Mann -vs- NRO legal battle, heating up

Reposted from National Review Online

Please support us in our fight against Professor Michael Mann.

By Jack Fowler

We’re being sued, and we need your help.

Let me recap: A lawsuit has been formally filed by Professor Michael Mann against National Review and Mark Steyn. You know Mann: The Penn State academic and self-proclaimed (and bogus) Nobel Peace Prize awardee best known, famously and infamously, for the “hockey stick” graph that allegedly proves that recent years were the hottest on record for more than a millennium.

Of course, he is also known for the scandal about embarrassing e-mails, pried out of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

(Anything you want to know about “Climategate” can be found at the great site WattsUpWithThat.com. And if you want to get a load of Mann, visit his Facebook page for kicks and giggles and a look at self-promotion on steroids.)

In July, Mark wrote on the Corner about Penn State, much in the news for its institutional cover-ups, and Professor Mann. It was a Steyn classic, so it must have really smarted, and soon thereafter NR received notification of a pending lawsuit (here’s our response).

Like his claim to be a Nobel laureate, the charges against NR are baseless and very much worth fighting. National Review doesn’t look to get itself sued, but neither does it shy from a fight, especially one like this. Rich Lowry’s response to Mann’s legal threats exactly captures our mood and determination.

As many of you know, National Review is not a non-profit — we are just not profitable. A lawsuit is not something we can fund with money we don’t have. Of course, we’ll do whatever we have to do to find ourselves victorious in court and Professor Mann thoroughly defeated, as he so richly deserves to be. Meanwhile, we have to hire attorneys, which ain’t cheap.

The bills are already mounting.

This is our fight, legally. But with the global-warming extremists going all-out to silence critics, it’s your fight too, morally. When we were sued, we heard from many of you who expressed a desire to help underwrite our legal defense. We deeply appreciated the outpouring of promised help.

Now we really need it.

Please help National Review in its fight to kick Professor Michael Mann’s legal heinie.

Contribute here. Many thanks for your help.

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

108 Responses to Mann -vs- NRO legal battle, heating up

  1. James says:

    Done

    James

  2. Stuart Elliot says:

    When lies attract funding but telling the truth costs money, an honest man should reach for his wallet and fight back.

  3. fobdanger from back in the day of low pay and long hours.

    Done.

    fobdangerclose

  4. Lilith says:

    I am really happy to help…does it matter that I don’t have any shares in oil?

  5. vigilantfish says:

    Done with pleasure. Looking forward to justice, truth, and fireworks!

  6. more soylent green! says:

    One thing I can say for Mann, he doesn’t have a problem with too little ego. Is he over-compensating for something?

  7. Lauren Biddle says:

    Great post Jack! It really sounds like things are heating up and getting very interesting. Thank you for sharing this with us!

  8. SteveV says:

    Done, I fully concur with Stuart Elliott’s comment above. To not contribute in this matter is to enable the apparently bottomless resources of the climate bullies to silence opposition by the threat of costly lawsuits.

  9. Dr Furst Dunaharm says:

    Done. Flush that dead fish down the terlet.

  10. LexingtonGreen says:

    Done, I wish I could do more.

  11. Gary says:

    While I can sympathize, NRO picked this particular fight and Steyn went over the top with the Sandusky reference. I’ve decided to make my donations to innocents who are harmed by things other than their own actions — like prisoner’s kids whose parents can’t buy them gifts and Haitian orphans. I hope you can understand.

  12. markon says:

    Seems to me there are plenty of lawyers ready to step up pro-bono and defend the scum attacking us. (Gitmo terrorists in the US, Khadr here in Canada) Where the hell are they when it comes to defending our cherished freedoms? Whose side are they on anyway? If you win will Mr. Mann be liable for your costs?

  13. Stephen Richards says:

    Done. Don’t know what $50 is in €s !!

  14. Mark and two Cats says:

    Donated. Good luck NRO!

  15. Jeff says:

    I did what I could–every little bit helps, I hope.

  16. A.D. Everard says:

    Is it possible to be sure of getting Mann actually into court? His earlier ploys in the court room seems to revolve around not actually getting there but in pulling out after forcing whoever he is suing at the time to spend a LOT of money in preparation for it. It seems his MO and there should be a law against it. Can this “court trick” of his be prevented? Isn’t “dodge and weave” a waste of the court’s time, especially if done repeatedly? I’d love Mann to be jailed for that AND see the court case continue. Good luck with it all. If you take mastercard, I’m in.

