Mann vs. Steyn: The Expert Report Never Entered Onto the Record

Judith Curry is an exceptional geophysicist who I wrote about in reviewing her recent book on the subject of deep uncertainty and risk in science. She also gave me permission to run her excellent post on politics and science which includes excerpts from her book.

Curry was, too, a witness in the Mann vs. Steyn trial just completed and wrote an expert report for it that the judge wouldn’t allow into the record. That full report, which is absolutely devastating for the climate cult surrounding Michael Mann may be found here. The summary follows:

This report addresses the issue of whether it is reasonable to refer to the Hockey Stick graph as ‘fraudulent’ in the course of the public debate on climate change.

What is the nature of the scientific and public controversy concerning the Hockey Stick?

It is my opinion that the Hockey Stick has generated a dynamic and heated debate about its significance and its flaws. Since its publication, Mann’s Hockey Stick has been the subject of intense and often polemical comment and argument in:

1. peer-reviewed, scientific publications critical of the Hockey Stick;

2. analyses of the science behind the Hockey Stick on technical climate blogs;  

3. published books on the Hockey Stick controversy;

4. articles by leading science journalists in the mainstream media;

5. online encyclopedia entries on the ‘Hockey Stick Controversy’;

6. Congressional hearings and investigations related to the Hockey Stick; and

7. the personal controversy surrounding Michael Mann in his efforts to defend the Hockey Stick and to thwart his critics.

Is it reasonable to regard the Hockey Stick as ‘fraudulent’?

It is my opinion that it is reasonable to have referred to the Hockey Stick in 2012 as ‘fraudulent,’ in the sense that aspects of it are deceptive and misleading:

• Image falsification: Mann’s efforts to conceal the so-called “divergence problem” by deleting downward-trending post-1960 data and also by splicing earlier proxy data with later instrumental data is consistent with most standards of image fraud.

• Cherry picking: Evidence shows that Mann engaged in selective data cherry picking to create the Hockey Stick, and that this cherry picking contributes to the perception of a “fraudulent” Hockey Stick by journalists, the public and scientists from other fields.

• Data falsification (the ‘upside-down’ Tiljander proxy): Substantial evidence shows that Mann inverted data from the Tiljander proxies in a version of the Hockey Stick published in 2008. Mann did not acknowledge his mistaken interpretation of data. Even after published identification of the mistake, this mistake has propagated through subsequent literature including the IPCC 4th Assessment Report.

What is Mann’s role in the downward spiral of climate science discourse?

It is my opinion that the scientific discourse surrounding climate change in general, and the Hockey Stick in particular, has deteriorated in civility and professionalism, and that Mann has played a significant and active role in this corrosion and unprofessional degradation of tone.

Mann’s approach to public discourse about his work and broader topics in climate change has contributed much to the hostility and animosity that characterize and mark these exchanges.

My opinion is based on:

1. the norms of science and scientific discourse;

2. Mann’s withholding of data from his peers;

3. Mann’s efforts to stifle skepticism; and

4. Mann’s attacks on scientists who disagree with him.

Pages 12-14 also includes statement after statement from climate scientists critical of Michael Mann’s work. They are well worth reading.

Pages 19-20 are particularly relevant and include this chart:

If you look closely you’ll see a green line representing the work of another researcher named Briffa that doesn’t continue all the way through the late 20th century. This is further illustrated with another two charts on the next page demonstrating how the Hockey Stick was forged. Curry shows how Mann “deleted the late 20th century portion of Briffa’s data set (the green curve above) to conceal the sharp temperature decline that would have upset the Hockey Stick curve.”

Read the whole thing. That this didn’t get admitted by the judge as an expert report is shameful, but the trial was nonetheless an opportunity to remind the public about what happened during and leading up to ClimateGate and how it launched the Big Green Grift by corporatists that followed and continues to this day.

#ClimateGate #Mann #Steyn #GlobalWarming #HockeyStick