Jean S has spotted a highly amusing entry in Mann’s CV. The entry yields yet another porky in Mann’s pleadings.
The Muir Russell panel had conceded that the WMO 1999 diagram and related IPCC 2001 diagrams (the two most discussed hide-the-decline diagrams) were “misleading”. CEI reported this in their original Memorandum in December 2012
For example, the Independent Climate Change Email Review (“ICCER”), convened by UEA, declined to make any “statement regarding the correctness of any of these analyses in representing global temperature trends” or to “address any possible deficiencies of the method” employed by UEA researchers and Mann. [52- MR, 49] It did, however, conclude that some renditions of the “hockey stick” diagram were “misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together.”[53 – MR at 60] These two manipulations, it explained, related to the attempts mentioned in the Climategate emails to “hide the decline” through “Mike’s [i.e., Mann’s] Nature trick.” [54 -MR at 60]
Muir Russell had provided the following statement, referring to both the IPCC 2001 spaghetti diagram (in which the Briffa reconstruction was truncated) and the WMO 1999 diagram where the Briffa reconstruction was both truncated and spliced with the instrumental record):
In relation to “hide the decline”, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together.
CEI’s characterization of the Muir Russell findings seems entirely reasonable to me. (And, unlike Mann’s memorandum, they backed up their references with precise page numbers.)
Nonetheless, in Mann’s current Reply Memorandum (using identical wording to the January 2013 memorandum), Mann accused CEI of trying to “obfuscate”, claiming that the “misleading” comment had “absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him”, that the “misleading” comment was directed only to the WMO 1999 graphic, in which Mann had no involvement:
In their brief, the CEI Defendants suggest that the University of East Anglia’s investigation actually found that the hockey stick graph was “misleading” because it did not identify that certain data was “truncated” and that other proxy and instrumental temperature data had been spliced together. See CEI Anti-SLAPP Mem. at 16-17; NRO Mem. at 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 1999.41 Dr. Mann did not create this depiction, and the attempt to suggest that this report suggested an effort by Dr. Mann to mislead is disingenuous.
CEI had raised both the WMO 1999 and IPCC 2001 diagrams, but Mann ignored the finding in relation to the IPCC 2001 diagram (where he could not dispute his association) and fired back only on the WMO 1999, claiming with faux outrage that Mann had had nothing to do with the WMO 1999 and was merely an attempt to “obfuscate” – a somewhat ironic accusation given the massive misrepresentation of the inquiries by Mann and his lawyers.
Now Climategate emails (especially CG2) showed that Jones had corresponded with Mann in the preparation of the WMO cover and that Mann had signed off on both Jones’ splicing of proxy and instrumental records and Jones’ truncation of the Briffa reconstruction. So Mann’s outrage seemed pretty stretched.
But Jean S has found something even more damning. In Mann’s own CV, Mann lists himself as a coauthor of the WMO 1999 diagram 🙂 :
Mann’s claim that the WMO diagram “had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann” stands exposed as yet another porky by Mann and his lawyers.
Climate Audit 
127 Comments
Oh oh what a twisted web we weave, when we weave with the intent to deceive……
I hope that any climate scientist with a shred of intellectual integrity will read the above post and draw the appropriate conclusion regarding scientific ethics.
Climate scientists is one group. Steyn and his lawyers, hopefully, are another group that should be taking note.
If Dr Michael Mann wishes to continue serially denying involvement in all the dodgy work he’s contributed to, pretty soon the court will be reading depositions from his seventh-grade math teacher.
Actual quote is from Sir Walter Scott: “‘Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive’
He had it, in a tangled, twisted sort of way.
Laurence Peter’s version was, “Oh what a tangled web we weave / when first we practice to believe.”
‘Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive’
There’s a nice addition that I recall, by one J R Pope:
‘But when we’ve practised quite a while, how vastly we improve our style’
Mann has some way to go yet, it would seem.
The New Zealand poet ARD Fairbairn:
What a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive
And when the art we have perfected
We’re just the boys to get elected
What a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.
But, Oh, how we improve our style,
Once we have practiced for a while.
H/t Emily Preyer.
==========
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!”
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17. Scottish author & novelist (1771 – 1832)
(Sorry!)
From the Moody Blues:
There you go man, keep as cool as you can.
Face piles
And piles
Of trials
With smiles.
It riles them to believe
that you perceive
the web they weave
And keep on thinking free.
Mann’s lawyers must be apoplectic by now. It’s obvious they are relying on him for the accuracy of his statements, in the same way the the “consensus” relied on him for the accuracy and veracity of his scientific work.
John Wayne once said to the actor Hank Worden, “Hank, I always tell it like it is so tomorrow I won’t have to be wondering what I was lying about yesterday.” Mann obviously looks at it differently.
