are two things everyone should understand: (1) scientific merits of global warming in general and Mann’s proxy research in particular are not at issue. Not now and likely not ever. (2) Steyn is the only party in all these interrelated disputes ready and willing to actually go to trial on the substantive issues.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
You must be from overseas – America’s libel laws are very lax and, in the case of public figures, virtually nonexistent. The only reason that Mann is suing is to cause a great deal of time and expense to his opponents; so called “lawfare”.
Basically, in America, if the speech is hyperbole, or satire, or political, and the target of the speech is a “public figure”, then there is almost zero chance of winning a case.
icouldnthelpit:
Steyn accused Mann of fraud?
Post where Steyn said that. Verbatim, please.
Mann has called many another fraud. Of course, the EPA said that in the scientific context it’s OK. Fraud in the legal sense is a serious accusation, no doubt, but outside of strictly legal contexts, especially in political commentaries (which are arguably even less rigorous than scientific contexts), it amounts to only the opinion of the writer, not an accusation of crime. Nice try, icouldnthelpit.
@ur momisugly choriso, hecan’t
It never was about the science. Steyn has won the case and is just awaiting that in writing. Mann’s hockey stick – the icon of the IPCC – has been found to be a deception and Mann himself is now out on a limb and being shunned. And the press will do what the press alwasys do: hype it all up out of proportion until Mann looks like a master criminal and the whole of science is discredited. And sceptics will do what they always do: criticise the press for failing to report the science.
And the public will do what they always do: read about it when the press run with it tut tut about the scandal and ask how it ever happened and then by the next week most of the public will have forgotten about it.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
If you are talking about Wayne Gretzky’s, you are correct. if you are talking about Mann’s, you are incorrect. it has never been replicated. The other ones created were all using different metrics and data. And all failed as has been documented.
+1 McIntyre & Montford’s attacks on the HockeyStick are discredited in “The Montford Delusion” by Tamino http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/?wpmp_switcher=desktop
Mark Idle is funny … of course he’s discredited himself with his comment …
icouldnthelpit
Please provide the references. For simplicity just six will do, a mere half of a dozen.
Or any to begin with.
So long as it’s creator thinks it’s robust.
“The hockey stick has been replicated a dozen times with different data sets and different methods. Do keep up.”
icouldnthelpit,
Firstly the old saying “right answer + wrong method = bad science” very much applies, even if his results had been correctly replicated.
Secondly, his results were only STRICTLY “replicated” (ie exact same results) in the sense that MM05 (and even Wahl and Ammanns follow up) showed that in order to get his results you had to:
a) pad the Gaspe data series to make sure it was included in a particular early period (where the non-padded part for the period only consisted of 1-2 tree cores anyway, far too few for any signal not to be swamped by noise) which without the padding would not have been included by his stepwise algorithm – and this entire custom padding of the data was not mentioned in his paper. It came out as “supplementary information” after MM03 had been initially unable to replicate his results
b) use an incorrect PCA algorithm (which man initially used, where the PC1 was selected because it accounted for most of the variance using his wrong centering), or use a corrected PCA algorithm (Wahl and Ammannn) and include more PC’s down to number 4, where now the claim is that the 4th PC (representing less of the signal than the prior 3) is temperature (ie whatever the other 3 more important things affecting the core width were they were not temperature)
Later studies have shown much more temperature variability than MBH. The flat stick of MBH has very much NOT been replicated dozens of times with different datasets and methods.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
@ur momisuglyIcan’t, sorry misread,@ur momisugly Icouldnot, I’ll try to be nice, as long as the warmists base their strangely now even denied by the IICP. “Models” ( witch I learned 45 years ago are not real that is why they are called “models”), are these “models” based on the same things we see in store fronts? You know those “Real models” that look like the girl you want to get but never will? It seems like you are on that quest as well.
I’m back. None has it right.
I also note that the Wikipedia links do not support Mann’s hockeystick anymore than they contradict it.
For example this quote from the abstract to How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period? Thomas J. Crowley1 and Thomas S. Lowery2 (AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 29(1):51-54. 2000).
Which sounds a lot like the 20th century – even the composite ending up in the middle.
Not at all a robust support for Mann’s hockeystick. Even with the words “new hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier hemispheric reconstructions” it just doesn’t, does it?
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
icouldnthelpit said:
“November 26, 2014 at 1:50 am
None is wrong. Just compare pages2k to MBH99 to see how well they match
2k to MBH99 to see how well they match”
Your lack of argumentation skills are simply stunning. Have a field day with this:
http://climateaudit.org/2014/11/22/data-torture-in-gergis2k/
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
icouldnthelpit
November 26, 2014 at 5:48 am
What a joke, you could not even bother mentioning which papers you think prove Steve’s arguments wrong. So now we should guess what you are thinking, having problems with magic thinking are you? In addition, you seem have pretty awful understanding of science works. Waste of time and space as I said.
