Oct 27, 2018 at 10:55 PM | Phil Clarke
That is a handy reference guide for US budget cutters

If you think research is expensive, try ignorance.

Phil, you might not know and you might not care, but do you not wonder why Mann is not pushing on and claiming his wonderful prize of massive damages? After all, he must be SO confident of winning, what's the point in not getting the case to trial as quickly as possible?

An insinuation worthy of McIntyre himself. Charles Dickens published Bleak House in 1852. As I am sure you know, at the centre of that book is the legal case of Jarndyce vs Jarndyce - which drags on across several generations.

In other words, the observation that the legal profession operates at a snail's pace is hardly novel, nor particularly informative.

Phil Clarke:

"Am I wrong in stating that Steyn has a defence if he can show that he genuinely believed that the Hockey Stick was fraudulent? And therefore it is more an investigation into Steyn's perception than any real issues with the study?"

Yes, you are wrong.

I repeat, if the evidence is so strong, why isn't Mann pushing on to trial and his inevitable huge damages award? I'm well aware of Bleak House and Jarndyce -v- Jarndyce. Today's legal system bears no comparison with that, either in the UK or in the USA. It's still possible for a defendant to drag their feet a little, but not much. In Mann's case, however, Steyn is the one who is keen to get to trial. Mann is the litigant failing to make progress, so far as I can see from the limited reports on-line. Progress (or lack of it) is in the hands of the US plaintiff (claimant in current UK-legalese).

Mark Hodgson & Phil Clarke,

As a non-Lawyer, it seems intriguing that the largely US based Hockey Team are relying on the UK Historical and fictional Legal case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. Is that why Trump is inviting Climate Scientists to carry on, but at their own expense?

As a non-Historian, I have always been intrigued by the mass of evidence supporting the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period, that Mann denies.

The last ten years have revealed archaeological evidence to prove how far the Franklin Expedition sailed in their search for the North West Passage. This evidence was only revealed because polar sea ice had retreated to UNPRECEDENTED levels?!?

Taking into account the evidence of History, Geography, Archaelogy etc, Mann's Hockey Stick can be revealed as a "flash in the pan" that never developed, and therefore all Climate Science Papers that assume Mann's Hockey Stick is factual, need an independent means of support.

Not all Climate Science has reached its Tipping Point. To prevent 97% of Climate Science being tipped, it would save a lot of time, money and lives if some of the 97% got honest about what is worth saving. I expect the US EPA is reviewing its own Regulations to establish what is based on Science Fact, and what is based merely on Climate Science Fiction.

A lawyer writes …

Whether or not Mann’s work shows all that he has claimed is not the question, for the First Amendment protects robust discussion and debate of scientific matters and the freedom to express wrong-headed opinions in inartful ways.  The Defendants believe the ClimateGate e-mails showed that Mann and others are willing to misrepresent scientific claims and distort evidence. Whether or not this is the best interpretation of the various e-mails, they are hardly the only people to hold this belief. At the very least, the ClimateGate e-mails revealed unethical and potentially illegal conduct, so it’s not per se unreasonable for some to think the e-mails could signify something more, and not defamatory to say so.  The Defendants further believe that the various investigations into Mann’s work, including the Penn State investigation, were not particularly thorough.  Again, they are not alone in this opinion. Even the National Science Foundation found Penn State’s review of Mann’s work to be lacking.  The NSF review found no “direct evidence of research misconduct,” but it did conclude there were “several concerns raised about the quality of the statistical analysis techniques that were used.”  That the defendants expressed these views in an particularly outrageous and inappropriate manner hardly seems the sort of thing of which a defamation claim should be made, particularly when involving a public figure.  Again, at issue is not whether Mann’s research is sound — or even whether anthropogenic climate change is real (and long-time readers know that I believe it is).  The issue is whether this sort of commentary actually rises to defamation.

From <http://volokh.com/2013/08/20/mann-v-steyn-mann-wins-round-one/>

Yawn.

As a non-Historian, I have always been intrigued by the mass of evidence supporting the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period, that Mann denies.

Um, no.

Same lawyer writes:

In December 2016, after sitting on the case for years, the D.C. Court of Appeals (not to be confused with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) held that Mann's suit against the CEI, National Review and Simberg may proceed to trial (Steyn having gone his own way in the litigation).

National Review and CEI promptly filed petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc in January. These petitions were supported by several amicus briefs, and the court sought a response from Mann in February 2017.

Mann's response was filed over 10 months ago, and there is still no word from the court. What's going on? I have no inside knowledge, but I suspect the delay may indicate at least some of the judges are having difficulty with the potential breadth of the initial ruling. 

Seems it is the court holding up the case, not Dr Mann.

