Fighting the Mann

About these ads

171 thoughts on “Fighting the Mann

  1. Mandia’s hip-waders are entirely appropriate: The excrement is getting deep with that crowd.

  2. 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!

  3. 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.

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. [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”).

  8. Jimmy Haigh says:
    July 24, 2012 at 7:10 am

    That photo of mandia still gives me the creeps.

    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!

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. If Mann is such a big-time scientist and professor, how can he spend all of his time Tweeting?

  12. 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.

  13. “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.

  14. 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?

  15. 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.

  16. “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!

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. I don’t see where in the article it says Michael Mann was fraudulent, only that the Hockey stick is fraudulent. The fact that the stick was put together in a way that made it seem continuous data from tree rings showed a rise in temperatures not present in the tree ring data, I can certainly imagine how someone would think the stick itself is deceitful, in the sense of causing people to arrive at the conclusion the data showed continuous temperature rises. In fact, a lot of people did. Is any of this in dispute?

  20. Suppressing free speech is not for amateurs, Mann should take note and either take some learning annex classes on how to do it or stfu.

  21. I wonder, is it possible that the fossil fuel industry is paying for Mann’s high priced lawyers? Somebody has to since an academic would not likely possess the resources needed to hire such vermin.

  22. There is a connection between the issues. Mark Steyn is correct in pointing it out.

    Michael Mann has used flimsy science to actively promote a political viewpoint. He won’t release the paper trail of his discussions with Hadley CRU wherein he conspired to hide climate cooling.
    Penn State is aiding and abetting the fraud through their legal maneuvers motivated, no doubt, by
    1) need for self protection
    2) perverse need to continue the propaganda

    Sandusky and Paterno et al were culpable in the concealment of the rape of little boys.

    Penn State attorneys, ( therefore Penn State) were documented in their awareness of the rape of little boys and acted:

    1) to protect themselves
    2) not to protect the lives of little boys and to falsely promote Penn State as a paragon of institutional virtue with Paterno as the logo, despite his involvement.

    Could the connection be any less glaring?

    Penn State acted immorally in both cases. This is how that institution responds to its DOCUMENTED involvement in criminal activity. In one case it is the rape of boys. In the other it is science FRAUD.

    Michael Mann is not a child rapist and Mark Steyn never said he was. Michael Mann participated in a deliberate concealment of climate trends and with Phil Jones at CRU orchestrated a coverup. Now Mann is hiding behind the slimmed veil that an institution used to protect the worst kind of criminals.

    Are their any people at Penn State with an ounce character?
    Evil prevails because good men fail to act.

    If Mann sues National Review, I look forward to discovery.

  23. “Live by the hockey stick, die by the hockey stick” is a new saying derived from an old Biblical parable and roughly translated it means, You can expect to become a victim of whatever means you use to get what you want (Richard A. Spears)

  24. Just caught the note identifying at least one of the backers of Mann’s legal activities: The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, a project of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, “PEER”. Begs the question, how many members of public employee unions are dependent upon climate alarmism? Another form of “entitlements”? Sigh.

  25. His lawyer’s letter contains several references to investigations not germane to his hockey stick. Ignore those. However, there are some references that demonstrate investigations occurred and no fraudulant practices were discovered specific to Mann. Our opinion of those investigations not withstanding.

    It would be the responsibility of the prosecution to prove libel. Based on the evidence so far presented in investigations, regardless of our opinion of those investigations, I think Mann has a case. The only defense would be to reasonably prove that those investigations were incorrect in some way or that sloppy science is akin to fraud. That would mean a very protracted case. Especially if the offending article could have just as easily used words like “sloppy science reporting” instead of “fraud”.

    I think the magazine will comply.

  26. I think if Mann’s lawyers see his Climategate I and II emails and the emails by his colleagues mentioning him, the lawyers would advise him to drop it and shut up.

  27. Don’t tug on Superman’s cape … HAH! Let’s go Michael Mann, let’s go! Your despicable science fraud was white washed by Penn and the NSA so you, evidently, think that you are “bullet proof”. Methinks that now you are about to find out what it means to be a hockey puck.

  28. This can only have one scientific and logical conclusion if he pushes it… and it will be very very bad for mann.

  29. Mann in court reminds me of the story of Lee de Forest being unable to tell the court exactly how is famous Audion worked. Edwin Armstrong new how it worked, refined it, created the regenerative curcuit which led to, among other things, FM radio. Yet, somehow, the Supreme Court sided with de Forest in the patent lawsuit. The thing to remember is a court of law isn’t necessarily the best place to determine scientfic truths.

  30. To Anthony and all WUWTers
    This is a heads up to Steyn.

    Michael Mann’s litigation is almost certainly funded by George Soros.
    I was going to write this up and submit it to WUWT. I still will because it is part of a much bigger picture.

    Here are the salient points.

    The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was set up on September 12, 2011, by Scott Mandia. Money and support quickly came from the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

    Louis Clark sits on the Board of Directors of PEER. He is the founder and Executive Director, since 1978, of the Government Accountability Project (GAP).

    GAP is funded by, among others, Soros’ Open Society Institute. The Soros Foundation 2006 report let slip that they had specifically funded GAP for James “Hansen’s defense by providing legal and media advice” when he accused the Bush administration of censoring him.

    Lance E. Lindblom, who sits on the board of GAP, was formerly Executive Vice President at Soros Foundation’s Open Society Institute/Open Society Fund.

    John Cavanagh, who sits on the Advisory Board of GAP is the long-time Director of the Institute for Policy Studies, of which GAP is an offshoot.

    It gets much more interesting but I’ll stop there and provide some substantiating links and excerpts:

    Climate Science Legal Defense Fund
    About Us

    http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/about-us/

    On September 12, 2011, Scott Mandia posted a “Dear Colleagues” letter on his blog. It started, “Climate researchers are in need of immediate legal assistance to prevent their private correspondence from being exposed to Chris Horner and the American Tradition Institute who are using Freedom of Information (FOI) to harass researchers.” The outpouring of support was overwhelming. In less than 24 hours, Scott received $10,000 in small donations from scientists, students, and other concerned individuals. This went a long way toward helping solve immediate legal needs. Legal bills for scientists continued to mount, so it became apparent that a permanent organization was needed.

    With Scott Mandia and Joshua Wolfe as co-managers, and with the fiscal sponsorship of the non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was founded. This group will serve as the non-profit incubator as we build our own organization.

    Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)

    http://www.peer.org/about/index.php

    Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is a national alliance of local state and federal resource professionals. PEER’s environmental work is solely directed by the needs of its members. As a consequence, we have the distinct honor of serving resource professionals who daily cast profiles in courage in cubicles across the country.

    Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
    About Us: Board of Directors

    http://www.peer.org/about/board.php

    Louis Clark is the founder and Executive Director, since 1978, of the Government Accountability Project. G.A.P. is a public interest law firm that specializes in whistleblower protection and environmental advocacy. A lawyer and Methodist minister, Mr. Clark was active in the civil rights movement and worked for prison reform before founding G.A.P.

    The Government Accountability Project

    http://www.whistleblower.org/about

    The Government Accountability Project’s mission is to promote corporate and government accountability by protecting whistleblowers, advancing occupational free speech, and empowering citizen activists.
    GAP is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization with an operating budget of around $2.5 million. Gifts to GAP are tax-deductible. The vast majority of our funds come from over 10,000 individual donors and foundations such as the Carnegie Foundation, CS Fund, Ford Foundation, the Open Society Institute and Rockefeller Family Fund. Additional support comes from legal fees, settlement awards, and services provided.
    Founded in 1977, GAP is the nation’s leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization. Located in Washington, DC …

    Despite it’s noble-sounding claims to “promote … government accountability” here is GAP’s stance on Climategate.

    GAP’s Environmental program

    http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/environment

    Rebuffing politically driven attacks on climate science and the climate science community in support of honest public engagement with its role in public policy. In response to the Climategate controversy over stolen e-mails and other attacks, CSW published original statements from key scientists, providing an important venue for the scientific community to intervene in opposition to a destructive and trumped up attack on its integrity. CSW has also been engaged in commentary on the role of political manipulation of climate science in shaping public opinion, and has called upon leaders in the administration to affirm their support for the climate science community and its role in informing domestic and international climate policy.

    The Government Accountability Project

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Project

    The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is a leading United States whistleblower protection organization.[citation needed] Through litigating of whistleblower cases, publicizing concerns and developing legal reforms, GAP’s mission is to protect the public interest by promoting government and corporate accountability. Founded in 1975 as part of the Institute for Policy Studies…

    Board

    http://www.whistleblower.org/about/board-of-directors

    Lance E. Lindblom
    Lance E. Lindblom was appointed President and CEO of the Nathan Cummings Foundation beginning in December 2000. Before he joined the staff of NCF, Mr. Lindblom served as a Program Officer at the Ford Foundation, focusing on democratic accountability, economic and social policy, and globalization. Prior to that position, Mr. Lindblom was the Executive Vice President at Soros Foundation’s Open Society Institute/Open Society Fund. For 13 years, he worked at J. Roderick MacArthur Foundation, first serving as Executive Director from 1980-1984 and then as President and CEO from 1984 to 1994.

    Advisory Board

    http://www.whistleblower.org/about/gap-advisory-committee

    John Cavanagh

    Soros Foundations Network Report 2006

    http://web.archive.org/web/20081025093938/http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf

    About This Report
    The Open Society Institute and the Soros foundations network spent $417,585,000 in 2006 on improving policy and helping people to live in open, democratic societies.
    [...]
    Scientist Protests NASA’s Censorship Attempts
    James E. Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, protested attempts to silence him after officials at NASA ordered him to refer press inquiries to the public affairs office and required the presence of a public affairs representative at any interview.
    The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization and OSI grantee, came to Hansen’s defense by providing legal and media advice.
    The campaign on Hansen’s behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy.
    [...]
    Strategic Opportunities Fund 12,824,000
    [...]
    Total U.S. Programs $74,092,000
    note: The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina ($1,652,841); media policy ($1,060,000); and politicization of science ($720,000).

  31. Don’t know why everyone always focuses on Mann’s UVA emails, when they discuss possible fraud. There’s a prima facie case in Mann’s ‘Back to 1400 CENSORED’ directory. The information there factually shows he knew the MBH98/99 construction failed statistical verification, and yet he published anyway. Any prosecutor who put Steve McIntyre in the stand to testify about the contents and meaning of that directory would get an immediate conviction of fraud from any fair judge or jury.

  32. Mann is just pretending…. there is absolutely no chance that he will allow this to go to court, because he know if it does, then he will found to be a fraud and con-artist by a court of law. Steyn’s words were not very nice – but once a court gets to see Mann’s actions, there is no way any court will find Steyn guilty of anything other than telling the truth in a nasty way.

