Posted on 02/22/2014 11:36:43 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
UPDATE: it seems the language was lifted from a “Skeptical Science” web page, see below.
Steve McIntyre had a busy day yesterday. While yesterday there was an incorrect story called “Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse“ being pushed by John O’Sullivan at Principia Scientific International (aka PSI and The Slayers) claiming Dr. Tim Ball had defeated Mann’s lawsuit, Ball confirms through communications with McIntyre yesterday that while stalled, Mann’s lawsuit is still very much on. Also, for those who don’t know, we’ve heard that Dr. Mann’s legal bills are being paid by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, where we’ve been told there are some deep green pockets contributing, so he isn’t facing bankruptcy, at least not yet.
I find the name a bit of a misnomer, since AFAIK, no climate skeptic scientists are suing alarmist climate scientists, We have only Dr. Mann’s and Dr. Weaver’s lawsuit (also against Tim Ball). Perhaps it should be named the Climate Science Legal Offense Fund.
In a parallel Mann legal arena, Steve McIntyre now shows that in his legal reply to the NRO/Steyn lawsuit, Dr. Mann or his attorneys altered a quote from the Muir Russell inquiry that didn’t exist. Add this to the fake “Nobel Laureate” claim in Mann’s original lawsuit (a claim which he removed without notice), and a pattern begins to emerge that might not be looked on too kindly by a presiding judge.
He writes:
In my most recent post, I showed that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Oxburgh inquiry had no more validity than Mann’s claim to have won a Nobel prize. In today’s post, I’ll continue my series on the “investigations” by showing that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Muir Russell inquiry is equally invalid.
In their memoranda supporting their original motions to dismiss, both National Review and CEI had observed (correctly) that the Muir Russell panel had limited their findings to “CRU scientists” and contested Mann’s assertion that the Muir Russell panel had made any findings regarding Mann himself, let alone “exonerated” him.
In Mann’s Reply Memorandum, he vociferously rejected the (correct) assertion that the Muir Russell had not exonerated Mann himself, describing such assertion as merely an attempt to “obfuscate and misrepresent”. Mann supported this bluster with an apparent quotation from the Muir Russell report, but the phrase within the quotation marks does not actually occur within the Muir Russell report. As shown below, Mann and/or his lawyers subtly altered the quotation to more supportive language.
Full story: http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/
Manwhile: Steyn countersues Mann for 10 millon dollars (hilarious reading, highly recommended)
UPDATE: Shub Niggurath finds the apparent source of the language, he writes:
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:
See his post here: http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-michael-mann-scientists-rigor-and-honesty-quote/
fyi
Fabrication, fib, lie, all synonyms to Mann’s definition of science.
It is looking like Mann now finds himself in a pot of water which he cannot get out of, that is slowly heating up.
fyi
Found this while searching FR:
HOW THE HOCKEY STICK CRUMBLED: A POST MORTEM (It's not Michael Mann's hockey stick.)
Power Line ^ | APRIL 3, 2013 | JOHN HINDERAKER
Posted on Mon 08 Apr 2013 09:41:22 AM PDT by neverdem
What do you expect from a No Bell (in the belfry) Prize Wiener?
Thanks Ernest!
Sort of like how a cookie would crumble after being whacked by a hockey stick. :)
As Mark Steyn pointed out in his counter-suit against Mann, he’s dragged out another legal case 3 years because other people are paying the legal bills, and they probably know they’ll lose the verdict in the end, but they don’t really care as long as they can bleed the defendant and make his life hell for three years. The legal system was not intended to be used as an instrument of torture, but I’m sure that’s part of the game Mann and his money-backers are playing. If they can break the opposition mentally or financially, they will have won.
Wouldn’t be surprised if hedge fund billionaire and green-weenie Tom Steyer is behind Mann’s legal defense.
The deliars are attacking the deniers instead of defending destick. Michael is certainly not the demann.
Hmmm. If Mann’s legal fees are being paid by someone else, does he have to declare those payments as income for Federal tax purposes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.