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.