The Michael Mann ‘scientists’ rigor and honesty’ Quote

The doctored quote in Michael Mann’s legal reply brought to attention by Climateaudit is doing its rounds now.

Doctored quotes? Guess where my first reaction was to look.

Sure enough, this is what one finds on Skepticalscience:

In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”. (emphasis added)

How oddly coincidental. The exact same wording seen in Michael Mann’s 2013 legal memorandum — “…whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”— shows up in John Cook’s 2010 web page, including non-Australian spelling.

A quick Google search turns up several sources which contain the same phrasing but they lead back to Cook’s site. No one else seems to have worded anything Climategate-related quite this way.

Cook if we remember, enthusiastically farmed out the services of his website and followers to Mann upon his request. His behind-the-scenes collaboration with Mann in manufacturing web pages for the express purpose of defending Mann against criticism from Richard Muller is well-documented.

In July 2012 when Mann filed suit against the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Mark Steyn Skepticalscience was there supporting Mann linking to the same page above.

About these ads

56 comments

  • “Guess where my first reaction was to look.”

    My first reaction was to look for the quote on the net and in my search it seemed clear that the SkS came up as the earliest source too.

    It occurred to me that that possibly Mann, or his representatives, saw it and were advised that it was a reliable source.

    How weird is that? ;)

    As of this moment there is some buzz, whose source seems only to be the principia site, that Michael Mann has crossed some technical threshold and de facto dropped his case against Tim Ball.

    Personally, even though I like to believe that, I think for now, in the real world, we should be careful not to take that as fact just yet

    Maybe that kind of caution was lacking by Mann’s and/or his counsel here?

  • Good find Shub.

    Nemesis is obviously back with a vengeance – to play her part in the unfolding Greek tragedy of man’s inhumanity to Mann ( or should it be the other way around?).

    We’ll have to convert more acreage to maize now to keep up with the demand for popcorn.

  • Pingback: Michael Mann’s legal case caught in a quote fabrication fib | Watts Up With That?

  • Pingback: The Source of Mann’s Doctored Quote « Climate Audit

  • Nice spotting.

  • Shub, your contact form doesn’t work and your email address is invalid …

  • > A quick Google search turns up several sources which contain the same phrasing but they lead back to Cook’s site.

    Here’s one that does not, vintage 7 July 2010:

    http://www.greenfudge.org/2010/07/07/climategate-review-finds-cru-scientists%E2%80%99-%E2%80%9Crigor-and-honesty%E2%80%9D-not-in-doubt/

    It leads to the Guardian, the Time, the Torygraph, and Andy’s, who mentions some statement by Lord Acton.

    A Google search leads to a better hit than that. I leave it to you to find it, Shub.

    The truth is out there.

  • Willar, I love this quote:

    “It also criticised the CRU scientists for failing to include proper labels on a 1999 graph prepared for the World Meteorological Organisation, which was the subject of an infamous email about Jones using a “trick” to “hide the decline”. The panel said the result was misleading”

  • @willard February 22, 2014 at 21:14

    I saw that site too when I did my search but thought little of it since it didn’t present the quote as, er, well, *the* quote in question… i.e.like this

    “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”

    Your link doesn’t have that quote, you know? The quote that shub found first seen on Sks?.

    It doesn’t.

    Really.

    Not.

    Quotes are well er, quotes!

    You know?

    Personally when I hear someone presents a claim to me that something has been said by someone I expect that the said claimer will show the someone saying it, or at least show who other claims it and has it it in “quotes”

    What *your* find instead does is this…

    It has heading like so:

    “CLIMATEGATE REVIEW FINDS CRU SCIENTISTS’ “RIGOR AND HONESTY” NOT IN DOUBT”

    and some content like so:

    “Despite CRU’s rigor and honesty, openness and clarity was found to be lacking in their approach.”

    It only seems you found there willard was one of your fellow north Americans back in 2010 reporting the fact that the report did indeed say stuff about “rigour and honesty”, about the *CRU* scientists, but they did this using their peculiar spelling.