  17. Done with great pleasure – worth every penny!

  18. Gunga Din says:

    Gary says:
    December 10, 2012 at 1:07 pm
    While I can sympathize, NRO picked this particular fight and Steyn went over the top with the Sandusky reference. I’ve decided to make my donations to innocents who are harmed by things other than their own actions — like prisoner’s kids whose parents can’t buy them gifts (http://www.prisonfellowship.org/programs/angel-tree/) and Haitian orphans. I hope you can understand.
    ================================================================
    I can understand you donating where you wish.
    Unless I misunderstood you, I don’t understand the implication that Mann is in anyway an innocent here.
    If you choose not donate, fine. But I’d suggest you reread what NRO actually said regarding any connection between Mann’s Penn State “investigation” and Sandusky’s. Then read what Mann claims they said.
    You’d think someone that has a Nobel Lariat could read and understand his own language.

  19. wobble says:

    Gary says:
    December 10, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    While I can sympathize, NRO picked this particular fight and Steyn went over the top with the Sandusky reference.

    The Sandusky reference was the whole point. Penn State white washed BOTH the Sandusky and the Mann investigations.

    What’s wrong with pointing that out?

  20. Gunga Din says:

    PS Reread not so you change your mind and donate but to see who the real victims are here.

  21. DesertYote says:

    If NRO wins do they still have to pay MMs liar^H^H^Hawers like in other states?

  22. wobble says:

    Gary says:
    December 10, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    I’ve decided to make my donations to innocents who are harmed by things other than their own actions…

    It seems as if the only purpose of your comment is to try to derail the NRO efforts. That’s probably why you lied about what they did when you linked to a charity.

    Your comment should be deleted.

  23. Gunga Din says:

    A.D. Everard says:
    December 10, 2012 at 1:27 pm
    Is it possible to be sure of getting Mann actually into court? His earlier ploys in the court room seems to revolve around not actually getting there but in pulling out after forcing whoever he is suing at the time to spend a LOT of money in preparation for it. It seems his MO and there should be a law against it. Can this “court trick” of his be prevented? Isn’t “dodge and weave” a waste of the court’s time, especially if done repeatedly? I’d love Mann to be jailed for that AND see the court case continue. Good luck with it all. If you take mastercard, I’m in.
    ====================================================================
    Counter sue. I believe that would take the “case going forward ball” out of his court.

  24. Skiphil says:

    In addition to needed financial contributions, perhaps some of the more knowledgeable WUWT and CA readers could start posting some of the most up-to-date analyses of weaknesses in the Mann et al corpus.

    I.e., the legal team could surely benefit from concise, specific updated summaries of problems with Mann’s work. For example, this summary from Jan. 2005 by McIntyre and McKittrick could be brought up to the present by someone sufficiently expert in these matters:

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM-W05-background.pdf

  25. Richard deSousa says:

    I hope NR files a counter suit to cover the cost of defending itself. NR will win when during the discovery phase Mann’s case will collapse!

  26. Skiphil says:

    What I am suggesting above is that we initiate some volunteer “crowd sourcing” here and/or at other blogs, to provide the most concise, relevant, and up-to-date analyses with links so that the NRO or any other legal teams can draw rapidly upon the info available. For instance,ma review and revisit of this kind of material:

    http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/nas-mm.pdf

    My understanding is that to prevail in a legal defense in a libel case in the USA, the defense team will only need to show how the defendant(s) could reasonably believe something said, not that it has to be proved true beyond all reasonable doubt etc.

    Others can correct me about both law nd science (please do), but I think what the legal team needs in terms of info is that which shows some plausibility, to deny “malice” by arguing the defendants had reason to believe what they wrote/said.

  27. Garrett says:

    I thought Steyn was gonna be “whupping ass”? Or that Mann “took the bait”?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/yay-mike-mann-took-the-bait-intends-to-file-lawsuit-against-steyn-and-nro/

    Not feeling so confident now, are we?

    REPLY: There’s a difference between feeling confident and asking for help with legal bills, a point obviously lost on you – Anthony

  28. A.D. Everard says:

    Gunga Din says:
    December 10, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    A.D. Everard says:
    December 10, 2012 at 1:27 pm
    Is it possible to be sure of getting Mann actually into court? His earlier ploys in the court room seems to revolve around not actually getting there but in pulling out after forcing whoever he is suing at the time to spend a LOT of money in preparation for it. It seems his MO and there should be a law against it. Can this “court trick” of his be prevented? Isn’t “dodge and weave” a waste of the court’s time, especially if done repeatedly? I’d love Mann to be jailed for that AND see the court case continue. Good luck with it all. If you take mastercard, I’m in.
    ====================================================================
    Counter sue. I believe that would take the “case going forward ball” out of his court.

    *

    Thanks for your reply Gunga Din. I sure hope that happens then, Mann should not get away with it.

