by Judith Curry
Update: I will be testifying Mon Feb 5, starting at 9:30 am EST. You can watch the trial on Webex, scroll to room 132.
BTW, wordpress ‘ate’ the remainder of the text for this post.
-
Search
Denizens
Recent comments
- Wagathon on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Wagathon on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Wagathon on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Wagathon on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Wagathon on The extraordinary climate events of 2022-24
- Christos Vournas on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- BA Bushaw (ganon1950) on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Christos Vournas on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- BA Bushaw (ganon1950) on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- Christos Vournas on How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
-
Recent Posts
- How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
- There is no human right to a safe or stable climate
- The extraordinary climate events of 2022-24
- Mann v. Steyn: Round 2
- IPCC’s New “Hockey Stick” Temperature Graph
- Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part 3
- Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part II
- JC’s ethics complaint against Michael Mann
- JC’s expert report
- Time to retire the term ‘renewable energy’ from serious discussion and energy policy directives
- Two model-observation comparisons confirm: CMIP6 models run too hot
- Mann vs Steyn and Simberg discussion thread
- 2023 –> 2024
- “Realistic” global warming projections for the 21st century
- Climate attribution method overstates “fingerprints” of external forcing
Categories
Blogroll
- A chemist in Langley
- AndThenTheresPhysics
- Bill Hooke
- Cliff Mass
- Climate Audit
- Clive Best
- Ed Hawkins
- HeterodoxAcademy
- Kahn: Environmental & Urban Economics
- Paul Homewood
- Pragmatic Environmentalist
- Saravanan: MetaModel
- Science of Doom
- The Ethical Skeptic
- Watts Up With That?
- WoodForTrees
- Wx & Climate @ Reading
Archives
Email Subscription
Join 5,335 other subscribersMeta
“Steyn’s book [A Disgrace to the Profession] reminds everyone of Climategate, why the public doesn’t trust climate scientists and aren’t buying their consensus.” ~Judith Curry
Mark Steyn reminds everyone why the public distrusts stand up comics without fact checkers even more than climate change publicists pro and con.
Watts weekly vidio summary of Mann v. Steyn is at times funnier than Mark:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/01/friends-vloggers-congressmen-switch-off.html
Does the public distrust stand up comics?
As the immortal Thomas Sowell would ask, “Compared to what?”
In their own right, I suspect not at all. However, compared to accepted pillars of respectability, integrity and authority, such as climate scientists, I would say stand up comics are probably regarded as fonts of truth and understanding. The public would likely assume that a comic knows nothing, which is quite a benign condition, whereas many climate scientists know less that nothing, i.e. they are wrong in a likely harmful manner. A member of the public might intuitively trust a stand up comic more, a heuristic that would likely be correct in most cases.
It is hard to imagine Thomas Sowell nominating Colbert or Steve Meyers as Climate Czar, and Roy Spencer was understandably fed up with Limbaugh :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/02/a-hard-act-for-mark-steyn-to-follow.html
The brunt of parody is where the bewildered deserving sit.
Monday is Feb 5
Good example of a verifiable ‘fact’ as opposed to, e.g., a consensus of opinion of Western academic Euro/Democommies among whom, truth and even the scientific method don’t matter when in conflict with their Leftist-lib political objectives.
‘Good example of a verifiable ‘fact’’
I disagree! The day of the week is a tautology … it is Monday because we all say it is Monday. If we all suddenly decide, say, that February should have an extra day, then it does.
Oh, wait … we already did that. Happy Leap Year!
This is an artifact from around that time. I do not take some of the charts seriously, but it is true that some proxies were truncated because they went down instead of up on the original HS chart. There was a lawsuit for this also, but since it’s still on YouTube, I guess it’s OK.
Climategate Figure Threatens Lawsuit Over Satirical YouTube Video ‘Hide the Decline’ – No Cap-and-Trade Coalition Says ‘Bring It On.’
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/climategate-figure-threatens-lawsuit-over-satirical-youtube-video-hide-the-decline—no-cap-and-trade-coalition-says-bring-it-on-91591369.html
When I was learning about the scientific method, I don’t recall the step: lawsuit.
It shows how incomplete a STEM education is.
Did you learn that mathematics was inherently racist?
Go do Afrochemistry at Rice university and study black life matter. https://www.coursicle.com/rice/courses/CHEM/125/
What’s wrong with black body physics??
Many thanks for reminding us that Godwin’s Law also applies to polar bears.
It is interesting to see who commented to the old threads and if there still do today.
Rob,
First became a serious student of global warming in 1992. Sent some communications off to Phil Jones, got an occasional evasive answer.
Stepped up the pace just before Climategate and again after it. made a submission to one of the Inquiries, was disregarded.
Still active in questioning the poor science, particularly at its foundations. The customary typical daily temperatures of the Land Surface Temperature type are not fit for the purposes of reconstructions past temperatures – they were desaigned to deal with other needs, like farming and building dams and helping pilots before take-off.
So, the current emphasis is on estimates of uncertainty, a theme that Dr Curry has been discussing for some years now. The Establishment has shown little inclination to learn and correct.
FWIW, I did not have to undergo a transformation from a global warming believer to a sceptic. I did not accept the main thrust of global warming/climate change from its very beginnings. However, I still have problems from trying to find what motivates people to take extremist views of scientifdic research, to the stage of some of them disgracing scientific integrity by falsification of data. It is widespread now and seems to have reached the unhappy state of being acceptable to many because the noble cause is great enough to pardon past transgressions.
What a grotty mess. What a way to harm proper science.
Geoff S.
Sherro01:
I felt as you did at the beginning, but did not start investigating climate change until about 10 years ago.
At this point, I believe that I have correctly identified the cause of our modern (since 1980) warming: And it’s not CO2!
“SO2 aerosol removal. The cause of global warming.’
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.19.3.1996
I was here at the beginning, but have had much less to contribute now I’m old and decrepit. I was online when Judith first went to Steve McIntyre’s blog – she assumed that the pro-warmists had her own rigorous standards, and wondered my McIntyre challenged them. Her eyes were opened, and she started Climate Etc.
I went back and read some of those comment strings in CA from 2005-2008, (pre Climategate). The conversations between Roger Pielke Jr., McIntyre and her were fascinating. Her integrity and curiosity led her to become a skeptic of her own co-authored papers.. Her genuine devotion to the unbiased science, unfortunately, has not been generally appreciated enough.
I remember way back when the Climategate emails came out. While it looked fishy to me – I wanted to trust “greater” academia. I saw and heard some of Judith’s early comments and made up my mind to watch her take as things developed. She seemed trustworthy, earnest and interested in the truth. That was a good call.
As I noted yesterday
Mann’s first witness was the Co-author Bradley who discussed the history of temperature measurement ( that was the portion of the testimony that I heard).
His testimony gave the impression that temperature measurement has been very simple stuff, very easy to do, non controversial, very accurate, ie very easy to get right (almost a junior level school or 6th grade science fair level of complexity).
I only caught a bare snippet of the tree ring measurement, but the impression given was that getting temp data from tree rings was also very simple stuff.
In sum, the direct testimony of bradley would give the uninformed juror that temp reconstructions done is so simple that there is no complexity to it.
, .
“… the impression given was that getting temp data from tree rings was also very simple stuff.”
However, the correlation between temp’ and ring-width is not perfect, and I’m left with the impression the rings are more sensitive to water as long as the temperatures are not extreme.
Trees are sensitive to sunlight, water, fertilizer, insects, fungi, clouds, etc.
To Clyde and everyone else
first I am likewise guilty as everyone else
secondly , this is not my blog, so I cant set the rules.
Third I think every has a strong opinion on the positive or negative scientific integrity of the hockey stick.
That being said. I would like to request that comments be limited to the legal aspects of trial and observations of the presentation of the testimony, without any commentary on the science of the HS
Just my request
Thanks all
Joe
Joe
I will diverge just a little from your request. I read Montford’s book Hockey Stick Illusion, and much of the debate is about statistics. And not the simple stuff. Value of RE vs R2, short centered vs stepwise PCs, restandardization, Preisendorfers Rule N, etc, etc.
I’m not sure how either side avoids getting down into the weeds in making their case. Fraud, intent and incompetence are tenuous concepts and are inextricably linked when trying to sort out the elements involved, especially when outside experts have come down on both sides. What are the odds that a statistician sits on the jury. Fat chance.
Reading Montford’s book reminded me…again of the insular and incestuous subculture that exists in climate science.
Bradley rather cheekily hastened to affirm that various proxies were “very reliable,” without specifying (or being specifically asked) whether he meant reliable AS THERMOMETERS.
Steyn needed to take better scientific advice. He let them get away with too much, especially yesterday.
In his defense, no pun intended, he seemed to be struggling with his health yesterday, and testifying last thing in the afternoon was not advantageous.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/27/judge-strikes-all-of-michael-manns-expert-witnesses-from-libel-suit/
The second paragraph has a link to the court order dated july 26, 2021
ORDERED that Defendant Mark Steyn’s Motion in Limine to Strike the ExpertTestimony of Raymond Bradley is GRANTED.
All the other experts were struck with the exception of Simberg/Styen’s expert statistics expert. Judith curry was struck, though she mentioned a few months ago that she is still going to testify as a witness .
yesterday Bradley testified and will continue on Monday.
Can any legal experts explain why experts that were struck in the July 2021 order are testifying?
thanks in advance.
J Curry was struck since the issue is whether Simburg or styen knew they were “wrong ” ( or right) and/ malice, since Curry has no knowledge of what Simburg or Styen knew.
‘The intensity with which so many people have followed the story [of Michael Mann’s illusory hockey stick], and its continuing relevance via the ongoing Mann v. Steyn lawsuit (as well as others), indicate to me that it is more than just an academic spat about proxy quality and scores. I suspect that the whole episode has wider social significance as an indicator of a rather defective aspect of early 21st century scientific culture.’ ~Ross McKitrick (A brief retrospective on the hockey stick, May 23, 2014)
ClimateAudit observations:
“discussion by EPA, in which EPA concluded that Mann’s accusations of “scientific fraud” were within the scope of “acceptable and appropriate” scientific exchange and that it is “entirely acceptable and appropriate for scientists to express their opinions and challenge papers that they believe are scientifically flawed” in such terms.”
https://climateaudit.org/2014/08/22/epa-on-manns-fraud-invective/
Steyn: “Mann’s fraudulent misrepresentation of his credentials and academic standing later earned him a rebuke from Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute in Oslo. One can well understand why the exposure of Mann’s fraudulent claim should cause him embarrassment but it should surely not justify resetting the procedural clock back to the beginning on this case, which is what in effect happened.” https://climateaudit.org/2014/08/13/aclu-and-national-media-intervene-in-mann-v-steyn-et-al/
Mann: “The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think you’ll find this reinforced by just about any legitimate scientist in our field you discuss this with. To recap, I hope you don’t mention MM [McIntyre and McKitrick] at all. It really doesn’t deserve any additional publicity.”
https://climateaudit.org/2014/08/22/epa-on-manns-fraud-invective/
The process is the punishment. Even if Steyn wins the case and is awarded legal fees, he will have endured a high personal cost.
My understanding is that Steyn filed an anti-slapp countersuit so there’s no way Mann can back out.
The counter suit has been dismissed
Steyn counter-sued and he filed an anti-SLAAP suit. The counter-suit was dismissed and I do not recall seeing that the anti-SLAAP suit has ever been resolved. The reason for the latter is that Mann appealed the application and that had never happened before. It was not clear that a person can appeal an anti-SLAAP suit, the purpose of which is to stop delays and obfuscation. Mann delayed it with the appeal and I have not yet heard the result of that appeal. No one touched it for years, that is certain.
I do not know why the countersuit failed. That was too long ago and I wasn’t interested. Now however, Mann is having to get an earful daily and that Richter scale vibration you feel is him squirming as his date with destiny approaches.
I am dying to hear what McIntyre has to say. He will I am sure close the little wound Mann’s lawyer made when trying to evade Mann’s responsibility and lay it on the three co-authors as a group. It was Mann’s “filtering” program (exposed in 20003) that rejected or included individual tree ring sets, and/or weighted them disproportionately based on how they matched a narrative. That is the essence of data fraud. That’s why a running set of thousands of Red Noise numbers through the algorithm always results in a hockey stick. It is a hockey stick-shaped filter.
Those series that were retained were variously weighted, and those that were too awful to countenance were filed in the hidden “CENSORED” folder, fortuitously discovered by M&M. That process was not performed by the other two co-authors he now shoves to the front. The fact that data sets were filtered in this manner at all is evidence of self-assurance that it would never be found or understood because no one else is that “clevah”. Oh, how the pusillanimous have fallen.
I am not up on the dispute but at the surface, it seems to speak volumes that having to file a defamation suit, belies his (Manns) presentation of the “scientific data” in question…. Why would an accurate (as possible) methodology require defending?????
As you know, a proxy requires a calibration period when data is available to relate proxy measure to temperature. One then extrapolates the proxy backward assuming that same relationship holds in earlier times when no temperature data is available. Years ago when I checked some of the Mann proxies, the relation between proxy and temperature was not good during the calibration period. Worst of all, when carried forward to very recent times, tree ring data typically went the wrong way in the calibration period, leading to the well known “hide the decline”. More generally, as I went through the literature in those days, many published papers either didn’t show the calibration period in the paper or showed a tiny plot one inch high in one column that his the inaccuracy. I ended up feeling dubious about all the proxies used by these people.
Looking back over the comments in the previous posts JC has linked on this topic, I wonder how many of those pro-Mann acolytes are still that way inclined. Will the turn up to defend him, or another thing for the memoryhole?
Though it may be tough for his supporters to acknowledge, the childish namecalling tactics on Twitter that Mann has continued to do has alienated so many who might have been on his side. He can’t defend his statistical analysis or his methods, so we are left with bombastic bluster – The empty vessel making the loudest noise.
The actions of Mann’s lawyer with regards to complaining to the judge about a reporter seeking a comment as they left the courthouse shows that the plaintiffs are going to be in for a rough ride. (Don’t they watch the news and see it happens everywhere all the time?) I suspect the judge will not take kindly to some of Mr William’s actions. He made that clear when they tried to introduce new evidence after the proceedings started.
Chris – fwiw, I have a different take on the judges reaction to Mr. williams complaining about the reporter attempting to ask questions (my take is based on “re-inactment ” from reporters covering the trial). The impression given was that the judge believed Mr. Willams full account of the incident and will bar the reporter from the courtroom if it happens again.
I am also very confused on what the judge is going to allow in the trial – The issue is whether Simburg and / or Styen know their statements were false or acted recklessly with malicious intent. The issue is not climate science. Based on the judge’s order of July 2021 where all the experts were struck, I had the impression the judge was going to limit testimony to facts that addressed the legal issue. However, the testimony of Bradley shows that the judge is allowing climate science to be on trial.
From what I have seen, the judge in 2021 is not this judge, though I stand to be corrected. Has there been a witness list for this trial produced? Will the plaintiff even give evidence – he could then be cross examined.
Its the same judge irving from 2021 and today. The legal analysis in the July 2021 order seemed quite solid with a much better understanding of libel law and daulbert (expert witness standard) than the first three judges and the DC appellete court.
Thank you for that correction joe. As you note, there have been a number and one tends to lose track.
What does Phelim McAleer hope to accomplish by imitating Extinction Rebellion’s antics on the courthouse steps?
Trying to collect Mann’s noseprint on his cell phone lens can but contribute to Miss Thunberg’s delinquency.
Joe – the video of the actual incident is here https://youtu.be/-9F5v4LSXvI. It does not seem to tally with Mr William’s account. I wonder if the judge will review that like sports referees and action replays.
concur that the actual event did not match the rhetoric provided by Williams to the judge. However, its highly unlikely that the judge would review the video. (based on the re-dramatization of the event, the judge indicated that he would nothing further on the incident) .
The people outside the court need to up there game when Mann come strolling thru. A boom box playing “Hide the Decline” might get a reaction. Or maybe, a flat screen playing the video could follow him to his car.
The court should have provided a pool with a swim up bar to refresh the exiting jury, as it was 80 degrees in DC last week.
Traffic is down on the site since Ganon has given up the fight.
Just nothing that I’m inclined to respond to.
The Mann/Steyn lawsuit is epigramatic of of the sociopolitical struggle to save Americanism. For example, current EPA has no place in a free enterprise system- consider for a moment that secular-socialists already take advantage of the fact that all businesses are at the complete mercy of an unlimited and astronomical legal expensive exposure that plaintiffs attorneys eagerly exploit as if it was a natural resource created by the Left. By defining CO2 as a pollutant the EPA has given wings to such lawsuits. Both Galileo and Franz Kafka are mute examples of what happens when the government is both the proof source and silent witness concerning all of the accused’s alleged calumnies.
What do you mean by epigramatic?
An explanation ending in an ingenious turn of thought would be much apreciated
Global warming (and cooling) and climate change over time are both natural and expected but that Americanism is the root and cause of it now is a politically inspired Leftist-liberal hoax and scare tactic.
George Washington’s crossing of a frozen Delaware River on Christmas Day, 1776 was a horrible example of global warming.
I fear this has not been a good week for you .
First, you got the day wrong. Second, full disclosure : at a tender age I was dragooned into the annual Christmas Eve reenactment of the crossing, which meant boarding a replica Marblehead whaleboat on the slushy shore a couple of miles west of Lawrenceville School – a memorably cold exercise.
The long six oared Durham Boat it represented in the reenactment weighed over a ton, as did its overflow crew of oarsmen and a platoon of wannabe Continentals. It could not be oared, punted or towed across ice , thick or thin.
Had the Little Ice Age produced ” a solidly” frozen Delaware river” we might have some splendid paintings of Washington Marching Across The Delaware ,
As surely as Steyn was hoist on his own anti-CAGW petard by the 80 degree winter weather in DC last week , Washington was almighty glad to find the river unfrozen
‘Washington ordered his troops to gather near McKonkey’s Ferry on the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River. From here a contingent of boats successfully transported troops and artillery equipment over the ice-filled river to New Jersey. By 4 a.m. on 26 December, the troops were ready to advance on Trenton, where Hessian troops were stationed.’ ~ MountVernon.org
‘On the morning of December 25, 1776, Continental soldiers woke up in their camps along the Delaware River to frozen, snow-covered ground. Weather conditions worsened and temperatures continued to drop throughout the day. Late in the afternoon, the Continentals left their tents and began to form along the river in anticipation of the night’s events. Washington kept almost all of the details of the crossing a secret; as a result, none of the soldiers knew anything about their upcoming mission.
‘Washington’s crossing of the Delaware River on December 25, 1776 allowed his army to strike the Hessians at Trenton the next morning.’ (ibid.)
This is the article that made Mark Stein a defendant.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn/
and this is Rand Simberg’s one
https://cei.org/blog/the-other-scandal-in-unhappy-valley/
Streisand effect, anyone?
Prof Curry
Whilst I’ve been vaguely aware of this lawsuit the past decade, it’s not been a subject I’ve read up on religiously and so I was trying to find out exactly what the terms of the litigation actually were.
I went through four or five of your linked articles and couldn’t find out what they were there either.
It would be most valuable if you were able to document for some of us the exact nature of the charges brought against Mark Steyn et al.
Many thanks and a happy/prosperous 2024 to you.
Regards
Rhys Jaggar
London, UK
rhys … she wrote above:
> I am offering a discussion thread, but not my personal comments at this time. I will be called as a witness for Simberg and Steyn, and Simberg’s lawyer has advised me not to listen to the live streaming of the trial.
I wouldn’t answer your question if I were her … not until this trial is over.
Chris Morris posted a couple articles above.
It’s pretty clear what this case is about. It’s an allegation of defamation. Particularly regarding the opinion that Mann manipulated data. Also of importance is the comparison, by Steyn, of Mann abusing data akin to Jerry Sandusky’s abuse of minors at Penn State. Were the statements about Mann false? Were the statements malicious? Was harm done to the plaintiff? Were the statements covered by the First Amendment? That’s the crux of this case.
Very odd to me that this case wasn’t summarily dismissed for several reasons. One, Mann is a public figure and should have little standing for a lawsuit in that regard. But that issue is not applied evenly in the courts nowadays. Second, you have the first amendment rights of the defendants to express their opinions. That covers the comparison of data abuse to the Sandusky incident even if that comparison was perhaps distasteful. Everything else falls on whether the criticism of Mann’s scientific process was false. That is, or should be, a very high bar to meet in situations such as this where scientific methods are supposed to be scrutinized and open to criticism for the sake of the scientific method and “science” in general.
This appears to simply be a bad natured attack against critics in order to silence them. Such lawfare is becoming far more common; and unbiased courtrooms, the blind lady justice, are becoming much less common in districts such as D.C. This is a threat not only to civil rights, the freedom of expression, but also a threat to real scientific scrutiny. If a critic can be sued for defamation in an instance such as this, the entire peer review process becomes a moot rubber stamp of every study going forward. Thus no one will have confidence in trusting any “science.”
Scientific validation doesn’t come from peer review, that is more like the start of the process.
It wasnt dismissed at the start because the first two judges were extremely incompetent and biased. The appeals court also botched the law – botched it badly
The key to understanding uncertainty in life is to identify the certainties.
There may be many more certainties in weather and climate than we can currently claim, especially if we have been looking in the wrong places for them, a consequence of introducing a Hockey Stick Trick to the debate solely designed to confound, confuse, and divert our attention from reality. Our academic institutions should be ashamed for not investigating what was an appalling example of wanton deception.
Will science get back on track in 2024? I sincerely hope so because there have already been far too many innocents harmed by the failure of academia to manage itself professionally, with integrity, to keep their actions and records straight.
The issue at stake is whether or not climate science and policies can be questioned and discussed in the public square like other matters of opinion. We can see that in many institutions, like schools and governmental agencies, that dissenters are excluded and silenced. For example:
https://rclutz.com/2024/01/09/free-climate-speech-is-freedom-litmus-test/
I see climate science and policies questioned all the time. It seems more a matter of those questions not gaining traction due to lack of evidence, rather than being excluded and silenced.
That which is asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence.
(I’m looking at you, “climate crisis.” And at all the “policy” that depends upon your not being imaginary.)
That said, I’d rather litigate this with you on another thread. This one is an invaluable resource for those of us following the trial.
The reason this case wasnt dismissed at the summary motion stage was the original two judges botched the applicable standard for a SLAP case.
In all cases, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff at trial.
In the summary motion stage, the pleadings of the plaintiff are assumed to be true, so the primary issue at the motion stage is whether the law would be applied correctly based on the facts in the plaintiffs pleadings, (the plaintiff at this stage doesnt have a burden of proof at this stage)
However, in a SLAP case, the burden of proof reverts back to the plaintiff at the motion stage. Both judges “assumed” Steyn & Simburg acted with reckless disregard for the truth because everybody knew or should have known that the HS was proven science. (that sentence is based on the belief of the judges, not my belief).
The error was further compounded by not having any testimony or any other form of evidentiary hearing to enter evidence that either Steyn or Simburg knew or should have known their statements were false.
The appellate court also botched the applicable standard, failing to note that the plaintiff has the burden of proof at the summary motion stage. The appellate court opinion also showed that they were swayed by the false statements in the Mann’s reply briefs that he was exonerated by the 8 investigations. Craven, the attorney for NRO (?) botched the defense by not pointing the false statements in the pleadings. See Steve McIntyre’s analysis’s of the exonerations at climateaudit dot org.
Correction
The attorney is Michael Carvin of Jones Day , not Craven. My mistake.
Michael Carvin is an extremely accomplished appellate attorney, having argued several cases at the US Supreme Court.
here is S McIntyres commentary on Carvin’s performance at the DC appeals court
https://climateaudit.org/2015/01/02/one-of-carvins-gaffes/
Supplying more background information about the ins and outs of Mr Mann’s claims is this article over at Climate Audit: https://climateaudit.org/2023/10/23/was-michael-mann-exonerated-by-the-post-climategate-investigations-as-was-decided-by-the-dc-court-of-appeals/
After a big burst of activity detailing the flaws in the hockey sticks with his usual meticulous style, there have been no postings in last month on Climate Audit. Is Steve McIntyre a witness in the trial along with JC? I would be surprised if he wasn’t.
Chris – S McIntyre wrote several additional articles on 6 or 7 of the investigations going into considerably more detail as I recall. Its a shame the appeals court was so easily fooled by the investigations and the representations of the “exonerations” in Mann’s reply brief. Its also a shame that Craven did such a p– poor job addressing the falsifications in Mann’s pleadings. If a litigant is going to lie extensively in his pleadings, what else is he going to lie about. Had Craven properly addressed the correct legal standard in a SLAP motion to dismiss and addressed the falsifications in Mann’ reply brief, then it would have been more likely the case would have ended at the appeals stage.
The fake exoneration commissions were held for just this reason – to give fake exonerations to Mann.
Chris – I previously mentioned that JC and others had been struck as expert witnesses. However , JC mentioned that she is still on the witness list which means that she would be a fact witness. She also mentioned that she was told not to listen to any testimony. Fact witnesses are not supposed to hear any testimony while expert witnesses are allowed to hear testimony, at least the testimony of other experts.
If she is a fact witness, I suspect her testimony would be limited to what was generally known with mann’s HS at the time the statements were made. Same with S McIntyre.
I am speaking from my limited knowledge of my prior experiences as both expert and fact witness (8-10 cases)
I don’t dispute what you write about the difference between expert and fact witnesses.
As it was SM who did the analysis that showed MBH was wrong and deliberately so, thus precipitating all the subsequent claims, I agree it is almost certain he is going to be a witness – counter to Bradley. I was just noting that he has gone silent. If he wasn’t going to be a witness, I would expect him to be commenting on Bradley’s evidence or even just that the trial is occurring.
Likewise, JC may be testifying on how Mann helped orchestrate her fall from grace in academic circles and loss of grants – material consequences of defamation of her.
Interesting comment on S McIntyre. I dont know if he is on the witness list or not. I would imagine the he would be immediately bombarded on cross with questions on why the paleo community has completely ignored his commentary – ie that the paleo community thinks he so wrong that its best to ignore him.
Reminds of a time I was both an expert witness and fact witness (county court with some lienency). The opposing attorney laid into me accusing me of tons of scandulous behavior. The clients attorney jumped in and offered to stipulate that the opposing party didnt like me. Shut the line of questioning right up. I would suspect a similar response would be appropriate when the questioning on cross starts on either McIntyre or Curry.
Joe
I think if they would have any sense (which probably they don’t), Mann’s lawyers won’t attack SM on why the paleo community has completely ignored his commentary. SM can can point to the Climategate emails as the orchestrated campaign saying it wasn’t ignored. The counter he can come back with straight away is despite trying, they have been unable to prove his maths wrong, and even the reviews Mann has listed saying they support him agree.
It also allows the defendants to say they believe SM’s maths over Mann’s. That is why their OPINION is that the hockeystick is a fraud (in the common meaning sense) and the investigation(s) was fake.
A key point on the NSF memorandum clearing Mann of misconduct –
* Nor was the NSF investigation “broadened” to the extent portrayed by the division. Its investigation was limited to misconduct as defined in the NSF Research Misconduct Policy, which concerns only “fabrication, falsification and plagiarism … in research funded by NSF.” It stated that Mann “did not directly receive NSF research funding as a Principal Investigator until late 2001 or 2002.” Because the MBH98 and Figure 2.21 falsification allegations pre-dated 2001, the NSF had no jurisdiction over these allegations.
* There is no evidence that the NSF “broadened” its investigation to consider claims regarding Mann’s unprofessional conduct under Policy AD47 (over which it had no jurisdiction).
To Reiterate – The HS MBH98 predated NSF funding , therefore there was zero investigation of misconduct associated the MBH98 – the Hockey stick!
Here is CoPilots take on the case. The first answer was biased left-wing, so I told it to be politcally neutral and here’s what I got:
The case of Mann vs Steyn is a legal dispute that began in 2012. Michael Mann, a climate scientist, filed a defamation lawsuit against two writers, Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn.
Simberg, associated with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote a piece comparing Mann to a convicted child molester. Steyn, a blogger for National Review, quoted Simberg’s piece and labeled Mann’s research as “fraudulent”.
Initially, Mann also pursued legal action against the publishers, but a court ruled in 2021 that neither the Competitive Enterprise Institute nor National Review could be held responsible.
The trial started on January 17, 2024, and is expected to continue until at least February 6, 2024. The outcome will be determined by a jury.
Here are the references given in the left-wing version. I can see why the answer was left wing. Gotta watch these AIs!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/17/michael-mann-climate-scientist-defamation-lawsuit
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2024/01/michael-mann-climate-scientist-defamation-trial-denial/
https://scrippsnews.com/stories/renowned-climate-scientist-s-12-year-defamation-lawsuit-goes-to-trial/
It’s not like Steyn is accuses Mann of anything other than or more than or less than what the smartest people who have ever lived would say about all global warming alarmists. To begin with, ‘Global Warming’ and climate change as a consequence suggests that’s something unusual in Earth’s history. Freeman Dyson says, “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic.” As for Dyson’s opinion about climatologists he says, “I just think they don’t understand the climate.”
Sorry
Heavy rainfall in California, may cause local flooding.
https://i.ibb.co/k85qghh/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-22-095743.png
The 30-day SOI is already over 6.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
9:25 cst time – Bradley is testifying
Several comments –
he describes the proxies as “very reliable”
He implies that arriving at the temps is very easy
H H Lamb was the scientist that strongly found the MWP in his study from 1964 – Bradley described Lamb’s findings as based on “skimpy evidence” “from only western europe”. Definitely not global on multiple statements in the testimony.
Joe
I wonder if any of the witnesses will be statisticians.
The quote below is from the book “The Hockey Stick Illusion.”Jolliffe is one of 2 people involved in peer review of MBH98. He is purportedly a well known and respected expert in PC analysis. What I found surprising was that until a decade after the study was published he didn’t understand what Mann had actually done, with respect to the use of statistical analysis.
The appropriate methodology for analyzing the use of PC is going to be the crutch of the reliability test.
“Jolliffe went to to explain that his presentation in no way supported the idea of short centring, and also rather surprisingly said that until the second half of 2008 he had had no idea of exactly what Mann had done in MBH98. Up until then he had been labouring under the misapprehension that Mann had used a technique called uncentred PC analysis, which is essentially PC analysis with no centring at all. Despite having reviewed McIntyre’s Nature submission, he had apparently still not realised that the technique used by Mann was short centring. He even went so far as to say he had doubts whether even standard PC analysis was a suitable technique for temperature reconstructions.”
Bradley did testify today that because the IPCC won the Nobel Prize and because both he and Mann worked on the IPCC report that they in fact did individually win the Nobel prize .
Odd that he would make that statement since the Nobel committee specifically that mann did not win the Nobel prize
Naomi Oreskes is the second witness of Mann.
I am still confused on why she is testifying. She was struck in the July 2021 order from this judge.
Testimony from Naomi that I find highly misleading
a) any critique outside the peer review process should be ignored because it not “official science” . Criticism is not valid unless it is through the peer review process. (paraphased by me)
b) IPCC is “super peer reviewed process” much better than regular peer review since it multiple additional levels pf peer review. (paraphrased by me).
Irrespective of which side you are on, Naomi Oreskes should not be testifying under any standard. She is neither an expert or a fact witness.
repetitive testimony that discussions on blog posts, or any other source is not science. ONLY PEER REVIEWED qualifies as science.
I’m not a legal expert, but it seems that Naomi’s testimony opens a door to several lines of questioning; how peer review gets funded, why only peer review qualifies as science, and how the political process of peer review is filtered through the IPCC. If lawyers are allowed to entertain such a line of questioning among witnesses, Dr. Curry has an opportunity to open a can of Stossel type whoop – – – reality check.