    I will expound a bit, but it seems that the art of just dropping made up words into quotes and throwing them into a discourse is considered some kind of valid guerrilla warfare technique by some people. ;)

  • earlier spot!

    Perhaps John Cook just copied the World Resources institute
    the earliest reference for the phrase I can find (please take into accountonly 10 minutes of google worth)

    Note the date (July 2010)

    July 12, 2010: World Resources institute:

    “The Independent Climate Change Email Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred, and reviewed CRU’s policies and practices for peer review and dissemination of data and findings. It also examined CRU’s compliance with requests to release data. The Review’s findings, released in July, state:

    The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.”

    http://www.wri.org/blog/summarizing-investigations-climate-science

    On November 10th 2010 the phrase then appears in the comments at Skeptical Science (added by an unidentified moderator)

    “5: July 2010. University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.”

    http://web.archive.org/web/20101114113611/http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm#30272

    It later ( 8 days) appears in an article by John Cook November 18, 2010

    “5: In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.”

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-question-that-skeptics-dont-want-to-ask-about-Climategate.html

  • Barry
    As I said earlier – a good find!

    The WRI page was published on Jul 12, 2010. Cook published his article on July 9, 2010, not Nov 18, 2010. You need to scroll down the page and click on the ‘Archives’. The original is here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/archive.php?r=235.

    The earliest Waybackmachine version dates to March 2 2011. http://web.archive.org/web/20110302062622/http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-intermediate.htm

  • J
    My email address is nigguraths at yahoo dot com.

  • Could be timezones…?

    I’m guessing WRI still first… (ie more professionally worded?)

    likelihood of WRI copying Cook very small?

  • scracth that – I’m talking rubbish. WRI was 12th.. hmmm – maybe Cook had heads up of WRI, doubt if they copied him?

  • OK – maybe WRI plagiarized Cook..

    WRI have no author listed (usually they do on blog posts)

  • mash up of the Guardian 7th July?

    The Guardian headline summary says:

    ‘Climategate’ review clears scientists of dishonesty over data
    ‘Rigour and honesty’ of scientists not in doubt but Sir Muir Russell says UEA’s Climatic Research Unit was not sufficiently open

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty

    The Guardian quote the quote accurately in the article (6 paragraphs in) :

    “The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt … We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.”

  • Barry and Shub, I believe the way the pea moved here is that the WRI bullet point (whoever wrote it) is not claimed to be a direct quote, but then SkS put it in quotation marks and attributed it to the Muir Russel report through the associated link.

    But then the inaccurate quote is not misleading by itself – it becomes so only when Mann grabs it and tries to use it to “document” that he was one of those scientists who were “exonerated”.

  • Putting into specific parentethese something that somebody said somebody else said on the Internet is worse than hearsay. The original record is readily available. The DC original pleadings are not sworn, but they are probitive. This issue will not end well for Mann. There is literally no excuse for such a deliberately misrepresentative citation on the heart of the matter. It does not matter whether the perp is Mann or just negligence on the part of his lawyers. Any competent judge in any US court would be considering multiple possible remedies. Of course, the first judge here was obviously not competent.

  • “But then the inaccurate quote is not misleading by itself – it becomes so only when Mann grabs it and tries to use it to “document” that he was one of those scientists who were “exonerated”.”

    I agree. Just that Barry and I are obsessives like that trying to figure out stuff. ;) Wherever the quoted text might have come from, it ended up in Mann document with him passing it off as something it was not.

  • John Cook is the Craig Thomson of Australian climate alarmism IMHO. Aussies will know exactly what I meran, others can Google him (CT). It is not a flattering comparison but Mr Cook does not deserve any flattery whatsoever for his antics.

  • tlitb1 February 22, 2014 at 15:59

    As of this moment there is some buzz, whose source seems only to be the principia site, that Michael Mann has crossed some technical threshold and de facto dropped his case against Tim Ball.

