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)
TerryS,
Thanks for seriously trying to set it out, and for quoting in full.
"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."
"They provide no such limits". They don't need to. They were talking about CRU scientists, and there is no indication the subject has changed. They did not need to say it again.
The quote is changed in a trivial way - a rearrangement of words that does not change the meaning. And the test of that is that the judge understood it correctly to refer to CRU.
"The only way this can be used as evidence of malice is if the quote is about Mann."
Oxburgh is there, and they make it clear that is about CRU. Why not Muir?
OK, I see Nick will respond "It depends on what "this" is." "This" is your comments on multiple blogs re the Steyn-Mann court case. They must take up an inordinate amount of your time. I hope you are being properly remunerated for it.
I am a great fan of your blog and your abilities as a number analyst and a graphical whiz. I do hope that work is continuing despite the claims on your time elsewhere.
James Evans,
Yes, you can include the blackboard also amongst the haunts. This person is a shameless liar.
Otter,
Yes, Mann is not mentioned there. I don't think anyone disagrees. The issue is an allegedly doctored quote.
Holy cow, nicky, you really are clueless. Or being paid well.
Lance,
Thanks, well, I'll get back to it. I just get curious when a nonsense like this catches on, and I go around trying to track down a serious argument. And I'm grateful to TerryS for setting one out, with quotes. I don't agree, but it's what I was after. So I'll let it go now.
Nick, do you a) really believe what you write (probably because you can never see anything wrong with your hero? Never ever) or b) you just obsessively love to argue?
And again, Nick, do you not think that presenting some text as a quote when it isn't is fraud?
Sven,
I'm probably guilty of argumentativeness. Am I the only such sinner here?
But I do try to argue a proper case.
Nick,
Because that's not how the quoteis being used. Mann is using it as an example if him being cleared when quite clearly he was never included by Muir in the original finding.
Perhaps there is a position for you on Manns counsel?
Mailman
This is a splendid example of why the blogosphere is just so damned entertaining!
Refuted by one - McIntyre, and brought to a wider audience by others like WUWT & BH. Mann exposed as nakedly as a new born baby. Yet again brilliant independent bloggers reveal the truth (and leaves the MSM floundering in its wake).
I lobbed $20 into the CA tip jar on account of this news. These guys deserve every bit of help that's possible. Will now be very interesting to watch Mann's position unravel.
An Australian politician recently, addressing a different matter described it as "beautiful in its ugliness". Also from Australia we have ...
Dr Nick Stokes
His convoluted defence of Professor Mann and his "exoneration" by Muir is indeed "beautiful in its ugliness". And not only takes the biscuit but the whole barrel.
Nick, when you say that you argue a proper case why do you repeatedly ignore my question - do you not think that presenting something as a quote when it is not is fraud?
Re: Nick
> They were talking about CRU scientists, and there is no indication the subject has changed.
They were not talking about CRU scientists, they were talking about CRU research. Mann was involved in CRU research. He published papers with CRU academics and was involved in research projects. Therefore Mann is claiming, by association, that the Oxburgh quote applies to him.
There is an indication that the subject has changed. The subject changes from Oxburgh to Russell. The time frame moves forward by 3 months. All indications are that they have moved on from Oxburgh and its terms of reference to Russell and its terms.
> The quote is changed in a trivial way
The quote is changed in a non-trivial way. It changes from applying to CRU scientists only to applying to Mann. It is in a section called "Dr Mann is Exonerated" and is presented as item number 1 in Dr Mann's exoneration. It isn't in a section entitled "Other climate scientists are exonerated" or in a section entitled "Unrelated information".
This is a legal document. It isn't a book, article, paper or essay where you can and do include unrelated information. Everything in here is supposed to be applicable to the point being made and in this section it is "Dr Mann's exoneration".
Nick must write the billboard reviews for theatres, where the review ' Breathtakingly awful and Magnificent in its banality and poor production values', becomes
Magnificent..Breathtaking
The True Believer sees only that which confirms his faith.
NS is protecting himself, not MM.
Re: Nick
> And the test of that is that the judge understood it correctly to refer to CRU.
All that shows is that the judge did their due diligence and read Exhibit 6 (the Muir Russell report).
So, Nick, does your arguing a proper case involve ignoring crucial questions to which you do not have an answer that would be in line with your position? And still not modifying your position even an inch?
True ssat. He's picking on the scab that bothers...but it's on his forehead.
I have some stuff on this coming up.
Nick, thanks for the link to the document.
NS=MM ? .... "is consistant" with what's going on here
Guys just be careful, not to be driven off topic by trolls.
and don't let them rile you as you are dealing with people from the playground
- They easily take fairytales for truth.
- And quickly resort to bullying by namecalling etc.
Playground language & techniques should stay in the playground
Even Judge Judy takes offense at witnesses that lie. In this political suit, we'll see if the District Court accepts and defends lies.
A few things I'd like to reply to:
TerryS "they were talking about CRU research."
No, they were talking about "the work of the Climatic Research Unit". And as a matter of common usage, if you see an unqualified mention of "scientists", you look back to see which scientists they mean. And that's what you find. The judge could work it out.
'Everything in here is supposed to be applicable to the point being made and in this section it is "Dr Mann's exoneration".'
This argument can't work. Muir is in each case immediately after Oxburgh, and it's made very clear that Oxburgh findings are about CRU. So it can't be excluded that a Muir finding is about CRU scientists.
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.
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.
Oh yes it does change the meaning. Very much so and to the benefit of the changer. So it's extremely doubtful that it's just a mistake
Mann, rewrites history and not for the first time either, he needs to see a trick cyclist and PDQ.
