by Judith Curry
Some new angles in Mann vs Steyn et al.
Michael Mann’s brief
Michael Mann has now filed his brief in the DC Court of Appeals as part of his defamation lawsuit against the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute [link]. For reference, the briefs of the defendants were discussed in this previous post [link].
Mann’s brief is discussed in a post at ClimateScienceWatch, excerpts:
In its Introduction, Dr. Mann’s brief says (with underlining added):
Defendants’ and amici assert that this case is a threat to freedom of expression and involves a “scientific controversy” which courts are “ill-equipped” to referee. … They are mistaken. The issues in this case are simple, straightforward, and certainly capable of an effective judicial resolution. This is not a referendum on global warming, or climate change, or even the accuracy of Dr. Mann’s conclusions. This is a defamation case, no more and no less: did Defendants defame Dr. Mann when they accused him of fraud? As in any defamation case, the issues are limited: were the defendant’s statements true or false; did the defendant make a defamatory allegation of fact concerning the plaintiff; and did the defendant act with the requisite degree of fault? Those are the essential questions in this case as well—and they do not involve a search for “scientific truth, as Defendants claim. Nor is there, as Defendants suggest, any broad-based “science exclusion” in defamation law.
Here, there is no question that Defendants’ assertions were false, and Defendants do not even attempt to argue that their statements about Dr. Mann were true. They have accused him of “academic and scientific misconduct,” “data manipulation,” “molesting and torturing data,” and “corruption and disgrace”—all the while gloating in a disgraceful comparison to Jerry Sandusky, a convicted child molester who worked at the same institution that employs Dr. Mann. And they made these statements knowing that Dr. Mann’s research has been reviewed repeatedly and replicated by other scientists, and that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated: no fraud: no misconduct; no molestation; no corruption. Importantly, Dr. Mann brought this lawsuit not to squelch public debate, but rather to protect himself against those who have recklessly accused him of fraud and misconduct.
Rather than defending the falsity of their words, because they cannot, Defendants attempt to hide behind the inapposite “opinion defense” and the unsupported position that accusations of fraud are an accepted part of political discourse and thus protected under the First Amendment. Defendants say that their words are “protected speech” because they are “pure opinion and hyperbole” and cannot be construed, by any reasonable reader, to be assertions of fact. Not so, and the U.S. Supreme Court has been clear on this opinion defense. …
Defendants also argue that they really did not intend to accuse Dr. Mann of fraud. They now claim that they were just engaging in hyperbole; and that, in any event, their readers (or at least their reasonable readers) did not construe their statements to be factual assertions of fraud, but rather to be legitimate criticism of Dr. Mann’s scientific conclusions. These arguments are not only factually unsupported, they are flatly contradicted by the evidence. Defendants’ own subsequent statements make it clear that they intended to—and did—accuse Dr. Mann of fraud. …
Defendants’ secondary challenge to this lawsuit is that it should be dismissed because Dr. Mann is not likely to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. … The allegations already of record without access to discovery demonstrate overwhelmingly that Defendants knew that there was no fraud, and, at the very least, proves that Defendants acted with a reckless disregard for the truth or a “deliberate effort to avoid the truth.” [emphasis added]
Scientific fraud?
In a scientific or professional context, ‘fraud’ is inferred to refer to research misconduct, which is characterized by falsification, fabrication and/or plagiarism. I don’t think that this is the case with regards to Mann’s hockey stick, and Steve McIntyre has said previously that he doesn’t think so either. The only one of the ‘inquiries’ which to my mind carries any weight at all in terms ‘exoneration’ of Mann is that conducted by the National Science Foundation, which did not find any evidence of scientific misconduct with respect to Mann’s NSF funded research.
Nevertheless, accusations of data cherry picking and flawed statistical analyses and interpretations seem to be justified. Steve McIntyre and Jean S are still on the case, see these recent posts:
Communicating the hockey stick to the public
Here is the general definition of fraud:
“Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.” (USlaw.com)
Mann’s intentional failure to disclose and efforts to hide the “dirty laundry” could be argued to be fraud. However, the arguments for ‘fraud’ are more convincing in context of the communication of the hockey stick to the public – the infamous ‘Mikes Nature trick’ to ‘hide the decline.’ Background on this issue is discussed at length in my previous post Hiding the Decline. I concluded:
There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.
It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that resulted in the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.
Additional history is provided in a recent post at Climate Audit The Original Hide the Decline.
The most serious issue for Mann’s case is mentioned briefly in Mann’s brief, as described in this post at Climateaudit [link]:
Mann’s brief: “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.”
McIntyre: 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.
For further details, Climate Audit has a post Inventory Hide the Decline.
JC reflections
Scientific misconduct or ‘fraud’ has been traditionally constrained to fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. However, current thinking on responsible conduct of research is beginning to address ethical issues regarding how scientists interface with society regarding their research. Some of my previous essays on this include:
- Responsible conduct in the global research enterprise
- (Ir)responsible advocacy by scientists
- Questions on research integrity and responsibility
The responsibility of appropriately communicating to the public is starkly realized in context of the arrest of Italian geophysicists with regards to their communication of earthquake risk [link] .
So, were the WMO/TAR representations of the hockey stick that hide the decline fraudulent, in the sense of “intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act.”? Was the misrepresentation merely a misguided attempt at simplification for the public? It is the issue advocacy of Mann that cements the motivation of ‘inducing the other person to act.‘
In this context, there is no need for Steyn et al. to ‘prove’ fraud in court; but merely to legitimize a public statement of ‘Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick‘ as not defamatory.
‘Fraud’ is generally a different beast than ‘scientific misconduct.’ Scientific misconduct is typically motivated by career advancement; fraud is motivated by inducing someone to act.
This situation may be the single most compelling reason for scientists not be issue advocates regarding their scientific research – efforts to induce other to act need to be very careful that they do not mislead the public.
I think Mann’s advocacy is a new angle in interpreting the issue of ‘fraud’; I look forward especially to the take on this from the lawyers among the denizens.
“Fraud” may be scientific, and whether Mann is guilty or not is really irrelevant to the case. However, “perjury” is a legal term that has landed many people in jail that were guilty of nothing else (See Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, etc.).
Mann is committing perjury by submitting documents to the court which are clearly false. Judges hate being lied to more than anything else. They see it as someone taking them for fools. Given Steven McIntyre’s well documented research on the briefs filed by Mann, he will be lucky to avoid jail time regardless of the outcome of his case.
“Mann is committing perjury by submitting documents to the court which are clearly false”
Mann has not submitted any documents to the court. His lawyers have submitted documents which they wrote and signed. None of this is sworn evidence.
An interesting legal perspective. Is a client responsible for his lawyer’s action? Is it OK to lie in documents submitted to the court?
Nick,
If the case goes to trial, it will be interesting to see if anyone is held responsible for materially false submissions to the court. While I suspect the DC judge will be happy to ignore the falsities (lots of ‘liberal’ policies are being actively defended by the judges in this case), I suspect a higher court may not be so inclined. Is a judge that chooses to ignore materially false submissions making a judicial error? Perhaps a lawyer could comment on this?
Nick, forget that mate; defamation is at heart an equitable remedy for untruthful slurs on your character. If your submission about the alleged defamation itself contains untruths then your basis of claim is defeated by the “clean hands ” doctrine: “He who comes into equity must come with clean hands”. Mann’s lawyers will not have made submissions to the court without Mann’s instructions and such submissions will have the imprimatur of an Affidavit.
Coho, I was responding to
“Mann is committing perjury by submitting documents to the court “
Do you think he is?
Nick,
From a law information site:
“This maxim bars relief for anyone guilty of improper conduct in the matter at hand. It operates to prevent any affirmative recovery for the person with “unclean hands,” no matter how unfairly the person’s adversary has treated him or her. The maxim is the basis of the clean hands doctrine. Its purpose is to protect the integrity of the court. It does not disapprove only of illegal acts but will deny relief for bad conduct that, as a matter of public policy, ought to be discouraged. A court will ask whether the bad conduct was intentional. This rule is not meant to punish carelessness or a mistake. It is possible that the wrongful conduct is not an act but a failure to act. For example, someone who hires an agent to represent him or her and then sits silently while the agent misleads another party in negotiations is as much responsible for the false statements as if he himself or she herself had made them.”
http://law.jrank.org/pages/8487/Maxim–He-who-comes-into-equity-must-come-with-clean-hands.html
Nick,
As officers of the court, lawyers have an absolute obligation to protect the court from false submissions. False submissions (if willful) can lead to disbarment. Someone should be held responsible.
SteveF,
I’ll take that as a no.
Nick,
“I’ll take that as a no.”
How the false information is treated will depend on how that false information got in. Sloppiness? Poor communication between Mann and his lawyers? Failure of Mann to verify the accuracy of the submissions? Willful misstatement? There is no way to determine that at present.
Nick Stokes | September 11, 2014 at 7:49 am | Reply
“Mann has not submitted any documents to the court. His lawyers have submitted documents which they wrote and signed.”
You forgot to say on his behalf.
This is asinine rubbish, Nick.
But of the first order.
A comment like this illuminates your bias beautifully.
Thank you.
Generally, In pleadings containing assertions of fact submitted by attorneys, the represented party is required to review and sign a sworn affidavit they have reviewed the motion and the facts contained therein are true and correct.
” the represented party is required to review and sign a sworn affidavit they have reviewed the motion and the facts contained therein are true and correct.”
So who signs for the NRO submission?
Most of the alleged misstatements are matters of public record. For example, whether this or that inquiry “exonerated” Mann. The findings are there, submitted to the court. Whether they are correctly described is a matter of judgement, which the lawyers (or judge/jury) can make without Mann’s contribution or testimony.
stevefitzpatrick,
Thank you for your comments and the information.
“As officers of the court, lawyers have an absolute obligation to protect the court from false submissions. False submissions (if willful) can lead to disbarment. Someone should be held responsible.”
Absolutely true, in theory. If anyone finds a jurisdiction that actually enforces the rules of conduct for attorneys in this fashion, let me know. I’ll move there tomorrow.
Nicky, do you think it would be a good idea for that cop’s attorneys in the Ferguson, MO shooting to submit results from 9 or 10 investigations of various police officers in various jurisdictions, who were exonerated in cases where they shot dead unarmed civilians, and claim that those official investigations exonerated their client? What is that called, nicky? Exoneration by association?
“do you think it would be a good idea”
I actually think it is perfectly reasonable for the attorneys to submit a collection of inquiries which do relate to accusations that have been made against Mann, and claim that they help their case. We’ll see what argument they can make. But my point is that this is argument about public documents. It’s not about testimony from Mann.
In fact, the case is about whether words published by NRO and CEI are defamatory and constitute libel. There’s no obvious reliance on testimony from Mann at all.
RE: “Most of the alleged misstatements are matters of public record. ”
Good one, Nick. What number/colour are you wearing? Just so I know who to cheer for as you come around the Clubhouse turn . . . .
“Good one, Nick. “
OK, which alleged misstatement of fact in the motions depends on information not available in public documents?
nicky, nicky
Go back and review the threads on Climateaudit, wherein Steve went over all this stuff and schooled your silly butt. Or would that be too painful.
“Go back and review”
Simple question there. No answer?
public documents.
strange argument.
There are public documents that support manns claim to a Nobel
( written mostly by him)
Nicks request: Find a misleading statement that is based on a document you dont have access to.
As if presenting misleading information to the court is justified by the fact that it is public.
hey judge 2+2=5. Here is a public document that says so, therefore I can put it before the court as true.
Do your own research, nicky.
I almost missed this racehorseism:
“do you think it would be a good idea”
I actually think it is perfectly reasonable for the attorneys to submit a collection of inquiries which do relate to accusations that have been made against Mann, and claim that they help their case.”
How are the inquiries related to accusations against mikey, nickey? Is it because the inquiries took place within mikey’s lifetime? On the same planet?
Steven,
“strange argument”
No, it’s very simple. The lawyers are responsible for writing the motions. They get the facts wherever they can. They are supposed to check. They may sometimes need to rely on the client, as potential witness, but here very little. It’s all public documents which they (and the court) can read as well as anyone. The inquiries are included and discussed entirely as a lawyer responsibility (and quite reasonably, in my view).
“There are public documents that support manns claim to a Nobel”
The entire matter is public. The lawyers cited a USA Today report. They wrote that interpretation (now toned down) based on public facts.
“The lawyers are responsible…”
So, to be clear, you don’t believe Mann to have any responsibility to ensure the accuracy of documents filed, on his behalf, with the court. Is that correct?
perjury issues aside, if Professor Michael Mann allows inaccurate legal filings with any court, on his behalf … if he permits blatant inaccuracies on matters for which he should be a leading authority, then he is more incompetent than I had imagined….
“yes, it IS …. worse than we thought”
Not that easy nick. They cannot merely claim they didn’t mislead because they cite public documents.
But we will see. Judges decide not you. Not me.
Looking at Manns cv would you amend the filing?
Would you argue that he had nothing to do with the graph?
“Not that easy nick. They cannot merely claim they didn’t mislead because they cite public documents.”
My point is that the lawyers were working from public documents. It seems to me they had very little input from Mann. I think that is unwise. I don’t agree with most of the claims of misleading, but they clearly did stuff up badly in the original claim of Mann’s contribution to the science. That’s just a lawyer getting it wrong.
“Judges decide not you. Not me.”
If it goes to trial, it will be a jury that decides. And the motions will not be part of the evidence.
“Looking at Manns cv would you amend the filing?”
The filing says:
“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.”
It seems that is true; Phil Jones created the depiction. The WMO report has an attribution saying:
” (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).”
That seems to be the basis for the claim in Mann’s CV. WMO didn’t say Mann created the depiction.
Nick Stokes wrote
“It seems that is true; Phil Jones created the depiction. The WMO report has an attribution saying…”
Phil Jones informed Mann of what he was going to do, asked for any pointers, got approval from Mann. To say Mann didn’t create the depiction is to not say that Mann did have a hand in the creation of the depiction; he oversaw it.
Although Mann had direct knowledge of the hide and graft, he puffed up and denied knowing of any person in the field who had ever done such a thing, and took a broadside at fossil fuel funded disinformation spreaders.
Mikey is just rich. A wonder of nature.
“got approval from Mann”
Do you have a link for that?
The lawyers are his agents. As such, any false statements are in his name. So they are his. It is his responsibility to ensure authenticity. He can later sue his lawyers for malpractice if the mistake is theirs, but that is a separate case.
In addition, the submissions ARE sworn testimony. If they are determined to be intentionally false, that is the same as perjury. Mann cannot weasel out of this one. His signature is on them.
“In addition, the submissions ARE sworn testimony. If they are determined to be intentionally false, that is the same as perjury. Mann cannot weasel out of this one. His signature is on them.”
You’re just wrong there. They aren’t sworn testimony (where’s the jury? Who swore?) and his signature isn’t on them.
You’re mixing up the roles of a litigant and a witness. Did NRO swear to it’s motion? Who?
No, they are the same as an “affidavit” which is evidence, sworn to be accurate with the signature of the litigant. And why are you interjecting a Jury in this? Perjury is merely intentionally conveying false evidence to the COURT. It can be before the trial begins or during the trial. There is no mention of a “jury” in perjury (both may have the same root, but are hardly interchangeable).
MANN is suing the defendants. The lawyers are his AGENTS. They are not suing them. They have no case. So what they submit, is HIS testimony. And if proven false, even in a civil case, he is liable for perjury. If they ran around Mann and submitted false documents, he can later sue them for malpractice, but that is a separate case and not germane to the EVIDENCE submitted.
You are clueless, nicky. Judges decide whether they have been fooled or not. They also decide what get’s to be allowed in evidence that is presented to juries. The jury doesn’t decide on the motions, nicky. The judge controls the case, until it is handed to a jury for a decision. The decision of the jury is largely the result of decisions made by the trial judge. Don’t they have Perry Mason down there in Oz, nicky?
What public documents are mikey’s lawyers working from, nicky? The BS they find on SkS?
Whether a lawyer can commit perjury in your behalf – who cares?
Mann’s lawyers can certainly make a mistake that results in a judgement for the defendants. Unclean hands results in a judgement for the defendants. That’s far better than losing on the merits as far as Mann’s reputation. Be thankful for that Nick.
The only question to be answered is about free speech.
Is Mark Steyn’s speech protected by the First Amendment?
yes or no?
I’ve read the US Constitution so as a US citizen I say yes.
Doesn’t Mikie need to show how he was damaged?
I believe that’s why Gleick didn’t get sued.
His bad behavior helped increase skeptic’s cash flow so there was no damage to recover.
The rules of civil procedure for DC (based, apparently, on the same rule in the Federal courts), clearly makes the lawyers responsible for the pleadings that they file. See Rule 11 “Signing of Pleadings … Representations to Court; Sanctions” at: http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/Civil-Rules-Jan-2012.pdf
If Mann has submitted an affirmative affidavit (as suggested by Texas95 may sometimes occur) then he would be on the hook for any false factual claims for which he was responsible, if such affidavit is filed with the court. Such affidavits, however, do not appear specifically to be required: Rule 11(a) “…Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. […]”
The obligation with respect to factual contentions is as follows:
“11 (b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other filing, including an electronic filing, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, […]
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.”
On the narrow point of direct responsibility for the pleadings, absent a supporting affidavit from Mann which includes untrue statements (and otherwise falls afoul of the exceptions in 11(b), and subsection 3 and 4 of the rules), the law firm is on the hook for the pleadings, not Mann (though, the lawyers may be very unhappy with their client).
There is a process for correcting pleadings and sanctions do not bite until after that process is completed. Rule 11(c) reads:
“(c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.”
(1) How Initiated.
(A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. […]”
Note that the sanctions on “parties” appear to bite only when the party is representing himself or herself.
At this point in time, notwithstanding Nick’s speculative attempt to infer that the pleadings are drafted almost solely by the lawyers (comment on 11 Sept at 6:36) without reference to Mann (because Nick believes that much of the information is based on public documents), we do not have sufficient information on the process at work to arrive at such a conclusion. My experience (largely Canada and the UK; some experience with American pleadings as an off-shoot of work on a large international fraud case), is that lawyers always review the pleadings in detail with the clients. This is particularly true where factual claims about the client (and matters such as his role/involvement in certain matters) are being made. Such an approach is good practice and a law firm takes a great risk if they haven’t confirmed such information with the client in detail. Identification of the various inquiries which are claimed to have “exonerated” Mann (even though most such inquiries did not actually review his work), were likely identified initially by Mann to the lawyers. The content of the pleadings would then have been reviewed with him – in other words, he would have been asked by the lawyers to confirm that their interpretation was correct. While local practice may vary (and there may be nuances which have developed in the application of these rules of which I’m not aware), it’s would be a very brave or foolish lawyer who files principal documents in a case without a close and detailed review with the client.
“Most of the alleged misstatements are matters of public record.”
In effect Nick is making the same argument that Mann is making.
Mann is saying that “somewhere, in the corpus of human knowledge, there exists a statement disclosing the divergence. Therefore I (Mann) could not have mislead anyone, because the divergence has been disclosed making it obvious that I needed spliced the instrument record onto the proxy record.”
Nick is saying that Mann’s claim of being a Nobel Prize winner is not misleading because the Nobel committee provides a public record of all Nobel Prize winners and Mann’s absence on that list is clear and ample disclosure rendering Mann’s statement non-misleading.
I’m wondering how I might teach Nick’s rule to my kids. “Listen Bobby, you don’t ever need to worry about telling a lie. Just say what ever you want. Its the other persons responsibility to Google it”.
You may well be right Phil, but I have the possibly erroneous impression that Mann ( and/ or his lawyers ) are trying all they can to prevent any discussion in court of his actual scientific work. Will they be successful in this endeavor? I hope not because that is what is of great interest to all of us whilst narrow definitions of “fraud” have no real impact here in the real world.
Their stance ( Mann et al ) is quite puzzling as they claim repeatedly that Mann has been exonerated in many fora. If that is true, and I am not convinced of that, then why not nail this issue once and for all?
I think you are correct on Mann’s intentions. But as he has introduced the false testimony, Steyn’s crew is then free to pick it apart. If Mann had not introduced the false statements, they could argue it is off limits.
It is similar to when a defendant testifies that he is an outstanding citizen. It is at that time that past transgressions can be introduced as evidence to refute his testimony, whereas if he never says a word, that evidence is not admissible.
Jail time? This is not a criminal case.
What are the chances Mann won’t perjure himself.
Nobel laureate…
You mean Richard Tol? Likely not called
Tol seems well credentialed Eli; better than 97% of climate scientists I’d say.
This issue of whether Mann’s lawyers have made submissions containing errors of fact is something, as I said above, which can mitigate their probative value. The submissions appear to contain contradictions as JC has listed in the introduction to do with the 1999 and 2001 diagrams.
If Mann has in his own evidence detail which shows such inconsistency then they may tend to support the claim of fraud made against him. After all it is his character in issue here and whether there was truth in the comments made by Steyn. If his own submissions appear slippery than that has to reflect on him and undermine any claim he may make.
You did see his claim of the Nobel?
Richard Tol, “Nobel Peace Prize 2007 (together with Albert A. Gore Jr and some 5,000 IPCC members)”
Michael Mann’s complaint “It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.”
Which might have a sense of humor?
Eli, I think Tol was taking the piss; I’ve never seen a sign of a sense of humour from Mann; in fact apart from you and Nick I can’t think of anyone pro-AGW who is funny.
Perjury is a crime. Bill Clinton was not charged with a crime – until he committed perjury. It was a civil case where he committed perjury (that he actually won).
wagathon
It most certainly is.
Mann appears not to know the meaning of the word ‘validated’
Either Mann lied to the Court or he lied on his CV. Academics may think the former is a more serious lie.
So did Ed Wegman commit perjury when he claimed he duplicated McIntyre and McKitrick when he merely copied them?
It is interesting to note Eli Rabett is a schtick this guys plays, intentionally acting a buffoon and fool. It is interesting because it is incredibly obvious to anyone who looks into this issue Edward Wegman did not mere copy M&M’s results. One could easily suspect Rabett knows fully well what he said is false, but he happily said it to imply Wegman is a felon.
Which is at least as libelous as what Mark Steyn said about Michael Mann.
It’s interesting to note Eli Rabett is a schtick the user has admitted to putting on where he pretends to be a buffoon. It is interesting because anyone who has spent any time studying this issue should know Edward Wegman did not merely copy McIntyre and McKitrick’s work.
One could reasonably suspect Rabett knew this but intentionally pretended not to in order to imply Wegman committed a felony. A false accusation like that is at least as libelous as what Mark Steyn said about Michael Mann.
(Not that Wegman even claimed what Rabett says he claimed.)
More money will go into the legal battles than went into climate change research! The “Good Wife” legal profession is the BIG winner here. This is a gold mine for them! And what will be the final result? Nothing but new Mercedes for the lawyers.
More than to climate research, you say?
Are you aware that climate research in the US is publicly funded at a rate that 80% higher than what the NIH hands out to medical research every year?
Said in passing, talk about misallocation of funds.
The NIH budget is $30 Bn/yr. Last I looked into it, the (somewhat overstated) estimates of the climate science budget is $2 Bn/yr by comparison.
But that is mostly due to puffing it up: half of that is the NASA earth observation budget, which in my opinion ought to be greatly increased. Half the remainder goes to various climate impacts (hydrology, agriculture, wildlife management) and would exist independent of anthropogenic climate change.
Climate science as such, equipment, institutional overhead, lab expenses, supercomputer fees, and all, gets by on roughly a half billion. Given that the entire value of everything at stake, this is arguably inadequate, even if it is spent well.
Claims that climate science is funded comparably to medical research are baloney, putting it printably.
I do not know if “more” will go in, but you are definitely correct that the winners will be the lawyers.
I hope the emails are admissible.
Good to see you wandering around the globe and contributing. You could make some interesting contributions on this subject.
Hi Peter.
Of course they are. Mann has already sworn under oath
That they are real.
Mosh
As in due course I hope my own reconstructions will stretch back to the 11 Century I have looked at Mann’s work more than most, and also that of other researchers.
I would say he has a very high opinion of himself that no doubt came about when the IPCC promoted him to a star turn very early in his career. He also has a touching belief in the value of novel proxies such as Tree rings and bore holes as that has helped him to cement his status
This over confidence in you abilities seems to be a somewhat American trait (but not exclusively so) This belief in certain branches of science as the means to accurately reconstruct global temperatures seems to be a by product of the need to promote yourself, defend the methods you use and to some extent how much you WANT to believe in what you have created i.e being an advocate
In my opinion certain novel proxies such as tree rings are a hugely over promoted branch of science. They have a use, but not to the extent they have been used.
After looking at his work in considerable detail I would say he is a mediocre but not a bad researcher. I think Phil Jones for all his faults is much better.
So, is Mann fraudulently promoting the science, the hockey stick and his own place in the world? Not from his perspective where be genuinely believes himself to be a leading figure using state of the art science.
So on the count of fraud-as I understand the term-I don’t think he is guilty.
He uses mediocre data and mediocre skills and shouts a lot to make his case but as I have come to learn over the last ten years there are many in climate science doing that and as such that is not a crime.
As for the other wider implications of trying to close down the argument and stifling free speech, that issue has got so bound up in legalese that I can’t really judge if that is his intention.
tonyb
Tony B surely you are not suggesting that Americans are brash? :)
Tonyb,
you might find this email of interest, because in a debate about any possible “Medieval Warm Period” Michael Mann trashed the distinguished scientist Wally Broecker 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 article. Usually “disinformation” is considered much worse than “misinformation” because it is by definition intentional rather than accidental. 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]
Peter
I was practising my diplomatic skills.
