In my most recent post, I showed that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Oxburgh inquiry had no more validity than Mann’s claim to have won a Nobel prize. In today’s post, I’ll continue my series on the “investigations” by showing that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Muir Russell inquiry is equally invalid.
In their memoranda supporting their original motions to dismiss, both National Review and CEI had observed (correctly) that the Muir Russell panel had limited their findings to “CRU scientists” and contested Mann’s assertion that the Muir Russell panel had made any findings regarding Mann himself, let alone “exonerated” him.
In Mann’s Reply Memorandum, he vociferously rejected the (correct) assertion that the Muir Russell had not exonerated Mann himself, describing such assertion as merely an attempt to “obfuscate and misrepresent”. Mann supported this bluster with an apparent quotation from the Muir Russell report, but the phrase within the quotation marks does not actually occur within the Muir Russell report. As shown below, Mann and/or his lawyers subtly altered the quotation to more supportive language.
The Muir Russell Report
In their summary, the Muir Russell report explicitly stated that its remit related to the behavior of CRU scientists, not scientists in the United States or even at other UK institutions:
6. The allegations relate to aspects of the behaviour of the CRU scientists, such as their handling and release of data, their approach to peer review, and their role in the public presentation of results…
The Team wishes to focus on the honesty, rigour and openness with which CRU handled its data…
The Muir Russell panel did not interview Mann, a minimum prerequisite in any investigation of Mann. (Not that their investigation of CRU scientists was searching or even adequate, but they at least interviewed Jones and Briffa.) Nowhere is there any Finding in the Muir Russell report that refers to Mann, though there are many references to “CRU scientists.” Consistent with their limited remit, their signature finding is explicitly and unequivocally limited to “CRU scientists” and made no mention of Mann:
8. The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted… On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
Re-read the exact language of this finding carefully as I’ll refer to it later.
Mann’s Complaint
As discussed in connection with the Oxburgh panel (see here), Mann claimed that he had been “investigated” by numerous investigations, including the Muir Russell inquiry, and that “all” of these investigations, including Muir Russell, had “exonerated” him on wide-ranging counts, “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data” and even found that his work was “properly conducted and fairly presented”.
Mann’s Reply Memorandum contains a section entitled “Dr Mann Is Exonerated”, in which the two East Anglia investigations (Oxburgh and Muir Russell) are discussed in support of the assertion that Mann had been “exonerated” by “all” of these numerous investigations.
National Review and CEI Motions to Dismiss
The National Review memorandum in support of their motion to Dismiss (December 2012) clearly stated (page 9) that the Muir Russell report did not “offer any opinion on Mann”:
Nor did it offer any opinion on Mann, who was not a part of CRU, but merely a collaborator with some of its scientists.
The CEI memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss (p 12) more generally observed that Mann had failed to provide supporting quotations from seven of the nine reports (including Muir Russell.)
So too is the assertion that those reports’ contents contradict any of the challenged statements made by the CEI Defendants. Compl. ¶¶24-25. Indeed, the Complaint fails to quote a single word or cite a single page from seven of those reports, and the brief excerpts of two that it does set forth do not actually contradict any of the CEI Defendants’ challenged statements.
Mann Reply Memorandum
In the Introduction of his Reply Memorandum, Mann acknowledged that both CEI and National Review had contested Mann’s claim to have been exonerated by the Muir Russell and other listed investigations with bluster that these (true) assertions were nothing more than attempts to “obfuscate and misrepresent”:
While Defendants do address some of the inquiries [a list including Muir Russell] into these issues, including those undertaken by Pennsylvania State University, the National Science Foundation, and the University of East Anglia, they obfuscate and misrepresent the findings of those panels, in an effort to suggest (erroneously) that those inquiries did not exonerate Dr. Mann of fraud or misconduct. See CEI Anti-SLAPP Mem. at 14-17; NRO Mem. at 8- 11. 9 [Reply to CEI, page 3, fn 5]
{Feb 27, 2010): That Mann himself knew that the Muir Russell report was limited to “CRU scientists” and did not include himself is demonstrated by his contemporary comment at realclimate (h/t Barry Woods):
“The main issue is that they conclude that the rigour and honesty of the CRU scientists is not in doubt. For anyone who knows Phil Jones and his colleagues this comes as no surprise, and we are very pleased to have this proclaimed so vigorously.” Mike & Gavin
Later in the Reply Memorandum (page 19), Mann purported to provide the requested supporting quotation from the Muir Russell report showing that the supposed exoneration was not limited to “CRU scientists”, but extended more generally to “the scientists”, including Mann himself:
Three months later, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report, prepared under the oversight of Sir Muir Russell. The report examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt. [my bold][38 – Muir Russell Report]”
But watch carefully here. The exact phrase within quotation marks doesn’t actually occur in the Muir Russell report: I noticed this because of the American spelling “rigor” rather than the English spelling “rigour” which would have resulted from a cut-and-paste. The actual quotation from the Muir Russell report (shown below) clearly limits its findings to CRU scientists,as National Review and CEI had asserted and contradicting both Mann’s complaint and blustery reply:
On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
Had Mann’s Reply Memorandum provided the actual quotation, it would have confirmed National Review’s and CEI’s claim that the Muir Russell had confined its findings to “CRU scientists”, but not in the quotation as altered by Mann and/or his lawyers.
Conclusion
Contrary to the claims in Mann’s complaint and Reply Memorandum, neither the Oxburgh panel nor the Muir Russell inquiries “exonerated” Mann himself. As clearly stated by National Review, the Muir Russell inquiry did not “offer any opinion on Mann, who was not a part of CRU, but merely a collaborator with some of its scientists”. In future posts, I’ll show that other Mann claims of “exoneration” are also untrue.
I also plan a second post on an important topic arising from Muir Russell’s finding that the omission of data in certain graphs resulted in them being “misleading” and discuss whether these findings demonstrate the elements of “falsification”, as defined in standard academic codes of conduct.
Climate Audit 
167 Comments
I am not a lawyer, but I have written many prosecution briefs for lawyers. From which I know:
1) the information in the Reply Memorandum may well have been drafted by Mann, not the lawyers, with lawyers just adding the legal gloss;
2) that the fur is going to fly when the defence realise a quote has been made up in their own memorandum.
My experience is that lawyers go apeshit when they find their client has been telling fibs to them that are easy to prove. Mann may well find himself without a friend in the courtroom if he has been transparently making things up.
I think you mean the “the plaintiff’s lawyers” instead of “the defence.”
But certainly it’s beginning to seem like they are on defense.
Ah, yes, the plaintiff’s lawyers, as you say. Too many years being on the prosecution side let me think “my” side is always the prosecution!
That is so funny: “I noticed this because of the American spelling “rigor” rather than the English spelling “rigour”, nice catch!
No doubt Nick will be along to suggest that Mann’s Lawyers can merely ‘amend’ the document they produced.
However, when challenged that they had provided no quotes, mann’s lawyers responded by supplying a quote.
However, that quote is like Tiljander turned upside down, or some proxy that has been clipped off to hide the decline.
The quote is a fake. The lawyers are committing a fraud on the court. As officers of the court they have an obligation to not to misrepresent the evidence. Altering a quote to materially change its meaning, might be an interesting ethical question for readers who are Lawyers to opine on, or perhaps one might suggest taking it a bit further and make some fun trouble for Mann’s lawyers. Professional standards are pretty detailed and I know in california that misquoting is a specific no no.
DC may have different professional standards.
It will be fun to have a blog argument about this, cause its one of those cases where folks might actually be able to test some things by filing ethics complaints for example..I dunno lets see what the legal experts say
Nick, you go first.
I’m finding it hard to believe the lawyers did not check this themselves. Perhaps Mann is bullying them as well.
“The quote is a fake. The lawyers are committing a fraud on the court.”
Which quote? The one that turned
“their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”
into
“the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”?
A fraud?
Nick,
With your question, “Which quote?”, which included two quotes for readers to choose, you misquoted the Muir Russell report twice. You are misquoting the MR statement in your two quotes by what you are leaving out.
The MR “money quote” is “the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists”.
Not knowing your mind about his matter I can’t say WHY you are misquoting but one is greatly tempted to call your reply a transparent attempt at misleading others.
‘you misquoted the Muir Russell report twice’
No, I quoted it exactly. If you think it is wrong, please give your version of what plaintiff was misquoting, and how.
But the post truncates the motion, in a way that misleads in this context. With the preceding sentence, it is:
‘The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit”. Three months later, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report, prepared under the oversight of Sir Muir Russell. The report examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.”‘
In context, they make it clear they are talking about CRU scientists.
Nick Stokes Feb 21, 2014 at 10:35 PM
And your comment truncates to mislead. The point being made by Mann in the lead in to the bit you quote is:
“As set forth above, compelling (and admissible) evidence is
already before this Court unequivocally demonstrating that Defendants knew that no fraud existed, or at the very least deliberately ignored evidence that their accusations of fraud,misconduct, or data manipulation were false:
…..”
