The Statistics of Mann’s Grant Damages
From Stephen McIntyre’s Substack, Russiagate and Other Analysis
A year ago, I was a witness in the Mann v Steyn-Simberg libel trial. It was an extremely frustrating experience. Mann’s lawyers tried to block McKitrick and I from giving evidence against Mann. The judge ruled against them, saying that our evidence was relevant to the defense. However, the judge then prevented either of us from presenting evidence on Mann’s concealment of failed verification statistics or even on the verification failure of Mann’s statistical model. The judge didn’t even allow the presentation of a table published in Geophysical Research Letters. In mid-trial, the judge also reduced the time available for the defense by about 40% from the original allocation; the time available for McKitrick and myself was almost chewed up by defense objections.
Because Steyn was so weak, nearly all of the defense was taken up by Simberg’s lawyers. They were highly professional, but their strategy was focused almost entirely on the lack of damages to Mann, and, in particular, to Mann’s claims about lost grants. In my opinion, the issues about, for example, Mann’s concealment of adverse verification statistics were issues that ought to have been raised in cross-examination of Mann (rather than late in the day in direct examination of McKitrick or me), but none of this took place. Instead, the cross-examination went on and on about Mann’s grants – an issue which seemed far less important to me than putting Mann on the spot about his concealment of adverse verification statistics,
However, the defense focus on Mann’s grants was vindicated by the scathing comments of the judge in his recent sanctions order against Mann and his lawyers (link; link), including the following:
“Dr. Mann’s assertion that there was no falsehood or misrepresentation in his testimony or his counsel’s conduct borders on frivolity.”
“the record plainly shows the deliberate and knowing misconduct of Dr. Mann’s counsel in eliciting false testimony from Dr. Mann and misrepresenting his grant funding.”
“Dr. Mann’s counsel’s bad faith misconduct is an affront to the Court’s authority and an attack on the integrity of the proceedings warranting sanctions.”
The judge focused on two components of Mann’s testimony on supposedly lost grants following the blog articles: overstatement of non-funded grants; and under-statement of funded grants.
But neither the judge nor the defense lawyers had deep background in Mann’s “statistical” techniques and, as a result, the judge’s disparagement of the conduct of Mann and his lawyers, scathing as it was, merely scratched the surface. For today’s article, I’ve done a fresh analysis of Mann’s presentation and shown that there was much more to “Mann’s DC Trick” than discussed in the sanctions order. (I’ll do a separate article elucidating the sanctions order, but, in this article, will focus on issues that were overlooked in the trial and order.)
The centerpiece of Mann’s claim for lost damages was his assertion that his grant successes went from from “just under a million a year” in the four years ($3.3 million total) prior to the Simberg-Steyn blogs to “a little more than 100,000 a year” in the four years after ($500,000 total). They illustrated this claim with the “demonstrative” shown below right. This claim was asserted in the opening statement, in Mann’s direct evidence and the closing statement. An excerpt from Mann’s direct is below left. In the sanctions order, J Irving observed a significant exaggeration in the statements and demonstrative: according to Mann’s own data, the total value of grants after the blogs was $895,000, not $500,000; and reduced the before-and-after “disparity” from $2.8 million to $2.4 million. The judge was very troubled by this exaggeration.
But there were several other issues that go much deeper, issues that call into question the very existence of the mid-2012 breakpoint asserted by Mann and his lawyers and which strongly suggest that Mann’s grant claims were the product of data manipulation – the exact subject of the underlying science controversy.
It’s nearly always a good idea in statistical analysis to begin by plotting the data.
In the figure below, I’ve plotted Mann’s annual grants from 1996 to 2021 by US fiscal year ending September 301 using information in Mann’s CV circa 2022 and his amended interrogatory responses (March 2023). In the figure below, the 2008-2016 period selected into Mann’s demonstrative is highlighted in yellow background. The step function in the highlighted area illustrates Mann’s evidence: $1 million per year in the four years prior and $100,000 in the four years subsequent. As a reality check: does this step function fit the data? Obviously not. It’s not even close.
Some comments:
- there is NO – repeat NO – evidence of a July 2012 breakpoint in the data. Any such claim is completely false. This is immediately visible in the above figure.
- the claimed amount of Mann’s grants in 2009 was uniquely high. It was more than 10 times greater than the median value of Mann’s annual grants. Without 2009, the values for the three fiscal years prior (2010-2012) had no statistically significant difference to values for the three fiscal years subsequent (2013-2016). This is immediately visible in the above figure.