The truth is that a young scientists work was way over promoted and he decided to seize the moment and has ridden to the back of international acclaim on the back of a piece of research that needed much more work on it before it was released. The Americans often have ‘chutzpah’ in spades and Mann seems an over confident type anyway. It all went to his head and its very difficult to climb down from international stardom.
I do think he should have been called out much earlier in his career by other scientists.
Unlike many sceptics I certainly don’t have a visceral hatred of Mann I just think that he and his brand of science are way over promoted.
tonyb
skiphil
I think what you see in that email is all of a piece with what I have just said to Peter.
Someone else might have been more circumspect especially if early on other scientists had questioned his methodology and end results more vigorously.
He’s an international superstar (in climate land) and with a huge belief in his own science and abilities and ‘owner’ of the single most important climate science icon in the word-the hockey stick-his sense of self belief is only going to be reinforced by any ‘attacks’ on him.
tonyb
tonyb et al
From a retired U.S. High School Teacher
Mann in particular is antithetical to everything I taught. And, as a mentor what I encouraged to be taught. I believe that scientists are servants to humanity, and the more the gifts one receives, the greater should be the integrity of the servitude.
Briffa, Crowley, and the whole gang all appear to be self serving.
Too much, too soon is the worst thing that could have happened to Mann.
I find him to be an egotistical boy.
If the gang would really have been scientists at heart, they would have ran toward McIntyre or another accomplished statistician, instead of circling the wagons and hiding.
They were not serving others, only themselves and their ideologue.
Then again, I am from an older generation and I do no like some of the changes I see, while at the same time I appreciate our host. .
Wow. Pretty damning.
I think it is pretty clear that Steyn was using the general definition of fraud and was not alleging fabrication.
It’s a travesty that Mann will likely not face jail time or fines because politics.
Yes, it is clear that Steyn was not attempting an evaluation of the primary research in MBH.
The filter will be busy with this one!
Re-post, minus offending words.
Judith,
Hard to reconcile that with this;
“Michael Mann was the man behind the fr@udulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph” – Steyn.
If that was insuffiently clear, he later backed up with this;
“Michael E Mann: Liar, Cheat, Falsifier and Fr@ud”
But keep circling those wagons.
The filter will be busy with this one!
Re-post x 2 (it’s all Mark Steyns fault), minus offending words.
Judith,
Hard to reconcile that with this;
“Michael Mann was the man behind the fr@udulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph” – Steyn.
If that was insuffiently clear, he later backed up with this;
“Michael E Mann: Li@r, Che@t, F@lsifier and Fr@ud”
But keep circling those wagons.
In the political, public figure, space this is routine. Mann is a political activist first and the whole issue of the science professional (gag, spit-up-throat) is secondary to non-existent.
Regardless of the legalism, it looks like the usual totalitarian inclinations found everywhere in the modern democratic left;
http://deadline.com/2014/09/saturday-night-live-illegal-campaign-finance-reform-ted-cruz-constitutional-amendment-832330/#respond
Michael, you’re close to zombie status if you don’t realize the evil of Mann’s intentions. It’s about people in political power with aspirations limiting the dissent of the press, feeble and in the same pocket most of the time as it is. It’s also a great reflection of the cultural self-pity and desire to replace themselves as “cross-bearers” and victims. I have no doubt Michael Mann has been so deluded by the “cause” for so long he actually believes it himself, as for the rest of the world it should come to it’s senses. The suit is a joke coming from a little greenshirt twit, nothing more.
Even if you find an ideological judge or two along the way in the long run it’s likely to fail because it’s your political culture that is completely dependent on bombast, hyperbole and frankly name calling. Can you imagine Koch brothers responding in kind if they so inclined and had the same degrees of thin skinned pettiness that Mann is demonstrating and his somewhat ignorant supporting base? You would be the first to be singing a different tune if “shill for big oil” was forced out of the media lexicon by use of the legal system. This is all likely nonsense to a degree Mark Steyn’s expense but you should think about the sort of world where left-wing arbitrators of speech would have the world go. Climate science and “consensus” were certainly the canary-in-the-coal mine on that point. Just as the idiotic “Citizens United” whining or “Fairness Doctrine” indicate as well. Climate dissent is a thought crime in modern leftist politics, so much so Dr. Curry can’t even formally identify it’s political ID directly. Only through allusions and indirectly, how sad is that? That’s the sort of overbearing political correctness you are endorsing by supporting Mann’s claim.
I said “likely to fail” as I have shelves of books detailing how Republics and great states fail. I certainly don’t underestimate the social decline Michael Mann and his ilk (including you) represent. Climate science is exactly indicative of intellectual decline, cronyism, authoritarianism found in declining Western civilization. So is the loss of free speech, it’s hardly a surprise about who is lining up on this board in support of Mann’s efforts. So while Steyn might be victimized further the rest of us witness the abuse and culture supporting it. In the end tyranny will fall into itself and Mann will have his place among the tyrants so listed. You’ve cast your lot Michael.
“evil…intentions”
Hmmmm.
Maybe you need a nice new tin-foil hat?
The AGW meme was invented with tin hats Michael.
How about a few “big oil” rants while you’re at it? Tell us all you know about the Koch brothers?
Suppressing speech, dissent by lawsuit/consensus/politically correct coercion is “evil”. No problem standing on that ground Michael.
The lawsuit is legal thuggery from a greenshirt activist, nothing more.
“Maybe you need a nice new tin-foil hat?”
…to deflect the Global Warming all around us!
Oh the HuMannity!
Andrew
Yep. The back-radiation from all that ACO2 is becoming unbearable. I may opt for a space blanket instead of the tin foil hat, tho.
That’s typical Michael. Telling the Indians to circle the wagons.
cwon14 | September 11, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
“Suppressing speech, dissent by lawsuit/consensus/politically correct coercion is “evil”. No problem standing on that ground Michael.”
That’s a ground that exists almost entirely in your imagination
Michael,
As part of the same sentence regarding the hockey stick, did he not also say he was “master of the tree-ring circus”? That kind of gives it away that he is being sarcastic and thinks the work is crap. You know, like satirists do for a living …….
Michael said: “evil…intentions”
Hmmmm. Maybe you need a nice new tin-foil hat?
So Michael, can we conclude that you are saying that Mann is incompetent? Because intentional deception and incompetence are the only two possibilities here. Me, I lean toward the “incompetent and unaware of his own incompetence” explanation as best fitting all the facts.
Bill,
There is a great yawning chasm betwen saying that someone has done low quality work and saying that they are ” the man behind…..fr@ud”.
But I’m sure you know that.
Michael, In a satirical piece you have to read between the lines and with anything you should read it in context. Not pick out part of one word as you did with fraud.
There is not much difference at all, however, in saying “I think his methods were poor and I think the hockey stick is crap” and “he molested the data and I think the hockey stick is fraudulent”. Fraudulent in political discourse can mean fake or incorrect. He did not say “I think he deliberately intended scientific fraud”. ALthough, if he had, he could at least point to the fact that in the IPCC report, Mann did not explain in footnotes to the graph that part of it was truncated and other data spliced in some fashion.
What an interesting range of scrambling ‘explanations’ we have for Steyn’s stupidity.
Now it’s “satire”.
Where is the satire in “the man behind the fraudulent…graph”???
Yes, it is clear that Steyn was not attempting an evaluation of the primary research in MBH. – JC
Before the lawsuit, you would have been heehawed out of there for saying that.
@ Michael on 9/11 at 7:22 PM: “That’s a ground that exists almost entirely in your imagination.”
Tell it to Lennart Bengtsson and Tim Ball . . .
Potter,
What’s up with Lennie??
curryja | Yes, it is clear that Steyn was not attempting an evaluation of the primary research in MBH.
Michael | Hard to reconcile that with this;
“Michael Mann was the man behind the fr@udulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph”
“Michael E Mann: Liar, Cheat, Falsifier and Fr@ud”
But keep circling those wagons
—–
That the hockey stick was a fraud is known to all interested parties by now. You don’t need to be attempting an evaluation of research to mention this.
The only circling of wagons here, is around Mann (and the Consensus).
Michael, That’s the thing about language, particularly the English language, it is fun to play with and to create imagery. I thought his “man behind” comment might actually be a reference to the Wizard of Oz, as in “pay no attention to the Mann behind the curtain”, especially as he followed it with “the very master of the tree ring circus”. [Take my quotes with a grain of salt as I am too lazy to look up the exact words]. The point is NOT that he did not intend to say something derogatory, as he obviously did. The point is that one is allowed wide discretion in one’s choice of words and rightly so. Else we could all sue each other from what we sometimes say on this blog.
Dr. Curry,
I have no knowledge as to what Steyn meant specifically by his writing, but I’d like to throw out a possible interpretation that doesn’t require any fraud by Mann at all.
“Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph”
— one possible way to view this is as an indictment of the IPCC or the alarmist scientific community or the political forces who have used it. Without necessarily saying that Mann did anything wrong, the statement can be read as saying that the graph’s use — as a political weapon for global warming alarmists — has been fraudulent.
Stated differently — “fraudulent” is an adjective modifying climate-change rather than graph.
Now I’m not saying this was his intent or even that it is the most logical construction of the statement. I’m merely suggesting that it is a logical construction and one that has a number of advantages for Steyn.
Tuppence | September 13, 2014 at 4:46 am |
“That the hockey stick was a fraud is known to all interested parties by now. ”
Right, so no analysis.
Just consensus, recieved wisdom, an artice of faith.
OK then.
Here is the analysis for you, mikey:
https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/author/bshollenberger/
“the man behind the hockey stick fraud”
Isn’t a graph that sort of bears the shape of a hockey stick, but isn’t actually used to play hockey, a fraudulent hockey stick by definition?
Anti Slap Laws? Ref Thurber The Overt Act.
https://beththeserf.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/1-2.jpg
That’s the great war between men and women, an extremely amusing series.
The capture of three physicists was my favorite.
The war between men and women was called off as there was too much fraternizing with the enemy
When it’s written like that, it seems to me (a layman) like a pretty persuasive case of fraud.
Peter, the court will look to the legal meaning of fraudulent, because that is what Mann’s complaint uses. CEI cited to the court that WMO 99 was misleading in two ways. WMO is one of two UN sponsors of IPCC, and the equivalent IPCC 2001 was clearly intended to persuade actions on the part of the worlds governments. Definitional test meant.
Mann’s official court reply is that he was not responsible for WMO99, expressly deemed misleading. That is false, proven both by the WMO99 page two box on the chart, wherein Mann is specifically credited, and the fact he claims it on his current CV. The arguement that he did not know about the two misleading ‘tricks’ is refuted by both CG1 and CG2 emails.
It should be easy for Steyn’s lawyers to justify his label in both the colloquial and the legal senses of the characterization.
Rud Istvan,
Thank you. That’s interesting. It seems such a shut case, yet GaryM said recently he thinks Mannn will get away with it because his backers have much more money to defend him than the those claiming he was fraudulent.
By the way, i admit I haven’t followed this closely.
Peter, regards. Many don’t. Some do. I am one. And I am also a licensed but non-practicing lawyer.
By some sneaky suspicion, you might suppose Steyn’s very good noes lawyers are aware of all this. Mind you, just a ‘wink, nod’ hunch on my part.
Rud,
“…the court will look to the legal meaning of fraudulent, because that is what Mann’s complaint uses.”
Do you know for a fact that this is true? I ask only because I have posed the question several times without getting a response.
It is a crucial point. Mann’s lawyers are seeking the narrowest possible definition of the word “fraudulent”, for obvious reasons – it sets the highest hurdle for the defense. The defense, on the other hand, seek a broad definition; they argue that to describe a graph as “fraudulent” in the context of a journalistic commentary is the same as describing it as bogus or based on shoddy science.
As far as I can tell there is no existing definition of “scientific fraud” which is applicable in the DC Court. There is however a definition of “fraud” and there are sundry definitions of “scientific misconduct”, any of which might be adopted by the DC court. The problem is that while any (scientific) fraud falls within the definition(s) of scientific misconduct, the converse is not true. It is much easier to show, for example, that Mann hid adverse results and was guilty of cherry-picking data, than it is to show that he committed fraud by doing so.
If you know for certain whether the court is obliged to place a certain construction on the term “fraudulent hockey-stick graph”, then I would be really interested in your view.
Paul
I only hope the appeals court sees the case for what it is….. a SLAPP.
Of course, given the political leanings of the DC judges, I give Mann about a 70% chance of being able to continue to trial, where he will likely convince a very liberal DC jury to punish those who holds political views they disagree with. Considering Sullivan and the makeup of the Supreme Court, Steyn et al will likely win on appeal at some point, but the SLAPP strategy will already have been a success, since Steyn et al will have spent millions on defense. This is why anti-SLAPP laws have been passed.
Sadly, what you say here stevefitpatrick is a very likely outcome.
Justice will be in a different courtroom that day.
If the jury pool is that tainted, then Steyn has the right to request a judge rule in the case. it is up to the defendant to decide if it is a jury trial or not.
philjourdan on September 12, 2014 at 7:14 am
“If the jury pool is that tainted”
The pool of political hack justices is no less in the DC circuit. What’s happened in academics, media has certainly happened in judicial appointments. Mann and his supporters are only looking for symbolic “victory” that the tactic of silencing dissent is affirmed. Longer term or better short it gets thrown out as the essential dispute is political in nature.
I would revert the question. How can you explain hiding the decline has not the intention to deceive? Plain stupidity? Highly implausible. And, a “simplification” (to the public) may not change the implications.
Yeah, if it comes to questioning over that Mann surely has to either admit to being stupid (or possible shades thereof) or deceitful.
Pingback: Mann versus reality | Scottish Sceptic
Scientific and legal definitions of the term “fraud” are not relevant here. Whether or not the phrase “fraudulent Hockey Stick” is defamatory is evaluated within the context of it’s use, Steyn’s and CEI’s articles. What matters is what a reasonable reader would understand when reading the articles.
WJR, ” What matters is what a reasonable reader would understand when reading the articles.”
Defining “reasonable” could take a while. Based on a recent post or two, “reading” seems optional as well.
Defining “reasonable” could take a while.
If the court’s definition of “reasonable” is in line with the generation that has just left school, then the definition is “green”. Case over.
I believe “reasonable” is a fairly well defined term in legal proceedings.
timg56 “I believe “reasonable” is a fairly well defined term in legal proceedings.”
Which is why juries are often demanded.
The Verdict of the Court of Scientific Opinion Mann has won … because multiple independent studies have affirmed the reality of a climate-change “hockey-stick blade” that is well-grounded in thermodynamics and transport theory, in the paleo record, in the historical record, and in the satellite data record
The Verdict of the Court of Public Opinion Mann has won … because the rhetoric of the Competitive Enterprise Institute/Mark Steyn is publicly appreciated as being so egregiously juvenile and ignorant as to be severely harmful to the cause of rational conservative discourse.
The Verdict of the Court of Law To date, Mann is winning … with the overall scientific-public-legal verdict yet to be rendered.
Conclusion By every measure that matters to the public in the long run, Michael Mann’s climate-change worldview has *ALREADY* won, and bids fair to *CONTINUE* to win.
That’s obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
Thanks for leaving 3 non partisan, balanced, impartial links.
You wish!
if FOMT were not a delusional clown he would not dare to say “Mann has won” before the outcome of the present legal issues…. I won’t try to predict that outcome, but there are reams of material now documents falsities in the submissions of Mann and lawyers to the court.
IF the courts find against Mann on these matters then he has most assuredly not “won”….
Thus, FOMT as usual spouts his bizarre brand of ranting propaganda rather than any helpful analysis.
Trees record the growing conditions for trees. Could be temperature, humidity, rain, sunlight, or fertilizer. Joining a chart of “tree growth criteria” to an instrumental temperature one makes no sense whatsoever.
In the court of my opinion, Mann and the whole field of climate science have lost big time! If they’re not going to call out all the indefensible crap in “The Hockey Stick Illusion” or even debate in public, I”ll take anything they have to say with a huge grain of salt.
McShane and Wyner 2010 refutes your assertion.
I forgot to add McShane and Wyner was able to replicate Mann’s results, along with all the red noise becoming hockey sticks
Fan– a question for you
Because the results of the determination of temp records by proxy methods is probably quite important in determining worldwide actions, do you believe the scientists involved should take care to be as accurate as possible in determining their results?
FOMD is right.
The court of scientific opinion is indeed backing the hockey stick fraud.
“‘Fraud’ is generally a different beast than ‘scientific misconduct.’ Scientific misconduct is typically motivated by career advancement; fraud is motivated by inducing someone to act.
This situation may be the single most compelling reason for scientists not be issue advocates regarding their scientific research – efforts to induce other to act need to be very careful that they do not mislead the public.” – JC
My, that’s some desperate, and not at all convincing, attempts to re-define fr@ud.
But I think we can at least take it as a tacit acceptance that if the court takes Steyn’s comments as alleging scientific fr@ud (ie. just as he intended), then Mr Steyn is in deep do-do.
Highly doubtful. While nobody can actually derive “intent” from actions, a reasonable observer who was familiar with journalistic advocacy would almost certainly see it as metaphorical, pointed towards the “public policy advice context” context. Not the “scientific” context.
Of course, given the source of the above blockquote, we can see a clear intent to confuse the two contexts.
AK
What if the judge were FOMD? There’s a horror for you.
It’s not nice to fool…
Courts today are easy if you can afford the talent. It is to be the judge who one day, will remember your yesterday just like tomorrow. He won’t be played. Now, lets get back to Perry Mason.
notice that you said
“scientific fraud”
why the qualifier?
simple: because the meaning of the term fraud is not precise.
Consistent with other rulings on free speech the court should give wide latitude to the speaker.
In any case I have always advised people against using the word fraud
as it implies some knowledge of intention.
call it wrong, call it misleading, call it trickery, call it shady,
Steyn used the fraud word. People will now debate the meaning. which means of course that steyn couldnt have meant something precise, because the meaning is not under his control
“Consistent with other rulings on free speech the court should give wide latitude to the speaker.”
Generally yes, but if the speaker’s use of the term fraud is likely to damage the reputation of someone, the speaker needs to be able to defend the claim as accurate. How does the defendent show intent to mislead?
scientific fr@ud as opposed to financial fraud, given we have some lame sophistry at work trying to ague that maybe Steyn wasn’t referring to Mann’s professional activities, which is science.
Steyn was referring to the hockey stick.
Filter striks again! – any time you quote Mark Steyn!!
curryja | September 11, 2014 at 11:17 am |
“Steyn was referring to the hockey stick.”
Really??
“Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph” – Steyn.
“Michael E Mann: Li@r, Che@t, Falsifier and Fraud” – Steyn
Michael it’s clear we disagree on what steps meant
By fraud. It’s clear from previous rulings that
The court should give wide latitude to the speaker
And interpret his words in his best light.
What would a reasonable reader infer. As a reasonable reader and critic of many I infer that steyn
Was not speaking specifically of scientific fraud.
Will a court and jury find the same?
Good question
Manns letter about Mcintyre will be instructive to a jury.
Micheal –
==> ““Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph” – Steyn.”
I think he only meant that at one meeting, Mann was standing behind a poster of the graph.
Joshua,
Duh!!
Michael:
Your first Steyn quote is part of the lawsuit. You will notice the quote is calling his hockey stick graph fraudulent – and not calling Mann a fraud. These are two very different things.
Your second Steyn quote is not part of the lawsuit. It was made after the lawsuit was filed and is not part of the complaint. As far as I know, the complaint has not been amended to add in the second Steyn quote as part of the defamation count.
Rick,
Which bit of “…the man behind…” is not clear to you?
There surely isn’t a person alive who doubts that Mann’s intention is to mislead, is there?
Doesn’t mean alarmist wagon-circlers don’t SAY they disagree, of course.
Tuppence | September 13, 2014 at 4:59 am |
“There surely isn’t a person alive who doubts that Mann’s intention is to mislead, is there? ”
There! – you’d be hard pressed to find a neater example that encapsulates much of climate-‘skepticism’.
Actually, all that demonstrates is your bigotry.
No Michael, even truebelievers don’t believe the hockey stick – not even precommitted alarmist activists like the IPCC, who removed it from former prominence.
Only those wedded to the CAGW political cause regardless of the facts, SAY they believe it. Like you.
In the political, public figure, space this is routine. Mann is a political activist first and the whole issue of the science professional (gag, spit-up-throat) is secondary to non-existent.
Regardless of the legalism, it looks like the usual totalitarian inclinations found everywhere in the modern democratic left;
http://deadline.com/2014/09/saturday-night-live-illegal-campaign-finance-reform-ted-cruz-constitutional-amendment-832330/#respond
Michael, you’re close to zombie status if you don’t realize the evil of Mann’s intentions. It’s about people in political power with aspirations limiting the dissent of the press, feeble and in the same pocket most of the time as it is. It’s also a great reflection of the cultural self-pity and desire to replace themselves as “cross-bearers” and victims. I have no doubt Michael Mann has been so deluded by the “cause” for so long he actually believes it himself, as for the rest of the world it should come to it’s senses. The suit is a joke coming from a little greenshirt twit, nothing more.
Even if you find an ideological judge or two along the way in the long run it’s likely to fail because it’s your political culture that is completely dependent on bombast, hyperbole and frankly name calling. Can you imagine Koch brothers responding in kind if they so inclined and had the same degrees of thin skinned pettiness that Mann is demonstrating and his somewhat ignorant supporting base? You would be the first to be singing a different tune if “shill for big oil” was forced out of the media lexicon by use of the legal system. This is all likely nonsense to a degree Mark Steyn’s expense but you should think about the sort of world where left-wing arbitrators of speech would have the world go. Climate science and “consensus” were certainly the canary-in-the-coal mine on that point. Just as the idiotic “Citizens United” whining or “Fairness Doctrine” indicate as well. Climate dissent is a thought crime in modern leftist politics, so much so Dr. Curry can’t even formally identify it’s political ID directly. Only through allusions and indirectly, how sad is that? That’s the sort of overbearing political correctness you are endorsing by supporting Mann’s claim.
I said “likely to fail” as I have shelves of books detailing how Republics and great states fail. I certainly don’t underestimate the social decline Michael Mann and his ilk (including you) represent. Climate science is exactly indicative of intellectual decline, cronyism, authoritarianism found in declining Western civilization. So is the loss of free speech, it’s hardly a surprise about who is lining up on this board in support of Mann’s efforts. So while Steyn might be victimized further the rest of us witness the abuse and culture supporting it. In the end tyranny will fall into itself and Mann will have his place among the tyrants so listed. You’ve cast your lot Michael.
IANL, but as I understand what has been said by some lawyers about defamation law, it is Mann who has to prove “actual malice” (assuming he is a “public figure” which even he has acknowledged to be the case).
Thus, Mann’s team has to prove that Steyn, CEI, NR each “knew” that a general journalistic allegation of “fraud” as untruthfulness was false.
It is a very very high hurdle for Mann’s side to clear. Ethically, Mann has no case. Legally, I don’t see that Mann can do it, but ofc IANAL.
People who lie all the time are frauds. Mann lies all the time. Mann is a fraud.
Michael said “Which bit of “…the man behind…” is not clear to you?”
That part is clear to me.
Steyn is saying that Michael Mann made a fraudulent graph.
It is the graph which is fraudulent, in Steyn’s statement – not the Mann.
If you call a person a fraud you imply that everything they do or say (or write) is fraudulent. If you call one act (the graph) by a person fraudulent you are rather limiting your accusation of fraudulent to the specific item listed.
You attempt to conflate the fraudulent graph with Mann is a fraud is mistaken.
Calling someone a fraud could well be defamation. However, calling someone’s graph fraudulent (and providing numerous reasons to back up that opinion as truth) is merely opinion and protected by the first amendment.
The tactic of turning Steyn’s statement from merely opinion into an actionable accusation of calling a person a fraud will not work in the lawsuit.
Steyn and Simberg will win – it is only a matter of when. On appeal? On summary judgement or after a full trial?
The fact that the hockey stick graph fails to show the divergence (the proxy going down instead of up) makes it propaganda and attempts to mislead. That is one of the many many reasons why it is fraudulent – and why the truth is a valid affirmative defense.
Truth is a defense (and Steyn’s statement is true) and the statement is clearly protected opinion. So the outcome of the trail is a foregone conclusion in my opinion.
But I am enjoying the trial and have lots of popcorn – so let the games continue!
How does a career get advanced without someone acting?
It seems to me that we are all engaging in some serious fly f…. or what the French so poetically call mental masturbation.
Demonstrate to the court the realities of “hide the decline” ask McIntyre and JeanS to testify and educate the judge/jury on how Mann did it and with what intent, overlay this with a demonstrably similar case in corporate accounting that has gone before the courts and lead to a conviction, and you have all you need to demonstrate fraud.
Because if Mann had done what he did in a corporate setting, he would have wound up behind bars a long time ago. Only in climate “science”…
Seems to me what you’re doing here is breaking down the definition of “fraud” by context. In the “scientific or professional context,” Mann’s behavior wasn’t “fraud”.
In a financial context, what Mann and his co-conspirators did was clearly (per McSteve) tantamount to “fraud”.
In terms of “interfac[ing] with society regarding their research”? AFAIK there is no traditional framing of this context, but the need is obvious. Was the CIA management guilty of “fraud” (in collusion, hopefully tacit, with Bush) in their mis-representation of WMD facts? I would say “yes”.
The situations are clearly not entirely parallel, but there are similarities. CIA management was well aware that the facts available to them didn’t really support the conclusions publicly stated by administration spokesmen, and their formal reports (AFAIK) were at least slanted to facilitate that misrepresentation.
