Shub Niggurath has spotted the probable source of the doctored quotation in the Mann pleadings (h/t Mosher). Shub located the doctored phrase at Skeptical Science here. Check out Shub’s post.
The SKS webpage lists the same nine committees as listed in paragraph 21 of Mann’s pleadings.
See here for a detailed discussion of a baldfaced lie by SKS proprietor John Cook in connection with the Lewandowsky survey. As also is well known, Cook posted images in the private SKS archive of himself in Nazi regalia and homoerotic images of several prominent climate skeptics. A strange source for pleadings by a reputable Washington law firm.
Climate Audit 
141 Comments
Yes, it seems the Cook/Mann collaboration continues. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Mann told his lawyers that Skeptical Science was a reputable source and some paralegal tasked with scouring the internet in support of Mann’s case picked it up.
Mann doesn’t peruse any of his documents going to the court.
Even after the first catch of his Nobel claim.
Who does shoddier work?
Mann or his legal beagles?
1.Since Mann knows a flub occurred on the Nobel Laureate issue, he still does not look over the documents?
Or
2.Since the legal team knows he makes claims proven false, they do not use much diligence in even superficial checking of his most pivotal claims?
Maybe Mann’s lawyers are letting you guys at CA do all their work for them.
RB:
I should point out that this page was a collaborative effort between Mann and Cook, so it’s not clear which of these two authored this text.
Yes, it does look as if whoever wrote the Mann motion was getting help from the SkS page, and used a slightly reworded version of the quote.
But who is “doctoring” then? Was SkS anticipating the need for Mann to prove “actual malice”? Did the lawyer deliberately scour the web for a suitably “doctored” version? Or did the lawyer simply reach for a handy collection of information and use the quote from there rather than looking it up?
Someone got a quote a bit mixed up, and it propagated. It happens. Many times have I been told that Mann in his complaint claimed to have won a Nobel prize, when what the complaint actually said was
“As a result of this research, Dr Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace prize.”
I think Nick is right. Exoneration by proxy is not defensible, but misquotation by proxy merits at most a slap on the wrist.
It happens all the time.
/sarc
You missed the two references where he claimed to have won the prize. He didnt.
His co authors and he did not win the prize. they did not share the prize.
The winner of the prize gave them recognition.
That is not winning the prize. That is like The quarter back thanking the water boy for fetching water during the superbowl. The water boys dont get rings. they dod not win the super bowl.
Nick Stokes: “Was SkS anticipating the need for Mann to prove “actual malice”?”
Nick, this bit of speculation is refuted by the fact that the SkS page by Dana N. Was composed in Dec. 2009 with latest revision 18 March 2012, well before Steyn’s article or Mann’s lawsuit. I suppose you could claim a non-intentional meaning to ‘anticipating’ as in merely going before, but it was not possible that Dana’s article was constructing any part of a legal case that did not yet exist for an article which had not yet been published.
Thank you Skiphil, that’s my point. So who is “doctoring”, and why?
Nick, someone on Mann’s team is using a partial quotation referring to CRU getting cleared, out of contest in a way that makes it seem that the exoneration refers to Mann.
Performing a contextomy for the court document.
From what I can see, the quote was transformed (my word) by Dana N. or whoever at SkS contributed that line of text. Whether it was a conscious attempt to widen the claimed exoneration to many scientists beyond CRU, or whether it was a careless mangling of a quotation (a mangling that would be unacceptable in a first-term student paper in any academic course), the fact is that the words were altered…. Prior to any legal issues arising, it would seem.
It does not absolve Mann’s legal team (or Mann himself???) from responsibility for lifting an inaccurate quotation from a secondary source rather than going to the primary source for the accurate text…. Which is also a rookie mistake explained as unacceptable to virtually all first-term undergraduates, as well as all law students.
I agree that it seems less likely that Mann’s lawyers submitting the brief knew that the quotation was inaccurate (although no one at this point can ‘prove’ that they did not know of the difference), but that does not absolve Mann’s team of legal responsibility for submitting an inaccurate quotation to the court.
Also, we simply cannot know whether there was malignant intention or mere carelessness at the various points in which the original quotation was moved from the original text to SkS to the Mann team’s legal brief. Without a complete record of the textual changes, we can note that the change was made and that (in the judgment of many) it alters the meaning and implications of the quotation. Also, that Mann’s legal team has submitted inaccurate material to the court…..
Nike that is one reference to the Nobel prize in his original complaint, but there are others, which much more specifically link the prize to Mann personally. Of course, you, convienently for you, ignore these:
5. It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research the professional and personal defamation of a
Nobel prize recipient…
(so which Nobel prize recipient does Mann allege they are personally defaming, if not himself? )
17. …In 2007 Dr Mann shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors for their work in climate change, including the development of the Hockey Stick Graph.
Of course, you, convienently for you, ignore these
What I’m pointing out is that people here say, over and over, that Mann claimed to have won a Nobel prize, and that just isn’t an accurate quote. The reference in para 5 that you cite follows the statement in para 2, so the basis for it is clear. And yes, it’s a stretch that I would not have made, but it isn’t the statement that people claim. And para 17 is simply a repetition of the defensible claim in para 2.
I’m saying that there is a vigorous hullabaloo here about a tiny variation in a quote, but whether or not Mann’s claims on Nobel are right, no-one bothers to quote them correctly.
What I’m pointing out is that people here say, over and over, that Mann claimed to have won a Nobel prize, and that just isn’t an accurate quote.”
