The drawn-out Mann lawsuit: Science is not taking a stand for Michael Mann

Guest essay by John A.

It has been awhile since we’ve heard anything about the progress of the lawsuit, and so given the current toxic witchhunt against climate skeptics, perhaps it’s time to  review again. I noticed a couple of posts on Mark Steyn’s blog regarding the suit brought against him by Michael Mann, WUWT’s favorite climate scientist, which I felt should be brought to a wider audience.

First off, no scientific organization has filed amici briefs supporting Mann’s suit against the National Inquirer, the CEI or Mark Steyn:

A few [months] ago, you’ll recall, the ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other notorious right-wing deniers all filed amici briefs opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech. They did this not because they have any great love for me, but because their antipathy to wackjob foreign blowhards is outweighed by their appreciation of the First Amendment – and an understanding of the damage a Mann victory would inflict on it. After noting the upsurge of opposition to Mann, Reuters enquired of Catherine Reilly (one of his vast legal team) whether there would be any amici filing pro-Mann briefs:

I asked Reilly if the professor would have any supporting briefs next month when he responds to the defendants in the D.C. appeals court.

“At this point, we don’t know,” she said.

Ms Reilly was a pleasant sort when I met her in court over a year ago, but she struck me as a formidable opponent. So I naturally assumed that the above was what what the political types call “lowering expectations”. As I wrote:

“I would be surprised if Mann didn’t have any supporting briefs. I was in court when Ms Reilly’s genial co-counsel made his argument for Mann, which was a straightforward appeal to authority: Why, all these eminent acronymic bodies, from the EPA and NSF and NOAA even unto HMG in London, have proved that all criticisms of Mann are false and without merit. So I would certainly expect them to file briefs – and, given that Mann sees this as part of a broader “war on science” by well-funded “deniers”, I would also expect briefs from the various professional bodies: the National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, etc. As pleasant as it is to find my side of the court suddenly so crowded, I’m confident Mann will be able to even up the numbers.”

Well, yesterday was the deadline, and not a single amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann. Not one. So Michael Mann is taking a stand for science. But evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann.

Now that IS surprising, because I would have thought that someone, some interested organization would be supporting Mann. I could think of the IPCC or Al Gore or Penn State University or the University of Virginia or the University of East Anglia’s Climate Science Unit or the AAAS or the WMO or some body or other.

The self-appointed captain of the hockey team is playing solo. As Judith Curry wrote last month:

“The link between ‘defending Michael Mann is defending climate science’ seems to have been broken.”

As yesterday’s deafening silence confirms. If you’re defending Michael Mann, you’re not defending science, or defending climate science, or theories on global warming or anything else. Defending Michael Mann means defending Michael Mann – and it turns out not many people are willing to go there.

Truly the silence is deafening. It’s not a good sign that no organization associated with the research into the perils for future global warming felt any need to support Mann in his Valiant Defense of Science by filing a brief.

Oh brother climate scientists, where art thou?

The second update I noticed was Mann’s repudiation of his own smoothed (and artfully pruned) hockey stick.

Here’s the graphic:

And here’s what Mann has told the court (with emphasis by Steyn):

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… 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.

Disingenuous: adjective “not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.”

Except as Steyn points out, that particular depiction was claimed to have been created by Mann and other Hockey Team members because Mann claimed that he did on his online resume:

 

 

So who or what to believe? Mann’s own resume or Mann’s deposition to the Court?

It’s a brain-buster for sure.

I’m sure that Mann will be projecting himself to be a lone scientific David bravely fighting the evil Denialist Fossil-Fuel funded Goliath. But unless Mann is seriously packing heat in his slingshot, it looks to me somewhat dicey from this vantage point.

Someone is going to lose heavily in this Climate Loserweight Title Fight. I can’t see it going the distance.

251 thoughts on “The drawn-out Mann lawsuit: Science is not taking a stand for Michael Mann

  1. Not only is it on his CV.

    he is credited in the WMO report, (pg2)

    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).

    https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/documents/913_en.pdf

      • So Dr. Mann created the data, was happy about one’s appearance on the cover page, but denied creating the graph or that the graph would have been done with his consent?

        And Mann thinks the graph is in error, but the error is not his? Interesting.

      • I too have bad eyesight. Let me know where you live, maybe I can recommend a good ophthalmologist.

      • Hugh – is the data wrong?
        The graphic clearly credits Mann with the data, nothing more.
        Mann’s own research publications clearly show the different sets of data used, so the claim that he intended to mislead, based on a graphic he did not produce, when the work he *did* author makes no attempt to mislead, is laughable.

      • Mann needs to be clearer in his CV then.

        Michael E. Mann – CV
        Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R., Osborn, T.J., Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Cover Figure for World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 50th Year Anniversary Publication: Temperature changes over the last Millennium, 2000.
        http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv.php

        Mann should have immediately informed the WMO that their graph was wrong.

        “Another Porky from Mann, Williams and Fontaine”
        http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/10/another-porky-from-mann-williams-and-fontaine/

        “Evidence that Dr Michael Mann misled a court
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/17/evidence-that-dr-michael-mann-misled-a-court/

      • I believe Craig is saying if there was no dis-claimer on the graphic itself about the misleading splicing of data then it is not Mann’s fault if the graphic was misleading as the CEI states.

        Mann did take credit for the graphic (Mann does like to take credit for things real and imagined) but it is not his fault if his research results were not represented in full. In other words to be accurate the graphic should have been presented with a disclaimer, “This graph has cherry picked data, but is ok because the original research by Michael Mann cherry picked data”.

        Craig clearly believes Mann can take credit and then run away from any responsibility for the credit taken.

        This leads to not a comprehension problem but a credibility problem.

      • Craig; when it comes to a Cartesian graph, there is only data, labeling and selection of the axis units to consider. Everything else is simply decoration.

        I don’t see where IPCC actually credited ANY individual with the creation of the graph from the data, only the purveyors of the data itself.

        Further, Mike Mann cites the cover on his CV. In spite of what he claims in court filings, an uncontested credit in the document combined with its inclusion on his very own curriculum vitae makes it his.

        I would use what Muller said about his work on NPR as an absolute defense in the defamation case. A qualified and eminent professional in the field said Mann should ‘lose his license to practice science’, were that option available. You still want to back that horse?

        Whatever Barry lacks in reading comprehension you blow away with your lack of basic logic. You are either completely disingenuous or you are way way beyond your reasoning ability.

    • Turn back O Mann, forswear thy foolish ways.
      Old now is Earth, and none may count her days,
      Yet thou, her child, whose head is crowned with fame,
      Still wilt not hear thine inner God proclaim,
      “Turn back, O Mann, forswear thy foolish ways.”

      Apols: Gustav Holst

  2. “But evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann.”

    Since climate science is dominated by political considerations, it is likely they’re disinclined to have their asses publicly handed to them in court.

    Evidence that they’re at least cognizant of some portion of reality.

    • So far as I know, there have been no court cases at all where both sides were able mount serious arguments on the Global Warming evidence. This was a point made prominently by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear” way back in 2004.

      As AGW hysteria ramped up in the late 90s, there were lots of lawyers who were eager to do to Big Oil, what they had just done to Big Tobacco. By Crichton’s accounting, as soon as the Alarmist legal teams began to seriously research the issues and consider the opposition that would face, their ardor cooled off to nothing. The “Trial of the Century” still hasn’t happened 10 years after the book’s publication.

      My guess is that Mann will never have to face discovery. He, or the smart guys who fund him, will find some face saving way to avoid an open trial.

      • @BL: almost a gurantee that if Mann’s suit is dismissed, so will be Steyn’s. Unfortunately, the cist of defending litigation is not considered “damages” in the US, at least, not after courts have already ruled the initial claims have plausible merit. Steyn would no longer have anything to sue for.

        Mark

      • Mann isn’t the one on trial, and science isn’t advanced in courts of law.

        Steyn’s issue isn’t one of science, it’s one of telling porkies for ideological purposes.

      • Craig: If “fictional novels” aren’t to your liking, have you considered the other kind?

        And more generally, if Mann believes his data were misrepresented on the cover of the report, why did he wait until deposition time to object?

        Has anyone got any record of his disowning that graphic representation of his work before he arrived in court?

      • Steyn said Mann’ science was fraudulent. There is a difference. Concerning Mann, he said that he as the Jerry Sandusky of Climate Science.

      • First Craig redefined the word “clearly,” now he’s redefining the word “scientist.” If he can’t afford a good dictionary there are several freely available on the net.

      • Mann isn’t the one on trial, and science isn’t advanced in courts of law.

        Craig is at least half right on this; science is not advanced in court but Mann is on trial.

        To prove his case, Mann has to prove his behavior is in good order since Steyn has many examples of Mann’s behavior in politicizing science and in the public arena as being a few toilet loads short of exemplar. And even though science is not advanced in court, how it is used in the public arena can be on trial.

        Make no question about it, Mann’s behavior and his use and mis-use of science is very much on trial. How a loser such as Mann still gets funding to proceed with frivolous trials like this is another one of those unexplained mysteries of the world.

      • Craig, you made two responses and both of them missed my point by a mile.

        “science isn’t advanced in courts of law.” True enough, but that was not my point. My point is that when it comes down to facing well prepared opponents on an equal footing, the alarmists have been sensationally shy. They just won’t do it. The Big Tobacco issue from the nineties suggests just how eager they would actually be if they thought they could win.

        “A fictional novel by somebody who was not a scientist is your best try at citing support for your view on a scientific issue”. Classic misdirection. I was merely giving Crichton credit for making an interesting point that is not contested by you. To wit, despite expectations, there have been no court trials mounted against Big Oil. Is that true, or not? There is no appeal to authority there.

        BTW,
        Michael Crichton was a Harvard trained MD.
        Rajendra K. Pachauri is a railway engineer.
        The current EPA head is Gina McCarthy who has a degree in something called Social Anthropology, whatever that is.

        Who is the scientist here?

    • I can imagine the POTUS coming up with something along the lines of;

      “We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some graphs. We did some things that were contrary to our values”.

  3. Relying on rigged opinion polls taken of people paid to support the party line is one thing. Relying on an independent court system that allows testimony and fair debate from both sides is quite another.

      • That was Muhammad Ali. Forman was more like, “Stomp like a dinosaur, hit like a sledge hammer.”

      • Foreman, not Forman. I saw him in the Houston airport a couple decades ago. His fists were as big as Mann’s head.

      • Tyson worked through power yes, but fear also.. When he got hit he reacted very badly. Neither Ali or Foreman would have been afraid of Mike T. IMV

      • Since we are talking about Dr Mann, shouldn’t it be “Sting like a gadfly, float like a turd”?

      • Foreman, he’s the guy selling those grills, right? I heard he used to be a boxer. But he became a chef so he’d always have something cooking incase Tyson comes over for a bite. ^¿^

  4. I am struck that it takes this much effort, expense, etc. to prove one measly weaselley graph in the entire world of climate psyience wrong, in a court of law, in the public space. A sad undertaking that should have never been necessary, but it speaks to the woeful culture of our times and not in a good way.

    • The “Hockeystick” was the proof of our sins.

      Any criticism of the Hockeystick was proof that you were a scientifically illiterate redneck.

      Mann was recorded by Scientific American in 2005 as stating that….
      “For instance, skeptics often cite the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period as pieces of evidence not reflected in the hockey stick, yet these extremes are examples of regional, not global, phenomena. “From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there’s no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever,” Mann says. ”

      Presumably Mann’s comments apply to papers like…………………………………..http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~blinsley/Dr._B._K_Linsley/Indonesia_&_Pacific_Intermediate_Water_files/Rosenthal.Linsley.Oppo%202013%20Pac.Ocean.Heat.pdf

      • Not “all criticism”, just uninformed criticism.

        People doing the science have all found the hockeystick to be correct, by successfully replicating it using a variety of methods and data?:

        Some people’s fixation on the hockey stick is a little bit interesting…

      • Craig Thomas,

        I have to assume that you have found how to explain away the upside down splicing in of the Tiljander series and the use of the only tree in another series to make the Hockey Stick work..