  33. Mann versus Steyn. Talk about an uneven fight. Mann brings an inflated ego and a smirk to the fight, Steyn brings an AK47. I’d buy more popcorn, but the stores are sold out.

  34. All of the sources Mann’s lawyer lists as exonerating him are questionable. In some cases, they were little more than rubber stamps that didn’t look at a shred of evidence; in others, their purview was so limited they were just about rubber stamps. If this ever did get to court, it would be good to see a team of lawyers tear into the house of cards Mann is citing as support.

    That said, and while I do think Mann is a liar, likely a fraud, and probably plain wrong, Steyn’s column veered into stupid land. To connect Mann and Sandusky was a dubious move. I don’t know how public a figure Mann is, but much could hinge on that. I suspect NR has exposed itself to some financial risk here. My bet is they settle out of court, if Mann continues to pester them.

  35. ChE says:
    July 24, 2012 at 7:53 am

    Interesting that they’re not objecting to the Sandusky comparison.

    Nobody is comparing Mann with Sandusky. What they are saying is this: Any institution that has the moral turpitude to cover up Sandusky’s crimes won’t even have to think twice to cover up what Mann is doing.

  36. I can’t believe the letter actually cites the Penn State investigation “clearing Mann” as evidence that there wasn’t any fraud. That’s the whole point (you [self-snip]), Penn State has demonstrated its lack of ability to conduct an investigation.

  37. I apologize. I think I short changed Dr. Mann. He also brings a tweeter and a handful of bristle cone pine cones to the fight.

    For heavens sake. If you believe in CAGW and pine (pun intended) for immediate action, can’t you see that Dr. Mann has served his purpose and is now a liability to your efforts. You can bet that the powers-that-be at Penn State are breaking open the champagne bottles as Dr. Mann brings more attention to the Sandusky affair. In the words of Keith Olbermann, someone tell this bozo to shut the f**k up.

  38. Michael Mann is cc-ed on a crucial email here so I hope this is not too OT (it is about the flawed Gergis et al 2012 paper and emails that have been revealed via FOI):

    FOI is needed to try to confirm the truth or falsity of the Gergis/Karoly claim that they discovered the flawed methodology in their recent Journal of Climate paper independently of Jean S. and Climate Audit.

    It’s a parallel kind of case to Michael Mann, who was in fact cc-ed (with his Real Climate pals Gavin and Eric) on the main Gergis email announcing to a whole list of data providers and collaborators that the paper would have to be re-worked and re-submitted.

    IS there any evidence of the truth of Gergis/Karoly claiming that the co-authors discovered the problem independently of Climate Audit?? Many find this claim extremely implausible… on the SAME DAY that Jean S. announced the problem on Climate Audit? Really? If Gergis/Karoly are telling the truth, almost certainly there would be some email trail of “oh my, look what I just noticed” on and around June 5. For there are the 5 co-authors Gergis, Neukom, Karoly, Gallant, and Phipps. Even though they are all at U. Melbourne I believe, it is most unlikely that they were all in a room or talking on the phone together at the moment the problem was noticed. Is there any email corroboration or not?

    Gergis et al scramble to save flawed paper

  39. p.s. [of course if Gergis et al were savvy climate scientologists they might have created such a false email trail that day, pretending to the independent discovery of a problem even if they really relied upon the Climate Audit discussion, i.e., well knowing of FOI and how embarrassing it would be to be shown to rely upon Climate Audit to correct their science.... but that would require some cunning and conspiratorial foresight that might be beyond them....]

  40. Oh, c’mon guys, let us be kind to our dear Michael and reflect upon what he has provided us with. For one thing, it is a curse for many of us to be plagued by feelings of inferiority. And yet, Michael, unwittingly, has provided those of low self-esteem with an avenue towards non-illusionary feelings of superiority when compared to himself. For instance I’ve felt insignificant all my life and yet here is an individual (Michael Mann) of prominence and fame that I can feel genuinely superior to. Pretty cool.

    And it’s undeniable that the Mann has provided us with oodles of comic relief. Moreover he’s given us a snapshot into the human condition: How, as a species, we alone managed to emerge from the caves, and after having done so, managed to belch out legislation (with significant thanks to our current wise and all knowing potus) to return us back into them. Mr. Mann has shown us. Learn it well.

  41. I guess I’m just naive, but:

    RE the Dan Satterfield comment at AGU: Jaw-droppingly stupefying that people are still defending the hockey stick! What will it take?

  42. One of the things that Mann is forgetting is that a lawsuit like this does not distract Mark Steyn from his “real job”, costing him money so he would choose to retract his statement. The suit can *become* his job should Mann choose to press forward with it. He can make as much or more writing about the lawsuit as he can about practically anything else – it’s not like he’ll have to take unpaid time off to deal with it.

  43. This willl be a comedy gold mine. Obviously Mr. Mann has no clue who Steyn is and what he can do. This is a made for tv epic serial for anyone willing to invest in the rights. My alma mater will make him back down, as they won’t be able to sustain another hit like this. I’m stocking up on popcorn just in case.

  44. Curiously enough, “fraud”, beyond the legal definition, which seems to deceit or trickery to induce someone to part with something of value, is defined in the common usage – lawyers like to see themselves as special – as “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting: Trick. ” in the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition. I do believe that the hockey stick was in fact referred a “trick” – in fact, as “Mike’s Nature trick” in the CRUgate emails was it not?

  45. “Best advice I’ve seen so far: Don’t tug on Superman’s cape”

    Actually, I think it is the next line, “Don’t piss in the wind.” Here’s hoping the wind blows right in Mann’s face!

  46. It appears that Professor Mann might just have “jumped the shark”. It could be a very interesting and enlightening “ride”.
    Fortunately, the water will be somewhat warmer than it might otherwise have been. (sarc off)

  47. I don’t know what age Mann is, but he should have looked across the pond for the “BBC effect”: when the BBC banned its disc-jockeys from playing a song in the late 60s/70s, it shot to Number One! (eg Je T’Aime)

  48. Mann continues his slide from just funny to ludicrous. I think he has actually convinced himself his research is sound, that good science means truncating data sets that don’t support his preferred outcome and won’t increase the hysteria necessary to keep him famous and the R&D money flowing.

    His will be a very sad legacy when time reveals the full scope of his work and activities.

    On the other hand, science ethics classes have a gilt edge case study ready made for future scientists learning their craft.

  49. “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.”

    What’s he going to do? Sue a couple of thousand anonymous commenters? Absurd. In Anthony’s case, and others like him, I don’t doubt they’ll continue to speak the truth without fear.

  50. I posted this on Dan Satterfield’s ‘Wild Wild Science Journal’ blog…

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    You say “Anyone can challenge Mann’s findings”, but when Mann himself is so vigorously trying to keep his findings and results secret (ref. Canadian case against Dr Tim Ball), how can you possibly say that?

    You also say “To put it in plain words- the [hockey stick] graph is correct, get over it.”, when far better qualified statisticians than Mann have said it’s junk and even the IPCC have how dropped it, so how can you possibly say that?

    We’ll see whether it gets deleted or not. Probably will as they can’t face such simple arguments that have no logical defence.

  51. …..ah…prob explains why Nick Stokes et al can’t bring themselves to admit Manns work is garbage…scared he may get a letter in the post from Mikey! Heh!

  52. “Interesting that they’re not objecting to the Sandusky comparison.”

    I don’t think that they could as a libel. It isn’t sufficiently tightly drawn to argue that it allows a reader to draw a direct inference, Steyn in any event disagrees with the parallel. That’s why it’s put down as the mint sauce of “Emotional Distress” to the lamb chop of alleged professional misconduct.

    Still the most probable outcome is a fizzle out, If a US suit is filed it’s likely to die in the pre-trial stage when the presiding judge asks Mann’s attorney if he missed class on the day that first amendments rights and the Sullivan decision were taught. If it gets further than that in either a US or other court, the defences will be Truth and Fair Comment. During the discovery phase of this the proceedings are likely to be dropped, at least 7 of the 9 “Inquiries” cited by Mann’s Attorney are not going to want their work picked over under enforceable rules of evidence against civil standards of proof.

  53. “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.’

    Agreed. what’s he going to do, sue 10,000 anonymous commenters? Anthony I’m certain will continue to speak the truth fearlessly. Were he ever sued, I’m sure he’d get all the financial support he needs to mount a vigorous, and devastating defense.

  54. Robin says July 24, 2012 at 7:51 am

    OT slightly on this post but …

    Comments on your blog open to anybody? Reason I ask, mine don’t seem to be coming through …

    .

  55. Mann is huffing and puffing at a brick house. He wants to sell his book and needs publicity. He would be taking a huge risk going to court because he will not only be subject to discovery but others associated with him and the science in question will be flooded with subpoenas. He will drag others into the dispute whether they like it or not including Penn State, UVA and other scientists.

    Mann may also be counter-sued on the basis that accusing another of defamation where there is no defamation is itself defamation. There are also the thousands of emails held by FOIA, as yet unpublished. What might they reveal when FOIA chooses to release more of them outside the time limit for proceedings and therefore entirely legally?

    If Mann was to take this matter to court he must also be aware that the court could find against him allowing for the possibility of legal action directed against him and the academic institutions he has worked for. And how can comparing the way investigations are conducted, which was the essence of the articles, be the same as comparing the subject matter of those investigations, which was clearly not what was done?

    Mann seems to be under pressure and lashing out instead of rising above it. Any court case would revolve around the evidence for CAGW. Perhaps a court where all witnesses are under oath is the best place to examine the hockey stick. If Mann isn’t careful this dispute could ruin him.

  56. Michael Mann’s litigation is almost certainly funded by George Soros.

    Here are the salient points.

    The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was set up on September 12, 2011, by Scott Mandia. Money and support quickly came from the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

    Louis Clark sits on the Board of Directors of PEER. He is the founder and Executive Director, since 1978, of the Government Accountability Project (GAP).

    GAP is funded by, among others, Soros’ Open Society Institute. The Soros Foundation 2006 report let slip that they had specifically funded GAP for “Hansen’s defense by providing legal and media advice” when he accused the Bush administration of censoring him.

    Lance E. Lindblom, who sits on the board of GAP, was formerly Executive Vice President at Soros Foundation’s Open Society Institute/Open Society Fund.

    John Cavanagh, who sits on the Advisory Board of GAP is the long-time Director of the Institute for Policy Studies, of which GAP is an offshoot.

