Yay! Mike Mann took the bait, intends to file lawsuit against Steyn and NRO

UPDATE: Uh oh, looks like Mann will have to sue Investors Business Daily too, because they say that: It’s been the greatest fraud of all time, and Michael Mann has been at the heart of it.

UPDATE2: Climate Depot has an interesting editorial here

The bait. Popcorn futures just exploded.

From Michael E. Mann’s Facebook page:

People have been asking for my reaction to the recent response by the National Review. Here is a statement from my lawyer John B. Williams of Cozen O’Connor:

********

The response of the National Review is telling with respect to the issues it did not address. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s research has been extensively reviewed by a number of independent parties, including the National Science Foundation, with never a suggestion of any fraud or research misconduct. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s conclusions have been replicated by no fewer than twelve independent studies. It did not deny the fact that it was aware that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated of any fraudulent conduct. It did not deny the fact that it knew its allegations of fraud were false. Rather, the National Review’s defense seems to be that it did not really mean what it said last month when it accused Dr. Mann of fraud. Beyond this, the response is little more than an invective filled personal attack on Dr. Mann. And further, this attack is coupled with the transparent threat that the National Review intends to undertake burdensome and abusive litigation tactics should Dr. Mann have the temerity to attempt to defend himself in court.
*********

We intend to file a lawsuit.

===========================================

Read it on Dr. Mann’s Facebook page.

Go for it Mike, we all look forward to the enlightenment of discovery!

Tom Nelson: Do NOT miss this: Look who’s representing Michael Mann

He successfully defended R.J. Reynolds in the commercial speech case filed by the Federal Trade Commission challenging the cartoon character, Joe Camel.

I think Steyn just went to COSTCO with the NRO credit card to get the industrial strength size can of whupass he’ll be opening:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Michael E. Mann and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

301 Responses to Yay! Mike Mann took the bait, intends to file lawsuit against Steyn and NRO

  1. meltemian says:

    Yessssss!!

  2. Davie says:

    We ALL know that this lawsuit will NEVER happen , Mann has far too much to hide and if he’s forced to reveal his “research” and his “methodology” it will just backfire on him harder and nastier than standing behind a souped up pick up truck in a muddy field !!!

  3. Where do we give donations for the defense?

  4. Jimbo says:

    At last! We finally pulled a sucker in. Bring out the popcorn and bring on the expert witnesses from both sides. Now this is what we can call a level playing field. ;-)

  5. Mark T says:

    His “Censored” directory alone is probably sufficient for NRO’s case.

    Mark

  6. jayhd says:

    Mann’s lawyer will have fun when it comes to interrogating the numerous people who have found Mann’s work wanting. And the NRO/Steyn lawyers will have a field day with the emails of Mann’s cronies. This will be theater worth watching. And a question for all you better versed in the law than I am, what happens to Mann’s lawsuit if he stalls turning over requested documents?

  7. Smokey says:

    I trust that McIntyre, McKittrick and Wegman will be witnesses, along with others who have first hand knowledge of Mann’s deceptive shenanigans.

  8. Tim Walker says:

    Ha ha hee hee

  9. Max Hugoson says:

    Oh boy, I HATE to throw away my hard earned $$$$…

    But if the contribution to BURY R.E.P., was given GLADLY with SYMPATHY for his family was and was not thrown away. I can tell you…despite the (probable) higher cost to BURY M.M., it will be too will be well worth it, for other reasons. (Problem is, will he stay buried, or will he be like Dracula and keep coming back?)

    One of the events (R.E.P. passing) was a cause for reflection, mourning, and sadness.

    The “upcoming” event, however, will be a cause of hillarity, partying, and happiness.

    Cosmic justice!

  10. omanuel says:

    Congratulations! This will help everyone discover exactly who is lying.

  11. sharper00 says:

    “Go for it Mike, we all look forward to the enlightenment of discovery!”

    I think people are very silly if they think someone can make accusation of another’s work being fraudulent and then use the discovery of a libel case to try and prove fraud.

    It’s not that complicated: Has Doctor Mann’s work been shown to be fraudulent either in the eyes of his peers or by any official investigation? The answer to this is simply no.

    A judge is extremely unlikely to look kindly on the argument “But his peers are also all frauds and all the investigations were rigged too! We simply must have unlimited access to Mann’s emails and notes just in case there’s some fraud in there!”

    At best the NRO will be found to have not committed libel because it was worded slightly too vaguely or Mann’s public status will make it non-actionable.

  12. “Fraud” is very difficult to prove in academia. Steyn should have used the word “incompetent”.

  13. Dagfinn says:

    I’m unsure about the popcorn when all that corn is used for ethanol.

  14. geran says:

    uh…before we get too giddy, remember that our “justice” system is terribly corrupted.

  15. Peter Wilson says:

    This will go down in history alongside Oscar Wildes decision to sue – that didn’t work out too well either!

    Thank you Dr Mann!!

  16. Ian W says:

    Careful, when the discovery phase is on – his dog will have eaten the hard drive. Or it is sub-judice in Virginia, or whatever other excuse. It would be really useful for anyone with wayback machine access or archives themselves to stand ready to supply the backup data he should have kept.

  17. Smokey says:

    sharper00,

    Explain why Mann hid this data. Because if he had used it, there would be no hockey stick. So he buried it in an ftp file labeled “censored”.

    As a taxpayer, that appears to me to be fraud. What would you call it? Just throwing out any/all inconvenient data?

  18. G. Karst says:

    Tsk tsk… Be careful what you wish for! GK

  19. Niklas says:

    Wow, it really seems like he’s going to pick up the hockey stick and fight…

  20. An Opinion says:

    Where is Mann getting the funding to pay his lawyer(s)?

  21. Bob M says:

    That last sentence from his lawyers statement is the excuse Mann will use for not following through on his threat. Mann will say it’s not worth it.

  22. Patrick says:

    Ooooh, I’d pay good money to see this – where to donate?

  23. Ally E. says:

    Wait. Won’t he just stall this case like he has the other two? How long can he stall a case for, anyway? Or maybe, as his research has been replicated so many times, his lawyer will happily hand over data and methods in discovery. What’s to hide, right?

  24. cui bono says:

    Hmm. Remember OJ. Putting the question of whether Mann is a fraud in the hands of the lawyers is sadly a 50-50 coin spin.

    Even if we all know exactly what he is.

  25. Theo Goodwin says:

    “And further, this attack is coupled with the transparent threat that the National Review intends to undertake burdensome and abusive litigation tactics should Dr. Mann have the temerity to attempt to defend himself in court.”

    No, discovery would be undertaken because the defense must get at his original working copies of his methods, raw data, and metadata. Also, the defense must get at Mann’s communications with Briffa and others about methods, raw data, and metadata.

    As regards the so-called exonerations of Mann, all the defense would need is to read the questions that were asked of Mann by the organizations that exonerated him. Any collection of twelve jurors in the USA would find those questions good for some belly laughs.

  26. g3ellis says:

    I do not know about other states, but in the state of Georgia, it is illegal to threaten a lawsuit and not follow through. Because the person threatened has to begin taking action to defend themselves in such a suit, it is reasonable that harm is done if they do not follow through. This will be fun.

  27. thomaswfuller2 says:

    Mark Steyn is clearly an opinion columnist. Michael Mann is clearly a public figure. He has published books and articles for pay and accepted speaking fees for public appearances. I fail to see any grounds for this suit to be entertained past a first hearing.

  28. Jonathan says:

    ==It did not deny the fact that it knew its allegations of fraud were false.==

    I guess Mann’s lawyer read a different response than I did. From NRO’s lawyers:

    ==The statement identifying Dr. Mann as “the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus,” is both substantially true and classic rhetorical hyperbole that is protected under the First Amendment.==

    ”The statement … is … substantially true.”

    Sounds like a denial that “it knew its allegations of fraud were false” to me.

  29. Mark T says:

    geran says:
    August 23, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    uh…before we get too giddy, remember that our “justice” system is terribly corrupted.

    In general, yes, but libel suits are relatively easy to dodge, particularly in the case of public figures and very particularly in the US.

    Note that the reply still seems to concentrate on some accusation of criminal fraud, which was completely missing the point of NRO’s reply. They are focusing on what NRO “didn’t say,” but fail to recognize that all the NRO needs to do (legally) is demonstrate the few points they “did say,” i.e., Mann is a public figure and it will be all but impossible for anyone to prove they (NRO/Steyn) knowingly, with malice, made a false claim.

    Mark

  30. Doug Huffman says:

    I live on an isolated (ferry plus 50 miles to conventional civilization) and rural Island, ten years TV free. We say that the fox kits playing outside our DR window are “better’n TV.” This court case might be even more entertaining! Where can I send a soupcon of filthy lucre, maybe enough to buy a silver bullet or a sharpened mistletoe stake?

  31. Michael Jankowski says:

    Priceless – a big oil, big tobacco attorney!!!

  32. Heggs says:

    At first I thought there’s no way ‘they’ are this stupid.Then I remembered a melted streetlight by a burnt dumpster and several other things. Popcorn and beer has been ordered !!!

  33. Sean Peake says:

    So… Mann’s lawyer defended the intersts of a tobacco giant AND big oil? Too much!

  34. Toto says:

    Niklas says:
    August 23, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    Wow, it really seems like he’s going to pick up the hockey stick and fight…

    In hockey-speak, that would make him a ‘goon’,

  35. Mark T says:

    And further, this attack is coupled with the transparent threat that the National Review intends to undertake burdensome and abusive litigation tactics should Dr. Mann have the temerity to attempt to defend himself in court.

    “Burdensome and abusive litigation tactics”? Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but discovery is not abusive, it is a legal requirement. That it is burdensome is not NRO’s problem, it is Mann’s problem since he is choosing to take this path. Had Mann not wanted to undertake the burden, he could easily have just stood down. The courts certainly don’t care about the burden placed on a plaintiff by his own actions.

    Mark

  36. ChE says:

    And Mann goes for the own goal!!!

  37. Darren Potter says:

    Anthony Harmon: “Where do we give donations for the defense?”

    What he said.

  38. Otter says:

    Perhaps algor will help out mann, via some of his own tobacco money?

    I would also like to see several people called to the witness stand- namely, everyone in the Climategagte emails, who spoke about mann`s shoddy work.

  39. MangoChutney says:

    Won’t happen

  40. geran says:

    Mark T.—–

    Please to understand, we all want Mann forced to face the TRUTH. But in many States, the “rules of evidence” are corrupted. I am not an attorney, but I know several (honest ones, if you can believe). In our modern court system, TRUTH is not the goal. A verdict can easily be decided by “legalites”.

  41. eqibno says:

    Pride comes before a fall and fraud comes before a guilty verdict.

  42. Matthew W says:

    I can’t believe that I am saying this, but I actually feel sorry for Mr. Mann.
    Go get’m NRO/Steyn !!!!

  43. Theo Goodwin says:

    Is there a public record of Mann answering the question: Did you commit fraud in publishing the hockey stick graph?

    Is there a public record of Mann answering the question: Did you choose not to show the forty years of declining tree ring data, choose to replace that data with temperature records, and choose not to inform readers of your hockey stick article about the substitution.

    There will be.

  44. Robin says:

    I find the idea of using the National Science Foundation as part of the defense strategy to be genuinely naive and ludicrous. Why yes, let’s make the ascendance of the behavioral sciences and social sciences over the natural sciences as a legitimate part of the discovery. Inconsistency of the model with factual reality doesn’t matter if the whole purpose of the model was to change public policy.

    Seriously? The day after the head of Australia’s Green Party, Christine Milne said “we should have been using the social sciences a lot sooner than we have been to work out ways of talking to people’s values systems rather than to their intellectual capacity.”

    Why Mann seems to have the same approach. Just use the monopoly over education to deal with denialism. Change the nature of the hard sciences and the curriculum and insist on a learner-centered classroom instead of a content centered one.

    No wonder systems theory around Sustainability is taking over classrooms all over the world.

    And now we get to get into NSF’s records. That would include everything Holdren has been up to on the Belmont Challenge and the Future Earth Alliance since Mann’s models are relevant.

    Oh and Holdren’s involvement with the Open Government Action Plan that suggests it is not in the least. Just a means of gathering intrusive data on people and businesses who are not playing ball with things like Senge’s SoL Sustainability Consortium.

  45. michaelozanne says:

    “It’s not that complicated: Has Doctor Mann’s work been shown to be fraudulent either in the eyes of his peers”

    Well let’s not forget that climate science peer review gave us, in the case of Gergis et al, a paper that had the longevity of a piece of fillet steak, balanced on the edge of a piranha tank, set in a locked room full of rabid wolverines.

  46. o2bnaz says:

    …how do you spell megaloMANNiac

  47. dfbaskwill says:

    Please get Lord Monckton involved! I’d donate to any cause that will employ a British accent and a Canadian accent taking down Mr. Mann once and for all. Popcorn just won’t do. This will take popcorn with real butter and a Super Big Gulp, for sure. A good touch will be a whoopie cushion on the witness stand when Mr. Mann sits.

  48. Mark T says:

    Like I said, it’s very different in a libel case (which is civil, not criminal). “Rules of evidence” actually work in favor of the defendant in the US, intentionally so. Add to that the “public figure” determination, the primary reason you almost never see “high profile” libel cases, and the concept of libel basically goes away.

    Mark

  49. Darren Potter says:

    Smokey: “Explain why Mann hid this data. Because if he had used it, there would be no hockey stick. So he buried it in an ftp file labeled ‘censored’. As a taxpayer, that appears to me to be fraud.”

    Isn’t Mann risking being questioned about (and possibly arrested) for fraudulent use of Government Funds, given there will be a lot of information brought to light Mann has kept hidden?

    If I were any of the members of the GW SCAM Cabal, I would be telling Mann to sit-down and shut-up before you put all of us under a government (DOJ) microscope. Granted the current administration won’t do much, but administrations change, and the next one could be very anti Global Warming SCAM.

  50. Mooloo says:

    Shaperoo:

    Winning is not what Mann needs. I think his lawyer is irresponsible if he hasn’t pointed this out, so I find the decision to sue rather odd.

    Plenty of people win libel cases, only to be awarded $1 in damages.

    Mann needs a win so large that others are intimidated. Any other result will be a failure.

    As observed above, he risks a repeat of Oscar Wilde’s libel case. Started by Wilde, having been provoked by the Marquis of Queensbury, he was forced to discuss matters in court that he would much rather have kept hidden.

  51. Entropic man says:

    “Mike Mann took the bait”

    This is political lobbying, not scientific debate. Shame on you, Mr Watts.

  52. John says:

    I think you are pinning rather too much on discovery.

    It’s not the case that you can libel someone. Then if they file a lawsuit you are allowed to look through all their documents and print what you find. That would be ridiculous you could libel people just to force them to disclose documents!

    No, you need to ask for specific documents and justify the reason for wanting them. I don’t really see what else you could ask for about his graph can be disclosed that hasn’t already been released.

  53. dp says:

    I think the defendants are going to have to use what evidence they already have to support their position, not evidence they don’t yet have. That is the basis of their contested statements and that will probably be the ruling of the judge. No fishing expeditions. Remember, it isn’t Mann who is on trial here. Perhaps a real lawyer could chime in there.

  54. Matt says:

    It’s not all bad, after all. Turns out, at the least, he has lots of temerity. Then again, depending on which shade of meaning you assign to this word, it could still turn out to be a mixed bag. But I am not embarking on a guessing spree here; I happen to sit on a popcorn stockpile already, as I was looking forward to the end of the mayan calender ;)
    Naah… this is not going to be a drama, even if he loses; people lose court cases all the time, but life goes on… just maybe, his lawyer might have a little more spare time in future if things don’t turn out so well. Probably not. We’ll see.

  55. cui bono says:

    Is there a rule that says any case has to be heard in the US?
    NRO needs to keep it away from the UK courts. Here libel cases are won at the drop of a hat, and cases where neither side has anything to do with the UK have ended up here specifically because of this.

  56. davidmhoffer says:

    This is hot air.
    When you’re planning to sue someone, you don’t publicly announce your intent and strategy. You don’t even tell the party you are going to sue. You quietly go about preparing your case and when it is ready, you pull the trigger. This is just puffery on Mann’s part to save face, nothing is going to happpen in my opinion.

    In the happy event that I am wrong, all those researchers who dissed Mann’s work in the climategate emails are suddenly witnesses, and some of those work for the very institutions and were involved in the very research Mann claims supports his own, plus some rather negative comments from the recently released Susan Solomon emails. There’s got to be a lot of sphinctre valves slamming shut right now because if Mann launches his suit, then all the supporting evidence he claims from other studies also comes in for cross examination. Briffa’s one tree. Jones’ hide the decline. And so on. Front page news as these clowns get deposed by a REAL cross examination in a public courtroom. All of the paleoclimate science could be on trial, not just Mann.

    As much as I drool at the prospect, I doubt that it will happen. Despite which my credit card is on high alert in the happy event that Mann is fool enough to go ahead.

  57. Smokey says:

    Entropic says:

    “This is political lobbying, not scientific debate. Shame on you, Mr Watts.”

    Aside from wearing out your welcome here, have you considered the plain fact that Mann has continually stonewalled, and now the truth is likely to emerge? Maybe that is what bothers you, eh?

    Also, I am not cheering this news. I think a trial is a roll of the dice, in which neither side has any clear assurance of winning. Pressure will certainly be brought to bear on the presiding judge, and that judge has already been shopped by Mann’s lawyers.

    That said, I think Mann was a fool to pull the litigation trigger. The upside is limited for him, but the downside is huge. This will be a trial centered on Michael Mann, not on Steyn or NRO. Mann is, quite simply, the central issue.

  58. Bill Yarber says:

    It will be interesting to see how well Mann defends his “hide the decline” trick when all the tree ring data after 1960 is disclosed. All of Mann’s ClimateGate 1 & 2 are fair game. Then there is all of his UVa documents, which I’m fairly confident will be subpoenaed during discovery.

    Tend to agree, he’ll find a “reason” to drop the suit. It would be great to see PSU admin wake up and fires his ass!

    Bill

  59. J. Felton (the Cowboy) says:

    To qoute Samuel L Jackson’s line from Jurrasic Park : “Hold on to your butts.”

    This is gonna be good.

    And Anthony, the pic of the can O’ Whoopass made me laugh out loud. Brilliant.

  60. Mark T says:

    It’s not the case that you can libel someone. Then if they file a lawsuit you are allowed to look through all their documents and print what you find. That would be ridiculous you could libel people just to force them to disclose documents!

    It is so, at least it is damn near so. Given that what Mann did to generate his graph is a central argument pertaining to the legitimacy of any claims of fraudulence, and Mann has been fighting tooth and nail to keep his work hidden, it is not a big stretch for the defense to claim (and win) that those documents will likely support their case. Mann is already on Congressional record making claims that were demonstrably false – far-reaching discovery shouldn’t be much of a problem (and already demanded by Canadian courts in Tim Ball’s suit).

    No, you need to ask for specific documents and justify the reason for wanting them. I don’t really see what else you could ask for about his graph can be disclosed that hasn’t already been released.

    Hehe, then you haven’t been paying attention.

    Mark

  61. jimbrock says:

    I don’t know what the law is on this…sounds like the exonerations are hearsay. And a deposition or two would establsh exactly what was examined and how deeply.