        Mann’s Hockey Stick is a piece of fraudulent pseudo scientific fabrication that would not stand up to first pass venture capital due diligence scrutiny..

        In the end serial liars are always caught out because they forget which lie they told to whom and when. Mann is a textbook case of this and your defense of him tells us more about you than you might realize.

        Mann is toxic and the absence of amicus briefs in his support speaks volumes. He and Patchauri are two faces of the same coin..

      • Bait and switch, Thomas. The graph that everyone has had problems with were the ones that flatened out the hill at year 1000 and pretended that the Earth was at a static temperature.

        Also, you are committing the same set of sins: spliciing a thermometer record onto proxy records. Proxies almost universally smooth out peaks, so of course you are going to have less extreme readings.

    • “People doing the science have all found the hockeystick to be correct …”.
      ======================
      That’s not a hockey stick, this is a hockeystick:

  5. Mann’s Hockeystick was the weapon used to beat the political agenda into a “panic now” mode.

    Panic doesn’t last forever.

    To use an American sports analogy. The Fear-mongers are now on Defence.
    So the injured Offensive player isn’t the priority.

  6. I am starting to feel almost sorry for Mann, as it seems clear he hasn’t a friend in the world or any scientific colleagues prepared to associate with him.

    His used-to-be friends and colleagues seem to have come to realise that association with such a toxic, vindictive, individual is highly undesirable.

    Tarred with ‘Association by Hockey Stick’, what a condemnation for any thinking individual!

    • I was going to give a list of all those who had been using using Mann’s curve, but then I remembered that you had specificied “in his right mind”.

      • Craig Thomas, None of those curves rise higher at the end than they did in the Medieval Warm Period.
        They do not show unprecedented warming.
        They are not ridiculous and they do not replicate Mann’s ridiculous curve.

      • Craig Thomas, do you know what a hockey stick looks like? The graph posted by you twice is NOT a hockey stick like shape. That is the point.

      • I rather enjoy when signature “Craig Thomas” ventures outside his usual comfort zones. It’s too bad though, that he never really tries to argue any pertinent point.

        The meme ‘has been verified independently by many others’ is so ‘last decade’ and never had any traction at that time either.

        I think he is a perfect example of the qualifier: “Who in his right mind ..”

      • Thomas, for a more comprehensive look at what the proxies do actually say i suggest-

        http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

        there are far more studies that show the MWP was warmer than the current period-

        http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/qualitative.php

        there are over 20 studies there that find the MWP cooler or near todays temps, but there are close to 90 that say the MWP was warmer, and in some cases, MUCH warmer. believe what you want, but the sks line of everyone else says the hockey stick it true too is utter garbage. they know, we know it, mann knows it, it seems we still have to see people regurgitating sks propaganda.

        the sks trick is to redefine what the hockey stick is. they take it from the ipcc third assessment report –

        and rehash it with some proxies from the same crappy data sets and cherry picked proxies. what is most annoying about the propaganda shots is the attempt to pin the intrumental data onto these proxies and then fudge the point of connection. first they should never present these two vastly different data sets as comparable, and second they should be clear about the problems with the tree rings. eg they cool in recent decades, not warm. in fact the story surround the hide the decline is an interesting one that should be read and understood before anyone makes comment on mann and co.-

        http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

        if you understand that story and its implications, ie the context, then you would dump mann too.

      • Craig, you really don’t understand what you are defending, do you? Michael Mann’s famous graph looks nothing like that. Your graph clearly shows the medievial warm period and the little ice age. Some of the proxies even show the Dark age cold period too. Just eyeballing it, that looks reasonable (although you should know that proxies have a near-univeral smoothing, which eliminates peaks, so splicing temperature records onto proxies is extremely bad form).

        The graph that we are complaining about was the one popularized in the IPCC 2001 report that denied the existence of these well known climate phenomena. To compare, here is the temperature record from the IPCC’s first report versus the third.

      • Craig, if you’re going to splice data from different sources then at least make sure they all have similar averaging. The late period temperatures need to done with at least 100yr averaging to match the other proxies. Plus, none of these graphs show much below the 0.0 line, whereas the Hockey Stick barely shows anything above 0.0. It’s practically flat at -.2 where your graphs show variations from +.4 to -.5 and even the grafted on recent temp measurements don’t go as high. Your graphs simply don’t tell the same story.

    • I always giggle when Mann, with his book ‘Me, the hockey stick warrior – dispatches from my own trench’ tries to picture/see himself as a soldier in that great war for a nobler cause, nobler than those fighting it on the ground.

      Because there is really nothing noble at all about either the (C)AGW- so called -science, the corrupt politics and politicians, all those other agendas and NGO:s troughing for subsidies, cash and special regulations, or all those lazy churnolists looking for some alarm to rehash .. while hoping to pull this off some more years or another decade.

      One reason for the ridicule is that these ‘warriors’ all are real cowards, who evade essentially every confrontation with their (quite willing) oppononets. Sneaky backstabbing, and maligning through the media is what they’d do. But standing their ground on a level field, hardly anybody even dares to think of.

      Ther is nothing ‘warrior’ over Mann or any of the others! At best they can be called professional ‘worriers’ …

  7. Minor correction: AFAIK Mann is not suing the National Enquirer, but he is suing National Review.

  8. The most degrading thing for a scientist to sustain in life; is when colleagues take pity on you for losing your credibility as a person of science. Perhaps the next phase of this circus.

  9. Mann’s deposition to the Court, you mean the comedy script his lawyers where mad enough to enter ?
    Its not yet time for Mann to be checking out the axle types on the local bus, can you can hear the start of the swing that will lead to the throw that will find him under the bus .
    The very best part will be seeing who lines up to kick him on the way down , has it will be by no means the case that it only be AGW sceptics. Has Mann has but much time and effort into rubbing up lots on his own side through his galaxy sized ego. Could not happen soon enough nor to a ‘nicer’ person .

  10. Michael Mann is symptomatic of general problem in the Church Carbontology – which is a constant parade of losers appearing in The Movement, yet an inability to cut said Movement losers loose.

    Examples abound. Peter Gleick has been removed from exposure to the lay public after all his lying and forging, but is still anointed and talks to other priests. Al Gore sold his progressive TV station to an Arab oil sheikdom, with zero Carbontology criticism much less ostracism. What does it take to get defrocked? John Beale is one, but only after the most bizarre fraud and criminal conviction that miraculously left entire EPA culturally and politically intact. If Pachuari was under criminal investigation for anything less PC than sexually harassing his third-world employees, he’d still have a ‘job.’

    Such baggage, like CO2, builds up to suffocating levels over time.

    But what can Carbontologists do? To repudiate one priest means cutting one thread of Carbontology’s patchwork and co-dependent liturgy. And Mann is a Carbontology A-lister with his contribution of hockey sticks and tree rings; he’s both a Carbon Saint and Martyr.

    • I love that post. I’ve been a religious skeptic for a long time and have argued religion with plenty of true believers. Climate “science” is full of true believers.

      The contemporary university is the modern church with its own dogma.

      The only reason their faith gets such a pass is because they omit the word “God” from their commandments.

      It’s especially infuriating that we’re all made to tithe to these churches through taxes. It’s just like old Europe.

      • Too bad that the term “Scientology” is already taken, because it’s a perfect fit for Climastrologists and others who follow a Lefty, elitist view that they are “on the side of Science” just because the Believe in The Cause.

    • Well said! The problem is that mentioning “mann” and “movement” together brings to mind the “movement” that produces such a turd as “mann”. hint… begins with “b” and ends with “owel”

      Cheers!

      Joe

  11. Well, I do feel – a little – sorry for this Mann-ish victim of a self-coordinated(?) hit and run.
    He apparently assumed that all who verbally patted his back, in good times, would support him in slightly rougher seas.
    If the prevailing wind changes – guess what – – a significant difference in support.

    Guess what . . . . . . . .

    Auto

    • Worse: try Mass v EPA…the damage that ruling is inflicting on an ongoing basis is beyond the pale. SCOTUS was lied to and yet the damage being inflicted continues.

  12. Steyn says it’s 3 years now. Mann has yet to respond to Steyn’s discovery requests and has everyone locked up in motions and appeals. Mann has no intention of seeing the trial through and Steyn himself realizes that “the process is [his] punishment.” Mann cannot afford to submit to document requests and then questioning by Steyn He may be forced to fold, but only after a few more years and a few more millions lost by Steyn. In the meantime, Mann is not paying for his lawsuit and if CEI or National Review settle for peanuts, Mann will try to claim victory and walk away.

    Mann must not be allowed to fold except in a way that fully upholds Steyn’s “tree ring circus” post. In other words, Mann must be publicly shown being forced to fold or lose at trial. Only Steyn has counter claimed and in position to do either.

    This is an extreme sacrifice on Seyn’s part. He has little or nothing to gain and can’t back out. Not only skeptics, but scientists at large owe him a great deal of support and gratitude.

    • Steyn has filed a counter-suit. So even if Mann withdraws his original action, Steyn’s lawsuit can continue. Assuming of course that Steyn has money to pay his attorneys. You can help by buying something from his site here .

      • Alan, isn’t it true that apart from the counter-suit for $5m that he has an action claiming that Mann is trying to use the protracted process as a punishment method? There can be consequences from that independent of the countersuit.

        Having waited and delayed for SO long, Mann can hardly say he was moving as speedily as possible. It is way too late for that. He has played it about as badly as possible from claiming he was a Nobel Prize winner to being unable to find support against Steyn in the climate science community.

      • Crispin:

        I do not recall the exact grounds for Steyn’s counter-suit (and I have not read the filing in any case), but i believe you are correct. Steyn’s counter-suit claims Mann’s original suit was intended to suppress criticism rather than recover for a genuine injury.

        I can’t comment on the prospects for Steyn’s action; I just wanted to point out that Mann can’t simply wait until the day before trial on his original suit and then withdraw it and walk away.

        My model projections tell me that lawyers will make money an an unprecedented rate.

    • I donated a $100 to Steyn’s legal fund. Everyone, if they can should do the same or whatever you can afford. Just go to his site.

  13. Don’t forget all the AGU membership dues laundered over the “Climate Scientist Defense Fund”, that AGU gets a Double-Tax right-off from Uncle Sam and funneled to Mann’s bank account by cash transfer, in pesos.

    Ha ha

  14. Very interesting that no players with skin in the carbon market game (Blood & Gore for instance) have ponied up to defend the star of the Hockey Stickers…If the hockey stick is proven to be contrived, there is no raison d’etre for carbon markets. The real Inconvenient Truth will be self evident. Nobel Prizes will lose there nobility.

  15. “I would be surprised if Mann didn’t have any supporting briefs.”

    He could try and get some online.

  16. Few people deserve a righteous smackdown as much as meager, mean Michael Mann.

    Pompous, puffed-up, prevaricating, pathetic, paltry puny punk, pretending all the while to be “Poor (P)Victim”

    Puhh!!

    “Cry Me a River”, Mikey. Mark Steyn is the champ!

  17. Funny thing, when the herd senses danger they often flee, leaving the slowest and least nimble to be eaten.

    • Mann was gullible. He thought by producing the poster child he would be at the centre of his subject. Instead those who were more cautious have moved on without him noticing leaving him to hang our and dry.

    • It was hard to reconstruct the features of the face of the pretty body, with your extremely poor photographic technique, of this person looking at us trough the tree rings over the face. Why did you cover the face with tree rings to make it difficult? You like to make work for us? Or were you not just trying to make a pretty but mysterious display to be printed on a book you have been busy writing?
      After using Photoshop and layers and layers I was able to be 97% sure that this person is most probably a female and 97.5% sure the person is pretty. Good luck with your book.
      Never Mind!

      • rd50 may be lost which means he is following his own directions. The hockey stick did press the MWP flat and levered up the LIA flat. I was just noting that the stick wasn’t being used for its proper purpose.