…The hockey stick has been replicated a dozen times with different data sets and different methods…
Well, now we’re going to find out if that propaganda can stand up to scrutiny in a court, rather than relying on shills repeating it without any evidence…
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
Amici for Steyn, CEI, Simberg and NR include: American Civil Liberties Union, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, American Society of News Editors, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia, the Association of American Publishers, Inc., Bloomberg L.P., the Center for Investigative Reporting, the First Amendment Coalition, First Look Media Inc., Fox News Network, Gannett Co. Inc., the Investigative Reporting Workshop, the National Press Club, the National Press Photographers Association, Comcast Corporation, the Newspaper Association of America, the North Jersey Media Group Inc., the Online News Association, the Radio Television Digital News Association, the Seattle Times Company, the Society of Professional Journalists, Stephens Media LLC, Time Inc., Tribune Publishing, the Tully Center for Free Speech, D.C. Communications, Inc. and the Washington Post.
How many amici for Mann?
Mike, is that you?
You seem rather over-wrought and we all know how much of a tantrum Mike can chuck.
POM troll.
Scottish Sceptic November 25, 2014 at 3:03 pm
“Amici for Steyn,…”
The amici are amicus curiae – friends of the court. Not of any particular litigant. The court may set a precedent, and they have a legal POV that they want heard. It’s true that their POV generally aligns with the appeal, but they are not there for the appellants.
Quite an impressive list, don’t you think Nick? Can you imagine Mann’s feelings when he realized that he had antagonized the nation’s media?
Dodgy Geezer, I’ve been teasing icouldnthelpit over the fact that Mann can’t sue McIntyre because Mann knows McIntyre is right. He daren’t try to prove McIntyre wrong in court.
And I suspect icouldnthelpit isn’t a Mann Fanboy, that would be quite weird when you think of it. I suspect icouldnthelpit is the Mann himself
It would be delicious if “ihavntgotaclue” really was Mike. It would explain all the histrionics.
I agree with David Smith that if MCourtney’s speculation that the identity of “icouldnthelpit” is Mann himself, it would be an exquisite confirmation of Mann’s rude, strident and now panicky behaviour in this and many other cases. I sense that Mann’s hitherto successful modus operandi (to silence critics by “lawfare”) has met it’s match in Mark Steyn and his legal team. I wish them every success in this current case and future success with their counter claim. Thank you Mark Steyn, I have contributed via Steyn gifts and will continue to do so.
I couldn’t help saying this but, even if the Hockey Stick has been replicated a gazillion times a gazillion, it sure as heck doesn’t manage to get even a little peek-a-boo in UN IPCC reports anymore. Care to speculate why?
Oooops . . formatting error up there^^:
Hmmm . .
Dropping Mann’s hockey stick from the IPCC reports could easily be explained/defended I think.
They could merely point out that climate change is a broad science and there are many other ‘lines of evidence’ to be highlighted.
Companies change or update their logos all the time.
Raven, there is another reason they may have elected to no longer publish that piece of junk. They (the IPCC hockey team, Mann’s partners in crime, knew it was junk, and knew that the paleo studies they were forced to publish in faint support of it, were likewise junk. How do we know this?
Because they said so in the climate gate emails, stating clearly that Mann should stop defending it, and they did not want to be associated with it, and they admitted that even their new studies told them zip about anything less then 100 year resolution periods, so thirty year swings were not relevant or captured.
“Companies change or update their logos all the time.”
Raven, I don’t know of any companies that change, or update, or throw their logos under the bus after just a couple years. Unless, of course, the logo was misrepresentative. Can you name any subsequent research that the UN IPCC promoted as vociferously as they did the hockey stick?
Who is bank- rolling Mike Mann throughout all of these legal shenanigans?
Whose big green is financing Mann’s big bluster?
The actual answer – we are! Because all the greenblob in some way get their money from the public purse.
That sounds about right.
Never mind, I’ll just go and speak to my contact at Big Oil and get him to give all of us sceptics a wad of cash to compensate for our stolen money.
icouldnthelpit lives in his own universe with his own interpretation of reality, no point in trying to get sense from his gobbledygook.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
Welcome to (your) reality.
Yes.
I disagree with you but I can understand the words you are saying.
It is a bit harsh to just ignore alternate points of view.
Reality is a female dog.
Agree completely with Mike. Let’s all stop wasting time and space by arguing with such a boring alarmist with so poor argumentation skills, that it isn’t even entertaining.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
Oh, harsh up.
In Mann’s self-serving mythology, only he is allowed to be a heroic martyr; it is verboten in his vanity myth that his legal opponent can be a heroic martyr.
John