  62. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    I really doubt this will be as entertaining as many here seem to expect.

    Being served with a libel suit (presumably what Mann’s attorney will pursue) does not entitle the defendant to go on a fishing expedition for any and all documents they might wish to have, and certainly does not entitle them to release to the public whatever documents they are provided.

    Most of these suits are settled at about the point where both parties figure out the only winners in continuing the litigation are the attorneys. Usually the terms of such settlements are not disclosed. Thus both sides can claim they were vindicated, but the only participants who come away from the process being able to afford a tee time at Augusta National are the attorneys.

  63. John@EF says:

    In my opinion, this post is childish and shallow. It also seems to fit a trend here at WUWT.

  64. Paul Westhaver says:

    It isn’t libel if it is true. If it is provably false then ole Mikey has to prove that. Fisrt step is to attempt at bullying…by threatening a lawsuit…. ole Mikey must at least do this.

    I suspect that when it gets down to the obligations under the rules of discovery he’ll be forced to withdraw his suit.

    Then we laugh at his pathetic face.

  65. geo says:

    Gee, you mean someone will actually, finally, get to ask Mann if he actually did anything about Jones request to delete emails? Funsies.

    Once McIntyre testifies about how a Mannian hockey-stick is produced from random red noise, the case will be over.

    Under US law so long as Mann is a “public figure”, his burden is very high indeed in such a case, and Mann has clearly made himself a public figure.

  66. Steve C says:

    Wow! Junk pseudoscience meets the real world, at last. Can’t wait, although in my case leave out the popcorn – the bits get in me teeth, such as they are. Wouldn’t want to be distracted.

    Plus, an interesting philosophical question. Is the author of a graph, which has been proved to be fraudulent, thereby shown, himself, to be a fraud? There’s always that tiny, lingering doubt that maybe, just maybe, he believed himself to be producing something true, and did not actually intend to deceive. Except that, of course, if this is true, then he is simply incompetent. Either way … bring it on!

  67. David Ross says:

    In an odd way this is cheering news!
    Some interesting Climategate emails.

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: f055 , “p.jones” , “raymond s. bradley” , f055 , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn
    Subject: RE: CLIMLIST
    Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:37:03 -0500
    Cc: mhughes
    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1067596623.txt&search=fraud
    Thanks very much Tim,
    I was hoping that the revisions would ally concerns people had.
    I’ll look forward to your comments on this latest draft. I agree w/ Malcolm on the need to be careful w/ the wording in the first paragraph. The first paragraph is a bit of relic of a much earlier draft, and maybe we need to rethink it a bit. Takinig the high road is probably very important here. If *others* want to say that their actions represent scientific fraud, intellectual dishonesty, etc. (as I think we all suspect they do), lets let *them* make these charges for us!
    Lets let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader case against MM. So I look forward to peoples attempts to revise the first par. particular.
    I took the liberty of forwarding the previous draft to a handfull of our closet colleagues, just so they would have a sense of approximately what we’ll be releasing later today–i.e., a heads up as to how MM achieved their result…
    look forward to us finalizing something a bit later–I still think we need to get this out ASAP…
    mike
    [...]

    Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:22:02 -0500
    To: Phil Jones
    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Re: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1737.txt&search=fraud
    Phil,
    I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud.
    [...]

    Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:52:53 -0500
    To: Andy Revkin
    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Re: FW: “hockey stock” methodology misleading
    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3045.txt&search=fraud
    Hi Andy,
    The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think you’ll find this reinforced by just about any legitimate scientist in our field you discuss this with.
    [...]

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: Re: See the attached
    Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:17:58 -0500
    Reply-to: ???@psu.edu
    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1169050678.txt&search=fraud
    Phil,
    I’ve seen this junk already. Look at the co-authors! DeFrietas, Bob Carter: a couple of frauds. I dont’ think anyone will take this seriously…
    [...]

    date: Mon Aug 2 09:49:16 2004
    from: Keith Briffa
    subject: Re: Reference for Michael Mann
    to: “E. Scott Bair”
    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3144.txt&search=fraud
    Dear Professor Bair
    [...]
    Mike was certainly not the best collaborator, and in some aspects of his work, not sufficiently aware of the characteristics of some of the data with which he worked. This would not be bad in itself, were allowance made and advice sought and accepted from a wider circle of colleagues or specialists than he was inclined to consult. There was a certain, apparent, overconfidence in his work which bordered on seeming arrogance and this has led to SOME EXTENT to a degree of unnecessary conflict with researchers and some members of the wider public, as regards the validity and certainty of some of his (and the IPCC) conclusions. I qualified this statement, because it is undoubtedly true that some of his critics have strong vested interests in attacking his work, and almost without exception, their criticisms have bee ill founded, even fraudulent.
    So why tell you all this? The reason is that I now consider Michael to have mellowed!
    [...]

  68. Smokey says:

    cui bono,

    This is probably what you were referring to.

  69. DRE says:

    Looks like it might be a good time for the password to the climategate data bomb to be released.

  70. Theo Goodwin says:

    John says:
    August 23, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    “No, you need to ask for specific documents and justify the reason for wanting them. I don’t really see what else you could ask for about his graph can be disclosed that hasn’t already been released.”

    Steve McIntyre has a huge list of them. You can spend years reading about them at his site.

  71. Peter Laux says:

    Bah, it’s a fraud, a feint, a chest beating display before he slinks away.
    I’ll take five to one he doesn’t proceed.
    The only joy will be in his retreat.

    It is good however to reflect on how Mann and the rest of the apparatchiks in “The team” will be dishonorably viewed by history.

  72. Scarface says:

    He then wil no longer be able to hide behind his disdain for those who revealed his decline.

    Therefore, I doubt it that he will sue. Deep down, somewhere at the level of the imaginary missing heat of his buddy, the mann knows he has lost, but acts in troublesome denial in order to postpone the inevitable and total disgrace of himself and ‘The Cause’.

    The longer his fight against reality, the better it gets though.
    So, Mr Mann, keep it up! May the farce be with you.

  73. sharper00 says:
    It’s not that complicated: Has Doctor Mann’s work been shown to be fraudulent either in the eyes of his peers or by any official investigation? The answer to this is simply no.

    Whilst his peers may not have found him guilty, that has no bearing on this case as the judge is not going to be interested in their opinion as the hockeystick is essentially a question of statistics, specifically “principle components” not climate!.

    Having looked at what Mann did myself it is just utterly bizarre and indefensible. Indeed, one of the world’s expert in this area more or less said: “what Mann did was hogwash”.

    The outcome is a foregone conclusion, because the relevant experts are statisticians and no statistician is going to stand up in defence of Mann.

  74. Jack says:

    Looks like it might be a good time for the password to the climategate data bomb to be released.

    The good time to release that password is after Michael Mann has made his case, under oath, in a public court of law. After the transcript has been verified and released to opposing counsel.

    All Mann wants to do is collect his pension and die before the truth comes out.

  75. Fred 2 says:

    Discovery is a terrible thing to waste. Where do I go to donate an extra large amount to the defense?

  76. Jeff says:

    Sadly ironic that a lawyer who defended “Joe Camel”, a cartoon character
    designed to attract youngsters to a life of smoking and a death of cancer
    is now representing Michael Mann (a– as opposed to Camel?), who
    intends to mortgage our children’s (and their children’s) future, based
    on questionable results based on even more questionable “models”.

    Goodness, what would Einstein, Newton, Planck, Galileo, and all
    the other great scientists say about “models”?

    The only reliable model is a model railroad (usually :) ).

  77. David Ross says:

    Steyn has responded

    Stick It Where the Global Warming Don’t Shine
    by Mark Steyn • Aug 22, 2012 at 6:48 pm
    http://www.steynonline.com/5118/stick-it-where-the-global-warming-dont-shine
    [...]

  78. Before everyone gets too smug, just remember ol’ whiney-pants seems coated with teflon. But it should be entertaining nonetheless, as it unfolds in the court of facebook likes.

  79. I am really hoping this guy teams up with Big Al G. and sues NRO. I will be there to support the NRO if/when that happens. It will be fun to watch.

  80. Ron says:

    Who will be paying Mann’s legal fees? They will be substantial. The taxpayer?

  81. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    This could be the modern day equivalent of the Scopes Monkey Trial! Mann is the “Tar Baby” of climate-gate, and the ‘Team’ and their IPCC co-conspirators are all glued to him through co-authorship and emails. If done properly, discovery could put the work/conspiracy between Jones, Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Steig, Ammann, Bradley, Connolley, Briffa, Osborne, Wahl, Esper, Overpeck, etc., etc., etc…. all on trial.

    God, I hope Mann goes through with this, but like so many others, I doubt the case will ever see the inside of a court room. I would hope (and suggest) that if Mann blusters and bluffs his way up to the trial but then backs down, another round of climate-gate emails gets released. Regardless, if Mann backs down after today’s announcement, we need to never live let him it down.

  82. jimmi_the_dalek says:

    This is more complicated than some of you think. It is not sufficient to prove that Mann’s work is wrong. That can probably be done. Scientific papers are proved wrong all the time. Fraud is a different matter. For that you have to prove that the results were knowingly falsified, and that is a very different matter. So getting a bunch of people in to attack the accuracy of hockey sticks will not do.

    The statement from NRO’s lawyers says
    “The statement identifying Dr. Mann as “the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus,” is both substantially true and classic rhetorical hyperbole that is protected under the First Amendment”

    Stating that it is “rhetorical hyperbole” will not work – indeed that gives Mann an out – he can now claim that they have admitted exaggerating and withdraw on those grounds.

  83. Ian says:

    All this gloating about the demise of Dr Mann is both unseemly and probably premature. Why not wait for the case to have its day in court? If Mann wins, then egg on faces seems apposite. I don’t like the warmists as they are both supercilious and dismissive but gloating from sceptics is also less than ideal

  84. Duncan says:

    Have we been invaded by a bunch of warmists all called variants of John? Certainly seems like it.

  85. Garrett says:

    I wonder how many people here have actually read the NRO attorney’s letter and realize that their defense is along the lines of “hey, listen, NRO never called Mann fraudulent in the dictionary sense of the word. It was meant as rhetorical hyperbole. We would never have suggested that Mann was a criminal. Can we just move on and agree to disagree?”

    In other words, the NRO haven’t the guts to back up their original claim that Mann was behind fraudulent research.

  86. temp says:

    I think a lot of posters/would be trolls are hung up on the whole “specific documents and justify the reason for wanting them.”

    To put simply this is correct… however specific documents in this case any insanely broad.

    Anything that relates to the hockey stick is on the table and that is close to 4 years of documents probably more depending on how much the judge will let fish. It the judge is in a fishing mood it could be over 8 years of docs.

    The biggests problem Mann has is the first thing if NRO lawyers are smart is that they will contacts the other groups seeking Mann docs such as Tim Ball, ATI and the Virgina DA. They will get a list of docs these people are searching for a submit them in the current suit.

    NROs lawyer should also point to the Tim Ball case and state upfront to the judge that Mann and lawyer will purposely delay and refuse to produce documents and he is clearly doing so in this other case. This will show a pattern of frivolous lawsuits among a host of other things depending on the state the case is being tried in.

    This will let NRO lawyer argue and hopefully win a motion stating that if Mann and lawyer don’t turn on documents quickly that they will be held in contempt. If Mann fails to produce documents the case can quickly go badly for Mann. If Mann does produce the docs then these docs can be sent to the other parties who will help review them.

  87. Ron says:

    jimmi-the-dalek: Well said, but. The tone here and the evidence does suggest that NRO will have no problem proving that Mann’s results were a fraud, and that he knows it already (unless he pulled the covers over his head years ago which seem unlikely). The source will be Climategate emails. Collusion to falsify results is in fact, and in law, fraud. No wonder Mann’s many hard-earned enemies want to see him get some justice of the kind he does not want.

  88. RobertInAz says:

    I wonder what happens to the $s contributed to Dr. Mann’s legal fund should they not get spent on this? How much is he spending on his other legal battle(s?) and has the legal fund covered those costs already?

  89. wayne says:

    Also Mann and his attorneys seem about to put the NSF (National Science Foundation) among other science institutions who indiscriminately splashed the whitewash about over Mann’s refuted ‘work’ [of design] into the crosshairs and all in one broad stoke. This should be *very* interesting to see where the up-to-now hidden evidence and various relationships lead if they ever carry through with their threat of action.

  90. What even happened to his lawsuit against Dr. Ball? Last I heard was that Mann was refusing to give the judge some information.

  91. polistra says:

    Most likely nothing meaningful will come of the court action. But this could accomplish something truly meaningful: UVa could decide that Mann is an unnecessary liability, constantly causing or initiating lawsuits that involve the university. His prestige value may finally be outbalanced by his dollar cost. After that, he will be pretty much unhirable.

  92. Chad Jessup says:

    Good post Alan Watt @ 3:59 PM, and to add to that, I would suspect, if the trial proceeds, that the judge/jury will be weighing, to the detriment of Mann, the definition/intent of the word fraud as used by the NRO.

  93. tallbloke says:

    Mann limerick 1

    Thinking his climate-Fu great
    Mann snapped at the hook and its bait
    Will he be caught
    As the line whips up taut?
    To find out we’ll all just have to wait

    :-)

  94. I follow this man on the Internet. What I find facinating is that this man on radio interviews where ha talks about his book never ever seems to realize that the only working defence is to challenge his critics with working arguments, which he never does.

    He only talks about that he has been attacked by anti-science people, by a huge oil funded campaign, by a smear campaign. Of course he never talks about that he himself spend much of his time smearing others because of their viewpoints.
    Personally I think this man is a narcissistic psychopath with a huge ego.
    Will I by sued now?

  95. Robin says:

    I love all these comments about a fishing expedition. Mann’s activities and why hyperbole amounts to libel with a public figure where malice is the relevant standard are what starts the scope of the inquiry. Now his atty says NSF should be the defense. Previously it was the university review when they could have lost lucrative NSF multimillion dollar grants that was the basis for saying no fraud.

    This purported lawsuit will simply open the door to showing just how much federal grant money has been used to try to undermine the noetic system of the US. It is very deliberate. I know what I have and I just follow troubling figures on public databases.

    Remember it is Mann saying go fish. OK, let’s bring in the pros that know this game.

  96. Gunga Din says:

    Hmmm …. the ex-president of Penn State is now fighting the independent study Freeh did that said that Sandusky’s actions were ignored basically for the good of the school. The same president was one of the ones that cleared Mann after ClimateGate. Possible connection or coincidence?

  97. DR says:

    Dr. Mann, did you knowingly use upside down data to support your hockey stick?

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/27/yet-another-upside-down-mann-out/

    I’m speechless.

  98. GeoLurking says:

    I wonder if Pamela Jones of Groklaw would be interested in covering this court case. Her blog work on the Caldera (aka SCO after they bought the naming rights) vs the Linux world (mainly IBM) was superb.

    http://www.groklaw.net/

  99. Darren Potter says:

    Entropic man: “This is political lobbying, not scientific debate. Shame on you, Mr Watts.”

    Really, AGW is scientific debate? News to all of us who have been following and involved in AGW.
    The claim of AGW (man-made CO2 definitively affecting global temperatures) was a ruse to hide a political agenda that involved redistribution of wealth, power, and control by guilt, brain washing, threats, mandates, fees, fines, and taxes. With Gore type individuals, Green Peace groups, IPCC, GW climatologists, U.N. (NGO, Civil Society Reflection Group, RP2, …) all benefiting from the AGW ruse, at the expense of countries like U.S. and its taxpayers.

  100. Ally E. says:

    If he refuses to hand over documents asked for in court, isn’t that implication of guilt?

  101. Bart says:

    As many have commented, it isn’t a slam dunk until the glass rains down. We face wily and unscrupulous foes who will stop at nothing to stymie and intimidate their opponents, and obfuscate the facts until lay persons, such as those who compose juries, become overwhelmed.

    I strongly recommend that the involved parties anticipate that they will fight dirty, and be prepared to respond in kind to every conceivable tactic.

  102. Bill Sticker says:

    Damn. I’ve just gone on a low carbohydrate diet to shed a few extra pounds and popcorn isn’t allowed. Looks like I’ll have to stock up on pemmican pieces while watching this lot unfold.

  103. RoyFOMR says:

    One small step for Mann. One giant leap forward for science?

  104. Darren Potter says:

    John; “I don’t really see what else you could ask for about his graph can be disclosed that hasn’t already been released.”

    Why important data that would run counter to Mann’s Hockey Stick chart was left out of his work.
    Why Mann chose to manipulate the time range of his Hockey Stick chart.
    Why Mann has refused to provide data, methods, calculations, especially when he is getting public funding.
    Why is Mann insistent on Hiding material data and facts.

  105. Bill Illis says:

    In the Climategate emails, Mann talks about getting people removed from their jobs when their research pointed to some conclusion other than the hockey stick. And then they were actually fired.

    At some point, Karma has to intervene.

  106. Smokey says:

    Some misellaneous Michael Mann information found on my hard drive:

    Mann’s $1.8 million payola grant:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/22/manns-1-8-million-malaria-grant-who-do-we-ask-for-a-refund

    And here is Steve McIntyre’s correction of Mann’s Hockey Stick chart.

    Here is a good IBD editorial on Mann’s shenanigans.

    And here is Nature’s admission that Mann’s hockey stick chart is erroneous.

    Some info on the Wegman-North analysis of Mann’s questionable methodology.

    Lots of folks have a problem with Mann’s methods.

    As usual, it’s all about the money.

  107. Chris Riley says:

    This may turn out to be an important case, along the lines of the Scopes trial. We must thank Penn State for providing the monkey.

  108. Darren Potter says:

    jimmi_the_dalek: “Fraud is a different matter. For that you have to prove that the results were knowingly falsified, and that is a very different matter.”

    Since Mann has continued to defend his Hockey Stick chart after numerous problems have been pointed out to Mann with his Hockey Stick chart, I would go with Mann has committed Fraud. Had Mann acknowledge the problems, revised his chart and claims, then he would have an out.

  109. Amanda says:

    I have been a National Review reader for donkey’s years. As a reader, I know the players and I’ve entered into correspondence with several of its writers. These guys have brains, integrity, and a delightful commitment to Enlightenment principles. If Michael Mann is making an enemy of them, it says a lot about him, and none of it good.

  110. Dave says:

    It is possible he has been scrubbing his emails over the last few months to prepare for this, if they no longer exist, they cannot be discovered. This is the problem with ideologues though. They become so convinced that they are correct, that they fail to realize the impending doom that awaits them when they file a case such as this. Anthony I think you should prepare yourself to be called as an expert witness.

  111. We intend to file a lawsuit.

    Maybe tomorrow he can double intend. Until papers are served it’s all a bunch of hooting & chest thumping by a particularly unimpressive ape.

  112. Mark T says:

    Dave,

    If he has it won’t be diffucult to prove, and then it becomes a criminal issue.

    Mark

  113. Craig Loehle says:

    “Fraudulent” in the sense used by NRO does NOT relate to either financial fraud or criminal fraud, both of which involve taking other people’s valuables. A fraudulent graph is one that is fake, misleading, uses tricks, is not accurate, uses upside down Tiljander, has the rain from Spain in Maine, uses damaged bristlecones, knowingly cherry picks favorable data, uses Yamal with a tiny sample size. But if Mann, as he states, believes that a bunch of other studies that vindicated him were “independent” then he is incapable of understanding this concept that a garbage graph is fraudulent in that sense.