    It gets much more interesting (e.g. ties between the Institute for Policy Studies and David Fenton) but I’ll stop there and provide some substantiating links and excerpts:

    Climate Science Legal Defense Fund
    About Us

    http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/about-us/

    On September 12, 2011, Scott Mandia posted a “Dear Colleagues” letter on his blog. It started, “Climate researchers are in need of immediate legal assistance to prevent their private correspondence from being exposed to Chris Horner and the American Tradition Institute who are using Freedom of Information (FOI) to harass researchers.” The outpouring of support was overwhelming. In less than 24 hours, Scott received $10,000 in small donations from scientists, students, and other concerned individuals. This went a long way toward helping solve immediate legal needs. Legal bills for scientists continued to mount, so it became apparent that a permanent organization was needed.

    With Scott Mandia and Joshua Wolfe as co-managers, and with the fiscal sponsorship of the non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was founded. This group will serve as the non-profit incubator as we build our own organization.

    Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)

    http://www.peer.org/about/index.php

    Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is a national alliance of local state and federal resource professionals. PEER’s environmental work is solely directed by the needs of its members. As a consequence, we have the distinct honor of serving resource professionals who daily cast profiles in courage in cubicles across the country.

    Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
    About Us: Board of Directors

    http://www.peer.org/about/board.php

    Louis Clark is the founder and Executive Director, since 1978, of the Government Accountability Project. G.A.P. is a public interest law firm that specializes in whistleblower protection and environmental advocacy. A lawyer and Methodist minister, Mr. Clark was active in the civil rights movement and worked for prison reform before founding G.A.P.

    The Government Accountability Project

    http://www.whistleblower.org/about

    The Government Accountability Project’s mission is to promote corporate and government accountability by protecting whistleblowers, advancing occupational free speech, and empowering citizen activists.
    GAP is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization with an operating budget of around $2.5 million. Gifts to GAP are tax-deductible. The vast majority of our funds come from over 10,000 individual donors and foundations such as the Carnegie Foundation, CS Fund, Ford Foundation, the Open Society Institute and Rockefeller Family Fund. Additional support comes from legal fees, settlement awards, and services provided.
    Founded in 1977, GAP is the nation’s leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization. Located in Washington, DC …

    Despite it’s noble-sounding claims to “promote … government accountability” here is GAP’s stance on Climategate.

    GAP’s Environmental program

    http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/environment

    Rebuffing politically driven attacks on climate science and the climate science community in support of honest public engagement with its role in public policy. In response to the Climategate controversy over stolen e-mails and other attacks, CSW published original statements from key scientists, providing an important venue for the scientific community to intervene in opposition to a destructive and trumped up attack on its integrity. CSW has also been engaged in commentary on the role of political manipulation of climate science in shaping public opinion, and has called upon leaders in the administration to affirm their support for the climate science community and its role in informing domestic and international climate policy.

    The Government Accountability Project

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Project

    The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is a leading United States whistleblower protection organization.[citation needed] Through litigating of whistleblower cases, publicizing concerns and developing legal reforms, GAP’s mission is to protect the public interest by promoting government and corporate accountability. Founded in 1975 as part of the Institute for Policy Studies…

    Board

    http://www.whistleblower.org/about/board-of-directors

    Lance E. Lindblom
    Lance E. Lindblom was appointed President and CEO of the Nathan Cummings Foundation beginning in December 2000. Before he joined the staff of NCF, Mr. Lindblom served as a Program Officer at the Ford Foundation, focusing on democratic accountability, economic and social policy, and globalization. Prior to that position, Mr. Lindblom was the Executive Vice President at Soros Foundation’s Open Society Institute/Open Society Fund. For 13 years, he worked at J. Roderick MacArthur Foundation, first serving as Executive Director from 1980-1984 and then as President and CEO from 1984 to 1994.

    Advisory Board

    http://www.whistleblower.org/about/gap-advisory-committee

    John Cavanagh

    Soros Foundations Network Report 2006

    http://web.archive.org/web/20081025093938/http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf

    About This Report
    The Open Society Institute and the Soros foundations network spent $417,585,000 in 2006 on improving policy and helping people to live in open, democratic societies.
    [...]
    Scientist Protests NASA’s Censorship Attempts
    James E. Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, protested attempts to silence him after officials at NASA ordered him to refer press inquiries to the public affairs office and required the presence of a public affairs representative at any interview.
    The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization and OSI grantee, came to Hansen’s defense by providing legal and media advice.
    The campaign on Hansen’s behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy.
    [...]
    Strategic Opportunities Fund 12,824,000
    [...]
    Total U.S. Programs $74,092,000
    note: The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina ($1,652,841); media policy ($1,060,000); and politicization of science ($720,000).

  57. Good luck to National Review in defending themselves against Michael Mann and the global warming establishment. Stick it to the Mann!

  58. Mann doesn’t have much going for him anymore except to keep implying that a court might uphold him on libel cases he does not bring. Maybe Climategate 3.0 or efforts to unearth the UVA communications will eventually put a stop to this dance of distraction and intimdation from stating plainly what the specifics support.

  59. I think a good court fight will do everyone a lot of good. Let’s hope they go forward with it.

    The analogy in the article was not between the conduct of Mann and the conduct of Sandusky, it was between the investigation of Mann by PennState and the investigation of Sandusky et al by Penn State. In both cases the exonerating reports noted that the persons investigated brought PennState a healthy income.

  60. DougM says July 24, 2012 at 8:48 am

    Mann in court reminds me of the story of Lee de Forest being unable to tell the court exactly how his famous Audion worked. Edwin Armstrong knew how it worked, refined it, created the regenerative curcuit which led to, among other things, FM radio.

    Ummm … of course, there were a few more steps in there than that; and FM (and the frequencies he used ultimately) do not lend themselves well to the use of ‘regeneration’ techniques and FM demodulation* which as you point out Armstrong also pioneered …

    .

    *At least not to the point of gaining any of the benefits of FM e.g. the ‘quieting’ effect or the use of limiter stages which remove amplitude noise effects (that normally affect AM receivers). ‘Slope detection’ techniques used on super-regen receivers to demodulate FM are still susceptible to AM variations as there is no limiter stage preceding the FM detector (e.g. the discriminator stage) but it still requires a high enough Q circuit to get amplitude variations to show up for the FM swing such that slope detection will work (slope detection is essentially an FM to AM conversion technique with actual detection then taking place on the derived AM ‘signal’).

    .

  61. I can’t see any way this will ever make it to court. It’s just a “Lawyer Letter” trying to scare people. If the people at Penn State have learned anything they will force Mann to drop this. Do they really need another thorough independent coverup investigation?

    Anyone who’s ever listened to Mark Steyn knows he’s a smart guy and a master of language. He knows exactly what he’s saying and any implications that go along with it.

  62. Pamela Gray:

    I respectfully write to disagree with the comment in your post at July 24, 2012 at 8:28 am which says:

    It would be the responsibility of the prosecution to prove libel. Based on the evidence so far presented in investigations, regardless of our opinion of those investigations, I think Mann has a case. The only defense would be to reasonably prove that those investigations were incorrect in some way or that sloppy science is akin to fraud. That would mean a very protracted case. Especially if the offending article could have just as easily used words like “sloppy science reporting” instead of “fraud”.

    The only reference to “fraud” in Steyn’s article says;

    Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.

    So the accusation of “fraud” only pertains to the climate-change “hockey-stick” graph and that graph is (actually, those two graphs are) “fraudulent” in exactly the same way that the infamous Piltdown Man is “fraudulent. The “hockey-stick” and Piltdown Man were each constructed by selecting parts of two different items, discarding the non-selected parts of the items, and stitching the selected parts together to create a misleading construct with deliberate intent to mislead.

    The Piltdown Man is the most famous scientific fraud in history. And the “hockey-stick” is an identical scientific fraud.

    So, there is no doubt, and there can be no doubt, that the phrase “the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph” is true. A true statement is not a libel.

    Richard

  63. Sending a tough letter and never bringing the case may be merely tacky, or it may be actionable. But when one goes beyond posturing and files papers without an adequate basis and belief, the courts get upset. See Rule 11 and sanctions thereunder. Mann’s attorneys must know this. It will be interesting to see what they’ve got; and, if it gets to discovery, it will be very interesting indeed.

  64. This is quite a serious piece of litigation. Many commentators here wrongly assume that it is without substance and easily defended against. It isn’t. The offending remark is that the’ Hockey Stick’ graph, produced by Michael Mann, is fraudulent!
    One possible defence to this is that the allegation is in fact true! But, if American Law is like English Law (and in this respect I think it is), the onus is on the defence to PROVE that.
    Now, we can all have our own opinions on the merits of the Hockey Stick graph, but can you absolutely PROVE that it is wrong? The plaintiff in this case will of course bring forth a host of expert witnesses internationally recognised in the field of climatology. What can you bring forth? Some unqualified bloggers who claim that radiation only turns into light when it hits the atmosphere? On Michael Mann’s side is the amassed might of the UN, the IPCC, Nobel prize winners, various scientific bodies and the overwhelming majority of expert witnesses who work and publish in this discipline.
    If you were neutral, like the Judge, who would you believe?
    However, say by some miracle that you actually succeed in demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt (NB: you probably need more than that in a libel case) that the Hockey Stick graph is wrong (an immense task) – does that mean it is fraudulent? NO, it does not. To prove that, you have to show that the motives of those producing it were not simply wrong, misguided and incompetent but that they INTENDED to commit fraud by producing it.
    So, whatever you own opinions, this is a very serious situation. What do you think will happen?

  65. richardscourtney says:
    July 24, 2012 at 11:29 am

    So, there is no doubt, and there can be no doubt, that the phrase “the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph” is true. A true statement is not a libel.

    Richard, I agree that defense would focus on proving that the hockey-stick graph is “fraudulent.”

    Websters defines “fraudulent” as, “characterized by, based on, or done by fraud.”

    And an acceptable definition of “fraud” is, “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick.”

    So, it seems as if the defense would merely need to read the email in which it is admitted that Mann used a “trick” to generate the hockey stick graph by “hiding” the decline.

    How easy is that? The email uses the exact word that defines fraud, and states that important information was being hidden which is most certainly “an act of deceiving.”

  66. The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, declaring that the First Amendment defends a person’s right to lie — even if that person is lying about awards and medals won through military service; however, there is a qualifier: Justice Kennedy, speaking for the majority, said that Alvarez’s lies “were but a pathetic attempt to gain respect that eluded him. The statements do not seem to have been made to secure employment or financial benefits or admission to privileges reserved for those who had earned the medal.”

    Now then, Mann, who if proven has been financially endowed for lying, may well be the loser in court. His freedom to lie is negated by financial benefit. On the other hand, Steyn, who also is making financial benefit through his writings, will be exonerated because they are truthful by default.

