The descent of Mann’s legal standing

Story submitted by Rob Ricket

Mann plays the victim in article from “The Scientist”

Opinion: Life as a Target

Attacks on my work aimed at undermining climate change science have turned me into a public figure. I have come to embrace that role.

By Michael E. Mann| March 27, 2013

As a climate scientist, I have seen my integrity perniciously attacked. Politicians have demanded I be fired from my job because of my work demonstrating the reality and threat of human-caused climate change. I’ve been subjected to congressional investigations by congressman in the pay of the fossil fuel industry and was the target of what The Washington Post referred to as a “witch hunt” by Virginia’s reactionary Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. I have even received a number of anonymous death threats.

My plight is dramatic, but unfortunately, it is not unique; climate scientists are regularly the subject of such attacks.

This cynicism is part of a destructive public-relations campaign being waged by fossil fuel companies, front groups, and individuals aligned with them in an effort to discredit the science linking the burning of fossil fuels with potentially dangerous climate change.

My work first appeared on the world stage in the late 1990s with the publication of a series of articles estimating past temperature trends. Using information gathered from records in nature, like tree rings, corals, and ice cores, my two coauthors and I had pieced together variations in the Earth’s temperature over the past 1,000 years. What we found was that the recent warming, which coincides with the burning of fossil fuels during the Industrial Revolution, is an unprecedented aberration in this period of documented temperature changes, and recent work published in the journal Science suggests that the recent warming trend has no counterpart for at least the past 11,000 years, and likely longer. In a graph featured in our manuscript, the last century sticks out like the blade of an upturned hockey stick.

Source:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34853/title/Opinion–Life-as-a-Target/

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

This header from Dr. Mann has some important legal value:

Attacks on my work aimed at undermining climate change science have turned me into a public figure. I have come to embrace that role.

A public figure has a higher burden of proof in defamation cases, such as the one where Dr. Mann is suing Dr. Tim Ball and Mark Steyn at The National Review. For example:

According to the public figure doctrine, prominent public persons must prove actual malice on the part of the news media in order to prevail in a libel lawsuit. Actual malice is the knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether a statement is true or false. The public figure doctrine makes it possible for publishers to provide information on public issues to the debating public, undeterred by the threat of liability.

Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-figure-doctrine/

Further, Dr. Mann is going to have to prove that the statements by Tim Ball and NRO weren’t parody or satire:

Whether parodies should be potentially actionable as defamation depends on whether the statement is deemed factual and thus potentially actionable, or is a matter of protected opinion and not actionable.

Although plagued by confusion and lack of consensus, under the prevailing trends of constitutional law and/or state substantive defamation law principles, four core bases have emerged for classifying a statement as protected opinion:

(a) it did “not contain a provably false factual connotation;”

(b) it “cannot ‘reasonably [be] interpreted as stating actual facts;’”

(c) it consists merely of “rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet,” or “imaginative expression;”

(d) it does not state or imply undisclosed, unassumed, or unknown defamatory facts.

Source: http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/viewFile/74/66

I think with his public figure admission, combined with the recognized first amendment right to satire and parody of public figures,  he just took his two legal cases out back and shot them dead.

About these ads

154 thoughts on “The descent of Mann’s legal standing

  1. “I’ve been subjected to congressional investigations by congressman in the pay of the fossil fuel industry…”

    I hear/read this sort of thing all the time. Doesn’t that sort of dubious repetition without affidavit lose its bite? It’s not even “crying wolf.” It’s just plain juvenile, and I don’t mean that as ad hominem. It’s simply a nonworking statement absent any reference or proof. It’s hot air. Please, Mr. Mann, enough with the hot air. Or do you not care about climate change? That is CO2 leaking from your bellows, don’t you know?

  2. “I think with his public figure admission, combined with the recognized first amendment right to satire and parody of public figures, he just took his two legal cases out back and shot them dead.”

    Mann says, “My work first appeared on the world stage ….”