    This is not the first time that O’Sullivan has (very wrongly) made such an unsubstantiated claim. Nor, I suspect, will it be the last.

    In this instance, O’Sullivant seems to have conflated Steyn’s recently announced countersuit against Mann with Mann’s suit against Ball. The latter of which (as Steve McIntyre has recently confirmed via direct inquiry to Ball) is still alive and well and lingering in the limbo of the British Columbia court system.

    When asked for a link to evidence of this heretofore unheralded “dropped case”, O’Sullivan provided none. Although he pretended to, by pointing to Andrew Montford’s thread at BH regarding Steyn’s countersuit!

    The moral of this story is: Not unlike anything that might emanate from Mann’s keyboard (or that of his defenders), one should always seek independent verification of that which emanates from O’Sullivan’s.

    On a continuum of reliability –> unreliability, Mann and O’Sullivan (whose self-promotion antics and commitment to truth in posting, to my mind, equal those of faux-historian, David Irving) are definitely at the very far end (if not beyond the scale) of “unreliability”.

    But while I’m here … great work, Shub :-)

  • @Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

    Thanks for the information there, it confirmed my suspicion.

  • Pingback: Steyn et al. versus Mann | Climate Etc.

  • Why have you changed the link to “Climate Change Email Review report” so it does not point to the original document? If you look in the correct original document there is the quote you claim is doctored. Can you explain that?

  • Explanation:
    The link from “Climate Change Email Review report” on Cook’s page goes to a pdf file of the final Muir Russell report. i.e, http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

    The Muir Russell report does not contain the quoted phrase “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.

    It’s not only Mann who’s wrong but Cook too, for quoting a sentence and linking to a document which does not contain the quoted text.

  • Yes it does contain that phrase. It uses the English spelling “rigour” though.

  • 13.
    Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists,
    we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

  • When you put text in between double-quotes (“), the exact same text should be present in your source. No changes are allowed.

    It is clear even the text you reproduce, pertains to CRU scientists.

    There is a bit of background to the story. It is available at the Climateaudit link in post, in case you’re wondering.

  • If the source of the faked quote is Cook, as suggested by the perfect match and the July 9 date, there remains the slight puzzle of why he would use the US spelling.

    Perhaps one of the ‘obsessives’ would look for other examples of Cook using -or?

  • The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted… On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/

    Doctors debasing discussions with words like “doctor” and “fake”. Imagine that.

  • > The Muir Russell report does not contain the quoted phrase “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.

    Is that a “phrase”? I would say it’s a sentence.

    Notice how Shub omits to mention the sentence we can find in the Muir Russell report.

    That ought to make the “doctoring” bigger than a black helicopter.

  • > Your link doesn’t have that quote, you know?

    Actually, even the link has the same phrasing as the quote, Leo, except of course for the “the” at the beginning of the sentence. Too bad you did not go for the villainous monologue you threatened to do, as Barry now may have stolen your thunder.

    I’m sorry the hint at the end of my first comment was not clear enough, Leo. You mentioned something about precision the other day. What was it, again?

    ***

    As long as we can agree that the “doctoring” is quite thin, you may continue to conjectures about the source of the “doctored” quote.

  • @Willard, no we cannot ‘agree that the “doctoring” is quite thin’.

    You are claiming that it’s a minor thing to take one out-of-context phrase from a paragraph, convert it to a standalone sentence, and use it to radically change the meaning of what was said.

    That’s not minor, not thin “doctoring.” Clearly the original was about CRU scientists. Clearly Mann is trying to squeeze himself into that group. And clearly you either do not understand or you are also trying to obfuscate the truth.

  • Nice catch Shub. I’m sure you have seen the spring cleaning Dana has done. I found it funny that he removed the section “The science is unchanged by Climategate” and added “The full body of evidence for man-made global warming”. And he calls it an update…”Last updated on 24 February 2014 by dana1981″.

