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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“If you haven’t worked it out yet Mickey, the clued-up thinking by your former avid fans running a mile from your cause is that your case is without merit and you’ve now got a Rottweiler after you with a much better case and absolutely no inclination to walk away.”
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/the-twitter-chainsaw-massacre/
Pointman
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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’
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 ;
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
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;
But I see on Science Magazine 2012, Steyn quoted:
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
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.
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
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.
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
Climate Pete;
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 ?
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.
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
Richard
Ted Clayton said :
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.
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.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
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
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.
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 .
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.
Richard Courtney said at March 12, 2015 at 12:10 am;
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
Climate Pete replied at March 12, 2015 at 2:25 am;
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.
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 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.
dbstealey noted on March 12, 2015 at 3:06 am;
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
What on earth does ‘hide the decline’ have to do with Mann’s research and publications?
Phil.
Seriously? LOL.
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?
[Mod]
My small simple comment of 4:38 is hung in moderation.
I don’t get it ..
Ted
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.
Ted
Beautifully said. Something our friends DB and RichardsC seem to forget.
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 :
Keep believing I’m a naive youngster.
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.
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.
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.