  18. So-called Scholarly Scientific Societies seldom get caught up in controversies or lawsuits such as this mostly because it is neither their duty to defend their members, nor is there anything in it for them. They like to stay under the radar as much as possible.. The same probably applies to NSF.

    As for EPA and NOAA, they could file but have nothing to gain entering a private dispute.

    In short, Dr. Mann is on his own as he should be because he instigated the lawsuit. Time will tell whether he will discover that the first thing they tell you in law school is “You can NEVER predict what a judge will do.” SO, don;t place your bets on this one, much as i prefer to see Dr. Mann withdraw or lose his case.

    • Yeah, for it to mean all that much that various stakeholders are or are not submitting amici in the Mann case, we should see a few examples of other legal pickles where interested 3rd parties did and did not venture their 2¢.

      Basically, 1.), Dr. Mann should have worked from a different plane/angle, and 2.), he should have found a proxy to champion him. And if he couldn’t, he should have held his fire and waited for a cleaner shot, and just kept his powder dry. The protracted machinations diminish him.

      Scientists can use their skills to impressively argue the Bible with fundamentalists, but their abilities & assets don’t generally cut a fancy figure at the bar or in court. Exhibit ‘A’.

  19. “First off, no scientific organization has filed amici briefs supporting Mann’s suit agains”

    No organization of any kind has filed amici briefs in the Court where the trial is being held. Amici briefs are not supporting one side or the other in the facts of the case. Amici means friend of the court, not of the litigant. Organizations file amici briefs at the appeal level to argue for some legal point that suits their interests, on which the appeal court might set a precedent. Big Print doesn’t like libel laws, so the cause of the appellants gets a lot of support. Scientific organizations generally don’t have an issue to press with libel laws.

    • Nick, you’re such a contrarian!
      The US Supreme Court requires that ” The cover of an amicus brief must identify which party the brief is supporting…”
      Since I’m not a lawyer, I have to choose between believing you or Wiki.
      I think you made that up!

      • Well, here is the brief from the DC Government at the previous appeal. Would you expect the DC to intervene on behalf of Steyn? The cover says, in bold:
        “BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN SUPPORT OF NO PARTY CONCERNING THIS COURT’S JURISDICTION”

      • Nick,
        You are correct in that amici curiae means friendsof the court. But _all_ of the amici briefs supported the defendants and none supported Mann.
        Do not try to represent those amici briefs as not supporting the position of the defendants; these certainly do.

      • Nick is again trying to confuse people with formalism. It is the content of the amicus briefs that counts not the title of them. But the content is something that Nick does not want to talk about…

    • NS, if you think no amici briefs have been filed, then you have [not] been following, and have just debased yourself (again). Do catch up with current events [before] opining.

      • Rud,
        Read again. I said “No organization of any kind has filed amici briefs in the Court where the trial is being held”. Do you know of any? There are amicus briefs at the appeal court. If someone really wanted to support Steyn et al, they would do it in the trial court (if permitted).

      • The thing about Warmists is that they truly believe that if they keep their fingers crossed, hold their breath and keep their eyes shut real tight, then the stuff they believe will become true.
        You just confronted Nick Stokes with some ‘facts’….and as you know Facts to Warmists are like garlic laced crucifixes are to Vampires!

      • From a purely technical standpoint, Nick is right. He’s just trying to confuse you on what the meaning of “is” is.

    • Nick’s comment makes perfect sense to me. If a scientific organisation doesn’t have skin in the game, there is no reason to get involved. Getting involved costs money. People hate spending money and get no value. It is very simple. I think Nick’s comment was trying to point out that the absence of amici briefs for Mann doesn’t say much about the science or the validity of Steyn’s position. Supporting a person who has dug himself a deep deep hole because he was oversensitive is a waste of resources.

      Mann was trying to suppress free speech. It is his privilege on Facebook to suppress views he doesn’t like. It is the privilege of the alarmists to ban people from their blogs that question the orthodoxy. But in the broader world, he has to live with what he created. Public figures in the U. S. have a much higher standard to meet to prove they’ve been libeled. I don’t know if Mann can meet that standard. We’ll see by and by.

      What interests me, is who is paying his legal bills? Shine a light on those people or institutions as well. By supporting Mann, they are trying to make free speech harder to engage in. They are attempting to reduce our freedom. If public pressure can be brought against Mann’s sponsor(s) and they withdraw funding, Mann will still be unable to withdraw because of Steyn’s counter suit. It would be poetic justice to see him have to deal with what he created with only his own personal resources.

    • Yes, Nick, but your assertion was that “amici briefs are not supporting one side or the other…”.
      They do not have to support one side or the other but they MAY, and, indeed, they do.
      The cover of the ACLU amici brief reads thus; “BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR
      FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND 26 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
      IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND URGING REVERSAL “

      • Nick said:
        No organization of any kind has filed amici briefs in the Court where the trial is being held.
        The one you refer to appears to be to the Appeals court.

      • Phil,
        That was, indeed, what Nick said. His following comments were his description of amici briefs in general.
        Ironically, having said that ” Amici briefs are not supporting one side or the other in the facts of the case.” he contradicts himself by alluding to the support given to appellants by ‘Big Print’.
        I took issue with his characterization of amicus briefs as a whole. The question of whether Steyn is supported more than Mann is the larger topic of interest.

      • “he contradicts himself by alluding to the support given to appellants by ‘Big Print”
        No, you just need to read it properly. The amici are not intervening to say that the words spoken were not defamatory, or that the HS is busted or whatever. The facts of the case. The appeal court isn’t trying that. They are intervening on points of law – how trials should be conducted, especially in the light of SLAPP.

        Incidentally, the amici certainly aren’t supporting Steyn. He isn’t an appellant.

      • Nick,
        If I’m not reading it properly, perhaps it’s because you’re not writing it properly!
        Your first sentence clearly refers to this specific case, but your second sentence appears to be the beginning of a characterization of amicus briefs in general.
        I read it this way because the rest of your comment is unambiguously a general statement, and because you have just stated that “No organization of any kind has filed amici briefs in the Court where the trial is being held.”
        You can’t be referring to amicus briefs in this specific case because you’ve just said there aren’t any.
        You don’t use the definite article or any other demonstrative to qualify “amici briefs” at the beginning of your second sentence and that, typically, includes all amici briefs everywhere.
        It’s not a very big point I’m trying to make, I’ll grant you.
        Although I’ve known ‘amicus’ means ‘friend’ in Latin for 50 years, I don’t think I’d taken note of ‘amicus brief’ until the mannsteyn marvel made the news.

      • For your extra entertainment, as said, Steyn is not a litigant in the appeal. But he is an amicus curiae. His memo, says:
        “Brief of Amicus Curiae Mark Steyn in support of neither party”.

        But he expands:
        “Amicus Curiae Mark Steyn brings this brief in support of neither affirmance nor reversal, but instead in support of an expeditious ruling on this matter.”
        Since it is the other defendants that are holding things up with the appeal, you could say that his brief is supporting Mann.

      • Yes, the fun continues.
        It states that Steyn IS a defendant in the action, in spite of his amicus brief not being in support of either side. It also claims that the defendants are particularly damaged by the delay, so that belies the detached position of the brief’s title.
        The convolutions of the case are definitely beyond me and I will be content to merely witness the outcome.
        My sympathies are with Steyn but I don’t always back the winner.

    • Amicus briefs are based on principles but what the litigants are arguing about is based on principles, so briefs take one side or the other, to claim otherwise is simply BS.

      But you are correct scientific organizations generally don’t have an issue to press with libel laws, since science is supposed to be about empirical evidence, process, etc.. Apparently Mann unlike scientific organizations is more interested in public opinion than science.

  20. This e-mail thing keeps getting worse and worse…

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/holder-used-secret-email-address-too/

    Attorney General Eric Holder used secretive email accounts under aliases during his tenure at the Justice Department, raising fresh questions about the Obama administration’s compliance with federal records laws as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reels from her own email scandal.

    Holder has emailed under the nom de plume “Henry Yearwood” in the past, former Justice Department officials say. The Huffington Post reported Tuesday that Holder had used three aliases. The current is unknown.

    A spokesman for Holder claimed to the Huffington Post that the secretive email accounts did not interfere with the production of Holder emails to congressional oversight officials or FOIA requests.

    Former Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson came under fire previously for emailing under an alias, Richard Windsor, that critics alleged had protected her correspondence from some FOIA requests.

  21. For those of you that think Mann can simply fold up and walk away, Stein has a counter suit for $20M+ which is totally unrelated to what Mann may do with his suit. This balsy move by Stein is lopping years off Mann’s life you can be sure. This article should have made this point – Stein is a lion. The counter may also have resolved it for those who may have been considering support, too. Mann’s options: he has to pony up what is requested for discovery and battle it out to avoid the counter suit or he withdraws with his tail between his legs and writes a check for $20M+, + costs and punitive damages for bringing a baseless suit before the court. No, there will be no shaking hands and walking away from this. I think he got his legal fund in place before the counter suit. I’d be surprised if they bankrolled him enough for this. All that will be left is stand up comedy for the good doctor to pay off – he won’t be worth much in regular speaking engagements even if he has the guts to face an audience again.

    There will be the usual consolation awards made by the learned societies, etc (Gleick for felonious uncharged mail fraud, etc, Chris Turney of Ship of Fools fame in OZ, Ehrlich for spending an entire career and retirement being alarmist and wrong), perhaps the OZ centre for excellence in climate science might step up- they did just that for the head of the Ship of Fools musical comedy we were treated to last year that upstaged Gilbert and Sullivan. It makes a good plot that I had hoped would be the subject of a movie including the ship captain calling on assistance from John Coleman who got Anthony Watts and Joe d’Aleo working on a forecast that was spot on, the weather change resulting in the release of the ship!

  22. All this fuss over supposed “smoothing” of the Medieval Warm Period? I would say the judge’s decision is irrelevant. Let’s move on to more important topics than smearing individuals (whether they be Mann, Soon, Pachy, whomever).

    • Agreed: it does look like the verdict will ‘by now’ be an anticlimax, either way. Individuals could be impacted, but it’s ‘academic’, in the bigger picture … and not the kind of academics anyone wants to be too close to.

      Each personality (Mann, Soon, Patchy) can be dealt with case-by-case. Not-moving-on, per se, doesn’t mean smearing.

      The link didn’t open to the intended anchor-target, for me; reverted to the base URL.

    • Barry, you wrote: “All this fuss over supposed ‘smoothing’ of the Medieval Warm Period?”

      How in the world to you manage to take away that message from the story? Mann is the one who brought the lawsuit! He has ONLY himself to blame. He is persecutor here, not the victim.

    • Barry,
      When you say ” Let’s move on to more important topics…”, who is it that should move on?
      The whole world including Mark and Mike?
      Just us, here at WUWT?
      Everyone on this thread?
      You’re here but you don’t have to be; there’s a whole bunch of other posts to read and remark upon.
      You can be pretty sure that we will all move on quite soon.
      Don’t feel you have to wait for us, we’ll catch up to you.

    • @ Barry, Raaasppppbbbberry…..What a terribly weak argument I don’t think Mann would hire you as a lawyer or a “consultant” even if you did it for free. In the real world we call your comment a diversion.

    • Barry
      January 27, 2015 at 2:19 pm

      I would be interested to know what specific research of Soon’s was funded by the American Petroleum Institute, Texaco Foundation, ExxonMobil Foundation, and the Koch brothers.

      The smearing didn’t seem to bother you 6 weeks ago Barry, what’s changed?

    • Well if at this point you believe the judge’s decision is irrelevant, you can ask the judge to award Steyn damages for Mann wasting Steyns time and money as well as the courts. Please do so asap.

    • Some slimeballs deserve smearing.

      It´s not just about smoothing. It’s about tricks, hiding the decline and statistical errors, to put it mildly, ie blatant manipulation.