  • harold
    I’m just seeing the ‘spring cleaning’. I see the quote change. I also see the ‘Intermediate/Advanced’ sections and ‘The Skeptic argument…’ sections have been swapped and one of them renamed. I don’t ‘see’ the other changes.

  • @paul matthews

    John Cook uses “colours” in the post on the Hiroshima bombs:

    “You can customise the colour of the widget …”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-per-second-widget-raise-awareness-global-warming.html

  • > You are claiming that it’s a minor thing to take one out-of-context phrase from a paragraph, convert it to a standalone sentence, and use it to radically change the meaning of what was said.

    Yes, Mr. Pete, and I also admitted beating my wife.

    If you think the “doctoring” is that bad, quote the paragraph where Mike’s sentence is taken. Show how it operates in the part “Factual Background” and the section “Dr. Mann Is Exonerated.” How it undercuts the other sub-sections, which have not been mentioned so far.

    Citing the memo should be easy. I’m sure it’s easy to find a link to it somewhere, say at CA. The Auditor always cites what he criticizes, right?

    Let’s hope a missing citation ain’t a case of doctoring too.

    ***

    Sooner or later, we will have to cut to the chase and have a show of hands on how one can accuse Mike of fraud if the scientists at CRU have been exonerated, Meanwhile, overegging pudding after pudding might not be good for cholesterol.

  • “If you think the “doctoring” is that bad, quote the paragraph…”

    You should do it. You should quote the paragraph and show the Muir Russell review ‘exonerated’ Michael Mann.

  • @willard

    Sooner or later, we will have to cut to the chase and have a show of hands on how one can accuse Mike of fraud if the scientists at CRU have been exonerated,

    Why? Unless you can show me differently I am pretty sure the Muir Russell inquiry didn’t discuss the “rigour or honesty” of Michael Mann as a named individual; being good bad or indifferent. So why ask for a show of hands based on that particular inquiry?

    Or are you asking for a show of hands to based on a judgement using more information i.e. some other sub sections that haven’t been mentioned?

    If so I suggest you let us know what we should base our judgements on?

    Meanwhile, I think the topic is about the fact there is a legal memorandum on Mann’s behalf which claims Muir Russell exonerated him, but when we look to see how this conclusion is derived we find there is a manufactured quote associated with the claim .

    BTW apologies to Willard for wrongly assuming that he was providing a link which had the ‘quote’, he is of course right that I missed the fact he only said he’d found the same ‘phrasing’.

    I.e. this phrase “rigor and honesty”

    In fact, come to think of it, on further squinting, that Greenfudge link does almost has the exact same words as the quote used in the legal memo.
    When you allow that the “the” is missing at the beginning; and it is in all caps; an it misses the word “are”; and it has a reference to CRU not seen in memo; Oh, and and having the phase itself separately quoted unlike the memorandum version.

    Other than those differences it is eerily similar. ;)

    Willards found: “CLIMATEGATE REVIEW FINDS CRU SCIENTISTS’ “RIGOR AND HONESTY” NOT IN DOUBT”

    Legal memorandum has: “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.”38

    ############################

    BTW, I think it is worth noting that the legal memorandum annotation (38) above directly references the Muir Russell report as so (my bold):

    38 Sir Muir Russell, et al., “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review,” (July 2010), available at: http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf, attached hereto as Exhibit 6.

    Which I would think by most standards is a pretty strong implication that the quote resides in that linked report. I would have thought ?

    Though maybe being this sloppy in a legal memo in the US it is not a big deal? That is what a lot of this hangs on I guess.

    Also think worth mentioning that while both the WRI and Skeptical Science sites have “”The scientists’…” with the capitalised “The”, but the legal memo has it in lower case. So I think technically that means it is the only place where that quote exists?

  • > You should quote the paragraph and show the Muir Russell review ‘exonerated’ Michael Mann.