Jungle – Oreskes testimony was designed to set the stage to discredit any non peer reviewed commentary such as what would be stated by both McIntyre and Curry.
That might backfire since there a number of papers that have been revised due to McIntyres pointing out errors via blog posts (one of the Pages 2k and or Gergis as I recall)
joethenonclimatescientist:
“That might backfire…”
It could also backfire the other way. If reputation comes exclusively from publishing in peer reviewed journals, how much reputational damage can be inflicted by popular press articles or blog posts?
I agree, Robert.
How can daylight be shed on what drives unscientific motivated reasoning if the methodologies used to arrive at consensus isn’t described in detail? It effects peer review directly. The IPCC is 50/50 politics and science. There’s published work, including citations, that describe the political motivations driving scientific consensus since post WWII. How politics has influenced (either directly, or indirectly) climate science is integral to this case in my opinion. “Exclusivity”, controlling the narrative; in this sense equates to confirmation bias with extreme prejudice. The broad stroke history of climate science implementation is indirect causation here. Example; which climate science is funded, or NOT funded, equally influences this case by nature of the broad political prejudices driving science discovery. Climate science is probably the largest walled garden ever created, it’s defended in court.
joethenonclimatescientist, I really appreciate all your analysis in this thread.
Naomi Oreskes is an expert on nothing in science.
She’s literally an anti-scientist who seeks (lucratively) to usurp the supremacy of evidence with medieval counterfeits such as consensus and authority.
Counsel on both sides made a mockery of the court by admitting her without objection as an expert witness in *the scientific method,* when she’s done more than anyone else alive to traduce and misrepresent that very method. In which, for what it’s worth, she says she doesn’t even believe.
Brad
I thought she wasn’t allowed to be an expert witness, only a fact witness. The judge had disqualified her from the former as she didn’t follow the scientific method.
And from the reports of her testimony, one was left thinking Is this the best Mann has?
just to be clear, JC was struck as an expert because she doesnt have knowledge of what either Simberg or Steyn knew about about the HS when the articles were published. Only Steyn or Simberg have knowledge of what they knew.
On the other hand, she maybe can testify to the general state of knowledge regarding the HS & the general state of the public criticism. That statement is with the caveat that judge may not allow that testimony, though that is unlikely since he allowed oreskes
Chris,
No, sad to say she really was admitted as an expert witness.
– I’d like to offer Professor Oreskes as an expert in the scientific methods and peer review.
– Any objection?
– No objection.
– All right. Very well. Then the court will receive expert testimony from Dr. Oreskes in the area of peer review process and…. scientific peer review?
– Scientific methods.
– Methods.
– Process.
– All right.
What we’ve come to see, worldwide, is the fall of ethics and honor in western academia. ‘Now here’s the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry’s own admission there has been almost no progress worldwide in actually combatting climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse not better and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.’ ~Stephen Moore, ‘Follow the (Climate Change) Money’
Mann v Steyn may be making scientific waves. Roger Pielke Jr. has a substack about how trial documents show Mann blocking a paper he did with Steve McIntyre:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/climate-science-gatekeeping?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=119454&post_id=140928221&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=kv1q8&utm_medium=email
Mann then submits a similar paper. Remember Willis Eschenbach’s post, Michael Mann Smooth Operator:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/30/dr-michael-mann-smooth-operator/
I wonder if our flaming Climate Doomers will deign read it.
OK, I just can’t help myself. EVs lend new meaning to the phrase, “flaming Climate Doomer.”
Mann is like a losing NFL football team. So desperate to win, they start drawing penalties, resulting in negative yardage.
I was surprised at the limited content of Naomi Oreskes’ testimony today, and the lack of any significant cross-examination. Why did the Plaintiff put her on the stand to testify about the elements of the peer review process and of how science is supposed to work? It seems to me that this invited damning comparisons with Mann’s systemic abuse of both of these elements. Did the Defendants miss an opportunity here? Or are they playing a higher level of chess in which they avoided a carefully prepared trap designed to lure the Defendants into cross-examining on these topics? I would hope that at the minimum, closing arguments will mention her testimony and show how Mann has abused the scientific process on several fronts.
I was hoping Steyn would examine Oreskes about her many documented lies, though I didn’t have any right to expect him to do so, since it’s not necessary for his case.
What was the point of Oreskes? I don’t mean in general (though that’s certainly an interesting philosophical question), but her appearance in this trial? Half her testimony was about how many awards universities have been silly enough to give her.
Brad to clarify my point above – Oreskes testimony was designed to lay the foundation that only criticism of climate science that passes through “peer review” is “science”. Any other criticism from blogs, etc is “not science” and should be completely disregarded.
The purpose of which is to discredit McIntyre ‘s testimony before he testifies. Since he never had any papers peer reviewed, there is no reason to believe his testimony and there was no reason for Steyn/simburg to believe McIntyre.
(note the above is plaintiff’s goal in her testimony)
Hopefully that will backfire during McIntyres testimony when it is pointed out that A) McIntyre was former peer reviewer, but was kicked out early because he asked for the data so that he could do an actual peer review and b) numerous papers have been withdrawn and or revised due to his critiques.
I fear you are correct. Given how some judges have gone off the rails when it comes to the rule of law, any trial is a craps shoot when it comes to integrity of the justice system in the US.
Jim2 – a few comments – My observation is that this judge understands the applicable standards. He is sustaining almost all the defenses objections and sustaining the objections rapidly, which to me indicates he understands the issues.
As a follow up on the purpose of Oreskes testimony – the applicable standard in a Libel case is both that A) the statement was false and B) the the defendant knew the statement was false (or should have known it was false).
At the time the Simburg and Steyn made the statement, it was considerable criticism of the HS. If the criticism had merit, then the defendant would have reason to believe his statement was true. If they plaintiff can show that any criticism outside the peer review process is inherently invalid, then the plaintiff has better shot at demonstrating that the defendant knew his statement was false. Thus the purpose of Oreskes testimony is to discredit McIntyre as early as possible.
I have reasonable confidence in this judge so far. Because that hurdle of having to know the statement was false and because the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, I would not be surprised that there would be a directed verdict when the plaintiff rests their case , or alternatively, very good jury instructions which details the applicable standard.
Are you aware that Mann has filed a motion to prevent McIntyre from testifying? I have good feelings about the judge as well, but his ruling on this motion will be huge.
A non-scientist can’t be reasonably expected to understand the nuances that distinguish peer-reviewed vs non-peer-reviewed papers.
A paper published in a journal would be more than enough grounds to believe the hockey stick paper was fraudulent, even though it may not have been peer-reviewed. Also, there were other people saying the HS paper was fraudulent, so there is that context extant in the public eye.
Joe,
McIntyre has at least 3 peer reviewed articles 2 in Energy and Environment and 1 in Geophysical Research Letters [see page 29 of our host’s book Climate Uncertainty and Risk]
John Hewitt | January 23, 2024 at 12:59 pm |
Joe,
McIntyre has at least 3 peer reviewed articles 2 in Energy and Environment and 1 in Geophysical Research Letters [see page 29 of our host’s book Climate Uncertainty and Risk]
John
Thanks for the correction.
fwiw – my running commentary on the trial is trying to project a sense of what the jurors are learning about the facts and history of the case based on the jurors having a very limited knowledge of climate science, most being very naive on the subject. My apologies since I am probably doing a poor job with describing the presentation. Likewise I am also trying to give the readers of this blog a sense of whether or not the testimony supports the key legal elements in a libel suit.
Joe, thank you for that. I hadn’t read the whole thread. Your theory makes perfect sense, though I though M&M’s paper had been peer reviewed. Anyway if they do what you anticipate, their argumentum ad oreskem will be scientifically illiterate (of a piece with her entire career of scientific miseducation). Because a paper stands or falls on its own merits. Asking someone to disregard a result because it wasn’t peer reviewed is like asking someone to dislike their own favorite movie because it got a bad score on Rotten Tomatoes. Film criticism and peer review serve the same purpose, and that is social certification: an approximate, consensual heuristic for deciding whether it’s worth watching a movie or reading a paper. It’s literally meaningless once you’ve actually gone to the cinema or read the paper. It adds zero insight a posteriori. Oreskes is lending herself out as an instrument for fallacy. But what’s new?
CBKiteflyer | January 23, 2024 at 11:35 am |
“Are you aware that Mann has filed a motion to prevent McIntyre from testifying? I have good feelings about the judge as well, but his ruling on this motion will be huge.”
Replying to CBKite –
As of 1/24/2024, the motion to strike McIntyre and McKintrick has not been ruled on.
The motion to strike McIntyre and McKintrick is interesting – its based on the theory that the Judge has ready ruled that A) M& M are not experts and and therefore has struck them as experts, b) the issue of climate science is not at issue in the case (only the libeling of Mann’s HS as fraudulent)
I doubt that Judge Irving will bar either M&M’s testimony
A) since he barred all to Mann’s expert witnesses as experts, but still allowed them to testify (oreskes, Bradley). Seems highly unlikely that he would have allowed Manns witnesses to testify, but not Simberg’s witness. Unfair trial
B) Even if McIntyre was properly stuck / barred from testifying, because Mann has made repeated references to McIntyre and McKintrick, that allows the defense to bring back in previously barred testimony / witnesses for rebuttal.
What’s the point of McIntyre for that matter?
Both can be counted on too faithfully convey the views of their former employers.
Bafflegab.
Who employs McIntyre? Only his expenses were covered.
As his real expertise lies in mining statistics, the clientele of the Vancouver Stock exchange, tar sand investors included. Oddly , it is a subject Oreskes must know of as she worked in Australian gold exploration after graduating from the not very climate sciency London School of Mines.
You might ask the same question of Steyn’s Canadian entourage, as Lord Black has his back,
Russell Sitz | February 5, 2024 at 6:54 pm |
As his real expertise lies in mining statistics,
In response Russel’s comment –
On cross, the tried to point out that McIntyre had no formal education in “Climate Science” He replied that math was a key component of climate science.
One of the best lines of questioning for McIntyre the requirement in mining prospectis is the required disclosure of all adverse findings. One of the problems in MBH 98/99 was the lack of disclosure of any adverse findings.
Along with the subsequent statements that the verification number was zero or very close to zero.
McIntyre did a very good job of reinforcing Wyner’s stat testimony.
However, everything boils down to whether the jury panel is predisposed into believing the climate science religion.
Steyn’s Calgary tar patch pals are the evangelicals in this case, having plastered the city with billboards proclaiming that the sun drives climate change, not God-fearing fossil energy companies;
they style their mother church The Friends of Science.
“Steyn’s Calgary tar patch pals are the evangelicals…”
There are a great number of people in science (like myself), I believe, that were too curious about the world as children to accept religion’s pre-canned answers. We cherish science. If I was a joiner I might even join an organization called Friends of Science.
At the same time there are some narratives that are too attractive to children, starved for a cause, as most people are, and suck them in, ironically in the name of science. It is seems like an cousin to the narrative that democracy is under attack therefore we need to do mail in elections with no ID requirements. And if that doesn’t work sick our justice system on them. And if that doesn’t work ban them from the ballot, because democracy is just that darn important.
Russell, there, you have my sincere starting point. I would look forward to you talking me out of it over time. Convince me that scientific rigor is not being corrupted when Mann can claim to be a Nobel laureate and he has millions of followers such as yourself who defend that.
Wer sind Russell, Russell Seitz und Russell Sitz? Will the real Slim Shady please stand up?
9:15 CST – Mark Steyn is “hostile” witness for the plaintiff. The line of questioning is whether Steyn did any fact checking of Simburg’s article prior to publishing his article. ( the reckless disregard for the truth standard).
Steyn is an extremely poor witness on this point , he is digging an extremely deep hole with his testimony. Steyn is arguing free speech, instead of arguing the applicable libel standards from Sullivan, et al.
Hopefully Simburg’s lawyer on cross will rectify some of the damage. Its obvious from Steyns testimony why he could not keep an attorney. ( I have testified 8-10 times as both expert and fact witness in my industry , so I have reasonable experience with testifying)
Did you notice how Mr Williams for the plaintiff slipped an argumentative (is that the word?) question past Steyn by asking “how many other scientists have made the same mistake (of claiming to be Nobel recipients)?”
That’s begging the question. Steyn’s point is that when Mann made that claim it was not a “mistake” at all, but something he repeatedly said although he must have known it wasn’t true. In Anglo-Saxon, a “lie.”
I’d like to think Steyn would have had the presence of mind to object had he not been grilled late in the afternoon on a day on which he was clearly struggling to push enough blood through his lungs.
Brad – fwiw – almost every trial attorney misses multiple opportunities to impeach a witness’s testimony. So, its difficult to fault Steyn for missing the chance. That being said, He would be much better off using an experienced trial lawyer.
Yes!! I noticed Williams’ use of “mistake” as well. When you still have the Nobel recipient thing up on your website after all these years, despite being told to the contrary by the Nobel Committee, it is NOT a ‘mistake’ !
What should people who co-author reports for panels that win Peace Prizes say when the panel sends them a copy of the certificate as a thank you note? Even solo Nobel winners get a couple of gilt copies of the gold prize medal to display while the original sits in their safety deposit box.
It’s also hard to get excited about proxy splicing when the instrumental record takes precedence much as live testimony trumps hearsay in the science of the law.
Russell, it depends. Do they receive a cheque? If not, they can NOT say they are prize recipients, since, in the deathless words of Michael Mann under oath, “prixes come with money.”
Is there a transcript of the trial?
Anyone catch Bradley’s explanation for the decline? The trees were affected by global warming, he hypothesised. That’s why they didn’t work as proxies anymore.
It’s beyond parody. Those are three words I’d never thought I’d say about anything.
I feel it would be almost too obvious to ask Bradley: did the trees also fail to work during the Middle Ages, because of all the global warming going on back then?
Another parody was Bradley’s claim that he also won the nobel prize, as did Mann, since they worked on the IPCC report.
Depends on when he said it.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | February 8, 2024 at 11:02 am |
Depends on when he said it.
No it doesnt matter when he said
Neither mann nor Bradley won the Nobel prize
Also note was that the claimed prize was the peace prize , not the science prize.
Joe,
Yes, when it was said does matter. If you don’t know why, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Nobel_Peace_Prize
and search “IPCC certificates”.
PS ~ there is no Nobel “Science” Prize, so no surprise they didn’t claim one.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | February 8, 2024 at 11:13 am |
Joe,
“Yes, when it was said does matter. If you don’t know why, see:”
Ganon – you keep doubling down defending dishonesty –
ganon defends Manns/ bradley and ganon’s own dishonesty with the link to wikipedia
Ganon’s link to wikipedia – The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (founded in 1988) and United States former vice president, Al Gore (b. 1958
You just bumped into the proxy/instrumentality problem again
It’s an area where Steyn has chosen unwisely:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/06/mark-steyn-medieval-cooler-than-now.html
Depends on the magnitude and rate of temperature change during the MCA, compared to the last 60 years.
What temperature change during the MCA? What MCA? Nothing depends on nothing.
Does anybody know whether the judge has ruled on the motion to exclude testimony by McIntyre and McKitrick? https://twitter.com/ClimateDepot/status/1749234491506188309
https://portal-dc.tylertech.cloud/app/RegisterOfActions/#/B1DDB42490CFF146AA167C71D4025500AC1F357E78D2D89390725B75C64063FA/anon/portalembed
Motion to exclude McIntyre filed 1.21.2024 after the trial start. Not exactly ethical behavior in a civil suit.
No notice has been posted on the Courts website as to a ruling on excluding McIntyre’s testimony as of 1.23.2024 6pm est
I don’t think the 1.5 C blade is “red noise”.
You may, or not, be interested in this …
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf
Jim2 as requested a few days ago, lets limit our comments on this thread to the legal issues and the evidence presented in the trial.
thanks
Thanks, Jim
I was going by the instrumental record.
As I understand it, the technique involves what is in essence matching the later part of a proxy to the instrumental series. I’m not clear if this instrumental series was the global average or one customized for the region from which the proxy was gathered.
Since every included series matched the instrumental record, the remainder of the series, averaged together, resulted in a flattened pre-instrumental reproduction.
It seems to me, using the instrumental record from the region containing the proxy might be a better screen method.
Even better would be to verify by some means that each proxy was a valid one for temperature by a more certain method.
Yes, multiple cross-referenced proxies, good time references, and good spatial coverage are always desirable. I guess I tend to be more interested in what has been happening so fast over the last 50+ years, compared to the last few thousand years.
I’m glad to see there’s someplace discussing the suit. I’m one of Rand’s frequent commenters and I believe he has to stay mum about everything.
Do you know if he’s in the courtroom or will be testifying? I’m assuming you’re talking about defendant Rand Simberg.
Mike D – Simberg is at the defendants table , center circular table. from left female legal assistant, Steyn, Simberg attorney, simberg, one person i dont recognize
Mann , Willaims is at the plaintiffs table (the right side circular table,
Rand’s blog is Transterrestrial Musings. Not a peep about it, and he even updates us when he goes out of town on vacation or heads to an aerospace conference.
I didn’t realize Styne has no lawyer. This is really bad, but I certainly understand the need to stay financially viable.
The “justice” system in the US is for the rich or the government which has virtually unlimited resources. The “justice” system can completely ruin individuals and lately there is a long line of bodies along the highway.
Jim2 – Steyn doesnt have an attorney for a variety of reasons with the prominent reason likely due to Steyn’s posture on the case and therefore making it difficult to retain an attorney. It appears to me that Steyn wants to make this a case of free speech while insulting the process instead of addressing the issues associated with libel, ie knowing the statements were false or should have known the statements were false or reckless disregard to the facts with malice (apologies of slight butchering of the standards/elements of libeling a public figure).
Steyn maybe a great orator, speaker , commentator, but addressing the legal points and presenting evidence and testimony in his favor on the elements in a libel action, he is doing an extremely poor job. A good attorney would be highly beneficial to control him.
Steyn was pro/persecuted by a Canadian court and used his words to make the court find itself guilty. Essentially.
At the risk of stating the obvious, are we thinking that Steyn thinks he’s forensically invincible because, historically, he has been?
The disadvantages of Steyn being his own lawyer should be weighed against his considerable rhetorical skill and having it put more extensively on display.
I can’t wait to feed the evidence and court transcript to a AI Chatbot trained on the relevant laws and statutes and get an unbiased verdict. Anybody want to guess the odds that the AI would find in Mann’s favor?
Why doesn’t the defense say WHY they’re objecting to Mann’s telepathic answers to questions that flagrantly call for speculation? Why is Weatherford simply saying “Objection”?
This may be a DC procedural rule, and perhaps someone can fill us in on this.
Otherwise, it’s suboptimal performance by defense counsel. The jury is more likely to ascribe extra prestige to answers they’re instructed to strike from their minds UNLESS they’re given a good reason.
Extremely notably, Mann pinned himself down this morning on what Hide The Decline meant: he said “hide the decline means not show the bad data.”
Of course everyone who speaks English knows that “hide” means “not show,” but 14 years after Climategate, this admission by The Scientists of the bleeding obvious is something of a breakthrough.
It leaves them with one less inch of wiggle room.
All the defense needs to get across to the jury is that
1) the data is only “bad” because it doesn’t work as a proxy, the scientists don’t know why it doesn’t work, and they don’t know whether or not it works as a a proxy prior to the instrumental era
2) according to all known norms, ethics and principles of science, you’re not ALLOWED to simply not show “bad data.”
This would prove that Jones (and Mann, by reading his email and failing to object to it) is scientifically an outlaw, and that the WMO diagram is a deception.
Joe above may be right—Steyn may be his own biggest enemy. But the same can be said of Mann. And if it’s a contest for who’s a nastier enemy, Mann has always been the champion.
“1) the data is only “bad” because it doesn’t work as a proxy, the scientists don’t know why i”
That’s not true- it’s data that diverges from reality as recorded by a host of reproducibly calibrated and traceable instruments,
You go to the climate wars with the troops you’ve got.
It’s as a bad idea to use proxies in place of first order data as it is useless to not use proxies if that’s all the data you’ve got.
They just let Mann’s attorney get away with saying “Let’s now turn to the defamatory publications….”
Up your game, counselors.
Brad – fwiw – there is a lot of cat and mouse games in courtroom strategy based on how the attorneys feel on how the jury will react. Perhaps, letting the attorney get away with improper questioning may be the better defense strategy. I have seen several glimpses of the jurors (far left screen ) and they all look fairly young 25-40 ish. that means they are very likely very pro believers in agw being young and living in DC
“How much money were you pulling in in grants *before* the defamations?”
No objections.
What’s going on here, guys? Have Ms Weatherford, Mr Steyn et al. been lulled to sleep by Mann’s autohagiographical testimony? Is his CV…. *boring* them?
Disregard.
I didn’t see Joe’s explanation above. Thanks Joe!
Brad – fwiw – my experience in the courtroom has been limited to financial accounting maters ( I am a CPA), forensic accounting, business partner divorce and marital divorces, quasi expert though closer to fact witness than expert witness, (1 jury trial, the other 7-8 trials were bench trials).
A couple of observations in Mann’s direct
Mann’s attorney when asking mann questions on direct constantly refers to the defamation in the question. Using a term which presumes guilt is an absolute no no in a criminal trial, not sure why its allowed in civil trial and not sure why no objection
Point 2 – Mann has been the witness for the entire morning.
During the mid morning recess, Mann was at the plaintiff’s table conferring with counsel. There is a near absolute bar against a witness conferring with counsel while they are still testifying (including overnight recesses). Not sure why he has been allowed to do that. I recall my first episode as witness, I went to the defense attorney during a break to clarify a point , and got a serious lecture from the judge.
Yes! I was struck by their illicit fraternization too. I thought it was taboo. At the courts where I live, witnesses can be seen waiting all on their lonesome at the bus stop each evening.
But when Mann walks out of the courtroom escorted by his counsel, as documented by Phelim McAleer’s phone, any such “absolute bar” against their talking to each other seems to have been irreparably flouted, and too late to enforce.
As Colonel Jessup asked his own judge, “what the hell kind of unit are you running here?”
I think we should alert Phelim and Ann to the taboo and ask them to confirm that it’s definitely been broken. We don’t enjoy their direct eye-line to the events.
Over at @PhelimMcAleer’s Twitter feed he seems to be pretty vigilant about reading and replying (briefly) to informative comments.
Mann’s attorney is milking the lack of objections for everything it’s worth, gratuitously describing the articles as “the defamatory articles.” Like someone who forgets your name, then you remind them, and they overuse your name at every possible linguistic juncture. “When the defamatory articles defaming you defamed you, did these defamations make you feel defamed?”
In allowing this nonsense I hope the defense team(s) are using a tactic, as opposed to just catching some Zs.
Weatherford (representing Simberg) has begun cross-examining Mann, in case anyone has sick days they can use and would like to witness history while it’s still current events.
She just passed up the chance to ask Mann whether the guy who have him a dirty look at the supermarket did so because he’d read Steyn’s article, Simberg’s article, Mann’s emails, Jones’ emails, The Hockey Stick Illusion, this blog, Climate Audit, or any of an almost infinite number of texts that would cause a reasonable person to adjust their estimate of him in a heliophobic direction.
…aaaaand it seems she was saving it like a dish best served cold, because that’s exactly what she asked him today.
O me of little faith! She knows what she’s doing.
Does Weatherford realize that a scientist’s h-index *can’t* decrease (barring wholesale retractions)? The fact that Mann’s score goes up monotonically before and after 2012 doesn’t prove much either way about any hit to his reputation.
Mann is too much of a narcissist to resist telling the jury about his bromantic dalliances with Gore and diCaprio et hoc genus omne. I’m sure he knows, occipitally, that every joke he cracks about some mega-celebrity wearing lifts or smelling nicer than you might think is just making it harder for him to pretend the blog posts have turned him into a pariah. So be it. He’s a moth to the fame flame.
This is what Mark and Rand need to submit into evidence. It’s Prof. Richard Muller’s (Berkeley Earth) lecture on “hide the decline.”
https://youtu.be/8BQpciw8suk
Here is a more comprehensive video on “hide the decline” that includes a short contribution from Steve McIntrye. https://youtu.be/K_8xd0LCeRQ
That would be great, if they could get Muller’s video past the hearsay rule. If I were them I might consider subpoenaing Muller himself.
I’m not sure if they have subpoena power for witnesses. Joe?
Mike Dombroski | January 24, 2024 at 2:57 pm |
I’m not sure if they have subpoena power for witnesses. Joe?
Mike I am presuming that question was for me. If so, I am the wrong person to ask, I have a reasonable knowledge of statutes, etc, but absolutely very poor knowledge of civil procedures.
Mike and Joe, our AI overlords have the following to say:
In a civil defamation suit in a DC court, or any U.S. court, the defendant can indeed subpoena a witness to serve as an expert on specific topics relevant to the case, such as the scientific method and ethics of science, assuming that the expert’s testimony is intended to address issues that are material to the case.
The court will consider whether the expert’s testimony is:
Relevant and helpful to the jury in deciding the facts.
Based on sufficient facts or data.
The product of reliable principles and methods.
The result of the expert having reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
The expert can offer an opinion that may challenge the plaintiff’s scientific ethics if such a challenge is relevant to the defamation claim. For example, if the plaintiff’s reputation as a scientist is at issue because the defendant’s allegedly defamatory statements pertain to the plaintiff’s scientific conduct, then the defendant might argue that the testimony is relevant to the truth of their statements, which is a defense to defamation.
However, the court will also consider the potential for prejudice, confusion, or waste of time, and may exclude evidence that is cumulative or not sufficiently tied to the facts of the case.
It is also important to note that there are procedural rules that govern the admission of expert testimony, such as the requirement to disclose expert witnesses in advance of trial and the submission of an expert report detailing the testimony the expert is expected to provide.
Defendants considering such a strategy should consult with legal counsel to ensure that they comply with the relevant rules of civil procedure and evidence.
Ron Graf wrote:
It’s Prof. Richard Muller’s (Berkeley Earth) lecture on “hide the decline.”
Muller is wrong. Flat-out wrong. It’s very clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/07/science-mores-disappearing-everywhere.html
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/09/richard-muller-on-moving-from-agw.html
A strong tropical storm in the Coral Sea, approaching land.
https://i.ibb.co/wJtDLP9/himawari9-ir-07-P-202401241700.gif
Mann keeps misusing the word ‘fulsome.’
In that spirit, I must agree with Tim Ball’s beautiful dream of a world where Mann goes to sleep each night after a fulsome meal, has a restive sleep and wakes up feeling fully enervated.
Mann: “Ken Cuccinelli was a climate change denier…”
You’re kidding. In this day and age? Someone in high office literally was in denial of changes in the earth’s climate? As if the climate was immutable?
Yes, as incredible as it sounds, that must be what Cuccinelli believed.
The only other possibility is that Mann is perjuring himself, and I just can’t imagine that happening.
Under cross, Mann couldn’t remember winning a six-figure cash prize.
I’m sure the jury can relate.
Judge Irving may have a mere law degree, but his incisive and derisive comments about Oreskes and her consensualist papyromancy show an understanding of the scientific method that is missing in much of the clisci world itself.
This is what he thinks her cargo-cult seances are worth:
“The methodologies of the expert must be grounded in the scientific method, such that another person with similar expertise could replicate them… Reviewing a selection of documents, summarizing them, and giving an opinion about their conclusions is not a proper methodology grounded in the scientific method, but, unfortunately, it is precisely the methodology used by most of the proffered experts, here.
“When asked about the methodologies that she used in this case, Dr. Oreskes responded: “If you want me to tell you what my method is, it’s reading and thinking. We read. We read documents. And we think about them.”
“That is the problem, here…. Dr. Oreskes’ “reading and thinking” have not been peer-reviewed, have no known success rate, and cannot be replicated by other experts in her field. . . . Dr. Oreskes’ opinion is not derived from the scientific method and is more aptly described as a historical narrative or research compilation than scientific testimony. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590; Meister, 267 F. 3d at 1127 (finding that to identify scientific testimony, “forces the court to focus on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate, and thus demands a grounding in the methods and procedures of science, rather than subjective belief or unsupported speculation.”)”
Let’s hope that where the court of science has failed, the court of law can succeed in sorting the sued from the pseudo.
The decision on Dr Wyner, was spot on. The question for me is whether Mann knew enough that what he did was correct or incorrect and what resulted from his choices. I can see some jurors zoning out if the testimony and cross get too deep into the weeds.
I appreciate all comments offered by everyone about the trial. Great insights.
Kid – the McIntyre paper referenced above explicitly states Mann did not mention the proxy selection method in his paper – it was omitted. Mann is either incompetent or he purposefully left it out. This paper should have been entered into evidence.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/01/19/mann-vs-steyn-and-simberg-discussion-thread/#comment-999695
From that paper:
This previously
unreported transformation was recently acknowledged in
the Supplementary Information to a Corrigendum to
MBH98 [Mann et al., 2004], where they asserted that it
has no effect on the results, a claim we refute herein.
They’ve left the audio on in the absence of the jury. Oops.
Here’s some interesting commentary on the trial.
https://heartland.org/opinion/mann-v-steyn-and-us/
What in hindsight could be more ostentatious, contemptuous of the truth and rape of the scientific method than Mann’s the ‘hockey stick’ graph?
I thought it was a time series graph.
BA Bushaw (gannon1950), I posted this video upthread that really explains not only the hockey stick but why and how it came to be. I think we owe it perhaps to Keith Briffa and his memory to help it be known that he tried to stop the hockey stick. Some even suspected that he was behind leaking the climategate emails since they got accessed from his login. But I think that was just the leaker giving a similar tribute to his perceived final wishes.
Hide The Decline video: https://youtu.be/K_8xd0LCeRQ
No, it was more like polar bears falling from the skies over New York, careening off sky-high steel and glass office towers and landing in bloody splats on cab-filled asphalt streets.
Wag—that raining-bears ad changed my life. Before it came out, who among us understood that every time a plane takes off, a taxi driver is crushed by the weight of an ursus maritimus deciduus?
The impact of that lesson, no hilarious pun intended, has never left me. It’s the reason I and a handful of other extremely high net-worth individuals minimize our flights by basically never landing. Leo and Elon (you wouldn’t know them) were joking the other day about how we should sell T-shirts that say: Minimize Your Footprint by Spending as Little Time on the Ground as Possible.
What do people think of Simberg’s lawyer today? I thought she was very polite and likable from a juror’s perspective.
I hope her questioning of Mann was laying groundwork for some later tough cross-examination and a blistering closing. One had to do their own conclusions to figure her points except that the one that Mann suffered no damages, either to his income or in legal costs as a result of Steyn and Simberg.
I am personally very impressed with simberg’s attorney. Very slow , polite methodical, very likeable, very much in control without any domineering presence. I think she achieved few things today
A) His accusations that everyone else is wrong is based solely on his verbal testimony whereas she is providing corroborating evidence that undercuts his verbal testimony. Written documentation will almost always be more convincing that oral testimony.
B) his oral testimony greatly embellished.
C) contrast his testimony on loss of grants during direct. He prepared an excel spreadsheet of grants and grant $, all of the testimony was oral, but no introducing the excel spreadsheet into evidence. Why wasnt that spreadsheet entered into evidence, hy exclude physical exhibits to support the written testimony.
An interesting exchange on the ” residuals” Mann’s comments was that the residuals were left over numbers that had no meaning. If residuals are another term for the R2 stats, then Mann is up a creek. There has been a lot of discussion and misunderstanding regarding mann releasing is data. Mann has released almost all his data on the Mbh 98 and mbh99. so most of the claims that he has not released his data are false. What he has not done is released is the R2 data. The R2 data in stats is the equivelant to proving the computation is correct. ie 5-2= 3 , to prove that math equation is correct, you run it backwards ie 2+3=5 so now you know your first equation got the right answer.