  23. Oh Mann… I called this one!
    When the whole thing first started, I said Mann would get no support from his compatriots. It is one thing to make public pronouncements to reporters in general terms tat sound supportive, quite another to actually submit documentation to a court of law where the outcome for misleading the court can be severe penalties. They’re staying away in droves because they’d crumple under cross, and they all know it.

    • Yes, all of Mann’s natural allies have turned their backs on him. They voted with their feet and walked away.
      For something worse than the hockey stick, see Upsidedown Tiljander, Mann, on Climate Audit.

    • Absolutely. This is why forcing these people out of their comfort zones is so critical. I still think the question as to whether on some level any of these people actually believe their own guff about CAGW must be taken seriously. And putting people in situations like this is one way of testing this hypothesis. (How ironic that it was Mann who initiated the whole thing!)

      And if the hypothesis in question is true, then in the end this hysteria may collapse as dramatically as the Dreyfus affair did once the perpetrators lost control.

  24. My question, will Mann become the greatest scapegoat in history? Will the entire climate establishment attempt to blame Mann’s work for their defective conclusions? Sounds crazy and far fetched, but I think they might be desperate enough to try.

    • When the house of cards collapses everyone will be made a scapegoat by the politicians and bureaucrats who are career butt-coverers. But wait till the already disenfranchised (e.g. Russell Brand)) realises they have been fed a pack of lies to enrich the elite they so despise. Buy popcorn futures now! It may take 10 years, or it may a day. The climate is about to change a wee bit.

  25. There once was a wave off Nantucket.
    Who’s curl was so cold you could touch it.
    In the shape of a fin
    Global warming done in
    With a straw Michael Mann could just suck it.

  26. The real questions are whether history will be written to favor Mann anyway (given all the tax-funded agencies on his side) and how badly his opponents will be financially ruined even if they win (because the US still doesn’t have loser-pays).

    • Except those opponents who have the spheres to counter sue! Now the only way out for Mike is to win! He can’t withdraw, even with his tail between his legs or he’ll have to write the check and I believe it is $20M +.

    • Not likely the way the (real) climate seems to be trending. (How many historians take the part of the witch hunters, who had all the funding agencies of the time on their side?)

  27. I wonder if Carol (Carol Finn AGU) and Marcie (Marcie McNutt AAAS) [as we use to sing in USGS Denver, “a Nutt is a Nutt if you think like a Nutt”] would come to the rescue of Mann. Kissy kissy, lick lick, on pussy pussy.

    Ah Ha! USGS Style! Together and in Grand Gay Union Ms Carol, Ms Marcie and Mr Mann will hold an “Equinoxes Event!”

    The Goal of the “Event” … is to [drum roll and Gong] … Give Birth to the … “SON OF MANN”!

    [trimmed]

    Drill Baby Drill, Find those old bank accounts … Drill Baby Drill. :-)

  28. In today’s screwed up world as shown with the Clinton E-mails ( and now Holder and soon I assume many more to come). Do not count the chickens before the eggs are hatched.This whole scenario is going to play out sadly enough for many years to come and by then another diversion will push all of this to the background under the motto
    “What difference at this time does it make”
    and that is what will happen if Clinton gets elected!

    • asybot,

      Being a pessimist, I tend to agree with you. Maybe not about another President Clinton, but the thing that concerns me is this thoroughly incompetent judge. She is a poster child for a political judicial appointee, and she rates about as low as anyone on any bench.

      The upside is the defendant. Spectators could not ask for more of a tiger than Mark Steyn. Mann picked the wrong guy to go after. The odds are high that he will live to regret it.

      Better by far if Mann could have picked an organization to go after. They fold easily [I know, Mann also named Steyn’s employer. But Steyn is the one he has by the tail].

      With an impartial judge I have very little doubt that Steyn would prevail. He may well anyway. But no matter what happens, Mann will get no glory either way. When folks see his true character, they are repulsed.

  29. Surely you should be sceptical of claims made by Mark Steyn?
    He is claiming that because Mann points out that he did not author the graphic gracing the cover of “WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 1999”.
    …something….
    because Mann authored the graphic on the front cover of “Temperature Changes Over the Last Millenium, 2000”.

    Like, what *are* you thinking?
    More importantly, what are you thinking *with*?

    • Could you post that hockey stick chart again, please. I think I missed it the last couple times.

      • Craig ..

        points out that he did not author the graphic gracing the cover of “WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 1999″.
        …something….

        http://nichol.as/papers/wmo913.pdf

        It kinda says ‘Mann’ did it on the front page.

        Can you provide a link to the 2000 version ? because the 1999 document (as far as I am aware) was in fact published in 2000 if you read the report you will see that clearly in

        WMO-No. 913
        © 2000, World Meteorological Organization
        ISBN 92-63-10913-3.

        Oh yeah, best to have your eyes open when reading it though, it helps.

    • “Mann points out that he did not author the graphic gracing the cover of “WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 1999″.
      …something….
      because Mann authored the graphic on the front cover of “Temperature Changes Over the Last Millenium, 2000″.”

      Yes, I wondered about that too. WUWT?

    • Craig…if one asserts damages resulting from being called a fraud, and it is revealed in discovery that the plaintiff is a liar, who misrepresents his role in producing graphics used for the cover of the WMO report… that the plaintiff lied on his C.V. That his own pleadings are contradicted by his own writings?

      Dont you think reasonable inference would be that the plaintiff is a proven liar, a fraud?

      That’s steyn’s point. You may not agree with it, but its a defensible position, one provided by Mann’s own actions and claims.

      Now, really. just go away.

  30. The following quote, probably known to all of you, summarizes the situation rather well:

    “When the later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of the twenty-first century as an embarrassing chapter in the history of science. They will wonder about our time and use it as a warning of the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten, as the actual research topic of climate change turned into a political and social playground”

    – Atte Korhola, Professor of Environmental Change, University of Helsinki.

    Seem to place Dr. Mann’s lawsuit in the “political/social playground.”

    • Very well put by Professor Atte Korhola.

      I always the most interesting potential areas of study concerning climate science was not climate but the political and social behaviors around it.

  31. The non-supporting ought-to-be supporters have obviously realized that the Mann is going down. And they don’t want to get sucked into the ensueing maelstrom. Keep clear of dubious, porky Nobel-Prize non-winners seems to be the motto. Manns obituary in the academic world might be even titled “Good riddance!”

  32. Just curious, is this case (if it ever happens) to be tried by a judge?
    Will there be a jury involved?
    I seem to remember a rather immature female judge in Canada giving a rather strange decision recently on a not dissimilar case.
    I would be worried about the impartiality of a government appointed judge, considering the present ‘climate’ in the White House.

    • I believe the case you reference was the one ever so elegantly demolished by Steve McIntyre in several recent climate audit posts: here and here. And actually I see Steve has two new posts which may expand on the ones I linked.

    • waterside4,

      My concern also. Not being a lawyer I’m still wondering if this will be a jury trial? Or would Steyn’s counter-suit be a jury trial?

      I would hate to take my chances with a judge like Combs-Greene — although she will probably make so many errors that appeals would be productive.

      If this isn’t a jury trial, then the judge is surely the wild card.

  33. Craig Thomas;

    Kudos for defending Dr. Mann. Even the indefensible deserves a defense. To those who taunt with Daniel’s interpretation of Mene mene tekel upharsin, you can always remind that he too had that ineffable yen for the lion’s den.

    Prodigal sons and Naysayers – tho often eaten by the lions – are way too pivotal to ignore.

    But. Mann did end up scuffing his curve into the Nazca Plain of public consciousness and it will define (defame?) him as long as Greenpeace will rue “Time for Change: The Future is Renewable“.

    But. You complicate your mission by addressing two issues, where there was only one. Dr. Mann’s legal moves are one thing; qualifying them by raising the bet with the validity of his science-enterprise is another. Distractions sometimes work, but lions and people pacing their intellectual dens can have a very high subtly-threshold.

    Science IS on trial, Mr. Thomas … only not in the courts. Science was in big trouble, following WWII, because of the Bomb. Science had earned credit by materially assisting in the Allied Victory … but incurred additional suspicion with trespasses & moral failures in the enemy camp. And for two, western science was already on probation in the late 1930s, going into the War, for several unsavory reasons we revisit reluctantly.

    Before the Hippie Era and modern Leftie politics arrived, Science was in a descending existential & identity crisis. It wore Elite and worse like a mummified Albatross. None who know the history, and have glanced at the stepping stones, want to return to (or even own) it.

    But. Instead of Science that is simultaneously Superhuman and Subhuman, we now have Science that watches “Keeping up with the Kardashians“.

    Dr. Mann has inadvertently contributed an episode, with Kanye and Kim.

  34. Steyn is on trial for libel and for causing Mann some sort of damage.

    Damages are hard to prove since Manns income has increased and has boatloads of money to fund this trial.

    To prove libel it is not Steyn who will be on chopping block it will be Mann. Even if Steyn can be proven in some technical way to have committed libel, on the way there he will be able to prove Michael Mann is of poor principles and character and used his access to wealth in an attempt to punish media who disagree with his views. It is ironic and a bad sign for Mann that in the climate field the strategy has changed to going after the press to using the press to go after disagreeing scientists.

    Climate science is not on trial since science is not determined in court. Scientific institutions should not file briefs on the science, however they could file briefs on scientists being intimidated and abused by the press based on their scientific research. That they haven’t speaks volumes. They understand well that it is not Mann being intimidated into changing their behavior by the press, but Mann attempting to use the courts to intimidate the press into changing behavior.

    No one wants to hitch their wagon to that horse.

    • (Scientific institutions) understand well that it is not Mann being intimidated into changing their behavior by the press, but Mann attempting to use the courts to intimidate the press into changing behavior.

      Yes, and it’s not just the institution of science that is minding its relationship with the Fourth Estate. Even no less a worthy than HRC is incurring liability, trying to dodge them.

  35. Exactly what Amicus briefs would climate scientists file on Mann’s behalf that will make one iota of difference?

    Mann himself will be able to point to multiple investigations into his science which have concluded the science was good and he committed no breaches of scientific integrity. Mann will be able to trot out witnesses from each of these investigations. Steyn might have been able to cast doubt on the thoroughness of a single investigation, but six? No hope.

    The facts are very clear. Steyn accused Mann of fraudulently torturing data and there are six related investigations by august scientific bodies which have concluded he did not, some from premier USA scientific institutions. The only question to settle is whether the accusation of fraud against Mann constitutes legal libel and if so what the damages should be. Damages would take into account the many millions of Steyn’s readers who now believe Mann is guilty of scientific fraud contrary to the findings of the investigations, and the additional personal abuse and mental anguish Mann has been subjected to as a result since the article was published.

    The only thing missing is for the court to decide whether this really libel or whether it is protected free speech. If this is not libel, then nothing else is ever going to be libel ever again. It is difficult to see how the addition of many other Amicus briefs on Mann’s behalf will change the court’s decision on whether it is libel. The case rests on a single point of law.

    • Six investigations? Be still my beating heart! Call it whitewash, rinse, repeat.

      Michael Mann is followed by a trainload of the sort of indiscretions normally associated with fertilizing a farm. Beyond seemingly hysterical attempts to blackball, sue, discredit, or otherwise slander opponents, at the same time avoiding debate at all cost. Besides his prominent presence in Climategate, there also exist a SECOND set of records and e-mails, stemming from Mann’s time at the University of Virginia – e-mails that the current governor of the state, swears to keep secret (and BOTH political parties organized a remarkably dirty smear campaign in the last election against a challenger who specifically said he would make these e-mails public). In the wake of Climategate, Virginia’s Attorney General subpoenaed these e-mails – and was told by the State Supreme Court that the Freedom Of Information requests would not be honored. Mann has sat on these stubbornly for years and has viciously sued anyone who attempts to get near him or makes any move to expose him to the public.

