Mann Misrepresents the UK Commons Committee

Mann’s inclusion of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (“Commons Committee”) among the investigations that supposedly “investigated” and “exonerated” Mann personally is as invalid as his similar claims regarding the Oxburgh and Muir Russell inquiries or his claim to have won a Nobel prize.

The Commons Committee (see report here) did not conduct any investigation into Mann’s conduct nor did it make any findings whatever in connection with Mann’s conduct. I’ll demonstrate this in today’s post, which is the third in the present series (previously I discussed the Oxburgh and Muir Russell inquries here and Muir Russell here).

In addition, I’ll also discuss an important discrepancy between the findings of the Muir Russell panel and the report of the Commons Committee concerning the notorious email concerning Jones’ construction of the 1999 WMO diagram (the “trick … to hide the decline”). Whereas the report of the Commons Committee had concluded in respect of this incident that Jones had “no case to answer”, the Muir Russell panel found that the diagram omitted data and was “misleading”. In combination, these constitute the elements of the offence of “falsification” as defined in academic misconduct codes.

Mann’s pleadings also emphasize and rely on international media coverage as an essential element of the defendants’ knowledge of the reports, but media coverage of Jones’ appearance before the Commons Committee was savage.

Commons COmmitteee Terms of Reference

Following the public announcement of the Muir Russell committee in January 2010, the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee invited written submissions on the following questions:
• What were the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
• Were the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
• How independent were the other two international data sets (see paragraph 23)?

These terms of reference obviously did not include examination of Mann’s conduct.

The Committee Hearings, March 1, 2010
The Committee held hearings on March 1, 2010. The hearings had four sessions. First were University of East Anglia’s Vice Chancellor Acton and Phil Jones. Then Nigel Lawson and Benny Peiser. Then ^ of the Information Commissioners’ Office. Finally from the climate establishment, SLingo, Beddington….

Mann’s pleadings placed great importance on reports of the investigations in international media. However, CRU and Jones received savage coverage in contemporary articles (see CA post here).

For example, Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail:

Professor Acton’s left eyebrow started doing a little jiggle of its own. His eyeballs bulged with admiration for the climate-change supremo. His lips were pulled so wide in wonderment they must nearly have split down the seams like banana skins. Others, watching the tremulous Professor Jones, will have been less impressed. He may be right about man-made climate change. But you do rather hope that politicians sought second, third, even 20th opinions before swallowing his theories and trying to change the world’s industrial output.

Simon Carr in The Independent:

His defence was a bit unscientific too: “I’ve obviously written some very awful emails,” followed by a wry smile. But the committee declined to be charmed. Why wouldn’t he release the codes? “Because we had an awful lot of work invested in it.”

Yes, by the sound of it there was considerable data smoothing and oiling and homogenising and substituting and standardising… I don’t know much about statistics but I know what I like. And when a scientist says: “We couldn’t keep the original data, only the added-value data,” all sorts of sirens and alarms go off.

Simon Hoggart in The Guardian:

The sight of another scientist being skewered makes for painful viewing. Whatever your view on man-made global warming, you had to feel sorry for Professor Phil Jones, the man behind the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia

Anne Treneman in The Times:

Professor Jones’s face was immobile, eyes steady behind wire specs. He seemed, like a dead calm sea, almost glassy. And, like ships in the Bermuda Triangle, questions that got near him just seemed to disappear.

Only once did he admit to anything and that was about an e-mail. “Uh. Yes. I have obviously written some very awful e-mails,” he murmured.

Oh dear. It seems the planet is in more trouble than I thought.

It is not obvious to me how such reports in international media communicate an exoneration of Jones, let alone Mann.