Back to my explanation – Mann said the residuals are meaningless /throwaway numbers. If they are the R2stats and since the only expert admitted is the defense stat expert, it will show that Mann did effectively manipulate the stats.
My last two paragraphs are with the caveat that I am not sure what the “residuals ” represent in that email.
Joe, I hope McIntyre or others are conferring with Simberg’s lawyer. I think you are over the target here. Mann testified that it was not data, nor code. R2 has been Mann’s most guarded secret. McIntyre posted on it recently, as you probably saw. If only Steve could cross-examine Mann… Ahh the thought.
Joe, what’s so confusing?
The “residuals”, as Professor Mann explained using words that even we blue-collar folk understand, are:
1. irrelevantia the readers of his paper don’t need to see
2. (though Tim might find them helpful),
3. which could be weaponized to undermine the entire edifice of Western science for the last 300 years if the wrong people got their hands on his dirty laundry, where:
4a. ‘wrong people’ is a colloquial term used in private emails to refer to people of ‘bad faith,’
4a(ii). as opposed to legitimate climate scientists, who are famous the world over for their faith;
4b. and ‘dirty laundry’ is a medical condition suffered by navigators of Schmidt Creek who pack insufficient paddles.
I would be happy to deep-clean any residuum of mystery you may be experiencing.
Yours &c.
Another observation on the Loss of Grants –
Mann only provided oral testimony
Mann no exhibits, etc
Also not provided was any corroborating testimony from any organization that provides the grants – ie no one from a grant organization testifying that the simberg/steyn article affected any grant approval.
Complete omission of support for the claim
Either side could have also looked at Penn State’s overall funding trend after the scandals to support or debunk the case that Mann suffered alone. But if both trends take a dip in 2010 rather than 2013 then the effect is Climategate and Sandusky, not CEI blog or Steyn’s corner in Nat Review .
A few things I find confusing from Mann’s strategy on the stand. Why does he dismissing this person or that as a “denier”? After all, he is there claiming demeaning people, especially scientists, is hurtful to their careers, (which are dependent on peer perception). He is a pot sneering at kettles.
The other thing that stood out is that he justified hiding his statistical test results from “the wrong people,” explaining they were disingenuously seeking his data and code. That brings up the question of how could anyone be disingenuous about seeking data and code on publicly funded planetary science? He must have realized the problem and quickly pointed out that Osborn was a competitor. So I presume his point was that he was open to sharing with competitors, just not enemies of humanity. I think the defense could make something out of this.
Ron, great question.
I suspect and hope Weatherford is a flirty assassin.
The reason she deserves the big bucks is that she can go hours manno-a-Manno wihout succumbing to the urge to kick the smirk off his bald head until the time is ripe. Which, fingers crossed, it will be at some point.
Meanwhile she plays the silly goil who needs Mike’s help to keep track of all the binders.
I read Curry will not be allowed to testify,
I found it interesting to note that the daily podcast said that Steve McIntyre is on the witness list. That means it is very likely that he will get softball questions from the defendants about the data, statistical analysis and thing like the r2, together with what they mean. No doubt the answers will be much simplified for the jury – with “like” comparisons.
Mann’s lawyers won’t be able to question or even object until after the damage is done. And I suspect Steve’s answers to their questions will be beyond the ability of any lawyer to rebut. I don’t think any of them would have any skills in statistics.
I noticed that Mann, in qualifying Von Storch’s expertise in climate, volunteered proactively that he was an expert in statistics. Von Storch backed up McIntryre.
There was a long wait during the appeals process. At one point, they issued an update that modified a previous ruling with some changes to footnotes. One of these had an error, that at the time I thought was setting up a ruling in favor of Mann, and suspected they had gotten advice from Gavin.
Many of the comments here are revealing the private and not-so-private preconceptions of the commenters, who are writing on a blog that is mainly scientific. I wonder if they realise how non- scientific it would be if they allowed their hopes and beliefs to intrude on their scientific writing, should they be scientists writing up their research.
Trying to suggest what a lawyer should have said is an example. You cannot be credible if you comment without access to the same data that the lawyer has. Shall we call that “short-inferencing” to match the alleged “short-centering” of Principal Component Analysis? BTW, how many commenters have even personally performed PCA on their chosen data? How many of us have even thought about the effects of the weights of the Components? Geoff S
You can call it “second-guessing” or “backseat driving” or “barstool coaching” or “Monday morning quarterbacking” or “radio umpiring” if you like.
It won’t make it any less fun. :-)
That said, I haven’t read the site policies in a while so if we’re under some obligation to be “credible,” please remind me.
I’ve been wondering if the 12 years wait might actually have been good for the defendants. What if the judge, during that looooooong time, availed himself of all the sources concerning this case? Including the scientific method, in which, presumably, he was not trained.
As I mentioned a few comments upstream, when Judge Irving was making his wise rulings on scientific witness admissibility under the Daubert standard 2 years or so ago, he was already evincing a more grownup grasp of the scientific method than I had any right to expect from a jurist. (I was going to say “….than Oreskes,” but that would have been damning him with faint praise.)
“After 12 years, Mann’s lawsuit is finally being tried before a jury in Washington DC”
For me it is just more proof that this whole issue is politically jinxed on purpose. Are there any people left who still believe in any justice coming from that Swamp area?
Justice does not exist in the US. Sad to say. It’s only for the rich to defend their money and NGOs to break people they don’t like.
Mann just referred to Judith as “one of the most prominent climate den!ers today,” and to her and Roger Pielke as “promoters of climate misinformation.”
Brad
It wouldn’t take much research to demonstrate the absurdity of both of his statements. He can’t help himself.
If I were in his spot, I would do everything possible to portray myself as a scientist with detached objectivity , first and foremost, to dismiss any allegations of being just another low brow activist hack.
On the other hand, research is the one thing jurors aren’t allowed to do, so it’s up to the lawyers, and the adversarial nature of the system slows down the transmission of knowiedge from lawyer->juror a hundredfold. Something self-evident to us could take days to convey to the jury by means of dialectic.
And when it’s a DC jury…. you know the rest.
You’ve probably also noticed Mann’ gratuitous references to people and orgs that are talismanic of right-wing evil or left-wing virtue, according as it serves his interest to mention them. For example, he’ll meander out of his way to mention Tucker Carlson in association with one of the den!er scientists. He’s really playing to the local politics.
It’s up to “she’s probably the most prominent climate den!er today.”
Now Mann is lying about Fred Seitz, claiming he devoted the latter chapter of his career to attacking the science linking tobacco smoking to cancer.
Sorry, to preserve my credibility, I ought to have said “perjuring his a$$ off”, not “lying.” It’s important to get the language right.
Ms Weatherford has taken the safety off now. She’s cutting off Mann’s dilatory answers with “Yes or no?”
They just played that brilliant music video “Hide the Decline” for the jury. I’d love to know how many of them are humming it during their lunch break.
Awesome!
Pingback: Mann vs Steyn and Simberg discussion thread - News7g
It’s hard to see a lawyer doing a better job than Simberg’s. She is simultaneously showing that Mann conceals information (data) while establishing he has not met his burden of evidence that Simberg’s blog post had connection to his life prospects.
Mann is coming over evasive and not presenting himself in a sympathetic way by doubling down on attacking fellow scientists he disagrees with as “climate deniers.” His getting caught spreading admittedly false salacious and defamatory rumors about Dr. Curry was awesome. He was a least wise enough not to double down on that.
I am hoping that after she is done showing Mann has zero evidence of damages that she continue to expose the shenanigans in MBH. Producing a potentially Captain Queeg-ian meltdown on the stand would be a perfect climax in which to dismiss Mann from the stand.
It’s NOT going well for Team Mann.
Weatherford is exposing, one after the other, every failure of Mann and his team to truthfully respond to interrogatories in the early days of this trial.
Long story short, one of the standard discovery questions in a defamation case is: please disclose all OTHER statements by all OTHER people (not subject to this lawsuit) that have injured your reputation.
This is analogous to taking out car insurance, and being asked to disclose all preexisting damage to your vehicle.
Lawyers call this step “accounting for” damage done by third parties (not the defendants). The obvious monetary metaphor is: if you claim that you’ve suffered $X harm, please reveal how much of this is due to *other* parties so it can be subtracted from any award if you win.
And the burden is on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff alone, to do this “accounting” during discovery.
Out of *eleven* sources of damage to his good name over the last 12 years, guess how many Mann disclosed when asked to do so under oath?
If you guessed “one”, you’re too high.
Mann is wilting under her questions, and his own suits haven’t jumped in to save him with an objection in what feels like hours.
At his lowest point, he actually blurted out words to the effect of “All this stuff is public! These [defamatory blog posts, tweets, parody songs] are all out there—it’s not like we’re hiding anything!”
I’m getting deja vu. Anyone else remember the excuse for HTD?
“We didn’t hide the decline, we just didn’t SHOW it in the graph. But there’s some article by Briffa from five years ago that talks about it.”
This goateed gouger hasn’t learned anything from Climategate.
He still thinks it’s everyone ELSE’S job to disentangle his web of crap.
Here Lies a Mann.
I think Mann’s toast and he’s about to land butter side down.
I knew she was good and you heard it here first:
https://cliscep.com/2023/10/23/podcast-report-mann-v-steyn-weeks-away/#comment-149131
She is easily 700-900 per hour.
Steyn’s oratorical skills are not going to overcome his weakness on this cross of mann. Weatherford may need to do substantial repair of Steyn’s fiasco.
Steyn’s cross is indeed a massive anticlimax, but is it a fiasco yet? It might be heading that way, but has he already done something disastrous? It’s easily possible that I’m missing the procedural subtext.
Yes, you called it, Mike.
I’d pay 700-900/hr for her any day.
Right now the jury is out of the room, the judge is berating the lawyers for talking too loud when the “husher” is turned on… and they’ve forgotten to mute the audio, so the entire planet is hearing this. This must be that majesty of the law people keep talking about
The only “consensus” demonstrated to date
is that the global-warming community
is a weird mob. ~Tony Thomas
Steyn was unprepared for Mann’s minimization of the divergence problem as only having to do with Briffa’s MXD. I realize that this was the main decline that had to be hidden but I thought the divergence problem was widespread. Perhaps someone else can explain all these posts on it from McIntyre.
https://climateaudit.org/?s=divergence+problem
Ron – I agree with your assessment of Steyn. Weatherford did an excellent job on Mann. Steyn basically destroyed the good work of Weatherford. Normally, there would be a redirect of the star witness to rehabilitate the star. However, Steyns performance is likely going to negate the need to rehabilitate mann since Steyn has done that.
I think that kind of stuff is going to go in one ear and out the other of most of the jurors. I think the money stuff and Spanier book acknowledgements will make more of an impression.
I agree that it is going to be next to impossible for a non-credentialed scientist to pin down Mann on the science, whether it be Steyn or even Weatherford. I think it’s against the rules for Steyn to hand off to McIntyre to cross-examine Mann but Steyn can lay groundwork for McIntyre’s expert rebuttal if the judge allows McIntyre to testify.
Ron and Joe,
could you please spell out, as though to someone who never passed the bar (do such naifs exist?), what damage Steyn’s amateurish cross-examination has done to his case so far? I suspect he’s made mistakes that are imperceptible to me, beyond the optics. As Mike points out, Weatherford scored some substantive hits that can’t have been undone just by Steyn’s bathetic delivery…. surely?
Brad – re steyns damage –
A Weatherford had established that Mann’s claim for lost grants , that he provided no documentation, no schedules, no corroborating evidence to support his claim that he lost grant money. She had also established that his prior written statements made no mention of the lost grants. Steyn let Mann reintroduce his oral testimony and allowed mann to reemphasize the lost grants, replanting in the juror’s mind that he lost big $ in grants when Weatherford had established those claims were embellished / not really supported by his other behavior. (while the claim may be factually true, in the juror’s minds, the likely reasons had nothing to do with the “defaming” posts.
B) Steyn allowed to Mann to introduce the divergence problem and how other “scientists ” have solved the divergence problem and thus explain the “hide the decline” was solved.
C) allowed mann to point out further damages via the grocery store bad look. (though that one may backfire on mann since the story isnt very credible ie – who grocery shops with the family and considers it to be a major source of pleasure as a family? What 10-13 year daughter wants to grocery shop with their parents? Who hasnt gotten a dirty look from another shopper for walking too slow, blocking the aisle, etc, Too much embellishment for something trivial.
Thanks Joe, you have a keen forensic mind. I appreciate your taking the time to share the way you parse these situations.
Unfortunately, so much rides on the jurors. If they are swept up by the Noble Cause Corruption that plagues climate science and too many politicians, the outcome might not hinge on the machinations in the court room.
Concur with Jim2 – trials are often won or lost in jury selection.
Unfortunately its a DC jury pool with the obvious short comings on scientific bias. The panel appears to be mostly young age 30-40.
I truly feel for Styne. Getting assaulted by Lawfare is greuling and has bankrupted several people lately. The so-called “justice” system in the US is sorely in need of an overhaul that makes it fair and actually just for everyone.
O.J. redux?
cerescokid | January 26, 2024 at 12:39 pm |
O.J. redux?
Both OJ & Chavin Redux
Its very rare that a celebrity will get convicted unless video evidence, just because its hard to convict a celebrity.
In Chavin’s case, there was zero possibility of getting unbiased jury.
In this case, DC was selected because of the very high likelihood of getting a pro AGW/pro Mann jury & the likelihood of getting an incompetent judge which was accomplished with the first two Judges. This judge seems much more competent.
The DC factor only spells doom for our protagonists *if* they acquiesce to Mann’s framing: that they represent climate-denying anti-science. Those epithets are nothing but slander. Yet Mann misses no opportunity to drip them into the jury’s ear canals. Simberg literally is a scientist. Steyn dedicated his book, A Disgrace to the Profession, to all the honest climate scientists whose careers are retarded by Mann’s malignant influence on the culture of clisci. He did a long blog post elaborating on this and on the respect he has for people like, I think, Tamsin Edwards. A real trial lawyer would be able to tell him how to make sure these facts “get in.”
Or Irving could just reach the end of his patience with Mann and his team’s contemptuous failure to take the court’s time seriously, direct a verdict, and render the jury makeup irrelevant.
Joe,
are you alleging anti-Chauvinist chauvinism?
Brad Keyes | January 26, 2024 at 1:58 pm |
“Or Irving could just reach the end of his patience with Mann and his team’s contemptuous failure to take the court’s time seriously, direct a verdict, ”
Brad – virtually impossible to get a directed verdict in the favor of Steyn. Steyn admitted that he did zero fact check between the time of the Freech report and the publication of his statement in NRO. That admission forces the charge to the be decided by the jury. Steyn made no mention of having other knowledge that would have established his belief of the fraud prior the the freech report.
absolute huge blunder by Steyn.
Possible that simberg gets directed in his favor since one of the elements of his statement was fraud and misconduct. Considerable evidence was introduced of Mann attacking other scientists, so truth has been partially demonstrated and admitted by Mann, caveating that it was private emails doesnt change the fact that he was behaving unethically. (albeit only a small piece of truth)
Joe, that’s compelling if not congenial. Many thanks.
Mann’s disregard for the court and the jury was, in my view, proven by his, and I use the word loosely, perjurious failure to disclose other injuries to his reputation during discovery despite having more than a decade to do so, an omission I’ve likened to making an insurance claim without disclosing pre-existing damages. That analogy, to an act we all recognise as fraudulent, was corroborated by a lawyer friend of mine. So I was expecting Irving to take a dimmer view of it than he has thus far expressed.
Joe, I don’t share your pessimism here:
” Steyn admitted that he did zero fact check between the time of the Freech report and the publication of his statement in NRO. That admission forces the charge to the be decided by the jury. Steyn made no mention of having other knowledge that would have established his belief of the fraud prior the the freech report.”
Steyn was on record saying, with receipts, that the HS was fraudulent long before the Football and Hockey article.
The Freeh Report’s claims were not necessary (or sufficient) for Steyn or the rest of the world to form an adverse opinion of the probity of the graph.
I always took the series of events to be:
c. 2003: M&M officially debunk Hockey Stick
2009: Climategate makes that debate sexy, reveals previously unsuspected depths of corruption in the vanguard of the field
2010: Penn State gaslights the planet by declaring Mann did nothing wrong. Steyn and every other skeptical person following the case remains contemptuously unmoved by this declaration, since they’ve read the evidence with their own eyes. It’s therefore obvious there was a conspiracy to protect Mann, just as there was an even less subtle conspiracy in the UK to protect the bad apples in the CRU.
2012: the Freeh Report simply provides the last piece in the puzzle, the WHY. Mark Steyn reads it and he’s all like, oh, no wonder they didn’t find any wrongdoing by Mann, if they were willing to turn a blind eye to Sandusky’s apparent crimes.
In other words, the Spanier/Freeh axis didn’t provide new *evidence* that Mann’s work was fraudulent—we all already knew it was. What the Freeh Report provided was a narrative that *explained* how something so clearly fraudulent could have been covered up, who covered it up and how depraved they apparently were.
Joe: “Steyn admitted that he did zero fact check between the time of the Freech report and the publication of his statement in NRO.”
I heard Steyn say that he had followed the hockey stick controversy for about six years before his article. And he read the Muir Russell report and other investigation by US agencies three letter anacronyms.
Ron, I second that. At the risk of reiterating a comment of mine that seems to be lost in transit, Steyn didn’t ground the truth of his claims on the Freeh report except to the extent that the latter appeared to expose deep corruption at Penn and especially on the part of Spanier, a point that isn’t disputed (or likely to be disputed) in this trial. That corruption, in Steyn’s chain of reasoning, isn’t necessary to *prove* that the internal “exoneration” of the HS was a whitewash; that was already the only possible inference from the fact that the HS was exonerated! Rather, the Freeh report merely filled in the “HOW” and “WHY”, giving some context thanks to which the corrupt a$$-covering w.r.t. Mann suddenly made a lot more sense. “Ah, now I see. No WONDER they covered up for Mann, if they were willing to cover up for Sandusky,”
Anacronyms? Initialisms ahead of their time?
I found it interesting that Mann stressed that all the data was from others, implying he was just an organizer and aggregator. The signal spoke for itself. Steyn also stresses the point but to imply that Mann did not dirty his fingernails with data collection, and he became a rock star by converting charts that went nowhere into the magical hockey stick.
The story that is most significant in my opinion is the IPCC role in recruiting Mann to make the hockey stick and persuade Briffa to allow his MXD to be buried, not to “dilute the message”.
In fact, I searched MXD on McIntye’s site and found a link to Biffa’s paper on NOAA’s website that now redirects to their homepage. Searching Briffa on NOAA’s site produces two other unrelated Briffa papers.
https://climateaudit.org/2009/11/26/the-deleted-portion-of-the-briffa-reconstruction/#comment-203163
Ron Graf,
Several times it was mentioned that co-authors of the hockey stick paper, Bradley and Hughes, did the selection of proxies that were used. This seems inconclusive. I wish the lawyers had asked if the co-authors had also selected the proxies that were not used, or if the co-authors had influenced the weighting of particular proxies.
Maybe they did, It is hard to tell without a full transcript.
Geoff S
Geoff S,
what day’s transcript would you need? I’ve got a ream of shorthand notes which are more or less verbatim, which I’m thinking of spending some time this weekend neatening up, but if you tell me what you need I could work on that section first. I did, alas, miss the first 2.5 days of the trial stream.
Geoff, you are right on about asking about who selected the proxies not to be included and who made weighting decisions.
McIntyre would say you did an excellent job at following the pie.
That’s – “following the pea.”
Brad at 2:35 pm
It is too early to ask for transcripts as something yet to be said might clarify what I mentioned. Thank you for the offer, let’s park it for a few days then review?
GeoffS
Again, it’s trivial to show the hockey stick MUST be true — it’s required by basic physics:
1. temperature change is proportional to forcing change.
2. CO2 forcing change is proportional to log(CO2).
3. CO2 has been increasing exponentially.
=> hockey stick.
A little more detail:
Physical laws require a hockey stick:
1) temperature change = (climate_sensitivity)*(change in forcing)
2) CO2_forcing = constant*ln(CO2/initial_CO2)
3) Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing exponentially since the beginning of the industrial era.
Hence, if CO2 isn’t changing, as prior to 1850, CO2_forcing=0 and there is no temperature change — that’s the flat handle of the hockey stick.
If CO2 is increasing exponentially, as post 1850 during the industrial era, its forcing is changing linearly (ln of an exponential = linear) and hence so is the temperature change – which is the blade of the hockey stick.
QED
But, but, … don’t wiggles and bumps in the “stick” prove that the blade doesn’t exist??
No, David. The temperature record at the end of the day is a sawtooth waveform superimposed on a gently warming trend.
I’m going to zip my lip now that 02 has joined us after such a long hiatus. We have gone over these issues perhaps 100 times so nothing will be gained to do it again.
If the Lions win the next game and make it to the Superbowl for the first time ever, I’ve resolved to not pick on anyone for the rest of the year.
Thomas Fuller wrote:
No, David. The temperature record at the end of the day is a sawtooth waveform superimposed on a gently warming trend.
No Thomas. There are little wiggles of order a decade or two, but the long-term warming trend, which is what the hockey stick is about, is still linearly upward, as expected.
change in temperature (proportional) carbon emissions
Study after study after study has confirmed this.
If CO2 is rising exponentially, it must have an awfully small exponent or coefficient.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg/800px-Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg.png
Try again:
https://images.nationalgeographic.org/image/upload/t_edhub_resource_key_image/v1638890092/EducationHub/photos/scripps-keeling-curve.jpg
^%$*!*& WordPress!
Here are the more relevant data:
t.ly/e0YtQ
LOL You’re worse at WordPress than I am.
About 0.0025/yr on a natural log scale. Enough to increase CO2 concentration over 50% over preindustrial levels.
Mike Dombroski wrote:
Try again:
Clearly exponential.
Mike Dombroski wrote:
If CO2 is rising exponentially, it must have an awfully small exponent or coefficient.
It’s trivial to calculate via linear regression.
“Again, it’s trivial to show the hockey stick MUST be true — it’s required by basic physics:”
If only you were a scientist, David. You could have used ‘trivial… physics’ to save the American taxpayer the $millions that have been aburinated on Mann’s bunglings.
In the small hours, don’t you sometimes wish it were you, being feted by Popes and consulted by Presidents?
Yes, and 1) trivially true if there were just that single forcing change. The history of climate falsifies that assumption. And 2) the logarithmic CO2 forcing means each additional CO2 emission effects less forcing change, hardly the recipe for a hockey stick.
and 3) CO2 has not been increasing exponentially except maybe in your climate RCP 8.5 model projections.
By now we’ve heard ad tedium about the ‘older gentleman’ who gave Mann a ‘look of revulsion’ somewhere around the produce section of his local supermarket, obviously because he’d just finished reading Mann’s dedication to Spanier in the front of his latest bestseller—er, I mean after reading a blog post by a semi-retired engineer.
But did anyone notice the couldn’t-make-this-sh!t-up name of the Supermarket of Trauma?
Mann could call his harrowing grocery-aisle memoirs (wherever good books are sold) The Wegman’s Report.
I liked that Steyn threw in there the plausible alternative that the sour look in the grocery store experienced could have been due to blocking reach to the Little Friskies Savory Salmon.
AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION
(Report authored by Edward J. Wegman, et al.)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(Excerpts)
________________________________________
“While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.
________________________________________
“The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions. Vague terms such as “moderate certainty” (Mann et al. 1999) give no guidance to the reader as to how such conclusions should be weighed.
________________________________________
“Centering the mean is a critical factor in using the principal component methodology properly. It is not clear that Mann and associates realized the error in their methodology at the time of publication. Because of the lack of full documentation of their data and computer code, we have not been able to reproduce their research.
________________________________________
“In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of [McIntyre and McKitrick] to be valid and compelling.
________________________________________
“Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by [Mann’s] analysis.
________________________________________
“… the fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their paper’s visibility. Specifically, global warming and its potentially negative consequences have been central concerns of both governments and individuals. The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics’ prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of PCA puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position. We have been to Michael Mann’s University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick.
________________________________________
“As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
________________________________________
“Our perception is that principal components (statistical) analysis was used incorrectly and, based on this, unsupportable inferences were drawn about the current magnitude of global warming relative to the historical past.
________________________________________
Source: http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
Update (2January2013) active link for some or all of the above source:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
Wegman report? Well there’s this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegman_Report
and much more if you look around. For instance:
https://deepclimate.org/tag/edward-wegman/page/2/
Looks like the University investigate and found no plagiarism. Wegman paraphrased and listed references. OMG!!!
Wegman is a plagiarist. Makes anyone question his ethics. He also doesn’t understand physics, i.e. why the hockey stick MUST be true.
“Ultimately, an investigation by George Mason University was completed in February 2012. The investigation found that regarding the Congressional Wegman Report, “no misconduct was involved”; while “extensive paraphrasing of another work did occur, in a background section… the work was repeatedly referenced and the committee found that the paraphrasing did not constitute misconduct”. A separate university committee examining Said & Wegman’s 2008 publication, based on the Wegman report, found “that plagiarism occurred in contextual sections of the article, as a result of poor judgment for which Professor Wegman, as team leader, must bear responsibility.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wegman#Energy_and_Commerce_hearing_&_plagiarism
You mean we should believe the articles edited by William Connelley who got banned from Wikipedia because of his partisanship on climate issues? And that is your evidence? You make Mann look truthful.
“He also doesn’t understand physics, i.e. why the hockey stick MUST be true.”
I hate to break it to you David, but *nobody* understands physics like you do. Even Michael Mann fails to grasp that the Hockey Stick is a-priori inevitable. In fact he’d be mildly insulted by the suggestion that his entire career has been spent twiddling the parametric knobs and evading pesky audits just to prove what is (to some guy called David Appell) self-evidently obvious.
How does it feel to be a lone genius? I ask semi-rhetorically, having spent half my life in exclusive possession of certain profound knowledges. I know the snickers you get. I know the feeling of confusion and hurt as your social circle incrementally distances itself from your “radical” ideas.
Of course, I was vindicated in the end. And I can assure you, in case it helps, that it’s a dish best served cold.
But you’re still sitting at that table for one checking your watch, trying in vain to attract the waiter’s attention, aren’t you?
At some point you should probably admit it’s never coming.
Remember, they laughed at Einstein. They laughed at Wegener. Heck, they even laughed at me.
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
1. Wegman isn’t a plagiarist, David. He’s responsible for his undergrad student’s Wikitheft only to the extent that he was her team leader.
2. And character doesn’t matter in maths.
3. And it was just the fricking background section, the drafting of which you’ll soon learn is an exercise in soul-destroying drudgery if you ever write papers.
4. And plagiarism doesn’t discredit a paper. Did you see Claudine Gay retract any of her work? No. Did you see her resign? Yes. Failure to credit sources reflects on the writer, not the paper.
Other than that though, great point.
DeSmog is the only blog I can find trying to put a good face on Mann’s side.
https://www.desmog.com/2024/01/25/michael-mann-defamation-climate-science-mark-steyn-randsimberg-hockey-stick-graph/
Good find, Mike. What series of mistakes do you have to make in life for Joe Romm to be your only friend?
I wish there was a “Love” button for this one!
Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9
So far, in my research, I have corrected the two mistakenly assumed observations.
–
1). A planet reflects the incident solar SW EM energy not only diffuselly, but also specularly. The specular reflection was neglected in planet
Energy in = Energy out
equation, and thus the specularly reflected SW EM energy was mistakenly considered as part of the “Energy in”.
–
2). When solar irradiated, a planet surface not only reflects and absorbs the incident SW EM solar energy, but at the instance of the SW EM solar energy incidence, a planet also emits (LW) EM energy.
–
Thus, the at the instance of the SW EM solar energy incidence, the by planet surface emitted (LW) EM energy was mistakenly considered as “Absorbed”.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So we have proven – There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Where does it leads us then?
It leads us to a very simple thought:
Since there is not any significant atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface, the ~1,5 oC warming observed doesn’t happen due to the human activities (the fossil fuels burning).
The ~1,5 oC can only be explained by the orbital forcings.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
At the instant of solar SW EM energy incidence on the planetary surface, the surface responds not only by reflecting some of the SW EM energy, but also by transforming some of SW EM energy into the LW emitted EM energy.
Thus, alongside with the SW EM energy reflection process, there is also the LW EM energy emission process.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Steyn and Simberg needn’t subpoena Richard Muller.
Any scientist would do. Literally anybody with a working knowledge of the scientific method also qualifies as an expert witness on scientific ethics, because
– outside the pathological sciences, all scientists know scientific fraud when they see it—it’s in their culture
– the average judge or juror, by contrast, can NOT necessarily be relied on to work this out on their own
(Joe, is this all it takes to satisfy the Daubert standard?)
No scientist on the planet, when apprised of the hiding of the decline, would hesitate to endorse Muller’s exact words, under oath: No, you can’t DO that in science. No, that’s not up to our standards.
Just step outside the courthouse and lure a passing scientist off the blistering streets of DC with promises of iced water.
Make sure it’s a real scientist, obviously.
Not just a TV scientist, a political scientist, a Christian Scientist, a Scientologist, a climate scientist, a ‘dismal scientist’ like Paul Krugman or a ‘sweet scientist’ like Evander Holyfield.
Put her on the stand and ask her: is this sh!t acceptable, yes or no?
Look out, Mike: “Dave’s trick” has been flattening shafts and bending blades ever since the invention of “basic physics.”
When is friend of the site David Appell going to file against Mann for stealing his hoccobacilliform design element?
[insert joke about Appellate Court]
Brad, you missed him; the local DA stumbled into court earlier in a wrinkled trench coat. He seemed to think the case needed his hokey shtick amicus brief.
Why does defense counsel let Mann get away with *routinely* characterizing Judith Curry (among others) as a “climate den!er” and “promoter of climate den!al”?
Why let him repeatedly tell what is, if taken at face value, a lie without being called on it?
Because everybody understands what he means?
Really?
I wonder how many of the jury, having heard that unchallenged description of Judith, would understand that she
– doesn’t deny the climate
– doesn’t deny climate change
– doesn’t deny MAN MADE climate change
?
“What *exactly* did you just call Judith Curry, Dr Mann?
“In what sense, *exactly,* are you not committing perjury when you say that?”
Legal eagles, please offer some tactical insight if you can here. There MUST be some method to Weatherford et al.’s madness here.
Brad – one of the reasons they may be allowing the constant stream of Mann labeling his critics as climate deniers is to show that he routinely violates standard levels of professional curtesy among peers and he is the one guilty of defaming his critics.
Both Curry and McIntyre are very much on record as stating that increases in co2 are a factor in the warming. McIntyre is very much on record as stating that the current warming may be greater than the warming of the MWP.
Thanks Joe. You and others have pointed out that this could be an “enough rope” tactic. Hopefully that’s exactly what they’re doing. But how would this tactic play out over the remainder of the trial? That is, how (if at all) will they explicitly address Mann’s slanders, in your expectation? Would they wait until closing arguments to tell the jury that he’s not telling the truth about JC and others? Surely that would be too late to introduce a new substantive point. Will they ask SM about it? JC herself has been struck off, hasn’t she? Or has she?
How does this dance go? Just allowing Mann to slag off everyone who disagrees with him and expecting the jury members to unanimously grasp that he’s not telling the TRUTH about them would be risky, especially in DC.