      Mann still claims to have been exonerated – a claim parroted by all forms of media –everything from CNN and the BBC to Playboy Magazine. The internal Penn State inquiry – with no impartial truth-seekers involved – was not going to harm a grant-getting cash cow like Mann – clearly demonstrated by their similar handling of the Sandusky case. No, instead, it whitewashed the evidence to ensure the preferred conclusion. Professional science groups that relied upon public funding for their financial survival fell in line behind a huge Tom Sawyer campaign of “exoneration.”

      There was no exoneration. Exoneration requires investigation; investigation requires pursuit aimed at discovering material facts. Mann’s employer since 2005, Penn State University, has conducted no such thing. Neither has the University of Virginia.

      The same conclusion applies to the UK’s Muir Russell and Oxburgh inquiries, which didn’t even mention Mann, because they were “investigating” only employees of the CRU.

      On a personal note, when you read Mann’s ‘professional’ e-mails, you will find Mann a petty, pretentious, highly opinionated, and vindictive person, who clearly rankled the feathers of even his co-conspirators.

  36. Climate Pete

    Thankyou. There have been many good jokes in this thread but I award you my judgement of the funniest comment so far.

    I of course refer to your surreal but brilliant satire saying of the proven liar and his brilliant presentation of “hide the decline” as an alternative to honest science

    Mann himself will be able to point to multiple investigations into his science which have concluded the science was good and he committed no breaches of scientific integrity. Mann will be able to trot out witnesses from each of these investigations. Steyn might have been able to cast doubt on the thoroughness of a single investigation, but six? No hope.

    Now that if funny! Really, really funny. Well done!

    Richar

    • Have a good laugh now, because you won’t be able to later.

      Here are some of the reports of investigations into Michael Mann, the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) and the Hockey Stick paper MBH98.

      Summary of EPA findings relevant to UEA/CRU plus comments from UEA
      https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/EPA+investigation

      EPA findings page including response to various petitions claiming Mann was wrong / fraudulent
      http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html

      Original Penn State University (PSU) inquiry into research misconduct by Mann
      http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/documents/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf

      National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General audit of the PSU inquiry and subsequent independent inquiry into some of the allegations.
      http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf

      House of Commons report into UEA/CRU/climategate together with witness testimony
      http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

      The independent UK government climategate email review
      http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

      International panel set up to examine the UEA/CRU and climategate emails
      https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

      There are others too, of course

      All these are going to be used as evidence in the Steyn / Mann libel case. They all say one thing – there is no credible evidence of any research misconduct.

      That’s why the jury is going to believe than Mann did nothing wrong. And that is why the case is going to hinge on whether or not calling a public figure “fraudulent” while understanding that the above reports exist is libel.

      • This has been well covered and responded to claims and counterclaims. Read them yourself. Except for a his University one and I believe one other, Mann is not even mentioned ( a British one does allude to the misleading hockey stick on the WMO report) and background data wasn’t even examined. The ones directly mentioning Mann are an unequivocal whitewash. Indeed, it is precisely the background data on which the stick is based that he is withholding with all his might from discovery requests.

      • You do know that an investigation which does not even consider someone cannot be consider as proof of their innocence don’t you ?

        Meanwhile you will find yourself in a much smaller group then you think in your worship of this climate ‘prophet ‘

      • Hello.

        http://www.steynonline.com/6127/the-invisible-mann

        From climateaudit via Steyn: “Meanwhile, Steve McIntyre presents Part Four of his series on Michael E Mann’s serial misrepresentation of the various bodies he claims have exonerated him….”

        You really should read the collection of articles at climateaudit.org, many, incl. Steyn and his team, already have… What do you think of McIntyre’s analysis?

        Thanks.

      • Well Climate Pete, in addition to the issues raised by others, I have another reason why these reports aren’t likely to help Mann. It is because saying he was investigated and exonerated for public consumption via the press is one thing. To demonstrate that he was actually exonerated of the specifics in this case is another. My recollection of at least one of the investigations (the PSU one IIRC, I can’t be bothered to read through them again to see which) was anger. Anger because it was clear that the questions had been cleverly designed to skirt around the issue at hand entirely.

        Now I’m no longer angry, I am amused. If Mann drags that in front of the court, the court will look at it and see the exact same thing. The investigation didn’t even investigate the matter at hand, and so its outcome, for or against Mann, is irrelevant to the case.

      • Have you read a single one of them, Pete?

        The UEA/CRU absolutely does not vindicate Mann.

        They did say, however;

        14. If there had been more time available before the end of this Parliament we would have preferred to carry out a wider inquiry into the science of global warming itself.

        And then there was this exchange (pg 20);

        Graham Stringer: “You are saying that every paper that you have produced, the computer programmes, The weather stations, all the information, the codes, have been available to scientists so that they could test out how good your work was. Is that the case on all the papers you have produced?”

        Professor Jones: “That is not the case.”

        Graham Stringer: “Why is it not?”

        Professor Jones: “Because it has not been standard practice to do that.”

        Graham Stringer: “That takes me back to the original point, that if it is not standard practice how can the science progress?”

        Professor Jones: “Maybe it should be standard practice but it is not standard practice across the subject.”

        And this (page 61)
        61. Lord Lawson did, however, describe CRU’s treatment of the data as “reprehensible”, because, in his view, Professor Jones deliberately hid data that demonstrated a decline in temperatures.

        As to the notion that the panel ‘exhonorated’ anybody (page 5);

        The Deputy Information Commissioner has given a clear indication that a breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 may have occurred but that a prosecution was time-barred; however no investigation has been carried out. In our view it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter unresolved. We conclude that the matter needs to be resolved conclusively—either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the Information Commissioner.

        THAT doesn’t appear to exonerate anybody. In fact it is a condemnation, not of the science but of the unprofessional behavior of those involved. But not Mann, this particular panel said not one thing about anybody who was not a member of the faculty and staff at EAU/CRU.

        Further, one has only to read the report in its entirety to see that it says not one single thing ABOUT Mann, his science or his behavior. The fact that a couple of emails sent to him were included in the text of the report does nothing to indicate whether his work was scientific or his actions professional. Not. One. Thing.

        The fact that he included it in his list of entities who reviewed his work and behaviour and subsequently cleared him of any wrong doing should certainly convince you of the distance to which this man (no pun intended) has removed himself from reality.

        Perhaps not. You cannot convince a man of something his livelihood depends on him not understanding.

    • Climate Pete

      Oh dear! I truly thought your post I answered was a joke because it was so divorced from reality, and I thanked you for the belly laugh it gave me. Your response to my thanks for the laugh suggests you were serious, and I think you mean what you say in that response. Of course, your response could be an extension of your joke, but its detail leads me to think not. So, I am replying on the basis that your response is serious, and if your response was an extension of your joke then the joke is on me.

      I add to all the very fine replies to your response to me in this thread.

      The Mann has already had to withdraw part of his case because contrary to his lies he was not and is not a Nobel Laureate. Several people have answered your specific claims of investigations that have “exonerated” the Mann. Assertions that he was exonerated by investigations which did not mention him would add to the Court’s understanding that this Mann is a liar.

      But you say of these whitewashes – oops, sorry, these ‘investigations’

      All these are going to be used as evidence in the Steyn / Mann libel case. They all say one thing – there is no credible evidence of any research misconduct.

      That’s why the jury is going to believe than Mann did nothing wrong. And that is why the case is going to hinge on whether or not calling a public figure “fraudulent” while understanding that the above reports exist is libel.

      In other words, you are asserting that the Court will accept as being true presentation of assertions from people and organisations made outside the Court. American judges would need to be very different from British judges for your assertion to be correct! And this thread is about the fact that nobody has provided a brief supporting the Mann: the representatives of each of the “investigations” is included in that decision to not support the Mann in the Court.

      So, the Mann would need to bring those representatives of the “investigations” into Court, and Steyn could cross-examine them. They will then need to explain what they said in their ‘investigations’ in the light of ‘hide the decline’ and ‘Mike’s Nature trick’. And if you think the Court would accept ‘hide the decline’ and ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ as being “no credible evidence of any research misconduct” then you must live on another planet!

      Also, Steyn did NOT call the Mann “fraudulent”. Steyn accurately and correctly said the MBH ‘hockey stick’ graph is “fraudulent”. That graph was “fraudulent” because it used ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ to ‘hide the decline’ and, thus, to deliberately mislead about the validity of Mann’s analysis method.

      In conclusion, the reasons the Mann is delaying the Court case are because
      (a) the Mann is trying to drain Steyn’s resources
      and
      (b) the Mann knows he would be toast if the case were heard in Court.

      Richard

      • As usual richard the facts are not your friend:
        Also, Steyn did NOT call the Mann “fraudulent”.

        In fact November 25, 2014 he said:
        Dr Mann is not merely a fraud as a Nobel Laureate and a fraud as an octuply “exonerated” scientist, he’s a fraud as a plaintiff, too.

        I’m not part of this appeal. By choice. I want to get to court as soon as possible, and put Michael E Mann, PhD (Doctor of Phraudology) on the stand under oath.

        September 16, 2014
        Ever since this tedious suit was launched by Doctor Fraudpants

        Judge Weisberg in his ruling found the following in denying the dismissal of the proceedings:

        “Turning to the special motion of defendants National Review and Steyn to dismiss Count VII, when Mr. Steyn republished Mr. Simberg’s words, he stopped short of wholeheartedly endorsing the offensive Sandusky metaphor.8 Nevertheless, Mr. Steyn did not disavow the assertion of fact that Dr. Mann had “molested and tortured data,” and he added insult to injury by describing Dr. Mann as “the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph.” Am. Compl. ¶ 28. In context, calling Dr. Mann’s work “fraudulent” is itself defamatory and parallels Mr. Simberg’s claim that Dr. Mann “molested and tortured data.””

      • phil. reported on March 12, 2015 at 9:04 am ;

        (Judge Weisberg said): (W)hen Mr. Steyn republished Mr. Simberg’s words, he stopped short of wholeheartedly endorsing the offensive Sandusky metaphor.8 Nevertheless …

        Tying Dr. Mann to Mr. Sandusky is an unforced error. Stupid would be an upgrade. Tying PSU to Sandusky might be useful (and with care, legally safe), but invoking molestation imagery against the man spuriously is self-inflicted damage.

        If Mann’s suit, or part of it, are based on this “Sandusky metaphor”, then Steyn certainly could regret the rhetorical flourish.

        Had Steyn stuck with the “facts & data” on which the hockey-stick is based, fine & good. If he strolled out in front of the speeding legal Mack truck of personality assassination (and that’s what Dr. Mann is really challenging him on), well …

      • Phil.

        As is your usual practice, you are spouting nonsense.

        Mann sued as a result of the article by Steyn in the National Review. That article clearly does NOT call the Mann a fr*ud but calls the MBH ‘hockey stick’ fr*udulent.

        Subsequently, Steyn has ‘upped the ante’ in several ways, not least by making a counter-suite against the Mann. Your quotations pertain to statements made by Steyn subsequent to the Mann providing his case to the Court, and the Mann would need to ask the Court for him to alter his complaint if those quotations were to become the subject of his case.

        As usual, you either don ‘t know what you are talking about or you are deliberately trying to mislead onlookers.

        Richard

      • Ted Clayton

        You say of Steyn

        Tying Dr. Mann to Mr. Sandusky is an unforced error.

        Steyn pointed out that Mann was ‘exonerated’ by an inquiry conducted by the same person on behalf of the same university that had ‘exonerated’ Sandusky.

        Steyn reported on the similar treatment of Sandusky and Mann by the university to demonstrate the reality of the ‘exoneration’ of Mann by the university. And Steyn said this similar treatment made Mann “the Sandusky of climate”. It is a stretch to claim that Steyn said anything about Mann being similar to Sandusky.

        Richard

      • Richard Courtney says;

        It is a stretch to claim that Steyn said anything about Mann being similar to Sandusky.

        But I see on Science Magazine 2012, Steyn quoted:

        Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers.

