After reading the WUWT, I wanted to summarise the my thoughts on Mann’s chances of wining the court case and how I think he’s either lost hold of reality and/or is surrounded by fair weather friends who don’t have his interests at heart.
However, what’s the point? He’s an idiot, an idiot who clearly doesn’t listen to good advice, so what can anything I write do but add to the din that he’s an idiot?
Now there’s yet another article about Mann at Judith Curry‘s – it’s like watching a slow car crash! The only person who’s going to get hurt (as all his fair weather friends turn on him) will be Michael. So, here’s my thoughts from this morning:
Just reading another article of yet another porky from Mann at WUWT and even if I hadn’t carefully checked the work on his hockey stick and convinced myself it was based on using a “trick” to get the data to create a hockey stick, I would by now know that Mann hasn’t a hope of winning.
Mann’s problem is this. His whole case is this:
“I’m a scientists so you can trust me … therefore to suggest I’ve been unscientific is libel”.
And because most lay people would find his science difficult to judge, a jury would likely accept he was a scientist and that the science was right if Mann could find even a few “scientists” to vouch for him. How can they judge the science? So even though Stern can bring in a lot of expects to show Mann’s science isn’t; in practice the jury will tend to ignore what it can’t just and instead look at who supports him.
However, that was a case based “I’m a trustworthy scientist”. But now Mann has been caught lying on his own court submissions numerous times. Lying to a court is something that is easy for the jury to understand and so something they will fix on and use to judge Mann.
So the argument;
“trust me I’m a scientist”
then becomes
“he isn’t trustworthy … so can’t be a scientist”
and Stern wins the case.
That may be an oversimplification – it may not even go to a jury – but judges are just as human. And in essence, once a jury or judge starts thinking of one side as “economical with the truth”, they are on the slippery slope and will inevitably lose unless they have an exceptionally strong case (and Michael does not).
However, I was also struck by Judith Curry’s comments on the case. And from what she has said, it is clear Mann has been saying very much the same kinds of things about all kinds of other people many who a jury would clearly call “scientists”. Unless I’m very mistaken, there’s no chance of those like Judith being caught lying in the way Mann has. So, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If he libels others and expects to get away with it, he cannot himself ask a court to find others have libelled him.
So, in essence, when you boil this case down to the simple facts that would impress upon a jury it is this:
“A person shown to lie even on his own submission to the court, is complaining that someone has treated him in the way he treats other people of undoubtedly better character”.
He hasn’t a chance of winning. So why on earth is Mann so willingly submitting himself to a process which appears to have only one possible outcome? I can only imagine he is surrounded by sycophants and zealots who are so detached from the views of ordinary people outside that they really believe that “being right” (as they must see it) is a justification for all their ills.
In other words, you have a social group who all believes what Mann is doing is “right”, so they cannot entertain the idea that anyone “just” could see it any other way.
So, the big question is this: at what point will Mann realise that all these sycophants around him are delusional and in my view don’t care at all about him personally and therefore when he loses the case, as he surely will, they will turn against him?
And this is the point, I just hope his arrogance at his celebrity status hasn’t so corrupted him that he has driven away all his real friends.
Mann has muzzled others, his supporters have deep pockets and this will drag on for years.
Losers…styne legal costs are significant
Others are afraid to challenge the crap
Mann wrote a study last century that has been peer-reviewed and then reviewed on the internet and then reviewed by universities, newspapers finally, the National Science Foundation (the supreme court of science, if you will). No evidence of fraud was declared in any of these mentioned reviews or in the peripheral reviews of other science bodies dealing with Climategate. As a matter of fact, the main conclusion of his original study that temperatures have risen faster in the past 100 odd years than the preceding 1000 has been validated by a SCORE of other independent studies. Independent studies which come to the same conclusions is the absolute highest form of validation possible and makes any criticisms — no matter how esteemed — completely pointless.
Yet the CEI and NR, knowing all the above, wrote that Mann tortured his data and his study was a fraud. Mann gave both the opportunity to retract their statements but they doubled down so Mann sued.
Mann did not sue to keep them quiet, he sued because they defamed him.
I looked at his hockey stick and in my view saying the data was tortured is a fair description.
As for the three UK inquiries – none of them dealt with Mann so he is blatantly lying if he has said they vindicated him.