Yes, one would think that the relationship between Mikey and his lawyers might be getting tense.
Wonder if the folks providing financial backing for the suit are still feeling comfy about investing in stroking their boy’s colossal ego!?
Dr Mann filed an “amended” complaint to rectify errors regarding his Nobel Prize. Perhaps he and the legal team can similarly “amend” the reply in this stage.
The bit that is really odd is that while from the emails it looks like Jones was indeed the prime mover for this “construction”, Mann’s ego still drove him to list and then keep on a list an item that had already raised concerns.
He can take credit as an author even if he had nothing to do with hide the decline, as he is responsible for one of the charts in the graph. We have seen carious climate scientists, and presumably scientists in other fields as well, demand coauthorship before they let you use their data in your paper.
But it’s hard to claim he had “no involvement” particularly with the email trail.
I love all this Mann stuff, I can’t imagine how many keyboards he’s gone through in recent months (since he doesn’t have the option to pull his hair out).
You mean like the famous ‘Angry German Kid’ of Youtube fame?
re: “carious climate scientists”
makes me think of “carrion” as in (metaphorically of course) dead meat as in road kill on the path of real science (metaphorically, I emphasize)
Mann and friends may still be in “denial” (heh heh) but eventually science will win out
If Mann handles his clothing with the same care as his CV, I’m pretty sure he still has his medium t-shirt around. Just in case he ever gets back to that size.
An ad manninem argument?
Care for his CV was also, I think we’ll now find, inconsistent with suing Steyn et al. A wonderful bit of discovery to help them Jean.
‘Another Porky from Mann’ so just another average day then.
Unbelievable. Also telling is that he had no qualms about listing a handful of emails about a graph as a full-fledged publication. Talk about inflating a resume.
He has also listed all his RealClimate posts as well. Perhaps they are willing to drop the argument that blog science isn’t science.
The CV also seems to show a surprising current dearth of funding. Has the worm finally turned or has the paleoclimatological spigot been closed off in general? Perhaps his additional support is coming from sources that even he is embarrassed to put down on paper.
Sorry that I don’t have anything substantive to add to this discussion but:
WOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!! That is an amazing find.
Can someone post (or link to) the specific CG2 emails that link Mann to the WMO cover – thanks!
Off topic, but Gavin seems to be a little behind in responding to emails.
I’m sure he’ll use the “I might’a been a’lyin’ then but I’m a’tellin’ the truth now” defense.
I’ve already issued the challenge to Mark Steyn and now I’ll reissue it to CA regulars.
Is there anything that the good Doctor has ever said that wasn’t untrue?
There’s a good chance his name is Michael Mann
Well there was that guy who directed the movie “Heat”.
… and don’t forget Miami Vice. Maybe we should get Crockett and Tubbs on the case 🙂
I suspect there is but, admittedly, it’s only a hunch.
Even though I try not to be the grammar natsi I think this might be mis-punctuated. Let me suggest, instead:
I suspect there is “but”; admittedly, it’s only a hunch.
Perhaps not surprisingly, I could find nothing from Penn State on misrepresenting accomplishments on a CV, but presumably, Dr. Mann won’t be applying for any positions at the University of Illinois.
http://www.grad.illinois.edu/careerservices/cvs
Of course, he could claim his CV is accurate, and he merely made a “mistake” in his court filings.
This particular misrepresentation seems likely unintentional so it is small fry compared to what I view as intentionally misleading representations of the UK reports. I would not thought much of it except that the mistake was made in the context of accusing defense counsel of deliberately trying to confuse the court. Talk about embarrassing.
These errors and misrepresentations take on special significance in the case because of the defendants arguments that the scientific controversies at the core of the case are not ones that a lay jury is well equipped to adjudicate. If plaintiffs own counsel cannot keep its facts straight how can a jury?
pauldd: Although the lawyers responsible for the reply memorandum may have a reasonable excuse for the mistake made here, in the bigger scheme of things, and in light of the past blunders, [for instance, Mann claiming he was a Nobel prize winner] I believe this is a major mistake. One of the dangers of this litigation for the defendants is that the facts and statistical issues can be very confusing and difficult for a court or a jury to comprehend. Because Mann carries the [unearned] presumption of competence by virtue of his professorship and the support of other “mainstream scientists,”, confusion benefits him.
This false claim of Mann not being tied to the 1999 WMO diagram when in fact Mann lists his association with it in his CV, is easily understandable by anyone. I believe there is a point where cumulative blunders cause someone to lose all credibility and cause others to just shake their heads in disbelief. This might be that point where all credibility is lost, when tied to Tiljander, the false Nobel claim, and the false claims of exoneration.
