Mann has filed suit against NRO (now the laughing begins)

This just in. Here’s a potential bombshell for the Mann:

Mann’s hockey stick disappears – and CRU’s Briffa helps make the MWP live again by pointing out bias in the data

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

Popcorn futures* continue their unprecedented climb:

UPDATE: Sunday 10/28 Mark Steyn writes an uproariously funny but at the same time stinging evisceration of Dr. Mann on his private website titled The fraudulent Nobel Laureate

This part says it all, I’d make it “Quote of the Week”, but then I don’t want to fragment this thread:

When a man sues for damage to his reputation and grossly inflates that reputation in the very court filings, that says something about his credibility.

He also links to this thoughtful essay by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

Mann’s embellishment has placed him in a situation where his claims are being countered by the Nobel organization itself.

*There are no popcorn futures markets, the graph is based on a corn future market graph, just for fun

Read Steyn’s latest here: The fraudulent Nobel Laureate

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

Mark Steyn takes note of the airbrushing going on in Mike’s Nobel Trick:

A week ago, Michael Mann accused us of damaging his reputation – and seems to have made it a self-fulfilling prophecy. A week ago, he was a “Nobel prize recipient”. Now he’s not. Great work, Mike!

Dr. Judith Curry sends some advice in her week in review:

“JC message to Michael Mann: Mark Steyn is [a] formidable opponent. I suspect that this is not going to turn out well for you.”

Read more at JudithCurry.com

————————————————————–

FLASH: 10/26 7:30AM The Nobel committee responds to Mann’s “certificate”, says he can’t claim he won it (the Nobel prize itself).

See below. – ALSO National Review makes phone call to Nobel committee, audio and transcript below.

NOTE: This is a top sticky post for awhile since the interest is high. New stories appear below this one.   UPDATE - legal complaint added, plus a new opinion piece by Chris Horner regarding claims of exoneration has been added – see below the “continue reading” line. UPDATE2: Steyn responds, see below.

UPDATE 3: Steyn responds even further, saying:

“Over the years, I’ve been sued and threatened with suits in various countries around the world but I’ve never before seen a plaintiff make such a transparently false assertion right up front in the biographical resumé.”

Details (and a photo to back up Steyn) below.

UPDATE4: CEI officially responds to the lawsuit, and Steyn mocks Mann even more with a priceless zinger, see below.

In related news, popcorn futures explode go nuclear.

More details to follow.

From Michael Mann’s Facebook page.

Lawsuit filed against The National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute 10/22/12

Today, the case of Dr. Michael E. Mann vs. The National Review and The Competitive Enterprise Institute was filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Dr. Mann, a Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, has instituted this lawsuit against the two organizations, along with two of their authors, based upon their false and defamatory statements accusing him of academic fraud and comparing him to a convicted child molester, Jerry Sandusky. Dr. Mann is being represented by John B. Williams of the law firm of Cozen O’Connor in Washington, D.C. (http://www.cozen.com/attorney_detail.asp?d=1&atid=1406).

Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”

Nevertheless, the defendants assert that global warming is a “hoax,” and have accused Dr. Mann of improperly manipulating the data to reach his conclusions.

In response to these types of accusations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation and seven other organizations have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann’s work, finding any and all allegations of academic fraud to be baseless. Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.

Despite their knowledge of the results of these many investigations, the defendants have nevertheless accused Dr. Mann of academic fraud and have maliciously attacked his personal reputation with the knowingly false comparison to a child molester. The conduct of the defendants is outrageous, and Dr. Mann will be seeking judgment for both compensatory and punitive damages.

Journalists interested in further information regarding the filing of this lawsuit may contact Dr. Mann’s attorney at 202-912-4848, or jbwilliams@cozen.com.

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

I’m sure Mark Steyn is thrilled with the prospect of now being able to do additional commentary on this side show.  I can’t wait for depositions and discovery.

UPDATES:

Here is the legal complaint: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf

Chris Horner has this opinion piece now which explains his opinion on why Dr. Michael Mann was never fully investigated and thus never exonerated.

Mark Steyn responds with: I’ll have more to say about this when I’ve stopped laughing.

Mark Steyn writes in a further update:

Actually, it’s worse than that. I’ve just read the official indictment or whatever you call it against NR, and he makes the claim that he has been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” in the complaint itself (page 2, paragraph 2).

Over the years, I’ve been sued and threatened with suits in various countries around the world but I’ve never before seen a plaintiff make such a transparently false assertion right up front in the biographical resumé.

And I’ve got the photo of Dr. Mann’s award (shown from his office window) to back up what Steyn says here.

Note it says “for contributing to” not awarded to.

Be careful, don’t choke on your popcorn while laughing.

UPDATE4: 

CEI has released it’s official statement on the lawsuit on their website here: http://cei.org/news-releases/climate-scientist-sues-cei

The say:

One of our attorneys, Bruce D. Brown of Baker Hostetler, expertly laid out the legal arguments against Mann’s defamation claim. In short, Dr. Mann is a public figure, and under libel law he would need to meet an exceedingly high standard to prevail. Given the support that Simberg’s criticisms rest on, that standard simply can’t be met. As for Simberg’s Sandusky metaphor, it was purely that—a metaphor.

They are also inviting readers to comment  on the CEI Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/CompetitiveEnterpriseInstitute/posts/428205930566869

Meanwhile, Mark Steyn whips out an example of his rapier wit over Mann’s “Nobel Prize” claims (see photo above) writing:

On the one hand, Michael Mann’s own web page:

He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.

On the other, the Nobel committee:

Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize.

So we’re being sued for loss of reputation by a fake Nobel laureate. Hilarious.

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

FLASH The Nobel committee responds to Mann’s “certificate” From Tom Richard at Climate Change Dispatch and at The Examiner

I contacted the The Norwegian Nobel Institute to find out if Mann was indeed a Nobel Laureate, winner, etc…

…snip…

Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, or The Norwegian Nobel Institute emailed me back with the following:

1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.
3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.

(NOTE: on point 3, another example here (PDF) suggests that the IPCC added that text, not Mann – Anthony)

Lundestad goes on to say that, “Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not.”

Full story at Climate Change Dispatch and at The Examiner

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

ALSO: From NRO’s “The Corner” a call to the Nobel committee by Charles C. W. Cooke:

TRANSCRIPT

Cooke: Hello there, do you speak English?
Nobel Committee: Yes, can I help you?
Cooke: I’m a writer. I’m wondering if I could ask you about previous winners of the Nobel Peace Prize?
Nobel Committee: Oh, could you speak a little bit louder. It’s difficult for me to hear.
Cooke: Sorry. I’m trying to look for some information about previous winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Nobel Committee: Which one?
Cooke: I was wondering, has Dr. Michael Mann ever won the Nobel Peace Prize?
Nobel Committee: No, no. He has never won the Nobel prize.
Cooke: He’s never won it?
Nobel Committee: No.
Cooke: Oh, it says on his-
Nobel Committee: The organization won it. It’s not a personal prize to people belonging to an organization.
Cooke: Okay. So if I were to write that he’d won it, that would be incorrect?
Nobel Committee: That is incorrect, yes. Is it you that sent me an email today? I got an e-mail from our Stockholm office regarding Michael Mann.
Cooke: Oh. No, I didn’t send you an e-mail.
Nobel Committee: Oh. So what’s your name?
Cooke: My name is Charles Cooke.
Nobel Committee: And you work for?
Cooke: I write for National Review.
Nobel Committee: Okay, because I’ve got something from Boston and NY Mental Examiner that asked about the same thing.
Cooke: Oh, okay. Well maybe this is a big question. Okay, but he hasn’t won it. That is the answer.
Nobel Committee: No, he has not won it at all.
Cooke: Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much.
Nobel Committee: Thank you. You’re welcome. Bye bye.

937 thoughts on “Mann has filed suit against NRO (now the laughing begins)

  1. I wonder if the good Dr. Mann judge shopped before filing. I can’t imagine him wanting discovery to be allowed, or is he so arrogant that he hasn’t thought of this?

  2. They are becoming increasingly desperate Anthony. Keep up the good work. We are winning the war. No mention of climate change at any of the presidential debate, and nothing more than a passing mention for the entire campaign. Climate change is no longer on the radar of rational, educated people.

  3. As I wrote on Twitter, I fully expect Mann to stand up in court one day and shout “La Science, c’est Moi!”, just like the Sun King Louis 14th said of France.

    Only thing, this time it’s a King of Darkness.

  4. This is quite a statement (from Mann’s facebook page): Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.

  5. “….along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize…”.

    Laugh? I almost emitted CO2.

  6. “I wonder if the good Dr. Mann judge shopped before filing. I can’t imagine him wanting discovery to be allowed, or is he so arrogant that he hasn’t thought of this.”

    I’m not an attorney, but my understanding of the U.S. legal system (gained through long, bloody experience) is that both parties are entitled to conduct discovery proceedings before a case goes to trial. I don’t think that any judge can waive that.

  7. One can always withdraw a lawsuit. There’s penalties but if you’re out to splash around the pool for a bit before the lifequards show up, it’s not a bad tactic.

  8. The defense merely needs to depose Steve McIntyre and, following that, to examine the contents of Michael Mann’s ‘Back to 1400 CENSORED’ directory. The judge would find grounds to issue a summary dismissal of Mann’s case.

  9. Wow,
    so close to the anniversary of Climategate. talk about tempting fate and daring the man with the key to unlock more secrets

  10. I’m going to need my own green house to grow pop corn during winter, I fully expect a shortage otherwise.

  11. “In response to these types of accusations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation and seven other organizations have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann’s work, finding any and all allegations of academic fraud to be baseless.”

    I’m sure said organisations are thrilled at the prospect of giving evidence under oath regarding the conduct of said investigations….

    Wonder of Jones, Bradley et al will be called as witnesses. Could get bloody this.

    But why should Mann care, not like he’s paying for it.

  12. ” Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented. ”

    What planet do they live on? it have I missed something… Has there been any serious attempt at replication? Is such an attempt even possible? And have the gang not tried to shut down every such attempt?

  13. I can’t believe an otherwise reputable firm like Cozen O’Connor would file this suit. Mann is going to lose rather badly on First Amendment grounds after being dragged through the mud in discovery. This should be fun.

  14. The immense side-benefit is that this action will shine a bright light on the failure of peer [pal] review in this dark little corner of “science”.

    Mann and The Team have skated along far too easily by avoiding/ignoring truly independent review and replication.

    Science is a bitch when she bites the bad boys.

  15. or is he so arrogant that he hasn’t thought of this

    Oh, he’s thought of it, and likely thinks he’s bulletproof.

    I see it. Every. Day. People who believe their own bullshit are dangerous. Fortunately, mostly to themselves. Mods may edit as they see fit.

  16. LongCat says: “I can’t believe an otherwise reputable firm like Cozen O’Connor would file this suit. Mann is going to lose rather badly on First Amendment grounds after being dragged through the mud in discovery. This should be fun.”

    From the Free Dictionary: coz·en (kzn) v. coz·ened, coz·en·ing, coz·ens v.tr.
    1. To mislead by means of a petty trick or fraud; deceive.
    2. To persuade or induce to do something by cajoling or wheedling.
    3. To obtain by deceit or persuasion.
    v.intr.
    To act deceitfully.
    [Perhaps from Middle English cosin, fraud, trickery.]

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cozen

  17. I have no idea what his damage model could be. He’s not suffered any financial harm from these statements.

  18. It’s probably not a view shared by many people on the climate realist side, but I consider such people to be real assets in our struggle. The number of ordinary people they can totally alienate with their wild claims is extraordinary, not to mention the rather guilty pleasure I take in watching their own supporter’s sharp intake of breath, every time one of them gets anywhere near a public podium. You can nearly read their thoughts – “Oh God, what are they going to say now.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/climate-alarmism-and-the-prat-principle/

    I think of them as liabilities best left in place, to wreak the damage, which both their egos and personalities will inevitably compel them to do.

    Pointman

  19. One of the primary things that will come out is the NSF sweetheart deals with colleges and universities relating to the colleges of ed and promoting the behavioral sciences division over the natural sciences. I personally have a hard copy of a January 2009 NSF conference in DC where the arrogant PI is bragging about how hard it is to raise money for a biology lab but if a biologist or chemist will opine of how to best teach science and push inquiry instead of lecturing, they can get $500,000 easily.

    Add on to that the Math and Science Partnerships to these universities with their colleges of ed and engineering to same effect. Tens of millions not to teach science and math properly. And saying so.

    And then having NSF the co-manager of the Belmont Challenge and openly saying you are using the social sciences and control over education to change beliefs about climate change whatever the temps and Mann thinks this can be a defense? Instead it will end up exposing the cozy Corporatist relationship that has been going on among govt politicians and bureaucrats, higher ed, and Big Business over Climate Change.

    And Steyn’s skewering humor to boot with so many bad facts.

  20. So the same guy who composed the soundtracks for the Star Wars movies files lame-a** lawsuits in his off hours? That’s a broad range of skills. /sarc

  21. Do lawyers get paid if they win or lose? cause he could really do with independent advice from someone that doesn’t have millions of pounds of financial bias involved.

  22. ”….he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”…”
    Well that’s sort of correct. Since his efforts came to light, more and more people have discovered the truth about global warming and now believe that our CO₂ emissions have bugger all to do with it.

  23. @Steven Mosher
    Hey you’re right – it is close to the Climategate anniversary! Maybe this will be a new holiday tradition for their religion. Kind of like Good Friday self-flagellation! XD

  24. He’s a fool. At best he’ll nominally win after a lot of damaging evidence against him (I’d like to see Wegman take the stand :) ). At worst this will be dismissed and the publicity will further erode belief in AGW.

    This isn’t about Mann and some journalists. The hockey stick itself is on trial. Should be fun…

  25. “…NSF sweetheart deals …”
    A very good point. People endlessly quote the “military-industrial complex” phrase from Eisenhower’s farewell address – and rightly so. Not nearly enough attention has been focused on his warning about the corruptions inherent in government funded science.

  26. astateofdenmark: But why should Mann care, not like he’s paying for it.

    Not sure I follow you here. Litigation is not free. And Steyn’s going to need $ to defend the case.

  27. I still find myself surprised at myself for continuing to be surprised at the chutzpah of this man.
    I wonder if Mr Mann will be paying for his no doubt expensive legal team out of his own pocket or will he just ask to dip into the ‘climate legal defense fund’ which appears to me as though it could have been set up just for him.

    I’m also surprised at the lawyers for even touching this. If I recall the hoo ha at the time Mann may have said on a number of occasions that he was accused of “academic fraud” however anyone with an average grasp of the English language could read that it was the hockey stick graph which was accused of being fraudulent for being a false representation of the past temperature record with no mention of academia.

    it will be interesting to see this dragged through a court and I hope that the defenders, whom I suspect were expecting and quite prepared for this make the most of the opportunity to expose in court the actuality of all of these inquiries and replications that are alleged to have taken place because I’m sure they can be found wanting.

    This case I believe, does not have a leg to stand on but if it can get far enough then it can put a final stake in the reputation of Mann, a reputation that’s not particularly well thought-of on both sides of the climate debate. Apart from of course, the usual few suspects whose academic reputations are also inexorably bound to similar shoddy science or voodoo.

  28. The legal system is far from perfect esp with regards to litigation.

    So, to play the devil’s advocate, I’m wondering how might Mann win this case if it goes to trial?

    Would it be a trial by jury?

  29. I read a review today in the Wall Street Journal of a book about Velikovsky and Lysenkoism and how hard scientists worked to debunk that nonsense and educate the public. I immediately thought of Michael Mann when reading that review, but the difference is now it’s the scientific mainstream defending the junk science.

    In the old Soviet Union, science was often co-opted and subverted to match the goals of the state. The USSR may be gone, but it still lives on today!

  30. I would have a problem with the double entendre of an attorney firm called ‘cozen.’ The law is an ass that lawyers ride to work.

  31. @Ryan, on one level it would be a standard libel/slander action – Mann has been accused of immoral or illegal acts. On a different level, it’s more severe: a person who is known or believed to have falsified data will have a harder time getting funding (in a rational world, anyway.)

  32. This is awesome. Idiot Mann et al must be daft. The only thing I can figure is that Mann et al must have a favorable judge. The fool and his money shall soon be parted, hopefully in a grand fashion.

  33. I’m one of those non-scientists who tries to follow this issue here, and elsewhere in the media. However, I find myself at a loss when actually trying to critique say Mann’s work. I don’t feel comfortable criticizing his alleged misuse of principal components analysis or the fact that MacIntyre apparently replicated his model and found that it produces hockeystick predictions from any dataset. They seem to have incredibly aggressive and complex defenses against all that.

    However, a trial is a different thing. It’s governed by the rules of evidence and arguments must have some logical and/or factual bases to be presented. Much like the Dover trial for creationists, when pressed to actually prove their case, with a judge who actually did his job (and was a conservative christian – but kept his personal views out of it), the result was that they have no case at all. I wonder, in a court setting, will the critiques of Mann stand up to evidence? Most people don’t really understand how courts work, but they can be the best place to actually find facts. I think if this effort is undertaken properly, it could be a great moment for those of us who want to base govt policies on sensible, evidence based assessments of the risks we face.

  34. Plus there is a national network funded by NSF that goes by the name Centers for Learning and Teaching that was designed to be Ground Zero in the math and science wars. Which also relates directly to AGW as well as diversifying the STEM workforce no matter what has to be changed.

    Penn State is a partner in the MAC-MTL, the Mid-Atlantic Center for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, that was first established in 2000.

  35. He just does not know when to quit! I guess he is going to find out that the climate does not revolve around him.

  36. ———-Journalists interested in further information regarding the filing of this lawsuit may contact Dr. Mann’s attorney at 202-912-4848, or jbwilliams@cozen.com.———–

    Anyone with some sort of journalist credentials should certain take up the offer. His bill will grow with each request.

  37. National Review, et al. doesn’t need a “good judge.” Assuming this is filed in U.S federal court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow, actually require, wide-ranging
    discovery practice in the pretrial period. The judge is only involved if someone objects to certain discovery requests (they are called requests but are really demands). The statements of Mann on Facebook today and previous statements will be subject to FRCP’s discovery rules which are decidedly liberal. In addition, deadlines apply.

    I agree with Rich Lowry: bring it on.

    Even if it is brought in state court, most of the states’ discovery rules are based on the FRCP.

    Thus will be really a fun circus.

  38. Mann is indeed seeking funds for his lawsuit from the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund . Here is the pitch on their website:

    The Blog

    Support Mike Mann’s Legal Defense

    The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund continues to receive donations and offers of help from various stakeholders. We are actively working with several organizations in order to make CSLDF a one-stop resource for scientists looking for legal resources and we are currently pursuing several educational and legal initiatives which will be made public in the future.

    In the short-term, CSLDF would greatly appreciate your financial support to help Dr. Michael Mann. Funds are needed to:
    1.Fend-off ATI’s demand to take Dr. Mann’s deposition, which is a blatant attempt to harass and intimidate him for exercising his constitutional rights by petitioning to intervene in the case.
    2.Defeat ATI’s attempt to obtain Dr. Mann’s email correspondence through the civil discovery process, which essentially is an “end-run” around the scholarly research exemption under the Virginia FOIA law.
    3.Prepare for summary judgment on the issue of the exempt status of his email correspondence under the Virginia FOIA law.

    Donations can be sent to CSLDF online or by sending a check made out to PEER, with Climate Science LDF on the memo line to:

    Climate Science Legal Defense Fund
    c/o PEER 2000 P Street, NW #240
    Washington, D.C. 20036

  39. As a fellow partial Nobel peace prize recipient (as a citizen of the EU) I cannot wait for the discovery to begin.

  40. Remember, Mann is potentially accelerating his self-destruction on two fronts: he claims harm from folks saying his science is no good, thus invites hard scrutiny of his science; and he claims he is as clean as the wind-driven snow while asserting skeptic scientists are crooks, thus he invites hard scrutiny of the accusation he tosses out. I don’t know beans about AGW science, but I do know the accusation he relies on has more problems than you can shake a hockey stick at.

  41. Here is the supposedly actionable post:
    Football and Hockey
    By Mark Steyn
    July 15, 2012 6:22 P.M.
    Comments
    147

    “In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal:

    ‘I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.’

    Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.

    If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.”

    In my view, the intent of the column is to show that Penn State is involved in cover ups and does not hold its “star names” accountable, and that Penn State held an inadequate investigation of Michael Mann.

    (Michael Mann brings grants to the institution, doesn’t he?)

  42. “Steyn’s going to need $ to defend the case.”

    Anthony, set up a tip jar. I’ll gladly donate!

  43. “…and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.:
    What replications might those be? Did someone run the same models?
    I read it here that noise input into those models generates a hockey stick.
    Was the replicated as well?

  44. Glenn says:

    @Ryan, on one level it would be a standard libel/slander action – Mann has been accused of immoral or illegal acts. On a different level, it’s more severe: a person who is known or believed to have falsified data will have a harder time getting funding (in a rational world, anyway.)

    The sad part is, he is probably most angry not at the accusation that he is has acted immorally or illegally, but at the implication that he was incompetent at it.

  45. It was stated on Mann’s “Facebook Page” that ….
    In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”

    However the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will makes it clear that only a single person may qualify for the award, and sets out clear stipulations as to who ought to receive the so called “Peace Prize”,
    as it has now been dubbed by various organisations.

    From the original last will and testament of Alfred Nobel :
    “and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

    How Nobel’s statement can be contorted to include the definition quoted by Mann is frankly inexplicable, and how the Nobel Prize committee could decide that to make awards to multiple recipients, was compliant with the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will is baffling and bewildering.

  46. “This is quite a statement (from Mann’s facebook page): Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.”

    Does that include feeding noise into his “analysis” and getting the same curve? Or was that someone else’s “work”?

  47. I would have thought that in pursuing a lawsuit one should not open oneself up to the accusation of exaggeration. The following statement might be so construed:-

    In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”

  48. I wonder if the people funding the “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund” realize their identities will be subject to discovery?

  49. Wow! Maybe NRO’s lawyers will allow us to crowdsource review of the documents from discovery? That would be a fantastic Christmas present.

  50. Mann-made global warming to be decided by lawyers. The lawyers are so clueless that they haven’t the foggiest idea of what’s going to hit them.

    Perhaps we should have pitty on them and give them advance warning? Everybody send an email to Mt Williams telling him: you are going to lose that case.

  51. Although he doesn’t need it, Mark Steyn will indeed have a motherload of material to mine in the future.

  52. As I recall, Mann has filed another libel lawsuit which is currently going nowhere because he’s dragging his heels responding to discovery demands. I suspect this one, too, will drag on until it’s dismissed for his nonresponse in discovery. Anybody have a handy link to the other lawsuit?

  53. ” LongCat says:
    October 23, 2012 at 9:59 am

    I can’t believe an otherwise reputable firm like Cozen O’Connor would file this suit. Mann is going to lose rather badly on First Amendment grounds after being dragged through the mud in discovery. This should be fun.”

    ———————————————————–

    Of course they would take the case. Cozen O’Connor gets paid by the hour. And probably very handsomely. Nothing requires that your client be in the right if they want to file a lawsuit. Just that they have money and a willingness to throw it at an attorney.

  54. I think the judge is going to tell the defendant to defend himself with facts at hand at the time of the alleged offense and disallow a witch hunt for evidence to support his claim. There will be no discovery and none needed because what is needed for the defense is presumably already known.

    Mann is going to win this one if the existing evidence is not compelling proof of fraud.

  55. @ An Opinion says: October 23, 2012 at 10:54 am

    Given the recent recipients, I would say it is not even a prize any longer. Arafat? Carter? Obama? The EU?

  56. The DC filing is not just “judge shopping”, in the most liberal court system of the country….it is also “jury shopping” for the largest pool of federally funded “peers” to judge the limits of free speech. Any dillusions of Mann made warming are removed in “The Hockey Stick of Illusion” by A W Montford. Ask Tricky Dick….stating loudly….”I am NOT a crook”….does not remove criminal behavior. Ask Slick Willy….stating loudly….”I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman”….does not remove DNA evidence. Ask Dirty Sandusky….stating loudly….”All those little boys are lying”….won’t keep you out of the grey bar hotel. Little Mikey has awakened the fearless FOI-STEYN ! ! !

  57. Mark Steyn forced the Canadian establishment to change all its whole hate speech legal framework. Mann is nuts taking him and all the worlds pro bono amateur scientists.
    Steyn could get a dataset from discovery, crowd source it, and have a detailed analysis in 24 hours.

  58. If I’m not mistaken, finding a person guilty of libel against a public figure is far more difficult to accomplish than it would be against a private person. Mann has done nothing other than promote himself for years and due to his large number of followers on Twitter and Facebook, he is now a public figure. I for one am going to enjoy watching this play out… while simultaneously enjoying watching his case against Tim Ball play out in Canada. I hope the warmists keep squandering their money on unwinnable causes.

    I think I’m going to buy a case of floss in anticipation of a massive rise in my popcorn consumption… I’m sure that over the coming months I’ll get lots of those pesky kernals caught between my teeth.

  59. I fell a limerick series coming on :)

    The Mann with the Nobel surprise
    Has his fingers in too many pies
    He’s now set up to fall
    In his case v Tim Ball
    When discovery brings out the lies

  60. dp says:
    October 23, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    —————————————————–

    With this post you prove how little you know about law, libel and accusations of fraud. If you think a judge is going to prevent NR and Steyn from vigorously defending themselves, you are delusional.

  61. dp:

    “I think the judge is going to tell the defendant to defend himself with facts at hand at the time of the alleged offense and disallow a witch hunt for evidence to support his claim. There will be no discovery and none needed because what is needed for the defense is presumably already known.”

    This suggests that you must already have adequate support “in hand” if you allege fraud. You can’t go looking for the support afterward in order to shore up an allegation for which you lacked sufficient basis. dp, is this the gist of it?

    If this then is the situation wrt to defense from this suit, do the readers here believe that there is sufficient support for the allegation of fraud already at hand?

  62. In the USA, the truth is an absolute defense against libel, so if the defendants can prove that what they say is true, then there is no case. Mann says he will seek compensatory damages. To be successful he will need to show how he has been financially harmed as a result of the published material that is found to be false.

    It does not seem that half of what the FB page says would be actionable. The defendants are accused of claiming that global warming is a hoax. That’s just an expression of opinion. The part that would be is claiming that he “improperly manipulated the data.” To me, “improper” implies a value judgement. So the case, if it goes to trial, would, if the FB page is accurate, revolve around what manipulations are proper, and what are improper.

    He’s probably looking for a settlement anyway.

  63. “and every replication of Mann’s work”

    yep, ya gets a hockey stick every time, no matter what data you use.

  64. He blocked me over a month ago for merely stating “gee….I can’t wait for discovery”. Guess I hurt his feelings. Do I get a lawsuit filed against me too???? COWARD…….. HOAXSTER…..DISCOVERY……DISCOVERY…….DISCOVERY……..DISCOVERY…….DISCOVERY…………

  65. Dear Dr. Mann,

    Regarding your stated position that discovery does not apply to you, we refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram…

  66. I would hope that both the NRO and the CEI file counterclaims very quickly. This would then force the case to continue even if Dr. Mann should want to withdraw. With careful thought they could cover all of the discovery needs that should be brought forward in Dr. Mann’s suit.

    Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer or a US citizen, but have followed some interesting civil cases in the US, particularly the SCO/Linux situation of a few years back, and make my statement based on what I learned from that.

  67. What if the National Inquirer purposely used inflamitory language to get Mann to file a law suit? Did he take the bait? The best way for him to get off the hook is to work for an out of court settlement. His Probability of his winning a civil jury trial is extremely low. Often the loser is required to pay the other’s attorney fees which can be considerable. The attorneys are nearly always financial winners.

  68. Firms like Cozen O’Conner charge big bucks. After the first round of discovery and a couple of depositions the tab will probably be north of $100,000 and climbing.

  69. Taking on Mark Steyn and Rich Lowry together?

    He has some balls to go with his hockey stick but I fear the Mann will score an own goal and be pucked.

  70. Bob Rogers wrote: “In the USA, the truth is an absolute defense against libel, so if the defendants can prove that what they say is true, then there is no case.”

    They don’t even have to prove what they said was definitively true. All they have to show is that it is arguably true.

    Steyn did not accuse Mann of academic fraud. He said that Mann was the person behind the fraudulent climate change hockey-stick graph. He could have meant that it was being used fraudulently but not conceived in a fraudulent manner. And he has abundant evidence that proves its current use is fraudulent, the flat-lining of temperatures since MBH 98 being most prominent in that regard. The hockey stick is slowly proving itself to be a fraud in the sense that it’s predictive power is now shown to be lacking.

    Steyn may believe that Mann actually believed in the truth of his graph when he composed it. I think he’s saying that the fraud occurred after publication with the widespread use of it when evidence was accruing that it was not accurate. It’s clear now that it is fraudulent because it is still being used to frighten people, but that was not clear in the beginning.

  71. MM is a public figure and will have to prove “actual malice” in the defamatory speech. “Actual malice” means that the statement was made by someone who knew it wasn’t true, or didn’t care whether it was true or not. MM has been meticulously debunked by McIntyre, Wegman and others, and reliance upon these sources in speaking ill of the MM should defuse any claim of willful malice. The comparison to Sandusky, while hyperbolic, was made in the context of opinion, namely that PSU was completely incapable of policing the misconduct of its faculty. MM was not even the subject matter of this speech, PSU was, and the argument by analogy is almost certainly protected speech.

  72. DocMartyn says:
    October 23, 2012 at 12:37 pm
    Steyn could get a dataset from discovery, crowd source it, and have a detailed analysis in 24 hours.
    =============================================================
    More like about 4 hours !!

  73. MM is suing STYNE for an INDIRECT QUOTE that he used from someone else. HELP ME HELP ME HELP ME…I’m giddy. Can you IMAGINE what “Judge Judy” would do with this one?

  74. @gofer says: October 23, 2012 at 9:39 am
    Under what category of lawsuit is getting your “feelings” hurt?
    —————————————————————————–

    Section 5 in the UK.

  75. Mann posted this on his Facebook page a couple of hours ago:

    “A few followup comments regarding the NRO/CEI lawsuit.
    1. There is a larger context for this latest development, namely the onslaught of dishonest and libelous attacks that climate scientists have endured for years by dishonest front groups seeking to discredit the case for concern over climate change. Its why I wrote my book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” (www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick
    -Climate-Wars/dp/023115254X/
    ) about my experiences as a public figure in the climate change debate, and its why I filed this suit.
    2. Now would be a great time to help out w/ the larger battle by assisting climate scientists in their efforts to fight back against the attacks. Please consider contributing to the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF):
    climatesciencedefensefund.org”

    (Note- I refuse to post direct links to facebook, You can navigate to his FB page via his homepage:
    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/index.php )

  76. Maybe Mann’s lawyers should watch Steyn’s testimony at the BC Human Rights Commission. Between Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant the human rights commissions were shown to be the rent seeking shams that they are and resulted in the Canadian Government changing the act to take away the HRC’s fangs. Mark Steyn is smart enough to know exactly how far he can go. MM doesn’t stand a chance.

  77. @Dave says: October 23, 2012 at 12:40 pm
    … while simultaneously enjoying watching his case against Tim Ball play out in Canada.
    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    What’s the state of play with this? It must be a year old, yes? Was not Mann refusing to turn various papers over to the court? That, I think, was the last I heard on the matter of The Mekon v Prof. Ball

  78. Anyone know the status of the Dr. Ball suit? Has Mann responded to the discovery there? And does Mann realize all the people whose emails were released in Climategate 1 and 2 are subject to be called if there is a trial? Some of those emails were not exactly complimentary about Mann’s science and methodology. My bet is the suit will be dropped, but hopefully NRO and Steyn can get some discovery requests in first.
    Jay Davis

  79. Max Hugoson says:

    October 23, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    MM is suing STYNE for an INDIRECT QUOTE that he used from someone else. HELP ME HELP ME HELP ME…I’m giddy. Can you IMAGINE what “Judge Judy” would do with this one?
    ————————————————————————————————————————————

    This is exactly what happened at the BCHRC.

  80. I’ve been a regular spectator to US legal proceedings at Groklaw over the last few years. Consequently I am very cynical when it comes to US courts.

    To amuse everyone, the judge will issue a series of bizarre rulings. Which evidence can be mentioned will be debated expensively at great length. Thousands of pages of legal scholarship will be written and then mostly ignored. The jury of ignorant people will rule on the basis of blind prejudice (or by rolling a dice). Nothing is then decided. Someone will appeal. While everyone pretends that all of this matters, the process is so protracted and expensive that it seldom runs all the way to conclusion. It really is nothing more than thinly disguised combat by wallet. The litigants spend money on expensive lawyers until somebody surrenders or goes bankrupt.

    It would be a mistake to expect this to resolve anything about Mannian “science”.

  81. Re CSLDF statements (posted by JFD at 11:17 am). Are there any lawyers here who can explain and comment on the CSLDF statements regarding Mann’s emails and civil discovery? It sounds like the strategy of Mann’s lawyers is to get the emails exempted from civil discovery by placing them under the protection of a special “scholarly research” exemption that applies to FOI requests in Virginia.
    Considering that civil discovery is not a Freedom of Information request, can this work? And what is ATI? Following are the relevant quotes from CSLDF :
    2.Defeat ATI’s attempt to obtain Dr. Mann’s email correspondence through the civil discovery process, which essentially is an “end-run” around the scholarly research exemption under the Virginia FOIA law.
    3.Prepare for summary judgment on the issue of the exempt status of his email correspondence under the Virginia FOIA law.
    Can anyone here explain this?

  82. “Mann is going to win this one if the existing evidence is not compelling proof of fraud.”
    – – – –

    1. One of the main issues that this brings into controversy is the sufficiency of Penn State’s investigation into Mann’s conduct. This will logically entail a comparison of what the school said it found, with Mann’s actual conduct. This alone justifies discovery into any and all accusations of wrongdoing/negligence/fraud on Mann’s part that Penn supposedly investigated.

    In other words, Mann is asking a court to find that these people have wrongly and intentionally – with malice – tried to spread lies about him and his work, and there is no way “his work” can be protected from scrutiny, especially when he makes it a legal issue himself.

    2. People shouldn’t talk about anyone being found “guilty” of anything in this civil lawsuit. “Guilty” is a criminal-law concept.

    3. Fees – generally, in an American court, in a civil lawsuit, everyone pays their own fees, no matter who wins or loses, unless there is a specific statute calling for fees to be paid by a losing party (usually subject-related, such as “employment discrimination”, etc). Typically, a firm such as C-O’C takes on such a case contemplating that its client will be awarded a large sum to compensate for the damage done to him, and C-O’C would then, through its contract with Mann, take (again, typically) 1/3 of that amount as its fee.
    In this case, C-O’C might have taken it on as a loss-leader, knowing it will not likely earn a big fee, but thinking it will bring in lots of other, more profitable, business. Or, the partner in charge of the case might simply be a committed CAGW adherent. Or an insensate drunk.

