Mann-made climate change turns up the heat on Steyn
Michael Mann, the professor who created the climate-change “hockey stick”, announced over the weekend his intention to sue National Review over Mark’s Corner post “Football and Hockey“.
You can see the letter from Professor Mann’s lawyer here.
You can see various reactions here, here, here, here and here.
UPDATE: Rand Simberg responds here, as do Discover Magazine, David Appell, Instapundit, the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion, the Lesbian Conservative, the Pundette, and the excitable lads at Daily Kos. Kathy Shaidle is looking forward to it.
=====================================
Rand Simberg says what we all know here at WUWT:
But does he really want to litigate the hockey stick in a court of law? Does he in fact want to dig into any of his unscientific behavior in a venue in which he will be under oath, and he won’t have sympathetic colleagues covering for him? Does he really want those emails to be read aloud in court? And has he talked to the University of Virginia? Even if they continue to fight the FOIA, how will they fight a subpoena for the missing emails in a civil lawsuit?
If this goes forward, discovery will be very interesting, and very entertaining. I suspect that Peter Sinclair will end up choking on his popcorn.
As predicted, now the Streisand effect is kicking in. I think the message being sent from Steyn and Simberg to Mann is: bring it.
Andrew Montford points out this hilarious Twitter exchange:
[In related news, this Twitter exchange between Mann and Ryan Radia of CEI was interesting
RyanRadia .@MichaelEMann Why did you delete my comment on your FB page re: defamation of public figures and the actual malice standard?
@MichaelEMann You are with *CEI*, front group dedicated to dishonest smears & promotion of disinformation. That’s why. Take it elsewhere.
RyanRadia .@MichaelEMann By your logic re: CEI, wouldn’t I be justified in ignoring anything from Penn State academics because of the Freeh Report?]
Bazinga! It looks like Dr. Mann is already in over his head when it comes to logical arguments. I predict he’ll back down from this and start stonewalling much like he has reportedly already done related to his lawsuit with Tim Ball, which was asking for certain documents in discovery that Mann doesn’t want to give up. It seems Dr. Mann just doesn’t want those UVa emails to come to light.
Dr. Scott Mandia, aka “Supermandia”, leader of Mann’s legal offense defense fund, may have to wade into this morass and rescue Dr. Mann from himself.
From Scott Mandia’s blog he captions this photo: The Caped Climate Crusader: Battling the evil forces of global warming deniers. “Faster than global T rise, more powerful than a stranded polar bear, able to leap over rising seas in a single bound.”
If he can leap over rising seas, why the hip waders? Must be for wading through something deep, but what could it be?
Best advice I’ve seen so far: Don’t tug on Superman’s cape
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mandia’s hip-waders are entirely appropriate: The excrement is getting deep with that crowd.
That photo of mandia still gives me the creeps.
Oh. Moi. Gawd.
Mikey has really bitten the Big One this time.
He is so outclassed he will be lucky to land a jab before he’s launched into the 10th row of spectators.
Life is good!
The photo inadvertently says everything that needs saying about the climate crusaders: Scolding others is their path to gallantry without personal risk or inconvenience. They aspire to be heroes on the cheap.
my favorite item so far is a Daily Kosfreak comment expressing hopes that discovery will show which evilllll fossil fuel interests are funding Mark Steyn and National Review for this…..
Yeah, that’s the ticket, it must be some corpulent fossil fuel plutocrats who are behind everything bad!
Yup. Mann just swam into the deep water without his inner tube.
There is no debate about whether mathematics is necessary in science. Mathematics is useful in helping us understand nature. Understanding climate change is not a matter of instinct. Science is not a matter of how we might feel about something. We can use mathematics to demonstrate why climatism’s fear of humanity and industrial man is really climatism’s detour to helplessness. For example, the mathematics of McShane and Wyner should be thought of as the chalkboard squeak heard ’round the world: M&S’ paper did not simply debunk MBH98/99/08 (aka, the ‘hockey stick’ graph). That’s been done many times by many others. M&S’ greatest contribution is as an inspiration to a new generation of scientist and statistician to examine the pseudo science of Western academia and to pick up the chalk and start outlining the dead bodies upon which the failed ideology of the Left lies.
These AGW proponents seem to have a lot of vanity and self importance. They’re like passionate radicals, campaigners and agitators.
Fortunately, science is a rational and neutral affair. To give an analogy, the fiercest debates rage where there is little evidence to support a proposition. Persecution is used in theology, and not in arithmetics on this basis
[snip – over the top ~mod]
The process of Discovery is such a sweet thing in litigation–it is perhaps the finest feature of jurisprudence. Then we’ll know who the real villain is.