So the reference to “Nobel recipient” is not about Mann?
More like that you’re not giving an accurate characterization, Nick
“I’m saying that there is a vigorous hullabaloo here about a tiny variation in a quote, but whether or not Mann’s claims on Nobel are right, no-one bothers to quote them correctly.”
As I explained to you. The rulz for blogs are one thing. Nobody here is a sworn officer of the court. Nobody here has professional guidelines that govern our behavior.
Judge: Mr Williams are you an officer of the court
Mr Williams: Yes
Judge: Mr Williams did you sign the document?
Mr Williams: Yes
Judge: Mr Williams did you represent that the quote was taken from the inquiry
Mr Wiliams: Yes
Judge: Was the quote in fact taken from the inquiry
Mr Williams: No
Judge: Mr Williams did the quote you provide serve as evidence that the inquiries exonerated Dr. Mann.
Mr Williams: No.
Judge: Explain yourself… yes yes who are you?
Mr Stokes: I’m Nick
Judge: huh?
Mr Stokes: I just wanted to point out that people on blogs sometimes didnt quote Dr Mann exactly when he claimed to be a Nobel prize winner.
Judge: Bailiff? please remove the insane aussie.
” The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prizewinner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”
Click to access Nobel_statement_final.pdf
Maybe Nick was responding with the same seriousness of the original quote. If Nick doesn’t deem it “serious”, he makes things up.
“Judge: Mr Williams did you represent that the quote was taken from the inquiry
Mr Wiliams: Yes
Judge: Was the quote in fact taken from the inquiry
Mr Williams: No
Judge: Mr Williams did the quote you provide serve as evidence that the inquiries exonerated Dr. Mann.
Mr Williams: No.
Judge: Explain yourself”
Mosher, now THAT is a wonderful characterization.
“Judge: Mr Williams did you represent that the quote was taken from the inquiry”
Well, the judge herself had a third version
“’rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,”
I think you overrate the retribution delivered to lawyers who mix up word order (if not to aussies who are not in tune).
Nick
A Nobel prize recipient” clearly refers to somebody who has received (i.e. Won) a Nobel prize. There is no other interpretation.
And if the defendants are accused of “personally” defaming a Nobel recipient, that clear indicates that recipient is a person. There is no othe interpretation.
So once again which per so, who received a Nobel prize,was Dr mann talking about?
“Judge: Mr Williams did you represent that the quote was taken from the inquiry?
Mr. Williams: Well, the judge herself had a third version
“’rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt”
“Judge: Mr Williams did you represent that the quote was taken from the inquiry?
Mr. Williams: Well, the judge herself had a third version
“’rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt”
Opposing: Objection, non responsive.
Judge: Sustained.
Judge: Mr Williams, the court directs you to answer the question. Did you or did you not represent that the quote was taken from the inquiry?
Mr. Williams: Sorry your Honor I was trying to imitate a crazy Aussie.
Judge: read the question back to him.
Reporter:Mr Williams did you represent that the quote was taken from the inquiry?
Mr Williams: Yes your honor I did.
you see nick a court room is not a blog.
Nick Stokes,
You may, or may not, be able to deflect the charge of deliberate fabrication from Mann’s attorneys to Cook as an initial matter. However, the “error” is clearly a material misrepresentation of fact and Mann’s attorneys have continued to argue the “error” even after it was discovered and pointed out by National Review’s attorneys. This is a serious ethical transgression. Lawyers are not permitted to continue to argue facts they know are false. After an error such as this is discovered the attorney must immediately call the error to the court’s attention and withdraw that portion of the argument wich depends on it.
By the way, how are you able to interpret the phrase “Dr Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace prize” to mean something other than that Mann claimed that he won the Nobel Peace Prize?
Another empty argument. i can hear the plea now “..so we verified it by looking at an internet blog.”
SekS?
I didn’t mean to suggest that a paralegal picking it up and it getting “propagated” was fine. It isn’t. Parties to civil lawsuits are responsible for their pleadings. If it did propagate in this way then that is a failing of the lawyers or a deliberate decision not to provide the accurate information.
Nick, I’m sure I read in Mann’s initial pleading that Steyn et al defamed a “Nobel Laureate”, stated expressly to establish the level of seriousness of the issue. I can find the quote if needed. I don’t accept that the Nobel Laureate issue is as you state. Mann (and others) specifically claimed to be Nobel Laureates for years and Mann did so here in his pleadings. Mann is not and never has been a Nobel Laureate and he was either deliberately stating this untruth or was reckless about it.
In my opinion suing for defamation/slander and claiming to be a Nobel Laureate when you aren’t is very damaging to your integrity and credibility before the court.
What, for example, would be the assessment of the advantage Mann has received as a result of this false claim (which operated for some years) in his writings/talks/presentations and in gaining opportunities for enrichment influence and prestige? In the context of assessing the credibility of a witness this Nobel Prize issue is very germane. Mann can’t escape it. If I were a judge I wouldn’t be impressed at all with a chap who came before me claiming damage to his professional reputation and further sums for “emotional” damage who claimed to be a Nobel Laureate when he wasn’t. Its a big deal.
and he allowed reference to himself as Nobel winner on his Al Jezeera interview after he already replied on twitter/facebook about the Nobel committee chairman’s denial of his claim.
Mann’s personality will be a big issue. He has a propensity. His dealing with the Nobel Laureate issue will be a simple example, apparent on the pleadings, that the jury can understand. It will be a good place to start his cross-examination. They will see all the later matters put to him in the light of his explanations of this issue.