  114. Gunga Din says:

    Jeff says:
    August 23, 2012 at 4:25 pm
    Sadly ironic that a lawyer who defended “Joe Camel”, a cartoon character
    designed to attract youngsters to a life of smoking and a death of cancer
    is now representing Michael Mann
    =================================================================
    I almost missed that. Isn’t one of the logical fallacies leveled Fred Singer of SEPP is that he once received money from or did or said something in defense of “Big Tobacco”?
    Now “Big Tobacco’s” defender is defending Mann.
    What a Mann of integrity!

  115. I. Lou Minotti says:

    Hey, Anthony,
    I’ve been looking for a can of the extra strength Whoop-Ass to no avail. Is it OK to copy and reprint your graphic for use at the counter of my wife’s small business? Thanks for all you do in exposing the false political agendas based on consensus-driven “science.”

  116. jt says:

    A sadly funny comment Dave…

    “This is the problem with ideologues though.They become so convinced that they are correct, that they fail to realize the impending doom that awaits them …. Anthony I think you should prepare yourself to be called as an expert witness.”

    Anthony is certainly an expert in being blinded by ideology.
    The sad part is some people actually think Anthony is an expert on climate science.

  117. Mark Wagner says:

    Many people seem to think that this lawsuit will never happen. And for good reasons.

    Personally, I think that it just might. In my experience, people that believe their own bullshit often do some really really stupid things.

  118. Ron says:

    Even Wikipedia is onto him.
    ‘Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent “discoveries”, e.g., in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain.’
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

  119. MattN says:

    Epic….

  120. jaymam says:

    Mike, In an odd way this is cheering news !

  121. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Orville Redenbacher. And lots of butter. I expect a relevant link to donate to the defense fund soon?

  122. Paolo says:

    It seems to me the suing party has the ability to withraw the lawsuit any time they want. In that case, I just don’t see how anyone expects a lot of dirty laundry to be exposed from any of this. If they don’t like the way things are going — for example if the judge starts allowing the defense’s request for things that Mann knows would be compromising — they can just drop the whole thing. I suppose they are counting on the possibility, or hoping, to get a cooperating judge, a warmist judge that doesn’t allow any fishing and knows how to rein the witnesses. It realy all depends on the judge and what he has for lunch. Mann and his lawyers are the ones on a fishing trip. If they don’t like how it’s going, they can just say Mann is too busy doing important science to be distracted by frivolities, or something. I would not expect much from this.

  123. Follow the Money says:

    “This is political lobbying, not scientific debate. Shame on you, Mr Watts.”

    This is terribly funny. Scientific debate? The science is settled!

    Lawyer: “And further, this attack is coupled with the transparent threat that the National Review intends to undertake burdensome and abusive litigation tactics should Dr. Mann have the temerity to attempt to defend himself in court.”

    Very clever! That explanation will accompany every lame “burdensome” objection Mann will make. The Mag will have to explain every time that the “discovery” angle was in response to the FOIA issues specifically, not AGW in general.

  124. Ally E. says:

    Love your update, Anthony! Sooner or later Mann is going to go too far and find himself embroiled in a case he cannot back out of. As for him stalling other cases, I want to see him facing prison for contempt of court, not just costs going to the other guy. With a choice between Mann in jail (even briefly for contempt) or Mann coughing up the documents, I reckon he’ll squeal. The more he sues (or threatens to), the more he paints himself into a corner. Go, Mann, go!

  125. Gail Combs says:

    Ron says:
    August 23, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    Who will be paying Mann’s legal fees? They will be substantial. The taxpayer?
    _____________________________
    The skuttlebutt is George Soros

  126. Gary Hladik says:

    Chris Riley says (August 23, 2012 at 5:58 pm): “This may turn out to be an important case, along the lines of the Scopes trial. We must thank Penn State for providing the monkey.”

    Careful. That’s exactly the kind of statement that will earn you a strongly worded empty threat from Libelmann. :-)

  127. Smokey says:

    jt says:

    “Anthony is certainly an expert in being blinded by ideology. The sad part is some people actually think Anthony is an expert on climate science.”

    Anthony Watts has forgotten more climate science than “jt” will ever learn. Anthony is a published, peer reviewed author in the climate science field. What is “jt”? Another commentator with a personal opinion?

  128. John Kettlewell says:

    There was a post on Volokh.com referring to Mann possibly filing suit. It was mentioned that there could be a successful prohibition of some discovery, specifically due to provoking in order to search via discovery; basically to prevent abuse, like fishing. That makes sense; but I do not believe it would happen with consequences of Mann’s ‘work’.

    Just something to keep in mind; the judiciary is not apolitical, nor does it always make, what one believes to be, the right decisions. I would much prefer Congress to subpoena because this has been a public issue, with respect to policy and influence, and funding; I believe this is in their sphere.

  129. Gail Combs says:

    Bill Sticker says:
    August 23, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    Damn. I’ve just gone on a low carbohydrate diet to shed a few extra pounds and popcorn isn’t allowed. Looks like I’ll have to stock up on pemmican pieces while watching this lot unfold.
    ___________________________
    Try walnuts in the shell. You will get much pleasure from smashing them.

  130. pouncer says:

    Stacy McCain sez: Michael Mann: The Kerry Gauthier of Climate Science!

    http://theothermccain.com/2012/08/23/lowry-to-climate-change-zealot-put-your-hockey-stick-where-the-sun-dont-shine/#disqus_thread

    Which is, I guess, a step up from Coach Sandusky.

  131. jimmi_the_dalek says:

    Darren Potter says ;”Since Mann has continued to defend his Hockey Stick chart after numerous problems have been pointed out to Mann with his Hockey Stick chart, I would go with Mann has committed Fraud.”

    Being wrong is not fraud, it is incompetence, and every scientist has been wrong about something.

    Continuing to be wrong after it is pointed out is not fraud, it is narcissistic egotism, and virtually everyone will have attempted at some stage to defend some incorrect decision they made, at least for a short time.

    Claiming grant money on the basis is incorrect results may be fraud, provided that it can be established that Mann knew they were wrong at the time, but that will be much more difficult than people think – basically you are going to have to find contemporary correspondence which says “I know this is a crock but pay me anyway”. Even Mann cannot be that stupid (?)

  132. Maus says:

    “And further, this attack is coupled with the transparent threat that the National Review intends to undertake burdensome and abusive litigation tactics should Dr. Mann have the temerity to attempt to defend himself in court.”

    Translated to English: National Review intends to go to court if Dr. Mann files suit. Therefore my client will not sue.

    Big ol’ nothingburger this one is.

  133. ChE says:

    Craig Loehle says:
    August 23, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    “Mike’s trick” is fraudulent. With clear intent to deceive.

  134. Michael Mann

    Again, as I said before, this whole thing could blow up in your face. You are dealing with people that are sharper than you.

  135. Brian H says:

    Steve C says:
    August 23, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    Plus, an interesting philosophical question. Is the author of a graph, which has been proved to be fraudulent, thereby shown, himself, to be a fraud? There’s always that tiny, lingering doubt that maybe, just maybe, he believed himself to be producing something true, and did not actually intend to deceive. Except that, of course, if this is true, then he is simply incompetent.

    Another variation, which better IMO matches the facts here, is that he is an incompetent fraud — deliberately fraudulent, but very bad at it.

  136. jorgekafkazar says:

    Davie says: “We ALL know that this lawsuit will NEVER happen , Mann has far too much to hide and if he’s forced to reveal his “research” and his “methodology” it will just backfire on him harder and nastier than standing behind a souped up pick up truck in a muddy field !!!”

    There’s more at stake. If Mann’s lawsuit results in close examination of the PSU whitewash and others, the perpetrators of those “investigations” could be made to look ridiculous, or worse.

  137. John Whitman says:

    It looks like Mann is consciously engaging in a kind of scorched earth tactic in defense of his work.  Does he think the reputation of the scientific community can be destroyed in defense of himself?  I think this is giving his former “team”‘ members some uneasiness.

    John

  138. Russell C says:

    Gunga Din says:
    August 23, 2012 at 6:09 pm
    ” … Isn’t one of the logical fallacies leveled Fred Singer of SEPP is that he once received money from or did or said something in defense of “Big Tobacco”? …”

    Mann, Gore, Oreskes et. al claim Singer said smoking isn’t harmful – something he never said – and that skeptic climate scientists operate in a manner that parallels the way ‘expert shills’ lied to the public on behalf of the tobacco industry.

    But the ‘parallel’ falls apart any time anybody puts it under hard scrutiny. I suggested just that to National Review’s Rich Lowry yesterday ( https://twitter.com/questionAGW/status/238469953005699072 ) using a reference to a couple of my prior WUWT comments about the person Mann, Gore, Oreskes et. al rely on for the source of their accusation…. but who knows if Lowry saw it.

  139. bushbunny says:

    Did he threaten a YouTube joke about hide the decline. Still there?

  140. Anthony Watts says:

    @ I. Lou Minotti

    Sure, feel free to use

  141. Billy says:

    Perhaps some of the posters here (as well as Professor Mann) should carefully read the National Review letter and do a little research on U.S. libel law.

    IANAL. However, I can read.

    The National review lawyer made a few key assertions:
    1. Mann is a public figure.
    2. Showing libel of a public figure requires clear and convincing evidence.
    3. That evidence must show, at a minimum, that Nation Review believed that there was a good chance that their statements were wrong.

    Regarding these points:

    1. Mann has published books on the topic. I think I heard him on NPR’s Diane Reem show one day. Hard for Mann to show otherwise.

    2. Clear and convincing means “a good bit more than 50%.” This isn’t close to “tie goes to the runner.” This is more like “any modestly close call goes to the runner (defendant).”

    3. There’s a whole bunch of arguably credible criticism of Mann’s hockey stick theory. Look at the Wikipedia article. If NR say that they believed that there was a very good chance, better than 50%, that the critics were more credible that Mann, then it seems to me that it would be hard to argue that item 3 above is likely to be true—let alone that there is something like a 75% chance that it is true.

    Now maybe there is an email in the National Review files that has a sentence like, “Well, of course Mann is right, but we won’t get this week’s check from Big Oil unless we run the item.” If there’s something like that, and it’s not clearly a joke, then Mann might read. But, if there are a bunch of emails saying, “Here’s the evidence on one side; here’s the evidence on the other; it sure looks like Mann’s a fraud.” then showing that it is highly likely that National Review knew that their claims were false (“reckless disregard”) seems very difficult.

    So, my advice to anyone interested in understanding this issue is to read Bruce Brown’s (National Review’s lawyer) letter carefully and research the various references he cites.

    Billy

  142. wayne says:

    Ally: “If he refuses to hand over documents asked for in court, isn’t that implication of guilt?”

    Heh… many do wish this would be a criminal case against Mann. Then, IIRC, that would be more contempt of court on top of the other charges, except, this being a civil suit filed by Mann, it seems it would just call for immediate dismissal of the suit with him covering all of the defendant’s costs, time, losses and distress. I could be wrong, it’s been many years since those basic law courses.

  143. Reg Nelson says:

    jt says:

    Anthony is certainly an expert in being blinded by ideology.
    The sad part is some people actually think Anthony is an expert on climate science.
    ===

    And when Random Walks and Red Noise perform better than the Team’s models, what does being an expert Climate Scientist really mean?

  144. NikFromNYC says:

    I am Spartacus! Selling the Brooklyn bridge was a good punch line in contemporary culture as I chatted people up here on the Upper West Side, becoming an adult. But Mann sold the Space Station. His viral influence pulled funding out of medical research. Worse still, by far, he single handedly enabled busybody party poopers to destroy scientific education and academic promotional policy to terrorize hundreds of Nobel quality kids into steering clear of scientific careers. They’re going Galt, tuning in, turning on, and dropping out. Die, carbon footprint grandma, die. No new antibiotics for you? Gosh, I’m so very sorry, but those cost as much as Facebook, just to apply for safety testing. You expected the Jetsons but got the Flynstones instead? Sorry but I’d like to listen but all my friends are being sued by a tobacco lawyer funded by tobacco farmer Al Gore & Co., U.S.A., so uh, go fish.

  145. bushbunny says:

    I don’t know about defamation or libel laws in the US. But here you have to prove you have suffered financial loss by the actions and publicity announced in the media. Problem one has to prove the publicity or comments are completely untrue and beware if you take on the media, or banks. One lass here in Australia lost her job and then sued for sexual harassment, defamation, etc., fed the media all these claims prior to judgment and whoa for after 5 years she lost and was found to have lied and her mother too, and charged with nearly 6 million in costs. Appealed of course, and was asked to provide 200,000 dollars as security first. He can’t prove his research is valid, but the affects on the world out way what he feels he has suffered and he and others must prove they had no ulterior motives other than poorly researched science.He must have a pro bono lawyer.

  146. Mark Luedtke says:

    Come on. We all have dreams about this, but it will never happen. Mann is a fr***. He’s a narcissist. But he’s not stupid. And if he behaves stupidly, his lawyer won’t be stupid. This is just another step in the great global warming fr***. The bad guys couldn’t afford to back off. But they will back off before they are forced to deliver discovery. By then, they will have perfected their argument for why they “were forced” do so for the good of the [people, scientific community, lobsters, or something].

    If you’re having too much fun tonight over this, get over it. It’s just another phase of the charade.

  147. Jantar says:

    Now the Mann has declared publicly that he will sue, any back down can be taken as an admission by Mann that the Hockey Stick is indeed fraud.

  148. Robert Kral says:

    They intend to file a lawsuit. And I intend to buy a Ferrari and take Christina Hendricks as a second wife.

  149. Gail Combs says:

    Paolo says:
    August 23, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    It seems to me the suing party has the ability to withraw the lawsuit any time they want. In that case, I just don’t see how anyone expects a lot of dirty laundry to be exposed from any of this….
    ____________________________
    Actually if they sue and drag someone around forever as Mann is doing to Tim Ball, then quit. They may find they CAN NOT since they have caused damaged to the person they sued.
    One commenter who seems to have a knowledge of law said:
    “File a declaratory action immediately and get this discovery going in federal court…..”

    With luck he is correct.

    (4) Declaratory actions

    A declaratory action asks the court to declare the plaintiff’s right or legal status under a law, contract, or other instrument. This can include a constitutional clause or amendment….
    http://www.fromcallingtocourtroom.net/chap3.htm

  150. observa says:

    Give it up Michael because anyone with any brains or money left in the game is bailing out and cutting their losses with Big Climate’s looney tunes-
    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/origin-s-geodynamics-write?&utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=95244&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=commentary

  151. Gunga Din says:

    jt says:

    “Anthony is certainly an expert in being blinded by ideology. The sad part is some people actually think Anthony is an expert on climate science.”
    =================================================================
    Said the blind manniquin….
    Certain “climate” “scientist” have built this intricate edifice of a hypothesis on tree rings, gas, and poorly sited thermometers. Anthony has pointed out the later. Others have pointed out the flaws in the rest. Anthony has provided (without help from Big oil or Big Soros) an open an honest forum for such information to be made available to the rest of us.
    In other words, Anthony has helped to show that GAGW is a house built on the sand. And in doing so, he’s shown more “sand” than Mann.

  152. thelastdemocrat says:

    The best will be for any level of this to break out into regular media at all. The spin cannot be controlled as easily. If a general audience hears “fraud,” “lawsuit,” and a few choice details upon which the fraud charge is based, then the public will have this in mind: cherry-picking some data and pretending like other specific, known data does not exist – that will not be perceived well by the public. Thy will wonder: what does Mann have to hide? Espeically when he gathered the data and analyzed it with tax money? – Mann’s dissertation was supported by a fellowship from the Department of Energy, and he has been conducting research with our money on our behalf evar since.

    A fishing expedition claim will not go too far; the data in question are known to exist.

    Yes, a lawsuit is at the hands of the jury, and could go any way, or corruption could reign. But the actual value is the matter of getting these issues out into public more clearly. Sunlight is the best antiseptic.

  153. bushbunny says:

    The thing is, proving libel can be an expensive exercise for both parties, the longer Mann holds out the higher the costs go up for the other side. If he withdraws he might or might not end up with the defendant’s costs or be proved a vexatious litergent (can’t spell it sorry), if he had any serious doubts about the bad publicity he has received over the years, he could try and close down websites like this and others. The lass who tried to sue the bank she had worked for and two ex employees, one took a paper to task and won, but his former employers footed his legal costs, that they will never get back of course. Maybe this was justice but the two men involved will never be free of the stigma including the effect on their families. Maybe someone should sue Michael Mann instead, big time lawyers and with endless amounts of money, private investigators, etc. See how he likes it, the p#@?ck. Fancy saying Bob Carter is a fraud, I know him, and sat in his seminars, he is definitely not a fraud.

  154. rockdoc says:

    a comment was made with regards to discovery having to be isolated to that having to do with the suit. I think that person has had very little experience with the legal system whether it be US law or UK/Canada. Under discovery the defendants lawyers will ask for all and everything that pertains to any of the claims made. So anything that might have to do with regards “fraudulence” becomes discoverable which will include all emails that Mann is currently trying to protect from requests under the Freedom of Information laws and every last bit of evidence that might have been considered by the Science bodies in their review. This is always at the discretion of the judge but he will invariably decide in a more open view of what is discoverable rather than a closed view as it leaves less chance of questions regarding his decision.
    I have been involved directly in a couple of very big corporate lawsuits (the value would make you bleed tears) and the discovery process was very, very deep. All computer records from such and such date to recent, all computer backups, all emails, etc. All email correspondents called as witnesses under oath (I’m sure the rest of the “Team” would relish this happening).
    If Mann is trying to protect his emails under the Freedom of Information Act it really suggests to me either he is incredibly naive or is getting very bad legal advice (lawyers love to sue, they make money whether they win or fail) in deciding to sue under this matter. If his university is trying to avoid issues regarding the release of potentially damaging emails then they will likely be taking him to the woodshed over this issue.
    I would like to see a legal argument that anything he has done whether it is research papers, emails, blog/twitter comments are not discoverable under the very general claims of this suit against some very general accusations. In the UK and Canada the courts tend to favor less openness whereas in the US the courts are more willing to open everyone’s kimono simply because the judges are political appointments and want to see which way the wind is blowing before they make decisions that could be unpopular.

  155. Duke C. says:

    Gail Combs says:
    August 23, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    Ron says:
    August 23, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    Who will be paying Mann’s legal fees? They will be substantial. The taxpayer?
    _____________________________
    The skuttlebutt is George Soros

    Keep an eye on this link, courtesy of Scott Mandia:

    http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/campaigns/

  156. Gail Combs says:

    bushbunny says:
    August 23, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Did he threaten a YouTube joke about hide the decline. Still there?
    _______________________
    Yes
    Elmer and the folks at http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/ were threatened with a lawsuit for the song “Hide the decline” using actual photos of Mann. They redid it with a balloon made to look like Mikey instead that I though was even better. Bootleg copies of the original are still floating around the internet.

    “Hide the decline II” http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tIQ70is-RPM

    bootleg version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

  157. zefal says:

    Will Nitschke says:
    August 23, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    “Fraud” is very difficult to prove in academia. Steyn should have used the word “incompetent”.