The Commons Report
The report of the Commons Committee contained no findings (let alone exoneration) of Mann’s conduct, whether it be allegations of misconduct, data torture, data manipulation or poor statistical practice. Indeed, there was negligible consideration of such issues even for CRU scientists.
They were much more interested in questions of data transparency, Freedom of Information (then a raging controversy) and the terms of reference of the two UEA inquiries and that matters not fall between the inquiries, as evidenced by the five headings of their Conclusions: Datasets; Freedom of Information; ICCER; Science Appraisal Panel.

“Dishonesty”
The Report contains a section entitled “Dishonesty”, but only one incident: the notorious trick email. (The “similar” near contemporary 2001 IPCC TAR diagram was not mentioned.) They noted that the language of Jones’ email had suggested an intent to “falsify data”. (In academic misconduct language, “falsification” includes “changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record
In the case of both the 1999 WMO and 2001 IPCC TAR diagrams, adverse data had been omitted. The Muir Russell report subsequently found that the 1999 WMO diagram was “misleading”. The omission of data resulting in a “misleading” diagram appears to satisfy the elements of “falsification”, but this was not pursued further by the Muir Russell panel. And while the Muir Russell panel observed that the 2001 IPCC TAR diagram was “similar”, the Muir Russell panel didn’t pursue it further either.

While the Muir Russell inquiry was hardly zealous in its inquiries, even the Muir Russell panel was unprepared to fully acquiesce in the sharp practice of the 1999 WMO diagram. However, the Commons Committee appears to have limited its consideration to word play. It accepted the argument (originally set out by Gavin Schmidt) that the term “trick” in this context did not necessarily imply malfeasance, since the term was also a “colloquialism for a “neat” method of handling data”. Curiously, Rich Lowry of National Review subsequently took a very similar line of argument in a different context, arguing in respect to the term “fraudulent hockeystick”, arguing that it did not imply criminal malfeasance or academic misconduct.

The Committee also took the view that Jones’ use of the words “hide the decline” was merely “shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous”, adding a request that the Oxburgh panel address the issue. (I sharply criticized this finding at the time. There is no evidence that the adverse data is “erroneous” in the sense of mesaurement errors. Its only defect is that it went the “wrong way”.”)

66. Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers-including a paper in Nature-dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. We expect that this is a matter the Scientific Appraisal Panel will address.

In their conclusions, the Commons Committee accepted the argument that the words in the email were mere word play. (However, there is no record that they examined the underlying diagram to ensure that it was not misleading):

We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

They stated that, “within [their] limited inquiry”, Jones had “no case to answer”, a conclusion that was subsequently widely cited, generally without the qualifications and limitations of the Committee’s actual statement (as, for example, the Mann pleadings):

In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty-for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”- we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact.

However, instead of finding that Jones had “no case to answer”, the Muir Russell panel reached the opposite conclusion, finding that the 1999 WMO diagram was “misleading” (but without linking back to the Commons Committee report):

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.

Unsurprisingly, Mann’s Reply Memorandum favorably cited the Commons Committee finding, while vociferously denying that the adverse Muir Russell finding had anything to do with him.

In the Reply Memorandum, Mann included the Parliamentary Committee among the investigations that purportedly gave him wide ranging “exoneration” by the Parliamentary Committee, claiming that it had “also found that “there is no case to answer” with respect to accusations of dishonesty”. (Mann did not mention that the consideration of dishonesty by the Commons Committee had been limited to the 1999 WMO diagram).

In March 2010, the United Kingdom’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the skeptics’ criticisms of the CRU were misplaced, and that its actions “were in line with common practice in the climate science community.” It also found that “there is no case to answer” with respect to accusations of dishonesty.