Nick pulled the First reference.
the second reference refers to mann as a Nobel Prize Recipient
the third reference says he shared the nobel prize with other authors.
mann and the other authors did not win the prize. he did not share the prize with them.
“mann and the other authors did not win the prize”
What did the IPCC do to win a peace prize if not to write the reports we all talk about?
I don’t think Mann’s claim was a good idea; it doesn’t make me think better of him. I’m just advocating accurate quoting.
Did Mann receive this http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_certificate_sample.pdf from the IPCC ?
Nick 🙂
“’mann and the other authors did not win the prize’
What did the IPCC do to win a peace prize if not to write the reports we all talk about?”
What the IPCC did to win the prize is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Michael Mann won the prize, Nick.
The Nobel people indicate that he did not. You should send them a letter.
I play tennis every day with a scientist who has earned one of those certificates. He gets very annoyed when I tease him by telling other players of his “award”. I suspect part of it is humility; there is also a chance he does not want to be associated with current IPCC claims.
“What did the IPCC do to win a peace prize if not to write the reports we all talk about?
The IPCC organized meetings, they held press conferences, they were awarded the prize
with Al Gore for
“for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”
That is what Al Gore and the IPCC organization won the prize for.
In turn the IPCC recognized scientists for their part. They did not and could not share the prize with them. They could only thank the water boys.
A few years back I worked for a company that won an Academy Award for technical achievement. The product that won came out of the division that I ran. But that, in no way, made me an Academy Award winner. And it wasn’t very hard for me to understand that I was not personally the winner. I didn’t get one of those little statues and the certificate named my company not me. Not only that, there were hundreds of engineers and many years that went into that product. It was hardly “my product”.
Its hard for me to imagine that Mann could possibly think that he personally won the Nobel Prize. At a minimum, the fact that he never attended an awards ceremony might have been a tip off.
Isn’ there a rule that only three people can win a Nobel prize in each category in any one year? Surely Mann would be aware of this and could therefore not claim to be confused.
big tobacco lawyers.
HI Steve —
The last two sentences in this post seem out of place. I care about the bald faced lies, not the attire preferred by those who make them. A full standalone analysis of how such private photos reflect on John’s competence, trustworthiness and general good sense might be OK, but what you have comes across as drive-by ad hominem. If anything I applaud John for having a more complex private life that I would have expected. I presume you offer these tidbits with bemusement rather than condemnation, but still, it weakens the otherwise strong point are making.
Seconded. It is a distraction from the post.
Michael is a twittering………
Retweeted by TenneyNaumer
Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann 1h
Wondering about the credibility of #climatechange #denial attack dog #StephenMcIntyre? @DeepClimate’s got the goods: http://deepclimate.org/?s=McIntyre
I detect the stink of fear and the smell of desperation.
He’s twittering about a one month old post? The term red herring comes to mind.
That’s it?
http://deepclimate.org/?s=McIntyre
That’s “the goods”?
Honestly, that’s all Mann can come up with to explain himself?
I can only hope his Twitter followers get all excited and follow the link.
Grief counselors will be standing by.
Dear all;
I found the following video:
At the beginning of it, the newscaster and Mann talk explicitly about the exoneration he allegedly received from five different inquiries, “two out Penn State” and “three separate ones out of the UK”. The below text accompanies the video:
“Michael Mann, Penn State professor and climate scientists talks with Susan McGinnis about the investigations that have cleared his name in the “Climategate” scandal. The latest U.K. investigation says Mann’s science is good, and the U.N. global warming report is sound”.
Perhaps it’d be a good idea to save a copy of the video before it “mysteriously” disappears.
LF
Agree.
I’ve recovered the Al Jezeera interview where he is introduced as Nobel winner, but even though the date shown given as last change Oct 31, after he was told by the Nobel Committee Chair, it’s very close to the date of Nobel response, and it’s taping may have come a slight bit earlier.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/10/2012103181216823978.html
There is this
Lenny Bernstein:”Eventually, the Chairman of the IPCC (Pachauri) sent an e-mail to all of us who had worked on the reports, explaining that we really couldn’t claim that we had won the Nobel Prize, only that we had contributed to the IPCC’s winning the prize. And, by the way, the prize money was going to an education fund for climate change researchers in developing countries. We weren’t going to get any of it…”
I also feel that a more complete compendium of Mann’s claims to the title of Nobel Laureate would help show intent.
His own web page changed over time, as he embiggened his win by reducing the class of who were “also winners”
A shorter version:
So that’s where Minnesotans for GW got their balloon head!
Mann doesn’t actually concur with the interviewer that the UEA inquiries had investigated or exonerated him, though. He doesn’t really correct her, either, but he does go on to state a couple of times that the inquiries had exonerated “other climate scientists” as well, which may have been in part a nod in that direction. His 2003 opinion piece for the Minneapolis Star Tribune also implied that the CRU inquiries hadn’t investigated or exonerated him:
You might think competant lawyer, would tell Dr Mann, stay off twitter…..
Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann 1h
For more about #StephenMcIntyre’s dubious claims & disturbing activities, read “Hockey Stick & Climate Wars” #HSCW http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/0231152558/ref=tmm_pap_title_0 …
I don’t agree that Steve’s claims are dubious, but I do see why Mann finds Steve’s activities “disturbing”
The 9 committees/entities listed by Dana N. On the SkS page contain only THREE which can plausibly be claimed to impinge directly upon any conceivable “exoneration” of Michael Mann’s scientific work.