Additionally, I would note that Mann’s lawyers are getting themselves into a real sticky situation. Their glaring mistakes are being made public, which doesn’t help their reputation or business. If I was going to hire a lawyer for an environmental issue, I wouldn’t even consider Fontaine because of the poor way he has handled issues in this case. I suspect there are many others, who if informed about Fontaine’s conduct, would have the same reaction as me.
Finally, we may be on the leading edge of a different way of litigating cases with a large amount of public interest. Lawyers are not used to public scrutiny of their briefs, which may change with the manner in which Mann’s briefs have been subject to close scrutiny. I doubt that Williams or Fontaine had any concept of the headaches that would arise from their representation of Mann. I also wonder whether Williams will keep all of the filings in the Mann case posted at his firm’s website, since the filings, in general, make his firm look so bad.
JD
“Porky,” what a great word. It is funny on its own and implies so much.
Rhyming slang for lie. Pork pie.
Cockney rhyming slang, to be precise.
http://www.cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk/
I have rubbed shoulders with one or two top-tier academics. The thing you notice is their carefulness with regards to what they attest, the precision with which they communicate, and their attitude of epistemic caution. They simply will not state more than what they believe the evidence supports. They are reluctant to pronounce on areas outside of their expertise. And they are careful and precise in what they do express.
If these are the marks of a top-tier academic, Mann doesn’t even come close. Perhaps this is one reason many in his field seem ready to distance themselves from him. Judith Curry strikes me as much closer to top-tier (if not in fact top-tier) than Michael Mann.
In the spat between Mann and Steyn, under-under-undergraduate Steyn comes across as infinitely more careful and precise than the supposed top-tier academic Mann.
At this point in the litigation, Mann has to survive the appeal of the denial of the motion dismiss pursuant to SLAPP. Mann has to overcome numerous standards, public figure, actual malice, false statement, etc ( I will defer to the legal eagles for better description). If the appealette court follows the correct legal standard, the case should be dismissed.
Mann’s best hope is to convince the Judges and parties that he was actually defamed and both simburg and steyn knew the statements were false.
My best guess is that the legal stragety adopted at this point is to double down on the lack of knowledge in the subject matter in hopes that the appeallette judges believe Mann was defamed and therefore allow the case to go to trial irrespective of the actual legal standards.
In other words, pull a snow job on the judges
Well, I dunno, folks …
Considering Mann’s previous feats of linguistic leaps ‘n lapses of the overlordly kind, it is within the realm of possibility that in his somewhat unique dictionary, “obfuscate” – not unlike … oh, I dunno … the word “trick”, for example – takes on a whole new meaning.
IOW, in accordance with the commandments found in The Book of Mann™, the word “obfuscate” takes on a “meaning” that was heretofore completely unknown to those of us who are not blessed with his superb “communication” skills;-)
“No, so holp me Petault, it is not a miseffectual whyancinthinous riot of blots and blurs and bars and balls and hoops and wriggles and juxtaposed jottings linked by spurts of speed: it only looks as like is as damn it; and, sure, we ought really to rest thankful that at this deleteful hour of dungflies dawning we have even a written on with dried ink scrap of paper at all to show for ourselves, tare it or leaf it, (and we are lufted to ourselves as the soulfisher when he led the cat out of the bout) after all that we lost and plundered of it even to the hidmost coignings of the earth and all it has gone through and by all means, after a good ground kiss to Terracussa and for wars luck our lefftoff’s flung over our home homeplate, cling to it as with drowning hands, hoping against all hope all the while that, by the light of philosophy, (and may she never folsage us!) things will begain to clear up a bit one way or another within the next quarrel of an hour and be hanged to them as ten to one they will too, please the pigs, as they ought to categorically, as, strickly between ourselves, there is a limit to all things so this will never do.” – James Joyce (Finnegans Wake, 1939)
Reminds me of a great line in Martin Gardner’s “Mathematical Carnival”:
Ean Wood, a London reader, disagreed with my assertion that Finnegan’s Wake contains random wordplay. “Each word,” Wood declared, “is the result of careful Joyce.”
RE:”I have rubbed shoulders with one or two top-tier academics. The thing you notice is their carefulness with regards to what they attest, the precision with which they communicate, and their attitude of epistemic caution.”
My experience exactly. A lifetime ago, I was producing senior high-school math and science curriculum video programs. We started with 3 academic consultants. Trying to get 2 of them to agree – on anything – was difficult, 3 impossible. Then the there was the ‘gender issues’ consultant(s), and yes it got worse, (here’s where your forehead is banging on the table) because these programs had to be translated into French. Try and get 2 translators to agree – on anything – from word translation to actual content, IE: back to square one.