    The available emails are sufficient to prove he’s a fraud. It will be fun to watch him to finally have to put the “out of context” emails into context under oath.

    Any time the shill media interviews him (like recently in the washington post) if they ask him about the emails (which wapo did) he says, “they were taken out of context” and the journalist(s) just leaves it at that and doesn’t ask for context.

    Journalist: Hey Goebbels, What about that whole Holocaust thing?

    Goebbels: That was a clerical error.

    Journalist: Oh.

  158. I. Lou Minotti says:

    Hey, Ms. Gail Combs; Soros is but one willing to foot the bill, according to my sources deeply embedded in the CRU (Climate Revisionist Unit). The skuttlebutt also includes Maurice Strong, Algore, David Rockefeller, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Barack Obama, et al–all current or former founders and/or members of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2461 See also, http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46420

  159. Theo Goodwin says:

    jimmi_the_dalek says:
    August 23, 2012 at 4:35 pm
    “This is more complicated than some of you think. It is not sufficient to prove that Mann’s work is wrong. That can probably be done. Scientific papers are proved wrong all the time. Fraud is a different matter. For that you have to prove that the results were knowingly falsified, and that is a very different matter. So getting a bunch of people in to attack the accuracy of hockey sticks will not do.”

    Do you doubt that Briffa turned up forty years of data showing declining tree rings? Do you doubt that the authors of the hockey stick were aware of this data? Do you doubt that they chose not to show it? Do you doubt that they substituted temperature measurements for this declining data? Do you doubt that they told no one about the substitution? Do you doubt that the sum of this is knowing falsification with intent to deceive?

    Do you think that Mann, Briffa, and friends are really stupid? Do you really think that they were unaware of what they were doing?

  160. Gail Combs says:

    Speaking of the “Hide the Decline” video, The video made it on to Fox News where they said the video is absolutely accurate. Fox also said, Mike has been shown to be wrong repeatedly and also shown to be thinskinned…. “He has been exposed as the best science politics can manufacture.” It is a good report on the hockey stick.

    Here is a video of the Megyn Kelly Report on Fox News about ‘Hide The Decline’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FwTuEqqh0-g

    This aired on TV on April 27, 2010, so why hasn’t Mikey sued the socks off of Fox News?

    I think he only goes after the “low hanging fruit” like Elmer and Tim Ball who do not have deep pockets but he really blew it when he went after Mark Steyn. A wolverine comes to mind.

    I think he was hoping to raise a stink, get National Review to publicly apologize and thereby scare off any other journalist who might decide not to follow the rest of the herd of sheep. journalists.

  161. jt…what can I say. Cheap comes to mind.

  162. Mark Luedtke says:

    Whatever happens next, things just got a lot more interesting around here.

  163. Gail Combs says:

    I. Lou Minotti says:
    August 23, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    Hey, Ms. Gail Combs; Soros is but one willing to foot the bill,….
    _______________________________
    Aha yes Maurice Strong’s 1001 Club no doubt. Lift up a rock and you will find a member. Why am I not surprised?

    It also answers the question as to why Fox News (the controlled opposition) was not sued. Not a good idea to sue your sponsors now is it?

    Thanks for the links BTW.

  164. AnonyMoose says:

    I see no reason to believe that anything Mann says is worth the trees it’s printed on.

  165. atheok says:

    Oh Mann, that is a very disappointing bluff and bluster of a bully who is trying to look brave to his adherents but is shaking in his boots (not to mention buying new pants). As someone else had mentioned, posturing time is over, it’s game on with the ante (official suit filed) or fold. Manny may believe he can still strut and flex, but the longer he does that now is more proof the cock-of-the-walk is a hen and lame at that.

    “sharper00 says:
    August 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm
    …I think people are very silly if they think someone can make accusation of another’s work being fraudulent and then use the discovery of a libel case to try and prove fraud…”

    I think you misunderstand the legal system sharpernot. If Manniacal files his suit claiming libel/slander/defamation whatever, that makes Manny a plaintiff and it makes whoever he is suing a defendant. Legal thinking in America is usually that the plaintiff must prove the basis of their suit and the defendent gets to defend. Manny just doesn’t get to point to NRO and Steyn and make claims. He has to prove that they know their claim is not true and not only that, that whatever they said/printed was in spite of that knowledge.

    If Manny says, “They called me a fraud”, the judge will look at Manny and say “Are you?”. When Manny says that he is not, the defense will say from everything they’ve seen he is and the only proof Manny is not is in Manniacal’s own files, programs and datasets.

    When Manny’s legal team says “independent confirmation”, he’ll have to prove both and provide the evidence to the defense so they can defend themselves.

    When Manny’s legal team says “replicated” they will have to prove replication. Did we mention all data and code used to replicate?

    Plus, every person who wrote, (confidentially I’m sure), disparaging things about Manniacal, Manny’s efforts or products will be invited to speak, under oath.

    Yup, sharperthannought; I’m salivating thinking that “this will be the day the warming died” and I have a “Don McClean” tune running through my head whilst thinking that.

    Only it isn’t a sad song this time.

    Sad to see all Manny could do was strut for his followers some more. Yup, a hen, no cojones definitely.

  166. Neo says:

    “… defended R.J. Reynolds …”
    This only goes to prove my contention that Global Warming has become the new aegis for the economic refugees from the Tobacco Institute.

  167. RockyRoad says:

    Mark Luedtke says:
    August 23, 2012 at 7:53 pm


    If you’re having too much fun tonight over this, get over it. It’s just another phase of the charade.

    I’m afraid Mark is right. Remember, Mikey reads WUWT and is sure to be copying and pasting all the juicy tidbits of advice offered here for free regarding his impending jurisprudence and lack of success. After sleeping on it all night, he’ll probably conclude he has way too much to lose through the discovery process and will leave us all disappointed by reversing course.

    That and his nefarious ability to deceive is what Mikey is famous for.

    (Oh, good evening, Mikey. Scoundrels never recognize their own mirrored image–for you, there may be no reflection at all.)

  168. zefal says:

    Maus says:
    August 23, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    “And further, this attack is coupled with the transparent threat that the National Review intends to undertake burdensome and abusive litigation tactics should Dr. Mann have the temerity to attempt to defend himself in court.”

    Translated to English: National Review intends to go to court if Dr. Mann files suit. Therefore my client will not sue.

    Big ol’ nothingburger this one is.

    That’s an admission that Mann intends to obstruct NRO’s requests.

    Either because he has something to hide or because he’s an inept scientist and doesn’t catalog his research like a competent scientist would. Take your pick Mike!

  169. Ally E. says:

    Okay, a question (or two… or lots). If Mann is dragging things out with all those he is suing to cost them more money, isn’t that illegal? Probably not, but if Mann then pulls out and he only hung in there to cost them AND does that repeatedly in different cases, won’t the judge(s) frown on Mann’s behaviour? Can they penalize him for it? Can Mann’s targets counter-sue? Is there a point of no return, meaning, once the court orders discovery (or at some point), is it too late to back out? If people can just quit when the going gets too rough for them in court, isn’t that a waste of the court’s time? EVERYONE would be doing it, just to annoy those they don’t like. What am I not understanding?

  170. Go Home says:

    Some interesting news from the U of Virginia…
    http://my.firedoglake.com/moetkacik/2012/08/23/elite-public-university-gives-up-on-climate-science-in-response-to-not-so-elite-public-universitys-campaign-to-smear-its-former-climate-scientist/

    Elite Public University Gives Up On Climate Science In Response To Not-So-Elite Public University’s Campaign To Smear Its Former Climate Scientist

  171. Darren Potter says:

    jimmi_the_dalek: “Continuing to be wrong after it is pointed out is not fraud, it is narcissistic egotism,”

    You are reaching. In Mann’s case it was not about “Continuing to be wrong”. Mann went well beyond being wrong with an ego of denial, Mann acted dishonestly. Mann knew his work was unscientific, yet went forward with Hockey Stick chart and AGW alarm-ism, and he has continued to defend it. Even now, despite a court order, Mann is hiding information – that isn’t being wrong that is being intentionally deceptive.

    The legal definition of Fraud – [i]“A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been”[/i] fits what Mann did, and continues to do.

    Further, the fact that Mann is physicist and climatologist, thus an expert and professional (cough-cough) is going to work against him in this case. Since Mann can’t simply claim he didn’t know he was wrong, nor claim he didn’t know better than to let his ego get in the way; something a court might let a untrained layperson get away with.

  172. Austin says:

    What Mann needs to understand is that once he bites, he will become the bait on the hook used to catch some bigger fish.

  173. viejecita says:

    Dear Mr Watts
    Will you please go on giving us all the possible data ?. I had never read NRO before this, but I intend to subscribe, and to donate all I can afford towards the cost of the lawsuit, and of the specialized journalist dedicated to finding all the relevant facts, ( which NRO intends to hire if necessary ), the moment mr Mann has filed his suit.

    I am no scientist, but one does not need a science degree to be able to distinguish lies from the truth, when they are pushed down your throat.
    Thank you very much.
    María Maestre

  174. temp says:

    To Ally E.
    August 23, 2012 at 10:13

    “If Mann is dragging things out with all those he is suing to cost them more money, isn’t that illegal?”

    Yes and no. It all depends on how he delays. If its by refusing to turn over evidence he will likely have to pay something to the defense. That amount maybe very very low though.

    “does that repeatedly in different cases, won’t the judge(s) frown on Mann’s behaviour?”

    This highly depends on the judge. Assuming the judge is reasonable fair and the fact Mann is clearly in another lawsuit where he is purposely blocking/withholding evidence the judge will likely do something. What and how much it will cost Mann is based on the judges feeling mostly. If NRO can make Mann and lawyer look like they are purposely jerking the judge around then the judge will be more likely to lay the ban hammer into them.

    “Can Mann’s targets counter-sue? Is there a point of no return, meaning, once the court orders discovery (or at some point), is it too late to back out?”

    This highly depends on the state and possibly even the county where the suit is filed.

    “If people can just quit when the going gets too rough for them in court, isn’t that a waste of the court’s time? EVERYONE would be doing it, just to annoy those they don’t like. What am I not understanding?”

    Many many groups bully smaller groups by using just such a tactic. Its sad but it happens.

  175. Luther Wu says:

    I can only hope that any comments made in these pages brought M. Mann to realize that he had no choice but to bring suit- that, or have his work be known far and wide as indefensible flim- flam.

  176. Bart says: August 23, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    We face wily and unscrupulous foes who will stop at nothing to stymie and intimidate their opponents, and obfuscate the facts until lay persons, such as those who compose juries, become overwhelmed.

    I strongly recommend that the involved parties anticipate that they will fight dirty, and be prepared to respond in kind to every conceivable tactic.

    The one you should direct your comments to is Mann. When things get bad, and it becomes obvious he is going to loose the case, his “friends” are going to drop him like a stone.

    Indeed, the final PR will be that “this loan individual was responsible for all that was wrong in climate ‘science’ …. thus proving that the rest (who are ‘undoubtedly’ whiter than white should be trusted … just look at the way none of his (former) colleagues & friends support him”.

  177. A. Scott says:

    The current administration has seen fit to spend nearly $600,000 to discover why chimps throw poop at people – I see no reason they would not fund this Mannian equivalent. ;-)

  178. Minutes of Greenspin corp

    Item 1. Sceptics are winning
    After a presentation by ms tripe of the University of equality & feminine issues on the psychological make up of the deniers of warming, Mr S.hark of Big Oil Corp gave an overview of the success of the present advertising and social media campaign which he summarised as “God damn it, another $100million would be a waste of money”. Mr [redacted] of [redacted] gave a progress report on their attempts to infiltrate the sceptic organisation: “Initial reports were disappointing as we failed to find the organisation, or identify any individuals connected to the organisation or funding sources”. Finally, Mr Albert Einswein of the scientific Council Advising Mankind, warned against more attempts to align the data with scientific knowledge.

    After a thorough discussion, a consensus formed: “They are winning, unless we can take the heat off, this whole thing is going down”, said Mr [redacted] “we’ve got to throw this dog a bone to chew on, we need someone who we can blame for everything that has gone wrong … what we need to find is someone so stupid we can persuade them to take the sceptics to court.”

  179. Blade says:

    Wouldn’t it absolute justice if Mann’s ego is what topples the whole entire AGW hoax? Does anyone else think that his standing even among the AGW cult due to his abrasiveness is so low that they will chuck him overboard like shark chum?

    Just in case Mann does go through with this (and I highly doubt it) I hope everyone is setting aside money for donations for the possible defendants (Steyn and NRO) fund so that every stone may be unturned and every creepy, slivery, slimey vermin connected with this fiasco may be deposed. This really could be the trial of the century, if it happens.

    I would like to echo what a previous commenter stated, let’s hope FOIA is soon convinced to release the password to the All.7z archive so that we can get to work examining the 220,246 files, likely including many with attachments. I predict that the day the legal papers are filed we should clear our schedules and start watching WUWT and the rest of the blogosphere for a surprise. Well, that’s what I would do if I were him.

    I. Lou Minotti [August 23, 2012 at 8:42 pm] says:

    “Soros is but one willing to foot the bill, according to my sources deeply embedded in the CRU (Climate Revisionist Unit). The skuttlebutt also includes Maurice Strong, Algore, David Rockefeller, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Barack Obama, et al–all current or former founders and/or members of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2461 See also, http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46420

    That is very well stated and concisely illustrates one obvious criminal facet of the AGW hoax. Once the Global Warming scam got underway and grew legs from the UN ICC reports with some governments took the bait and passed some ridiculous legislation, an element of greed and graft was spwaned resulting in this crazy pump and dump Carbon Credit criminal enterprise that dwarfs anything yet seen, even from Enron. And they would have gotten away with it except for those pesky kids on the internet. Just remember how big that Carbon Credit scam would now be were it not for FOIA and the hard work of the skeptics and realists around the world.

    In my opinion every single person you listed there (plus a lot more) should be waterboarded, tried, convicted and sentenced to hard labor for attempting to and sometimes successfully defrauding the taxpayers. In a perfect world they would be now cooling their heels in the pokey instead of jetting around the world on the taxpayer dime.

  180. A. Scott says:

    Another quite ludicrous case … against Tim Ball as well:

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/04/Climate.pdf

    Please note that they do NOT dispute the majority of the quotes Tim Ball claimed were from Weaver … only small isolated excerpts. And note that most of what Ball expressed was opinion and/or his recollection from first hand experience.

  181. tallbloke says:

    The whole edifice of AGW is without foundations, and relies for it’s support on a sky-hook dangling from a conceptual point in mid air called the “effective altitude of emission”.

    The ‘underpinnings’ provided by illusory foundations such as the Hockey Stick and the satellite altimetry of sea level which is calibrated by bootstrapping the trend line off the theory are chimaeras which melt under the sunlight of clear analysis.

    Looking at the latest missive from Mann’s attorney, I can see Mann’s own instruction behind the statement. Telling your attorney what to say is a bad idea, and I suspect the attorney knows it.

    Looks to me like a Mannian rant sent to the attorney in a reply to the attorney’s advice to drop the matter rather than carefully worded lawyer-speak anyway.

  182. Keith AB says:

    I wonder if Mr Mann will take a leaf out of Lance Armstrong’s book?

  183. stephen richards says:

    Ole micky is like the guy in a field of cows. Even though he knows it is full of merde he still insists on walking through it with his eyes closed.
    This suit won’t happen, sadly, because it would be a disaster for him even if he should win.

  184. Guam says:

    I really hope he does proceed with this, however there is no way the “machine” will want this to go ahead, the risks are too great that he could win the action, but lose the greater war for the AGW brigade. The information that would get out in court, would likely finally destroy the myth.

    That being said do we really think he has the backbone to see this through? If he loses his career is over and the myth exploded. If he wins his career is over and the Myth exploded.

    This is lose lose for them and they know it, I agree therefore with those that suggest he will just drag this out indefinitely he does not dare do anything else imho!

  185. Austin says:
    What Mann needs to understand is that once he bites, he will become the bait on the hook used to catch some bigger fish.

    Austin, I just been going through a lot of stats about the global warming story. The facts are that the press have gone of global warming big-time – which means are fed up with stories pushing global – without realising there is a goldmine of news stories on the sceptic side.

    What we needed was something to liven up the debate, something to start the press digging into the scandal, something that would make global warming interesting to the press … but this time interested in the scandal, not just churning out alarmist press releases.

    Even if Mann won … which is a very long shot given the nature of the case … but even if he won, it would show the media how many people are interested in the scandal. Interest = more copies = more money and the media will not stop at Mann once they realise that the public have a taste to hear the scandals behind global warming.

    Mann will be the trigger to bring in a whole new breed of journalists, real journalists who aren’t sympathetic to Mann who aren’t the pussy footing fluffy-ecos who won’t believe the endemic corruption and scandals behind the public facade of “catastrophic” global warming

  186. Ceetee says:

    … and in the seventh round, Mann, perhaps growing tired of all the sparring, dropped his left hand…

  187. H.R. says:

    “[...] It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s conclusions have been replicated by no fewer than twelve independent studies. [...]“

    I didn’t know there were twelve other studies that used upsidedown data.

  188. Peter Stroud says:

    Who is paying Mann’s lawyer’s costs? Must be astronomical.

  189. orkneygal says:

    How could IBD make such an amateurish mistake?

    According to IBD

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline (in global temperatures),” the email read.

    It was the decline in the paleo reconstruction that was hidden by Mann, not a decline in “global temperatures”.

    Is there not any adult supervision at IBD?

    IBD is not helping the Truth Seekers with this basic error in their understanding of what actually was done by Mann and The Team.

    I’ve left the almost the same comment over at the IBD link.

    I suggest all Truth Seekers point out to IBD the fundamental mistake that they have made in explaining what the Hockey Stick sham is all about!

  190. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    Michael Mann says he is going to sue NRO.

    He won’t do it. He will continue to bluster. And his sycophants will continue to say, “See how brave he is to take on Big Oil”.

    But he won’t do it because other members of the Team will ‘put the lever’ on him to stop him doing it. If he did it then they would go down with him.

    Many want him to do it. Some, including me, would provide money towards his legal costs if that would encourage him to do it.

    And, in this thread there is much rejoicing at the thought of his doing it. But, sadly, the rejoicing is merely wishful thinking.

    Richard

  191. George Montgomery says:

    When is Lord Monckton going to carry out his planned litigation against the warmists?

  192. cedarhill says:

    One litigates based on what is charged. Until then all that’s on the table are dueling public letters from lawyers presenting their best shined up statements.

    Since it’s entertaining to speculate, suppose Mann files suit and in a US court and suppose further the issue of fraud becomes central to the case. Not only would Mann’s records, et al, be subject to discovery, but all those “reviewers” and publications and even PSU would be asked to explain their analysis, reviews, etc. I don’t think they’ll go for what is implied in Mann’s lawyer letter since it would bring in the very issue of conspiracy and incompetents and all that. Rather, they may try to limit the case to sex offender-coverup extended to Mann. Meaning the narrower they can craft the plaintiff’s complaint, the better chance they have. Then it’s just a few folks, called judge(s), that set the limits. Limiting “abusive” discovery is a herring but predicated on a vast narrowing of the scope of the case. Plus, they’ll try to muzzle the defendents under a gag order.

    Regardless, it will be very expensive.