        Eww. That is some pretty feeble ‘distancing’, alright. Mann’s suit is against both Simberg (the main molestation “metaphor” creator) and Steyn, and it did originally cite the comparisons of himself with Sandusky (and the molestation & torture language … which yeah, can descend into ‘litigation/courroom noise’).

        It’s an error, for Mann to complicate his suit by including both of these guys, and the fairly independent offenses against his person, and his professional conduct. Sometimes, if the media exposure is the main goal, and dragging a suit on for a long time with a muddled final resolution is ok or preferable, a poorly-constructed suit like this does the job nicely.

        Note that the AAAS Science article is titled: “Climate Scientist Mann Faces Obstacles to Winning Libel Lawsuit, Legal Experts Say”, notwithstanding the prominently-explored Sandusky complication.

        It may be that Judge Weisberg is issuing a ‘shot across the bow’ to Steyn, because he wants to avoid having the basic case derailed by irrelevant side-language. Judges generally like to preside over real & meaningful legal questions, rather than … monkeys flying & screaming around their enclosure.

        If it comes down to the facts & data behind the hockey-stick (which reading a bit between the lines might be Weisberg’s interest), then ‘judging’ from a quick glance at the (justifiably) notorious curve itself, there will have to be some fancy & no doubt fascinating mannsplaining.

        Ted

      • richardscourtney March 12, 2015 at 9:59 am
        Phil.

        As is your usual practice, you are spouting nonsense.

        Mann sued as a result of the article by Steyn in the National Review. That article clearly does NOT call the Mann a fr*ud but calls the MBH ‘hockey stick’ fr*udulent.

        And said the following:

        “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
        Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.

        Both judges who’ve heard this regard it as an accusation of fraud.
        Judge Weisberg said the following:
        “In context, it would not be unreasonable for a reader to interpret the comment, and the republication in National Review, as an allegation that Dr. Mann had committed scientific fraud, which Penn State University then covered up, just as some had accused the University of covering up the Sandusky scandal. For many of the reasons discussed in Judge Combs Greene’s July 19 orders, to state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation.”

        “Turning to the special motion of defendants National Review and Steyn to dismiss Count VII, when Mr. Steyn republished Mr. Simberg’s words, he stopped short of wholeheartedly endorsing the offensive Sandusky metaphor. Nevertheless, Mr. Steyn did not disavow the assertion of fact that Dr. Mann had “molested and tortured data,” and he added insult to injury by describing Dr. Mann as “the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph.” Am. Compl. ¶ 28. In context, calling Dr. Mann’s work “fraudulent” is itself defamatory and parallels Mr. Simberg’s claim that Dr. Mann “molested and tortured data.””

        You would appear to be the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      • Phil.

        As usual, having been shown to be wrong about one thing (i.e. in this case the relevance of your quotations) you attempt to obfuscate by misleading about another.

        In the article which is the subject of the legal dispute, Steyn did NOT say the Mann is a fr*ud: Steyn said the Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph is fr*udulent.

        The judges whom you cite were deciding if the case had sufficient merit to be heard in Court. They were NOT deciding on matters of fact which may be heard in the Court case. In that context they decided it could be argued that saying the graph was “fr*udulent” is comparable to saying its provider is a “fr*ud”, and this argument could be heard – so decided – in Court. They made no judgement on what decision would be made in the Court case which has not yet happened and will never happen if Mann continues his delaying tactics.

        Phil., you may wish to ponder why the Mann is avoiding the Court action he initiated if his case is as strong as you assert.

        Richard

      • Ted Clayton

        Thankyou for the clear explanation and expansion of your opinion of the ‘Sandusky issue’.

        We have different views on the and which of us is legally ‘right’ will be decided if the Court case ever happens.

        Richard

  37. MarkW
    March 10, 2015 at 3:42 pm

    I’m pretty sure it’s National Review, not National Inquirer.

    Good, at least someone else noticed this. No need to equivocate. It is the National Review and there is a rather large difference. Author, please fix this error.

  38. Well, if Mann (of Penn State Univ) has one doggedly loyal friend left, then it must be Scott Mandia who has an important role in the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund of the Union of Concerned Scientists. A wonderfully farcical image is Mann & Mandia doing the legal defense tango together.

    Hey, John A., I thank you for the retrospective on a couple of Mann’s tricksterisms

    John

  39. The general practice is to threaten to sue somebody who disagrees with you. The threatened notoriety and damage to one’s career usually made it easy to shut people up. Now, the silent majority of (non-consensus) science have found a voice – at last!

    • Indeed, that is Monckton’s approach, most recently applied to a poster on here, Leif Svalgaard at Stanford. He’s also tried the tactic with a professor at the university of Tasmania, three professors at a New Zealand university and several others in the US, notably John Abraham.

  40. {bold emphasis mine – JW}

    Mark Steyn wrote,

    Well, yesterday was the deadline, and not a single amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann. Not one. So Michael Mann is taking a stand for science. But evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann. The self-appointed captain of the hockey team is playing solo. As Judith Curry wrote last month:

    “The link between ‘defending Michael Mann is defending climate science’ seems to have been broken.”

    As yesterday’s deafening silence confirms. If you’re defending Michael Mann, you’re not defending science, or defending climate science, or theories on global warming or anything else. Defending Michael Mann means defending Michael Mann – and it turns out not many people are willing to go there

    Well, in a divergent concept of science caused by a subjectivist philosophy of science. Mann could be defending a Platonistic kind of scientific ‘light of knowledge’ approach.

    An example might be this parody of the ‘light of knowledge’ technique used for fashionably alarming climate science assessments:

    John

  41. Climate Pete;

    All these (reviews by CRU, EPA, NSF, etc) are going to be used as evidence in the Steyn / Mann libel case. They all say one thing – there is no credible evidence of any research misconduct.

    That’s why the jury is going to believe than Mann did nothing wrong. And that is why the case is going to hinge on whether or not calling a public figure “fraudulent” while understanding that the above reports exist is libel.

    With friends like CRU, EPA and We-See-Nooo-thing! PSU, who needs a skilled & motivate adversarial counsel? Most juries will struggle with the idea of Big Government and Bought Institutions mumbling sacred rites for their own employee.

    Is Dr. Mann still withholding data that will be the real evidence-of-interest? If he has been, all along, that’s two strikes. If that data shows Mann massaged the facts & interpretations, then the assertion of fraud has merit.

    Defamation continues to be an effective real-world charge. Mostly this works for people who are entertainers, politicians or executive officers … people who’s personal stock-in-trade is tied to their PR-values. A scientist’s value is not tied to whether he combs his hair, ties his shoes, or acts like a normal human being – no biggie if he’s a laughing-stock, since his professional value is tied to his skill in technical problem-solving, and astute fact-and-data management.

    Anything the least shady about Dr. Mann’s handling of facts & data, provides his accuser with the “knowing” and “intent” that is key to a successful defamation/libel-defense.

    The research misconduct standards of CRU, PSU etc are not closely aligned with the Law.

    Much always depends on the given judge & jury … but scientists should generally not cry legal defamation or libel over accusations that their research is flawed, and they will usually be in big trouble if they have not revealed all the relevant data … since in reality some ‘stinky-craft’ with data is actually the professional norm. Oops.

    Drs. Pons and Fleischmann continued to teach & research, just not in this hemisphere. It was their somewhat shady handling of the data that did them in – not that they committed ‘actual’ fraud.

    Dr. Mann’s mistakes are not nearly as academically & professionally distasteful as P&F’s. His case is a mere inconvenience, and he should continue on his career track. His efforts to redeem himself may even enhance his ultimate scientific bottom line.

    • ‘The research misconduct standards of CRU, PSU etc are not closely aligned with the Law.’

      Has most of them never looked at Mann , despite him claiming they did , they have no bearing at all on the situation , so alignment doe snot come into it.

      But just one question for him to enhance his ultimate scientific bottom line. he most surly have one to enhance it in the first place and yet his work is a joke and shows no sign of scientific ability ?

      • Has most of them (CRU, EPA, PSU, etc) never looked at Mann , despite him claiming they did , they have no bearing at all on the situation , so alignment doe snot come into it.

        Yeah, part of the problem with flag-waving these kinds of claims is that such ‘appeasement-inquiries’ are designed to be go-nowhere exercises. “Body-temperature, high-90s; respiration – check; pulse – probably. No, Joan Q. Public, we don’t see a problem.”

        PSU really accentuates this institutional reflex … managerially, the stench drifts great distances and still drives unusual air-freshener sales.

        (Can Dr. Mann) enhance his ultimate scientific bottom line (if he) shows no sign of scientific ability ?

        It is a sneaking suspicion of some long duration, that our Neanderthal heritage is a under-recognized fount of analytic ability, and the temperament that supports what is these days called scientific process … but which has most likely been a human trump-card since no later than the Middle Paleolithic.

        Indeed, there are suggestions Neanderthal themselves inherited it from Erectus. Some have entertained the prospect that rudiments of science-behavior will predate even Homo.

        … Mann may have painted himself into a social corner (or not), but he probably still has his Applied Math and Physics texts from undergrad school. ;)

      • Ted Clayton

        I don’t ‘buy’ your assessment.

        My response to Climate Pete is in moderation but when it appears it is likely to be here. It concludes saying

        In conclusion, the reasons the Mann is delaying the Court case are because
        (a) the Mann is trying to drain Steyn’s resources
        and
        (b) the Mann knows he would be toast if the case were heard in Court.

        Richard

    • Ted Clayton said :

      Most juries will struggle with the idea of Big Government and Bought Institutions mumbling sacred rites for their own employee.

      That’s purely a right-wing myth. Most Americans believe that scientists are trustworthy. Even if the defence lawyer manages to cast doubt on climate science, a number of independent scientists involved in the investigations were not climatologists. Present company excepted, most jury members are just not going to believe the thesis “all scientists of all disciplines are corrupt”.

      By contrast the public perception of journalists such as Steyn, is pretty low, close to that of Congressional politicians who are often into single figures of the population who think they do a good job.

      The omens for the acceptance of the investigations conclusions from opinion polls don’t look good for your case.

      Is Dr. Mann still withholding data that will be the real evidence-of-interest? If he has been, all along, that’s two strikes. If that data shows Mann massaged the facts & interpretations, then the assertion of fraud has merit.

      If Mann was witholding the proxy data on which the Hockey Stick MDH98/99 papers were based, then how did McIntyre and McKitrick get the data to analyse for their papers challenging Mann’s statistical method? That is, the papers by McIntyre and McKitrick which were subsequently refuted by publications by Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007. And Mann can show he followed proxy data analysis techniques published by previous researchers.

      Further, Mann’s graphs and conclusions have been independently confirmed many times in the published literature. Thus the argument that Mann is wrong and committed fraud because we don’t like his conclusions is not going to fly either.

      Again, the omens don’t look good for Steyn, however optimistic you are for him. It’s highly likely the jury will accept Mann did nothing fraudulent, whatever you might think yourself. It then becomes a pure matter of law whether the judge directs the jury that Steyn’s writings are libel or whether they are protected fair comment.

      • Climate Pete says:

        If Mann was witholding the proxy data on which the Hockey Stick MDH98/99 papers were based, then how did McIntyre and McKitrick get the data to analyse for their papers challenging Mann’s statistical method?

        Clearly, you don’t know the answer. Despite the requirement for Mann to disclose his methods, data, methodology and metadata, he refused. It was due to hard work that M&M were able to discover how Mann had fabricated his ‘Hockey Stick’ graph — a graph that even the UN/IPCC can no longer publish.

        Why can’t the IPCC use Mann’s chart any more? Because it has been so thoroughly debunked by McIntyre and McKittrick.

        The whole story is on Climate Audit, and in the WUWT archives for anyone interested.

        But I really don’t think that “Pete” has any interest in learning the truth of the matter.

      • Climate Pete

        I give you full marks for persistence!

        Other people’s work and/or findings are not relevant to the fact that MBH98 contained the MBH ‘hockey stick’ graph which is “fraudulent”.