The IPCC reports, while not completely parallel, are offered, supposedly, as policy advice to governments, but like the CIA reports, like all public policy advice has, IMO, at least two aspects:
• The actual influence on decisions by government and bureaucratic decision-makers, and…
• Their use in justifying/rationalizing those decisions to the public, and/or other stakeholders.
It’s in the latter aspect especially, with its parallels to the financial context, that Mann was guilty of what, in clear and proper metaphor, may be called “fraud”.
I don’t know the exact legalities surrounding use of metaphor in public communications, however from a practical standpoint I would say that a great deal of public communication, especially by journalistic advocates, involves its use, often in a more tenuous context.
Whether or not he meant it that way, Steyn was clearly speaking metaphorically, highlighting the analogy between the public policy advice context and the financial, where Mann’s behavior clearly (per McSteve) would have been “fraud” within the legal definition.
I would see here (as I often do) a broader conflict of which this (the Steyn trial) is one battle: nailing down the functional definition of “fraud’ within the “public policy advice context”. The entire thrust of Mann’s suit, from this perspective, is an attempt to beg the question: to start from the assumption that Mann’s behavior wasn’t “fraud” in that context, and thus that Steyn’s use of the term was actionable.
But anybody who’s studied the evolution of languages very much will realise that they change: that a usage that’s purely “metaphorical” in one generation can become a new standard meaning in the next. This is, exactly what is more liable to happen due to Steyn’s use of the metaphor, and this is exactly what those behind Mann and his suit are (IMO) trying to prevent.
Steyn’s use of the term, following McSteve, represents an attempt to influence that evolution. So does Mann’s suit. I would say it certainly isn’t any court’s prerogative to decide how language is going to evolve. If the laws permit any court to usurp this prerogative, they should be changed. Centuries of journalistic tradition allow the use of metaphor in publications that are clearly opinion, among other purposes to influence the evolution of language.
All the foregoing points up the most important point, however: should the language evolve to the point that Mann’s (and others’) behavior would actually constitute “fraud” in the “public policy advice context?” As a recognized dictionary definition of the word, rather than the opinion communicated by metaphor that Steyn’s usage represents?
Desperate spinning.
Desperate would-be totalitarian instincts Michael. This is just more left-wing speech encroachment which is a cultural deficiency among your group.
Meaning you didn’t understand what I said.
I understood it, it’s just very……strained.
If it goes to trial in front a jury and this is the defence, Steyn is in trouble.
Michael may be right – judicial political bias and correctness may very well trump justice, leaving Steyn in trouble.
Michael should read the ACLU amicus brief. It cites lots of precedent that you can use words like “fraud” in complete safety if they are in the context of a political dispute or even a heated scientific dispute.
“Fraud is exceedingly subtle in its nature. There are infinite means by which it can be accomplished. In its conception human ingenuity is limitless in its capabilities. … It may be perpetrated by willful misrepresentations made by one person to another, with a design to mislead and which do actually mislead another. It may be perpetrated by signs and tricks, and even silence may in some instances amount to fraud.”
Wood v. Cincinnati Safe & Lock Co., 96 Ga. 120, 123-24, 22 S.E. 909 (1895).
“Suppression of a material fact which a party is under an obligation to communicate constitutes fraud. The obligation to communicate may arise from the confidential relations of the parties or from the particular circumstances of the case.” O.C.G.A. § 23-2-53.
“There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. … It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.”
Richard Feynman, Cargo Cult Science lecture. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
Observation Michael Mann’s paleo-analysis and Curry/Khvorostyanov’s quantum-analysis alike fail Feynman’s directive “details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given.”
Corollary I The word “fraudulent” applies to neither Mann’s nor Curry/Khvorostyanov’s analysis, or alternatively to both.
FOMD’s View Assertions of “fraud”, as advanced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute/Mark Steyn, are just plain toxic and serve solely to *POLLUTE* rational public discourse.
Corollary II Both the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Mark Steyn owe a sincere apology and a retraction to the public at least — and arguably owe an apology and a retraction to Michael Mann too — that acknowledges the gross pollution by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Mark Steyn of rational public discourse.
That’s obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?
False parallel.
Fanny Boy, with each of your obsequious praises of Piltdown Mann, your credibility sinks further and further. Surely you must realize he is a narcissistic, ego-maniacal, data-massaging runt who has tarnished not only climate science, but all science.
In the immortal riposte of AK, “You wish!” :)
Conclusion What’s good for the gander (Mann) is good for the goose (Curry/Khvorostyanov)!
And what’s *GOOD* would be a cessation from, and retraction of, the egregiously toxic rhetoric of “fraud” that CEI/Steyn have so irresponsibly promulgated.
That’s ordinary civic common-sense, eh Climate Etc readers?
LOL … if narcissists, egotists, data-massagers, and runts (?) were strictly purged from all professions … then there would be considerably fewer practicing scientists, physicians, and lawyers … and no pundits or politicians AT ALL!
Historical Note The renowned astronomer Caroline Herschel was only 4’3″ tall (1.30 meters) … surely a “runt”, eh Bob?
Conclusion Bob’s juvenile critique of Michael Mann (and by implication Caroline Herschel) is comparably nugatory to Mark Steyn’s!
The definition of “scientific fraud” given above is too narrow because it does not allow for the full scope of human ingenuity and rascality in perpetrating frauds. The legal quotes show the law adopts a broader view of what constitutes fraud, in order to accommodate the infinite variety of means by which it can be accomplished. The law is used to dealing with bad actors. There is no special rule for “science” – fraud is fraud.
Silence when there is duty to speak. The Feynman quote expresses that duty in the field of science. It does not have the force of law in itself, but it does express the customs of the field and is thus a circumstance that imposed a duty not to mislead by any method, whether by exceedingly subtle stratagems, suppression of material facts, or affirmatively false statements. The importance of the issue for public policy is another circumstances giving rise to the duty to disclose material facts and not mislead by omission.
The Mike’s Nature Trick/Hide the Decline email is direct evidence of intent to mislead by omitting and concealing material facts, to the reconstructions appear more valid than they would if the decline were frankly shown. This direct evidence of intent to deceive was confirmed by conduct in conformity with the scheme there described – in graphs presented in TAR, WMO 1999 and AR4. The scheme did in fact mislead as even sophisticated scientist consumers of those reports were mislead, as our host stated above. There is a great deal more evidence of intent to suppress material facts, suppress criticism, etc. Mann is hopelessly entangled in these schemes.
One cannot expect Mann or his partisans to agree with this view of the evidence, but that is not the test. There is certainly evidence of (1) intent to mislead by (2) suppression of a material fact which a party is under an obligation to communicate and (3) that people were in fact mislead. That is enough to permit a reasonable person to conclude there was a fraud, even if the perp vehemently denies it.
“That’s obvious to *EVERYONE*, eh Climate Etc readers?”
WRONG, FOMT, your blatherings are not “obvious to everyone” here, thus you continue to spout false assertions about what “everyone” here thinks.
Such assertions are so obviously false that your purported honesty and good will have been disproved repeatedly.
Since this has been pointed out to you many times, your feeble attempts at “rational public discourse” are not merely irrational but fraudulent, i.e., performed repeatedly with malice aforethought.
a fan of *MORE* discourse: Observation Michael Mann’s paleo-analysis and Curry/Khvorostyanov’s quantum-analysis alike fail Feynman’s directive “details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given.”
Corollary I The word “fraudulent” applies to neither Mann’s nor Curry/Khvorostyanov’s analysis, or alternatively to both.
That is a bizarre pairing, not least because K&C was not supported by the UN for policy purposes, but this case will not depend on Feynman’s directive. It will depend on US laws, precedents, careful reading of what exactly was written and had been written already in the public domain.
What is “Feynman”, a US Supreme Court ruling?
FOMD aka Smarmy,
What quantum analysis are you talking about? In what publication?
AFOMD,
More irrelevant and misleading analogies, eh, readers?
If you accuse Mann and Curry of fraud, only one throws a tantrum and plays the fraudulent Nobel Prize card. Notice the claim of Nobel status accorded to himself by the Mann who would be worshipped. Fraud by misdirection? By silence? Maybe he misspoke?
Guess which one, eh, Climate Etc readers?
Who really cares, apart from our own precious petal, the oh-so-easily wounded WonderMann.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Fernando Leanme – Feynman was a brilliant scientist who would have made many of the denialists/alarmists here look like what they are – not very bright spoiled children.
Quinn the Eskimo: Wood v. Cincinnati Safe & Lock Co., 96 Ga. 120, 123-24, 22 S.E. 909 (1895).
Thank you for quoting court decisions. I think that they will prove influential in deciding the outcome.
Quinn the Eskimo, when does “reckless disregard for truth” come into play? Ever?
It’s an element of the defamation claim that the Plaintiff has to prove. Plaintiff has to show defendants knew their statements were false or that they made the statements with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. There’s layers of defenses before you get down to that, but if you eventually get down to evaluating the defendants’ state of mind with respect to truth or falsity, they would say “we reasonably believed it was true.” The test on the motion to dismiss under the anti-slapp statute is abstracted from all of that, and asks whether the plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of prevailing. Mann explicitly relies on the fake exonerations to say no one could reasonably believe his research was fraudulent. Upon examination, however, no one could reasonably believe he was actually exonerated by any of those investigations.
In this case it’s good to understand the scope of what can constitute fraud, because the narrower the definition of fraud, the harder it is to reasonably conclude that fraud was committed. And vice versa.
Since “fraud is exceedingly subtle in its nature” and since “there are infinite means by which it can be accomplished,” saying there was no fraud because the HS was merely misleading for omitting material facts that should have been disclosed to not be misleading is not a defense but is instead an explanation that it was actually fraudulent concealment.
Fraud by concealment where there is a duty to speak and fraud by affirmative misrepresentation are both fraud in the end.
And if you need to find an affirmative misrepresentation, a reasonable person could find that replacing downward trending proxy data with upward trending instrumental data to “hide the decline” and make the reconstruction appear more skillful than it really is, without fully and fairly disclosing then and there what was done, was sufficient to show an affirmative misrepresentation.
Quinn the Eskimo, thank you.
Steyn, call Quinn!
How about the twin issues of false precision and certainty? The whole point of the IPCC “climate science” is that it was couched in salesman-type certainty rather than in scientifically appropriate epistemic caution. It was essentially a public communications exercise shouting “head for the hills” rather than a sober scientific assessment. This brings it out of the domain of scientific discourse and into the domain of popular, public speech. And in this latter sense, calling something like the hockey stick a fraud is appropriate opinion and, therefore, speech.
IOW, it can be fraudulent as a public communications tool without constituting an act of actual scientific fraud.
Ball – thank you
comments like this are why I read CE
IMHO IPCC’s prime directive is politics and policy, “epistemic caution” must go to the back of the bus
Ball: +1 The original WMO hockey stock was an advertising gimmick, abetted by Mann.
Hockey Stick
> hockey stock
Did you mean hokey schlock?
It can be both colloquial and legal meanings). mR found WMO 99 met the latter meaning. That is why Mann’ s response said he bore no responsibility for it, when both the credits on WMO99 page 2 and Mann’s present CV say he did. The CV thing is real bad both for Mann and his attorneys under DC Civil procedure Rule 11 concerning the pleadings. Real, real bad.
Rud Istvan: The CV thing is real bad both for Mann and his attorneys under DC Civil procedure Rule 11 concerning the pleadings. Real, real bad.
Could you quote the relevant text?
Mathew,
McIntyre has a post on it.
To augment my Climate Audit posts, DC has its own rules of Civil Procedure (which closely follow the federal ones that all 1L students must study for a full year). Rule 11 says a court pleading like the complaint, amended complaint, and appellate response to defendants response) asserting any fact (not yet in evidence in court) must be backed up by the pleading ‘officer of the court’s (read attorney) personal knowledge that such fact is also supported by ‘provable evidence.’ (I am simplifying much the rules of evidence, full year 2L, here.) Bottom line, judges do not take kindly to attorneys lying on behalf of their clients. Common sense.
Mann lied, at least to his attorneys, and at least they did not check him out in passing those on in appellate court pleadings, since the proven facts in the above post are the opposite of what his response brief asserted! That is a REAL BIG nono in any US court. Let alone at the appellate level. Not just grounds for attorney sanction, is grounds for disbarment (meaning you are no longer an officer of the court, cannot practice law, and never will again.)
It will be fun to see how Mann and his lawyers try to jump off this sinking ship. There was a rat analogy in my previous sentence somewhere, although nowhere expressed….
Fraud takes on whatever meaning it has in context, not the dictionary definition or the legal definition.
In good prose, a couple of meanings will be active at once, played off against each other into a doctrine.
Mann didn’t like the doctrine.
People who play fast and loose with the data are impostors, would be the Steyn doctrine, both covered under fraud’s range of meaning.
Mr. Hardin has got it right.
def. fraud=noun: piece of trickery , trick (as in Mike’s Nature trick)
Case closed.
I don’t know diddley about the legal aspects of Mann vs. Steyn — its just not that interesting to me. What is of interest is the “Hockey Stick” — where general opinion seems to conclude that while some of Mann’s “methods” were suspect, the overall representation of the Hockey Stick is still valid.
But in the Culture Wars on AGW, terms like fraud, junk science, hoax, etc. are routinely made by many Politicians and Talking Heads to make their case that AGW is a “liberal conspiracy theory” and point to Mann and Climategate as prime Exhibits A and B.
I have a question really directed to Dr. Curry and Mosher (who I have a high degree of confidence in) — Could you provide a link (no explanation by you is asked as I know you are busy) to a site/study which you feel “objectively” shows CO2 ppm levels over time/history. Thanks.
“general opinion seems to conclude”
Stephen,
This is supposed to be science. General Opinion Seems does not meet the standard. This is the crux of the issue- some people trying to pass off squiggly lines as science, when they are just someone’s opinion.
Andrew
A fan:
Re the emboldened part: Only if you’re popping acid at the time.
Modern reconstructions do not resemble a hockey stick. MBH 98 does, but is clearly not consistent with more modern reconstructions (including Mann 2008 EIV, which he flags as being the most reliable reconstruction from that paper).
A hockey stick has two parts, a blade and a straight handle. Modern reconstructions do not have a straight handle and should not be properly described as “hockey sticks.”
Do you mean paleo time-scales (that plainly exhibit Milankovitch cycles)?
Or do you mean historical time-scales (that plainly exhibit a lengthening Mann-style hockey-stick blade)?
Conclusion Multiple lines of evidence establish the reality of lengthening CO2 hockey-stick blades *AND* lengthening climate-change hockey-stick blades.
See my comment above. I managed to put it in the wrong subthread.
Claim by Carrick, evidence by FOMD!
The Past Thousand Years Looks like a Mann-style hockey-stick blade.
The Past Million Years Looks like Milankovitch cycles.
That’s how *MOST* climate-scientists see it (especially young ones!) … because the evidence is mighty strong … and year-by-year gets even stronger … eh Climate Etc readers?
all forcings over time
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
What a “fraudulent” statement, ha ha.
I think it is important to use the term “forcing estimates” here. Unless you are implying there are reliable global observations behind these numbers.
The fact that many of these forcings come from models is not a minor point, and is part of the circular reasoning charge that the only way models can resolve recent warming is through AGW, but this is based on historical forcings which came from…models. The specter of confirmation bias becomes stronger when modeling is involved.
Some forcing estimates are better than others of course, and we all know that aerosols are the whipping boy of forcings.
One would ask the question, what happens if these forcing estimates were materially incorrect? One thing that would happen is prediction skill would likely be poor.
go soak your head
Steven Mosher,
You wrote –
“go soak your head”.
Is this supposed to be an insult? It seems a little lame, but maybe your intent was to appear childish.
Could you please provide a little more detail as to your thought processes in the this regard? Is this possibly the final epithet from the Book of Warm, to be reverted to when all attempts to create the new State of Warm fall on deaf ears?
I wonder, even if the world may not.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Tom Scharf, Jim2, Mike Flynn, Carrick, Matthew R Marler, and Others — I have a question. Do you believe there is ANY Study that represents (using best available science) long term historical estimates of CO2 ppm levels?
Stephen Segrest: Do you believe there is ANY Study that represents (using best available science) long term historical estimates of CO2 ppm levels?
Yes.
I expect you have some refinements to “represents”, “best”, “available”, “science”, “long term”, “historical”, and “estimates” to make the answer “no”. For example, you might want 3 significant figures for the year 125 BC; that is not “available”.
Matthew R Marler — What is/are the Study/ Studies?
Steven Segrest,
You wrote –
“Tom Scharf, Jim2, Mike Flynn, Carrick, Matthew R Marler, and Others — I have a question. Do you believe there is ANY Study that represents (using best available science) long term historical estimates of CO2 ppm levels?”
My short answer is yes, but with the proviso that such studies may well be the febrile imaginings of Warmists who redefine science as they go.
I’m not really really sure if the term best science quite fits with the term historical estimates. I’m reasonably certain that the best available science assures me that the Earth’s surface cooled from white heat to what it is now.
Whether that is because of, or in spite of CO2, I have only opinion. I believe CO2 of any concentration was unable to stop the cooling which obviously occurred.
A lack of experimental verification of the rather odd hypothesis that one can increase the temperature of an object by surrounding it with CO2, puts climatology right up there alongside phrenology.
I must admit in phrenological terms, I have an extremely well developed bump of comparative sagacity, so maybe there is something to phrenology after all, unlike climatology, which is purely and simply the endless recalculation of the average of weather.
If you need answers to any any other scientific questions, please let me know.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Stephen Segrest: Matthew R Marler — What is/are the Study/ Studies?
First define the terms that I put in quotes. Every study can be criticized against some ad hoc standard.
Matthew Marler and Mike Flynn (and Others): Using whatever definition you believe of what “objective” or “best available science” should mean — what is/are the study/studies that you believe are a good representation of the long-term historical estimates of CO2 ppm?
Stephen Segrest,
You wrote –
“Matthew Marler and Mike Flynn (and Others): Using whatever definition you believe of what “objective” or “best available science” should mean — what is/are the study/studies that you believe are a good representation of the long-term historical estimates of CO2 ppm?”
Using my definitions, there are no good representations of long term historical estimates . . .
I leave estimates of history to Warmists, and people like Steven Mosher. I am sure you will find so called studies supporting whatever nonsense Warmists wish to promote. Whether you believe any of it to be factual or useful may well depend on your devotion to the Warmist religion.
Your query seems a bit vague to me, but then I’m a little vague from time to time, so it’s probably appropriate.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
From the article:
…
Record Greenhouse Gas Levels Impact Atmosphere and Oceans
Carbon Dioxide Concentration Surges
Geneva, 9 September 2014 (WMO) – The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a new record high in 2013, propelled by a surge in levels of carbon dioxide. This is according to the World Meteorological Organization’s annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, which injected even greater urgency into the need for concerted international action against accelerating and potentially devastating climate change.
The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin showed that between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – because of long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide.
In 2013, concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 142% of the pre-industrial era (1750), and of methane and nitrous oxide 253% and 121% respectively.
The observations from WMO’s Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) network showed that CO2 levels increased more between 2012 and 2013 than during any other year since 1984. Preliminary data indicated that this was possibly related to reduced CO2 uptake by the earth’s biosphere in addition to the steadily increasing CO2 emissions.
…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/09/study-shows-record-high-increases-for-atmospheric-co2-in-2013-but-theres-still-no-warming/
Stephen: “the overall representation of the Hockey Stick is still valid.” The hockey stick was a representation of false advertising and was therefore not a valid representative of anything.
Stephen Segrest: where general opinion seems to conclude that while some of Mann’s “methods” were suspect, the overall representation of the Hockey Stick is still valid.
So what? Overall, general opinion is not that clear on the distinction between ethanol and methanol. This case will be decided by careful reading of all details.
Stephen Segrest: where general opinion seems to conclude that while some of Mann’s “methods” were suspect, the overall representation of the Hockey Stick is still valid.
further to my earlier point, I expect the writings of Stephen McIntyre (some on his blog, some in peer-reviewed journals) to carry more weight than “general opinion”.
Making a case for fraud requires the establishment of scienter
Steyn was rude, and thoughtfully and deliberately so.
He could have been better mannered.
Fraud requires dishonesty and intent.
and cannot be proved or disproved scientifically alone.
Prof Mann’s intent would be better shown in discussion with his critics rather than silencing them.
Truth in the work should be able to speak for itself.
The part that likely got the ball rolling was the comparison to a child molester. Unfortunately this reprehensible behavior on Steyn’s part is protected free speech, but describing Mann’s curve as “fraudulent” may not be.
Steyn could have avoided comparing Mann to a convicted child molester.
Steyn’s publisher NRO could have censored Steyn for making the comparison.
Steyn could have apologized when given the opportunity to do so. So could his publisher.
Placing this entirely on Mann’s shoulders is not fair. He does have the right to defend himself from scurrilous charges, even if he himself frequently makes them of other people.
Carrick – Steyn didn’t call Mann a child molester. That pretty much negates your comment. There was nothing for which to apologize.
From the article:
…
Steyn quoted a passage in which Simberg had stated, “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.” Distancing himself from the Sandusky analogy, Steyn averred that he was “not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does.” “But,” Steyn continued, “he has a point.” After all, “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.” (This “tree-ring” remark refers to Mann’s reliance on controversial “proxy” data to gauge historical temperatures — about which more below.)
…
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376574/climate-inquisitor-charles-c-w-cooke
yeah, you’ve been mislead by the climate campaigners again.
Steyn didn’t do that. He quoted the CEI doing that and wrote that he himself wouldn’t stretch the metaphor that far.
Steyn (and the CEI) were noting that Penn State has a history of “exonerating” no matter what the evidence. And he said the hockey stick was a “fr@dulent graph”.
Here is the post that launched the lawsuit (yes, it’s still live): http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn
Jim2, read more carefully next time.
I never said Steyn called Mann a child molester. I said Steyn compared him to one:
“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science…”
To follow up:
Why is that quoted passage in Steyn’s commentary if not for the purpose of making some sort of comparison?
It certainly didn’t get there by an accidental copy and paste. There was a obviously deliberate editorial intent on Steyn’s part to include it.
How could such an inclusion not inevitably evoke a comparison of Mann to Sandusky for anybody reading the text?
Carrick, is it defamation to metaphorically compare someone to a child molester? Suppose I said that someone looks like the child molester Jerry Sandusky? Is that defamation? Steyn plainly did not accuse Mann of molesting children. He did not accuse Mann of committing any crime. Fraud is trickery. Mike’s Nature trick.
Carrick, “There was a obviously deliberate editorial intent on Steyn’s part to include it.”
And it improved the impact of the article. It was noteworthy. So are you implying that nothing controversial be allowed in opinion articles? Perhaps that is why the ACLU has sided with Steyn?
Don is the Hitler of Climate Etc.*
* of course, I’m not actually comparing Don to a mass murderer. The fact that Hitler was a mass murderer isn’t relevant to my comparison. I only mean that both Don and Hitler can be characterized by forceful personalities..
Don Monfort:
Probably no (it does not result in an actionable lawsuit). I don’t expect the fraudulent=libel charge to hold up in court. It shouldn’t. But if it does it damages all of our civil liberties.s
My point was a bit finer, which I’ll take the time to make:
It is not professional behavior on Steyn’s part to have made the comparison. In my opinion this comparison crosses over the line of acceptable journalistic behavior.
We need to have some minimum standards for public discourse, otherwise all political arguments will devolve into name calling squabbles.
It was an obviously offensive comparison to make, and it is fair for somebody to ask that the comparison be withdrawn.
Given the opportunity, Steyn should have apologized for making the comparison, and as a journalist with some standing, should have known better than to have made it.
Instead he and his publisher “doubled down” in their response, leading inevitably to the situation we have today.
Cap’t Dallas—does my response to Don answer your question?
Carrick – Of course, the fact that Steyn referenced the Sandusky comment, which BTW WAS made by a third party, did focus the attention of the reader on the comparison. But the gist of the comment was to highlight Penn State’s states complicity in shoving inconvenient facts under the rug. Kind of like the NFL did with Ray Rice.
==> “But if it does it damages all of our civil liberties”
Indeed. How the court rules on one case, based on somewhat ambiguous interpretations of meaning and intent, will damage all of our civil liberties. Our judicial system will be in shambles. Might as well use the Bill of Rights to line bird cages.
If the court rules in Mann’s favor, civil liberties are pretty much a done deal. The reversal of the enlightenment will be complete. We may as well all go back to living in caves.
Well. Either that, or partisans are drama-queening the significance of one court case because, well, they want to leverage the case to fight battles in the climate wars.
Remote possibility I know, but theoretically possible, eh?
Carrick, Steyn is not a journalist. He is a commentator. Like Howard Stern. Steyn was commentating on a public figure. This is clearly a SLAPP case. Mann is a crybaby and serial defamer himself. I think we are in basic agreement on this story.
And thanks to joshie the runt for his illustration of my point.
Joshua,
“If the court rules in Mann’s favor, civil liberties are pretty much a done deal.”
Nah. Most likely the case will be finally decided in favor of the defendants, if not by the DC courts, then eventually upon appeal to federal courts. I think that the longer the case drags on, the more likely there will be other SLAPP cases, with careful venue shopping.
Don
Imo you are incorrect to think this is a SLAPP case. Mann does not appear to be trying to silence anyone from pointing out he did bad science, but he is wanting to stop people from calling him a fraud unless/until they can demonstrate he “intentionally mislead”
Carrick, “Cap’t Dallas—does my response to Don answer your question?”
