Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre: “Oxburgh Panel…Did Not Provide The Wide-Ranging ‘Exoneration’ Asserted In Mann’s Pleadings”

The air may be getting thin for Michael Mann and his what some consider “dubious” lawsuit against journalist Mark Steyn.

Steve McIntyre here looks at the so-called Oxburgh Panel’s “exoneration”. In his conclusion McIntyre writes (my emphasis):

However, it is evident that the Oxburgh panel did not interview Mann or carry out any of the steps necessary to conduct an investigation of Mann’s work and that they did not provide the wide-ranging ‘exoneration’ asserted in Mann’s pleadings.  Furthermore, public statements by members of the Oxburgh panel on Mann’s work were highly critical and, far from indicating the widespread exoneration claimed by Mann, suggested the opposite. Indeed, Mann himself at the time perceived these opinions as damaging to himself, as he dismissed Hand’s as a ‘rogue opinion’ and unsuccessfully sought an apology from Hand.”

Read McIntyre’s full essay here.

 

4 responses to “Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre: “Oxburgh Panel…Did Not Provide The Wide-Ranging ‘Exoneration’ Asserted In Mann’s Pleadings””

  1. Stephen Richards

    It must be very annoying for the climo-reds. They hear nothing from SteveMc for a long time and they think he may have gone away and then …….. Whack! Another smack around the head.

    Where would we be without Steve. The melons are really afraid of him.

  2. Buddy

    I love this time of the year…..especially every 4 years. Its Winter Olympics……and so it’s HOCKEY TIME!

    Love hockey. Love…love….love. And with all those hockey players….there is always a stick in everyone’s hand. And I KNOW that Micahael Mann is a big fan of hockey.

    Once upon a time……he was the only guy playing hockey. Then….low and behold….other people began their own research…..and low and behold: MORE HOCKEY STICKS. Hey….who doesn’t like hockey?

    It will be interesting to see if Manny is able to “schtick” it to Mark Steyn….. nothing worse than a hockey schtick in the you know where…..:)

    Good day mates….:)

    1. Ed Caryl

      ( to many high sticks to the back of the head!)

  3. D J C

    And another thing that’s way out with the radiative greenhouse calculations is well explained in a comment on WUWT which points out that a blackbody by definition absorbs all radiation and does not transmit any.

    But the surface of the oceans (say 1mm deep) obviously does transmit most of the radiation which then warms layers below. So the surface of the ocean is not a blackbody and it would require far more radiation than the SBL calculations indicate to raise its temperature to the observed level.

    As I have been saying, there is obviously nowhere near enough direct solar radiation reaching the Venus surface either. So obviously there is a non-radiative supply of energy as well as the direct radiation and these work together to raise the surface temperatures to what is observed. Remember, back radiation can only slow radiative cooling: it cannot actually add thermal energy (like the Sun does) or raise the surface temperature.

    The non-radiative supply of energy is actually energy that has been trapped over the life of the planet by the gravitationally induced temperature gradient, and more can always be added to the troposphere by the Sun.

    The key to understanding how this energy actually transfers from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface lies in understanding thermodynamic equilibrium and the isentropic state, all of which is explained in my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” available through Amazon late April.