    There’s no need to show such thing to consider that our current episode of ClimateBall ™ might not take into account what Mike needed to show in his memo to maintain that he has been exonerated simpliciter, as the title of the relevant section of the memo suggests.

    While waiting for Shub or the Auditor to provide the link to the memo, we could add this other resource on the table:

    In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing: [...]

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=120

    Our empĥasis. The list that follows may be quite revealing to those who, like Shub, know where to check when the Auditor talks about a “doctored” quote.

    ***

    Note the copyright remark at the end of this resource: Creative Commons 3.0. Do we find such copyright notice here, Shub? What about at the Auditor’s?

    So many questions, so little time.

  • We might as well observe, before taking our leave until tomorrow, the important Poscript to the first op-ed on our current episode of ClimateBall ™ by the Auditor :

    In October 2013, at the request of Steptoe, the then lawyers for National Review and Steyn, I visited them in Washington to provide background on the dispute. Steptoe paid my travel expenses, but I was not offered (nor did I request) remuneration for my time. During the trip, I also provided a briefing with CEI’s counsel. Following my trip, Steptoe proposed that I act as a consultant to National Review in the litigation, but I didn’t follow up or enter into any agreement. I am reluctant to enter into a consulting agreement at present, since I want to preserve my ability to comment independently. On the other hand, I can envisage circumstances in which I might enter into a consulting agreement with one of the parties and perhaps even be remunerated for my time: everyone else seems to get paid. If that happens, I’ll disclose it.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/

    Our emphases. To echo an interesting remark from the Auditor, a remarkable source for our host-from-the-past.

    Notice how this postcript discharged the Auditor to mention it again in the rest of the episodes so far. In fact, compare and contrast with the number of times the word “doctored” has been used.

    Perhaps we will have to wait until “one of the parties” contract the Auditor for a consulting gig, whoever that might be.

  • Let’s complete this sentence:

    > Perhaps we will have to wait until “one of the parties” contract the Auditor for a consulting gig, whoever that might be [...]

    to hear about the “background” the Auditor provided to “one of the parties” in our current episode of ClimateBall ™.

    Good night,

    w

  • Poptech examined the provenance of the “That scienctists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”. His comments in CA make things clear (multiple comments at end of this thread).

    It appears very likely that Cook copied text from the World Resources Institute web page. The WRI text was first found by Barry. The puzzle, of course, was how did so from a page dated Jul 12 2010 to his page, where his typed-in date entry was Jul 9 2010.

    It is now clear the SKS page with the above highlighted quote appeared on their webpage, sometime between July 2010 (going by date listed at bottom) and Mar 2011 (going by the Wayback archive). But, as Poptech points out, the dates hand-entered by Cook are unreliable. They are simply copy-pasted across pages with no regard for when they were authored.

    In conclusion, this page: https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-question-that-skeptics-dont-want-to-ask-about-Climategate.html appears to be the first time the numbered list of enquiries appeared at Cook’s website. This page was written in Nov 2010 by Cook and it is well possible he copied the sentence in question from the WRI page: http://www.wri.org/blog/summarizing-investigations-climate-science.

  • willard, I fail to understand what you say in this comment (http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-michael-mann-scientists-rigor-and-honesty-quote/#comment-9978). Again, not that it’s easy to understand what you say in your other comments., but you have quoted a passage from a SKS page. What does the quoted passage imply to you?

  • Dear Shub,

    I’m sorry you fail to understand my penultimate comment.

    Let’s begin with the first clause of the first sentence, which I will quote in full:

    > There’s no need to show such thing to consider that our current episode of ClimateBall ™ might not take into account what Mike needed to show in his memo to maintain that he has been exonerated simpliciter, as the title of the relevant section of the memo suggests.

    The first is “there’s no need to show such thing”. The thing is “quote the paragraph and show the Muir Russell review ‘exonerated’ Michael Mann”. I don’t need to show that because I have no commitment toward such task.