Yes, in your opinion you have cast a vote that “journalists” should exercise more restrain to avoid printing things you find objectionable. I imagine pretty much everyone finds something objectionable somewhere. Steyn though still has a right to “report” on things he found published even if a bit objectionable to some or most. The only thing Steyn really did was say that Mann’s “hockey stick” was fraudulent without the already implied IMO. Mann seems to have felt that there was a conspiracy of sorts so he is suing the lot instead of considering the individuals.
Mann also “felt” that the old Penn State versus State Pen joke was over the top and I doubt he cares much for the Minnesotans for Global Warming videos that include his likeness. Like it or not he has become a celebrity and is spending others people’s money trying to strike back against everyone that says anything he finds objectionable. Isn’t that just special?
Perhaps the appropriate word is “association” rather than “comparison” — I *wish* that the whole spectacle of mentioning Sandusky had never occurred. I think that Simberg and Steyn quoting Simberg did not “compare” Mann to Sandusky, but the whole “molesting data” rather than perhaps “massaging” data or “playing fast and loose” with data has been a wasted of the time and energies of too many people.
(if Steyn had said “massaging” data would he then be accused of comparing Mann to the entire practice of “massage therapy”?? Every masseuse will be outraged….)
The good thing about these legal cases is that Mann is forced to defend his practices, to some extent, and that he runs a serious risk of losing in a court of law.
Steve Fitzpatrick –
==> “Nah. Most likely the case will be finally decided in favor of the defendants, if not by the DC courts, then eventually upon appeal to federal courts. I think that the longer the case drags on, the more likely there will be other SLAPP cases, with careful venue shopping.”
I am certainly not of the belief that court rulings are not influenced by the political/world views of the justices involved. One of my favorite examples of motivated reasoning is Bush v. Gore, where members on each ideological side of SCOTUS basically reversed their previously stated philosophies on States’ Rights to rule in a highly politicized case
But I think that your evaluation of “those lib judges in D.C. will rule for Mann because they’re libz” (paraphrasing) is a bit simplistic. It’s not clear, actually, how this case might break out along political lines for people who aren’t highly identified with the climate wars aspect of the case. As an example, look at the ACLU position – and how “conservatives” are turning themselves into pretzels to rationalize why they are supporting the ACLU.
But no matter the outcome, the results of this case will help to set precedent, and likely provide information about how different venues are likely to view the issues involved. Not a bad thing, in the end, IMO – no matter which way the court rules.
All the hand-wringing about the societal-changing outcomes of this case are merely same ol’ same ol’ in the climate wars, IMO. What’s particularly amusing is how irrelevant it all is w/r/t the science. It’s identity politics all the way down.
Don, generally I’ve seen the profession of journalism broken down into “reporter, analyst and commentator”. Since he earns his living from his commentary, I would say that makes Steyn a professional journalist.
Capt Dallas the question seems to be whether journalistic organizations should try to have some standards of decency, or whether they should devolve back into 19th century yellow journalism. Further there is a business question that organizations like NRO must grapple with, which is whether the costs of doing business when you go about allowing over-the-top derogatory comments to be published via your organization outweighs the putative increase in visibility from making derogatory comments.
My point is that the making of comparisons of this sort does not elevate one to “public hero” (or martyr) status. Nor does it serve the public interest.
I don’t see much to like about this state of affairs.
Carrick, I don’t recall seeing Steyn or anyone else describe Steyn as a reporter, or journalist. Maybe someone has called him a journalist, but he generally known as a commentator. Not a reporter of facts.
Don Monfort, I’ll go with this definition.
Again there are other types of journalists besides reporters of facts.
Steyn’s a political commentator, ergo by widely held definitions within the journalism community, a journalist.
Carrick…does anyone bother to check who wrote what or does everyone get painted with the same brush?
To review: Rand Simberg at the Competitive Enterprise Institute published a blog post in which he made the amusing suggestion that Mann
could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.
Steyn, a friend of mine for many years, cited Simberg’s piece in a post for National Review Online and added a shower of causticities of his own:
Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann.…
If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.
Neither Simberg nor Steyn was accusing Mann of any crime—the reference to Sandusky was a joke prompted by the fact that Sandusky and Mann were employed by the same university.
Carrick said “It is not professional behavior on Steyn’s part to have made the comparison. In my opinion this comparison crosses over the line of acceptable journalistic behavior.”
Everybody is entitled to their opinion.
I happen to think it was clever and funny – because both Sandusky and Mann were from Penn State and both the subject of whitewash investigations.
While journalism like Steyn’s may coarsen the culture (in your opinion) – it is allowed in the United States (and Canada). Yellow journalism was much tougher on public figures in the 1700’s and 1800’s.
So while I respect your opinion – and understand your wish that all journalists stay on a higher plane of discourse – it is my opinion that Steyn did not defame Mann.
Daniel, I am aware of the history, but I think you need to read through what I said a bit more carefully.
Again, I’m not saying that Steyn called Mann a child molester, I’m saying Steyn made the comparison between Mann and Sandusky. This was done through the inclusion of the text “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science…”
The decision to include that sentence, written originally by Simberg but irrelevant to the point, certainly does evoke that comparison, even if Steyn then goes on to say “not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers”.
So the comparison is clearly made. Once again:
The cost of preventing a lawsuit that was likely generated by very poor professional judgement on Steyn’s part would have been minimal.
OK, Carrick. If we must call him a journalist let’s call it specifically what it is, so that those who are not so smart don’t think that Steyn holds himself out to be a reporter of fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_journalism
What’s relevant is that he is expressing his opinion, not reporting or asserting facts.
RickA:
I don’t think he defamed Mann either. But that doesn’t mean I think what Steyn did was right or within the bounds of appropriate behavior for an journalist.
Don, I agree: Steyn’s role is clearly as a stater of opinion not fact.
The trouble that Steyn could run into is in “the stating of an opinion that happens also to be a statement of fact, which itself is indisputably false.”
The judge ruled that the claim of fraudulent could be interpreted as a statement of fact. I think this is an overly broad interpretation on the judge’s part. But who knows?
I think the bigger problem for Mann here is that the graph in question is obviously wrong (contradicted by more recent measurements including those of Mann 2008). And when you have a result that is wrong, stating an opinion on why it is wrong, seems to me to just be an opinion, not a statement of fact. Even if that opinion is highly negative towards the person who produced the graph.
Carrick: How could such an inclusion not inevitably evoke a comparison of Mann to Sandusky for anybody reading the text?
How? By giving weight to the phrase “except that”. I have always thought that the really insulting part of the comparison was the insult to the PennState committee that “exonerated” each of them through the similar failures of procedure, and weight given to bringing in money and prestige (in both reports.) The committed that exonerated Sandusky was superceded by a federal grand jury. Before too much time passes, I hope that someone at PennState initiates a true investigation of Mann, as they ought to have done first time around.
Joshua,
If the case were between two unknown individuals over what Smith wrote about Jones’ honesty in business dealings, I would agree that virtually all judges would be quite impartial. But Mann V Steyn et al is most certainly NOT that kind of case. It is a conflict about a couple of sharp tongued conservative commentators who publicly dissed a well known and very aggressive green/liberal advocate. I rather suspect all the judges in DC who will make rulings on the case will agree with Mann on most public policy issues, including the need for immediate large reductions in fossil fuel use. I also suspect those judges strongly disagree with Steyn et al on most public policy issues. Same thing with the jury pool; all of which demonstrates wise venue shopping, if nothing else.
WRT the ACLU (and other) amicus briefs: There is surely a lot of nose-holding going on among some of the diverse groups supporting Steyn et al; many of those groups share little common philosophical ground with the defendants. But they all see the case as a threat to the settled law of free speech (Sullivan V NY Times, and other cases), and so a case worth spending time and treasure on. The puzzle to me is that you do not seem to think the case is important, when all those groups clearly do. Perhaps they have a somewhat broader legal perspective than you.
My personal view is that the DC judges are in way over their legal heads. That their rulings to this point have led to rather alarmed legal briefs from a wide range of organizations in favor of the defendants may make them step back and think a bit, but I am guessing they are not going to be swayed. Continuing to beat up on Steyn et al until they are financially forced to “settle” out of court, is just too delicious a prospect for ‘liberal’ judges to bring the case to an end. If the case settles, there is nothing to appeal, and Mann is permanently ‘vindicated’. Look for a series of rulings which severely limit the defendants’ scope of discovery and which add long and costly delays if the case goes to trial. SLAPP at its very worst.
BTW, I agree that Gore V Bush was a clear case of politics influencing judicial rulings. But IMO, so is Mann V Steyn et al.
Carrick:
I agree wholeheartedly. I don’t think I had even heard of Mark Steyn before he wrote that piece, and nothing I’ve seen since has given me any reason to like him. What he said about Michael Mann was a disgrace to journalism. If he wants to write things like that, he should label himself a pundit, and even then, he should be mocked and scorned.
The thing I find saddest is I’d forgive Steyn his failures if he was genuinely interested in the truth. I don’t think he is. I assumed he was until I had some the limited interactions with him. Those made me question my assumptions so I read up on more of what he’s written. I was not impressed by what I saw.
I think it is stupid this lawsuit was filed. I think Steyn should win it. And if Steyn was a three time white supremacist felon up on trial, I’d say he deserves good legal representation. That doesn’t mean I’d want to be associated with him.
Carrick said “Even if that opinion is highly negative towards the person who produced the graph.”
Steyn’s opinion was highly negative towards the graph – not the person who produced the graph.
This distinction will turn out to be very important – even though Mann’s Reply attempts to convert the criticism of the graph into criticism of the man (Mann).
Matthew:
When you say “except that” … you are still clear making a comparison. In this case you are saying how they are different instead of how they are the same.
Unless you can come up with a model where the text appeared without Steyn’s knowledge, I don’t think it’s fair to try and claim some comparison between Mann and Sandusky was not made.
Nor is it really fair to say Steyn was trying to defend Mann with the comparison that was made.
Nor is it really fair to say it was even necessary.
It was a cheap shot made by a writer with a record of making cheap shots.
I’m sure it entertained his intended audience and made angry off the demographic he wanted to make angry.
But it was unnecessary, and when called upon to rectify the situation, you can’t deny he doubled down. (On stupidity IMO.)
Carrick,
I think Mann is a remarkably disagreeable fellow who’s own public criticism of other scientists is consistently “no quarter given”. His public critiques of Judith and other scientists are so far beyond the pale that it beggars belief (A department chair with hundreds of publications is a “serial misinformer”? Really?). You may have higher expectations for opinion journalists like Steyn; I don’t. But I do I have higher expectations for scientists like Mann; it is hard for me to find even a shred of sympathy for someone so hypocritical as Mann.
Steve, I’m sympathetic on that point. There needs to be limits, otherwise everything turns into a food throwing contest.
Let’s quote mikey correctly:”On the other hand, serial climate disinformer Judith Curry (Georgia Tech) announced “Consensus distorts the climate picture.”
He called Judith a “serial disinformer”. And somewhere else, “anti-science”. That’s libel per se. Sue that little sucker, Judith. We will all contribute, except for the runts.
Steve Fitzpatrick –
==> “The puzzle to me is that you do not seem to think the case is important, when all those groups clearly do. Perhaps they have a somewhat broader legal perspective than you.”
I will admit that I have a bit of a reflexive reaction when I see all such dramatization from within the climate war zone – to go the other way.
But first, it’s only one case.
Second, I can see merits on both sides – so I don’t think that this case is likely to have some huge impact on our freedom of speech either way. Life will go on unchanged except in perhaps some rather specific and arcane circumstances.
Joshua,
Sullivan V NY Times was only one case.
Yes, the Union of the United States will survive Mann V Steyn et al, no matter its outcome. But whether the case enhances or diminishes personal liberty is not, I think, something so easy to discount. Lots of people and organizations seem to appreciate the importance of this case more than you do.
As someone who seems to care about these things, I imagined you would consider Mann’s arguments too corrosive to public discourse to merit support; honestly, I am surprised.
For me, the issue is a simple one: Mann has chosen to insert himself into a contentious political issue, and has chosen in the process to criticize other scientists (like our hostess) in terms at least as derrogatory as what he finds unacceptable from Steyn et al. This is someone who applies a very different standard of behavior for others than for himself; I think utter hypocrisy is the only suitable description. You may coutinance that, but I cannot.
Carrick, my preferred newspapers are The Australian and The Times, which maintain very high journalistic standards. Most media consumers prefer more downmarket and racy sources, and would not share your view on Steyn. That said, I enjoy and admire Steyn, his work on overturning anti-freedom of speech legislation in Canada was excellent, check out video of some of the hearings in which he was involved. I would not express myself in the way Steyn does, but have no problem with him choosing his own style.
Good comments (among many) by Matt Marler @ 3.12 & Steve Fitz @ 3.17.
Carrick:But it was unnecessary, and when called upon to rectify the situation, you can’t deny he doubled down.
When Steyn doubled down, he had a lot of direct quotes by Mann and others in his support.
Reference Joshua’s comment:
“Second, I can see merits on both sides – so I don’t think that this case is likely to have some huge impact on our freedom of speech either way. Life will go on unchanged except in perhaps some rather specific and arcane circumstances.”
Not too long ago I was invited to a debate in a blog, as it turned out the participants became very defensive when I mentioned Dr. Muller’s review of the Mann paleo climate graph. As the exchange evolved I felt I was threatened with legal action (something about having an adverse impact on Mann’s career which could presumably land me in hot water).
I’m not a lawyer but I have enough knowledge of American tendencies to resolve things via law suits that I called a friend who is a judge here in Spain. He mentioned that under Spanish law what I was writing was protected, but to be careful because Americans were like sharks in this field. Eventually I received assurance from US sources that the threat was empty, and was also told the use of these threats was common.
I do notice many of you are either Americans or have a background in English law, but this doesn’t apply to others. My conclusion is that a high profile case like this does have a tendency to silence people (maybe it doesn’t silence US residents, but it is likely the (empty) threat silences those elsewhere who don’t understand the law and have money to be siphoned by frivolous law suits).
Interestingly, my criticism of Mann is mostly based on the “False Hope” SciAm article, which I felt was written in a very confusing manner. I also like to criticize the Nature publishing house (it owns Sci Am). During that discussion I brought up “false hope” and my comments were mostly ignored. This told me I was facing a group of individuals primed to defend Mann fiercely – but they were only prepared to defend the “hockey stick”.
I thought that might trip the filter. I’ll see if I can find the offending word:
Steve Fitzpatrick –
==> “Sullivan V NY Times was only one case”
I don’t think that this case is likely to have the broad social implications that did Sullivan V. NY Times. I could be wrong, of course. But when I look at the context, I see this case as being about whether or not a vituperative, M*slim/liberal-baiting political commentator has libeled someone. I don’t think the depth of the context is parallel to Sullivan V. NY Times.
==> “Yes, the Union of the United States will survive Mann V Steyn et al, no matter its outcome. But whether the case enhances or diminishes personal liberty is not, I think, something so easy to discount. Lots of people and organizations seem to appreciate the importance of this case more than you do.
If the court rules Steyn guilty of libel – what do you think the significant implications might be. I’m not talking in some elegant theoretical sense. What do you think the danger of limitations of real live personal liberty might be? How does determining that comparing someone to a child molester, or throwing the word “fraud” around as did Steyn, will really limit personal liberty? We see all kinds of criticisms of Mann or other scientists occurring constantly. Do you think that a ruling against Steyn on this case will seriously diminish the degree of criticism of Mann or other scientists? Do you think that the WSJ will no longer be able to print articles comparing climate scientists to Lys*nko? Do you think that Lindzen will no longer be able to compare environmentalists to Eug*nicists? Do you think that Judith will no longer be able to complain about “climate McC*rthyism” or Spencer will no longer be able to compare people to N*z*s?
Personally, I don’t think that what Steyn did should be considered a criminal offense, but then again I do think that there it is reasonable to draw lines circumscribing the rights of free speech. Let the lawyers make their cases and the juries (or judges) decide. As the end result of the process, I think that we will be strengthened, no matter the specific outcome. IMO, what I see a great deal is that people on both sides are trying to leverage the case for the purpose of scoring points in the climate wars. Personality politics.
==> “As someone who seems to care about these things, I imagined you would consider Mann’s arguments too corrosive to public discourse to merit support; honestly, I am surprised.”
I don’t “support” Mann’s arguments, but I do see merits on both sides of this case. So I don’t condone Mann’s trib*listic rhetoric any more than I do that of my much beloved “skeptics,” or Judith, for that matter. But I don’t get that animated about any of it. It’s rather typical behavior. I’d like to think it’s behavior most commonly found in junior high school, but it is obviously not exclusive to adolescents.
==> “For me, the issue is a simple one: Mann has chosen to insert himself into a contentious political issue, and has chosen in the process to criticize other scientists (like our hostess) in terms at least as derrogatory as what he finds unacceptable from Steyn et al.
And Steyn has chosen to insert himself into a contentious political issue, and chosen in the process to engage in juvenile and pernicious name-calling to criticize a scientist. This is someone who applies a very different standard of behavior for others than for himself. I think utter hypocrisy is the only suitable description.
But that’s kind of “mother, mother” logic – so let’s look again at that last part.
==> “This is someone who applies a very different standard of behavior for others than for himself; I think utter hypocrisy is the only suitable description….”
I tend to agree…although I’m open to the possibility that within the judicial system, there is a distinction between Mann’s behavior and that of Steyn. But either way, I don’t defend Mann’s level of engagement in the climate wars. Never have. Never will. But I just don’t get all that animated about it. It’s same as it ever was. Such behavior is ubiquitous. So my interest is more on why this form of engagement takes place and perhaps whether anything can be done to elevate how people approach the discourse. Throwing J*ll-O is not the way to get people to stop throwing J*ell-O.
Steve Fitzpatrick –
I tried responding but for some indecipherable reason, the comment got caught in the moderation filter. We’ll see if it gets past Judith’s filter.
nice comment, angech.
Joshua | September 11, 2014 at 11:52 am |
Close to rational Joshua, so you’re in the “good cop” mode for your usual culture today? Libel suits usual don’t change social schisms very much, all sides will likely not get what they want. No emails and science records in discovery, No judgements for green activists being told they’re frauds.
Why don’t take a look at your political culture on the links I provided below? You’re with the wrong side on free-speech about 100% of the time.
You at least demonstrated half a brain that there is really nothing good for the AGW cause in Mann’s tinpot bully tactic of attacking media dissent. Prat-boy and our angry sullen Michael have yet to figure the larger picture out, even if Mann won the case (round one) the political losses would be even greater. The lesson forgotten it seems from the “Monkey Trial” is that Bryan WON THE CASE on merits only to be mocked for all time by his peers (in particular) for doing so. It was later thrown out on technicalities but the symbolism is was especially important in Progressive culture to this day. The atheist/communist/elite spitting from the rural poor and religious left essentially forever.
Mann is a total embarrassment to the new age left trying to keep the meme alive, the longer he’s on the front page the better it is for skeptical dissent. Privately, most of the left understand the baggage as you seem to have picked up on it also. The Hoi Polli of your peers here not so much.
Thanks, Joshua.
I didn’t think Steyn was rude at all.
He was 1. Funny and 2, Slapped an annoying little man with a big mouth upside the head for serious infractions of scientific method and hubris.
How’s that rude?
Judith said “In this context, there is no need for Steyn et al. to ‘prove’ fraud in court; but merely to legitimize a public statement of ‘Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick‘ as not defamatory.”
I agree with this 100%.
This was the point I was making yesterday (off topic in the previous thread – sorry about that).
In addition to arguing that Mann has failed to prove actual malice – Steyn and Simberg can also defend on the grounds that their statement was the truth and/or that it was merely expressing an opinion.
I think the statements will be found to be truthful (Mann did torture and molest data) as well as opinion (in my opinion the hockey stick is fraudulent).
If the case is not dismissed by the appeal – we will have another opportunity to see if the defendant’s win on summary judgement. This would probably be after discovery – which Mann will really not like.
A series of admission requests will be really fun to admit or deny.
A deposition of Mann will have many many opportunities to demonstrate both the truth of the statements alleged to defame – as well as to demonstrate that they are opinion.
This case is weak and Mann deserves to lose.
Mann’s entire reply brief is off point – in that he is trying to turn the statements into an accusation that he is a fraud – rather than what the statements are really opining – which is that his hockey stick graph is fraudulent.
Any graph which tacks on temperature data to a smoothed reconstruction could be seen to be fraudulent (I certainly think it is).
“Any graph which tacks on temperature data to a smoothed reconstruction could be seen to be fraudulent (I certainly think it is).”
Isn’t that only because he failed to say that is what he was doing?
Daniel:
Yes – if Mann had disclosed that he was removing the divergence of his proxy from the temperature record in order to make his graph a better propaganda piece – that would have prevented his graph from being fraudulent.
There are many different hockey stick graphs (some by Mann and some by others) – but they all attempt to hide the decline of the tree-ring proxy data (in many different ways).
Why?
Because if the tree-rings show cooling when it was warming post 1950, some may wonder if they showed warming when it was cooling in the past – some might wonder if tree-rings are a proxy for temperature at all. Some might wonder if it has to do with precipitation amounts, or being at the treeline, or something about a particular type of tree (strip-bark) or some other potential cause.
But it is very clear that Mann and many other IPCC authors did not want to water down the “message” with messy facts which might get in the way of trying to advocate for reduction of fossil fuels usage.
So the Mann hockey stick graph was fraudulent because it was modified to intentionally deceive – and did deceive – it was a piece of propaganda – and is therefore fraudulent.
So yes – it was fraudulent because Mann failed to say what he was doing.
There is watering down underground.
==========================
Ignoring adverse data (cherry picking, hiding the decline, whatever) is part of the definition of data falsification in defining scientific misconduct. Honest error (with absence of malicious intent) can provide an out, which I presume is how the NSF saw the case. It’s pretty clear that adverse data were ignored.
I’ll let others go down the rabbit hole of “fraud” definitions and just focus on the broader political implications of the case which is why the passions actually run high. The modern democratic left in the U.S and constant inclinations to define speech and limit dissent to their authority. It’s really no different than “campaign finance reform” which means limiting speech of opposition or the “Fairness Doctrine” which means orchestrating media messages to their liking.
Mann’s action is another version of the jackboot left on the day shift. We’re suppose to pretend Mann isn’t a committed green activist with all the usual features but instead was some guy buried in meaningful academic research dragged into the public arena. That’s worse then a joke….it’s….FRAUD!
The question in the lawsuit is not whether Mann’s work was fraudulent or scientific misconduct.
The question is whether or not Steyn’s characterization of the hockeystick as fraudulent defamed Mann.
The difference is important. Steyn should be able to state opinions, even controversial ones, without worrying about being sued for statements that are not outrageous, defamatory falsehoods.
I will be surprised if Mann does not win his court case. Imo, use of the term fraud in regards to Mann’s processes/procedures can’t be proven. Unless defendants lawyer’s can show that Mann intended to mislead they will likely loose.
Steyn doesn’t have to prove fraud. Try to catch up.
In your opinion. We will see. Try to stay civil
It’s not my opinion, it’s the law. If you want to express your opinion on the law, you should first familiarize yourself with the law. Or not.
Don
You state something as a fact when it is not.
Read the law, robbie. Read the briefs by the plaintiffs and see if they say anything about the defendant having to prove fraud. If they do, it’s another lie that they have submitted to the court. Read the amicus briefs. Read something for chrissakes, robbie.
Mann has the burden of proof. Defendant’s don’t need to prove anything. Mann can lose by failing to show actual malice. But defendants can also assert that what they said was the truth and/or was an opinion. But Mann has the burden of proof on defamation.
Rick- I do not think Mann has the burden of proof if someone described him as a fraud beyond showing how he was damaged. The defendent would need to be able to demonstrate that what was said was “reasonably accurate”. Imo, this means that they need to demonstrate Mann’s intent to decieve by various actions vs. just doing bad science or statistics.
You really don’t have a clue, robbie. Have you ever been a judge in the D.C. district? Why don’t you do some freaking research, before you contradict people who are familiar with the law and this case.
The ACLU and National Review’s most recent briefs and replies have lots of examples, Rob Starkey of use of hyperbole and the word fraud or fraudulent. Check them out.
those who accuse fraud have the burden of proof
er, accuse ‘libel’ have burdens, unbearable for this spindly mann.
===========
Markus said “those who accuse fraud have the burden of proof.”
True.
However, nobody is suing Mann for fraud.
Instead Mann is suing Steyn and Simberg for defamation.
Mann has the burden of proof on defamation in the DC court:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/district-columbia-defamation-law
According to District of Columbia law, defamation claims have four elements:
1. the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;
2. the defendant published the statement without privilege to a third party;
3. the defendant’s fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence; and
4. either the statement was actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm or its publication caused the plaintiff special harm.
So Mann has to show that Steyn (for example) made a FALSE and DEFAMATORY statement about Mann. Mann has to show the statement was False. Mann has to show that Steyn’s statement was not true. I hope the burden of proof is clear on this point. Mann has the burden of proving that Steyn’s statement that the hockey stick graph was fraudulent is not true. Beyond that, if Steyn’s statement is an opinion it cannot be defamation.
So Markus – I hope who has the burden of proof is now clear.
Rob Starkey: I will be surprised if Mann does not win his court case. Imo, use of the term fraud in regards to Mann’s processes/procedures can’t be proven.
We all have opinions, don’t we? I think this case will be decided by people who carefully read the briefs and the relevant laws and court decisions (or have those read to them.) There is plenty in the public record to support the use of the term “fraudulent” with regard to the hockey stick. Whether that is sufficient to decide against Mann’s claim of having been defamed by Steyn remains to be decided. My hope is that the decision goes against Mann, but my opinion is that I may be disappointed.