Now what you quote is an inconsequential aside about how nice they all were at CRU.
But without the “CRU” in the latter part you could be forgiven for thinking it was being offered as compelling evidence about how nice this Dr Mann was, evidence that had been totally ignored by the nasty Defendants.
Of course it wasn’t deliberate, but why did they include that comment?
HAS
“And your comment truncates to mislead. The point being made by Mann in the lead in to the bit you quote is:”
Huh? That comes 34 pages later. I’m already frequently in moderation; I think that non-truncation would keep me there till the case ends.
Nick Stokes Feb 21, 2014 at 11:38 PM
You asked at 9:29 PM “which quote” and I was obliging. It is when you get to the argumentation that you see the real reason the quote in the post (repeated p 54) was made.
I think Nick is only trying to point out the difference between misquoting and performing a contextomy.
wiki
“As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.”
And I was just pointing out Nick in this post is indulging in the latter (noting that the context is provided by the whole document not just the para in question).
Yes, and wiki provides a neat quote with Michael Mann’s name on it.
I never understand your willful bending of the improbable to an unsupportable end. You have the intellectual tools to be free but somehow have become a captive of who knows what.
The money quote is “On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.” the word “their” has a specific antecedent – “CRU scientists.” It does not include Penn State scientists, MIT scientists UAH scientists, or any other scientists. If there were any doubt, the clause “allegations relate to aspects of the behaviour of the CRU scientists” limits the inquiry to “aspects of the behaviour of “the” CRU scientists. How can anyone claim to have been vindicated of allegations when the supposed vindicator specifically limited the investigation to exclude the person making the claim. The fact that the quote in the reply brief is reworked tells you all you need to know about whether the legal team thought the original supported Man’s claim.
“It does not include Penn State scientists, MIT scientists UAH scientists, or any other scientists.”
And where does Mann say to the contrary? The fact is that their para has been talking exclusively about UEA, CRU and its science. It’s quite clear that “scientists” refers to CRU.
Steve: Nick, please list the 8 or more investigations that Mann claimed to have exonerated him.
@Nick Stokes: you wrote [Feb 21, 2014 at 11:28 PM]:
Quite so. By George, I think you’ve (finally!) got it!
Assuming, of course, that by “their” you are speaking of Muir Russell and/or of Steyn/National Review/CEI. However, based on your long history and past performances, I fully appreciate that the view from your keyboard may well be something completely different. So different, in fact, that it may be totally unrecognizable as having any bearing on or relevance to the actual issues under discussion here.
So, all you need to do now (in order to sustain your dedicated support of Mann’s claim – and/or that of his counsel whom Mann would have “instructed”) is demonstrate how this in any way, shape or form could reasonably and/or plausibly and/or possibly be construed as:
a) being equivalent to Mann’s FabriCitation™ thereof; and
b) deserving of consideration as “evidence” in substantiation of Mann’s original claim to the effect that Muir Russell’s report should be understood as constituting an “exoneration” of Mann.
Unless, of course, your contention is that – unbeknownst to the rest of the world – Mann is/was in the well-hidden employ of (or engaged in a closet contract with) UEA and CRU.
<Cue next diversionary non-sequitur from Nick Stokes>
Yes, Nick. It’s fraud. Quotation marks make it a quote. A quote has to be exact. If you change anything you can’t pretend it’s a quote and can not use quotation marks.
And a quote which ,you assert ,refers to CRU is proffered as evidence of exoneration for Mann.
We can reasonably argue whether the investigations actually investigated mann.to the extent that you undermine the clarity of what they did you undermine the claim that steyn was compelled to consider them.
Nick Stokes…
The UK IOP certainly seems to have included Mann et al in its original damning report on the Climategate emails.
The UK Institute of Physics , commissioned by the House of Commons to write a report for them on the CRU emails, was damning in its 13 [ now pretty much disappeared ] findings ..
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
Eg:
[ ‘2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions
may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information. ‘ ]
Finding the results inconvenient, the House of Commons had a different set of conclusions released—a whitewash of CRU and the climate scientists , eliminating the original conclusions of the IOP.
Mosh observes:
In a quick look, an article entitled “Ethics on Appeal” (see here) cites:
The case, available here, considered circumstances in which the defendant attorney had paraphrased an affidavit, in the process altering its meaning, and representing it as verbatim:
This seems like a comparable fact situation to Mann and his lawyers paraphrasing the Muir Russell report to leave out the part that their finding was limited to “CRU scientists” – the very issue that Mann was contesting in his reply.
The decision goes on to say:
As an editorial comment, this is essentially the same defence as was offered in hide the decline. The decision continues:
They found that the defendant had violated several disciplinary rules.
Click to access DOC032513farber.pdf
The Richmond article has other interesting discussion of the ethical obligations of lawyers http://www.tex-app.org/articles/Richmond74924.pdf
Mooloo writes:
“My experience is that lawyers go apeshit when they find their client has been telling fibs to them that are easy to prove. Mann may well find himself without a friend in the courtroom if he has been transparently making things up.”
Whether Mann actually drafted the language personally doesn’t really matter much. One can safely assume that at a minimum he read the words and failed to point out the error to his own lawyers. Going “ape sh*it” will be an entirely appropriate reaction by Mann’s lawyers!
Maybe Mann and Steyn will just have a go at this mano-a-mano without legal representation on either side!
If only he would have copied and pasted this…..
“we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.”……he would still have been caught out as the liar he is and tries so effusively to not be.
Nice catch in relation to the spelling of rigor/rigour.
So what Mann really has is vicarious exoneration.
Or exoneration by proxy. Easily mistaken for the real thing in certain circles.
Vicarious exoneration, a.k.a. exoneration by telecommunication.
“…exoneration by proxy.”
Te he – another upside down proxy?
Maybe this “doesn’t matter” as it doesn’t affect the conclusions he’s reached?
Maybe they’ll refuse to correct it even so?
Maybe they have other lines of evidence to suggest the conclusions are sound?
Maybe careful examination of that evidence reveals it’s not so solid as they would have you believe either?
Hmmm… sounds familiar…
Perhaps Mann believes a “jury of his peers” would require the same peers as the “peer reviews” of his science papers? Might be a shock to him that this is not so.
The inexerble destiny of those who are seduced by their own
advertising, is that they will ultimately, be hoisted by their own petard. Shortly therafter, they will meet their
nemesis.
Is it the Canadian law that any third parties who help to fund a libel action can potentially be made to help pay the costs if the action is not successful? And are they also jointly liable for any damages?
My understanding is that they must be a party to the lawsuit to be liable for costs.
In certain circumstances a defendant may obtain a court order directing the plaintiff to post security for costs. This is not the general case, however.
Steve,
What you’re not understanding is that the CRU scientists are a proxy for Mann. We can reconstruct the Muir Russell opinion of Mann from their opinion of the CRU scientists.
I’d show you the code used for this purpose, but you’d only try to find something wrong with it.
HaroldW
Nice one! One of the best I’ve read in days! Keep your sword pointed up!
This brought out a real belly laugh from me! 🙂
Makes sense that CRU scientists are a proxy for Mann. We know from the e-mails that they were teleconnected.
Nice work Steve!
It seems highly unlikely that Mann’s legal team would fail to carefully read the findings of the Oxburgh and Muir reports. That is to say, if Mann did pull the wool over the home team’s eyes, he needs to find smarter representation. Mann and his team are ‘up the river’ for the deliberate alteration of a quotation used for the basis of a claim for judicial relief. The judge will not appreciate the attempt to manipulate the disposition of the case through forgery.
Now my friends, which amongst you feels Steyn’s decision to file a countersuit and Steve’s trip to DC are coincidental? Mann’s truly hosed, as he has just lost the opportunity to drop the charges against Steyn.
Steve: I went to DC in October last year. Nor did I suggest a countersuit. So yes it is a coincidence.
Is counter-suit a correct term here? I was surprised to see this in the same document as his response.
Re: Rob Ricket (Feb 21 17:04), This usually leads to a “General Adjournment ” of the trial — to protect the lawyers representing the party that “accidentally misquoted” or filed a provably untrue affidavit.
Of course this is just my experience. Been there — had the other party try this on me.
Nice to see you putting to some good use all the entrails you’ve previously unearthed. I know you’ll never admit it Steve, but you have to be enjoying this as much as the rest of us. Welcome back in a big way!!!!
Steve M.’s ongoing series is a superb learning opportunity.
Mike Mann, it’s never too late! Read carefully – watch and learn how to document meticulous research in a transparent traceable manner. Note how the respect Steve has and you crave comes from solid work and not from blustering, intimidation, deceit and serial lawsuits.