    *

    A note to Gary. While you have every right to donate where you wish, I do think it was bad form to post a link to your charity of choice – I’m sure you meant no harm by it, but it smacks of being a counter-call for donation (a call for others to follow that way instead of donating to NRO).

    Since all this CAGW utilizes so many so-called charities, I’m sorry to say I’ve gone off the lot of them. I no longer know who to trust. Even some of the big names are now headed by extremists. That’s a shame because it’s always the little guy at the bottom of the ladder who suffers, but the Greens/Reds have infiltrated everything and whichever way you look they are stuffing other people’s money into their pockets. It’s got to stop.

  29. ttfn says:

    Done NRO, and good luck. Good to see the Mann fanboys are already mucking up the thread. How dare NRO defend itself from a frivilous lawsuit. Instead, we should all walk around on rice paper rather than take the chance that some offhand comment may offend the sensibilities of the touchiest climate scientist in the world.

  30. A.D. Everard says:

    Typo – I did not, of course, mean that “CAGW utilizes” charities, I meant the people that expound CAGW views do. My apologies.

  31. Skiphil says:

    P.s. If there is any actual lawyer reading here, one kind of argument which seems to offer prima facie support for Steyn’s piece is to provide a layman’s analysis of Figure 2 in the McIntyre and McKittrick presentation to the NAS panel in 2006:

    http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/nas-mm.pdf

    I.e., any judge should be able to see at a glance that before and after comparison of MBH statistical magic as displayed in Figure 2 raises questions…..

  32. Telboy says:

    Not much, but glad to be of a little help.

  33. Darren Potter says:

    Donation made.

  34. For people like Mann this has little or nothing to do with accuracy or truth; it has everything to do with Public Relations and ego. This reminds me of Diogenes of Sinope, also known as Diogenes the Cynic. His is said to have traveled the streets of Athens carrying a lamp in search of an honest man or mann is this case (±300 BCE). This was a stunt. The tradition of stunting to gain attention goes a long way back. Mann in my opinion is a piker in that regard but give him a modicum of credit for trying. Diogenes’ problem and anyone else who searches for an honest man is centered in the mind of the searcher. He can probably recognize an honest man but only if he himself is honest in all part of himself and his philosophy. Without that he has no criteria from which to judge.

  35. Jim McCulley says:

    Done, I fought a long legal battle against the state of New York. It’s a battle but you must prevail, NY had to pay my legal fees. I hope Mann child has to pay yours.

  36. Skiphil says:

    Ahhh I now see that Climate Depot started a list similar to what I am talking about:

    http://climatedepot.com/a/17202/Michael-Mann-says-lawsuit-against-National-Review-is-on-Climate-Depot-responds-to-Mann-and-his-lawyers-claims-about-the-Hockey-Stick–Climategate

    However, what I am also suggesting as helpful to NRO lawyers (or anyone who has to deal with a Mann type nuisance suit) would be precise sketches of legal types of arguments, incorporating only the most relevant evidence and links.

  37. Kev-in-Uk says:

    I have some genuine and I hope relevant questions:
    1) following on from the previous thread a few weeks ago regarding this matter: Has there been any obvious indication of likelihood of success? The reason for asking this is twofold:
    a) I don’t want to see good money thrown away for a dumb, pointless defence
    and
    b) what would Mann get should he be successful? (which leads to question 2)
    2) If Mann were to win his suit – would that mean that substantial damages (are we talking thousands or millions?) would be awarded against NRO? and thence:
    a) would NRO go bust?; in which case
    b) would he actually get anything? (does NRO have assets?)
    My concern being that in my limited experience fighting cases on points of principal generally is very expensive (especially in the uk, with suits and counter suits!) and folk get emotionally involved and ‘forget’ the starting point- an objective overview is required!

    There are other questions which derive from above
    such as, is it actually worth engaging expensive lawyers? (why would you spend many tens of thousands defending a lawsuit that most likely would only cost you a few thousand in damages?)

    Might NRO be better served ‘folding’ and setting up under a new name as per many companies that go bust with vast debts, etc? Obviously, this depends on the legal likelihood of success – but I am sure that many folk would like to have some understanding of whether such likelihood is 10% or 90% !!

    I appreciate the defence would not like to reveal it’s tactics, but we are really talking about facts, and interpretation of such facts (such as the interpretation of the articles actual reference to Sandusky).

    Obviously, I am unaware of the way the American system works (sorry!) – and I am happy to support something that may bring Mann out from his dark closet of secrecy – but it would be nice to have some indication/probability of success?

    I apologise if others feel my queries are not justified – but I for one like to see a logical explanation for processes and at least some reasoning! I hope that makes sense!

