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)
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,”
Feb 22, 2014 at 9:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterNick Stokes
---------------------------------------------------
At that point, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the judge was so misled that she believed Mann WAS a CRU scientist. She really was that dumb.
Mann's attorneys are in trouble, Nick. It's clear to me that the new judge Weisberg is prejudicial in their favor, so how he deals with this bit of flim-flammery will give us some indication of how prejudicial he is.
One of my long-standing arguments against the case for much historic data of climate science, is that if similar data was presented as evidence in court of law it would be rejected on the basis of having being altered, or manipulated. That is not necessarily disparaging of climate science. Signals in the data are very hard to detect from the noise. Non-objective judgements have to be made about data quality, elimination of outliers and data sets to be used. All of these could be questioned and might bias the results. The result is that the acceptability on the results often depends on the reputation of who says it, not on the quality of the results or conformity to laid down procedures. For this reason, climate "data" could never reach the standards that a court would demand of forensic evidence.
It would seem that Dr Mann does not understand this very basic distinction. Simply because a "Nobel Prize winning" scientist, at the top of his discipline, makes a statement does not mean that a court will accept it unchallenged.
@TerryS 11:46 12:36
Where exactly does it say "Dr Mann's exoneration" and "Dr Mann is Exonerated"? (It's a question not a query).
Troll comments and follow-ups removed.
TerryS 10:53
Looking back (10:53) you give us another quote "Dr. Mann Is Exonerated" (with a full stop and a capital I). Where exactly in the report are these three quotes. (This is a query not a question).
If you read the Opening remarks to Muir Russell's report they make it quite clear (my bold)
http://www.cce-review.org/
Can only hope that whatever Nick does for a living does not involve an ability to read simple words, contrast two sentences, discriminate or think with even a modicum of logic.
If it does, nick is obviously fucked from the get-go.
To me, the 'arguments' used to defend Dr Mann reflect the generic approach taken by those who promote CAGW: identify a set of facts (words or data), select those elements that support the case and then push it in an organised/consistent/dogmatic manner, which avoids or deflects any attempt to highlight its flaws.
Sort of on/ off topic sort of related to Micheal Mann
www.hidethedecline.co.uk domain name is still available at £13.99
and
www.hidethedecline.com domain name is also available at £29.99
.com is worldwide slightly more expensive than UK based .co.uk
So any deniers want to start their own blog focusing on the Climate Gate emails or stop any skeptics doing so best get in quick.
I so love the way that his Grace's provenance and finances are brought in to the argument by certain anonyms as being prejudicial, yet Mann's defence fund seems to be a state secret - and a holy grail.
Nick Stokes - if everyone, including the judge, knows that the Muir Russell investigation report doesn't refer to Mann, why does he mention it at all? Might he quote other reports where scientists were exhonorated but Mann was not involved? Might the defence refer to reports where scientists were found guilty of misconduct, even though Mann was not the subject of the report? Professor Sir Roy Meadow or Dr Andrew Wakefield spring to mind as 'experts' who played fast and loose with statistics and data.
Dodgy Geezer 9:52; I had the same thought. It's a bit like saying that someone "has reached new levels in my estimation" - it sounds more positive than it really is.
Re: simon abingdon
> Where exactly does it say "Dr Mann's exoneration" and "Dr Mann is Exonerated"?
Page numbered 19 (when you include the title page and contents it is the 25th page of the pdf) the section title is:
C. Dr. Mann Is Exonerated
There are six items in that section numbered 1 to 6. The item number 1 is what this post is about.
Nick is actually a very godd weathervane, whenever he pops up asking stupid obvious questions, you can be pretty sure the authors of the blog post has hit home.
Nick, get a proper job.
Sven
"do you not think that presenting some text as a quote when it isn't is fraud?"
No, it's usually a mistake. Probably here, a lawyer writing from memory and getting the words out of order. The judge did that too. Not fraud.