The hardest thing to nail down was, “What can we say for sure.” Everything had to be couched in a, “here’s what we think now” or “to the best of our knowledge this is what happens” type of thing. But never, and I mean never, did any of the academic consultants we hired ever even allude to the ‘we now know everything’ stance that those in the climatology field feel comfortable with.
They also show intense discipline about trying to imagine every way they may be wrong about a given finding, and they teach their students this outlook in a high pressure environment where those who don’t excel are kicked out of the program, similar to Navy SEALSs training. That aspect alone tipped me off to the corruption of climate “science” since their proud attitude was the opposite of this. I found it jaw dropping. What I found hard though was convincing laypeople about this difference. They believed Al Gore instead of me, every time, early on. I took few liberal arts courses though so I didn’t understand the gravity of contemporary indoctrination with belief in authority and the debasement of reason. When I was a guest for a day in one of my product design student coworkers though, moral and rational relativism was being piled on very heavily, mumbo jumbo mostly, but pulling old school rationality into the mix to dilute it.
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
Have no fear – Nick Stokes will be along shortly to point out that this is perfectly consistent with Mann’s continued truthfulness and you’re all anti-science for even pointing this out, or that, Look!! Squirrel!! Or some such thing.
in jumping to an obvious conclusion you’ve ignoredthe fat tail of possibilities. he may not even have authored the cv 😉
He may not have.
He may also not have authored his CV where he claimed to have been awarded the Nobel along with a whole bunch of others.
And he may not have been the one who revised that over time to make the group more select.
He may also not have authored his court pleadings attesting to the defamation of a Nobel Laureate and all the exonerations and to his pioneering work on the temperature rise in the 20th century.
He may not have authored so many false claims that his claims may come to be looked at askance, wherever they pop up – which would be a great pity.
Mann will say his C.V. is wrong because Steve McIntyre requested an Excel* spread sheet and Jean S didn’t ask sweetly** for the real true hidden correct C.V.
Ammann and Wahl will then spend years proving that the line on the C.V. is justified, and Mann’s denials*** are justified too, and oh by the way what was the question again??
*no he didn’t
**irrelevant
***interesting that Michael Mann is so good at “denial” — is he a “denier”??
So why do I keep picture you, Donald Pleasance, Gene Kelly and Debbie Reynolds raising a curtain?
Donald O’Connor, I think.
London rhyming slang.
“porky” = “pork pie” = “lie”
Sorry – I see someone already explained it.
Steve, I do hope that this latest information has been communicated to CEI’s legal team?
borrowed from a comment at WUWT:
“overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick”
Funny the WMO description doesn’t mention it being an artistic depiction.
Click to access wmo913.pdf
WMO-No. 913
© 2000, World Meteorological Organization
ISBN 92-63-10913-3
Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long
instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal.
Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more
details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at
http://www.pages.unibe.ch) and the National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov).
(Sources of data: P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa and T.J. Osborn, University of East Anglia, UK; M.E. Mann,
University of Virginia, USA; R.S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts, USA; M.K. Hughes, University of
Arizona, USA; and the Hadley Centre, The Met. Office).
Here’s the PAGES newsletter they refer to: http://www.pages.unibe.ch/download/docs/newsletter/1999-1/nl99_1lowres.pdf
It mentions the divergence, but offers no concrete explanation. Others have argued that the divergence is disclosed in this newsletter and that the newsletter was mentioned in the sourcing. All true. But, nowhere is it disclosed that the cover graphic truncates the data after 1960 (or 1940) and splices in instrument data.
Also, did they smooth across the slice? I’ve never heard a complete answer to that question. To me, smoothing across the splice would be evidence that they were trying to hide the splice.
The comment on WUWT that made me laugh is:
AnonyMoose September 11, 2014 at 7:13 am
“Mann claims that he’s lying in his CV”
Mann’s CV and his lawyers just make stuff up, but Mann is not responsible for anything.
“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.” The clumsiness of this sentence makes me wonder: is it a sophomoric attempt to mislead while being technically defensible? i.e maybe Mikey himself didn’t actually create the depiction, and so, ipso facto, no effort to mislead; but also true if Mike can effortlessly mislead, which seems pretty plausible…
Are the publications referred to by these two names actually the same publication?
* WMO 1999
* World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) 50th Year Anniversary Publication: Temperature Changes over the Past millenium, 2000
Steve: yes. “WMO 1999” has been how the trick email has been referred to in Climategate discussions, but it connects to the 2000 AR as you observe
It seems too pat. Is there any chance at all that this is a plant? (You know, one of those hacks (no, no I meant illicite computer access, not the other kind))
Keep digging and rely on the constancy of human nature. Some people are habitually honest, others …
Pointman
It is on the WMO website
Click to access 913_en.pdf
Search FOIA Grepper for ‘t-shirt’. Examine the first entry dated 2000.