You’re a young man – you have a long way to go but there still may be time!
Could Mann be charged with perjury by altering a quote in this way. Was the Reply Memorandum reply under some kind of oath? This is a calculated lie.
Steve: a memorandum would not be under oath. However, Mann’s lawyers are bound by codes of ethics that would almost certainly prohibit them from knowingly using doctored quotations. I’m not sure what obligations exist if they subsequently learn that the quotations been altered, but presumably they would be obligated to notify the court upon so learning.
So Mann’s lawyers rendered
“their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”
as
“the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”
and you think Mann should be charged with perjury?
Put in the rest about UEA, Nick. Jeez, taking lessons from Mann?
===========
– Mr. Dryden, Lawrence of Arabia (1963).
Re: Jim T (Feb 21 21:08), Perhaps you are thinking of “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree” argument. Everything derived from something untrue or improper in law will be struck. Whatever is left is what you are forced to deal with. … as I recall the argument.
You are a machine Mr Steve Mcintyre- great work as always.
Nick’s last comment is really funny especially since it was made after Steve posted this.
“We know the heading isn’t meant to imply that each investigation in that list cleared Mann, because in the response to motion to dismiss, they followed the same structure. A section with the same heading “Dr Mann is exonerated”, and starting with the same listing. But this time, they name each inquiry and say something about what it said. And of Oxburgh they made no claim of clearing Mann. Only CRU.”
What do you mean by “We” Nick? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Mann’s fabricated quote was actually just a trick (™climate science). I wonder if the judge will think it was a “good way to deal with a problem.”
That bristlecone pine eraser pen can be used for just about anything, in the right hands.
“Nowhere is there any Finding in the Muir Russell report that refers to Mann”
Well, Oxburgh wasn’t named in the Mann complaint, but that didn’t stop you reading all sorts of apparently explicit claims into it. But whether or not it was in their remit, they described what they did:
“The approach taken by the Review was to identify and investigate the allegations to which the e-mails gave rise. This reflected our reading of the emails and the comments made on them.”
And since Mann was often on one end of the emails, they can hardly have made their findings without some evaluation of his work. And it’s there:
“21. We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading. In particular, on the question of the composition of temperature reconstructions, we found no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions that would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence. In this respect it represented a significant advance on the IPCC Third Assessment
Report (TAR). “
That’s hardly compatible with a claim that Mann’s hockey stick is fraudulent, since 6.10 is their main HS graph, featuring Mann’s recons.
“The National Review memorandum in support of their motion to Dismiss (December 2012) clearly stated (page 9) that the Muir Russell report did not “offer any opinion on Mann”:”
Yes, but that didn’t stop them talking extensively about it, in an attempt to associate the critical parts of M-R with Mann. A para on pp 16/17 recites M-R criticisms, eg
“It did, however, conclude that some renditions of the “hockey stick” diagram were “misleading ” “
forcing the response to point out that that was Jones WMO 2000, not Mann. They also spent a para reciting Oxburgh criticisms, despite (correct) claims that Oxburgh findings were not about Mann.
Steve: As I noted in the post, I intend to discuss Muir Russell’s findings that some renditions of the HOckey Stick were “misleading”. The two diagrams in question were the 1999 WMO diagram, which, as you say, was done by Jones, and the 2001 IPCC TAR diagram in the section of which Mann was Lead Author and which thus directly involves Mann. They also observe that the misleading disclosure in AR3 (under Mann) was significantly improved in AR4 (under Briffa). But please hold your horses until we get to this.
On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a „trick‟ and to
„hide the decline‟ in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of
intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic
significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third
Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was
misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at
some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures
should have been made plain ideally in the figure but certainly clearly
described in either the caption or the text
But Mann isn’t named here so I guess it’s irrelevant.
Several years ago my son, in high school at the time, was being interviewed by a panel that would be awarding a number of scholarships. He was asked what his best subject was. He replied, “Everything but English.”
The panel then asked further questions about one subject in particular. Can you guess which?
Mann was asked to provide evidence of exoneration in the MR inquiry. Rather than using any of the helpful material that Nick has identified, he chose to provide an edited quote that closely resembles one in the MR report.
What do you think will get the court’s attention? All of Nick’s supportive quotes, or Mike’s one pathetic attempt at digging out from under?
And since Mann was often on one end of the emails, they can hardly have made their findings without some evaluation of his work. And it’s there: …
They do not specifically mention Mann. Briffa and others in CRU also did work on Tree Rings, in fact from the text above it can not be determined that they are actually referring to any of Manns work.
Making a reference to Mann in an email can not be claimed to be rigourous nor honest. if it is claimed so, then everyone in those emails is also honest, and rigourous. So the claim made above is empty.
There was a famous UK case , name escapes me , where the slightly less intelligent of the crooks involved , upon hearing the police tell his accomplice to throw down his gun shouted “let them have it ”
Crook 2 fired and killed a policeman , crook 2 was subsequently hanged.
Wording eh? troublesome stuff that in a trial.
Well you missed your opportunity
Manns legal team is
the Jerry Sandusky of law, except that instead of molesting children, they have molested and tortured quotes.
Steven, I’ll contribute to your legal defense fund.
Yes Daveo – he just extrapolated his exoneration data, homogenised it a bit – and spliced a bit extra onto the end ( i.e. his name).
Mann does not come before the court with “clean hands.” Do the Nobel claim and fabricated quote meet that doctrine here?
Had to chuckle over this typo on page 27: Dr. Mean 🙂
“While the NSF may have noted that some
concerns had been raised about Dr. Mean’s statistical analysis…”
Hi Steve,
Could you please provide links to the DC legal filings that you referred to. I know they are out there, but they are not easy for me to find in a consolidated space, and I would like to read them.
JD
JD
Mann’s lawyer has them on his site here:
http://www.williamslopatto.com/superior-court-briefs.html
If you scroll over ‘case links’ you find more briefs and decisions.
Thanks a lot.
JD
Mann has always had difficulty with the meaning of ‘their’…
[Mann’s self-serving FabriCitation™:]
Well, I can’t say that I’m surprised to see that Mann has taken yet another leaf from the faux-historian, David <I see you, I sue you> Irving’s playbook.
Irving is quite fond of the “add a word here, change a word there” mode of “doing history”. Perhaps he’s even been coaching Mann during his litigious pursuits.
And as a related (and, IMHO, an amusing albeit totally coincidental) aside …
In his 2001 book, Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust and the David Irving Trial, historian Richard J. Evans wrote (pp. 9-10):
YMMV, but it seems to me, that the similarities are such that one would simply need to change a few words here and there in the above, and voilà … a fairly accurate Portrait of the Artist as an Aggrieved Mann 😉
Steve, you’re instance on using a .pdf version of the MR Report led you to use the wrong version. The correct version has been available on an anonymous…err public ftp site since it was first published. The ftp site is currently under maintenance but if you wait about 10 minutes you’ll be able to find the corrected…I mean correct version of the report.
/sarc
Sorry, mpaul. I think that you may be confusing the Muir Russell team’s 2010 report with the hasty pudding recently cooked up by the Slingo/U.K. Met Office “team”.
While there are several “final” versions of the latter in circulation, the author(s) of MR 2010 made sure to dot all the i’s, cross all the t’s (and, most importantly, hide all the peas under their designated thimbles) prior to making their “final” version public.
😉
Steve McIntyre—I was wondering if you could be so kind as to provide URL links for the various documents you are discussing here?
This is the version of the Russell report I have: Link
This is the version of the revised complaint that I have link.
If you could include links to the documents that you are using in addition to this (especially the first place you use them in a post), it would help with the reading and critical examination of your claims and counter claims from other readers.
Thanks—Carrick
Steve: quite so, Sorry about that.
Carrick, I’ve posted up inquiry reports
at http://www.climateaudit.info/proceedings/inquiries . See directories.
And a partial collection of relevant pleadings
http://www.climateaudit.info/proceedings/legal
If we embrace Nick’s approach and play fast and loose with the list of investigations and the application of the word ‘scientists’ then its worth noting that when the Information Commissioners Offices investigated the Climategate emails, including those to which Mann was a party, they found:
“Meanwhile, the ICO has been alerted by the complainant and by information already in the public domain via the media, to a potential offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act. The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence. Given that this was in the public domain and has been discussed in the media and on various websites over a number of weeks, the ICO’s view, as I indicated when we spoke yesterday, is that the University must have understood that the question whether an offence under section 77 had been committed would be looked at. In the event, the matter cannot be taken forward because of the statutory time limit.”
Hardly an “exoneration”.
Exoneration from what? I know Mann’s sins are innumerable, but one he can’t commit is a breach of Sec 77 of the UK FOIA. To do that, you have to be in effect an employee of a British public body subject to a FOI request, deleting material held by that body and subject to an FOI request.