Most are explicitly about reviews of UEA/CRU scientists, however Cursory, limited, opaque, and/or deceitful (CLOD is an appropriate acronym for such ethically challenged reviews) …. (such reviews have been inadequate even for the more limited topic of CRU scientists).
Of course, the US-based inquiries have been just as awful, but the SkS list cribbed by the Mann legal team is ridiculous as a purported list of review boards which have “exonerated” Michael Mann.
Even if Mann is a Nobel Prize winner, it doesn’t add to his argument. He would then be a holder of the Nobel PEACE Prize. Saying that the scientific statements of Yasir Arafat are beyond criticism is not a tenable statement.
The Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of NORWEGIAN politicians.The real Nobel Science Prizes come from a different group in SWEDEN.
Bravo! An essential point, usually missed. Not in itself anything to do with climate change, but essential to understanding the motivations and leanings of a political organisation.
This is the truly inconvenient fact behind the Nobel blunder by many IPCC-scientists. Mann was part of a group of scientists and activist under an organization that was awarded the Nobel PEACE Prize by retired Norwegian politicians with no scientific merits. Naturally, the politicians did not evaluate the science, but the alleged POLITICAL implications of the work done under the IPCC. The IPCC-scientists who afterwards pose themselves as “Nobel laureates” or “Nobel Prize winners” due to a minor role they played in such a political prize are misleading people to think that they were awarded for their scientific achievements, otherwise they would show scientific rigor by emphasing that they are referring to the Nobel Peace Prize, not the scientific prizes.
Now in the past Mann has directed changes to SS’s text. It is possible that the original source is still Mann.
odd that he cannot do the same for his legal documents
[Mod: This is outdated. Barry has since agreed with Shub that the SkS publication date was earlier than WRI]
Perhaps John Cook just copied the World Resources institute
the earliest reference for the phrase I can find (please take into accountonly 10 minutes of google worth)
Note the date (July 2010)
July 12, 2010: World Resources institute:
“The Independent Climate Change Email Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred, and reviewed CRU’s policies and practices for peer review and dissemination of data and findings. It also examined CRU’s compliance with requests to release data. The Review’s findings, released in July, state:
The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.”
http://www.wri.org/blog/summarizing-investigations-climate-science
On November 10th 2010 the phrase then appears in the comments at Skeptical Science (added by an unidentified moderator)
“5: July 2010. University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20101114113611/http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm#30272
It later ( 8 days) appears in an article by John Cook November 18, 2010
“5: In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-question-that-skeptics-dont-want-to-ask-about-Climategate.html
From the review report:
Click to access FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
1.3 Findings
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.
————————————-
So nothing to do with Mann.
and from the introduction, the report nothing to do with validity of CRU science (or Mann’s):
“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.
7. The allegations also include the assertion that actions were taken to promote a
particular view of climate change by improperly influencing the process of
advising policy makers. Therefore we have sought to understand the significance
of the roles played by those involved from CRU and of the influence they had on
the relevant outcomes.
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. “
[Mod: This is outdated. Barry has since agreed with Shub that the SkS publication date was earlier than WRI]
Looks like Cook – copied and pasted from WRI (I wonder if Cook found it, or somebody pointed it out to him)
When I searched the paragraph, not just the phrase.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=University+of+East+Anglia+published+the+Independent+Climate+Change+Email+Review+report.+They+examined+the+emails+to+assess+whether+manipulation+or+suppression+of+data+occurred+and+concluded+that+%22The+scientists%E2%80%99+rigor+and+honesty+are+not+in+doubt%22.&espv=210&es_sm=93&sa=X&ei=ZSgJU_iINaTQ7Aams4DwDw&ved=0CB0QpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01%2F09%2F2009%2Ccd_max%3A01%2F04%2F2011&tbm=
Just on a quick look it appears that this reference in SkS is probably just a tidy up (from a US point of view) of a quote in a box in Cooke’s “Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism” (p.10) published in Dec 2010 and available from the SkS web site.
The phrase in the text box in quotes (“The scientists’ rigour and honesty are not in doubt.”) is itself an abbreviation of the Muir Russell finding: “On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.”
In fact Cooke may have just been lazy picking up a posted at SkS on 17 November 2010 by Stephan Lewandowsky giving the text of a radio broadcast he’d made. In the he says: “Another enquiry, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, found the scientists’ ‘rigour and honesty … are not in doubt’”.
Move the quotes a few words, drop the dots, spell check for the US and Bob’s your uncle.
Actually delete that – I hadn’t appreciated Cook (no ‘e’) had posted on 2010-07-09, well after all the above.
“before” not “after”. Just had a small earthquake and not concentrating.
Please look at this”
http://www.wri.org/blog/summarizing-investigations-climate-science
It has the text:
“The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.”
[Mod: This is outdated. Barry has since agreed with Shub that the SkS publication date was earlier than WRI]
actually most of the WRI quote seems to have been churnalised by Cook:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=University+of+East+Anglia+published+the+Independent+Climate+Change+Email+Review+report.+They+examined+the+emails+to+assess+whether+manipulation+or+suppression+of+data+occurred+and+concluded+that+%22The+scientists%E2%80%99+rigor+and+honesty+are+not+in+doubt%22.&espv=210&es_sm=93&sa=X&ei=ZSgJU_iINaTQ7Aams4DwDw&ved=0CB0QpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01%2F09%2F2009%2Ccd_max%3A01%2F04%2F2011&tbm=
I’ve got myself tied up in moderation above (my comments there are irrelevant), but I think on closer inspection it’s a close race between WRI and SkS. http://www.skepticalscience.com/archive.php?r=235 the archive of Shub’s page contains the phrase and is dated 9 July 2010.