A convenient explanation, but pure guesswork. Personally, I wouldn't have much confidence in a lawyer who couldn't even transcribe a quotation correctly. Perhaps it was the same person who elsewhere in this document listed "The United Kingdom Department of State", an institution which doesn't exist. A surprising lack of attention to detail is apparent in what is presumably meant to be an important legal document.
EO "'Magnificent in its banality and poor production values', becomes
'Magnificent'"
That's changing the meaning.
"their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt"
to
"the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt"
does not change the meaning.
It's the context, as has been pointed out by others several times.
Andy,
As Dellingpole would say;
When you are taking flak you are over the target.
Trolling is not just to satisfy the belligerent but also to prevent a thread from reaching a (non-team) conclusion.
In this case, it failed on one, probably both tasks.
I can't help but wonder if the evident lunatic posting here (and elsewhere) under the name Nick Stokes on the subject of Mann and his 'exoneration' does not have English as his first language.
It is otherwise very difficult to make sense of his tortured and persistent determination to misunderstand perfectly clear statements in said language.
The alternative explanation is that his higher brain functions – if any – have ganged up on him in ways we should only pity. Are there sudden sparks shooting from his ears? Does his hair inexplicably combust? Or has he been subjected to a sort of devilish possession, one which forces him to assert that black is white, that truth can only be what he asserts it to be, all logic defied, and that his fingers, free will suspended, must type endless, relentless tosh in pursuit of these obvious nonsenses?
This is a man that needs help, no?
Interesting comment by climatebeagle over at WUWT. He reckons that Shub has nailed the original (falsified) text to a post in SkS years before its use by Mann's lawyers. His link is: http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-michael-mann-scientists-rigor-and-honesty-quote/
Seems that Mann's people are getting their legal advice/support from SkS.
Mann is merely carrying on this normal pratice , when the data does not exist to support your claim make some up, when data exist but refutes your claim ignore it .
It own of the things that came out of all the 'reviews' , that the alarmist made great claims over being extraordinary over the facts , when even the 'reviews' themselves said they did not luck at the science so could pass not actual judgement on it.
And given how awful these reviews were , and lets us remember that often theses consisted off nothing more than asking people if they do anything wrong and just taking their word for it despite the actual evidence, that even they could not offer the unconditional support 'the Team' made claim to shows how bad things really are.
Harry Passfield
Take a look, 4th from bottom page 2 of this post
Green Sand: That'll teach me to take my eye off the ball and scoot over to WUWT now and then without checking updates here. Apologies to Shub on here. But I see that now, CA is running with it. So maximising the post can be no bad thing?
ssat,
Nicely.
@TerryS 6:19
Many thanks for the clarification.
It seems to me that N. Stokes, self described as a not climate scientist of Australia, is unaware that the mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind small & eventually his procrastinations & protestations will be as wind blown ashes in his mouth. Nitpick as you will Nickynackynoo, yer Mann's got the moon faced look of a paltry, pathetic loser. Sometimes it's the journey that teaches you a lot about your destination. In the end, there can be only honesty. What's in it for you? I'm guessing, sand!!
Harry Passfield
"So maximising the post can be no bad thing?"
Sure is no bad thing, more the merrier, broadcast it loud, long and extensively!
Tis a very, very intriguing development, forelock tugged in the direction of Shub!
Nick Stokes- paid shrill for "big green"?
On the evidence - yes.
Nick, how much are the eco-fascists paying you to look stupid?
simon abingdon
It appears my keyboard misleads me.
Also the quote being debated is repeated on p54 where the context (the discussion of malice p 53) requires that the references to UEA investigations in some way clear Mann. Muir Russell is being offered as evidence that the accusations of fraud, misconduct, or data manipulation against Dr Mann were false.
In that context the misquote is definitely advantageous to a particular interpretation, putting lipstick on the pig.
Nick S's objections that the Judge wasn't fooled is a plea in mitigation, but in fact the Judge was referring to other matters for which she had alternate sources, so we don't know what she took from the misquote.
Rigor mortis in Court for Mann by the sound of it!