I wonder if they will introduce as evidence Mann’s book, that complains about climate scientists being called Nazis. He says this was particularly hurtful because one of them had family who died in the Holocaust.
“All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet,” Curry said. “However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.”
Los Angeles Times 9/23/13
https://www.latimes.com/science/la-xpm-2013-sep-22-la-sci-climate-change-uncertainty-20130923-story.html
Brad
I believe the opposite with regards the insults against JC. Hard to get a defamation win in those circumstances. All but the most unreconstructable misogynist would see the person who issued it as despicable, especially as he had no evidence. That would have been a big black mark against Mann, especially as probably half of the jury are women. All adds to the impression that Mann is a thin-skinned bully with no self-awareness. That would definitely swing a jury.
Chris, thanks for your insights. I hope you’re right.
Nevertheless, it’s not misogynistic to call a woman a “climate denier” if she denies the existence of the climate (or whatever the jury imagines is meant by the pejoration “climate denier”).
That’s why it can’t be left unrebutted. A DC jury is just as likely to be swung against JC (who they’ve never met) as against Mann if they believe him.
Brad The misogynist statement was about the gossip email he sent about JC supposedly her having an affair – with the implication that it reflected on her character. What made it especially so was that none of it correct, other than maybe he got their names right.
I hope they’ll play this clip:
My guess is that Weatherford (and maybe Steyn) are waiting for Curry’s testimony to emphasize Mann’s profligate use of “den!er”. Steyn is still cross examining, so he’ll probably bring it up. They’re probably letting Mann dig as deep a hole as possible.
I hope and believe you’re right, Mike. I was laboring under the misapprehension that her having been struck off the list of expert witnesses in 2021 meant she couldn’t appear. I’ve rarely been so glad to be wrong! And that strategy makes sense. Recency and primacy equals saliency!
Possible testimony:
Steyn: “Dr. Curry, we heard here Dr. Mann repeatedly refer to you as a climate denier. Can you explain the generally accepted implication of that label?”
Steyn: “We heard that Dr. Mann emailed what he admits was an untrue rumor about your career path being enhanced by a romantic relationship with your senior’s. Did you ever take action for the damages that caused your scientific prestige?”
Steyn: “We heard Dr. Mann explain to the jury that many “climate denier” scientists, as he used the term, are motivated by industry funding. Have you ever received money from companies related to fossil fuel?
Steyn: “Dr. Curry, what can you tell us about the Rep. Raul Grijalva’s congressional investigation into this issue?
Note: Steyn or Weatherford would have Dr. Curry under direct examination. So they would not be able to ask questions in a leading way. Dr. Curry would have to have her story well prepared to explain in her own words.
The lawyer asked Mann if the NSF report is available on the internet. Inviting the jury to read the report which has been disallowed by the judge.
Steyn and Simberg are dealing with a judge who is not allowing them to argue the truth of their statements, while Mann says they made defamatory statements and that he has been cleared by experts.
while Mann says they made defamatory statements and that he has been cleared by experts.
It’s true — the hockey stick has been confirmed dozens of times.
As I wrote above, it’s also required by the laws of physics. Steyn is scientifically ignorant so he’d never understand that, but hopefully the judge does.
David, do you agree that falsifying data or misusing statistics or using other intentional deception are justified if your overall claim is “required by the laws of physics.?”
Ron Graf wrote:
David, do you agree that falsifying data or misusing statistics or using other intentional deception are justified if your overall claim is “required by the laws of physics.?”
Evidence?
Ron,
David thinks you asked him a Yes/No/Evidence question. Serenity now. Serenity now.
David, the question was a yes/no. Hint: The correct answer was no.
Mann’s thought was yes, if one is asked by powerful superiors, that determine ones career prospects, not to “dilute the message.” Keith Briffa took a third alternative: to protest but then acquiesce to the team’s wishes and remaining silent to his grave.
MikeN | January 26, 2024 at 5:12 pm | Reply
“The lawyer asked Mann if the NSF report is available on the internet. Inviting the jury to read the report which has been disallowed by the judge.
Steyn and Simberg are dealing with a judge who is not allowing them to argue the truth of their statements, while Mann says they made defamatory statements and that he has been cleared by experts.”
Mike – If the judge barred the introduction of the NSF report into evidence, then normally the defense cant enter it into evidence. However, once Mann testifies that he has been exonerated, then previously barred testimony and/or evidence can be introduced because the plaintiff made reference to that evidence. The evidence can therefore be introduced to refute the plaintiffs claim.
I would be extremely surprised that judge would continue to bar that evidence after Mann testified to being exonorated. That would be gross error on the judge’s part and Weatherford certainly would object. She probably already has the motion drafted. (Steyn acting as his own lawyer would likely miss the rule of evidence issue)
The only surprise would be if the hockey stick WASN’T true.
Again, Steyn incapable of understanding this.
But McIntyre is.
Makes you wonder why M&M ever published (in E&E) a graph with a temperature hump in the middle ages.
Have they ever retracted that mistake?
Has the journal (LOL) ever insisted upon it?
Temperature hump in the middle ages has been published by many people, including on occasion Mann.
Which reminds me, Steyn should call as a witness Atte Korhole, who called Mann’s work a forgery or falsification(in Finnish).
MikeN just wrote:
in the middle ages has been published by many people, including on occasion Mann.
Cite some of those “many” publications, including by Mann.
Show anything like Figure 8 here:
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf
I didn’t realize you were talking about that chart with a hump. That you think it is in error shows you don’t understand the subject at all.
This paper has been discussed for 20 years, and I was aware of what this paper is about for at least 15 years. Your name sounds familiar, but apparently you have not bothered to learn anything and just repeat talking points. That particular chart you refer to was not a separate reconstruction, but a fix of Mann’s errors- the chart that should have been published if he had used his data and claimed statistical methods correctly.
The best known and most reprinted graph with a hump in the middle ages was from H.H. Lamb’s seminal volumes- Climate: Present, Past, and Future. That graph was reprinted in the IPCC’s first Assessment which Mann and other climategaters were attempting to falsify by any means, including gatekeeping, blackballing climate publications, and “changing the nature of peer review”.
Douglass Allen | January 27, 2024 at 8:23 am |
The best known and most reprinted graph with a hump in the middle ages was from H.H. Lamb’s seminal volumes-
Doug – Thanks for bringing p HH Lamb.
Bradley testified on the Lamb graph with comment to the effect that it was based on very skimpy data and only from western europe.
McIntyre and McKitrick (2003): “The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” [emphasis mine]
If Mann’s NSF grant executives did not have a problem with MM03 and MM05 (and thermometer data splicing in the WMO chart) why would they have paid attention to a CEI blogger or political humorist’s column?
Whether the hockey stick is true is not the point! It’s whether Mann’s crappy paper with it’s hidden, incorrect FORTRAN code and lack of R squared results, … etc. shows if it’s true.
Mike Dombroski wrote:
Whether the hockey stick is true is not the point! It’s whether Mann’s crappy paper with it’s hidden, incorrect FORTRAN code and lack of R squared results, … etc. shows if it’s true.
You’re the kind of person who would have put Niels Bohr in prison because his model of the atom didn’t explain why accelerating electrons don’t lose energy and spiral into the nucleus.
Yet his model was a huge advancement.
So for the MBH hockey stick, despite your imagined crimes, because for some reason you can’t accept the science that humans are rapidly warming the climate.
David, imagine the paleoanthropologist that received all the prizes and fame for Piltdown Man never got exposed. Would you be fine with it if rivals knew things did not add up but kept quiet for the cause of Darwin’s theory? Because in the early 20th century there were many Bible clingers who denied evolution.
Would it be right that the scientific community, who received all of their funding from universities and government, decided to circle the wagons around Piltdown Man? What if a retired biologist came forth and said, “That’s a gorilla’s jaw!” Then nobody listened, so he published a peer reviewed paper demonstrating Piltdown Man had a gorilla’s jaw that looked like it was screwed on.
Then the paleoanthropologist said, “That’s bizarre. Everyone knows evolution is a fact.” He then uses his considerable power and weight and sued his detractor into bankruptcy. The end.
Is this the way you want history to go?
Ron Graf wrote:
David, imagine the paleoanthropologist that received all the prizes and fame for Piltdown Man never got exposed.
Apparently you think constructing red herrings is a legitimate scientific argument.
David: “Apparently you think constructing red herrings is a legitimate scientific argument.”
I would all arguments, whether they be about a scientific claims or anything else, are based on analysis of opinions and logic. Science is about rigid control of assumptions to isolate a single effect that can be reproduced and used to create new predictions.
In the case of Piltdown Man and MBH’s reconstructions I think the scientific question is whether the specimens are produced from authentic science or are reproductions produced to please the scientific community’s bias of the day. In the Wiki article on Piltdown Man, which I just read, they attribute its long success of evading exposure, and vanquishing immediate critics, due to just that community bias.
As I suspected I found in a search of CA my connecting Mann to Piltdown Man was not original.
Post by Stephen Mosher 8-6-2010
Mann: 2+2=5
McIntyre No, 2+2=4
Mann; thats bizarre
Mc: 2+2=4, just say it Mike
Mann: it doesnt matter, look over here we say 3+3=6
Mc: 2+2=4
Mann: it doesnt matter, ask gavin
Amac: ya 2+2=4
Mann: it doesnt matter
Mosher: Can anybody besides steve just say that 2+2=4
Dehog: You said Piltdown Mann once.
Mc: 2+2=4
Gavin: it doesnt matter:
Tiljander: 2+2=4
Arthur Smith: I”ll look into it.
Amac; 2+2=4
Gavin: Can we change the subject, we said it doesnt matter.
Mosher: can you say 2+2=4
Lambert: Fuller is full of it.
Bishop: Mike said 2+2=5, but 2+2=4
Tamino: Bishop said 2+2=5
Mc: Bishop was explaining Mann.
Amac: 2+2=4
Kloor: why can’t we reason together?
Gavin: we try, but they wont read our answers.
Amac: 2+2=4
Gavin: There he goes again, please shut him up.
Mc; 2+2=4
RC commenter: Do your own science Mcintyre
Mc: 2+2=4 is not publishable. Mann needs to correct this.
Mann: its all in the SI
Amac: hey mann website now says 2+2=4
Gavin: The exact value of 2+2 is uninteresting. move along
RC commenter: Hey McIntyre said 2+2=5
Mc: no I didnt
RC commenter: oops, my bad, but I’m right in spirit
Gavin: discussion over, lets talk about the black list.
Kloor: all you people who think 2+2=4, can discuss this further.
Scientist: Tiljander’s paper wasn’t perfect, lets pressure test her.
Amac: but 2+2=4
Scientist: Can you give me a reading list?
https://climateaudit.org/2010/08/06/mosher-on-gavins-frustration/
“Whether the hockey stick is true is not the point!”
Exactly. With apologies to Wegman (the statitistician, not the supermarket owner):
mystery meat method + wrong answer = pseudoscience
mystery meat method + right answer = pseudoscience
David Appell | January 26, 2024 at 11:55 pm |
Mike Dombroski wrote:
Whether the hockey stick is true is not the point! It’s whether Mann’s crappy paper with it’s hidden, incorrect FORTRAN code and lack of R squared results, … etc. shows if it’s true.
You’re the kind of person who would have put Niels Bohr in prison because his model of the atom didn’t explain why accelerating electrons don’t lose energy and spiral into the nucleus.
Appell — You dont understand libel law do you.
Sullivan,
Harte
etc
DA- this issue is libel, not the validity of climate science.
Two separate and distinct issues.
Sullivan
Harte
“Mann: 2+2=5
McIntyre No, 2+2=4
Mann; that’s bizarre”
Ron, I’m afraid you don’t understand, it’s a well published fact that math is racist. McIntyre must be a hard righter.
What makes a hockey stick a hockey stick is the blade; without it, it would just be another stick.
Unless you know the past, the blade may or may not be extraordinary. That’s the point you and DA are glossing over.
You are glossing over the fact that the past IS known well enough, for at least a half million years (including other interglacials similar to now), to know that current climate change is extraordinary. That’s the point you are glossing over. Arguing over 25-year-old data about the details of the ~0.2 C global anomaly of the MCA some thousand years ago does not change or negate what is happening now.
Here is a recent reconstruction for the last 24,000 years (see figure 2):
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4
(paywalled, PDF available at Research gate)
I don’t seem to see any other “blades” that are anything like the current one.
“I don’t seem to see any other “blades” that are anything like the current one.”
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/EPICA_temperature_plot.svg
I don’t see any either, polly.
Trunks, of course you don’t. You’re looking at the wrong timescale.
This is not about the case (though it impacts the ‘science’). It is about something Ganon1950 said, quote ” the past IS known well”. It is not. It is not what Ganon’s link said. It is due to abrupt obliquity changes.
The link given by Jungletrunks shows a system that is generally unstable. It is Epica; if it is compared to Kilimanjaro one finds opposite trends.
Obliquity is key; but triggering is external. I have had the change for year 2346bce (~14.5 to 24/25 measurable) It is an Eddy cycle root. However in dynamics a tilt change involves a precession change and that was difficult to find. Done: precession ~ 140 degrees. Very abrupt.
CO2 has nothing to do with it.
Trunks,
Must have missed this one – it’s in the same article as your link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg
Melitamegalithic,
If you are going to quote me, quote me – here is what I said:
” … the past IS known well enough, for at least a half million years (including other interglacials similar to now), to know that current climate change is extraordinary.”
BA Bushaw; Makes no difference.
Look at the other interglacials; here https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/predictability-past-warm-periods-renee-hannon/
The spikes in the trace of the five interglacials say the same thing. Abrupt change. (Friction). The saw-tooth shape is typical of instability.
Note in the first two graphs in the above link, where is marked the 8K2 event. It is 4 Eddy cycles before the 2346bce event, which is itself 4 E cycles before the Maunder min./LIA.
Are we not seeing the woods for the trees?
Polly, the density of the “blue line” of the chart in question represents granularity. Go back to the 400k year period, the weight of blue line decreases because science doesn’t have the same granularity that it has for the recent 100k years. Though because the noise of 400k years ago is less, it reveals one of many hockey sticks within that period.
Zoom in to the multiple peaks and valleys trend line within the last 25k year period, there’s many hockey sticks within. One can’t see the blades though; just like one can’t see the blade within this same chart covering the last 200 years. There’s too much noise density.
Look at a 1-minute financial stock trend line within a weekly scale. There are hundreds of hockey sticks you can’t see.
Essentially the chart provided demonstrates how the tryranny of hyper focused micro climate trends allow for an easily sculpted political narrative. There’s nothing exceptional about climate over the last 200 years.
Melita,
Yes, it does make a difference; one is what I wrote, the other is what you parsed to give a different meaning.
As for your reference: Those are not interglacials, they are glacial-interglacial transitions. That they have similar time signatures is not a surprise. They do not apply to what is happening now (past the current interglacial optimum). What is happening now (rate of temperature change) is at least 10 times greater than the fastest part of the G-IG transition.
Jim, Melig and Jungle –
Lets keep topic to the purpose of the thread ie the Mann Steyn Simberg trial. No reason to let the thread get highjacked on a different topic.
Plenty of other threads to discuss the science.
BA, you seem not be acknowledging the significance of resolution. We don’t have thermometers measuring a 1000 stations over the last 1000 years. If there were an upward hockey stick at 1100AD and a downward hockey stick at 1600 AD we would not know it from our proxies. Remember, even the highly controversial tree rings, that lose their abilities as valid proxies after 1960, only represent the northern hemisphere. And the two hemispheres follow independent cycles of natural variability.
Ron,
Yes, resolution is important. I’m pretty sure we have decadal if not annual resolution back to the LGM.
Ganon: Look carefully. The graphs in the link show the interglacial plus only an extra 10k into the glacial. Also read the caption. The present is a warm spike, no greater than in others.
Also: Eddy cycle inflection points are times of change. eg roman warm period, MWP. We are nearing the present one (and it is not the time to go crazy). Secondly, this IG is at its end (give or take 2k years, but that is an unknown quantity; WARM IV hit the downhill earlier.)
The RWP could have been it, but the kick was not enough. 173ce was Eddy peak. See link https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/searching-evidence-astronomy-for-the-heretic/
The D’Andrea paper said year 173ce might have been an abrupt climate change.
” I’m pretty sure we have decadal if not annual resolution back to the LGM.”
Tree ring resolution is annual but not really due to variability of rainfall and pests. But even a real proxy only give information for it’s own location. Climate changes locally in oscillations in every timescale. Even the modern proposed AGW warming has been majorly modulated by a proposed Atlantic Modal Oscillation of ~60=year cycle.
All this does not excuse truncated unfavorable data and deceptively splicing in other data that makes the chart take a dramatic turn to prove your hypothesis.
Ganon – this thread is about the Mann v Simberg and Mann V Steyn trial.
Please confine your comments to the topic
Your references to other subjects simply are not relevant to issues in this libel case.
Who appointed you hall monitor? Why do you get to decide if my comments re “hockey stick” are off-topic?
Ganon –
Show some respect – you comments should be limited to the thread topic.
Quite immature behavior to do otherwise.
You didn’t answer my questions. Here’s another one: Why should I pay attention to anything you tell me to do?
Hockey stick or not, no one has shown that man-generated CO2 will cause a catastrophe. At this point, we are just wasting money and resources.
A review of “can” vs. “will” might be in order.
Via Steyn Online, the author’s blog site, I became aware of one new journalistic account of the trial. And another more general interest piece, much more ambitious and lengthy, situating the issue of AGW as the problem of the political corruption of science.
Here are the respective titles and LINKS:
“Climate scientist Michael Mann’s defamation case reveals what critics say is unethical behavior”—24Jan24-Kevin Killough, Just The News
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/climate-scientists-defamation-case-reveals-what-critics-say-plaintiffs?
Jeff Reynolds—“HOW THE LEFT’S GLOBAL WARMING IDEOLOGY WRECKED SCIENCE—AND HOW TO STOP IT” 22Jan24
https://www.restorationofamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ROA-Junk-Science-Global-Warming-Report-final.pdf
Juror note posted at 2pm 1/26/2024
paraphrased – grad student’s professor assigned essay based on video “disaster Budgeting – How Policy and how changing climate are straining how we fund disasters”
Nice unbiased jury panel
At least he was honest with the conflict
Trunks, There are no hockey sticks. It is a temperature – time series graph.
To be pedantic, it’s a tree-growth : time series graph labeled as a temperature : time series graph.
With a few decades of temperature : time series spliced smoothly on at the end for plausibility.
You play one of your favorite muddy the water games, Polly, truncating a message string.
Where we left off:
https://judithcurry.com/2024/01/19/mann-vs-steyn-and-simberg-discussion-thread/#comment-999988
So you apparently don’t know how a hockey stick is defined; it’s representative of any chart trend resembling a hockey stick, no matter what industry trend is being measured. I thought you were more sophisticated.
The planet effective temperature Te (the theoretical estimation of the planet average surface temperature) –
–
It was a very hasty and a very aproximate estimation of the planet average surface temperature.
–
And it was a huge scientifical mistake to build upon that very hasty and very aproximate estimation, to build upon it the entire Greenhouse Warming Effect theory about the Fossil Fuels Burning being the reason of the observed Global Warming.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The AGW fearmongering business now faces a great danger of we taxpayers coming to understand that, (1) we’ve been lied to by our Leftist Overlords and (2), only we have skin in game and its time we stopped baring our backs to the whip.
Steyn testified he knows who leaked Climategate files.
From the way he phrased his answer in that section, I got the impression it was Harry. But that is only my impression and it may have been a misdirection by Mark.
“I got the impression it was Harry”
That’s not the name I keep hearing; and if it were Harry, he left more than enough clues in his code to expose himself. Or maybe that’s exactly what the real whistleblower would do, to make me think it wasn’t him? In any case, Mark is right to refuse to go into specifics.
Why can’t the validity of the hockey stick findings be formally tested after 25 years of argument on many platforms?
Simply, there are abundant criticisms of defined aspects of the hockey stick science. Many criticisms describe what “should have” been done to avoid the criticism. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of top US science administrators to assemble a team in the neutral corner to repeat the Mann, Bradley & Hughes work with the “should haves” included; then to show the results.
A by-product might be the writing and publishing of better official guidelines for the required standards of conduct and reporting of science, such as requirements to report validation tests, to provide copies of original data, to fully detail estimation of uncertainty of measurement, to report sub-experiments in the work that failed to produce the expected result as well as those that did; and so on.
Geoff S
“Why can’t the validity of the hockey stick findings be formally tested after 25 years of argument on many platforms?”
I’m not 100% clear on what you had in mind. Methods, not findings, are invalid or valid. And we know Mann’s methods were invalid; that’s no longer an open question.
Or did you mean the *truth* of the findings? Well, the same reason nothing else in climate science can be answered to both side’s satisfaction: the evidence is ambiguous. There were no thermometers. And even if there had been, you can be sure human ingenuity would find a way to fight over the interpretation.
Geoff
I don’t know if these papers touch on the issues you brought up, but they are even handed attempts at identifying the challenges of that area. There are inherent limitations to producing a clear picture of historical climates beyond the mathematics and methodologies that are chosen.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379122001688
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/134083/wcc418.pdf
Ceresco,
No, this is nothing like I am suggesting.
Comments on MBH include specific matters such as including/excluding this data set or that; using full records over time, not shortening them; and so on. So, do the calculations again from start, to see how sensitive these criticisms are.
The references you gave are about progress with tree rings. Apart from the doubt that temperature can be adequately reflected by tree rings (moisture, pests, fertilizer change for example) there is still the problem of choice of tree ring data based on screening for what might work best. I don’t have the answer but the procedures raise concern.
BTW, have you satisfied yourself that the explanations for hide the decline are convincing? Technically, do you know of a paper that explains the science of the recent discord between instrumental T and tree ring forecast T? All I have seen is handwashing CO2 fertilizer done it. Geoff S
“Why can’t the validity of the hockey stick findings be formally tested after 25 years of argument on many platforms?”
Because it doesn’t need to be tested. It’s required by the laws of physics – and more importantly, the laws of global political visionaries.
Kidding aside, don’t let the talking point that Mann has been exonerated by subsequent hockey stick graphs. This would be analogous to saying the Piltdown Man was exonerated by Louis Leaky at Olduvai Gorge.
That was done by McIntyre and McKitrick. The results were posted above by David Appell, asking for a retraction.
As for more accurate reconstructions, there has been a reluctance to collect additional data with an additional 40 years of measurements.
The use of Fossil Fuels Burning to produce energy and the Global Warming Phenomenon are two separate issues.
–
The use of Renewables (Solar, Wind) to produce energy and the Global Warming also do not relate to each other.
–
The use of Fossil Fuels Burning to produce energy and the use of Renewables (Solar, Wind) to produce energy are both the very much economically related issues.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You can see Mann’s use of “denier” on this video on C-Span. It’s good to listen to what he has to say because it’s from the horse’s “mouth” so to speak.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?530667-1/our-fragile-moment#!
Point 3 is significant because Mann has been criticized for truncating tree ring data where it diverges from the historical temperature data in his original papers of [This issue has nothing to do with Mann, but rather Keith Briffa who generated the data in question. We apologize for the confusion] using sub-standard statistical techniques. However, the OIG addresses this point specifically, writing that there is a lot of debate about “the viability of the statistical procedures [Mann] employed, the statistics used to confirm the accuracy of the results, and the degree to which one specific set of data impacts the statistical results.” But, the OIG says, “these concerns are all appropriate for scientific debate” and that “such scientific debate… does not, in itself, constitute evidence of research misconduct.”
Point 4 is the key conclusion – there is “no specific evidence that [Mann] falsified or fabricated any data” as some of his more vocal critics have contended. The OIG reached this conclusion after interviewing Mann’s critics, after reviewing the CRU emails, and after reviewing other “publically available documentation concerning both [Mann’s] research and parallel research conducted by his collaborators and other scientists….” Furthermore, the OIG didn’t just limit their investigation to data fabrication as the PSU investigation did – the OIG did a full research misconduct investigation according to the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation. According to this regulation, research misconduct is defined as
fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing research funded by NSF, reviewing research proposals submitted to NSF, or in reporting research results funded by NSF.
https://scholarsandrogues.com/2011/08/27/nsf-psu-mann-exonerated/
`Point 4 is the key conclusion – there is “no specific evidence that [Mann] falsified or fabricated any data” as some of his more vocal critics have contended.’
Fabricating data is not the only way to deceive. It appears to me MBH mis-applied statistical methods, including falsely weighting favorable data to wash out unfavorable data. Also, data of a different nature were spliced in the beginnings and ends of different series, providing further freedom to manipulate the signal. This is all not to mention that they omitted mention of evidence that the signal was invalid, “the divergence problem.”
All these errors and the reticence to share the data and code to adversarial review fit a pattern of deception, aka falsification.
And, whether the graph turns out to be close to accurate, (as time provides scientific clarity), is immaterial to scientific falsification. Piltdown Mann was undeniable fraud in 1912, as well as today, though its conclusion of human evolving from ape is today surely correct.
If you search “Mann” and “C-span” you can find a video of him using the D word.
I think it’s good to know what he is saying. This video is recent 11/23 or so.
That JC put down of him further up the thread shows how much of a brazen and unashamed liar he is. Wasn’t a major part of Steyn’s case that his actions have discredited the whole scientific community?
Mann probably is responsible for the creation of more skeptics than all the oil companies put together. ;)
Michael Mann in 2013 was recruited by Terry McAuliffe to join him on the campaign trail. The VA candidate for governor won in November of that year. Mann was popular enough to boost McAuliffe’s campaign at the same moment he allegedly could not go to his local Wegmans without getting a mean look from people in the pet food aisle. Seems like a contradiction.
https://www.science.org/content/article/political-scientist-michael-mann-s-moment-campaign-spotlight
Mann’s reputation skyrocketed up with liberals after mbh98
Manns reputation plummeted with conservatives after mbh98
Simberg and Steyn’s post had zero effect on Mann’s reputation with either group.
Some may find this early CE post interesting:
Mann on advocacy and responsibility
https://judithcurry.com/2014/01/18/mann-on-advocacy-and-responsibility/
Mark Steyn @MarkSteynOnline6h @curryja has the impertinence to disagree with @michaelemann, so she’s “#antiscience“? #MannWarOnWomen
Just more proof that Mann’s hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness have been there seemingly all along.
**** ALERT ****
Mark Steyn’s latest column says the trial is being moved to room 132.
https://www.steynonline.com/14054/extra-extra-read-all-about-it
Francis Merton over at his blog, Manhattan Contrarian, weighs in with his comments on the trial so far. There is a potted explanation of Spanier’s involvement. There is an embedded link to a previous post he did on the subject in which anti-SLAPP is explained in which he writes about why the courts didn’t through the case out under these rules, ” If your hypothesis were that this is just the DC Court of Appeals providing a cover of dense verbiage for what is really a completely political decision, I could not prove you wrong. ” He also reproduces the image of Mann’s Nobel Prize – maybe that should be awarded its own place alongside Piltdown Man.
Good article by Merton. Thanks for the heads-up, Chris.
The force of reason forced the Left to abandon the long flat handle of their fictive ‘hockey stick’ but the Left will not admit Al Gore’s use of it was a knowing and purposeful fraud. In fact, even global warming has been abandoned for the new threat of climate weirding which pretty much is any weather event that makes the news. As it is now, climatology itself has become an indictment of the government-education complex that is doing all it can to support a sociopolitical shift of America to Euro-communism. The average American’s pocketbook is fast becoming the property of the state as all economic opportunity is outsourced to places like China, Brazil and India.
Monday – Steyn is digging a huge hole –
Steyn’s retreading Weatherford’s territory, giving Mann a chance to answer better this time with the benefit of a whole weekend’s esprit d’escalier.
As a procedural matter, is there something stopping Victoria from having a quiet word with Steyn and telling him for god’s sake to stop doing this? Surely their interests are in perfect alignment when his hubris endangers both their cases.
Steyn is great orator, but seriously deficient as a pre se litigant. His cross of Mann is pathetic
pro se
I wish he would leave this stuff to Victoria, the Camille Vasquez of Climate Change.
“….Yes or no, Dr Mann?”
How hard is that?
Isn’t it true, Dr. Mann, that you regularly inflated your credentials, whether accidentally or not?
Isn’t it true that you spread a rumor that severely diminished and disrespected your rival scientist’s, Dr. Curry’s, credentials?
Isn’t it true also that you embellished in your widely published book, the quote which is the substance of this case?
Joe, do you or anyone else have a sense of whether this trial is running to schedule? And therefore the likely end date? Presumably that would include closing statements and instructions to the jury, but after all that there would ensue an indeterminate wait while the jury deliberates.
Brad – No info on whether trial running on schedule.
Mann has been on stand Wed pm, Thurs am/pm and today. Re-direct will likely last until early Tuesday morning(tomorrow).
Mann likely has two more witnesses, though likely short witnesses.
Defense will likely have Simberg, testify and that is likely to be 4hours. Hopefully not have Steyn testify again.
Still to come is likely McIntyre and Curry. 3-4 hours each. I doubt that williams is going be very good on cross with either of those two.
Also still to come is the one expert witness for defense, the statistian. That one will get ugly for mann.
Court does not work on Friday, so best educated guess is Tuesday for closing arguments jury instructions wednesday.
Joe, I think that would be if everything goes smoothly. I’d tack on an extra week for bumps.
The excel spreadsheet of unfunded grants.
One observation was only one of the unfunded grants dealt with paleo research which is his specialty.
Why would he expect grants outside his specialty to get funding?
Mann is being Crossed on funding of grants
Weatherford is comparing grants on interogatories vs todays testimony of grants.
She points out the numbers changed on 7 of the 13 grants – ” paraphased ” that is less than 50% – thats a failing grade”
Weatherford comment to Mann on Cross – “You cant get a simple math project right – but you expect the jury to believe that you got a very complicated statistical analysis correct when you get simple math correct. ” (sorry – I did my best to paraphrase he comment – fortunately its reasonably close).
Shortly after that comment – attorneys went into chambers for private conference with judge
oops typo – when you can’t get simple math correct
I know. She’s dyn-o-mite! Too bad the judge called a time out to save Mann with the bell.
total grants appliedMann’s list of unfunded grants
2008 through date of Steyn/Simbergs post – 6 unfunded totalling 1,753,540 = aver of $292,256
Date of post through 2015 was 7 unfunded (including one that was subsequently unfunded. totalling 2,225,736 = aver of 317,962. that is an 8% increase , though adjusting for inflation with total of 8 years of inflation, the unfunded $ went down.
Funded grants
Pre = 8 totalling 2,940,939 with a single one for 1,884,991
Without the one for 1,884,991 the total is 1,055,948, the average of the 7 was 175,991
post = 4 totalling 1,015,678 = average of 253,919
Pre =14
post = 11
The one funded grant of $1,884,991 skews the grant analysis .
Weatherford seriously hurt his credibility on the math. But I wish she had pointed out that 1,884,991 outliner. That math is the same as the bristlecone pines
One must always follow the pea.
Weatherford
Unfunded grant listed on the unfunded list was resubmitted – and later funded.
Yes, and Mann tried to dispute it ineffectually be saying it was a different grant. She then slammed him by pointing out it had identical title, text and co-investigators.
Joe did you hear a ruling on the final discussion of whether the judge will allow two hours for Mann’s last expert or cancel him out?