I see that the phrase there is not claimed to be a quote. It looks as if someone along the way has simply rewritten it as a quote.
Shub, seems to me that this could well be “ground zero” so to speak!
What makes this even more interesting, IMHO, is that even though the text is verbatim – and entirely consistent with the Cook-Mann concoction, whenever they might have harvested it for their “recipe” – it was clearly not a direct quote (as Mann now falsely alleges).
Compare these two WRI descriptions of Muir Russell’s “findings”:
Amazing how “transformative” dedication to “the cause” can be, eh?!
I suspect that the UNEP’s head-honcho Achim Steiner, and the UNFCCC’s head-honcho Christiana Figueres must be quite thrilled with this shining example of the “transformative power” (a variant of one of their favourite buzzphrases) of a frivolous libel suit by one of their foot-soldiers!
Nick Stokes: “I don’t think Mann’s claim was a good idea; it doesn’t make me think better of him. I’m just advocating
accurate quoting.I figure that clears that one up.
Nick, congratulations! Played for and got! You really are a star!
But be careful your contributions to the “sceptical cause” are in danger of comprehension.
Stay proud and in the long term your contribution will be one of those considered instrumental in the inevitable outcome.
Is there a “Lord Haw-Haw” award?
SkS was set up as fanzine set for ‘the Team’ because RS was simply not cutting it and given it was authored by ‘the Team’ it had and still has little PR value for independence. The poor cartoonist and his side kick are what to be ‘Team ‘ members’ whilst SS has its actual worked in one respect, its made small people big , for the time being .
So that Cook and Mann eat of the same plate is no surprise at all.
The fun part would be if either of them walks out of step of the other , the ego or the fool , now there is a fight we all like to see.
All a sub-editor mash up, see first few lines of 7th July Guardian article?
‘Climategate’ review clears scientists of dishonesty over data
‘Rigour and honesty’ of scientists not in doubt but Sir Muir Russell says UEA’s Climatic Research Unit was not sufficiently open
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty
The Guardian quote it accurately 6 paragraphs in:
Guardian:
He added: “The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt … We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.”
The weird thing about this is that when Steve and I discussed it a couple days back He asked me to speculate on how such a mistake would be made.
There was one governing assumption that I never questioned.
I assumed that these guys would be like me or Steve. Go to the source data or source text. primary literature.
On that assumption it was clear that it couldnt be a cut and paste job. So, I thought maybe the guy sat their with his legal pad and just butchered the thing on the fly.
It never would have occurred to me that a good lawyer would use a secondary source.
its kinda like trusting peer reviewed literature.
I suspect that Mann is playing a very active role in the drafting of these documents. You could imagine him reading a draft and then sending comments back. Perhaps the Lawyer drafting it took Mann’s comments as authoritative.
I can’t imagine that the lawyer doctored the quote. Why put your career at risk? I imagine it was the same story regarding how the Nobel Prize claim got in — the lawyers are assuming that Mann is authoritative on these matters. I suspect, now that they have been burned twice, that they might be more curious in the future about the stories being told by the good doctor.
Exactly what I was wondering about myself. Mann (or his lawyers), when challenged before a court to substantiate his own claim that MR exonerated him does not reference the source being quoted? Unbelievable.
And does not accepting Nick’s assertion (that Mann was not claiming MR exonerated him in the cited statement) beg for an explanation of why then such a meaningless statement would be submitted WRT the challenge to cite the proof of exoneration in the MR report?
“Mann (or his lawyers), when challenged before a court to substantiate his own claim that MR exonerated him does not reference the source being quoted? “
There was no explicit challenge. But he referenced the MR report (footnote 18:
Sir Muir Russell, et al., “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review,” (July 2010), available at:
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf, attached hereto as Exhibit 6)
and attached it.
“the challenge to cite the proof of exoneration in the MR report”
Again, there was no such direct challenge. He included a section of materials to support an overall claim of exoneration. But there were two pressing reasons as well:
1. It was a response to a motion which had devoted a paragraph each to these inquiries
2. The following para is devoted to rebutting a claim in that defendant motion about M-R criticising the Jones 1999 WMO pic.
There was no specific challenge? THere was no direct challenge?
“There was no specific challenge?”
What you quote is not specific – LL referred to a challenge re MR exonerating Mann. That’s a general complaint about failing cite inquiries disproving defendants statements.
Do you consider that Russell reviews covers all climate ‘scientists’ ,because CRU works in the area, or just those that claim it does despite their not being consider at all by this review ?
No Nick. He cited the MR report. Since the quote was not pulled from the MR report, by definition this is not a reference.
And the “general complaint” is obviously a challenge to quote the proof from MR (among other supposed “exonerating” reports not directly quoted) of exoneration.
You are assuming that the primary intent behind the lawsuit was to punish and humiliate the defendant in a public trial; i.e., to extract justice in a public showdown. Perhaps a different strategy was behind the suit: it was filed to make the defendant “sweat” and consume his financial resources, while at the same time intimidating other “skeptics” from criticizing Mann’s research — a quiet out-of-court settlement being the ultimate objective rather than an actual trial. The end result would still vindicate Mann’s research. If the latter were the case, then strict attention to minute details in Mann’s filing may not have been a concern as it was presumed that a formal trial was not in the offing; i.e., Steyn would eventually settle out of court for financial reasons. Perhaps Steyn’s attorneys have come to this conclusion and are calling the bluff with the countersuit. Just a speculation….