  67. MikeB says:
    July 24, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Actually, the defense wouldn’t need to prove that the hockey-stick is wrong. They would merely need to prove that there was an act of deception or or misrepresentation involved. Things that aren’t wrong can still be misleading and deceptive. Just ask credit card companies that have been forced to pay out judgments based on their advertising. The plaintiff isn’t forced to demonstrate that an advertise is wrong (false), they merely need to demonstrate that an advertisement is deceiving or misleading.

    Thus, despite the fact that the graph may have footnoted that certain temperature data were hidden, the overall graph was most certainly intended to deceive people about the earth’s temperatures.

    However, say by some miracle that you actually succeed in demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt (NB: you probably need more than that in a libel case)

    MORE than “beyond a reasonable doubt”? Are you serious? What standard is higher than this? This is the standard used for murder convictions.

    Civil suits typically require merely “a preponderance of the evidence” – which is a much lower standard.

  68. MikeB, to start, lay the ground work so to speak, there are the Climategate emails of Mann and buddies. Then there is Mann’s reluctance to have his UVa emails released. And the stonewalling on releasing documents to Dr. Tim Ball’s lawyers in his suit against Dr. Ball. Who knows what will come up in discovery. As for the IPCC, their credibility is rapidly eroding. You can bet your bottom dollar that many climate scientists, especially those named in the Climategate emails, will be extremely reluctant to go on the stand or give depositions under oath.

  69. MikeB says:
    July 24, 2012 at 11:59 am
    —————————————————————————
    This is what discovery is for.

    Pat Frank says:

    July 24, 2012 at 8:53 am

    Don’t know why everyone always focuses on Mann’s UVA emails, when they discuss possible fraud. There’s a prima facie case in Mann’s ‘Back to 1400 CENSORED’ directory. The information there factually shows he knew the MBH98/99 construction failed statistical verification, and yet he published anyway. Any prosecutor who put Steve McIntyre in the stand to testify about the contents and meaning of that directory would get an immediate conviction of fraud from any fair judge or jury.

  70. “The plaintiff in this case will of course bring forth a host of expert witnesses internationally recognized in the field of climatology.”

    Are you kidding? A handful stand behind the offended, multitudes will be glad to be witness or be a friend of the court. The judge will soon realize where the real consensus may emerge. I can think of 30,000 right off the bat and another 50,000 who get not the CAGW funding. I imagine there is a large party of folks in the science related fields that take offense to science of any kind or nature being bastardized.

  71. Steyn’s post does not seem “nasty” to me, as some above have experienced. Instead it has seemed truthful, a breath of fresh air — also putting one of my first thoughts about Penn State into words. Now that Graham Spanier, pres, is gone, and assuming that Penn State is suffering from the higher education bubble such that loss of football income will damage its finances even further, perhaps it is time to get rid of all its morally-intellectually challenged (and essentially criminal)personnel. They might “request” Mann to resign rather than to risk a real investigation. The new leadership might make clear that both rape of children and scientific fraud have no place at Penn State.

  72. Re MikeB atJuly 24, 2012 at 11:59 am

    The plaintiff in this case will of course bring forth a host of expert witnesses internationally recognised in the field of climatology. What can you bring forth?

    Statisiticians? One thing this case may demonstrate is you shouldn’t bring a climate scientist to a stats fight.

  73. Apologies for the double post above, That wasn’t intentional. There seems to be quite a delay between submission and appearance on screen with this thread.

    [Reply: We try to approve comments promptly. But occasionally all 3 mods are away at the same time. ~dbs, mod.]

    If you want to help stop Steyn’s editor at National Review from caving for purely financial reasons. Give them a boost. Visit their website (switch your ad-blocker off). Click on their advertisers. Link to them on your blogs. “Like” them on Facebook, Twitter, Stumbleupon etc.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/

  74. MikeB says:
    July 24, 2012 at 11:59 am

    This is quite a serious piece of litigation. Many commentators here wrongly assume that it is without substance and easily defended against…..
    ____________________________
    The climategate e-mails showed that climatology is not a science but a political boondoggle. Mike Mann and his universities have fought tooth and nail to prevent disclosure of the e-mails. Even in the Tim Ball lawsuit Mann is STILL stonewalling the discovery process. This has gone on for years. We know the hockey stick is bogus and it has been proven to be bogus.

    This is from WIKI which we KNOW is bias. The Skeptic Mag even has a page asking people to watch dog wiki!

    …At the request of Congress, a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[6] U.S. Rep. Joe Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported the view that there were statistical failings, although their report has itself been criticized on several grounds… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

    So even Wiki’s whitewash is rather tattered.

    So the real question isn’t about the Hockey Stick it is about what Mann is hiding and what has U of Va shaking in their shoes as well as Penn State. Think Nixon tapes. If there was nothing serious the tapes would have been on public display by now.

  75. It’s interesting to see the Mann-fight going on right now over at Amazon Reviews.

    110 ***** five-star reviews, 1 *** three-star, 33 * one-star. Typical fish-tail shape.

    Top reviews:
    ***** Mann Handled: A Decade Ago, Conservatives Attacked a Scientist–And Created a Leader (81 of 93, 9 comments)
    ***** A good scientist acting with integrity (454 of 550, 45 comments)
    ***** Long live the hockey stick! (302 of 374, 2 comments)

    Top one-star reviews:
    103 of 246 people found the following review helpful
    * A Tale of Two Hockey Stick War Books (Robert Tamaki , 103 of 246, 42 comments)
    * I didn’t throw it out of the window …. but it came close (52 of 137, 38 comments)
    * A Book Which Requires Careful Scrutiny (Brandon Shollenberger, 75 of 198, 75 comments)

    Robert Tamaki is batting Rob Honeycutt (Skeptical Science) right now it seems.

  76. theduke says:
    July 24, 2012 at 7:30 am

    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.

    I’m not sure. I Googled “fraudulent hockey stick” and got 1.2 million hits. Seems everybody and his brother or sister has called the hockey stick a fraud at some point: bloggers, other scientists, politicians. Where does the line get drawn that THIS GUY can’t call it a fraud?

  77. MikeB says:
    One possible defence to this is that the allegation is in fact true! But, if American Law is like English Law (and in this respect I think it is), the onus is on the defence to PROVE that.

    Wrong, they’re opposite. The onus is on the plaintiff in the US. (Why do you think Britain is a magnet for libel suits?)

  78. The lawyers letter is typical “climate science” speak. The allegations have been fully investigated and Mann has been cleared. But in a Court of Law, you have to listen to the counter arguments. The counter arguments would be that the investigations “exonerating” Mann and others were flawed. Furthermore, in science, a defense lawyer could argue that Mann’s statistical methods fell far short of acceptable statistical standards. The “fraud” bit could be defended by possibly showing Mann made gain from ignoring – indeed endeavoring to suppress through unfounded “denialist” accusations – criticisms.
    Furthermore, claims that “scientists agree” would be shot down as hearsay.
    The lawyers might give a shot across the bows, but if they have an understanding of Mann’s work, they should strongly advise against letting this anywhere near court.

  79. It is not unusual in the animal kingdom that when a creature is surprised and frightened that their first instinct is to puff up and act menacing…

    That said, that letter they sent to Steyn has to be the lousiest threat of legal action letter I’ve ever read. A well written threat of legal action letter should bring an “oh shi_” moment when first read. Mann’s threat to Steyn sure doesn’t invoke fear, to anyone; let alone ruffle a veteran of major legal threats and suits.

    I hope Mann goes through and files this threat of suit. None of the so-called investigations cited in his threat letter were ‘thorough investigations’ as he claims. I’d sure like to see Mann convince anyone truly qualified to sit on the stand and defend, under oath, how thorough the investigations were. Especially with cross examination following the prosecution’s friendly examination. The same goes for his famous hockey stick that has been ‘repeatedly verified’ by independent sources. Anyone sitting on the stand in support of the stick’s validitiy will endure the same examination and eventual cross examinatio. These under oath interviews will only occur after full discovery on how Mann gets his sticks. Which of course, means that Mann will have to demonstrate that independent researchers not only can but have replicated his stick research, and that Mann can replicate the sticks with exactly the same original code and data. Plus he will have to demonstrate full merit for both his code and data with all particulars (like meta-data and math).

    Nah! This animal has hissed and arched his back. There may be a little more hissing and bluster, but after sizing up the opponent and what will really be needed in a fight, he’ll slink (or maybe bolt) away. After all, it’s far far better to claim sham investigations cleared him than to possibly undergo a truly serious data and code revealing investigation. I’m reasonably sure that after slinking away, his ever faithful enraptured public will claim another win and insist that he weathered another investigation (snicker).

  80. Forgive my ignorance (I’ve not been all that long in this arena), there is something I am surely missing. I don’t care if Mann takes anyone to court (I agree with those who think he’ll balk at the last minute, he doesn’t want anything out there). What I want to know is, why hasn’t anyone taken Mann to court? We have the evidence, we have the claim, why isn’t anyone actually pressing charges? Or is it in the pipeline and still pending, or something? What does it take?

  81. Too delicious… Michael Mann vs my favourite defender of free speech, being discussed in my favourite forum.

    If all critics of ‘politically correct’ consensus had Mark Steyn’s steel balls and formidable ability to logically ridicule PC positions, the PC and Warmista crowd would be cowering in dark corners. Instead they smarm their tawdry world view through ad hominem attacks on those with a regard for truth and a sense of justice and proportion.

    Unleash the Steynamite, Mann!

  82. Mann was actually a young scientist starting his career at the height of the AGW scare 1998 temps remember London 36C in summer? (i even believed it). He got caught up in the scam and was encouraged by his peers. He’ll just disappear when we all realize it was a huge mistake

  83. BTWGgoogle aint showing ANY negative Mann stories on this. Those 20 filters people are working hard. Shoul make this sticky post its pretty big no?

  84. rogerknights says:
    July 24, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    The onus is on the plaintiff in the US.

    I’m not sure what he meant by the English to American law comparison, but if a defense attempts to assert a “truth” defense, then the burden of proving true or substantially true is on the defense.

  85. Ally E. says:
    July 24, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    What I want to know is, why hasn’t anyone taken Mann to court?

    Who would do this and for what specifically? Who has standing?

  86. “Ally E. says: July 24, 2012 at 4:31 pm
    …why hasn’t anyone taken Mann to court? We have the evidence, we have the claim, why isn’t anyone actually pressing charges? Or is it in the pipeline and still pending, or something? What does it take?”