When Steyn’s attorney pointed out that Bradley and Oreskes were unnecessary Mann’s attorney had a valid rebuttal that two hours of the Nobel Prize was unnecessary. Still, Bradley slideshow of his student’s and other students’ climate outings had nothing to do with Mann except that he never went on any, except on the campaign stage with Terry McAuliffe.
i listened to the post mann testimony where the the attorneys argued about various issues.
summary as best I recall
plaintiff will call :
A) simberg to demonstrate malice ( apparently skipping issue of truth whether simberg statement was truthful or whether simberg thought his statement was truthful – banking on DC juror assuming mann is truthful which was the error by the first two judges made )
B) likely to allow testimony of amhan? as expert – but some question on what will be allowed. seemed to be open end question
C) no discussion on testimony of McIntyre, no posting as of 5pm re motion to strike mcintyre
I wonder why the judge allowed plaintiff’s counsel to mention Steyn’s links with Rush Limbaugh and other luminaries of the right-wing media. Surely the prejudicial value in that venue outweighed the probative value.
“I wonder why the judge allowed plaintiff’s counsel…”
It is primarily up to defendant’s counsel to object. I am guessing that Weatherfield did not object out of respect to Limbaugh, or Steyn, whom clearly was very proud to have guest hosted on the program up until the day of Rush’s death.
Regarding letting McIntyre testify, the judge said plainly that he does not want to have the trial be on climate change but on defamation. This is a tough needle to thread since the defendant should be given a chance to prove truth of his claim, in this case that the graph is fraudulent and the investigation a whitewash.
Thanks, Joe. I will be happy for Mark and Rand if the judge pulls the plug on Mann at the plaintiff’s resting of their case, but at the same time I am hoping so much for Curry and McIntyre get on the stand. It should be the climax of the trial.
Ron Graf | January 29, 2024 at 11:38 pm |
“Thanks, Joe. I will be happy for Mark and Rand if the judge pulls the plug on Mann at the plaintiff’s resting of their case…”
Ron – In response to your comment. Simberg’s attorney stated that they will not make a motion for a directed verdict. A directed verdict is appropriate when the plaintiff has not show sufficient evidence for their claim.
There is a rule (which I am not familiar with) that provides that certain appeal rights (but not all appeal rights) are forfeited when a motion for directed verdict is filed. I would think the judge can still give a directed verdict, but I would doubt that would happen without a motion and because there has been enough evidence placed into the record that implies that Simberg & Steyn’s statement was false (albeit very weak evidence at this point – heavy reliance on the assumption that the HS is correct). Since sufficient evidence has been entered into the record , albeit weak, it becomes the provence of the jury to decide the facts, not the judge. (sorry if the explanation is poor)
The last thing I want for Steyn’s sake is that the judge directs a not-liable verdict on the grounds of a negative defense like no actual harm or no actual damages (or even no malice because the defendants were sincerely mistaken).
Only the success of a positive defense, truth, can even partially compensate Mark for the 12 years he’s been made to suffer for Mann’s narcissism.
All hopes are lying with the judge allowing Mc and Curry to explain the truth to the jury.
Simberg on the stand. I didn’t know his credentials. He could refute the hockey stick. I hope he does it.
Ron:
“Yes, and Mann tried to dispute it ineffectually”
And succeeded beyond expectations! Rarely have I seen anything disputed so ineffectually. :-)
Ron Graf | January 30, 2024 at 10:13 am |
“Simberg on the stand. I didn’t know his credentials. He could refute the hockey stick. ”
Ron – With his credentials, he may not be able to refute it, but definitely able intellectually ascertain that portions of HS may be dubious. I think that is sufficient for his belief that the data was cherrypicked or manipulated.
Rand Simberg testifying on the NSF report.
Cross from weatherford – is going to be good – since it specifically did not cover the MBH98 & 99.
Simberg is also good pointing out he did not accuse mann of fraud.
Also good since the NSF closeout memo states to the affect that the statistical analysis remains open to scientific debate. Which is what Mann was actually accused of.
Simberg should be helping move along the documentation of his allegation as it is eating into any time he will have to prove it. By contesting things the lawyer clearly has documents for it makes him look defensive like Mann did.
Ron – the good side for Rand S is that Mann’s attorney is digging very deep into the NSF close out memorandum. That “exonoration of Mann did not cover the MBH98 or 99. When that is pointed out, Williams is going to look like an idiot – presuming the jurors are sharp enough to notice the difference.
On the bad side, Rand is somewhat argumentative pointing out the distinct differences of what he accused Mann of vs what the NSF exonerated him of. I would suspect that the jurors will not be able to differentiate between the various types of fraud ie academic fraud, manipulation of results.
Note that cherrypicking of proxies to obtain desired result is not academic fraud as long as it is disclosed.
The problem in exposing the hockey stick is that it was a group project, supported and encouraged by the those in control of a powerful establishment. Mann was simply a willing recruit. The video of Muller explaining the hockey stick along with McIntyre to back it up, along with the emails from Folland asking to put pressure on Briffa not to “dilute the message” by revealing the divergence problem is what I am hoping they can get it in.
https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
Exposing the Russia hoax endured the same headwind in that every actor could be said to have been following orders with the support of many others, from Clinton to childhood friends of the PSS who brainstormed the dossier for Steele with the help of Clinton agents like Charles Dolan, who supplied the Ritz Carlton story. Nobody could be held accountable even with a special counsel investigation and prosecution. It was too large.
At 12:30 EST, williams is arguing before the judge various issues, but the mike is off – does anyone know what is being discussed. ? the admissibility of Mann’s statistical expert (aman?)
The cherry-picking process for proxies was not disclosed in the original paper. There was an addendum published after others found out.
Ron, the comparison to the Russia hoax is very insightful. When conspiracies reach critical mass they achieve a diffusion of criminality that makes them immortal, like a cancer that has slipped the surly bonds of apoptosis.
To those as confused as me by yesterday’s bench conference, I’ve just re-read my notes of it during the interminable haggling this arvo and here are my general (pre-Law-school) comments. Some of this will be obvious, apologies in advance:
Reserving a motion on directed verdict: The plaintiff’s counsel suggests waiting to file a motion for a directed verdict until after a witness (Simberg) has testified in the defense’s case. A directed verdict is a ruling by the court in favor of one party without allowing the jury to consider the evidence, typically because the evidence is deemed legally insufficient to support a verdict. By deferring this motion, the plaintiff’s counsel is likely attempting to ensure that all relevant evidence, including the testimony of Mr. Simberg, is presented before making a case for a directed verdict. This strategy could be to solidify the argument that the defense’s case lacks sufficient evidence, warranting a directed verdict.
Rule 44: pertains to authenticating official records or documents, especially those from governmental bodies or foreign public documents.
For more information, see Cornell.
Defense’s concern about waiving the right to appeal: The defense counsel’s statement about not being able to wait on a directed verdict as it would waive their right to appeal is an interesting tactical point. In some legal contexts, failing to make a timely motion or objection can be seen as forfeiting that argument for appeal. The defense might be concerned that by not promptly moving for a directed verdict, they could be seen as having accepted the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence, thereby limiting their grounds for appeal if the verdict goes against them.
Methodology and Daubert motion: The defense seems to be arguing that, although the methodology was not disputed successfully earlier, the expert’s qualifications, especially about investigations, are still questionable.
Dr. Curry, I had the privilege of meeting you briefly today in the cafe of DC’s Superior Court. You graciously allowed me to have my picture taken with you. Thank you.
Wishing you all the best!
David B
Climate priests high up in Western academia’s ivory towers are really bad at math. The amount of government involvement and money that is going into to underwriting the added expense of alternative energy is ruinous much like chewing off your arm to get more protein in your diet. Mark Steyn in ‘The Spectator’ likened the mindset of global warming alarmists to being in first-class.
…being in first-class staterooms aboard the Titanic and rooting for the iceberg!
Words that won’t age well, from Desmog:
Public science communicator Bill Nye, who sat with Mann’s legal team throughout the day, told DeSmog that the trial is important because it will get people talking about climate change and attacks on the science behind it.
“We have people running for president who won’t talk about the phenomenon of climate change, they won’t even address it,” Nye said. “If this trial raises awareness and gets people talking, that’s a great value.”
I came across this comment I wrote in 2013. I’ve put an asterisk on the obsolete bits (due to my confident expectation that the case would be tried sometime that decade).
How do people think it’s aged? Should I bottle it as a Pinot Cringe?
__________________
Steyn’s and NRO’s* lawyers could win the case in all of five minutes if they understood how science works—which would be very lucky—and had a judge who understood same—which they apparently don’t.*
What non-scientists may not realize is that there’s no need to prove Mann’s hockey-bacilliform vision of thermohistory wrong.
To demonstrate the fraudulence of his work is much simpler than that.
His paper was unreplicable. Occult. Faith-based. It withheld ‘enabling detail’, to use the language of patent law.
And Mann will have a very hard time pretending he didn’t know this. He spent YEARS defending his work from decryption by outsiders, which demonstrates an intent that was, shall we say, other than scientific. This is all public knowledge by now, isn’t it? Those interested should read the WSJ article [Hockey Stick Leads to Face-Off by Antonio Regalado] in which Mann is quoted as saying—seven YEARS after his paper came out—that “Giving them the algorithm would be giving into the intimidation tactics these people are engaged in.” With that one sentence he surely earns himself a unique place among all, ahem, “scientists” in modern history.
Ergo, there is no known way to include the infamous HS paper in the genre “science.”
Yet Mann was tirelessly complicit in passing it off as a work of science.
At the risk of obviousness, there is a word for the misrepresentation of non-science as science: pseudoscience. Which is a species of… academic fraud.
Motion for dismissal.
Note that the temperature in the Middle Ages is completely uninformative. Mann fanboiz waving around subsequent “confirmations” of the HS need to appreciate that no such finding can ever validate Mann’s document, or rehabilitate it into the world of science, because agreeing with does not constitute replicating. (Nor does replicating entail agreeing—as McIntyre found when he finally became the first person on earth able to retrace Mann’s statistical [mis]steps—but that’s another story.)
Even if some vaguely bacilliform drawing turns out to be historically veridical, Mann’s paper remains an exemplar of parascientific creative writing. After all, with apologies to Professor Wegman,
correct result + secret methods = not science
playing video of Mueller , the man behind the BEST temperature reconstruction. He is criticizing the HS.
That’s one thing that won’t just go in one ear and out the other!
Simberg – on direct from weatherford is doing good job explaining basis of his critique of the investigation and so far doing good job explaining why investigation was weak.
Their statistics guy is on the stand. I’d love to see this smug jerk get grilled on Wahl and Ammonn.
https://climateaudit.org/2008/08/08/caspar-ammann-texas-sharpshooter/
Dr Abraham (bad spelling) has been testifying. I am not sure the relevance of his testimony. finished his testimony today stating that Mann had an extremely high reputation in paleo climate science. Not sure how that is relevant since the issue is whether Simberg or Steyn know that they were wrong (assuming that they were wrong)
following up on the last plaintiff witness, dr abraham ( the stat expert)
his last statement was that several scientists did not want him as part of a group of scientists working on a study. (with the implication that the blog post damaged his reputation).
We will see this morning how the rest of his testimony progresses
This witness may turn out to be good for simberg & Steyn. If Mann’s expertise was as good among scientists, as is publicly claimed by the activists, then a highly defamatory blog posts by two individuals outside the scientific community would have near zero effect on his professional scientific reputation.
The refusal by other scientists to include Mann on the proposed project points to Mann having a poor reputation among other scientists that runs much deeper. Its simply implausible that two individuals with zero respect in the scientific community would have an effect on his professional reputation.
I noticed Judge Irving is sustaining most of Simberg’s counsel’s objections. Though objections slow the trial I think the jury is getting a positive impression from Simberg’s counsel versus Mann’s.
Mann’s scientist witness that just testified that he had high respect for Mann’s expertise but decided not to ask him on his research team because outside the paleoclimate (hockey team) he was not as well personally received. I suppose the point intended is that Mann’s stigma is Simberg and Steyn’s fault. The jury now knows about Climategate and saw the Muller lecture video where Mann was highly criticized in front of a full lecture hall. I think that politically controversial persona is hard pin on Simberg and Steyn.
I hope that this comes out in cross and also Mann’s joining Terry McAuliffe’s campaign stages in 2013.
Ron’s comment – Mann’s scientist witness that just testified that he had high respect for Mann’s expertise but decided not to ask him on his research team because outside the paleoclimate (hockey team) he was not as well personally received”
Ron – The scientists’ testimony ended with a high drama statement that will get clarified. My take was he was stating that Mann was paleo expert , but very weak on the ocean interaction with atmosphere and those scientists with that expertise did not want someone with no expertise in that subject on the team.
Are they trying to demonstrate that Steyn or Simberg were the cause of mann’s drop in reputation among scientists. That would be absurd when real scientists such as Muller and McIntyre were providing heavy , specific and very much on point criticism. The best would be that he is pointing out than mann was already toxic before the blog post.
I may have missed it, but Williams went into great detail on the NSF exoneration which made simberg look bad.
On the follow up questioning from Weatherford, did it get pointed out that the NSF only investigated the studies that were funded from NSF and the mbh98 & 99 were prior to the NSF funding ?
That would have knock a huge hole in the exonerations!
Joe, I did not hear Simberg make that point specifically. I think he said the NSF was just too narrow in scope. Do you know why Weatherford was objecting and Irving sustaining every time NSF Williams tried to bring in NSF earlier? If it was simply because it was not in evidence why didn’t Williams simply submit it?
Simberg also said the Penn State investigation was a looking at a “straw man” of data falsification instead of manipulation, the Climategate charge. Simberg also said they cleared Mann on the email deleting but the charge should have included participating in email deletion. Mann forwarded Phil Jones’s request to to Wahl to delete emails without comment, like saying it was a bad idea. Wahl then deleted the apparent dirt.
yes I heard the NSF investigation was too narrow, but would like to have had some elaboration – ie that it did not cover mbh98 or 99
NSF articles at Climate Audit:
https://climateaudit.org/?s=nsf+
A specific link:
https://climateaudit.org/2023/10/23/was-michael-mann-exonerated-by-the-post-climategate-investigations-as-was-decided-by-the-dc-court-of-appeals/
A list of documents including briefs:
https://cei.org/michael-e-mann-v-national-review-and-cei-et-al/
A final thought on Oreskes (ha! if only): upthread, I asked what the point of said person was. Not theologically, of course—that would be like the old joke about what jobs does the Pope think a woman can do (“Nun”). But rather why did the defense bother calling her.
To make any headway at all, we first have to put ourselves in the anti-grav mag-loc boots of someone who actually believes in a Stranger Things world where Oreskes wouldn’t just know how science works if it punched her in the face, but would also give the police a recognizable description of her assailant. In other words we have to put ourselves in the Upside Down.
It was persuasively suggested by friend of the site @joenonclimatescientist that the idea was for her to convince the jury that only peer-reviewed papers constitute ‘science,’ because they’re printed on better-quality stock or whatever. And if they buy that, it would follow that no reasonable person could have relied on M&M’s non-refereed work to form a good-faith belief that the Hockey Stick was factitious.
Thinking about it for a moment this made perfect sense, but now that I’ve thought about it for 2 moments, it makes absolutely none.
The proverbial “reasonable person” has NOT been awarded a PhD in scientific epistemology plus eight honorary degrees, as Ms Oreskes has (narrowly beating Jimmy Saville if I recall correctly). He or she is of normal intelligence, but is not an expert.
If any old reasonable person *could* be assumed to grasp the difference between peer-reviewed science papers and the kind of birdcage liner that (solely for the sake of argument) Energy and Environment publishes, then he or she wouldn’t need Naomi Oreskes to spend an hour explaining this to him or her. He or she would already get it. But the court assumes that our proverbial “reasonable person” does NOT get it—otherwise Oreskes could never have met the Daubert standard, and would not have been suffered to waste the court’s time.
So the argument that Steyn (to the extent he relied on McIntyre) ought to have known he had no good scientific basis for slandering the stick—an argument I’m sure @joe is right to expect plaintiff’s counsel to make in closing statements—reduces to self-contradiction.
If this is how they intend to prove actual malice, at least in re: Steyn, then for their sake one hopes they excluded any and all people of normal-or-higher intelligence from the jury.
I see these defenses against actual malice.
1) MM03 and MM05 are peer reviewed science that puts MBH into legitimate debate as to propriety.
2) Climategate 1.0, showing deception of “Mike’s Nature trick,,, to hide the decline.”
3) Sandusky scandal underscores a Penn State culture of whitewashing, reinforcing protests from Mc and others that investigators did not call on adversaries to testify.
4) Climategate 2.0 showed hockey team completely comfortable to continue as before, unfazed by the investigations.
Excellent Ron, but bear in mind Climagegate 2.0 emails weren’t new; they’d been held back by the leaker since 2009 and were released to celebrate the second anniversary of that miraculous day
Thanks Brad. I should have done more research.
Do you know what evidence there is of an insider leaking the emails versus a hacker? I notice all the MSM and wiki-type articles assume the later but never offer evidence. Yet we heard Muller in 2010, and Steyn last week, claim it was a leaker. What clue are they going by I wonder.
Here is the typical story on Climategate:
[i.e. CO2 is radiative gas so everything else is required by the laws of physics]
https://www.gem.wiki/Climategate
Steyn said when he was being cross examined, that he knew who the leaker was and that he was not going to reveal his sources.
Good question Ron. I’m no computer security expert but at the time a popular comment was that the voluminous, sequential tranchiness of the liberated emails was suggestive of a USB job, probably perpetrated from a seated position in whatever passed for a server room.
There are also indications between the lines of the emails, not to mention in just about every non-compiling line of HARRY_README, that between one and three persons in that wretched hive of scum and villainy had a conscience.
There’s also the fact that the emails had clearly passed through (but not been doctored by) the hands of someone who knew the players and the conflicts well enough to curate them by theme/plotline.
And whoever it was took the time to redact the irrelevant personal data (showing a decency and sportsmanship for which the hacker underworld is, shall we say, not famous).
If the apologists for the Gaters want to insist it was an external hack, they’re welcome to. After all they have every bit as much evidence for that as they do for their climate-doom paradigm (provided we subscribe to the identity-of-zeros axiom).
If they want to insist NOBODY in that place had the resentful heroism to sabotage it, let them.
If they want to insist the CRU was targeted essentially at random, by an outside player who had no idea what they were going to find, let them. I merely note the corollary: for all we know, the Russians could have hacked *any* major climate-industrial target and obtained equally damning material.
It was an inside leak.
in response to fuller – concur – several indications of inside leak. Likely to be one of the mid to upper level climate scientists. One of McIntyre’s chief complaints of the paleo climate science community is the lack of adherence to normal professional standards. The leaker likely had the same concerns, and leaking the emails was his/her effort to force a recognition of the poor behavior so that the climate science community would clean up their behavior.
My comment is speculation, though reasonable speculation based on what is known.
I came across this 10-year-old case:
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/bloggers-have-first-amendment-protections-federal-court-rules
Can some of the legal eagles on this thread comment on the relevance of this to the current Mann v Steyn at al case? Do you think the lawyers are aware of it? I have to believe they are, but so far no mention has been made of it in trial.
CB – I am not an attorney even though I play one in my mind.
Several court appearances as both expert and fact witness, so I am familiar with some of the procedures.
The standards for defamation are the same and set by sullivan and Harte hanks, etal. The difference in that case is that the ‘defamed person was not a public figure.
In this case numerous errors were made by the trial court on the motions for dismissal. The biggest error was that the first two trial court judges completely botched the burden of proof standard for dismissal. The general rule in a civil case in a motion for summary judgement is the facts in a pleadings are assumed to be true. That is the opposite in a SLAPP motion for dismissal, there the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defamer (simberg/steyn) knew their statements were false. There was no evidenciary hearing to determine that fact. Both trial court judges assumed that they had to know their statements were false because “everyone knows” the HS was true.
This judge I think understands the law and will get correct jury instructions explaining the law and the actual burden of proof. I also think he would have dismissed this case, except he was bound by the prior judges ruling and bound by a botched appeals court decision.
I came to climate in 2014 and never learned there was a Climategate 2.0 in the summer of 2011, well after the Penn State investigation and Muir Russell Report of July 2010.
In CG 2.0 Phil Jones talks about deleting emails again! Mann says he’s given up on Curry. “I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.”
I think Steyn could have asked Mann more about what exactly “the cause” is and how Curry was not helping. I know vision is 20/20 from here.
Question for Dr. Curry (not to do with Mann case).
What would the scientists objection be to a NSF requirement that all communications regarding investigations under NSF grants be on a public blog (with investigator controlled access to post and OIG maintainer)? In this way the public, as well as all investigators, would be able to see what problems came up, and who was doing the work as it was being done. Phil Jones and Mike Mann complain of the nuisance of having to respond to FOIA. Why not make FOIA moot? Why not eliminate accidental email deletions? After all, it’s publicly funded research. The fruits belong to the public.
Plaintiff’s counsel, in pinning Simberg down as to the dishonesty inherent in cherry-picking data to tell a story, is fairly obviously laying the groundwork for an impeachment of McIntyre’s honesty. It won’t work, of course, because McIntyre disclosed what he was doing. But if the lawyers are getting their knowledge of the Climate Wars from their client, they’d have no reason to doubt that they’re going to land a killer blow. I wonder at what point it will dawn on them that their client is a thrall to motivated non-reasoning.
Nearly 2 hours of testimony this morning with no audio – was this discussion outside jury presence to argue what he was going to testify to? any info?
JP Abraham now testifying about studies of extreme weather caused by global warming. Comes across to me as a scientists that has crossed the line into an activists
Abraham last statement on direct was that he added mann to his various research groups around the year 2020 “after the controversy died down. ” The controversy supposedly caused by the “blog posts”
That statement is simply implausible. If mann’s scientific reputation among climate scientists was as impeccable as stated by Abraham, then other scientists arent going to care what was said in a non scientific blog post.
Abraham testified that Mann’s reputation was seriously harmed by the blog Post.
Simberg’s other attorney on cross – has just serioulsy impeached the ____ out of Abraham claim that Mann’s reputation was harmed in the scientific community.
Simberg attorney just impeached Abrahams testimony – completely destroyed his testimony.
Steyn is now questioning him. Steyn is going to blow it.
Abraham forgot he was the founder of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund just after Football and Hockey. OMG!
He then disputes that Mann was more than a typical client. Then Steyn points out Mann was the initial recipient of funds.
Hopefully, Styne will learn something from watching the defense attorney!
Ron Graf | January 31, 2024 at 12:01 pm |
Abraham forgot he was the founder of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund just after Football and Hockey. OMG!
Ron – Also to be noted is that this legal DEFENSE fund is funding Mann’s suit as a plaintiff, not as a defendent.
Steyn could have exploited the timeline a little better.
Dec 2011 Climategate 2.0 comes out with 5000 new emails on hockey team bad ethics.
March 2012- Assoc Prof Abraham organizing his big paper.
July 2021
July 2012 – Freeh report on Penn State white wash of Sandusky
July 2012 – National Review Football and Hockey
Aug 2012 – Abraham skips on choosing Mann as co-author
? – Abraham organizes Climate Science Legal Defense Fund
2013- Mann puts Abraham as first acknowledgement in “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars”
Abraham remembers reading the book but does not remember his being acknowledged or know why he was acknowledged because they had not co-authored anything and he was in a different field of climate science specialty.
There was stuff that looked like testimony, but then the judge had everybody rise. It could have just been discussion.
Yesterday, did the plaintiff’s counsel re-direct to Rand Simberg or was he excused after Ms Weatherford was finished with him?
I thought they wanted to get Abraham in since he was scheduled for that day. Simberg is there every day presumably. It did not sound like Simberg was done since he had said that he had a long story to tell with Weatherford.
Ron, good point. Just because he’s done being the plaintiff’s witness doesn’t mean the defense can’t call him for themselves in direct. I was glad there was no direction to the jury at the point when Mann’s team rested their case, and that the defense is going to be allowed to get their money’s worth out of this trial.
Mike, yeah, I figured that out eventually too. It was testimony—Abraham was under oath and on record, but they were presumably talking about qualification matters, i.e. the judge was trying to figure out whether and on what matters Abraham’s testimony should be admitted, so it was done outside the jury’s hearing and in this case they remembered to turn the audio off, sadly for stickybeaks like us!
Abraham is as tedious as Bradley, but with added youth and vigor so he can bore us harder, longer
“This paper established me as a major contributor to ocean heat content.” says Abraham.
So it’s not carbon dioxide, it’s this guy. All of a sudden I support urgent cuts.
A perfect cross-examination: Dr. Abraham, were you aware that Dr. Mann had joined VA candidate for governor, Terry Mcauliffe, on his campaign trail? Did that, or would that, have affected your view of what other scientists would think of being on a paper with Mann?
https://www.science.org/content/article/political-scientist-michael-mann-s-moment-campaign-spotlight
They could also ask Abraham about the meaning of some of the Climategate emails since he was close to Mann and the paleoclimate team with this bore hole research.
Question: Dr. Abraham, what did Michael Mann seem to mean by saying about Dr. Curry, “I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.”?
Question: Did you see Dr. Muller’s video on explaining “hide the decline? What the regard for Dr. Muller in your scientific community? Do you agree with Dr. Muller’s analysis in the video?”
Question: Dr. Abraham, why does one of Caspar Ammann’s R squared results have extra decimal places?
Yes, Abraham could be a gold mine. They are asking about Terry Mcauliffe now.
I dont think either the plaintiff or the defense wants abraham to testify again.
I have never seen a witnesses credibility destroyed so completely. Further, I dont think any climate scientists wants to see him testify again. When a star in climate science world is destroyed on one subject, that destruction of credibility will spill over into the credibility of his expertise.
Whether you are pro-Mann or anti-Mann, Abraham on cross seriously hurt Mann’s claims
Mann took an amazing gamble that the defense would not discover Abraham’s founding of the legal fund non-profit organization funding Mann’s suit. Then Abraham says he does not know what a 501-C3 is. Then Steyn remarks, “Yes, how unworldly of you.” Steyn with dry sarcasm even while being a lawyer is a riot.
Google schoolar shows 532 papers authored or co authored by JP Abraham since 2005. that is 29 papers per year.
He also claimed to have peer reviewed 500+ studies since that time.
That is a pretty high output
He’s clearly adding to human knowledge at rates hitherto believed impossible, not to mention dangerous.
That is about one paper every other week, along with the reviews. When does he actually do any original research?
had this very apposite quote from Clair Patterson – who truly is one of the great geochemists. Contrast with Abrahams
“Older living scientists,exposedto effectsof historical growth of scientific knowledge during the last four decades,are gen- erally aware that the quality and integrity of contemporary formulations within the scientific logic matrix of knowledge hasdeclined noticeably in all scientific fields, in strong positive correlation with a huge increase in quantity of so-called sci- entific publications. Writing and publication of scientific pa- pers has become a parody of a formerly worthy activity. In- vestigators now produce dozens of papers per year with their name included asan author in groups of authors. The capacity of the brain operating in a genuine scientific mode is such that it cannot produce and publish truly meritorious work more often than once every year or two. Excessivepublication rates correlate with a general decline in quality of science of both effort and product.”
Paul
Spurred by your comment I was curious how many publications in climate science.
“ A total of 51,230 papers was published on climate change, for the year 2020, within 5,796 scientific journals (Fig. 1A), leading to 36,355 mentions by international news media.”
At 140 publications a day, it’s pretty difficult to keep up.
Just like having the NBA expanding to 500 teams, I’m sure the quality and competence takes a dive. More is definitely less.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378023000419
I would hazard a guess that the very great majority of them are not contributing anything of significance to human knowledge, or understanding of the climate. In short are not worth reading. I’m very much with Clair Patterson regarding the inverse correlation between number of papers and the value of the studies they are reporting. Everything is diced and sliced, rehashed and repeated to boost citation indices.
Interesting that more than 70% of the publications were picked up by the news media.
“A total of 51,230 papers was published on climate change, for the year 2020″
As Dr. Spock would say, fascinating.
The assumption here is that science rigor is hard; are there actually 51,230 climate scientists diligently producing one paper a year? Or are the majority of these scientists merely political activists conscripted by the narrative factory to fill activist needs, in order to facilitate the ability of media to sculpt the cultural masses? Enquiring minds would like to know. I’m beginning to envision a climate school minting intellectually inbred climate widgets.
Even more to the point, how many of the results of all those papers are reproduced by another group? Frequently, reviewers just don’t have time to truly check even calculations. For some higher math papers, checking one small part of a large proof can take 20 hours, for example. In cases like that, they just eyeball it and go with gut feelings. Kind of like the C in CAGW.
jim2 | January 31, 2024 at 3:41 pm |
” Frequently, reviewers just don’t have time to truly check even calculations. For some higher math papers, checking one small part of a large proof can take 20 hours, ”
In response to Jim2’s comment – my understanding is one of the reasons McIntyre had a short career as a peer reviewer was that he requested the data to check the math. Apparently no prior peer reviewer had asked for the data to check the math.
I wasn’t exactly impressed with peer review when I read this in The Hockey Stick Illusion
“ Jolliffe went to to explain that his presentation in no way supported the idea of short centring,c and also rather surprisingly said that until the second half of 2008 he had had no idea of exactly what Mann had done in MBH98. Up until then he had been labouring under the misapprehension that Mann had used a technique called uncentred PC analysis, which is essentially PC analysis with no centring at all. Despite having reviewed McIntyre’s Nature submission, he had apparently still not realised that the technique used by Mann was short centring. He even went so far as to say he had doubts whether even standard PC analysis was a suitable technique for temperature reconstructions.”
“Jolliffe had killed off the idea of short centring, but this exchange didn’t take place until 2008. Back in 2004, McIntyre was to have a long fight ahead of him to win an argument that someone with Jolliffe’s authority could have settled in minutes, if only he had noticed what Mann had done when he reviewed McIntyre’s Nature submission.”
Jolliffe was one of the two reviewers of MBH98, supposedly characterized as one of the world’s foremost experts on PC analysts.
I should have referenced the quote. It is from:
Historical changes in integrity and worth of scientific knowledge
Geochimice et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 58, No. 15, pp. 3141-3143, 1994
Sadly Clair Patterson died the following year.
Wednesday – post lunch break/post Mann resting case – Long discussion with judge and attorneys with no audio.
Are they discussing the motion for directed verdict?
If Mann had met the burden of proof – or at least reached a minimum level of a burden that would require sending the case to the jury, then the decision would have been a quick no. But seems nearly an hour of discussion.
Thoughts?
Now Wednesday at 3:21 EST, attorneys and litigants in chambers with judge. further arguments on motion to dismiss? any info?
looks like I was wrong – if there was motion for directed verdict, then it was denied
So probably the case is going to go to the jury at some point.
Adi Wyner was very powerful witness that expresses an expert opinion that the MBH hockey stick was the result of data manipulation, in that results were the product of the investigators’ decisions, not the data’s. We will see how he stands up under cross. But regardless the case should be over. There is clearly reasonable grounds for an opinion of MBH data torture without actual malice. Also, there was no credible proof of damages.
Ron comparing and contrasting Wyner with Abraham.
A) abraham made a very good impression demonstrating that Manns reputation was damaged (though weak on ascribing it to the blog). However, he was completely destroyed/impeached on cross. My impression did a lot of damage by highlighting that much of Manns claims were just self serving.
B) My early impression is that Wyner will do a good job on direct, but not be overly convincing. However on cross, my speculation is that he will be very effective.
Well I hope they don’t try to settle, pay Ball’s, Simberg’s and Steyn’s bills and then either leave the country or go hide out in Oreskes’ big house. I want to see Curry’s and McIntyre’s testimony!
No chance of paying simbergs or steyns bill because the US doesnt have a loser pay rule, and B) due to the original rulings, the suit wasnt frivilous ( it should have been deemed frivilous but had two judges that completely botched the correct legal standard).