  83. Max Hugoson says:
    October 23, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Actually, Max, I think he’s suing Steyn for the quote about the “fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph.” Which is silly and may be dismissed if the right judge gets the case.

    The comparison of Mann to Sandusky was Simberg’s creation. Both he and Steyn were actually more interested in attacking Penn State than Mann.

  84. Regarding Mann’s “Facebook Page” statement:

    “In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”

    “He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize”? Not true according to the list of prizes winners at the Noble Peace Prize web site for 2007. See here: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/#

    While it is true that VP Al Gore was named as an individual and it is also true that “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” is named as an organization. Dr. Mann certainly was not named as a prize winner. Indeed I can’t find his name listed anywhere site. Even a search of his name came up empty. It is presumptuous for Mann to promote himself as a “Noble Prize Winner” on the basis of mere association with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    In my personal view this tendency towards arrogant self aggrandizement, at the expense of the whole-truth, is consistent with that of a deeply troubled sociopath. Mann has ruined his own reputation and has no one to blame but himself.

    Regards,
    Kforestcat

  85. Ian H,

    “It really is nothing more than thinly disguised combat by wallet. The litigants spend money on expensive lawyers until somebody surrenders or goes bankrupt.”

    A good analogy would be a game of no limit poker, where your “pot” is all your worldly assets.

  86. Lordy.

    Read the comments about the assigned judge. This is truly going to be world-class entertainment.

    BUT – if she keeps the case, it also means that rational discussions about how the case will likely be structured, about what the law is on any given aspect of the case, and about any empirically-informed musings on how it will turn out, will have no connection to what really happens.

    It will simply be a lottery.

  87. I’m sure I’ve seen it pointed out before but I love the irony of the fact that the “hockey stick” is in actual fact an “ice hockey stick”.

  88. Regarding the replications of his work. These were done by other team members and either relied upon Mann’s flawed statistical analysis, his flawed proxies, or both. There was a long thread on this over a year ago either here or at CA. In recent years lots of proxy reconstructions that show no hockey stick have been published.

  89. I would think that some of Mann’s colleagues/co-authors wouldn’t be too happy about having to defend Mann’s work under oath.

  90. Three thoughts:

    1 – I wonder how Tim Ball is going with his “Penn state”/”state pen” case against Mann.

    2 – If information obtained during discovery is confidential until raised in court. if so it might mean that a lot that’s learned but not used in court will remain out of public view.

    3 – Can Mann seek to constrain the case so that it deals only with specific issues and not, for example, with Climategate matters?

  91. Ian H wrote:

    October 23, 2012 at 2:06 pm
    I’ve been a regular spectator to US legal proceedings at Groklaw over the last few years. Consequently I am very cynical when it comes to US courts.

    To amuse everyone, the judge will issue a series of bizarre rulings. Which evidence can be mentioned will be debated expensively at great length. Thousands of pages of legal scholarship will be written and then mostly ignored. The jury of ignorant people will rule on the basis of blind prejudice (or by rolling a dice). Nothing is then decided. Someone will appeal. While everyone pretends that all of this matters, the process is so protracted and expensive that it seldom runs all the way to conclusion. It really is nothing more than thinly disguised combat by wallet. The litigants spend money on expensive lawyers until somebody surrenders or goes bankrupt.

    It would be a mistake to expect this to resolve anything about Mannian “science”.

    Thanks for [indirectly] answering my question.

    The optimism being expressed here suggests that few posters have been involved in litigation.

  92. lesson number 3
    Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.
    lesson number 2
    your best enemy is the one who is going to help you win the war

  93. “Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.”
    This is insane. My own work showed that there are issues with tree ring reconstructions:
    Loehle, C. 2009. A Mathematical Analysis of the Divergence Problem in Dendroclimatology. Climatic Change 94:233-245. Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on Non-Treering Proxy Data. Energy & Environment 18:1049-1058. Loehle, C. and Hu McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on Non-Treering Proxy Data. Energy & Environment 19:93-100.
    Mann and friends made sure contrary work did not get published. Soon & Baliunas for example published showing the MWP existed and the editor for the journal got fired and they tried to get them fired as well. In his book, only papers confirming his work exist and he never admits any mistake that McIntyre uncovered.
    And what are these “seven other” investigations?
    By the way, Stein did not compare Mann to a child molester, he made the point that if Penn State was willing to cover up Sandusky why should we expect them to do a diligent investigation of Mann? And that is not at all what Mann says he said. His characterization of what Stein said is itself libelous.

  94. Live by the suit. Die by the suit. He will be destroyed in depositions. All the stuff he and the others were trying to hide by not complying with FOIA requests will have to come out in discovery. Get ready for the hockey stick, Michael.

  95. According to Mann, a study is only science if it comes to the same conclusion as his own work, so by definition all subsequent work has “replicated” his results, since if it did not it does not exist. Thus multiple reconstructions that come to different conclusions were left out of IPCC reports, and in Mann’s book he claims that “NO studies” show a warmer MWP, when I have personally a whole file drawer full of papers indicating a warm MWP.
    And are we to assume he will claim that the WMO cover graphic with the Mann-designed “hide the decline” trick is not likely to cause a reasonable person to cry fraud? Really?

  96. “ABSTRACT: In the routine practice of scientific research, there are many types of misrepresentation and bias which could be considered dubious. However, only a few narrowly defined behaviours are singled out and castigated as scientific fraud. A narrow definition of scientific fraud is convenient to the groups in society — scientific elites, and powerful government and corporate interests — that have the dominant influence on priorities in science……

    http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/92prom.html

    “Abstract: A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%)…..

    http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028

    “The authors of the study said this could be due to the increased scrutiny placed on the research in these journals and the greater uncertainty associated with the most cutting-edge research. “Alternatively, the disproportionately high payoffs to scientists for publication in prestigious venues can be an incentive to perform work with excessive haste or to engage in unethical practices,” they wrote in PNAS.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/01/tenfold-increase-science-paper-retracted-fraud

    “QUESTION 1: What are the main problems with the existing system for publishing scientific research?
    “Michael Eisen: Everything.
    The question should be: “What isn’t a problem with the existing system of scientific publishing?” Every major aspect of the traditional journal system scientists use to communicate with each other was developed for a world in which information was disseminated in printed journals. And every single major aspect of this system—the format of papers, the structure of peer review, the subscription-based business model, and even the very existence of journals—has been rendered obsolete by the rise of the Internet.

    “Because of our continued unwillingness as a community to face up to the challenge of reforming scientific communication, we are left with a system that is slow, capricious, and intrusive; produces papers in an archaic format that limits the conveyance of data and ideas; costs an obscene amount of money; and provides access to a small fraction of the people who are interested in and could benefit from the most up-to-date scientific discoveries.”

    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32378/title/Whither-Science-Publishing-/

  97. How will they correlate Mann’s reputation to the NRO blog post? Will Mann get up on the stand with an upside-down hockey stick graph of his reputation?

  98. Mann will likely claim that he is immune from discovery because of academic freedom.
    Since I was an official reviewer for 2 IPCC reports, I also am a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and I put that on the shelf next to a prize I got in a Cracker Jack box.

  99. Craig Loehle says:
    October 23, 2012 at 2:48 pm
    ”By the way, Stein did not compare Mann to a child molester, he made the point that if Penn State was willing to cover up Sandusky why should we expect them to do a diligent investigation of Mann? And that is not at all what Mann says he said. His characterization of what Stein said is itself libelous.”
    that was how I read it too – but I presume Americans are more sensitive to such statements!

  100. So, there’s no connection here between Michael Mann and Jimmy Savile and no one fiddled with anyone else’s ‘principal components’, right?

    But somehow I still don’t think al beeb will report on it.

  101. richardscourtney:

    A sense of humour is the one weapon we have, which they neither possess nor can handle.

    Yes, Mann is a world-class prat but unfortunately, he and his ilk have managed to do damage to the industrial infrastracture of many countries, well beyond anything the Few prevented the Luftwaffe doing.

    Pointman

  102. What a sophomoric announcement from crybaby Mann. Nice start with a trite and breathless strawman-filled trope. I’m guessing the writer flunked college English. Can’t Soros afford a writer, Mike?

    Mark Steyn is easily one of the best writers in the world. But he’s been hidden in plain sight by the boring, failing, bankrupt government-media complex. Imagine what would happen to CNN if they just added one traditionalist, like Steyn, to argue the other side?

    We must understand this: Mann has no leg to stand on, except for that 85% of the media will be giving him free propaganda. He’s going on that… that’s why this is happening.

    Mann is a fact molester and he’s been getting away with it for years. Time for some red-faced pious and self-destruction.

  103. Mann is clearly a serial litigator – has anyone followed what happened to his previous attempts?

  104. “Superior Court of the District of Columbia”

    Perhaps the local courts were underwater as he claimed and will have to prove in the discovery phase?

  105. The case against NRO is supremely weak, and could end up with having to pay damages the other way for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. Essentially he is suing because they blogged what someone else said about Mann.

  106. cui bono says:
    October 23, 2012 at 9:49 am
    “Laugh? I almost emitted CO2.”

    More likely CH4.

    Seriously, perhaps MM is looking for a legal fund to be set up on his behalf. I am sure the team and other supporters would be more than happy to donate some other people’s money to help in his time of need. But then, who will account for the funds when all is said and done.

  107. I think this sounds too good to be true. I don’t trust the legal system. Mann will come off as an innocent scientist just doing his job.

  108. I think Mann has been chosen to be the ‘Fall Guy’ in the echelon of vested Interests,Used, abused, and then discarded.
    I hope he keeps all his correspondence and after being ‘Slain’ releases it as ‘Manngate’.

  109. Pointman says: “Yes, Mann is a world-class prat but unfortunately, he and his ilk have managed to do damage to the industrial infrastracture of many countries, ”

    So when MMs loses his case against NRO, does that provide “We the People” and “we taxpayers” with standing before the court system and the needed evidence to go after “he and his ilk” for the damage they have wrought on us?

    Now if we Americans only had a Department of Justice with an Attorney General who would prosecute people for the fraudulent use of Government Funding vs. finding ways for them to skirt justice…

  110. This could make for an interesting interaction of the Daubert Standard with climate scientists against statisticians.

  111. Dr. Mann is a public figure. That raises the bar for libel/slander substatially. He has to prove malice. Unless he gets a very friendly judge, the case will be thrown out. He, also, will have to cough up emails and documents that he has been hiding despite FOA requests (UVA and PSU). The discovery process will kill him unless he has destroyed the docs.

  112. “”He has to prove malice. Unless he gets a very friendly judge, the case will be thrown out.”
    – – – –

    “Malice” could probably be satisfied if he can make the judge believe that the defendants were actively trying to undermine his reputation so that they could call CAGW into question, somehow to their ultimate profit or gain.

    The judge is a loon. All bets are off.

  113. I just read his complaint–he’s going to get gutted and filleted with all the doors he opened for discovery

  114. bobby b says: October 23, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    What’s the situation on challenging a judge in the US? This one doesn’t look to be a ‘balanced’ option.

  115. The Mann-iac should read up on Oscar Wilde and self-destructive libel suits….

    Mann’s ego can’t fit inside the courtroom and he does not have any of Wilde’s sense of humor, so the flame-out will be even more spectacular and complete.

  116. DickF,

    Parties always get discovery, but a judge may have some leeway in determining what’s “in bounds” vs “out of bounds”. For example, material that is irrelevant or needlessly cumulative can be excluded from discovery.

  117. Mann is living a self-created myth about him-self. His self-created myth is as incompetent looking as his paleoclimatology. : )

    He had his 15 min of fame with AR3 and AR4 hockey sticks hiding decline and manipulating to eliminate evidence of historical warming, now we are into his multi-decadal scale period of infamy.

    At the advice of my doctor I switched from popcorn to carrot and celery sticks with lofat ranch dip.

    John

  118. Michael Mann already has several lawsuits on the go and has failed to follow through on any of them. How can we have any confidence that this new lawsuit will not also be moribund?

  119. “Now if we Americans only had a Department of Justice with an Attorney General who would prosecute people for the fraudulent use of Government Funding vs. finding ways for them to skirt justice…”

    The beautiful thing is that we do!
    We have out-sourced fraud investigations.
    All we need is a whistleblower.
    It’s only a matter of time before someone comes forth to tell the truth about Mann (they did for Sandusky).

    Whistleblower Rewards Program
    The federal government has established vigorous programs to identify and prosecute fraudulent grant applications and administration. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) administers the False Claims Act. It allows rewards for those who come forward with details of grant fraud to share in the recovery of federal funds. This reward can be as much as 30% of the total amount reclaimed. The program is almost completely reliant on insiders to report their knowledge of the fraud in their institutions.

    Attorney Literally “Wrote the Book” on Fraud Recovery Lawsuits
    Joel Hesch, Esq., of Hesch and Associates, literally wrote the book on how to report federal fraud. He has an extensive background in representing whistleblowers in all types of federal funding fraud cases, including Educational/Research Grant Fraud. According to Mr Hesch: “Many institutions receive grants, whether for research or educational purposes. When they lie to get the grant or keep the grant or if they use the funds for purposes outside the grant, they are liable under the DOJ program. There have been many grant cases brought by whistleblowers.”

    http://howtoreportfraud.com/examples-of-federal-fraud/grant-fraud

  120. D Böehm says:
    October 23, 2012 at 3:23 pm
    Craig Loehle,

    Nobel prize stature has declined since Obama won it.

    I’m sorry, just how do you go “down” from bottom?

  121. Discovery comes before the trial so it is safe to say this will never be adjudicated unless there is a counterclaim which is not dropped. Mann likely thinks he can hide behind the FOIA exemption but that will not apply here. No matter how the original judge rules all of the stuff Mann wants to hide would be forced out upon appeal.

    Counterclaims will be coming and they will be constructed so as to allow access to everything our heart’s desire. Judges are loathe to interfere with discovery and only really issue rulings when one side or the other is slow responding or wishes to claim certain information is not relevant. There is a high degree of latitude as to what is considered relevant which is why discovery is often referred to as a fishing expedition.

    Ultimately, Mann will have to argue that the fact that he was cleared by the same people who cleared Sandusky should have been enough to insulate him from any further doubt. That is a losing proposition from the start. In his tiny little mind I am sure he thinks he will discover some nefarious plot funded by the oil companies etc… But all he will really discover is how sharp Stein’s tongue and pen are, and how ridiculous he can be made to look when he cannot bully other people.

    This is going to be hilarious.

  122. As I said:
    Paul Westhaver says:
    July 24, 2012 at 8:20 am

    I look forward to discovery.

    Penn State is creepy. Sandusky was found guilty. The University administration knew stuff.

    not looking good….

  123. Ted Swart says:

    October 23, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Michael Mann already has several lawsuits on the go and has failed to follow through on any of them. How can we have any confidence that this new lawsuit will not also be moribund?
    ————————————————————————————————–
    He may be funded and using the stratagy of ‘Maximum Disruption’ that those in the Human Rights Industry use. They use Government or sympathetic foundations / individuals (read useful idiots) funds to harrass opponents or percieved opponents into submission. Granted using the courts for this rather than sudo courts (HRCs) to do this is risky but they don’t really see a down side since they are soooooo convinced in the infalibility of their argument and ultimately themselves.

  124. Since the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the European Union, all its citizens should also share in the award… We are all Nobel Peace prize winners!!!!!

  125. “In response to these types of accusations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation and seven other organizations have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann’s work, finding any and all allegations of academic fraud to be baseless.”
    *****************************
    The definition of Research Misconduct by the National Science Foundation:
    ” (a) Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in
    proposing or performing research funded by NSF, reviewing research proposals submitted to NSF, or in reporting research results funded by NSF.
    (1) Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
    (2) Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record…….etc”

    http://www.nsf.gov/oig/resmisreg.pdf

    What is scientific fraud?

    “Science is self-correcting, in the sense that a falsehood, injected into the body of scientific knowledge will eventually be discovered and rejected, but that does not protect us against fraud, because injecting falsehoods into the body of science is never the purpose of those who perpetuate fraud.

    “Fraud means serious misconduct with intent to deceive. Intent to deceive is the very antithesis of ethical behavior in science. When you read a scientific paper, you are free to agree or disagree with its conclusions, but you must always be confident that you can trust its account of the procedures that were used and the results produced by those procedures………Real fraud occurs only if the procedures needed to replicate the results of the work or the results themselves are in some way knowingly misrepresented.

    “This view of scientific fraud differs from civil fraud as described in tort law in that in civil fraud there must be a plaintiff, who brings the case to court, and who must be able to prove that the misrepresentation was believed and led to actual damages. By contrast, if a scientist makes a serious misrepresentation in a scientific presentation, knowing that it’s false, or recklessly disregarding whether it is false, then virtually all scientists would agree, scientific fraud has been committed.

    “It is unnecessary to prove that anyone in particular believed the statement or was damaged by believing it. In fact, it makes no difference at all whether the conclusions reached by the scientist are correct or not. In this stern view of scientific fraud, all that matters is whether procedures and results are reported honestly or not.”
    Conduct and Misconduct in Science by Dr David Goodstein

    http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/conduct_art.html

    Dr. David L. Goodstein, Ph.D., Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Caltech, where he has been on the faculty for more than 35 years, also wrote:
    “Among the incidents of scientific fraud that I have looked at, three motives, or risk factors, have been present. In all the cases, the perpetrators (1) were under career pressure, (2) knew, or thought they knew, what the result would be if they went to all the trouble of doing the work properly, and (3) were in a field in which individual experiments are not expected to be precisely reproducible. Simple monetary gain is seldom, if ever, a factor in scientific fraud.”

    “I believe we scientists are guilty of promoting, or at least tolerating, a false popular image of ourselves. I like to call it the Myth of the Noble Scientist.

    “Scientists are not disinterested truth seekers; they are more like players in an intense, winner-take-all competition for scientific prestige and the resources that follow from that prestige…. ”

    http://www.aaup.org/aaup/pubsres/academe/2002/jf/feat/good.htm

    http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/

  126. “What’s the situation on challenging a judge in the US? This one doesn’t look to be a ‘balanced’ option.”

    You can challenge (and prevail) if you can show that the judge has reason to be biased against you specifically, or in favor of your opponent specifically. Just being known as “pro-defendant” or “pro-government” won’t generally get you anywhere.

    You can challenge based on “she’s a complete loon for whom the law means nothing”, but there’s no specific bias alleged in such a statement, so you’ll achieve nothing, plus you’ll then be in front of that judge you’ve just called a loon. No fun.

    (This is for civil cases. Just FYI, in criminal cases, you usually get one no-questions-asked strike of a judge if you do it within a short time after the judge is assigned to your case.)
    – – –

    “We have out-sourced fraud investigations. All we need is a whistleblower.”

    And an Attorney General interested in pursuing the people you’re suing for fraud. You need the AG’s office to decide to join in with your lawsuit for whistleblower status to apply. Holder’s DOJ is not going to sign on to your lawsuit against the AGW clique.

  127. “To be successful he will need to show how he has been financially harmed as a result of the published material that is found to be false. “

    There is a relaxed standard that applies to defamation claims that allege that the defendant has caused damage to your professional reputation and standing through publication of untruths involving sexual misconduct. Generally, you’re correct; a plaintiff would have to prove something like “I lost this contract because of his claims that I was comparable to a child molester, and I would have made $XX from that contract, so he has damaged me in the amount of $XX”. But where you claim the loss of professional reputation by being likened to a child molester, your proof of a loss amount can be much more relaxed.

    At least in my state, (MN), there is a statutory claim for “defamation per se”, which goes like this:

    “Some statements are so defamatory that they are considered defamation per se; and the plaintiff does not have to prove that the statements harmed his reputation. The classic examples of defamation per se are allegations of serious sexual misconduct; allegations of serious criminal misbehavior; or allegations that a person is afflicted with a loathsome disease. The historical examples of loathsome diseases are leprosy and venereal diseases.”

    It’s all just subjective as heck, which means it’s one of those cases that can live and die by getting the right, or the wrong, judge. C-O’C took this case knowing that it’s sort of a crapshoot for a defendant – a few unfavorable rulings by the judge can result in a rather huge damages award, and so C-O’C might just be betting that NRO et al wil pony up some money to settle, just as a basic form of risk management.

    If NRO et al has an insurer which might have to cover a defamation award – and they undoubtedly do – then the chances of such a settlement are fairly high. Insurers will almost always pay out some money to avoid the possibility of a verdict/award that approaches policy limits, especially since the insurer will usually also be paying NRO’s attorney’s fees for their defense. A quick payout of $100k that avoids the possibility of a $million-dollar award plus maybe $250k-$500k in defense fees looks attractive to insurance adjusters, who are risk-averse in the extreme.

    And generally, if the insurer decides to settle, the insured defendants have to go along with it, or lose their coverage.

  128. I’m not so optimistic. The judge should refuse to rule on climate science arguments. Mann might not have to disclose anything. And since he has not been convicted of fraud. Case closed. Unfortunately.

  129. bobby b wrote, “Sadly, Mann has found the perfect judge for someone in his position:

    http://www.therobingroom.com/dc/JudgeDetail.aspx?ID=3789

    (As you review the detailed ratings charts, keep in mind that a ‘1’ generally means ‘awful.’)”

    Judge Natalia M. Combs-Greene is a Clinton appointee, of course.

    Perhaps NRO et al should call Mann’s fellow warmist, Richard Muller, to testify:

  130. Just a quick thought:

    Cozen & O’C might have been smarter about this than I was originally thinking.

    The allegations about Mann being likened to child molester Sandusky, combined with the fact that the caliber of judges available in Wash DC isn’t the highest, and then considered in the knowledge that the specific judge assigned to the case is the poster child for “isn’t the highest”, means that there is a chance that an essentially irrational misdirection could give Mann a big win.

    The “comparison to a child molester” portion of Mann’s complaint doesn’t actually make any claim or even innuendo that the defendants have implied that Mann is like a child molester. What they’ve said is that the school ran a perfectly insufficient investigation of serious allegations that an employee was molesting kids, and so it’s no great stretch to think that its “investigation” of Mann was likewise lacking in vigor.

    But with a state court judge in DC of the caliber of Judge Combs-Greene, chances are she’ll never actually read the wording of the complaint herself – she may simply pick up on “they said you were like that evil old boy-diddling coach?!”, and that could well define her entire understanding of the case, which could lead to a lowered burden of proof for Mann, and the possibility that the judge would be happy severely punishing the defendants for saying such horrid things. (Believe me – rational analysis of claims and defenses only has utility if the judge is also rational.)

    All of which makes a settlement even more attractive than usual to an insurer.

  131. steynonline.com has link to popehat where some guy named Ken discusses the suit. He sounds like a lawyer and doesn’t give Mann much of a chance. Steyn’s also made a short comment. Sounds like he’s gonna be enjoying himself.

  132. This is what Rand Simberg wrote: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science”.

    This is from MM’s lawyer’s complaint: “Dr. Mann’s personal reputation with the knowing false comparison to a child molester.”

    The complaint alleges something Rand did not do, and did not know. First, Rand did not say or imply Mann was child molester. In fact Rand specifically said “instead of molesting children”. Then there is the “knowing false” non-sense by MM’s lawyer. Really? Do they have proof that Rand Simberg knew Mann’s Hockey Stick was unquestioned fact? No, instead they have evidence that Mann’s Hockey Stick was inaccurate, was hype, and was bad science.

    Similar, MM and his lawyer does not have a case against NRO, because Mark Steyn only questioningly relayed Simberg’s commentary: “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers …”.

    As for MM’s lawyer’s complaint about hockey stick fraud – Somebody needs to educate MM’s lawyer as to the fact Mann’s Hockey Stick graph has been determined to be bogus, wrong, flawed (aka broken). Since Mann knows that his Hockey Stick has been shown to be broken; Mann has committed academic fraud by trying to maintain the illusion his Hockey Stick graph is accurate and factual.

    Case dismissed.

  133. Unfortunately, politics and human nature being what they are in 2012 America, I suspect that this scofflaw judge has already been shopped in advance, and gotten to. She clearly has no judicial ethics. The defense had better conduct its affairs primarily with appeals in mind.

    Otherwise, Popeye and Bluto could get sandbagged by the hairy one:

  134. Kent Clizbe says: “The beautiful thing is that we do! We have out-sourced fraud investigations.
    All we need is a whistleblower.”

    In the past yes, and possibly in the future, but not currently.
    Google: whistle-blowers prosecuting spies
    :(

  135. “In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the IPCC, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize”.

    Bzzzt – untrue, and we’ve heard this several times before. Mann has never received the Peace prize; he just received a certificate commemorating his involvement with IPCC which (with Al Gore) received the 2007 Prize.

    See the certificate at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/18/dr-mann-goes-to-disneyland/
    In science – and in court – factual evidence has a nasty habit of getting in the way.

  136. A judge recently decided in favor of the New Zealand weather organization based upon an appeal to authority, so don’t hold you breath.

  137. Since Mark Steyn wrote:

    Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.

    Could this be considered ‘defamation per se’, which bobby b describes as follows?

    At least in my state, (MN), there is a statutory claim for “defamation per se”, which goes like this:

    “Some statements are so defamatory that they are considered defamation per se; and the plaintiff does not have to prove that the statements harmed his reputation. The classic examples of defamation per se are allegations of serious sexual misconduct; allegations of serious criminal misbehavior; or allegations that a person is afflicted with a loathsome disease. The historical examples of loathsome diseases are leprosy and venereal diseases.”

    I don’t see how, as Steyn’s quote is clearly a humorous metaphor, not an accusation or allegation of child molestation at all. Irrespective of the scientific facts, it is hard to see any rational judge taking the statement as anything more than opinion and hyperbole, which is protected speech (especially as involves a public figure), not defamation or libel.

    /Mr Lynn

  138. “@ D Böehm says:
    October 23, 2012 at 3:23 pm
    Craig Loehle,

    Nobel prize stature has declined since Obama won it.”

    You can win a race, or a boxing match, but the prize is awarded. . The correct term gives it some perspective, why did they award it to them ?

  139. @ pinroot says: This is quite a statement (from Mann’s facebook page): Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.

    And @ Sam the First: Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.
    What planet do they live on? it have I missed something… Has there been any serious attempt at replication? Is such an attempt even possible? And have the gang not tried to shut down every such attempt?

    Finally “hswiseman” brings up the Wegman report–if you read it, it pretty much debunks the hockey stick. So what plnet ishe living on? Mann, I mean.

    Funny, Philip H. Goerling says:I got booted from his page for saying Joe Biden has a three letter word for him: discovery.

    Now, according to Mann, he’s a “Noble Prize Winner” and I’m a member of a “dishonest front group? ” Is that us at WUWT? A “front” for reality?

  140. As the election cycle boosts his mainstream conservative traffic, Instapundit has put out a call for legal defense funding for this case:

    “THE DISCOVERY PROCESS SHOULD BE INTERESTING: Climate researcher Michael Mann sues his critics.

    I don’t know what Rand has planned in the way of a legal defense fund, but you could always hit his tipjar. I did. (Bumped).

    Posted at 1:00 am by Glenn Reynolds”

  141. Day By Day says:
    October 23, 2012 at 11:27 pm

    “…and I’m a member of a “dishonest front group?”

    Perhaps you should sue. Perhaps, we all should. Wouldn’t it be fun if hundreds, or even thousands, of skeptics maligned by his statement suddenly filed libel suits against him?

  142. Now that free speech has been disallowed, have the authors considered going into hiding, à la Salman Rushdie?

  143. Michael Mann is increasingly revealing himself to be the David Irving of “climate science”. For both Irving (a faux historian) and Mann,(a faux scientist), self-aggrandizement will trump accuracy every single time. This is evident in the second paragraph of his statement of claim:

    Along with other researchers, [Mann] was one of the first to document the steady rise [….] As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. [emphasis added -hro]

    Apart from the fact that neither Mann nor his “colleagues” were “awarded the Nobel Peace prize”, he obviously has as much empirical evidence that it was “this research” that led to the IPCC being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as he does that human generated CO2 is the primary cause of whatever warming might (or might not) be occurring.

    Several times throughout this particular exercise in creative writing – which was presumably patched together by his lawyers on Mann’s instructions – there is mention of allegations of “academic fraud”.

    Don’t know about you, but I’d sure like to know where such “allegations” were made and/or “investigated”.

    But perhaps sales of his latest self-serving opus are flagging – again, As I’ve noted previously, Mann’s entry into the annals of “revisionist scholarship” might be more aptly entitled Portrait of the Artist as an Aggrieved Mann: A novel. Just as in 1985, the German publisher had “appended to the title page of [Irving’s Dresden] book the description, ‘a novel'” [Richard J. Evans. Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial; (2001, Basic Books) p. 184]

  144. @jono1066 says: October 23, 2012 at 2:47 pm
    lesson number 3 – Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.
    lesson number 2 – your best enemy is the one who is going to help you win the war
    ///////////////////////////////////

    Lesson number 1 – If your enemy is choleric, irritate him. Which is exactly what Steyn did :-)
    (Lao Tzu – The Art Of War)

  145. @D Böehm says: October 23, 2012 at 3:23 pm
    Craig Loehle,
    Nobel prize stature has declined since Obama won it.
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    Way before the Messiah. Kissinger started the rot, as Tom Lehrer noted.

  146. At the very least this may raise the profile of Tiljander.
    It would be amusing to see the BBC trying to defend that one.

  147. ttfn says:
    October 23, 2012 at 3:07 pm
    How will they correlate Mann’s reputation to the NRO blog post? Will Mann get up on the stand with an upside-down hockey stick graph of his reputation?

    Here’s an idea for a graphic from Josh:
    A fist making a thumb-down gesture, with the thumb being an inverted hockey stick.

  148. Fascinating.
    I suspect Mann himself had a hand in the drafting of the submission.
    It is a direct appeal to and relies entirely on Authority. Implicit is the threat that any Judge refusing to acknowledge defamation is challenging a mountain of ‘scientific’ authority and running counter to common practice, i.e. the general acceptance of the Global Warming Thesis by governments and state science organisations. The irony is that he was an engineer of that consensus.
    Mann has set the stakes very high at the outset.
    He personifies the truth of all Global Warming Consensus scientists.
    An attack on him is an attack on the Consensus.
    I think a good Judge could make quite a name for themselves here.
    If Mann fails the whole shonky edifice comes tumbling down.

  149. If NRO et al has an insurer which might have to cover a defamation award – and they undoubtedly do – then the chances of such a settlement are fairly high. Insurers will almost always pay out some money to avoid the possibility of a verdict/award that approaches policy limits, especially since the insurer will usually also be paying NRO’s attorney’s fees for their defense. A quick payout of $100k that avoids the possibility of a $million-dollar award plus maybe $250k-$500k in defense fees looks attractive to insurance adjusters, who are risk-averse in the extreme.

    And generally, if the insurer decides to settle, the insured defendants have to go along with it, or lose their coverage.

    This could be what Mann and his lawyer were counting on when they filed the suit.

  150. “Wow! Maybe NRO’s lawyers will allow us to crowdsource review of the documents from discovery? That would be a fantastic Christmas present.”

    Mann will claim discovery is proprietary. He’s made that claim before. With the right judge, he will get a protective order requiring that discovered documents be kept confidential. Don’t expect that any discovered items will ever become public.

  151. “So, to play the devil’s advocate, I’m wondering how might Mann win this case if it goes to trial?”

    Step 1 would be to get the climategate files excluded from evidence since it’s hearsay. We don’t know for a fact that each and every element is legit. Someone could have slid some incriminating things into it.

    Step 2 would be to ensure that various entities have wiped those old backups over the years since.

    Step 3 would be to disqualify any expert from NRO and insist that only scientists that have published Peer Reviewed literature are considered legitimate to voice an opinion.

    Step 4 would be to bring in a truckload of their own experts asserting that not only was Mann not engaged in fraud, but he’s a paragon of righteousness and an example to us all.

  152. I wish Mosher would bring his “high entropy word” style analysis into play comparing the Sandusky exoneration to the Mann exoneration, both from Penn State — per O’Sullivan

    https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/official-probe-shows-climategate-whitewash-link-to-sandusky-child-sex-case/

    O’Sullivan says the same author wrote this about Mann

    the “level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…”

    and [ issued an eerily similar statement to exonerate Sandusky:]

    “This level of success on the football field and revenue generated from it, clearly places Coaches Paterno and Sandusky among the most respected professionals in their field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of their profession in operating a football program…”

    “Had Coach Paterno or Coach Sandusky’s conduct of their program been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for them to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from peers who may or may not agree with his program … ”

    [The above statements prove the status of the football program and its leaders, Paterno and Sandusky, are an EXACT parallel to Michael Mann’s status. ]

    If the two suspects were exonerated by the same person and process and the process has been shown in court to be flawed in the case of Sandusky then I think it a fair and honest claim to suggest that Mann’s so-called exoneratation should be considered suspect.

  153. Anthony. I think the excellent opinion piece pointed out by ttfn above and found at

    http://bitly.com/XT7zXp

    written by Ken [I won’t write his full name, it appears he prefers to blog pseudo-anonymously, perhaps as it might affect his relationship with his employers in his work as a criminal defence lawyer ].
    I think this would be well suited to being elevated to a full post here at WUWT as for one I would enjoy the comments discussion to follow. The comments for me are often, no disrespect intended, the most interesting and informative part of articles posted here at WUWT. Can’t beat a bit of discussion.

    Ken can be reached at ken [at] popehat [dot] com if you would like to see about permission for this to be reproduced, after all, he is a lawyer /sarc but i think i really meant /wink

  154. JFD says:
    October 23, 2012 at 11:17 am
    Mann is indeed seeking funds for his lawsuit from the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund . Here is the pitch on their website:
    —————–
    Somehow this seems backwards. Mann is not the defendant, Mark Styne is. Shouldn’t Mark be given access to the CSLDF since he is the one needing money to defend climate science and Mann is only defending Mann? It seems the good doctor wants to:
    “1.Fend-off ATI’s demand to take Dr. Mann’s deposition
    2.Defeat ATI’s attempt to obtain Dr. Mann’s email correspondence through the civil discovery process
    3.Prepare for summary judgment on the issue of the exempt status of his email correspondence under the Virginia FOIA law”
    How does this “defend climate science”?
    Maybe Mark should request funds from CSLDF.
    cn

  155. No matter how bad life beats you up, stay in the ring and fight, never give up, fight for your dreams; Every champion was once a contender, Every success was once a dream. You have to start somewhere to get somewhere. Big dreams start with small steps. Keep fighting until you win.

    Get more inspiring thoughts from my blog http://iamose.wordpress.com/

  156. O/T – Sorry to sound like a grumpy old Mann (d’ya see what I did there?), but what is it with this recent trend of people posting links to mostly irrelevant YouTube clips? If it bears directly on the subject of the post, fine… otherwise, it’s a bandwidth hog, particularly on larger threads, plus WordPress now embeds a preview image from YouTube, which screws around with the page loading.

  157. People,

    I think you should reconsider the discovery process as being an easy process in this lawsuit because it appears that Dr. Mann and his lawyers have planned ahead on this lawsuit by getting a biased Judge to preside over the case.