It is clear from context what Steyn meant. He quoted the CEI bit because 1. it is funny and clever and totally in line with so much political snarkiness over the last few hundred years in US, UK, Canada, France, etc., and 2, the CEI piece (though Steyn said he would not have gone so far as to take it into the locker room) clearly said “he tortures and molests data”. Then Steyn went on to call the hockey stick graph “fraudulent” and say he was “master of the TREE-ring circus” (also clever). Taken together it is clear that he is engaging in hyperbole, but more carefully than CEI, that he is implying that he does not agree with the way Mann handled the tree ring data (tortured, molested, circus) and that this is why he considered it fraudulent. Since Steyn is a satirist and tries to be funny, sarcastic, it would be ridiculous to expect him to break it down and explain exactly what he meant by each statement (which I tried to do at least partially). He quoted CEI because he really liked and agreed with the “tortured and molested the data” bit. Why that is not obvious to everyone who reads the article is unclear to me. The whole climate issue has been polarized, politicized, and taken up by activists (on both sides to some extent) so that it clearly falls into the realm of protected speech and Mann is clearly a public figure. It is also clear that much of what Mann says about exoneration is a stretch and that there are plenty of scientists in public and private who have expressed reservation about the hockey stick graph and believe it to be exaggerated or poor science, including many who are firmly in the AGW camp. In addition, Mann feels free to say whatever he wants, not sure if that will affect anything but it could piss off the judge as being hypocritical. That does not mean that a misguided judge or jury may not rule the other way, but I am hopeful. And if it does have to go all the way SCOTUS I am confident they would rule correctly on a free speech issue even though I have not agreed with some of their rulings over the years.
+ 1
Over on Climate Audit, Skiphil said of the Hockey Stick, in reference to a RealClimate article from 2005,”It seems that from MBH to CRU to WMO to IPCC to RealClimate (oversimplified sequence) there was a conscious effort to have a climate crisis “icon” in just the way that Ray P. describes as so useful for public “education.”
I said in response to Skiphil’s observation that regardless of what anyone on RealClimate or on any other climate science blog has to say about the Hockey Stick being just one line of evidence among many for the existence of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), it plays a crucial role in climate science in that it is being universally accepted within the mainstream climate science community as scientific fact for purposes of stating that recent warming is truly unprecedented.
When a mainstream climate scientist points the finger at carbon dioxide as the cause for recent global warming, and then has to defend the validity of the General Circulation Models, that climate scientist has the Hockey Stick to fall back on in saying, “Well, yes, there are problems with the GCMs, as we would expect of anything of this nature which is complicated and which is a work in progress. But, we know for a fact that recent warming is unprecedented in the last 1000 years; and so far, nothing else but the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere offers a credible explanation.”
As an analysis product which serves the needs of the climate science community, the Hockey Stick is the perfect solution to the problem climate scientists face when acknowledging that the CGMs are not producing accurate predictions, but then having to defend the further development of these GCMs by saying, “If it isn’t carbon dioxide, then what else is it?”
In my view, Michael Mann is a canny scientist-businessman who perfectly understands the market niche the Hockey Stick occupies within the Global Warming Industrial Complex. The Hockey Stick is a science analysis product which is brilliantly and exquisitely crafted to reach conclusions which are of indispensable value in promoting AGW to agendized government agencies and to the general public at large, and which at the same time have the look and feel of professionally done science.
Mann’s lawsuit is nothing more than an effort by a canny scientist-businessman to protect his Michael Mann LLC* line of climate science products from the scrutiny of public policy consumer advocates such as Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn.
* LLC — Limited Liability Climatologist
Beta Blocker: Mann’s lawsuit is nothing more than an effort by a canny scientist-businessman to protect his Michael Mann LLC* line of climate science products from the scrutiny of public policy consumer advocates such as Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn.
That’s a clever post.
So if they ask for meta data and code in discovery he can withdraw intact.
+ 1. e-mail it to Steyn.
Beta Blocker,
wonderful comment!
It also resonates well with what Steve M. has said about some of his original interest, comparing statements from Briffa and Mann to dubious practices he had seen in business, stock and mining promotion and manipulation etc.
If anyone here wonders about the “Ray P” reference, it is regarding a quotation from one of the founding gurus of RealClimate, the U. of Chicago’s Ray Pierrehumbert, who discussed in a 2005 comment at RC just how useful the Hockey Stick had been for having a simply “icon” to present to the public, a simplified image and argument to represent more complex issues:
Skiphil, as further background for what I said above, and repeating what I said on CA a few days ago, after eight years of following the debates concerning the scientific validity of the Hockey Stick, I have reached my own conclusion that the Hockey Stick is a contrived analysis product which is brilliantly and exquisitely crafted to reach conclusions which are indispensable in promoting AGW theory to agendized government agencies and to the general public at large.
Having once been a QA auditor in a scientific organization, I can say that on the surface, the Hockey Stick has the look and feel of professionally done science — but only on the surface.
Digging deeper into the Hockey Stick’s nooks and crannies, using the material Steve McIntyre and others have collected over the last eight years, reveals the kinds of data pedigree issues and the kinds of analytical methodology issues which, in their total aggregate, lead me to conclude that the Hockey Stick is most certainly a product of contrived research – contrived in the sense that both the foundational data and the analytical processes have been consciously cherry-picked and integrated in a way which guarantees that only one outcome is possible, a Hockey Stick shape having a long pronounced handle with a short but very strong blade at its tip.
Further, when one examines the analytical approach which has been employed in producing the Hockey Stick, doing so from a strict QA auditing perspective, one eventually comes to realize that the considerable bulk of the analytical approach is actually a facade whose purpose is to give the Hockey Stick the look and feel of Real Science while at the same time having sufficient methodological density and opaqueness so as to discourage someone who reviews the work from digging too deeply into the substance of the analysis. As a former QA auditor working in a scientific organization, there is no other conclusion I can reach when I look at both the weight of the evidence and the substance of the evidence that Steve McIntyre and others have collected.
Why I Love Climate Etc. by Joshua:
In two successive clicks I read, first (from mosher)
==> “People will now debate the meaning. which means of course that steyn couldnt have meant something precise, ”
And next I read this, from AK:
==> “Whether or not he meant it that way, Steyn was clearly speaking metaphorically,…”
And, of course, neither knows what Steyn actually meant, whether he was speaking metaphorically, whether he meant something precise.
But these much beloved “skeptics” don’t let a lack of precise evidence interfere with the process of them formulating absolutely certain opinions…
…and expressing them on a blog whose proprietor is concerned about respecting uncertainty.
Climate Etc. is a work of art and a thing of beauty.
Stop polluting this thread with your sophism.
Which sophism?
Have people been convicted of fraud for “cooking the books”?
They’ve been called bigots for burning them.
It seems Joshua isn’t going to go on the record of endorsing free speech suppression like Michael and Fanboy. He’s going into a Socratic coma for the purpose at hand.
Playing the long game Joshua are we??
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/20/free_speech_for_mann_but_not_for_thee_121649.html
Even when a metaphor includes the case represented by its literal meaning, it remains a metaphor.
Anyway, IIRC it was Aristotle, quoted by Pirsig, who pointed out that all language is metaphor, and my own studies of neurology suggest that even neural patterns can be considered metaphors. Or, putting it from a different perspective, even words are represented by patterns of neural activity in the brain that can be called (speaking metaphorically) metaphors.
==> “Even when a metaphor includes the case represented by its literal meaning, it remains a metaphor.”
OK, fair enough. I guess if he used a metaphor, he wasspeaking metaphorically. Point taken. I got a bit carried away there.
What is questionable (despite the assertions of some that it isn’t) is the intent of his metaphor.
Well, as a journalist engaging in advocacy, he was within his rights to accuse Mann of “fraud”, metaphorically in the context of “public policy advice”. As such, it would represent an effort to mould public opinion, as demonstrated by language changes.
Whether he was consciously aware of this at the time would seem irrelevant to me. Especially in the terms I expressed it. He may just have felt a sense of outrage, proper IMO, and expressed it in vague terms: Mann’s use of the “hockey stick” in the context of “public policy advice” (i.e. the IPCC) was “fraud”.
Unless he made a clear distinction in his mind between the “scientific or professional context” and the context of “public policy advice”, he would probably have been speaking unclearly, while trying to make a point he hadn’t precisely defined. Which, as a journalist, is his right. As long as he’s expressing outrage (or even disapproval), I don’t see how anybody could reasonably claim an intent to defame.
Joshua
“precise” would likely be a word not applicable to a court case about political commentary
“precise evidence” would count in science
apples and oranges
I try to be open to your point of view
Why I love Joshua
…….
…….
I stopped reading at the inevitable “skeptics“.
What Styne does is for driving ratings or increasing readership. He is usually doing one of the following: being sarcastic, being funny or witty, feeding the tribe or mocking the left. It’s all weighed for entertainment value.
What Steyn meant is not that terribly important
see page 14 and following from the ACLU
http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6515.pdf
Note the emphasis on the READERS understanding and not what the author may or may not have meant.
Mann claims harm because of what he purports readers would have understood steyns meaning to be, not what Steyn was thinking in his head when he wrote it.
nah, you’re reading too much into that.
the focus on the readers is just for determining what kind of setting the words are printed in, to say whether or not it’s an opinion piece.
A generalized definition of fraud;
A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly makes a materially false or misleading statement to obtain property . . .
“… Mann’s own CV, Mann lists himself as a coauthor of the WMO 1999 diagram.
. . .
I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record.”
Purposeful misrepresentation to HIDE data and information which shows the complete and real picture . . .
“Man-caused global warming” is perpetrated on the populace in order to justify forcefully transferring billions and trillions of dollars to the politically connected . . .
The FRAUD, is the acquiescence of “the people” to pay higher prices for everything. Literally everything.
Everything individuals purchase must be created and transported. Nothing is made without energy. Nothing. From the food we eat, to the fuel we burn, to the goods we wear. We cannot exist in today’s world without energy.
EPA regulations make illegal small companies’ products and legalize favored companies’ products, which are more expensive to purchase… From food, to wood burning stoves, to air conditioning systems.
The “global warming” fraud has been used to steal money from every single American and enrich the political class and their supporters.
What is money? Value? Something all of us who work, exchange our time for. Our lives are nothing more than time spent. Dollars represent the time we spend our lives for.
The global warming “consensus” has been used to justify government FORCING (TAKING ACTION) all individuals to spend money they have exchanged their lives for. New laws. New regulations. Money taken, stolen, otherwise spent elsewhere if free choice were legal.
If the science is/was settled, the proponents of global warming (and the trillions of dollars in regulations and lost jobs to other countries) would not need to hide the data/information that contradict their claimed consensus.
“Global warming” FRAUD has been used to destroy many jobs, careers and lives, while at the same time used to enrich the proponents with millions in grants from government and it’s allies.
Mann’s continuing advocacy and misrepresentation of “truncated data” is purposeful fraud.
The new information in this post is Jean S finding Mann’s CV entry where he claims co-authorship of the WHO Cover Page which depicts The Hide the Decline Graph. In Mann’s legal brief he claims that he had no involvement with the WHO graph. So did Mann lie on his CV or did he lie to the Court?
Up thread I pointed out that page 2 of WMO99 contains a box explaining the cover chart, wherein Mann is expressly identified as having contributed. Therefor it is the new court pleading that is false. And that will NOT sit well with the court.
An ethical obligation of a scientist is to immediately correct or retract a paper in which an error has been found. Mann is extremely reluctant to admit any error. But errors there are. He has gotten geographic coordinates mixed up in his data on more than one occasion. He has used the Tiljander proxy upside down when the author of the proxy said after a certain data it was contaminated by road construction sediment which inverted the understood meaning of the proxy (etc) and meant nothing. He used a short-centering method of PCA that an expert in the field (Joliffe I believe) said was wrong and made no sense. and so on. These are not matters of opinion like whether frequentist or Bayesian methods are best, but factual matters. In only the rarest of cases has he corrected anything, and often secretly. Whether this is fraud or not, it is certainly not honorable behavior for a scientist.
How grown-ups do it:
> Understandably, posterity has not esteemed Kircher as one of the seminal figures in the genealogy of modernity—a Galileo or a Descartes. But in his day he was, without question, one of Europe’s most successful scholars. He embodied the contradictions of a moment when recognizably modern ways of thinking about the past had become available, yet older and conflicting models remained appealing and, to many, persuasive. As such, he allows us to explore a side of history too often lost to view. Without this view we cannot fully grasp the work of thinkers like Galileo or Descartes, much less understand the age on its own terms.
http://publicdomainreview.org/2013/05/16/athanasius-kircher-and-the-hieroglyphic-sphinx/#sthash.LHnmj5tT.dpuf
What does it say about the Sun and the Owl though, willard?
Usually, Sun is truth and night watchers guard wisdom, naq.
Speaking of owls:
http://consumerist.com/2014/09/08/john-oliver-on-for-profit-colleges-you-might-as-well-go-to-hogwarts/
Usually, Sun is truth and night watchers guard wisdom, naq.
Speaking of owls:
http://consumerist.com/2014/09/08/john-oliver-on-for-profit-colleges-you-might-as-well-go-to-hogwarts/
Get acquainted with the work of Jara da Cimrman, the Master of Blind Alleys.
His work is never finished.
Good analogy. Except Kircher got something right.
Now we know how grown ups handle mistakes in a field that doesn’t matter.
The better analogy is piltdown or stem cell shenanigans
It was not an analogy. That Mike got everything wrong remains to be seen. Mike matters more to the auditing sciences than anything else. The better analogy would be 24, but then the original is plausible.
Speaking of analogies, the recent accusations of fraud against McIntyre is interesting:
> t is alleged that McIntyre overcharged the institute by $100,000 (£66,000) when providing security for the group in Iraq during a break from army service. He faces eight counts of fraud and a possible 20-year jail term in an American prison.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2679603/British-army-veteran-served-Bosnia-Northern-Ireland-extradited-America-face-fraud-charges-Iraq-security-firm.html
Lots of theories.
Clever.
but it was an analogy. you may not have intended it as an analogy, but you dont control the meaning of your text. Ask Simberg. He would like to control the meaning of his text, but he doesnt.
Further, you’ll note that I didnt argue that Mann got everything wrong.
he obviously spelled his own name correctly.
nevertheless. That is how grown ups do it in a field that doesnt matter after the guy is dead and gone. Not exactly relevant to Mann.
‘stem cell shenanigans’
Haruko Obokata is trying to repeat her acid generated stem cell work in a monitored lab, where everything going in and out is logged, and is under 24 hr video surveillance.
Her former boss committed suicide.
+2
Piltdown man often seems like a particularly good analogy to me.
The original was two pieces of evidence placed together where they didn’t oughta’ have been. The perpetrator(s) would have known precisely the misleading effect it would have on those not aware of the deception.
In terms of reach and consequences, the hockey-stick is the most duplicitous piece of scientific “evidence” for over a century. It really takes the biscuit.
H/T willard, I had never heard of him either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_Kircher
Timely.
Michael Mann is a good Party person, towing the same speech restriction of dissent as the rest of his peers;
http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/nancy-pelosi-backs-controversial-internet-powers-to-save-net-neutrality-20140908
Controlling the internet for the common good.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/08/senate-votes-to-consider-speech-restrict
“Advancing democratic self-government” as defined by a Democratic controlled Senate. A constitutional amendment proposal. Speech restrictions legalized.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/democrats_sixty_year_war_against_conservative_voices.html
The “Fairness Doctrine”, media political suppression, the IRS politicization and targeting of conservative dissent. Fruit of the same tree.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/06/03/execute-skeptics-shock-call-to-action-at-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers-shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now/
Why stop at speech Michael and Fanboy? Why not just come out and advocate jail or death sentences for “deniers”? Who needs trumped up “fraud” claims after all??
If you look at the climate debate rationally it’s simply another schism clash of traditional progressive political aggression being met by a variety of opponents. What thrives in tiny academic, political and media enclaves will only meet its end day in the larger open world. The social costs have been huge of course.
You are entirely correct cwon14!
Both Mark Steyn and the Competitive Enterprise Institute would be well-advised to forego personal smears, willful ignorance, and ideology-driven conspiracy theories.
Recommendation CEI/Steyn would do well to embrace the rational, well-mannered, gentle-humored, science-driven communications of Peter Cox and his colleagues at 97 Hours of Consensus
This simple, science-respecting course-correction would be mighty good for the long-term prospects and overall health of 21st century conservatism, eh cwon14?
These gentle communications are *FAR* more effective than the ignorant CEISteyn-style slogan-shouting that so egregiously smears Michael Mann and Judith Curry and Vitaly Khvorostyanov!
*EVERYONE* appreciates the combined merits of gentle humor, civic manners, and solid climate-science, eh Climate Etc readers?
Linkies fixed! :)
Best wishes for happy reading, to all smile-minded cat-loving Climate Etc readers!
Pingback: Hockey Sticks And “Fraud” | Transterrestrial Musings
As far as I know fraud has to have a victim. That would of course be the taxpayers. How would one prove that policy makers were convinced, after seeing the hockey stick, that they must act and spend the taxpayers money on policy? I could just see it: right there in the hearing you can clearly see the hockey stick graph up on the tripod and there’s some lawmakers slapping themselves on their foreheads ‘gasp, we must act’. There you go clear video evidence. Ah, now I know why they’re called alarmists.
The goes all the way to the tippy-tippy top.
In a court in DC, which is 90% CAGW demographic, and who’s resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave holds the highest office in the land and has called any CAGW skeptic a flat-earther and denier… do you actually think Mann will get an unfavorable ruling in this political environment?
I weep for the death of the truth.
It is interesting to imagine what would happen if Congress or the executive branch got to judge this lawsuit, but in this case, it is the courts that will decide. They are affected by political climates, but it’s not shaped so much by what the President says.
Of course, the problem is systematic. The infamous Skeptical Science consensus paper was accepted, defended and promoted by Daniel Kammen. Kammen is the Senior Environmental Policy Advisor for the President of the United States. This is the same president whose Twitter account was used to promote that consensus paper while grossly exaggerating its results, a tweet Kammen still promotes despite its falsity.
If politics and science can be that connected, who knows how the courts might be affected.
Walt, do not. Truth is alive, including via this blog. But it struggles for supremacy in a world full of deliberately politicized falsehoods.
The specific issue here is already WAY beyond DC. That is just the prejudicially selected initial judicial venue Mann chose.
I received my prized SCOTUS gold cufflinks in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court from Justice Thomas himself some years ago. Courtesy of being a multiyear guest speaker at the ABA appellate judiciary forums (State Supremes, Federal Appeals) concerning ‘venue in the internet era’. Super complicated legally. You might even say, unprecedented!
If your theory was right, I would not have been allowed to land at Reagan for that ceremony. I have faith that the citizens of this great land (and others) will ultimately educate themselves, vote, and make a difference.
Regards
I suggest that the scientists providing legal analysis in their comments limit them in the future to subject matter upon which they are qualified to discuss. Commenters grasp the relationship and responsibilities between lawyers and their clients, burdens of proof, relevancy and what constitutes admissible evidence are both limited and incorrect.
paddylol:
If people (even scientists) who are not qualified on legal matters cannot comment on legal matters, and people who are not qualifed on science matters (just extending your request into other areas) cannot comment on science, this blog will be pretty empty.
This is a blog.
Clueless comments are part of the fun of reading a blog!
“Clueless comments are part of the fun of reading a blog!”
But not for Holmes or Poirot.
Do you mean our posts should be like this:
Quoting from the 1964 US Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan:
“Erroneous statement is protected, the Court asserted, there being no exception “for any test of truth.” Error is inevitable in any free debate and to place liability upon that score, and especially to place on the speaker the burden of proving truth, would introduce self-censorship and stifle the free expression which the First Amendment protects*”.
*376 U.S. at 271-72, 278-79.
I seems appropriate to add the following:
“The teaching of Times and the cases following it is that expression on matters of public interest is protected by the First Amendment. Within that area of protection is commentary about the public actions of individuals. The fact that expression contains falsehoods does not deprive it of protection, because otherwise such expression in the public interest would be deterred by monetary judgments and self-censorship imposed for fear of judgments.**”.
**law.justia.com discussion about defamation in US Law.
I will use the “iudicio saeculari” principle to state Dr. Mann relies on “retorquendam veritatem” in order to have “vulgaris ideas favore suo lucro”.
Is this better?
This appeal is regarding the denial of defendants’ Motion To Dismiss, is it not? A FRCP 12(b)(6) MTD requires a defendant show plaintiffs “fail[] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” and thus places a heavy burden on the defendant to show plaintiffs would fail as a matter of law. That means the court essentially has to assume matters of fact are in Mann’s favor. That includes things like “actual malice” that I doubt can be proven with the existing record. That’s the sort of thing that gets sorted out at discovery.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_12
I would be quite shocked if the appeals court rules for defendants/appellants. They’d basically have to say there’s no conceivable circumstance under which National Review’s statements could be construed as defamation. Mann will have quite a time winning on the merits in the long run (I think his chances are slim to none), but he’ll likely win at this stage. If/when he does, I wouldn’t read too much into it.
My guess is National Review will assert First Amendment privileges over their internal communications citing their special press position and the need for confidentiality in their deliberations. If they succeed in keeping that stuff out of the record, I don’t see how Mann could win. He’d practically need an internal e-mail stating “we’re gonna destroy this guy” or thereabouts to have a case.
John the grounds for dismissal was DC’s anti-SLAPP statute, not the merits of the case. It is the SLAPP ruling being appealed by CEI. That is why the ACLU filed an amicus brief. Slapp is about political freedom of speach, and the preventing abusive use of defamation lawsuits to supress it. Whichnis what we have here. Steyn has recused himself, and counter sued Mann on the merits. That is on hold until this appeal is resolved. But because of the separation and countersuit, even if Mann’s suit is dismissed per the SLAPP statute, Steyn can proceed. And that is why all this willful misrepresentation in Mann’s pleadings (for no other interpretation is possible given the facts Judith posted) is important. Mann is going to lose. Big time.
As a strong advocate of free speech I am hopeful that the judge will be non-partisan, apply the law, be swayed by the ACLU/NYT amicus brief, and dismiss under the anti-SLAPP.
Not so. The Defendants sought dismissal under DC’s Anti-SLAPP statute which certainly cannot be decided under the standards applicable to a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.
I don’t have the ECF access I used to, so I’m sure I missed something. But there was a 12(b)(6) motion.
“The Superior Court found, based on a review of legal doctrine and the pleadings submitted, that the plaintiff scientist had met his resulting burden of showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his libel claims, and denied the special motions to dismiss under the Act, and for similar reasons also denied the defendants’ motions for dismissal under Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6517.pdf
I was wondering because I’d never heard of a 12(b)(6) being appealed. I’m not familiar with the Anti-SLAPP standards.
John M, there was also a denial of a 12(b)(6) as well, but it is not at issue in the appeal for the obvious reason. You can look at the Anti-SLAPP statute here.
I presume you were replying to John M, and not me.
Dr. Curry,
As you know, “research misconduct” is a term of art in regulatory requirements, and may or may not be the same as “fraud” as defined in the common law. I have no idea if the defendants in the litigation were using the term “fraud” in its technical legal sense or were using it as a synonym for “falsification” as used in definitions of “research misconduct.”
The definition of “research misconduct,” as commonly employed by U.S. Federal agencies for those funding of outside researchers, includes the following (quoting from the EPA Order 3120.5, Policy and Procedures for Addressing Research Misconduct, available at http://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/epapolicy.pdf, which provides policy and procedures on reporting, procedures, investigations, and adjudication of research misconduct by the EPA’s employees, contractors, and recipients of assistance agreements, and is substantially similar to those of other U.S. Federal agencies):
A. Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results [65 FR 76262. I], or ordering, advising or suggesting that subordinates engage in research misconduct.
B. Research, as used herein, includes all basic, applied, and demonstration research in all fields of science, engineering, and mathematics. This includes, but is not limited to, research in economics, education, linguistics, medicine, psychology, social sciences, and research involving human subjects or animals. [65 FR 76262. I, footnote 2]
C. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. [65 FR 76262. I]
D. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. [65 FR 76262. I]
E. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. [65 FR 76262. I]
F. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. [65 FR 76262. I]
In this definition, the most serious issue facing Dr. Mann in connection with his “hide the decline” conduct is the definition in paragraph D of “falsification,” which encompasses “omitting data … such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.” Dr. Mann’s best defenses are either that the research record was still “accurately represented” or the “does not include honest error or differences of opinion” language at the end of the definition.
I do not know if any of Dr. Mann’s research efforts in this regard were Federally funded and he or his educational institution constituted a “contractor” or had the benefit of an “assistance agreement” under an EPA or any other U.S. Federal agency program.
Note that some educational institutions, for their own internal research integrity policies, define “falsification” differently, not including the crucial “omitting data …” language, and leaving only affirmative changes and manipulation. The educational institution’s research misconduct policy applies to all of its employees, including professors, in their work under its auspices, but does not override U.S. Federal requirements where the research is subject to those Federal rules.
One way to think about the “omission” language is the parallel with the oath a witness takes before giving testimony in a court – “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” The “omitting data …” language in the U.S. Federal definition of “research misconduct” parallels the “whole truth” requirement of that oath.
Another well-known analogy is to U.S. securities law, where Rule 10b-5 famously makes it unlawful for any issuer of publicly-traded stock or bonds:
***
(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
The “omit to state a material fact …” Rule 10b-5 language is analogous to the “omit data …” language in U.S. Federal research misconduct policy.
I hope this is useful.