    Yes pompous egotists, tend to shoot themselves in the foot, given enough space and time to do so. One can see the beleaguered, but brave hero greatly relishes his public personagehood.

  3. Of course the crybaby clown has made himself a public figure. His lawyers should have pointed that out to him before he brought his suits. Probably they did, but with all his taxpayer-backing he just wanted nuisance actions & more publicity to win more fame & funding.

    Even the whiner must know that his most effective critics, those who have utterly destroyed his fake “science”, like MacI & McK, are not financed by Big Oil. Mann is however funded by Big Government, which gets the results for which it pays.

  4. LOL – Poor Michael seems to not appreciate how little ‘scientist’ he brings to Climate Scientist. Maybe if he did not bugger up the stats so badly he wouldn’t be getting so much heat.

  5. In order to not defame Mann, I put it this way. He seems to have a lot in common with others who have an over-sized ego, based on my experience of people with over-sized egos.

  6. “What we found was that the recent warming, which coincides with the burning of fossil fuels during the Industrial Revolution, is an unprecedented aberration in this period of documented temperature changes …”

    Multiple Misleading statements by the Mann.
    1) Coincidence is not science. Coincidence is not cause. Coincidence happens.
    2) Recent temperatures are not warming. Selective charting of data doesn’t count.
    3) No evidence of unprecented aberration.
    4) Documenting temperature changes by way of bias and lemon picking is creation, not finding.

  7. Is that finally an admission from Mann that he has been undermining climate change? Sure reads like it to me. From the paragraph just above the article date.

    Attacks on my work aimed at undermining climate change science have turned me into a public figure.

  8. Just went and read it – does he actually believe about himself what he wrote there? And this:

    By digging up and burning fossil fuels, humans are releasing carbon that had been buried in the Earth into the atmosphere, where those gases are acting like a heat-trapping blanket around the planet. And storms like Superstorm Sandy and hurricane Irene, and the unprecedented heat, drought, and wild fires of last summer are the effects.

    It’s written at moron level. What a twonk. Let’s hope he has shot down his cases…

  9. Mr. Mann says:

    I have even received a number of anonymous death threats.

    And yet, none of the estimated 5,000 extra deaths in Great Britain alone caused each winter by implementation of policies that he supports are “anonymous” if he’d only bother to look at the obituaries.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/23/trend-to-colder-winters-continues-in-uk/

    Mann whines about pushback against his fictitious claims based on false algorithms. This proves he has no conscience at all. He’s one of the leading players in the group I call Catastrophic Anthropogenic Genocidal Warmistas and he’s guilty of genocide.

    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Except for one huge difference–Mann is still alive while his victims are DEAD!

    Cry us a river, Mr. Mann.

  10. .
    And here is another attack on Mann’s assertions about Global Warming.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2299037/Keep-em-Dave-Theyre-here.html
    You will have to scroll down to where it says: “How the lies on global warming snowballed”.

    As explanation for US readers, the Daily Mail is one of the largest circulation right of center** middle-class newspapers. While Richard Littlejohn is the chief joker and satirist in this paper – but one whose barbed comments always hit home. He’s a right wing Jon Stewart from the Daily Show.

    ** Slightly to the left of Ghengis Khan.

    .

  11. What’s really sad is that Mann is still trying to defend the Hockey Stick. Even his allies have given up trying to salvage that mess.

  12. “My plight is dramatic, but unfortunately, it is not unique; climate scientists are regularly the subject of such attacks.”

    Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist

    Testimony to US Congress will also criticise lobbyists
    ‘Revolutionary’ policies needed to tackle crisis

    The Guardian, Sunday 22 June 2008

    James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange

  13. Poor Mikey . . . such self inflicted wounds for such an honest, scrupulous, scientist who has the greatest integrity, has never consorted to stab other scientists in the back and is on the same plane as such wonderful people as Al Gore and David Suzuki.

    This can’t be Karma because it never goes around to get around.

  14. “Attacks on my work aimed at undermining climate change science have turned me into a public figure.”