So you agree then that he’s not one of the CRU scientists whose rigour and honesty are not in doubt.
This I find astonishing, and most revealing. They failed to furnish quotations of their claims of exoneration to support their contention the action should not be dismissed? And then when they did furnish a quote, it was doctored and taken out of context to falsely assert that Mann had been exonerated?
I’m thinking John B. Williams had no idea what he was getting himself into when he took this case.
The comment above was not meant to be in reply to Nick Stokes or anyone else. Sorry about that.
I think you have now grasped why the UEA/Oxburgh “investigations” had nothing to do with Mann. Their purpose was to create a legitimate looking document that would exonerate UEA so that the University could avoid prosecution related to obstruction of UK FOIA laws. They certainly did not exonerate Mann, as he has falsely claimed on many occasions (including the false claim in his legal filings). When they did peripherally mention Mann’s work, they did so only to point blame away from the University.
Nick Stokes…..
The UK Institute of Physics Report—specifically commissioned by the House of Commons exonerated neither the CRU scientists, nor Mann et al—–and specifically included scientists from other institutions in its scathing critique.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
With these words doesn’t this report [ not an inquiry I concede] include Mann et al in the trenchant criticism that goes to the heart of the science and the methods, the secrecy, the gatekeeping and the credibility of the whole CAGW thesis?
[ ‘The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.’
‘The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions …..’
‘The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital….’
‘This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. ‘
‘ The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented…’
‘The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.’
‘There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation. ‘ ]
If these findings are not important—why are they not?
This IOP report unlike others is not from an inquiry headed by someone who had a personal vested interest in the outcome being supportive of the CAGW scientists—ie by someone whose personal wealth and prestige were dependent to a significant degree on achieving an outcome favoring CAGW.
The phrase “[attempted] innocence by association” comes to mind.
Superb analysis Mr. McIntyre, absolutely superb!!
Nick, I’m glad you admit that there was an illegal breach of UK FOIA. And, yes, that does reflect on Dr. Mann’s ethics, especially as this was about data collected at taxpayer expense and affecting all of us, especially the poor. Nobody said we had to prove Mann is a felon. Just an intellectual/scientific charlatan, which he’s now proven beyond doubt.
But please, help dig the hole deeper. It’s fun watching.
Alex
he runs a mean back hoe
Judge Combs Greene obviously understood that Mann had claimed that both Oxburgh and Muir Russell had investigated Mann and cleared Mann, as she believed that Mann had been investigated “by almost one dozen bodies”, a number impossible without the UK investigations:
As I understand Nick Stokes’ present position, Nick now argues that Mann only claimed exoneration from Penn State, NSF OIG and EPA- three institutions not nearly a dozen.
I guess Mann and his lawyers tricked Judge Combs Greene.
“I guess Mann and his lawyers tricked Judge Combs Greene.”
Which was probably easy for them, given Combs Greene’s abilities.
With Weisberg, it won’t be as easy, although clearly they are trying.
Mann’s Reply Memorandum says:
As I understand Nick’s tortured theory, in face of overwhelming evidence that neither Oxburgh nor Muir Russell actually exonerated Mann, Nick now denies that Mann had ever claimed that these investigations had exonerated Mann himself, but refuses to identify which “no less than eight” he understands to be claimed by Mann.
How can defendants be expected to know which investigations are claimed by Mann if Nick can’t list them for us?
Well, she wasn’t misled by this claimed misquote. She got from it:
“The investigators concluded that the “’rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,”” (p 2)
It’s perfectly clear to her, as to any reasonable readers, that in context the reference was to CRU scientists, as in the original.
Steve: Nick, please list the 8 or more investigations that Mann claimed to have exonerated him.
Nobody is arguing that Judge Greene was consistent :}
She may have forgotten, and after a quick re-read, gotten fooled.
How else could she have nearly doubled his count?
Nick:
1. How is Steyn et al supposed to have known about the multiple investigations, read them, and believed them (a requirement for the malice part of Mann’s claims), when nobody seems to know which investigations we are talking about?
2. If Mann is admitting the Muir Russell investigation wasn’t about him, but some other scientists, why even mention it in his reply memo?
The defendants are accused of libelling Mann (because they allegedly believed but ignored investigations that cleared Mann). The defendants are not accused of libelling other scientists at the CRU – and any investigations that arent about Mann are simply irrelevant.
I mean, while we are at it, why doesn’t Mann also mention the 9/11 commission or the Warren commission? Oh, of course he wouldn’t, because they are irrelevant…. But so is Muir Russell, unless Mann is claiming it is about him.
Nick: you’ve are making like Mann’s lawyers and have taken Judge Greene’s quote out of context. In doing so, you eliminated a very embarrassing error she made in that sentence. On page 2 of the ruling she wrote:
Judge Greene reveals her unfamiliarity with the report when she says Jones’ email was misleading, when it’s clear that it was Mike’s Trick and its publication as a graph that Muir Russell et al found misleading:
Here’s what they wrote:
And quoting Judge Green– whose abilities I will not characterize because I’ve got one comment already in moderation for doing so– is really rather silly, since she was obviously duped by Mann’s lawyers into believing that when the report said, “On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt” that it some how exonerated Mann. Obviously, it did not.
Again, it’s interesting, but not surprising that you are behaving exactly like Mann and his lawyers in using quotes disingenuously.
” using quotes disingenuously”
You are doing just that. You dropped her quotation marks. Here’s the full sentence, properly punctuated:
The investigators concluded that the “‘rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt”, but that Jones’ email referencing “‘Mike’s Nature trick” was “‘misleading’.”
I quoted the first part, which was relevant to her understanding of the plaintiff quote.
Her understanding of the plaintiff’s quote was completely lacking, as evidenced by her claim that the “email” and not the graph and published material were “misleading.”
She proved herself incompetent, Nick. It’s not a surprise to me that you would quote her as an authority on this subject.
I think her utter incompetence was the spark that ignited Steyn’s impetuous and disrespectful behavior. It convinced him that not only was the jury rigged, so to speak, but the judge was as well. Steyn is now doing a good imitation of Abby Hoffman and Jerry Rubin because he is outraged by the way she handled the case.
Fact is she was either duped by plaintiffs into believing Mann was a CRU scientist, or, she was being prejudicial in favor of the plaintiffs. Given the rest of her opinion, which also included her confusing the defendants with one another, I rest my case.
Robe Probe comments on “Judge” Natalia M. Combs-Greene
A complete idiot. No judicial temperament. Flies off of the handle for no discernible reason. A shallow mind. She is rude, belligerant and openly biased against plaintiffs.
Extremely biased, openly hostile, insulted plaintiff in open court, disregards the law.
http://www.robeprobe.com/find_judges_result2.php?judge_id=4146&judge_Natalia_M._Combs-Greene
But not when it gets to the argumentation on page 54. This only makes sense if the para refers to Mann, not CRU, and the reasonable reader would assume that this was evidence that Mann had been cleared of fraud, and the Defendants had ignored it.
[repetition, but you do need to take things slowly]
“How can defendants be expected to know which investigations are claimed by Mann if Nick can’t list them for us?”
I doubt if the defendants are rendered helpless by my reluctance. But the fact is that Mann’s lawyers gave a detailed list on pp 19-20, stating just what they are claiming. And it’s clear there that they regard the inquiries as, taken together, exonerating Mann.
The accusations against Mann are scattershot. There’s lots of talk by Steyn and others of “Mike’s Nature trick”, “Hide the decline” etc. Now there were investigated by Muir Russell etc. They are part of the pattern of accusation, and their refutation is part of the exoneration.
I agree that the “eight separate times” is overstated. It’s part of the claim for extra costs; the rhetoric in such claims is not modest. See Steyn’s latest.
Steve: Nick, I am aware of the pleadings. As I understand the list on pages 19-20, Oxburgh and Muir Russell are included, but you disagree. Mann doesn’t plead that the investigations “taken together” exonerate him. He claimed that “all of the investigations” exonerated him. Nick, you’ve written hundreds of words on this. I’m asking a simple question: please list the (8 or whatever) investigations that, as you understand it, Mann claimed to have exonerated him. Just a list. If, as you say, 8 is an exaggeration, do you mean three?
“I agree that the “eight separate times” is overstated.”
Exaggerating to the court.
Wasn’t exaggeration one of Mann’s problems to begin with?
“Just a list.”
Well, there are six institutions in that list, which actually goes from pp 19-26. You listed them following my comment at Feb 19, 2014 at 3:12 PM in the previous post. I listed them there too. UEA and Penn State arguably count for two each, making eight.
They all refute at least some of the allegations that the defendants have made. You can tell that, because the defence discusses them, and picks up anything negative to further the allegations. Not all deal with Mann directly. But they do deal with the allegations, and contribute to exonerating him.