    Just for the causual reader: Black’s Law Dictionary, “Fraud consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him an injury.” The study that showed whatever you put in, you get a stick could be a “device” while the careful “nature trick” could be a “practice”. But, again, it’ll be a fight to pursue this viz the complaint.

    While one is speculating, Mann has called lots and lots of folks various names, etc. It WOULD be fun to see all of them petition to join a counter suit, or even an original suit, against him for the same reasons. Folks with big pockets such as all the energy companies, starving third world nations eating dirt instead of corn that’s a result of the practice and device, etc. Why, just think of your electric bill. My power company has been increasing prices based on the rules promulgated as a result of the CO2 climategate folks. How about a class action suit on behalf of all consumers to recover damages from these folks? Include Mann, Hanson, Gore, all those NGOs, the UN, et al.

    Since, as some pointed out, they would simply have filed at this point, there’s a strong indication the purpose of all this is to just “chill” all the others in the “deniers” tribe with litigation. A useful tactic. It’s rare for frivilous suits to be anything other than costly to the parties meaning few plaintiffs are sanctioned by the courts and forced to pay. So, a couple hundred dollars to file a suit then withdraw is not a bad PR strategery.

  193. rogerknights says:

    One caution. A lot of the “fraud” was in the way it was pushed and whooped up beyond what even Mann claimed for it. We tend to think of that over-reaching as a major part of “Mann’s fraud,” but I think Mann could disassociate himself with it in court. He’s already said recently that too much was made of it. (It would have been better if he’d said so earlier!)

  194. SanityP says:

    Peter Stroud says:
    August 24, 2012 at 3:16 am
    Who is paying Mann’s lawyer’s costs? Must be astronomical.

    Costs are mounting up as we speak, like a hockey schtick even ?

  195. Phil Clarke says:

    looks like Mann will have to sue Investors Business Daily

    Hmmmm. They say The [Hockey Stick] graph relied on data from trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. Here too the data were carefully selected. Data from just 12 trees from the 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set were used.

    Which would be quite a feat as the Yamal chronology was not published until 3 years after the hockey stick. In fact no Yamal chronology appears anywhere in the MBH studies.

    So the Investor’s Business Daily is levelling the serious and defamatory allegation of fraud while getting basic, fundamental, easily-checked details of their ‘evidence’ 100% wrong!

    I don’t suppose Mann will bother with this, as the source clearly has no integrity or credibility, but it would have been interesting to see IBD defend this level of ‘journalism’. I wonder if the NRO are better prepared?

  196. Frumious Bandersnatch says:

    Mr. Mann may not realize it, but some of his past (and current) statements on his whitewash may come back to haunt him. Specifically the fact that he was not given complete exoneration. The committee reviewing his work ignored the most egregarious charges against him. Considering the problems Penn State is having now, that can’t help him at all if it is shown that the president of the college interfered in the review process.

    Also, I believe that he made at least one arguably false statement (and keeps making it) about giving data in Excel format.

    Considering how hard he is fighting the Virginia FOIA case, I’m thinking that there probably is fire where I’m smelling smoke.

    Also, I suspect that discovery will cover ALL of his work (including VA.), not just Penn state.

    Sweet.

  197. tonyb says:

    Richard

    So in effect, in order to properly air this matter it would be useful if WUWT could set up a Michael Mann defence fund. What delicious irony that would be.

    tonyb

  198. jayhd says:
    August 23, 2012 at 2:38 pm
    Mann’s lawyer will have fun when it comes to interrogating the numerous people who have found Mann’s work wanting. And the NRO/Steyn lawyers will have a field day with the emails of Mann’s cronies. This will be theater worth watching. And a question for all you better versed in the law than I am, what happens to Mann’s lawsuit if he stalls turning over requested documents?
    =================================================================

    As I believe he is doing in his case against Tim Ball.

    Loving this :-)

  199. B. Woo says:

    What Davie said in the second comment. Mann is posturing and bluffing. He’ll get his … head …handed to him in court.

  200. John Silver says:

    Remember, it was the IRS that got Capone.
    *hint*hint*

  201. Ken says:

    M. Mann will likely win.

    AT THE TIME the hockey stick chart research was conducted the data used and conclusions reached are reasonable & “true” PROVIDED no action was made to manipulate the data or outcome.

    The fact that the findings are wrong (or can be becuase the data used was incomplete, because other factors (known or unknown), etc. were overlooked, neglected or whatever has no real effect on the above.
    All M. Mann & his attorney have to provide is the data used and the manner of analysis & presentation; if those are legitimate, at the time the research was done, Mann will have successfully defended against the accusation of fraud.

    If other, better, data and other, better, analysis inidicates, or even proves conclusively, that Mann’s hockey stick graph is wrong, Mann is still innocent of “fraud.”

    In the courts, words like “fraud” have signficant & particular ranges of meaning…and [for NRO] to try to argue that since subsequent findings show that Mann’s work was incorrect/misleading that work was “fraudulent” twists common-use meanings in a way not generally accepted where it now most counts, in the courts.

    NRO was careful to choose inflammatory words, rejecting words saying the results have been proven incorrect, bogus, wrong, etc. Instead, NRO chose a word having well-established meanings with implications of the researcher’s bad character & nefarious intent/motive. Its latest publication, as noted by Mann’s lawyer, avoids fundamenal legal principles and is a clear attempt to re-define a key word’s meaning.

    Regardless of how you’d like to see this turn out, if you are inclined to place any wagers on the outcome in the court, bet that Mann will win. NRO played this, and has continued to play this, rather ignorantly.

  202. KnR says:

    Go Home interesting , there was some concern that UVa where trying to pull the trick of getting Mann back on board so it deny access to the e-mails on the grounds his ‘employee ‘ and so its about academic freedom . something much harder to do while he was supposed to be at Penn State. Looks like that game has busted and their will be no happy return for him , more good news for AGW sceptics. And given Mann’s personality you can image how he took that news , badly to say the least.

  203. jonolan says:

    [snip - over the top]

  204. Don Keiller says:

    Just love the smell of cordite.

    Especially when it comes from Mann shooting himself in the foot.

    Ye HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

  205. vukcevic says:

    His AMO reconstruction went of rails in 2000. Prior to 2000 no sign of the hockey stick in the N. Atlantic.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-recon.htm
    Why would that be god knows, when in all other data the hockey stick takes off long before 2000

  206. sharper00 says:

    @attheok

    “If Manny says, “They called me a fraud”, the judge will look at Manny and say “Are you?”. When Manny says that he is not, the defense will say from everything they’ve seen he is and the only proof Manny is not is in Manniacal’s own files, programs and datasets.”

    Let’s apply this to any other situation.

    The NRO publishes an article suggesting someone is a murderer. That person then sues for libel.

    Is the judge going to say “Well, are you a murderer?” and then permit the NRO to conduct a search of that person’s house and property in case there’s a dead body in there somewhere? Can they trawl through that person’s bank accounts and credit card statements looking for the purchase of a murder weapon?

    No of course not. That would be outright silly.

    You cannot use a libel suit as a basis to go on a fishing expedition looking for evidence your accusation is true.

    In the example above the only question would be “Has this person been convicted of the crime of murder?”. If the answer is “No” then a defence of substantial truth fails and the defence will need to rely on something else.

    In the Mann case the NRO are going to need to show Mann’s work is considered fraudulent by his peers and/or some recognised authority – not just wrong or flawed but deliberate fraud. This is going to be very difficult since it’s simply not the case – even if McIntyre is called to testify he can only claim the original paper had a statistical flaw which was not replicated in subsequent papers.

    A judge is not going to entertain conspiracy theories about how everyone working in the field of climate and dendrochronology is also a fraud and that the various investigations into climate science and Mann’s work are all incorrect or corrupt.

    These fantasies of getting to rifle through Mann’s emails are simply that and none of you would entertain the idea in any other context.

  207. P Wilson says:

    It would be better to present the “peer review” process as that of a *censorship process* in this case, where the peers* are all singing from the same hymn sheet

  208. Entropic man says:

    Smokey says:
    August 23, 2012 at 3:51 pm
    Entropic says:

    “This is political lobbying, not scientific debate. Shame on you, Mr Watts.”

    Aside from wearing out your welcome here,…
    ——————–
    Smokey, you cannot have it both ways. in England we have an old saying, “Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”.
    If it is a legitimate political tactic in the US to accuse Mr. Mann of fraud on flimsy evidence, then I can legitimately accuse Mr.Steyn ,and perhaps Mr. Watts, of a conspiracy, on equally flimsy evidence, to suck Mr. Mann into a lawsuit.
    If these are not legitimate tactics I will refrain from using them, and would expect Mr. Steyn and Mr Watts to also restrain themselves.

  209. Doug says:

    Commentors on Manns facebook page are clamoring for him to go for it, and offering money to help. He can pick up donations from all those determined to fight their envisioned “conspiracy of big oil”. Mann (sic) this is great!

  210. Jeremy says:

    I had ignored this issue, mostly from having not visited climate change websites much lately. I have lost interest somewhat in the subject lately, simply because CAGW is so plainly indefensible, it’s almost inconceivable to me that people still pretend we’re all going to die from catastrophic warming and that no disagreement on this topic is possible. So I went back and started reading the various links about this topic. I was somewhat surprised at one particular thing, from Bad Astronomer’s page on July 15th:

    Whenever I post about the reality of climate change, I get the usual chorus of denialist outrage. This includes the odd ad hominem or two, like the sneering “What does an astronomer know about the climate?”, because apparently not having an advanced degree in science makes someone a better judge of the data.

    But the slings and arrows I get here are nothing, nothing, compared to what professional climate scientist Michael Mann gets. He is, after all, the researcher who first published the hockey stick diagram which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth has warmed up. To the deniers, he is Enemy Number 1. They have attacked his diagram and his research many times, always coming up short. The data and methods are solid, and it’s clear the Earth really is warming up.

    The “data and methods are solid”…. Phil Plait, an astronomer who likely has taken and taught classes in math, logic, physics, etc… said that “the data and methods are solid”…. the mind just boggles. I will be screen-capping that page, bookmarking it on the wayback machine/internet archive, and throwing it back in poor Phil Plaits face when discovery comes through. In fact, why bother? I should just send him a gift copy of “The Hockey Stick Illusion” now. The idea that any rational being could read that book and conclude the “data and methods are solid” begs for a suspension of disbelief.

    More interestingly I’ve watched, almost in real-time, Phil Plait slowly abandon questioning, abandon reasoned skepticism, abandon every basic scientific tool of inquiry he probably prides himself on using in any other topic. But on Climate Change, he took a position long ago, and has refused to budge. It is a lesson. It is a warning. All humans are susceptible to self-deception and double standards. They creep in anywhere they can take root, and when challenged on them *we will* abandon all other principles to be “correct”. This tends to go doubly true for people who both consider themselves smart, and promote a public image of authority and expertise.

    Phil Plait has succumbed to ego destroying his reason, and his blog is a case-study filled with data for the average social scientist.

  211. omanuel says:

    You are exactly right:“All humans are susceptible to self-deception and double standards.”

  212. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Entropic man on August 24, 2012 at 7:29 am:

    in England we have an old saying…

    Oh come on now, make up your mind! You said before you were in Ireland, now it’s “in England we…”

    Are you English or Irish? Is it that hard for you to plausibly maintain your anonymous online persona? Or are you one of those Northern Ireland blighters who want to claim both?

  213. mpaul says:

    Ken says:
    August 24, 2012 at 5:07 am
    AT THE TIME the hockey stick chart research was conducted the data used and conclusions reached are reasonable & “true” PROVIDED no action was made to manipulate the data or outcome.

    Except for those pesky R2 values. Here’s what Montfort has to say on the matter in “The Hockey Stick Illusion”:

    He [McIntyre] explained to the panel [The NAS Panel] how Mann had reported in MBH98 that he had calculated the R2 for the Hockey Stick, but had withheld the fact that the results indicated his reconstruction was unreliable. McIntyre went on to demonstrate how the IPCC had later misrepresented the Hockey Stick as having significant ‘skill’. Having dramatically failed the verification R2 test, the confidence intervals for the Hockey Stick were, in the words of Hegerl, “from floor to ceiling”. In other words, you could have no confidence in the results at all.

    This was a very damning set of accusations and one which promised some fireworks when Mann came to speak the following day. In the event though, absolutely nothing happened. John Christy, who was seen as the lone sceptic on the panel, asked Mann about his R2 score. Mann tried to evade the question by denouncing its usage in general, but Christy pressed him further, asking whether he had in fact calculated the figure. Mann’s reply was sharp and to McIntyre, at least, breathtaking:

    “We didn’t calculate it. That would be silly and incorrect reasoning.”

    Mann’s testimony to the NAS Panel was under oath.

    When the climategate emails came out, we got evidence that the Team had calculated R2 and knew the results. Eugene Wahl from email #5240:

    Also, let me know if I can help on the issue of RE vs r^2. I could write a few brief sentences as something for you to look at if you would like. Wahl-Ammann show very clearly that there is objectively demonstrated skill at the low-frequency level of the verification period mean for all the MBH segments, although the earlier MBH segments do have really low r^2 values (indicating very little skill at the interannual level).

    There’s also the matter of the “censored” directory, but I’ll leave that for you to discover.

  214. philjourdan says:

    Anyone want to take a bet? I bet it never gets to court.

  215. Matt says:

    Hand-picked treat for Dr Mann’s lawyer – I trust you read this, or someone will bring it to your attention:

    Dr Muller, (ex-?) presidential science advisor, has some choice words on Dr Mann’s conduct in there. If an expert in the field of that calibre calls Dr Mann out the way he did, there is no way that the lay public, be it individuals or journalists, are barred from picking up the ball… do watch it, it never gets boring, no matter how many times you play it.

  216. Tom Stone says:

    My guess is Mann or his friends are paying his costs. I very much doubt that the taxpayers or his employer are paying to prosecute what a personal claim.

  217. Barry Woods says:

    Prof Muller said this just recently about Mann/CRU,

    “What they did was, I think, shameful. And it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their licence.” Richard Muller

    which from a Berkley Professor, I think is more damaging tthan anything Steyn wrote (ie an opinion piece, ‘tree ring circus’) . I wonder if Mann will sue Muller, why not?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/a-fascinating-new-interview-with-prof-richard-muller-quote-on-climategate-what-they-did-was-i-think-shameful-and-it-was-scientific-malpractice/

  218. William Astley says:

    Mann is front and center in the climegate fiasco. There are a group of scientists who will manipulate data to push the extreme AGW paradigm. An example of manipulation of data is the non science based prognostication of extreme weather events (say James Hansen’s book Storms of my Grandchildren for example). There is no statistical evidence that extreme weather events are increasing and there is no evidence that the slight non extreme CO2 could cause extreme weather events.

    The scientific evidence does not support the IPCC predicted extreme AGW. The planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the change (negative feedback) by increasing planetary clouds in the tropics. The IPCC predicted extreme AGW requires the planet to amplify warming (positive feedback). If the planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the change (negative feedback) the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is less than 1C with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes where it will result in an expansion of the biosphere.

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

    What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?
    … At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing…
    …The result is in the bottom panel of Figure 6 (“Censored”). It shows what happens when Mann’s PC algorithm is applied to the NOAMER data after removing 20 bristlecone pine series. Without these hockey stick shapes to mine for, the Mann method generates a result just like that from a conventional PC algorithm, and shows the dominant pattern is not hockey stick-shaped at all. Without the bristlecone pines the overall MBH98 results would not have a hockey stick shape, instead it would have a pronounced peak in the 15th century.
    Of crucial importance here: the data for the bottom panel of Figure 6 is from a folder called CENSORED on Mann’s FTP site. He did this very experiment himself and discovered that the PCs lose their hockey stick shape when the Graybill-Idso series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick is not a global pattern, it is driven by a flawed group of US proxies that experts do not consider valid as climate indicators. But he did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of Stephen McIntyre’s laborious efforts….
    ….Another extension to our analysis concerned the claims of statistical significance in Mann’s papers. We found that meaningless red noise could yield hockey stick-like proxy PCs. This allowed us to generate a “Monte Carlo” benchmark for statistical significance. The idea is that if you fit a model using random numbers you can see how well they do at “explaining” the data. Then the “real world” data, if they are actually informative about the climate, have to outperform the random numbers. We calculated significance benchmarks for the hockey stick algorithm and showed that the hockey stick did not achieve statistical significance, at least in the pre-1450 segment where all the controversy is. In other words, MBH98 and MBH99 present results that are no more informative about the millennial climate history than random numbers. …

    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
    After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns….
    Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4′s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe….

    …Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, nappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

    It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity.

    http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/cg.pdf
    Why Climategate is so distressing to scientists
    by John P. Costella | December 10, 2009
    The most difficult thing for a scientist in the era of Climategate is trying to explain to family and friends why it is so distressing to scientists. Most people don’t know how science really works: there are no popular television shows, movies, or books that really depict the everyday lives of real scientists; it just isn’t exciting enough. I’m not talking here about the major discoveries of science—which are well-described in documentaries, popular science series, and magazines—but rather how the process of science (often called the “scientific method”) actually works.

    The best analogy that I have been able to come up with, in recent weeks, is the criminal justice system—which is (rightly or wrongly) abundantly depicted in the popular media. Everyone knows what happens if police obtain evidence by illegal means: the evidence is ruled inadmissible; and, if a case rests on that tainted evidence, it is thrown out of court. The justice system is not saying that the accused is necessarily innocent; rather, that determining the truth is impossible if evidence is not protected from tampering or fabrication.

  219. Henry chance says:

    Mann is going for damages and I suspect many times they are on a contigent fee basis. Shake down the adversary so they have high costs and settle out of court. Man has some tesy e-mails that give a reasonable many reason to believe he is hiding data and fudging numbers. So exposed e-mail trail will defeat him.
    How will he quantify “harm”?

  220. Ian Watts says:

    The more vocal and “celebrity” a climate scientist is, the more they’re likely to be the target of nut-jobs and attacks. Regrettable as that might be, it’s a flip side of the same coin. They are also going to be the target of very legitimate concern and criticism, as certainly is the case with Mann. The added notoriety in being a vocal activist gets one scads of research funding, and in Mann’s case, early tenure and a good job, and drives up sales of his own book “The Hockey Stick and Climate Wars”. The profits from which (if any), Mann will not trouble himself unduly over spending, no doubt.

    The fact is, there are likely thousands of climate scientists working diligently away every day, who do so in complete peace. Why? They either don’t actively inject themselves into the spotlight, or are not successful in trying to. For every infamous “Hockey Stick” graph, there are (and were) dozens of other paleo reconstructions. Many of them were arguably far more rigorous and scientifically valid than Mann’s (Briffa’s in the same year, for ex.). The IPCC picked Mann’s creative efforts as their poster child. Why? Because they REALLY, REALLY liked it. It showed exactly what they wanted it to show. The more cynical might speculate that it was carefully constructed to look as it did. They liked it so much, they never bothered to check to see if it was actually good science or not.

    But I think Mann is making a mistake. The NRO’s letter from their lawyer »www2.nationalreview.com/pdf/2012···tter.pdf seems to lay out their pretty firm legal standing. I hope poor Michael’s entire book profits don’t get thrown down a big legal hole (or is someone else picking up the tab?). He’s going to lose this case. And he will indeed look like a jackass while doing so.