Tim Osborn asks Michael Mann:
Mann replies:
Does anyone think this squares with his court submission?
Shub,
I’ll try to make a post collecting all emails relating to the WMO graph over the weekend. I think the most remarkable letter (which I learnt from you) is the one from George Kukla to Keith Briffa: http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4197.txt
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/george-kukla-contrarian-climate-scientist
I just googled for George Kukla and found that George passed away in June
?!!? How many times have we been told by current alarmists that all this stuff about “Ice Age scare” in the 1970s was only a few ignorant media articles now hyped only by skeptics?
Kukla cores to the center of the dispute. Score! Nuthin’ but net!
=========
thanks for that link TISNGTG & others
sad to hear of his death, sounds like he was not afraid to express his opinion even when against the “scientists today” – wonder who that group may be ?
bit sad they had to add – “Kukla became popular among groups that do not accept the theory of human-influenced climate change. In 2010, Kukla spoke at a meeting organized by the Heartland Institute, a political group opposed to the theory that humans are warming the climate. (Kukla did say he believed some of the current warming was coming from human—just not all of it.)”
https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/climategate-2
Thanks. It has been a long time since I looked at the emails. Someone did a good job highlighting the main messages.
Is Mann currently as isolated from the rest of the dendro and paleoclimatology communities as it appears he was back then?
Wow! Kukla was the first one to detect this deception. I wonder what happened to him and how he interacted with the Team in the years between this email and his death.
With regard to Mann’s savage sensitivity to criticism, I don’t know if this email has been noticed much…. found this email (below) when doing some searches for Mann vs. Wally Broecker (I recall something about Broecker referring to Mann’s proxy data as “shitty” but I haven’t been able to find that — anyone recall it?).
Here, in a 2001 debate about any possible “Medieval Warm Period” Michael Mann trashed the distinguished scientist Wally Broecker (Columbia/Lamont) for daring to question the quality of data relied upon in Mann’s work. One thing I find “interesting” is that Mann uses the tendentious and politicized word “disinform” to refer to Broecker’s Science article. Usually “disinformation” is considered much worse than “misinformation” because it is by definition intentional and propagandistic rather than accidental (originating with the Soviet Comintern in the 1920s). Mann’s idea of “constructive dialogue” is of course for others to kowtow to Mann, since Broecker clearly has not learned to be properly deferential from a “series of emails” to which Mann refers. The “disinform” statement is an extremely serious charge to lodge against a scientific colleague, but Mann does it casually (though privately) against someone of Broecker’s stature who dared to differ with Mann:
Mann trashes Wally Broecker
[emphasis added]
Meanwhile, with help from CA, Mark Steyn has eviscerated Mann yet again (I did not know of Steyn as more than a name before this current legal fuss, but the man sure does have a way with words):
Steyn’s latest on Mann
For many Brits, phrasing like that needs the voice of Humphrey Littleton, or maybe these days Jack Dee. Given Steyn’s background, I’m sure the similarity is deliberate.
It sounds exactly like one of Humph’s codas to I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue. Hard to give higher praise than that. I also liked the paradoxes of
and
Great to have such fun along the way as we wish Steyn, CEI and co different kinds of inspiration as they ponder their legal responses.
Question for the lawyers here. This latest “porky” has now been widely disseminated through twitter and blogs (including Steyn’s), so it is improbable that Mann’s attorneys are unaware of it. What obligation do they have to amend their filing? Could they be subject to sanctions if they don’t?
Yellow tweet up high on a sanction tree.
========
C, you ask a very subtle legal and practical question. It is easier to deal with if I reframe it a bit.
Mistakes are made all of the time at all levels of legal proceedings. If courts required that all lawyers’ mistakes had to be rigorously corrected, that is all they would do. So, they don’t strictly require that all pleadings or briefs be corrected.
In this instance, the defendants will undoubtedly point out Fointaine’s incorrect statements in his brief. The penalty to Fointaine for his misstatements is that he is much less likely to win the case because of them.
The way that a party corrects his opposition’s incorrect factual allegations in the complaint is by filing a motion to strike or maybe a motion for summary judgment. These are done at the trial court level. So, the defendants wouldn’t file the motions while the case is in the court of appeals.
Lying to a court is a serious offense, which subjects the offender to ethical disciplinary proceedings. Fointaine’s intentional obfuscation of the issue comes close to something I would call an ethical violation, but it may not be one. If he had blatantly crossed the line, a practical reason why the violation might not be reported is that those most familiar with the violation — the defendant’s lawyers, have no practical incentive to report it at this time. If the defendant’s lawyers reported a violation, they know that they are motivating ten plaintiff’s lawyers to work much harder.
