Two Chris McDaniel fact sheets at end of this post.
6/17/14, “Sarah Palin: GOP Establishment Fighting Chris McDaniel Rather Than Obama,” Breitbart, Tony Lee
“Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin blasted the Republican establishment on Tuesday for spending more time trying to tear down Mississippi conservative Senate candidate Chris McDaniel than combating President Barack Obama’s lawlessness at home and incompetence abroad.
Days before the Mississippi runoff, establishment Republicans have been trying to save incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) by painting McDaniel as “unelectable” in a general election in one of the most reliably conservative states in the nation.”…
[Ed. note: Not so, per Rasmussen Poll March 26-29, 2014, which finds either Mississippi Republican Senate primary candidate would easily beat Democrat Travis Childers. McDaniel led Childers 47-35, Cochran 48-31. Two polls since June 3 primary show McDaniel lead over Cochran increasing].
(continuing): “Palin said that if “the national GOP machine spent as much time fighting President Obama’s disastrous and dangerous agenda as they’ve spent fighting that great conservative candidate Chris McDaniel, well, maybe they’d have been successful at stopping Obama’s ‘fundamental transformation’ of our country.” She added that the “negative results from Obama fulfilling that one promise of his to transform America are just beginning to be felt at home and abroad.”
“Let’s cut through the GOP Establishment’s rhetoric and the predictable media bias in Mississippi’s U.S. Senate race and look directly at the record,” she said. “Chris McDaniel is a proven conservative fighter with undeniably impressive, tangible and needed results. He’s gone above and beyond in his capacity as a citizen, attorney, and citizen legislator to stop the Obama agenda.”
“We need to send this fighter to Washington where he will continue his fight for all of us by shaking up the status quo and by effectually defending our Constitution,” Palin wrote.
Palin urged voters in Mississippi to “please send a message to the career politicians who sure seem satisfied with the trajectory our nation is on, because they sure don’t lift a finger to help elect the guys they KNOW will be the fighters for American exceptionalism in DC.”…
“They ignore their opportunity to stop the damaging leftist policies the people do not want,“ she said, adding, “and instead choose to put all these resources into trying to defeat a courageous, proven Republican who’s smart enough to stay independent of any political machine on any side of the aisle for the sake of We the People.”
As Breitbart News’ Matthew Boyle reported, on the Friday before the primary, “Palin made a last-minute appearance with McDaniel in his home county–Jones County–and 2,000 people showed up at the event with less than 24-hours’ notice.” Crowds “even swarmed Palin when they saw her getting lunch at a local diner after the event with McDaniel’s campaign.” On election night, that county saved McDaniel “by giving him 85% of the vote combined with a massive turnout.”
Rasmussen Poll finds either Mississippi Republican Senate primary candidate would easily beat Democrat Travis Childers. In poll conducted March 26-29, 2014 McDaniel led Childers 47-35, and Cochran 48-31. Two polls since June 3 primary show McDaniel increasing his lead over Cochran.
3/31/14, “Mississippi Senate: Cochran (R) 48%, Childers (D) 31%,“ Rasmussen Reports
“Both Republican contenders have a solid lead over former Democratic Congressman Travis Childers in Rasmussen Reports’ first look at the U.S. Senate race in Mississippi.
A new statewide telephone survey of Likely Mississippi voters finds longtime Senator Thad Cochran leading Childers by 17 points – 48% to 31%. Nine percent (9%) like some other candidate in the race, and 12% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) [Chris McDaniel leading Childers 47-35]
The survey of 750 Likely Voters in Mississippi was conducted on March 26-29, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.”
Added: Rasmussen found Chris McDaniel leading Childers 47-35 in late March. You need to be a Rasmussen subscriber to get the McDaniel number, which I am. Another blog (below) substantiates the McDaniel 47-35 number I posted. The free report states “both Republicans” have “solid lead” over Childers. The specific Cochran number was in the free report whereas the specific McDaniel number required subscription. Via 3/31/14 post of MississippiConservative.com, below.
3/31/14, “Thad Cochran Fails to get 50 percent in Rasmussen Poll against Travis Childers,” mississippiconservative.com
“In a new Rasmussen Poll out today, Senator Thad Cochran failed to get at least 50 percent against Democrat Travis Chiders. Despite a career spanning 42 years in Congress, and huge name recognition, Senator Cochran garnered only 48 percent against a man who lost his congressional seat as an incumbent in his own district by 17 points!
Despite the lies of Cochran’s supporters that Senator Chris McDaniel would most assuredly lose to Childers, Rasmussen states that both Republican candidates have a “solid lead” over the former Democratic Congressman. Senator McDaniel is up on Childers by 12 points, 47 to 35. Those numbers are remarkable for a state senator from Jones County against a former US Congressman.
And although Cochran’s people will likely point to the fact that McDaniel also failed to reach the 50 percent threshold, we again must point out that he is a state senator, not a longtime incumbent who has been in Washington since 1973 and has poured millions into the race. These numbers can’t make the Cochran team happy.”