In their support memorandum to their motion to dismiss, the National Review had cited Muir Russell finding that the 1999 WMO diagram had been “misleading” as evidence of qualifications to the Muir Russell findings. (For the purposes of Mann litigation, I think that their argument would have been more effective if they had focused on the 2001 IPCC TAR diagram, which had “similar ” issues according to Muir Russell, and with which Mann was directly associated as IPCC Lead Author.) Mann responded with outrage that he had had “nothing to do” with this graphic and accused National Review of trying to “obfuscate” the evidence and of being “disingenuous” (a very Mannian word):

In their brief, the NRO Defendants suggest that the University of East Anglia’s investigation actually found that the hockey stick graph was “misleading.” See NRO Mem. at 9, 35; . This allegation is yet another example of Defendants’ attempts to obfuscate the evidence in this case. The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him. Rather, the report’s comment was directed at an overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick that was reproduced on the frontispiece of the World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999.39 Dr. Mann did not create this depiction, and the attempt to suggest that this report suggested an effort by Dr. Mann to mislead is disingenuous.

Given Mann’s claim that these adverse findings had “nothing to do” with him (and I agree with him on this narrow point) (Ross McKitrick observes in comments below that CG2 emails show that Jones had sent the 1999 WMO diagram to Mann for his review and that Mann had signed off on it), one can surely wonder at his apparent inability to see that the “exonerations” of the Muir Russell, Oxburgh and Commons Committee (such as they were) also had “nothing to do” with him.

Conclusion

Mann’s claim that the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee “investigated” and “exonerated” him personally is as invalid as his similar claims regarding the Muir Russell and Oxburgh inquries or his claim to have won a Nobel prize. Media coverage of Jones’ appearance before the Commons Committee hearings was eloquently savage, perhaps even Steynian. Nor did the Commons Committee report result in any uncontradicted findings on dishonesty: its only finding on dishonesty – that Jones had “no case to answer” in respect to the 1999 WMO diagram – was contradicted and superceded by the finding of the Muir Russell panel that the diagram was “misleading”. This diagram had “nothing to do” with Mann himself, but Mann was implicated in the 2001 IPCC TAR diagram, which also deleted adverse data from the Briffa recontruction and which the Muir Russell panel described as “similar”. I will return to this topic in a later post.

50 Comments

  1. Lance Wallace
    Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 5:13 PM | Permalink

    “Then ^ of the Information Commissioners’ Office.” (?)

  2. Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 5:43 PM | Permalink

    From Mann’s reply

    The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him. Rather, the report’s comment was directed at an overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick that was reproduced on the frontispiece of the World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999.39 Dr. Mann did not create this depiction, and the attempt to suggest that this report suggested an effort by Dr. Mann to mislead is disingenuous.

    And yet he did not express any outrage when Phil Jones emailed describing the method behind the graph as “Mike’s Nature Trick.”

    He protests too much that he had nothing to do with the WMO graph. The day was November 16 1999. At 9:20 AM UK time Jones emailed (0191.txt) Mann, Bradley and Hughes, cc to Briffa and Osborne, saying, inter alia,

    “WMO want to go with the millennial record on the cover and I said I would produce something and some text. The figure will be the 3 curves ( Mike’s, mine amd Keith/Tim’s). Tim is producing this curve (all wrt 61-90 and 50 year smoothed). Each will be extended to 1999 by instrumental data for the zones/seasons they represent. The attached text briefly discusses the differences and what is shown. The text is attached as a word file.

    At the timestamp 10:25:59 -0500 Mann wrote

    Hi Phil,

    Thanks for sending that along. The text looks good, and I agree w/
    everything that is said. I think its a strong but defensible statement, and
    will help to bolster the claims to be made in IPCC. The ’99 numbers are
    very interesting, and should help thwart the dubious claims sometimes made
    that El Nino is the sole culprit in the anomalous recent warmth.

    Just for comparison to what Tim is producing, I’m attaching the plot you
    may remember that we (actually, the UK Met Office staff) prepared for the
    final version of the IPCC chapter 2 draft (in pdf format). To refresh your
    memory, we used the ’61-90 base period for the absolute anomaly scale, but
    we aligned the series based on an earlier (’31-60) interval of the
    instrumental record, which pre-dates (largely) the recent decline in the
    Briffa et al series. I think this leads to a similar picture, but if you
    think there are any significant discrepancies w/ what Tim is preparing, we
    should discuss.