Regards,
MK
Thanks Mark, this is indeed useful
mkantor
Thanks for the details on Falsification etc.
In 1991 I wrote a 330 page report on how solar energy could redress the IPCC’s 1990 warnings of global warming. Now after 24 years, I find the IPCC’s warming projections are twice as high as reality, and that there has been no statistical warming for about two decades.
I find Mann’s data truncations and refusing to acknowledge the serious errors of his statistical methods to constitute both “fabrication” and “falsification” in the definitions above. e.g., as detailed by McIntyre and Mckitrick’s evaluations of the hockey stick.
Mann’s efforts seem the opposite of Richard Feynman’s standard for integrity in science which is encapsulated by the EPA guidelines you quote.
Question: Are the EPA guidelines applicable and enforceable when the Administration/EPA Management themselves knowingly reproduce such “Falsification”, AND when they explicitly refused to include contrary information as required by their guidelines?
e.g. see the saga of EPA analyst Alan Carlin
Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst’s report questioning the science behind global warming.
Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
By Alan Carlin, NCEE/OPEI, Based on TSD Draft of March 9, 2009
What about the OMB’s Information Quality Guidelines? February 22, 2002 (67 F.R. 8452), as detailed for the Environmental Protection Agency? http://epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/iqg-list.html
Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency
E.g. when the EPA refuses to correct information such detailed by Alan Carlin. See Section 8, p 30.
It appears that the EPA is running roughshod over the Rule of Law. Furthermore, with the courts refusing to address matters of science, it appears that there is no recourse expect to “throw the bums out” in the ballot box and change the law. But that now requires 60% from the same party in the Senate – or 67% to throw out the President.
One more time, specific legal, criminal, professional, scientific, or other definition of “fraud” is not relevant here. What matters is what the reader would have understood Steyn and CEI to mean in the overall context of the articles in which the “hockey stick” was described as “fraudulent”. Furthermore, Mann bears the burden of proving that the phrase “fraudulent “hockey stick” is false as a matter of fact. If the phrase is a matter of opinion, it cannot be defamatory.
Will J. Richardson
Re: “Mann bears the burden of proving that the phrase “fraudulent “hockey stick” is false as a matter of fact.”
What does Mann have to do? Does that require that Mann must show the “hockey stick” and his representation of it were both accurate?
David Hagan:
Mann must prove all the elements of the cause of action in defamation, one of which is, “that the defendant made a false or defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff”. Blodgett v. The University Club, 930 A.2d 210, 222 (D.C.2007). Also, if the factual statement alleged to be defamatory is “substantially true”, generally, the statement cannot be defamatory. Armstrong v. Thompson, 80 A. 3d 177, 183-4 (D.C. App. 2013). Mann, as the plaintiff bears the burden of proving every element of his cause of action. He therefore must prove the falsity of the alleged defamatory statement. Last, statements of opinion, such are prevalent in scientific controversies, are generally not actionable in defamation. <iArmstrong at 184.
If a moderator would please fix my open html, I would appreciate it.
I wonder though, did Mann actually omit data or did he just hide it in the graphics. (ie, was the data still analyzed/discussed in his papers)
For the answer to this quesion, please see ClimateAudit and search for “CENSORED” directory on Mann’s FTP site.
Data and anaysis in these files clearly show that Mann was aware of material that called the published results into question – whether he was aware of it at the time of publication is debatable, however to suggest he was unaware of it as long ago as 2009 is clearly incorrect.
He did not retract nor correct his paper or SI in this respect. Does that amount to “research misconduct”? I don’t know. I certainly think it’s unethical and unhelpful behaviour that damages not just climate science, but the reputation of all science.
It seems that this would also prohibit the omission of even rejected data and also that data and code would have to be made available to others.
Spot on. In which case Mann is toast.
Is this what you’re reduced to Dr Curry? A blog post with a title that is blatant click bait for the lowest low life on the internet. Appalling behaviour for anyone but especially one who claims to be a thought leader. You are a professor aren’t you? Where’s your professionalism?
Hey me. She is the professional. She is the one trying to chase the skunks out of the barn. Amazing that you are so dense.
+
It actually doesn’t seem to have attracted the lcd in the comments. It’s rather tame, relevant and peaceful, other than the usual.
Judith Curry and I sometimes differ in regard to matters of math-and-science … but she always receives appreciation and high regard (from me and everyone) for her professional commitment, for her personal integrity, and for her gracious manners too.
Therefore, “me”, please let me join with Bob is saying (in surfer-lingo) “Get lost kook!”. `Cuz Judith deserves *FAR* better!
Fan
Well said
Tonyb
You are lower than low, since you obviously clicked on the link and then proceeded to call out Dr. Curry in a passive, aggressive fashion. Man (or woman) up and use your real name and debate the issue(s) next time.
Hmmm…how did you get here me?
Another astonishing post from “me” who has obviously been attracted by Judith’s blatant click bait. A shining example of bias for everyone to see.
Careful, or you’ll wake David Appell up.
“This situation may be the single most compelling reason for scientists not be issue advocates regarding their scientific research – efforts to induce other to act need to be very careful that they do not mislead the public.”
You mean like telling David Rose “”the Arctic sea ice spiral of death seems to have reversed.”
Judith’s post is obviously personal and political, because she doesn’t once mention that there were three co-authors on the MBH papers, not one. You’d never know that from all the accusations flying around.
This is starting to look like what was done to Robert Oppenheimer, also to score political points.
Appell,”Judith’s post is obviously personal and political”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The climate house is infected with mannian crawlers and she would like it disinfected. Bradley and Hughes were either bamboozled by Mann or didn’t have the statistical wherewithal to ferret out his nonsense.
The charge of ‘fraud’ most definitely does not involve coauthors BH. It involves those that hid the decline in WMO99 and TAR.
Perhaps Dr Appell could tell us why Dr Mann refuses giving up his meta data in dicovery in his case against Tim Ball required by Canadian law thus not only defaulting on the case but opening himself up to Ball’s suit against him. What is he hiding besides the decline?
Keep in mind that most of the criticism of Mann that borders on charges of academic misconduct is not for the MBH paper, but Mann’s professional behavior after its publication.
The sole issue in MBH98 that I am aware of is the withholding of adverse R2-verification results. Even this amounts to what I would term a judgement call gone wrong, and so shouldn’t be viewed as evidence of misconduct but rather just a junior researcher who made a bad call.
Anyway, when you co-author a paper, you take on a certain level of trust for the other authors behavior. I doubt Bradley or Hughes had much to do with the analysis section in question, so that’s all Mann, who wrote the code and made the bad analysis decisions.
Carrick, I don’t agree with what you say here because your first paragraph says “MBH paper.” Once we extend the discussion to MBH99, I think it’s fair to level charges of academic misconduct. I discussed why below, but basically, Michael Mann realized a central claim of robustness in MBH98 was false after he published it. Despite that, he went on to publish MBH99, building upon MBH98 without making any effort to correct the false claim.
I think it’s fair to accuse someone of academic misconduct when they knowingly direct people to work with central claims that are false in order to support their current work.
Carrick, “The sole issue in MBH98 that I am aware of is the withholding of adverse R2-verification results. Even this amounts to what I would term a judgement call gone wrong, and so shouldn’t be viewed as evidence of misconduct but rather just a junior researcher who made a bad call.”
I believe it is worse than you indicate. When asked at a congressional hearing whether he calculated an R2, he replied no and that would be a silly thing to do. So rather than a bad call, he was mendacious.(sorry I don’t have the link handy – correct me if wrong)
Brandon, again that’s a good point about how MBH99 affects the analysis of whether deliberate deception (what one would call “scientific fraud”) was at play. But case for misconduct is stilleasier to build, because motive doesn’t matter so much.
If this is true, then the standards for academic scientists have fallen pretty low. I am an engineer working in aerospace. If I withheld adverse results from my employer, let alone my customer, I would be fired. Same for persons working in investments and finance. Why do professors get to withhold adverse results?
Carrick, yup. There’s no need to focus on accusations of fraud. We can discuss other accusations instead. I personally don’t care to focus on “fraud” much because of the problems the word causes. I just get tired of people saying Michael Mann didn’t commit scientific fraud, but instead committed fraud in the lay sense. I think that’s wrong. I think the lay sense of the fraud is easier to demonstrate (and probably what Mark Steyn intended), but that doesn’t mean we should clear Mann of the more serious offense.
Tom C, it is true, but I don’t think it shows standards for academic scientists have dropped at all. From what I’ve seen, this sort of thing has been part of academia for ages.
Brandon, that is ridiculous. The fraud is deceiving political bodies and the public. It has little to do with academia.
It is neither personal nor political. For the sentient among us, we understand that only Mann is suing so who co-authored his works is irrelevant to the topic – Mann’s case.
Read it again so you can better understand that fact.
And they made these statements knowing that Dr. Mann’s research has been reviewed repeatedly and replicated by other scientists, and that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated:
It shouldn’t be beyond the ability of the court (especially a jury) to adjudicate that.
Was it “defamation” to point out that the same people (chair at least) who exonerated Sandusky later “exonerated” Mann, using similar language in both cases (referring to money accrued to the university, and fame), and in both cases not taking testimony from accusers? I say let all parties testify in court under oath and subject to cross-examination in front of a jury.
On the general subject og Mann’s behavior, I like this in particular.
“John Christy, who was seen as the lone sceptic on the panel, asked Mann about his R2 score. Mann tried to evade the question by denouncing its usage in general, but Christy pressed him further, asking whether he had in fact calculated the figure. Mann’s reply was sharp and to McIntyre, at lest, breathtaking:
‘We didn’t calculate it. That would be silly and incorrect reasoning.’
This was an extraordinary statement. Mann’s paper clearly stated that ‘For comparison correlation (r) and squared-correlation (R2) statistics are also determined’. He had presented R2 information in the paper. The commands to calculate R2 were in the code he had submitted to congress. He had told Crok the the Hockey Stick passed the R2 test, something he could only have determined if he had calculated its value in the first place.”
(The Hockey Stick Illusion, pages 241-242)
In this context, there is no need for Steyn et al. to ‘prove’ fraud in court; but merely to legitimize a public statement of ‘Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick‘ as not defamatory.
That’s the way I hope it works. The court, including the jury, can read or have read to them how much criticism of the hockey stick was already in the public domain, hear some of the definitions of “fraudulent” (possibly including excerpts from court decisions), and decide the issue.
I count six lies in that one statement.
David Appell: This is starting to look like what was done to Robert Oppenheimer, also to score political points.
What private citizen was sued by Robert Oppenheimer for writing an opinion piece? Oppenheimer did himself no favors by lying to the FBI and by his arrogance towards others; he lost his security clearance, not a fundamental civil right anyway. And the action was done by government, not a private citizen writing an editorial. The comparison of Mann to Oppenheimer is gross. Admittedly, not as gross perhaps as the Sandusky allusion, which is clearly more of an insult to PennState than to Mann.
More like the far-right Feynman-smearers
These smears (successfully) blocked Feynman’s appointment as Presidential Science Advisor.
Conclusion There’s a simple reason why CEI/Steyn work so diligently to smear scientists like Michael Mann: extreme-right smear-strategies have worked before.
That letter appears to have been written by Feynman’s ex-wife.
Some smear campaign.
LoL … little did Richard Feynman suspect that his ultra-conservative “ex” was busily denouncing *him* to J. Edgar Hoover as “the fire”!
Conclusion Smears are effective *AND* easy … that’s why ideology-driven demagogues — equally of the far-right and the far-left — have historically embraced them.
I’m just laughing at the thought of Feynman as a PSA. The man could barely get himself to put anything down on paper–he would have needed to have co-appointed with him a Presidential Amaneunsis. I would have given him two months before he exploded from having to deal with the White House bureaucracy.
not to mention that oppenheimer was a giant, who helped end the war with japan…a colossus…and mann is a gnat, a thin skinned gnat on the body of science. other than that, the analogy holds.
The definition of fraud in criminal law won’t be relevant here, or shouldn’t be, since it’s easy to establish that it’s not what people mean by fraud in scientific or scholastic settings. Also the way people use fraud as a noun for a person, “He’s a fraud” would have no relation to the criminal notion of fraud. Scientific fraud is a complex matter of judgment.
One definition of scientific fraud from Chop & Silva: “Scientific fraud, an act of deception or misrepresentation of one’s own work, violates these ethical standards. It can take the form of plaglarism, falsification of data, and irresponsible authorship.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/875572239190051L
Irresponsible authorship is going to be a matter of judgment. I’m guessing the fact that readers of opinion pieces in political magazines don’t assume a crime occurred when they read a critique of a scientists work as fraudulent, especially if some further information is present that clarifies what the writer means, should matter.
The “dirty laundry” email has not received nearly the attention of “hide the decline”, but warrants attention. If someone in a controversy (be it Roger Goodell or Penn State President Graham Spanier or anyone) had sent an email to a close colleague saying that it contained his “dirty laundry”, pledging the colleague to ensure that the “dirty laundry” did not fall into the “wrong hands”, can you imagine any responsible investigator neglecting to examine the “dirty laundry” and failing to closely examine the subject of the investigation? And yet NONE of the nine so-called “inquiries”, including Penn State, asked Mann to explain his “dirty laundry” (or Osborn what he thought he was receiving) or sought interpretation of the email from people with specialized knowledge of the emails.
In my opinion, the “dirty laundry” connects directly to perhaps the largest conduct issue in the 2006 investigations – Mann’s failure to disclose his adverse verification r2 statistics, then a far larger issue than hide-the-decline. Mann was asked about the withholding by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, evading an answer. Mann was asked again by a NAS panelist and flatly lied to the NAS panel, though the NAS panel did not confront Mann about his lie either at the time or in their report.
Mann’s claims to statistical “skill” were a large part of the original persuasiveness of MBH98-99.
To independently calculate Mann’s verification statistics in 2003, one would need to see the residual series or equivalently the results from the individual steps. But Mann had not archived the results of individual steps, so the only way to check his results would be to run the gauntlet of trying to replicate his results from scratch, a process fraught with potential mis-steps due to quirky undisclosed procedures. So who would bother trying to do that?
Osborn requested Mann’s residual series. With residual series, one could trivially check his statistical claims. When I asked for his residuals later in 2003, Mann refused and, to their continuing shame, both NSF and Nature supported Mann’s refusal to provide residuals or even the results of individual steps (from which residuals could be easily calculated).
Mann knew that his verification r2 results were disastrous: he had already withheld this information from his article and even the fine print of the SI. In my opinion, that’s why Mann described the residuals as his “dirty laundry”.
Had the disastrous verification r2 results been widely disseminated in 1998, it would have impacted the reception of the Stick. At the time, Eduardo Zorita’s opinion of the Stick was hugely reduced when he learned of the disastrous verification r2 results. But by the time that the “community” learned of the misrepresentation of statistical skill, it was very difficult for them to walk back without appearing to capitulate to the “deniers”, a circumstance that Mann used to his advantage, by transforming himself from a minor paleoclimatologist to a hero of the revolution.
BTW, it is inconceivable to me that the 2006 inquiries would have ended as they did, had they known about the “dirty laundry” email.
I’ve been pondering a fresh review of the topic.
Thank you, Steve. You have have a great service to society and to the scientific community.
Why does O-man get to comment when Mann gets compared to Sandusky ?
Because people do not know the hypocrisy involved.
Funny that Curry got her krackpot ideas on applying Bose-Einstein statistics to cloud nucleation from O-man.
evidence: http://contextearth.com/crackpots-etc/
Yes, the r2 story from 2006 is the same affair that my quote from The Hockey Stick Illusion refers to (above). Just from reading the book, it seemed to be the clearest case of a flat-out lie from Mann.
Steve, please less pondering and more posting by you and yours. You are, after all, amongst the few acknowledged and published experts in this narrow topic. Gosh, even peer reviewed published–somehow (sarc off).
Please do air the “dirty laundry” R2 email. Soonest. No more pondering.
Regards.
Rud Istvan JD/MBA
Rud, just fyi, the “dirty laundry” email was previously discussed in a lead post at Climate Audit:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/01/dirty-laundry/
I think that Steve M’s comment suggests a new “fresh” post but it does not imply that he has not covered the issue in detail before. The challenge is to get the powers-that-be in Climate Scientology to pay attention.
also this, which goes beyond the specific 2003 Mann to Osborn email, to link the “dirty laundry” meme to Mann’s abuse of “upside-down Tiljander” —
http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/06/dirty-laundry-ii-contaminated-sediments/
This the email in question. Michael Mann to Tim Osborn, CRU, July 2003:
Ah, the neverinding trivial audit.
Always something tiny old thing to quibble over.
Dirty laundry in scare quotes. Ohhhh!!!
Even more interesting- who are these people who “try to distort”?
I’m not sure there’s any argument to say Michael Mann’s work isn’t fraudulent. I tend not to do it myself because I don’t think it’s necessary, but it’s certainly a defensible position. Consider:
1) When Michael Mann published his 1998 temperature reconstruction, he said:
This statement was untrue. Mann’s results were entirely dependent upon a relatively small amount of tree ring data. Not only do we know this now, we know Michael Mann became aware of it shortly after publishing his paper. On page 51 of his book, Mann tells us after MBH98 was published, he performed tests that:
It’s not clear how Mann managed to make the false claim in his original paper, but he was obligated to inform people of its falsity. We could perhaps forgive not correcting an earlier mistake except Mann went on to publish his 1999 paper, extending the 1998 reconstruction back another 400 years. By building upon his 1998 paper while knowing it made false claims about his results, Mann committed fraud.
Anyone reading MBH99 would be directed to MBH98 for information about the reconstruction. MBH98 contained important claims about his results Mann knew to be false (at the time he published MBH99). It is perfectly reasonable to say by directing people to information about his results he knew to be false, Mann committed fraud.
2) Michael Mann was responsible for text in the IPCC TAR which said:
Mann knew perfectly well his reconstruction failed r2 verification, a test he used multiple times in MBH98. By saying his reconstruction “had significant skill in independent cross-validation tests” while hiding the fact his reconstruction failed one of his own cross-validation tests, Mann committed fraud. That was fraud even if we ignore the fact Mann went on to lie about it and repeatedly try to cover up the fact he did calculate those scores.
We don’t have to call what Michael Mann did fraud if we don’t feel like focusing on the word, but if we are going to focus on the word, what Mann did was fraud.
Brandon, as I said above to David Appell, more issues are raised by Mann’s behavior after the publication of his paper, than occurred within it.
So maybe “it’s not the crime but the coverup.”
I personally believe that Mann saw the fact his proxies passed the RE-statistic test as evidence that his reconstruction was valid. (Many people now believe that the RE-statistics test was done wrong, but this speaks to competency more than motive.)
Because Mann did have evidence that his reconstruction was valid from the RE-statistic, I would say normally this would be an example of researcher misconduct but not a case of outright fraud.
You may want to look at these comments above
I haven’t seen the point about misconduct occurring specifically the 1999 paper. Are you aware of text similar to what you quoted above from the 1998 paper which appears in the 1999 paper?
Carrick, of course Michael Mann didn’t repeat that claim of robustness in MBH99. He didn’t discuss the robustness of his 1400-1980 AD results in MBH99. That doesn’t resolve anything though. When Mann directed people to MBH98 for a discussion of his 1400-1980 results, he implicitly repeated the claims of MBH98. He certainly endorsed MBH98’s contents by reusing its results and directing people to read it.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to defend his actions by saying, “He didn’t explicitly repeat the false claim; he only intentionally misled people into believing it.” Nobody reading MBH99 would have thought, “He’s reusing the 1400-1980 results from MBH98, but maybe he knows what MBH98 says about the robustness of those results is a lie.”
We can be lawyer-y and say he didn’t specifically lie in MBH99, but you don’t have to specifically lie in order to commit fraud. Intentionally causing people to believe your results are robust when you know they are not is committing fraud.
In response to Brandon’s point, Mann revisited these issues in Mann et al 2000 (Earth Interactions) and in this post-MBH99 article, reiterated false claims of Mann et al 1998. It also included a highly deceptive purported demonstration of “robustness”. Mann compared dendro and no-dendro reconstructions for the AD1760 (as I recall) step, a step in which the two didn’t seem to differ very much, but failed to report the non-robustness of the AD1400 step.
Good points, thanks.
Indeed Steve McIntyre. There are a number of things in Michael Mann’s less known publications which deserve more attention than they’ve received. I think there’s a case to be made that he lied in a number of them.
But as Carrick pointed out, most of those things involve behavior outside the publication of the hockey stick. I’ve always understood the IPCC TAR’s graph to be what is understood as the “hockey stick,” meaning it, MBH98 and MBH99 are what we should look at in order to decide if the hockey stick is “fraudulent.” Everything else is useful for determining whether Mann has engaged in fraudulent behavior in general.
> In response to Brandon’s point,
What was Brandon’s point, again?
Brandons point? More Mann porkies
Simple.
Don’t play dumb willard
Scratching my own itch, I think I found it:
“Porkies”. Now that was an interesting way to cloud the issue.
playing dumb and dumber
“In response to Brandon’s point, Mann revisited these issues in Mann et al 2000 (Earth Interactions) and in this post-MBH99 article, reiterated false claims of Mann et al 1998. It also included a highly deceptive purported demonstration of “robustness”.”
Mann’s porkies. deceptions, falsehoods, omissions.
Brandon’s Point: there be falsehoods
Brandon’s take: don’t fuss around, call it fraud.
Steve’s point: there be falsehoods
Steve’s take: I don’t call it fraud.
So, yes, you can ignore the fact that Steve talks about Brandon’s point,
there be falsehoods, and conflate the fact with the interpretation of the fact.
You can play dumb and dumber. Usually, you play dumb better than this.
Mann mislead. he told untruths. Did he commit fraud? See how that is an open question? So, yes, Steve and Brandon ca agree on the fact and disagree on the fraud question. Just as Brandon and I disagree on the fraud question.
How will you know when McIntyre or I believe Mann committed fraud?
Simple. When we say that.
But you can be un charitable and force any reading you want. Why?
because the meaning is not controllable. You are free to say any stupid thing you like to and usually do.
Since it’s my point being discussed, I’m going to step in. Neither of you is right about what my point is. My take is not:
I don’t care if people call it fraud. I’ve said so many times. I don’t find the issue interesting. People can call it whatever they want. We can discuss what Michael Mann did without using the word “fraud.” I usually do because the word “fraud” tends to become a distraction.
My “take” is quite different. My stated issue is with people saying Mann is innocent of fraud. I don’t think they should do that. I think there is too strong a case to be made for fraud to claim Mann is innocent. Refraining from accusing Mann of fraud is fine, but it is very different from saying he is innocent of fraud.
I don’t think this is true. I don’t think Steve McIntyre would necessarily state his belief on this issue. I think he, like many people, might believe things about a person he isn’t comfortable saying out loud. I don’t expect people to always state their views on an issue.
To my knowledge, McIntyre and I don’t disagree on this issue. We might, but I’ve never seen him say anything which indicates to me he does.
> I don’t care if people call it fraud.
Brandon’s point is a bit stronger than that:
https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/michael-mann-committed-fraud/
Counterfactuals don’t always help not to say something.
***
> My stated issue is with people saying Mann is innocent of fraud.
An issue is not a point.
Brandon. You are wrong.
I wrote.
“How will you know when McIntyre or I believe Mann committed fraud?
Simple. When we say that.”
you wrote:
“I don’t think this is true. I don’t think Steve McIntyre would necessarily state his belief on this issue. I think he, like many people, might believe things about a person he isn’t comfortable saying out loud. I don’t expect people to always state their views on an issue.
First, You will Know that I believe mann committed fraud when I say that.
Before that you might speculate. There might be other ways you will know, but when I say it, you will know I believe it.
For Mcintyre The issue ISNT whether he would state his belief.
The fact is that IF he says it, then you know he believes it.
Yes, he might believe it without saying it. Yes, you might guess it from other other evidence, But Im say this. When he says it, you will know.
Mosher wrote:
“How will you know when McIntyre or I believe Mann committed fraud?
Simple. When we say that.”
Sometimes one might not wish to enter the court arena even though believing a certain truth of the matter.
Does Mosher talk for McIntyre now?
Willard: “Now that was an interesting way to cloud the issue.”. Back to the issue of clouds?
Mosher changed his spiel.
“How will you know when McIntyre or I believe Mann committed fraud?
Simple. When we say that.”
Now he’s saying
“When he says it, you will know.”
Which is different.
> The fact is that IF he says it, then you know he believes it.
The inverse of the point discussed.
But which point, about which issue, again?
Steven Mosher:
Nope. You’re just changing your tune. Pretty much anyone can recognize that. And seriously, if you’re going to drill down into the details, don’t say obviously wrong things like:
You saying you believe something does not mean I know you believe it.
Wrong again Brandon.
I am telling you that you will know I believe mann
Committed fraud when I say it.
Now you might think you don’t know it. But if I say it and you trust that you won’t be wrong.
You might think you are wrong but I will know you are not.
It’s pretty simple.
You will know it when I say it
Means I will say it when I believe it.
It’s another way of saying don’t try to read my mind.
Listen instead to what I say.
I’m on my phone now.
When I type from my computer you will know it
Cause I will tell you
Ya’ just gotta love the blogosphere.
Now Brandon, this is posted from my computer.
If you disbelieve it, I know you are wrong.
If you believe it, I know you know it, but you dont know that you know it, you only believe it.
That is I know that your belief is true. true belief is knowledge.
So, you think you believe that I am posting from my computer, But I know I am and I know that your belief is true. That is you have a true belief or knowledge. You know but you dont know that you know.
