Bishop Hill Doctor Mann, I presume?
Feb 22, 2014 Climate: Mann Steve McIntyre's latest post at Climate Audit includes the extraordinary revelation that Michael Mann's latest submission to the courts regarding his libel suit includes a doctored quote. The offending words purport to be an excerpt from the Russell inquiry report, but, demonstrating a startling disregard for the court, the excerpt has been altered to make it look as if Mann had been exonerated by Russell. However, this has been done so badly as to make the alteration fairly obvious.
Later in the Reply Memorandum (page 19), Mann purported to provide the requested supporting quotation from the Muir Russell report showing that the supposed exoneration was not limited to “CRU scientists”, but extended more generally to “the scientists”, including Mann himself:
Three months later, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report, prepared under the oversight of Sir Muir Russell. The report examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt. [my bold][38 – Muir Russell Report]“
But watch carefully here. The exact phrase within quotation marks doesn’t actually occur in the Muir Russell report: I noticed this because of the American spelling “rigor” rather than the English spelling “rigour” which would have resulted from a cut-and-paste. The actual quotation from the Muir Russell report (shown below) clearly limits its findings to CRU scientists,as National Review and CEI had asserted and contradicting both Mann’s complaint and blustery reply:
On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
Had Mann’s Reply Memorandum provided the actual quotation, it would have confirmed National Review’s and CEI’s claim that the Muir Russell had confined its findings to “CRU scientists”, but not in the quotation as altered by Mann and/or his lawyers.
Reader Comments (158)
No doubt the Professor is of the opinion that his version is what Muir Russell meant to say, so he altered it for him. One really wonders if Professor Mann is medically fit to take part in any sort of legal activity at all.
Surprising what a simple change in the spelling of a word can lead to. Hard luck Dr Mann: good try.
Rigorgate.
It's come to a low pass when I have to read Bishop Hill for the juicy bits of Climate Audit but such is my busy coding life at present. What an extraordinary finding by Steve. Thanks for bringing it to my attention Andrew. (And thanks for the very interesting post on Roy Spencer yesterday. At some point I'd like to comment on that too. But, for now, much appreciation for your selection of, and witty, well-mannered introductions to, the climate news every day.)
I dare say Muir Russell could be persuaded to throw in an exoneration for Mann if push comes to shove
Nicholas: Perhaps. But the general feeling this side of the pond, as indicated in some of the Climategate emails, is that the Penn State Prof may have gotten a bit too big for his breeches. An undeserved exoneration of CRU scientists is one thing; gloating at the highly deserved comeuppance in the offing here is I think the more likely sequel.
rigor ''mortise''
So, how long for rigor mortis?
It would seem that Mann habitually rigs evidence, in law as well science...So do we have a new verb? To Riggor or maybe that should be to Manngle... (another gate, Riggedgate).... Another Paul.
"the extraordinary revelation that Michael Mann's latest submission to the courts regarding his libel suit includes a doctored quote"
"latest submission"? It's actually his response to antiSLAPP motion, dated Jan 18, 2013. Was that a doctored statement?
So what is this "doctored quote"? Muir Russell wrote
"the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt"?
Mann's lawyer reprehensibly transcribed it as
"the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt"
Oh dear! And did this mislead the judge? Well, you judge. She recorded it as
“’rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,”
And this is extraordinary how?
Duh rigor.
Oops, the Muir Russell version was
"their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt"
Doctered Mann
Nick, Why do you try so hard to make yourself look soooo stupid. Your a clown, mann. STop doing it.
I wonder if this will come up in Mann's AMA on Reddit.
Steyn accuses Mann of academic fraud and Mann claims this is defamatory.and seeks to prove this by:
1. Fraudulently claiming to be a Nobel Laureate.
2. Fraudulently doctoring a quote from the Muir Russell report.
3. Fraudulently claiming other reports investigated and exonerated him.
I sense a pattern here but can't quite put my finger on it....
Michael Mann has "doctored" something. Never. You must be wrong.
After all he is a "Nobel Laureate", master of the Hockey Stick and designer of the "hide the decline"
He is saving us from the evil fossil fuel funded misinforming sceptics.