- Because the 2009 value is so anomalously high, the timing of the step in Mann’s step function depends on the arbitrary length selected for the step. If a comparison period of two years is chosen beginning in 2008.5, the step will be 2010.5; for three years, the step will be 2011.5; for four years, the step will be 2012.5; for five years, the step will be 2013.5. One can reasonably surmise that Mann’s choice of four years prior as the comparison period was selected in order to place the “step” at the target date of 2012.5,
- as an overall point on grants as a statistical distribution, grants were zero approximately 40% of the time over the 26 years, and between $100K and $500K about 54% of the time, with two outliers (2006, 2009)2. The distribution has peculiar “tail” behavior: almost 50% of Mann’s total grants over 26 years were obtained in these two outlier years.
The 2009 Outlier
Because the 2009 grant claim is such an extreme outlier compared to the other grants and because Mann’s “loss” claim is so dependent on this outlier, the outlier needs to be specifically examined3. There are three large issues.
ARRA
Mann’s 2009 grant claim consisted of two grants funded under the 2009 Obama “stimulus” bill – the so-called American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): one grant ($541,000) in which he was the Principal Investigator and one much larger grant related to vector-borne disease ($1,885,000) in which he is listed as a Co-PI. The figure re-states the 1996-2021 grant figure by adding color coding by sponsor type, ARRA grants in red and magenta. The other anomalously large grant was a USAID grant in 2006 in which Mann was a Co-PI.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was passed on February 17, 2009, in the first month of the Obama presidency, and had a total budget of $831 billion – about the same, allowing for inflation, as the $893 billion budget of Biden’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. Approximately $3.1 billion of ARRA funding was allocated to the National Science Foundation (NSF).
In an interesting recent Jon Stewart podcast (link at 44 minutes), Ezra Klein noted the total failure of the ARRA program to deliver anything on its signature promises: high-speed rail, “smart” grid or interoperable electronic health care records, although, in fairness, others have pointed out (link) that it did succeed in building thousands of “ADA corner crosswalk things that didn’t actually connect to anything”. It also funded research by Michael Mann (link) that may or may not “actually connect to anything”. In retrospect (and probably in real time), one would have thought that the purpose of the stimulus would have been better served elsewhere than academic researchers4.
In any event, by 2012, ARRA funding had almost entirely run its course. The implication of Mann’s claim to a “$2.8 million” shortfall is that Mann was entitled to a second helping of the ARRA bonanza during the second Obama term, even though the program had expired – a notion so unpalatable that neither Mann nor his lawyers expressed it in those terms.
In Steyn’s cross-examination of Mann, Steyn repeatedly asked Mann whether there were other factors besides the Simberg-Steyn blog articles which could have contributed to reduced grant funding. Obviously the expiry of the ARRA program removed the very source of funding which had funded Mann’s outlier 2009 grants. But Mann, needless to say, didn’t mention ARRA.
Contract or Subcontract?
The 2009 claim related to the vector-borne disease disease ($1,884,991) was much larger than other grants in Mann’s CV (most of which appear to have funded a couple of grad students). Mann’s claim in the interrogatories was equal to the full amount of the grant as reported in the NSF summary report (see link). The NSF summary report listed 29 articles attributable to this grant, but only one lists Mann as a coauthor. This strongly suggests that Mann was a subcontractor to this project.
In other interrogatory cases where Mann was a subcontractor, Mann’s amended interrogatory only claimed the amount of the subcontract, which, in an important example cited in J Irving’s sanctions order, was a tiny fraction of the total contract.
In Mann’s June 2020 interrogatory responses, he had claimed an amount of $9,713,924 in non-funded grants in relation to a grant application entitled “WAter VariabilitiEs Stressors and Sensitivities (WAVESS)”, dated 9/1/2014. (He had listed this amount in his CV at the time.) In his amended March 2023 response, Mann reduced the claim to $112,000! The lesser amount was the amount attributable to his Penn State group; the larger amount was the amount attributable to the entire project.
This became an issue in the trial because Mann’s team presented the incorrect June 2020 information to the jury in an exhibit. When the defense objected to the exhibit, Mann’s team falsely reassured the judge that there were no significant differences between the exhibit and the final numbers. In the sanctions order, J Irving excoriated Mann and his team both for presenting the false number to the jury and for falsely reassuring the judge about the validity of the numbers.
The purpose of this example is to show the difference between the value of the full contract and the value attributable to a subcontractor. The question then is whether Mann’s calculation should have shown the full value of the grant (most of which went to a different department) or the amount attributable to Mann’s putative subcontract. If the latter, then the appropriate amount is likely more like $125,000-150,000, as opposed to $1,885,000.