        As I said to you in this thread at the end of my post which is here

        Also, Steyn did NOT call the Mann “fraudulent”. Steyn accurately and correctly said the MBH ‘hockey stick’ graph is “fraudulent”. That graph was “fraudulent” because it used ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ to ‘hide the decline’ and, thus, to deliberately mislead about the validity of Mann’s analysis method.

        In conclusion, the reasons the Mann is delaying the Court case are because
        (a) the Mann is trying to drain Steyn’s resources
        and
        (b) the Mann knows he would be toast if the case were heard in Court.

        Richard

      • Mods

        My response to Climate Pete has gone into the moderation ‘bin’ probably because it contains the f-word.

        Richard

      • icouldnthelpit 3/12 3:40am; No, AR5 does not have a hockey stick. Unless hockey sticks are now made with a pronounced bow in the shaft. The MWP has re-appeared in the graph.

        You are wrong.

  42. Excuse me for asking… but when will Penn State fire Mann’s ass for starting this fight and causing the institution tons of money support Mann’s ridiculous lawsuit? They have already suffered greatly with the Joe Paterno affair. Oh, wait, Mann probably has tenure and Penn State is stuck with this intellectual midget! They should let contract expire so he won’t embarrass them anymore!

    • Its probable not his university who is signing for the lawyers bills, although it would be interesting to see who does .
      Remember, they give two reasons why Mann had done nothing wrong , 1, they asked him and he said he had not , 2, he brings lots of cash in .

  43. That is not the case! After all. the Membership dues of the American Geophysical Union and laundered into the “Climate ‘Scientist’ Defense Fund” along with other moneys and through cash transactions into Michael E. Mann’s bank account by wire transfer. Oh! And the “Emperor Suite” at the Marriot to Little Jimmy E. Hanson, plus the ticket to the SF49s game on the Sunday when the AGU had for decades held the “Ice Breaker” and then the year after the Monday Ice Breaker featured scrumptious … Cheep Beer and Cold Pretzels with Heinz’s Mustard … Chef’s Delight. Ha Ha.

    And what of the Boxes of condoms given to Mickey and Jimmy while in the “Emperor’s Suite.

    Well. Mummy is not telling. Until she gets what she wants. $$$$$$

    Ha ha.

  44. Richard Courtney said at March 12, 2015 at 12:10 am;

    I don’t ‘buy’ your assessment. …

    (a) the Mann is trying to drain Steyn’s resources
    and
    (b) the Mann knows he would be toast if the case were heard in Court.

    It’s only a good legal strategy to (try to) drain the opponent’s financial resources, if you are assured that it can be done. In fact, projecting the appearance that one is at his wit’s end – and the bottom of his piggy bank – is an excellent way to pull the legal adversary into a false move … head-fakes being even more important in litigation than in the NFL.

    There’s lot of money and a lot of interested 3rd parties in the Big Bad world, and signalling to Mann’s team what Steyn (& Co.) can & will do (or can’t) is obviously a mistake they will avoid.

    Dr. Mann may very well fear he will be toast in court … but this really goes right back Litigation Rule #1: “It depends hugely on the judge & jury that one faces.”

    But I do admit, sir, that my interests and experience could have left me weak in sales-work. :)

    Ted

  45. Climate Pete replied at March 12, 2015 at 2:25 am;

    That’s purely a right-wing myth (that “Most juries will struggle with the idea of Big Government and Bought Institutions mumbling sacred rites for their own employee.”) Most Americans believe that scientists are trustworthy.

    What juries will tend to think of in this case is Gov. Walker and the Wisconsin public unions, not a romantic vision of Albert Einstein or Carl Sagan. Government using citizens’ own taxes to beat them up, is the vision Mann’s team will try to counter.

    If Mann was witholding the proxy data on which the Hockey Stick MDH98/99 papers were based, then how did McIntyre and McKitrick get the data…

    Since you bring it up, that does make it fairly clear that Steyn himself may not be ‘guessing’ that problems exist with Mann’s data-handling, and the known presence of such issues will mean Steyn has not stuck his neck out impulsively & foolishly.

    Privately-held data used to be common practice in Science. These types of citadel-walls have lately been coming down at a gratifying, sometimes breathtaking rate. This is another reason why it was not a good idea for Mann to go with a delaying-strategy … and he himself (and his institutional superiors) knew up-front that hiding things would look weirder & more-medieval with each passing year … emphasizing the fragility of his position.

    Again, what goes on in the ivory towers of institutionalized science on behalf of a guy like Dr. Mann engaged in personal litigation, is not designed to be useful to lawyers or interesting to judges. These reviews can be shown to the jury … but then the other side gets to pick them apart, too.

    It’s highly likely the jury will accept Mann did nothing fraudulent, whatever you might think yourself.

    It really depends on those facts & data, in this case. Normally, fraud is tough to prove because of the need to show “intent”. However, that difficulty disappears in technical or scientific cases (as it also does in financial cases) because questions in such cases are directly resolved by the facts & data themselves. Rock-solid implicit in such cases, is that the scientist (or broker) knew “full well” that the data said ‘one thing’, but that he then did ‘another thing’.

    … And that’s what (intellectual) fraud is, folks.

  46. dbstealey noted on March 12, 2015 at 3:06 am;

    But I really don’t think that “Pete” has any interest in learning the truth of the matter.

    It does appear that Climate Pete is the dissenter here, but that can be a good thing for WUWT.

    Long as dissent isn’t brass knuckles shattering plate-glass windows onto the Oakland sidewalks … long as traffic is still moving in the streets, and shop-owners can still do a good day’s business … accommodating dissent helps make up for the fact that quite a few of us here are card-packing Neanderthals! Speaking strictly genetically, of course … ;)

    We want reasonably reasonable naysayers to come on WUWT and practice their favorite counter-arguments to skeptic-positions, because there is simply no better way for us – in turn – to practice effectively rebutting their arguments.

    It can be a problem, that we end up a chorus, an echo-chamber. Climate Pete has volunteered to help us with that liability. :)

    • Ted Clayton has hit the nail on the head. The standard groupthink here is that Mann’s graph is fraudulent because everyone here says so. However, the evidence presented in court is going to include a lot of published peer-reviewed papers. There are quite a few subsequent publications using a variety of proxies confirming the overall shape of Mann’s graph. Only the paper by McKintyre and McKitrick which questions it. And the latter has been rebutted by other published, peer-reviewed papers. Mann will be able to wheel out half a dozen reputable and scientists, some of whom are not climatologists (e.g. statisticians) who will confirm the flaws in M&M. You guys here don’t get a vote on the jury in court. The effect of the published papers is going to be that the jury will believe Mann’s work is sound because it has been confirmed again and again.

      Here is a set of hockey stick graphs in existence in 2010 http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif
      from http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm.

      There have been more reconstructions since which are not on that chart.

      With that level of support for Mann’s results, Steyn’s lawyers have very little chance of proving Mann’s results were fraudulent. What are they going to try to do? Disprove MBH98 and 16 similar reconstructions? Not a cat in hell’s chance.

      Maybe Steyn’s lawyers are going to go for the theme that all climatologists are fraudulent. The trouble is that it is much easier for the jury to believe one or two papers by M&M are wrong than that all papers by all established climatologists are fraudulent, particularly once Mann’s expert witnesses have testified.

      And virtually all the technical points on climate that Steyn’s lawyers are going to bring up have been refuted by the detailed EPA documentation issued during the process of the finding of CO2 endangerment (link in my post above – haven’t read it all, but makes very interesting reading)

      Lets face it, guys, the court operates on very different rules of evidence from the ones applying here. Mann will be able to wheel out original authors for a variety of the papers reproducing his results, if his lawyers say this is the right thing to do. That’s where the climate science establishment will come to Mann’s aid, not in submitting Amicus briefs on the first amendment implications of a finding of libel against Steyn.

      • You keep on repeating the same error over and over again. It has already been explained to you multiple times why the “exonerations” are irrelevant to this matter, now you go off on a tirade about other papers by other authors reporting the same general thing. Again, not relevant. There could be a million papers out there saying the same thing and it would not matter one iota. The only thing that matters is how this author constructed this graph. Even if the result was 100% accurate through some miracle of coincidences, the manner in which this graph was constructed is highly questionable and grounds for Steyn’s comments.

        If Mann’s lawyers can come up with witnesses who will testify that the graph’s over all shape is correct, it won’t surprise me. If, under cross, they are willing to maintain that “hide the decline” and “Mike’s Nature Trick” were anything other than… well, hiding things and tricking people, not only will their credibility be shot, but they’ll be risking perjury as well. I wouldn’t be so sure about all those “supporters” being relevant at all, much less showing up and trying to explain how hiding things and tricking people is science to a judge.

      • Climate Pete,

        I believe that the Medieval Warm Epoch and the Little Ice Age are – as absolutely as anything – large & dramatic climatic events that will resist smoothing, permanently. Any environment-curve of the last 1,000 years that does not look like a roller coaster-ride is going to be unrepresentative of a massive collection of solid facts, data, and written history.

        Dr. Mann became a specialist in the traditional sub-fields that support the important applications of Control Theory and Signal Analysis/Processing. These preparatory pathways are very widespread in practical engineering, and in the early & recent techno-military culture. Intelligence also invests heavily in these areas. Funding of SETI reflected widespread priorities for these techniques.

        Mann has been looking for the ‘Control’ (Knob), the key to climate. He believes that astute Processing will expose the Signal that betrays Nature’s secret. (He may have believed he found it.)

        The court will be interested in the specifics of Dr. Mann’s data and his derived curve. If his data is legit and his manipulations of it recreate the flat-shaft hockey-stick curve, he’s ok. If the data can’t stand up to an audit, if it doesn’t fit, or it was unacceptably mistreated, he’s in trouble. The judge won’t allow a parade of ‘other’ science-papers; he’ll insist that the litigants stick to the case at hand.

        Ted

      • Apparently, Pete, you’ve never heard of Richard Muller. Or Judy Curry. Two eminent scientists who have cast Mann’s work in a rather derogatory light.

        Further, Steyn doesn’t have to prove Mann is a fraud, he only needs to prove Mann’s work could be considered such. Nevermind that Mann’s own filings with the court prove he has very significant issues with ‘truthiness’.

        M&M debunked? Nevermind that the actual blade of the hockey stick is the result of MBH actually truncating the data and inserting real time temperature data from thermometers to “hide the decline”, aka “Mike’s Nature trick”, which some consider to be fraud to this day. (The notion that others have done papers replicating Mann’s work is sort of a myth because you can only do this BY truncating the data and using a completely different type of data than that upon which the ‘reconstruction’ was based.) The real imbroglio of the whole deal is the lengths to which Mann went to keep his data and methodology ‘proprietary’. M&M had problems specifically because Mann wouldn’t share his data and methodology. Mann does not want that discussion to take place in front of a jury. I can guarantee you he doesn’t want to even begin that discovery process. That can only make him look bad.

        As to the notion that Mann did nothing fraudulent and so he will win; you are ill informed about the nature of the case. In order for Mann to win, he has to prove that he committed no fraud, a case which his lawyers aren’t likely to even bring up, then prove that Steyn KNEW this when he accused Mann of fraud, which will be even more difficult, since Steyn said no such thing, and that Steyn did this with actual malice and intent to inflict harm on Mann. All Steyn has to do is cast doubt on Mann’s work or character and the game is over. If Steyn’s attorney credibly shows that Mann’s work could be reasonably considered questionable, there’s no way to get a jury to side with the plaintiff because Steyn had to know he was lying to prevail. If Steyn can be shown to have reasonably believed Mann’s work was bad, not even fraudulent, but just bad, Mann cannot prevail. Remember, Steyn did not attack Mann, he attacked his work. If Steyn at any point can show that Mann’s actual work product was fraudulent, or even that he had reason to believe it was fraudulent, the case should be over.