I don’t intend to pursue this any further, but I have to point one thing out because this sort of thing interests me:
Leaving aside the fact you couldn’t actually know what I believe, you’re wrong Steven Mosher. True belief is not knowledge. There is disagreement as to what qualifies as knowledge, but pretty much everyone accepts it requires some form of justification. Otherwise you could “know” something to be true for completely wrong reasons.
If I believe I just bought a winning lottery ticket, I do not know I bought the winning lottery ticket simply because it is the winning lottery ticket. Until I reveal that it is the winning lottery ticket, all I have is belief, not knowledge.
Mosher is dangerously close to pulling a WebHubbleTelescope.
re: “true belief”
For many philosophers, knowledge requires more than “true” belief, one must have “justifiedtrue belief” (or else, for example, one might base one’s belief simply on what one has been told and it can be effectively argued that does not constitute “knowledge”).
However, the seemingly plausible “justified true belief” formulation has been under serious debate over the past half century, since Gettier (1963). This review (link below) by a prominent philosopher does not accept that Gettier ultimately carries the day, but this is one of the more well known debates in recent epistemology, about “justified true belief” —
“Gettier and justified true belief: fifty years on”
Fred Dretske
http://philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1171
oops, did not mean to have all of my
Skiphil | September 12, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
in italics, only the phrase “justified true belief” should be in italics
Willard(@nevaudit): What was Brandon’s point, again?
1. Mann’s claim about the robustness of his result was false.
2. Mann was responsible for text in the IPCC TAR which was false.
If you have counter-arguments to his (you’ll want to read them in full so as not to misquote or mischaracterise them), you can count on an audience here to read your counter-arguments and consider them.
That would be two points, Matthew.
I’d call these arguments.
Arguments to reach a conclusion.
A point is usually a conclusion.
The conclusion is not about how to call what Mike did, but if we’re to focus on words, then we ought to call what Mike did by what Brandon believes is the proper word.
What’s that proper word, again?
Skip
“However, the seemingly plausible “justified true belief” formulation has been under serious debate over the past half century, since Gettier (1963). This review (link below) by a prominent philosopher does not accept that Gettier ultimately carries the day, but this is one of the more well known debates in recent epistemology, about “justified true belief” —”
Dont expect Brandon to keep up on things.
Try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_paradox
You did your best to warn Brandon.
Let’s hope Matthew will let me move away slowly from the horse.
nice willard.
Steven Mosher, this is one of the dumber comments I’ve seen you make:
I’ll leave aside the fact you ignored the correction of your misrepresentation of my position I posted earlier in this fork. Nobody expects you to have enough intellectual integrity to admit your mistakes. There’s no point dwelling on such.
Instead, I’m going to just focus on the quote you pretend rebuts my statement. You tell people not to “expect Brandon to keep up on things,” but the reality is the issue you reference to rebut me actually agrees with me.
It is true Edmund Gettier challenged the classical formulation for “justified true belief” (often considered the definition of knowledge). He did not, however, attempt to argue the idea of justified true belief is wrong. He did not attempt to argue it is an inappropriate definition for “knowledge.” What he argued is our ideas on what qualifies as justification are wrong.
Anyone with any familiarity of Gettier problems, the items being discussed in the material cited in the quote you offered, would know the response to them has overwhelmingly endorsed the idea of knowledge requiring some form of justification. You can see a number of them listed in this article which describes responses to Gettier problems. Pretty much all of the philosophical responses listed in it (and available elsewhere) fit my remark:
There are only two issues which receive much debate in regard to the problems Gettier argued: 1) What counts as justification; 2) Is something more than justification needed. Neither of those disputes my claim “pretty much accepts it requires some form of justification.”
To put it more simply, while you repeatedly act as though you have philosophical training/knowledge, you don’t know even the most basic aspects of a major philosophical dispute. And that’s despite having the opportunity to research it before commenting. Instead, you just assume you know better than me, that I’m some poser/idiot/whatever, based upon a two second skim of a quote you didn’t understand.
Snideness and haughtiness don’t make you right. They just make you say stupid things.
Brandon
Interesting and excellent summary. I was not aware of those specifics.
If you want a detailed description and background on Mann see Brandon Mcintyre Jean S amac
Period
If mikey doesn’t sue Brandon, he’s got some splainin to do.
There’s no chance Michael Mann will ever sue me. Targeting a relatively high profile person makes sense when championing a cause. It generates publicity. It’s even better if the target has ready access to the media. If they do, you can be almost certain they’ll use it, drawing even more attention. That attention is good for Mann as long as he can spin it right.
Targeting a relatively no-name individual won’t have anywhere near the same effect. Targeting me would be like targeting the loud, obnoxious drunk who insults politicians at a bar. Mann would find it incredibly difficult to get publicity from his supporters for such, and I doubt he’d be able to spin such attention in his favor.
Don’t sell yourself short, Brandon. You are well known in the climate blogosphere, where more people are paying attention to this than there are attentive followers in the general public. Don’t be surprised if Steyn doesn’t quote the compelling case you have made against mikey, in his column. Just sayin.
So long as I stay within the blogosphere though, it’s true. To the average person, comments and posts on a blog don’t matter. At best, it’s viewed like a discussion at the pub.
It’s only when you start becoming a focus in the media a lawsuit might get pursued. That’s when you might be worth shutting up/be a way to get publicity.
Which is probably just as well. While I would be incredibly amused by being the target of a lawsuit, I don’t know that I’d want to deal with the attention. I’ve managed to avoid ever having anyone talk to me in person about my activities on blogs, and that’s kind of nice. I think it’d be weird to have those two aspects of my life start merging.
You wouldn’t be the first, Brandon:
https://www.google.com/search?q=can+a+blogger+be+sued+for+libel&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
If Emperor Mann should turn his wrath to Brandonw or any blogger(s) we need hundreds or thousands of bloggers willing to rise up and state “I am Spartacus”… “I am Spartacus” … “I am Spartacus” ….
Of course, much too easy for me to say this, an anonymous webinator, but I don’t get involved in blogging or in speaking under my own name because (1) I don’t know anywhere near enough and can’t spare time to keep up; (2) related to (1) it’s not my field of career or expertise; (3) I do work in a field, related to environment, in which the pervasive atmosphere of climate political correctness makes it difficult for anyone to sustain a career openly outside or against the totalitarian “consensus”….
If Brandonw gets sued, I’m not standing by him. I bet that Brandon Schollenberger guy would though. He’s always looking for a way to get attention.
Brandon, I’m not sure where the “w” came from but I think my subconscious wants to confuse Mann’s lawyers…. send them on some impossible wild goose chase etc.
Skiphil, I approve of the misspelling no matter what its cause or motivation. I don’t know how I’d feel if everyone spelled my name correctly. Probably sad. The misspellings of my name are an eternal source of amusement:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/97_stickers_scr.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1400261737384
Don,
Bandon is a no-one muttering in an obscure corner of the internet.
That’s all the ‘splaining’ required.
Brandon Shollenberger | September 11, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
“There’s no chance Michael Mann will ever sue me. Targeting a relatively high profile person makes sense when championing a cause. It generates publicity. It’s even better if the target has ready access to the media. If they do, you can be almost certain they’ll use it, drawing even more attention. That attention is good…..”
Absolutely right….of Steyn.
He thought he had a soft target in Mann – typical of bullies like Steyn to pick on someone they think won’t fight back.
Well, didn’t he get a surprise!
But, at least to his credit he had the balls to speak his mind.
Unlike other mealy-mouthed individuals who want to hint at it, and make snide innuendo, but never say the ‘f’ word, just encourage others to go there.
They are spineless snivelling cowards.
Superb summary of the critical points. Thanks, Brandon.
Thanks!
Great post Brandon. There seems to be a clear case of personal fraud as well as the HS being merely described as fraudulent, which is the main basis of Steyn’s defence.
So I would like to believe that Steyn’s legal team would be aware of the points that you have made so that Mann’s motions about Steyn and others making statements about his personal ethics can be rebutted.
Thanks Peter Davies. I actually uploaded this comment as a blog post so it is better preserved:
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/michael-mann-committed-fraud/
I don’t know who might read it though. I’d expect Mark Steyn and/or someone working with him would already be aware of the points I made, but I suppose it couldn’t hurt to forward him the content.
(But to be honest, the main reason I made it into a post is I liked how direct and to the point it was. I have trouble with that.)
I would think that mikey’s lawyers will be reading it too, Brandon. You are sticking your neck out. But don’t ever listen to me.
@ Brandon Shollenberger “(But to be honest, the main reason I made it into a post is I liked how direct and to the point it was. I have trouble with that.)”
That’s another reason that I liked your post. I always appreciate it whenever blog posts are concise and to the point!
Ah, but Don Monfort, I’m not ignoring your view on this. I think you’re wrong to believe I might get sued (as I don’t believe Michael Mann would feel it worthwhile), but I’m not so sure I’d act based upon my belief. If I were afraid of the idea of a lawsuit, I’d behave differently even if I didn’t think a lawsuit would happen.
The thing is I’m okay with the possibility I’m wrong. Getting sued over this would make my day. Heck, it’d make my year. The moment I got served with a lawsuit, I’d start laughing, and I wouldn’t stop until I couldn’t catch my breath. That’s why I’m okay with the risk of you being right. I don’t think you are, but if you are, the worst that’ll happen is I’ll be forced to have a great time.
I don’t really want a lawsuit, but at the same time, I would enjoy having one filed against me way too much.
eter Davies, I’m the same way. I almost always enjoy a wrong argument that’s concisely stated more than a right argument that’s wordy and convoluted. Unfortunately, my normal writing style tends toward the latter.
(Just count how many times I use the word “unfortunately” in a day, and you’ll see what I mean.)
OK, Brandon. If you would welcome a lawsuit, put an announcement and a link on one of the Team’s twitter accounts. Mikey’s would do, unless he has you blocked. But you should ask Judith to take down your takedown, as they would love to point out that Judith is hosting comments flat out accusing mikey of committing fraud and sharing in the liability. Have fun with it. I already have my popcorn and single malt.
If Judith Curry wants to delete any of my comments for legal concerns, she has my permission to (not that she needs it). I’m not going to ask her to do it though. I think people should make decisions like that for themselves. As for an announcement, after I turned that comment into a post at my site, I posted this on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/Corpus_no_Logos/status/510182029569167360
So I think I’m on the same page as you :P
Though I have to wonder if Michael Mann or anyone else on the “Team” would click on the link if they saw it.
Steyn is definitely following CA and Climate Etc. Don’t know if he reads every comment but he’s certainly aware:
Michael E Mann Repudiates His Own Hockey Stick
by Mark Steyn
September 11, 2014
Watch how easily I can distract Brandon from the valuable work he does on Mann…
Steven Mosher, if you think you’re distracting me from anything valuable, you’re a fool. I’m currently watching an episode of The Finder I’ve seen a dozen times while playing Final Fantasy VI. There’s practically nothing less productive I could be doing.
The worst you could do is derail conversations on this blog and make it more of a mess. Given the presence of Joshua, WebHubTelescope and a number of others, I don’t think that’d be noticeable.
well said Brandon, kudos!
As you allude to near the end of your superb comment, Mann also did some, er, egregious and ongoing misrepresentations regarding his “dirty laundry”… so to speak.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/01/dirty-laundry/
http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/06/dirty-laundry-ii-contaminated-sediments/
Brandon,
I don’t know how long it would take to put together the information but I would think it even harder to distill it down into a sequential, comprehensive, compelling, readable story that any 13 year old could understand and want to read. I picked 13 as that is the age for which hollywood directs it’s content.
ordvic, I made a comment below about how someone should write a step-by-step guide on how the hockey stick was made. The word part would be pretty easy for me to do. I could have that done in a day. The problem is most people need more than words to follow something like this, and getting together visual components is a huge chore. Even worse, I’d like to be able to provide step by step code people could work through to see what I describe in process. Getting that all together would be a lot of work.
That said, I did start toying with the process of creating “tutorial” videos recently, and I think it might be a viable tool. Imagine this script:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8PYZX-nEOY
With an actual visual component (and practice it so I don’t screw up so much). Then imagine a second video which walks through the methodology for Michael Mann’s hockey stick, explaining each step the data goes through up to the final result. I think that’d be a pretty good educational tool.
Of course, I’d have to find the motivation to actually do it. Writing a script and recording audio is no problem for me, but I hate doing visual stuff. I have trouble finding motivation to do even the simplest “storyboarding” like I did for that video.
Brandon,
Actually I was responding to your link below, I just hit the wrong button. Thanks for the video. Some thoughts after listening. There is nothing wrong with your voice but a Rod Serling type would be better. Having read many articles, comments, and even the NR court papers it seems some of the critiques are missing here? What I envisioned after reading your comment was not only the construction of the graph and how it rose to fame but it’s entire history. This could include Monkton and Manns book about climate wars. Of course McIntyre. It could also include that Swedish or Norwegian study that resurrected the MWP and Lindzens paper along with Phil Jones and others that corroborated the higher MWPin correl. It could also include climategate and hide the decline and all those phoney so called investigations if they even were. The IPPC use of the graph and then not and how the Manns graph replaced Tim Balls. Al Gores use of the graph, his movie, and presentation to congress and their reaction (moderate repubs such as Lugar very impressed). The political polarization and public policy. The name calling and labeling. The lawsuits. And probaby more. Athough this could be a book I was thinking more of a short story or a movie.
Thinking more about it that step by step is pretty good. I like especially all those proxies so why just the choice of one. Honing in on that alone has an impact. I noticed in the NR court papers they mentioned how he used proxy for pre 1960 and actual temperature date post 1960 even though when tested actual temps show up hot in comparison to proxy. I know you don’t have his code but can you make charts showing various algorithms used. I saw one presentation that showed how an algorithm could be used on any graph and ended up looking like a hockey stick. Just throwing out random thoughts. Good work! I learned something even though at first I thought I already knew that (bravado).
Brandon,
On slight tangent if I may – I’m a little confused by this Mann statement you cite,
“…revealed that not all of the records were playing an equal role in our reconstructions. Certain proxy data appeared to be of critical importance in establishing the reliability of the reconstruction–in particular, one set of tree ring records spanning the boreal tree line of North America published by dendroclimatologists Gordon Jacoby and Rosanne D’Arrigo.”
I was under the impression that the whole point of using PCA was to select (cherry pick, if you will), and weight accordingly, records that met certain criteria, e.g., (higher) correlation to an assumed temperature series. And would have become aware during the analysis output of the individual “record weights” contributed to the final “product”.
Does that square with the square with the statement quoted above?
Sorry if I’m confusing the context.
Bruce Andrews, your understanding is on the right track, but not quite right. PCA combines many data series into a smaller number of series (PCs) by looking for shared variance (similar patterns) in those series. Mann’s faulty implementation focused on variance in the modern period. That meant it would look for upturns or downturns in the modern period, giving them far more weight in the calculated PCs.
Correlation with the temperature series was not part of that. Correlation with the temperature series was used to rescale the PCs. That is, once you have the calculated PCs, you check to see how well they match the temperature series. The ones which match better are given more weight. That means the effect you had in mind is correct, but it is not part of the PCA process itself.
As for weights, it is definitely possible to calculate the weights of various series in all this. Michael Mann didn’t do that though (and I don’t think he knew how to). His testing was a cruder sort. He tested by removing portions of his data, rerunning his code and checking to see what happened. That was much less effective, but it was also much easier to do.
.
I should point out the PCA issue has been a bit misunderstood as PCA wasn’t used for every series. Of the 22 proxies which extended back to 1400 AD, only three were calculated PCs. The other 19 were data series used as is. If a hockey stick existed it one of them,* rescaling by correlation to the temperature series would have resulted in a hockey stick regardless of the use of PCA.
In other words, Mann’s faulty implementation of PCA is what he used to create a proxy with a hockey stick shape. Weighting proxies by their correlation to the instrumental temperature record is how he gave his hockey stick proxy so much weight. Mann gave undue weight to a few series when creating proxies with PCA, and he then gave undue weight to a for proxies when creating his reconstruction.
*One of the 19 non-PC proxies actually did have a hockey stick shape. It is the one Mann referred to in that quote. You can read about it here. Short version, Michael Mann had to do some messed up things to manage to include that proxy.
Brandon,
Thank you for taking the time to clear this up for me. I should have “studied up” a bit more before commenting but I’m pretty sure your response will help others also.
No problem Bruce Andrews. It’s not like there was any convenient resource for you to use. You’d have probably had to read lots of different blog posts/papers to understand it without asking. I wouldn’t expect people to do that.
Somebody really ought to write a step by step guide to how Michael Mann’s hockey stick was created. And by “somebody,” I mean me. I’ve intended to do it for quite a while, but the project has always seemed too tedious to me. That’s especially true since there are so many “quirks” to his methodology which don’t really matter but deserve attention because they’re so wrong.
I think I’m going to go get pizza instead. That sounds much more enjoyable.
Brandon,
Alrighty then.
You enjoy your pizza (and beer! – its Friday!) and I’ll hit the books.
Thanks again.
Brandon,
Your explanation helps elucidate the importance of the “short centering” issue, yes? Makes some proxies “stick out” (variation-wise) so they more heavily load the highest PCs. A form of “pre-cherry picking” I suppose – making them into cherries to be picked (or weighted).
I understand its all more complicated than my assumptions – I’ll review the subject more more but thanks for your helpful comments.
Bruce Andrews, yup. Short-centering causes PCA to look for variation from the modern period’s average rather than the series’ average. If the modern period varies quite a bit from the rest of the series, you have a hockey stick. Short-centered PCA takes that as the most prevalent signal in the data.
After that, you then have what’s basically the screening fallacy. You take proxies which correlate well with modern temperatures and give them lots of weight. You then give the rest of the proxies much less weight. The effect pretty much guarantees a hockey stick.
(The screening fallacy is a subset of this approach as in the screening fallacy, you give 0 weight to series which don’t correlate well. In the MBH method, you give some weight, but only a very little amount. Either way, when you select a signal to look for in the data, you ensure you get that signal while everything else averages out.)
Oh, and I want to point out I just wrote a quick script explaining the process used to create the hockey stick. I’m going to try doing a quick run through of it to see how it sounds recorded. It’s written with visual components in mind, but it can be followed without them.
I’ll try to have it uploaded in a little bit. I’m not sure I’ll do anything with it. I just wanted to see how simplified I could make things while still explaining them clearly.
I cringe at this recording. I wrote the script without editing, and there were a number of problems I tried to correct for while doing my first readthrough of it. The result was… less than ideal. And there were a couple paragraphs I read but couldn’t figure out why they were there.
Oh well. I have plans for this weekend so I’m not going to worry about spending time getting things done right. You may find it helpful or you may not:
https://soundcloud.com/brandonshollenberger/lecond-recording-first-try
Mann’s refusals appear to be a remarkable failure to provide:
Richard Feynman, Cargo Cult Science, Caltech commencement 1974
Mike Mann, whether he wins or loses, is not a good public advertisement for climatology and climatologists
I am amazed that so few of his colleagues have spoken out about his behaviour.
Professional associations in other fields take a dim view of those who ‘bring the profession into disrepute’. Mann has done more than anybody else to bring his into ridicule and contempt.
Their continued silence speaks volumes.
You are entirely right Latimer Alder!
The common-sense reason Nowadays, scientists and skeptics alike appreciate that diluting Michael Mann’s message by 96-to-1 serves to greatly strengthen 21st century climate-science.
Indeed, if Michael Mann never spoke or published ever again, the message of climate-science would scarcely be affected.
Conclusion Skeptics now are free to address the vigorous and evolving concerns of modern-day climate-science … rather than futilely obsessing over the aging papers of one lone scientist!
That’s good news regarding the robustness of 21st century climate-science, eh Latimer Alder?
The common sense reason is that his fellow scientists don’t want to be attacked like I have been – denier, anti-science, serial climate misinformer, and all that
@A Fan
If you can’t be bothered to write in plain English I sure as heck can’t be bothered to waste my time on trying to decipher your cryptic remarks.
Experience tells me the cost/benefit ratio you offer is way too high to be worthwhile.
“disinformer”
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/25/misinformation-disinformation-and-conflict/
Don Monfort, I have to wonder if Michael Mann really meant Judith Curry spreads disinformation. Some time back, Richard Tol accused her of the exact same then insisted he didn’t accuse her of lying (or spreading lies). He apparently was unaware of the distinction between disinformation and misinformation. The same might be true for Mann.
It wouldn’t surprise me. He seems like the type of person who would throw around insults without knowing what they mean.
“Conclusion Skeptics now are free to address the vigorous and evolving concerns of modern-day climate-science … rather than futilely obsessing over the aging papers of one lone scientist!”
All past lies, propaganda and delusion of the climate science agenda are wiped clean in a memory hole. It’s on to the next meme reinforcement talking point.
Same people, same lies Fanboy. The stick is only indicative of the culture that remains dominate in the green activist community. The core of climate science.
I am pretty sure mad mikey knew what he was saying, Brandon. And calling a scientist’s work “anti-science”? Any ambiguity there?
Don’t worry. Some poor sap named Brandon Schollenberger will get sued.
===========
Don Monfort, actually, yeah. The phrase “anti-science” is usually intended to be vague. When working with smears, it is almost always better to be vague as that prevents anyone from rebutting what you say. How can someone do “anti-science” work? What is the opposite of scientific work? If you can’t say, how can you hope to prove the accusation wrong?
kim, I really hate that Brandon Schollenberger guy. He keeps stealing all my glory.
Calling a professional scientist anti-science is not good. Nothing vague about it. Enough of this. You better behave yourself, or webby will start stalking you again:)
Of course it’s not good. The point of smears is to cause damage (either to a person’s self-esteem or reputation). You just don’t need to be clear in order to do that. People generally don’t think about the nuances of smears and insults. As long as you create a general impression of wrong-doing, the details don’t matter. Just look at political attack ads. Their effectiveness has almost nothing to do with the viewers’ ability to translate what the ad says into a true statement about reality. That’s why 90% of people can’t give a clear (and correct) explanation of what a politician they dislike has done.
Smear campaigns are all about creating a negative impression. Facts, details and nuances matter very little for it.
More to be feared (by far!) than juvenile twitter-obloquy is the indifference of one’s scientific peers … the indifference that is meted to research that is either so inconsequential as to be not worth falsifying, or so nonspecific as to be incapable of falsification.
Conversely, cat-loving Peter Cox is entirely right that scientists *LOVE* to attack falsifiable conclusions … and *GREATLY* respect falsifiable conclusions that withstand sustained attacks!
By this measure (and by the quantitative measure of citations), James Hansen’s energy-balance worldview represents (by far) the strongest available climate-science predictions:
• Sustained radiative energy-imbalance driven by anthropogenic CO2.
• Sustained heat-energy increases of ocean, ice, air, and land combined.
• Observable changes Melting polar ice, heating oceans, rising sea-levels, increasing air-temperatures.
And (to the best of my knowledge) James Hansen very wisely refrains from juvenile twitter-games … preferring to state his conclusions impersonally.
Good on `yah, James Hansen! It is your good work, and your good manners too (not Michael Mann’s!) that are the foundation of the amicable modern-day climate-change worldview.
`Cuz at the end of the day, it’s the strongest science that matters, and the firmest conclusions, and the most outstanding collegiality, that recruits the most talented students.
*EVERYONE* appreciates *THESE* scientific realities, eh Climate Etc readers?
curryja | September 11, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
“The common sense reason is that his fellow scientists don’t want to be attacked like I have been – denier, anti-science, serial climate misinformer, and all that”
“Common sense”???
More like the conspiratorial reason – everyone knows Mike is “fraudulent(?)”. But those new grads, Bradley and Hughes, cowered in the corner while Mike hatched his evil scheme.
Get a grip Judith, your Mannian obsession is sending you a bit nutty.
And the Victim Card, again!!
Thankfully Judith disdains use of the Victim Card.
What’s that?….did someone say big-boy pants???
It’s funny how some say skeptics (and we lukewarmers) have contributed little to scientific discussion regarding climate change and how often, how rudely and how wrongly they say it.
From Fan’s Peter Cox cartoon quote:
Well, at least tigers like Dr. Curry aren’t herdable!
> The common sense reason is that his fellow scientists don’t want to be attacked like I have been – denier, anti-science, serial climate misinformer, and all that
They prefer to be called nephrologists, cultists, alarmists, groupthinking conformists, and all that.
I am struck by how few of his peers take any moment(s) to praise and defend his character and his science, given the seriousness of many criticisms. Of course they may disdain the need to do so, but it is remarkable how little public support he receives from climate science peers…. most of whom view him as a huge self-important a## blighting the field.
Judy, there’s some mystery to me about the terms of reference of the NSF inquiry. When I talked to them, they seemed to think that Mann’s hockey stick work had been done before he was in receipt of NSF grants and therefore not within their jurisdiction. I’m not sure that that is correct since Bradley was operating under NSF grants and Mann was then Bradley’s student. But without a clear record of the NSF terms of reference, one doesn’t know. NSF is resisting FOI requests on their investigation, thus far even refusing to identify the authors of the closeout memorandum.
Their report made no reference to verification r2 controversy which I described to them in detail.
Interesting points re the NSF inquiry. The NSF Inspector Generals are pretty thorough and unbiased I think; not clear exactly what their purview was tho in light of your points.
I’m pretty skeptical. The case against Murray Salby seemed pretty thin to me when I first read it, and as I understand his response he makes several counter-charges:
• The investigation was undertaken in support of his former employer after he sued them attempting to recover his work (data, etc.).
• There was no evidence for the charges involved, and the most serious of them appears to have been a matter of creating time-sheets long after they should have been submitted, which was pure speculation (per Salby).