This has descended into nothing more than low-grade, thread-bending trolling.
Let me add my two-penn'orth to Richard Drake's suggestion @ 10:38am, DNFNS
Baron Mannchausen.
==============
This is extraordinary. I cannot think of a legitimate reason to tamper with the original quote without stating that it has been changed. But then again it wasn't legitimate to 'hide the decline' either. Plus ça change, Mikey. Is anyone going to ask him why he did it?
Nick Stokes (9:37 AM):
The first part of that phrase has been well-covered by others on this thread. As for the second part: well, I presume that, if not actually a scientist, you have the conceit (like myself) of calling yourself scientifically-minded, then you raise the effective question: “Why is accuracy of any importance in science and law?” Hopefully, you should be able to answer that question yourself; if not, then it might be a good idea to remove yourself entirely from the debate.Heh, off topic and trivial, but I doubt the honesty and rigour of some of the CRU scientists.
==================
Re: Nick
> No, they were talking about "the work of the Climatic Research Unit"
It clearly states "integrity of the research" and this is the work of the CRU it is referring to. Mann was involved in the CRU research.
> This argument can't work. Muir is in each case immediately after Oxburgh, and it's made very clear that Oxburgh findings are about CRU. So it can't be excluded that a Muir finding is about CRU scientists.
The Oxburgh section does not mention scientists. It is about CRU research.
I'll re-iterate. The section is called "Dr Mann's exoneration". Everything under here applies to that. If, as you claim, item 1 does not apply to Mann in any way then why have they put it there? It serves no purpose.
Many at Climate Audit and elsewhere refer to Nick Stokes as 'Racehorse Haynes' for the extremities his arguments can reach. RomanM recently called him honest, because he's not sneaky. My reply was to ask if Nick Stokes understands when he is wrong. I think he does. The inability to admit error is a peculiar form of honesty.
==============
I'll keep this fraud out of the public ken if it takes inventing eight new meanings of the word 'exoneration'.
Stevie Mac has moderated the above line in comments @climateaudit, probably for the presence of the 'F' word, but he's in the process of listing Mann's eight new definitions for the 'E' word.
===================
kim (12:39): with you on all of that. There's something corrosive in the alarmist tendency, in whatever style one chooses to support it. A fascinating and sobering example.
Dick Strokes has successfully disrupted this thread. The bulk of the comments (including mine) are response to his nonsense. Since he's clearly being deliberately obtuse the disruption is his objective. I for one will opt to ignore him in future - though I accept it's not easy to do.
From Mann's document:
The passage quoted in support?
There is -nothing- in the passage 'categorically reject[ing] the fraud allegations against Dr. Mann'.
This guy's got a serious problem. His ego's too big and fragile and he's wasting everyone's time for it.
More on the way.
jaffa, many hope that plaintiff's attorneys accept Nick's arguments.
=============
I strongly suspect the result will not depend on who said what but whether the judge votes Rep or Dem. We will then go through numerous costly appeals until the final result is decided according to how many Dems versus Reps are sitting in the final appeal court. Unless of course one of them runs out of money before that - which is the real Mann strategy. The key thing was to get disclosure. Without that the rest is just running the clock up on legal fees. Everyone should be careful what they write about him unless they have very deep pockets.
Laterite, who some may know here as Dr David Stockwell, has this to say on Catallaxy, an Oz blog -
Elsewhere, a commenter questioned the implication of the author of the manipulated quote - who changed the words?
If Mann gave the phrase to his legal folks representing it to be an accurate quote the lawyers will be some pi**ed off.
Nick said: 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,”
I'm beginning to wonder, does the judge even understand that "doctoring" Mann is not part of CRU?!
It adds a whole new meaning to the Stokes shift.
At Lucia's Blackboard there are some lawyers, American lawyers at that, debating his points.
I wish these so called climate scientists would put as much effort into applying the scientific method to their work as they do in pursuing lawsuits.
Mann must wake up at night in cold sweats fearing he will have to sit in a court with Steve on the witness stand shredding his credibility, unpacking his lies, distortions and inventions.
And poor little Nicky won't be around to cover for his buddy.
Leave it to Mann to take raw data that does not tell the story he wants and 'adjust' it to match his theory. That is what gets him criticized in the first place.
Sven: "I'm beginning to wonder, does the judge even understand that "doctoring" Mann is not part of CRU?!"
A very good point and one I was wondering myself. It needs to be tested before this thing runs further.
I suppose there's a certain dark satisfaction from watching Mann squirm under an even vaguely objective assessment of his work and character but is Mann's "scientific" contribution any less risible?
You know what I am getting tired of cliscis wondering how they can improve their communication with the hoi polloi. If you do read this Richard, why don't you rise up as one and disown this charlatan, and I might add clown. I cannot think of a situation where a person less worthy of the respect of his peers has been so supported by them.
So guys if you want your message to come across loud and clear let it be the message of scientific truth and let us hear you say what you really think of Michael Mann, it may, after all be that you regard him as an eminent and distinguished colleague. Either way we'd all have an idea what the scicli community really thought. And surely if you want to "communicate" that can't be wrong. Can it?
Folks,
I found this. Don't know if anyone else highlighted it but here it goes.
The Michael Mann ‘scientists’ rigor and honesty’ Quote
Half man, half beast, half wit.
Nick stokes controversy and fans the fire.
Actually, I think the lawyers are flying kites to see what might win or lose in court - and the blogs are providing a free evaluation. They should bill the lawyers.
There ought to be a good tune here, perhaps a Mannriggedall