You are creating a strawman here. Nothing is going to depend on whether each is taken to be a separate stand-alone exoneration. Together they make an impressive history, and that is what the court will be looking at.
Very impressive indeed. He exaggerated the number possible to claim.
I think you’re looking for the usual wording on this kind of thing
“It doesn’t matter. We’ve moved on.”
Nick, it’s hard to know what of all of this will be impressive to the court. I think you’re doing a good job of showing a possible plaintiff strategy of sowing enough obfuscation that will all come out in the wash. I hope Steyn is looking at dealing with your energetic posts as a good sparring exercise. But in the end what might end up mattering the most are the little things that stick in peoples’ minds, such as the clumsy attempt to doctor a quote, that reflect on the plaintiff’s character and add up.
“such as the clumsy attempt to doctor a quote, that reflect on the plaintiff’s character and add up”
So Mann’s lawyer transcribed
“their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”
as
“the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”?
and that reflects on Mann’s character?
And the judge understood it as
“’rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,”
not exact again. Does that reflect on her character? Is she ‘doctoring’?
This stuff is amazing.
Nick, you owe me a keyboard, mine is covered in Coffee 😉
We can’t see your head in the hole you have dug yourself anymore.
Nick: the quote is doctored and the meaning is changed from no doubt about people in their specific role as scientists to no doubt in all of the numerous human roles everyone works at. It is a subtle difference, not earthshaking, however, like many proxies, the doctoring/selecting always goes one way. I agree, it does seem very very minor. I also predict that none of these issues discussed in the OP will impact the trial. All the atty’s will come out smelling fresh as a snake in the grass with no sanctions or rebukes.
Howard you are correct, the meaning of the doctored quote clearly was changed.
Any person with a remedial skill at reading can confirm this. Nick certainly understands this too.
What does that suggest about Nick?
As long as Nick sticks to applied math he makes useful contributions. When he delves into empiricism, it’s a bit of a disaster. When he fancies himself as as lawyer is where the train goes off the rails, crashes into a bridge that falls in a river, with wreckage that lands on a barge that then explodes, setting off a nearby fireworks factory, … etc.
Re: Nick Stokes (Feb 22 03:24), You may have missed a point. Was Dr. Mann a CRU scientist? I have seen judges point out these discrepancies in exactly this way. They may be indicating that an explanation and proof is required.
Anyway, as I point out elsewhere if a statement so critical to the case is found to be false a judge typically/usually gently suggests a deal/general adjournment.
I am calling for a General Adjournment based on the truth — or lack thereof — in the filings or affidavits as the case may be. I have read the latest Steyn Document — not the latest by Mann and his lawyers.
Link anyone?
Get back to me when it goes to trial.
Nick, since the judge declared Mann was exenorated by nearly a dozen enquiries, there seems to be a puzzle.
However, a plausible explanation exists.
Remembering now that she mixed up which defendants were which, it’s practically certain that the puzzle is solved if one assumes that she also wrongly believed Mann worked for CRU.
Judge is careless and or perpetually confused, reads about Michael Mann’s exonerations on a list of his exonerations, sees CRU investigation as another exoneration, doesn’t even begin to dawn on her that Mann never worked there.
“doesn’t even begin to dawn on her that Mann never worked there, ” et cetera.
That’s the fault of Steyn’s lawyer, not writing in one-idea-per-sentence sentences, and making it achingly clear.
Steve: I totally disagree. The lawyers for National Review and CEI clearly stated that the other investigations did not exonerate Mann. Mann’s lawyers would thoroughly misrepresented the scope of the various investigations. At motion stage, Mann’s pleadings have to be accepted as true. The judges acceptance of these pleadings as true at motion does not obligate him at trial. Codes of conduct for lawyers prohibit them from knowingly making false pleadings. It’s hard to believe that anyone who read the investigation reports would claim that they exonerated Mann himself – even Nick Stokes doesn’t. Thus Nick’s tangled and tortured exegesis trying to avoid the prospect of lawyers knowingly making false pleadings.
Mr. McIntyre, I have one quibble with your inline comment. In anti-SLAPP proceedings, particularly when the Plaintiff is required to rebut the Defendant’s motion by demonstrating a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits”, the court cannot accept Mann’s allegations as true. The term “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” is usually applied in motions for temporary injunctions where is requires the proponent of the injunction to offer evidence which rises to at least a prima facie case.
There is no DC case law directly on point that I could find, but the term “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” has a settled meaning. See, Automated Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Martin, 467 F.2d 1181, 1183 (10th Cir. 1972) (“‘In hearings upon motions for temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, the burden is upon the one requesting such relief to make a prima facie case showing a reasonable probability that he will ultimately be entitled to the relief sought.’” (quoting Crowther v. Seaborg, 415 F.2d 437, 439 (10th Cir. 1969))); Mills v. District of Columbia, 571 F.3d 1304, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate “‘substantial likelihood of success on the merits’” (quoting Katz v. Georgetown Univ., 246 F.3d 685, 687 (D.C. Cir. 2001))).
It is my opinion, based on the case law, that the trial court clearly erred by not requiring Mann to proffer admissible evidence proving that he has a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits”.
Will Richardson – Nick posted the order that discusses the Judges interpretation at least of the law …
Click to access Mann_Order_CEI_7-19-13.pdf
A. Scott,
The trial court’s order is exactly the type of analysis of which I complain. Nowhere, excepting discussion of the investigations, does the trial court discuss any evidence proffered by Mann which would support his claims. Perhaps there was evidence offered, but you cannot tell from the court’s order. In Florida, that order would be reversible on its face, because Florida requires it’s trial courts to make findings of fact, based on facts in evidence, when determining whether or not the plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
Re: Will J. Richardson (Feb 22 18:04),
Will … I agree with you fully – was just pointing to the PDF of the order …
Will J. Richardson: not only did he fail to make Mann prove “a substantial likelihood of success,” he added this phrase in three places in the order denying the motion to dismiss on the grounds of the anti-SLAPP statute: “Viewing the allegations of the amended complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, . . . ”
I think the judge erred here. He should have viewed the motion to dismiss on grounds most favorable to the first amendment and freedom of expression, since much of the case law shows that Steyn et al have an even more substantial likelihood of success based on the difficulty Mann will have proving, among other things, malice and a reckless disregard for the truth. He essentially nullified the anti-SLAPP statute.
Here’s the order:
Click to access MannvNR-1-22.pdf
Re: pottereaton (Feb 23 11:12),
That is the legal requirement for review at this stage of a case
Just means, at this early stage, if everything Mann says is true, there are grounds to continue.
A. Scott,
I agree that the trial court must accept the well pled allegations of the plaintiff as true when considering an ordinary motion to dismiss on any of the usual grounds, but that standard cannot be applied to an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss when the anti-SLAPP statute requires the plaintiff to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits in response the the anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. The whole point of anti-SLAPP is requiring the plaintiff to offer proof of his allegations at an early stage of the litigation.
Agreed, Will J. That was precisely my point. If you can’t apply the anti-SLAPP statute in this case, then it’s essentially useless. Steyn is warming to this case because he sees how dangerous it is to every one writing opinion pieces in every form of media.
The judge apparently thinks that Dr. Mann’s feelings are more important than a free press and unfettered debate. What this decision means is that anyone who holds a strong opinion on any subject and who has access to apparently unlimited resources provided by others with similar views, can attack and bankrupt any critic who has the courage to disagree with them.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
JD
Nick,
It seems that you are confusing investigations that, “refute at least some of the allegations that the defendants have made” and investigations that “contribute to exonerating him”, (‘him’ meaning Mann).
Can you list the investigations that exonerate Dr. Mann?
Except Nick that taken together they don’t.
One of them is an investigation that did not mention Mann and made no findings about him. The quote when properly cited, as you accept, relates to CRU scientists and not to Mann.
The quote is pleaded as expressly relating to Mann.
It may be the case as you speculate that “Nothing is going to depend on whether each is taken to be a stand-alone exoneration”. But it ought in my view to be noted that one investigation cited as exonerating Mann was an investigation in which Mann was not involved and which made no findings about him.
It is (sometimes highly) relevant that a plaintiff’s pleadings are misleading and/or untrue. Such a statement (when taken together with the Nobel Prize claim (which in my view is serious and very illuminating)) can in court have some effect on the court’s view of the plaintiff’s vcredibility absent evidence of genuine mistake. This is particularly so where 1) the quotation is misused in a standalone pleaded paragraph expressly giving the first example of how Mann was exonerated, and 2) where Mann’s pleadings repeatedly (and indeed in this very paragraph) accuse the Defendant of “obfuscating evidence” and being “disingenuous”.
