Originally posted by tmyrfield
View Post
One small snippet from Steyn' statement of facts posted above.
Two coauthors of the paper in which the Tiljander proxies appeared criticized
Mann’s use of the upside-down Tiljander proxies. Jean S, Say My Name – February Rerun,
CLIMATE AUDIT, Feb. 6, 2010, https://climateaudit.org/2010/02/06/say-my-name-%e2%80%93-
february-rerun/; Ex. TT at 25-26. One stated that Mann “distorted†the “research result†“in
public.†Id. at 25. The other stated: “Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery,
which has serious consequences.†Id. at 26.
Mann’s use of the upside-down Tiljander proxies. Jean S, Say My Name – February Rerun,
CLIMATE AUDIT, Feb. 6, 2010, https://climateaudit.org/2010/02/06/say-my-name-%e2%80%93-
february-rerun/; Ex. TT at 25-26. One stated that Mann “distorted†the “research result†“in
public.†Id. at 25. The other stated: “Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery,
which has serious consequences.†Id. at 26.
This is exactly the type of activity I was referring to in my post above that got brought dml out to defend the indefensible Mann.
And Steyn's document and book are full of similar examples.
Call it noble cause corruption if you think the cause is noble, but that doesn't help the damage this type of fraud has done to the reputation of scientists everywhere.
Look no further than the Covid pandemic to see the tragic results. Mann bears massive responsibility for this current situation, as does anyone who would come to his defense.
Comment