McDaniel leads in both Republican and Democrat leaning post-primary polls per Politico. Strategic National Poll conducted June 5, two days after the Miss. primary shows McDaniel leading by 6 pts. Chism Strategies poll conducted 6/5 also shows McDaniel ahead:
6/9/14, “New poll gives McDaniel 6-point lead in runoff,” Politico Morning Score, by Emily Schultheis and Jose Delreal
“SCORE EXCLUSIVE — MCDANIEL LEADS IN NEW POST-PRIMARY POLL:
The conventional wisdom says Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel has the advantage in the upcoming June 24 Senate runoff — and a new robopoll of likely GOP runoff voters from the group Strategic National feeds that CW by finding the GOP challenger with a 6-point lead. McDaniel takes 52 percent in the poll, with GOP incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran at 46 percent. (McDaniel led the primary with 49.5 percent of the vote, compared with 49.0 percent for Cochran.) Asked if Cochran should continue to contest the runoff or step down and let McDaniel win, 40 percent of voters thought Cochran should step aside. Despite McDaniel’s lead, those surveyed have a slightly more positive view of Cochran than they do of McDaniel: Cochran is at 58 percent favorable and 26 percent unfavorable; McDaniel is at 53 percent favorable, 32 percent unfavorable. The poll was conducted on June 5, two days after the primary; it was not conducted for any candidate or group involved in the race, though Strategic National is closer to the tea-party wing of the GOP.”….
Talking Points Memo, McDaniel leads in both Republican and Democrat leaning polls:
6/9/14, “Polls: McDaniel Leads Cochran In Runoff,“ TPM, Daniel Strauss
“A pair of new polls shows state Sen. Chris McDaniel (R-MS) leading Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) in the runoff of the Republican primary for United States Senate.
The poll was conducted on June 5 (two days after the primary) among 442 respondents. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.66 percentage points.
Meanwhile another poll by the Democratic-leaning Chism Strategies found McDaniel leading Cochran 50.6 percent to 47.6 percent among those surveyed. An earlier Chism poll also found McDaniel just barely leading Cochran. The new Chism poll was conducted among 832 voters who participated in the 2008, 2010, and 2012 GOP primaries. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3. 3 percentage points. The runoff is on June 24.”
6/9/14,“Sean Hannity Endorses Chris McDaniel,“ Breitbart, Matthew Boyle
“McDaniel, who is leading in two new polls, is generally considered the frontrunner because he won the first round of balloting, brings a youthful vigor to the race that Cochran at 76 lacks, and generally enjoys more enthusiastic support.
The first poll, a Chism Strategies poll, found McDaniel leads Cochran 50.6 percent to 47.6 percent, just inside the poll’s 3.3 percent margin of error. The second poll from the Strategic Journal, according to Politico’s Morning Score, shows McDaniel with a six-point lead, 52 percent to Cochran’s 46 percent….
Fox News host and national conservative radio personality Sean Hannity endorsed state Sen. Chris McDaniel over incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) Monday, saying the race is “too important” and McDaniel is “too good” a candidate not to.
Noting, “I mostly stay out of primaries,” Hannity explained his support was rooted in distaste for Washington deal making as he indirectly compared McDaniel to Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz.
“It’s very, very frustrating to me,” he said. “It just is. Do we want to change the country for the better? If we want to do that, we need bold, outspoken, dynamic, inspiring leadership—people that are willing to take a stand. Ted Cruz is willing to take a stand. Ted Cruz is fighting the administration.
Ted Cruz goes out there and does what every Republican said they’d do on healthcare and he gets trashed by his fellow senators for doing what they themselves promised to do. I don’t understand it. I really don’t.”
“I kind of feel awkward telling people in Mississippi who to vote for, but I’ve been asked, and I’m giving you the answer: People ask me who I would vote for, and I would vote for Sen. Chris McDaniel,” Hannity said. “That’s my answer.””…
Jan. 24, 2014, “The States of Our Union … Are Not All Strong,” Politico Magazine, Margarest Slattery
Politico Magazine rounded up 14 different state rankings from reputable sources like the Census Bureau, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FBI, and on important factors such as high school graduation rates, per capita income, life expectancy and crime rate. Then we averaged out each state’s 14 rankings to come up with a master list—atop which sits none other than New Hampshire. The approach isn’t scientific or comprehensive…and not all states are created equal—California’s economy is the world’s eighth largest, for instance, and Texas’s population outranks that of most countries. We also hold no grudges against the State of Mississippi, which came in last not just overall but on four of the individual lists….
Overall rank (1 = best)
|New Hampshire||Maggie Hassan (D)|
|Minnesota||Mark Dayton (D)|
|Vermont||Peter Shumlin (D)|
|Utah||Gary Herbert (R)|
|Massachusetts||Deval Patrick (D)|
|Wyoming||Matthew Mead (R)|
|Colorado||John Hickenlooper (D)|
|Iowa||Terry Branstand (R)|
|Washington||Jay Inslee (D)|
|Connecticut||Dannel Malloy (D)|
|Nebraska||Dave Heineman (R)|
|New Jersey||Chris Christie (R)|
|Montana||Steve Bullock (D)|
|Maine||Paul LePage (R)|
|Virginia||Terry McAuliffe (D)|
|North Dakota||Jack Dalrymple (R)|
|Hawaii||Neil Abercrombie (D)|
|South Dakota||Dennis Daugaard (R)|
|Wisconsin||Scott Walker (R)|
|Idaho||Butch Otter (R)|
|Maryland||Martin O’Malley (D)|
|Kansas||Sam Brownback (R)|
|Oregon||John Kitzhaber (D)|
|Delaware||Jack Markell (D)|
|Alaska||Sean Parnell (R)|
|Pennsylvania||Tom Corbett (R)|
|New York||Andrew Cuomo (D)|
|Rhode Island||Lincoln Chafee (I)|
|Illinois||Pat Quinn (D)|
|California||Jerry Brown (D)|
|Missouri||Jay Nixon (D)|
|Indiana||Mike Pence (R)|
|Arizona||Jan Brewer (R)|
|Ohio||John Kasich (R)|
|Texas||Rick Perry (R)|
|Michigan||Rick Snyder (R)|
|Florida||Rick Scott (R)|
|New Mexico||Susana Martinez (R)|
|North Carolina||Pat McCrory (R)|
|Nevada||Brian Sandoval (R)|
|Oklahoma||Mary Fallin (R)|
|Georgia||Nathan Deal (R)|
|West Virginia||Earl Ray Tomblin (D)|
|Kentucky||Steve Beshear (D)|
|South Carolina||Nikki Haley (R)|
|District of Columbia (tie)||Vincent Gray (D, mayor)|
|Alabama||Robert Bentley (R)|
|Tennessee||Bill Haslam (R)|
|Arkansas||Mike Beebe (D)|
|Louisiana||Bobby Jindal (R)|
|Mississippi||Phil Bryant (R)|
3/27/2013, “Rand Paul endorses Mitch McConnell in 2014 Senate race, won’t back tea party challenge,” Daily Caller, Patrick Howley
“The Daily Caller has learned that Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul is endorsing Sen. Mitch McConnell for re-election in 2014, ending speculation that Paul would back a tea party challenge to the Senate minority .
“Rand Paul has endorsed McConnell,” Jesse Benton, McConnell’s 2014 campaign manager, told The Daily Caller.
Benton, who has worked for both Rand Paul and his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, is credited by insiders with brokering Paul’s support for McConnell.
The move quashes a determined effort by Kentucky Republican Liberty Caucus chairman David Adams, who launched Paul’s Senate bid and served as Paul’s campaign manager through the 2010 primaries, and other tea party to mount a primary challenge against McConnell.”…
Jesse Benton managed Rand Paul’s Tea Party Senate campaign and is married to his niece. Benton now manages Sen. Mitch McConnell’s campaign:
5/26/2010, “Rand Paul names new campaign manager: Jesse Benton,” whas 10, Joe Arnold, via daily paul
Rand Paul, you’re a disgrace and not fit to shine Ted Cruz’ shoes:
3/11/14, “Rand On Cruz: ‘I’m Not Real Excited About Him Mischaracterizing My Views’,” Breitbart, J. Strong
“Sen. Rand Paul continued his aggressive brush back of comments from his usual ally Sen. Ted Cruz suggesting that Paul is positioned at the left, dovish flank of the GOP on foreign policy, telling Fox News host Sean Hannity Cruz was “mischaracterizing” his views.
“We always have been good friends. I’m not real excited about him mischaracterizing my views. I won’t let that pass. I think that sometimes want to stand up and say hey, look at me, I’m the next Ronald Reagan. Well, almost all of us in the party are big fans of Ronald Reagan,” Paul said.
“I’ve always been a big fan of peace through strength. I think America should and has a responsibility around the world and really, virtually all of the opinions that have been coming from Republicans are somewhat the same on this – that Putin should be condemned, he should be isolated. I favor sanctions on Putin. So, for people to characterize that as somehow not being the Reagan position, I think they need to have a re-reading of Reagan, frankly,” Paul added.
The mini-feud started when Cruz, in a Thursday speech at the “Uninvited II” National Security forum, positioned himself between the hawkish John McCain at one end of the GOP and the dovish Paul at the other, with Cruz championing Reaganesque policies in the middle.
That didn’t sit well with Paul who struck back today with an op-ed at Breitbart.
Hours before Paul was set to appear on Hannity, but after the Hannity segment had already taped, Cruz sent out a statement to a number of publications trying to take the fight down a notch, saying he greatly respected Paul even while insisting they had key disagreements in foreign affairs.
Paul said he was firmly in the Reagan tradition.
“I also agree with Ronald Reagan who often said, or in one of his inaugural speeches said, to potential adversaries, don’t mistake our reluctance for war with a lack of resolve. He built up the military. He had a military that was second to none. I still believe all of that,” he said.
Asked by Hannity if he wanted Cruz to apologize, Paul said “No. I’ll settle for maybe he just needs to work on presenting his own ideas.””
12/1/2013, “Mitch McConnell: Time for GOP Establishment to ‘Stand Up to’ Tea Party,” onenewspage
“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican up for re-election in 2014, told the Washington Examiner in an interview published Friday that he believes it is time for the GOP establishment to stop conservatives and Tea Partiers.”…
Sen. Mitch McConnell and K Street share crony values:
12/3/2013, “Chamber of [Government-run] Commerce Circles Wagons Around McConnell,” Madison Project, Daniel Horowitz
“It’s not surprising that the Chamber of Commerce is running ads on behalf of Senator Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. After all, the Chamber of Commerce is Mitch McConnell – in the sense that they both share an ideology of power instead of principle.
As we’ve explained before, the Chamber of Commerce is not conservative, pro-free-market, or even necessarily pro-growth. They support the special interests of big business. Period. When those interests intersect or overlap with free-market, pro-growth policies, such as advocacy for tax cuts and lower regulations, they will side with conservatives. But when those interests require the stewardship of big government intervention, they will side with the forces of statism. Hence, they are not paragons of free-market commerce; they support government-run commerce, albeit with tendentious policies towards their interests.
Their special interests support illegal immigration, corporate welfare, increased gas taxes, and an internet sales tax. It’s not surprising that Chamber money pours into K Street coffers to lobby for those goals.
That is essentially the same description of Mitch McConnell’s tenure in the Senate. Birds of a feather flock together. It’s no surprise that many of McConnell’s former staffers work or lobby for the Chamber.
The bizarre thing about their ad touting McConnell as a warrior for coal is that they overlook his biggest failure in halting the war on coal. Earlier this year, Republicans had the opportunity to force the EPA to stop administrative cap and trade on the coal industry by holding up the nomination of Gina McCarthy as director of the EPA. McConnell cut the deal to allow her through by delivering 60 votes to Harry Reid.”...
Sept. 2012, Rand Paul’s nephew and former campaign mgr. Jesse Benton named Sen. Mitch McConnell campaign mgr.:
9/13/2012, “Why Ron Paul’s [and Rand Paul's] Campaign Manager Is Now Taking A Job With The GOP Establishment,“ Business Insider, Grace Wyler
“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced today that Jesse Benton, the grassroots political operative who ran Ron Paul‘s presidential campaign [and Rand Paul's US Senate campaign], is leaving Paul World at the end of this year to run McConnell’s 2014 re-election campaign.
The hire is already being heralded as a shrewd move by McConnell, who appears to have seen the writing on the wall after Paul’s son, Rand Paul, rode the Tea Party wave to defeat the McConnell-backed Establishment candidate in Kentucky’s 2010 Senate primary.
Benton, who ran Sen. Paul’s 2010 campaign and is married to one of Ron Paul’s granddaughters, is the consummate Paul insider, with deep ties to Kentucky’s Tea Party movement. His presence on McConnell’s staff virtually guarantees that the Senate Minority leader won’t face a challenge from the right in 2014 — or a challenge to his leadership in the Senate should the Tea Party’s influence there continue to grow….
His decision to take a job deep within the heart of the GOP is likely to raise the ire of some of Paul’s most active supporters, confirming long-held suspicions that the Texas Congressman’s campaign aides sold him out to the Republican Party Establishment. …
Below is the lightly-edited transcript of our interview:…
BI: You ran Sen. Rand Paul’s campaign in Kentucky in 2010, and Sen. McConnell endorsed his primary opponent. What’s changed since then?
Benton: What changed was a friendship that we cultivated, both Rand and Senator McConnell and our teams cultivated in the  general election….
Rand has really cultivated a great friendship with him up on the hill, and I’ve cultivated a friendship with him and with some of his staff. I’ve really gotten to see how the man ticks. I’ve really grown to have quite a bit of admiration for him. So when they asked me if I was interested, it was unexpected, but it was very welcome….
*Soon after our conversation, Benton got back to me and said he had found a letter McConnell sent to Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke last year calling for transparency at the central bank, and saying that he would vote yes on a bill to audit the Fed if Reid brought it to the floor. That’s a shift in position from 2010, when McConnell drew conservative ire for voting against an audit the fed “amendment, just days before then-candidate Rand Paul won the Kentucky Republican Senate primary.”
2/25/14, “Obama: OFA volunteers doing ‘God’s work’,” Politico, Reid J. Epstein
“Touting the latest White House Obamacare benchmark, President Barack Obama told his political base not to be discouraged by partisan attacks and stressed that their cause is divine.
About 4 million people have signed up for private health care plans under the Affordable Care Act, Obama said Tuesday night at an Organizing for Action event in Washington, urging his supporters to keep pushing to enroll as many people as possible before the March 31 deadline.
“We’re going to make a big push these last few weeks,” Obama told OFA volunteers and officials. “I can talk, my team can talk here in Washington, but it’s not going to make as much of a difference as if you are out there making the case. The work you’re doing is God’s work. It is hard work.””…
In his libel suit v Mark Steyn, climate scientist Michael Mann says his work has been investigated and exonerated multiple times. Today Steve McIntyre looks at activities of the Oxburgh Panel, one of the groups Dr. Mann says exonerated him. The ‘panel’ was commissioned by the ClimateGate unit’s parent, University of East Anglia. Even though the panel only looked at 11 articles all of which were selected by the ClimateGate unit’s parent, UEA, it can’t be said there was no criticism of Dr. Mann’s methods. An image of the Hockey Stick with correction overlaid appears at this end of this post:
2/17/14, “Mann and the Oxburgh Panel,” Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit.