    Then that day, at time stamp 13:31:15 +0000 Jones wrote (3451.txt)

    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
    first thing tomorrow.
    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
    to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
    1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
    land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
    N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
    for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
    data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers
    Phil

    Osborne then sent the resulting graph and supporting data to Jones (no cc) in 1161.txt at 15:34 UK time.

    Perhaps Mann can produce the email in which he attacks Jones for producing “an overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick” and the “disingenuous” attempt to link Mann to it, but I doubt such an email exists.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 6:23 PM | Permalink

      CG2 contains a great deal of material that wasn’t in CG1. Ross has pointed to an important example here. CG1 only contained the “trick” email without the context.

      As Ross observes, rather than Mann having “nothing to do” with the 1999 WMO diagram, Jones had sent it to him for his review and Mann did not take exception to it.

      • Fred Harwood
        Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 6:29 PM | Permalink

        Fabulous.

      • Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 8:27 PM | Permalink

        There’s more. In March 2000, about five months after the WMO graph was created, Tim Osborn wrote to Mann about a t-shirt design CRU was undertaking:

        >Mike

        How’s things? I have a slightly unusual question for you. We’re producing
        some CRU t-shirts/polo shirts in the next few weeks. Some will just have
        the CRU logo on, but some people want a picture on the back. The picture
        we’ve decided upon has three curves on it showing temperatures over the
        last 1000 yrs (I think it’s based on the front cover of the WMO statement
        on 1999 climate). They’re just curves, with nothing to identify what they
        are or where they come from (so it’s slightly abstract), but in fact on of
        them is your 1000-yr NH temperature reconstruction. Do you mind if we put
        it on our t-shirts?

        Mann wrote back:

        Dear Tim,

        No, I don’t mind at all. thanks for letting me know,

        mike

        p.s. I wear a medium ;)

        http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3880.txt

        All the stuff about how obscure the WMO graph was etc is just for public consumption. They were proud of the results and there is no indications of any protests of any kind.

        Steve: relative to the 2001 IPCC graphic, it was obscure. Despite the greater prominence of the IPCC graphic, it was, for the most part, avoided in the “investigations”.

        • Donn Armstrong
          Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

          Gary,

          I found it odd that Mann would wear a “medium” too. Perhaps it’s just for his head. I wear a large and I don’t appear to near as large as Mann, but it was 14 years ago and perhaps he’s put on a lot of weight since then.

        • Jean S
          Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

          Re: Shub Niggurath (Feb 24 20:27),

          there’s even more (h/t: JeffId and you :) ). It is clear that Mann had to know that “Mike’s Nature trick” explicitly meant (somehow) extending the proxy temperatures with the instrumental data. Not only he received the origianal email, but later Jones emailed Chris Folland and Mann (cc Mitchell and Briffa):

          date: Fri Aug 11 13:40:30 2000
          subject: Re: FW: Mann etal

          All these series end around 1980 or in the early 1980s. We don’t have paleo data for much of the last 20 years. It would require tremendous effort and resources to update a lot of the paleo series because they were collected during the 1970s/early 1980s.

          It is possible to add the instrumental series on from about 1980 (Mike sought of did this in his Nature article to say 1998 was the warmest of the millennium - and I did something similar in Rev. Geophys.) but there is no way Singer can say the proxy data doesn’t record the last 20 years of warming, as we don’t have enough of the proxy series after about 1980.

          http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4919.txt
          Notice that Briffa was also a recipient (along with Mann, Bradley, and Hughes) of the original trick email.

          Another related interesting email (that I haven’t seen quoted by anyone else but Shub) sent a week before already in April. Jones to Curt Covey:

          Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 16:39:56
          To: Curtis Covey
          From: Phil Jones
          Subject: Re: GRL / IPCC follow-up?