    The Virginia attorney general tried to do something, but was unable to convince the court to agree. Everyone posting here who thinks the courts are these wonderful champions of truth and justice is seriously deluded. Our justice system is totally corrupt from the lowest beat officer to the Supreme Court both civil and criminal. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the 9th circuit court.

  87. “Rogelio Diaz says: July 24, 2012 at 4:50 pm
    Mann was actually a young scientist…”

    Calling Mann and his cohorts “scientists” is an insult to science.

  88. Mann suing NR for defamation reminds me of a murder case a few years ago in my county in Virginia. A man killed his neighbor for “trespassing” (or at least that was the defense he used in court). In actuality, the two had been feuding for years, and the killer used it as an excuse to kill the victim in cold blood (and may have even the killed the victim on the victim’s property and dragged the body across the property line). He got off Scot-free. But then he aded insult to injory by suing the victim’s family to recoup his legal expenses. Chutzpah of the highest order!

    I’ve often said that the best advocate AGAINST global warming alarmism is Al Gore. Gore’s mansion that uses 20 times as much electricity as the average home, his private jet, his limos, and all the other contributors to his GINORMOUS carbon footprint, while telling all the rest of us that we have to reduce ours, makes him the ultimate hypocrite. But Mann is now rapidly approaching Gore in the “embarrassment factor” department. At least for those who understand the science and the math, Mann’s “hockey stick” and all his other dubious statistical methods, along with his concealing and cherry-picking of data, is making alarmism look increasingly stupid to neutral observers.

    And now he has the umitigated GALL, after avoiding a complete exposure of all his UVa emails by the VA AG, to SUE someone for calling him the FRAUD that he is. One can only hope that 1) Mann is stupid enough to follow through with this suit, 2) NR has the gonads to stand up to it, and 3) the discovery process exposes the emails that UVa fought so hard to conceal. And 4) that they show the trial live on Court TV, but that’s probably too much to hope for.

  89. I ain’t defending the Mann at all. I agree he should not be called a scvientist NOW but he probably was when he started his career. He lost the right now (refer to Clmate audit and Lindzen’s and Singers complete destruction of Hockey stick)

  90. Wood fish you are probably right in insight he should never have been a scientist hahahahah

  91. I, too, hope the lawsuit goes forward, and the more detail it goes into the better! The gold mine of incriminating data it produces will then enable one or several BIG class action suits for fraud. Against not only Mann but UVa, EPA, and all the other organizations which by “exonerating” Mann have only discredited themselves — maybe even Soros and the UN!

    Everyone who has been hurt or lost money due to “climate change” related regulation should be eligible to collect punitive damages. Not to mention the families of the thousands who have been needlessly dying in car crashes since the Carter administration because EPA’s mileage regs force them into lighter weight cars.

  92. Google:

    “Michael Mann hockey stick fraud” … 140,000 results
    “Michael Mann hockey stick discredited” 87,700 results

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy :

    n October 2003, a paper by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick on “Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series” was published in Energy & Environment (MM03). McIntyre said that he … had contacted Mann for the data set but found problems in replicating the curves of the graph due to missing or wrong data. He [and] … McKitrick, prepared their corrections in a proxy data set using 1999 data, and using publicly disclosed methods produced a reconstruction which differed from MBH98 in showing high peaks of temperature in the 15th century. They were … saying that … Mann’s results were incorrect.

    When they published their paper, it attracted attention, with David Appell being the first reporter to take an interest. They said that after Appell’s article was published with comments from Mann, they had followed links to Mann’s FTP site and on October 29 copied data files which were subsequently deleted from the site.

    A November 2003 response from Mann, Bradley and Hughes objected to not having been given the opportunity to review or respond to the criticism before publication, and said that MM03 was flawed as it had deleted key proxy information, and used different procedures to MBH.

    In 2007 the IPCC AR4 noted the MM03 claim that MBH98 could not be replicated, and reported that “Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data.”

    In a corrigendum published on 1 July 2004, Mann, Bradley and Hughes acknowledged that McIntyre and McKitrick had pointed out errors in proxy data that had been included as supplementary information to MBH98, and supplied a full corrected listing of the data. They included an archive of all the data used in MBH98, and expanded details of their methods.

    In 2004, McIntyre[s] … efforts to get an extended analysis of the hockey stick into the journal Nature, [were] unsuccessful … [in] 2005 he and Ross McKitrick got their paper into Geophysical Research Letters. In their renewed criticism of MBH98, McIntyre and McKitrick’s 2005 paper (MMO5), published in Geophysical Research Letters …The authors wrote that the “Hockey Stick” shape was the result of an invalid principal component method … “the MBH98 method effectively selects only one species (bristlecone pine)” to produce the hockey-stick shape.

    McIntyre and McKitrick said that using the same steps as Mann et al., they were able to obtain a hockey stick shape as the first principal component in 99 percent of cases (counting both upwards and downwards-pointing “blades”) even if simulated red noise without any inherent trends was used as input. The paper was nominated as a journal highlight by the American Geophysical Union, which publishes GRL.

    Mann refused to cooperate, deleted data from the site, then attacked M&M claiming they used bad/wrong data, then was forced to admit M & M were correct and had pointed out errors, and had to provide the correct data.

    It was further shown Mann selectively excluded data that did not support the “hockey stick” and worse, when the bristlecone data was not supportive of their claims in recent years they deleted that section and replaced with the instrumental record – despite Mann’s statements that he would never append instrumental data to another record.

    Man was noted in several climategate emails commenting that he was deleting FOIA subject info and data and was actively attempting to interfere with or block the work of M&M,

    That’s just a brief from memory recollection – Others here can more accurately fill in the facts, but there is plenty of evidence that Mann was fraudulent in his creation and perpetration, and ongoing support of the hockey stick.

    And there is more than enough evidence – even in the Wiki record – to show a reasonable person could conclude Mann’s work was fraudulent.

    Last – as a public figure Mann has a far higher standard to prove. The defense need prove nothing – Mann must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a reasonable person would conclude Steyns claim was false … and, here’s the kicker, that Steyn knew it to be false AND intended to cause damage to Mann by making the statement.

    No rational reading of the Steyn’s comments can find anything of the sort. And the evidence shows clearly that it is not unreasonable to believe Mann’s hockey stick involved fraud.

  93. wobble says:
    July 24, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    rogerknights says:
    July 24, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    The onus is on the plaintiff in the US.

    I’m not sure what he meant by the English to American law comparison, but if a defense attempts to assert a “truth” defense, then the burden of proving true or substantially true is on the defense.

    Nope. Here’s what Wikipedia says about Libel Tourism:

    Libel tourism is a term first coined by Geoffrey Robertson to describe forum shopping for libel suits. It particularly refers to the practice of pursuing a case in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which provide more extensive defences for those accused of making derogatory statements.[1]

    A critic of English defamation law, journalist Geoffrey Wheatcroft, attributes the practice to the introduction of no win no fee agreements, the presumption that derogatory statements are false, the difficulty of establishing fair comment and “the caprice of juries and the malice of judges.”[2] Wheatcroft contrasts this with United States law since the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case. “Any American public figure bringing an action now has to prove that what was written was not only untrue but published maliciously and recklessly.“[2]

    And here’s what it says under Defamation.

    in the United States, the person [i.e., the plaintiff] first must prove that the statement was false.

  94. From Wikipedia: “Under United States law, civil discovery is wide-ranging and can involve any material which is “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.”” and “Electronic discovery or “e-discovery” refers to discovery of information stored in electronic format (often referred to as Electronically Stored Information, or ESI).”

    Subpoena every email Mann ever sent.
    Subpoena every email of everyone Mann corresponded with (especially those involved with the IPCC!).
    Subpoena every line of computer code used in every paper he ever published.
    Subpoena every data set he ever worked with, including those used in papers he co-authored.

    It’s Christmas in July!

  95. Michael Mann publicly disseminated the threat letter from his attorney to Steyn. In it he publicly attacks Steyn and accuses him of libel. Should he FAIL to take Steyn to Court this action could be construed as libel in itself. Especially sicne Mann himself purposely disseminated it.

    I would hope in the event Mann runs away as we all expect – that Steyn initiate action against Mann.

    I would gladly contribute to that action.

    Maybe we can have a national concerted effort … a we think “Michael Mann is a fraud” day … give him plenty of defendants to go after ;-)

  96. The Virginia attorney general tried to do something, but was unable to convince the court to agree.

    Uh, not really. The court decided (correctly, apparently) that the state did not have the authority to bring that sort of action (I believe it was civil) against UVA, i.e., Cuccinelli simply chose the wrong legal avenue to pursue. Should evidence of actual fraud appear, however…

    why hasn’t anyone taken Mann to court?

    Because most of the people that Mann has slimed are above such petty retorts. Class is always obvious in the actions of those that have it.

    Mark

  97. Forget tugging on Mark Steyn’s cape, they’re tugging on 2000+ years of legal precedent. Tell one lie and all the others become questionable. A US court of law is supposed to consider invoking that principle as libelous? The judge is going to have trouble keeping a straight face. I expect the suit to be dismissed with prejudice. The tricky part for Steyn is going to be getting to discovery before the suit is dismissed.

  98. Michael Mann has encountered an intellect in Mark Steyn that he is beyond his pay grade. A law suit against him? It would seem so appropriate for Michael Mann to do just so. Time has a way of telling all things.

    I can only wonder will Michael Mann be bright enough to get out of this before it all blows up in his face?

  99. One can certainly extrapolate how this action could affect other actions. The threat to the endangerment finding is real.

    They are figuring that out right about now and slimming up Brothers!

  100. Regarding one of the links commenting on the Mann made lawsuit threat,
    an AGU sponsored blog [!]

    Climate Expert Dr. Michael Mann Plans Libel Suit Against The National Review
    by Dan Satterfield

    http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2012/07/22/slandering-someone-because-of-their-scientific-findings-can-be-very-costly/

    I tried to post the following questions in the comments section:

    Compared to the carefully qualified statements in reporting evidence in various field of physics, e.g., particle physics – Higgs boson, blanket claims such as

    “To put it in plain words- the graph is correct, get over it.”

    followed by appeals to authority cause one’s eyebrow to raise and, even though I’m an agnostic non-expert on the issue, several questions do come to mind:

    1/ Dendroclimatology is clearly a field fraught with potentially large systematic errors – after all tree ring growth is determined by many factors including soil moisture, nutrients, sunlight, competition, etc all subject to Liebig’s Law of the Minimum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig's_law_of_the_minimum
    An analysis will give a result, but one can’t help but wonder if it is actually meaningful.

    2/ How independent were the various dendroclimatology analyses?
    Did they share the same data set? Methodology?