Mann was featured prominently in many of the emails that were part of the three UK inquiries (and the newspaper inquiry). None of these inquires mention fraud by Mann (or for anyone else for that matter). So, in terms of fraudulent behaviour, Mann was indeed vindicated.
Your view that the data was tortured becomes meaningless — and highly suspect — when so many other studies independently validate the hockey stick CONCLUSIONS that were based upon his “tortured” data.
And to repeat, Mann is not suing anyone in order to quash their right to speak, he is suing because they defamed him.
Drewski says:
13th September 2014 at 5:21 am
None of these inquires mention fraud by Mann (or for anyone else for that matter). So, in terms of fraudulent behaviour, Mann was indeed vindicated.
To vindicate is a positive, to justify, show proof.
To not mention is a negative, to ignore. That is what the 3 UK inquires did because thwey were not asked to investigate Mann.
Mann was not vindicated.
His conclusions have not been validated and repeating his claim to have been defamed is not evidence that he was.
As far as I remember, none of them dealt with the hockey stick at all. So please stop talking rubbish.
Although the Muir Russell (UK) report focused on the conduct of scientists at the CRU (University of East Anglia), the investigation reviewed 140 e-mails authored by Mann. The report examined whether scientists had ignored potential problems in tree-ring data that may undermine the hockey-stick graph and whether CRU, in consultation with Mann, attempted to diminish the significance of the Medieval Warm Period. Russell’s report was unequivocal in its conclusion that the rigor and honesty of the collaborating scientists was not in doubt.
That’s the bottom line.
The Muir Russell report’s conclusions found nothing dishonest or fraudulent in the CRU scientists’ collaboration with Mann and other scientists. And it is only one of numerous investigations, from various angles, and of varying degrees of scrutiny on Mann that all reached similar conclusions.
This obsession among contrarians and denialists in smearing Mann is just a veiled attempt to discredit his seminal early paleo-climate research. But you ignore the fact that his research has been validated by more than a dozen independent studies.
It is time to move on.
To date, there have been 24 subsequent paleo-reconstructions to the hockey stick. Many of these were done by scientists from other countries, many used different proxy data from other regions of the world, many went back further than 1000 years, some used the same data and code as the original hockey stick study.
ALL show that the temperature rise of 20th century was the sharpest within their parameters.
Mann’s work was examined in the UK studies because his 140 emails were part of the collaboration and correspondence with the CRU scientists being reviewed. Whether CRU scientists collaborated with Mann to hide the Medieval Warm Period was extensively examined. No fraud by the CRU scientists or their collaborators was mentioned in any report.
8 official investigations have been carried out including ones by the highest scientific authorities in both Britain and America. As well, subsequent studies have replicated the hockey stick conclusions which is close to impossible to do if Mann’s data was indeed fraudulent. CEI and NR knew all this and yet they continue to say that Mann “tortured” his data and committed fraud.
They defamed him and I hope they pay through the nose for it.
The methodology used by Mann was just bad science. If you continue to defend bad science then that tells me that you have no interest in Science but are just a zealot who will try to paint black as white.
The big problem is not that Mann made a mistake or that others have got much the same result using similar bad science. The problem is that methods that are quite clearly and unequivocally wrong are defended.
And if this is your standard and the standard of people who claim to be climate “scientists”, then nothing you or they say has any credibility.
The “others” you refer to that did “bad science” include more than 50 PhDs from fields as diverse as astronomy, oceanography, atmospheric physics, marine biology and paleontology plus every study usually has a statistician or two plus someone who writes software. Most of the subsequent studies used different methodologies and data from different regions than that of the original hockey stick although some replicated it with the same code, data and methodology.
You could easily double that number of “bad scientists” who did the peer review of these 20+ studies before they were published in “bad scientific journals” such as NATURE and SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.
According to you, they have no credibility, however a blog site apparently does(?!?). What expertise do you have to make such a judgement?
Bad science is bad science no matter how many people are gormless enough to repeat it in their PhDs.
The simple facts are these:
1. Mann’s hockey stick was bad science. I know that because I spent the time checking it out.
2. At no point have I seen an admission or any retraction for what is clearly bad science.
From this I can say that the standard in this area allows bad science.
Therefore, I have to conclude that whilst I do not know they are all baloney, there is at least the possibility that they are all baloney.
And in science, where there is the possibility someone’s PhD is baloney, then it is unfortunately worth nothing more than baloney.