          Curt,
          The attached file has the data you want. There are 5 columns
          (mine, Mike Mann’s, Keith’s, Annual NH and JJA NH). The last two are
          instrumental and only start in the 1850s. Keith’s starts about 1400.
          All are wrt 1961-90. You will see that for the 3 multiproxy series this
          file has been extended to 1999 by adding in instrumental data for
          the season and region each was supposed to represent.
          The other attachment is a figure of the first 3 which has appeared on
          the front cover of the WMO statement for 1999.
          I hope these are what you want. I’m away now for the rest of this week
          and next. I will still be checking my email periodically.

          Cheers
          Phil

          http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4456.txt

          This makes it chrystal clear (notice that the data itself is included in 4456.txt) what was Phil Jones’ idea about Mike’s Nature trick: splicing the instrumental to the end of a proxy reconstruction. We even see what series were used in the data set used (smoothed) in the WMO diagram: annual NH series for MBH99 and summer NH series for Jones’ and Briffa’s graphs. Notice that Jones attached also the WMO cover graph to the email.

          I also find it rather curious that Covey commented (Dec 2, 2009 at 1:12 AM) one of Steve’s earliest posts about the trick. He didn’t seem to see anything wrong with the trick (nor the hiding the decline). Neither did Jones which is apparent not only from the above emails but also from his very first reaction to CG (preserved in my original post about the trick):

          “No, that’s completely wrong. In the sense that they’re talking about two different things here. They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.

          So I believe it came as a suprise to Jones when after CG Mann condemned (and denied) the practice and tried to distance himself from the WMO graph. I’d guess Jones would have expected a defense of the splicing instead. English is my third language, but the phrase “throwing under the bus” comes to my mind.

    • Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 8:01 PM | Permalink

      It’s a little to the side of the discussion but with all the talk of points being misrepresented, your discussion reminded me of this gem, discussed so often right here at Climate Audit.

      Mike Mann from RC: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11#comments

      “[Response: 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”

      The response is ironic to those who may consider Real Climate an industry funded climate disinformation website.

      • AndrewS
        Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 9:29 PM | Permalink

        I’m surprised that’s still there.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo
        Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 2:11 AM | Permalink

        Believe it or not, that part which Jeff brings again is the key element wrt Mann’s pleading here wrt THIS GRAPH and Mann’s “effort to deceive”.

        Think about it as if all this old info which we are now inured to, was brand new, rathr than being sickening known by heart stuff.

    • ttfn
      Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 8:14 PM | Permalink

      and remember, Steyn wrote Mann was “behind the fraudulent hockey-stick.” Here’s a hockey stick that used Mike’s trick to hide Briffa’s decline and in the background there was Mann providing the trick from his toolbox and agreeing with everything Jones and Briffa were doing. I look forward to Mann’s testimony.

    • pottereaton
      Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 10:55 PM | Permalink

      The ClimateGate emails are really starting to look decisive in this case. They’ve been relatively out of sight, out of mind in the recent past, but now, here they come again. The gift that keeps on giving.

      It’s almost as if Mann et al never even read them because it is too depressing, too painful for them; that the only knowledge they have of them is comes from what they read in the newspapers. As evidence, they will destroy Mann’s credibility and his “I’m just a nice guy who’s being attacked,” defense.

      The one Steyn posted today was particularly damning.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo
      Posted Feb 26, 2014 at 11:02 PM | Permalink

      “To refresh your
      memory, we used the ’61-90 base period for the absolute anomaly scale, but
      we aligned the series based on an earlier (’31-60) interval of the
      instrumental record, which pre-dates (largely) the recent decline in the
      Briffa et al series.”

      They aligned to a different baseline…was this information given in the IPCC diagram explanations?