So, it seems that there a a few “investigations” that could be interpreted as exonerating Mann, but he claimed 8. Then Judge Combs Greene uppesd that to “a dozen”. Seems like Mann is not the only one doing exaggerating
I might have stumbled on what appears to be a funny highly misleading statement by John B. Williams, Mann’s attorney. He included this as a prior representation of a client on his website: “Seabury Management Inc. v. Professional Golfers Association, C.V. 92-530 (D. Md.) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in antitrust and contract action against Professional Golfers Association of America. Plaintiffs’ verdict of $2.6 million, trebled, plus $4.8 million in punitive damages.” Website is http://www.williamslopatto.com/significant-matters.html
.
The matter was appealed and the appeals court vacated the punitive damages award (para 34) and stated that the highest possible compensatory damages that could be awarded was $2.3 million. (para 32) See 52 F.3d 322: Seabury Management, Incorporated, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Professional Golfers’ Association of America. I don’t see further reported opinions, so it appears that there is a good chance that Mr. Williams actually obtained $5,000,000 less for his clients than what appears on his website. If someone points out that I have made a mistake and that there are things out there that I have missed, I will be happy to correct my post but everything I am seeing indicates that the Williams website has a highly misleading statement regarding his past record.
JD
The case docket shows that after the case was sent back to the district court, it was eventually settled. The plaintiff didn’t seem to be too pleased with how the trial judge handled the remanded case, since they sought, unsuccessfully, to disqualify him. I don’t see anything that would suggest the original damages were restored.
I think the claimed amount would would actually be $12.6 million (3 x 2.6 + 4.8).
Nick,
” Together they make an impressive history, and that is what the court will be looking at.”
I hope so… Together they make an impressive history of whitewashes, and that is what the court will be looking at!
‘Mann supported this bluster with an apparent quotation from the Muir Russell report, but the phrase within the quotation marks does not actually occur within the Muir Russell report. As shown below, Mann and/or his lawyers subtly altered the quotation to more supportive language.’
So what we see is Mann carrying on this normal working practices, no data that supports make it up , data that refutes him change it so it supports . In the end it will be hilarious that his own massive ego will bring him down and a great shame that its not the scientific establishment who have played three wise monkeys to all of Mann rubbish science.
Stokes, the report explicitly states the context….
“On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.”
that is
we find [on the specific allegations made against the CRU scientists] their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
Using your logic I could take “scientists are not in doubt” and apply it to any scientist in relation to any field.
Seriously, you’re such a fool.
jaffa
“Using your logic I could take “scientists are not in doubt” and apply it to any scientist in relation to any field.”
Not at all. Mann’s version, properly quoted, made it equally clear that it applied to CRU scientists. And that is just how the judge understood it.
“’rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,”
Manns version did no such thing.
The section in question is this:
The Oxburgh section is clearly about published CRU research and not about CRU scientists. Mann was involved in published CRU research (co-authored papers etc) so the “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit” is supposed to include Mann. By your own logic, because the first section applies to Mann, the seconds part with the “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.” is also supposed to apply to Mann.
As I said on Bishop Hill, this is in the section titled “Dr. Mann’s Exoneration” and is item number 1.
> And that is just how the judge understood it.
Really? Are you so sure that the Judge never read Exhibit 6 (The Russell Report)? It is her job to read the briefs and exhibits, all your quote demonstrates is that the Judge performed her duties.
Is there a woman named Mary Mapes who runs a school that teaches this sort of thing; or maybe it’s that Mann just .. “went to school on her”?
It is interesting to see the carefully spoken Brits preparing even in those early days to push Mann under a bus. Obviously the fix was in with respect to the CRU; mere whitewash. That Mann now cites the very words crafted to exclude him shows that he still doesn’t get it.
The Brits are subtle, Mikey, subtle. You can hardly feel the knife. English is exact, precise. And remember the Brits invented it for their purposes, not yours.
Heh, off topic and trivial, but I doubt the honesty and rigour of some of the CRU scientists.
=============
Just a reminder, in the “clean hands” area…..
Mann, while attempting to support his claim that Hansen’s 1988 temperature predictions have been proven accurate, failed to use the most recent seven years of data, and used an inappropriate temperature data set.
Mike’s AGU Trick:
University of Victoria presentation:
But this is a jury trial. The jury will not be impressed by Nickois contortions.
Nick, with respect to the alteration of the quote in Mann’s pleading, keep in mind the prelude (emph added):
Since the libel case turns on an accusation that Mann manipulated and/or suppressed data, the construction of the sentence, and its placement in a section claiming Dr Mann is exonerated, reasonably implies that they are claiming conduct relevant to the case was investigated and cleared.
But if you succeed in arguing that an attentive reader should have been able to spot the subtle misdirection and see that Mann’s team was not claiming the UEA investigations actually contributed to Mann’s exoneration, notwithstanding the placement of this item at the top of the list of exonerating investigations, all you have done is show that Mann’s (in this case legal) arguments need to be carefully examined and parsed for subtly misleading and exaggerated claims. But since the underlying case hinges on whether people could reasonably hold the view that Mann makes subtly misleading and exaggerated claims in his research, I can’t see that your success on this point redounds to Mann’s overall defence. It more likely just serves to reinforce the perception that his critics were justified in holding this opinion.
I am also puzzled by your response to Steve’s challenge to name the 8 exonerating inquiries:
UEA = Oxburgh and Muir Russell, the subject of these 2 posts of Steve’s. You have vigorously argued that nobody considers them to have been investigations that contributed to clearing Mann, yet here they are on your list as doing just that. There’s some subtlety in your reasoning that I am missing.
Ross,
“You have vigorously argued that nobody considers them to have been investigations that contributed to clearing Mann,”
No, I argue that they did contribute to clearing Mann. Muir Russell answered some of the allegations that have been attached to Mann, fairly or not, and which have been vigorously promoted by the defendants, even in the court pleadings.
What I’m resisting is the tactic here of saying, well, if they contribute to clearing, then plaintiff must be saying they exonerate Mann, and how could they do that without findings that mention him?
“But if you succeed in arguing that an attentive reader should have been able to spot the subtle misdirection”
There’s a technical argument here about who the Muir Russell quote refers to, and whether the change makes it sound like they are claiming “scientists” include Mann. I say the transcription error makes no difference in meaning; it is not a misdirection, but the para as a whole makes it clear that the findings are referring to CRU scientists. And the decisive evidence is that that was the judge’s clear understanding. She is not considered here a peculiarly attentive reader.
Having established the meaning of the quote, it is still quite reasonable that Mann should cite this assessment as answering allegations that have been attached to him.
Steyn’s knowledge of movies is encyclopaedic. But thus far, despite much amusement, no one has commented on the movie allusion in paragraph 111 of his Answer and Counterclaim:
The words are from the theme music of The Thomas Crown Affair, a clever movie about fraud. The original version starred Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway; the second version with Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo didn’t have the same electricity. One of McQueen’s tricks in pulling off the fraud was to have multiple people in the same location dressed identically to the real robber.
The original title of the theme song was “Windmills of Your Mind” – perhaps anticipating modern green energy policy.
Ah, that explains it. Brilliant. Although, when I first read it, I didn’t get it. And I suspect the judge will not get it either. I also think that an overworked judge will not take the time to figure out where it came from. So Steyn risks coming across as a bit flippant here. But I like it.
I interpreted paragraph 111 in the defendant’s response differently. If you look at plaintiff’s amended complaint (http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6110.pdf) and compare it paragraph by paragraph to the response, you see that plaintiff asserts:
“The aforementioned false and defamatory statements were made by defendants with actual malice and either with knowledge of their falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statements.”
Since “actual malice” literally means “with either knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth”, we see that the paragraph is redundant and that the plaintiff is “talking in circles”.
Steyn pokes fun at this in his reply, as a way of belittling the plaintiff. I think the judge will get it and will probably struggle to keep a straight face.
Nice analysis, AF!
I think the judge will read the pile of sh*t Steyn poured over his professional colleague and think he’s an a*sehole, about whom the only funny thing is his smell.
Fundamental rules of advocacy:
1. Get the judge on your side,
2. Get the jury on your side
3. Get the witness on your side.
He’s fallen at the first hurdle.
He needs a friend to strike him forcefully on his right temple with a volume of the Civil Procedure Rules in an attempt to knock some sense into him.
He’s in the trenches with his co-defendants, but far from bonding with them, he’s pi**ing in their boots. The sort of guy who can make the un-loseable, un-winnable. He speaks recklessly – all the time. He doesn’t care what he says. And he’s going to address the jury on the basis that he doesn’t speak recklessly!
Bob: what’s your opinion as to what the judge will think about this comment from plaintiffs in their response to the motion to dismiss:
Steyn’s response is playful. That’s just ugly.
If you look up the precise legal definition of an action for libel, it’s two fools throwing shit at one another while paying large fees to lawyers for the privilege.
To be honest, it’s a sight that warms my heart.
If you look up the strict legal definition of ‘loser’, it’s a fool throwing shit at the judge.