  38. Gunga Din says:

    REPLY: There’s a difference between feeling confident and asking for help with legal bills, a point obviously lost on you – Anthony

    ==================================================================
    True. The Soros-type people’s pockets are deep. They don’t care if they win or lose civil cases as long as it shuts up whoever dares oppose them.
    The trial lawyers are the only winners. (Does Obamacare include tort reform?)
    “Freedom of the press” does not mean the freedom to libel and lie but does not mean one has the freedom to silence and crush by any means an opposing view. Did you ever see “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”? Remember “The Wishbone Star”? The same thing is going on here only it’s being carried out by lawyers and legal bills instead of thugs and bullwhips.
    (PS I’ve nothing against ethical and honest lawyers. My Uncles were lawyers. One of them taught law. He even wrote at least one law book that I know of.)

  39. knr says:

    The bad news is Mann has proved time and again he cannot take questions unless he can control the process so that he only comes under the most friendly of fire. Which means it unlikely to ever get to court because like his others cases when it comes down to it he have to back off or be exposed .

  40. Rosco says:

    According to a story I read Mann’s and Weaver’s actions against Tim Ball have collapsed with costs awarded against the plaintiffs for failure to prosecute the case.

    Apparently having to produce their science was too much of an inconvenience.

    Apparently, Tim Ball is to counter sue – which he will easily win if the courts determine their actions were vexatious – I’m assuming Canada’s British based legal systems are similar to Australia and Dr Ball would have little difficulty here in achieving an award over a vexatious lawsuit.

  41. Buzzed says:

    A fool and his money are soon parted the saying goes. The National Review is backed some of the wealthiest individuals in the country. But give them your money if you want.

  42. James Allison says:

    done – good luck.

  43. Gunga Din says:

    “As many of you know, National Review is not a non-profit — we are just not profitable. A lawsuit is not something we can fund with money we don’t have.”
    ===========================================================
    That does bring up a question. To head off critics, perhaps you should declare what would be done with funds beyond what you need for the case? A counter suit? Tim Ball’s legal bills? Gary’s “prisonerfellowship”? I’m only thinking of heading off critics. Maybe form a “Skeptics’ Defence Fund”? You may be far needing to think about having more donations than you need but we know the Mannequins don’t miss a PR trick.

  44. A donation has been made. More to follow if I find that sufficient effort is being put into thoroughly and scientifically rubbishing — in court filings and oral arguments — the “scientific” and “academic” emissions of the petty tyrant and mental child, Michael Mann.

    I would like to suggest that at some point, perhaps soon, a picket of Michael Mann’s department by those who have contributed to the NRO legal defense may be in order. The money (in sufficient quantity) sends a strong message, but if it’s backed up by physical presence and in-person arguments being placed at his business doorstep by a large crowd, that could be a sound heard far and wide. But I urge readers, let us do it well, if we do it. A small crowd will be ignored. But if we can shock with the unexpected size of a demonstration, and make a disciplined and serious presentation, and make sure that friendly, respected media are notified well in advance (of course the NRO, but others as well) … I think it could make a big difference.

    There are an estimated 52 million people in Pa., Ohio, W.V., Va., Md., Del., N.J., and in western N.Y.

    I am willing to travel from outside this region for such a demonstration.

    Michael Mann has crossed a line with this lawsuit, and he, his colleagues, and the public need to understand why — they need to understand what makes this case different from the others. I feel that with a little preparation, I can make a convincing case about that, both to climate professionals and to laypeople. I hope there are others as well who feel they can do so?

    RTF

  45. hippo says:

    @Gunga Din:

    Obamacare does not reform tort, tto many Dems are getting their living out of its existance.
    @NRO:
    Done, looking forward to some fireworks.

  46. RexAlan says:

    Donation made.

  47. Lew Skannen says:

    Donated. Money well spent. I held a little back to buy popcorn but am happy to donate again if need be.

  48. Lew Skannen says:

    “A fool and his money are soon parted the saying goes. The National Review is backed some of the wealthiest individuals in the country. But give them your money if you want.” – Buzzed

    Interesting mindset there Buzzed. Basically you want ‘the rich’ to do everything for you including protecting your freedom.

  49. barryjo says:

    “get a load of Mann”? Will that make my tomatoes and beans grow better?????
    /sarc?

  50. Gunga Din says:

    Tyos! ARHGG!
    “You may be far needing to think about having more donations than you need but we know the Mannequins don’t miss a PR trick.”
    Should be: “You may be far from needing to think about having more donations than you need but we know the Mannequins don’t miss a PR trick.”
    (I do have an Associates degree. I’m glad it’s not common to put that abbreviation after one’s name.8-)

  51. Martin Rettig says:

    Although I read WUWT daily, I rarely comment. But I did just send $50 dollars to NRO, Mann needs to be hoisted on his own petard. That self-serving JA is an embarrassment to Science. Mark your piece was a work of art, God Bless you!