“It never would have occurred to me that a good lawyer would use a secondary source.”
From your writing here, you have obviously worked with lawyers. Sometimes the best (or highest paid) litigators are better with emotion than detail.
My speculation is that it was the SkS reference that was the source. AFAIK it is the only place where the ‘rigor’ quote is seen in a paragraph which also includes a link directly to the 160 page Muir Russell report.
It is possible someone trusted that the quotes’ juxtaposition to the link must mean it was in there somewhere and didn’t bother to double check.
I’ve just done a post (and see comments) showing several paragraphs in which the Mann pleadings copy from SKS. NO doubt in my mind that they drew directly from SKS not just on this, but other points.
Re: Steve McIntyre (Feb 23 13:03),
The increasingly interesting thing about this is that since Mann helps produce SkS content, they are drawing indirectly from Mann himself.
Re: Steven Mosher (Feb 22 19:50),
Yes, a courtroom is not a blog in most litigation venues, but the venue for this trial will be Washington DC, where the rule of law and reason doesn’t hold sway.
In looking at the lawyers Mann and his promoters in Big Green have hired, it is best to presume that everything which has appeared in Mann’s filings so far is part of a larger strategic calculation on his lawyer’s part.
Mann’s lawyers know they are playing to a sympathetic judge who presides in a sympathetic venue; and if the lawsuit goes to trial, they can expect to be presenting their case to a sympathetic jury.
They are likely calculating that they will not be called to account for any professional transgressions which might occur in the course of pursuing their litigation strategy.
If Steyn is to have any chance of winning if the lawsuit eventually goes to trial, he must have first-rate litigation talent on his team.
Steve: people seem to forget that CEI and National Review are also parties and both have able lawyers.
Re: Beta Blocker (Feb 23 13:09),
That’s true, but Steyn has broken with them and is now representing himself. He may benefit if they succeed in getting their own part of the suit dismissed; but if the suit goes to trial in a DC courtroom, he will be in a world of hurt if he doesn’t have competent legal talent on his side during the trial.
I would love to write the opening statement for the defense in this case.
Would it be an adaptation of “Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite”?
“The celebrated mr. K. performs his feat on Saturday at Bishopsgate.
The Hendersons will dance and sing as mr. K. flies through the ring
don’t be late.
Messrs. K. and H. assure the public their production will be
second to none.
And of course Henry the horse dances the waltz.”
Are they allowed both opening and closing addresses?
Mann will declare that the defense’s opening is their closing. When challenged, he will say that this makes no difference to the outcome of the case.
Tom,
Please do it and post it on Brandon’s blog.
JD
Second that.
Thanks for the kind invitation. But as I’m in China, Brandon’s blog won’t load for me. The Great Firewall and all that… it’s funny seeing a reduced version of the blogosphere. I can’t get Lucia’s, which distresses me, but I can’t get Eli Rabett either, which lifts my mood no end. (Sorry for the digression, Steve, please feel free to delete.)
Tom,
I was in China last June. Just get a vpn (or have someone in the U.S sign you up for a vpn. Costs about $5 per month. I used breakwall.net It was very good.
JD
According to SKS the context of the quote is
” 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.
In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognize not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science. [1.3]”
The Last bit of para 1 qualifies their ‘rigour and honesty’ to their capacity ‘as scientists’ not their (the scientists in question) more general ‘rigour and honesty’. Para 3 though quite undoes that general sense of ‘rigour and honesty’ and outline a set of ethical and character failings.
This really gets to the essence of the whole AGW alarmism push, the looming sense that the proponents are not honest and therefore not creduble, that they hide behind their professional status as a shield for their ethical
and personal defects. far from exoneration, they are deeply implicated in a monstrous scam if only by virtue of their own arrogance.
Interesting comment at BH:
“Um.
The quote indicates that the ‘rigour and honesty’ of the CRU scientists is ‘not in doubt’. I wonder what this means.
If I had wanted to praise them, I might have said that their ‘rigour and honesty is of the highest level’. Something being ‘not in doubt’ suggests that it is there, but says little about it’s quality. ”
Another case of “watch the pea”??
I had the same reaction. To say the rigor and honesty is not in doubt could be read as litotes, a deprecatory figure of speech. Or one could interpret it as meaning that the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt, but something else (their conclusions perhaps) might be.
John Cook causes me concern because I can’t understand how he approaches Science.
Last week he wrote a blog article for “The Conversation” which is supposed to reflect the “Academic rigour, journalistic flair” of academia. He wrote “Heatwaves are currently getting hotter, they’re lasting longer and they’re happening more often. This is happening right now.”
When I asked him how to explain this
he replied —
“How to explain? Quite simply, you’re looking at individual locations. You need to look at the full body of evidence. For an overview of Australian data, see:
http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/2014/02/13/heatwaves-report/
For an even broader global picture, see:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0668-1 ”
Which of course did not explain the data I presented. Mike Swinbourne, a regular on TC gave another example of this approach to science when he wrote — “I can explain it very easily Geoffrey. You put some dots on a graph and published it on your own website. Next?” Another response was from a Peter Banks “I’d explain it as a very small sample, possibly cherry-picked, shown on two possibly incompatible charts without any cited provenance.”
……………….
Academic rigour (spelling noted) seems to be under change and it’s easy to see it as a generational thing if you are old enough.