Nick Stokes is absolutely right - when is a climate "scientist" misinforming extraordinary?
I figure that if I ever needed to explain to someone what 'cherry-picking' was, and provide an example, I wouldn't need to go further than the comment from Nick Stokes at 9:16am. It has it all, including an example of poor comprehension.
Nick Stokes
That excludes Mann.
Get it?
"It has it all, including an example of poor comprehension."
Would you, or anyone, like to explain what is the doctored quote, how it is doctored, and why it matters?
@Nick Stokes "And this is extraordinary how?"
Come on Nick, you know perfectly well. Mann made the alteration to get himself included among the rigorous and honest scientists. The judge wasn't fooled.
Nick
Just to run through it here for the others, you are not making any attempt to adjust your arguments to take account of what has been already pointed out to you as mistakes at other blogs.
The misquote is material when it comes to the argumentation over malice (p54). By not making it explicit that the quote referred only to CRU scientists the argumentation implies the Muir Russell report was evidence that Mann was clean and that was ignored by the Defendants and therefore they were acting out of malice.
The judge in making her comments was referring to Jones' email that refers to Nature's trick. Nothing to do with malice. On malice she was relatively undecided, quoted nothing about CRU, so we have no knowledge of what she thought or what interpretation she put on the document and therefore whether she was mislead by it or not.
Try and keep up.
This being climate science, I guess that Mann must be quoting from the Muir Russell Report.
Re: Nick
To summarise:
Mann: Muir Russell exonerated me.
Steyn: It didn't. Provide a quote to prove it did.
Mann: The report concluded "the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt."
SteveMc: The correct quote is:
"On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists,
we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
Whether you like it or not, in the context of the document submitted to the court, Mann is claiming that the quote is about him. Clearly it isn't and Mann is attempting to deceive the court by modifying the quote.
Nick Stokes gets it for sure. His job is to go all around the web and obfuscate, misrepresent, state outright falsehoods and indulge in every trick in the book to defend Mann and the other crooked climate scientists. He's been overactive at WUWT and CA defending Mann. That's the kind of person Nick Stokes is.
Nick - see if this helps:-
"It couldn't have been me officer, because I was in the pub with my mates at the time - and I can prove it because I have this sworn statement from the barman confirming that there were several blokes in the bar then ".
Can you spot the missing piece of data there?
It's a little bit like confusing real data with model outputs.
Some were observed to be present - the other might have been.
Mikey just spliced the data.
I can't believe that Mann has been up to his old tricks and I bet he can't believe that it's Steve M who has outed him doing it. ROTFLMAO!
How many times can you tell porkies or 'make mistakes' in a case to sue for your good name and reputation?
@HAS
If you think that mislead is the past tense of mislead you have been misled.
"Would you, [that's me, I guess, but you haven't given me the courtesy of a name check] or anyone, like to explain what is the doctored quote, how it is doctored, and why it matters?"
Feb 22, 2014 at 9:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterNick Stokes
Nick, I think SSAT just above your comment nails it a well as anything. I could not add to it. Except to say, I've been reading your comments from the other day in CA. You are merely regurgitating them here. You went down in flames there and you're about to crash and burn here too. Like I said, you're a cherry-picker. And you know it; you're too intelligent to not know that.
Um.
The quote indicates that the 'rigour and honesty' of the CRU scientists is 'not in doubt'. I wonder what this means.
If I had wanted to praise them, I might have said that their 'rigour and honesty is of the highest level'. Something being 'not in doubt' suggests that it is there, but says little about it's quality.
And again, why are they being praised for 'rigour and honesty'? This suggests that, given a set of documents, they will go through them all, and that while they are doing this, they will not rifle the pockets of a jacket left in their lab. But we are not interested in these qualities - we are interested in the balance they apply when considering evidence. On which aspect the comment is completely uninformative...
Nick Stokes,
I think in this instance if you persist in defending the indefensible I, and I suspect others, are going to wonder whether you are either unable to comprehend an extremely clearly written sentence that explicitly only includes CRU scientists and does not include Mann, or alternatively you are being deliberately obtuse and contrary.
For me, your argument quite frankly beggars belief. I simply can no longer take what you say seriously.