    And while he’s losing this case, the Steyn article, perhaps previously read by 2,500 or so chucklers before, will eventually be read by the curious millions. The NRO might see their subscriptions skyrocket. The NRO or Steyn don’t seem at all displeased with this turn of events. They aren’t stupid.

    And with “cynic hat” firmly on, there’s every possibility that this is a calculated move to drive up controversy and increase sales of the soon to be released novella by Mann “Climate Wars 2 – This time it’s personal!”. Perhaps even a screenplay is in the works. Who knows?

  221. jorgekafkazar says:

    tonyb says: “So in effect, in order to properly air this matter it would be useful if WUWT could set up a Michael Mann defence fund. What delicious irony that would be.”

    Should that occur, newspaper coverage of the trial will be zero, having been pushed off the front pages by the concurrent new fad of porcine aerobatics.

  222. dialn says:

    Ken,

    You must have very limited experience in libel cases. Mann has little to no chance of winning this case. You completely misstate the legal test and where the burden of proof is. You state: “In the Mann case the NRO are going to need to show Mann’s work is considered fraudulent by his peers and/or some recognised authority – not just wrong or flawed but deliberate fraud.”

    This is quite wrong. On the contrary, it is Mann who has the burden to prove that NR made a provably false statement with actual malice. This is an extremely high burden. NR claims that fraudulent was used to connote: “intellectually bogus and wrong”. If the court accepts this as reasonable, then the case is DOA. The Wegman Report is all that is needed. Criticisms of the Wegman report are irrelevant given the actual malice standard. Even if the court believes that “fraud” means deliberate academic fraud, Mann has a steep uphill battle given the burden to show actual malice. NR will have significant grounds to show that they actually believed what they wrote irrespective of whether or not it is true. Even if Mann is completely in the right, if NR believed what it wrote at the time (and did not act with reckless disregard of the truth), it will win the case. Simply pointing to Mann’s comments about R^2 verification or his widely disputed use of upside down Tiljander (whether or not these criticisms are actually valid) will be a sufficient defense for NR. That actual malice standard is very difficult to surmount.

    Mann has a major ego but he is no idiot and he knows all this, so why is he proceeding with the case? My guess is he is trying to generate publicity for his book which he hawks at every opportunity. Go to any of his posts or in-line comments at RealClimate and see how often he mentions his book.

  223. Yancey Ward says:

    I will believe it when depositions and discovery start taking place. Till then, I just assume it is a bluff.

  224. DirkH says:

    Ian Watts says:
    August 24, 2012 at 8:54 am
    “I hope poor Michael’s entire book profits don’t get thrown down a big legal hole (or is someone else picking up the tab?). ”

    Fear not. A common legal way of supporting your favorite activist scientist or politician is that you buy a few truckloads of his latest tome and drive it straight to recycling. Practiced by every foundation worth its salt.

    Or did you think all these Blair or Obama memoirs actually get read by people?

  225. mpaul says:

    In the US, political pressure groups can use these kinds of things as fund raising vectors. They’ll fund a high profile lawsuit and then use the lawsuit to energize their membership resulting in more contributions coming in. In the non-profit world its known as the “Al Sharpton model”, after its most skilled practitioner.

    There’s are lawyers who, when they see an “Al Sharpton” approach forming, line up to be part of it. The reason is obvious: the lawyers can make a lot of money regardless of the outcome. Winning is not the objective; the only objective is to keep the game going and to generate lots of headlines. The interests of the political pressure group and the lawyer are aligned — the lawyers win by generating more billable hours and the political pressure groups win by keeping the fund raising effort going for a long time. Since we have no ‘loser pays’ concepts in the US, there’s no downside risk.

    So everyone wins. Oh, except for the plaintiff. The plaintiff winds up draining a lot of time and emotional energy and often comes away with a destroyed reputation. Generally speaking, the plaintiff has to be a convenient idiot because these cases are often un-winnable. So its essential to have a client who possesses a rare combination of stupidity, pride and notoriety.

    Time will tell if this is one such case.

  226. more soylent green! says:

    Mooloo says:
    August 23, 2012 at 3:39 pm
    Shaperoo:

    Winning is not what Mann needs. I think his lawyer is irresponsible if he hasn’t pointed this out, so I find the decision to sue rather odd.

    Plenty of people win libel cases, only to be awarded $1 in damages.

    Mann needs a win so large that others are intimidated. Any other result will be a failure.

    As observed above, he risks a repeat of Oscar Wilde’s libel case. Started by Wilde, having been provoked by the Marquis of Queensbury, he was forced to discuss matters in court that he would much rather have kept hidden.

    That $1 in damages is a trick by the plaintiff’s lawyer(s). With a finding of libel and an award for damages, the defendant can be made to pay the bill for the lawyers. This is how the ACLU and other advocacy groups make money. This is how certain lawyers can make a living suing governments without charging the plaintiff for their services.

  227. Jeremy says:

    omanuel says:
    August 24, 2012 at 8:02 am

    You are exactly right:“All humans are susceptible to self-deception and double standards.”

    I want to market a T-Shirt:
    “The experiment will continue until results meet expectations.”
    Alternatively:
    “The funding will continue so long as conclusions feed politicians.”

  228. Vince Causey says:

    dialn,
    “Mann has a major ego but he is no idiot and he knows all this, so why is he proceeding with the case? My guess is he is trying to generate publicity for his book which he hawks at every opportunity.”

    Exactly! This is why he HAS to proceed with the lawsuit. It will be broadcast from all the media. Millions will rush to the newstands each week to follow the story, and millions more will order their copies of the book itself. Someone will eventually play the part of Mann in a future Hollywood blockbuster – probably Quaid, though I wouldn’t rule out Ricky Gervais.

  229. Mother Jones July 25, 2012 hosted: Conservative Bloggers’ Campaign Against “the Jerry Sandusky of Climate Science”

    But the blogger, Peter Wood, didn’t stop there. He went on in the piece to compare it to how the school has handled the work of one of its climate scientists.

    He refers in the piece to the work of Michael Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State, who has been on the receiving end of a variety of attacks over the years, including the smear campaign resulting from emails that were stolen and put online in the fake scandal known as “Climategate.” Wood uses the fact that a university investigation into “Climategate” (not to mention at least six other investigations on the subject conducted by outside institutions) exonerated Mann from allegations that he’d falsified data or hidden information as proof that there is “a culture of evasion” at the school. “Penn State has a history of treading softly with its star players,” Wood writes. “Paterno wasn’t the only beneficiary.”. . .
    I asked The Chronicle’s editors about the post. Here’s what editor Liz McMillen wrote in response:

    “We don’t think Peter Wood’s post “equates” the sexual assault of children to the investigation of Michael Mann. Wood is describing what he sees as the culture of secrecy and cover up at Penn State during Graham Spanier’s years as university president. The consequences of that culture were most apparent and terrible regarding Jerry Sandusky, but in Wood’s view, “The underlying culture that made this heedlessness possible among the senior officials extends to quite a few topics that have no direct connection to the Sandusky scandal.” Wood also cites changes in the university policy on academic freedom and Spanier’s attempts, at a public university, not to disclose his and Paterno’s salaries as evidence of that culture.
    And it should be pointed out that this is Wood’s opinion; as we clearly state, posting on a blog does imply any endorsement of these views by The Chronicle.”

    Others in the climate science community have responded to what they call a “smear” in a “highly respected venue” like The Chronicle. You can read Wood’s original post and decide for yourself.

    UPDATE: Looks like bloggers from both the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the National Review Online have as jumped on board this meme, calling Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science.” Mann’s lawyer has asked NRO to retract the blog post and apologize.

  230. more soylent green! says:

    Maybe it’s time to invest in popcorn futures, what with the drought suppressing this year’s corn crop and all.

  231. Bart says:

    sharper00 says:
    August 24, 2012 at 6:50 am

    “These fantasies of getting to rifle through Mann’s emails are simply that and none of you would entertain the idea in any other context.”

    Can’t imagine why anyone would think e-mails would reveal anything, anyway.

    Oh, wait…

    Phil Clarke says:
    August 24, 2012 at 4:25 am

    “Which would be quite a feat as the Yamal chronology was not published until 3 years after the hockey stick.”

    Only, they’re not talking about the original “hockey stick”, as the lead-in paragraphs clearly state:

    Mann was at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal in 2009, when emails were unearthed from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. In one email sent to Mann and others, CRU director Philip Jones speaks of the “trick” of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline:

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline (in global temperatures),” the email read… Mann et al. performed the neat trick of making the Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850) statistically disappear.

    Please answer me this, because I’d really like to know: why do you, why does anyone, support this kind of deception in science? Are you hoping the short term advantage gained will allow you to wipe out the opposition, and you will never have to pay the price of tainting your brand? That’s the only logical, though highly risky, motivation I can imagine.

  232. Luther Wu says:

    more soylent green! says:
    August 24, 2012 at 9:36 am

    That $1 in damages is a trick by the plaintiff’s lawyer(s). With a finding of libel and an award for damages, the defendant can be made to pay the bill for the lawyers. This is how the ACLU and other advocacy groups make money. This is how certain lawyers can make a living suing governments without charging the plaintiff for their services.
    ________________________
    Exactly!
    Mann was up against it, no matter which way he turned and he knew it. His state of mind had (has) to be frenzied in order to trust the judgement of those who have a nose for deep pockets and who simultaneously convinced him not to share in any possible financial reward.
    I’m sure the reasoning was “noble”. It just keeps getting worse for him.

    Mann’s own facebook pages are a clue to his agenda- driven “findings”: he never corrects comments which are scientifically unsound, but which support his agenda, all the while blocking/deleting comments by anyone presenting evidence contrary to his pseudo- science.

    Would a true scientist engaged in public discourse of scientific topics behave in such a manner?
    The evidence against M. Mann is found throughout his works.

  233. rogerknights says:

    Jeremy Poynton says:
    August 24, 2012 at 4:41 am

    This will be theater worth watching.

    Missing ingredients: Johnie Cochrane & Judge Ito.
    And a little doggerel.

  234. Markon says:

    Michael Mann is also suing Canadian Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball who stated Mann should be in the State Pen rather than at Penn State. I agree. Hey Mr. girly-Mann, sue me. Dr. Ball will also be looking for data. I believe the law suit’s purpose is to delay the complete collapse of their fraudulent movement until after the Presidential election this November in the hopes that Obama can win and keep funneling tax dollars to those scientists with the correct perspective.

  235. A. Scott says:

    A reminder of more Mannian bullying:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/02/thanks-to-michael-manns-response-a-newspaper-censors-a-letter-to-the-editor/

    Here is the exchange of Letters to Editor:

    Global warming is no hoax
    http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110912/EDITS/110919978&parentprofile=search

    Sky is not falling
    http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110916/LETTER/110919906&parentprofile=search

    Fools deny global warming
    http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110926/EDITS/110929906&parentprofile=search

    Researcher disputes evidence for global warming (was originally: “More hot air than science in global-warming theory”:
    http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110930/EDITS/111009984&parentprofile=search

    Mann’s laughable response:

    Global warming denier’s claims are falsehoods
    http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20111001/EDITS/110939988&parentprofile=search

    The orig letter (before it was edited by the paper – note the bolded part – which was removed by the paper after Mann’s whining:

    Vail Valley Voices: More hot air than science in global-warming theory
    Martin Hertzberg
    Vail, CO, Colorado

    “Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the handmaiden of truth” — Robert Weston.

    Since I am a long-time denier of human-caused global warming and have been described as an “inaccurate” and “irresponsible” “fool” by Scott Glasser’s commentary in Monday’s Vail Daily, I feel compelled to respond.

    I am a research scientist who also served as a meteorologist for the U.S. Navy. I am also a lifelong progressive Democrat.

    For the 25 years that I have been studying the theory that human emission of carbon dioxide is causing global warming and climate change, it has never ceased to amaze me how many otherwise intelligent people, including our president, have been taken in by that scam.

    There is a simple way to tell the difference between scientists and propagandists. If scientists have a theory, they search diligently for data that might actually contradict their theory so that they test it rigorously or refine it. If propagandists have a theory, they carefully select only the data that might agree with their theory and dutifully ignore any data that might contradict it.

    The anecdotal drivel cited in the Glasser article regarding atmospheric carbon dioxide, average global temperatures, ice area coverage and rate of sea-level rise was carefully cherry picked or is totally false.

    For the totality of the available data for the past several decades, go to http://www.climate4you.com. The data show nothing remarkable — just the normal variability in all those weather-related parameters.

    Knowledgeable scientists, including the more than 30,000 such as myself who have signed the Oregon Petition, know that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide do not correlate with human emission of carbon dioxide, that human emission is a trivial fraction of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide, that the oceans contain about 50 times more dissolved carbon dioxide than is present in the atmosphere, that recycling of carbon dioxide from the tropical oceans where it is emitted to the arctic oceans where it is absorbed is orders of magnitude more significant than human emissions, and that the carbonate-bicarbonate buffer in the oceans makes their acidity (actually their alkaline pH) virtually insensitive to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    The data for the glacial coolings and interglacial warmings for the past 500,000 years always show that temperature changes precede atmospheric carbon-dioxide changes by about 1,000 years. That indicates that temperature changes are driving carbon-dioxide changes and not the reverse as the Gore-Hansen-IPCC clique claims. As oceans warm for whatever reason, they emit carbon dioxide, and as they cool they absorb carbon dioxide.

    The carbon-dioxide “greenhouse effect” argument on which the fearmongering hysteria is based is actually devoid of physical reality. The notion that the colder atmosphere above can reradiate its absorbed infrared energy to heat the warmer earth below violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For details, see “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory,” co-authored by myself and several other scientists, which was published earlier this year by Stairway Press.

    In any case, if one compares the effect of water in all of its forms (polar ice, snow cover, oceans, clouds, water vapor in the atmosphere) with that of human emission of carbon dioxide, the carbon-dioxide emission is about as significant as a few farts in a hurricane.

    Glasser, who calls me a fool, really tips his hand by defending the notoriously fraudulent “hockey stick” curve of Professor Mann. That curve has the shape of a hockey stick, flat for the past 1,000 years with a sharp rise during the past few decades. It was fabricated from carefully selected tree-ring measurements with a phony computer program.

    Every knowledgeable climatologist knows that tree rings are unreliable proxies for temperature because they are also sensitive to moisture, sunlight, pests, competition from adjacent trees, etc. Furthermore, when those same tree-ring data actually showed a decline in temperature for the past several decades, Mann and his co-authors simply “hid the decline” by grafting direct measurements (inadequately corrected for the urban heat island and other effects) to his flat tree-ring line.

    Knowledgeable climatologists knew that the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings settled Greenland and grapes grew in northern England, was much warmer than today and that its presence in all regions of the world was overwhelming. Similarly for the Roman Warm Period that preceded it and for a whole series of natural warmings and coolings until one gets back to the big one: the interglacial cooling of about 20,000 years ago.

    And that all happened without any significant human emission of carbon dioxide.

    The conclusions being promulgated by the scientifically illiterate diplomats who control the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are fraudulent concoctions that have already been denounced by many of its scientific members.

    Those diplomats, like the bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency, have huge egos and a lust for power. That is far more important to them than the triviality of scientific truth. Once committed to one side of such an issue,

    they will rarely admit that they have made a mistake. Once having invested their political capital and our economic resources to start the huge, massive inertia wheel turning, it takes too much courage, energy and loss of face to stop it.

    That was the case with the war in Vietnam and currently with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The conclusions of the IPCC need to be repudiated lest they continue to discredit the United Nations’ legitimate functions: its programs to improve the standard of living of the underdeveloped nations, its programs to combat hunger and poverty, its support of the conventions against genocide and torture, and its support of the International Criminal Court’s prosecution of war criminals.

    Dr. Martin Hertzberg writes from Copper Mountain.

    And Mann’s response:

    Vail Valley Voices: Global warming denier’s claims are falsehoods
    Michael E. Mann
    Vail, CO, Colorado
    Saturday, October 1, 2011

    An individual named Martin Hertzberg did a grave disservice to your readers by making false and defamatory statements about me and my climate scientist colleagues in his recent commentary in your paper.

    It’s hard to imagine anyone packing more lies and distortions into a single commentary. Mr. Hertzberg uses libelous language in characterizing the so-called “hockey stick” — work of my own published more than a decade ago showing that recent warming is unusual over at least the past 1,000 years — as “fraudulent,” and claiming that it “it was fabricated from carefully selected tree-ring measurements with a phony computer program.”

    These are just lies, regurgitation of dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science.

    The highest scientific body in the nation, the National Academy of Sciences affirmed my research findings in an exhaustive independent review published in June 2006 (see e.g. “Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate,” New York Times, June 22, 2006, among many others).

    Dozens of independent groups of scientists have independently reproduced and confirmed our findings, and more recent work by several groups shows that recent warmth is unusual over an even longer time frame.

    Mr. Hertzberg then continues the smear by lying again about my work, claiming that “when those same tree-ring data actually showed a decline in temperature for the past several decades, Mann and his co-authors simply ‘hid the decline’ by grafting direct measurements (inadequately corrected for the urban heat island and other effects) to his flat tree-ring line.”

    That is, once again, a string of lies tied together. This statement falsely equates my work, which was not based on tree rings but rather a diverse network of different types of “proxy” climate data, with tree-ring work by an entirely different scientist, Keith Briffa of the University of East Anglia.

    And it is is a highly dishonest characterization of his Briffa’s work, as well, since the “decline” was a well-known problem with those particular data that Briffa was the first to describe and attempt to deal with, in the scientific literature.

    Mr. Hertzberg’s lies are pernicious. Their intent appears to be to do convince you that there is no harm in our continued unfettered release of carbon into the atmosphere.

    It is not only us, but our children and grandchildren who will suffer the consequences of devastating changes in our environment in the years and decades to come if we listen to charlatans like Mr. Hertzberg.

    Readers interested in the truth behind the science, rather than the falsehoods and smears perpetuated by people like Mr. Hertzberg, should consult the scientist-run website http://www.realclimate.org and http://www.skepticalscience.com, or scientifically-based books on the topic like my “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming.”

    Michael E. Mann is a professor in the Department of Meterology at Penn State University and director of Penn State Earth System Science Center.

    It is quite interesting that the paper removed the quotes Mann found offensive from the original letter, but allowed his rant to stand – including the same claims.

    I think – the record is extremely clear – Mann IS a fraud, and his work perpetrates that fraud. His repeated attacks on those who question his work, and ongoing attempts to prevent release of documents that would shed light on the veracity of his claims, only serve to strengthen the claims against him.

    That Mann’s work is likely financed largely, or almost entirely, by public monies, when coupled with Mann’s proven deceit, makes the statement by Tim Ball a simple truth – Mann likely does belong in the State Pen vs at Penn State.

    So Mr. Mann – please add me to your list of litigants. I agree with the others – I believe the facts show it is well proven you are an arrogant bully, but also a fraud – as is much of your work.

  236. Coach Springer says:

    From Mann’s lawyer: “It [NRO] did not deny the fact that it knew its allegations of fraud were false.” Well, they believe the allegations are true, so why would they deny something that isn’t a fact? Note well: This attorney did not deny the fact that he knows he is an a88hoile.