The difference between Mann’s bile and Steyn’s sarcasm is that Mann’s bile helps Steyn win, whereas Steyn’s sarcasm helps Mann win.
When they speak of equality-of-arms in the courtroom they don’t mean that if your opponent acts dumb, you must act dumb too, to level the field.
I speak as a friend and well-wisher. If these words reach Mr Steyn’s ear he should know that he has at least one true friend.
So that were all reading from the same hymn sheet, the document I refer to, is the top document here:
http://www.williamslopatto.com/superior-court-briefs.html
I think that’s not a good bit, from Steyn. It’s not in the light carefree vein as his fun remarks are.
I specualted as to how many would catch the reference.
I suspect the judge is old enough to get it. This also made the AFI 100 movies 100 songs list.
Even without getting the reference, that this is paragraph #111, and the previous all say defendant denies the allegation, so a judge might agree Mann is being repetitive.
Gotta say Nick’s amusement value excellent. Parsing, jiving, shucking and of course “Look! Over there, something else”
Gold medal in Hoop Jumping, Nicky, but not much else.
Steve deserves the Order of Canada for unpacking this scam, one deception, one lie, one distortion, one obfuscation, one redirection at a time.
Most excellent work Steve.
Nick is working on a new approach to logic and set theory wherein a member of a set constitutes the set. For example, because MM was an IPCC author and the IPCC was awarded a Nobel Prize, MM is a Nobel Prize winner. Similarly, because MM co-authored papers with CRU scientists, MM is a CRU scientist. Logic and Mathematics will never be the same.
If permissible, cross-posted from Lucia:
Re: Williams (Mann’s lawyer) exaggerating benefit to client and lawyer ethical rules.
.
DC Model Rule 7.1 states:
“Rule 7.1 – Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services
.
(a) A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it:
.
(1) Contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading; …
.
The commentary to Rule 7.1 states:
.
“It is especially important that statements about a lawyer or the lawyer’s services be accurate, since many members of the public lack detailed knowledge of legal matters. Certain advertisements such as those that describe the amount of a damage award, the lawyer’s record in obtaining favorable verdicts, or those containing client endorsements, unless suitably qualified, have a capacity to mislead by creating an unjustified expectation that similar results can be obtained for others.” See link http://www.law.cornell.edu/eth…..le_7.1.htm (Rules current through March 2013)
.
If what appears in the reported cases on the web is accurate, it appears that Williams has committed a significant ethics violation in misleading potential clients about what he obtained for a previous client. Hard to believe he would be so grossly stupid, so it is very possible that there is something unreported out there to support his website’s posting. On the other hand, between the Muir Russell gaffe and the Nobel misstatement, it gives grounds for everyone to carefully evaluate all of his statements. There may be a pattern here.
JD
It would seem that adjustments are not confined to numerical data.
FWIW:
Click to access MANN%20motion%20to%20amend%20complaint%20and%20attached%20amended%20complaint.pdf
The Exoneration of Dr. Mann
21.
Following the publication of the CRU emails, Penn State and the University of East Anglia (in four separate instances) and five governmental agencies (the U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the U.K. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation) have conducted separate and independent investigations into the allegations of scientific misconduct against Dr.Mann and his colleagues. Every one of these investigations has reached the same conclusion:
there is no basis to any of the allegations of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data.
Popcorn futures are climbing.
The way things are progressing, Mann has to be very concerned about being perceived as having made things up and then misusing the legal system as a weapon to punish someone he sees as an opponent. In some countries doing this is a serious matter. His lawyers are not doing him any favors in keeping this case alive if they are aware of this.
Heh. There’s only one way to interpret this blatantly obvious and depraved act of desperation by Mann, it was …. “a cry for help”!
I think it is useful, when trying to find fault in an opposing viewpoint, to read that viewpoint in the most charitable way possible. If this is done, and a contradiction is found, then the contradiction is impossible to refute. Given a charitable reading of the facts presented here, I don’t think Mann and his lawyers have mislead the court. (Although they have crept right up to the edge with rhetorical exaggerations.)
The Muir Russell inquiry did absolutely restrict their inquiry to CRU scientists. That is clear, and they concluded that the CRU scientists did act with “rigour and honesty.” It seems that part of the basis for this conclusion is an examination of the CRU research itself, on which Mann sometimes participated as co-author. Thus, a generous reading of the report is that at least some of Mann’s work has been found to be rigorous and honest. (By “generous” here I mean merely that the conclusions on the scientists themselves is based in part on their “work,” and had the research contradicted the “rigorous and honest” test, they could not have reached the conclusions they made about the CRU scientists.)
So while I agree with Steve that the Muir Russell report did not refer to Mann in their conclusions, I also agree (I think) with Nick, in that they could not have reached that conclusion without exonerating at least some of Mann’s work. In other words, to the extent that the Muir Russell inquiry examined Mann’s work, they found it to be rigorous and honest.
Did Judge Greene fall for the rhetorical overreach? It appears that she may have. “Having been investigated by almost one dozen bodies due to accusations of fraud, and none of those investigations having found Plaintiff’s work to be fraudulent, it must be concluded that the accusations are provably false.” [bold mine] The judge rightly refers to Mann’s “work” – in this case, the research that the Muir Russell inquiry examined on which Mann sometimes participated. And so it appears that she did not misunderstand that the Muir Russell report was only a partial exoneration, one that needs to be combined with other inquiries.
However, here a close reading of the Muir Russell report is needed. I haven’t done so recently, and so it may be that examining the “work” was inconclusive, rather than definitive. If so, and the inquiry used other means (e.g., interviews, etc.) to reach their conclusions regarding the CRU scientists, they may have actually made no firm conclusions regarding the work itself. And so the judge’s conclusion – that the “accusations are provably false” may not be supported by the Muir Russell inquiry.
Nevertheless, if there was something definitively negative in the Muir Russell examination of the work that Mann participated on, then that would have been obvious by now, I think. With nothing definitive regarding the research itself, then – generously speaking – the Muir Russell inquiry does add to the evidence exonerating Mann.
Steve: first of all, the Muir Russell panel did negligible examination of even the CRU hockey stick work. Muir Russell didn’t even attend the one interview with Jones and Briffa on this topic. Nor did they separately interview the parties. There isn’t a shred of evidence that they attempted to examine Mann’s work. In the Oxburgh panel case, I pointed out direct criticisms of Mann at the press conference. As I noted in my conclusion, although the Muir Russell panel did not investigate Mann, they made findings that the omission of data in two similar diagrams was “misleading”. The combination of omission of data leading to a “misleading” representation arguably demonstrates the elements of falsification. Mann was involved in one of the incidents. It’s a bit of a long story, which I intend to cover separately.
“I think it is useful, when trying to find fault in an opposing viewpoint, to read that viewpoint in the most charitable way possible. If this is done, and a contradiction is found, then the contradiction is impossible to refute.”
This may or may not be true. However, bear in mind that Mann is asking the court to find fault in Steyn’s viewpoint. The judge and court must therefore, based on what you find useful, give sufficient charity to Steyn’s viewpoint to make his claims of Mann’s fraudulence beyond contradiction.
Regardless, there is sufficient evidence to support a “fair comment” defence.
This is the problem there. It is one thing to submit an accurate quotation, with its supporting context — that is, proffer it as a fact — and argue as to what that fact goes to prove. It is another to proffer AS a fact an altered information.
The issue raised is not whether a reasonable person could infer this or that from the facts — i.e., the accurate quotation, with its supporting context, as some writers are doing here. The issue is that it appears that what has been proffered as a fact has been altered to suit the argument.
‘Fraud’ basically means that a party makes a representation, knowing that those with whom they are dealing are relying on that representation. That is the issue here.
Ted, the use of “almost one dozen” in the judgement would make any litigant’s spine tingle. Imagine a judgement where the judge said that a victim received “almost one dozen” stab wounds, or suffered “almost one dozen” hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage.
Litigants expect judges to be able to count to at least twelve.
No direct bearing on Dr Mann but maybe interesting:
MR report
“8. The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted. It is important to note that we offer no opinion on the validity of their scientific work. Such an outcome could only come through the normal processes of scientific debate and not from the examination of e-mails or from a series of interviews about conduct.
13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.”
Note that CRU openness is left in doubt – but cited as needed to properly conduct climate science.
In summary: It is perfectly acceptable to truncate the quote once the exoneration by proxy reaches the instrumental record of deception.
Not only was Mann not in any way exculpated by Russell, but nor were the CRU scientists exculpated of the criminal wrong doing in relation to deleting information, in which, prima facie, Mann was a co-conspirator with Jones, Briffa and Osborn. If Russell meant to fully exculpate them he could have written:
However, Russell added the words “as scientists” after the word “honesty” very deliberately to limit his finding to the science and evading the issue of the criminality which prima facie Mann had consented to.