    Here is this sobering article from John O’Sullivan who thinks this might turn out to be a difficult trial:

    Michael Mann Gets “Most Biased” Judge for Key US Global Warming Trial

    http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/michael-mann-gets-most-biased-judge-for-key-us-global-warming-trial/

  158. If you accuse someone of academic fraud, compare them to a convicted child molester and they file suit against you, then the proof is going to be on you to prove you are right. What would Mann have to prove to satisfy the court? Would the court make Mann prove it wasn’t academic fraud or why it wasn’t right to compare him to a convicted child molester? I think Mann would only have to prove he wants to continue the lawsuit by showing up in court and the decision of the Judge is obvious.

  159. Who is his employer? Employers don’t like workers in court involved with litigation. Both from a reputation standpoint and a time wasting standpoint. In terms of damages, he can claim certain companies intended to give him grants and they dried up. He can’t get Corporations to testify what they would and would not have done. Since he sues, it is up to him to prove his science under oath is spot on and their claims besmirch him with bad science claims. The most I see is a nuisance settlement. The worst case scenario is his firm bails and he is out a lot of hourly fees. This is not a classic contingency fee case.

  160. Gary Lance says:
    October 24, 2012 at 6:37 am “If you accuse someone of academic fraud, compare them to a convicted child molester and they file suit against you, then the proof is going to be on you to prove you are right.”

    But he wasn’t compared to a convicted child molester; he was accused of molesting statistics. The defence he has used has been that he has been cleared by an investigation performed by his universiyy. Who, it must be admitted, also exonerated a convicted child molester.

    Mann is accused of “molesting” scientific data. There is a public evidence to make that claim reasonable. The US Congress had two reports that agreed with Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick; Mann can’t win a libel case on something that is at best a matter of opinion.

    No-one has suggested Mann has molested children until he (and now you) muddled the two issues up.
    Indeed, the post being sued says he has not molested children. I quote,
    “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”

  161. @Gary Lance.

    Yes, that’s quite true I expect, but first I would expect that Mann has to prove that he personally was accused of academic fraud in the articles ( a clue, he wasn’t) also that he personally was compared to a convicted child molester ( a clue, he wasn’t).
    You don’t have to prove anything if A: What you say is factual and or B: The accusations against you are false.
    Even if the accusations were upheld the plaintiff has to show that any reasonable person reading the words would construe them as the plaintiff suggests they were intended and that there was malice and intention to be injurious to the plaintiff’s reputation. Given that Mann is most definitely a public person ( he states this himself, always one not to miss an opportunity of self-aggrandisement, just look at the Nobel prize claim) the bar is raised so much higher in Libel cases to prove malice.
    It’s a shame for Mikey that he could not have brought this case in London UK. You can wipe the floor with libel cases if your pockets are deep enough.

    Only the judge chosen for this case concerns me as it seems anything could happen. I see this going to appeal already.

    I do hope that there is a move to show this not only to be frivolous but also a vexatious litigation given Mann’s history in this area.

  162. Isn’t it refreshing that, for the most part, “global warming” is very low on the issues list for the upcoming election. That Romney can say “I like coal”, in a debate and still perhaps win the election is, to me, a sign that the warmist pushers are losing thier propoganda war. The clown Michael Mann can file all the lawsuits he want, as long as it’s with his own money, most of us will continue to ignore him.

  163. Friends:

    The egregious Gary Lance says at October 24, 2012 at 6:37 am

    If you accuse someone of academic fraud, compare them to a convicted child molester and they file suit against you, then the proof is going to be on you to prove you are right. What would Mann have to prove to satisfy the court? Would the court make Mann prove it wasn’t academic fraud or why it wasn’t right to compare him to a convicted child molester? I think Mann would only have to prove he wants to continue the lawsuit by showing up in court and the decision of the Judge is obvious.

    Steyn did not compare Mann to a convicted child molester. The implication that Steyn did is either a demonstration that Gary Lance did not read what Steyn wrote or – more likely in light of his record – Gary Lance failed in his reading comprehension.

    And Steyn did not accuse Mann of fra*d. Steyn wrote “the fra*dulent hockey stick graph”. And the graph is fra*dulent.

    The ‘hockey stick’ graph of NH temperature with time did not agree with recent measurements of temperature. The graph diverged from the surface temperature record for the period after 1960. This is known as “the divergence problem”.

    The ‘hockey stick’ graph showed NH temperature falling (i.e. “the decline”) after 1960 when the surface measurements showed NH temperature rising. And this was the most important finding of the work because it showed the method did NOT indicate NH temperature. The method cannot be used as a reliable indicator of unknown past NH temperature when it gives ‘wrong’ indications of known recent NH temperatures and temperature trend.

    This finding was an inconvenient truth for Mann, Bradley & Hughes. And they decided to not report it in their 1998 and 1999 papers which presented the ‘hockey stick’ graph. Instead, they plotted the surface temperature data as a thick line over the part of the ‘hockey stick’ graph for after 1960. Thus, they were able to “hide the decline” by using “Mike’s Nature trick” to cover it with the surface temperature data.

    And they knew this was not proper because they mentioned “the divergence problem” as a minor point in another paper published in a different journal. Hence, they could claim that they had published a report of it. But, of course, any paper they provided which included the ‘hockey stick’ should have included mention the divergence problem and should not have hidden it. Indeed, as I have explained, the divergence problem was the most important finding of the work.

    An interesting comparison of the ‘hockey stick’ graph can be made with the Piltdown Man which is the most famous scientific fraud in history. In each of these cases
    1.
    parts were selected from two different items.
    2.
    the selected parts were presented together.
    3.
    with clear intent to mislead the scientific community.

    Richard

  164. kcrucible says: “So, to play the devil’s advocate, I’m wondering how might Mann win this case if it goes to trial?” ……Step 1 would be to get the climategate files excluded …… Step 2 would be to ensure that various entities have wiped those old backups ….. Step 3 would be to disqualify any expert from NRO ……. Step 4 would be to bring in a truckload of their own experts …….

    It is difficult to see how NRO could settle out of court without making themselves litigation targets for every public figure they’ve criticized over the last two decades.

    Mann and his lawyers wouldn’t have filed their suit if they hadn’t had a well thought-out litigation strategy in mind for winning the suit, should NRO choose not to settle out of court. The kind of strategy kcrucible has outlined is a likely possibility.

  165. To Axel:

    Your statement about the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will is interesting. In part, you wrote:

    “From the original last will and testament of Alfred Nobel :

    “and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

    How Nobel’s statement can be contorted to include the definition quoted by Mann is frankly inexplicable, and how the Nobel Prize committee could decide that to make awards to multiple recipients, was compliant with the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will is baffling and bewildering.”

    However, the Nobel Peace prize has been awarded to more than one individual from the very beginning. The 1901 award was to 2 individuals. The first mention I find of an organization is 1910,
    the “Permanent International Peace Bureau”. At least in the past the committee which decides on the award was honest enough that for some years there was no award given. Alas, in these days, honesty has departed and we have such farcical awards as to the IPCC & Al Gore; Barack Obama, who has committed more unmanned drone bombings than the U.S. President who was reviled as a war criminal, George W. Bush; and to the entire EU.

    I think the lesson is that one should not expect sense, or adherence to the letter of Nobel’s will.

  166. Mark Steyn has commented briefly at Steynonline, that he will have more to say “when I’ve stopped laughing.”

    I want to personally thank Michael Mann for selecting perhaps the most vigorous, eloquent, talented, and humorous defender of freedom expression in the Western World as his target in this action.

  167. http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-district-columbia

    Activities protected by the D.C. Anti SLAPP Statute

    To challenge a lawsuit under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, you must show that it is based on your act or acts “in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest.”

    The Act defines an “issue of public interest” as “an issue related to health or safety; environmental, economic, or community well being; the District government; a public figure; or a good, product or service in the market place.”

  168. Hi all,

    Let’s be absolutely clear about the Nobel Prize issue. Mann daily repeats a dishonest claim on his website that he shared the Nobel Prize. He did not.

    I noted that Mann’s lawyers describe him in para. 5 of the complaint as a Nobel Prize recipient. For those who don’t recall this is the 2007 joint award to the IPCC and Al Gore. This issue has been addressed before and any claim that Mann is a Nobel Prize recipient or shared such a prize is false.

    Note also that Mann claims on his own website to have shared the Nobel Peace Prize and makes the same claim in the sleeve of his recent book.

    Here’s what the Nobel organisation has to say about it:

    “An award of the Nobel Prize to an organization does not under any circumstances permit an employee or other agent of that organization to claim to share a Nobel Prize. Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize”.

    I repeat, Mann states, falsely, on his website that he shared the Nobel Prize. This statement is dishonest.

    And here is the IPCC in an email to an official connected with the National Observatory in Athens who was repeating that two of its scientists had “shared” the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize:

    “Dear Mr Lazaridis,

    Again, let me clarify that the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. and to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the organization. Consequently, the following information is not correct: “Christos Zerefos, president of the National Observatory in Athens, and his colleague, Professor Alcibiades Bais of Thessaloniki University, are the first two Greeks to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, even if they share it with dozens of other scientists.”

    The sentence should read “Christos Zerefos, president of the National Observatory in Athens, and his colleague, Professor Alcibiades Bais of Thessaloniki University, have received a certificate commemorating their involvement with the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with former Vice President Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.”

    About 2000 personalized copies of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize together with a letter of Dr R.K. Pachauri have been sent worldwide to Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Review Editors, Bureau members, staff of Technical Support Units and of the Secretariat, who have contributed substantially to the work of the IPCC of the last 20 years.

    However, the above mentioned figure does not reflect all contributors to the IPCC process. We can estimate that approximately 10’000 scientist and officials have contributed to the work of the IPCC over the last two decades. The only figures we can share with you are related to the publication of the 4th Assessment Report:

    2500+ Scientific Expert Reviewers
    800+ Contributing Authors and 450+ Lead Authors
    130+ Countries
    6 years work
    1 Report

    Best regards,

    Francesca Foppiano
    IPCC Secretariat
    http://www.ipcc.ch”

    So that’s pretty clear then. Mann got a certificate of involvement as one of up to 10000 contributors.

    And isn’t it of interest that Mann’s lawyers whose entire case is centered around the reputation of their client repeat the same falsehood that their client repeats every day his website is up? – namely that he “shared” or “received” a Nobel Peace Prize. Good luck putting that in your pleadings and taking it before the judge whilst whining about your client’s “reputation”.

    Let’s face it, claiming dishonestly that you are a Nobel Prize recipient or that you shared in a Nobel Prize when you didn’t has got to be one of the biggest whoppers anyone could tell anyone. And his lawyers go to law about damage to his reputation?

  169. @Beta Blocker. i don’t see any form of settlement being offered in this case. One of the quirks of it being held in DC -and i’m no expert here, not even an American – is the defendant can counter with an anti- SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion and most likely make it go away. Not that they will wish to make it go away unless it looks very sticky for them.
    Depends who the lawyers are acting for, the defendants or their insurers. Even with a bias judge and jury there is always room for appeal if the case is strong enough.

  170. Roger Knights says:
    October 24, 2012 at 2:45 am

    Re NRO and insurance: I do not think NRO will rely on insurance coverage to pay for this, nor do I think they will have to. This is one of those bonanzas for attorneys where money will be coming in from all over the place. When you look at the stakes involved, what’s a couple of million in legal fees? I mean really.

  171. perhaps i’m being too simple but, surely, all the defense needs to present is:

    1. the latest UK Met Office data which david rose has been writing about, set alongside the hockey stick, with the quote directly from the UK Met Office that there has been no significant warming for 16 years, the climategate email quotes by the Team in response to BBC Paul Hudson’s “whatever happened to global warming” article of october 9, 2009, steve mcintyre’s debunking of the hockey stick and andrew montford’s book, “the hockey stick illusion”. done. michael mann’s hockey stick is patently fraudulent and CAGW is a hoax.

    2. given there’s been no significant warming for 16 years, which was not shown in Mann’s hockey stick, nor predicted by the Team, and given the response of the Team in 2009 to Hudson’s article mentioned above, both in the Climategate emails and in the MSM, and given Steve McIntyre’s debunking of the hockey stick, then Penn State, which has not seen fit to call on Mann to please explain how he got it so wrong, nor apologised on behalf of the university to the public for Mann’s discredited hockey stick, has covered up the scandal for a period of years, just as they covered up for Sandusky.

    what else is necessary?

  172. It’s instructive to note what NR editor Rich Lowry had to say about the threatened lawsuit back in July:

    Usually, you don’t welcome a nuisance lawsuit, because it’s a nuisance. It consumes time. It costs money. But this is a different matter in light of one word: discovery.

    If Mann sues us, the materials we will need to mount a full defense will be extremely wide-ranging. So if he files a complaint, we will be doing more than fighting a nuisance lawsuit; we will be embarking on a journalistic project of great interest to us and our readers.

    And this is where you come in. If Mann goes through with it, we’re probably going to call on you to help fund our legal fight and our investigation of Mann through discovery. If it gets that far, we may eventually even want to hire a dedicated reporter to comb through the materials and regularly post stories on Mann.

  173. Concerning the Nobel prize, all the people who checked out Mann and found nothing, I have but two words: Lance Armstrong.

  174. richardscourtney says:

    October 24, 2012 at 7:47 am

    I wasn’t there reading it and I don’t know, but I have common sense.

    Scientist don’t sue if they have a case, because they don’t want to waste their time. It’s more common to no sue when a scientist has a case and just overlook it.

    It will be settled out of court for a some of money and you’ll still claim total innocence on their behalf. I hope Mann doesn’t settle out of court.

  175. As a resident of the DC area, I look forward to following this case closely.

    But from a legal standpoint, I think Mann has a very high bar to cross to prove his point.

    The first question is whether he is a public figure. If he is judged to be a public figure, the burden of proof is much higher for libel. I think there is no question that he will be judged a public figure. For Mann to win, having a write print nasty things will not not be enough. Also, a bad use of an analogy that hurt his feelings will not be enough. He will need to prove that the writer knew what he was writing was false.

    Also, when writing about a public figure, you can write what you believe to be true. But if it it later turns out to be wrong, you can not then be sued for libel for the first statement. Well you can be sued, but you should not lose.

    Due to the SLAPP suit statute on the books in DC, I expect this lawsuit to have a very short life. The only problem may be that the statute that has not been tested. The closest it has come is when Redskins Owner Dan Snyder dropped lawsuit before a decision was reached to throw it out.(Dan Snyder vs. The City Paper)

    If it is thrown out due to the SLAPP provisions, Mann will never be deposed. If that occurs, I will be bummed as I was really looking forward to reading Mann’s deposition. .

  176. The chances of this not going to trial are slim in my view. The only way it will not go to trial is if Mann withdraws it. That’s not likely, although I think he will be badly beaten in a trial. And that he will waste the money of a lot of his friends in the various regions of the Green Movement.

    Highly Visible/Big Controversy trials take on a life of their own. Everybody–judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, juries– loves the limelight and both sides in the complaint are standing on deeply held beliefs and bedrock principles.

    There will very likely be a trial.

  177. Mann’s announcement came a day late for my birthday, but nevertheless, What a Birthday Present!!!

  178. The choice of the Superior Court in DC was not just based on the likelihood of getting a politicized judge to try to limit discovery. Mann has demanded a jury trial, and there is no state bluer than the District of Columbia. If the case survives summary judgment, that would not bode well for the defendants, regardless of the facts. Filing in the D.C. local court has the added advantage of making removal to federal court unavailable, since two of the defendants are D.C. residents. In short, tactically it was an inspired choice.

    On the issue of the insurer forcing a settlement on the defendants, that’s not likely. Insurers don’t sell insurance to just one media outlet. An insurer who refused to defend an insured against a false allegation of libel would not remain in that business very long.

    On the burden of proof, Mann will have to prove actual malice on the part of the defendants, ie. that they knew or should have known that their statements were false. It is just not true that a prima facie case is easy to make in a libel claim filed by a public figure.

    The key to the case will be the extent to which Mann can convince the judge to limit discovery. If he loses a motion to limit the scope, or for a protective order, that might be the stage at which the case is dismissed. I don’t see any counterclaim available to the defendants that would prevent it.

  179. richardscourtney says:
    October 24, 2012 at 7:47 am
    And Steyn did not accuse Mann of fra*d. Steyn wrote “the fra*dulent hockey stick graph”. And the graph is fra*dulent.

    No it isn’t, so much misinformation in a few paragraphs!

    The ‘hockey stick’ graph of NH temperature with time did not agree with recent measurements of temperature. The graph diverged from the surface temperature record for the period after 1960.

    Not true, the proxies used in the MBH98 ‘Hockey stick’ paper were calibrated with the temperature record from 1902-1980, there was not the divergence you speak of.

    This is known as “the divergence problem”.

    No it isn’t, the ‘divergence problem’ refers to a problem with a subset of trees used as proxies, namely those in the northern boreal forests and is discussed in a paper by Briffa et al. in 1998

    The ‘hockey stick’ graph showed NH temperature falling (i.e. “the decline”) after 1960 when the surface measurements showed NH temperature rising. And this was the most important finding of the work because it showed the method did NOT indicate NH temperature. The method cannot be used as a reliable indicator of unknown past NH temperature when it gives ‘wrong’ indications of known recent NH temperatures and temperature trend.

    No you are confusing MBH98 with Briffa et al. 98.

    This finding was an inconvenient truth for Mann, Bradley & Hughes. And they decided to not report it in their 1998 and 1999 papers which presented the ‘hockey stick’ graph. Instead, they plotted the surface temperature data as a thick line over the part of the ‘hockey stick’ graph for after 1960. Thus, they were able to “hide the decline” by using “Mike’s Nature trick” to cover it with the surface temperature data.

    Again you are confusing the papers, it wasn’t part of their findings. ‘Hide the decline’ specifically refers to Briffa’s paper, since there were no common authors on the two papers your continued use of ‘they’ is misleading.

    And they knew this was not proper because they mentioned “the divergence problem” as a minor point in another paper published in a different journal. Hence, they could claim that they had published a report of it. But, of course, any paper they provided which included the ‘hockey stick’ should have included mention the divergence problem and should not have hidden it. Indeed, as I have explained, the divergence problem was the most important finding of the work.

    And as I have explained you are wrong and are confusing different papers by different authors.

    1.
    parts were selected from two different items.

    The proxy data was plotted alongside the temperature data used to calibrate it, and clearly indicated as such in the paper and the figure legend.

    2.
    the selected parts were presented together.

    As above, why not do so.
    3.
    with clear intent to mislead the scientific community.

    Hardly the procedure and sources of the data were clearly stated, no reason for anyone to be confused!

  180. Mark Steyn says in his post ‘Mann Bites Denialist!’ at his blog,

    “Global warm-monger Dr Michael Mann has decided to proceed with his suit against me and National Review plus Rand Simberg and the Competitive Enterprise Institute for the crime of mocking his hockey stick.”

    – – – – – –

    Unfortunately for Mann, his lawsuit against NRO has ‘let slip the dogs of war independent journalism.

    NOTE: Let me guess Mann’s instructions to his legal team. I guess he tells them something like (my words), “How dare anyone question me. I am one of the greatest scientists in the battle to save our planet against a multitude of corporate and right wing conspiracies. As my legal team, I command you to go set a legal precedent in this trial that no one can ever in the future question my publically funded science or my IPCC backed messianic policy claims.”

    John

  181. D. J. Hawkins says:
    October 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    D Böehm says:
    October 23, 2012 at 3:23 pm
    Craig Loehle,

    Nobel prize stature has declined since Obama won it.

    I’m sorry, just how do you go “down” from bottom?

    …ummm, by digging a hole?

  182. This is really odd, why would anyone want to file a case where the term peodophile can be used in close proximity to your name and there is a 50/50 chance of losing the case!

  183. The only way this could get better is for ManBearPig to join Mann.

    The flaws in Mann’s arguments are so varied, and so omissive of all of Earth’s dynamics, this will be sooooooooo much fun :)

    I can hardly wait.

  184. “To challenge a lawsuit under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, you must show that it is based on your act or acts “in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest.””

    Oh, I wondered if there was a SLAPP law that could apply.

    If it is applicable, Mann is going to find himself in serious trouble.

  185. Phil.:

    Your post at October 24, 2012 at 10:01 am disputes my short explanation of the divergence problem and the misrepresentation of it by Mann, Bradley & Hughes.

    Your dispute is plain wrong in its assertions.

    The value of the case put by Mann is that Steyn and the NRO will have a chance to get Mann to explain the facts I stated when he is on oath in a Court of Law. After that it will not be possible for the likes of you to misrepresent the scandal of the divergence problem as you have in your post.

    Quibble as you always do. But what you say here cannot overcome the fact that Mann will be called to account for this scandal in Court. And I rejoice at that.

    Richard

  186. Nobel prize stature has declined since Obama won it.

    I’m sorry, just how do you go “down” from bottom?

    …ummm, by digging a hole?
    ______________________________________________________
    A very deep hole after the EU Nobel. It must be embarrassing to even get one now that they are so clearly politically tarnished …

  187. Chris R. says October 24, 2012 at 7:53 am

    [to:] ]Axel [et al]

    Your statement about the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will is interesting. In part, you wrote:

    “From the original last will and testament of Alfred Nobel :

    “and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

    How Nobel’s statement can be contorted to include the definition quoted by Mann is frankly inexplicable, and how the Nobel Prize committee could decide that to make awards to multiple recipients, was compliant with the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will is baffling and bewildering.”

    However, the Nobel Peace prize has been awarded to more than …

    Are you folks conflating the “Peace Prize” with the specific Nobel Prizes awarded in certain subject areas (like economics)?

    I believe you all are; please READ UP on this subject before continuing.

    (1) The Nobel Prize (awarded in Stockholm, Sweden) is a set of annual international awards bestowed in a number of categories by Scandinavian committees in recognition of cultural and/or scientific advances. The Nobel Prize is widely regarded as the most prestigious award available in the fields of literature, medicine, physics, chemistry, peace, and economics.

    (2)The Peace Prize is awarded in Oslo, Norway.

    (1) The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awards the Nobel Prize in Physics, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences; the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet awards the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine; the Swedish Academy grants the Nobel Prize in Literature.

    (2) Nobel’s instructions named a Norwegian Nobel Committee to award the Peace Prize, the members of whom were appointed shortly after the will was approved in April 1897. Norway’s Nobel Committee was responsible for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize.

    .

  188. I bet champagne bottles are being opened all over the Penn State campus. Imagine you’re a member of the Penn State leadership. You’ve crawled through the swamp that was Jerry Sandusky and Penn State’s attempts to cover up immoral behavior, barely escaped with your life, and emerged on dry but shaky ground if not healthy, at least alive. With the sentencing of Sandusky, things appeared to be settling down. Then one of your favorite sons (well, favorite in that he brings in money) decides to file a lawsuit against among others two formidable foes (the NRO and Mark Steyn) that will rekindle the two most destructive fires: (1) the argument that Penn State just might engage in a coverup to protect its financial interests, and (2) keeping Jerry Sandusky’s name prominent in the news. The former because Dr. Mann claims that he was exonerated by multiple investigations, one of which was internal to Penn State. The latter because the names Michael Mann and Jerry Sandusky are linked in the legal complaint. You’ve got to be thinking: “Can’t someone just make this issue go away?” You can envision every university/college proudly proclaiming: “We AREN’T Penn State!” Yeah, the champagne bottles (and bourbon, scotch, rum, gin, vodka, …) are being opened all over Penn State’s campus–not with the goal of celebration, but rather with the goal of drowning out the misery.

  189. bobby b wrote;
    “Sadly, Mann has found the perfect judge for someone in his position:

    http://www.therobingroom.com/dc/JudgeDetail.aspx?ID=3789

    (As you review the detailed ratings charts, keep in mind that a ’1′ generally means ‘awful.’)”

    I’m not sure that those reviews or comments are all that bad.

    There are several that appear to have been submitted by the same person. Many of them state that she is biased against plaintiffs and Mann is the plaintiff in this case. Also, when someone is happy with something, they don’t file a complaint.

  190. So he’s going to take on both. He must have backing of someone powerful in Washington. If he doesn’t, and is doing this on his own he will be buried. So, he can’t be that dumb to go it alone.

    The fix in a predetermined courtroom must already be in.

  191. Wayne Delbeke says:
    October 24, 2012 at 11:19 am

    Nobel prize stature has declined since Obama won it.

    I’m sorry, just how do you go “down” from bottom?

    …ummm, by digging a hole?
    ______________________________________________________
    A very deep hole after the EU Nobel. It must be embarrassing to even get one now that they are so clearly politically tarnished …
    —————————————————-
    I think the EU only won it because they really need the money.

  192. zoot cadillac,
    That legal blog is a GREAT resource.
    This will be an interesting case.

  193. Three steps are probably required to cut down any existing strategy which Mann & Co, may think will be the course of progress of this lawsuit.
    1) COUNTERCLAIMS. The bleg for money at the CSLDF (pointed to by Mann iirc , but I can’t find it atm) is itself libelous of the defendants: it accuses them of ‘libelous statements’ as part of a conspiracy. A Counterclaim precludes him from dropping the suit at his whim, (Note that he cannot do that will the Ball lawsuit, without some very large costs consequences…In Canada, the phrase ‘words have consequences’ can have extra meaning when the words are written on piece of paper titled ‘Statement of Claim’.)..
    2) MOVE THE LAWSUIT. The face of the Claim makes it obvious that federal diversity jurisdiction allows/requires that the action be removed to FEDERAL court. Mann is a resident of Pennsylvania. None of the defendants reside there. In fact, the defendants reside in 3 (possibly 4) different jurisdictions. So much for judge shopping in DC, or for that matter, the purported advantages of a DC jury.
    3) EXTEND THE DISCOVERY. Mann has already shot himself in the foot regarding discovery. The State of Virginia has been stonewalled by UV, partially on the same grounds as he is resisting the ATI disclosure lawsuit: that the records sought are exempt. But that does not apply in this circumstance. The footgun is that UV has argued, in part, that the emails being sought *belong* to Mann and not the University. So UV can refuse disclosure under FOIA. BUT therefore *he* cannot deny disclosure on the grounds that he does not ‘own’ them. Even if they are on someone else’s computer, if he is entltled or allowed to access them, then they are discoverable ESI. And since copies have already been forwarded to him (if I remember the history correctly), none of the other ‘non-proportional difficulty’ excuses apply.
    Did I hear someone say ‘Fresh popcorn’?

  194. I would suggest a poll. Something like…

    Regarding the Dr. Mann versus National Review lawsuit.

    Do you think Mann will win?
    Do you think the National Review will win?
    Do you think Mann will drop the lawsuit?
    Will there be an out-of-court settlement?
    Do you think Mark Steyn will write so much hilarity that Mann’s head will explode?

    I’m not too good with polls but I do enjoy answering them ;)

  195. Hu McCulloch says:
    October 24, 2012 at 10:59 am

    “The Jerry Sandusky of climate science” is way over the top. CEI retracted it, but then Steyn went ahead of recirculated it. Not good.

    If you replace “young boys” with “credibility of his field of research”, the example holds.

  196. Mann will probably lose unless the system is corrupt which means he will probably win unless another connection to more nefarious activities are made so he loses. This is the legal angle against him that should be perused, assuming the system is corrupt, of which there is plenty evidence of. TV business news is did a bias praise of MM today. (FOX Business)

    Definition of MOLEST (Mirriam-Webster)
    1: to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect
    2: to make annoying sexual advances to; especially : to force physical and usually sexual contact on.

    A case for Disturbing evidence, with injurious effect can certainly be made.

  197. Fun but anguishing because with this sort of thing we have to wait too long. The law is of course an ass but with its front and back hooves hobbled. Maybe the proceedings can be shown live on PBS. We can buy our pop corn on the futures market.

  198. With $Billions in federal grants handed out every year to ‘study climate change’, there will be enormous behind-the-scenes pressure to keep the gravy train on track. It is clear that Mann’s attorneys judge shopped. So don’t assume that this will be litigated based on Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

    This particular judge doesn’t seem to have much in the way of ethics, and there is no doubt that Mann’s people are trying to get to her. Like they say, money doesn’t talk — it screams.

    They got to Chief Justice John Roberts on Obamacare. This judge should be a piece of cake.

  199. Maybe this would be a good time for the next installment of Climategate emails to appear from the ether.

  200. Hu McCulloch says:
    October 24, 2012 at 10:59 am

    “The Jerry Sandusky of climate science” is way over the top. CEI retracted it, but then Steyn went ahead of recirculated it. Not good.
    ——————————————————————————-

    Hu: while I agree it’s way over the top, I think it’s fair to say that Steyn repeated it with caveats and that the comparison goes much deeper and is actually as much an attack on Penn State as anything else. From John O’Sullivan’s blog :

    Such critics point to Spanier’s statements about both men as proof of the (corruptible) self-serving money motive at PSU. Spanier first declared that Mann’s:

    “level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…”

    Then Spanier issued an eerily similar statement to exonerate Sandusky:

    “This level of success on the football field and revenue generated from it, clearly places Coaches Paterno and Sandusky among the most respected professionals in their field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of their profession in operating a football program…”

    “Had Coach Paterno or Coach Sandusky’s conduct of their program been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for them to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from peers who may or may not agree with his program … ”

    The above statements prove the status of the football program and its leaders, Paterno and Sandusky, are an EXACT parallel to Michael Mann’s status. Both brought massive funding to PSU. Both enjoyed the adoration of the press. Both worked outside the system of checks and balances. Both were “investigated” by PSU staff. Both were cleared by PSU of wrongdoing. From plain reading of Freeh’s report we see there is NO reason to believe that the same corrupt administration that empowered Paterno and Sandusky’s crimes would act any differently in Mann’s case.

    The similarities in the two woefully inept investigations are striking.

  201. I’m a lawyer in the US (Massachusetts).

    Mann has self-identified as a public figure, and given his vigorously high public profile in climate science he would likely qualify as such even without the self-identification. For a public figure to win any kind of defamation suit in the US is all but impossible. Mann will have to prove actual malice. Showing that others have disagreed, mocked, and been snide is not going to be sufficient, especially when considered in the broader context of all the genuine science that contests Mann’s claims (not to mention 16 years without global warming–how’s that hockey stick looking now?).

    To show malice Mann will need to find the kind of evidence of a personally-destructive conspiracy as was revealed by the Climategate emails illustrating the efforts of the Mann’s peers to manipulate peer reviewed publications to block opposing scientific research. People who behave in such a diabolic and suppressive manner always project their own behavior onto the “other side”, but I expect they’ll have trouble finding the evidence they need.

    In the unlikely event that Mann manages to overcome that very considerable burden, he will then need to show actual damages causally related to the alleged defamation. I expect this will be difficult as well.

    Furthermore, in the US legal discovery is typically a very broad, far-ranging, and intensive activity. There is very, very little that can be held back from discovery–the primary goal of the court is to arrive at the truth, and this is best served by greater, not lesser, exposure. Given Mann’s past desperate efforts to prevent the disclosure of massive quantities of his data, work product, and communications, I expect the outcome will be eye opening, indeed. It’s difficult to imagine a more contrary method of concealing such information than the filing of a defamation suit in the US.

    *Popcorn.*

  202. richardscourtney says:
    October 24, 2012 at 11:18 am
    Phil.:

    Your post at October 24, 2012 at 10:01 am disputes my short explanation of the divergence problem and the misrepresentation of it by Mann, Bradley & Hughes.

    Your dispute is plain wrong in its assertions.

    No it isn’t richard, as usual you are full of it, it would do any harm for you to admit your errors once in a while! It’s clear that you have confused the MBH and Briffa papers, both published in 1998.

    From Arrigo et al., “On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes”

    “A number of recent tree-ring studies have addressed the ‘divergence problem’ in northern forests. It is defined herein as the tendency for tree growth at some previously temperature-limited northern sites to demonstrate a weakening in mean temperature response in recent decades, with the divergence being expressed as a loss in climate sensitivity and/or a divergence in trend (Jacoby and D’Arrigo, 1995; Briffa et al., 1998a,b; Vaganov et al., 1999; Barber et al., 2000; Briffa, 2000; Jacoby et al., 2000; Wilson and Luckman, 2003; Briffa et al., 2004; D’Arrigo et al., 2004a; Wilmking et al., 2004, 2005; Driscoll et al., 2005; Büntgen et al., 2006a).”

  203. Wow. This moron (Mann) has put everything on the table in that lawsuit. Everything he states in his filing can be challenged directly during the proceedings. Proof positive that he is either not very bright or dangerously unstable or just plain crazy desperate. I cannot possibly see him letting this actually go before a judge. I hope he is really that stupid and that this gets fast tracked into court. I’m gobsmacked that he would even go there.

  204. I am a lawyer (but who has done business, not law, for years).

    I hope I am right in my impression when Mann first threatened suit: the publications/institutions involved wanted a lawsuit. That would mean they are well prepared and well funded. The fact that Mark Steyn, especially, was involved, suggests this to me. Hate speech litigation in Canada was a nightmare for Steyn. I don’t think he would put himself again in the line of fire unless there was a strategy and financing in place. If the institutions/publications/individuals expected litigation, they knnow they too are subject to discovery and think they are OK.

    Of course if donor or subscription lists are released, the individuals on the list will be harrassed mercilessly by the left.

    The standard for defamation by media types in defamation of public figures: If the statement is rhetorical hyperbole – i.e., not capable of being proved true or false, it’s protected. If the statement is a statement of fact: the person claiming defamation has to prove the press acted with actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.

    There is a grey area where it could be argued something is an opinion, but is capable of being proved true or false. Depending on what court the suit is in, I think the standard of proof can vary according to state. A few might make media prove the truth of what they said, others would go with the defamed person having to prove actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard, and others something in between. (Malokitch v. Lorain, to me a very confusing case which muddies the waters before opinion and fact.)

    Re calling someone the Sandusky…..of abusing data: I believe the “Sandusky” part is rhetorical hyperbole as long as you have made it clear you aren’t implying child molestation.

    But I haven’t actively practiced law for a number of years. I’ll be curious to see what the currently practicing lawyers say. Also, I haven’t read the complaint and perhaps Mann thought of something besides defamation.

  205. This could turn into another Alger Hiss trial, complete with a perjury trial after the civil action concludes….

  206. Phil:

    I am replying to your untrue diatribe at October 24, 2012 at 1:53 pm so you know I am not ignoring it.

    I knew your untrue rant is was inevitable and so I addressed it in my post you are supposedly answering when I wrote to you

    Quibble as you always do. But what you say here cannot overcome the fact that Mann will be called to account for this scandal in Court. And I rejoice at that.

    If you are right then there is no reason for you to care about the issue. But we both know I am right and that is why you are frothing about it.

    And your comment is as convincing as Gary Lance writing at October 24, 2012 at 9:09 am

    I have common sense.

    I think you should both read the link provided by Pointman at October 23, 2012 at 10:21 am and its excellent and amusing link at

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/climate-alarmism-and-the-prat-principle/

    which explains the nature of a prat.