Mann similarly appears to have been a subcontractor on the 2006 USAID grant that comprised the majority of the 2006 outlier. It was listed in his CV at its total face value, rather than the value of Mann’s subcontract.
Climategate, November 2009
The third factor against inclusion of 2009 as a comparandum is, of course, that the Climategate emails were released in November 2009, about 6 months after the extravagant 2009 ARRA “stimulus” grants.
On January 20, 2010, during the midst of Climategate controversy. Mann’s receipt of 2009 “stimulus” funds became the subject of a Wall Street Journal opinion editorial (archive; link) entitled “Michael Mann’s Climate Stimulus: A case study in one job ‘saved’”.
The editorial observed that they had contacted NSF about the awards to Mann, but were told by a representative that she was “unaware of any discussion regarding suspending or changing the awards made to Michael Mann.” The op ed concluded with the observation that “your tax dollars will continue to fund a climate scientist whose main contribution to the field has been to discredit climate science”.
The NSF made these awards prior to last year’s climate email scandal, but a member of its Office of Legislative and Public Affairs told us she was “unaware of any discussion regarding suspending or changing the awards made to Michael Mann.” So your tax dollars will continue to fund a climate scientist whose main contribution to the field has been to discredit climate science.
Mann didn’t mention this editorial as a contributing factor nor did the defense ask him about it.
Conclusion
J Irving was scathing at Mann’s understatement of funded grants after the Simberg-Steyn blogs which reduced the supposed “disparity” from $2.8 million to $2.4 million. But when the 2009 outlier is excluded (for any one of the three reasons cited above), the so-called disparity between 2010-2012 and 2013-2016 grants is eliminated, as shown below. (In the figure below, estimated value of 2006 and 2009 subcontracts are shown, but these are outside the highlighted period anyway.) Readers who are familiar with Mann’s “scientific” work will be unsurprised at Mann’s “research” into his grants.
1. In the interrogatories, Mann collated the grants according to calendar year of the start date of the grant. In his evidence, he observed that the decision date for a grant with start date of September 1, 2012 was prior to July 31. The date of the blogs was July 31, 2012. For practical purposes, classification by the Sept 30 fiscal year of the start dates will closely approximate classification by the July 31 fiscal year of decision dates. In the CV, grants are shown by calendar year of start dates; for the purposes of this graph, the fiscal year and calendar year totals are the same. Any discrepancies will not change the conclusions,
2. Here is a histogram
3. The only other year in which Mann’s grants exceeded $500,000 was in 2006, during which Mann was a subcontractor to a USAID grant entitled “Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana”. See link for a profile of this program.
4. Scientific American (link) asked this exact question on February 17, 2010: Is the Recovery Act Stimulating Science and the Economy? They observed that most of the money was sitting in university bank accounts and had failed to provide the quick economic stimulus which had been the ostensible purpose of the legislation.
Michael Mann:Statistical Special Pleadings R Us?
At least Mikey is being consistent in both his financials and “scientific” work.
It’s especially sad that taxpayers support such pathological “science” but it’s even worse than that. Government additionally borrows and sends even more money to leftist NGOs through our USAID.
Lenin said the capitalists would sell them the rope used to hang them. Worse, taxpayers purchase that rope. Leftists today make Lenin look like an amateur.
At least Mikey is being consistent in both his financials and “scientific” work.
MM was also consistent with all his pleadings since the inception through the course of litigation. Every one of his pleadings, interogatories, depositions, witness testimony was riddled with lies, distortions, deceptions. Even his motion in opposition to the NR fee order contained gross distortion and misreprestation of the Baker case which fortunately judge Irving highlighted the distortion.
All h
Perfidy, once a person’s character has been totally infected with it, knows no bounds in its pursuit of personal greed and gratification.
Mann is a poster example of the condition.
perfidy /pûr′fĭ-dē/
noun
I am not sure that I can agree with you. “riddled with” suggests that some part of it might not be.
Hockey Stick for temps and Reverse Hockey Stick for Grants. You cannot make this stuff up.
Many thanks for posting this article; it confirms Mann’s character well, and that confirmation comes from his own acts, not from attacks on his character. ‘A Disgrace To The Profession’ indeed.
It also demonstrates that like windmills, Climate Science runs on taxpayer’s money. not on climate or any aspect of it. I wonder what lifestyle Mann would have if he had to produce something that people actually wanted and would pay for, rather than the public being forced to support him regardless of whether they wanted or needed to.