  237. rogerknights says:

    Jeremy says:
    August 24, 2012 at 7:42 am

    I’ve watched … Phil Plait slowly abandon questioning, abandon reasoned skepticism, abandon every basic scientific tool of inquiry he probably prides himself on using in any other topic. But on Climate Change, he took a position long ago, and has refused to budge. It is a lesson. It is a warning. All humans are susceptible to self-deception and double standards. They creep in anywhere they can take root, and when challenged on them *we will* abandon all other principles to be “correct”. This tends to go doubly true for people who both consider themselves smart, and promote a public image of authority and expertise.

    NO FOOL LIKE A WISE FOOL. And goes triply for officials of a Capital-S “Skeptical” organization like CSICOP (now CSI), which he is. The loyalty of such persons (like Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer, the editor of Skeptical Inquirer, etc.) is to the image of science, and to its anointed hierarchy, dogmas, and supposedly infallible procedures (like peer review and official inquiries). Their fealty is to the bottle, not the wine; to the shell of science, not its nut—which is its “Let’s-Find-Out” motivation & its “nullius in verba,” anti-BS attitude.

    That is why they’ve fallen for the emperor’s new clothes and focused their venom on the little boy: They’re scoffers whose main motivation is heresy-hunting—so they can feel “one-up.” Their purported skepticism is just a cloak for that—they might as well be called “scoftics.” They’re arrogantly riding high, like the Curia before the Fall. Just wait until the warm turns—they won’t live this episode down for a thousand years.
    ===============

    “As observed above, he risks a repeat of Oscar Wilde’s libel case.”

    ““Mann has a major ego but he is no idiot and he knows all this, so why is he proceeding with the case?”

    Why did Hiss sue Chambers? He felt he had to, because all his allies were urging him to and it would look bad to them if he didn’t. This may be what’s at work here: not recklessness by Mann, but social pressure from his reckless backers. (A little known fact, or claim anyway: Wilde refused to flee to France when things were looking grim legally and he had the chance, because his mother said he mustn’t. Social pressure.)

  238. A. Scott says:

    Mann certainly has a lotta time to attack those who disagree with him, and claim defamation ….

    http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/hockey-stick-creator-rebuts-critic_2010-07-12.html

    Mann is responding to this Letter to Editor:

    http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/con-are-strong-measures-needed-to-forestall-climate-change__2010-07-09.html

  239. wayne says:

    What one physicist points out of Michael Mann’s neat little tricks ….

    http://i47.tinypic.com/wv1itx.gif

    (Smokey, please file my first overlaid gif away, you seem to actually keep track of such and make such good use of it!)☺

  240. Smokey says:

    wayne,

    Saved. But a more legible, larger copy would be more effective…

  241. Smokey says:

    A. Scott,

    Very interesting links. Mann writes:

    In a piece published in your paper on July 9 you allowed an individual named Dave Irons to do a grave disservice to your readers by making false and defamatory statements about me…

    “Allowed”?? And it goes downhill from there. Mann continues, writing that Mr Irons…

    …makes the specific defamatory allegation against me that work by my colleagues and me reconstructing past temperature trends is “fraudulent.”

    So here we have still another accusation of Mann’s fraud, which he claims is “defamatory”. At this rate, Mann will run out of people to sue in, oh …about three years. ☺

    If only one fact emerges from Mann’s lawsuit-happy attacks, it will be that all his ‘exonerations’ were nothing but complete whitewashes, done solely to protect the institution’s top rainmaker.

    Jerry Sandusky’s suporters would understand.

  242. Entropic man says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    August 24, 2012 at 8:03 am
    are you one of those Northern Ireland blighters who want to claim both?
    ——————-

    Good guess. I’m an Englishman living in Northern Ireland. Unless Richard Courtney is right and I’m an American pretending to be an Englishman living in Northern Ireland……….

  243. Smokey says:

    I’m a n Englishman pseudoscientist living in Northern Ireland.

    There. Fixed! ☺

  244. A. Scott says:

    Excerpts from Climate Depot:

    Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel — which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – was asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, he said they did:

    CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

    DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

    DR. BLOOMFIELD [Head of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

    WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: ‘the two reports [Wegman's and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’

    German Prof. Slams Climate Claims – Calls Mann’s Hockey Stick ‘A Very Very Nasty Fabrication’ —

    http://notrickszone.com/2011/11/13/german-professor-slams-global-warming-science-calls-manns-hockey-stick-a-very-very-nasty-fabrication/

    Prof. Dr. Richard Dronskowski at Aachen U.: ‘No chart has been so falsified as the hockey stick chart. It’s an embarrassment for the IPCC’ — ‘Dronskowski reminds his audience that the scientists are talking about ‘tenths of a degree’ with error margins “of a full degree’ and that ‘nobody can believe it’

  245. Entropic man says:

    Smokey says:
    August 24, 2012 at 1:31 pm
    I’m a n Englishman pseudoscientist living in Northern Ireland.

    There. Fixed! ☺

    —————-
    I know when I’m outclassed. I bow to your superior expertise as a scientist.

  246. Man Bearpig says:

    ”this attack is coupled with the transparent threat that the National Review intends to undertake burdensome and abusive litigation tactics should Dr. Mann have the temerity to attempt to defend himself in court.”

    The ‘burdensome and abusive litigation tactics’ are part of American law and is a basic right of Steyn and NRO to argue their case in court – and by golly they will do that.. Does this man think he is above the law now ? I reckon he will run and run like hell.

  247. A. Scott says:

    Brandon Schollenbergers review of Mann’s book here at WUWT is relevant as well:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/07/a-detailed-review-of-manns-book-the-hockey-stick-and-the-climate-wars-as-it-relates-to-the-wegman-report-to-congress/

    Excerpt:

    The book contains many mistakes, contradictions, fabrications, nonsensical statements and even a libelous claim based on an obvious misrepresentation.

    … the Wegman Report, was highly critical of Mann’s work. In turn, it was criticized by defenders of Mann. One such criticism involves how much “collaboration” there was between McIntyre, Wegman and Wegman’s co-authors. The claim is basically that the Wegman Report repeats McIntyre’s work and conclusions without due consideration. Mann doesn’t spend much time on this criticism in his book, but what he says is very important:

    “Not only had their apparently been substantial undisclosed collaboration between the WR authors and Stephen McIntyre, as hinted at earlier–something Wegman had denied in his testimony under oath in Congress…”

    Mann claims Wegman denied something, under oath, that was true. That is, he accuses Wegman of perjury. In what is almost a passing comment, Mann accuses Wegman of committing a felony that could land him in jail for years. Not only is this a serious accusation, but if untrue, it is libel. With that in mind, it’s important to read Mann’s note #66:

    66. See http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/109h/31362.txt, specifically the following exchange between Rep. Stupak and Wegman:

    Mr. Stupak: Did you or your co-authors contact Mr. McIntyre and get his
    help in replicating his work?
    Dr. Wegman. Actually, no…

    This seems to give clear support to Mann’s claim. However, given the seriousness of the accusation, the ellipsis at the end should be investigated. Mann’s link leads to the transcript of the testimony where Wegman’s full answer is found

    DR. WEGMAN. Actually, no. What I did do was I called
    Mr. McIntyre and said that when we downloaded his code we
    could not get it to work either, and it was unfortunate that
    he was criticizing Dr. Mann when in fact he was in exactly
    the same situation. Subsequently, he reposted his code to
    make it more user friendly and we did download it
    subsequently and verified that it would work.

    Clearly, the quote Mann offers is deceptive. By only quoting two words from Wegman, Mann gives the impression Wegman answered no. Had he included only ten more words, anyone reading his book would have seen Wegman was not guilty of a felony. Instead, Mann removed almost all of a lengthy and detailed answer, giving readers the impression Wegman committed perjury.

    Much more at the link.

  248. DocMartyn says:

    This is Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt (II)

  249. Wat Dabney says:

    Surely the defence simply has to wheel-in a financial auditor and ask him if Mann’s practises would be considered fraud in a business environment, and someone from the FDA to ask if it would be considered fraud if any pharmaceutical company were to treat and present data in the same fashion.

    Does anyone doubt what the answers would be?

    Imagine holding Mann’sfeet to the fire with repeated questions that cannot be deflected about his infamous “censored” directory and how it changed the whole result of his published work. Ask him directly how that cannot be considered anything except blatent scientific fraud.

    Members of the jury, would you buy a used car from this man?

  250. Ally E. says:

    To my mind, if Michael doesn’t take this all the way – if he chickens out at ANY point before a verdict is given in a court of law – he will always be known as a coward and “The Mann who ran away.”

  251. Don L says:

    He won’t be allowed to argue in court since the Dem agenda will return to the audacity of faux global warming.

  252. wayne says:

    Smokey, do you think that is all of the resolution there was, not much like me to make anything but optimized. It was from a video I think and that was made month’s ago… but… just had to include it in this post, it so fitted the topic! If you ever come across better images, better video somewhere, comment back to this post and I’d be happy to re-do it.

    It deserves a place in the infamy of AGW (scoff!). ☺

  253. D. J. Hawkins says:

    I have to asking, was Mann born a raving idiot, or did someone hit him in the head with a brick recently?

  254. William Astley says:

    http://www2.agric.gov.ab.ca/icons/acis/maps/agroclimatic_atlas/growing_season_and_frost_free_days/frost_free_period/onl_s_11_twp_annual_normals_1971_big_map.png

    If one yells “Fire! Fire! Fire!” in a theatre, there is likely the possibility of unintentional consequences. The following are some of the unintentional consequences of Manns’ hockey stick and James Hansen’s mega mania.

    Mann’s hockey stick was created to create to hide the fact that planet temperature changes cyclically with warming periods (period of 400 years and 1500 years following solar magnetic cycle changes until the there is an abrupt end of the interglacial period) followed by cooling periods during the interglacial periods, until the end of interglacial period.

    The general public is not aware that interglacial periods are short (roughly 10,000 years) and that they end abruptly.

    Global warming with the majority of the warming occurring at high latitudes increases the productivity of the biosphere (more plants and increased habitat for wild life) and increase the productivity of high latitude agricultural land. Agriculture, in high latitude regions such as Canada or Russia is limited by the number of frost free days.

    The general public is not aware that a temperature drop of couple of degrees Celsius will result in the end of agriculture in most of Canada. An increase in temperature of a couple of degrees Celsius in high latitude regions will enable areas of Canada to grow a second crop per growing season as currently is the norm for Southern regions of the US. As most are aware the amount of precipitation increases as the planet warms and decreases as the planet cools. During the glacial period (there have been 22 glacial periods. The glacial periods are now 100,000 years in duration and the interglacial periods are roughly 10,000 years in duration. We are at the end of the Holocene interglacial period. During the last glacial period Canada and the North US states were covered by a 2 mile thick ice sheet. During the Wisconsin glacial period roughly 1/3 of the Amazon rainforest was converted to savanna due to reduction in precipitation. The biosphere contracts when the planet gets colder and expands when the planet warms.

    http://www2.agric.gov.ab.ca/icons/acis/maps/agroclimatic_atlas/growing_season_and_frost_free_days/frost_free_period/onl_s_11_twp_annual_normals_1971_big_map.png

    One of the consequences of Mann’s hockey stick is that 40% of the US corn crop is now converted to ethanol. (i.e. The US government is subsidizing and mandating the conversion of corn to ethanol which is equivalent to an increase in taxes. The EU is advocating the same policy with the result that virgin rainforest is now being cut down to convert palm oil to diesel with a net loss of the most bio diverse regions of the planet.) Few people are aware that if one includes the total energy inputs to convert corn to ethanol that there is roughly a 5% increase in carbon dioxide emission as opposed to using “fossil fuel”. Conversion of corn to ethanol does not significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It does however significantly reduce the amount of food available for human construction. As people in the third world cannot compete in purchase of food with the EU and the US, roughly 300 million people in the third world are now suffering malnutrition due to converting food to bio fuel.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402

    Biofuels ‘crime against humanity’
    Massive production of biofuels is “a crime against humanity” because of its impact on global food prices, a UN official has told German radio. “Producing biofuels today is a crime against humanity,” UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told Bayerischer Runfunk radio. Many observers have warned that using arable land to produce crops for biofuels has reduced surfaces available to grow food. Mr Ziegler called on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to change its policies on agricultural subsidies and to stop supporting only programs aimed at debt reduction. He says agriculture should also be subsidised in regions where it ensures the survival of local populations. Meanwhile, in response to a call by the IMF and World Bank over the weekend to a food crisis that is stoking violence and political instability, German Foreign Minister Peer Steinbrueck gave his tacit backing.

    EPA’s RFS accounting shows corn ethanol today is worse than gasoline
    http://plevin.berkeley.edu/docs/Plevin-Comments-on-final-RFS2-v7.pdf

    http://www.senseandsustainability.net/2012/01/26/scrapping-corn-ethanol-subsidies-for-a-smarter-biofuels-policy/
    From its first appearance in 1978 to this past December 31st, the policy provided over $20 billion in subsidies to American ethanol producers, costing the U.S. taxpayer almost $6 billion in 2011 alone. Enacted in the spirit of “energy independence,” ethanol subsidies became a redoubt for the agricultural lobby and a lighting rod for criticism from environmentalists and sustainability advocates
    To add to the environmental cost of U.S. corn ethanol is the potential of its expanded production to raise global food prices, potentially increasing the likelihood of social unrest and instability worldwide. Some 40 percent of the American corn crop is now distilled into fuel, and The Economist has estimated that if that amount of corn were used as food instead, global food supplies of corn would grow by 14 percent. Both the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization have noted the positive link between U.S. corn ethanol production and rising corn prices. Because of America’s position as the leading corn producer and the status of Chicago-traded corn prices as a benchmark for global ones, the U.S. can have an outsize impact on worldwide food prices. Indeed, corn prices have more than tripled in the last ten years, in no small part due to the ethanol boom.

  255. Sean says:

    Soon we will see if Mann is a man or a mouse.

  256. Phil Clarke says:

    Bart want to defend the IBD as he believes that the they were “not talking about the original “hockey stick”

    Really, Bart?

    The graph created by professor Mann and his colleagues carefully selected and manipulated tree-ring data to supposedly prove that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts — in a pattern resembling a hockey stick — in the 20th century due to man-made greenhouse gases. Mann et al. performed the neat trick of making the Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850) statistically disappear.

    The graph relied on data from trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. Here too the data were carefully selected. Data from just 12 trees from the 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set were used.

    IBD are talking about 2 completely different graphs, according to Bart.

    Except they’re not. They got their ‘facts’ completely wrong. Thanks for the entertainment Bart!

  257. Jenn Oates says:

    21st century Piltdown, unraveling at last.

    I hope.

  258. Ally E. says:

    Sean says:

    August 24, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    Soon we will see if Mann is a man or a mouse.

    *

    Or even a man or a mouth. :)

  259. Entropic man says:

    I’m interested to se what happens when disclosure makes Steyn’s e-mails public.

    Personally I think Mann should be sitting back grinning. In my Debating Society days I often knew we had won when our opponents started badmouthing us, rather than debating the motion, It showed that they had run out of valid arguments and the judges knew it.

  260. Rob Crawford says:

    “NRO played this, and has continued to play this, rather ignorantly.”

    You really believe that? Really?

  261. Smokey says:

    Entropic,

    In your debating society days, didn’t they explain what a red herring fallacy is? Why did you bring up Mark Steyn, when Mann is the issue? Points deducted.

    And I note that Mann never ‘grins’. He is perpetually disgruntled and unhappy.

  262. Rob Crawford says:

    “I’m interested to se what happens when disclosure makes Steyn’s e-mails public.”

    Why? Because you prefer to intimidate people into silence than debate them on the merits of the case? Minor clue — very, very little of Steyn’s correspondence will be subject to discovery, because very, very little of what he does bears on the case.

  263. Rob Crawford says:

    “The ‘burdensome and abusive litigation tactics’ are part of American law and is a basic right of Steyn and NRO to argue their case in court – and by golly they will do that.. Does this man think he is above the law now ?”

    It is rather interesting to hear the prospective PLAINTIFF complaining about “burdensome and abusive litigation tactics”, isn’t it?

  264. A. Scott says:

    William Astley says:
    August 24, 2012 at 4:19 pm
    EPA’s RFS accounting shows corn ethanol today is worse than gasoline
    http://plevin.berkeley.edu/docs/Plevin-Comments-on-final-RFS2-v7.pdf

    This and your other attacks regarding ethanol are the usual falsehoods. From the EPA:

    “The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) establishes new renewable fuel categories and eligibility requirements. EISA sets the first U.S. mandatory lifecycle GHG reduction thresholds for renewable fuel categories, as compared to those of average petroleum fuels used in 2005.

    Lifecycle GHG emissions are the aggregate quantity of GHGs related to the full fuel cycle, including all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution, from feedstock generation and extraction through distribution and delivery and use of the finished fuel. The lifecycle GHG emissions of the renewable fuel are compared to the lifecycle GHG emissions for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005.

    EISA established specific greenhouse gas emission thresholds for each of four types of renewable fuels, requiring a percentage improvement compared to a baseline of the gasoline and diesel. EISA required a 20% reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions for any renewable fuel produced at new facilities (those constructed after enactment), a 50% reduction in order to be classified as biomass-based diesel or advanced biofuel, and a 60% reduction in order to be classified as cellulosic biofuel. ”

    http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420f09024.htm

    The Stats based on final rule:

    http://ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/a05aec0d7576eb4606_fjm6ivcli.pdf

    This statement by the poster above is simple fraud:

    “EPA’s RFS accounting shows corn ethanol today is worse than gasoline”

    The EPA rule requires that, in order to be calleda RENEWABLE fuel, their total GHG emissions be at least 20% less than those of gasoline by full phase in of the rules in 2022. This requirement takes in to account, and INCLUDES a large penalty, for alleged indirect land use changes as well as the direct difference in GHG’s.

    He did not cite EPA accounting – he cited a US Berkely (imagine that) report that did NOT use the EPA rules, but rather what they thought they should be. And yet it STILL found that with the exception of coal fired renewable energy processes, by the EPA’s full implementation requirement in 2022 virtually every plant type and process delivered mean GHG REDUCTIONS – AFTER taking out indirect land use changes – of 17% to 48%.

    These are the type lies routinely propagated by those attacking ethanol. Even his own link did not support his claim.

    Using the FINAL EPA RF92 rule (using a 30 year period and no discount rate) the RFA showed modern corn ethanol generated a 21% overall reduction, and a total actual 56% reduction in GHG’s before indirect land use changes were deducted.

    Using the EPA’s originally proposed standard of 100 years and a 2% discount rate modern corn ethanol reduces GHG 33% overall, and 56% before indirect land use changes.

    They further note cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass reduces GHG 110% using biochemical processes and 72% for thermochemical process … and from corn stover reduces GHG’s 130% (bio) and 93% (thermo) – easily exceeding EPA’s 60% reduction vs gasoline.

  265. TomT says:

    I am not a lawyer, but I think a number of people here don’t understand US law. The first amendment offers a lot protection to journalists. It is very hard to prove libel against a public figure , Mann has worked very hard to become a public figure. Mark Stein was stating his opinion, not a fact, therefore it will be very unlikely that Mann will win, however the defendants are entitled to mount a defense and in order to do that they have a right to see Mann’s papers.

  266. bushbunny says:

    If I was Mann I’d be having a nervous breakdown? As a scholar I wonder what his employability rating is right now?