    God Bless you also Anthony, Merry Christmas, keep up the good fight.

  52. mfo says:

    Although it’s been remarked on at length, it’s curious that Mann puts such great store in the claim that he is a Nobel Prize recipient. His claim states:

    “It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.”

    Apart from the fact that being a recipient of the Nobel Prize is a lie, Mann and his lawyers have chosen to omit the important point that the prize Mann lied about having received is a peace prize and not a science prize. The false claim to be a recipient of the Nobel Prize forms a very prominent part of the claim document and is clearly intended to significantly enhance the credibility and integrity of Mann.

    But Mann has made the false claim of being awarded a Nobel Prize before. He did so in his sworn testimony in response to the Petition brought against him and the University of Virginia by the American Tradition Institute requesting certain emails.

    The testimony of Michael Mann was given in a sworn affidavit for the benefit of the court. In it he stated:
    “A true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.”

    This “true and correct copy” of his CV which formed part of his sworn affidavit stated:
    “2007 Co-awarded (with other IPCC authors) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.”

    The Notary Public signed Mann’s affidavit on July 23 2012 with the statement:
    “Michael E Mann……personally appeared before me this day and having been by me duly sworn deposes and says that the facts set forth in the above affidavit are true and correct.”

    Mann’s CV would have been included in the affidavit to give an outline of his background so as to give his testimony credibility. Claiming to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize would be a very significant enhancement to the credibility of Mann’s testimony in the sworn affidavit.

    But as we know Mann was not awarded or co-awarded the Nobel Peace Prize therefore he lied on his CV. By including his CV as part of his affidavit he lied on his affidavit despite having sworn that it was “true and correct”.

    A deliberate lie of such magnitude on an exhibit that is included as part of a sworn affidavit is particularly significant because it goes to the heart of Mann’s integrity. Whether or not Mann should be accused of perjury in this instance would be for a district attorney to assess. But whatever the legal ramifications, such a blatant lie is a clear attempt to deceive others into believing something which is untrue.

    http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Part-1-2012-07-24-Mann-Affidavit.pdf
    http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Part-2-2012-07-24-Mann-Affidavit-2.pdf
    http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Part-1-2012-07-24-Exhibit-1-to-Mann-Affidavit.pdf

  53. James Allison says:

    Gary says:
    December 10, 2012 at 1:07 pm
    While I can sympathize, NRO picked this particular fight and Steyn went over the top with the Sandusky reference. I’ve decided to make my donations to innocents who are harmed by things other than their own actions — like prisoner’s kids whose parents can’t buy them gifts and Haitian orphans. I hope you can understand.
    =================================
    [snip. — mod.]

  54. mrmethane says:

    NRO backing vs. Mann’s backing – I suspect the latter is well-funded by the Soros empire. any questions?

  55. MartinR says:

    Gary says:
    December 10, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    =================================
    [snip. — mod.]

    Thats why I didn’t reply to Gary.

  56. TBear says:

    Of course, the alternative is to issue an apology and settle the case.

    Just saying …

  57. Ed MacAulay says:

    Don’t think Mann is man enough to issue an apology unless required by the courts.
    /sarc

  58. Kevin says:

    Donation made, looking forward to the updates.
    Kevin

  59. theduke says:

    Garrett says: Not feeling so confident now, are we?

    ———————————

    LOL. As if Mann has a chance in hell of winning the case. Read Steyn on the case and see if you think he lacks confidence. If Mann takes this all the way to the courtroom, which is doubtful in my opinion, he will be destroyed. His lawyers proved they are none to bright with the Nobel Prize recipient blunder. This is going to be a cakewalk for Steyn and National Review.

  60. john robertson says:

    Done: Bring on discovery, popcorn ready.
    Meanwhile remember to post words of praise and support on the infallible Manns site.
    The mann is still one of truths best allies.

  61. Mooloo says:

    The National Review is backed some of the wealthiest individuals in the country. But give them your money if you want.

    And Mann is paying for this out of his own pocket?

  62. SMS says:

    Made my contribution earlier. Just hoping they call Steve McIntyre and Professor Wegman to the stand.

    Just how can Mann defend his work? And if Mann can’t defend his work, how can Penn State say they weren’t covering up his poor skill sets? Sounds like a cover up to me.