  3. Third Party
    Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 5:44 PM | Permalink

    “Yes, by the sound of it there was considerable data smoothing and oiling and homogenising and substituting and standardising… I don’t know much about statistics but I know what I like. And when a scientist says: “We couldn’t keep the original data, only the added-value data,” all sorts of sirens and alarms go off. ”

    Sounds close to using “molested and tortured data”….

  4. MikeN
    Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 5:46 PM | Permalink

    trick to hide the decline should be trick … to hide the decline.

    Even that needs to be qualified, as people could interpret the ine as hide the decline referring to Briffa only.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo
      Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 8:39 AM | Permalink

      MikeN, you’re getting at what I mentioned last night.

      Mann can say that although Jones is said to have misled, he did not….not in that “hide the decline” email.

      Jones said he was doing Mikes Nature trick, but DIDN’T, as Steve has explained before.

      I’m assuming Mann is being cagey here in this pleading, and would say that Nature graph never was denounced there and then, and that no matter what happened later, he believed or still believes that his Nature graph does not mislead.

      Steve mentioned, I believe, that Jones sent Mann the final, but that evidence is not posted.

      There is a fork which seems to be Mann’s route.

      It’s minor a minor glitch as the enquiry does nothing to exonerate Mann, but a glitch that could work in Mann’s favour if it’s forgotten as old hat.

      Mann’s intent to mislead wrt to WMO, in my estimation, can only e proven by after-the-fact action which so far have been evidenced in only his RealClimate post.

      • thisisnotgoodtogo
        Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 6:58 PM | Permalink

        Thanks, Jean S., for tying up the loose end!

  5. miker613
    Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 6:05 PM | Permalink

    “the Scientific Appraisal Panel will address.”
    ‘was contradicted and superceded by the finding of the Muir Russell panel that the diagram was “misleading”.’

    Just trying to follow here: The Muir Russel panel was the same Scientific Appraisal Panel that the earlier UK Commons Committee was referring to? I assume it must be, if it can “supercede” the other results.
    If the answer is Yes, I think that should be made clear in the post for those of us who don’t have them all straight.

    Steve: actually it was the other University of East Anglia panel. Their respective terms of reference were never very clear. The Oxburgh Science Appraisal Panel decided that it didn’t want to appraise the science and therefore tried to deduce conduct from consideration of 11 papers. On the other hand, the Muir Russell panel, charged with investigating conduct, avoided such issues and tried to determine conduct by, for example, determining that peer reviewed literature had not taken issue with CRU’s Yamal chronology.

  6. Pat Frank
    Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 6:56 PM | Permalink

    Commons Committee: “Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact.

    The wording is very ambiguous and self-referential. It means that, so far as they inquired, Jones and CRU were unblemished. The question then is, how far did they inquire?

    The civil reputation of any criminal remains unblemished by a properly inept inquiry.

    The Commons Committee could as well have been carefully referencing their ineptitude as judging the state of Jones’ and CRU’s reputation. Telling the truth while implying a lie. I wouldn’t put that intent past them, so refined is the upper-class British craft of circuitous self-exculpatory language.

  7. tktom
    Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 6:57 PM | Permalink

    Mann, in his pleadings, should have included one additional set of investigations which provide a similar level of exoneration to him personally as those he cited…the ones conducted by SM of Climate Audit

  8. Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 7:20 PM | Permalink

    Perhaps our problem is in fact definition: I just scraped this comment from Judith Curry’s weblog and have not verified it, but “Mann quote after confessed criminal Peter Gleick’s own Pacific Institute rather unconvincingly “cleared” him. Mann wrote: “I’m very pleased to learn that Peter [Gleick] has been exonerated.”

  9. rogerknights
    Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 7:38 PM | Permalink

    superSeded

  10. Political Junkie
    Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 7:42 PM | Permalink

    Here’s what I posted on Judy C’s blog with the coordinates to David Ross’ comprehensive and well documented work.

    Hilarious comment about a Mann quote after confessed criminal Peter Gleick’s own Pacific Institute rather unconvincingly “cleared” him.