    3/ A quick scan of the literature seems to indicate that state-of-the-art tree ring growth measurements are based on isotopic measurements: δ 13C and δ 18O rather than ring widths. What did the results quoted in the article use?

    4/ Tree ring growth is very much a proxy measurement of temperature. What other independent temperature proxy measurement of temperature have been developed?
    Do they exist and, if so, agree or not with the tree ring analyses?

    5/ The [Mann hockey stick] plot

    combines the temperature proxy analysis from tree rings with later direct measurements. This implies that the tree ring growth analysis can determine not only relative changes in temperature but also absolute temperature. Have to say that I find this very surprising and counter intuitive.

    To sum up I have reservations about attempting to change industrialized economies based on such indirect proxy measurements of historical temperature.

    However apparently my questions above can be simply be dismissed as “crazy stuff”.

    Hmmmm.

  101. Thanks for answering why Mann has not been taken to court, WoodNfish, and my hat off to the attorney general who tried it. Like most con artists and thieves, however, all those locked into this massive scientific fraud will be repeat offenders. I’m still trusting he – and the rest – will have his day in court. History will fry him, even if global warming doesn’t. :)

  102. Steyn has followed a similar course of action in the past to great effect, ultimately leading to the repeal of Section 13 of the HRB in Canada.

    If Steyn loses, he will make it up in publicity and book sales. If Mann loses, climate science will never recover, and Steyn is forever known as the person that exposes the fraud. Make no mistake, if Mann proceeds with a suit and loses, climate science is done. Finished.

    Think about it. If Mann loses people will take it to mean that climate science is a fraud. If Steyn loses it will change nothing,

  103. People here seem to be making the error that if something is demonstrably scientifically false that the courts will see it the same way. One just has to look at the issue of breast implant litigation to determine that the courts dismissed scientific studies that breast implants don’t cause autoimmune diseases.

    What counts in law is not whether one is scientifically correct but whether one can convince a judge and jury that this is the case. Lawyers, in my experience, are one of the most innumerate groups of people in existence and I haven’t seen debunking of Mann’s hockey stick presented in a way which a lawyer or judge could understand. I once looked at a simple mathematical problem that was needed in a court case and gave the lawyer the answer after solving it in my head. It turns out the same problem had gone to an accounting firm for a solution. I suggested that they could dispense with this expense as I’d solved the problem; the reply was “are you an accountant”. The inference, of course, was that only a properly licensed chartered accountant could be relied upon to properly deal with this trivial problem.

    Court’s are also the most credentialist organizations in existence where, the greater the number of credentials a witness possesses, the greater the weight given to their evidence. I found out about this in the medical legal area where I’ve been told multiple times by lawyers that I’ve gone beyond what a GP should be writing about in medical legal reports. My throwing down all of the research papers in front of the lawyer backing up my statements doesn’t influence them one bit; they want the patient seen by a specialist who has more credentials than I do. It makes no difference if the specialist with the better credentials hasn’t read a scientific journal in the past decade – what does matter is how many letters one has after ones name.

    Courts are also incapable of conceiving that people with the appropriate credentials would conspire to suppress the truth. Courts recognize cargo cult science if the credentials of the incompetent scientists are verified.

    Science, when properly done, doesn’t care the least whether the originator of an important discovery has a PhD or was a janitor with a mathematical hobby. Mann’s hockeystick has been blown out of the water and the whole theory of CAGW has been disproved. However, Mann can point to his IPCC connections, the “prestigious” centers with which he works and the importance the government attaches to his findings (such a wonderful excuse to raise taxes under the pretense of combating CAGW). These are factors which courts will rate very highly. The fact that Mann is totally wrong is not rated highly by the court because the people who are opposing him don’t have the correct credentials.

    The only thing one could hope for in this case is that an appropriately credentialed statistician who is able to simplify concepts into language a lawyer would understand is called as a witness for Steyn and NRO. Mann knows he’s lost the battle in the scientific community and what he’s attempting to do is preserve his reputation and the courts are the only way he can do that.

  104. In general, you are correct, but defamation law is not quite the same as other civil or criminal law. While true that the best bet for a defendant is a suit in the US (and this one is not in the US), there is still more latitude and a general unwillingness to punish people simply for expressing their opinions. Also, regardless of how many letters one has after his name, once one lie is uncovered in a court of law, everything else will be tainted. That’s why discovery is so important.

    Mark

  105. Boris Gimbarzevsky:

    At July 24, 2012 at 10:34 pm you say;

    People here seem to be making the error that if something is demonstrably scientifically false that the courts will see it the same way

    True, but that problem does not arise in this case where the issue is whether or not the ‘hockey stick’ is fraudulent. Matters of science are peripheral to consideration of fraud.

    As I said in my above post at July 24, 2012 at 11:29 am,

    So the accusation of “fraud” only pertains to the climate-change “hockey-stick” graph and that graph is (actually, those two graphs are) “fraudulent” in exactly the same way that the infamous Piltdown Man is “fraudulent. The “hockey-stick” and Piltdown Man were each constructed by selecting parts of two different items, discarding the non-selected parts of the items, and stitching the selected parts together to create a misleading construct with deliberate intent to mislead.

    The Piltdown Man is the most famous scientific fraud in history. And the “hockey-stick” is an identical scientific fraud.

    In other words, the court only needs to see the evidence of “hide the decline” to know there is no doubt that the ‘hockey stick’ is a deliberately misleading construct: i.e. the ‘hockey stick’ is fraudulent.

    Of course, the defence may wish to use the court as a forum to publicise all the other nefarious problems of the ‘hockey stick’, but that does not change the important fact that ‘hide the decline’ is simple to demonstrate.

    Richard

  106. I highly doubt Mann vs Steyn will ever happen.

    As someone pointed out upthread, the more likely target will be National Review, a hollow shell of its former self, not even vaguely recognizable as the courageous institution begun by the late, great Bill Buckley. The current pantie-wearing child-in-charge Rich Lowry probably has more Gore Vidal books on his shelf than those by William F. The smart money would be on him caving in faster than a liberal being waterboarded.

    On the other hand, Mann going after Mark Steyn would be like debating H. L. Mencken. He loses on all fronts, humor, wit, the facts, not to mention Steyn buys ink by the proverbial barrel. And if that isn’t enough, he has semi-regular access to the biggest platform in talk radio. There is a word for bringing a butterknife to a gunfight … suicide.

    But just on the off chance that Mann really is as dumb as he looks, I would like to echo the many previous comments and urge him, no, beg him to do it anyway. This might finally bring some closure to the AGW scam once and for all. And besides, it will be really funny and satisfying seeing Mann walking around with his hockey stick rammed up his butt.

  107. “However, say by some miracle that you actually succeed in demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt (NB: you probably need more than that in a libel case) that the Hockey Stick graph is wrong (an immense task) – does that mean it is fraudulent? NO, it does not”

    This is a libel suit, against a New York based publisher brought by a Public Figure. If a US suit is bought the defendant only has to prove that on the balance of probalility they did not act with “Actual Malice”. They don’t have to disprove the Hockey Stick, or prove actual fraudulent intent by its authors, they just have to show that they had a reasonable foundation for their *opinion* that it is fraudulent.

    Now consider objectively the following :
    Splicing instrument to proxy data to conceal the fact that the proxies used do not validate against the best and latest instrument data.
    Using a procedure that produces an expected result even from noise.
    Employing and not correcting upside down,contaminated data
    A Peer Reviewed Statistics paper that concludes that the conclusion stated
    can’t be drawn from the data used. When attempting to rebut said paper making making simple mathematical errors.

    What’s your opinion?

  108. If the affair is not finally silenced, and if it ends up in court, and if it is a civil dispute ( I take it in penal cases it is different), the winner will probably be the side who has more money. Because they will go on, and on, until the poorer side is ruined, and has to abandon the fight.
    And the Mann side has much much more money than the side which questions the truth of their asserts, and of their published data.
    So ; would it be possible to send money to help , with the proviso that once the case definitely won, and the costs compensated, one would get one’s money back ? Of course, in case of not winning, the donations would be gone forever.
    But the case should be won, if allowed to go to the end.

  109. There seems to be little loyalty to Penn, even amongst its star athletes. I wonder what the reaction would be if Mann got ‘defrocked’.

  110. wow does that excitement mean they all want to transfer?

    I thought maybe the excitement was for an announcement that Michael Mann had been fired (jkof course, few students know or care who he is).
    I

  111. I know that what Mann did with “hiding the decline” was ethically wrong, but is it right to call him the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science”? That’s just the same as AGW alarmists labeling skeptics as holocaust “deniers”. We need to move away from this kind of ridiculous ad hominem attacks and focus on the science.

  112. I like this one:
    James Delingpole laments: ‘Damn you, @MarkSteynOnline … Damn you, @MarkSteynOnline . How come you get to be sued by Michael ‘hide the decline’ Mann and not me?’
    from http://climatedepot.com

  113. @Boris Gimbarzevsky , July 24, 2012 at 10:34 pm
    Boris, you put the case better than me.

    Michael D Smith, July 25, 2012 at 4:29 am
    “I like this one: James Delingpole laments: ‘Damn you, @MarkSteynOnline … Damn you, @MarkSteynOnline . How come you get to be sued by Michael ‘hide the decline’ Mann and not me?’
    James Delingpole has some form on this topic, in an article in the Daily Telegraph he once described Professor Phil Jones, the man at the centre of the climategate affair, as “disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting and scientific-method abusing”. Furthermore he also described scientists at the University of East Anglia as “mendacious” and said that they were “untrustworthy, unreliable and entirely unfit to write the kind of reports on which governments around the world make their economic and environmental decisions”.
    The University of East Anglia duly complained to the Press Complaints Commission. But Delingpole had chosen his words carefully and was able to point to specific climategate emails which supported his case. The Commission found in favour of James Delingpole. You can see their judgement here

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100083071/uea-the-sweet-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/

    It makes pleasant reading.

  114. Dr Mann will have to do a number of things to win this suit. First, he will have to convince the judge and jury that he is an innocent victim of the raging Climate Wars. He will argue that all he wants to do is serve Mankind by his research into Climate Change; he is an innocent scientist who only cares about the Truth. NRO and Steyn’s vicscious libel, therefore has stained Mann’s sterling reputation. Secondly, he will have to prove that his MBH9x studies were not at all controversial. Only Right Wing political operators (funded by Big Oil) made them so. The Right Wing media hit men such as NRO and Steyn are all in cahoots with Big whatever.