    Richard

  207. D Böehm says:
    October 24, 2012 at 10:17 am
    Phil says Mann’s Hokey Stick chart is legit.

    What I said was that richard’s critique was wrong/mistaken, it is! He thinks that Briffa’s reconstruction, which did have ‘divergence’ problems, was Mann’s.

    According to richard: “The value of the case put by Mann is that Steyn and the NRO will have a chance to get Mann to explain the facts I stated when he is on oath in a Court of Law. After that it will not be possible for the likes of you to misrepresent the scandal of the divergence problem as you have in your post.” I imagine that they will not be so incompetent as to attribute Briffa’s work to Mann, if they do they deserve to lose.

  208. Damn… got my hopes up.

    From the title I assumed that he was going after the National Reconnaissance Office. You know.. that entity that didn’t exist until an inadvertent mention in a Senate committee report.

    Unlikely? Well, this is Michael Mann we are talking about. Would you put it past him?

  209. RB says:
    October 24, 2012 at 8:27 am

    “…Hi all,

    Let’s be absolutely clear about the Nobel Prize issue. Mann daily repeats a dishonest claim on his website that he shared the Nobel Prize. He did not.

    I noted that Mann’s lawyers describe him in para. 5 of the complaint as a Nobel Prize recipient. For those who don’t recall this is the 2007 joint award to the IPCC and Al Gore. This issue has been addressed before and any claim that Mann is a Nobel Prize recipient or shared such a prize is false.

    Note also that Mann claims on his own website to have shared the Nobel Peace Prize and makes the same claim in the sleeve of his recent book.

    Here’s what the Nobel organisation has to say about it:

    “An award of the Nobel Prize to an organization does not under any circumstances permit an employee or other agent of that organization to claim to share a Nobel Prize. Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize”…

    Pure Ownage, GOOD GOING, RB

  210. richardscourtney says:
    October 24, 2012 at 2:16 pm
    Phil:

    I am replying to your untrue diatribe at October 24, 2012 at 1:53 pm so you know I am not ignoring it.

    I knew your untrue rant is was inevitable and so I addressed it in my post you are supposedly answering when I wrote to you

    Quibble as you always do. But what you say here cannot overcome the fact that Mann will be called to account for this scandal in Court. And I rejoice at that.

    If you are right then there is no reason for you to care about the issue. But we both know I am right and that is why you are frothing about it.

    You are the one who’s ‘frothing’ about being caught out with your misinformation yet again.
    You come on here with your misleading and incorrect statements, when called on it as usual you make no attempt to address the points.
    I’ve read the MBH98 paper which figure shows this: “Instead, they plotted the surface temperature data as a thick line over the part of the ‘hockey stick’ graph for after 1960.”?

  211. I am amazed by the naivete of some of the posters here with respect to law firms and what cases they will accept.

    MM is a high profile client. No matter what the outcome of the trial, if it comes to that, the law firm will make a profit. Make no mistake about it. I doubt that the firm is even charging him anything at the outset, despite the pleas for money from MM’s faithful coterie of loons. The lawyers know they will make up the money later.. IN SPADES!!!!!!

    They’ll make their money back through the national exposure from this case. Other high profile clients, who actually do have money to burn, will line up to hire them (it doesn’t even matter if they win – after all, if they get on TV – from the perspective of a law firm, getting on TV is a win-win no matter what the outcome of the case).

    None of this means, of course, that MM will come out a winner, whatever the outcome. But his law firm will!!!!

  212. Interesting reading regarding the judge and a prior high profile case – she misstated the law, improperly dismissed with prejudice …

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081903871.html

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020301687.html

    http://mokellyreport.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/barbara-mckinzie-back-to-typing-emails-in-wake-of-courtroom-victory/

    Dismissal Order:

    http://www.friendsoftheweepingivy.com/pdf/Court%20Order%20to%20Dismiss.pdf

    And the Appeals Courts findings throwing out the Judges dismissal …

    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/10-cv-220_mtd.pdf

    The website of the Plaintiffs – the members of the sorority who brought action against the leadership over the misappropriation of well over $2 million by the leadership …

    http://www.friendsoftheweepingivy.com

    The Appeals Court noted a number of instances where the Judge misrepresented the case law, in one egregious case the Judge noted violation of “laws” as a standard when in fact the case law included “by-laws” which were directly relevant.

    All of the above, regarding the competency and actions of this Judge, and here proposed bias in support of Mann, might very well be misdirected however. Below is a comment, closer to an attack, the Judge directed against the Plaintiffs in her dismissal order. This commentary almost exactly fits Mann’s agenda and charade with the filing of this suit.

    It will be extremely interesting to see if she applies the same level of criticism to Mann’s case:

    This case is largely about several disgruntled AKA members disillusioned with what they see as an increasingly opaque, authoritarian, and self-serving leadership in their organization. Based on the voluminous record, questions may exist as to the propriety of the Directorate’s actions. The question remains, however, whether such behavior warrants judicial intervention—particularly given the fact Plaintiffs appear to have attempted to circumvent the requirements of a shareholder derivative suit. The Complaint is largely bald, containing hyperbolic allegations riddled with buzz words, e.g., “intentionally,” “maliciously,” “grossly abused,” “knowingly,” and “fraudulently,” however, it provides very few specific allegations. Plaintiffs have overwhelmed the record with seemingly unnecessary and frivolous exhibits, arguments, counts, and facts detailing the sorority’s 101 year history. The Defendants point out thatPlaintiffs have started a website to raise money for the suit and use it to post the pleadings as they are filed. Along those lines, many of Plaintiff’s arguments read as political speeches intended for an other audience than this Court.

  213. Phil:

    re your most recent rant at October 24, 2012 at 3:15 pm.

    Yes, you keep saying that. And Tiljander was the right way up, too. I know all the delusions of ‘hokey schtick’ believers.

    I will repeat to ensure others understand.

    I merely pointed out the facts and you went ballistic. But
    (a) If I were wrong then so what?
    and
    (b) If you are wrong then Mann is buggered.

    My response to each of your rants is to say “Bring it on in Court”.
    Your response to my repeatedly saying that is to rant on and on and on and …about how I MUST be wrong.

    Readers can deduce from that what they will.

    Richard

  214. Mann’s facebook picture appears unequivocal. He didn’t win it, the IPCC did, and he was acknowleged as a contributor.

  215. harry says:
    October 24, 2012 at 3:50 pm
    Mann’s facebook picture appears unequivocal

    Que? “a facebook picture appears unequivocal”?
    Whoa, people, reality?

  216. Reed Coray says:
    “With the sentencing of Sandusky, things appeared to be settling down.”

    Not really.

    Aside from this Mann-made fiasco, Penn State is being sued by Mike McQueary claiming defamation and unfair termination regarding Penn State’s treatment of him in the Sandusky case and Penn State is being sued by Sandusky “Victim 1″ alleging negligence, fraudulent concealment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. Additionally, some of the other Sandusky victims have indicated that they may also sue.

  217. Very interestingly – in the case the Judge dismissed – where she attacked the 8 members who were challenging the grossly improper actions of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority leadership … this paragraph appears to sum up the current status 3 years later:

    The reality in 2012 is that the IRS and FBI are conducting simultaneous and likely connected investigations into the theft and misappropriation of more than 2.1 million dollars from the sorority. The suspension of Barbara A. McKinzie by the sorority, though unprecedented is only the first shoe to drop and a calculated move to present the sorority as not being complicit in the theft. The original 8 plaintiffs against the sorority will likely win their lawsuit on the heels of the independent audit, the federal investigations and suspension of McKinzie. The financial implications could very well mean bankruptcy for the sorority due to fines, restitution and legal fees. And financial obstacles aside, given the depths of the fraudulent tax returns, the 501c3 status of the organization is by definition in jeopardy.

    This is from this site:

    http://mrmokelly.com/tag/alpha-kappa-alpha/

    By all appearances this determined group of AKA members, with support from this small investigative reporter have managed to move this now seemingly true and serious case from dismissal by an incompetent and biased judge to mainstream attention, dismissal of the leader who apparently squandered millions, and FBI and IRS involvement.

    I guess the moral is – we need to stick to our guns and continue fighting the battle for public awareness of the failings of the alleged climate experts … and continue to push to expose the malfeasance and bad practices by them.

    The parallels to the AKA case are not identical, but the battle is all to similar. A concerted and continued effort can have positive and direct consequences as this situation shows – but not without a lengthy process and much effort along the way.

  218. I think there is too much misplaced faith in our judicial system here. With the exception of patent attorneys, most of those in the legal profession seem to have little aptitude for math and science and most lawyers that I have met are the first to admit it. Consequently, legal cases involving technical issues can have have bizarre outcomes, even on appeal. Some judges also seem to ignore the very things they demand of jurors, like not letting anything other than facts that are presented during a trial influence their decisions. Unfortunately, like the general public, most judges are only familiar with one side of the AGW debate and are likely to accept AGW as a truism and give little credence to the testimony of a skeptic which they don’t understand.

    Additionally, one should never underestimate the ability of skilled law firms in winning cases that have no merit. I suspect they will try to bombard the judge with so many irrelevant facts she will be become totally confused. Hopefully, truth and reason will ultimately prevail but there is no guarantee. This seems like a modern version of the Salem witch trials.

  219. page488 says:
    October 24, 2012 at 3:21 pm
    I am amazed by the naivete of some of the posters here with respect to law firms and what cases they will accept.
    —————————————————-
    The rules of engagement are very well established.
    1. Is the potential client breathing (or were they recently breathing)?
    2. Do they have any money, do they work for a company that has access to money, are they from a rich family or is there a possibility that we can stick someone who was recently standing next to them with the bill – someone who has an ability to pay?

  220. Don Allen says (October 24, 2012 at 4:43 pm): “By this suit MM will be proven to be a SCOAMF.”

    I had to look that one up, and it took me to yet another of those “Hitler rants” videos that I, with my warped sense of humor, find hilarious:

  221. The Fallwell case against Hustler magazine seems to me to have established the principle that the more outrageous the insult, the less legal recourse a public figure has under defamation law. It’s almost like the inverse of the skeptical principle that “extreme claims require extreme evidence.”

    Hypothetically, were one to claim that Dr Mann had evaded taxes or spent grant money on Las Vegas vacations, those — ordinary, plausible — claims might be actionable. The casual reader has no reason to suppose that a climate scientist is any more immune to such temptations than dentists or plumbers.

    Were one to hypothetically suggest that Dr Mann had molested little boys in the Penn State showers, THAT claim is so extreme and implausible that the casual reader would assume anyone asserting it was crazy, lying, or joking. Or so Larry Flynt argued regarding his similar claims about TV preacher Jerry Falwell.

    Similarly radio shock-jock Howard Stein can get away with saying all kinds of outrageous things just because his audience expects him to attempt outrageous humor. Mark Steyn, also a radio personality, seems to be setting up a similar defense — “Hey, I’m kidding. Can’t a public figure take a joke?”

    It’ll be interesting to watch.

  222. richardscourtney says:
    October 24, 2012 at 3:44 pm
    Phil:

    re your most recent rant at October 24, 2012 at 3:15 pm.

    That was not a rant.
    I merely pointed out the facts and you went ballistic.

    You didn’t point out the facts, you were wrong!
    You think that’s ballistic?

    My response to each of your rants is to say “Bring it on in Court”.

    Which is totally illogical since you want to accuse Mann of doing something that Briffa did!

    Your response to my repeatedly saying that is to rant on and on and on and …about how I MUST be wrong.

    No I tell you that you are wrong because you are on the facts. You however are apparently unable to rebut any of the statements I have made and just resort to rhetoric and bluster. You’ve been busting Gary about answering your questions, how about you do likewise and answer the one I asked of you. You made a very specific statement about the MBH papers: “Instead, they plotted the surface temperature data as a thick line over the part of the ‘hockey stick’ graph for after 1960”, identify that figure. I asked you before and you dodged it.

  223. EPIC FAIL! Presidential Race Results Mistakenly Leaked On CBS? Obama Romney 2012

    Now their throwing up false MSM poles on Drudge and TV to make sheeple think they are going to vote for the perceived winner in the poles, Romney. The powers that be always prepare in advance and know who the real winner will be with their internal poles the general Public doesn’t see. Stock Market insider trade info.

    The CBS leak 2012 election results Declares Obama Winner is near 100% correct. True voter intentions don’t change virtually at all 2 weeks before the election unless a meteor hits the planet. Third party candidates will get 17% of the total vote.

  224. @M Courtney: If that is the passage that generated the lawsuit then I really don’t see how Mann is going to win this. He has everything to lose and nothing to gain from this.

  225. Pouncer says: \\. . . Mark Steyn, also a radio personality, seems to be setting up a similar defense — “Hey, I’m kidding. Can’t a public figure take a joke?” //

    I can’t speak for him, but I think he has a firm belief that the Hockey stick graph–and, most importantly the way it has been used–is fraudulent. He could argue either way: it was fraudulent at its conception and then demand all kinds of documents in discovery; or he can say the graph has been used fraudulently, particularly in the past ten years, to the detriment of good climatological science. Both veiwpoints can easily be demonstrated to be informed and arguably true opinions.

    I don’t think he will try and take the easy way out in this. His lawyers may counsel him to do that, he is afterall the foremost and most effective political satirist working in journalism today and hyperbole is among his most lethal weaponry, but he’s not one to suffer fools gladly.

    What’s apparent is that he can argue against the charges in a variety of ways and win on each one. As Rich Lowry noted, I think they will look at this not as a nuisance, but as an opportunity.

  226. Michael says October 24, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    EPIC FAIL! Presidential Race Results Mistakenly Leaked On CBS? Obama Romney 2012

    Now their throwing up false MSM poles on Drudge and TV to make sheeple think they are going to vote for the perceived winner in the poles

    Ouch! In so many ways …. firstly, it’s “THEY ARE throwing” or “THEY’RE throwing” (not “their throwing”) and it is “MSM POLLS” not ‘MSM poles’.

    I think the plethora of con-spir-acy theor-ies spun by ______________ (fill in the blank as required e.g. Alex Jones, ZH, etc) may have taken finally taken their toll regarding higher-level brain-functioning Michael!

    .

  227. It’s like sitting back and being able to watch a train wreck, knowing no one is going to be harmed. Good thing I stocked up on the popcorn before the futures went up.

  228. Steve from Rockwood says October 24, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    It actually says “presented to” and not “contributed to”

    Let’s extract and examine all that appears on the lower half of that placard Mann has on exhibit as it appears in the image way above at the top of this thread::

    .
    . INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
    .
    . . . PRESENTED TO MICHAEL E. MANN
    .
    . .FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THE AWARD OF THE
    .
    . . . . . . NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
    .
    . . . . . FOR 2007 TO THE IPCC
    .
    .

  229. _Jim says:
    October 24, 2012 at 7:38 pm
    Michael says October 24, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    “Ouch! In so many ways …. firstly, it’s “THEY ARE throwing” or “THEY’RE throwing” (not “their throwing”) and it is “MSM POLLS” not ‘MSM poles’.

    I think the plethora of con-spir-acy theor-ies spun by ______________ (fill in the blank as required e.g. Alex Jones, ZH, etc) may have taken finally taken their toll regarding higher-level brain-functioning Michael!”

    Grammar and spelling Nazi’s, what would we do without you.

    That infographic was not photoshop. TV stations make them to try to be first to announce the winner.
    They were making their graphics and accidentally hit the wrong button displaying the result on TV.
    It’s 100% documented. You can make stock market bets on the information contained therein.

    I 100% guarantee you will win based an that information.

  230. “Note it says “for contributing to” not awarded to.”

    If MM can’t get the basic distinction between “for contributing to” vs. actually being awarded the Nobel Political prize, it is no surprise MM’s Hockey Stick was broken.

  231. “The global warming debate has left much to be desired in the realm of logic and rationale. One particular researcher, Michael E. Mann, has been repeatedly attacked for his now infamous (and peer reviewed/independently verified) hockey stick graph. It has come to the point where he is now suing for defamation over being compared to convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky. Articles hosted by defendants and written by defendant Rand Simberg and defendant Mark Steyn utilize questionable logic for implicating Michael E. Mann alongside Jerry Sandusky with the original piece, concluding, ‘Michael Mann, like Joe Paterno, was a rock star in the context of Penn State University, bringing in millions in research funding. The same university president who resigned in the wake of the Sandusky scandal was also the president when Mann was being (whitewashed) investigated. We saw what the university administration was willing to do to cover up heinous crimes, and even let them continue, rather than expose them. Should we suppose, in light of what we now know, they would do any less to hide academic and scientific misconduct, with so much at stake?’ Additionally, sentences were stylized to blend the two people together: ‘He has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.’ One of the defendants admits to removing ‘a sentence or two’ of questionable wording. Still, as a public figure, Michael E. Mann has an uphill battle to prove defamation in court.”

    http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/10/24/1951222/michael-e-mann-sues-for-defamation-over-comparison-to-jerry-sandusky

  232. “and he makes the claim that he has been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” in the complaint itself (page 2, paragraph 2).”
    “The official Nobel site makes no mention of him; there are no speeches, no citations, no pictures of him with the King of Norway, no namecheck on the 2007 Nobel diploma.”

    Given MM will lie about being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, would it not be prudent of a Judge hearing his lawsuit to ask what else Mann has lied about or misled people about?

  233. Michael says October 24, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    That infographic was not photoshop. TV

    Strawman argument construction; I did not address that facet of your post but rather the conclusions you drew (Occam’s Razor: someone at the station or down the line in the network were testing their character/graphics generator drop-and-insert gear, but to HEAR you tell it, it was more MK-ULTRA CIA/NSA-sponsored cloak-and-dagger mind-control stuff.)

    BTW, If you stop now (posting that is), you won’t look so bad later on (digging that hole deeper, that is) …

    .

    PS. They were wondering where you went off to over on ZH; most were betting you made-good on your opt-out of society bid but am surprised to see you posting here.

    PPS. Have you notice how the polls have begun to ‘right’ themselves … that is, they are rolling-around to being the correct-side up? They (pollsters) still have some sense of their ‘integrity’ … naw, probably not … no doubt you have enough Y2K rations still stock-piled there on the ‘compound’ and no need to interact with the rest of the world (exc. to sow a bit of con-spir-acy theo-ry here and there just for ‘fun’, to see how the ‘sheeple’ can be made to run or stampede out of panic …)

    .

  234. I written dozens of books! I can prove it, in the authors’ prefaces I’m thanked for my contributions to proof reading and suggestions for improvement.

  235. Green Sand wrote:
    “Que? “a facebook picture appears unequivocal”?”
    Yup, Mann posted a picture of his “Nobel Prize”, or at least something he believes is the Nobel Prize. Would it have been too much for you to check first?

  236. Mann can reasure himself of who won the prize by checking the official Nobel webpage. Unlike Al Gore, he is not mentioned there. But Mann’s got a fancy docuemnt, personal to him, which not all the “4000” IPCC scientists have received. The thing is that organization don’t do any work, ya know. People working there/for them do the work and if the Nobel committee singles you out to receive an award as a main contributor within a winning organization as a whole, then I think it is fair to state it the way Mann did. Language only makes sense in context. If a guy working at the pits of a Formula 1 team says “he” (i.e. they as a team) one the world championship, than that is true, if you consider all the remainders that naturally have to be attached to this statement. And yes, for practical purposes Mann got the prize, in that the organization needs people to act for it and he is the one, or one of the people to whom the committee have attached the achievement personally by issuing that award document in his name. He hasn’t won it the same way as Gore, because he won it jointly with the IPCC as a whole. Now, whether this is something that needs more precision or elaboration with view to making a possible misrepresentation in a filing is arguable; but it is obviously not quite the same as if you or I started walking around claiming we won the Nobel prize.

    How many articles are you going to write on this non-event? What should disturb you more is that you get the peace prize award for not doing anything AT ALL these days, e.g. Obama.

  237. I’ve got the photo of Dr. Mann’s award (shown from his office window) […]

    So it would seem that when it comes to depicting “proxies” and “principal component analysis” of Nobel Peace Prize awards, Mann’s comprehension is as profoundly challenged as it appears to be whenever he attempts to engage in statistical analysis.

    Bristlecone pine or brittle-tone whine … It’s all the same to him, evidently: Whatever he claims must be true, simply Because! Mann! Says! So!

  238. I have a question I hope somebody could answer. I would appreciate it.

    I recall a picture of Mann posing next to some tree log cuts posted here at WUWT and elsewhere. Did he actually used these log cuts to produce the hockey stick or did he just compiled (cherry-picked) tree ring data from other scientists?

    I believe he did not actually measure any ring width himself to produce said hockey stick graph, but he poses as he actually did. I also recall reading that the original authors of the bristlecone paper warned agains extracting weather data from their data. Not to mention the upside down Tijlander lake. It does not surprise me that he uses the Nobel peace prize to back up his science.

  239. My understanding is that the certificate of involvment you show above was not issued by the Nobel organisatioon but by the IPCC at Pachy’s instruction.

  240. You really should change the wording of your article. The para 2 pg 2 reference reads; ” As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.” whereas you (via Steyn) say “he makes the claim that he has been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” in the complaint itself (page 2, paragraph 2).” This is clearly not accurate. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

  241. Thanks to theduke, I am now completely gobsmacked by new knowledge. Thanks, Mark Steyn!

    I learned that I am Time Magazine’s Person of the Year, 2006! I guess I stopped paying attention at some point before they awarded it. I missed the dinner and everything. Oh well. I think I might well be the Person of the Year for 2011, too, although my own protests are not considered “politically correct” by people who worry about what is “politically correct”.

    And YES, I have as much claim to this year’s Nobel Peace Prize as Mann has to the 2007 one! So I can start pointing that out for added credibility when dealing with my less knowledgeable acquaintances (read: leftists). See, my ancestors were from England, Germany, Scotland, and Russia, 3 of which are members of the EU. Ergo… I can claim it! WooHoo! (also, I’ve given blood, so technically am associated with the Red Cross, and when I worked at the nuclear facility I was associated with the IAEA)

  242. On his own facebook page Mann writes about his ‘contribution’ !

    Michael E. Mann
    Since some have asked about my contribution w/ other IPCC lead authors to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize…

  243. And that award looks like it is issued by the IPCC itself, not by the Nobel committee. He should be asked to produce his award from the Nobel committee.

  244. The Prize was given to Al Gore and the IPCC. Mann is listed as a Lead Author of one of the four core documents from the IPCC – ‘The Scientific Basis’ here http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/ – Lead Authors
    J.R. Christy, R.A. Clarke, G.V. Gruza, J. Jouzel, M.E. Mann, J. Oerlemans, M.J. Salinger, S.-W. Wang
    Therefore the statement “Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” is correct.
    See http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/
    The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”

  245. If I may…
    Mark Steyn just got the WUWT boost, where as previously he only had clear channel radio out of Chicago, on occasion (among other things).
    He now moves into the big leagues, this should be good :)
    It might bring a whole new facet of comments to WUWT ??, results to be seen.

  246. crosspatch says:
    October 25, 2012 at 12:44 am
    “Ok, I get it. So if my country is given an award, I can claim that I, myself, was given the award.”
    No, but you can claim that you and everyone else in the country were awarded the award of the award.

  247. I like the idea that FOI , fine fellow that he is, might also work for the IPCC. He (she) will also have contributed to the Nobel prize
    at least one of them will have deserved it

  248. The bottom line is that ‘climate science’ is all about gravy trains and Mann is one of its drivers (first class).

    ‘Climate Science’ is one of the greatest gravy trains ever developed my man. Hundreds of thousands of people have a vested interest in ensuring it is not derailed. So expect scores, maybe hundreds, of ‘expert witnesses’ from the pal review process to be called to vindicate Mann and perjure themselves by saying they know him to be an honest, upright, and competent scientist.

  249. Claiming to be a Nobel winner encapsulates what climate scientists are all about.

    At first the claim seems true but then you look at the detail. First, by just using Nobel winner for a scientist, it makes the observer think Science Nobel, when in fact it was a Peace Prize. Then you find out that he was only part of a group who won the prize and by the Nobel organisation’s own rules a group recipient can’t claim to be a prize winner. Similarly, as a person living in the EU, I can’t claim to be a Nobel winner just because we’ve all been awarded one for not getting into any fights recently (which is a huge whopper as we’ve been in any number of wars, just not with each other, unless you count football hooligans, at which point the peace claim melts away).

    Climate science is the big headline, then misdirection of the public, no attention to detail and finally a lack of accuracy underpinning the claim. If this follows normal climate science practice then Mann will quietly remove the claim and try to pretend it was never important or that it was the mistake of someone else.

  250. Now we’ve established that the statement about the Nobel Peace Prize in Mann’s complaint is factual perhaps we could discuss the actual complaint itself? ie. that the statements made by NR & CEI were false, malicious, defamatory, wilful & caused injury to his reputation. And please stick to facts this time. Try reading the document, it might help.

  251. “Actually, it’s worse than that. I’ve just read the official indictment or whatever you call it against NR, and he makes the claim that he has been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” in the complaint itself (page 2, paragraph 2).”

    I guess everyone in the EU can claim they have won the Nobel Peace Prize now also.

  252. Dear Tim.

    you wrote:
    “The Prize was given to Al Gore and the IPCC. Mann is listed as a Lead Author of one of the four core documents from the IPCC – ‘The Scientific Basis’ here http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/ – Lead Authors
    J.R. Christy, R.A. Clarke, G.V. Gruza, J. Jouzel, M.E. Mann, J. Oerlemans, M.J. Salinger, S.-W. Wang
    Therefore the statement “Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” is correct.
    See http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/
    The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”
    ###############
    1. ipcc_tar stands for the TAR or the THIRD report and yes man was an author.
    2. Mann was not an author for the 4th.
    3. The award was given by the Nobel commitee to Al Gore and the IPCC
    4. Mann is not a member of the IPCC
    5. Nobel rules stipulate that no more than 3 people can be given the same award.

    The IPCC decided to give a commendation to every who worked on the report.

    Its an IPCC commendation for helping THEM win the prize money

    Authors are not members of the IPCC nor are they paid by the IPCC. There services are donated.

  253. Tim,

    “Therefore the statement “Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” is correct.” Your conclusion is exactly opposite to the reality.

    The prize was awarded to the IPCC, not to any individuals, core author, janitor, canteen lady, or whatever.

    The IPCC itself has said that the scientists working for it are not to claim that they have been awarded with a Nobel Prize, stating also that it considers the number who contributed to be up to 10000 people. The Nobel organisation has also clearly stated that employees or other agents of an organisation that is awarded a Nobel Prize are not permitted under any circumstances to claim that they shared or were awarded the prize.

    Mann claims on his website to have shared the 2007 Peace Prize – in direct opposition to the Nobel Rules and to the comments of the IPCC. HIs certificate of involvement (one of about 2000) came from the IPCC and not the Nobel organisation.

    It cant really be any clearer. When Mann says he shared the Nobel Prize his statement is untrue.

  254. Steven,

    The IPCC is a scientific body.
    Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. This included Mann (I didn’t say the 4th I said one of the four).

    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml#.UIkF8IV9mWU

    The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Therefore “Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” is correct in my view.

    To all,
    Perhaps we could now discuss the actual complaint itself? ie. that the statements made by NR & CEI were false, malicious, defamatory, wilful & caused injury to his reputation. This is the substantive issue. Try reading the document before you comment, it might help.

  255. Tim says:
    October 25, 2012 at 2:37 am
    “Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis.”

    Spin. Thousands of the participants were bureaucrats, NGO people etc.
    “Voluntary Basis” – what SPIN. These are taxpayer funded people who were free to devote some of their taxpayer-funded time for the pr0paganda exercise that is the IPCC report, without having to ask the taxpayer who is forced to fund them.

  256. Friends:

    I have stopped pulling Phil’s chain. This post is much more important. It explains the truth of “hide the decline”. This matter alone is sufficient to exonerate Steyn and the NRO from the “fr@ud” part of Mann’s law suite.

    I remind that I explained ‘Hide the decline’ at October 24, 2012 at 7:47 am.
    Phil. always takes any opportunity to defend warmist delusions so at October 24, 2012 at 10:01 am he wrote to deny my clear, succinct and factual account.
    My post said

    And Steyn did not accuse Mann of fra*d. Steyn wrote “the fra*dulent hockey stick graph”. And the graph is fra*dulent.

    Phil’s seeming refutation said

    No it isn’t, so much misinformation in a few paragraphs!

    and

    No you are confusing MBH98 with Briffa et al. 98.

    This provided a problem. ‘Hide the decline’ is especially important to the legal case under discussion. The facts are clear, but Phil had distorted them. Importantly, Phil’s record on WUWT shows he will distort his own words rather than admit he has made an error. And – as he often is – he was plain wrong. So, I provided a series of responses to Phil. My responses were of the ‘Phil type’; i.e. they said little but goaded a response.

    Now, at this point Phil’s series of posts leave no ‘wriggle room’. There is no possibility of his rationally claiming he said or intended other than he has written about ‘hide the decline’.

    I now write to demonstrate that
    Mann DID ‘hide the decline’in his 1998 paper which provided the ‘hockey stick’ graph. The paper was published in Nature and was co-authored with Bradley & Hughes. Indeed, that use of ‘hide the decline’ is why the ‘Team’ called ‘hide the decline’ “Mike’s Nature trick”.

    The matter is fully investigated by Steve McIntyre on his blog and – importantly – so is a later extension of ‘hide the decline’ which can be read at

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/

    WUWT drew attention to – and discussed – the extension to hide the decline in an article by Anthony Watts titled
    “hide the decline” – worse than we thought.
    I strongly commend reading that WUWT summation which is at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/hide-the-decline-worse-than-we-thought/

    It quotes from Steve McIntyre’s explanation saying

    Mann et al did not merely delete data after 1960, they deleted data from 1940 on, You can see the last point of the Briffa reconstruction (located at ~1940) peeking from behind the spaghetti in the graphic below:

    Yes, Briffa also used “Mike’s Nature trick”. But it was MICHAEL MANN’s Nature trick which is the fr@ud in the ‘hockey stick’ graph.

    Richard

  257. Glenn says:
    October 23, 2012 at 10:57 am
    “I’m one of those non-scientists who tries to follow this issue here, and elsewhere in the media. However, I find myself at a loss when actually trying to critique say Mann’s work. I don’t feel comfortable criticizing his alleged misuse of principal components analysis or the fact that MacIntyre apparently replicated his model and found that it produces hockeystick predictions from any dataset. They seem to have incredibly aggressive and complex defenses against all that.”

    Here’s an easy to understand experiment by Lucia that explains how scientists can trick themselves into cherry picking without even noticing. (Using methods similar to Mann’s decentered PCA)

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/

  258. I’m curious. For those, like Tim, who agree that Dr Mann is a Nobel Prize winner — where do you come down on the question of whether or not Monckton is a “Lord”?

    For that matter, I seem to recall Steve McIntyre was, briefly, an IPCC AR reviewer. Does Mr McIntyre also enjoy rights to claim a share of this Nobel Prize?

  259. Tim:

    At October 25, 2012 at 2:37 am you write

    The IPCC is a scientific body.
    Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. This included Mann (I didn’t say the 4th I said one of the four).

    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml#.UIkF8IV9mWU

    The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Therefore “Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” is correct in my view.

    So, your “view” says I am a holder of the Nobel Peace Prize together with Michael Mann.
    I AM NOT AND NOR IS HE.

    And you say

    To all,
    Perhaps we could now discuss the actual complaint itself? ie. that the statements made by NR & CEI were false, malicious, defamatory, wilful & caused injury to his reputation. This is the substantive issue. Try reading the document before you comment, it might help.

    We have read read it but your words suggest you have not.

    The words which are the cause of Mann’s complaint at Steyn and the NRO are true, accurate, not defamatory, and only an idiot could think they are malicious. They do no harm to Mann’s “reputation”.

    Richard

  260. Pouncer says:
    October 25, 2012 at 3:33 am

    I’m curious. For those, like Tim, who agree that Dr Mann is a Nobel Prize winner — where do you come down on the question of whether or not Monckton is a “Lord”?

    Pouncer. I’ve seen this claim made often and usually by left wing advocacy groups or individuals wishing to discredit Lord Monkton with regard to his views on climate change.

    He is absolutely a Lord. His Title is 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley ( Lordships a comprised of Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and Barons and Ladyships their female equivalents ).
    These titles form part of the peerage of the UK and Great Britain. All people holding a peerage are entitle to the title of Lord or Lady.

    I think much of the confusion comes from America where they misunderstand the House of Lords. The HoL is an upper house, much like the US Senate. Before the HoL act 1999 ( reform act ) alll hereditary peers were assured a seat in the HoL which led to 1300+ of them all having influence over parliament and their bills. Given the strong bias towards the right-wing upper class in the peerage system that led to trouble for any Labour Gov. trying to get bills passed without being vetoed.
    Subsequently after 1999 hereditary peers were no longer given a default seat in the house. Can you imagine US senators having a place in the senate just because their father and ancestors did?

    The house of Lords is a political body, part of the UK parliamentary system and Lord Monkton is not a member of that as he no longer qualifies as he inherited his title after the reform act ( this is what he disputes as he saw the act as unfair, unconstitutional maybe? That’s not for me to go into he’s more than capable of speaking about that himself and much more eloquently than I.)

    There can be no dispute that he is a Lord. He has a hereditary life peerage that he will pass on and it will remain in his family ad infinitum or until the rules change or a revolution happens ( I would not put it past the people here the way the students & liberals behave these days )

  261. To refresh my memory, I took a look back at the “Hide the Decline Plus” article at ClimateAudit from 1 Dec 2011. The first comment was “I can’t imagine any rational, disinterested body – say, a civil jury – buying an argument that this was accidental or careless or just bad math.”

    Prescient.

  262. Richard,
    I have no idea who you are so cannot comment on your role, nor did I say that Mann was a ‘holder’. However I have read the document, I am not an idiot, the words in the reports are clearly untrue, inaccurate and as such, defamatory.

  263. The EU was recently (and laughably) awarded the peace prize.

    Just how many people in Europe then can now walk round saying ‘they’ have been awarded the prize? Mann saying ‘he’ had been awarded the prize is a joke.
    It does perhaps give a clue to the man’s vanity and self serving actions.

  264. Heheheh!!!
    Mann is delusional – the IPCC commendation looks a lot like the certificates my kids got for doing something well at nursery school.

  265. Max Hugoson says:
    October 23, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    MM is suing STYNE for an INDIRECT QUOTE that he used from someone else. HELP ME HELP ME HELP ME…I’m giddy. Can you IMAGINE what “Judge Judy” would do with this one?
    —————————————————————————————————————

    Loooool , My wife is a fan of the show so in the interests of domestic peace I`ve had to sit through a few episodes , I just pictured Judge Judy`s dreaded “You really are an idiot aren`t You ” stare directed at Mike Mann , and Him twitching and writhing under the impact of it .