Well he did turn away from his original major of solid state physics ( useful for computer chip research) as the other grad students were so much smarter than him. That led him to the easier to rise to the top in dendrochronology and counting tree rings for his PhD
Another Delightful Deep Dive in to Data with the incomparable McIntyre!
I have just written to the Royal Society about Mann’s nature and scientific record, mentioning his slur about sexual relations between Steyn and Prof Judith Curry at the trial as well as Andrew Montford’s book about Climategate dishonesty and malpractice; also the views of 100 world class scientists in A Disgrace to the Profession and asking this august body why they elected him to membership. No reply yet.
Please let us know what the reply is if you get one; it will be revealing of the integrity of the RS.
Should we be surprised that someone who – way above his competence – claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner also exaggerated his grants income – way above his pay grade?
The more I know about how Mike takes the mickey out of the truth, the more I wonder why he is still employed in academia.
Where else would he be employed? The capture of ‘academia’ was one of the Left’s first stops during its relentless ‘march through the institutions’ and CAGW is one of its weapons.
EZ:
Mann only exaggerated his grant funding by ~ factor of 10.
In Climate Change Science that is close enough! /sarc
Everyone knew all along that “climate huggers” are opportunists wishing / working to capitalize in re to reputation and monetarily on the so called climate movement. The house of cards is starting to crumble and then we shall see a truer picture of the climate threat unburdened by those people just looking to gain personally from being on the climate train…. and there at millions e.g., university researchers who develop models to predict future climate.
Somebody is bankrolling Mann, and :free” lawyer fees should be income that is reported to the IRS. Even if he’s sucking up grant money, the grant money cannot be used for his personal needs
You can donate to cover his (and other’s) legal expenses. /s
https://www.csldf.org/about/scientists-stories/
and I’ll bet if received donations were back-tracked to their sources, most of them would have emanated from taxpayer-funded organisations of one form or another.
It would be good for some journalist to investigate this.
“USAID! USAID! USAID!….”, the most common chant at any university football game.
There is nowhere to hide in a control chart.
I suspect the issue was that the judge would may not have been able to understand the technical details sufficiently well to make a judgement, at least that’s what the defense thought
It was easier to show that Mann was lying about grants, something easily understood by anyone
Also, the stakes were high in terms of the funding claims (from Mann)
The problem with technical scientific detail is that apart from getting the judge to understand, the other side will find their own witnesses to claim the opposite. There is always someone willing to bullshit, especially those involved with the IPCC
So it can end up either being a mess and the judge ignores the whole thing, or considers it not of sufficient importance or could even side with the other guys
This is what bothers me most. Judge and jury are capable of understanding basic accounting. Saying you got a $2 million grant that was given to someone else, and that you only got a tiny piece of should be within the reasoning capabilities of the average citizen to identify as a lie.
As soon as you start talking statistical analysis, tree rings, they all tune out. At that point its one side’s “expert testimony” versus the other sides actual expert testimony. Neither judge nor jury understands these things to the point they can judge objectively.
I would have thought “Mike’s Nature Trick” would have become a center piece for the defense, because that one was demonstrably fabricated science that I would think almost anyone could understand.
Mr. hoffer: Well, jurors can be unwilling to tune in, and science issues can be sleeping pills for most, but if you take random eight-twelve folks, there’s a strong chance one or two are fundamentally curious. One or two will tune in, and may persuade the others. I saw it firsthand!
Anyway, to your larger point, defense brought out Mann’s frauds in pretrial motions that should have caused dismissal a decade ago, but it only revealed the corruption of the DC court and the bias of a series of trial judges. IMO the depth of this bias shows in the above article, essentially the trial judge understood that Mann’s science fraud was fatal to his lawsuit, so it was kept from the jury. I don’t usually talk like a valleygirl, but this case has made me hurl!
The courts do not work with facts, they work with the opinions of qualified witnesses. Michael Mann can do anything he likes with Keith Briffa’s data, for example, and all he needs is one qualified witness to say it was reasonable. Maybe Mark Steyn’s lawyers really did know what they were doing.
Exactly. It will descend into he said she said. The fundamental problem is that scientific arguments can’t be decided in a court, or at least it’s very difficult
For goodness sake, even in the scientific community long held falsehoods can persist, even enjoy popular “consensus” support
In light of that, it’s dangerous and foolhardy to expect a judge or jury to get to the truth of scientific disputes
Sums up Mickey Mann:
Why was the jury’s verdict rather than its damages award not set aside or even overturned? The common law must be different in the land of the free.