    This is where the fun begins. All it would take to shatter Mann’s contention is to find various on-line or public events where Mann called fellow scientists or sceptics “Deniers”. And NRO and Steyn will most certainly contend that Dr Mann may be a scientists, but he is also as rapid a partisan as anyone. His twitter, FB, and other online posts, not to mention the Climategate emails will bear this out. I seriously doubt any decent lawyer retained by Mann would allow this case to go forward. Besides the costs, there will be a flood of supeonas and depositions that will more than likely uncover things Mann certainly doesn’t want uncovered. And like others have already said, does he really want to litigate the Hockey Stick? Does he really want to litigate again the Climategate emails? How will Trenbeth, Schmidt, Steig and Jones or Biffra react to federal supeonas?

    This suit will wither on the vine before it is quietly pulled. Which is too bad. It would certainly be entertaining, as well as devastating to the Team.

  115. I think Mann has a case… Especially if the offending article could have just as easily used words like “sloppy science reporting” instead of “fraud”.

    The ‘fraud’ is the pretense to science—i.e., we’re talking about a very clear example of scientific fraud.

  116. “I wonder what the reaction would be if Mann got ‘defrocked’.”

    …all 659 of his approved non-troll Facebook friends will be shocked and outraged.

  117. So it has finally comes to this. Left wing AGW armegeddonist Mann vs. right wing islamists-your-soup armegeddonist Mark Steyn. Steyn’s prophecies of an overwhelmingy islamic western world have no more scientific (or political, for that matter) basis than Mann’s prophecies of an overheated climate disrupted world.

    But yeah. I pretty much agree with everyone here. Steyn will likely eat Mann and his Big Tobacco-Lobby lawyers alive.

  118. Any magazine will measure the exchange rate of legal action (regardless of whether or not they are bringing suit or defending against one). At a certain level, the exchange rate changes from “pay for pay” to “sh** for pay”. This letter threatens an action that I think will be considered by the magazine as being within the latter exchange rate and will offer a retraction, apology, and rewording of the article in question. Nothing posted here in comments has changed my mind on this one.

    To be sure, I think Mann leaps over many inconventient facets of his research and comes to unsupportable over-reaching conclusions. In other words, sloppy research. I wouldn’t let him research the difference between light and regular beer, let alone climate. In my view, sloppy peer-reviewed research is by far the greater sin thus has the potential to wreck far greater damage.

  119. It’s all about one word: ‘fraudulent’.

    Okay, Mann’s done bad work, but was there an intent to defraud?

    Still, Mann’s in the proverbial glass house on this one. Expose some of the rot in Mann’s work early so that his would-be advocates like Trenberth suddenly find themselves occupied elsewhere when asked to testify, lest they look like fools themselves.

  120. Okay, Mann’s done bad work, but was there an intent to defraud?

    In science abandonment of devotion to honesty demonstrates intent

  121. Mike’s fanzine club is really working itself up to a near orgasmic ecstasy at the propect of a “Denier” being taken to court.
    I, for one, really hope that the National Review sticks to its guns and Mann follows through with his threat.
    The look on the fanzine’s faces when “discovery” clicks in will be priceless.

    PS I see no mention of the Wegman report in the lawyer’s letter.
    Cherry-picking again?

  122. I guess we had better sue for being called deniers, aye? Waahhh! I’m not denying anything!!

    Mann’s response to scientific criticism of his stick is contemptuous and unscientific, thus fraudulant. A scientist who disallows conflicting viewpoints is a a fraud. A scientist who hides his data is likely a fraud. Work that is passed by political means and doesn’t follow rigorous scientific criticism is scientific fraud.

  123. @JEM,

    “It’s all about one word: ‘fraudulent’.

    Okay, Mann’s done bad work, but was there an intent to defraud?”

    But Steyn is entitled to his opinion. And being a journalist/writer, Steyn can argue that from his point of view MBH9x is a fraud. Mann will have a difficult time even getting a court date this decade if that’s all he has to complain about. The paparazzi use all types of inflamatory language all the time, and there isn’t an appeals court in the nation that won’t defend their right to do so. Besides, Dr Mann has used similar language himself (one can argue that Climate “Denier” is just as defamatory as “fraudulent”.

  124. We have the Pildown Man Hoax that was a fraud, right? So, we have the Mann Hoax and it isn’t a fraud? The only real difference is that it took 50 years to bust the Piltdown Man Hoax and another 50 years to know who all was involved in the hoax.

  125. This suit ain’t going to happen, because if it did Steyn will be mopping the floor with Mann for a year straight and Mann will never recover.

    Steyn is a top-shelf humorist, every article is tounge in cheek. The Corner is Nat. Review’s quick blip story; it does not go into detail, ever. Steyn will come back with more on Mann’s crooked work, mark my words! Get ready, here it comes. The stick is straight: it’s Mann who’s crooked.

  126. I’m reminded of Oscar Wilde’s lawsuit against the Marquess of Queensberry. It ended badly for Wilde, as I recall.

    I’ll bet Mann’s friends, unlike Wilde’s, are egging him on.

    • “Kevin R. says: July 25, 2012 at 12:00 pm I’m reminded of Oscar Wilde’s lawsuit against the Marquess of Queensberry. It ended badly for Wilde, as I recall.”

      This isn’t the British legal system over here. Our libel laws are different. Just search the comments to see.

      “Poems of Our Climate says: July 25, 2012 at 11:41 am The stick is straight: it’s Mann who’s crooked.”

      That gets my Best Comment of the Day Award.

  127. @JP – Oh, I don’t think Mann’s got a leg to stand on, he is a public figure and seems to have no trouble with that when he’s the one doing the defaming.

    Further, there’s any number of little gotchas with the hockey stick – whether it’s the cherry-picked data (“Dr Mann, is it correct to say that removing six trees from your proxy data makes the ‘hockey stick’ curvature go away? Yes, or no, sir.”) or the pathetic R-squared and Mann’s attempt to hide it – that’d leave all his work badly tainted if brought to the fore in a court of law.

  128. For all of you questioning Mann’s intent to commit fraud, ask yourselves why he ordered Wahl to delete emails related to the East Anglia Climate Gate fraud. The Mann is knee deep in fraud. He bathes in it. The stink of it isn’t going to wash off.

  129. People who make hockey sticks actually provide value to society. People who need’m and want’m have no problem with pay’n for’m with their own money–i.e., hockey players who use’m to defeat their opponents. Compare that the example of MBH98/99/08 where public money is used to fabricate tools for socialists and despots to undermine Americanism.

  130. @Pamela Gray
    July 25, 2012 at 8:19 am

    ——————————

    You are underestimating the magazine’s and Steyn’s ability to raise money via a legal defense fund. Steyn, for example, sits in for Rush Limbaugh and is a well-known commenter on television. ( I know this because I am one of his admirers.) How much do you think Rush Limbaugh would be willing to contribute to Steyn’s defense? I’m guessing it would be a lot. And he would be only one of many willing to pay good money to see Mann undergo a rigorous discovery process that would seek to prove that the hockey stick is “fraudulent.”

    Furthermore, I think you also underestimate NR’s devotion and loyalty to freedom of speech and their duty to their readers to not cave in and self-censor after receiving threats from intellectual thugs.

    Check the link to Steynonline that I posted above. Steyn doesn’t sound like a man about to head for the corner of a dark basement to quiver in fear. I think he will relish this fight.

  131. woodNfish – I don’t think it’s fair to say Mann ‘ordered’ Wahl to delete emails.

    I think that what the public evidence supports is that he assisted Jones in requesting Wahl to do it.

    Now, deletion of records subject to FOIA could be considered illegal and if that’s the case Mann could be considered a party to a conspiracy, but I’ll leave that determination to others.

  132. Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
    OO OO I get to make a prediction! :)

    I predict a new washing machine will be needed at the Mann household if Mann goes to court.
    Industrial soaps and bleaches will not remove those stains in his panties.

  133. Friends:

    Alarmist web sites censor anything which does not support their mantras. And I think this behaviour needs public exposure.

    I posted the following two items to the web site of Dan Satterfield at the link provide in the above article. Both items have been stalled in moderation with no public indication that they were received, so I am copying them here to place on record that they were provided.

    Richard

    ****************

    Richard S Courtney said on 24 July 2012
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Mr Satterfield:

    I am surprised that you write saying:

    “THE FACTS
    Dr. Mann has been subjected to an overwhelming amount of hate mail and death threats, (most of which are very badly spelled) because he published a paper several years ago, with the image above in it. You may have heard about this image, it’s called the “Hockey Stick”, and let me say right here, that no matter what you may read on the internet, this image has stood the test of dozens of reviews and investigations. 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.”

    Dr Mann has made an assertion of libel. It is not relevant to this assertion whether or not he has been harassed as much as me. At issue is whether the possibility that Mr Steyn’s article made a libelous comment concerning the “Hockey Stick”.

    The only reference to the “Hockey Stick” in Mr Steyn’s article says;

    “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.”

    So, Steyn’s accusation of “fraud” only pertains to the “climate-change “hockey-stick graph”. And, importantly, that graph is (actually, those two graphs are) “fraudulent” in exactly the same way that the infamous Piltdown Man is “fraudulent”. The “hockey-stick” and Piltdown Man were each constructed by selecting parts of two different items, discarding the non-selected parts of the items, and stitching the selected parts together to create a misleading construct with deliberate intent to mislead.

    The Piltdown Man is the most famous scientific fraud in history. And the “hockey-stick” is an identical scientific fraud.

    So, there is no doubt, and there can be no doubt, that the phrase “the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph” is true. A true statement is not a libel.

    Richard

    **************

    Richard S Courtney said on 25 July 2012
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Mr Satterfield:

    An entire day has passed and you still have failed to release my post from moderation.

    My post is a clear, factual and accurate explanation of why Dr Mann’s allegation of libel would be simply defeated in a court (so it can be confidently predicted that his lawyers will advise against him putting his bluster into practice).

    I know that facts are inconvenient for climate alarmists, but in this case the cheerleaders for Dr Mann need to be aware that they are encouraging him to commit professional suicide if he invites a court to consider “Mike’s Nature trick” to ‘hide the decline”.

    Also, your comments about the lack of peer-reviewed rebuttal of the ‘hockey stick’ are so wrong as to be risible. I suggest that you would benefit from research of the matter instead of citing the discredited propaganda web site which operates under the name of Real Climate.