  266. Do I get to say I was “awarded” the Nobel Peace Prize too? I certainly contributed to global warming in the eyes of Mr. Mann. Without my diligent efforts he could never have pointed out how horrible I am, thus he could never contribute to the hysteria over the whole “problem”. Seems I’m very integral to his whole scheme, doesn’t it. I will place my certificate next to the 16 Trillion dollars worth of Carbon Credits I bought from another Nobel winner.

  267. Tim, my logic tells me Mann is NOT a Nobel Prize winner; where is your logic?

    (You seem to skip this inconvenient truth by stating “Try reading the document before you comment, it might help.” but I recommend YOU read the comments by richardcourtney, RB, and Steven Mosher above. Why, even the IPCC would take issue with Mann’s claim.)

  268. Richard

    The European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace prize last week. So if Michael Mann can say he was awarded the Nobel as part of the organisation that received the award surely both you and I are now holders of the Nobel peace prize due to our involvement in the European Union (reluctantly or otherwise)

    I understand there is a cash prize involved, so will be looking into how I will get my share. A nice plaque would be good as well

    Tonyb
    Nobel winner

  269. Tim says: “Now we’ve established that the statement about the Nobel Peace Prize in Mann’s complaint is factual …”

    We have established no such thing. And the following stands against your bogus statement:
    “The official Nobel site makes no mention of him …”

    No wonder some people still believe the Global Warming Alarmists, when there are people who can not read with comprehension to understand the difference between receiving an award and “for contributing” towards someone receiving an award.

  270. Mike’s “complaints” and attempts at self-puffery have broken the bogosity scale. He should be awarded a prize for that.

  271. I feel this is just politics. The lawsuit will be dropped after the election. The aim of this is to rally people who have sipped the kool aid. Hurricane Sandy will be used as well. Truth is the last thing these people care about. I’ve been watching this circus since 2006 and Truth has always been avoided like it was a combination of poison ivy and hot coals.

  272. Ok Tim,

    Let’s look at the complaint (briefly) shall we?

    Dr Mann will only win if he shows in relation to any one allegation that there was actual malice – knowledge that the statement is false or reckless disregard of whether it is false or not – from NYT v Sullivan – and with the deliberate aim of damaging Mann’s reputation.

    1. Data manipulation
    2. Academic and scientific misconduct
    3. He was the man behind the fraudulent climate change “hockey stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree ring circus
    4. intellectually bogus
    5. He “was the posterboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo chamber”
    6. He is the Sandursky of climate science because instead of molesting children he molested and tortured data

    Lets start with Mr McIntyre, M&M, Wegman, Climategate emails, censored directory, etc. and move on from there.

    On a proper reading the academic and scientific misconduct comment is not made about or to Mann. It comes in a sentence discussing what Penn State University’s administration might be prepared to cover up. It follows discussion of two misconduct investigations and their very obvious limitations, and concludes that Penn State might well be prepared to cover up academic and scientific misconduct. Some will say that by implication Mann is being accused of academic and scientific misconduct but this is by no means a given.

    Even if it is, bear in mind that the decisions of the quoted investigations do not touch on whether any allegations about Mann are true or not. The decisions are opinions, and opinions that many say were contrived or arrived at on very limited and inept examination. Whether any comments quoted in the complaint, and actually about or directed to Mann and his work or integrity, are true is still entirely open and a matter for the court to decide.

    Some bits are just mocking – “ringmaster of the tree ring circus” is not defamatory. The “fraudulent” hockey stick arguably is not about Mann, but says that he was behind it, not that he was a fraud – perhaps that it was fraudulent in the way it was used. Even if it is saying Mann was fraudulent there’s plenty of material to deploy to show that this is arguably true.

    The Sandursky remark actually differentiates Mann from Sandursky. The Sandursky reference is as much a barb at Penn State’s appalling record, bringing Mann and Sandursky together as beneficiaries of Penn State’s whitewash. It does not “compare” Mann to Sandursky.

    Mann will have considerable difficulty establishing that these types of comments are “false”, i.e. entirely untrue and not open to doubt. Many people think Mann did manipulate data and engage in academic and scientific misconduct and some are very persuasive and knowledgeable on these subjects and they come with impeccable credentials.

    True or False are absolute – no grey areas or room for doubt. The burden of proof will weigh very heavily on Mann here. If its arguable that the alleged defamatory statements are true, or not false, Mann loses.

    “Corrupt” and “disgraced” are used to describe the climate science echo chamber, not Mann. Climategate emails and other evidence will be deployed persuasively to show that this description (whether of Mann or otherwise) is not false.

    And then even if Mann wins there is the issue of his reputation and how it has been damaged. How much material will the defendants bring to bear to show that Mann’s reputation is pretty much in the toilet already? I can think of loads. Mann might find this to be the time he puts his head above the parapet and finds that he is not in fact the great loved and respected internationally renowned scientist he perhaps believes himself to be in his world. He might find the real world holds a different view. He has already helped the defence here, with his Nobel Prize claim, and to get to that all the defendants have to do is open the court file!

  273. [snip . . repeat post . . I can understand the impatience waiting for a post to appear but reposting won’t speed it up . . there are various words like fraud, scam, Hitler, NAZI and several others that will get a post dropped into the spam bin automatically. This is also true of posts containing large numbers of links, bogus email accounts and the like . . the spam bin is checked regularly and any genuine posts are put up while the “baddies” are deleted permanently. There are many esteemed contributors who bring their disappointment over their contribution not being posted up quickly enough in pico-seconds, that also seldom speeds things up because the delay is often due to a high workload and a reduced crew.

    In the, unlikely, event that your post is being held up deliberately it is because it has been referred up the chain of command for one reason or another . However in those infrequent instances please rest assured that if there is a serious objection you will be notified on the thread. The tradition, culture if you will, here is to moderate with a light touch and thats that.

    I would recommend that everyone makes themselves familiar with the house rules and make every endeavour to comply with them.

    Oh, and RB please don’t think I am getting at you. I have just taken this opportunity to explain these few things for the benefit of new and old members of this great weblog. Thanks . . mod]

  274. @Tim. You may have read it but you have not comprehended it. The complaint alleges things which were not said. The article does not accuse anyone of academic fraud nor does it accuse anyone of being or being compared to a child molester. There is some rhetoric hyperbole aimed at a public person. All above board in the US with their first amendment rights.

    As for the prize which you so want to get away from? he didn’t win it. The nobel committee says so. He has no right to claim such untruths and this speaks to his integrity which is pertinent when discussing the case.

  275. Whatever else you can say about Dr. Mann, having an underdeveloped ego or too small a sense of self-worth are not issues for him.

  276. Mann is the prime example of “tabloid climatology”:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/11/tabloid-climatology-may-be-the-real-reason-for-the-marcel-leroux-william-connolley-wikipedia-dustup/

    when a scientist desperately needs to refer to “his”/”her” Nobel Peace Prize that actually was awarded to an organization he/she was part of, you know he/she is in it for the publicity, since any true scientist would not even mention it since the Peace Prize in reality is awarded by Norwegian politicians without any capability to review alleged science in it all. When such a scientist goes even further and illegitimately uses the title “Nobel Laureate” without any reference to the peace dimension of it all, you know this is done in order to mislead the uninformed to believe that the “Prize” had something to do with his/her science. A truly sad day for science.

  277. Tim says:

    October 25, 2012 at 2:37 am

    Steven,

    The IPCC is a scientific body.
    Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. This included Mann (I didn’t say the 4th I said one of the four).

    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml#.UIkF8IV9mWU

    The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Therefore “Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” is correct in my view.

    And in my view, your view is incorrect.

    Of course, I’ve read the factual information regarding the awarding of the Nobel Prize which raises my view above opinion to a reflection of facts.

    Hmm… maybe that is the main difference between CAGW supporters and those who do not support CAGW – the folks who do not support CAGW base their view on factual information while those who support CAGW prefer basing their view on opinion.

    I know – it is a travesty that my statement is so incontrovertible. :)

  278. “Mark Steyn forced the Canadian establishment to change all its whole hate speech legal framework. Mann is nuts taking him and all the worlds pro bono amateur scientists.
    Steyn could get a dataset from discovery, crowd source it, and have a detailed analysis in 24 hours.”

    Yes, oh, yes, indeed he can.

    Heh heh heh

  279. Tim says: ” … we could discuss the actual complaint itself? ie. that the statements made by NR & CEI were false, malicious, defamatory, wilful & caused injury to his reputation.”

    We have been, nearly a day before you came along and started blowing CO2.
    In fact, when MM made his original lawsuit threat, we were discussing his baseless claims. Including the matter than MM caused himself harm by advertising what he was upset about. Had MM kept his trap shut, few if any would have taken notice.

    Thus if there is any harm, it was self-inflicted by MM miss-characterizion and flagging the matter.

  280. very short note on Lord Monckton’s title, and on whether or not the changes to it could be “unconstitutional”. Nothing done by Parliament can be “unconstitutional”, since the UK has no written constitution. That is a uniquely American concept. (and it is found only in those countries which have set up an American inspired judicial system)

    You could say that the very reason that we Americans have a Constitution is precisely because the British Empire (which we left) didn’t. Our founders didn’t like that system, because they saw it as giving any government, even one that was elected, absolute power. Not much has really changed.

  281. sorry mod my post appears to have cloned itself a few times.

    [not a problem , I merely took your posts as an opportunity to try and spread a little light about what goes on down here in the engine room . . mod]

  282. Tim says:
    October 25, 2012 at 4:27 am
    I am not an idiot,
    —————————————————————–

    Considering you keep insisting that Mann statement about the Nobel prize is accurate despite the facts that the rules of both the Nobel Committee and the IPCC catagorically state that it is not, we’ve established that you actually are an idiot. Or atleast someone who has failed reading comprehension 101.

  283. Suppose you go to the bank and ask for a $1 counter check. In error the clerk (named Jeff) gives you a $1 million counter check. You hop on a plane to Brazil and cash the check and live in style free from extradition. Was this a fraudulent check or not?

    What if a reporter then referred to the clerk as “Jeff of the Fraudulent Counter Check fame”. Has the reporter defamed Jeff?

    How is the current situation any different? The IPCC made fraudulent use of the hockey stick, by displaying it on the cover of their report, knowing full well that it had not been independently validated and was contradicted by a large body of existing evidence, including the previous IPCC report.

    The IPCC’s action were the equivalent of proclaiming cold fusion to be a fact, on the basis of a single paper, without cold fusion ever having been replicated. Then, on the basis of the IPCC report, governments around the world started building cold fusion generators at the taxpayer expense, with large sums siphoned off to pay the politicians and scientists involved. Would this constitute fraud?

  284. Pethefin, to further your comments
    It is like the economists and the media claiming that somebody is a Nobel Laureate for being awarded the “Nobel Prize in Economics”.

    There is no such prize. Only something made up by the Bank of Sweden to give economists the an air of respectability and gravitas of principled endeavour.

  285. Really this nobel prize claim is beyond belief. The fact that he has used that very picture as “proof” of his claim on facebook and that his followers have lapped it up makes me utterly despair. Just check out some of the sychophantic comments:

    “Thanks, Mike: the twit-o-sphere is all aglow with the light of their tiny intellects, attempting to smear your Nobel involvement. +10!”

    “There are a hell of a lot of D*nialists in the Usenet newsgroup alt.global-warming who insist Dr. Mann did not receive or even share a Nobel Prize. I always point them to the Nobel Prize Committee’s web site, but oddly enough D*nialists refuse to go there and look…..”

    I mean seriously – WTF?

  286. RB said “On a proper reading the academic and scientific misconduct comment is not made about or to Mann.”

    oh yes it is;

    “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science …. he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicised science”

    “Michael Mann …. had been engaged in data manipulation”

    “MM was the man behind the fraudulent climate change ‘hockey-stick’ graph”

    Lowry stated that his research was “intellectually bogus”

    They all sound pretty libelous to me. But then again I follow the real science whereas most of you on here…….

  287. Let’s nail this once and for all.

    The “Official Web Site of the Nobel Prize” is at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/nomination/
    Look for “Nomination and Selection of Nobel Laureates” under the “Nobel Prizes” menu, then “Nomination and Selection of Peace Laureates”. To be awarded the Peace prize the candidate (which can be a person, institution or association) must be nominated, short listed, chosen by the Nobel Committee and, at the awards ceremony, the laureate receives the Nobel Medal, Diploma and a confirming document.

    Due process matters, in science as well as in courts of law. Dr Mann was not nominated, short listed or chosen by the Nobel Committee. He has not actually received a Nobel Medal. Whatever one might think of the Committee’s occasionally bizarre choices, persons such as Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Desmond Tutu, Lech Walesa, Martin Luther King, the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa are Peace Prize laureates: I don’t think Dr Mann can really aspire to the same immortal standing as each of them.

    The IPCC (not the Nobel Committee) presented Dr Mann with a certificate “for contributing to the award of Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”. That’s all: a “thanks for your help” certificate, just like 2000-odd others sent to IPCC coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, bureau members and staff of the technical units and the secretariat (I suspect that even Dr Mann might object to such luminaries as the Secretariat’s “Office Assistants, Travel and Meetings” representing that they each had received the peace prize). And IPCC members are all governments not individuals, so there is no sub-attribution that way.

    Dr Mann did not receive or share the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

  288. RB says:
    October 25, 2012 at 2:28 am

    Tim,

    “Therefore the statement “Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” is correct.” Your conclusion is exactly opposite to the reality.

    The prize was awarded to the IPCC, not to any individuals, core author, janitor, canteen lady, or whatever.

    The IPCC itself has said that the scientists working for it are not to claim that they have been awarded with a Nobel Prize, stating also that it considers the number who contributed to be up to 10000 people. The Nobel organisation has also clearly stated that employees or other agents of an organisation that is awarded a Nobel Prize are not permitted under any circumstances to claim that they shared or were awarded the prize.

    It would be helpful if you could cite chapter and verse and/or provide a link to those statements–or even just an exact quote. That would settle the matter for good.

    Mann claims on his website to have shared the 2007 Peace Prize – in direct opposition to the Nobel Rules and to the comments of the IPCC. HIs certificate of involvement (one of about 2000) came from the IPCC and not the Nobel organisation.

    It cant really be any clearer. When Mann says he shared the Nobel Prize his statement is untrue.

    If in fact the Nobel people and the IPCC have made those statements, it would demonstrate clearly that Mann is a “stretcher” and egotist. (Monckton also claims that he is a Nobelist, on the basis of being a reviewer. He even has had some trinket made up on that basis. When he was challenged about that on Australian TV he said that it was as a joke. There’s the difference between him & Mann. He doesn’t take himself so seriously.)

  289. Oh, can we just let them have the Nobel Peace Prize thing? It’s not that important.

    And as person in the EU I can claim the same, and more currently too.

    Do you think it will look good on my CV?

  290. For a comparative reference on academic dishonesty and what happens when unbiased scrutiny is applied.. take a look at Michael A. Bellesiles and his faked and false data for Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. He finally had the Bancroft prize revoked and is now working at a Jr College last I read, for which some Jr College is sorely lacking in judgment.

  291. Tim

    “They all sound pretty libellous to me”.

    I was referring to what was actually written where “academic and scientific misconduct” appeared in the article. That is, after all, what the court will look at. You have then conflated all of the comments into one huff of indignation.

    Not sure that’s a basis for us to come over to your point of view. You could try that sentence on your feet in court but sadly I think there would be a deafening silence following it and a judge’s eyebrow would raise about an inch – that often (here in the UK anyway) means youve blown it. But with all respect to you I’m not sure you quite “get it”.

    Anyway, all the best and all that.

  292. @Roger Knights

    Hi Roger,

    I posted on 24.10 at 8.27 a.m. now way up from here on this blog post and provided 2 quotes. One was what the Nobel organisation say about this situation, and the second was an email exchange involving the IPCC and its view on the matter.

    Incidentally I also emailed the Nobelprize.org team yesterday to ask them what they thought and I’m happy to set out below the correspondence (I have redacted my personal information);

    —–Original Message—–
    From: comments@nobelprize.org
    Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:35 PM
    To: richard********@**********.co.uk
    Subject: [nobelprize.org #153147] Nobel Peace Prize

    Dear Richard,

    The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2012 is the European Union and not
    individual persons connected to or working for EU in any way to describe
    him or herself personally as a Nobel Laureate.

    Yours sincerely,
    Nobelprize.org Team

    Vid Ons. Okt. 24 15:22:49 2012, skrev richard********@**********.co.uk:
    > Dear Sirs,
    >
    > I wonder if you would be able to assist me with something that has
    > been troubling me for a while regarding the Nobel Peace Prize.
    >
    > As you will be aware this prize is oftentimes awarded to an
    > organisation and recent examples are the IPCC and the EU. Clearly
    > such organisations contain sometimes hundreds or even thousands of
    > employees, or contributors, etc.
    >
    > How appropriate do you feel it is for an individual employee of, or
    > contributor to, an organisation that receives the Nobel Peace Prize
    > to publicly describe him or herself personally as a Nobel Prize
    > winner or recipient?
    >
    > With thanks for your attention and with best wishes,
    >
    >
    > Richard ********
    Address removed

    Clearly the response only refers to the EU 2012 prize but I think the meaning is clear.

  293. @wws re: Monkton. You are quite correct of course. i used the word ‘unconstitutional’ in an inappropriate manner and I certainly should know better as a Brit. In my defence I was typing in a rush to be somewhere else but at least I hope my meaning was easily understood……

    Or so I thought. Just checked his wiki page ( I know, I’m not relying on it to be fact ) where it states that Monkton himself asserts the change to be unconstitutional. So I dug further and it turns out we do have a constitution in the UK.

    “The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed”

    although we do not have a single constitutional document.

    Sorry for going OT mods. I suppose it does have some pertinence as to what people on opposing sides will accept as honesty. And of course, once you are in a conversation it’s rude not to reply even if the topic has strayed.

  294. The judge will not allow discovery because the defendents by definition should have made their remarks based on what they already knew i.e. by definition they cannot rely on information that Mann has kept secret.

  295. Based on my reading of Dr. Mann’s behavior, I believe he would benefit from medical help–both psychiatric and podiatric. Since the Sandusky affair became public, I’m sure somewhere in Happy Valley there exists a medical doctor (and likely a Nobel Peace Prize winning doctor if he treated Dr. Mann during the period Dr. Mann was winning the Nobel Peace Prize) that has experience with over-inflated egos and bullet holes in the foot.

  296. richardscourtney says:
    October 25, 2012 at 3:22 am

    Thank you for that summary. With all the chicanery which has gone on over the last 20 odd years, it is sometimes difficult to separate the players and incidents.

    RB says:
    October 25, 2012 at 7:00 am

    “A quick question to our friends in the US – Is this a lawsuit that can be SLAPPed?”

    From what I have read, and if I understand it correctly, it appears very likely. But, the defendants want to go through with it to obtain discovery, so they probably will not move for it.

    Ryan says:
    October 25, 2012 at 9:25 am

    So, for example, all those people who called Al Capone a gangster before he was convicted of tax fraud should have been prosecuted for libel? (Oh, no, now Michael Mann will sue me for saying he’s a gangster like Al Capone. Just to be perfectly CLEAR Dr. Mann – That is NOT what I am saying. This is an entirely different situation, being used to illustrate a point.)

    Your rule, Ryan, would protect bad people from criticism. Is that what you want? In any case, it is not how things work in this country. The remedy for public persons who believe they have been unfairly maligned is to present their case to the court of public opinion through all the avenues which public persons, by definition, have at their disposal.

  297. richardscourtney says:
    October 25, 2012 at 3:22 am
    I have stopped pulling Phil’s chain. This post is much more important. It explains the truth of “hide the decline”.

    Actually it doesn’t you still have it wrong.

    No you are confusing MBH98 with Briffa et al. 98.

    And you are still doing so.

    Now, at this point Phil’s series of posts leave no ‘wriggle room’. There is no possibility of his rationally claiming he said or intended other than he has written about ‘hide the decline’.

    I now write to demonstrate that
    Mann DID ‘hide the decline’in his 1998 paper which provided the ‘hockey stick’ graph. The paper was published in Nature and was co-authored with Bradley & Hughes. Indeed, that use of ‘hide the decline’ is why the ‘Team’ called ‘hide the decline’ “Mike’s Nature trick”.

    No he did not, there is no decline to be hidden there, I note that you didn’t do as requested and give the actual figure from that paper which you believe ‘hides the decline’. As stated before ‘hide the decline’ refers to the recent drop in northern boreal forest tree growth as specifically discussed in papers by Briffa et al., this is where the ‘divergence problem’ originates.

    The matter is fully investigated by Steve McIntyre on his blog and – importantly – so is a later extension of ‘hide the decline’ which can be read at

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/

    WUWT drew attention to – and discussed – the extension to hide the decline in an article by Anthony Watts titled
    “hide the decline” – worse than we thought.
    I strongly commend reading that WUWT summation which is at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/hide-the-decline-worse-than-we-thought/

    It quotes from Steve McIntyre’s explanation saying

    Mann et al did not merely delete data after 1960, they deleted data from 1940 on, You can see the last point of the Briffa reconstruction (located at ~1940) peeking from behind the spaghetti in the graphic below:

    Nice ‘bait and switch’, carefully edited to make it appear that you’re actually referring to the MBH98 paper that you claim has the ‘hide the decline’ in it. McIntyre is not discussing MBH98 as you claim above, it is from Briffa’s reconstruction as I’ve told you before, as clearly pointed out in the opening lines of the WUWT thread you linked to:
    “Despite relatively little centennial variability, Briffa’s reconstruction had a noticeable decline in the late 20th century, despite warmer temperatures. In these early articles [e.g. Briffa 1998], the decline was not hidden.”
    Thank you for confirming my point.

    Yes, Briffa also used “Mike’s Nature trick”. But it was MICHAEL MANN’s Nature trick which is the fr@ud in the ‘hockey stick’ graph.

    What is referred to as “Mike’s Nature trick” is plotting the data used to calibrate the proxies on the same graph as the calibrated proxies, clearly indicated as such, there is no ‘hidden decline’. This is not fr@ud, in fact it’s a desirable practice and the paper would probably have been criticized if that had not been done.

  298. The judge will not allow discovery because the defendents by definition should have made their remarks based on what they already knew i.e. by definition they cannot rely on information that Mann has kept secret.

    You’re mistaken. In the USA, truth is a defense to libel, so information that shows the statements were true is admissible (and thus discoverable). The plaintiff has to prove that the statements were false and that the defendant made them with knowledge or reckless disregard of their falsity.

  299. RB,
    The whole point of the action by Mann is that he was libelled by defamatory comments, the essence of which I listed. All investigations (& there were lots) into allegations of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data by Mann came to the same conclusions – no basis (page 8 of his complaint).
    All the other bluster is just a side issue. I can see your point about the Nobel issue, but likewise I can see a case for the honour to be shared by those who put in the work.

    This is what the complaint is focussing on;
    “…. he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicised science”
    “… been engaged in data manipulation”
    “… fraudulent climate change ‘hockey-stick’ graph”
    research was “intellectually bogus”
    These statements are all incorrect, vicious & potentially damaging. I can entirely understand why he is taking action.

  300. Mann, of course, is a prat but there’s something deeply sad about his compulsion to represent himself as having been awarded a Nobel prize. I know it’s a deeply devalued award nowadays, but what I find even sadder, is the blind compulsion of his followers to insist he actually won one. How could one sacrifice so much of ones dignity to protect such an obviously vain and venial person?

    Looking at both Mann and his followers, I know we’re going to win in the end.

    Pointman

  301. Phil says:

    “What is referred to as ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ is plotting the data used to calibrate the proxies on the same graph as the calibrated proxies, clearly indicated as such, there is no ‘hidden decline’. This is not fr@ud…”

    You must be confusing this site with one of your alarmist blogs. Readers of WUWT know exactly what Mann tried to do, and yes, it was ‘fr@ud’. (IMHO, of course).

  302. Even if Mann was awarded one, which he hasn’t been, it’s a Nobel “peace” prize nowadays It’s handed out to the leftist cause célèbre du jour. It’s meaningless from a scientific standpoint.

  303. Now I’m glad I took down my youTube video when Mann threatened a lawsuit against me. I think it emboldened him into thinking that all he has to do is threaten a lawsuit and people comply. I didn’t have the time, energy or resources to take him on (remember my world headquarters is an RV). So now when he threatened NRO with a lawsuit and they didn’t back down, he is forced to follow through, because capitulating would be admitting guilt.

  304. Phil.:

    re your post at October 25, 2012 at 9:58 am.

    Your post shows that I was mistaken in thinking I had removed your “wriggle room”. You still adhere to your patently wrong assertion.

    READ THE LINKS I PROVIDED.

    It was “Mike’s Nature trick” and NOT “Briffa’s Nature trick” although Briffa also used it.

    No more argument. You are wrong. The links show beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
    Admit it or go away.

    Richard

  305. Tim:

    Your post at October 25, 2012 at 10:11 am states your misunderstanding. It says:

    This is what the complaint is focussing on;
    “…. he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicised science”
    “… been engaged in data manipulation”
    “… fraudulent climate change ‘hockey-stick’ graph”
    research was “intellectually bogus”
    These statements are all incorrect, vicious & potentially damaging. I can entirely understand why he is taking action.

    Those statements are each demonstrably true. And your failure to understand that is your misunderstanding.

    It is also why Steyn is expressing such glee at the legal case.

    Richard

  306. IF !!!! as some above seem to think, this could be a ego builder for MM and not go to trial, NDO and CEI need to file counterclaims as soon as possible, so as when MM crawls back under his rock he finds a hard place.
    When he withdraws his suit, if will join the Nobel as another win !

  307. Tim says: ” … we could discuss the actual complaint itself? ie. that the statements made by NR & CEI were false, malicious, defamatory, wilful & caused injury to his reputation.”

    Where have you been the last 2 days? That’s pretty much all that has been discussed on this thread.

    Oh wait – you are annoyed because most posters disagree with your viewpoint. Shame.

  308. Regarding the picture of the price;

    I think it is a “Thank you card” from the IPCC to Mann, for contributing to the IPCC’s price.
    With a copy of the original price in the upper part. In norwegian.

    However, he must have known about other data, indicating that his was the outlier here, and he must have known that it was dishonest to splice the data without outright saying so in a commentary field on the plot. “Mike’s Nature trick.”

    So, maybe he is proud they got away with it?

    Interesting times ahead. Will there be a Climategate 3.0 before Doha?

  309. 391 comments!! Oh well, I’ll add this to the pile: Whom the gods would destroy, they first award the Nobel Peace Prize. Or award acknowledgement of contribution to the award. More or less.

  310. “Ivan Gorchev, sailor on the freight ship ‘Rangoon’, was not yet twenty-one when he won the Nobel Prize in physics.”

    The 14-Carat Roadster by P. Howard (Rejtő Jenő)

    “To win a scientific award at such a romantically young age is unprecedented, though some people might consider the means by which it was achieved a flaw. For Ivan Gorchev won the Nobel Prize in physics in a card game, called macao, from a Professor Bertinus, on whom the honour had been bestowed in Stockholm by the King of Sweden a few days earlier. But those who are always finding fault don’t like to face facts, and the fact of the matter is that Ivan Gorchev did win the Nobel Prize at the age of twenty-one.”

    Remember, those who are always finding fault don’t like to face facts.

  311. Heard some people talking about donating to help out Steyn and NRO. Don’t know about those guys, but the other two defendants, CEI and Rand Simberg, could also use help, and you can donate to them here: http://cei.org/support

  312. Question for Phil.
    If you worked for the IPCC and had been presented with such a certificate by Pachuri, would you claim to have been awarded a Noble prize ? or would you claim to have contributed

  313. Tim says: “They all sound pretty libelous to me.”

    That is because you do not know what the bar is for Libel. Had you read some of the comments already posted here (and previously) you would know the bar is very high, and a stretch for MM even with him jumping atop a stepladder.

    A couple of previous commenters have a likely scenario for this case: If you have an Ego willing to pay enough money, you can find a lawyer willing to take your case; regardless of the chances of winning.

  314. Justa Joe says: “… it’s a Nobel “peace” prize nowadays It’s handed out to the leftist cause célèbre du jour.”

    Or for what you might potentially do, as in the case of one recipient announced 1,112 days ago.

  315. Richard, I’m sorry you think they are true. We will have to wait & see what the legal profession think.
    Vince, that was not the thrust of the majority of the posts. I’m not annoyed, just amazed at all this wriggling around trying to find reasons not to understand the reality of the situation we’ve made serious contributions towards. Amused too. You are all astonishing!

  316. I share the concerns of those here that are concerned about the possible lack of “justice”.
    I am not an attorney, but “Supreme Court of District of Columbia” is a red flag.
    Also, and I hate to post “second-hand” info (especially on such a great science site), but I have been told that the “97% consensus” poll has already been ruled as evidence in some courts.

    Our “justice” systems does not do science (facts) very well, especially where politics are involved.

  317. From Steyn’s comments on NRO:
    On the one hand, Michael Mann’s own web page:
    He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.

    On the other, the Nobel committee:
    Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize.

    So we’re being sued for loss of reputation by a fake Nobel laureate.

    Priceless!!!!
    MtK

  318. Roger Knights – – -asked for chapter and verse where the IPCC have said 10,000 people were involved in the IPCC award and that they cannot claim to be a Nobel recipient.
    Here is a link to “Greek University Reform Forum” with an exchange of letters seeking to clarify whether greek scientists reported in the Greek press as having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for working with the IPCC, was accurate. The answer to that question came from the IPCC Secretariat. The answer is clear. Mann cannot claim he was a recipient of anything other than a certificate of appreciation sent by Pachauri.

    http://greekuniversityreform.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/nobelistes/

  319. I don’t appreciate the once prestigious Nobel Prize being used these days for political advocacy agendas. The Nobel Prize is now completely discredited and useless.

    My scientific findings point to the Human Induced Climate Change Agenda, as a cover for justifying Geo Engineering programs currently going on, for whatever reasons hidden and otherwise.

  320. Further to my comments concerning the Greek University Reform Forum, it’s my belief from the commentary on that site (although the greek alphabet is beyond me!) that the letter reproduced below is that sent by Pachauri to those he wished to back-pat after the IPCC got the Nobel in 2007. So even Pachauri simply refers to what he’s sent as a “memento”. Nice. So Michael Mann has a memento.

    Geneva, 7 April 2008

    Dear Colleague,
    I am very happy to send you a copy of the award certificate for the Nobel Peace Prize which was bestowed on the IPCC in 2007.
    I would like you to know that the credit for this prestigious award goes to you and other colleagues who have contributed so admirably to the work of the IPCC.
    We are providing a copy of this award only to those who have contributed substantially to the work of the IPCC over the years since the inception of the organization.
    I know you would proudly cherish this memento which is richly deserved and earned by you.
    With my congratulations & best wishes,

    Yours sincerely,

    RK Pachauri

    Το certificate το παρέθεσε κάποιος παραπάνω. Είναι ένα αντίγραφο του βραβείου και από κάτω γράφει:
    Presented to
    Christos Zerefos
    for contributing to the award of the
    NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
    for 2007

  321. @Tim. You seem to be persistently and wilfully ignoring Context. You cherry-pick phrases from the articles which you then opine are actionable ( and you claim malicious, although I fail to see how you can determine this without questioning )

    Context is everything and will form one of the cornerstones of this defence.

    Any reasonable individual upon reading those words would not consider them to be a libellous, malicious attack but for exactly what they were, rhetorical hyperbole.
    Under US law as a public person, Mann won’t have a leg to stand on, he is open to a certain amount of ridicule and invites it. Due to the odd first amendment rights, Americans, especially those who deal in political satire, are free to behave in this manner.

    I still think you are willing the allegations in the complaint to be true then looking for out of context phrases which might suit the allegation. it does not work that way.

    I’ll keep saying it. The complaint says man was accused of academic fr@ud and likened to a paedophile and no amount of reading the articles will find those accusations made. Anything else written is either true or hyperbole written to entertain.

    But if you are still having trouble understanding it perhaps the NR legal response to the initial threat might help you?

    http://www2.nationalreview.com/pdf/2012-08-22_National_Review_Response_Letter.pdf

    No court in the world will award damages for “first-degree butthurt”

  322. If Mann really started this for his reputation, he’d better start amending his complaint while there’s still something left of it.

  323. Ryan says:
    October 25, 2012 at 9:25 am
    “The judge will not allow discovery because the defendents by definition should have made their remarks based on what they already knew i.e. by definition they cannot rely on information that Mann has kept secret.”

    Wow.

    Pray tell, what do you imagine the discovery process is for, if not to discover information and evidence that you do NOT already possess?

    Sheesh.

  324. Tim

    “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science …. he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicised science”

    This is a not a statement of fact that can be true or false it is a statement of opinion. “molested and tortured” are not factual descriptions. They are opinions about unspecified actions Mann took with data. “Mann destroyed Data” is factual. It is either true or false. Mann molested data is neither true or false. It expresses a protected opinion about how he treated data.

    “Michael Mann …. had been engaged in data manipulation”

    Also, a statement of opinion. Take a look at policies about academic fraud. The actions one has to take are quite specific : Faking data. Deleting data etc.

    “MM was the man behind the fraudulent climate change ‘hockey-stick’ graph”

    This is a statement of fact about the production of the chart and an opinion about the chart.
    probably the one statement that might be worrisome. One reason why SKEPTICS should watch their damn language when they use the fraud word.

    Lowry stated that his research was “intellectually bogus”

    ‘bogus’ is an opinion, not a statement of fact.

    Mann will have a high hill to climb to establish that these are statements of fact.
    Then, he will have to show that they are false. How does he show that he didnt manipulate
    data when he clearly flipped Tiljander and they depose Tiljander herself and Kaufman who
    corrected Mann’s mistake. Then he will have to show that the defendants knew they where false. Hard to prove a journalist should not regard Wegman. Then they will have to show that
    they said this with malice.

    Of course that all assumes that the Anti SLAPP card doesnt get played early on to make the whole circus leave town.

  325. The “award” in Mann’s office pictured above is a certificate of appreciation from the IPCC, not the Nobel Committee. Note that in addition to the image of the Nobel Prize, it has the WMO and UNEP logos on it and is signed by R.K Pauchauri, IPCC Chairman, and Renate Christ, IPCC Secretary. This is not a document produced by the Nobel Committee, but is something the IPCC put together to show appreciation to its contributors.

  326. Tim says:
    October 25, 2012 at 2:37 am (Edit)
    Steven,

    The IPCC is a scientific body.

    ##########################
    It is actually a governmental body and a scientific body

    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml#.UImYFcWHIRs

    Governments join as members.
    “The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions. ”

    The structure is noted here

    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml#.UImYYcWHIRs

    The members of the IPCC are governments. There are a few paid employees. There are thousands of volunteers

    The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Therefore “Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” is correct in my view.

    #########################

    You are wrong. the secretariat of the IPCC actually inquired of the Nobel Committe to see if he could claim to be a prize winner. He was informed that the Organization won the prize.
    NO MEMBERS or volunteers to an organization can claim to be award winners. The award was made to Gore and the organization. Period. That issue was addressed long ago by the IPCC, the Nobel committee told them they could not have members claiming to be award winners, so the IPCC gave a commeration, not an award, to people.