And joe, just to confirm, the Court of Appeals can’t re-examine the frivolity question once it’s been answered?
If there is a Yahweh, Steyn and Simberg will recoup their costs with a book about this.
I haven’t been able to keep up with all the play-by-play discussion, but I take it that Dr. Curry will not be testifying?
If Steyn were to lose (I’m very cynical about any institution these days); is there a chance, standing, that this case could find its way to the Supreme Court based on the merits of free speech alone? Fundamentally this is what Steyn is implicitly arguing, all technical arguments aside about the hockey stick. Further, if it can go to the Supreme Courts based on the merit of free speech, could this in itself be a tactical goal? Such would escalate the legal arguments to a national platform for argument; to then bring on the big guns. I don’t know enough about the courts to tease apart whatever strategic paths there may be.
Mann’s statistical analysis of the data does not support his ultimate conclusion (the ‘hockey stick’) much less provide required degree of certainty asserted to justify state action. The significance of the flaws asserted as observed by Wegman and others are devastating to Mann’s conclusions such that state actions based upon them can only be viewed as arbitrary and capricious.
‘Many, indeed most climate scientists have argued that the hockey-stick graph is not central to the case for the role of man-made pollution in exacerbating global warming, and the prospect of dangerous climate change. But it has nevertheless become the iconic smoking gun for both sides of the debate, showing either that we are living through unprecedented temperature increases, or that we are being duped by the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”. (Connor, The Independent, January 2012)
The whole climate scam was founded in academic deceit and political corruption. Al Gore was essentially an acolyte of Scripps researcher Roger Revell and when Revell came to realize the error of the AGW hypothesis, Gore stabbed stabbed his mentor in the back with allegations of senility and sacrificed Revell on the altar of Leftist-liberal hypocrisy.
.
Tropical atmospheric river reaches California. Flooding possible in the south of the state.
https://i.ibb.co/nzXrthQ/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
Comment on Wyner Testimony
Doing good job pointing out a few items
1) that he needed a good statistician
2) That the uncertainty in MBH98 & 99 was greatly understated.
3) showed that out of 22 choice of PC, only two of the 22 produced a hockey stick
While he has shown that MBH 98 or 99 were wrong, he has pointed out the data is too weak to reach the definitive conclusion that was reached in MBH98 & 99.
I expect that Mann’s attorney will come across as attacking with a lot of non relevant issues.
Williams’ technique in cross examining Wyner is an old one, which must have served him well when he was representing Big Tobacco: ask a scientist stupid questions, then impeach him for giving stupid answers.
Williams is an evil genius. He asked his bone-ignorant questions first, got them all out of the way at the beginning, knowing he couldn’t very well pretend to be that dense once he’d put ‘signal-to-noise’ and ‘principal components analysis’ in a sentence correctly.
This is the fourth dimension that the really good litigators are thinking in. Weatherford does it too, only in her case, she gets all of the flirty-cop questions out of her system, and only then does she start glassing the c*nt.
Wyner is doing very well in pointing out the stupid questions.
He started to tee up the perils of Bradley’s potential data snooping but seemed to back off to simply the peril of knowing the correct answer while looking at the data. McIntyre can fill in the data snooping well if he gets on the stand. For example, Rosanne D’arrigo’s quote about the need to pick cherries if one is making a cherry pie. McIntyre has also found many ditched proxies that were discarded as “bad data.” Of course, they turned out to be straight line noise from paleo into modern times.
Mike raises the question: was it really John “Malice Guy” Williams who was cross-examining Wyner? As opposed to Patrick Coyne [sp?] or another man in Mann’s high-priced-but-free maniple of manipulation apologists?
My problem is I don’t have a spare screen to watch the trial, I’m only hearing it.
I watched and it was not Williams. It may have been Patrick Coyle. The camera was aimed at his back most of the time but his face could be observed from a distance sometimes as he passed out evidence and worked on charts at the easel.
Thanks Vince. You’re right. With Mike’s help I’ve confirmed that it was Patrick Coyne. Apparently there’s a sizeable …uh… size difference between them.
This might be mentioned elsewhere, but I can find it. Was Mann explicitly asked, “are you a Nobel Prize winner, yes or no”? And was he forced to say yes or no? Its important that he be explicit. If he says yes, then, in my opinion, he’ll have to deal with a claim of perjury. If he says no, then, in my opinion, he will have to deal with a claim of academic misconduct.
A statement analysis of the transcript would be fascinating. So often the witnesses have almost, essentially, as good as said something without ACTUALLY saying it that SA could yield a completely different reading of what’s going on.
If you haven’t heard of SA, one of its strengths is its literalness:
“Well, I would say X” does not mean “X”
“Well, to quote my book on this very topic, Y!” does not mean “Y”
“Came, saw, conquered” does not mean “I came, I saw, I conquered”
“I will not dignify that with an answer” does not mean “no”
etc.
MikeN,
yes, I shed a tear when the kid who was never picked for school sports recalled being personally acknowledged in a tiki-lit ceremony in Hawaii.
Mann said he contributed to the IPCC’s award and was acknowledge by IPCC and others to have done so. He received a certificate from IPCC acknowledging his role.
Wyner’s fine and all, but spending a day on him when you’ve got Curry, McIntyre and Lindzen loaded in the chamber and ready to fire seems suboptimal to me.
Yeah, I know guns don’t work that way.
Mann’s counsel overall point: Dr. Wyner are you aware that MBH has been replicated by X, Y, X and Z?
Wyner is now doing a good job on knocking down all of it. Next Mann’s attorney will ask, “Are you toppling the IPCC?”
So Dr. Wyner, why do you think the IPCC climate scientists are not thrilled to have you become part of the team?”
Ron I doubt the jurors have much of a math background. Those with a math background would easily see that Manns attorneys attack on his lack of knowledge of proxies, tree rings, ice core samples, etc are not relevant to the stats issue , uncertainty, pc centering, etc. Some one with math ability would also see that the choice of assumptions of the stat issues would make a difference (.24 correlation vs .48 correlation could either be very close or very far apart).
Someone with math background would also be able to recognize that the lack of “climate science ” knowledge isnt relevant to determining Uncertaincy in the stat world – the attorney was implying that only a climate scientist is qualified to do stat analysis in the climate science world.
He certainly wasnt destroyed on cross the same way Abraham was destroyed
Ron, that’s a very amusing image but an actual litigator is more likely to say
“Dr Wyner, when did you stop toppling the IPCC?”
“Dr Curry is a fact witness, not an expert witness.”
I think what Judge Irving is saying is “she isn’t allowed to testify to anything anyone else said.”
Actually, I don’t think hearsay is not allowed by any type of witness. So, she can’t talk about the buzz. And not being an expert she can’t offer an expert opinion about the buzz. I think the jury can’t unhear that the hockey stick was a big deal in the Third Assessment Report. She can testify Monday the WMO hockey stick was on the cover of the executive summary.
MBH/WMO was the main graphic of Inconvenient Truth, both as a 1000-year temperature chart and also falsely as Dr. Lonnie Thompson’s ice core record. Thompson was the technical advisor on the movie and they apparently lifted the MBH from one of Thompson’s papers because it looked like a nice graphic. They apparently didn’t read the caption under the graphic that it was from MBH. Thompson said he emailed Gore about the error.
https://climateaudit.org/2008/01/13/sticking-thermometers-in-places-they-dont-belong/
Ron, I can’t say I’m not entirely unsure you didn’t mean those multiple negatives in your first sentence, but in any case, fact witnesses are not allowed to testify to hearsay; expert witnesses can do so, but only in so far as the reported speech is customary knowledge in their field, a condition that’s hard to enforce and often gamed in order to “smuggle” hearsay into the record.
The Climate Crock guy (now the This Is Not Cool guy) just put up a post about the trial:
https://thinc.blog/2024/02/01/denial-on-trial-mike-manns-long-awaited-defamation-suit/
I tried to post but declined the subscription. Do you have to subscribe of do I just have to wait for moderation approval? [Not going to happen likely with critical post.]
I noticed they had a link to the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. I searched it with Dr. John Abraham and came up to a post on SKS about its founding, crediting Abraham. The post was 7/14/2012. The date of the Nat Review Football and Hockey article is 7/15/2012.
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1538
I think it just adds it to WordPress’s list of blogs you’re subscribed to. They might notify you of new posts and this guy makes a WUWT level of posts. He might have to approve first comments.
Ron, just press the button to submit your comment, then when the subscribe popup pops up hit Refresh. Five seconds later hit Refresh again. Your comment will be there. I wouldn’t worry about being censored. His site is very poorly trafficked, and beggars can’t be choosers. OK, back to the case…
Bingo.
I once did a grep of the emails, and “hide” is a very high-frequency verb for Phil Jones. He uses it both transitively and intransitively and is fond of “hiding behind” institutional ramparts to evade his FOIA responsibilities.
Mike, the blog you linked to looks like they condensed this Desmog article on the trial. It may also be that they all think and write identically. https://www.desmog.com/2024/01/30/at-manns-defamation-trial-defendants-are-doubling-down-on-climate-denial/
I went to Desmog because I noticed it missing from their blog roll, along with this site or any non-consensus one. In reading either article if I were a younger and didn’t know about the hockey stick controversy or Climategate, which I suspect a large number don’t, I would have the impression that Mann is vindicated by the fact that 2023 is the “hottest year on record.”
There is no mention of hide the decline. They did mention a video.
I don’t know if Weatherford made a point to mention that this trial is not about whether the Earth since 1980 is showing a warming that exceeds the noise of uncertainty. Mc will make it clear, as he usually does, that he does not dispute warming.
Mike, I do hope the Not Cool guy isn’t one of those catastrophists we’ve all agreed to be nice to because he’s nice to us (somehow I doubt it), because I left him an uncharacteristically blunt comment. Now I feel as guilty as Ned Flanders after an obscenity-laded rant (“Zoots! Heck!”).
Never mind, it’s out of my system now. I’m back to my normal, famously moderate self.
Brad, I went over and replied to your comment asking what was the scientifically offending phrase in Phil Jones’s infamous quote. I wrote, “Adding in the temps.” But I’m not approved yet it went into space. But it did let me like and thumbs up your comment. :)
My longer comment that won’t post there was again pointed out what I think is the more ubiquitous straw man: rising GMST does not validate a bogus 1000-year paleo-reconstruction. And a valid 1000-year reconstruction, even with the identical plot, does not excuse a bogus reconstruction. I am hoping someone at DC mentions the Piltdown problem.
Ron, it’s weird that your comment won’t post there. Perhaps a previous encounter with the proprietor, long forgotten by you, is indelibly inscribed in that site’s immune system?
Major respeck to you for having the nads to give the quiz a go. Now give it another go, looking for *one word* a scientist would never use if he knew his emails were going to be leaked.
The one indefensible thing is science is to hide. An open and honest broker wants to expose all uncertainties, confounding influences and counter hypotheses.
After the plaintiff rested today, defendants made a pro-forma motion for summary judgement . Interestingly, Judge Irving did not immediately rule, and instead requested briefs from both sides by noon today. Mark Steyn submitted a motion for summary judgment and sanctions due to bad faith trial misconduct: https://www.steynonline.com/documents/14064.pdf
Is Mann toast? This sounds pretty compelling to me, but I suppose I would have to read the plaintiff’s brief to see if they present a shred of an excuse for what they did.
CB kite – I did not see a written court order denying the motion. though I suspect that it was denied from the bench.
The written motion for sanctions and the two written motions for directed verdict are compelling in that they both document the extensive perjury by mann. Unfortunately, those motions do not get entered into evidence, and therefore the jury will not get to see the the motions.
Its possible the judge totally agrees with the directed verdict motions, but will let the case go to the jury with the hope that the jury finds against mann. The judge may still has to option to rule favorably on the motion for directed verdict.
A somewhat similar scenerio occurred in the kyle rittenhouse murder trial, where the judge let the case go to the jury, but the judge was prepared to override a guilty verdict.
https://portal-dc.tylertech.cloud/app/RegisterOfActions/#/D71396C82ECD1A3BD3F9353D4EDBF6DC93A0975858B9A671863AE5073F2368E4/anon/portalembed
I read Steyn’s motion for summary judgment and was amazed at the audacity and stupidity of both Mann and his lawyers in trying to contradict the damages from lost grants they stated that Mann had in 2023 interrogatories. Instead Mann read from his 2020 interrogatories, [falsely claiming $9,000,000 in damages,] which the 2023 interrogatories corrected by reducing the damages from $9,000,000 to about $100,000. Interrogatories are serious and important discovery devices and have to be signed by the parties’ lawyers; They are reasonably analogous to sworn statements. For someone [with the assistance of his lawyers !!!] to testify in court based on previously corrected interrogatories is simply crazy. If there was a fair jury pool here, the case would be over after this stunt.
On top of that Mann was so arrogant that in his testimony he didn’t even identify any of the specific grants that he lost. Just stupendously stupid.
Hi JD, where have you been?! I have missed you legal analyses. Do you think that Judith should be an expert witness after being done with being a fact witness? Can Mc be both too? He certainly is an expert on MBH, surely above Mann himself. Can the judge cut off the trial if the defense is not done? In this case would you skip Lindzen to make sure we get two days of Mc? Oh, so many questions. Don’t feel obligated to answer. But there is an eager audience here.
JD Similarly – I found the astonishly level of perjury throughout his pleadings, interogatories, and testimony. Similarly with JP abraham testimony. In the professional world, that level of dishonesty taints the value of all your professional work, not just what the specific topics that you are caught lying about. What is concerning is that in spite of the high level of perjury by Mann, the climate science world rallies behind mann. To me that is one of the biggest indictments of climate science.
Ron – in response to your comment one JC and Steve Mc being qualified as experts. Judith curry was struck as an expert on the July 2021 order by this judge. A ruling I think is correct.
I havent seen a ruling on the motion to strike McIntyre. As of Friday evening, there was a pending motion to strike McIntyre as a fact witness, I do not know the status of that motion. Perhaps there was oral ruling, that I missed.
Remember the key issue is not whether the HS is correct or wrong, but whether Simberg or Steyn knew the HS was good ( assuming it is good) or should have known it was good. ie reckless disregard for the truth. Judith Curry got struck because she doesnt know , nor can she have first had knowledge of what simberg or steyn actually knew.
I presume she and mcIntyre will be allowed to testify as a fact witness to what was commonly known at the time as to the criticism of the HS, but not as an expert as to what Steyn/simberg knew.
Thanks Joe, so in other words there needs to be testimony about the reputation of the hockey stick and what it was based on by the time of the 2012 articles. We know it was investigated by Penn State and others. Mann’s position is that everyone should have accepted his exoneration. Steyn and Simberg’s position is that Penn State’s Spanier and crew no longer had standing to exonerate anyone since they had covered up for Sandusky.
I theorize the reason the case is still in court is that DC judges felt there should have been no investigation into the hockey stick since Climategate was brought on by climate denier activists with help of a hacker. Mc can counter that by showing he was on the trail of the MBH tricks in his public blog regardless to the CRU emails.
Hi Ron, thanks for the compliment. This is the busiest time of the year for me and I just stumbled on the trial in the middle. My general impression is that Mann has made a fool of himself (has horrible memories of someone making a bad face at him) and if the trial was in a less leftist place, the defendants would be in good shape. As it is I think the defendants have an uphill battle because of the almost certain bias of the jury. I do think that if Mann were to prevail, the damages would probably be low.
Although most of the people here are undoubtedly interested in the science and statistical issues, unless the lawyers do a remarkable job of making it simple, I am afraid it will almost certainly go over the heads of the jurors unless there is at least one juror skilled in statistics. I worry that the expert witnesses for the defendants have something of a perfectionist streak and want to get everything exactly right. If I was advising them, I would say that all of the basic strands of their testimony need to be reduced to 2 or 3 sentences, with the caveat that summary, although fundamentally correct, glosses over some subtleties, which can be explained in more detail on the stand. However, all that the jury will retain is the summary. Feynman was very good at this.
Hi Joe, the nonclimate, you refer to a July 2021 order that struck Curry as an expert witness. Could you provide me with that link.
Jd ohio
My apologies
I am posting from cell phone so my abilities o link is limited
The portal above is the court website so it has all the docs
However the order is not posted in a manner that can be retrieved
I may have posted the link somewhere in this thread
You can also find the link at reason Volokh conspiracy- go to search bar & type in Mann. The article is title Mann experts struck or something similar
JD, I thank you for your exhaustive legal analysis of the case here on CA last October.
You are right about limited abilities of retention. :) I see I had commented there but forgot it. Am re-reading now.
I think everyone in the courtroom understood Mann’s vicious work behind the scenes now revealed. I think some in the jury might ask the judge if they can award Judith and Roger damages against Mann.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/27/judge-strikes-all-of-michael-manns-expert-witnesses-from-libel-suit/
there is link to the order
The judge did a good job dealing with daubert standard
Joe, thanks for the link. Greatly appreciated.
It’s ironic the judge excluded witnesses on the basis of them not explaining their methodology. The judge should take a look at Mann’s work and proffer a summary verdict of GUILTY!
Steyn and Simberg must have known the Hockey Stick was good, because twenty or more (everybody’s lost count, apparently) official inquiries had given Mann a big blue tick on his scientific ethics.
After all, if there’s anything politicians understand better than science, it’s ethics.
I cancelled my subscription to Nature years ago for that very reason. Now I get my science exclusively from the government, and I’ve never been happier.
Brad
I see what you mean. Relying on the government for the facts takes the heat off your noggin. None of that heavy lifting called thinking is needed. Millions do it and they seem perfectly happy. I see it here every day.
I listened to part of Judith’s testimony that was re-enacted. I thought she was very effective when she rebutted Mann’s claim that she was a “denier” and said that Mann lied about calling her a denier. She said she was a traditional environmentalist who had something like 28 solar panels on her house and drove electric cars. Had only taken 4 short plane trips in the last 4 years. I think the jury will remember this.
I worry Mann will seek to have Wyner fired from Penn where they both now work.
Did they ask Wyner about upside-down data usage?
MikeN, as we know, all science is true. The hockey stick, however, is even truer than the average bit of science.
It’s so true, you get it no matter how you use the data: you can use it the *right* way. You can use it the… er… other way.
It has now been replicated over 520,000 times, with each paper using different [combinations of the] data, different methods, and getting the same result, or at least one that tells the same story.
Wyner did not mention upside down glacial lake sediments or Tiljander. https://climateaudit.org/?s=upside+down
As you point out, they work on the same campus. He was not saying Mann did anything bizarre.
It would have been a bad idea to ask wyner about the proxies.
A) he testified very early in cross that he had no expertise in the proxies
B) he testified to the effect that the statistical analysis is independent of the analysis of the quality of the individual proxies.
Crossing over and testifying on topic that is not your expertise will get the rest of his testimony impeached. Look at what happened with Abraham. Abraham’s entire testimony was basically impeached on cross when it became obvious that Mann’s reputation was not hurt among climate scientists and he was simply manufacturing a fake claim. Normally, lying so blatantly will get your entire testimony impeached, though with the caveat that this is a very pro mann jury being DC,
Joe, the Abraham self-impeachment you refer to being his outblurting of the line “by then I figured the Climategate thing would have died down”?
No & that would have been inappropriate
Wyner is a stat expert
He is not a proxy expert
Testifying on proxy would impeach his stat testimony
Scientists from an infinite number of different fields—from geophysics to oncology, oceanography to abnormal psychology—are finding the data piling up and up, completely against their will, and pointing to the (narratologically) same story: the Hockey Stick is true, and its only mistake is to have not been alarming ENOUGH.
In the spirit of those cautionary tales for youngsters.
It’s never a bad time to enjoy the words of a two-years-younger Judge Irving on the topic of Abraham Wyner. In his 2021 order to exclude valueless witnesses like Oreskes, we read:
‘Dr. Wyner, a trained and recognized statistician, explains there are “aspects of Dr. Mann’s work that can reasonably be construed as manipulative, if not in intent than in effect, as the word is used in common parlance.” Wyner Rep. ¶ 9. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Wyner’s opinion is “little different than the Curry opinion expressed in her report.” MIL Curry Mem. 9. A comparison of the two reports controverts this theory. Dr. Curry seeks to offer a review of criticisms of the Hockey Stick and excerpts of the polemic surrounding the graph, all to support her expert opinion that it would be reasonable to call it fraudulent. Dr. Wyner, in contrast, offers detailed analysis of the statistical methods used to construct the Hockey Stick graph, and why the methods may be reliable and, thus, tending to support a basis for Defendants’ statements.
‘For example, Dr. Wyner states that “constructed random sequences, simulated like playing cards drawn from a deck, are no less skillful for reconstructing temperatures than naturally occurring proxies.” Wyner Rep. ¶ 33. He explains in detail how he applied “crossvalidation,” which is “an effective method of exploring and countering overfitting and measuring model reliability accurately.” Wyner Rep. ¶ 38 n.13. Plaintiff does not, and likely cannot, assail the principles and methods that Dr. Wyner applies.’
A sidetone, there’s another big climate lawsuit brewing.
From Axios:
ExxonMobil is suing activist investors to thwart a proposed shareholder resolution that calls on the oil giant to set more aggressive emissions-cutting targets.
Why it matters: The lawsuit is the first time Exxon has filed litigation to prevent a shareholder resolution, the company confirmed to Axios (which Reuters first reported).
The big picture: The case, filed in a Texas federal district court, is an unusual effort to deter a shareholder campaign, rather than appealing to the SEC on a given resolution.
State of play: Exxon is suing Arjuna Capital and the shareholder advocacy group Follow This. It alleges an “extreme agenda” that looks to “force ExxonMobil to change the nature of its ordinary business or to go out of business entirely.”
The intrigue: The resolution includes a call to set targets for “scope 3” emissions from broad use of Exxon’s products. The company has targets for operational emissions and energy that powers them, but not scope 3.
The other side: “With this remarkable step, ExxonMobil clearly wants to prevent shareholders [from] using their rights,” Mark van Baal of Follow This said in a statement (The Wall Street Journal has more).
_________
Exxon CEO, Darren Woods, was interviewed on CNBC this morning. He describes that the suit isn’t targeted at actual shareholders, they’re targeting ESG activists.
Scope 2 and Scope 3 rules essentially double, triple, or more count CO2 emissions. More id eo cy.
I only caught bits and pieces of the cross examination of Wyner. The parts I did catch was heavy cross on a few subjects such Wahl and Amman getting almost identical statistical results as Mann (giving the impression of almost identical results) ; that Wyner had no knowledge of tree ring, ice cores, etc, and that Wyner was not a “climate scientist, ; that subsequent studies by climate scientists have gotten similar HS’s.
Any insight on how well he held up on cross, and what would the jurors take on Wyner would be considering that none of the jurors would likely have much of a math background.
As I commented earlier but am in quarantine for some reason, I wish Wyner had replied thusly:
– And Dr Wyner, you have no qualifications in climate science, do you?
– Neither does your client.
The closest any witness in this trial has to a “climate science” qualification is Bradley and his Climatology doctorate. The rest tend to be qualified mathematicians, physicists and other scientists, with “climate science” being an arbitrary self-anointing.
To mathematically disinclined jurors, I imagine the effect of the CX of Wyner was to partially neuter his effectiveness by leaving the impression: two guys talking jargon at each other, no idea who’s right, I’m so hungry right now, can you actually start self-digesting if you don’t eat?, if this goes on any longer I’m going to pull a fire alarm and run straight to that sweeeeet pizzeria across the road
I noticed that Mann’s attorney wanted to make a point of how much money Wyner was making. This I suppose is a standard tactic to show the expert as an expensive hired gun [Think gunfighter Wilson], because normally they are can afforded by the company. But in this case, with Steyn representing himself and Simberg’s testimony showing him to just a science blogger Joe, Wyner’s expense just threw more sympathy that the defendant’s were individuals, unlike the plaintiff with organization funding.
I am curious of Gannon1950’s or David’s opinion of how the sympathies are shaping if one was otherwise an impartial juror.
I haven’t been following the trial, and I have no opinion on the subject.
Thanks, BA. Do you have any opinions on Mann, the person, the activist or the propriety of his activism, tweets , etc..?
Nothing that I’ve studied enough to care to comment on. I’m more interested in the science than anecdotal food fights.
Thanks, BA. I think we are all interested in the science but most of us care deeply about how the sausage is made, which is critical if one is able to weigh conclusions as being falsifiable in a free and fair marketplace as opposed to being forced into compliance with a religious doctrine.
Like I said, I haven’t followed closely, but I don’t think libel (that’s what is on trial here, not “climate science” as your cited “replay” source would have use believe) are not the way the sausage is usually made. The usual method is independent further testing (and refinement) to confirm or disprove a new hypothesis – I think the “HS” (particularly the “blade”) has been confirmed a number of times by now, regardless if there may, or may not, be wiggles in the shaft. This seems much more an anecdotal case of (possible) scientific misconduct, which some desperately hope will discredit (or deflect from the reality of) climate science and scientists in general. My belief is that it hasn’t and won’t – it seems a rallying point for the few that still hope and believe ACC isn’t real.
BA, I think you are well-intentioned and well educated but I respectfully disagree with a few parts of your comment.
Science does not proceed in a vacuum. If scientists and journal editors are harassed and blacklisted when they do not go along with the highly funded establishment narrative science suffers. Society suffers. You get emperors wearing embarrassing things.
“I haven’t followed closely, but…”
Mann called Judith a climate denier every time he uttered her name in court and even in congressional written testimony a few years ago. He called her a “serial misinformed” as well as a denier this week on the stand after barely apologizing for being caught spreading what he admitted was a false rumor about her to a Wikipedia editor in an email. He testified falsely that she got canned from Georgia Tech. The guy is a walking menace.
He has been claiming to be a Nobel Laureate since 2007 when Al Gore was awarded half a Peace Prize and half to the thousands of staff and contributors of the IPCC. Each got a paper certificate. The Nobel Committee had to tell Mann to cut it out, but he still claims it on his website. I don’t blame the guy for thinking he is bigger than Al Gore. He did introduce Bill Clinton onto the stage for VA gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe in 2013, months after, (as Mann falsely claims in court), his reputation was supposedly destroyed by a blog post and Nat Review 250-word political humorist’s bash.
Mann’s only witness to his reputation being affected by Steyn or Simberg is the same guy that cross-examination revealed founded the non-profit organization that is 100% funding Mann’s legal pursuits. (I kid you not.) tbc…
BA: “The usual method is independent further testing (and refinement) to confirm or disprove a new hypothesis – I think the “HS” (particularly the “blade”) has been confirmed a number of times by now, regardless if there may, or may not, be wiggles in the shaft.”
The paleoclimatology community, according to Mann, is no longer interested in following up on the 1970s and 1980s tree ring studies to find if they are still tracking global temperatures. They are looking for something new. If you were Mann you would you be using your influence to get funding to validate the tree ring proxies. Is that what you are saying? After all the blade is not a blade if it is just another wiggle in the shaft.
Big “If” … the blade is not another wiggle in the shaft. It is verified by instrumental measurements and other proxies.
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788
BA: “…it seems a rallying point for the few that still hope and believe ACC isn’t real.”
Scientists are people. People want their beliefs validated. The more they have become invested in them the more evidence they would require to reverse. One of the pieces of evidence that you count to support your beliefs about MBH misconduct is to mentally discredit dissenters as skeptics of ACC (whatever you define that to be).
There is an admittedly fine line between scientific misconduct and that of trying statistical tricks until you get validation. In court this week there was un-staked expert investigator (a professional statistician) who testified that the MBH hockey stick was essentially a mined artifact from random noise. (We don’t know his beliefs about ACC, BTW.) My experience is that MBH critics carrying a full spectrum of beliefs about ACC. Most just want integrity.
BA: “It [the blade] is verified by instrumental measurements and other proxies.”
The central point in the MBH controversy that a blade is not a blade until you prove the shaft. If you can’t show a flat line before an uptick you simply have scaled noise. The proxies that MBH used were weighted as to how well they correlated to instrumental temperatures in the first part of the 20th century. By this process most of the proxies have little weight except for two out of twelve tree ring proxies, which got 32X the weight of the weakest proxies. These two great proxies lose their greatness in tracking instrumental trend as the 20th century progressed. So are those two tree ring studies really great proxies or mined noise? This is not even mentioning that they spliced in instrumental temperatures into proxies without revealing that.
The heavy problem I see in this Mann/Steyn suit is the massive collectivist/activist juggernaut who’ve circled the wagons around Mann. The legal defense fund supporting Mann, Bill Nighy’s pom-pom coaching extravaganza, etc.; there’s no telling what else there is behind that Oz red curtain, other than there’s no doubt there’s more. Steyn is a smart guy, pithy, a great orator; surely he knew what he was coming into; but I don’t see the monied backing, lawyering; weight. There’s either something tactically brilliant unfolding, or Steyn walked into a casino known to use loaded dice thinking his loaded wit will save the day.
Steyn could have benefited from watching My Cousin Vinnie and anticipated that he should read up on the court’s rules on examining witnesses. Still, there is benefit from demonstrating the David vs Goliath nature of the case.
I don’t know what they were going to do with Richard Lindzen but I think they can leave him out. He has already made an impression of someone who couldn’t figure out Webex. The cross-examination would focus on his one-time advocacy for the tobacco industry, [the favorite comparison to climate skeptics] not his stellar climate science contributions.
I thought Judith’s introduction was very impressive and a good spot to leave in the jury’s mind over the long weekend.
They should que up the video clip of Mann denying he called Judith a climate denier in the congressional hearing. I think it was a senator that pointed it out. One breath after Mann’s denial Judith reminds him that he called her a denier in his prepared written statement that he read at the opening. The jury will recall they heard him call people deniers all week.
“…there is benefit from demonstrating the David vs Goliath nature of the case”
I agree, Ron, but the David vs Goliath story has a simple premise. Human nature almost always likes to root for the underdog.
I consider there’s almost certainly a predispostion of the jury to have already aligned with the Goliath narrative coming into the trial. I do fear that too much math for them is much like watching paint dry. Too much green eyeshade for them means “just wake me in time to vote guilty”. We need more Stossel like interview discussion within trial testimony, or the jury will fall back with extreme prejudice what they already “know” is fact.
Jungle – in response to your comment regarding the juror’s – The issue is whether Steyn/simberg published their blog posts knowing that the statements were false or should have known the statements were false or with reckless disregard to the truth, including no attempt to ascertain the truth.
Assuming argumento that the mann’s hockey stick is valid and good science and he did not manipulate the data. At that point, Steyn and Simberg statements would be considered to be made with reckless disregard for the truth unless they can show that they had reason to believe the HS had problems.
The question is whether the jurors grasp the important distinction. Simberg and Steyns posts can be completely false, but not libel since Mann is a public figure.
the first two judges in the case did not understand the important distinction. The assumed that any criticism of the HS was automatically reckless disregard of the truth.
With that background, Now to address your point on the jurors. IF the jurors have the preconceived belief that the HS is solid science and any criticism of the HS is reckless disregard of the truth, then all of Wyner’s testimony was worthless. If they understand the distinction, then Wyner’s testimony, especially on cross will come across as professional disagreement which will validate the basis for stating that the data was manipulated.
Ron,
hopefully the examination into Lindzen’s tenuous-if-any tobacco links will be led by John Williams, who before taking on Mann as a client, defended R J Reynolds’ right to use the Joe Camel character in its advertising contra the FTC’s argument that that anthropomorphic dromedary was designedly appealing to minors.
http://www.williamslopatto.com/john-b-williams.html
All casinos favor the house. But you make a great point. Does anyone know why Styne doesn’t have a lawyer? Because he couldn’t afford it or that he was too obstreperous and wouldn’t behave?