    Mann wrote: “I’m very pleased to learn that Peter [Gleick] has been exonerated.”

    David Ross writes:

    “This quote from Mann is very relevant to the Mann vs. Steyn case, where Mann claims that he has been “exonerated” by numerous investigations. If the the above is what Mann means by “exonerated” then “exonerated” to him means committing criminal fraud with the approval and connivance of the climate-establishment.”

    Nice!

    http://qtcv.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/fakegate-and-the-mann-vs-steyn-case/

  11. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
    Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 10:52 PM | Permalink

    Is “supercede” instead of “supersede” common British spelling?

  12. Bob Koss
    Posted Feb 24, 2014 at 11:46 PM | Permalink

    I don’t know about the British bit, but according to my friend Merriam:

    Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing. It continues, however, to be widely regarded as an error.

    • HAS
      Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 12:20 AM | Permalink

      Now I live in a remote part of the colonies where English tradition is locked in a time warp, and me and my missus, both of whom were brought up proper, go with the “C”. I am however distressed to report that the shorter oxford dictionary (you know the 2 volume one not the 20 volume one) reports the “C” is the earliest spelling, but is now regarded as incorrect.

      You know you are growing old when you are left behind by the SOED.

      • Mark
        Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 8:27 AM | Permalink

        Of course it’s supercede. What do people think “to cede” means! Talk about dumbing down…

        • Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 10:13 AM | Permalink

          I’m with you on that Mark, the English language is becoming unrecognisable in some quarters.

        • pottereaton
          Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 10:41 AM | Permalink

          From Wiktionary:

          English
          Pronunciation . . .

          Noun

          sede (plural sedes)

          Obsolete spelling of seed.

        • Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 11:28 AM | Permalink

          I’ll concede that’s seminal.

        • zootcadillac
          Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 11:55 PM | Permalink

          Not quite.

          From the Oxford.

          “The standard spelling is supersede rather than supercede. The word is derived from the Latin verb supersedere but has been influenced by the presence of other words in English spelled with a c, such as intercede and accede. The c spelling is recorded as early as the 16th century; although still generally regarded as incorrect, it is now entered without comment in some modern dictionaries.”

      • mpaul
        Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

        Regarding English, I have found that you are always safe if you spell things fonetically.

  13. Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 1:17 AM | Permalink

    Andrew Bolt has just given Mann a 24 hour ultimatum, or face the same thing that Mann has done to Steyn, and he’s not bluffing: http://pindanpost.com/2014/02/25/you-are-a-liar-michael-mann/

    • thisisnotgoodtogo
      Posted Feb 27, 2014 at 8:10 AM | Permalink

      Tom, in his retraction of “to lie about climate change”, Mann
      says he meant “makes false statements about me”

      In his mind he equates climate change with Michael Mann.

      You know what skeptics have been saying all this time…Mann-made climate change!

  14. GrantB
    Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 1:53 AM | Permalink

    The way things are going the climate maestro is going to be up to his crutch in law suits

    • GrantB
      Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 1:57 AM | Permalink

      Unsurprisingly, given recent posts here, he has used a parody “Andrew Bolt” site for his info.

    • GrantB
      Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 2:07 AM | Permalink

      Update: The maestro provides an apology of sorts. Will it suffuce? See above link update.

  15. Ian H
    Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 2:58 AM | Permalink

    I was pondering whether the CG1 and CG2 emails are likely to be admissible in court given the rather irregular way in which they escaped into the public realm. From what I know of the law (which is not much) this is debatable. Justice wears a blindfold for a reason.

    However as Steyn knows about these emails he can (and should) request them in discovery after which of course they would be admissible. If Mann stonewalls the request and pretends he no longer has access then the judge is quite likely to throw a library at him (a single book not being heavy enough to achieve the desired effect).

