Stephen Segrest: where general opinion seems to conclude that while some of Mann’s “methods” were suspect, the overall representation of the Hockey Stick is still valid.
further to my earlier point, I expect the writings of Stephen McIntyre (some on his blog, some in peer-reviewed journals) to carry more weight than “general opinion”.
Quinn the Eskimo, when does “reckless disregard for truth” come into play? Ever?
Brandon, as I said above to David Appell, more issues are raised by Mann’s behavior after the publication of his paper, than occurred within it.
So maybe “it’s not the crime but the coverup.”
I personally believe that Mann saw the fact his proxies passed the RE-statistic test as evidence that his reconstruction was valid. (Many people now believe that the RE-statistics test was done wrong, but this speaks to competency more than motive.)
Because Mann did have evidence that his reconstruction was valid from the RE-statistic, I would say normally this would be an example of researcher misconduct but not a case of outright fraud.
You may want to look at these comments above
I haven’t seen the point about misconduct occurring specifically the 1999 paper. Are you aware of text similar to what you quoted above from the 1998 paper which appears in the 1999 paper?
John the grounds for dismissal was DC’s anti-SLAPP statute, not the merits of the case. It is the SLAPP ruling being appealed by CEI. That is why the ACLU filed an amicus brief. Slapp is about political freedom of speach, and the preventing abusive use of defamation lawsuits to supress it. Whichnis what we have here. Steyn has recused himself, and counter sued Mann on the merits. That is on hold until this appeal is resolved. But because of the separation and countersuit, even if Mann’s suit is dismissed per the SLAPP statute, Steyn can proceed. And that is why all this willful misrepresentation in Mann’s pleadings (for no other interpretation is possible given the facts Judith posted) is important. Mann is going to lose. Big time.
Brandon
Interesting and excellent summary. I was not aware of those specifics.
Brandon, again that’s a good point about how MBH99 affects the analysis of whether deliberate deception (what one would call “scientific fraud”) was at play. But case for misconduct is stilleasier to build, because motive doesn’t matter so much.
Carrick said “Even if that opinion is highly negative towards the person who produced the graph.”
Steyn’s opinion was highly negative towards the graph – not the person who produced the graph.
This distinction will turn out to be very important – even though Mann’s Reply attempts to convert the criticism of the graph into criticism of the man (Mann).
Matthew:
When you say “except that” … you are still clear making a comparison. In this case you are saying how they are different instead of how they are the same.
Unless you can come up with a model where the text appeared without Steyn’s knowledge, I don’t think it’s fair to try and claim some comparison between Mann and Sandusky was not made.
Nor is it really fair to say Steyn was trying to defend Mann with the comparison that was made.
Nor is it really fair to say it was even necessary.
It was a cheap shot made by a writer with a record of making cheap shots.
I’m sure it entertained his intended audience and made angry off the demographic he wanted to make angry.
But it was unnecessary, and when called upon to rectify the situation, you can’t deny he doubled down. (On stupidity IMO.)
Carrick, of course Michael Mann didn’t repeat that claim of robustness in MBH99. He didn’t discuss the robustness of his 1400-1980 AD results in MBH99. That doesn’t resolve anything though. When Mann directed people to MBH98 for a discussion of his 1400-1980 results, he implicitly repeated the claims of MBH98. He certainly endorsed MBH98’s contents by reusing its results and directing people to read it.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to defend his actions by saying, “He didn’t explicitly repeat the false claim; he only intentionally misled people into believing it.” Nobody reading MBH99 would have thought, “He’s reusing the 1400-1980 results from MBH98, but maybe he knows what MBH98 says about the robustness of those results is a lie.”
We can be lawyer-y and say he didn’t specifically lie in MBH99, but you don’t have to specifically lie in order to commit fraud. Intentionally causing people to believe your results are robust when you know they are not is committing fraud.
Carrick,
I think Mann is a remarkably disagreeable fellow who’s own public criticism of other scientists is consistently “no quarter given”. His public critiques of Judith and other scientists are so far beyond the pale that it beggars belief (A department chair with hundreds of publications is a “serial misinformer”? Really?). You may have higher expectations for opinion journalists like Steyn; I don’t. But I do I have higher expectations for scientists like Mann; it is hard for me to find even a shred of sympathy for someone so hypocritical as Mann.
Objection, Censored.
=======
One thing that popped into my mind, seeing the deconstruction of Mann’s briefs, is that if the Massachusetts v. EPA case had been subjected to the same scrutiny as Mann’s case, the result in Massachusetts might have been different. I believe that the US govt (under Bush) poorly argued the Mass. case by conceding that the science of global warming was settled and by focusing almost solely on the standing issue.
If the govt’s trial briefs had been scrutinized in the same manner as Mann’s briefs are currently being scrutinized, I know a lot of people would have pointed out the many holes in “mainstream climate science.” If that had happened, it is possible that the government would have also challenged the science as being preliminary and not mature. If that had happened it is possible that Justice Kennedy’s vote may have been different.
The reason that Justice Kennedy’s vote may have been different is that it is quite common for judges to instinctively focus on the big picture merits of a case and to attempt not to rule on the case based on perceived technicalities. Therefore, in most cases, I believe that it is advisable, if you have a legitimate argument to make that justice is on your side, to make the argument supporting the ultimate justice of your case, even if you should win based upon a technicality. The govt. didn’t do so in the Mass. case, and I believe it very substantially hurt its presentation.
JD
Also, Judy, thanks for your kind comment.
‘The Big Picture’ is a silver screen painted on fog.
=============
AK “It sounds as though you think the “anti-SLAPP” laws don’t really apply?” They apply, but they don’t totally nullify the right of a plaintiff to bring a defamation suit. Steyn made it easier for Mann to sue him by using the term “fraud.” Personally, I thing the case should have been thrown out under the anti-Slapp law, but it is not totally unreasonable to claim that labeling someone’s work fraudulent should subject the speaker to defamation liability.
JD
I am the Walrus!
============
The frog is in the frying pan and smells velly testy. Where’s the Pick-a-Peppa?
=======
This invisibility cloak, this Veil of Mann
Is pierced by Steyn, who ran and ran.
===============
I’m frankly too stupid to grasp Mann’s side of the case. Aside from the niceties of the arguments over the graph itself, Mann is most certainly a public figure by reason of his left wing advocacy…a role that by its nature is conducive to all sort of simplifications and hyperbole (kind words in MAnns regard). These are.things that some might well regard in the colloquial sense as “fraudulent.” Steyn’s a right wing provocateur also given to a certain extravagant rhetorical style. The notion that Steyn can be sued for essentially doing his job just doesn’t computer for me…
If Mann were to prevail the damage to our right to free speech in this country would be enormous. Certain cartoonists like to caricature Obama by drawing him with big ears. Would Obama then be able to sue for them making him look ridiculous? What exactly is the difference?