When questioned in October 2010 by MPs, Russell was very slippery adding the words “as scientist” to four of his answers. It took MP Graham Stringer to draw out from Russell that he never investigated the criminal offences which had been clearly included in the brief from the UEA that, on 3 December 2009, Russell had freely, not to say eagerly, accepted for the princely sum of £40,000. [bold added to except of transcript]
What is not widely understood is that on 26 January 2010, while Russell’s Review was ongoing, the UEA again denied holding information that Climategate emails clearly showed it to have received. Unlike the UEA’s 2008 denials, for which any criminal prosecution was time bared, the 2010 denial if reported to the authorities by Russell could have been prosecuted. The evidence prima facie shows that Russell and some at UEA knew, or at the very least, suspected that a new offence had been committed but covered it up.
Nick … was Mann an actual co-author on any of the CRU papers/work reviewed by Muir Russel?
And, setting aside the alleged exoneration’s for a moment, what is your opinion on Mann’s actual work – on “Mikes Nature Trick” … Mann claims “no researchers ever” have “grafted the thermometer record onto any reconstruction.”
Manns quote:
“No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum. Most proxy reconstructions end somewhere around 1980, for the reasons discussed above. Often, as in the comparisons we show on this site, the instrumental record (which extends to present) is shown along with the reconstructions, and clearly distinguished from them (e.g. highlighted in red as here).”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/#comment-345
Yet don’t we know this statement is outright false?
If Mann’s OWN claims are demonstrably false – then, regardless of any alleged “exoneration,” how does he prevail?
Unfortunately, it appears the judge here is biased and believes in global warming and therefore is going to see everything through the prism of global warming being correct and all the scientists being correct and having rectitude.
Otherwise, the judge would have dismissed the case on the basis of Mann being a public figure and Steyn being entitled, in a clear opinion piece, not a news article, of using hyperbole to express his opinion that Mann has misled.
Any other result shows bias.
Steyn was smart to countersue, as I am sure Mann has funding for his legal costs; but it is improbable that anyone is going to indemnify Mann for judgments against him, or for legal costs to defend against counterclaims. It was an optional, fund as you go, throw mud at the wall situation before, but now dollars have to be spent answering counterclaims.
All in all, from a legal point and factual point of view, Steyn has the better case on his defense. His offensive claims aren’t as good, but are of good effect.
However, with a biased judge, Steyn will likely not get justice from this trial level and will have to go to appeal unless he can intimidate Mann with his offensive claims and his credible threats to follow through to appeals, where Mann is risking the uncontrolled incurrence of legal costs and possible judgments.
That being said, the one corrective measure here is that the trial judge will have to look over its shoulder, and eyes will be opened about the lack of standards underpinning both the science and the investigations, which don’t meet requisite standards in the legal realm.
The country’s political prosecutory machine is dangerous as all hell though — lives, fortunes, sacred honor and all that is the only possibility of long-term success, beyond this particular case. Sorry for the bad news.
Jonathan Adler at Volokh Conspiracy did a fairly detailed legal review back in August that is worth a review …
Mann v. Steyn — Mann Wins Round One
There is an extensive discussion in the comments section
Adler also did a 4 part review when the suit was initially filed … which are linked in the above story.
Ken White at legal blog Popehat also did a detailed review when the case was filed … folks might find some useful info there and in the comments
Michael Mann Sues NRO, Mark Steyn, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Rand Simberg
Jonathan Adler at Volokh reviews the Dec order from the court:
Mann v. Steyn Mulligan
Also you might find some useful information in the Amicus briefs:
Adler also notes:
All of Volokh’s coverageat this link
I find the above discussion fascinating, amusing and damaging to Dr. Mann’s lawsuit. As I see it, Dr. Mann has, as they say, hoist with his own petard. It is Dr. Mann’s lawsuit that brought the dissection of Dr. Mann’s “claimed exonerations” to the forefront. Only Steve knows if he would have undertaken his detailed analysis of events sans Dr. Mann’s lawsuit.
No matter how the court rules, or if the matter is settled out of court, how this ends up, it’s going to be amusing to read Dr. Mann’s interpretation of events–when Dr. Mann is the author, fiction is stranger than truth.
Dr. Mann has a 15 year academic career, worked with the IPCC, and has been publicly involved with the CAGW. It is impossible for any investigation to throughly cover any significant portion of his career, particularly when all of these investigations picked and chose from numerous allegations which issues to investigate. The North investigation, for example, was supposed to look into the original hockey papers and instead produced a general report on the MWP. The UEA investigation refused to publish the full text of David Holland’s submission and investigated a modified version of his allegations.
Item 26 of Mann’s complaint cites Steyn saying: “No university WHITEWASH INVESTIGATION will change that simple reality.” (My emphasis) Steyn hasn’t ignored the investigations when criticizing Mann; he claims they aren’t believable based on the public record they have left behind. Logically Steyn et al could bring the leaders of these investigations into court to develop evidence that their investigations were whitewashes. If Steyn et al has any reason for believing the investigations were whitewashes, then he hasn’t defamed Mann by repeating allegations that haven’t been properly investigated. It seems to me that the fundamental issue is (or should be) the INVESTIGATIONS. If they were thorough and exonerated Mann beyond all reasonable doubt, Steyn should be found guilty. All of Steve’s reporting on this issue could lie at the heart of the case. Could Mann’s lawsuit finally provide a fair adversarial forum where the “prosecutors” are not universities and friendly scientists with an interest in finding Mann innocent?
Ironically, Jerry Sandusky’s behavior was investigated by Penn State officials and he was “exonerated” – allowed to remain associated with the university. According to the Freeh report:
“Taking into account the available witness statements and evidence, the Special Investigative Counsel finds that it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the University — Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley — repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from authorities, the University’s Board of Trustees, the Penn State community, and the public at large”
Those internal investigations of Sandusky were a whitewash.
To put it concisely, Mann’s lawsuit demands that public criticism of his work stop because he has been “exonerated” by the investigations Steyn et al consider to be a whitewash. (See my longer comment above.)
At Steyn et al. versus Mann Climate Etc.,
Rud Istvan observes
Forgive me for asking, but why are people attaching any importance to Judge Greene’s writings, when her decision has been decisively reversed, and she has been removed from the case?
Steve: her decision was not “decisively reversed”; Weisberg referred to it approvingly. While his words were careful not to explicitly rely on it, he more or less does so. Nor was she “removed” from the case. She retired.
Robe Probe comments on “Judge” Natalia M. Combs-Greene
A complete idiot. No judicial temperament. Flies off of the handle for no discernible reason. A shallow mind. If she weren’t black and the wife of a doctor, she would barely be a paralegal
The worse DC Superior Court has to offer. God help the poor lawyers who have to deal with her on the Civil One (complex litigation) docket. She would be over her head in traffic court. She will go crazy with large cases that tax her meager intellect.
Far and away the worse excuse for a judge in quite some time. She is rude, belligerant and openly biased against plaintiffs.
Extremely biased, openly hostile, insulted plaintiff in open court, disregards the law.
Judge is a total NUT! Ranting, raving, ego so large that not much room for anyone else in courtroom, might as well sit as DC Govt table, she is 100% in their corner regardless of how corrupt they are … Judge Judy look out, this nut job is out for your job@@@
Openly bias, hostile called plaintiff dog in open court and threatened plaintiff’s counsel. Acts inapposite of the law, appears to be trying to take Judge Judy’s act.
http://www.robeprobe.com/find_judges_result2.php?judge_id=4146&judge_Natalia_M._Combs-Greene
Top news indeed, now we need leadership teams, consultants and publishers to get the message too.
11 Trackbacks
[…] McIntyre continues to analyze Michael Mann’s claims of […]
[…] Mann and the Muir Russell Inquiry #1 […]
[…] Mann’s longtime nemesis, Steve McIntyre, writes in his latest post that also the Muir Russell inquiry did not exonerate Mann, thus contradicting Mann’s claim […]
[…] doctored quote in Michael Mann’s legal reply brought to attention by Climateaudit is doing its rounds […]
[…] Full story: https://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/ […]
[…] In fact, McIntyre claims Mann or his team even tampered with the evidence in their court filing: […]
[…] Mann and the Muir-Russell Inquiry […]
[…] post, which is the third in the present series (previously I discussed the Oxburgh and Muir Russell inquries here and Muir Russell […]
[…] Unit (CRU) emails (i.e., as part of the so-called Climategate investigation). Specifically, the allegations purport to show that Mann intentionally altered a quote from the Russell report in order to support […]
[…] the attention of Mann’s perennial nemesis, Steve McIntyre. In a recent series of posts (here, here, here, and here) McIntyre examines Mann’s “evidence” (for want of a better word) […]
[…] battle are great fun to read and the comments are very entertaining. The posts are here, here, here, here, here, and here, with another post added […]