"The misquote is material when it comes to the argumentation over malice (p54). By not making it explicit that the quote referred only to CRU scientists the argumentation implies the Muir Russell report was evidence"
Yes, we've been arguing about this in several places, and your argument is different to most. But the version on p 54, like the one Steve McI quoted selectively, does make clear the reference to CRU sciemtists. It said:
"The University of East Anglia assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit". Three months later, the University of East Anglia examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt"."
It is very clear that applies to CRU scientists. And the judge was in no doubt, as she rephrased it.
“’rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,”
Nick, so you've moved over here... What is a doctored quote you ask. Well, a quote that, because of quotation marks pretends to be a quote but that isn't because it's not exactly the original text. So I ask you here as well - did you ever go to school and did they not teach you that a quote in quotation marks needs to be exact? Yes, it's fraud.
Harry,
"Nick, I think SSAT just above your comment nails it a well as anything. I could not add to it."
Well, I'll respond to that. Muir, Mann and the judge all agree; Muir made a finding about the rigor and honesty of CRU scientists. That's what Mann's lawyers conveyed to her, and what she understood. So what's the big deal? Is it the "u"?
Does anyone have a link to the Mann Reply Memorandum please?
Mann: evidence rigger - evidence "rigor".
nick stokes, you say:
'It is very clear that applies to CRU scientists. And the judge was in no doubt, as she rephrased it.
“’rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,”'
In which case I can only believe that you agree with us, that mikey mann IS NOT MENTIONED, AND IS NOT PART OF THIS AS HE CLAIMS TO BE.
Thank you.
DNFNS.
I dislike the expression generally but, if it is to have any useful meaning, it is that some people on some threads are adding nothing but noise and it's better for everyone, especially readers without much time, for them to be ignored. I don't always think this about this person but, in this context, after all that's already been said on CA, I'm amazed that anyone bothers.
Shub,
the motion in opposition is here.
Otter,
Yes, Mann is not mentioned there. I don't think anyone disagrees. The issue is an allegedly doctored quote.
This would be viewed as contempt in an English criminal court. Not perjury as it is not under oath. Not sure what the position is in a civil court. Probably cause for a counter suit.
Nick Stokes - you are either invincibly stupid with no reading comprehension skills, or a disingenuous deceiver. And not even in a good cause!
Nick Stokes is such a fool.
"On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
The report actually makes the context 100% clear "On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists"
For clarification
"specific allegations made against CRU scientists"
get it
"specific......CRU"
Actually I'm with Nicholas Hallam [09:01] here, I dare say for a few grand Russell would have been quite happy to exonerate Mann and anyone else for that matter.
I'm going to tell Nicks Mum he's been on the internet telling lies again.
Re: Nick.
Page 19/20 (any bold is mine):
This paragraph is presented until a section entitled "Dr. Mann Is Exonerated" and is the very first item presented.
The paragraph deals with two separate inquiries. For the first one they limit the scope of the results to CRU research and provide a direct, unedited quote from the report. The second one, they provide no such limits and present what is supposed to be, but isn't, a direct quote from the report. The quote, and the paragraph, incorrectly imply that Mann's rigor(sic) and honesty is not in doubt.
Page 53/54
Mann is presenting the "the scientists’ rigor(sic) and honesty are not in doubt" as evidence of malice. The only way this can be used as evidence of malice is if the quote is about Mann. No attempt is made to limit the scope of the quotation.
Nick Stokes.
It's what Nick does.
Venter,
"He's been overactive at WUWT and CA defending Mann. That's the kind of person Nick Stokes is."
Don't forget Lucia's Blackboard. He's all over that too.
Here is the document if you would like to read it for yourself
I love this comment from CA by Matt Skaggs:
"To avoid confusion, I suggest that all comments aimed at Nick be prefaced with 'To the extent that words have meaning…' Simply implying this does not seem to be working."
It will make no matter to he judge or the court as Mann's ludicrous legal escapades to date prove.
The law is an ass
Nick, are you getting paid for this?
If you take the three highest variance short-centred principal components of the Muir Russell report, you do indeed get the quote supplied by Dr Mann. The most influential word is 'integrity'. Please let's not hear any more nonsense about strip-vowel words such as rigo(u)r.