    • pottereaton
      Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM | Permalink

      The issue of admissability had occurred to this layman also. How would you present them as evidence? Where would you get copies that were genuine? From whom would Steyn et al request them from? From the original recipients like Jeff, Anthony and Steve? Would Mann question their authenticity or accuracy? It seems it would be difficult for Mann to question their authenticity given that he and the others have repeatedly said they were stolen, taken out of context and never denied they were actual correspondence between those who sent and received them. Here are some potentially dumb questions: Could Mann argue that they are inadmissible because they aren’t all inclusive and only tell one side of the story? That they give a false impression and are prejudicial to him? Would the judge be sympathetic to that? Does the mere fact that they are in the public domain make them admissible?

      I think it’s unlikely they will be excluded, but I don’t know. Maybe a couple of the lawyers who comment here can respond.

      • climatebeagle
        Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM | Permalink

        Were there any FOI requests for the same emails, either before or after their release?

        I wonder if any FOI response after the release just pointed to the already released ones.

      • Duke C.
        Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

        An FOI to CRU will produce the emails in question- from the original source. Been there done that with the Briffa-Wahl emails.

  16. Richard
    Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

    Most of your work here has been commendable. These recent posts are spectacular. I’ve put in a donation to your tip-jar and suggest others do the same.

    Cheers.

  17. Posted Feb 25, 2014 at 12:29 PM | Permalink

    Maybe you are viewed as a “Overt Agent?

    From Twitter to day…

    Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 29m
    “How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, & Destroy Reputations”

    It could be…

  18. DAL
    Posted Feb 26, 2014 at 10:43 PM | Permalink

    This part struck me:

    “It is possible to add the instrumental series on from about 1980 (Mike sought (sort?) of did this in his Nature article to say 1998 was the warmest of the millennium …..”

    This says clearly that “Mike” added the instrument data into the mix SPECIFICALLY to say 1998 was the warmest of the millennium.

    Am I jumping to conclusions, or is this direct evidence from Jones that they were manipulating the data in order to achieve a predetermined outcome?

    I try hard to eliminate confirmation bias when I’m studying these emails, but sweet Buddha, it is hard to read this any other way.

    • sue
      Posted Feb 27, 2014 at 12:21 AM | Permalink

      DAL, this made me recall an interesting email from climategate where Judith Lean referred to Mike as an ‘expert’ in the temperature records which was odd.

      “Unfortunately, I am simply a “user” of the surface temperature data record and not an
      expert at all, so cannot help you understand the specific issues of the analysis of the
      various stations that produce the differences that you identify. I too would like to
      know the reason for the differences.
      Fortunately, there are experts who can tell us, and I am copying this email to Mike Mann
      and Phil Jones who are such experts.
      Mike and Phil (hi! hope you are both well!), can you please, please help us to
      understand these differences that Yousif points out in the GISS and Hadley Center
      surface temperature records (see two attached articles).
      Many thanks, for even a brief answer, or some reference.”
      Judith

      http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0936.txt&search=judith+Lean

      Why would Judith (in 2008) think Mike was an expert in surface temperature data?? Did he write code for Jones that could be manipulated?

      • thisisnotgoodtogo
        Posted Feb 27, 2014 at 5:31 AM | Permalink

        Would you believe…she thinks so because Mann can use Excel?

      • thisisnotgoodtogo
        Posted Feb 27, 2014 at 5:36 AM | Permalink

        No?
        Would you believe …because Mann can do EIV on Jones?

6 Trackbacks

  1. […] pea, Mann, who is suing everyone who he disagrees with, the third in a series by Steve McIntyre: Mann Misrepresents the UK Commons Committee at Climate […]

  2. […] Steve McIntyre suggests one more. […]

  3. […] Steve McIntyre suggests one more. […]

  4. […] « Mann Misrepresents the UK Commons Committee […]

  5. […] 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) to […]

  6. […] great fun to read and the comments are very entertaining. The posts are here, here, here, here, here, and here, with another post added […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,381 other followers

%d bloggers like this: