The National Review, through its lawyers has filed a new pleading in Mann vs. Steyn as it has popularly been labelled. Now Eli, not being a lawyer is not going to go through the lawyerly stuff, e.g.
Dr. Mann Cannot Demonstrate Actual Malice By Clear and Convincing Evidence Because National Review Sincerely Believes In The Truth Of The Statementsor
Read in context, Steyn’s commentary was protected rhetorical hyperbole, not a literal accusation of fraud or data falsificationwhich appear to be somewhat in contradiction, but one thing in the brief, emphasized by Willard Tony struck Eli as world class
Lowry’s phrase “intellectually bogus and wrong” is not actionable
Third, critics have argued that the hockey stick is misleading because it splices together two different types of data without highlighting the change: For roughly the first nine centuries after the year 1000 A.D., the graph shows temperature levels that have been inferred solely from tree-ring samples and other “proxy” data. But from about 1900 onward, the graph relies on readings from modern instruments such as thermometers. In the words of one review conducted by a panel of independent scientists, many consider it “regrettable” that temperature reconstructions “by the IPCC and others” neglected to emphasize “the discrepancy between instrumental and tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature during the late 20th century.”Eli, being a RTFR type of bunny went and read Watts Up With That.
Eli has a copy of a figure from Tom Fuller guesting as the local expert on WUWT showing the MBH99 reconstruction as featured in the TAR together with the Lamb BON (back of napkin) sketch that John Mashey has had such fun with