  63. Kevin Quitberg says:

    Did it myself. I have limited means but have been an NR subscriber for over 20 years. I hope they can point how the environmental lobby uses a publicist to write heart-rending copy to little old ladies for money, files lawsuits and litigates the lawsuits themselves while paying themselves handsomely in a first-class racket. Does the term RICO mean anything or are gangsters cut from better cloth than these environmentalists? KQ

  64. jdgalt says:

    I would think Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” has in it everything needed to prove fraud by Mann. (And I wonder if the fact that he didn’t sue Montford could be painted as an admission of something.)

  65. Darren Potter says:

    Mooloo says: And Mann is paying for this out of his own pocket?

    More likely out of our pockets. As in funded by Taxpayers.

  66. Gary Pearse says:

    Done. Some of the detractors seem unaware that the issue isn’t one of a small scrappy publisher annoying a university professor. The issue is much larger – confronting in a small but important way the corruption and politicization of science and scholarship in the West, the moral degradation of our institiutions and its leaders and the erosion of democracy and freedom by autocrats and compliant citizenry

    Kev-in-Uk says:
    December 10, 2012 at 2:58 pm
    “I don’t want to see good money thrown away for a dumb, pointless defence.”

    Kevin you apparently aren’t aquainted with Mark Steyn. He single-handedly took on the human rights tribunal in Canada before which he was brought by outraged muslim lawyers who objected to an article of his in which he quoted a Norwegian Imam as seeking a world caliphate. He won and the case resulted in rewriting parts of Canada’s freedom of speech statutes which already were comparatively gooid.. The money won’t be thrown away like it is in your woeful UK with its self-immolating alternative energy craziness. I hope you aren’t okay about that, and bank rolling Africa and Turkey’s windmills, too. Some brave souls have to do something.

  67. pokerguy says:

    I can’t tell you how happy I am you guys are taking it to that fraud. I’ve been hoping something like this would eventually happen…that the ego-driven Mann, full of red-faced rage would sue someone who could fight back effectively. I’ts my pleasure to donate 250 bucks tomorrow in the a.m. Just hope Mann doesn’t decide to walk away (which frankly any sane man would do)..

  68. Julian in Wales says:

    Good Luck – done

  69. Hugh K says:

    Richard T. Fowler says:
    “I would like to suggest that at some point, perhaps soon, a picket of Michael Mann’s department by those who have contributed to the NRO legal defense may be in order.”

    Great idea Richard. The problem would be determining which department best fits Mann’s area of expertise — Performing Arts, Political Science, or Department of Myth and Silences?

    As an aside – I wonder if NRO/Steyn will call former AGU ethics chief Peter H. Gleick as an expert witness on the current state climate ethics for the defense?

  70. DGH says:

    Mann’s legal fees are paid for – in part or in full – by a non-profit vehicle, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund through Protecting Employees Who Protect Our Environment (PEER). Why wouldn’t you avail yourself of a similar vehicle to fund your defense?

  71. Richard T. Fowler says:

    :D Thanks … I hope we can see this happen.

  72. Rick Bradford says:

    * …it’s curious that Mann puts such great store in the claim that he is a Nobel Prize recipient.”

    Why? The man has an ego the size of Manhattan.

  73. atheok says:

    Done! I wish I could afford more.

    I agree with several previous posts above, counter-sue the wood core temperature and history molesting bugger. Counter sue for triple damages as his backers can afford huge payouts. Maybe they’ll consider backing some real science next time. Otherwise this suit will be tossed after Mann fails to respond to discovery, like Mann’s previous suits.

    Hey! Check out the ENSO meter at Top Dead Center neutral!

    Well, I guess the overly warm East Coast can look forward to real winter soon as the jet stream adjusts to neutral conditions. That bald pated guy at NOAA that keeps predicting record El Nino and SSTs needs to buy another fortune cookie. Preferably one that he reads before chomping down the cookie whole and swilling it down wth prune juice.

  74. Chuck Nolan says:

    TBear says:
    December 10, 2012 at 5:17 pm
    Of course, the alternative is to issue an apology and settle the case.

    Just saying …
    ——————
    I agree but I don’t think you’d ever get Mann to admit he’s wrong, but maybe.
    cn

  75. Anton says:

    In the Climategate emails, Mann happily admits to falsifying his own publishing record (adding in that of another person with the same last name) to gain admittance to a particular scientific organization. This lie alone should forever discredit him in academic circles as well as in any courtroom.

  76. cedgar says:

    Done. Fiat Lux

  77. thisisnotgoodtogo says:

    The a good clincher of his fraudiness is that he continued to promote himself as a Nobel Laureate even after the Nobel Institute responded and he changed his website.

    The Al Jazzeera interview and page stated it 3 times, once when introducing Mann, and Mann accepted it without correction.