    You are burdening me with a commitment I don’t have, Shub. That is suboptimal. Here’s a short analysis why:

    http://scientistscitizens.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/debate-in-the-blogosphere-a-small-case-study/

    You’ll notice that it features Steve’s, i.e. the Auditor’s Mecca.

    ***

    I see no reason so far why this “doctoring” matters much. In fact, I have yet to see an argument to the effect that it matters much. MrPete’s rhetorical question amidst his “beating wife” is the best I’ve seen so far. If you think this makes a Washington law firm looks bad, wait till you read Steyn’s documents, which have been produced after he consulted with the Auditor.

    I surmise that anybody who read the memo could see that the quote does not matter much. Mike’s argument does not rest on the sentence the Auditor quotes. The whole episode looks like doctoring to me.

    Have you read Mike’s memo, Shub?

    If you did, show us the link to it. This is your third chance to provide it.

    ***

    I hope you find that comment a bit clearer. I also hope you don’t play dumb. It’s not that difficult to clarify oneself until ClimateBallers who plays dumb can’t anymore.

  • The WRI page is fine. It paraphrases without quotation marks, and it cites with. It also makes clear who is being blamed cq exonerated by whom and for what.

  • > It also makes clear who is being blamed cq exonerated by whom and for what.

    Have you read the memo, Richard?

  • I tried to leave this comment at the Auditor’s:

    > Mann’s argument on actual malice is entirely reliant on the assertion that he has been investigated and exonerated by “no less then eight” investigations.

    This has yet to be shown. All that has been shown is that Mike went above board in conclusion of his memo. Some might argue that all Mann needs to show is that, so far, no official investigation found any basis for the allegations of fraudulent conduct for all the scientists involved, whom all are in Mike “social network”. This argument is after all in the “introduction” you failed to quote.

    There is no basis to claim that Mike committed fraud, and the best evidence we have is that you never say the F word yourself. If you have an argument to that effect, Steve, put it on the table. It’s time you “say what you think”, if I may remind you what you said to Richard Betts.

    And for the interest of full disclosure, you might also need to reiterate in every post you make that Steyn’s team consulted with you, and that you are always open to the possibility to work for Steyn (not “one of the parties”, mind you) in the future in exchange of remuneration.

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/25/mann-misrepresents-the-uk-department-of-energy-and-climate-change/#comment-486106

    It has yet to appear.

    Yes, but RC moderation.

  • Willard, moderation at CA is triggered by various keywords, one of which is in your comment. As you are aware, I seldom prevent critics from having their say at Climate Audit, and most of moderation is directed towards “supporters”. I examined the pending comments at CA to see if your comment was in moderation and there is no record of it being submitted. The comment number that you show here points to a different comment.

    In Mann’s pleadings, he observed that Ross and I had not accused him of “fraud” and you observe “There is no basis to claim that Mike committed fraud, and the best evidence we have is that you never say the F word yourself. If you have an argument to that effect, Steve, put it on the table.”

    As I’ve observed from time to time, I don’t publicly say everything that I think. I don’t in my ordinary life and I don’t in my blog commentary. For Mann’s sake, I hope that he has more evidence in his favor than the absence of the f-word in my public commentary.

    Nor is it true that I never use the word “fraud”. I’ve written from time to time at Climate Audit about major frauds e.g. Bre-X and Enron. I was interested in these major frauds well before I became interested in Mann’s work. In these two cases, I was particularly interested in how people might have caught the frauds earlier and in lapses of both full, true and plain disclosure and due diligence, both of which have been recurring topics at Climate Audit.

    As I stated at Climate Audit, I am not consulting for any party in this matter because I wish to be able to comment independently. I was asked by National Review’s lawyers to visit with them and brief them on the background of the affair and did so, but not under a consultancy agreement. I also briefed CEI’s lawyers, again not under a consultancy agreement. Obviously I know a lot about the facts and events and it would be surprising if the defendants weren’t interested in my views.

  • Thank you for your comment, Steve, which I just saw.