My take on why Steyn doesnt have an attorney is a combination of A) the cost and B) he is not one to listen to the attorney’s advice.
For example in both his deposition, and testimony. He could have said that there was tremendous of publicly available critiques of the HS and that is what he relied on to state the HS was bogus. Instead , he wants to argue that he has a free speech right to say that mann is a fraud. (not withstanding that I think he is a fraud).
His line of questioning on cross has been patheric, Notice the huge difference in quality of cross exam from every other attorney. Weatherford has devastated most every witness and Steyn on his cross rehabilitates what Weatherford has destroyed.
I have been involved in litigation multiple times, and while I am stubborn, I am not nearly as stubborn as Steyn. The client absolutely has to listen and follow the advice of the attorney.
Hope that answers the question on why steyn is pro se.
He does have a lawyer assisting in the background. They filed a 100 page brief about Mann’s team presenting false data to the jury.
However, I think Steyn is his own lawyer because the lawyers don’t like his approach. A major part of the case is that Mann hasn’t shown he has been damaged by the articles of Steyn and Simberg. However, I think Steyn wants to argue he is allowed to say what he wants, told the truth, and damaging Mann’s reputation is allowed to reveal his fraud.
Instead they are arguing that Steyn’s writings are irrelevant and had no impact on the public.
I remember he stated that lawyers took too much time (he was right there) and that he felt that lawyers focused too much on technicalities. By way of Joe the non climate scientist, it appears that he didn’t know what he was doing in that area. Everything I have seen here indicates that Simberg has a really good, effective lawyer.
One reason unmentioned here is that Steyn has successfully represented himself in court before — twice, I think. Winning both times
“The question is whether the jurors grasp the important distinction.”
Joe, yes, the surface argument suggests it should, but not when it comes to religion.
Assumptions as to what’s important to grasp is a relevant minefield; many may not even care to grasp what distinctions are presented, if they’re driven by default consensus convictions (religious). Are we dealing with religion, or not? The global consensus narrative is the powerful biblical “word”. Why do you think jurors must grasp important distinctions? Because their charge is to be fair and balanced? Would you go all in on convincing a christian to believe faith isn’t logical?
While knowing how to thread a needle on issues is important; just as important is; knowing how the needle must to be threaded. Read the room; unfortunately this means reading much of the worlds opinion in this example.
When dealing with extreme prejudice, tread easily, capture the narrative SIMPLY. That’s all I’m saying.
Joe: “…show that they had reason to believe the HS had problems”. Yes, you are obviously correct on this basic defense premise. The technical side needs to be addressed with its necessary detail.
To better round out my opinion (which is all it is), you know much more about the court system than I do; but there should come a point within the trial, after the technical proof has been described, to have a substantive connection with the jurors. Present something jurors can understand based on their own experiences, what I mean by “simple”, by applying a relative emotive underscore to the technical discussion. For example, the jurors know what “equity and inclusion” means. The industry of climate science is anything but a bastion of equity and inclusion. Dr. Curry made a wonderful, accessible connection with Stossel, and viewers, where she described how the climate sausage is made. She used simple straightforward layperson language discussing many of the details described in her post “A bad recipe for science” https://judithcurry.com/2023/11/17/a-bad-recipe-for-science/ It’s relevant to this case. Look jurors in the eye and describe the reasons behind why mistrust is bred within the industry: the cabal surrounding Climategate; the politics of exclusion; the lack of equity for appropriations; all the mistrust this breeds. The reason Mann’s work was closely dissected to reveal “errors” cuts directly to issues about trust within the industry.
I would hope there’s ways to put some humanity about the culture of climate science into testimony, with follow-up in the closing statement. Turn a Goliath predisposition into David sensitivity training, not emotive for its own sake, but has as its underlying basis the facts in the proof presented during the course of the trial.
I want to thank all of you who have been providing updates on the trial. For some unknown reason I am not able to access the website.
It’s my hope that post trial a summary or transcripts or something that documents all of the testimony and rulings will be available.
All of your comments have been interesting and most helpful.
I can’t think of any other instance where a statistical analysis had such a profound effect on world history. Without the HS where would we be? Perhaps a little hyperbole. But then….
Here are daily episodes of the key testimony re-enacted for those that missed it: https://climatechangeontrial.com
I would start with episode 3, Steyn’s opening statement.
Ron, thank you for the re-enactment link.
At the beginning of episode 11 they discuss how Dr Wyner characterized PC analysis as very controversial, (perhaps only controversial) and that Mann used only 2 of a possible 22 series in his analysis.
On the surface Dr Wyner’s testimony seemed devastating to Mann.
But I have 2 questions or comments. It’s been awhile since I read Hockey Stick Illusion, but I don’t remember a reference to PC analysis being controversial, versus the usage of it in questionable ways. I also don’t remember a discussion in the book about Mann using only 2 of 22 series, which was viewed as P-hacking.
Could someone weigh in on these specific points made by Dr Wyner. Is PC analysis controversial? Was Mann blatantly engaging in P-hacking?
As someone who has read about and followed results of various studies in various fields for 60 years, my cynicism about the efficacy of those studies just keeps growing.
Here is a CA post from 2005 when Mc realized that 20 of the 22 tree ring proxies were white noise and Mann’s code simply mined the two (Gaspe’ and Sheep Mountain) that had the upward trend and gave them enough weight to drown out the others. The other ~100 proxies of corals and sediments were further white noise wall paper. BTW, in both of the magic locations there have been subsequent studies that had no upward trend. The Sheep Mountain study used by MBH was from a paper (Graybill 1993) trying to show a CO2 fertilization effect.
On PCA, McIntyre worked as a mining engineer. In that role, he utilized PCA to find the best ore based on drilling data.
Yesterday the plaintiff rested on his Kinko’s laurels.
MBH98/99/08 (aka, the ‘hockey stick’ graph) is a proven scientific fraud. We know all about the ‘nature trick’ and the attempts by CRUgate conspirators ‘to hide the decline’. We know about global warming in the 10th and 11th centuries and global cooling during the “Little Ice Age” of 1500-1800. Steve McIntyre of M&M repute noted (30-Nov-2010), as follows:
“While the term ‘trick’ can be used to denote a sophisticated mathematical method, it can also denote something as simple and unscrupulous as deleting adverse data. It is necessary to investigate the facts of the matter and the context… the Climategate correspondents did not use a sophisticated mathematical method; they simply deleted data that didn’t accord with their expectations. The `investigations’ ought to have denounced/renounced such methods and their failure to do so is to their shame.”
‘Trick’ can also denote the ancient meretricious act: “She had to turn tricks every weekend to pay off her student debt.”
e.g., fake it ’till you make it.
I wish they would go back to Mann’s testimony on Hide the Decline, put up the graphs, and ask Mann if he stands by his testimony that Mike’s Nature Trick refers to a clever trick of the trade, of putting multiple lines on the same graph.
That is something a jury can understand.
I went back to Mann’s re-enacted testimony and found that Mann misrepresented Jones’s quote somewhat. Mann said the hide the decline only had to do with the mixed late wood density (MXD) from 1960-on. But the actual Phil Jones email says: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [MXD] to hide the decline.”
One can listen to the re-enactment of Mann testifying to this at minute 40 here: https://climatechangeontrial.com/ep-5-mann-in-the-box/
Mc should be brought in as a fact witness as well as an expert on the hockey stick. I hope the defense knows how important he can be to expose all the MBH tricks. It would be the culmination of a 21-year project.
Two years prior to the Climategate email from Jones to Bradley and Hughes, Mc figured out Mike’s Nature trick by trial and error, first with smoothing the ends with different standard methods and then splicing in different lengths of instrumental data to show that is what the IPCC graphic represented. He then displays the quote and link to Mann’s comment to John Finn in Real Climate:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/#comments
Mc apparently did not know yet that Phil Jones was the author of the IPCC graphic, embellishing on Mann’s MBH trick of only padding rather than padding/truncation/splice. Maybe Bradley and Hughes kept Mann in the dark about Phil’s trick but I doubt it. Mc., in 2007, 2 years prior to the reveal of Phil Jones’s infamous email called the maneuver a “trick.”
https://climateaudit.org/2007/05/11/the-maestro-of-mystery/
Reading the CA thread comments are fascinating. The comments slowly crowd source the answer to the mystery, like a Scoobydoo episode, where Mc is like Velma, leading the gang’s deductive reasoning, but the answer comes from a commenter called UC in May 2009. The graph’s padding is with zeros with instrumental data from 1981-1998 grafted on the tail. This comes just six months before the Climategate emails, which is why Mc suspects someone was watching them from the inside, rather than a coincidental hack.
https://climateaudit.org/2007/05/11/the-maestro-of-mystery/#comment-88061
That is a possible interpretation of Jones’s e-mail.
‘I’ve added real temps from 1961 to hide the decline in Keith’s series, and from 1981 for the other series.
Ron Graf | February 2, 2024 at 6:13 pm |
Mc should be brought in as a fact witness as well as an expert on the hockey stick.
Ron
Its absolutely too late to bring McIntyre in as an expert witness. I also doubt that he could have qualified as an expert under the daubert standard. While he is probably the foremost authority on the all the proxies used in the multitude of paleo reconstructions, it is the selection of the proxies, the weighting of the proxies and the statistical techniques used. He is also one of the most knowledgable on the botching used in MBH98 to get the HS, but that is not enough to get over the hurdles of the Daubert standard.
I think his impact as a fact witness will be sufficient to demonstrate the professional disagreement among scientists and the basis for Simberg and Steyn to have a reason to believe the HS was fraudulent.
With the caveat, that most democrats believe M Mann is the god of climate science and anyone questioning climate science is a heretic. Noting further that the juror panel is almost certainly all democrats.
MikeN, I’m all for rephrasing the sentence if you think Phil Jones’ grammatical infelicities have confused posterity. But make sure you can account for the whole structure of the sentence, which includes “I’ve just completed using M’s X of Y-ing and Z-ing to do A.”
joe,
Which Daubertian hurdle[s] do you think McIntyre would have trouble meeting? As a gatekeeper Judge Irving isn’t exactly …. exacting. Remember, this is a guy who acknowledged the scientific-method “expertise” of a woman who wouldn’t know the scientific method if it punched her in the groin and broke a tooth. And if she tried to describe her assailant to the police, they’d spend 2 weeks on a wild goose chase looking for a cross between Scientology and ecneics.
On the politics of the panel, the defense needs to smuggle in loud and clear the fact that McIntyre has always voted for the Canadian equivalent of the Democrats. He once told the WSJ he was a “downtown Torontonian, with downtown Torontonian politics.” In other words, he’s not attacking Mann from his right flank, he’s attacking Mann in his weakest spot, his unfused fontanelle: the math.
They should have done a better job of depolarizing this whole case from the start, for the very reason you mentioned.
Ron Graf,
Re your “Mc figured out Mike’s Nature trick by trial and error, first with smoothing the ends with different standard methods”.
You are correct that Mann has been putting a slant on what Stephen McIntyre (“Mc”) and commenters on Climate Audit did in the early days of the hockey stick (I was a minor commentor). Those of us fortunate to be left with good memories as we age, can pick up digressions fairly easily and say “No, it did not unfold that way. You might think that it did, but your imagination is not hard evidence.”
I, also, hope that Steve will get a good opportunity to give evidence, but I have concerns from the Judge saying he wished the case to end on Wednesday.
Also I am hopeful that Dr Curry will be given the time and freedom that she deserves to complete her evidence.
Geoff S
Geoff, I saw you there, one of the detective gang. (smile)
“…Mann has been putting a slant on what Stephen McIntyre (“Mc”) and commenters on Climate Audit did…” When did he not?
I don’t think Mann forgot his trick. I know Mc hasn’t.
Some things I noticed in Mann’s testimony this week:
Mann: The tree ring data only went to 1980 because that was all that was available at the time.
Truth: MBH98/99 went to 1998 with proxies but padded the tree ring data with instrumental temps from 1980-1998, reversing its downward hook to an upward hook.
Mann: The divergence problem was only about Briffa’s MXD tree rings.
Truth: It affected MXD the earliest (1960) but other proxies were affected too. The divergence problem if this was in a pharmaceutical it would have required investigation and determination.
Mann: There is little funding of tree ring studies since 1980 because they are not as interesting as newer fields.
Truth: The divergence problem was a falsification alert and there is little interest in following up on previous studies from the 1970s and 1980s that likely would reveal more divergence problems.
You can listen to Mann’s testimony on these points re-enacted here at minute 53:40 https://climatechangeontrial.com/ep-7-mann-ann/
The earliest “divergence” begins all the way back in 1750 in Briffa’s Torneträsk data. Briffa “corrected” the declining MXD by adding a ramp function. Mann used the bodged data.
How we got here: a complete legal(ist(ic)) roadmap from publication to damnation:
https://climatecasechart.com/case/mann-v-competitive-enterprise-institute/
Ron Graf,
I don’t believe science operates in a vacuum – It is conducted by humans. Rather, I believe science is self-correcting (or confirming).
BA, by self-correcting I gather you mean by a community of high ethical standards and humility, insulated from the sociological forces that would corruptly influence rewards and reporting (or weaponization of the legal system).
Nope, simply the scientific method – a hypothesis doesn’t become an accepted theory until it has been independently tested and confirmed (a number of times), and has not been falsified by skeptics that attempt to do so.
BA, I don’t think you will find any dispute around here about the legitimacy of the traditional scientific method. The problem arises when confirmation is by a manufactured consensus and data and code are not shared. See Climategate emails or current trial testimony to learn about blacklisting in order to censor dissent.
Models ARE a falsification! It is their nature since they cannot represent future results based on current data. It is a guess much like weather. Even a few days out, it does not always do what is expected. And that is based on solid observation, not so much the hypothetical. Much improved models in weather are still not accurate; even with much more at stake. Trying to predict the unknown future using today’s information without considering the enormity of variables is not dependable science..
I don’t see any confirmation by manufactured consensus – I see it in a number of new, independent studies.
The problem with climate science is that it is not self-correcting on timescales relevant to policy it informs. If you are a rocket scientist and you build a rocket and it blows up, you know you’ve made a mistake, and you can have a go at fixing it for the next one.
Climate science is so nebulous its ability to predict, it has no possibility of self-correction. Normally you are supposed to make predictions that should confirm or invalidate a theory, thereby advancing the science. One such was the the “hotspot” at the TOA, which was never found. That should have invalidated the theory since it was precise prediction has just been ignored.
Other predictions such as the Arctic being ice free by 2014, or Manhattan being underwater by 2020, or any number of other predictions as a consequence of climate change that have not come true are ignored. And that is even without acknowledging that the climate can change naturally, it is always implicit that any change will be human driven.
I agree science is normally self-correcting, and it should be, but I see very little evidence of it in climate science generally. Just lots of squabbling and confirmation bias.
Self correcting. New independent studies: But if all that work is primarily what’s funded, publicised, not ruled out due to conflict of interest and is relying on chance and a small number struggling for support, not put off by the risks to try and prove it wrong or give a different perspective. I think in this kind of science (applied, against the clock, high consequence, serving us all; like my engineering) there may be more than one provable answer or a lot of other things to consider and easy to miss something outside the box. If the large number in the consensus are found wrong is there any accountability for that organisation or is it self correcting science and progress vs what are the risks for the individual challenging the consensus – my engineering felt the opposite of the way science seems to work.
Accountability in climate science is essentially zero.
When one goes all in on anything the last thing wanted is to be proven wrong, the consequences can be devastating.
The level of worldwide commitment devoted to going all in with consensus climate science risks more than climate science intergrity if proof of being wrong were allowed. Humans beings, global cultures, is the pot at stake. The gamble has the risk of losing global cultures.
Loaded dice, stacked decks, and the proverbial ace up the sleeve are all requisite machinations for the game once science integrity is tossed out—and replaced with politics.
JIm2,
Assuming that you are right about accountability in climate science (FTR, I don’t agree), how do you propose to improve it?
BAB – due to the money being doled out, the political momentum, and social incentives; I really don’t see a way to make Climate Science more rational and accountable.
I think it may happen naturally when the populace starts to feel the sting of taxes, restrictions, and political police being forced down their collective throat. We are already seeing push-back in may countries, so perhaps eventually, the monetary incentive to publish alarmist papers will subside.
But right now, trillions are being spent and scientists and institutions will do all they can to intercept their share of that money. So will grifters of all stripes. It always happens when the government rains money.
JIm,
Thought you’d say that. I find that both climate science and climate science skepticism are accountable and held to the same standards – without sustainable evidence, and without passing the (rather low-bar) pre-screening of peer review, it doesn’t get published, except in popular press (book or unknown vanity journals), or internet blogs – none of which have much effect on the science itself.
We all have an equal say in where the (govt.) money comes from and goes: vote! One thing to remember, science is the search for knowledge (even negative results contribute to that), and that knowledge is power, and helps with making informed decisions.
BAB
Isn’t it undeniable that Universities are actively promoting the CAGW narrative in a manner consistent with their overall progressive positions. Those who fear AGW are almost always liberal progressives.
It seems Judy have been defamed by Mann. She has solar panels and drive a battery car so she is hardly a denier. I hope she can counter sue Mann for defamation.
What scientist predicted that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free by 2014? Please note that “being ice free by 2014” is not the same as “could be ice free as soon as 2014”. A reference to original material would be great.
Here is a real scientific projection/evaluation from that time period:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50316
More recent work doesn’t change those estimates:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01857-6
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38511-8
It seems to me the only thing that needs correcting is denier’s rewriting/misrepresentation of decades-old activist statements.
BAB – why on Earth would anyone say something “could” happen, especially in a scientific context? Weasel words don’t work for science. Did Einstein say “Light MAY be the fastest entity in the Universe.” ?? A sentence with weasel words isn’t a statement of fact. It has no place in a scientific paper reporting results.
Because it is a statement of possibility, preferably with probabilities; it is not a statement of actuality. It is correct grammar, not “weasel words”.
Too often the weasel words are used without proof of possibility or probability.
Speaking of weasel words … how often is too often? Along with QM, did you miss philosophy of science, too? (science does not provide proofs.) Thanks for your thoughts anyway.
Empirical science does include outcomes of experiments. This is how a hypothesis is supported or rejected. And you have no clue what courses I have had. Proof of your own recklessness.
Initial impression of Judith curry testimony. Weatherford’s question is rather bland, though it did elicit that grant funding is highly variable and the blog posts from a non scientists have zero effect on funding. Another undercutting of Mann’s damage claims.
Williams is doing cross examination. He is questioning her on emails from Mann’s defaming statements in emails. Not sure what the logic of pointing out that M Mann is vindictive, unless it is to show her testimony is in retaliation of Mann’s vindictiveness? (testimony in retaliation for Mann trying to suppress a “climate denier”?).
Dr. Curry’s testimony was devastating to Mann. I am positive that there are jury members that want now to award her damages from Mann’s defamation. The Williams cross-examination was even more a disaster for Mann. I think the judge was sustaining all the objections made against him. This likely did Williams a favor in that at it could give the appearance that he actually could have potentially made some point. His having Judith read the smears against her by Mann I’m sure made some furious. The point that she had drafted a complaint to Penn State for Mann’s violations of ethics but thought better of submitting it just confirms the validity of her allegations, not dulls them. Mann was probably wondering what his attorney was thinking, (like everyone else).
Now Williams is going to try to prove her a climate denier. ha ha.
Why on Earth would he need to do such a thing?
Is not Res ipse dixit a mixim of the law?
‘Is not Res ipse dixit a mixim of the law?’
Let’s see.
1. Mixim is not a word.
2. Res is feminine.
3. Ipse is masculine.
4. The only possible grammatical parsing of your “mixim” is he himself said things.
5. You’re clearly misremembering a portmanteau of two unrelated, if not opposite, claims: ipse dixit meaning that we have it on some unspecified man’s testimony, and res ipsa loquitur meaning that the fact or event speaks for itself (requiring nobody’s testimony).
Other than that, yep.
>>Now Williams is going to try to prove her a climate denier. ha ha.
Well, I love her posts, but I criticized her in the past for calling herself a denier (!!) and the people posting here “denizens”
Her point that she denies the shenanigans climate alarmists commit gets mixed with fact deniers (like Mann when he talks about Wyners valid statements btw) and holocaust deniers where this word comes from.
It should not be too hard for Williams to find an “incriminating statement” hopefully she is allowed to comment on it.
morfu, a denizen is a resident or privileged visitor to a particular place. The word has been around for centuries. It never occurred to me that it could be a play on ‘denier,’ but you might be right—has made explicit such an intention in using the word?
Calling oneself a denier is not the same as confessing to climate denial, climate change denial or climate science denial. After all, you don’t deny being a phlogiston denier, do you?
“political police” should be political policies. “may countries” should have been “many countries”
Monday afternoon – Steve McIntyre on the stand on direct. Shows extreme detailed knowledge of mbh98. Numerous objections by Mann attorney’s. Apparently lots for Mann to fear from McIntyre.
One key statement was ipcc told mcintyre that he would never peer review another study if he asked for data.
“ One key statement was ipcc told mcintyre that he would never peer review another study if he asked for data.”
Unbelievable. Well, not really given what many think about the process. Par for the course.
I read a comment the other day made in 2008 by an author of many studies where he complained about the gate keepers. Muscle can be applied in many forms.
McIntyre just concluded with his testimony. I presume he is concluded because the jury was dismissed for the day and McIntyre sat down in the spectators section to listen to the judge and attorney argue a bunch of legal issues. ( fact witnesses can listen to court discussions or other testimony as long as they are still a witness)
General sense was that he was very effective on direct. On cross, they were not able to create any doubt about his testimony.
One comment on both Judith Curry and S McIntyre, it appears that the judge put time limits on both direct and on cross.
One school of thought on the Judge limiting the time of the defense witnesses, but not limiting the plaintiffs case – First impression is that the judge is favoring the plaintiff. On the other hand, its often a sign that the plaintiff has not proved their case and is only allowing the plaintiff freer rein to reduce the risk of appealable error that might revive the plaintiff’s case when there is verdict in favor of the defense.
Even the sliver of the saga that McIntyre was able to get in made clear who was the scholarly gentleman in the story. Despite the viciousness and specious actions of Mann against him he still wanted to keep the battle strictly on the science. McIntyre spoke against Cuchinelli’s attempt to prosecute Mann for tax evasion as being political.
They tried to use the fact that Mc prohibited the use of the word fr@ud on his website as a support for Mann. McIntyre replied that just because he does not express the fr@ud opinion in public does not bear on what he thinks in private. Excellent.
Although McIntyre got out that MBH’s withheld and long hidden statistical authentication score and it was near zero, there was not time to explain to the jury the difference between verification and authentication periods and R2 scores.
They should go after Mann’s inaccuracies testified on the record at trial. A nice dramatic memory for the jury would be to bring Mann back to the stand after McIntyre to explain his false claim of no data being available after 1980 and Briffa’s MXD being the only proxy with a problem. Show the charts of the 22 proxies again to the jury and walk them (and us) through exactly what Mann did.
What Mann did was push on what he saw was an open door of big dollars waiting for the person who would get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. This was a long sought object of Hughes and Bradley and others as the modern warming needed to be unprecedented to be important. The Climategate emails clearly show lead author Chris Folland recruiting Mann to get the dendros in line to create a favored “message.”
There was a promise long ago of establishment support. One the other hand, for those that did not go along the accusation of fossil fuel funded disinformation was ready. The public funded academic community did exactly what they were accusing others of doing, colluding to mislead the public. Any scientist like Dr. Curry who had loyalty to science ethics had to be dealt with harshly.
The paleoclimatologists (hockey team) still use Sheep Mountain, Gaspe’ and the stripped bark bristlecone pines that Graybill and Idso (1993) used to show CO2 fertilization and the Jacoby- D’Arrigo cherries. On the last item, Mc found some of the discarded Jacoby cherries recently. They all have divergence problems. One has a hockey stick but the blade is in 1100 AD and shaft continuing into the 20th century.
https://climateaudit.org/2023/12/12/discovery-of-data-for-one-of-the-other-26-jacoby-series/
Yep. Follow the money. If you can even figure out were it’s all going.
I agree with the latter argument you make Joe.
I don’t know the specifics of DC law but in general, if you don’t limit the plantiff and the jury reach a verdict favourable to the defendant, then the plantiff has next to no rights of appeal – limited only to ones about the judge’s directions.
The revelation that Mann has a bottomless pit of funding which doesn’t cost him a cent means that an appeal on any grounds would be almost certain.
Brad Keyes asks:
“Which Daubertian hurdle[s] do you think McIntyre would have trouble meeting? ”
Surely he means Dilbertian:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/05/science-isbest-communicatedto.html
Bafflegab.
“Even the sliver of the saga that McIntyre was able to get in made clear who was the scholarly gentleman in the story. Despite the viciousness and specious actions of Mann against him he still wanted to keep the battle strictly on the science.”
Tell that to The National Post:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/01/freedom-warrior-unmasks-egregious.html
Eugene Wahl is testifying for Simberg. That’s a surprise.
This must be a taped deposition or something. It’s from 2020 on a time clock.
Roger Pielke is up and he is doing great. He is explaining who Mann is in the climate debate. Not pretty.
Ross McKitrick is up now but after a long pause he is being allowed to present the counter hockey stick case from MM03/ MM05.
McKitrick is now the 3rd, maybe 4th witness that has testified Mann’s R2 verification stats were near zero
Mann had testified that the R2stats were meaningless
The point that needs to be made on R2 is that Mann hid them.
I don’t know what objection saved Mann’s team from having McKitrick follow down the list of MBH unreported failed statistical tests but I think he got enough in to show the R2 score of 0.03 meant there was no skill. I would have liked if McKitrick could have explained MM05 being exonerated against Wahl and Ammann (2007) by McShane and Wyner (2011).
The defense needs to create a timeline to badly to help the audience tell the story. Today’s testimony would have been a good day 1 for the defense to set the story, then used McIntrye and McShane to delve into the details.
Mike
“the point on R2 is that he hid them”
Yep, and it’s one point I wish the defense had made more unambiguously.
In politics, it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup.
In science, the crime IS the coverup.
Agreed—all the remote depositions were pre-recorded. Hence different (and sometimes the same!) lawyers can be heard in the video with respect to those in the courtroom.
McIntyre’s job required him to use statistics in an effective manner or his job would go to someone else. What requirements are placed on Mann to keep his job? No much it seems, other than to spout the Climate Doomer mantras.
Word of Caution / reality check
Most everyone here has fairly good knowledge of the HS and the history associated with the critique of the HS. As such, we can easily recognize the mistatements by Mann, etc.
However, its very likely that none of the jurors have much, if any, background knowledge on the HS and therefore wont be able to pick up on the distortions.
Joe, agreed—to the extent that the graph matters to the jurors, the arguments over it will be won by scientific credibility, not scientific arguments. Does Mann come across to the jury as such a good scientist, it’s actionable to question his ethics? Do Mann’s opponents come across as so scientifically illegitimate they should be ashamed to impugn him?
James Delingpole , who coined the term ‘Climategate’ and Christopher Monckton come to mind.
Russell, the Climatagon Papers might be a more accurate Moncktoniker, but Climategate rolls off the tongue better.
I do think that the defense witnesses come off as a lot more human and forthright. Mann and his lawyers look like a bunch of weasels.
For a few years I have been following the literature on income inequality. A new study came out in December refuting much of the more well known conclusions published by Piketty, et al from several years ago, indicating that income inequality was not as great as portrayed in the earlier studies. Subsequent to the December study, Piketty and others pointed out supposed errors in the most recent paper.
The dialogue was courteous. The debate focused on the facts. The tenor was that of professionals having a disagreement about their respective research.
How refreshing. That is how discussions of disputed findings should play out.
And then I read the mud balls that are slung back and forth almost on a daily basis in climate science verbiage. Animal House food fight redux.
And we are supposed to have confidence in the scientists who engage in this stuff on a routine basis? Give me a break.
Judith personifies the best that any scientific field has to offer. As for some of the rest, climate science integrity will take a huge leap when they retire.
I heard Wyner (the Penn St. Wharton statistician) was speaking about Mann’s P hacking and how it can find results when there are little facts and compared it to what was done for the Bible Code, ESP and some social psych stuff on power posing. If anyone knows a video link for that, I’d love to see it.
PE – I dont have a link to his testimony
A few things of note regarding his testimony
a) The confidence interval in mbh98/99 is far too small
B) the data resolution is far too low to achieve much if any confidence intervals
C) the data is far too complex and variable.
D) the climate science utilizes virtually no statisticians in the paleo reconstructions.
Why are you trying to hide the incline?
Even Roy Spencer acknowledges that escalating global temperatures are a thing, not a statistical artifact.
Russell, you question shows we would have to spend a lot of time to catch you up on the HS if you don’t understand the importance of the shaft and blade together in creating a significant signal.
PE, You might be able to get some verbatim re-enactment of Wyner’s testimony here. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-11-mann-curry/id1713827256?i=1000643962998
For McIntyre to keep his job, he had to apply statistics correctly. For Mann, what does he have to do to keep his job?? Keep the catastrophic narrative going?
From 1998 to 2005, the answer to your rhetorical question was very clear:
For Mann to keep his job, he had to ensure McIntyre could NOT apply statistics correctly.
Brad – I may be misinterpreting Jim2’s comment, but it may be referring to the consequences of being wrong.
Being wrong in the private sector can you or your employer $millions. Being wrong in academia carries vastly fewer real world consequences.
Joe, Mann’s stratospheric, hockey-stick-shaped career trajectory is proof that getting it wrong can have MAJOR effects on a climate scientist’s life.
You are more likely to see your work used by Mann if you produce a hockey stick. Using this filter caused Mann’s career to be a hockey stick.
Simberg now on the stand in his defense
core issue was whether he was telling the truth or believed he was telling the truth. The key issue in a libel case of a publicly known person.
The foundation of the basis of the truth has been the testimony of Wyner, McIntyre, McKintrick, Curry, Wahl, etc.
Cross will be interesting
Williams is coming across as a jerk in his cross of Simberg.
Also of note is the extreme level is williams misquoting simberg prior statements,
Also of note is Williams accusing simberg of accusing mann of academic misconduct, (note that cherry picking proxies/data sets to achieve a result is not academic misconduct – as long as it is disclosed)
Steyn’s assertion that the climate gate emails were “leaked ” rather than hacked should be aware of the recent arrest of a hacker who says he was commissioned to steal climate emails:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/11/remember-climategate.html
Many on the left overuse the term “no evidence” to describe anything less than a full confession supported by a surrendered document trail with multiple witnesses. I am going to describe your article as being “no evidence” in its traditional meaning of being a near zero chance of being of significance in discerning truth.
“no evidence”? Tell that to the Judge- it’s a heavily referenced conviction report from the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York :
“U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said:
“From his home in Israel, Aviram Azari played a major role in orchestrating and facilitating an international hacking-for-hire spearphishing campaign. The conspiracy targeted individuals and companies in the U.S. and abroad, resulting in the theft of data and netting Azari over $4.8 million in criminal proceeds.
One of AZARI’s hacking Projects was focused on targeting individuals and organizations involved with climate change advocacy.
Some of the hacked documents that were stolen from various of the victims’ online accounts were leaked to the press, resulting in articles relating to the New York and Massachusetts Attorneys Generals’ investigations into Exxon Mobil…
Clients of AZARI’s Israeli private intelligence company paid a $4.8 million over a nearly five-year period for managing the intelligence gathering and spearphishing campaign. …In November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the University of East Anglia by an external attacker, who copied thousands of emails and files… several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.
