Michael Mann's Opponents In Hockey Stick Defamation Case Regurgitate Half-Truths In New Court Filing

authordefault
on

Put up your hand if youโ€™ve been a follower of news about climate change in recent years and havenโ€™t heard of the โ€œhockey stickโ€ย graph.

Nobody?ย  No, didnโ€™t thinkย so.

These graphs get their name because of theirย shape.ย 

They are reconstructions of the temperatures on Earth over several centuries to several millennia and they all have a repetitive tendency to turn sharply skyward showing the recent rapid warming of theย Earth.

The most famous and first โ€œhockey stickโ€ came from research in the journal Nature in 1998 led by Professor Michael Mann, then of the University of Massachusettsย Amherst.

Mann used historical data from tree rings and ice cores โ€“ known as โ€œproxy recordsโ€ – to determine what temperatures were like over the Northern Hemisphere over the 600 years or so before we had a reasonably well-dispersed network ofย thermometers.

When plotted on a chartโ€ฆ well, you know the rest.ย  It looked like a hockeyย stick.

Mann followed up that work in 1999, refining the research for a study in Geophysical Research Letters to give a full 1000-year history of the planetโ€™sย temperatures.

His work appeared in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.ย  This is what it looked liked in that report (notice the red and blue colors – we’ll come to that in aย bit.)


ย 

Since then, several other studies using different methodologies and different sets of data have come to broadly the same conclusion to Mann. Recent decades have been exceptionallyย warm.

Over the same period, climate science โ€œscepticsโ€ and denialists have been gunning for Mann, now the head of the Earth System Science Center at Penn Stateย University.

Heโ€™s written a whole book about it, fittingly titled The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.

His opponents constantly raise allegations against Mann, without ever mentioning the half dozen or so investigations into his academic work and conduct that have concluded his work and conduct to beย sound.

In July 2012, the Competitive Enterprise Institute published a particularly egregious article comparing Mann to a child molester who had โ€œmolested and torturedย dataโ€.ย 

Conservative polemicist Mark Steyn, in a blog post for National Review Online, reproduced some of the comments and described Mannโ€™s hockey stick graph as โ€œfraudulentโ€. This is the same National Review that once wrote a begging letter to a US Senator in the hope he could pull some strings with the tobacco industry to get them to take out moreย advertising.

Mann asked for an apology and a retraction but was told in a headline to โ€œGet Lostโ€.ย  In October 2012, Mann issued a defamationย lawsuit.

Climate Science Watch has been following the proceedings, but the latest installment comes thisย week.ย 

The defendants have lodged a document to the court in the District of Columbia to appeal a previous decision not to throw Mann’s case out under Anti-SLAPP laws in the District of Columbia.ย  These laws are designed to allow people to take advocacy positions on matters of publicย interest.

The filing repeats a series of well-thumbed allegations and criticisms that have been levelled at Mann and his colleagues over the years, while ignoring the conclusions of the investigations into those sameย accusations.

For example, the filing uses a quote from Professor David Hand taken from a report in The Daily Telegraph newspaper of a 2010 pressย conference.

The press conference was to announce the conclusions of a review into the illegal hacking and publishing of emails and other files from the University of East Anglia in Novemberย 2009.

Thatโ€™s right, weโ€™re still dredging up โ€œClimategateโ€.

The court filing quotes Hand as saying that Mannโ€™s technique had โ€œexaggerated the size of the blade at the end of the hockeyย stickโ€.

Yet the defendantsโ€™ lawyers donโ€™t mention that this statement was later clarified by the same Lord Oxburgh reviewย – the one that concluded there was โ€œno evidence of any deliberate scientific malpracticeโ€ in relation to the hacked emails.ย Hereโ€™s theย clarification:

For the avoidance of misunderstanding in the light of various press stories, it is important to be clear that the neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings. Rather, the aim was to draw attention to the complexity of statistics in this field, and the need to use the best possibleย methods.

The filing recites old criticisms of the statistical techniques and the use of proxy records without mentioning that the US National Research Council conducted a major review into these techniques almost a decade ago, in light of the criticisms being flung at Mann and his contemporaries.ย  This is oldย territory.

The National Research Council committee report found:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around theย world.

A statement from the NRCย added:

The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution โ€“ when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower โ€“ are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primaryย evidence.

The filing again quotes some of the emails from the โ€œClimategateโ€ hacking to try and create the impression that Mann had acted improperly, without mentioning the conclusions of the three reviews into theย affair.

Two of those reviews were commissioned by the University of East Anglia and a third was conducted by a UK Parliamentary Committee. A separate inquiry carried out by Penn State into Mann’s conduct also cleared him of allegations of researchย misconduct.

Another allegation in the court document is that โ€œthe hockey stick is misleading because it splices together two different types of data without highlighting the change [from proxy records to actual temperatureย observations].โ€

The roots of this claim were examined by the Independent Climate Change Emails Reviewย and which involved one instance of Mannโ€™s data being presented alongside other research in a chart on the cover of a 1999 World Meteorological Organization report.

Yet in the most high profile representations of Mannโ€™s chart (in Nature, Geophysical Research Letters and the IPCC 2001 report) the colours and the legends beside the charts clearly show which data points refer to proxy records and which refer to temperatureย observations.

The case โ€“ and the dosing of half-truths โ€“ย continues.

Related Posts

on

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.
on

Tech firms like Amazon and Google โ€˜have enormous responsibilityโ€™ for driving fossil fuel expansions, climate expert argues.

Tech firms like Amazon and Google โ€˜have enormous responsibilityโ€™ for driving fossil fuel expansions, climate expert argues.
on

The Tory candidate is running her campaign from the home of a prominent anti-green activist.

The Tory candidate is running her campaign from the home of a prominent anti-green activist.
on

Peter Thiel, JD Vanceโ€™s former boss, also expresses confusion on climate, supporting expanded fossil fuel use while appearing unclear on the consequences.

Peter Thiel, JD Vanceโ€™s former boss, also expresses confusion on climate, supporting expanded fossil fuel use while appearing unclear on the consequences.