“The Mann libel case has been attracting increasing commentary, including from people outside the climate community. Integral to Mann’s litigation are representations that he was “investigated” by 6-9 investigations, all of which supposedly gave him “exonerations” on wide-ranging counts, including “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data” and even supposed findings that his work was “properly conducted an fairly presented”. Mann also represented that these investigations were widely covered in international and national media and thus known to Steyn and the other defendants.
In today’s post, I’ll look closely at the Oxburgh panel, one of the investigations cited in Mann’s pleadings. However, contrary to the claims in Mann’s litigation, not only did the Oxburgh panel not exonerate Mann, at their press conference, Oxburgh panelist David Hand, then President of the Royal Statistical Society, made very disparaging and critical comments about Mann’s work, describing it as based on “inappropriate” statistics that led to “exaggerated” results. These comments were widely reported in international media, later covered in a CEI article that, in turn, was reported by National Review. Moreover, information obtained from FOI in the UK a couple of years ago shows that Mann objected vehemently to criticism from Oxburgh panelist, which he characterized as a “rogue opinion” and unsuccessfully sought a public apology.
Mann’s claim that the Oxburgh panel “exonerated” Mann on counts ranging from scientific misconduct to statistical manipulation to proper conduct and fair presentation of results has no more validity than his claim to have been awarded a Nobel prize for his supposedly seminal work “document[ing] the steady rise in surface temperatures during the 20th Century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s.”…
The Oxburgh Report and Press Conference
Turning now to the facts.
In February 2010, with the Muir Russell panel making negligible progess, East Anglia formed a second panel, which Vice Chancellor Acton told the Parliamentary Committee would appraise CRU’s science.
The University commissioned Oxburgh and his “Scientific Appraisal Panel”, which interpreted its terms of reference as the examination of a list of 11 academic articles selected by the University of East Anglia (though the list was represented to the panel as being selected by the Royal Society). The list included three CRU articles presenting variations of the Briffa MXD reconstruction that had originated the hide-the-decline controversy.
Two of the three articles – both from 1998 – unambiguously showed the decline in the Briffa reconstruction. (Indeed, it was the inconsistency between these articles and the IPCC diagram that had originally occasioned my interest.)
However, both these articles were prior to the unsavory discussion among Mann and other IPCC authors in which senior IPCC officials expressed their concern that inclusion of the Briffa reconstruction might “dilute the message”, with Mann readily acquiescing because he did not want to give “fodder to the skeptics” (see CA summary here). Subsequent to this discussion, CRU sent Mann a Briffa version showing the decline (this version was then unpublished and not published until Briffa et al 2001). CRU later sent Mann a version in which data was deleted after 1960. Briffa et al 2001 was the third relevant article considered by Oxburgh. It showed the decline in all figures in which the reconstruction was showed individually, but in the figure comparing the reconstruction to other reconstructions (Plate 3), it truncated the data, as had already been done at IPCC. This sequence is relevant for other discussions: in this case, IPCC did not merely assess published literature; the published literature was affected by IPCC requirements.
7. Recent public discussion of climate change and summaries and popularizations of the work of CRU and others often contain oversimplifications that omit serious discussion of uncertainties emphasized by the original authors. For example, CRU publications repeatedly emphasize the discrepancy between instrumental and tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature during the late 20th century, but presentations of this work by the IPCC and others have sometimes neglected to highlight this issue. While we find this regrettable, we could find no such fault with the peer-reviewed papers we examined.
Oxburgh obviously did not respond to actual criticism, which was of the IPCC diagram. In May 2005, long before Climategate, I had reported the truncation of Briffa data in the IPCC report and asked the following questions:
The truncation is not documented in IPCC TAR. In most cases, people would ask: who at IPCC truncated this series? why did they do so? who approved the truncation? what process was involved in approving the truncation?
The Climategate emails obviously shed a very unsavory light on the decision to delete adverse data in IPCC TAR.
The Oxburgh panel considered the IPCC diagram only in passing, but its finds were all adverse to Mann. They described IPCC’s failure (in Mann’s section) to highlight the discrepancy as negligent and “regrettable”.
The Oxburgh panel was also very critical of the failure of CRU to involve professional statisticians in work that was essentially statistical:
- 2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.
The Oxburgh Press Conference
Mann’s pleadings specifically noted that the release of the various reports were covered in national and international media and the Oxburgh report was no exception. It held a press conference on April 14, 2010 that was attended by reporters from a wide range of international media. Oxburgh was accompanied by panelist David Hand, an eminent statistician who was then the President of the Royal Statistical Society.