  78. E.M.Smith says:

    DGH says:

    Mann’s legal fees are paid for – in part or in full – by a non-profit vehicle, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund through Protecting Employees Who Protect Our Environment (PEER). Why wouldn’t you avail yourself of a similar vehicle to fund your defense?

    So that’s why they all act like they have “Top Cover”… (Well, that, and the full “faith and credit” of Soros… and a president or to ‘in the bag’ and…)

  79. old construction worker says:

    well worth $50.00

  80. Stephen Richards says:

    Dennis Nikols says:
    December 10, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    For people like Mann this has little or nothing to do with accuracy or truth; it has everything to do with Public Relations and ego

    And probably that he doesn’t have to pay !!

  81. oldseadog says:

    Done.

    Gunga Din; Love the Nobel LARIAT – hanged with his own petard, perhaps?

  82. Jack Savage says:

    Donated. If there were ever a time for us to put our money where our mouth is….it is now.
    So pay up and look happy!
    Sadly, anyone looking for a swift duking it out in Court is probably in for a big disappointment. The pace at which these matters proceed appears to be glacial, even if you take the glacial rate suggested in AR4.
    Generous support is absolutely required here, if only not to discourage any further attempts to vigorously question Dr. Manns results.

  83. Done! Sorry it’s not much but hopefully every little helps in stopping this massive fraud!

  84. Thanks. Small donation made.

  85. oldseadog says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:51 am

    Gunga Din; Love the Nobel LARIAT

    How do you like Noble Lieriate?

  86. Darren Potter says:

    Jack Savage says: “If there were ever a time for us to put our money where our mouth is….it is now. So pay up and look happy!”

    You comment brings up an important point.
    Either Donate some now or be prepared to repeatedly Pay a lot more later.

    Enabling NRO to have the funds to open Mann up in court like a can of worms, could deal Global Climate SCAM and the Alarmists a death blow. On the other hand, if Mann succeeds with his frivolous lawsuit, it will bolster and rally the GW Alarmists. Which will lead to more AGW funding at our expense. With worst case – U.N. driven Cap-n-Trade, where we pay at the pump and electric meter.

  87. Glyn Palmer says:

    Done. Dunno what $50 is in £s tho’.

  88. Coach Springer says:

    Done. Paying for my own popcorn so to speak. Mann is using the courts to intimidate someone for calling attention to his Tree Ring Circus. There’s a reason he can’t stand an opinion that the hockey stick is a fraudulent result of tortured data. That opinion only stings because Mann knows it to be correct.

    Mann will drop suit before he responds to discovery, but maybe we can cover costs and find out who’s backing Mann from a countersuit. Failing that, I suppose NRO could use their recovery of legal costs to hire Greenpeace to go through Mann’s garbage at night. I don’t care what they do with the money, they earned it by taking on the climate machine.

  89. SAMURAI says:

    I donated for the cause.

    I think the case depends on how the judge adjudicating the case sets the discovery parameters…

    If the judge gives Mark a wide latitude on discovery, enabling access to virtually all of Mann’s (behind the myth) data regarding his broken Hockey Stick, MANN will drop the charges under the guise of harassment and proprietary information BS….

    It’s going to be fun having a little skin in this game!

  90. theduke says:

    Anyone who thinks that Mann is paying any significant amount toward this ridiculous lawsuit is deluding themselves. He may be paying for the airline flights to visit his lawyer. Nothing more, I’m sure. He may not even be paying for those. The suit is a sure loser. And others will be left with the bills when it’s over.

    This is nothing more than a harassment lawsuit designed to make NR spend money on lawyers. Their is no evidence that Steyn accused Mann of academic fraud. He could easily say that he feels that Mann’s hockey stick paper has been used fraudulently and not that Mann committed academic fraud. It’s a perfectly reasonable defense if Steyn and NR choose to use it. Without that, the suit becomes just another freedom of expression argument that complainants almost always lose. Mann is a public figure and Steyn is a journalist who believes what he wrote is true. It’s really that simple.

    The political left has ways of destroying those who tell the truth. What happen to the American Spectator after they published the Paula Jones story on Clinton is well-known. Clinton’s people tried to bankrupt them.

    I would hope that NR demands that their legal fees are paid in any settlement or verdict that may be forthcoming. Mann’s suit is a clear abuse of the legal system and I hope a judge makes sure he pays the bills for it. Of course, the real people who will pay for it are the Green Peacers who contribute to Climate Science Legal Defense Fund through Protecting Employees Who Protect Our Environment (PEER). Nothing but dupes.