JD
Well, this:
Muir Russell had provided the following statement, referring to both the IPCC 2001 spaghetti diagram (in which the Briffa reconstruction was truncated) and the WMO 1999 diagram
…is false as far as I can tell. Muir Russell says: “…in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure.” IPPC is not mentioned.
Steve: did you try reading the report? See below (with identical language in 26).
23. 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.
Umm. They’re not saying that its misleading in the IPCC context:
3. 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.
Might have been a footnote provided in IPCC in explanation.
Steve: first of all, it was misleading both in the WMO and IPCC 2001 figures. The misleading IPCC figure had been an issue here even before Climategate. There was no relevant footnote in IPCC TAR. Since they found that the IPCC figure was “similar” in respect to the misleading truncation, the most plausible interpretation is that they found both figures were misleading. The statement that one figure is “misleading” necessarily applies to the “similar” figure. But since Mann has turned out to be a coauthor of the WMO 1999 figure, he’s involved in both misrepresentations anyway.
It’s as if someone wanted to make sure that, even if the various lawyers for the defendants were quite mediocre, they couldn’t fail to present a convincing case.
Did Mikey invent a lawyer-selecting algorithm?
Is this statement from Mann’s latest brief valid?
However, every peer-reviewed study that has examined Mcintyre and McKitrick’s claims
has found them to be inaccurate.
They are excluding Wegman, and go on to mention that it was retracted due to plagiarism and misconduct charges.
They also say later that neither McIntyre nor McKitrick has accused Mann of fraud or misconduct.
Steve: A couple of points: I don’t know of any studies that have found “inaccuracy” in what we actually said. Notice how seldom critics actually quote us. Second, the committee investigating the Wegman Report exonerated Wegman in this document. A second committee investigating an article published in CSDA found plagiarism (in an introductory section done by a grad student) and this article was retracted. We have not publicly accused Mann of fraud for a variety of reasons. I’ve also stated that I don’t feel obligated to make public statements on everything that I think.
They wrote “misconduct or fraud”. Thinking about it, I think you have declared fraud under the loose definition they are suggesting in their brief, where ‘bogus’ is sufficient. However, I was wondering about the misconduct part. Their first reference was to “academic and scientific misconduct”, but with regards to M&M, wrote just misconduct.
They also wrote ‘accused’, so even if you wrote something that doesn’t mean they are wrong.
“Every peer-reviewed study”? Leaving aside McShane and Wyner, how about the peer-reviewed NAS report?
(p. 86—87) “McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated that under some conditions, the leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike appearance, which could then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based reconstruction.”
(p. 106) “As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions.” And see their graphical replication of the artificial hockey stick effect from feeding red noise into Mann’s algorithm (p. 87).
(p. 107) The usual RE significance benchmark “is not appropriate.”
(p. 107) “Uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated.”
In fact they did not reject any of our technical criticisms or claim any of our work was inaccurate.
Steve: Burger 2007 (CP) accepted our criticism of RE benchmarking – an important but neglected aspect of our papers. Read closely, Wahl and Ammann do not contest specific statements in our articles.
“We have not publicly accused Mann of fraud for a variety of reasons. I’ve also stated that I don’t feel obligated to make public statements on everything that I think.” — Steve McIntyre.
“Read closely, Wahl and Ammann do not contest specific statements in our articles.” — Steve McIntyre.
Yes, it’s very important to read closely so as to avoid making careless inferences.
However, in some significant cases, it’s what’s NOT said that is often of intense interest. 🙂
Frank Carson, the stand-up comic, had a catch phrase: “It’s the way I tell ’em.”
Indeed it was. Just like you, he was very good too. 🙂
If, as Steyn’s lawyer, I ever got the opportunity to cross-examine Mann, I believe I would ask him a number of questions along the following lines. ” Professor Mann, you have publicly said or written that Judith Curry, who is a climate scientist and who is the head of that department at Ga. Tech, is anti-science and is …… You have also accused the following persons in the climate field (add here the names of all the people, including Steve)of the following…. (and name all the things that he has accused those persons of…. scientific misconduct, fraud or worse). Is that correct? Alright, do you think these individuals should have a valid cause of action for defamation against you for those statements?”
Hardly the fault of the lawyer, it would seem. They rely on Mann for this sort of stuff and if the client insists they have no choice. I feel sure that the law firm recognizes that they have a loser here.
Every client, whether complainant or defendant, has a narrative. The lawyers job is to find out how much of it is true.
I agree.
Well in that case Fontaine should know that none of his client’s case is true and that Mann may indeed be the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science”. If Fontaine did his job he would have advised Mann against suing Steyn. That done and the advice ignored, Fontaine can now charge his fees with a clear conscience, but Fontaine can hardly bill Mann for hours spent on pouring over science documents to verify Mann’s expertise or correct his lapses.