Go for it, Mann, go for it! (a little cheerleading from the sideline so another CAGWCF acolyte will bite the dust, along with all his so-called “science”).
Just needs a new caption/title: Super-Stupe!
That way all the elements (gormless expression, clumsy grip on a junky stick, hip waders, etc.) all make sense!
Mann looks like schmuck in all this, but there is a method to his madness. He’s fired a warning shot over the skeptic bow in order to cow others into self-censorship. Now everyone who uses the word “fraud” in an opinion piece on Mann will have to assume themselves candidates to be served with legal papers. That is why Anthony approached the topic gingerly in the first post on this subject and why he will, I assume, continue to do so. I think we all need to be aware of that when we post here.
Mann’s lawyer is using a very limited definition of fraud in his letter, i.e. “academic fraud,” and I predict that will likely be the reason the suit will not proceed. But, as I said, notice has been sent. Every influential, high-profile person who comments on Mann and his work will have to be cautious to a greater or lesser degree
Michael Mann is now a “public figure” and it will be interesting to see how his legal team tries to work around that. The bar is much higher for him here.
If Mann is such a big-time scientist and professor, how can he spend all of his time Tweeting?
Bring it Mann. He truly is a clown.
Fraud is an intent crime or tort. Hard to prove what is in someone’s mind unless you have a taped confession or email that would amount to demonstrating that you know and are trying to mislead. But it’s not like Mann is trying to hide any emails on this matter. Oh. Wait.
Otherwise you have the research universities who live off these related grants coming in through their Colleges of Education or colleges of arts and sciences but involving these absurd definitions of math and science and desired research. Largely coming out of National Science Foundation over last 20 years. As long as they are willing to ignore to keep the revenue coming in and issue findings of no fraud, then there is no “academic fraud.” They presume to be the relevant fact finder of last resort. None of the injured are complaining and no one is asking the students or taxpayers. These grants are designed to create corrupting conflicts of interest with huge amounts available. As I have mentioned before I have seen slide shows for the MSPs where the state DOE says the policy is outsourced to the PI under the NSF grant.
OT slightly on this post but I am continuing to write about the new minds Paul Ehrlich wants to get his ecological vision in place. The one Mann is trying his best to aid as well. I explain the connections to John Holdren and how it relates to the Belmont Challenge. Yet another reason for Mann to obfuscate. Get as much possible in place and operational on that Future Earth Alliance and hope all these elections in various countries do not change these policies or the funding. After all it’s not like anyone was reading those Planet under Pressure policy briefs and following links.
Interesting that they’re not objecting to the Sandusky comparison.
With respect to Phil Plait and Discover magazine, it might be helpful to remember his response to sceptics who object to the term “denier.”
“Too bad”
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/09/im-skeptical-of-denialism/
“Every influential, high-profile person who comments on Mann and his work will have to be cautious to a greater or lesser degree.”
I disagree! Let it hit the fan. Your statement is a reflection of being suppressed by the bully. This nation never would have made history with a run and hide mentality.
Mann has been insulated from real courts. He is living in a bubble.
As some say, “…Every scientific peer group that has looked at it says it’s good science and if anyone tells you differently, they are giving you political propaganda.
To put it in plain words- the graph is correct, get over it…”
If the science is so strong, then why WOULDN’T Mann want to defend it in a court of law?
If a trial is a jury of your peers, then consider it just another peer-review.
He’s passed those before, hasn’t he?
Followed the links in Simbergs article to the Mann’s Penn State course infor and find:
GAIA – THE EARTH SYSTEM (EARTH 002, Section 2; 3 credits) with the course schedule for days 37 & 38 is : MOVIE: An Inconvenient Truth (Part 1 and Part 2)
Peer reviewed of course.
It’s interesting that Mann’s Lawyer lists significant work for Mobil Oil and big Tobacco in his bio.
The irony is just too funny.
http://cozen.com/attorney_detail.asp?d=1&atid=1406
It seems to me Mann’s own words will come back and bite him on this.
“If a trial is a jury of your peers, then consider it just another peer-review.”
Good point. If I were a warrior, I would would plaster the “Man” in lawsuits from all over the country. Bury him in is own methodology. Time to “Man”- up!
I’ve always been convinced that Mann is a second-rate researcher with a second-rate intellect. It’s the only logical results one can conclude when his behavior, published works, tweets, blog posts, etc., are taken in totality.
Important to note – the letter wasn’t addressed to Steyn, it was addressed to NRO. NRO has wienered out in the past over libel suit threats. I can’t recall exactly, but it was some islamist of some sort. It’s likely that they’ll do it again, and fold like a cheap lawn chair. And Steyn won’t have anything to say about it.