Steve, you might be assuming too high an expectation of Mann & co. That which you and I consider unacceptable lack of rigour might pass with distinction among the climate work community, whom I hesitate to name as scientists.
Geoff, I’m not sure this is what you’re really looking for, but individual sites have a lot more “weather noise” than geographically averaged regions. Here is a somewhat different statistic, the long term trend, from GISTEMP.
Link.
These are Dec-Jan-Feb trends.
Here is the control panel
I think John Cook makes a valid point here, but I think a bit of reality check of his sources is in order.
Hi Carrick,
Thanks, but you’ve all missed the point. (Incidentally, heat waves are traditionally computed over a few successive days, never seasons, and that can be noisy).
However,
My point was more that the blog respondents are concentrating on the message and how it is delivered, while not concentrating on the data and what it is saying.
We seem to have a cottage industry of many people commenting on how good adjustments are, how well the message is sold, who is reading it and so on; and only a few commenting on the science shown by the data, which is the point of scientific research.
At Realclimate Michael Mann (and Gavin) got the quote right! so a big mess up on somebodies part….
July 7th 2010 – Realclimate:
“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
– See more at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-muir-russell-report/
h/t @intrepidwanders via twitter
Barry: Excellent sleuthing, again.
I think this is an important find. It shows in 2010 Dr Mann was aware that the Muir Russell report was only about the CRU scientists. Subsequently he seems to have expanded their scope to include himself.
Much as the case for his lawsuit says Steyn et al know of the “exonerations”, this shows he knew of the limited CRU scope of the Muir Russell.
I’m not sure that they did get the quote ‘right’.
Muir Russell panel quote -” We looked at processes and procedures, and how data was handled, but not at how the results should be interpreted in scientific terms. Our job was to look at the behaviour of the CRU scientists. We examined their honesty, rigour and openness in relation to the allegations made.”
This allows a most important distinction. There is no glory and no exoneration to be drawn from the original words “On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.” This is because they are silent on ‘openness’, suggesting damnation with faint praise.
The substituted words “they conclude that the rigour and honesty of the CRU scientists is not in doubt,” do not allow the put-down about openness, if a put down was intended, because the word ‘openness’ does not appear in the immediate prelude to these words. Steve noted this early on re another set of words.
On this interpretation, exoneration can scarcely be claimed when it was criticism that was implied.
The Muir Russel did not exonerate the CRU, nor anybody else.
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.
If MR should examine an used car:
8. The Review examines the engine, gear box and wheels with which the vehicle is equipped. ….
13. Vehicles are matters of such global importance, that the highest standards of engines, gear boxes and wheels are needed in their function. On the specific allegations made against the function of CARU vehicle, we find that the function of the gear box and engine are not in doubt.
Note that leaves a lot of doubt for the wheels. Anybody game to buy that car?
I see we’ve put climate aside once again to concentrate on polemics and literary criticism. Zzz.
The conclusion from the SKS source reveal: it doesn’t even come close to tempest in a teapot level of insignificance.
ali nails it. But hey, it’s your time to waste. It certainly explains the mysterious appeal to diva’s and doofusses on reality television
The source of the misquote is interesting rather than of huge importance. In my opinion use of secondary sources points to incompetence of Mann and / or his lawyers rather than any conspiracy to mislead the court. However it remains the case that the court was misled.
It’s worth pointing out the creation of a fabricated quote is not unique to this case. Skeptical Science has done it at least twice before. I’ve written a couple posts highlighting this, such as this one. Not long after writing that post, I happened to discover it was being discussed in the Skeptical Science forums. That means the Skeptical Science team knows the quote was fabricated, and for about a month now, they have left the quote up on their site.
I don’t have the words. How can they knowingly leave fabricated quotes on their site?
The same way Dana leaves a quote knowingly misattributed to Obama, when it is the group supporting Obama on the internet that made the statement, which in itself misrepresents the study with regard to the “dangerous” finding.
It’s not a problem for these guys.
Looks like dana has updated it very recently dated 24th feb which is correct in australia
Re: Man Bearig (Feb 23 14:14), though the pdf version linked at the end of the page has not been updated I see.
“Looks like dana has updated it very recently dated 24th feb which is correct in australia”
eeek!
“though the pdf version linked at the end of the page has not been updated I see.”
set your timer
You’d think Mr Williams would be at least as smart as Dana
this article must’ve rattled someone in order for changes to be made on sks so quickly.
To me it reinforces that the claims in this post have caught mann’s team on the back foot, so keep pushing, searching and exposing inconsistencies.
“A strange source for pleadings by a reputable Washington law firm.”
Yes, I agree. But they will say that Kevin Trenberth co-authored an article on their site in Jan 2014. Convenient.
It seems that Mann and friends lie so often they have trouble keeping track of what’s a lie and what’s the truth. So they possibly had no idea that the quote they lifted from their own website was in fact one of their own previous lies.
They changed it over on SKS now, to match the review text.
“5.In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.””
And by such actions, what also seems to be “not in doubt”, evidently, is that on Planet SkS, the “science” is never settled 😉
FYI, it is still in the comments.
One trouble associated with those perpetually making false claims is that they forget what they said, and forget where all they said it.
Dana’s Guardian article:
[quote]Lead author John Cook and I participated in a number of interviews to discuss the paper, including on Al Jazeera, CNN, and ABC. President Obama even Tweeted about our results to his 31 million followers.[/quote]With link to the Obama support group tweet that falsely claims Dana’s study included “danger”.