    You are wrong. The point is that Mann has mispresented his own work. Look at paragraph two. He had nothing to do with the documentation of modern warming.

    In the end Mann will fight discovery. If he loses he will withdraw. His excuse will be brilliant.

    ” I am withdrawing because they want mails that will make my colleques look bad”

  327. > ‘bogus’ is an opinion, not a statement of fact.
    Actually i believe in the simon singh case, the British judge ruled bogus is not just untrue, but knowingly untrue – i.e. fraud.

    That said my non lawyer’s opinion is that Mann’s chances of success in this lawsuit are low, for 2 reasons:-

    1. Mann seems to rely on a proximity theory. If you say some phrase he doesn’t like (like “bogus” or “molestation” or “fraud”) in close enough proximity to his name, he considers it defamatory, even if no specific defamatory statement can be identified. I doubt the court would read documents this way.

    (Oddly the proximity theory also works in Mann’s favor too: Mann = IPCC author, IPCC = Nobel *peace* prize winning organization, therefore Mann is a Nobel ___ prize winner (note: the absence of “peace” as well as claiming the prize)).

    2. My limited experience of US libel law, is that it’s almost impossible for even a semi-public figure to win on much more direct specific defamatory claims. But that is another story…

  328. Steven Mosher:

    At October 25, 2012 at 1:02 pm you say

    In the end Mann will fight discovery. If he loses he will withdraw. His excuse will be brilliant.

    ” I am withdrawing because they want mails that will make my colleques look bad”

    I had not thought of that. Yes, of course you are right. Thankyou.

    I write this both to provide my thanks and to draw attention to your important point.

    Richard

  329. > In the end Mann will fight discovery. If he loses he will withdraw.

    He may not have that option.

    An aggressive defendant could oppose dismissal, and/or continue pursue counterclaims (such as a declaratory judgement that they didn’t defame Mann, or other counterclaims).

  330. I have looked at this several times now and still can’t see how one could misconstrue the content to suggest that the topic of the comparison was M Mann. It was the university brass that was the subject of the sentence. The comparison was between the cover-up of sexual offences and the whitewashing given during the ‘investigation’ of M Mann’s activities. No comparison was made between Mann and the molestor as is obvious by the text. There is no doubt that there was a cover-up in the sex abuse case. There is also no doubt in the mind of a dispassionate observer that the investigation of M Mann’s work lacked any vigour. The comparison advanced the notion that both were cover-ups. Mann is not personally linked to the offender at all. The lawsuit is baseless.

  331. Copner – US Libel law is a lot different from UK Libel law. So it matters not what an English judge has ruled.

  332. He may not have that option. An aggressive defendant could oppose dismissal, and/or continue pursue counterclaims (such as a declaratory judgement that they didn’t defame Mann, or other counterclaims).

    A foolish move – the last thing Steyn, NRO, and CEI should want is to get the case to a DC jury. (Or for that matter any jury that’s been through US public schools and follows US media…) The judge may tell them the issue is whether the defendants blamed the plaintiff; but the jury may decide the issue is whether they want to redistribute wealth from dirty, evil conservatives to noble, heroic Greens. Anything that gets rid of the case is better for the defendants. Hubris leads to nemesis – that can apply on both sides here.

  333. richardscourtney says:
    October 25, 2012 at 10:36 am
    Phil.:

    re your post at October 25, 2012 at 9:58 am.

    Your post shows that I was mistaken in thinking I had removed your “wriggle room”. You still adhere to your patently wrong assertion.

    READ THE LINKS I PROVIDED.

    I have and they support my position that there was no decline in MBH98 contrary to your assertion.

    It was “Mike’s Nature trick”
    Which was the co-plotting of the calibration data along with the proxies exactly as I said and did not lead to any ‘hiding of a decline’.

    and NOT “Briffa’s Nature trick” although Briffa also used it.

    Jones plotted Briffa’s data and the temperature data which covered up the decline in proxy data, and coined the phrase “Mike’s nature trick” and “hide the decline”!

    No more argument. You are wrong. The links show beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
    Admit it or go away.

    Indeed there should be no more argument, the links you provided prove that you are wrong, it’s about time you admitted that you are wrong or go away.

    As McIntyre said: “I recently re-visited an article in Science (Briffa and Osborn 1999), that, together with Jones et al 1999 (Rev Geophys), were the first bites of the poison apple of hide-the-decline. I observed that key conclusions in Briffa and Osborn 1999 depended on the rhetorical effect of deleting the decline from their spaghetti graph.”

    None of this pertained to the MBH98 paper contrary to your assertion: “Mann DID ‘hide the decline’in his 1998 paper which provided the ‘hockey stick’ graph. The paper was published in Nature and was co-authored with Bradley & Hughes. Indeed, that use of ‘hide the decline’ is why the ‘Team’ called ‘hide the decline’ “Mike’s Nature trick”.

  334. @Steven Mosher
    October 25, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    ————————
    Good post, Mosh. Every statement of Steyn and Simberg is arguably true, and there is no reason to assume that they knowingly believed them to be false. They are, as you say, “opinions.” They are based on various bits of circumstantial evidence, e.g. the Climategate emails. Anyone who says these statements are defamatory, doesn’t understand the law or the true nature of freedom of expression.

    We have to respect the right of so-called opinion-makers to express their opinions, no matter how crudely.

  335. The photo of Mann’s certificate would be even better if this occurred in January and there was a foot of snow in the background.

  336. Phil:

    I write this as a courtesy to acknowledge that I read your post at October 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm. Thus you need not post your opinion again.

    Richard

  337. geran says: October 25, 2012 at 11:37 am
    I share the concerns of those here that are concerned about the possible lack of “justice”.
    I am not an attorney, but “Supreme Court of District of Columbia” is a red flag.
    Also, and I hate to post “second-hand” info (especially on such a great science site), but I have been told that the “97% consensus” poll has already been ruled as evidence in some courts.
    Our “justice” systems does not do science (facts) very well, especially where politics are involved.
    ——————————————————————————————
    geran: If the court can be talked into doing grade school arithmetic, that 97% number is easily proven wrong. There are 31,000 scientists who signed the petition against catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). Reference: http://www.petitionproject.org/ So if 31,000 represent 3%, that must mean that must mean that over 1 million scientists agree that it is a problem. Nobody has ever gotten that many (or even a small fraction) claims from credible researchers.

    Second, there have been over a thousand peer reviewed climate science papers similarly saying the CAGW is overblown. Reference: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    Finally, science does not operate by consensus, and skepticism is an integral part of the scientific method. If skepticism is not allowed, it’s not science.

  338. richardscourtney says:
    October 25, 2012 at 1:06 pm (Edit)
    Steven Mosher:

    At October 25, 2012 at 1:02 pm you say

    In the end Mann will fight discovery. If he loses he will withdraw. His excuse will be brilliant.

    ” I am withdrawing because they want mails that will make my colleques look bad”

    I had not thought of that. Yes, of course you are right. Thankyou.

    I write this both to provide my thanks and to draw attention to your important point.

    Richard

    #################

    Mann has already field tested this line. In his fight to keep his mails secret. His argument was that his collegues had written many things to him, some of those things would hurt other colleagues feelings. So if he wants to withdrawl he has a defense. He is protecting his friends who look worse than he does.

  339. Careful, Mike is liable to blow a gasket and bring another lawsuit over that “fake Nobel laureate” quip.

  340. I just realized (and don’t believe anyone else has mentoned) MM’s tweet uses we rather than I. Is that the Royal We or a Freudian slip?

  341. In related news, a couple of hours ago Mark Steyn did his weekly ten minute interview with Hugh Hewitt on Hewitt’s radio show and did not once mention the defamation suit by Michael Mann.

  342. “On the other, the Nobel committee:
    Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize.”
    ——————–
    Sorry if this has been posted already but does someone have a link to the citation. It would be a shame if Mann’s name was on it.

  343. There is a letter by CEI lawyers (linked above) summarizing the case before the suit was filed. I almost guarantee that Mann did not read it, just as he will not read Climate Audit. If he did, it makes his proceeding with the lawsuit even more irrational. It also does not seem that Mann’s lawyers read it because their complaint reads as if they did not. Why would you file a lawsuit that ignores the clearly stated weak points in your case? Only to throw one’s weight around.

  344. “In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.” “

    Should have been written something like: He contributed to the efforts that resulted in the 2007 awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change along with Vice President Al Gore for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”

    As written it is terribly false and misleading, typical Mann-erism.

    “Each prize consists of a medal, personal diploma, and a cash award.”

    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/

    “In no case may a prize amount be divided between more than three persons.”

    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/shortfacts.html

    “Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. … … … Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions.”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

    “For the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released in 2007, over 3,500 experts coming from more than 130 countries contributed to the report (+450 Lead Authors, +800 Contributing Authors, and +2,500 expert reviewers providing over 90,000 review comments). ”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml#

    No mention of Mann by name. Hmmm.

    Unless the Judge is a true believer, I don’t see how he/she couldn’t at least suspect if not conclude that Mann is a data manipulator (fact twister, spinmeister, truth stretcher, liar, charlatan, fake, fraud, swindler, con, quack (appropriate since he’s a Dr.), etc.) on just that alone.

  345. Good ole Phil, sinking deeper into the quicksand with every twist, grunt and wriggle.
    The more he goes into trying to defend the minutae of Mann’s (and Briffa’s) malpractice, the larger looms the words ‘HIDE the decline’ and ‘Mike’s Nature TRICK’.
    Why would a ‘S’cientist wish to ‘HIDE’ anything or ‘TRICK’ anyone?
    A parallel example is Dr Phil Jones’ Climategate email…’ I HOPE you’re not right about the LACK OF WARMING lasting till 2020′.
    Why would Dr Jones lament the ‘lack of warming’….and what exactly is ‘lack of warming’ in the context of ever increasing CO2 levels if not the complete abnegation of ALL alarmist predictions?

    But please Phil, keep up the good work because we know that if you’re suffering then all your Warmist chums are suffering too, and that means a lot to the rest of us who have had to put up with twenty years of Warmist Drivel™.

  346. “So we’re being sued for loss of reputation by a fake Nobel laureate. Hilarious.”

    …….. Hahahahahaha…. This is gold. It honestly doesn’t get funnier than that.

  347. Mann is toast. I can’t remember the exact Climategate email, but there’s one where Mann is working on a recommendation for Phil Jones and calculates a publishing factor for Jones. He calculates a high value, discovers that it includes a different value, runs the analysis correctly to get the lower value, then knowingly and willingly uses the higher value in his recommendation. This is proof of his character and will destroy Mann’s credibility on the witness stand.

  348. Of course Mann is a liar.

    Climate Alarmists are by self-definition utopianists – (as they believe that there is an ideal global climate and believe it should be static) – and all utopianists are delusional liars who are willing to do just about anything to usher in their version of utopia.

    This utopianist urge is why Stalin and Mao and Salafists were all willing to commit genocide; if you believe you can make things perfect, then there’s just about nothing you won’t do to bring that dream into reality.

    Lying – and twisting facts to fit your agenda – is certainly a lesser evil than genocide, and climate alarmists lie all the time.

    And in a way; they are committing genocide, albeit slowly and surreptitiously: by limiting industrial development of the Third World and by driving the cost of energy and food up, the alarmists are indirectly responsible for persistent poverty in the Third World and the premature death that has resulted.

  349. Dan says: “Mann = Lance Armstrong”
    I can’t agree with that, to my best recollection Armstrong never made a comment on whether he had or hadn’t taken any performance enhancing drugs, just that he had never been caught, and the officials really tried to get him directly with a positive test and failed. there is 192 banned substances

  350. The word said today in Rolling Stone Magazine by Barack H Obama, “Bullshitter”, in this whole Michael E Mann fiasco, comes to mind.

  351. In New Zealand the trick is to counter sue which stops them from withdrawing and thus they are fixed into discovery etc.

    It most likely is the same in US.

  352. @Bill Treuren
    October 25, 2012 at 8:25 pm
    —————————————–

    I think that the defendants will decide that such a counter-complaint would needlessly complicate things. Why get slogged down trying to prove charges that might be problematic when all you have to prove is that Mann is arguably a fraud perpetrating a hoax? And that you have every right to characterize him as such?

    But then, Ianal.

  353. Whatever they do, don’t file to dismiss. Instead the defense lawyer should immediately file for discovery on all those documents that they have been trying so hard to avoid producing for public scrutiny while simultaneously filing a countersuit in California using the anti-SLAPP law. Mann will back down to avoid discovery resulting from his lawsuit, but they might be able to use the countersuit to keep the process open.

    And don’t forget to refuse to accept any secrecy agreements for the documents, pointing out that they should already be public under the freedom of information act. Mann will be sweating bullets.

  354. I think it worth mentioning that Mann mentions his Nobel prize at least 3 times in the complaint.

    2. … As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

    5. …attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient. …

    17. In 2007, Dr. Mann shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the other IPCC authors for their work in climate change, including the development of the Hockey Stick Graph.

    Personally I think paragraph 5 is the best (or worst) one.

  355. From what Phil says at October 25, 2012 at 9:58 am I assume he thinks that Briffa committed a “fr@ud”.
    While that may be good support for Mann it does throw the CRU under a bus.
    Phil, you may want to be careful next time you meets any UK climatologists.

    Even so, that Briffa (who Phil indicates committed a “fr@ud”) refers to “Mike’s Nature trick” at all
    doesn’t greatly support Mann.
    How Mike enables “fr@ud”in his own work and Briffa’s is less important than that he does.

    A point which Phil has conceded.

  356. There have been several comments on the words, “…every replication of Mann’s work…” By the conventions of logic, this part of the claim is true–vacuously true. How so, you ask?

    Although others have done relevant tree ring analysis, there are NO replications of Mann’s work, because Mikey refuses to disgorge his ‘data’ and computer code. Therefore any claims that one could make about about “every replication of Mann’s work” are equally true. Among other things, this would include the following hypothetical claim: …has concluded that Mann is a reincarnation of Torquemada!

    Cheers,
    Larry Fields

  357. And Mann responds:

    The obvious likening of his situation to that of the POTUS is so, well, Mannian.

    Trenberth’s Nobel claim is even more outrageous. On his website he actually describes himself as a Nobel Laureate. Not even Mann has actually used the word Laureate to describe himself.

    Charlatans.

  358. Sort of like a lab assistant, who cleaned a petri dish, claiming to be a Nobel Laureate because the doctor he worked for won the Nobel Prize for Medicine

  359. Judging from his response, Mike just doesn’t get it. It isn’t the certificate that’s a fake; it’s the Mann claiming to share a Nobel Peace Prize. Not the sharpest tool, though he is a tool.

  360. He hasn’t got a chance against Steyn. Even if the insurers decided to settle, Steyn would come out on top. I envisage an “apology” along the lines of Shakespeare’s Marc Anthony speech:

    Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
    I come to praise Man, not to slander him.
    The evil that men do lives after them;
    The good is oft interred with their bones;
    So let it be. The robust Nobel Man
    Hath told you McIntyre is ambitious:
    If it is so, it is a grievous fault,
    And grievously hath McIntyre dared ask
    for the verification statistics and raw data.
    But by concensus he is a Nobel Man…

    I know there are some better poets on here so feel free to improve!

  361. Steven Mosher says:

    October 25, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    richardscourtney says:
    October 25, 2012 at 1:06 pm (Edit)
    Steven Mosher:

    At October 25, 2012 at 1:02 pm you say

    In the end Mann will fight discovery. If he loses he will withdraw. His excuse will be brilliant.

    ” I am withdrawing because they want mails that will make my colleques look bad”

    I had not thought of that. Yes, of course you are right. Thankyou.

    I write this both to provide my thanks and to draw attention to your important point.

    Richard

    Would Mann’s withdrawing of the suit imply that he is admitting that what he alleged was said about him is correct?

    Just wondering.

  362. I too have won a Nobel Peace prize, And delight telling everyone i meet who lives outside the E.U.
    Ain’t life grand Mikey LOL

  363. I’m afraid that M@nn’s lawyers have shopped the venue, and are convinced that politics will trump justice. This is a very big deal, and I really, really hope I’m wrong, but the cynic in me says that this is all part of the effort to “re-educate” the populus. If they can get the case supported by a court, then the blathering will reach unimaginable heights.

    The re-education process has already started on local TV stations with all of them talking about the “very active” tropical storm season. Of course, Hurricane Sandie is getting a big play, more emphasis that “yes, it’s happened before, but this could be especially bad…”

  364. Maybe Mann is suffering from a martyr complex and this is just part of it, pyschologically it would make sense as he must be smart enough to know he can not win?

  365. That certificate just goes to sho that Mann is the laureate’s laureate. The legal case is an aside with a pre-determined withdrawal or dismissal. The real show is Mann as the would-be emperor with no clothes and Steyn with a high definition camera.

  366. I’m with Andy L, above: “From now on, I suggest we all refer to Mann as “fake Nobel Laureate Micheal Mann”
    So please, people, with your comments from hereon, preface them with ‘fake Nobel Laureate Micheal Mann’. I thank you.

  367. Re: Nobel Prize.

    Always remember that the IPCC’s 2007 Nobel was: (1) shared 50% with none other than Al Gore (!), and (2) awarded for “Peace” and NOT for Physics (heh).

    So Mann’s Nobel claim is in reality 1 / 2000+ scientists x 50% of the prize. Al Gore is, in fact, the Nobel laureate in this case.

  368. in the meantime-
    in the real world-
    it is getting cooler and cooler-
    in fact many of the extreme weather events we now see are due to the fact that we are now cooling down near to the maximum rate-

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    ironically, it is this observable change in heat coming into earth, whether warming or cooling, that actually causes ‘weather” as we know it- without it there would not be any weather, no rain, and, hence, no life.
    Is it not crazy for all of us to consider and think where we have ended up with this whole global warming hoax?

  369. I don’t know why Mann is drawing flak for this certificate, clearly the ring widths in his paper (ie made from wood) certificate is a proxy for being awarded a real Nobel prize. After he flips it upside down and cuts off the text at the end it has a verification R2 statistic of 0.2, in the CENSORED directory.

    /sarc

  370. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
    October 26, 2012 at 7:44 am
    “I’m with Andy L, above: “From now on, I suggest we all refer to Mann as “fake Nobel Laureate Micheal Mann”
    So please, people, with your comments from hereon, preface them with ‘fake Nobel Laureate Micheal Mann’. I thank you.”

    I will certainly not. For then I would not be able to trump my own achievement as an EU resident.
    I also am a Nobel laureate, thank you very much.
    There are half a billion of us but I like to think I played my part.
    And it is clearly a very special honour.

  371. Has anyone been to SkS or C to get their ‘official’ take on this? or has their Mann hero done so bad as to have them ducking under the parapet? I only ask because I refuse to visit either !
    As for the fake Nobel prize – the official response is priceless. In the uk, we quite often use the term ‘Nob’ to refer to persons of dubious intellect and stupidity (amongst other things!).
    Mann isn’t even a Nob – he’s a fake Nob ! – that’s kind of like the square root of useless!

  372. “From the Norweign Nobel Institute:
    1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.”

    That’s a law-suit killer right there. How can Mann win a defamation suit when he lied about his Nobel prize and made up his own certificate? If I were Mann I’d be looking for a Mann-cave.

  373. There are people who truly believe that if they think it up (make it up) then it must be true. Just because you don’t understand their thought process, only means that you are at fault. There are a large number of people in education, business and, yes, politics that fall in to this group – Thinking Up Reality Dilution (TURD). You can usually identify them by their very long arms — the ones they use to pat themselves on the back. The other clear identifying characteristic is the squinty eyes and sharp smirk when they must deal with others who don’t agree with them or who refuse to drink their cool aid. The other key characteristic of their being is that truth is fungible and may be molded to support whatever idea they thought up in the shower that morning. I will leave it to the readers to determine where the characters like Mann fit in the TURD group.

  374. C’mon…..it was a ‘Peace’ prize, and FNLMM misunderstood. He thought it was a piece prize…..so he took a piece!

  375. Isn’t Michael Mann in fact, “comparing himself” to the President of the United States here ?
    Isn’t it *saying* he is like the President?
    Cozen me up on this.

  376. Courtroom scene from The Caine Mutiny (one of the all time great Humphrey Bogart films):

    Is there a Captain Queeg Moment in Mann’s future? He’s drawing perilously close to the edge.

  377. So… with the statement of the Nobel committee (Flash Update above) does that mean that Mann is going to widen his lawsuit to include The Norwegian Nobel Institute?

  378. There is a difference between ignorance and being idioticy.

    Ignorance is a lack of knowing and can be cured by education.

    Idioticy while it may be temporary, it is always incurable and has no relationship to education.

    Dr Mann is a well educated idiot.

    Someone should inform him that the first action to take when finding oneself in a hole is to stop digging.

  379. I read with some amusement (and some frustration, too) the back-and-forth between Richard Courtney and Phil. On one point, Phil is correct to say that Mann in his 98 hockey stick paper didn’t use Briffa’s divergent data. But it’s wrong of Phil to then conclude that the divergence problem doesn’t have anything to do with Mann. The term “Mike’s Nature Trick” derives from Mann’s exclusion of a PORTION of Briffa’s proxy record during the entire late 20th century warming period, which PORTION would have shown the divergence problem in Mann’s paper, too. This exclusion shows Mann to be cherry picking, and intentionally hiding a known source of contradictory information. Mann should have excluded the ENTIRE proxy (in which case, he might not have had enough data on which to base a long recontruction), or included the ENTIRE proxy, which would have shown the divergence problem, and he’d have to deal with that problem in his analysis. In either case, since the whole point of his paper was to DO a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction, this proxy and it’s attendent problems should have been mentioned by Mann, even if he didn’t use it.

    A defense attorney in court is not expected to point out the incriminating evidence against his client. Science, however, is not advocacy. It doesn’t (or isn’t supposted to) work that way. But in “Real” Climate Scientology, Mann is praised for his advocacy and deception by his peers. They wonder how they can emulate him. And they have, from Josh Willis’ deletion of Argo float data that was “too cold to be believable” (maybe it’s true, but no effort to document malfunctioning equipment seems to back up the deletion) to Joelle Gergis’ picking of only those proxy data that will show hockey sticks in her recently withdrawn paper..

    No wonder they’re losing this debate.

  380. So as the text says “Presented to”, then who presented it to him? Himself in a mirror? This Mann is an embarassment to true science.

  381. Do they want my birth certif too?

    People who believe their own bullshit are never wrong (in their own mind).

  382. Hey, thanks Mikey Mann for your Nobel Prize delusions . . . now I realize that I am also a Nobel Prize winner too. Yeah, Obama as a US president got the Nobel Prize and since I am US citizen it means I got the Nobel Prize too. : )

    John,
    The Nobel Prize Recipiant (of the Mannian Order of Nobel Prize Delusionists)

  383. Mann’s certificate clearly states that it is from the IPCC to Mann for his contribution. It is not from the Nobel Committee.

    A recipient of the Nobel Prize cannow bestow a Nobel, a “co-Nobel” or a “sub-Nobel” on contributors.

    It’s nothing more than a “employee of the year” award. In my experience, people that fabricate such grandiose accolades about themselves have low self-esteem. They lie so that they can feel good about themselves. If Mann really believes the lie, well that was covered in my previous post.

    Liars aren’t called liars because they lie. Liar’s lie because, at their very core, they are liars.

    If he would lie about a Nobel, he will lie about anything. And everything.

  384. Wow. The Nobel institution have thwarted Mann’s claim to the Nobel peace prize. They need to watch out now they are probably on his ”to sue” list.

  385. Re the Flash:

    This is curious: “He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.”

    Didn’t Pachauri send out those certificates to IPCC contributors? Or have I got that wrong. Still, it’s nice to see the Nobel Committee responding forcefully on this.

  386. Using MIke’s Nobel Trick I just got inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame and am soon to be knighted (waiting for my certificate to finish printing on my inkjet). I shall hereby be known as Baseball Hall of Famer Sir Reginald Nelson.

  387. Oops. Climate Depot is backing off the “he edited” assertion – one that the Nobel committee also assumed. Looks like that certificate was issued by IPCC as-is. Still – he’s no NP recipient.

  388. Mickey Reno:

    I write to thank you for your post at October 26, 2012 at 9:03 am which says

    I read with some amusement (and some frustration, too) the back-and-forth between Richard Courtney and Phil. On one point, Phil is correct to say that Mann in his 98 hockey stick paper didn’t use Briffa’s divergent data. But it’s wrong of Phil to then conclude that the divergence problem doesn’t have anything to do with Mann. The term “Mike’s Nature Trick” derives from Mann’s exclusion of a PORTION of Briffa’s proxy record during the entire late 20th century warming period, which PORTION would have shown the divergence problem in Mann’s paper, too. This exclusion shows Mann to be cherry picking, and intentionally hiding a known source of contradictory information. Mann should have excluded the ENTIRE proxy (in which case, he might not have had enough data on which to base a long recontruction), or included the ENTIRE proxy, which would have shown the divergence problem, and he’d have to deal with that problem in his analysis. In either case, since the whole point of his paper was to DO a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction, this proxy and it’s attendent problems should have been mentioned by Mann, even if he didn’t use it.

    Yes, you are correct.

    My short summary was not precise on that point which I consider to be a point of detail although – as you say – it would need to be spelled-out in the court case.

    Richard

  389. Duke C. says:
    “Is there a Captain Queeg Moment in Mann’s future? He’s drawing perilously close to the edge”

    We could send Mann some ball bearings so that he will have them handy when needed.

  390. I bet a close relative gave that to him as a feel good gift and Mann is having amnesia as to it’s origins.
    A little Lithium drip should help take the edge off.

  391. Well using Michael Mann’s logic every person in the EU can now print off their own personal Nobel peace prize certificate.

  392. In light of:
    i) The Norwegian Nobel Institute’s response and
    ii) Michael Mann’s now conflating the latter with “d*niers” and
    iii) He and his followers – unbelievably – continuing to parrot the party line on both his facebook page and twitter,

    May I be the first to say:

    Ahahaahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! *takes breath* …ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

  393. Taphonomic says:
    October 26, 2012 at 9:41 am

    Indeed. Interesting visual. Spinning yarns about hockey stick blades and Nobel awards whilst fingering his steel balls.

  394. Cooke: Sorry. I’m trying to look for some information about previous winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.
    Nobel Committee: Which one?
    Cooke: I was wondering, has Dr. Michael Mann ever won the Nobel Peace Prize?
    Nobel Committee: No, no. He has never won the Nobel prize.
    Cooke: He’s never won it?
    Nobel Committee: No.
    Cooke: Oh, it says on his-
    Nobel Committee: The organization won it. It’s not a personal prize to people belonging to an organization.
    Cooke: Okay. So if I were to write that he’d won it, that would be incorrect?
    Nobel Committee: That is incorrect, yes.

    Cooke: Oh, okay. Well maybe this is a big question. Okay, but he hasn’t won it. That is the answer.
    Nobel Committee: No, he has not won it at all.

    Oh … ouch … SKEWERED!

    Skewer: “A skewer is a thin metal or wood stick used to hold pieces of food together. They are used while grilling or roasting meats … ”

    .

  395. @Glenn (right at the beginning of these comments!)
    “…I don’t feel comfortable criticizing his alleged misuse of principal components analysis or the fact that MacIntyre apparently replicated his model and found that it produces hockeystick predictions from any dataset. They seem to have incredibly aggressive and complex defenses against all that…”

    Indeed. I have tried to understand what the issues are. I have followed McIntyre’s ‘de-centred’ arguments, but the difficulty is deciding what sort of manipulations are acceptable if this is a field you have never worked in before.

    However, we do have the testimony of Ian Joliffe, who wrote the book (literally) on PCA. Dr Joliffe is not a climate specialist, but he firmly believes in AGW and the consensus, so he is in no way biased against Mann. He is on record in Tamino’s blog as saying that he cannot understand Mann’s mathematical manipulations, as they don’t make sense. (Hey, I like that! MMM!)

    In that blog (sorry I haven’t got the reference), he continues by saying that he is sure that other research will back up the truth of AGW. So I think that Joliffe is a scientist from another discipline who has been fed the AGW Koolaid, but is still fundamentally a good scientist, and unwilling to lie or dissemble in the areas of his expertise. His misgivings make me much firmer in my belief that the MMMs we are discussing are in fact phoney…

  396. The certificate in the picture is from the IPCC, not the Nobel Committee. Possibly it’s worth the paper it’s printed on, but probably not.

  397. John Whitman says:
    October 26, 2012 at 9:22 am

    ” . . . now I realize that I am also a Nobel Prize winner too. Yeah, Obama as a US president got the Nobel Prize and since I am US citizen it means I got the Nobel Prize too. : )”

    Well, I think that you can only claim a part of Obama’s Nobel prize if you voted for him – so I am, sadly, not a (partial) Nobel recipient like Mike Mann…[heh].

  398. Considering Trenberth’s preoccupation with getting momentos of the IPCC effort, I am led to wonder if he is the Nobel Laureate who prodded the production of the fake momento certificates.

  399. Mark Wagner says October 26, 2012 at 9:26 am

    Mann’s certificate clearly states that it is from the IPCC to Mann for his contribution. It is not from the Nobel Committee.

    A recipient of the Nobel Prize canno[t] bestow a Nobel, a “co-Nobel” or a “sub-Nobel” on contributors.

    From the opening post up above on this thread:
    .

    On the one hand, [from] Michael Mann’s own web page:

    He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.

    On the other, the Nobel committee [states]:

    Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize.

    .

    .

    PS. I just checked his webpage; it’s still showing as noted above …

    .

  400. Out of interest, would a Nobel Prize winner reasonably expect to gain financially from holding that honour? In terms of prospective employment, successful grant bids etc?

    If he would then it seems to me that his claim to the Court of being a “Nobel Prize winner” isn’t just dishonest but amounts to fraud in itself. What exactly is the penalty in the US for making fraudulent claims to a Court?

  401. Blackswhitewash says:
    October 26, 2012 at 9:19 am

    Michael Mann strikes me as a person who has a mental illness.
    ________________________
    Nobel Committee: Okay, because I’ve got something from Boston and NY Mental Examiner that asked about the same thing.
    ——————-
    email inquiry from NY Mental Examiner?

  402. M Courtney says:
    October 26, 2012 at 12:17 am
    From what Phil says at October 25, 2012 at 9:58 am I assume he thinks that Briffa committed a “fr@ud”.

    Like your father you appear to be having difficulty understanding what’s written.

    To recap:

    1)In MBH98 & 99 a reconstruction was performed based on a multiproxy approach, it did not show a recent ‘decline’ or exhibit ‘divergence’. The plot included the calibrated proxy data and the temperature data used to calibrate, quite properly, no hiding of anything.

    2)Briffa undertook reconstructions which were solely based on tree data and found that a certain subset of the trees showed a divergence from their local temperatures (those from the northern boreal forests). This divergence was indicated and extensively discussed in Briffa’s papers,he even drew attention to it by using the following title in a letter to Nature: “Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes”.
    So he certainly wasn’t trying to hide it, he was trying to explain why those particular trees were no longer a good proxy for the local temperature.

    3)Phil Jones in preparing graphics in which he wanted to include his colleague, Briffa’s reconstruction apparently wanted to de-emphasize the divergence shown by Briffa’s data. He chose to do this by plotting the temperature over the decline in Briffa’s data. He referred to this in an email as ‘hiding the decline’ and ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ even though Mann didn’t hide anything in his paper’s.

    While that may be good support for Mann it does throw the CRU under a bus.
    Phil, you may want to be careful next time you meets any UK climatologists.

    Why, they did exactly what I said and have acknowledged that they did.

    Even so, that Briffa (who Phil indicates committed a “fr@ud”) refers to “Mike’s Nature trick” at all doesn’t greatly support Mann.

    I didn’t ‘indicate’ any such thing. As I said it was Phil. Jones who christened it “Mike’s Nature trick”, that he used Mann’s perfectly legitimate procedure to cover something up doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong in using it for its original purpose.

    How Mike enables “fr@ud”in his own work and Briffa’s is less important than that he does.
    A point which Phil has conceded.

    I certainly made no such concession, see above.

    Your father’s repeated assertion that Mann had a ‘divergence problem’ in MBH98 & 99 and plotted Temperature data to ‘hide the decline’ is false which is why I rebutted it, that he declines to withdraw the assertion and is unable to support his assertion, speaks volumes.

  403. { The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
    October 26, 2012 at 7:44 am
    “I’m with Andy L, above: “From now on, I suggest we all refer to Mann as “fake Nobel Laureate Micheal Mann” }

    While some of you folks may be too young to understand this, I suggest we henceforth refer to Michael Mann as:

    Tricky Micky

    He’s been trying to slip a micky on us for 15 years.

  404. Blackswhitewash says:
    October 26, 2012 at 9:19 am

    Michael Mann strikes me as a person who has a mental illness.

    Not a true mental illness, more of a personality disorder. He’s more or less socially functional. He’s handicapped by excess ego and a serious dose of vanity. The conflation of Nobel “contribution” and “award” reveals that. But nearly all prominent scientists share serious ego to a degree. Without it, they don’t possess enough force of character to get people to pay attention to their ideas. You have to be able to insist. But a really successful scientist can also put up a barrier between ego and critical thought. If they can’t, they become wedded to their original ideas and can’t drop them when something more interesting comes along. Too much ego and you can be found defending the indefensible – like climate models that don’t work.

  405. This comment lasted about 5 minutes on the FB page:

    “Probably best not to take credit for the effort of the commons”

    That’s lefty speak for “you didn’t build that”.

  406. Mickey Reno says:
    October 26, 2012 at 9:03 am
    I read with some amusement (and some frustration, too) the back-and-forth between Richard Courtney and Phil. On one point, Phil is correct to say that Mann in his 98 hockey stick paper didn’t use Briffa’s divergent data. But it’s wrong of Phil to then conclude that the divergence problem doesn’t have anything to do with Mann. The term “Mike’s Nature Trick” derives from Mann’s exclusion of a PORTION of Briffa’s proxy record during the entire late 20th century warming period, which PORTION would have shown the divergence problem in Mann’s paper, too.

    No it doesn’t it derives from Phil Jones’s preparation of a graphic in which he used the plotting of temperature data to obscure the ‘decline’ at the end of Briffa’s reconstruction.

  407. “Nobel Committee: Okay, because I’ve got something from Boston and NY Mental Examiner that asked about the same thing.” (bold mine)

    Too funny! More popcorn, please.

  408. Mann is now saying that many IPCC contributors make the same Nobel claim.

    Another failure of peer review.

    Lemmings.

  409. Frank K. says:
    October 26, 2012 at 10:11 am

    @John Whitman (October 26, 2012 at 9:22 am)

    ” . . . now I realize that I am also a Nobel Prize winner too. Yeah, Obama as a US president got the Nobel Prize and since I am US citizen it means I got the Nobel Prize too. : )”

    Well, I think that you can only claim a part of Obama’s Nobel prize if you voted for him – so I am, sadly, not a (partial) Nobel recipient like Mike Mann…[heh].

