SM: This article by JD Ohio was submitted and briefly online on February 23, 2018, but, for some reason that I don’t recall, was taken offline. In any event, as Mann’s ancient libel case wends its way into a DC court, I noticed that it was still pending. It deals concisely with a central issue […]
In today’s post, I’ll show that even Andrew Weaver was tricked by Mann’s IPCC 2001 hide-the-decline. Weaver’s incorrect belief that the IPCC diagram showed “four” “independent” “hockey sticks” constructed using “different techniques” led him to believe that the research was much solider than it really was (or is), to say that our focus on the Mann reconstruction was “vindictive” and that any suggestion that our work might impact IPCC conclusions on the topic was “pure and unadulterated rubbish”.
One of the most bizarre conclusions of D.C. Judge Combs-Greene were her findings that it was actionable to “question [Mann’s] intellect and reasoning” and that calling his work “intellectually bogus” was “tantamount to an accusation of fraud”. These absurd findings are all the more remarkable because, as National Review pointed out in their written brief, Harry Edwards, then Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
In some recent posts, I’ve observed that Carvin made a couple of astonishing gaffes in his oral argument. In today’s post, I’ll comment on the worst one. First, I’ll report the exchange without context. I presume that 99.99% of Climate Audit readers will spot the gaffe immediately. Read and react to Carvin’s words before reading my comments below the fold, where I’ll give my take on Carvin’s goof.
Towards the end of Carvin’s mostly cringeworthy rebuttal, he seemed to score on EPA’s rejection of complaints against Mann’s own defamatory accusations of “scientific fraud”. EPA had found that Mann’s use of the term “fraud” meant no more than he believed the articles to be “scientifically flawed” and that, in such circumstances, Mann’s language was “appropriate”.
I have an audio copy of the oral argument in Mann v Steyn, which I’ve posted up (see link at the end of this post). One of things often under-estimated by those readers (especially at WUWT) who are bloodthirsty for litigation as a means of settling scores is that it’s not easy for litigation lawyers to fully assimilate a complicated history. In the oral argument of the anti-SLAPP motion, both the lawyers and judges seem too often to be playing blind man’s bluff with the facts, making a decision both unpredictable and probably somewhat random.
About eight weeks ago, Jean S postulated that Gavin Schmidt had been involved in writing the documents supporting EPA’s decision denying various petitions for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding (the “RTP documents“), documents that Mann had cited to the D.C. Court as a supposedly “independent” investigation into allegations against him.
Jean S has spotted a highly amusing entry in Mann’s CV. The entry yields yet another porky in Mann’s pleadings.
The Muir Russell panel had conceded that the WMO 1999 diagram and related IPCC 2001 diagrams (the two most discussed hide-the-decline diagrams) were “misleading”. CEI reported this in their original Memorandum in December 2012
The Mann Statement of Claim prominently displayed, as one of only two quotations from the “inquiries”, an extended quotation from the Myths vs Facts webpage, included as one of three Resources accompanying the EPA decision denying reconsideration of various petitions for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding (though Mann’s Statement of Claim falsely cited the