The story was broken by climate change denialists,[6][7] who argued… that global warming was a scientific conspiracy… ]Columnist James Delingpole popularised the term “Climategate” to describe the controversy. Public relations experts said that the release was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference…
At about the same time, a short comment appeared on climate sceptic Stephen McIntyre’s Climate Audit website saying that
“A miracle has happened.” “
He wasn’t just arrested – he was convicted, according to this statement from the Office of the United States Attorrney for the Southern District of New York :
NOVEMBER 2023
Hacker-For-Hire Sentenced
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “From his home in Israel, Aviram Azari played a major role in orchestrating and facilitating an international hacking-for-hire spearphishing campaign. The conspiracy targeted individuals and companies in the U.S. and abroad, resulting in the theft of data and netting Azari over $4.8 million in criminal proceeds.
One of AZARI’s hacking Projects was focused on targeting individuals and organizations involved with climate change advocacy.
Some of the hacked documents that were stolen from various of the victims’ online accounts were leaked to the press, resulting in articles relating to the New York and Massachusetts Attorneys Generals’ investigations into Exxon Mobil Corporation’s knowledge about climate change and potential misstatements made by Exxon regarding what it knew about the risks of climate change…
Clients of AZARI’s Israeli private intelligence company paid a $4.8 million over a nearly five-year period for managing the intelligence gathering and spearphishing campaign.
Doesn’t the leaker have to hack the emails so he can leak them?
You don’t have to hack if you have your own login to the system. But I suppose even an insider would need to give his credentials to an outsider if they didn’t have the skill to hack the email server on their system.
The best evidence that it was not a pro hacker is that the timing, (right as CA was on the verge of cracking Phil’s WMO trick), the targeted contents, the release on CA and the second release to celebrate the anniversary. All are circumstantial but used in Bayesian multiplication they mutually strengthen as evidence.
A leaker with his own password still has to protect himself from records of his logged in activity.
I forget where I heard it was traced to the late Keith Briffa’s credentials or workstation. He likely was not the leaker, however, unless Mann personally really ticked him off, (a possibility).
Ron – From what I have heard , Mann is both very well liked and very much hated in the climate science community.
One of the statements by JP Abraham was that several scientists did not want Mann on a research team he was putting together. The external image projected by climate scientist is that Mann is great, the internal image among climate scientists is that he is toxic.
Here is the investigative report in the CRU leak/hack. I notice that “Keith Briffa’s” fits the amount of redacted spaces for the suspected workstation backup that was accessed. In the end of the report they list computer forensics against the scenario of it being a hack.
Here is a not so endearing quote from Keith about Mike in the Climategate emails:
“Doesn’t the leaker have to hack the emails so he can leak them?”
Whether or not an IT security expert would agree with that, a room full of Gater apologists could certainly be persuaded by that logic if it became convenient for them to be so.
So if FOI himself confessed on his deathbed to being the leaker, the Gaters would have their mannsplanation ready to go.
There’s nothing they’re more violaently, anaphyliactically averse to than falsifiability.
Tuesday – Short discussion after jury dismissed today
both Simberg and Steyn are going to refile their Rule 50 Motions – the motion for directed verdict.
Subsequent discussion was Williams was going to file objections regarding jury instructions on the definition of defamation. apparently he needs expanded definition.
Judge indicated that early discussion Wednesday morning will be on jury instructions ( which implies that he will deny the motion for directed verdict).
Joe, do you know if there will be closing arguments?
The comment I heard the judge make is that the defense needed to make the statement that the “defense rests” in the presence of the jury. I got the impression that the rule 50 motions will be discussed prior to calling the jury back in and the objections to the jury instructions will occur shortly after the likely denial of the rule 50 motions. then the jury will be brought back in to hear the defense rests. Likely more procedure discussions outside the presence of the jury and then closing arguments in the afternoon. then jury gets the case late Wednesday or Thursday AM
There was one very pointed response by Simberg.
the line of questioning by Williams was why Simberg didnt give a simple apology.
Williams’ 4th or 5th question along those lines was would he give an apology now.
Simberg then said the he was much less inclined today
Williams then asked if that was because mann sued him
Simberg’s response was No not because mann sued him but because he knew a lot more today.
that was implying that far more information is available today regarding mann’s unethical behavior than was known 12 years ago.
If the jury finds the defendants not liable does that mean Mann can forever tagged as the Jerry Sandusky of climate change?
“Simberg’s response was No not because Mann sued him but because he knew a lot more today.” Yes, and Simberg probably because he read A Disgrace to the Profession, by Mark Steyn. (smile)
You can order them from Steynonline.com and Mark will sign them for you with a phrase of your composing. They make great gifts.
How this litigation will rank in the annals of hockey stick trials civil & criminal, only the jury knows. but its not too late to send Steyn a hundred bucks to sign and send you a very short stick :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/02/this-is-your-brain-on-sticks.html
Technically, actual malice depends on Simberg’s state of mind at the time of the publications, so it wouldn’t help his defense to attribute his confidence in his statements to knowledge he’s gained subsequently. He has to have already been reckful with regards to the truth or falsity of his statements back in 2012. As he clearly was.
Brad Keyes | February 7, 2024 at 9:00 am |
Technically, actual malice depends on Simberg’s state of mind at the time of the publications,
In response to Brad’s comment
Depends on the definition of malice. My impression is that both Simberg and Steyn were trying to hurt Mann’s professional reputation ( or at least knock the god like worship of Mann off the pedastal ).
Would that be malice?
Would it be malice if that was the intention – even though they strongly suspected that MBH98 was manipulated and later confirmed?
If malice was intended, does truth override the malice
I would have to go back and re -read Sullivan, Harte and the other cases.
joe, ‘actual malice’ is a term of art unrelated to its normal intentional connotation. It doesn’t matter what the defendants hoped would happen to Mann. All that matters is whether they had guilty knowledge (or serious suspicion) of the non-truth of their critical publications. Ever since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the court has used the “actual malice” standard as a way to protect freedom of speech under the First Amendment, particularly concerning criticism of public officials. The modifier “actual” emphasizes that the standard is higher and more specific than mere negligence or ignorance.
Brad – Actual Malice
First – I need to improve my writing skills in order to better convey my thoughts.
to clarify my statement – I think both Steyn and Simberg were basing their statements on actual facts, ie their statements were truthful or based on the belief that their statements were factually accurate. ( I also believe their statements were factually accurate – crude but factually accurate).
The being said, I think that both Steyn and simberg were intending to knock mann off the godlike worship pedastal – intended to harm him professionally – by that to expose his corruption. So that maybe, exposing the corruption would be malice.
I haven’t been following this closely, so I apologize ahead of time if I am duplicating others questions/information.
Was Mann’s email claim that Steve Mc was a fraud introduced to the jury?
Apparently, the NSF evaluation of some of Mann’s work was introduced into evidence. If so, I am curious how it was authenticated as it wasn’t signed and dated. Also, curious as to whether the defendants vigorously objected to it.
JDHOhio, you ask some perceptive questions that have simple answers:
Was Mann’s email claim that Steve Mc was a fraud introduced to the jury?
Yes.
“Also, curious as to whether the defendants vigorously objected to [theNSF report].”
They did.
Good to hear from you! We’ve discussed this trial before, back when it was just a beautiful dream.
They did object, highlighted how NSF was 8 metro stops away, and they didn’t bother going there in 12 years to get someone to confirm it was about Mann, but somehow the judge let it in anyway. It wouldn’t have mattered if excluded, because Mann’s lawyer cheated and asked Mann if the report was available online, inviting the jury to take a look. McIntyre took your advice and mentioned his high school math awards.
They put in Mann’s email that McIntyre is human filth, and his recent tweet calling him a white supremacist.
Thanks. You were probably posting at the Blackboard about this case a long time ago. I remember Nick Stokes arguing that Mann’s email calling McIntyre a fraud would not be admitted into evidence, but apparently it was — or much worse evidence got in.
Article in the New York Times today on the Mann case (free read from my NYT account: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/climate/climate-michael-mann-defamation-trial.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Tk0.X0wl.x_RVBOMFPtmK&bgrp=g&smid=url-share
That’s a fascinating piece in the NYTimes, psychiatrically speaking. Thanks Stephen
NYT –
“The scientific consensus on climate change has been clear for 20 years now. A 2004 paper that reviewed more than 900 scientific studies about climate change didn’t find any that rejected the idea that human activity is producing greenhouse gases that are warming the planet.”
The NYT is all-in on the alarmist narrative.
The article is complete bs on every score. Someone could do a blog post dissecting all the errors and omissions. It’s worse the Soviet.
Stephen, thanks for sharing. But I have to ask. Do you believe anything in the article? I mean one does not need to read the article to know defamation cases are about free speech versus protecting from malice. And, we know that putting bloggers and political humorists on trial is an important legal event, which explains why the government has put it on the fast track. I’m kidding there but that is one of dozens of points that the NYT omitted not to cloud their laser focus on the propaganda angle that climate deniers are a danger to society, getting in the way of science, attacking scientists, something Dr. Mann would never do.
I mean the article is so bad I would call it fra@dulent. The writer had to have seen some of the testimony. Right? Considering this, how can you trust anything else in the NYT? What are you buying? It is the same problem one has with MXD tree rings. If we know they are garbage proxies from 1960-2024 why do we think they are good proxies for 1160-1224 or any other time?
[Tree rings]” If we know they are garbage proxies from 1960-2024 why do we think they are good proxies for 1160-1224 or any other time?”
Because of RATES of change in CO2 (and other growth factors) which are very different pre-industial vs. the last 60 years.
“Do you believe anything in the article? ”
Yes, I believe it was published by NYT.
A Bushaw (ganon1950) | February 7, 2024 at 1:53 pm |
[Tree rings]” If we know they are garbage proxies from 1960-2024 why do we think they are good proxies for 1160-1224 or any other time?”
Ganons response – “Because of RATES of change in CO2 (and other growth factors) which are very different pre-industial vs. the last 60 years.”
Ganon – an honest scientist would notice that explanation is a little too perfect. Ask why after 150+ years of co2 increases, the proxies would only start becoming unreliable in 110th year instead of the 20th year or the 50th year.
Ask why the change would be negative instead of positive since co2 is a fertilizer instead of anti growth agent.
I’m guessing BA meant to say it was air pollution.
But then I also guess that nitpicky Joe would just ask why air pollution would only be detrimental to growth of MXD and not trees per se. Also, Joe might point out at all the discarded data of reverse hockey sticks and endless shafts that McIntyre has scraped up from Jacoby and other denros’s forgotten to delete archive backups.
The real divergence problem is that nobody within the dendros wants to rain on the Mann created stature of their community, least of all his mentors, Bradley and Hughes. Keith Briffa, on the other hand, certainly in private was resentful Mann stepping into the golden boy seat.
Apparently scientists don’t understand tree well enough to winnow out the effect of CO2 vs temperature. I’m sure CO2 was perfectly constant during the hockey stick centuries.
Sorry, that should have been the hockey stick SHAFT centuries.
Ron Graf | February 7, 2024 at 6:03 pm |
I’m guessing BA meant to say it was air pollution.
Ron – the proffered excuse has always been co2 increases, which makes no sense
joethenonclimatescientist,
As an honest scientist, I have noticed that the CO2 level, increase rate, and temperature increase of the industrial era has occurred (and accelerated) mostly in the last in the last 60 years, not over the whole 150-200 years. It’s called calculus (integration).
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | February 7, 2024 at 6:43 pm |
joethenonclimatescientist,
As an honest scientist, I have noticed that the CO2 level, increase rate, and temperature increase of the industrial era has occurred (and accelerated) mostly in the last in the last 60 years, not over the whole 150-200 years. It’s called calculus (integration).
Ganon – An honest scientist would not change the subject to hide the deception.
An honest scientist would address the point – you didnt address the point and you intentionally changed the subject to an unrelated topic.
Ganon – This thread is on the Mann v Simberg/Steyn trial
Its very immature to bomb this thread with unrelated topics. Show some maturity.
Joe,
https://berkeleyearth.org/dv/10000-years-of-carbon-dioxide/
PS ~ your attacks are so funny and unskilled in the subject.
JTNCS,
This is yours:
“Ask why after 150+ years of co2 increases, the proxies would only start becoming unreliable in 110th year instead of the 20th year or the 50th year.”
You brought it up and asked a specific question, which I answer. I don’t think that qualifies as:
“An honest scientist would address the point – you didn’t address the point, and you intentionally changed the subject to an unrelated topic.”
Pathetic, enjoy your fantasies.
Fail again, Joe. I responded directly to Ron’s comment about tree ring proxies – quite relevant to the topic.
I think you are the one that is making stuff up (not very well) and behaving immaturely.
BA: “I responded directly to Ron’s comment about tree ring proxies – quite relevant to the topic.”
I asked: “If we know they are garbage proxies from 1960-2024 why do we think they are good proxies for 1160-1224 or any other time?”
BA: “Because of RATES of change in CO2 (and other growth factors) which are very different pre-industial vs. the last 60 years.”
BA, I am genuinely interested in why Mann did not mention this hypothesis when I was asked about it on the stand by Steyn. Mann had no fear of Steyn challenging any claimed science but he confessed the divergence problem was still a mystery.
Can you explain the detailed logic of the CO2 hypothesis? How does it just affect MXD so suddenly and severely? What is the biological mechanism?
I need some help interpreting Wyner’s testimony….
is there a counterintuitive piece of jargon at play here: it just me or did he sometimes use the word ‘uncertainty’ as if referring to what we would call a metric of *certainty*? E.g. he said:
” I also have enormous amount more uncertainty here.
And that indicates, and it’s much more clear.”
” And if you’ve paid too much attention to the noise, you end up getting a signal that is not reliable, not accurate.
And typically what happens is that you’ve overstated your uncertainty, you made it seem accurate when it’s not.
It’s a very big problem.”
Brad – the best I can describe wyner’s testimony – Its coming from a math nerd trying to explain a subject to non math people. If he was discussing the subject with another math nerd such as S McIntyre, then those two could easily understand each other. Basically what he is saying is that mann artificially understated the uncertainty ( looks like he misspoke with the word “overstated”).
does anyone know if Wyner’s written expert report was entered into evidence?
He is using R squared in place of uncertainty. .42 instead of .03 actual.
Morning conference prior to closing arguments:
1) Rule 50 motion which will likely be denied based on the prior ruling when CEI and NR were dismissed, but with the order that simberg / steyn will go to trial since there was sufficient evidence that it whether there was defamation was up to the jury.
2) haggling over jury instructions. This will be key make or break for steyn /simberg. Proper instructions based on applicable standards will get a pro defense vote. bad instructions will get pro Mann vote from jury. Williams has been unethical in his behavior, committing the perjury in the writing of the pleadings, motions, etc. , Intentionally misrepresenting the definition of academic misconduct in cross of Simberg / accusing simberg of accusing Mann of academic misconduct. The reason for pointing out Williams unethical behavior is the likely hood that the Judge will get fooled and write proper jury instructions.
Joe,
“Morning conference prior to closing arguments:”
You didn’t hear what they were saying, right? You’re making an educated guess from trial experience?
“Rule 50 motion which will likely be denied based on the prior ruling when CEI and NR were dismissed”
Are Judge Irving’s decisions legally bound to be coherent with the previous 93 judges who’ve presided at one point or another over this hot potato? I hope not, because the first fifty were egregiously biased.
” Proper instructions based on applicable standards will get a pro defense vote. bad instructions will get pro Mann vote from jury. ”
So what did you think, did he give proper instructions?
I was personally surprised he made zero mention of the dishonesty the plaintiff and his team had engaged in within this very room. Perhaps he’s leaving that up to the Defense’s closing arguments?
I’m looking forward to those, but Steyn/Weatherford will have as much trouble fitting everything into 45 minutes as Williams will have trying to stretch his “case” out that long! Seafood extender in aisle 9!
(Sorry if this is a duplicate.)
1. Joe, did you actually hear this haggling?
2. what do you think about Irving’s instructions, were they proper?
Brad –
Item 1 – Based my comments on what was said in court after jury excused. did not actually hear the haggling.
Item 2 – far too much on damages, far too little on truth or defendants belief in the truth
I read part of Judith’s testimony re-enactment. I thought it was very effective in that she pointed out that she was a traditional environmentalist who had something like 28 solar panels and drove electric cars as well as only taking 4 short airplane trips. Yet Mann falsely insults her and compares her to a Nazi by calling her a denier. I think the jury will remember her testimony.
It’s a bit of a worry that Simberg is using the mere-opinion defense while Steyn, who made substantially the same claims, insists they were veridical. I’ve always agreed with Steyn’s approach here.
I was worried after hearing Williams closing that the defense should have spent more time proving the MBH hockey stick invalid. But by the time Weatherford was done I realized that she had that under control. The McKitrick and Wyner charts of the proxy plots told the story instantly that 30 years of obfuscation succeeded in keeping from the public.
Who ever suggested Simberg obtain Vitoria Weatherford should be very proud. I think legal experts would be wise to archive her closing argument presentation for training and future reference.
Williams saved his energy up for closing, but he still sounded like he was just going through the motions. Weatherford was fireball of energy! Those jurors will have to be as bloodless as DeSmog Blog regulars to vote for Mann!
Under control ? Steyn got the sign wrong in the first place- witness his stemwinders at Heartland “International Conferences on Climate Change” and the instrumental record has since spoken against him on land, sea , and air.
One of the things I was taught and saw practiced by my science teachers was that when write something that turns out to be somewhat wrong you should publish a corrigendum , or if it’s dead wrong , a retraction.
Mann, to his credit did so when Nature complained about his gimpy proxy splice, but Steyn, to his shame has been stonewalling and spouting codswallop for a decade:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/06/mark-steyn-medieval-cooler-than-now.html
Russell, Steyn was doing a comedic embellishment, not a history dissertation and unlike you, he’s actually funny.
Mike, I think it’s similar to TDS, taking political a humorist literally, a mental trick they play on themselves, an evasion.
Mike, Steyn hasn’t been elaborating on the history of palaeoclimate, he’s been trying to rewrite it in the service of a long running advertising campaign.
Same as Marc Morano does, only much funnier and hence more successful . As with Delingpole, when cornered he pleads that , as he can’t or won’t read science he is an “interpreter of interpretations.”
Russell, you mean when Delingpole was “cornered” by the fallacies of obligate onco-analogist Dr Nurse?
https://cliscep.com/2016/04/24/dear-onco-analogists-your-imbecility-is-showing/
Steyn is rambling , though he is touching on Mann’s deragotory slurs
Bottom line – its either pro AGW jury panel or pro science jury panel. Since it is a DC jury pool, it is a pro AGW jury panel
Williams is driving the message to the jury that they have the opportunity to punish the “election deniers” as well as climate deniers. Weatherford stopped him but obviously the jurors that have a political dog in the fight will have to have some integrity not to take up Williams call.
I’m pro-AGW *and* pro-science. Does that mean I can’t serve on a jury? :-)
(My only criticism of AGW is that we’re not doing it fast enough.)
Brad, I heard there may be a group called Minnesotans for global warming that is looking for new members. :)
I hope the jurors rebuff Williams’s invitation to punish those on the opposing side of the climate debate as Mann. It will certainly be inviting for them, especially if they do not think through the consequences to the justice system and country, as often is the case today.
I think Judge Irving was very impartial. I just wish he was faster on hearing the objections. I also praise him for explaining the last objection to Williams that the jury should not decide the case based on their views on climate.
“I’m pro-AGW *and* pro-science. Does that mean I can’t serve on a jury? :-)”
Not if Steyn has his way in jury selection- As a cruise ship standup comic, he’s gotten used to a captive audience.
I think this is why Steyn doesn’t have a lawyer. They would argue Steyn’s commentary is worthless opinion, no damages. Being able to damage someone is the point of writing.
Mann has never issued a retraction or even a corrigendum for using data upside down. Instead he repeated it the next year.
What is going on now and when should we expect to hear more?
Jury got it at the end of day today, Jury will start deliberations Thursday morning. most likely nothing will be decided until Monday.
Bad thing is only 6 jurors, so likely hood of having a single pro science juror is greatly reduced. Remember this is DC jury pool, pro democrat, pro agw. Much less likely to be pro science.
What is going on now and when should we expect to hear more about the trial, are they done for today, what was said today?
Here is the re-enactment of the testimony from yesterday. Pielke Jr. was definitely worth listening to. They don’t have today’s closing arguments up yet.
Part of Pielke Jr’s testimony was about learning from the Mann suit’s discovery that Mann had sent an email to thwart of of his papers from being published in 2007 by directing the journal editor to assign a particular group of Mann’s friends to be hostile reviewers.
On Pielke Jr.s website he finished the end to that story. In 2011 Mann with those same hostile reviewers published a remarkably similar paper. I suppose they did not want the science to be suffer just because of their shenanigans. They have some conscience.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/climate-science-gatekeeping
“Here is the re-enactment of the testimony from yesterday. ”
This potted re-enactment is of course hearsay, and its producers are far from disinterested.
Let’s listen to Mark Steyn speaking for himself as to his taste in scientists:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/02/thhe-jury-is-out.html
About Roger Pielke Jr having a paper blocked and Mann submitting a similar one — Willis Eschenbach makes a similar claim about Mann in a WUWT post called Dr. Michael Mann, Smooth Operator
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/30/dr-michael-mann-smooth-operator/
https://climatecasechart.com/case/mann-v-competitive-enterprise-institute/
first link is the July 22,2021 order by judge irving.
Starting on page 6, it goes into quite a bit of discussion on actual Malice. Harte Hanks Communications plays a big role in actual malice standard.
After review of the US Supreme court Harte Hanks opinion, the plaintiff did not present any evidence of actual malice. 100% of the actual malice is based on the belief that MBH98 has been proven to be 100% true, ie the presumption that it is true, the same as 2+2=4.
With that being said, I think the jury instructions on “actual malice” is wrong and possibly to the point of trial court error.
Joe, I don’t think the judge had to allow punitive damages to be considered, which I believe was a choice and a lifeline to the plaintiff. Williams took full advantage by reminding the DC jury what “we do with electi0n deni ers and science deni ers.”
Where do I find a listing of filings over the decade. I am trying to find a particular National Review brief that I thought was well written. It had a semantic argument along the lines of if bogus is the same as fraudulent, then fraudulent is the same as bogus.
In a perfect world the jury will get it wrong and return Liable, Irving will inevitably overturn this since, as a matter of law, the Offense didn’t meet its burden, and in his written opinion or ruling will go into the argument for the Defense in supererogatory, appeal-resistant detail,
– explaining the negative defense (no damages shown)
– and arguing the positive defense of no malice (since both defendants were sincere and had reasons for their opinion) and no proven falsity (whether or not he thinks the statements MIGHT have been false)
The advantage of this scenario is that it’s all written down in weasel-proof black and white.
Brad
I read your comments from the 2008 jddohio post on WUWT about Mann, tricks, etc. Paraphrasing you “agreeing with is not the same thing as replicating it…”.
Wonderfully succinct.
An entire book could be written just about all the aspects of the tricks.
Second derivatives of the nuances, broken down by chapter.
“Weaseling out of things is important to learn; it’s what separates us from the animals… except the weasel.”
Homer Simpson
Here is a link to summary of closing arguments. https://twitter.com/DawnTJ90/status/1755335099774885903 Glad to see that many of Mann’s defamatory insults got into evidence. Fairly high standard for proof of defamation “Clear and convincing evidence that the defendants were aware of the falsity of their statements,..”
Good point about lying email defaming Curry “Mann’s salacious rumor about Curry sleeping to the top was sent to Gavin Schmidt at NASA, an official government email address and it’s now a permanent government record.”
Sort of surprised that claim that Mann was exonerated got in, but court of appeals made that mistake, so understandable. I analyzed this in great deal here. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/01/analysis-of-court-of-appeals-defamation-opinion-holding-that-climategate-inquiries-exonerated-michael-mann/
JD – It unfortunate that pro Mann believe that Mann was exonerated by those 8 investigations.
regardless of a persons climate science beliefs, the Penn State investigation was an obvious whitewash. It takes an extreme level of denial to fail to recognize the obvious whitewash.
I wish the defense had gone into the NSF memorandum in more detail. Pointing out that the NSF did not investigate any of Mann’s studies that predated NSF funding. MBH98& 99 both predated NSF funding. Having set that background, the subsequent statement in williams closing arguments would have further demonstrated williams trial misconduct.
the NSF memorandum is also notable with the passage that the statistical methods are open to scientific debate , which is in essence what simberg accused Mann of doing.
Joe, if you won’t even trust a university to investigate its own star science earner at a time when it can least afford to find against him, then what next? Are you gonna tell me I shouldn’t trust an in-house Vatican inquiry into Cardinal Paedo who lives on my street? They wouldn’t risk 2000 years of virtuous reputation by suddenly moving him here from his old diocese unless there’s a perfectly above-board explanation. I find that’s the problem with soi-disant skeptics in general: you’re not prepared to do the hard work it takes to come up with innocent explanations of things.
Do you have a link to the multiple opinions? I remember them producing a changed document with some incorrect changes of footnotes, suspecting Gavin had gotten involved.
interesting to note that on Jan 22, 2021
mann filed motions for partial summary judgement on the issue of falsity and motion to strike that affirmative defense of truth and substantial truth.
Ie we can sue you for defamation – but you cant defend against it with actual facts.
Sleazeball
Looks like CO2 is smoothed in the ice cores. Smoothing, or low resolution, can be a problem with proxies. The resolution and error bars should be prominent in the presentation of proxy data.
In contrast to the ice core-
based [CO2 ] records, no gradual linear increase in [CO2 ] is detected through the GI-1 and GS-1 and into the Holocene. The results also indicate that, on the contrary to reconstructions based on ice core data, [CO2] evolution was fairly dynamic, with frequent but mostly low-amplitude changes (often ca 10e20 ppm) through the late GI-1 and GS-1 time periods.
http://people.geo.su.se/barbara/pdf/Steinthorsdottir%20et%20al%202013%20QSR.pdf
As previously stated, the oral jury instructions read by Judge Irving overly emphasized the computation of damages and under emphasized the applicable standard of “actual Malice” – No reference that I recall that pointed out that Actual Malice does not exist where the defendant can show that he reasonably relied on information that was deemed reliable. That is an important concept and a standard set forth in Harte-Hanks Communications.
The written jury instructions, while maybe standard in DC, seriously omitted a proper explanation of the applicable standard. those written jury instructions are phrased in a manner that the jury can easily reach an erroneous conclusion on the applicable standard.
That is truly despicable that a judge doesn’t explain how to apply the law to the jury!!
Would that serve as a basis for appeal?
Grounds for appeal – I dont know the answer to that.
Under the standard for “actual malice ” set out in Harte-Hanks Communications, there is absolutely zero basis to find actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth in this case.
Jury instruction forms have become very standard over the years especially in criminal trials due to court challenges which have tightened up the wording. Standardization of the instructions reduce the chance for appealable error. Defamation of public figure is unique so there may not be a lot of standardization in the jury instruction. On the other hand, I didnt see any objection by the defense to the definition of actual malice in the jury instructions. That leads me to believe that the language is standard. If the language is standard, then less basis for appealable error. If the language is not standard and if the defense didnt object then also less basis for appealable error.
Jury instructions are the basis for many appeals. If the jury is informed of incorrect law, it can’t make a correct decision. In the past, I read the US Supreme Court cases on defamation and actual malice standard very closely and it is very confusing for me. Undoubtedly, more confusing for the jury if they were actually trying to apply the law rather than make a leftist decision that would comport with their worldview and biases.
jury verdict being read
mann wins – Science and law loses
$1 compensatory damage
$1,000 punitive damages
$1 compensatory damage
$1,000 punitive damages
$1,000,000 punitive damages against Steyn
Interesting … thanks for your reporting, Joe.
Jury didn’t like Steyn. Made a mistake representing himself.
Also, haven’t read law on constitutional limitations on punitive damages closely but I thought the Supreme Court decided that punitive damages were limited so some sort of multiple of actual damages — something like 3 to 5 times actual damages. Trial court may reduce the punitive damages award.
Did a quick Bing search. Here is a summary of Supreme Court case. “State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause usually limits punitive damage awards to less than ten times the size of the compensatory damages awarded and that punitive damage awards of four times the compensatory damage award is “close to the line of constitutional impropriety”.[1]
The Court reached this conclusion applying guideposts first noted in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), requiring courts to consider:
the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct;
the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and
the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Farm_Mutual_Automobile_Insurance_Co._v._Campbell
This type of leftwing weaponization of the justice system now makes it unsafe for any conservative to live or work in a blue geographic area. Does anyone know if this case got funneled to the DC courts because the CEI is located in DC? If this is the case all rightwing think tanks would be wise to headquarter in Florida. Otherwise, anyone using their reports could be sued in DC no matter where they live.
“Jury didn’t like Steyn. Made a mistake representing himself.”
Yes indeed. If one is on the other side of ideology, and aligned with consensus science, just because; then Steyn’s delivery will be extremely irksome, it will get under the skin of the ideological lefts safe space sensibility. Steyn needed a lawyer who presented themselves in a politically agnostic manner, but one whom could cut like a knife.
This verdict begs for a Curry defamation suit after all she’s been through. It would serve double duty by scoring one for science integrity. And she should not have to go it alone! We don’t need the tribe of Oz circling the wagons, just influencers of means STEPPING UP. It’s a bottom line moment in defense of integrity—where are the influencers of means?
It is evident from your previous 153 comments that you have chosen your handle judiciously.
I agree—his comments have predictive and explanatory skill, so if he claimed to be a climate scientist I’d be forced to suspect parody.
Maybe the settlement that Mann did not pay Dr Tim Ball could be reassigned to pay Mann.
Swamp verdict bubbles out of DC swamp: quelle surprise!
Next one regarding Trump’s chance to be on US ballots.
Pinch your noses in advance.
Net Zero for the Us can’t come fast enough, its already here for just ice.
Open call for information: what questions EXACTLY was the jury foreperson asked, and what ECACTLY were their answers to each?
Pretend you’re explaining it to someone who’s been faithfully transcribing the entire trial but wasn’t there when the six cretins returned their verdict, because he lacked the clairvoyance to guess how long it would take half a dozen single-neuron microbes from the DC jury sewer to reconcile themselves to such a false finding.
In other words, as Mark Steyn’s countryman would say, “let’s be PRECISE.”
TIA,
BK
Will you be nominating Steyn to serve as Climate Editor of The Bulwark, if Conrad Black hasn’t already signed him for the National Post?
The breakdown of the jury’s verdict, if anyone else wants it, is here:
https://portal-dc.tylertech.cloud/app/RegisterOfActions/#/39E6B1D3C30C2BB8B4486558221C8C0F621E97A8C8499E9C46C8336E44F4123B/anon/portalembed
PZ Myers has posted about the trial at Pharyngula. I just posted a comment. I wonder how long it will last?
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2024/02/09/scientist-sues-conspiracy-theoristsand-wins/
https://twitter.com/DombroskiMike/status/1756055810793152564
What possesses you to want to comment there?
Anyhow, since commenters there are eager to help you with your english, you might help them with their maths: 1,000,000 + 1,000 is not 1.1 million.
Roger Pielke Jr’s off the charts great assessment of the trial and verdict:;
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/false-equivalence?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=119454&post_id=141523260&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=kv1q8&utm_medium=email
While I don’t put Mann in this camp, I am sure there are some climate scientists who believe they have been chosen by God to help save humanity. They automatically become the guys in the white hats, fighting for the good of all of us.
It’s hard to demonize such a motivation. Some of the jurors might have seen Mann as wearing a white hat.
I agree the jurors were acting on what they think they know, their verdict was virtuous in the sense that they were trying to support the guy wearing the white hat. Of course skeptics can’t see the Emperor’s New Clothes white hat.