Note that Dana says President Obama tweeted that to his followers
I got Cook’s original page archived at multiple sites now. It is not going anywhere.
Re: Was Mann a “CRU scientist”?
In the link by Steve McIntyre to CRUs “Publications by author”, the CRU states:
Consequently, the CRU’s “Publications List for Mann, M.E.” does not logically necessitate that Mann was a “CRU scientist”.
This location is older July 2010 as opposed to November 2010,
http://www.wri.org/blog/summarizing-investigations-climate-science
“…examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred, […] The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.”
Maybe Cook copied it from here?
This dated after Cook’s effort
No it’s not. The phrase is not there in August 2010,
http://web.archive.org/web/20100812075051/http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
The first time the phrase appears on that SKS link is in a moderator response to a comment by Karamanski around November 10, 2010,
http://web.archive.org/web/20101114113611/http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
The phrase first appears in a Skeptical Science post on November 18, 2010 titled: “The question that skeptics don’t want to ask about ‘Climategate'”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-question-that-skeptics-dont-want-to-ask-about-Climategate.html
The “What do the ‘Climategate’ hacked CRU emails tell us?” link does not get updated with the phrase until sometime between February 25 and April 17, 2011,
http://web.archive.org/web/20110417200350/http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
… and yet the SkS archive claims it (the “Intermediate Page”) was written by Cook 9 July 2010. Nothing on web archive, and the SkS archive is a much later version of the page, but what else would Cook be adding 2 days after the review was released and why would one one disbelieve SkS …
The archive seems fairly useless and the page is just updated whenever they feel like it.
Had a comment chewed up by wordpress.
poptech, the page you link to above is slightly different from the one I linked to.
You are looking at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm. This page has a longer history and was written sometime in 2009.
I linked to: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-intermediate.htm. This page appeared in Jul 2010, coinciding with the release of the Muir Russell report. Waybackmachine has a copy from Mar 2011.
This page, was dated Jul 9 2010. The dating is believable because the date is on the Wayback-archived version (http://web.archive.org/web/20110302062622/http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-intermediate.htm)
Cook redesigned those rebuttal pages adding those sections in August 2010 according to a post from the SKS leak,
2010-08-30 00:18:22 Sub-forums for the different rebuttals
John Cook
“As the forum is filling up quickly, I’ve added some structure and moved all the basic rebuttals into the Basic Rebuttals sub-forum. There are also sub-forums for Intermediate and Advanced rebuttals, not so busy in there of course (although I do notice on the Rebuttal List that a few advanced rebuttals have been started). I’ll probably add another sub-forum for Blog Posts if there is a need. Hope this makes things a little easier to keep track of.”
So the intermediate page could not have existed in July of 2010.
Poptech, you are looking at a different page. You are looking at a page about Climategate that existed from before.
The page in question is/was titled: “Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy”. It appeared first in July 2010.(http://www.skepticalscience.com/archive.php?r=235) Incidentally, it is dated 3 days before the WRI page.
The same text however was reproduced by Cook at the ‘what skeptics don’t want to ask about Climategate’ page. This page appeared around the one-year mark of Climategate.
The date at the bottom of that page is not accurate. It first appears on October 13, 2010,
http://web.archive.org/web/20101013030451/http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
…and the quote is not there.
The archive page is a new one created by Cook in 2012 which just copied the inaccurate date listed at the bottom,
http://web.archive.org/web/20120326024539/http://www.skepticalscience.com/archive.php?r=235
Wayback does not have a copy before that because the archive page did not exist.
You can confirm this by walking through the snapshots, as the page keeps changing but it always shows the same update date.
Besides a first appearance in the comments like I said above, this post “The question that skeptics don’t want to ask about ‘Climategate'” was the first time it showed up in a post at SKS,
https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-question-that-skeptics-dont-want-to-ask-about-Climategate.html
Cook was likely using other sources to write his summary. His sentence is a paraphrase of the WRI section.
I went over the different pages once again. I agree that the sentence is likely a copy from the WRI page. When Barry and I looked (Barry found it first), we reached the same conclusion, except we were not sure how Cook could copy material from a Jul 12 page onto a July 9 page. This is now clear.
Moreover, items #8 and #9 in Cook’s list refer to dates in 2011. So the page could not have appeared in … 2010. 😉
I have never heard of the WRI before but this may be better. : )
Did Cook plagiarize the WRI?
Cook:
They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.
WRI:
…examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred, […] The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.
Cook:
In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The […] 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”.
WRI:
The UEA’s Scientific Assessment Panel was established in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Lord Oxburgh. The Panel investigated the integrity of CRU’s research and publications […] The findings, published in April, conclude: […] “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice” in any of CRU’s work.
Where is Mashey when you need him?
Or they both independently mashed up the Guardian reporting of Muir Russell? – 7th July 2010:
Guardian – ‘Climategate’ review clears scientists of dishonesty over data
‘Rigour and honesty’ of scientists not in doubt but Sir Muir Russell says UEA’s Climatic Research Unit was not sufficiently open”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty
very silly of Mann’s lawyers to quote secondary (incorrect) sources
If you see Cook’s first numbered item, the quoted text has a superscripted ‘1’, printed as regular text because it didn’t copy over from the original source, Mann’s PSU inquiry report.
“”The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two… ”
He/someone put this text together copying text from different sources. The WRI page is most likely the source of the copied text.
2 Trackbacks
[…] SkS and Mann’s doctored quote […]
[…] 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 […]