  267. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From D. J. Hawkins on August 24, 2012 at 3:43 pm:

    I have to asking, was Mann born a raving idiot, or did someone hit him in the head with a brick recently?

    A brick? No. But there was an incident where he was retrieving a large tree slice for a photo-op from a high shelf… ;-)

  268. Mac the Knife says:

    RE: Update 2
    That is a damning compendium of blunt analyses of the M. Mann chicanery.
    Thanks! I’ll use it to good effect.
    MtK

  269. Reed Coray says:

    In attempting to establish the “non-fraudulent” nature of the Hockey Stick, I can’t believe Dr. Mann’s legal team will argue that the phrase “trick to hide the decline” is a positive not a negative because “trick” in this context means a “clever mathematical artifice”. As Dr. Muller points out in the video (Matt says: August 24, 2012 at 8:21 am), the word “trick” is irrelevant. The important part of the phrase is “hide the decline”. For example, suppose Phil Jones or Dr. Mann had said: “To hide the deline, we used a mathematical artifice that would make Newton and Gauss proud.” The message would still be the same: We attempted to hide, suppress, obfuscate, blur, etc. the fact that the data we used to create the Hockey Stick took a sudden downturn, which, if shown, would at a minimum have cast doubt on our whole study. The “cleverness” of the procedure is irrelevant. If anything, however, the more clever the procedure, the harder it is to defend.

    Then as Austin points out (Austin says: August 23, 2012 at 11:59 pm), “What Mann needs to understand is that once he bites, he will become the bait on the hook used to catch some bigger fish.” I just bet () Penn State is looking forward to another outside investigation into its penchant to “cover up” incidents that might embarrass the university; and (2) the AGW “team” members (including Al Gore) are chomping at the bit to testify under oath regarding their dealings with and opinions of Dr. Mann and his Hocky Stick. (/sarc)

  270. Ally E. says:

    Your Update 2 – wow!

  271. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Curious news item, possibly related. Is UVa trying to appear non-political, or avoid unneeded expenses (could they be having a funding shortage for some reason?), or both?

    UVA Declines Obama Campaign Request

    Posted: Aug 24, 2012 1:17 PM EDT
    Updated: Aug 24, 2012 10:47 PM EDT

    A University of Virginia spokeswoman says President Barack Obama will not be at the university when he comes to Charlottesville on Wednesday. In a statement released Friday, it was confirmed that the university declined the president’s request to speak at UVA.

    UVA says the Obama campaign requested the use of one of two outdoor venues – the Amphitheater or the Harrison-Small Library plaza. The university declined the request for a number of reasons including class cancellations, which UVA estimates could be more than 186 classes on the second day of school. The other main reason is they would have to take on the full cost of security, and because of university policy and their federal and state tax exempt status, they would have to offer the same opportunity to the other candidate so as not to show favor for either candidate.

    Actually, apparently UVa was willing to go ahead, but not far enough for the campaign.


    According to the UVA Communications Office earlier on Friday, they offered up John Paul Jones Arena, but were told it “was not academic enough” by the Obama for America campaign.

    The DNC officially crowned “the future Emperor” with him flanked by giant (fake) Roman columns. Does the campaign now think “the Emperor” requires large columns for a mere speech, that they want to appear “academic enough”?

    Comparison views: Ampitheatre, Harrison-Small Library, John Paul Jones Arena.

    (Insert comment about Freudian references, possible Jungian archetypes, their appearance in architecture, and Joe Biden’s promise that Obama has a big stick.)

  272. Blade says:

    To Anthony,

    SUGGESTION: Perhaps later on you might consider a series of crowd-sourced threads where the commenters are requested to submit comments containing collections of links and details concerning Mann’s various deceptions.

    There are some excellent outlines upthread with lots of references so I was thinking that if you launched some threads with focused purpose, moderating out the off-topic comments, the threads would serve as ad hoc friend-of-the-court briefs that Steyn and NRO could use in their research. It would help counter the free help that Mann will no doubt receive from Soros, UN agencies, and all the various taxpayer funded pseudo-scientists that have a vested interested in this AGW hoax.

    This thread has some good stuff but is very long already, and since the main topic is about the possible lawsuit there are many comments that fall outside of the narrow scope of crowd-source research. Commenters could simply refine the comments here and resubmit them to a targeted thread later.

    What do you think?

  273. Man Bearpig says:

    Just think …

    It was Mann’s hockey stick that brought AGW into the public’s mind in AG’s presentation. What would happen If they find out was all a fraud, I believe it would be the end of Mann’s hockey stick and his AGW. So Mann alone may just accomplish what we all have been trying to do all along.

    So my bet is he will run.

  274. Bart says:

    Phil Clarke says:
    August 24, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    “Thanks for the entertainment Bart!”

    I had a clever riposte, but then realized it’s stupid to be debating something stupid with someone too dense to understand a couple of paragraphs.

    Entropic man says:
    August 24, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    “In my Debating Society days I often knew we had won when our opponents started badmouthing us, rather than debating the motion, It showed that they had run out of valid arguments and the judges knew it.”

    By that standard, of course, the Warmist faction has been losing for many years.

    Reed Coray says:
    August 24, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    “The message would still be the same…”

    Excellent citation. It is appalling that so many want to obfuscate this simple truth away, knowing full well what they are doing. At long last, have they left no sense of decency?

  275. Graham says:

    I commented on his facebook page, I asked him why it wasn’t getting any warmer as his hockey stick graph clearly showed it should be warmer by now.

    In response he deleted my question and banned me from posting on his page again.

    Scientist my arse, he’s just there to push his broken dogma, no discussion accepted.

  276. Entropic man says:

    Yay! Mike Mann took the bait, intends to file lawsuit against Steyn and NRO

    Friday Funny: Hilarious Mann email, IPCC icon ‘pretty cool’

    Make your own Michael Mann hockey stick at home

    First look: ‘Hit on the head with a hockey stick’ – some selected emails from the recent NOAA FOIA release 2 years later.

    Best Michael Mann headline evah

    I admire the cold, objective, unemotional way in which WUWT reperts anything to do with Mr. Mann. /sarc

  277. Vince Causey says:

    Entropic man,

    “I admire the cold, objective, unemotional way in which WUWT reperts anything to do with Mr. Mann. /sarc”

    Sure you do, but if the same headlines had been directed at, say, Inhofe, you would be whooping with delight. C’est ne pas?

  278. stephen richards says:

    Vince Causey says:

    August 25, 2012 at 4:41 am
    Don’t show your stupidity further by trying to appear to write french. YOU FAILED.
    Should be n’est pas? ou Ce n’est pas ? The latter is not recognised by most french speakers to mean what I think you think it means.

    ENTROPIC MAN is an idiot but don’t encourage him with your silly mistakes.

  279. Kevin Schurig says:

    This really provides Steyn and NRO with a moral quandry. Do they mop up the floor with the like of Mann, or choose not to engage in warfare with a truly unarmed person? Mann doesn’t realize he just opened up Steyn’s and NRO’s cans of whoop ass. What a fool.

  280. Entropic man says:

    Vince Causey says:
    August 25, 2012 at 4:41 am
    Entropic man,

    “I admire the cold, objective, unemotional way in which WUWT reperts anything to do with Mr. Mann. /sarc”

    Sure you do, but if the same headlines had been directed at, say, Inhofe, you would be whooping with delight. C’est ne pas?
    —————————–
    Actually, no.
    The ridicule, ad homs, debating trickery and political lobby tactics used by the deniers and the alarmists makes it harder to winnow the scientific wheat from the chaff. I would much prefer a quiet debate about the science between the sceptics and the accepters ( my own way of thinking about those with an interest in the science, rather than a vested interest economic or political interest in the outcome.)
    But when in Rome… Having become a regular attender on WUWT I find myself playing by your rules, at least on the political threads.

  281. Bart says:

    stephen richards says:
    August 25, 2012 at 5:53 am

    “Should be n’est pas?”

    No. Should be “n’est-ce pas?”

  282. Gary Hladik says:

    Entropic man says (August 25, 2012 at 3:24 am): “I admire the cold, objective, unemotional way in which WUWT reperts anything to do with Mr. Mann. /sarc”

    Well, I admire the objective way WUWT deconstructs Michael Mann’s “scientific” work, and I very much enjoy the humorous way WUWT mocks his buffoonery. Unfortunately for Dr. Mann, of late his buffoonery has far outweighed his “science”, which was pretty sparse to begin with.

    REPLY: As Dr. Roger Pielke once wrote, “If Michael Mann didn’t exist, the skeptics would have to invent him!” When he stops bloviating, we’ll stop writing about him. In the meantime, please be as upset as you wish, and thanks for making WUWT your source of Mannian entertainment.- Anthony

  283. wobble says:

    sharper00 says:
    August 24, 2012 at 6:50 am

    You cannot use a libel suit as a basis to go on a fishing expedition looking for evidence your accusation is true.

    This is a very strange claim – especially given the fact that a judge has already granted such discovery to another party in a similar suit.

    The NRO publishes an article suggesting someone is a murderer. That person then sues for libel.

    Is the judge going to say “Well, are you a murderer?” and then permit the NRO to conduct a search of that person’s house and property in case there’s a dead body in there somewhere? Can they trawl through that person’s bank accounts and credit card statements looking for the purchase of a murder weapon?

    Actually, if the entire point of the article is claiming that a prosecutor deliberately whitewashed an investigation in order to avoid bringing murder charges, then a judge would ABSOLUTELY allow discovery regarding the whitewashed investigation.

    NRO’s entire article was about Penn State’s poor “investigation” techniques a la Jerry Sandusky. This requires a judge to allow discovery in regards to the methodology/thoroughness of the investigation itself – which means that a judge would allow discovery in-line with an investigation of academic fraud.

    Now, this would be different if someone was found not-guilty after an actual murder trial. A judge would rule the murder issue res judicata. But Michael Mann was hardly found not guilty in a court of law. That leaves him completely exposed to discovery.

    Again, your claims are strange.

  284. wobble says:

    sharper00 says:
    August 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    It’s not that complicated: Has Doctor Mann’s work been shown to be fraudulent either in the eyes of his peers or by any official investigation? The answer to this is simply no.

    A judge is extremely unlikely to look kindly on the argument “But his peers are also all frauds and all the investigations were rigged too!

    If the NRO article were claiming that some claims about reiki healing were fraudulent, then a judge would hardly be impressed with the fact that other reiki healers supported the claims.

  285. Merovign says:

    Just a side note: “Whoop Ass” is the energy drink line produced by Jones Soda Co.

    I keep a couple cans in my fridge in case I need to open one up on somebody.

  286. Ken says:

    RE: mpaul, August 24, 2012 at 8:18 am, says:

    A number of points are made there, all good, including suppression of R2 calculations (indicating Mann’s results weren’t as good as represented). While that could indicate “fraud” or other willful deception, it could also indicate error resulting from ignorance, etc. Recall, a number of credible authorities in suitable fields deemed Mann’s work reasonable.

    Thus, proving “fraud” will be very difficult–a much higher burden than merely proving his findings are incorrect, which is a very different thing.

    RE Dialin, Aug 24, 9:01 am

    “…it is Mann who has the burden to prove that NR[O] made a provably false statement with actual malice…”

    Wrong.

    Mann claims libel or slander and only has to prove so. NRO’s best defense is to prove it published a truth, namely that Mann committed “fraud” — truth is an absolute defense against accusation of libel/slander…but it is unclear if NRO can accomplish this.

    Proving Mann’s work was incorrect is not a defense as one can be honest, incorrect, and not commit “fraud.”

    Mann can easily argue his work as “wrong” or “incorrect’ or “flawed” or whatever and cite the fact that numerous credible experts agreed with its veracity. Having that caliber of experts making the same mistake indicates it was just a mistake.

    Also, the fact that sufficient information WAS provided to enable others to independently duplicate his work strongly supports the arguement that Mann did not endeavor to hide his technique, which practically, was impossible.

    I predict that what will likely happen is that Mann prevails, which will undermine any thinking by those duped by his work/reputation — ultimately a negative overall effect.

    The LESSON HERE illustrated by NRO is the stupidity of making character & ad hominem attacks–which is what the assertion of “fraud” is–which takes the debate off the science/math/etc. And personal attacks & name-calling only serve to more or less instantly induce those on a given side of a debate to more vigorously defend their existing position, often in defiance of any new factual information that may arise.

    Had NRO substituted a word or words saying the work was “incorrect” or “proven wrong” or “shown to be statistically invalid” the debate would stay where it needs to be. On the analysis, not the analyst.

    Whatever else, NRO’s approach on this was reckless and much less productive than it could have been.

  287. rogerknights says:

    Elizabeth says:
    August 24, 2012 at 10:57 pm
    Looks like Mann may have to sue another newspaper
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_climategate_and_jerry_sandusky_scandals_a_common_thread.html

    Thanks for the link–that fleshes out the story.

  288. dialn says:

    Ken,

    I am not sure it is worth my time debating you as you seem ignorant of basic libel legal concepts and unwilling to learn. Mann is a public figure or, at a minimum, a limited use public figure. I am sure you accept this premise as uncontroversial. As a result, Mann has to prove that NR made a provably false statement with actual malice. This is settled law. Please do some reading before responding.

  289. bushbunny says:

    Elizabeth on 24 Aug at 10.57 – My goodness who would go to Penn Uni, eh? Thanks for the link.

  290. bushbunny says:

    dailn at 27 Aug. fraud or mistake? Different. To me promoting a scientifically based concept knowingly false is fraud. If he made an incorrect assessment then he could correct it or agree with his peers that his hypothesis was conjecture, or re do it? Just to stand and defend a faulty hypothesis seems to admit he believes it to be true in the face of others disagreement. And he don’t like ‘em telling him so. Just like if you were paid XXX amount of dollars or pounds to do a report for a government or whatever, and it turns out to be incorrect, wouldn’t your employers expect you to correct it or give back their money?

  291. bushbunny says:

    This debacle with Mann is all about money? How much was he paid to write the tree ring theory?
    If it is shoddily done or he was corrupting the data to suit the hypothesis. Either way it was worth the money he was paid, and now he has to justify it, by claiming libel and defamation. But – by now people are remembering and looking and agreeing, he made a dreadful mistake.

  292. philjourdan says:

    @dialn says: August 27, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    Mann has to prove not only that it is proveably false, but that NRO also knew it was proveably false. The last part is the killer. You can make statements about public figures, but proving what was in the mind of the statement maker is much tougher. The libel laws in the US are very hard to prove because of the principle of Freedom of Speech. While other countries pay lip service to that freedom, in reality, only America has enshrined it in law and it is inviolate.

    If Mann had sued in another country like England, he would have a better case. But since no other country has jurisdiction, his goose is cooked.

  293. Keith Sketchley says:

    BTW, what is the status of climate alarmist lawsuits against Tim Ball and the National post? I need a program to even figure out who is suing Tim Ball which month. (Donations for Ball solicited at http://drtimball.com/donate/.)
    As Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver are apparently using the same lawyer, and Ball may be using the same law firm for all his defenses, perhaps they’ll all get economy of scale and time. The article Is Dr. Michael Mann Canuckophobic? at http://blog.xanthippas.com/2012/07/25/is-dr-michael-mann-canuckophobic/?wref=tp suggests George Soros and some activist organizations are funding Mann’s lawsuits. (I dunno why so many lawsuits against people in Canada – many people in the US have spoken very strongly against Mann.

    Given that a scummy cartoonist who depicted a premier of BC picking wings off of flies was acquitted years ago, Ball should be homefree. But it depends on the particular judge or jury I suppose, societal trends do influence some judges and many jurists.

    BTW, in the comments to Simberg’s article one “Gabriel Hanna” accuses Climate Audit of altering Mann’s 1998 paper in Nature.

  294. Keith Sketchley says:

    Trying to summarize the lawsuit scene:
    TIM BALL:
    Andrew Weaver sued Ball in early 2011 over something published on the Canada Free Press website, here’s something on that: http://www.desmogblog.com/canadafreepress-apology-weaver (the web site caved).

    Michael Mann sued Ball for statements in an interview of him published on the Frontier Centre for Public Policy website, which publishes on climate, agriculture, tribal matters, and rights for the prairie provinces of Canada. That’s the “State Pen, not Penn State” remark. An Andrew A. Skolnick has made two affidavits to the court regarding qualifications of someone named John O’Sullivan who apparently co-authored a book with Ball and does some legal work though he may not be a full lawyer. Skolnick appears to have investigated O’Sullivan’s educational qualifications and licensing, and Internet activities of he and other names he believes O’Sullivan uses. (Skolnick’s affidavits are to help the plaintiff.) The “John Doe” in this lawsuit is somehow connected to FCPP, judging by Mann’s claim, so probably is not O’Sullivan – but I don’t understand how O’Sullivan is so relevance to this lawsuit that Skolnick made affidavits.
    Ball sued a Dan Johnson and others over Johnson’s response to an article Ball had published in the Calgary Herald in 2006.
    (Ball says Johnson attacked his credentials rather than try to address the issues raised by Balls’ article. There seems to be much confusion over Ball’s credentials, if you believe desmogblog claims but give Ball the benefit of doubt you’ll think that Ball or editors have been sloppy in describing them. Ball was probably studying climate before Weaver knew the word, starting with researching HBC post weather records, back then it was a specialty in “Geography”, which alarmists like to claim is not climatology. (Not the only subject in which they’ve tried to narrow definitions to claim they are the only experts. Weaver tried that in a letter to the JanFeb2010 issue issue of the professional engineer’s magazine Innovation (www.apeg.bc.ca, “consensus” is a regular attempt. Neo-Marxists, post-modernists and their ilk do like to think that words define reality, they reject concepts.)

  295. Keith Sketchley says:

    NATIONAL POST:
    Weaver sued the National Post and some of its columnists, in April 2010, the concept of poisoning the Internet was thrown about in that case.

    The suit names Financial Post Editor Terence Corcoran, columnist Peter Foster, reporter Kevin Libin and National Post publisher Gordon Fisher, as well as several still-unidentified editors and copy editors. It seeks general, aggravated damages, special and exemplary damages and legal costs in relation to articles by Foster on December 9, 2009 (“Weaver’s Web”), Corcoran on December 10, 2009 (“Weaver’s Web II”) and January 27, 2010 (“Climate Agency going up in flames”), and Libin on February 2, 2010 (“So much for pure science”).
    The NP is probably no stranger to lawsuits. Terrance Corcoran and Peter Foster seem to do their research before writing something, and have much better thinking ability than other NP/FP writers (who aren’t bad by MSM standards, just not of the calibre of those two). I don’t know of the other defendants, sounds like Weaver named many NP staff including copy editors (probably as John Does). Corcoran dug extensively into the leaked CRU emails.
    I doubt either Ball or the NP used the language of Mark Steyn, though they were blunt, but laws may differ between the two countries.

    (Jeremy Poynton says Mann had two lawsuits in progress already, before the NRO and any related lawsuits, but they are stalled due Mann’s refusal to produce documents. Seems to me people should support the defence in those two to ensure the first to proceed gets rebuffed, noting that Mann against Ball seems to be the same subject as the fraud part of Mann against Steyn.)

  296. Smokey says:

    Keith Sketchley,

    Here is a follow-up to the attack on Dr. Tim Ball’s credentials:

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover020707.htm

Comments are closed.