• That the time-sheets “reflect a concentration of claimed hours on days seemingly outside the academic year of the University and in daily amounts and continuous days worked that are highly implausible.” Amazing that the OIG of the National Science Foundation doesn’t understand scientists:
I wonder what hours Mann works. If he’s a 9-to-5’er, that would explain how closely the OIG and he thought.
Salby was running his “company” from home and using UofC facilities. There are amusing corollaries.
For projects not involved with UofC? Can you prove it, from the OIG report I linked? IIRC there were lots of weasil-worded implications, but nothing they could point to. Which they would have, given how light their “time-sheet” case was.
And don’t forget the OIG recommended a 5-year suspension, he got 3.
Clouds the issue with salby.
Stay on point
The NSF memorandum stated: ” 1. The subject did not directly receive NSF research funding as a Principal Investigator until late 2001 or 2002″. I think that this was in the report for a reason.
Steve Mosher, we agree on something at last. Regards
> I think that this was in the report for a reason.
The truth is out there.
Steve my sense is the nsf will keep records of PIs but
Not other team members. The PI is the responsible party.
One theory.
Need more FOI requests…..
Lots of theories.
Cf. http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/1640585432
> the issue with Salby
Which issue, again?
I think I found my theme for this thread.
Auditors might appreciate that there’s already more than sixty hits for “issue” on this page.
Is it “ichew” or “hiss-hue”?
One step of the coreador, the fraudulence(red) is in the shaft.
==================
“All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprises, tricks, cunning or dissembling, and any unfair way which another is cheated.
Source: Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., by Henry Campbell Black, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1979.”
“Criminal and civil frauds differ in the level of proof required. For civil cases that burden is a “preponderance of evidence.” In criminal fraud the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
WHAT CONSTITUTES FRAUD
Under common law, three elements are required to prove fraud: a material false statement made with an intent to deceive (scienter), a victim’s reliance on the statement and damages.”
“A material false statement.”
“Victim reliance.”
“Damages.”
http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2004/Oct/BasicLegalConcepts.htm
Mann aside, the three elements above seem to apply to other larger situations.
Definition of SCIENTER – a degree of knowledge that makes an individual legally responsible for the consequences of his act
To whom much is given, much is expected. If one wishes to have the influence of a scientist, it comes with obligations in my opinion.
At times an accountant will find a gray area and recommend the option most beneficial to their client. An insurance policy used in that situation is full disclosure. A primary statement will be footnoted to an explanation that may weaken or call into question the primary statement. The footnote is now an integral part of the primary statement. If a defense is needed in the future, the accountant can point to the footnote.
JD Ohio?
I share your opinion of the political climate, but truth will not ultimately be defeated by untruth.
Regarding your point, Oliver, truth is the most massive weapon of construction there is.
Regarding your point, omanuel, truth is the most massive weapon of construction there is.
“I was misled.”
If the NRO/CEI appeal fails, I will be shocked if Dr. Curry does not receive a subpoena, for a deposition at the very least. She can testify both to the misleading nature of Mann’s graphs, and to his reputation in the climate science community.
Steve McIntyre should probably get one too. Though as a Canadian citizen, his participation will likely have to be voluntary. If Steyn’s lawyers are really aggressive, they will retain McIntyre as an expert witness on the statistics. Not just because of his long history with the various issues, but because the core of the case, if it goes to the trial, will be making all the math at issue clear to a jury.
Both Dr. Curry and Steve McIntyre have the communications skills and experience in the subject that would make them ideal expert witnesses.
Plus their participation would have the added benefit of causing Mann to jump up and down and scream with rage like Rumplestiltskin.
Gary,
If this does go to trial will Mann be required to submit his meta data and code in discovery or can the judge waive that?
ordvic,
Since one of the central charges against Steyn is that he falsely accused Mann of “torturing data,” that data and is code should be subject to discovery. The test is not just whether the information is admissible at trial, but whether it can lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.
I suspect the DC judges will want to protect Mann to the extent they can, but they have to know that a decision in Mann’s favor will end up in a federal appeal. If they try too hard to favor Mann on procedural and evidentiary issues, those could be reviewed as well, and put the whole proceedings in an unfavorable light.
But you just can’t predict what trial judges will do. When I first graduated from law school, I used to every so often hear a judge say “I don’t like this result, but I have no choice. The law requires I rule this way.”
I haven’t heard anything like that in over ten years. I have heard numerous judges complain about “all this due process stuff,” and then go on to rule in direct contravention of the law. Rules of procedure and rules of evidence were enacted in large part for the specific purpose of constraining the awesome power we grant to our trial court judges. But they are becoming less and less of a restraint at all, even at the highest levels.
Judith said: “In a scientific or professional context, ‘fraud’ is inferred to refer to research misconduct, which is characterized by falsification, fabrication and/or plagiarism. I don’t think that this is the case with regards to Mann’s hockey stick, and Steve McIntyre has said previously that he doesn’t think so either. ”
I haven’t said this. I’ve avoided using the word “fraud” in public commentary for a variety of reasons and, as Mann observed in his pleadings, have not publicly made such allegations. But, on the other hand, I haven’t said the opposite either. i spoke out against Cuccinnelli because I thought that Cuccinnelli was abusing administrative authority to target Mann as a political opponent.
I think that there were legitimate issues for a university inquiry. I think that much of the ongoing controversy could have been avoided if Penn State and UEA had done more balanced inquiries. Unfortunately they didnt and the odor lingers.
I think that Mann would have been wiser to let sleeping dogs lie, as I see little benefit to him in legal proceedings that closely examine whether he committed fraud.
Steve McIntyre,
Am I reading the double negatives correctly here, to infer that you hold out at least the possibility that Mann’s conduct may rise to the level of “research misconduct?”
Yes,
I think that’s the snide dog-whistle.
There are a wide variety of scientific practices which one can use or omit or just use improperly. Some of these would be mere differences of opinion if it was appropriate to use this statistical procedure or that averaging method. At worst, some of these could be construed as poor science but it could just be a scientific debate between different groups. One could also neglect to describe a procedure in enough detail. But who decides what “enough” detail is? Again, this might be poor or misleading science or may lead to a difference of opinion among groups of scientists about the practice. Few of these would be actual scientific misconduct. But one might describe a graph made using one or more of these methods as fraudulent. There are other scientific behaviors that may be more borderline (worse than the above) related to which data is thrown out and why. But it still might not be reasonably called “misconduct” – and likely would not result in having grant funding revoked. ALthough, if exposed it might lead future grant reviewers to be leary of providing more funds. THen you get to the clear-cut cases of scientific misconduct: making up data, throwing away any data you don’t like, deliberately misleading readers about what procedures were used, plagiarism, etc. No one has accused Mann of serious misconduct, merely of some poor practices, and some misleading descriptions (although if you show a continuing pattern of this and we may not know about all of them – it makes me wonder). If he were not so thin-skinned and such an activist, and was willing to admit errors rather than attack others on Twitter, more people would be willing to cut him some slack. But instead, people are angry that some of his shoddy work is being used for political purposes and he acts the way he does. Hence the labeling of the hockey stick graph as fraudulent. Even without considering his behavior, if one finds that he used several questionable procedures in analyzing the data and making the graph, including misleading ways of presenting it, then one is perfectly within ones’s rights to say they believe it is fake or fraudulent.
As could be predicted, many skeptical participants will go to any length and contortion in addressing the claim of “fraud” adding validity where little exists. Free speech restrictions have long been pursued by Mann’s political peers as has been cited by numerous examples and links. Here we the Teachers Union, a wholly partisan left-wing political machine at that, seeking to exempt itself from the very 1st amendment restrictions a Democratic Senate is proposing as a Constitutional amendment only this week;
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/11/teachers-union-wants-to-amend-constitution-to-limit-everyone-elses-campaign-speech/
There is nothing all that surprising in Mann’s tactical legal abuses as he is the very epitome of academic decline into partisan operative status of the climate science segment. That’s the real substance of the story, the legalisms should really be secondary to the main event: political suppression via legal contortion. Climate science as political weapon, linked to legal processes as a political weapon by an overlapping serial abuser.
Steve said “I think that Mann would have been wiser to let sleeping dogs lie, as I see little benefit to him in legal proceedings that closely examine whether he committed fraud.”
I agree.
However, the defamation case will not be about whether Mann committed fraud.
It will be about whether his hockey-stick graph was fraudulent.
Quite different things, in my opinion.
Steve, stick to your fact knitting. It is always terrific. Let us lawyers take it the rest of the way.
Our private interactions in re Cook and Tol are perhaps a ‘good’ example.
“The person who was most instrumental in debunking Climategate scientist Michael Mann’s hockey stick chart, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, said last night that he did not believe his scientific misrepresentations rose to the level of fraud.” http://spectator.org/blog/22668/top-mann-nemesis-hes-not-fraud
This seems to contradict what you just said. Clarification would be appreciated, since I’ve been quoting this.
Dagfinn, if you notice, that article doesn’t quote Steve McIntyre as saying that even though they do quote him. That’s always a sign one should be cautious. I didn’t hear the speech he gave, but it wouldn’t surprise me if people misconstrued what he said. A lot of people take any failure to agree with them as disagreeing with them. I suspect what he did was neither agree (accuse Michael Mann of fraud) nor disagree (say Michael Mann didn’t commit fraud).
Brandon, yes, I realize that misquotes and misunderstandings happen all the time. I’m just wishing for clarification. Not least because it seems to me that this last statement (“I didn’t say that”, etc) is open to some interpretation.
Dagfinn, I think that Steve M’s statement speaks for itself on what he wishes to say publicly in relation to the F-word. He says he has a “variety of reasons.” Clearly, despite extensive writings on myriad topics, this is not one on which he wishes to be more specific. That is his right, for whatever reason(s). I don’t see that he gives a thumbs up or thumbs down on it, but this is not any “dog whistle” as some hostile commenter alleges — he says what he wishes to say and others can say what they wish to say.
Others, of course, can think and infer whatever they think is appropriate from the records and numerous articles, comments etc. which are available.
Dagfinn, does it seem odd to you that your citation, as Brandon points out, is from a news article http://spectator.org/blog/22668/top-mann-nemesis-hes-not-fraud rather than something that I directly said?
While I try to write clearly, I dont try to reduce things to soundbites if I don’t think that they reduce to soundbites.
The actual text of my speech is online here http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-heartland_2010.pdf. At the time, the Cuccinnelli fraud investigation had been announced – an investigation that I had strongly criticized on civil rights grounds as administrative targeting (my grandfather McRuer, a prominent Canadian judge, wrote a leading Canadian report on civil rights and administrative targeting and this has been part of my DNA, so to speak.) I argued against the legitimacy of the Cuccinnelli investigation, a message that was not very welcome to the bloodthirsty Heartland audience which, as others have observed, had given me a standing ovation at the start of my speech and a very tepid two-finger clap at the end.
In retrospect, I think that my remarks were thoughtful and measured and properly expressed by somewhat nuanced position on fraud. I urged the audience not to be so angry – a point that has frustrated me over the years – and criticized their willingness to endorse Cuccinnelli’s investigation rather than trying to work through academic institutions. But at no point did I say that Mann’s work was not “fraudulent”.
In my introduction, I made the following criticism:
In saying the above, note that I did not express an opinion on whether I thought that Mann had or had not committed fraud.
In the close of the speech, I turned to the connection of non-disclosure of adverse data, something that is treated very very seriously in the financial world and seems like obvious misconduct to the “public”. I observed that academics were much less offended by misrepresentation through non-disclosure, citing a contemporary exchange with Pielke.
The contemporary exchange with Pielke Jr is relevant – he categorized incidents that would seem like “fraud” or “misconduct” to people familiar with financial institutions as mere “fudge”.
I continued with the following editorial comment that seems very apt in retrospect:
This seems entirely appropriate. If climate scientists want the public to make large decisions on their pronouncements, then they should observe a “full true and plain disclosure” standard, rather than hiding caveats like Philadelphia lawyers.
That the climate community endorsed sharp practice like the trick to hide the decline, rather than disavowing it, seemed to me like almost the worst possible crisis management if they wanted to maintain public confidence. I observed that there were a variety of ways in which this could have been done without public disemboweling of the scientists in question.
I also criticized Cuccinnelli’s investigation of supposed financial abuse as follows:
Again, in retrospect, these seem like sensible words.
The article cited above was not based on an interview but on a report of the above speech. Here’s what it said:
But I hadn’t actually expressed an opinion on whether or not Mann’s work was “fraudulent” – I urged the audience not to worry about such matters and to be less angry. However, if Mann chooses not to let sleeping dogs lie, as he had done in Mann v Steyn, then a consideration of whether he did commit fraud obviously becomes relevant. However, I’d be surprised if the appeal court finds that the defendants were obliged to accept the supposed “exonerations” as fact (thus triggering anti-SLAPP) and I expect the matter to peter out without anything being resolved.
Steve, thanks for a very interesting reply. I was not trying to imply that you had actually contradicted yourself. As for “does it seem odd to you”, no, not really. I know that news articles can be inaccurate, obviously. I was just interested to know what you had actually said that might be construed that way. I suppose I was expecting something at least somewhat more similar.
Steve McIntyre | September 12, 2014 at 8:56 am |
” …non-disclosure of adverse data, something that is treated very very seriously in the financial world and seems like obvious misconduct”…”
Ha!!
If ever there was a model we wouldn’t want science to emulate, it’s the financial world with its rampant nepotism and widespread fraud.
And ‘non-discolure of adverse data’ ?! Holy heck!! Just think of the banking sector and the GFC.
Anyone looking to the financial sector as a guide is in a very high state of delusion.
“If ever there was a model we wouldn’t want science to emulate, it’s the financial world with its rampant nepotism and widespread fraud.”
Fraud in the financial world is often times actionable. Generally the cows do come home and the undetected deceit crumbles after a certain length of time. With good accounting controls, detection generally happens sooner.
The presentation of financial (scientific) statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting (scientific) principles includes adequate disclosure of material matters.
For example, we don’t say we have $10 million of net income when that number might be $9 million. The margin of error is too large. If there is uncertainty, such as a pending lawsuit against the company, we may disclose that liability even though it’s not yet decided or the amount if any determined. Which brings up something that seems odd. The warmists are entering into the books an uncertain liability and then saying, Look what terrible shape we are in. This is from an accounting point of view, the preferred, conservative, stay out of jail approach. To look for reasons why it’s not as rosy as management says it is. If the threat to the company fails to materialize, the lawsuit against them fails, the accountants reverse the liability and the prior loss taken is then reversed. #
If management (the scientist) omits from the financial (scientific) statements, including the accompanying notes, information that is required by generally accepted accounting (scientific) principles, the auditor should express a qualified or an adverse opinion and should provide the (omitted) information in their report,
http://pcaobus.org/Standards/Auditing/Pages/AU431.aspx
An unqualified opinion means, without reservations. Qualified means with.
CPAs have rules upon rules. With in my opinion, with the condition that they follow them if the wish to remain a CPA.
# If you believe Wunsch’s latest paper, something similar happened. With his lower amount of heat in the ocean, most of an assumed liability turned out to not be there. So we get to go back to the statements where they said it was bad, and adjust them as well by that same amount, and it as we look at it now, it wasn’t so bad.
“I think Mann’s advocacy is a new angle in interpreting the issue of ‘fraud.'”
I think Mann’s use of the term “fraud” in his advocacy, in describing the work of others with whom he disagrees, will be highly relevant and persuasive, in deciding the proper definition of the word for defamation purposes.
But I don’t think his advocacy, in and of itself, brings the term within the scope of more specific definitions of the term within the scientific and legal communities.
Fraud can have the general meaning of misleading.
“Full Definition of FRAUD
…
b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick”
This is the definition argued by Steyn. It makes the issue of the “truth” of his statement more difficult to challenge.
It can also have a more specific definition.
“fraud
noun \ˈfrȯd\
: the crime of using dishonest methods to take something valuable from another person”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud
Both trial judges in Mann v. Steyn went out of their way to say a jury “could” interpret Steyn’s comment as meaning this latter, more damaging type of definition.
“In context, it would not be unreasonable for a reader to interpret the comment , and the republication in National Review, as an allegation that Dr. Mann had committed scientific fraud.”
This benefits Mann in two ways.
1) The more specific definition requires some reliance on, and loss by, the “victim” of the fraud. Mann can argue there are no victims, nor was there a loss by anyone. It will be easier to argue that Steyn’s statement was false by this standard.
2) It makes the “libel per se” claim, added by Mann after the first appeal was filed, much easier to meet. The damage to anyone’s professional reputation would be more likely to be harmed by a specific claim of scientific misconduct, than a claim of merely being deceptive or misleading.
I think that the per se claim was added in direct response to the judges’ rulings on the definition of “fraud” in the context of denying the Anti-SLAPP motions.
Some may think that Mann’s advocacy makes it easier for Steyn’s statement to meet the narrower, more damaging definitions of fraud. But I think that is a stretch. The ‘reliance’ some might argue would be by voters and policy makers on Mann’s misleading graphs. But that type of non-economic loss is not the type of “loss” that you generally need to prove to establish fraud.
If Steyn’s statement is judged at trial by the more specific definition of scientific fraud, as the trial judges have done for purposes of the Anti-SLAPP motion, the case becomes more problematic for him. Mann’s repeated use of that same term against others in his own advocacy will be a good argument against this.
Some key points:
1) There is nothing wrong with hockey sticks. They occur all the time. For example, here is some random data:
https://xanonymousblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/ipccgarbage1.jpg
2) There is nothing wrong with splicing some data on to a hockey stick. It is scientific. It is creative. It may mean something. It may not mean something.
3) Given the random series above, the conclusion that warming is unprecedented (MBH 1998) and due to human forcing is indeed bogus. It was bogus then, and it’s bogus now. It was never supported by the literature of the day, and the paper should have been retracted.
4) Therefore, there is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, and while the national review probably when too far with personal attacks, it’s quite clear the CONCLUSIONS drawn from this ‘wonderfully creative’ scientific graph (by Mann, his co-authors, Nature Mag, the IPCC, and the idiotic governments that swallowed this crap) represent everything that is wrong or could go wrong with science.
I cannot think of a better word than bogus. What else would you call conclusions based on something that is random, and then subjected to a splicing process that is not statistically significant?????
If anyone is guilty of fraud in this it is their leader, the IPCC who did not properly investigate the 1910 to 1940 atmospheric global temperature rise. This mistake by the IPCC has clouded the climate issue ever since. In particular, by their failure to recognise the on/off nature of climate change as exemplified by the rapid fall in atmospheric temperature after 1940. They also failed to account for the long delay of the oceans (30-40 years) in catching up with the 1910 – 1940 atmospheric rise.
Even in the US, pointing out that someone has a big nose should not be actionable, even if the possessor of said proboscis would prefer you didn’t mention it, and feels hurt, distressed and deeply offended.
In the same vein, pointing out that Michael Mann was not awarded a Nobel Prize, that it is impossible to usefully determine the air temperature surrounding a tree in the past by examining the growth rings of that tree, that Michael Mann is bearded and balding, should not be actionable in any rational society, if the statements are statements of fact.
Has his reputation and standing in society been damaged because someone may have pointed out he didn’t receive a Nobel Prize? In all honesty, would you pay money to have this person teach your children? Is he a fool, a charlatan, or merely suffering from a form of delusional psychosis? Who knows, and, apart from Michael Mann, who really cares?
Or is he right, and is the world really warming – it’s just that the warming has been redefined to mean no increase in temperature. How precious!
The lawyers will get paid, sonorous and solemn judgements will be delivered, and the Universe will no doubt keep unfolding as it should.
Ah, the rich tapestry of life is indeed wondrous to behold.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Isn’t Mann a public figure?
Yes, which is why all this detail about Mann having any merit to his core libel claim is rubbish. What’s being proposed is that he only is speaking as a “scientist” instead of the partisan green advocate with the usual dweeb set of arm chair academic socialist talking points. His basic prayer to Gaia is finding a partisan judge willing to play the same make-believe regarding his actual social utility in the culture war. If you can find a court willing to accept EPA jurisdiction declaring co2 “pollution” without any empirical evidence all things must seem possible.
cwon14, I agree the EPA CO2 endangerment finding is ridiculous. And the deeper flaw is how CCA defines tests for a ‘pollutant’.
But the court ruling is actually on whether the CCA enables them to make such a finding, and whether they followed the rules in doing so. Unfortunately, it does and they did. Whichnis why the court upheld it.
There are two solutions. One, change Congress sufficiently that CCA can be appropriately amended and override an Obama veto. Unlikely in 2015 IMO.
Two, sweep the Dems out of the White House in 2016. Then amend the CCA. Plus a new EPA administrator re reviews the endangerment finding and nullifies it, the process showing how politically corrupted the original one was. Meanwhile, it appears evough states are filing suit on the proposed CO2 regulations that it is unlikely they will bite before the 2016 election.
So, the answer is in the political rather than the legal arena.
There were already over 300 comments by the time I read this, so I have not read them yet. Equating fraud with just trying to get people to act misses the legal point entirely. Fraud is saying or publishing something that you know to be wrong. To prove Mann did not actually believe in the hockey stick would be a very hard case to make. He likely still believes in it, and has said nothing to indicate that he doesn’t in the decade since. There is no fraud there. You can’t prosecute someone for a genuine belief they have. Think what kind of world that would lead to.
Steyn may also have the genuine belief that Mann committed fraud, but unfortunately that belief comes under the heading of defamation when made public and disputable by the accusee. It seems from the article that Steyn is trying to back off his language, but unsuccessfully given all the articles he still writes with the fraud word. He may be able to get out of it with a retraction statement, but is choosing not to.
You are clueless, jimmy dee. It’s obvious you didn’t read the thread. We wouldn’t expect a sensible comment out of you anyway.
You are very persistent, jimmy. We are going to sleep, but you can carry on with your foolishness.
This from Judith: ” fraud is motivated by inducing someone to act.” (or not)
Let’s have a hypothetical on the other side. If someone says that the IPCC warming attribution is almost certainly wrong in order to motivate people not to act politically in a particular way, knowing they they themselves are probably wrong in the face of the scientific evidence, would that be fraud? It is only fraud if you know you are wrong, not if you are just mistaken.
Steyn does not have to prove fraud, you dolt. Did Steyn say that mikey committed the criminal act of fraud, jimmy? Look the word up in a freaking dictionary.
fraud, noun: trickster, trick
example: Mike’s nature trick
Mann is a public figure, jimmy. Google “public figure defamation”
Or just stick with the BS you get from huffpo.
I have a reply for you in moderation, jimmy dee. I don’t know why I bothered. You are really no fun when you are so pathetically wrong.
Point is, good luck proving that Mann doesn’t, or at least didn’t at the time, genuinely believe in the fundamental truth of the hockey stick, which is what you would need to do for fraud.
No it is not. You do not have to examine the person’s state of mind. just what did he know and when did he know it.
Don says “I have a reply for you in moderation”. Can’t wait to see what it is. Probably just some more insubstantial name-calling.
It is only fraud if you know you are wrong, not if you are just mistaken.
Ok how about if Mann’s Papers are incoherent eg Berger 2010.
By avoiding the (calibrating) instrumental period, and by using
a fairly robust spectral measure for low-frequency performance,
the above coherence analysis has uncovered several
inconsistencies among the group of millennial reconstructions
that figured prominently in the latest IPCC report and
elsewhere. An immediate lesson from this is that simple visual
inspection of smoothed time series, grouped and overlaid
into a single graph, can be very misleading. For example,
the two reconstructions Ma99 and Ma08L, which have
previously been described to be in “striking agreement” (cf.
Mann et al., 2008), turned out to be the most incoherent of
all in our analysis.
maksimovich, courts of law don’t arbitrate on in-the-weeds stuff like that. Did he know he was wrong at the time of publication, or was it just an error found later, or difference in scientific opinion on a subset of results that doesn’t affect the whole? How would someone even prove which one it was?
Jim D said “Point is, good luck proving that Mann doesn’t, or at least didn’t at the time, genuinely believe in the fundamental truth of the hockey stick, which is what you would need to do for fraud.”
Jim D – you are very confused about the burden of proof in this case.
It doesn’t matter what Mann believes (I mean except to Mann).
What matters is whether the writer’s wrote the truth or stated an opinion.
Also – nobody has to prove Mann is a fraud.
If the hockey stick graph is fraudulent (if that is the truth) – then Mann loses. Or if that is an opinion – then Mann loses.
Mann can also lose because he cannot prove that the writers made their untrue statement of fact (he has to prove both that the statement is untrue and not an opinion) with actual malice (because he is a public figure – or at least a limited purpose public figure)
Rick, jimmy dee is not confused about the case. He is totally and willfully ignorant.
If Mann can’t be shown to have been fraudulent, Steyn would have been wrong, and it is defamation plain and simple. Other people are more careful about throwing such words around without question marks attached because they know the legal implications if they did.
Please remember that Steyn did not call Mann a fraud (at least not in the writing referenced by Mann’s lawsuit). He called the hockey stick fraudulent.
There is a big difference–a decline in the damaging effects, and one that Mann seeks to hide in his lawsuit.
“Did he know he was wrong at the time of publication, or was it just an error found later, or difference in scientific opinion on a subset of results that doesn’t affect the whole? ”
That’s the nut of it. Steyn called the graph a fraud because a “trick” was required in order for the graph to show what it’s authors wanted it to show. This is why the advocacy is relevant. When all the “errors” and “differences of scientific opinion” reinforce the advocacy, it’s perfectly reasonable to argue the work is bogus – especially when the advocates insist that obvious errors and differences never happened. This is a case about free speech, whether you can call out advocacy “science” or not.