        Mann’s biggest problems right now appear to be having claimed to have won the Nobel in court filings, other filings where he claims to have been cleared of any wrong doing by bodies that never even considered his involvement in the climate-gate matter (Muir Russel for one), and finally the fact that he has disavowed, to the court, in documents his lawyers filed with the courts on his behalf, any involvement with or knowledge of a graphic that appears on a WMO document which specifically credits him and his data, and which actually appears as an accomplishment on his very own curriculum vitae.

        These three things will come up in court. If Mann has any sense, he will fold before that day. As a matter of law, those documents are affidavits. The court takes them as statements made under oath. This is tantamount to perjury. The notion that he is a Nobel laureate has been disputed by the Nobel Prize committee itself. The notion that any of the inquiries specifically looked into any of the science is easily dispelled by the committee reports themselves. Not one reviewed the science, only the emails and literally every report on the matter states this as a matter of fact. Further, several of the inquiries he cited as having exonerated him, in documents he caused to be filed with the court, specified whom they were investigating, did not include him on the list and specifically excluded everyone else. To have claimed to the court that an investigative body exonerated you, when the report produced by that investigative body lists everyone to whom the investigation pertained and did not include you on that list, is a grave misrepresentation. Grave. Finally, the fact that Mann disavowed the cover graphic on the WMO report, when that document itself credits him and when that item is then listed on his CV on his very own web-page, is befuddling. That is the word I will use. The judge will use a different word and the court will take a very dim view of the above facts. I promise you that.

        For Mann to have committed these offenses in bringing a defamation suit against Steyn is possibly the richest irony of the 21st century.

        And Mann’s being right on warming or not has absolutely nothing to do with the legal case. Just as his activism on the topic has nothing to do with science.

      • If, under cross, they are willing to maintain that “hide the decline” and “Mike’s Nature Trick” were anything other than… well, hiding things and tricking people, not only will their credibility be shot, but they’ll be risking perjury as well.

        What on earth does ‘hide the decline’ have to do with Mann’s research and publications?

      • Phil.,

        Hiding the decline creates the ‘blade’ of the hockey-stick graph. It constitutes deceptive handling of the data behind the graph is question; it is part of the fraud-charge.

        Without hiding the decline, the graph depicts a limp-stick.

        Ted

      • davidmhoffer March 12, 2015 at 4:56 pm
        What on earth does ‘hide the decline’ have to do with Mann’s research and publications?

        Phil.
        Seriously? LOL.

        Yes seriously, do you even know what the phrase refers to?

      • Yes seriously, do you even know what the phrase refers to?

        Are you speaking of the quote by Jones or the actions taken to avoid confronting the divergence problem? Sure I know. But feel free to spin it your way and show us how it doesn’t have anything do with Mann’s research or publications. Please specify in your response if you are talking about the publications that Mann said were his until he said they were not.

      • davidmhoffer March 12, 2015 at 5:13 pm
        “Yes seriously, do you even know what the phrase refers to?”

        Are you speaking of the quote by Jones or the actions taken to avoid confronting the divergence problem?

        Well done. So you know that the phase “hide the decline” refers to something that Phil Jones and Briffa did to deal with the mismatch since the 60’s in some of their tree data, referred to in previous papers by them as “the divergence problem”. In which case why do you attribute it to Mann?

      • In which case why do you attribute it to Mann?

        C’on Phil. You know why. The divergence problem appears in Mann’s data as well, he sought to hide it, and the method he used to hide it was adopted by Jones and Briffa who referred to it has Mike’s “trick”. However, one need not invoke the quote itself, or anything else from the climategate emails, to demonstrate that the divergence in the data appears, and that efforts were taken to hide it. Same end result with or without that background.

        In a court of law, it will still become readily apparent that the hockey stick is constructed largely of data that demonstrably does NOT correlate to instrumental data for over 1/3 of the instrumental record. Failing to disclose that fact alone, while continuing to claim that the data is a reliable proxy prior to the instrumental record is sufficient to call into question the integrity of Mann’s work.

  47. A lot of points have been made above. Taking only some of them in turn.

    Exactly how is Steyn going to “cast doubt” on Mann’s work or character? Steyn can say what he likes in court, but if he just slags Mann off verbally then the jury are just going to think him more guilty of libel.

    Using the written evidence, and particularly the EPA document, which goes into the climategate emails and their possible interpretations, Mann will be able show that the written evidence exonerates him. In other words the jury will believe that he has neither behaved fraudulently, not is the hockeystick graph fraudulent. If Steyn wishes to attack this position he is going to have to bring in expert witnesses, but of course Mann can do the same to rebut them.

    The EPA document does specifically look at the science in the light of the climategate emails – it had to because it had to confirm that none of the objections to the science behind its CO2 endangerment findings, and between Peabody and various other submitters there were a large number of objections. It certainly mentions Mann.

    The NSF document is very strange from your perspective in that it is actually completely exonerating Mann from any wrongdoing without mentioning him by name. And here I disagree strongly that his name actually has to appear. A witness from the NSF investigation will be able to state categorically that the subject of the NSF investigation was Mann. It seems to me that his name is not included as they wished to depersonalise the process of the investigation – looking at what was done independently of who did it. But it is tied directly into the PSU investigation which does mention Mann by name, so the jury will be left in no doubt that it is Mann’s research methods which were being investigated.

    I wonder if McKitrick, McIntire or Curry will be prepared to turn up to support Steyn? My guess is that M&M might well do, but Curry won’t. The M’s don’t really care much about the opinion of the general public.

    For Curry, it is too big a risk. If she stands up in court and the jury finds she is lying or mistaken then her professional reputation suffers, and she is not, presumably, independently wealthy or in the pay of big oil. Why is it worth the risk for her? Comments on her web site are usually more along the nature of FUD e.g. “why is this important”, “this research contributes nothing to our understanding of AGW”, than direct accusations against individual scientists. She is very careful in what she says. She’s happy for guest posters like Rud Istvan to make forceful claims about the integrity of climate scientists, but doesn’t seem to want to go that far herself.

    Someone raised the point that it is this paper and this analysis process etc. which Steyn is attacking, not that used in the 16 papers confirming Mann’s work. So how is Steyn going to do this when PSU, NSF and the EPA have all found the research practices to be sound and the EPA has also found the science to be correct? And Mann’s analysis used a technique from another researcher.

    The only possible conclusion is that the jury will be left believing Mann did nothing wrong.

    The question then is whether Steyn had good cause to believe Mann did anything wrong. Mann can point to three very definitive exonerations of his research methods (e.g. “Case closed..” from the NSF), and it is inconceivable that Steyn can claim he had never heard of all these investigations and their results. If he knew about them then he is pretty much negligent himself if he did not read them before accusing Mann or his research.

    As for all the cover photos for reports etc. Mann is going to point out that his paper had various caveats etc. which was not included by others when the graph based on his results was used. This level of stuff will doubtless be made into an entertaining sideshow by Steyn, but is not going to determine the outcome of the case.

    Regarding the IPCC half Nobel prize, Mann’s books says “The IPCC was co-awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, along with former Vice President Al Gore. The several hundred of us who had served as lead authors were each sent a plaque,acknowledging our sharing of the honor. At an IPCC meeting celebrating this award I was honored to be one of two individuals (the other being Ben Santer) singled out by IPCC scientific working group chair Susan Solomon for special commendation for the personal sacrifices made in the name of the IPCC.”

    It’s going to be difficult for Steyn to claim Mann says he was awarded a prize as an individual, when Mann says this in print.

    • I’m such a dunce. Just clued in that I’m debating a pro. How do they pay you Pete? By the word?

      No point debating a paid shill. But I will say this. The whole thing will end badly. Either for Mann or for science.

      • DMH, A lot of words from CP that mean very little at the end of the day. No doubt CP is part of the defense team working on a preamble as they work on making their case..:-) Someone doctored the data and also took credit where none was due.

      • David,

        Thank you, I’m flattered you think I am well informed. Just one correction. “They” don’t pay me – I pay “them”, since I’m doing a self-funded PhD at Imperial College in condensed matter physics, not climate physics or atmospheric physics. And taking advantage of the numerous seminars available on energy and climate change – two topics of great interest to me. A “pro” or an interested, bystander? You decide.

      • Well Pete, either you are a well informed pro who spins the facts to suit a purpose, or you are a naive youngster who unquestioningly follows what is being spooned out in seminars without asking the tough questions. If you are the PhD candidate you profess to be, then start asking some tough questions.

        Mann’s data diverge (and wildly so) from the instrumental record, just as do that of Briffa and Jones, for over 1/3 of the instrumental record. Mann when out of his way to ensure little attention was paid to this. Jones and Briffa adopted his method of doing so.

        So tell me Pete, if you were doing work requiring proxy data, would YOU use a proxy that failed to correlate to over 1/3 of the data you had? Would you, knowing this, quietly publish anyway and just pretend there was no question about the accuracy of the proxy at all? Would you?

      • DavidMHoffer said :

        Well Pete, either you are a well informed pro who spins the facts to suit a purpose, or you are a naive youngster who unquestioningly follows what is being spooned out in seminars without asking the tough questions. If you are the PhD candidate you profess to be, then start asking some tough questions.

        Keep believing I’m a naive youngster.

        If you are the PhD candidate you profess to be, then start asking some tough questions.

        Here comes the tough question – for you. How much climate, atmospheric physics or recent science training have you had,? Are you aware there are a number of free online climate and atmospheric physics courses you could use, including a set run by MIT. Why not find out a bit more about the science side? Here’s a link – http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/earth-atmospheric-and-planetary-sciences/ . If you don’t like MIT there are plenty more.

        Mann’s data diverge (and wildly so) from the instrumental record, just as do that of Briffa and Jones, for over 1/3 of the instrumental record. Mann when out of his way to ensure little attention was paid to this. Jones and Briffa adopted his method of doing so.

        So tell me Pete, if you were doing work requiring proxy data, would YOU use a proxy that failed to correlate to over 1/3 of the data you had? Would you, knowing this, quietly publish anyway and just pretend there was no question about the accuracy of the proxy at all? Would you?

        I would do precisely what Christie and Spencer do with the UAH satelllite atmospheric data sets – use a sensor (for which read proxy such as tree rings) while it correlates well with other sensors (read proxies e.g. ice cores or whatever) which are capable of corroborating its readings, and drop it like hot cakes if it seems to be drifting. Tree rings in the Northern Hemisphere at particular altitudes after a particular data seem to diverge from the other available proxies.

        And that is precisely what Mann and others do. If it is good enough for Christie and Spencer, then it ought to be good enough for Mann, Briffa and Jones. Or are you now going to argue that Christie and Spencer should use this technique because you like their results compared to surface temperature data sets, but Mann cannot use it because you don’t like his results?

        And no, I would not use tree ring data without any corroboration from some other proxy type. In fact Mann has done calculations both including and omitting tree ring data and the results for both are published. Now, unless you have access to paywalled research papers you should have some sympathy here because it is admittedly difficult to read all the excellent research which has been done without belonging to an organisation which subscribes, or being rich enough to be able to afford to pay $20-30 each to access research papers.

  48. Climate Pete March 13, 2015 at 5:12 pm
    Here comes the tough question – for you. How much climate, atmospheric physics or recent science training have you had,?

    And there it is, the sneer from authority. You assume that I haven’t studied physics. You would be wrong. I’m not one of these neophytes who thinks the GHE doesn’t exist, in fact I’ve spent far more time on this site explaining not only that it does, but how we know it does, and how we can prove it than I have arguing with people like you.

    I would do precisely what Christie and Spencer do with the UAH satelllite atmospheric data sets

    So would I. Unfortunately that isn’t what Mann, Briffa and Jones have done. Yes, I’ve read all those papers too. I’ve also read the more recent papers from Briffa in particular which essentially debunk his earlier work.

    So when you are done sneering from on high based on your assumptions regarding my knowledge of physics, which BTW, has zero, nothing, nada, to do with the topic at hand, you may want to consider that not everyone here is as uneducated as you seem to think.

Comments are closed.