A busy evening here at EO-Towers as my daughter completes her english lit homework. Had to explain to her some new phrases 'Pulled a Viner' and 'Played a Stoksie'
I suspect that Mann is the original source of the quotation at SkS. He seems to me to be afflicted with an odd combination of narcissism (I won the Nobel Prize) and paranoia (The Serengeti metaphor in his execrable Climate Wars.) He must be a difficult person to work with or live with.
This sounds like what we sceptics get on a regular basis. Make the point and move on or try and ignore maybe?
Nick is currently vomiting all over climate audit. I wonder when we will find out that a Man wrote the piece at SkS?
More MANNgling;
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/a-list-of-manns-screw-ups/
Oh come on lads. Of course TerryS is correct, Mann was cleared because he is just as much a CRU scientist as he is a Nobel Laureate!
Regards
Mailman
I can't get the idea out of my head that Nick Stokes was a friend of Ronnie Barker in Slade Prison: "Sick Note"
Nick Stokes do you think that the Russell inquires opinion of CRU covers all people that have some ever worked in the area of climate 'science' or just those that have made fools of themselves by claiming they where included when in fact they where not ?
" Signals in the data are very hard to detect from the noise."
No its not. Its simple maths.
Surely, to quote from a written source in ANY document via the use of quotation marks " ", requires that one must exactly record the original statement including spelling and punctuation. Even the use of "rigor" to quote an original "rigour", though perfectly understandable, is technically a breach of the practice of citation by quotation. Ideally even quotes from a foreign language text should be presented in the original language before a translation is offerred. Cherry picking on the other hand involves correctly quoting a part of a statement but wresting it from its original context to change its meaning.
Nick Stokes has my respect for his politeness in online interaction with those with whom he disagrees. His expertise on technical issues within his chosen field is to be respected as well. However his unfailing and untiring water-carrying for the whole AGW team and the pedantic nit-picking nature of his defence of them leads me to think the he needs to spend more time on removing the log from his own eye.
Dear all;
I found the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ-bRB5HXtM
At the beginning of it, the newscaster and Mann talk explicitly about the exoneration he allegedly received from five different inquiries, “two out Penn State” and “three separate ones out of the UK”. The following text accompanies the video:
“Michael Mann, Penn State professor and climate scientists talks with Susan McGinnis about the investigations that have cleared his name in the "Climategate" scandal. The latest U.K. investigation says Mann's science is good, and the U.N. global warming report is sound”.
Perhaps it’d be a good idea to save a copy of the video before it “mysteriously” disappears.
LF
Interesting on BBC news 24
Cameron is having talks with Scottish civil servants in Aberdeen later about the future of North Sea oil in the event of an independant Scotland yes vote.
Ex David Bowie fan Alex Salmond willl cut Oil and Gas production to fight Climate Change and will the EU let him.He can always sell his off shore oil fields to Norway or the English.
Re: tertius
> Even the use of "rigor" to quote an original "rigour", though perfectly understandable, is technically a breach of the practice of citation by quotation.
They quote 2 other sources that use the word "rigour" and in those instances they do not change the spelling.
Curiously enough, one of those sources is "The United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change" whom they never bother to name. The Secretary at that time was the perjurer Chris Huhne.
Mann is attempting to use the liar Chris Huhne to prove his honesty!
Mann's submission contains a second piece of miss-direction.
The first item in the "Dr Mann Is Exonerated" has the Russell quote, which, as everybody agrees, does not exonerate Mann.
The second item contains what is a quote from a document submitted to parliament by the then Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Chris Huhne. They have conveniently missed out some of the quote.
Here is the passage they quote in full with the parts that they missed struck out.
Here is how they present it in the court submission. Since I can't indent, I've bolded the part they have indented
Here they are presenting the "rigour and honesty of the scientists are not in doubt;" as a UK government finding when all the government is doing is quoting the Muir Russell Review. They reiterate this later in the document when they say:
Mann is effectively counting the Russell quote twice.
A couple of other points.
They never name Chris Huhne (I wonder why?)
When they modify the tense of Huhne's statement they make it clear through the use of [] around the changes.