A few days prior to the press conference, Oxburgh and Hand appear to have entertained some misgivings about Mann, which were mentioned to UEA’s Vice Chancellor Acton. Although Mann is a relatively central Climategate figure, Acton appeared unfamiliar with him, but “thought that [he] recognised the name”. On April 12, 2010, two days before the press conference, he sent the following email to Oxburgh cc Hand:
You mentioned concerns about Mann. I thought I recognised the name. Here’s the report we received from his University’s internal review which you may find of interest.
At the press conference, Hand severely criticized Mann’s reconstructions for “exaggeration” and it was these criticisms that were the story publicized in the international media and subsequently noted in a CEI blog article, which, in turn, was covered by National Review.
Louise Gray of the Daily Telegraph, generally highly sympathetic to green causes, reported that Hand had accused Mann of using “inappropriate” methods that had “exaggerated” the threat from climate change, an accusation emblazoned in the article’s headline:
The article continued with harsh words about Mann:
Professor David Hand said that the research – led by US scientist Michael Mann – would have shown less dramatic results if more reliable techniques had been used to analyse the data… But the reviewers found that the scientists could have used better statistical methods in analysing some of their data, although it was unlikely to have made much difference to their results.
That was not the case with some previous climate change reports, where “inappropriate methods” had exaggerated the global warming phenomenon. Prof Hand singled out a 1998 paper by Prof Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a constant target for climate change sceptics, as an example of this. He said the graph, that showed global temperature records going back 1,000 years, was exaggerated – although any reproduction using improved techniques is likely to also show a sharp rise in global warming. He agreed the graph would be more like a field hockey stick than the ice hockey blade it was originally compared to. “The particular technique they used exaggerated the size of the blade at the end of the hockey stick. Had they used an appropriate technique the size of the blade of the hockey stick would have been smaller,” he said. “The change in temperature is not as great over the 20th century compared to the past as suggested by the Mann paper.”
Mann had been interviewed for the Telegraph article and claimed that Peter Bloomfield of the NAS panel had “come to an opposite conclusion” from Hand:
“I would note that our ’98 article was reviewed by the US National Academy of Sciences, the highest scientific authority in the United States, and given a clean bill of health,” he said. “In fact, the statistician on the panel, Peter Bloomfield, a member of the Royal Statistical Society, came to the opposite conclusion of Prof Hand.”
The New Scientist’s report, also by a very green reporter, headlined that “Climategate scientists chastised over statistics”.
The New Scientist reported that the “strongest example of imperfect statistics” was said to occur in the work of Michael Mann, which had led to “exaggerated” results:
[Hand] said the strongest example he had found of imperfect statistics in the work of the CRU and collaborators elsewhere was the iconic “hockey stick” graph, produced by Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University in University Park. The graph shows how temperatures have changed over the past 1000 years (see graphic, right). Hand pointed out that the statistical tool Mann used to integrate temperature data from a number of difference sources – including tree-ring data and actual thermometer readings – produced an “exaggerated” rise in temperatures over the 20th century, relative to pre-industrial temperatures. That point was initially made by climate sceptic and independent mathematician Stephen McIntyre.
Even the Guardian reported Hand’s broadside against Mann’s work, reporting Hand as saying that Mann’s study gave him an “uneasy feeling” because it used “inappropriate statistical tools”. Mann fought back, describing Hand as only a “rogue opinion” that “should not be given much attention or credence”, while claiming that his study had been “approved” by the US National Academy:
At a press conference to launch the review’s findings, Hand re-ignited a long-standing row about a high-profile study published in 1998 by scientists led by Michael Mann at Penn State University, US. The paper featured an emblematic graph known as the “hockey-stick” that showed temperature rise in the twentieth century was unprecedented in recent history. Hand said the study gave him an “uneasy feeling” because it used “inappropriate statistical tools”. The hockey-stick effect was genuine, Hand said, but the 1998 paper exaggerated it. He praised Steve McIntyre, a Canadian climate blogger who led much of the criticism of the CRU scientists, for identifying the problem.
Mann told the Guardian that the 1998 study had been approved by the US National Academy of Science and Hand had offered a “rogue opinion” that “should not be given much attention or credence”.
The Daily Telegraph article was covered in the US by various outlets, including Fox News, which covered the Daily Telegraph story in an article entitled Top Climate Scientist Under Fire for ‘Exaggerating’ Global Warming”, complete with large photograph of Mann.
The article contained commentary that was critical of both Mann and the Penn State inquiries, including the following:
Britain’s top statistician absolved U.K. scientists following the climate-data scandal — and blasted U.S. researcher Michael Mann for exaggerating the size of global warming.
An inquiry by a panel of scientists into the behavior and methodologies of researchers at Britain’s East Anglia University found Britain’s climatologists scatterbrained and sloppy, but ultimately innocent of intentionally skewing climate data. But one of the top scientists selected for the panel slammed the methodologies used by Penn State climatologist Michael Mann to devise his infamous “Hockey Stick.”
Mann immediately protested to Hand in numerous emails, seeking both a withdrawal of Hand’s criticism and an apology.
On April 14, Mann emailed Hand asking to speak to him.