And I genuinely feel sorry for all the people who have put so much time and effort into research only to have it undermined by standards for which they are at best only responsible for in a very small way.
However, as they say – one bad apple spoils the barrel, and by not rejecting the known bad apple all their work is tarnished.
“Mann’s hockey stick was bad science. I know that because I spent the time checking it out.”
I repeat – What expertise do you have that trumps the experts? I certainly haven’t seen any presented here. Are you published somewhere in a reputable journal?
“At no point have I seen an admission or any retraction for what is clearly bad science.”
When inquiry after inquiry finds no evidence of “bad science” (which, BTW, includes the two most prestigious scientific bodies in the world) and when the hockey stick’s main conclusion is replicated in study after study by independent teams of scientists using completely different methodologies and data, a logical person would arrive at the conclusion that perhaps there isn’t any bad science after all.
I have an engineering and physics degree and have decades of experience analysing and processing signals. I also have decades of experience programming. So, it was a trivial matter to look at his code and look at the way he analysed the data and confirm that Steve McIntyre was entirely correct in his views that the results were bogus.
And that is the view any expert in this field will come to because the error is so obvious and the way the data is “tortured” is quite clear.
And it says more about your lack of experience and lack of scientific knowledge that you are wasting my time on such a cut and dried case where Mann unequivocally made a mistake.
So you are saying that Mann’s data and code were wrong but by some miraculous singularity his conclusion was right?
And, because of your impressive knowledge, you know that the 8 official inquiries (plus unofficial newspaper inquiries) conducted by some of the most eminent scientists on the planet including experts in the fields of statistics and paleo-climate got it wrong.
Well, I suppose that is possible.
But when more than 20 subsequent studies using more modern techniques, different data and taken from other parts of the globe ALL replicate the “blade” part of the famous hockey stick, then it matters not one whit what you or McIntyre or anyone else THINKS they know because when science is replicated, contrary opinions become meaningless.
And when this hockey stick has been replicated 20+ times, it is BEYOND DOUBT of all but the most “zealot” deniers that Mann got it right in that semi-ancient study of his.
People who get it right generally are not frauds.
None of the UK inquiries dealt with Mann and from hearsay I don’t believe any of the others looked at the science – because if they did, anyone who knew anything about the subject would come to the only possible conclusion which is that the analysis was based on a mistake.
And until you can agree to accept the basic requirements of science which is that work shouldn’t be based on mistakes, then there’s absolutely no point you wasting my time as you clearly don’t have the mental capability to understand even the simplest argument.
“None of the UK inquiries dealt with Mann and from hearsay I don’t believe any of the others looked at the science. . . ”
You are wrong — persistently and consistently wrong. Mann and his work is mentioned more than 80 times in the Muir Russell report:
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
page 8: MBH – Mann, Bradley and Hughes
page 26: explicitly mentions Michael Mann as the author of 140 of the e-mails which have been investigated by The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (the Muir Russell investigation). Mann is the second-most copious author of the e-mails under investigation and he is a subject to the inquiry, as described in Chapter 4.1 points 1 to 4.
page 27: Michael Mann is mentioned 6 times, first as an essential part of The Timeline under investigation and subsequently as author or subject of six publications which are a subject of the inquiry.
page 28: “Building in part on the work of CRU, Mann, Bradley & Hughes (MBH) published a paper in Nature in 199820 which sought to reconstruct historic temperatures back to 1400 AD …” etc. These paragraphs discuss MBH98/99 extensively and multiple citations to Mann are given.
page 29: “Not only were rebuttals published in 2003 by Mann, Jones, Briffa, Osborn et al30,31, but also the process of peer review at Climate Research was questioned ..”, also MBH is mentioned a number of times.
page 30: “In 2004 von Storch32 questioned the statistical methods used in MBH and, at around the same time, the RealClimate33 and Climate Audit34 websites were launched ..”
page 31: “.. Despite this, Mike and I would like to make as many of the series we’ve used in the RoG [Reviews of Geophysics] plots available from the CRU web page.” MBH is mentioned two more times.
page 32: “Mike” is mentioned again.
page 33 to 35 discusses e-mails by and to Mann, among others.
Chapter 7 from page 54 onwards is largely about Yamal, divergence, the WMO 1999 front-cover figure, AR4 figure 6.10 etc. and MBH is mentioned or implied a number of times.