“About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.” So supposedly said Elihu Root, New York lawyer and secretary of war and of state, and U.S. senator from 1909 to 1915. http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/a-decent-lawyer-should-tell-liberals-theyre-damned-fools-and-ought-to-stop/
Re: mpainter (Sep 17 11:10), Of course he can bill for that, Soros, Steyer or? is paying the bill.
That’s what paralegals and research assistants do. However, in this case, I’m sure all support staff are vetted true believers and are incapable of finding flaws in their Mannsiah.
Peter Fontaine is an environmental activist, and what he is doing with Mann’s lawsuit is practicing environmental advocacy law using libel lawsuits as one tool in the larger environmental advocacy law toolkit.
His focus on this area of specialized law practice is conceptually no different than lawyers who specialize in other kinds of civil law cases; e.g. accident-injury, workman’s compensation, social security benefits, consumer class actions, shareholder lawsuits, and so on.
Fontaine’s job description in pursuing environmental advocacy law includes pushing the limits of what is considered ethical practice whenever his client’s larger interests demand that he do so. He is being paid good money to take these kinds of professional risks.
If it works out and the lawsuit is successful, fine. If not, he has served his client’s larger interests as they themselves define those interests. As an activist lawyer specializing in environmental advocacy law, he has earned his pay one way or the other.
Betablocker:
So then you are saying that Fontaine might not have advised against a suit and has crowded the line on professional ethics? High risk advocacy? Interesting.
Charles, my source gives the David Suzuki Foundation as Mann’s backer.
What is the basis for claiming that the David Suzuki Foundation is funding Mann? This seems somewhat outside the scope of a Canadian charity.
Looking at the brazen, in-your-face audacity of the arguing points Peter Fontaine has written in the latest brief, I have to suspect he was fully on board from the beginning with pushing the boundaries of ethical practice by citing investigations which do not specifically mention Michael Mann by name.
From a professional ethics perspective, this is high risk advocacy to be sure; but it is one for which the payoff for the plaintiffs — both for the clients and for their lawyers — can be large if it eventually succeeds.
From an environmental advocacy perspective, the lawsuit has already succeeded in that it has caused the attention of the skeptical community to be diverted from focusing their limited resources on the science of AGW and on the public policy of AGW.
So far, the plaintiffs have gotten their money’s worth in filing this lawsuit, and there is every incentive for them to keep pushing the ethical boundaries as far as they can be successfully pushed.
In my opinion, by pushing the ethical boundaries as far as they can possibly be pushed in order to produce a legal victory, Peter Fontaine is doing the job he was hired to do, and is doing it in the way his clients expect him to do it.
High risk advocacy you bet because his pleadings have stirred the media into defending their prerogatives. Arguing that EPA pronuncimentos in effect constrained Steyn’s rights as a journalist was the main blunder IMO.
Good post, Beta Blocker. Fontaine is to Mann as Kunstler was to the anti-war protestors like Hoffman and Rubin. Activists representing activists. They stretch the boundaries of what is legally permissible as a matter of course. That said, they are on the opposite side if you look at the cases from the point of view of freedom of expression. And Mann is not the defendant, he’s the accuser whose views dovetail with those of the government on the science of AGW. So it seems like an aggressive imposition of the environmental agenda by an activist lawyer and an activist client with limitless funding– a client who apparently enjoys implicit approval of the government judges who are not applying statutes that are clearly designed to prevent such lawsuits. It’s not surprising that the interests of the government-supported agenda are overpowering the interests of the law in this case and particularly constitutional protections.
There is also the matter of this being a very high-profile case, which draws lawyers like flies to honey. A lot of people who had never heard of Fontaine now know who he is.
Pushing ethical boundaries is a good way get swatted by appellate judges, but it is generally not a good tactic to win in an appellate courts, especially when opposed by counsel who hhave stellar credentials and crowd sourced research.
Steve:
Can’t provide a link but my source was .org Principia Scientific International; see the Feb. 21, 2014 article “Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as His Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse” or you can dial on your search engine (Suzuki Mann Dr Tim ball) for same
Steve: As CTM observed, this does not count as information at CLimate Audit.
Re: mpainter (Sep 17 11:10), mpainter,
John O’Sullivan is not what most around here would consider a reliable source.
mpainter, CTM is understating his point. People would have considered it more likely to be true if you had said you are just guessing. About the only verified fact in that article is that the trial is ongoing.
Steve: Yup.
Steve
For the basis of the claim you will need to ask the author of the referred source. You will note that I made no claim.
Steve: thanks for explaining the source, but I do not wish to give any oxygen to this sort of unsubstantiated rumor.