    – – – – – – –

    Frank K.,

    : ) Good one.

    Although I have never voted for anyone named Obama and won’t this November either, I still claim ownership of Obama’s Nobel Prize while he was US president. As a US citizen I paid for his salary and the expenses of his presidential executive office, his prize is mine too.

    John,
    The Nobel Prize Recipient (of the Mannian Order of Nobel Prize Delusionists)

  410. This twx just in from MM:
    “I’m just as surprised as you all are to learn that I’m not really a Nobel Laureate. Maybe that explains why I wasn’t invited to speak at the ceremony and didn’t receive the Nobel cash in the mail.”/s

  411. surely the team must have SOMEONE in their ranks who can impersonate a member of the Nobel committee, forge a supportive policy document then get it published in the warmist press

  412. BIts from old USA Today article. Was Trenberth instrumental in geting production of the mementos ?

    “Mother Nature keeps helping us along because the evidence just keeps piling up,” said Kevin Trenberth, a lead author on the 1995, 2001 and 2007 reports.

    Trenberth,(…) said he hopes the prize increases the impact of the explanations he and other scientists give to audiences(…) .

    “All the scientists that have contributed to the work of the IPCC are the Nobel laureates who have been recognized and acknowledged by the Nobel Prize Committee,” said Rajendra Pachauri,(…).

    “They should feel deeply encouraged and inspired. It is their contribution which has been recognized,” said Pachauri. “I only happen to be a functionary that essentially oversees the process.”

    (…)

    Piers Forster (…) of Leeds said in a statement: “It’s every scientist’s dream to win a Nobel Prize, so this is great for myself and the hundreds that worked(…) perhaps a little deflating though — that one man and his PowerPoint show has as much influence as the decades of dedicated work by so many scientists.”
    Associated Press writers Frank Jordans and Eliane Engeler contributed to this report.

  413. The good news for Mikey is that, considering the direction of his career and reputation, he is very familiar with hiding declines.

  414. If Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth received the Nobel Peace Prize, then so did Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. But I doubt they’d ever be so egotistical as to make a poster out of it.

  415. Mickey Reno:

    Your post at October 26, 2012 at 9:03 am is clear, good and accurate.
    I accepted your correcting my statements but Phil has objected to your having corrected his.

    I write to offer sincere advice: i.e.
    your input was good and you have no need to get sucked-in to one of Phil’s interminable exchanges which are intended to show he is ‘right’.

    If you reply to him then it is inevitable that Phil will – as he always does – wriggle and change meanings until he eventually claims to have ‘won’. If you don’t then your clear correction to both him and me will remain for all to see.

    Richard

  416. reading Mann’s tweets ( whilst I am still able ) it appears he’s now deflecting criticism by addressing the Nobel issue as though it’s the certificate which is being called into question.( that also appears to be the case in the enquirer piece and makes it as if Mann produced the certificate which is untrue ) There is no doubt that’s authentic. The IPCC sent out 2000 of them with an accompanying letter. It’s a thank you.

    By doing this Mann is deflecting the issue away from the reality which is that he personally as well as his legal team have claimed in a number of different media & legal documents that he personally is a (shared ) recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. It is this fact that is categorically untrue & it is this detail that should be kept high profile so as to display the integrity & hubris of the man.

  417. Larry Fields says:
    October 26, 2012 at 12:44 am
    There have been several comments on the words, “…every replication of Mann’s work…” By the conventions of logic, this part of the claim is true–vacuously true. How so, you ask?

    Although others have done relevant tree ring analysis, there are NO replications of Mann’s work, because Mikey refuses to disgorge his ‘data’ and computer code.

    And yet in a PNAS paper he included a Supporting Information section stating where the data could be found: “See Table S1 and supplementary spreadsheet (‘‘1290proxynames.xls’’) for additional details and sources for proxy data used.”

    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalPNAS08.pdf

  418. Oh, this isn’t going to set well with Mann’s ego. Mann, oh, Mann. Quite embarrassing. My guess is that Mann assumed he could simply intimidate someone

  419. Has anybody asked the Nobel Committee whether the IPCC/Pachauri obtained permission to make some 2,000 reproductions of their certificate graphic & text which they then customised with their own text and disseminated so exclusively?

    I am assuming that the Nobel Committee retain copyright to their iconography.

  420. Michael Mann not a Nobel Prize winner? Oh my God, this is very disturbing news. As a member of the European Union I thought I was a Nobel Prize winner too. I certainly deserve to be after suffering the idiocies of the EU for 40 years. I have fabricated a little poster for my window.
    As the Global Warming scare continues to collapse there are some serious losers going down with the ship; the BBC, the Royal Society, the Nobel Foundation and arrogant examples of people like Michael Mann.

  421. @ M Courtney says: October 26, 2012 at 8:12 am

    Alas for us Colonials, Cannucks, and Aussies, we must labor in the knowledge we will never see a Piece prize! I guess we just have to go on living our lives. ;-)

  422. The first Nobel and other Christmas greetings
    Seasons greetings to you all, my fellow Nobel Laureates (even if we did not get to go to
    Oslo).

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=412

    The Nobel Peace Prize was , however, the icing on the cake for all the effort. I know many skeptics have referred to this award as a political gesture – but this has always been the case.
    I still have the lists of who was involved that I prepared for Jacquie, so I could check through a Table if you’re producing one.
    Cheers
    Phil

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2461

    Karl Taylor wrote:

    > Hi Tom,
    >
    > Ben told me you were attempting to determine how to divide the prize
    > money. Here’s my quick go at it:

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2546

    Cheers, Francis
    PS – I guess we are writing to each other as Nobel Laureates now –
    congratulations!

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4143

  423. richardscourtney says:
    October 26, 2012 at 10:49 am
    Mickey Reno:

    Your post at October 26, 2012 at 9:03 am is clear, good and accurate.
    I accepted your correcting my statements but Phil has objected to your having corrected his.

    I write to offer sincere advice: i.e.
    your input was good and you have no need to get sucked-in to one of Phil’s interminable exchanges which are intended to show he is ‘right’.

    If you reply to him then it is inevitable that Phil will – as he always does – wriggle and change meanings until he eventually claims to have ‘won’.

    That’s actually your strategy, to make a claim about one paper which is false, then post part of a link about another paper written by another author with important information missing and pretend that you were right. Then run away declaring victory without ever addressing any of the points. I have been completely consistent here pointing out your incorrect attribution, haven’t changed a thing.

    If you don’t then your clear correction to both him and me will remain for all to see.

    Indeed but it will still be wrong as pointed out above.

  424. Henry@Phil.
    aren’t you even slightly worried about the fact that there is no warming?
    Man-made global warming was a hoax. Someone should have taken this apes to court a long time ago.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend

    Global warming and global cooling is all natural and I am stunned that learned men like Alley and Mann continue to want to mislead people.
    Go to the tomato farmers in Anchorage and get wise.(-1.5 degrees C since 2000)

    AS I WAS SAYING,
    whilst a storm is brewing which might hit sooner than you think,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/23/breaking-mann-has-filed-suit-against-nro/#comment-1123568

  425. Since US taxpayers “contributed to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize”, do we get any like attribution from the IPCC as Mann? Have we not all contributed equally or more than Mann to the IPCC?

    One would have to enjoy being embarrassed by the notoriety associated with such a “certificate of acknowledgement” in order to accept it, like the Mann has. The only responsible thing to do is to turn it down, demand our money back, and then kick the Gaia worshipping, blue helmets of the UN out of the US forever and ever.

  426. Duster says:
    October 26, 2012 at 10:28 am

    Blackswhitewash says:
    October 26, 2012 at 9:19 am

    Michael Mann strikes me as a person who has a mental illness.

    Not a true mental illness, more of a personality disorder. He’s more or less socially functional. He’s handicapped by excess ego and a serious dose of vanity.

    Naw, it is the religion of narcissism, nowadays know as atheism. It seems to be gaining in both acceptance and popularity these days, no doubt due to the detailed catechism in place in every public schools and university.

  427. Mickey Reno and Phil:

    I wrote to Mickey Reno at October 26, 2012 at 10:49 am saying

    your input was good and you have no need to get sucked-in to one of Phil’s interminable exchanges which are intended to show he is ‘right’.
    If you reply to him then it is inevitable that Phil will – as he always does – wriggle and change meanings until he eventually claims to have ‘won’

    Phil wrote at October 26, 2012 at 11:22 am …

    Quad Erat Demonstrandum

    Richard

  428. My money says this a short sale.
    Mann has gotten what he needed.
    Now he can say he sued the skeptics for their lies.
    Now he can drop the lawsuit.
    The MSM and Mann’s followers would never do a real investigation so who knows the truth?
    Unless someone involved can counter with a good lawsuit, there will be no further fanfare.
    He was exonerated originally, skeptics lied, he sued…End of story.
    cn

    To Phil:
    I don’t think you’re really that backward so it appears to me you are choosing to omit the facts.
    We didn’t coin the phrase “Mike’s Nature trick” or “Hide the decline”. I believe that might have been Phil Jones in one of the climategate emails. Alarmists say “trick” is just working man’s jargon but they don’t explain what it is that’s declining that they need to hide. Trick’s ok hide’s not.
    I’m guessing you haven’t read the climategate emails. That’s where I think you’re missing the rest of the story. One might be surprised what one could learn. I was.
    You should do your best to work your way through the “harry_read_me” file.
    You might ask as I did, “where’s the real data”?
    Between Mike, Kevin, James and Phil one wonders what other tricks they may have used to create their data, remove a journal editor or get themselves an award. I shudder to think of what’s in climategate 3.
    The alarmist’s big problem is, if there is a problem with the climate, the consequences of that problem are manageable. Alarmists cannot accept that premise. Worse yet they cannot prove that today’s weather is abnormal for earth.

    cn

  429. Yikes, Mann’s Facebook page is truly hilarious. This sad little man must be sitting behind his computer 18 hours a day as a bunch of fawning warmists constantly stroke his hockey stick. I wish he’d get off already.

  430. Nobel Committee: Okay, because I’ve got something from Boston and NY Mental Examiner that asked about the same thing.

    Didn’t she say “Enviro-mental Examiner”?

  431. Phil performs a useful service. He makes us check then double check what we say, and that is good and entirely right in a civilised debate.
    If Mann and the team had had a similar opposing view then we would not be in the mess we are in, vis climate science, and Mann would not be in the mess HE is in , vis his ‘Nobel award’

    so I wonder if Phil can confirm that he has been equally vociferous in attacking some of the warmist nonsense that we have been subjected to recently. Maybe a comment or two attacking Gleik, Gergis and this Nobel award foolishness

    or is it a one way street?

  432. EternalOptimist says:
    October 26, 2012 at 10:41 am

    surely the team must have SOMEONE in their ranks who can impersonate a member of the Nobel committee, forge a supportive policy document then get it published in the warmist press.

    [+emphasis]

    Forge? Impersonate?
    The name Gleick comes to mind.

  433. Phil. says at October 26, 2012 at 10:24 am “Phil Jones in preparing graphics in which he wanted to include his colleague, Briffa’s reconstruction apparently wanted to de-emphasize the divergence shown by Briffa’s data. He chose to do this by plotting the temperature over the decline in Briffa’s data. He referred to this in an email as ‘hiding the decline’ and ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ even though Mann didn’t hide anything in his paper’s.”

    So you now claim it is Prof Jones who is trying to molest the presentation of the data, not Briffa.

    Who will you throw under the bus next?

    Thus we see the split is between the US and UK climate hypochondriacs, not just a campaign against Briffa.

    Oh and Phil, something that is described as ‘hiding the decline’ and ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ could never possibly indicate that nothing was being hidden by ‘Mike’. Hiding knowledge is not legitimate. He is just another Phil Jones.
    Your English comprehension is as weak as your loyalty to British climatologists.

  434. Oh dearie, dearie me.

    Poor Mikey grassed up by his own Nobel Prize Committee!

    Misleading people about one’s qualifications and awards seems to be about the most serious offence an academic can commit.

    McSteve reminded us of the dodgy cancer researcher who was finally unglued not for fiddling his data to the deteriment of terminally ill patients (about which the academic community was entirely sanguine) but for falsely claiming to have been a Rhodes Scholar some years before

    http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/16/forensic-bioinformatics/

    That the latter should be seen as a great sin while the former wasn’t even considered a misdemeanour says a lot about the warped system of values in academia.

    But maybe this time it will come and bite Mikey in the bum. He has already plenty of enemies in the field and this will be manna from heaven.

    And I wonder how many other IPCC AR4 members have been falsely claiming to be Nobel Laureates?

  435. Apparently, Michael Mann has done nothing to correct the misconception that he was “awarded” or “received” or is the “recipient” or “winner” of a Nobel Prize or that he is a Nobel “lauriate” in numerous reports in the media or in interviews he has given.

    A sample:

    Agence France-Presse, 11/18/2010

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/11/18/10/expect-more-rain-heat-and-hurricanes-say-scientists

    […]
    Mann, a Nobel-Prize winning scientist who was cleared of allegations of misconduct this year stemming from a series of leaked emails between scientists about climate change, said he too has learned from his experiences.

    PennLive, July 28, 2010

    http://www.pennlive.com/letters/index.ssf/2010/07/pennfuture_does_good_work_on_b.html

    […]
    The Commonwealth Foundation went after Dr. Michael Mann, Penn State University professor and internationally acclaimed climate scientist, one of the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.
    […]

    The Amherst New Era-Progress, January 18, 2012

    http://www2.wsls.com/news/2012/jan/18/scientist-says-greenhouse-gasses-causing-global-wa-ar-1622178/

    A noted climate scientist and Nobel laureate says “there essentially isn’t any uncertainty” that greenhouse gases, or carbon dioxide emissions, are causing global warming.
    “Scientists don’t debate that anymore,” said Michael Mann, who appeared at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in the Clifford community of Amherst Wednesday night as part of a speaker’s series to help people understand global warming.
    […]

    Flyer News, Sep 26, 2011

    http://www.google.com/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&tbm=nws&gl=uk&as_q=LAUREATE&as_epq=MICHAEL%20MANN&as_occt=any&as_drrb=a&tbs=ar%3A1&authuser=0

    Most recently, Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University professor, spoke about global …
    […]
    Mann, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner and lead author of the …

    Businesswire, April 19, 2010

    http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100419006420/en

    PITTSBURGH–(BUSINESS WIRE)– … and Dr. Michael Mann, climate change expert and a lead author of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report, and Nobel Peace Prize recipient (along with former Vice President Al Gore and other IPCC scientists)

    Mann, Nobel-Winning Climate Scientist, Cleared of Wrongdoing
    CBS News, July 1, 2010

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20009478-501465.html

    […]
    The review also noted that Mann’s work on the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received recognition (along with several hundred other scientists) in the form of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
    […]

    Just as he fraudulently does little to correct the common misconception that his hockey stick is about “global” (rather than Northern hemisphere only) warming. Just as he fraudulently downplayed the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Just as he fraudulently chose a timeline that omits other warmer episodes of the Holocene, to support the alarmist narrative that present warmth is “unprecedented”. And just as he fraudulently did little to inform people that the blade of his stick ends in an (exceptional) El-Nino.

    [And, incidentally, just as Ross Gelbspan (early promoter of the climate-skeptic-tobacco-lobby-tactics meme) does little to dispell the notion that he is a Pullitzer Prize winner]

    Failure to correct common (and damaging) misconceptions when you have ample opportunity to do so is almost as fraudulent as propagating those misconceptions yourself. Anyone who does so is a fraud.
    ———————————

    One publication that really ought to know better does something similar with one of Mann’s cronies.

    Nature Reports Climate Change, 14 May 2009

    http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0906/full/climate.2009.45.html

    Nobel laureate Rajendra Pachauri has implored, eating less meat.

    ———————————

    Mann now writes on his Facebook page

    …many other IPCC co-authors … have found the IPCC’s official commendation to lead authors (“contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize”) translated to having been co-awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

    Mann’s justification for his claim is now a nascent ‘consensus’ opinion among IPCC co-authors. So those folks at the Nobel Committee with a different point of view must be “deniers”, “contrarians”, funded by Exxon and employing the tactics of the tobacco lobby. [/sarc]
    ———————————

    Mann asks:

    Do they want my birth certif. too?

    No, but I would like to see a map indicating the locations of the trees and other proxies used to create Mann’s hockey stick. I would like to know exactly how many trees were sampled at each location and the weight given to them in deriving the result. I would like to see separate graphs for each proxy before they are weighted and combined. I would like to see a graph overlayed onto Mann’s hockey stick showing the number of trees (and other proxy samples) used to derive the temperature for each year. Is that too much to ask?

    I would like to see Mann’s stick extended to the present and back to the beginning of the Holocene (with whatever proxies can be found). I would like to see data from the Southern hemisphere (collected if necessary and) incorporated to make the graph “global”. Considering the billions being spent and that will be spent, based on the presmise that Mann’s stick props up, is that too much to ask?

  436. Wow, a certificate from the IPCC.

    That has to be worth something..????? …………… Doesn’t it ???

    Its probably more than 80gsm paper, so the logical purpose is out ……unless you are a masichist. ;-)

  437. The Peace Prize was given primarily to Gore for his film and activism. In his film he used fake footage, talked of 100 foot sea level rise which only James Hansen agrees with, and pulled a number of other whoppers. The link between this film and “peace” is a complete mystery. Presumably someone thought climate change would cause wars? The hat tip to IPCC was secondary. If I was the recipient of a second-hand “recognition” from Pachauri related to a propagand piece by Gore with dubious connections to vague ideas about peace and still viewed myself as a serious scientist, I would simply put it away and never mention it. To believe that the public is impressed that a scientist got a peace prize (as one of 2000 contributors) smacks of delusion.

  438. Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, or The Norwegian Nobel Institute emailed me back with the following:

    1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
    2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.
    3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.

    (NOTE: on point 3, another example here (PDF) suggests that the IPCC added that text, not Mann – Anthony)

    Lundestad goes on to say that, “Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not.”

    ===============================================================
    The Nobel Peace Prize comes with a cash award. I guess he knows now that the check didn’t get lost in the mail.

  439. Mann’s current Curriculum Vitae has this entry:

    2007 Co-awarded (with other IPCC report authors) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv.php

    However, there is an older copy with different wording:

    2007 Co-awarded (along with several hundred other scientists) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for
    involvement in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (lead author of chapter 2 of the
    Third Assessment Report, 2001)

    http://www.geosc.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Mann_Vitae.pdf

    Why would he edit his Nobel entry?

    1. To make it less “wordy”?
    2. To inflate his own self importance?

    I’m trying to think of more reasons…

  440. Following Update 4:

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Hahahahahahaha…cough cough, splutter, gasp…. HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahah! Oh my g….. Hahahahahahahahahah! What an absolute pri..HAHAHAHAHahahahahahahaha!

  441. ” Rob Dawg says:
    October 26, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    What are the penalties for submitting false documents to the courts?”

    As sworn testimony, it could be perjury. I am not sure if statements made in the complaint are considered sworn testimony. I think that response to admissions is considered sworn. I know other responses (interrogatories) are usually not considered sworn testimony.

    David

  442. As a measurement of alarmist funding, hubris and claimed awards, the hockey stick is reasonably accurate.

  443. Look at you all! Just look at you all….. Astonishing amount of bullshit, gossip, self-congratulation, sheer nastiness, wriggling & writhing. No wonder you aren’t taken seriously.

  444. @Duke C,

    Personally, I think you selected the wrong fictional ship’s captian to compare Mann to. I think it’s more likely that he (or rather his career) is headed for a captian Ahab (Moby Dick) moment.

  445. Tim says:
    October 26, 2012 at 1:36 pm (Edit)
    Look at you all! Just look at you all….. Astonishing amount of bullshit, gossip, self-congratulation, sheer nastiness, wriggling & writhing. No wonder you aren’t taken seriously.

    #################

    Tim is that suppose to be a commentary on the climategate mails?

  446. Tim says:
    October 26, 2012 at 1:36 pm
    Look at you all! Just look at you all….. Astonishing amount of bullshit, gossip, self-congratulation, sheer nastiness, wriggling & writhing. No wonder you aren’t taken seriously.

    ==============================================================
    Pssst…Tim, this is WUWT, not RealClimate or Mikey’s tweet.

  447. @Centers for Disease Control

    I’m going to have to pull you up on this. I’m proud to be an atheist. Or at least what I think an atheist is. I don’t subscribe to any doctrine so I suppose the label might not fit me but my position remains the same. However I won’t explain that position to you as it has no bearing on the issue of climate change. I am opposed to preaching.

    Indeed my politics are what can be described in the UK as ‘left of centre’ which on the political scale of the US could put me somewhere left of Stalin. It does not matter though.
    My understanding of the CAGW theory is based upon my education and understanding of work done by others. It’s that which allows me to refute and dismiss it.

    This point is something others here would do well to consider. Your politics or religion ( or lack thereof ) should not interfere with your understanding of, or work in the science. All manner of pre-conceived bias can be introduced and not only that, you’ll just plain insult people ( which is what prompted me to write this )

    I’m a labour (UK) voter. I’m an atheist as much as I understand the label and I am a staunch opponent of the theory that man is influencing the climate to the extent that we are able to do anything about it. Only the latter should matter here.

  448. Reg Nelson says: October 26, 2012 at 9:33 am

    “Using MIke’s Nobel Trick I just got inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame and am soon to be knighted (waiting for my certificate to finish printing on my inkjet). I shall hereby be known as Baseball Hall of Famer Sir Reginald Nelson.”

    Too Funny!!!!!!!!! Seriously……too darn funny!!!!!!

  449. So one part of a document which is nothing to do with a Nobel Prize has been spliced onto a copy of a Nobel Prize certificate. A bit like the splicing of selective proxy temperature data onto instrumental temperature data to hide the decline in the proxy data.
    Is this Mike’s Nobel trick?

  450. Tim

    I see you’re back and now all you have to say is that we are all nasty and bullshitting.

    I really do wonder how you and those on Mann’s facebook page are able to stare facts in the face and then your only reaction is to insult evrybody here indiscrimately. It says so much.

    There is no bullshit. I started to look into this quite a few days ago and my posts on it are about the first that got out there. I checked my facts, contacted the Nobel.org and did not just throw out any unfounded information. I posted it because I thought it to be a very serious issue for an academic. Clerarly many believe so, too.

    This issue is beyond any doubt. We are talking 100%. Not the clinate science sort of certainty, but actual 100% truth. And when your earlier dissembling in this post was not successful here you are insulting everyone.

    Mann has written on his facebook page:

    “Its sort of funny how the rabble don’t seem too interested in the fact that many other IPCC co-authors (e.g. University of Montana scientists Steve Running) have found the IPCC’s official commendation to lead authors (“contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize”) translated to having been co-awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize”

    Just breathtaking. Many others have “found” the certificate “translated” to having been awarded the prize.

    See. Nothing to do with them. It has merely been “found” to have been “transalated” into a claim to be a Nobel Laureate. Every single time without fail that some issue or other comes up about Mann he demonstrates

    Someone should take a screenshot of the facebook page. It is incredibly revealing and relevant to the current legal dispute.

  451. Mann claiming to have won the Nobel Prize is like those sad people who falsely claim to have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

    Does he value himself so poorly, despite his real accomplishments, that he has to delude himself with such a claim?

  452. Tim says:
    October 26, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    When a donkey like Mann makes such a complete Ass of himself – what did you think we would do? Pat him on the back and say, ‘Never mind dear!’, the millions of starving energy and poverty stricken folk in the world have seen billions wasted into CAGW whilst struggling for even basic necessities like clean water! The ridicule directed at skeptics just for asking how he produced his results for his pal reviewed paper(s) has come back to bite his own backside and is THOROUGHLY deserved.

  453. Calm down, Tim. No one takes this seriously. Steyn doesn’t take it seriously. CEI doesn’t take it seriously. NR doesn’t take it seriously. Mann… well, most people don’t take it seriously. But seriously. Why would a guy like Mann who avoids debating his stick with sceptics at every opportunity want to debate the first amendment with Steyn? He should stick to what he thinks he knows and continue debating with his friends. It’s safer.

  454. sorry posting malfunction:

    ………he demonstrates a deliberate evasion of the actual issue and gets straight to the usual Koch Brothers, conspiracy crap.

  455. Tim says:
    October 26, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    “Look at you all! Just look at you all….. Astonishing amount of bullshit, gossip, self-congratulation, sheer nastiness, wriggling & writhing. No wonder you aren’t taken seriously.”

    Shame, shame, I agree. We should all gather up our dignity and behave like IPCC Nobel Peace Prize laureates… oh wait… nevermind… seriously…

  456. Do you think his lawyers are ready to strangle him? I’m surprised they haven’t taken him off the twit. Given the care being demonstrated, I’m beginning to think the suit isn’t all that serious.

    CYA P.S. – For those who don’t understand literary devices (demonstrably some) the “strangle him” is not literal. It is a figure of speech.

  457. Nobel Peace Prize?

    It’s not even one of the big three for science: Physics, Chemistry, or Medicine and Physiology.

    Apparently, the Nobel Peace Prize is now handed out in Europe with every order of moules et frites – mussels and chips.

  458. Tim says:
    October 26, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Look at you all! Just look at you all….. Astonishing amount of bullshit, gossip, self-congratulation, sheer nastiness, wriggling & writhing. No wonder you aren’t taken seriously.
    __________________

    That’s just insulting and I can’t understand why the mods let it stand, unless to allow you to receive the lesson you will get.

    Do you think people here are idiots? Are we all right-wing hummer drivers with shares in big oil? I find the commentators on WUWT that be amongst the most highly intelligent community i have the luck to participate in.

    Don’t insult people. Argue with them. Argue with them in the scientific meaning of the word. Disagree? Say so and say why. Don’t insult, it just makes you look like a fool.

  459. BTW Tim. I think that given your propensity to insult that you should declare yourself & your interest.

    My name is Craig Frier and I have shares in BP which my grandad bought me. Should I cash them in I might get to take some friends for a slap up meal.

  460. “Boston and NY Mental Examiner” in the Nobel Institute transcript sounds more like “Boston Environmenal Examiner” to me.

  461. @Typhoon’

    Apparently, the Nobel Peace Prize is now handed out in Europe with every order of moules et frites – mussels and chips.

    That’s a good point. As our overlords keep on trying to persuade me that I am a citizen of the EU and it just got the award, I think I can claim without hesitation to be

    Latimer Alder, Mannian Laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize 2012.

  462. Tim, you’re right about one thing, our joy at Mann’s legal action can barely be contained.
    For a couple of reasons actually, first the Barbara Streisand Effect – as phrases like “Mike’s Nature trick”…”Hide the Decline” and “Climategate emails” get a fresh new audience. This wider exposure is good for us.
    Secondly let’s call it the “Oscar Wilde Effect”….because it was revelations that arose during a legal action Oscar himself instigated that destroyed him. A court of law is a dangerous place for someone who has something to hide and as we know by his own admission, Mike ‘hid the decline’.
    Throw in the fact that someone who as long been portrayed as a self aggrandising, puffball actually claims (in writing, as part of his defence!!!) to have been ‘awarded’ the Nobel Prize as part of his defence…when it’s clear as day that he hasn’t and I think we have the makings of an exciting and entertaining new front in the destruction of your Warmist Drivel™.
    It’s been a long time coming…surely you can understand why we’re so pleased?

  463. Just thinking, now when Mann goes to the EU he can introduce himself to EVERY SINGLE PERSON he walks by on the street as a fellow nobel prize winner.

  464. Tim says:
    October 26, 2012 at 2:15 pm
    Gunga,
    my point exactly, no science, no fact on here, just gossip and pathetic insults

    =========================================================
    I see you can read comments about as well as Mann reads tree rings.
    The words are there but you only see what you want.
    PS Is the title of Mann’s next book going to be “The Laureate Wars”?

  465. On correction to the transcript. Not “NY Mental Examiner” — Environmental Examiner… lol

  466. Tim says:
    October 26, 2012 at 2:15 pm
    Gunga,
    my point exactly, no science, no fact on here, just gossip and pathetic insults

    ________________________________-

    And your comments?

  467. Tim says:
    October 26, 2012 at 2:15 pm
    Gunga,
    my point exactly, no science, no fact on here, just gossip and pathetic insults

    That implies that you feel there is no science or fact on WUWT – correct? In which case why don’t you just go away (polite version!) – as clearly you have nothing to learn or add? Why are you even reading these posts? You must have some kind of masochistic tendencies – go see Mann and ask if he will beat you with his hockey stick!

  468. Tim says: October 26, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Just look at you …….. Astonishing amount of bullshit, gossip, self-congratulation, sheer nastiness, wriggling & writhing. No wonder you aren’t taken seriously.
    ………….
    Addressing his mirror image?

  469. Hope the secretarial staff – especially the ones that produced that document – were awarded one too ! Their assistance is also invaluable in an enterprise which does little more than produce documents !

  470. Joe Guerk says:
    October 26, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    Mann claiming to have won the Nobel Prize is like those sad people who falsely claim to have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
    …”

    While I think most readers here recognize what you are trying to point out regarding character flaws exhibited by Dr. Mann, I think it is an extremely bad analogy to relate the Nobel Peace prize in any way to the Congressional Medal of Honor.

    I feel that the Medal of Honor is so much a greater award, and that they who receive it so much more deserving of accolades than little doctor M, that it is like comparing it to… well, in my opinion nothing compares with the Medal of Honor except the equivalent medals of SOME other nations such as Great Brittain or France.

  471. Tim says:
    October 26, 2012 at 2:15 pm
    […] no fact on here […]

    So it’s not a FACT, confirmed by the organisation that hands them out, that Mr Mann isn’t entitled to call himself a Nobel Laureate?

    And it isn’t a FACT that he not only has been anyway, but is now defending his position with no sign of simply saying “oops, I misunderstood, better get that off my resume sharpish!”?

    Those may not be facts in the Climate Science interpretation of the word but I’m pretty sure 9with at least 95% confidence) that they are in the correct one ;)

  472. This thread is getting to long for my PC to keep up with but I’ll leave it with this:
    (I know. I’ve put this up before. But I think I did a pretty job on it. Hope you like, Tim.)

    Stopping by Yamal on a Snowy Evening
    By Michael Mann

    What tree this is, I think I know.
    It grew in Yamal some time ago.
    Yamal 06 I’m placing here
    In hopes a hockey stick will grow.

    But McIntyre did think it queer
    No tree, the stick did disappear!
    Desparate measures I did take
    To make that stick reappear.

    There were some corings from a lake.
    And other data I could bake.
    I’ll tweek my model more until
    Another hockey stick I’ll make!

    I changed a line into a hill!
    I can’t say how I was thrilled!
    Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
    Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.

  473. Seems The “Nobel” group have “declined” to give poor little MM his prize.

    Bruised ego,

    how embarrassment !!!!!

    Another “decline” the will try to hide.

  474. I think Mann deserves some more respect here! After all, what would the IPCC TAR or Gore’s Movie have been without the hockey stick?
    /sarc

  475. To put Mann’s hubris in perspective, here is a list of organizations that have won the Nobel Peace Prize.

    International Peace Bureau
    International Committee of the Red Cross
    Nansen International Office For Refugees
    International Committee of the Red Cross
    Friends Service Council
    American Friends Service Committee
    United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
    International Committee of the Red Cross
    League of Red Cross societies
    United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF)
    International Labour Organization
    Amnesty International
    United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
    International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
    United Nations Peace-Keeping Forces
    Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
    International Campaign to Ban Landmines;
    Médecins Sans Frontières
    United Nations
    International Atomic Energy Agency;
    Grameen Bank
    European Union

    According to Mann’s rationale all the people who contributed to these organizations can claim to be Nobel Laureates.

    ———————-

    Considering that the Nobel Peace Prize committee justified their 2009 award to Obama, in part, with the words:

    Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.

    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

    …and that those “great climatic challenges” got zero coverage in the recent Presidential debates, do you think they might ask for it back?

  476. Tim says:
    October 26, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    “The time for honouring yourselves will soon be at an end”- Maximus

  477. A former work colleague had one of those certificates. I can’t remember whether his name was on it; but he certainly didn’t have a Mann-sized ego, and never claimed to have shared the Nobel Peace Prize.

  478. Stanley summed it up well for me: “They are becoming increasingly desperate Anthony. Keep up the good work. We are winning the war. No mention of climate change at any of the presidential debate, and nothing more than a passing mention for the entire campaign. Climate change is no longer on the radar of rational, educated people.”

    We have been warming up for several thousand years, with an occasional cooling period.

    No doubt humanity, and especially China, have added pollution and maybe even some slight temperature change.

    But, computing that change would be one really difficult equation.

    ghost.

  479. @tim. I’ve given your comments an honest reply. Your response and not even to me appears to be ‘lol’

    Where I’m from that’s considered incredibly crass. But that might just be me .

    @F. Ross. I think you may have grasped the wrong end of a shitty stick there.

    Please don’t fight that argument. I’ve been there & done that so to speak.
    I have some medals. Want to see them? No of course not. Allow us servicemen to accept our accolades ( which I have in a box right here if Dr. Mann is confused ) without making an issue of it.

    as I say to others. Stop being offended for people who don’t need you to be..

  480. Gunga Din says:
    October 26, 2012 at 2:41 pm
    Well it certainly won’t be titled ‘Lord of the Rings’ – although maybe ‘Lord of the Ringpiece’ (sorry folks couldn’t resist)

  481. Tim says:
    glad you’re all enjoying your jolly ……. carry on!

    Waiting for MM, Trenberth et all to remove their FAKE Nobel awards of their resumes and web pages ;-))

  482. Tim says:
    October 26, 2012 at 3:46 pm
    glad you’re all enjoying your jolly ……. carry on!
    ———-
    Don’t feel bad, Tim. Using the power of my new found papacy I hereby bestow upon the title of Bishop (certs in the mail).

    Sincerely,

    Grammy Award Nominated, Triple Olympic Gold Medalist, Pope Reg III PHD, CPA, MP, Esq, Lord of the Lower Realms, Member of the Better Business Bureau.

  483. All of this fact checking is a total waste of time. The important thing to remember is that 97% of a subset of a hand selected set of Dr Mann’s friends think that he won the Nobel Peace prize.

  484. given michael mann knew about the Frontline prog in advance –

    “@MichaelEMann
    @timmytimj82 Spent half a day w/ them. Talked about #climatechange #denial campaign. It all ended up on cutting room floor “

    i do wonder when exactly Mann began the process of filing suit against NRO. we know some interviews done for the program go back as far as May, and presumably Fronline contacted Heartland prior to that date to explain and arrange that particular interview:

    23 Oct: WUWT: Heartland Institute Anticipates Unfair Treatment in Tonight’s PBS Frontline Special ‘Climate of Doubt’
    The Heartland Institute is likely to be a central figure in this program as we welcomed “Frontline” producer Catherine Upin and her crew to our Seventh International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago in May. Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James M. Taylor also gave a three-hour interview to the film crew in August…

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/23/heartland-institute-anticipates-unfair-treatment-in-tonights-pbs-frontline-special-climate-of-doubt/#more-72921

    for the record, it would be interesting to find out precisely –

    when Mann was first contacted by PBS and made aware of the program,

    when he he was – according to him – interviewed for the program,

    and precisely when he began the process of filing the suit.