The next day, Mann commenced a barrage of emails by sending Hand a copy of Wahl and Ammann, noting that Nychka of NCAR was a consultant on it. (Nychka had also been a member of the NAS panel despite this conflict, a conflict that I had formally objected to.)
Mann had also sent Peter Bloomfield a copy of the Telegraph article and asked him to intervene. Bloomfield wrote to Hand, but his letter did not provide the support that Mann had sought. Instead of opposing Hand’s remarks (as Mann had asserted), Bloomfield said that he had quickly reviewed the findings of the NAS report and did not locate any conclusions that differed from Hand’s:
A quick rereading of the report didn’t reveal any place where I, ^ or any other member of the committee reached any conclusion with which you would differ. If you’re aware of any, I’d be glad of a reminder!
Mann followed up his earlier email with a link to the adverse Fox News article. A few hours later, Mann talked to Hand by telephone. Mann followed up the call by sending Hand a list of talking points, including links to desmog and deepclimate attacking Wegman. Mann worried that “specious and false allegations” would “spin out of control” unless Hand issued a “clarification” that others would be able to “report and quote”. Mann wanted to know what measures Hand planned to “correct the record”:
Given all of this, as I stated in our phone conversation, I believe the only way to prevent the specious and false allegations about us and our work from spinning out of control in the media is for their to be a clarification issued on your part in the fairly near term, which others could then be able to repost and quote. Otherwise, the mischaracterizations that I know concern both of us, will continue to be propagated and promoted by those seeking to further enflame the discourse on this topic.
As you can see from the email I’ve forwarded below, my own university’s newspapers now wants to do an article about this, which puts me in a very awkward position. I don’t expect this sort of thing to stop without some action on your part, as mentioned above…
I am anxious to learn what measures you might be willing to take in the near term to correct the record, given the unusual amount of misinformation that this affair has now engendered.
Two days later (April 17), Mann again pressed Hand to withdraw his statements to avoid what Mann called the “spread of misinformation arising from the press conference”:
Please do let me know if you have any further questions I can address for you. Some sort of statement early this week (i. e, monday) would be extremely helpful in preventing the spread of misinformation arising from the press conference, which unfortunately does continue in the U. S. media, thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
Hand notified Oxburgh that he wanted to get Mann off his back (“since Mann is continuing to pursue me”). Hand drafted an anodyne addendum to the report, saying that they had not “intended to imply” that other groups had been “deliberately misleading” or “intentionally exaggerated” their finds, but only to emphasize the “complexity of statistics” and the “need to use the best possible methods”.
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 possible methods.
Hand, Oxburgh and the UEA agreed that they would add the new paragraph “quietly”, commenting:
I could be wrong, but can’t see it getting much interest without people being directed to it.
The addendum was posted up on April 19 without any fanfare or announcement. Mann appears to have anticipated much more. On April 23, Tom Heap of the BBC wrote to Fiona Fox of the Science Media Center saying that Mann had claimed that Hand’s criticism was “all wrong” and that Hand would be “issuing a clarification/apology”:
By the way, Mann said Hand got his criticism of the stats all wrong and would be issuing a clarification/ apology. True?
Fox passed the inquiry to Hand, asking if Hand planned to issue an apology ( “assuming (praying) that it is not true”), observing that, if not, then someone should suggest to Mann that he not make such suggestions to BBC reporters:
Hi Folks – assuming (praying) this is not true? If it – or any version of it – is true – can we chat about it and how the SMC might help? If it’s rubbish someone might want to suggest to Michael Mann that he decease from suggesting it to BBC reporters.
In the event, Fox’s prayer was answered as neither Hand nor the Oxburgh panel issued any further “clarification/apology”.
CEI and National Review
In July 2010, CEI’s Iain Murray published an article in the Washington Examiner (later republished at the CEI website here) that severely criticized defects in the UK Parliamentary Committee, Oxburgh, Muir Russell and Penn State inquiries, concluding:
Those who hope that these inquiries exonerate global warming science are engaging in wishful thinking. The Climategate e-mails are still there for all to read and the questions they raise remain unanswered. Until there are answers, Climategate rolls on.
While Murray was critical of the shortcomings of the Oxburgh panel, including its failure to “examine the quality of the science at all”, he observed that it “suggested deeper problems”, including Hand’s assertion that Mann had used “inappropriate statistical methods” (citing the Guardian) while noting that Mann dismissed Hand as merely a “rogue opinion”:
The parliamentary inquiry was also assured by the UEA that the quality of the science would be reviewed by another inquiry to be headed by Lord Oxburgh. Yet Lord Oxburgh’s panel handed down a short report which did not examine the quality of the science at all.
The panel simply reviewed a selection of CRU papers — selected by the UEA itself — and pronounced itself satisfied that the scientific process was fair and proper. The chairman of the parliamentary committee, Labor legislator Phil Willis, told the BBC he “could not believe” this “sleight of hand.”
Yet this cursory review suggested deeper problems. In his review of the hockey stick itself, according to the Guardian newspaper, the panel’s statistician David Hand said that the scientists had used inappropriate statistical methods. Hockey stick co-author Michael Mann of Penn State University dismissed this as a “rogue opinion.”