TerryS nether Lord Oxburgh’s or Sir Muir Russell’s reviews looked at the science , both of them stated this. Therefore as with Mann claim , Huhne is trying to claim something that the evidenced for this claim , simply does not support , no shock there at all.
Messenger Feb 22, 2014 at 5:21 PM
Thank you for repeating the Muir Russell panel quote -" We looked at processes and procedures, and how data was handled, but not at how the results should be interpreted in scientific terms. Our job was to look at the behaviour of the CRU scientists. We examined their honesty, rigour and openness in relation to the allegations made."
This allows a most important distinction. There is no glory and no exoneration to be drawn from the original words "On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt." This is because they are silent on 'openness', suggesting damnation with faint praise.
The substituted words “rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,” does not allow the put-down about openness, if a put down was intended, because the word 'openness' does not appear in the immediate prelude to these words.
On this interpretation, exoneration can scarcely be claimed when it was criticism that was implied.
Mann is twisting and manipulating in so many areas. Interesting.
Mann is in the strong grip of his own story-telling tendencies. When the Oxburgh, Penn State and Russell investigations took place, Mann's attitude was one of casual detachment, as though the proceedings concerned matters he was only peripherally connected to.
He even wrote a blog post on Realclimate where he, with his friend Gavinn Schmidt, were 'pleased' with how the CRU scientists' 'exoneration':
Here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-muir-russell-report/
Today, one can bet he wishes any of the several investigations had actually examined his case specifically and provided some real exoneration.
Spelling mistake in the title
Doctored, Mann I presume ?
- Having court documents that are "inconsistant with truth" is no problem. Mann can ask some our UK experts who have expertise & experience in the field prisoner Archer, prisoner Huhne, prisoner Aitken
Geoff Sherrington (11:10 AM): "they are silent on 'openness', suggesting damnation with faint praise."
Whatever the other flaws of the Muir Russell report, they didn't leave any doubt about their opinion on openness: "15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness."
With a little more digging, one can see why they included the qualification "as scientists" in "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt." E.g., 27 about FoIA requests: "[T]here was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them."
http://www.williamslopatto.com/uploads/2/5/8/4/25843913/1182013_opposition_to_national_review_motion_to_dismiss.pdf ... ... page 19
1. University of East Anglia:
"The Report of the International Panel 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". "
... this would seem to suggest that there was scientific malpractice, albeit not deliberate.
"...this would seem to suggest that there was scientific malpractice, albeit not deliberate."
It also suggests that they might have found no evidence because they weren't looking at those bits.
There's no point in parsing the enquiry findings looking for implicit criticisms. They were carefully written to support the university employing them as fully as possible without saying anything so unambiguous that they couldn't wriggle out of it later. Yes, you can find ambiguities galore that could leave all sorts of room for criticism. But it was clearly not their intent to criticise, and so there's no point trying to read subtle criticisms into it.
It also runs the risk of getting into the mindset of treating them as credible documents, and trying to build a case on them. That's doomed to failure, and makes the case look weak, as if it depended on twisting interpretations.
Far better to simply note that Oxburgh and Muir-Russell evidently have such low standards of scientific integrity that they apparently found making up data in the certain knowledge that it would corrupt a public climate database, while noting in passing that it was standard practice at CRU and nobody seemed to care, to be scientifically acceptable behaviour. Given this, their conclusions and opinions can be dismissed as having no merit or authority on the subject. Move on.
There's absolutely no point in treating any of the UEA or Penn State enquiries as having any authority at all. Indeed, that was the entire point of the article that got them into trouble - Penn State had applied exactly the same sort of process to defending Sandusky with enquiries that exonerated him. You simply cannot trust malpractice enquiries run by the very same universities that employ and rely upon the millions in business brought in by their subjects. Or by the same governments that depend on those scientific results to back their policies. You can only rely on looking directly at the raw evidence. That's a line of thought that a judge ought to find familiar.
Sure, point out that Mann or his lawyers bungled the quote, but don't get too hung up on treating Muir-Russell as a source of truth and light that Mann OHL have misrepresented. It's irrelevant to the issue.