  91. clipe says:

    Ontario, Canada

    Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP)

    http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/09/lawsuits-expensive-and-can-backfire–litigator-beware

  92. Gunga Din says:

    oldseadog says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:51 am
    Done.

    Gunga Din; Love the Nobel LARIAT – hanged with his own petard, perhaps?

    =======================================================================
    Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of “give a Mann enough rope…”
    (Not that I wish any physical harm on him but I do want his part of the CAGW deception to be exposed.)
    (PS In no way whatsoever would I want him to be “exposed”!!)

  93. Gunga Din says:

    Roger Knights says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:34 am
    oldseadog says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:51 am

    Gunga Din; Love the Nobel LARIAT

    How do you like Noble Lieriate?

    ======================================================
    I like it. i doubt The Mann would.

  94. D Böehm says:

    Sent NRO a Benjamin with the message: Get the bastard! ☺

  95. “more soylent green! says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:41 pm
    One thing I can say for Mann, he doesn’t have a problem with too little ego. Is he over-compensating for something?”
    Well, bullying is said to be a self-esteem problem.

    Not that I think Mark Steyn doesn’t get carried away sometimes, and was careless in quoting from the original article, but IMO he deserves support for his efforts fighting back against “hate speech” allegations in Canada.

    The sensible thing for NRO to do would have been to state that they do not consider Mann to be a sexual abuser, but that their article pointed to coverup by Penn State officials and to Mann’s unethical behaviour as revealed by the emails leaked from the CRU. Recall that the author/publisher of the original article using the sexual abuser analogy – which Steyn quoted from – altered the article after complaints. Their alteration puts NRO in a bad position, the plaintiffs can say “The original author/publisher did the right thing, why doesn’t NRO?”

  96. As for Everard’s suggestion that Mann has a practice of pulling out after putting defendants to great expense, wasn’t it suggested in earlier threads on these lawsuits that is not easy to do once the suit is filed with a court? Wasn’t it suggested that it would be very awkward for Mann to not comply with a court order to produce documents demanded by the defendants, as part of the Examination for Discovery process? I’d expect judges are not tolerant of game playing. Doesn’t the court of jurisdiction have to agree with pulling out, or with an out-of-court settlement? But I suppose that if the defendant agrees the court won’t get excited about dropping the case as they have so many other cases to deal with – but note that “Rosco”’s report on Tim Ball’s cases indicates the court awarded costs to the plaintiffs who pulled out. (Refusal to comply with a court order, however, would be viewed very seriously.)

    Canada and US practice could be different – is the NRO law suit in the US? (NRO is in US but Steyn is in Canada?) Tim Ball and the National Post newspaper, variously sued by the likes of Mann and Weaver, are in Canada. (Don’t assume AU and UK are similar to CA, each country has evolved in specifics. While AU, CA, UK, and US generally use the “British Common Law” system for civil matters, there are specific laws in each country. Canada is significantly influenced by US practice, due much interaction between people in the two societies. And BC, where at least one lawsuit was filed, has another wrinkle – a threshold of payment to the court, that someone must pay for the court to hear the case.)

  97. Another James says:

    I’ve kicked in – go hard guys!

  98. DCA says:

    Mann along with Hayhoe and Bill Anderegg spoke the other day.

    http://dge.stanford.edu/people/anderegg
    http://www.climate-one.org/blog/political-science

    “Anderegg spoke of the evidence of longer fire seasons, larger fires, stress on water resources, snowpack and droughts. “We’re seeing the early signs, the tip of the iceberg, as to what these forests are going to do during stress.” He links rising temperature to a number of widespread massive tree-mortality events in the western U.S. and Canada over the past five to ten years. “And it’s fairly safe to say these are kind of the early warning signals of what’s coming for these ecosystems that a lot of local communities depend on.”
    =====================
    What does the data really say about the temps and forest fires?

  99. leftinbrooklyn says:

    Financially thanking you.

  100. Barbara Skolaut says:

    Done!

  101. D Böehm says:

    NRO should send Mann’s lawyers a letter:

    “We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram…” ☺

    (Donation sent)

  102. Jeff Alberts says:

    fobdangerclose says:
    December 10, 2012 at 11:59 am

    fobdanger from back in the day of low pay and long hours.

    Done.

    fobdangerclose

    Add 50, fire for effect.

  103. Brian H says:

    Done.

    Gunga Din says:
    December 10, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    Tyos! ARHGG!

    Is that a typo? :D ;p

    oldseadog;
    A petard is a sachel charge, or mine, or bomb. “Hoist” meant blown up. No ropes involved. “Petard” is currently French slang for “fart”.

    For those asking: 50 Euros is about $63 USD; $50 USD is about 32 British pounds.

Comments are closed.