    You say:

    > Nor is it true that I never use the word “fraud”. I’ve written from time to time at Climate Audit about major frauds e.g. Bre-X and Enron.

    Perhaps I should have been clearer. You never use the F word regarding Mike, and you frown upon anyone who does at your blog. As a curator on wp.com, you are responsible for the comment section of your blog, and I believe we can agree that using the F word can lead to litigation. Also, your audit against Mike is way more profitable to ClimateBallers if it never ends. Channeling your pride may also be Mike’s best strategy, but that discussion needs to be set aside for another time.

    The “regarding Mike” was implicit in my remark, which was preceded by a sentence you again forgot to take into consideration. I know your blog featured lots of fraud stories, and I believe they serve as perfect examples of how to stretch the limits of justified disingenuousness. You’re basically dogwhistling when you do that, and perhaps also conveying enough of “what you think” for having others say what you are prudent enough not to say. The contrarian blog ring provides a well adapted commensalist niche.

    That you again use the “get your fact straight” is to be expected, as you use this for most of your gaslighting. How you played the “doctored quote” card was suboptimal, at least way more than playing the “eight” one. (I noticed how you changed subject when Nick Stokes nailed on that one, btw.) But that last card won’t prevent you from having to face the fact that Steyn used an F word, and that Dr Mann has been exonerated, as the title of the section you parsomatize indicates.

    Sooner or later, you may need to do more than wage a public relation war against Mike.

    ***

    You also say:

    > moderation at CA is triggered by various keywords

    I have enough comments that did not appear to doubt your explanation of moderation at CA, Steve. Here again must I presume that you do not say what you think?

    You might have more allies if you stopped playing cheap and dirty tricks, you know. A first good step would to link to the goddam documents you criticize. A second one would be to stop pussyfooting with expressions like “one of the parties” when you know damn well which party you might advise in a foreseeable future for a fee, and that you are openly helping pro bono if we exclude what comes by way of your Donate button, anonymously or not.

    Yes, but costs opportunities, I know, I know.

    Due diligence,

    w

  • Steve McIntyre

    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-michael-mann-scientists-rigor-and-honesty-quote/#comment-9983

    In a comment above (http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-michael-mann-scientists-rigor-and-honesty-quote/#comment-9983), Shub raised the interesting question of the origin of the SKS numbered list of “vindications” subsequently adopted in the Mann pleadings as vindications of Mann. Shub wrote:

    In conclusion, this page: https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-question-that-skeptics-dont-want-to-ask-about-Climategate.html appears to be the first time the numbered list of enquiries appeared at Cook’s website. This page was written in Nov 2010 by Cook …

    The page cited by Shub (https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-question-that-skeptics-dont-want-to-ask-about-Climategate.html ) was dated November 18, 2010. In its current form, it lists seven inquiries: PSU Inquiry, UK Parliamentary Committee, Oxburgh,Penn State Investigation Committee, Muir, EPA and DECC. (According to Wayback Machine, the original version of this webpage showed six inquiries: EPA was added some time in January 2011.)

    The previous day (November 17, 2010) – the actual Climategate anniversary, there was an earlier SKS post listing the same “six vindications” as the following day’s article cited by Shub. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-a-year-later.html which states:

    Not one, not two, but six vindications. This comes as no surprise to anyone with passing familiarity of the distinction between private chat and public actions.

    The author of the previous day’s post was, amusingly, Stephan Lewandowsky.

    A list of six inquiries also occurs in an inline comment http://web.archive.org/web/20101114113611/http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm#30272 by a SKS moderator to a November 10, 2010 comment. This was linked in a comment above http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-michael-mann-scientists-rigor-and-honesty-quote/#comment-9939 by Barry Woods on the provenance of the doctored quote.

  • free instagram followers

    pictures. Maybe you could space it out better?

  • What’s up, just wanted to tell you, I enjoyed this blog post.
    It was inspiring. Keep on posting!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s