However CTM above named Steyer, Soros, and ? as backers for Mann. Standards here seem hard to figure.
Re: mpainter (Sep 17 11:10),
Sorry if you misunderstood. My phrasing used ? to demonstrate I was guessing. While I may not have been clear enough, others, such as Steve picked up on this. That is different from your comment. It is not a case of different standards.
I note that no one is bragging about funding him.
===========
No one comes to the defense of Mann.
Yep, no amici briefs for Mann. Sounds important. I wonder if the scientist called The Prussian (linked to by Steyn in the piece linked to by Watts) doesn’t have it right:
Hope so.
this is astonishing — ZERO amicus briefs filed on behalf of Mann?? I’d expected that a whole roster of alarmist-dominated organizations would be lined up to submit briefs in support….. does this mean that even most of his usual allies know he’s gone too far this time? Not ONE group or band of his pals could submit a brief?? I’m glad, but this seems weird.
People do read Mr McIntyre, you know. 🙂
sure, but I thought that Mann still had his die-hard true believers… although judging from yesterday’s #AskDrMann twitter fiasco their numbers really are dwindling:
http://www.steynonline.com/6566/the-barbra-streisand-effect-on-steroids
#AskDrBlock – some of the finest comedy seen on Twitter for many a moon. Dwindling’s the word. JD Ohio even wonders if the plaintiff’s lawyers are showing signs of embarrassment.
Last time I attended one of his ask me anythings, my question was deleted, ‘What’s the status of your lawsuit with Tim Ball. Has he paid up yet?’
I’m not all THAT astonished. Put it in context.
This particular round of legal appeal has to do with the D.C. “anti-SLAPP” (SLAPP = Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law. The plaintiff, Mann, complains he was libeled. The defendents, Steyn & Simburg and their publishers, respond that their comments are fair commentary on a public policy issue. The defense moved the suit be dismissed because the suit was a SLAPP. The judge held the suit, by a particular standard of evidence, was NOT a SLAPP. The defense appealed the pre-trial ruling. Much confusion intervened, but that’s about where we all still are.
The defense has amicus / friends who support anti-SLAPP law, and wish fervently and fervidly to see the protective procedures of the anti-SLAPP law made clear.
The plaintiff may have lots of friends, but those friends have no particular interest in jumping in on the questions of how or even _if_ SLAPP and anti-SLAPP standards and processes are defined and applied, because friends of the plaintiff are not inclined to see the complaint as “strategic”. They instead, presumeably, see the complaint as — if anything — tactical; and more likely a valid complaint about defamation.
One may see Mann’s friends lining up next round of filings if the appeals court sends this appeal back to the original court with better, clearer, definitions and rules about what constitutes “SLAPP” and what standards of evidence apply. But I don’t find it surprising that the Union of Concerned Scientists, EPA, Greenpiece, etc choose to sit out the debate at this moment on this issue.
Their silence nevertheless does afford Steyn this week’s red meat for his on-going and so far very successful effort to make Mann look like a pompous fool.
Here’s the link that MPainter referred to:
http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html
It’s written by John O’Sullivan. Here’s the relevant quote: “Being that Mann’s suit in the BC court was filed 3 years ago before he filed against Steyn, it appears Dr Ball will be first in line with his counterclaims and pipping Steyn for the well-deserved $10 million compensation prize. That’s if Mann’s financial backers (most notably, the David Suzuki Foundation) aren’t bankrupted first.”
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
Popehat writes today about Kimberlin v. American Spectator. Has some striking parallels. Hate to see the Spectator fold.
http://www.popehat.com/2014/09/20/american-spectator-surrenders-to-vexatious-litigant-and-domestic-terrorist-brett-kimberlin/
8 Trackbacks
[…] Full story here: https://climateaudit.org/2014/09/10/another-porky-from-mann-williams-and-fontaine/ […]
[…] The most serious issue for Mann’s case is mentioned briefly in Mann’s brief, as described in this post at Climateaudit [link]: […]
[…] https://climateaudit.org/2014/09/10/another-porky-from-mann-williams-and-fontaine/#more-19692 […]
[…] […]
[…] legal documents “had absolutely nothing to do” with the graph (that is still worth a mention in his CV ), responds. He completely agrees with the text adding that it will “help to […]
[…] to his legal documents “had absolutely nothing to do” with the graph (that is still worth a mention in his CV ), responds. He completely agrees with the text adding that it will “help to bolster […]
[…] to his legal documents “had absolutely nothing to do” with the graph (that is still worth a mention in his CV ), responds. He completely agrees with the text adding that it will “help to bolster […]
[…] at Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit, the topic of discussion has moved away from the parsing of the Michael Mann defamation suite and the shenanigans of blog commenter Richard Stokes towards a […]