  485. All sway together now and sing:

    “All we are say’n, is give (peace =>) Mann (a chance =>) the Peace!”

  486. @zootcadillac says:
    October 26, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    I think you may have misunderstood my post.
    My praise was FOR the Congressional Medal of Honor -of which I believe there is no higher honor for personal sacrifice by military personnel -and against comparing it to the so-called Nobel Peace Prize.

  487. Isn’t it appropriate for Penn State to initiate an investigation into Dr. Mann’s ethics when Dr. Mann’s legal complaint against NR et. al. claims Dr. Mann, along with others, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

  488. So, Mann is now saying it’s alright for him to claim to have received the Nobel prize, because…other IPCC scientists have made that claim.

    Next, he will assert that the CONSENSUS of IPCC scientists is that they have a right to claim that they have been awarded the prize. Of course, this is in stark contrast to the reality, as represented by the Nobel Prize association itself, that they are not allowed to claim that.

    But my feeling is that some folks have always believed that reality is simply an inconvenient obstacle to the political truth.

  489. Hmmm…

    Is the nasty mann seeking to get editors fired from the Nobel prize committee? Perhaps he intends to start his own NASTY award group and let the old Nobel committee wither on the vine? /sarc unwillingly, though I could do this for hours.

    It isn’t a good day in court when a plaintiff has to begin his claim of defamation by ‘defending’ fabrications and false claims in the suit itself.

    I think CEI and NRO should play it cool to start. Let Mann dig himself a mighty hole in front of the judge and then help the judge toos him out court. Remember, the slated judge to sit the case has a number of reviewers saying she sides with the defenders, has a temper and absolutely no patience. Yup, encourage the pith up mann to keep speaking.

    Plus, any and all twits by the twit should be moderated and saved. Twit mann just might let some zingers out at the Nobel committee and the judge.

  490. Tim says:
    October 26, 2012 at 3:46 pm
    glad you’re all enjoying your jolly ……. carry on!
    —————————————–

    Why not indeed? It probably won’t be so jolly when the time comes for retribution for this f—–, a f—- on a scale that makes Bernie Madoff look like a petty pickpocket.

  491. Iana lawyer. Sadly, Mann’s signature does not appear on the legal complaint, so he can’t be said to have made any of the claims found therein.

  492. Mann probably doesn’t want this thread of the sweater of not really being a Nobel prize winner pulled because he may be afraid it may lead to his whole farrago coming unraveled. So his solution is to pull hard on the thread himself.

  493. I seem to recall that Chis Monckton also claimed to be a Nobel Laureate for his contribution to the IPCC in 2007.

    Anyone want to criticise him as well, or are your criticisms restricted only to those people you don’t like?

    Hypocrites!

  494. AB says: October 26, 2012 at 4:17 pm

    Is this how the jury will respond to Mann’s “Nobel”?

    No! The laughter will last a lot longer than one minute six seconds.

  495. It seems Manns reference in one of his tweets to the Wiki page of Steve Running has prompted a quick page revision by user ‘Q Science’.

    From:
    A recognized expert in global ecosystem monitoring, Running was invited to serve on the board of the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC), and in this role was awarded the 2007 [[Nobel Peace Prize]]

    To:
    A recognized expert in global ecosystem monitoring, Running was invited to serve on the board of the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC). In 2007, the IPCC was awarded the [[Nobel Peace Prize]]

    lol.

  496. mandas,

    You must know the difference: Mann is accusing others of making things up about him — while he is suing based on his bogus reputation. Would you label Mann a hypocrite, or not?

  497. Hi Mandas,
    If Monckton did claim to be a 2007 Peace Prize winner — which I don’t recall, and if you would, please, provide citations — I suspect it was with much the same tone and with the same intent that Steyn claims to be a 2012 winner (as citizen of the EU). Not claiming an honor but emphasizing the dilution.

    But I could be wrong, which is why I’d be interested for the citation and opportunity to see the quote in full context.

    Anyhow, whether or not Michael Mann is the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, the outcome has been to damage Mann’s reputation. Where he was heretofore reputed to be a Nobel Prize winner — reputed on whatever basis — what was once reputed is now refuted. Michael Mann appears to be the Barbra Streisand of climate science, in that regard.

  498. 26 Oct: ScienceMag: scienceinsider: Puneet Kollipara: Climate Scientist Mann Faces Obstacles to Winning Libel Lawsuit, Legal Experts Say
    Legal experts say he stands a shot at getting at least part of his libel case heard by a judge and jury, but he is likely to face an uphill battle if the case ever makes it to trial…
    The battle over the blog posts has attracted widespread attention, with Columbia Journalism Review writer Curtis Brainard calling Simberg and Steyn’s claims “deplorable, if not unlawful.”
    But a number of legal experts say Mann’s suit faces some obstacles.
    “Libel lawsuits are not about whether journalism or commentary is misleading or irresponsible,” says Peter Canfield, a partner at the Atlanta office of national law firm Dow Lohnes, who has counseled newspapers and other media outlets. “What the lawsuit is about is whether it contains false statements of facts that the authors knew to be false or seriously doubted to be true. That is a very high burden for a plaintiff to bear, particularly with respect to an issue such as this one that is such a hot topic of public debate.”
    Mann faces a second barrier because a court is likely to determine that he is a “public figure” and not a private citizen, some experts say…

    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/10/climate-scientist-mann-faces-obs.html

  499. mandas says:
    “I seem to recall that Chis Monckton also claimed to be a Nobel Laureate for his contribution to the IPCC in 2007″.

    roflmao.. oh ye of little understanding or intellegence.

    The good Lord M did that SPECIFICALLY to get up the noses of those climate hypochondriacs claiming to have received the award when he (Lord Monckton) knew that they didn’t.

  500. Iana lawyer. Sadly, Mann’s signature does not appear on the legal complaint, so he can’t be said to have made any of the claims found therein.

    IANAL, but I don’t think it matters. By my understanding the complaint will have to be amended.

  501. JohnWho says: “Would Mann’s withdrawing of the suit imply that he is admitting that what he alleged was said about him is correct?”

    That is what I will be commenting, should MM withdraw. MM only has only one out now, and that is to win in court, including appeals. Otherwise he is a loser.

  502. mandas says October 26, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    I seem to recall that Chis Monckton also claimed to be a Nobel Laureate for his contribution to the IPCC in 2007.

    Anyone want to criticise him as well, or are your criticisms restricted only to those people you don’t like?

    Hypocrites!

    You really wanna go there?

    (He did that to tweak you … and, it worked a charm!)

    “Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.”

    .

  503. RDCII says:October 26, 2012 at 5:30 pm
    So, Mann is now saying it’s alright for him to claim to have received the Nobel prize, because…other IPCC scientists have made that claim.”

    There’s a consensus amongst the IPCC “scientists” that they have won the Nobel Prize. I think the exact number is 97%….so therefore it must be true

  504. @RT
    “A recognized expert in global ecosystem monitoring, Running was invited to serve on the board of the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC). In 2007, the IPCC was awarded the [[Nobel Peace Prize]]”

    And the tea person who served tea and biscuits to the board meetings of the IPCC also played an integral part in the IPCC receiving the award. Probably a more honest, productive role.

  505. “Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, or The Norwegian Nobel Institute emailed me back with the following:

    1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
    2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.
    3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.”

    Ouch !!!!

  506. mandas says:
    October 26, 2012 at 5:44 pm
    I seem to recall that Chis Monckton also claimed to be a Nobel Laureate for his contribution to the IPCC in 2007.

    Anyone want to criticise him as well, or are your criticisms restricted only to those people you don’t like?

    Hypocrites!
    ——-

    “Christopher Walter, the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, has conceded that his claim to have won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 was a joke.

    Lord Monckton, a prominent climate sceptic, is on a sponsored speaking tour to undermine support for carbon emissions cuts. Quizzed about his alleged Nobel status by the Herald yesterday, the British peer said ”it was a joke, a joke” and never meant to be taken seriously.”

    ————

    Monckton was mocking his fellow pseudo-laureates. Is that lost on you, mandas?

    People make jokes about the ridiculous, and there is nothing more ridiculous Climate “Science”.

  507. Tim says:
    October 26, 2012 at 2:15 pm
    Gunga,
    my point exactly, no science, no fact on here, just gossip and pathetic insults

    No Facts? Let’s see…there’s a reference to Mike’s CV and the photo of Mikes certificate claiming the Nobel Prize…and links to verification that the Nobel Committee has not awarded Mike the Nobel Prize. I wouldn’t say that’s gossip…those are actual facts…something the climotologist crowd has difficulty in generating for themselves as pertaining to their “science”.

    And if Mann is so inclined to make up “facts” for his CV, what other facts might he be inclined to make up.

    Here’s another fact: I work in Big Pharma and I’ve known people fired for falsifying their resumes/CV’s. One guy claimed he only had a BS degree and 5 years later they found out he actually had a PhD….guess what…FIRED! There is no tolerance in Pharma for dishonesty when you’ve got the FDA and other agencies breathing down your neck constantly. Academia could benefit from a little oversight.

  508. mandas says:
    October 26, 2012 at 5:44 pm
    I seem to recall that Chis Monckton also claimed to be a Nobel Laureate for his contribution to the IPCC in 2007.

    Anyone want to criticise him as well, or are your criticisms restricted only to those people you don’t like?

    Hypocrites!
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I saw him speak in Sacramento earlier this year, and yes he did say something like that …. as a joke.

  509. RT says October 26, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    It seems Manns reference in one of his tweets to the Wiki page of Steve Running has prompted a quick page revision by user ‘Q Science’.

    Let the re-writes begin!

    Reference this post on WUWT earlier today (Fri, the 26th) the wording on Michael Mann’s Biographical Sketch on the meteo.psu.edu website has been changed –

    from:

    . . He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.

    to:

    . . He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

    The re-write vis-a-vis false Nobel Laureate claiming looks to have commenced en masse.

    .

  510. Sleepalot

    What Mann’s lawyers submit to the court for Mann by way of pleadings is his and taken as being from him. All admissions, denials and statements within are taken as being from Mann.

    Despite Mann now sating that he and others have “found” it to be the case that the certificate of involvement from the IPCC has been “translated” into a statement of winning the prize, (as if this is something that has somehow happened without their involvement), and quite aside from the written legal complaint, he says it explixitly on his website and did so in his latest book, and has it seems allowed it to be written of him many times where he could have corrected the error.

    Mandas,

    Monckton is actualy discussed briefly earlier in the thread. But he hasn’t just issued defamation proceedings in which he specifically states that he shared or was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, when such is not true.

    As a false claim from an academic (for whom his CV, publication record. citations, and list of related awards etc. are the basis of status and earning power) it is a matter of serious concern that this false claim has been made continually for years.

    As a false claim in legal proceedings which is made as a means to establish the esteem of the plaintiff and with a financial purpose – the higher or more distinguished the reputation the higher the damages – this is a source of difficulty now for Mann.

    But you are right this claim should be criticised wherever it is made (Trenberth, etc.). Oddly the only people I have found who engage in asserting this obvious falsehood are warmist activist scientists.

  511. Pouncer says:
    October 26, 2012 at 6:05 pm
    Hi Mandas,
    If Monckton did claim to be a 2007 Peace Prize winner — which I don’t recall, and if you would, please, provide citations — I suspect it was with much the same tone and with the same intent that Steyn claims to be a 2012 winner (as citizen of the EU). Not claiming an honor but emphasizing the dilution.

    But I could be wrong, which is why I’d be interested for the citation and opportunity to see the quote in full context.

    It appears to be a open letter to John McCain, hardly the occasion for levity I would have thought? He even wears a gold Nobel prize pin apparently.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/Letter_to_McCain.pdf

    Excerpt: “His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 – the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise – earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA.”

  512. My corporate lawyer used to say “when you point finger a finder at someone, remember there are three pointing back at YOU.”. And the other one was: “If you sue, remember that the countersuit is usually an order of magnitude larger.”

  513. Phil. says: “To recap:”

    You can recap, and recap, and recap all you want trying to defend the Faux Nobel Laurette. However, the FNL cherry picked the data to plot with his Hockey Stick graph. Had FNL plotted (honestly) years prior to 1,000 and the most recent years, there would have been no Hockey Stick.

    But all that is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is experts have demonstrated to FNL (and others) that FNL’s Hockey Stick is broken and his work has flaws. Despite that, FNL has continued to standby his work and Hockey Stick. That makes FML less than honest (to put it as politely as possible).

  514. _Jim says:
    October 26, 2012 at 6:41 pm
    RT says October 26, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    from:

    . . He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.

    to:

    . . He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

    The re-write vis-a-vis false Nobel Laureate claiming looks to have commenced en masse.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Too late to change the court filing though, ha ha.

  515. “A quick question to our friends in the US – Is this a lawsuit that can be SLAPPed?”

    Meaning?

    ###############

    yes strangely Mann selected a venue that has SLAAP. Never been tested. could all be thrown out on day one if the defendents SLAPP Mann.

  516. Venues [usually States] that have a SLAPP law allow defendants to recover costs from plaintiffs if a suit is deemed frivolous or harrassing. [IANAL]

  517. Will Kevin Trenberth say the mistake in translation is excused because they were all juniors in Nobel receiving at the time

  518. Amazing what Steyn can accomplish between breakfast and caring for a sick kid. 2000 Wiki edits. Wait till he has more time after the election. Mann, I really feel for you. I’m sure you’ll do better on the witness stand.

  519. I found the following rather amusing:
    richardscourtney says:
    October 26, 2012 at 10:49 am
    Mickey Reno:
    Your post at October 26, 2012 at 9:03 am is clear, good and accurate.
I accepted your correcting my statements but Phil has objected to your having corrected his.

    Mickey’s correction of Richard was as follows:
    Mickey Reno says:
October 26, 2012 at 9:03 am
I read with some amusement (and some frustration, too) the back-and-forth between Richard Courtney and Phil. On one point, Phil is correct to say that Mann in his 98 hockey stick paper didn’t use Briffa’s divergent data.

    So Richard accepts the correction when Mickey makes it but when I originally made the correction he denied it, blustered and in his own words ‘goaded’ me!

  520. Priceless! XD

    Mann is shown to be a fraud! Even altering an ‘image’ with his name … oh yeh! the [snip] did do that himself and now he is CAUGHT RED HANDED and all the world knows it.

    Love the Chat:
    “Nobel Committee: Okay, because I’ve got something from Boston and NY Mental Examiner that asked about the same thing.”

    A call from the NY Mental Examiner! PRICELESS! THIS ROCKS! Sick the NY Mental Examiner on Hansen and Gavin for crying out loud! And put them all in the same mental asylum, on a small island, far far away. [snip]

    LOL 8D

  521. I think the Nobel Committee representative accidentally summed up the inevitable outcome of this legal trantrum:

    Nobel Committee: Thank you. You’re welcome. Bye bye.

  522. M Courtney says:
    October 26, 2012 at 12:39 pm
    Phil. says at October 26, 2012 at 10:24 am “Phil Jones in preparing graphics in which he wanted to include his colleague, Briffa’s reconstruction apparently wanted to de-emphasize the divergence shown by Briffa’s data. He chose to do this by plotting the temperature over the decline in Briffa’s data. He referred to this in an email as ‘hiding the decline’ and ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ even though Mann didn’t hide anything in his paper’s.”
    So you now claim it is Prof Jones who is trying to molest the presentation of the data, not Briffa.
    Who will you throw under the bus next?

    Indeed I consistently stated that it was Phil Jones who did that with Briffa’s data for a WMO document. I’m afraid that Prof Jones threw himself under that particular bus as you put it. Here is a quotation from an interview he gave:

    Q – Let’s talk about the e-mails now: In the e-mails you refer to a “trick” which your critics say suggests you conspired to trick the public? You also mentioned “hiding the decline” (in temperatures). Why did you say these things?
    This remark has nothing to do with any “decline” in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years.
    The phrase ‘hide the decline’ was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.
    This “divergence” is well known in the tree-ring literature and “trick” did not refer to any intention to deceive – but rather “a convenient way of achieving something”, in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.
    I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time – an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report.</em.

    Quod erat demonstrandum

  523. Phil. says:
    October 26, 2012 at 7:25 pm
    +++++++++++++++++++

    As someone further up the thread said, Phil., you can give up now.

    From your simple physics, spectroscopic proof of anthropogenic global warming 3 years ago (or so?) to this ??

    You’re not just past your sell-by date …… you’re lucky the internet doesn’t have scratch and sniff by now.

    Give it up dude.

  524. THE PILTDOWN MANN

    The jawbone of a modern monkey attached to the skull of a medieval human. And the name a byword for scientific fraud.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  525. Phil,

    I’d appreciate it if you’d curtail your attempts to hijack this thread.

    The topic of discussion is Michael Mann and Mark Steyn.

    Thank you.

  526. Phil. says:
    October 26, 2012 at 7:42 pm
    I consistently stated that it was Phil Jones who did that with Briffa’s data for a WMO document. I’m afraid that Prof Jones threw himself under that particular bus as you put it.
    —-

    Who cares? You’re splitting hairs about who is the most corrupt. They’re all corrupt — in their own unique corrupt way — that’s why they consistently dodge FOIA requests.

    It sickens me that taxpayer funded “Scientists” have a “Cause” — a propaganda agenda. Doesn’t bother you Phil? Do you pay taxes? What do you do for a living?

  527. lighten up folks…

    24 Oct: PR Web: Population Control and Fresh Water Resources Should Be Top Global Priorities Says Former NASA Climatologist
    Economic Growth, and Human Survival Depend on Water and Population Control. Special Report by DeWayne Cecil, PhD, on Sharon Kleyne Hour Radio Talk Show
    That was the conclusion of DeWayne Cecil, PhD, in an interview on the Sharon Kleyne Hour Power of Water radio show, October 15, 2012. Dr. Cecil was a researcher for NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and currently works for the National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina…
    According to Dr. Cecil, Earth’s climate has definitely evolved in the last 50 years but if you examine the record of glacial ice cores, lake sediments and ancient tree rings, weather pattern are naturally cyclical. How much of the current global drying and warming is human caused, and whether it is cyclical or permanent, remains be determined.
    “The study of weather and climate is not just about whether to wear a coat,” says Dr. Cecil. “It’s about our survival as a species.” According to Dr. Cecil, Earth can only sustain a half-billion people in a “Western” consumption oriented lifestyle whereas Earth’s population recently passed seven billion. According to Dr. Cecil, there are only enough resources on Earth to sustain about a half-billion people in the current “Western” lifestyle…
    Sharon asked about the difference between “climate” and “weather.” According to Dr. Cecil, “climate” is “weather” averaged out over a long period. In other words, “climate is what you expect and weather is what you get.”
    “We can predict weather fairly accurately to about ten days in advance,” says Dr. Cecil, “but our ability predict weather over two to 20 years is less accurate…

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/10/prweb10050733.htm

    DeWayne Cecil

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dewayne-cecil/36/346/5a1

  528. In the climategate emails, there was one with someone nominating Phil Jones for some honorary membership or something similar, and Phil was guessing at his score on the number of citations, I think. Was it Mann ?

  529. @ D Böehm says: ….

    I did consider that myself. Phil Plait is a person I have, on the whole, a great deal of respect for but because of his unscientific and unfailing support fro the anthropogenic global warming theory I had to stop following him on twitter.
    Prior to that we had some great conversations. He’s a likeable and knowledgeable chap. which always confuses me when these type of people toe the liberal party line on AGW without question.

    Personally I would like to know who ‘Tim’ is.

  530. David Ross:
    Your list of Nobel Peace Prize recipients leaves out a very important and fully justified Nobel Peace Prize — namely the one that was awarded to Nelson Mandela and South Africa’s president Frederik Willem de Klerk for bringing apartheid to an end.

  531. The Bear has checked the Mann webpage which claims, vis-a-vis the Nobel Prize, that: `He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize’.

    Whether or not one agrees with the merit of that award, this statement seems 100% accurate.

    The `certificate’ shown on Mann’s Facebook appears to be from the IPCC, not the Nobel Committee. The Bear sees nothing wrong (per se) with the institution (IPCC) giving recognition to the actual humans responsible (Mann and others) for the `institutional achievement’. In fact, the IPCC would look petty if it did not give due where due was due (so to speak).

    OK, so the claim on Mann’s website re being jointly `awarded’ the Nobel Prize was recently changed to `contributed to’. Embarrassing, I guess. But, re the upcoming litigation there is nothing much in this.

    Akin to the recent posting here, some climate guy used the word `unlikely’ but was criticized on this blog as if he said `can’t’, the Bear is worried this blog may be making too much out of stray words, here and there. An experienced judge in a defamation trial would have no time for verbal gimmickry such as this.

    Let me explain (the Bear is an experienced trial lawyer).

    The gist of Mann’s reputation claim is that he is accepted by his peers as an esteemed expert in his field. Like it or not, the overwhelming evidence on that point at trial will be in Mann’s favor.

    The fact that, after litigation based on this reputation claim commenced, Mann had to clarify some rubbish wording on his Facebook page or website (re being jointly awarded or contributing to a Nobel Prize) will be of little moment at trial.

    In fact, experienced defense counsel may be best advised to leave it alone, lest the defense come across as petty and desperate for real points.

    The point is also unlikely to survive until the trial, and is likely to be killed off very quickly.

    Unless Mann’s lawyers are a bit slow, their response will be swift, predictable and effective: `As soon as the error was pointed out to our client he immediately corrected it. Mr Mann has apologized for any confusion and, as a scientist, is thankful to those who identified the error. (Insert further angelic/motherhood words of choice).’

    Mann’s lawyers will probably set this walk-back out in a letter to the Nobel Prize Committee, the IPCC and defense lawyers, sometime this week. They will also ask the defense to consent to a motion amending Mann’s statement of claim, to correct the trial record. If the defense lawyers refuse their consent to amend Mann’s filing, they will come across as petty time wasters.

    If this issue is still raised by the defense at trial, the judge will (very predictably) say: `Why are you wasting my time on this? It was dealt with pre-trial. Move on.’

  532. Blackswhitewash says:
    October 26, 2012 at 9:19 am

    Michael Mann strikes me as a person who has a mental illness.

    Many environmentalists display symptoms similar to the so called “Münchhausen Syndrome by Proxy” [A compulsion to regularly diagnose, and even more regularly exaggerate, sickness and death of “Gaia/Mother Earth”?]. And yet it is skeptics who have recently been the subject of some notoriously poor mental ‘research’ as a result of singing from the wrong hymn-sheet. That’s a triple serving of irony, if ever there was one.

    I suspect even at the IPCC there might be a few people who would bury their head in a newspaper if they saw Mann getting on the same bus or train. I doubt if many IPCC authors travel long distances much on Greyhound Coaches, but if they did, they might meet a few other people who claim to been awarded a Nobel Prize of some flavour.

    At the back of the bus they might also meet someone like Al Gore claiming to have invented the internet.

  533. DocMartyn says:
    October 23, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    ….
    Steyn could get a dataset from discovery, crowd source it, and have a detailed analysis in 24 hours.

    No, you can’t. Just because material is discoverable does not mean it can be disclosed. Once used in evidence, then it may become public. But the act of providing the material for purposes of a discovery request does not relinquish the custodian’s rights in regards to that material. Crowd sourcing the documents would irrevocably taint the documents for purposes of legal proceedings. What you’re suggesting is a very, very bad idea. Not that I have any fear that any associate or partner at Baker Hostetler would ever do such a thing.

  534. The Bear appears to be a little narcissistic with his use of the 3rd person but allow the Zoot to interject.

    The point here is that Mann has used this claim, despite being on notice, for a number of years. he explicitly allowed his representative to describe him as the recipient of a Nobel peace prize in their complaint. it’s a claim that Man has personally made on much more than his farcebook page.
    It is a little late to say he’s addressed it when notified because he’s been told for years about it and all he does is trot out the photo and the “if it’s fake then why are my colleagues (Trenberth) saying the same?” argument

    The Zoot believes that this is germane to the case as it speaks to the plaintiff’s integrity.

    It’s not the point although it should rightly be a point.

    I accept the gist of the rest of the Bear’s comment however ludicrous the Zoot finds his manner of addressing us.

  535. Tim says:
    October 26, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Look at you all! Just look at you all….. Astonishing amount of bullshit, gossip, self-congratulation, sheer nastiness, wriggling & writhing. No wonder you aren’t taken seriously.

    Wriggling and writhing? Hahaha! We’re not the ones about to be put under the microscope. The projection is palpable! Astonishing indeed!

  536. Hey Phil .. What do you think about the Muller Analysis of Mann et al hockey stick.. You remeber Muller? the ex-sceptic the person that believes in Global Warming.

  537. TBear:

    At October 26, 2012 at 10:17 pm you say

    Mann’s lawyers will probably set this walk-back out in a letter to the Nobel Prize Committee, the IPCC and defense lawyers, sometime this week. They will also ask the defense to consent to a motion amending Mann’s statement of claim, to correct the trial record. If the defense lawyers refuse their consent to amend Mann’s filing, they will come across as petty time wasters.

    If this issue is still raised by the defense at trial, the judge will (very predictably) say: `Why are you wasting my time on this? It was dealt with pre-trial. Move on.’

    I am not a lawyer and not an American so I write to ask a genuine question.

    Your claim seems to make no sense. Mann sued for defamation of his reputation on the basis of statements made by the defendants prior to anything done between when they made the statements and the trail. Importantly, Mann is claiming damage to his reputation prior to his adjusting an ‘error’ which pretended his reputation was other than it was at the time of the articles which he claimed defamed him.

    How can the judge rationally claim it has been “dealt with pre-trial” when Mann has not withdrawn the case?

    The matter cannot be claimed to be moot because the false assertion of reputation which suffered damage was made to the Court on Mann’s behalf as part of his claim for damages. Any time wasting could only be an attempt on Mann’s behalf to remove from his claim the false assertions supporting his reputation which he claims has been damaged. At very least the matter would affect the magnitude of any damage to his reputation.

    I am at a loss to understand your post but know the law is often “an ass” so would welcome an explanation, please.

    Richard

    PS I add a tip I hope you will find helpful. Using an apparent animal name then mentioning yourself in the third party is not unique to you and it obtains disdain on the blog.

  538. TBear says:
    October 26, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    I am not a lawyer but have some experience of expert witness and the legal folks over here. i think everything in your post makes perfect sense to me. (though I might not agree with the peer/expert view entirely) I am sure Manns lawyers will seek to correct the record. And I hope the case continues onwards and upwards to discovery.
    This (thread) really is just about the guy making a mockery of himself – he has made a mockery of science (and ultimately his peers, if you think about it) and a mockery of the scientific method.
    Al us skeptics can hope for is some discovery to finally nail the hockey stick down as false and thence enable it to be expunged/discounted from the climate debate.
    regards
    Kev

  539. It would be interesting to know just how many of these unauthorised (by the Nobel Committee) certificates were distributed by the IPCC and how far down the organisation a member of staff would have to be to miss out on one – peer reviewed scientist, lead author, author, contributor, student who wrote a piece that appeared in Nature, journalist who wrote article that was cited in one of the reports, bloke who cleaned the toilets?

  540. blackswhitewash.com says:
    October 26, 2012 at 11:58 pm

    “Mann gets caught red-handed lying about the Nobel prize but it’s us skeptics who are in the wrong. You truly cannot fathom the mind of the brainwashed environ-mentalist.”

    Oh, yes, I can:

    National Socialist Zeal.

  541. Just one other thing which I haven’t seen mentioned (apologies if I missed it) but, in respect of the IPCC Nobel Peace prize award itself. This has to have been awarded as some kind of Nobellian jumping on the AGW bandwagon(?), or assuaging of government pressure on the Nobel committee (perhaps to justify the taxation situation and provide governments with a ‘reason’?).

    There is nothing in the 2007 report to suggest that the IPCC or any of its contributors have done anything CONSTRUCTIVE with respect to the world, either economically, peace wise, or even environmentally. The IPCC report and the SPM report is one massive alarmist propaganda piece, intended solely to promote the organisation itself and build up its importance.

    Personally, if and when all the CAGW/AGW hype is finally over, I would like to award an Anti-Nobel prize to ‘climate science’ and the IPCC – the effort and funds wasted on this whole issue of fraudulantly trying to demonstrate some pathetically small human influence on a massive semi chaotic natural climate system is a disgrace. Moreover, the self promoting attitude of their own importance and that of their self generated psuedoscience, ‘above and beyond’ all the worlds’ other REAL problems, really gets my goat!

  542. TBear says:

    “OK, so the claim on Mann’s website re being jointly `awarded’ the Nobel Prize was recently changed to `contributed to’. Embarrassing, I guess. But, re the upcoming litigation there is nothing much in this.”

    In court, the rejoinder is: “Your honor, this goes to Dr Mann’s credibility.”

  543. richardscourtney says:
    October 26, 2012 at 8:37 am

    Richard, if you’re as old as I am and liked music back in the 70s, you may remember that the New Musical Express once published an interview with Freddie Mercury. (For younger viewers, he was the front man with a rocking teenage combo known as Queen.) Above the article and a picture of said Mr Mercury wearing one of his slashed-to-the-waist cat-suit efforts, was the immortal headline which read “Is this man a prat?”

    Unfortunately for the fake Nobel Laureate Michael Mann (h/t Andy L above), every time I hear about him, I’m irresistibly drawn to a minor mental adjustment of that headline.

    Mr Green Genes, Nobel prize winner (well, if he’s claiming it, I, being in the EU, will do the same).

  544. TBear,

    “He removed it as soon as it came to his attention” is just not good enough. You underestimate in my view that this is not “rubbish wording” but more proof of Mann’s lack of integrity. He says it has been “found” that the certificate has been “translated” into a claim to have received the prize. Weasle words putting it as close to arms length from him as he can. (Although its on the sleeve of his new book – he must have been surprised to see it there). And he still hasn’t come within a mile of saying “oops we were lead to believe that was ok. I now realise it wasn’t and will sort it out.” At the same time records on the net about him are being changed without announcement – the Team way.

    I hope you wont take offense at me putting it like this but if you think this is a non-point in a defamation case, which if pursued will make the defence look petty and point scoring, you’re probably not much of a trial lawyer. I would personally very much enjoy cross examining him about it. As a trial lawyer you know that you prep your cross exam on the basis that you are on a journey the witness cannot change because you know all the answers beforehand and the impression you will create whatever way the witness answers. It would be elementary to take Mann to a very bad place for his claim

  545. Mr Green Genes:

    re your post addressed to me at October 27, 2012 at 1:59 am.

    Yes, I think Freddie Mercury was a prat. But he differed from Michael Mann in that he was a talented prat.

    Richard

    PS For the convenience of non-Brits who do not understand this conversation, I again repeat the link Pointman provided to his accurate, amusing and excellent explanation of a prat.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/climate-alarmism-and-the-prat-principle/

  546. The smell of rubber hitting the road, eh?

    “Michael, I’m your attorney. I’m on your side. You really do have to stop telling people you were awarded a Nobel Prize now.”

    Richard – think about it in terms of the specific claims, not some generic reputation issue. The issue of whether or not he was awarded a Nobel Prize is not part of the case. What TBear is saying is that this can be amended. In the real world though, a sequela from this is that the judge will certainly wonder how an individual could be unclear as to whether he had a Nobel Prize or not. Most people on the planet know if they have a Nobel Prize or if they don’t have one.

  547. Picture Kevin Trenberth sitting at his desk, scratching his head and saying to himself “So this means I don’t have a Nobel Prize either? That can’t be right.”

  548. richardscourtney says:
    October 27, 2012 at 2:34 am

    Richard, since you have repeated the choice term ‘prat’ – which incidentally, I do agree with to a point – but it is not ‘permanent’ enough for Mann , and is far too common. By that I mean that we have all been prats at some time or other – if anyone hasn’t ever been a prat, then they surely have not lived! The drunken prat singing, the prattish comments during dinner conversation, etc, etc – these are really ‘normal’ and thus using the same term for Mann is simply not strong enough in my opinion – and moreover, when one realises that we have indeed all been prats at some time or other – the thought of being lumped in with the same category as Mann is somewhat offensive, don’t you think?

  549. The Michael Mann saga

    The big news, as per the WaPo, is Penn State climate professor sues think tank, National Review. Excerpts:

    In a 37-page complaint filed Monday in D.C. Superior Court, Michael Mann and his attorney John B. Williams, charged the National Review and the Capitol Hill-basedCompetitive Enterprise Institute with six counts including libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    Michael Mann has been discussing this via twitter, one statement in particular is creating a stir:

    “IPCC certificate acknowledging me ‘contributing to Nobel Peace Prize. Do they want my birth certificate too?”

    Mark Steyn, who is the focus of the lawsuit, strikes back with this statement in the nationalreviewonline Nobel Mann Takes on Revolting Peasants. Excerpts:

    I’m still working on my formal, bland, carefully lawyered official response, so for now just let me do cheap ad hominem cracks.

    I was intrigued to see in Dr. Mann’s press release of his suit the following biographical detail:

    Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”

    I confess I wasn’t aware Dr. Mann “was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.” The official Nobel site makes no mention of him; there are no speeches, no citations, no pictures of him with the King of Norway, no namecheck on the 2007 Nobel diploma.

    Well, the fact checkers have taken a look, examiner.com has an article entitled Professor Mann claims to win Nobel Prize; Nobel committee says he has not. Excerpt:

    Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, of The Norwegian Nobel Institute emailed me back with the following:

    1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
    2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.
    3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.

    Lundestad goes on to say that, “Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not.”

    So it would appear that not only did Mann not get awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but that the “text underneath the diploma is entirely his own.” This calls into further questions of what else may not be factual in the legal suit over the highly publicized hockey-stick graph and defamation suit.

    And finally, Michael Mann says attacks on climate science could weaken next IPCC report. Repeated attacks on climate scientists could lead to the true impacts of global warming being ignored in the next major international assessment scheduled for 2014.

    “I see this with individual scientists, I know this is happening because I talk with colleagues – they are afraid to talk to the media, afraid to weigh in on the side of climate change being a problem, because they know they will immediately be the subject of attack from right-leaning websites, subject to a slew of orchestrated, angry and nasty emails and calls to departments calling on them to be fired”.

    JC message to Michael Mann: Mark Steyn is formidable opponent. I suspect that this is not going to turn out well for you.

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/26/week-in-review-102712/

  550. I’m sorry but this joke never ends. I always wished I was related to a Nobel laureate long distance styles, but now with the EU and all, it’s confirmed.

  551. Michael Mann creates history yet again, he has often made claims of historic based views that don’t represent general understanding, observations or scientific evidence. The Mann who likes to change history can’t keep it away from his CV.

    ———————————————————————————————————————–
    1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
    2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.
    3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.
    ————————————————————————————————————————