In Chapter 8 the allegations about peer-review are discussed, and Mann as well as a number of e-mails are a subject of this chapter: “It challenged the conclusion of Mann et al (1998, 1999)2 that the late 20th century was the warmest period of the last millennium on a hemispheric scale, and claimed ..”
Chapter 9 starts out about about the CRUTEM series, but even there Mann is mentioned and from 9.4.1. onwards his work is again the exclusive subject of the inquiry:
“9.4 The Tree Ring Proxy Temperature Series
9.4.1 The Scientific Challenge
26. A paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003; hereafter referred to as M&M2003)26 argued that the so called ―hockey stick‖ plot (Mann, Bradley and Hughes, 1998; hereafter referred to as MBH98)27 contained both simple errors and serious statistical errors. It suggested that the ―hockey stick – shape of the MBH98 reconstruction was largely an artefact of these errors and of the selection of specific tree ring series. …”
MBH98/99 is discussed extensively here, together with the allegations in MM2003. The Findings from 9.4.6 onwards are exclusively and explicitly about MBH98/99.
The report as well as the findings and conclusions of the Muir Russell investigation pertain therefore to a very large degree to Mann, his e-mails as well as MBH98/99.
Please stop being such a prat. The UK inquiries didn’t even cover the science in the papers that were in dispute that the UEA were doing. No one even looked at the way Mann came up with his result and you are showing how dishonest you are to suggest anything of the sort.
I have told you that Mann’s work was based on a mistake in the way he processed data. If you are not capable of checking that yourself, then you either have to accept what I say or this conversation is at an end.
Did you not understand what is so plainly written in front of you?
page 27: Michael Mann is mentioned 6 times, first as AN ESSENTIAL PART of The Timeline under investigation and subsequently AS AUTHOR OR SUBJECT OF SIX PUBLICATIONS WHICH ARE A SUBJECT OF THE INQUIRY.
In Chapter 8 the allegations about peer-review are discussed, and MANN AS WELL AS A NUMBER OF E-MAILS ARE A SUBJECT OF THIS CHAPTER: “It challenged the conclusion of Mann et al (1998, 1999)2 that the late 20th century was the warmest period of the last millennium on a hemispheric scale, and claimed ..”
Etc, etc, and so on.
And all this analysis of Mann is from ONE inquiry that you say didn’t happen. I am beginning to have doubts about your qualifications.
I repeat, none of these UK inquiries examined the methodology used in Mann’s paper so you are completely wasting your time.
And why on earth would they?
As the person who created the petition that got them off the ground, I know that their sole remit was UK work in the UEA.
So please stop your ridiculous posts.
Chapter 7 from page 54 onwards is largely about Yamal, divergence, the WMO 1999 front-cover figure, AR4 figure 6.10 etc. and MBH is mentioned or implied a number of times.
Chapter 9 starts out about about the CRUTEM series, but even there Mann is mentioned and from 9.4.1. onwards his work is again the exclusive subject of the inquiry:
“9.4 The Tree Ring Proxy Temperature Series
9.4.1 The Scientific Challenge
26. A paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003; hereafter referred to as M&M2003)26 argued that the so called ―hockey stick‖ plot (Mann, Bradley and Hughes, 1998; hereafter referred to as MBH98)27 contained both simple errors and serious statistical errors. It suggested that the ―hockey stick – shape of the MBH98 reconstruction was largely an artefact of these errors and of the selection of specific tree ring series. …”
MBH98/99 is discussed extensively here, together with the allegations in MM2003. The Findings from 9.4.6 onwards are exclusively and explicitly about MBH98/99.
You are incompetent.
Thank you very much for your contribution Drewski. But as you have not looked at Mann’s Paper and I have and are unable to comprehend the purpose and remit of the UK investigations into the UEA (Mann does not work at the UEA!) and you are now posting irrelevant rubbish and wasting your time & mine.
The simple fact is that the methodology used by Mann has a clear mistake and the fact Mann’s graph has been dropped from IPPC documents shows that even the IPCC have accepted that it contains this mistake.
None of the UK inquiries examined Mann’s methodology and indeed they hardly covered any science at all and that little which they did examine was selected by Jones (as I recall) who for obvious reasons did not select any of the papers that were contentious.
I think I’ve given you a reasonable amount of space to make your point and I’m bored of your ridiculous assertions.
So, I am closing this discussion.