Murray’s article was quoted at length in a National Review Online opinion article on July 20, 2010 here.
Murray had observed that the Muir Russell investigation (which I’ll examine separately) had not interviewed any critics, but still concluded that Mann’s graphic in IPCC TAR was “misleading”. Murray commented:
Even this inadequate investigation, however, found that the way the hockey stick graph was handled was misleading. Imagine what it — and the parliamentary committee — would have found if there had been some witnesses for the prosecution.
To which, National Review Online added sarcastically:
Witnesses? Who needs witnesses?
As noted at the start, Mann’s pleadings assert that he was “investigated” by multiple investigations and that all of the investigations (i.e. including Oxburgh) exonerated him of scientific misconduct, fraud, academic fraud, data falsification, statistical manipulation, manipulation of data and even supposed findings that his work was “properly conducted and fairly presented” and that these findings were announced and reported in “international and national media” of which the defendants were aware.
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. .
Postscript: In October 2013, at the request of Steptoe, the then lawyers for National Review and Steyn, I visited them in Washington to provide background on the dispute. Steptoe paid my travel expenses, but I was not offered (nor did I request) remuneration for my time. During the trip, I also provided a briefing with CEI’s counsel. Following my trip, Steptoe proposed that I act as a consultant to National Review in the litigation, but I didn’t follow up or enter into any agreement. I am reluctant to enter into a consulting agreement at present, since I want to preserve my ability to comment independently. On the other hand, I can envisage circumstances in which I might enter into a consulting agreement with one of the parties and perhaps even be remunerated for my time: everyone else seems to get paid. If that happens, I’ll disclose it.”
Steve McIntyre correction overlaid in green, graph via volokh.com
12/4/2009, “Looking Back at the Hockey Stick Thesis: The JoNova Account,” volokh.com
Added: In 2012 alone $1 billion a day was “invested” in the notion of global warming.Long before most people ever heard of climate scientists, US politicians decided to create the CO2 terror industry by confiscating trillions of US taxpayer dollars and dispensing them to necessary people, academic institutions, and the like. They gave themselves a generation. If you have a generation with public schools, Hollywood, and the media selling the same message, you’re set. Those reluctant to ‘believe’ were silenced via ridicule. The US political class has no intention of letting go of its $1 billion a day racket. Many taxpayers have figured out by now that CO2 terror is a vicious fraud. Those who haven’t don’t want to know. In the meantime, the two US political parties have merged, ie the GOP merged with democrats. With only one functioning political party, voters can’t change anything. CO2 terror is the most successful crime against humanity ever invented. Built on something that doesn’t exist.
Lehman Brothers used the Hockey Stick as sales promotion to encourage people to give them money. Unfortunately, Lehman went bankrupt. Here’s the Stick on page six of Lehman’s Feb. 2007 sales piece.
2/6/08, Shareholders charged Lehman Bros. use of ‘hockey stick’ graph and other erroneous global warming information harmed investors. Reuters
A distinguished scientist writes of his resignation from an elite science society over its support of global warming fraud:
8/10/2010, “Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society,“ published by Global Warming Policy Foundation
“For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.”…
For over 30 years the US government has been confiscating and handing out US taxpayer dollars for something that doesn’t exist, human caused CO2 terror:
12/14/2005, “Climate Change: Federal Expenditures for Science and Technology,” CongressionalResearch.com
“For over 25 years there have been federal programs directly or indirectly related to climate change. This report identifies and discusses direct climate-focused scientific and research programs of the federal government, as well as an array of energy programs that relate indirectly to climate change.”…
7/11/13, “Networks Do 92 Climate Change Stories; Fail to Mention ‘Lull’ in Warming All 92 Times, ABC, CBS and NBC ignore ‘mystery’ warming plateau in favor of alarmism about sea levels, allergies, weather.” Wall St. Journal, Julia A. Seymour
“Just since Jan. 1, 2013, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs have aired 92 stories about “climate change” or “global warming.” Not a single one of those stories mentioned the “warming plateau” reported even by The New York Times on June 10.”…
6/25/13, “Networks Fail to Mention ‘Lull’ in Warming in All 92 Climate Change Stories,“ NewsBusters, Julia A. Seymour
“The networks have also completely ignored the “lull” in warming in recent years, in all 92 stories about climate change they reported in 2013.
One ABC report was typical, warning: “Many cities had record warmth, including Washington, D.C. where a lack of action on manmade climate change is likely to mean 2012 is just a glimpse into an unpleasant future, according to many scientists.”
Just since Jan. 1, 2013, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs have aired 92 stories about “climate change” or “global warming.” Not a single one of those stories mentioned the “warming plateau” reported even by The New York Times on June 10. The Times wrote, “The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.””…
2/20/14, “Cruz Storms GOP Establishment Stronghold in Sunshine State with Record-Setting Crowd,“ Breitbart News, Matthew Boyle, with Andy Badolato in Sarasota
“The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) just held its winter meeting here, and the wealthy beachfront communities that dot the coast are typically considered one of the beating hearts of the Establishment GOP’s donor community.