That would be for Steyne to appeal the jury verdict. Its defamation law
Mr. Doff: The answer is found in the extreme bias of DC court judges, one after another let the case go forward, even this latest judge failed. As you say, the verdict should be thrown out based on any number of facts, and this latest shows the judge is aware of Mann’s deception in a case where he claims he was not deceptive, but the judge only reduced the award (he had no choice!). A list of judges brought this atrocity to this point.
And to think that this guy (along with Bill Nye) has been the “go to” guy for the leftist media whenever they talked about climate change. Shows just how bad outlets like MSNBC and CNN really are.
I wonder if he is still their “go to” guy now that he has been ordered to pay up.
As of the present day (April 6, until I update my list of IPCC / NASA / NOAA guests next time), The Mann was still a main go-to guy for the massively biased PBS NewsHour back on March 16, 2025, for their discussion segment “Earth is ‘perilously close’ to a global warming threshold.” It was his 10th appearance on that particular news outlet, and it was just days after the judge sanctioned him, so they could have asked him about it. But they are biased, so they did not. As often has he’s appeared there, he’s still outdistanced by their main go-to guy, IPCC scientist Michael Oppenheimer at 21 appearances so far.
Presidential Distinguished Professor Michael Mann does not seem to bring in much money to Penn State. Is this a fair perception?
Yes. He’s been at the University of Pennsylvania since 2022. 🙂
I think the University of Pennsylvania should dismiss Mann.
Tenured professor and who runs one of their ‘centres’. Too hard to do
It’s hard to understand how University of Pennsylvania has any ethics whatsoever. Remember, this is the university which turned a blind eye to Jerry Sandusky for nearly two decades. This is the university where a basketball coach accepted $300,000 in bribes to sell team placements.
So it’s rather unlikely that UPenn will be much disturbed by severe academic malfeasence on the part of one climatology professor. Until a scandal hits into their rich donor base, as Harvard, MIT and Yale discovered in 2023, UPenn is not very likely to take action.
You are confusing Penn State (College Station PA) with the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia PA).
The University of Pennsylvania had nothing to do with Sandusky!
It is perhaps cheaper to keep him in Penn State than to have him spend time in State Penn…. think of the tax payer benefit. Let’s not mention the other inmates, their wellbeing challenges if such a charlatan was placed among otherwise honest criminals…
Mann is belatedly getting what he so justly deserves. Bet he doesn’t sue McIntyre.
“Because the 2009 value is so anomalously high, the timing of the step in Mann’s step function depends on the arbitrary length selected for the step.”
Sounds like his hockey stick math. Phantom steps.
Thanks, Steve McIntyre, for your follow up.
Opinion, by Larry Bell, Global Warming’s Tree Ring Circus Brings Us The Costliest Show On Earth, Forbes Magazine, Feb. 4, 2014.
In addition to the issues raised in the Steyn trial, an important part of the Mann story is the failure of investigations by Penn State and UK House of Commons to find any wrong doing.
“USAID grant entitled “Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana”
No wonder they just defunded the lot in recent weeks.
Our court system is a mess, I have no faith in it. Black robe disease is a problem in our country.
Thank you for providing all the illuminating additional context. You’re preaching to the choir here, but it’s nice to have a summary of Mann’s malfeasance. It’s too bad you weren’t allowed to present it in court but it seems that the judge sized up Mann’s character without it. Along with your excellent posts on Mann’s scientific fraud on ClimateAudit, it’s easy to see a clear pattern of deceit that goes back decades. Deceit suits the global warming zealots just fine. They do it all the time. Only their goal to impose their repressive policies matters.
Thank you again, Stephen McIntyre.
Your careful, correct analysis of the work of Michael Mann deserves to stand the test of time and be recorded in history as examples of the early Internet being used for beneficial social change.
This acceptance would not have been achieved if your studies had been shown incorrect, biased or contrived. They are a monument to intellectual honesty.
Geoff S
“Dr. Mann’s assertion that there was no falsehood or misrepresentation in his testimony or his counsel’s conduct borders on frivolity.”
I don’t see how lies at that level can be regarded as frivolous.
I agree; why did the definition of perjury not come into play?–A crime that occurs when an individual willfully makes a false statement during a judicial proceeding, after he or she has taken an oath to speak the truth.
Obama’s ARRA was full of make-work projects that were never expected to produce anything. I was working on one in 2010, when the real, useful work that I had expected to be doing had been defunded by the Obama administration. Needless to say, the money on this project eventually ran out, nothing useful was produced, and nobody was surprised. It was a project to nowhere.