From <https://reason.com/volokh/2018/02/11/whatever-happened-to-michael-manns-defam>

Phil Clarke, Climate Science is running out of money, having proved nothing. Politicians are "moving on" from Climate Science, not just Mann's Hockey Stick. You have left it too late.

As M Courtney pointed out a few days ago, The Guardian can't afford to keep wasting money on Climate Science. Why should Trump, or Taxpayers anywhere?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/27/breaking-guardian-climate-change-retreat-will-discontinue-its-science-and-environment-blogging-networks/

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/26/canada-passed-a-carbon-tax-that-will-give-most-canadians-more-money

"Dana Nuccitelli has provided us with lots of entertainment over the years, balancing his big oil career with radical environmentalism.

Whenever I was short of ideas for what to write, I could usually look up Dana’s whacky green opinion pieces for inspiration.

Obviously at this stage it is difficult to know where The Guardian will go next with its climate change reporting. I find it hard to believe the Guardian have decided to entirely quit the environment / climate change reporting space.

On the other hand, a few formerly prolific climate action advocacy blogs have been going dark lately, as their authors run out of things to say, or lose interest in talking about climate change. Perhaps even the Guardian has gotten fed up with flogging a dead horse. Or maybe they are just running out of money."

●Where will the BBC get its expertise from now? Presumably Bob Ward and the Grantham Institute have limitless funds for their own waste and subsequent disposal.

The reasoning is that the Guardian's journalism (including on science & environment) have expanded. Editors are focused on that and don't have the resources to keep an eye on the bloggers, so they felt it would be wise to terminate the blogs. But we've been asked to keep submitting some pitch ideas, so we may not be done here yet - just will publish less frequently.

From <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/26/canada-passed-a-carbon-tax-that-will-give-most-canadians-more-money#comment-121925423>

Oct 28, 2018 at 11:12 AM | Phil Clarke

Where is the evidence of that evidence in Mann's Hockey Stick?

Oct 28, 2018 at 12:47 PM | Phil Clarke

The Magic Money Tree has failed. Guardian readers don't want to pay for Climate Science out of their own pockets either.

Phil, the link you provided to that strange website is dated August 2013. It makes it clear that Mann started the litigation in 2012!!! I think you make my case for me. The part of the article-writer's opinion you omitted to quote is this:

"While a direct accusation of scientific fraud may be actionable, challenges to scientific conclusions and interpretations of scientific studies are clearly protected by the First Amendment." So the lawyer behind the opinion you rely on makes it clear that a direct accusation of scientific fraud may be actionable, and not protected by the First Amendment to the US constitution.

By the way, the lawyer whose opinion you cite in support of your view is critical of Mann, and believes the action should have been dismissed:

"Climate policy activists have generally supported Mann's litigation, but they may come to regret this view. If the comments at issue in this case are potentially actionable defamation, then so too are all manner of hyperbolic charges hurled against climate skeptics by environmentalist activists, including accusations that skeptics are corporate shills or paid for their positions. Indeed, Mann himself has made comments over the years that might themselves be actionable.

Allowing all such claims to proceed to trial might be a boon for lawyers, but it would also chill policy debate. For this reason, I hope the D.C. Court of Appeals reconsiders its opinion. . . ."

So, bizarrely, you cite a lawyer opposed to Mann's litigation in support of your view, even though the lawyer in question is disagreeing with the Court's ruling that the case may proceed! The lawyer is entitled to his opinion, but it is different from the Court's view:

The second piece you cite (from which the above quote is taken) is over 8 months old. It fails to take account the ability of the plaintiff's lawyers to file applications for hearings/rulings etc which would push the case on. Just because the case has fallen into a black hole in the Court doesn't mean that the plaintiff and his lawyers can't do something about that if they want.

My central point was that the case is irrelevant to the science. Mann has to show 'actual malice', meaning that Steyn knew his accusation of fraud was baseless but made it anyway. Steyn has a defence if he can show that at the time he entertained reasonable doubt. Thus the case is more about Steyn's mental furniture than any objective assessment of the merits of Dr Mann's work. Certainly any idea that the Hockey Stick is 'on trial' is monumentally misguided.

Certainly any idea that the Hockey Stick is 'on trial' is monumentally misguided.

Oct 28, 2018 at 10:27 PM | Phil Clarke

Are you relying on the opinion of Hockey Teamsters for that assertion, as there is no evidence?

Phil, I'm afraid that it's your view of what is on trial and of US law that is monumentally misguided.

As a lawyer who should know better, I hate providing links to websites which offer a short summary of a complicated area of law where people will have written whole textbooks to try to embrace all the complexity. However, try this one for size:

THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/997/libel-and-slander

It is true that the US First Amendment can provide a free speech defence to libel claims that is much more extensive than the defence of justification (i.e. truth) available in the UK. However, your slant on what is at stake in Mann's litigation is not justified.