    Richard

  134. Mark Steyn’s New nickname is “SLIM” – cause this is how it will go down.
    im Croce Lyrics►You Don’t Mess Around With Jim Lyrics

    Songwriters: CROCE, JAMES
    Uptown got it’s hustlers
    The bowery got it’s bums
    42nd Street got Big Jim Walker
    He’s a pool-shootin’ son of a gun
    Yeah, he big and dumb as a man can come
    But he stronger than a country hoss
    And when the bad folks all get together at night
    You know they all call big Jim “Boss”, just because
    And they say

    You don’t tug on Superman’s cape
    You don’t spit into the wind
    You don’t pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
    And you don’t mess around with Jim

    Well outta south Alabama came a country boy
    He say I’m lookin’ for a man named Jim
    I am a pool-shootin’ boy
    My name Willie McCoy
    But down home they call me Slim
    Yeah I’m lookin’ for the king of 42nd Street
    He drivin’ a drop top Cadillac
    Last week he took all my money
    And it may sound funny
    But I come to get my money back
    And everybody say Jack don’t you know

    And you don’t tug on Superman’s cape
    You don’t spit into the wind
    You don’t pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
    And you don’t mess around with Jim

    Well a hush fell over the pool room
    Jimmy come boppin’ in off the street
    And when the cuttin’ were done
    The only part that wasn’t bloody
    Was the soles of the big man’s feet
    Yeah he were cut in in bout a hundred places
    And he were shot in a couple more
    And you better believe
    They sung a different kind of story
    When big Jim hit the floor now they say

    You don’t tug on Superman’s cape
    You don’t spit into the wind
    You don’t pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
    And you don’t mess around with Slim

    Yeah, big Jim got his hat
    Find out where it’s at
    And it’s not hustlin’ people strange to you
    Even if you do got a two-piece custom-made pool cue

    Yeah you don’t tug on Superman’s cape
    You don’t spit into the wind
    You don’t pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
    And you don’t mess around with Slim

  135. woodNfish says:
    July 24, 2012 at 5:29 pm
    …Our justice system is totally corrupt from the lowest beat officer to the Supreme Court both civil and criminal. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the 9th circuit court.
    ________________________________
    That is for sure. Go down to the court house and sit though a couple days. It will turn your stomach. These people are well worth reading if you are in the USA: Fully Informed Jury Association

    • Gail Combs says: July 25, 2012 at 5:10 pm

      Thanks for the link Gail.

      Jury Nullification; use it as often as possible.

  136. My problem is, he’s gone after NRO, not Steyn. NRO could drop this like a hot potato. Bad on them if they do.
    Mark of course could compound the “libel” by repeating it on his own blog. So far, he’s done nothing but report the alleged libel.
    What does the little Mann gain? Even if NRO retract, it’s out there.

    DaveE.

  137. Mann teaches “The Earth System” in a Penn State course using Gore’s AIT: I really thought this had to be a joke, but it’s real. Of course it’s possible to include written or visual propaganda in an academic course in order to correct and debunk it, and for diversity of views, but somehow it’s hard to imagaine that is what is happening here. Much more likely (given his many public statements) that he actually still regrads AIT as accurate and useful to “the cause.” Does Mann even correct the “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer” for his eager students?? I wonder…. (anyone know any recent Penn State grads or students who could try to find out from fellow students or alums?)….

    In the past when I criticized the misrepresentations in AIT to “serious” people they would always say some version of “well sure it’s reckless propaganda, but what do you expect, it’s made by a politician for political purposes.” Now it seems that the great climatologist Michael Mann regards AIT as worthy of filling TWO slots in his course….

    Michael Mann uses “An Inconvenient Truth” as academic course material!!

    GAIA – THE EARTH SYSTEM (EARTH 002, Section 2; 3 credits)

    Course Syllabus for Fall 2009

    W Nov 18 MOVIE: An Inconvenient Truth (Part 1)
    F Nov 20 MOVIE: An Inconvenient Truth (Part 2)

    (h/t xanthippa and betapug)
    [I'm cross-posting from my comment at Climate Audit]

  138. I have a slightly different take on the likelihood of an actual lawsuit being filed–i.e., I believe it is more likely than most people of this blog seem to think. There is no love lost between National Review (NR) and George Soros. Some of the comments to this post have pretty much convinced me that Mann’s legal funds are probably coming from Soros. What if Mikey is a sacrificial pawn in the Soros-NR war? Soros gets to lock horns with NR without risking losing face. Spend money sure, but so what. He spends money for leftist causes like Obama funds failing green energy companies. If Soros wins, he hurts NR. If NR wins, the person that gets thrown under the bus is Mikey. What’s clear to me is that if Mikey is a Soros gambit, with his unbounded ego, Mikey won’t be aware he’s been used until he finds himself abandoned by his team mates.

  139. Dr Chan Chu:

    At July 25, 2012 at 3:18 am you ask and assert:

    I know that what Mann did with “hiding the decline” was ethically wrong, but is it right to call him the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science”? That’s just the same as AGW alarmists labeling skeptics as holocaust “deniers”. We need to move away from this kind of ridiculous ad hominem attacks and focus on the science.

    Taking your assertion first, I have had a “focus on the science” of climate change for three decades. And I agree it is important. Also, I agree with you that ad hominem should be deplored.

    Your question is important and deserves an answer which nobody has provided so I am writing to fill that void.

    I the context of its use the label of the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science” is fully justified, and it is not an ad hominem. Importantly, that label is appropriate so it cannot be compared to the untrue “labeling skeptics as holocaust “deniers” “.

    The pertinent point is that Steyn wrote:

    Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.

    Climate alarmists often cite that Mann was cleared of wrong-doing by an “investigation” conducted by Penn State University. However, as Steyn says, that “investigation” of Mann’s behaviour was conducted by the same person and in the same manner as the “investigation” by the same university of another of its employees; viz. Jerry Sandusky. And it is now proven that Jerry Sandusky was guilty. In this context, it is very valid to say that “Michael Mann is the Jerry Sandusky of climate science”: Mann and Sandusky were each “exonerated” by the same person and for the same reason, and that “exoneration” is meaningless.

    So, the appropriate response is to say “Michael Mann is the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” whenever it is claimed that Mann was cleared of wrong-doing by Penn State University.

    The response is not an ad hominem. It is merely a factual statement in rebuttal of a false claim.

    Richard

  140. Posted at Discover Magazine after previous post never saw the light of day:

    “What Mann’s hockey stick shows is a present much warmer than the MWP. So if Mann’s defenders wish to mount a good defense they should start by raising sheep and cows in Greenland, and finish by growing grain and grapes in Vinland, wherever they think it may have been. If that’s too much, they might want to start with competitive commercial English wine.

    Anything less is all words and numbers–all meaningless if it flies in the face of known history as the stick surely does. –AGF”

  141. As displayed at

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/07/23/deniers-disgust-and-defamation/

    at 2255CUT:

    293. Thomas Lee Elifritz Says:
    July 26th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
    Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph

    That sounds pretty damning to me. He claims that hockey stick graph was fraudulent, and that Michael Mann is the man behind this alleged scientific fraud. He is calling Michael Mann a scientific fraud, since the graph and paper was demonstrably a scientific effort by way of Michael Mann’s work.

    Many reviews have determined that Michael Mann’s efforts in this area were demonstrably honest.

    It’s pretty much an open and shut case of widely published defamation. A quick retraction and apology would suffice to clear this matter up. They are giving him plenty of leeway in this matter.

    294. agfosterjr Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    July 26th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
    What Mann’s hockey stick shows is a present much warmer than the MWP. So if Mann’s defenders wish to mount a good defense they should start by raising sheep and cows in Greenland, and finish by growing grain and grapes in Vinland, wherever they think it may have been. If that’s too much, they might want to start with competitive commercial English wine.

    Anything less is all words and numbers–all meaningless if it flies in the face of known history as the stick surely does. –AGF

    Leave a Reply
    Name (required)

    Mail (will not be published) (required)

    Website

    2256CUT, –AGF

    • Little sensitive to criticism, dude?

      Mark Steyn is gently tapping his finger at the dominoes.
      Penn State has an endemic cover-up system. Wobble.
      Penn State has endemic problems handling it’s rock stars. Wiggle.
      Penn State covers for its sugar daddies.

      Behind is a second domino, a harsh mann shrieks that he’s been wronged. Red herring.

      This mann has got a lot of explaining to do. He’s got a lot of science to answer for. But he will never do it, because he lives in the land of sycophantism; quite cozy, in a school that covers for it’s big money machines.

      That is, until a Mark Steyn starts poking his finger into mann’s world. Thanks Mark.

      Steyn pokes his finger, the dominoes wiggle. Mann comes out like a protective animal; no facts, just threats.

      Scientists fight with facts and observation. Mann fights with money and financial threat. I’ll sue!

      Protect the cash, Michael! Lots and lots and lots and lots of cool, cool cash for warm warm sticky well-selected proofs.

      If he’s stupid enough to play Steyn, I know exactly where my money is going.

  142. Heartland’s Unabomber billboard revealed them as fringe idiots who couldn’t be taken seriously. They lost staff, their Washington office and millions in funding when they dropped the mask. With this post WUWT drops the mask once more. Mainstream common sense recognises fringe fanaticism and hits the ‘ignore’ button. And that leaves you singing to an ever-shrinking glee club.

  143. mildaykerr says:
    July 26, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    Heartland’s Unabomber billboard revealed them as fringe idiots who couldn’t be taken seriously. They lost staff, their Washington office and millions in funding when they dropped the mask. With this post WUWT drops the mask once more. Mainstream common sense recognises fringe fanaticism and hits the ‘ignore’ button. And that leaves you singing to an ever-shrinking glee club.

    I’m not going to defend the Heartland billboard because it was wrong headed. Having said that, was it so much different from Joe Romm comparing Sceptics to Anders Behring Breivik or was that OK because it was the right side?
    What about the 10:10 No Pressure video was that OK?
    Of course there’s always Peter Gleik phishing Heartland and trying to pass off a document which it turns out is a forgery as a genuine Heartland document.
    I’m assuming you had reading comprehension problems when it comes to recognising that this post is just reporting news that Dr. Mann drew to everyones attention.

    DaveE.

  144. mildaykerr:

    Your post at July 26, 2012 at 9:52 pm is similar to the papers of Mann et al on dendrothermology: i.e. it only contains falsehoods and nonsense.

    Heartland’s controversial billboard (which I think was a mistake) revealed that they are willing to respond to criticism by correction of error: they withdrew the billboard in hours.

    They lost no staff and gained net funding.

    WUWT has no “mask”: it posts items from all ‘sides’ including the silly post from you which I am answering. Climate alarmist web sites censor as policy (see e.g. my above post in this thread at July 25, 2012 at 4:17 pm)

    There is no such thing as “mainstream common sense”. Real common sense ignores fanatics who proclaim “The End Of The World Is Nigh”.

    I do not know which “glee club” you claim is “shrinking”. Personally. I do not have time to join any “glee club” because I am too busy working with the growing army of people who are opposing the lunatic proposals of green activists and climate alarmists.

    Richard

Comments are closed.