{"id":26646,"date":"2021-07-28T12:22:09","date_gmt":"2021-07-28T18:22:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/?p=26646"},"modified":"2021-08-27T13:47:31","modified_gmt":"2021-08-27T19:47:31","slug":"bradley-excluded-as-mann-expert-witness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/2021\/bradley-excluded-as-mann-expert-witness\/","title":{"rendered":"Bradley excluded as Mann expert witness."},"content":{"rendered":"

Some of you have already learned that CEI won the summary judgment to not be sued by Mann. The case against Symberg continues. The court also made decision about expert witnesses<\/a>, excluding 7 proposed by Mann’s side and 1 of 2 proposed by the defendants. The reasons some were excluded made me laugh. But the exclusion I found most interesting is that of Raymond S. Bradley, D.Sc, the “B” in MBH. I’m going to mostly just post text from the ruling.<\/p>\n

Dr. Bradley provides expert testimony about the findings from the MBH research, how global temperatures were calculated, and the use of proxy data in the hockey stick research. Bradley Rep. \u00c2\u00b6\u00c2\u00b6 12-39. The Court will, however, exclude this testimony because Dr. Bradley fails to put forth the scientific technique or methodology<\/i> underlying his expert opinion. See Sacchetti v. Gallaudet Univ., 344 F. Supp. 3d 233, 250-51
\nThe type of proxy data used and whether it was properly incorporated into the hockey stick research is a fact at issue in this case.<\/i> Dr. Bradley, as a co-author of the MBH98 and MBH99 studies<\/i>, has first-hand knowledge of the data used in the hockey stick research. In arriving at his conclusion that the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153technique was properly incorporated into, and used appropriately in, the MBH98 and MBH99 studies,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Dr. Bradley\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s testimony skips a significant step that is required of all expert testimony. See Bradley Rep. \u00c2\u00b6\u00c2\u00b6 36-39. Dr. Bradley only speaks to how the proxy data was chosen but fails to establish the principles and methodologies<\/i> he used to arrive at his conclusion that the data and technique in the MBH98 and MBH99 studies were properly incorporated and used appropriately. See Arias v. DynCorp., 928 F. Supp. 2d 10, 15-16 (D.D.C 2013) (indicating that an expert\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s opinion can be based on their experience, but in those instances the expert must explain \u00e2\u20ac\u0153how the experience leads to the conclusions reached, why the experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d). The Court must, therefore, exclude Dr. Bradley\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s testimony.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I find this very striking because many of Steve McIntyre’s<\/a> discussions of those criticizing the Hockey Stick research address the point of principles and methodologies are applied to the following questions:<\/p>\n