And while you try to shift the ground from my question, the point of my question remains, namely if Mann is so confident in his case, why aren't he and his lawyers pushing forwards to trial? It's been going on for more than 6 years and there's no sign of a trial any time soon. A cynic might think that Steyn's view that the litigation itself, endlessly ongoing, is the punishment, not any damages he might (or might not) ultimately have to pay.

Heh, even Steven Mosher credits me with 'The Piltdown Mann'. He came up with it around a decade ago at Stevie Mac's place, but when he looked he found I'd invented it about a year earlier. There was multiple independent invention of that meme because it is so apt.

Actually, at one time I searched ClimateAudit and found someone whose name I've forgotten who beat even me to it, another independent invention. I cannot find that now, but our dear professor of censored stats is well and truly immortalized, nor all of Phil's horses, nor all of Phil's men, can ever put Michael Mann back on the wall.
============================

Kim. Which Phil are you talking about: one of the CRUmen or the one here, who might be a BORG?

Ah, Phil Clarke, the has been BORG.

Saw through him(it) years ago. I told the thing it sat at the apex of a huge pyramid of phony science and paid political activism, whether it realized so or not.
====================

Steve McIntyre posts a refresher for a newcomer
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/#more-23964

Climate Audit Posted Oct 26, 2018 at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Reply
" .. you must be new to Climate Audit. The stripbark bristlecone chronologies which give rise to Mann’s hockey stick were originally published by Graybill 1985 (Sheep Mountain) or Graybill and Idso as evidence of CO2 fertilization, with the original authors specifically saying that their growth increase was NOT due to temperature. IPCC AR2 (1995) included a caveat on this sort of problem.

Mann et al 1998 introduced Graybill’s bristlecone chronologies into multiproxy studies despite prior warnings. This was probably his main “contribution” to climate science. Mann et al 1998 not only did not “correct” the bristlecone chronologies for CO2 fertilization, but interpreted the bristlecones as a unique world thermometer.

In Mann et al 1999, he purported to “correct” for CO2 fertilization, but, as Jean S described in CA posts years ago, his “correction” was a fudge, the purpose of which appears to have been to “improve” the verification RE statistic. You can search old CA posts for lots of interesting analysis. Also see discussion in McIntyre and McKitrick (EE 2005) and many CA posts."

The stripbark bristlecone chronologies which give rise to Mann’s hockey stick were originally published by Graybill 1985 (Sheep Mountain) or Graybill and Idso as evidence of CO2 fertilization, with the original authors specifically saying that their growth increase was NOT due to temperature. IPCC AR2 (1995) included a caveat on this sort of problem.

-Steve McIntyre.

Great Basin bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) at 3 sites in western North America near the upper elevation limit of tree growth showed ring growth in the second half of the 20th century that was greater than during any other 50-year period in the last 3,700 years. The accelerated growth is suggestive of an environmental change unprecedented in millennia. The high growth is not overestimated because of standardization techniques, and it is unlikely that it is a result of a change in tree growth form or that it is predominantly caused by CO2 fertilization. The growth surge has occurred only in a limited elevational band within ≈150 m of upper treeline, regardless of treeline elevation. Both an independent proxy record of temperature and high-elevation meteorological temperature data are positively and significantly correlated with upper-treeline ring width both before and during the high-growth interval. Increasing temperature at high elevations is likely a prominent factor in the modern unprecedented level of growth for Pinus longaeva at these sites.

Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes PNAS 2009

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/13/0903029106

Yet again McIntyre demonstrates that anyone reading Climate Audit and expecting to find the whole truth is making a serious category error.

Oct 29, 2018 at 6:11 PM | Phil Clarke

Why should anything published by PNAS be trusted?

Was Mann warned NOT to use Graybill?

Not really a question of trust, the Auditor simply omits to mention inconvenient facts and research that do not serve his anti-Mann agenda. In fact that extract gets nearly everything wrong ;- the hockey stick is not dependent on the Bristlecones, Dr Mann's 'contribution' consists inter alia over 200 peer-reviewed articles (approximately 199 more than the Auditor), studies that cover thousands of proxies and he has produced a reconstruction (in Mann et al 2008) with no tree-rings. MBH98/99 certainly did not interpret the bristlecones as a 'unique world thermometer', not least because it was Northern Hemisphere only. McIntyre seems to think improving validation statistics is a bad thing, even as he whines if they are poor. (His own 2005 reconstruction failed validation). And so on and so forth.

I think 'why would anyone trust CA?' is the better question.

Phil Clarke, thank you for demonstrating why nobody can be bothered with Climate Science anymore

Oct 29, 2018 at 7:26 PM | Phil Clarke

Are you counting on papers by Gergis supporting Mann once, twice, not all, or as failures?

If failures, were they failures because they proved Mann's methodology and therefore his conclusions?