Michael Mann?s legal case caught in a quote fabrication fib
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 eventually removed in an amended complaint, on Facebook (before and after), and at RC without notice), and a pattern begins to emerge that might not be looked on too kindly by a presiding judge.
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.
Meanwhile: 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:
UPDATE2: Some language was updated and added in the Nobel Laureate paragraph for accuracy and broader citation.