    The most honest thing that Mann has written to date.

  15. His “plight is dramatic”? How about he overdramatizes things? When our think-tank in 2010 questioned why his office got $541,184 in the stimulus bill, and asked PSU to voluntarily return it in light of the then-ongoing investigations and Climategate, the incident turned up in his book (in a spelling-challenged way) described as “threatening my livelihood.” He further claimed we “led a campaign to have my NSF grants revoked” (no) and claimed our “perverse premise was that I was somehow pocketing millions of dollars of ‘Obama’ stimulus money’” (no). We said “It’s outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal.” We also said, “It’s no wonder that Obama’s stimulus plan is failing to produce jobs. Taxpayer dollars aren’t being used in the ways most likely to spur job creation. The stimulus was not sold to the public as a way to reward a loyalist in the climate change debate. Nor was the stimulus sold as a way to promote the Obama Administration’s position on the global warming theory.”

    Point is, he personalizes things ridiculously. He says above, “my plight is dramatic.” He has a university teaching job; these grants are extra. His office gets a grant sold to the public as being for “shovel-ready jobs” that he himself says he personally benefited from, by working, only at the tune of a month’s pay. Yet if a third party questions this tax-funded grant, they are “threatening his livelihood” and accusing him of “pocketing” money (with the false implication that we claimed or implied he stole some, which we never ever did).

    Boo hoo. The guy loves being a victim. Never met him. It’s just my impression. But anybody who takes tax money has to know taxpayers might wonder why they deserve it. It is not personally about him any more than it was personally about the guy who was going to pour the cement for the Bridge to Nowhere. It’s our money, as taxpayers. His proper response to getting it should have just been “thanks.”

  16. He really is juvenile. He persists and persists, in the face of overwhelming refutation. I almost hate to use that word ‘overwhelming’, because it is so often coupled with ‘consensus’. Regarding Mann, there is no consensus. He’s behaving like a blithering idiot. Soap Opera Climate.

  17. “What we found was that the recent warming, which coincides with the burning of fossil fuels during the Industrial Revolution, is an unprecedented aberration in this period of documented temperature changes …”

    That’s a stretcher, because it insinuates that the warming before 1950, when CO2 increase was insignificant, had significant effects. 97% of climate scientists disbelieve that–but Mann throws it in for melodramatic effect. 10 pounds of sincerity in a 5-pound bag.

  18. “Tree rings, ice cores and coral”

    I feel the Most important Data was left out over the 1,000 year period.. Sun Spot Data!! Past sun spot data shows when mini ice ages happened. Was the sun spot data left out for a reason??
    Why was it not part of Nature Data used? WHY?
    NASA even stated that earth could be on edge of next ice age with very low sun plot cycles like in the past.

    I tweeted to M. Mann today for fthere time….. Quiet sun is freezing you in your tracks and your hockey stick will be used as an ice pick one day..lOL
    Seems he did not like my tweet and blocked me from viewing his twitter page while logged in.
    He did Reply not as as a scientists to my tweet I feel. My tweet was not threatening but my feeling from the true sun spot data that is out there and not part of his data used.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/316945906505224192/photos

  19. ,,, have mouth, will comment
    … have ego, MUST comment
    … have brains .. . have brains .. . hello … hello brains?

  20. If this mann was left in a police interviewing room alone, he would rat himself out.
    Seems the main attraction is attention, any attention, so the mann just lacked the nerve to be an actor or a politician.
    He is right though, his career of undermining climate science has made a public figure of him.

  21. Darren Potter says:
    March 27, 2013 at 11:25 am

    “What we found was that the recent warming, which coincides with the burning of fossil fuels during the Industrial Revolution, is an unprecedented aberration in this period of documented temperature changes …”

    Multiple Misleading statements by the Mann.
    1) Coincidence is not science. Coincidence is not cause. Coincidence happens.
    2) Recent temperatures are not warming. Selective charting of data doesn’t count.
    3) No evidence of unprecented aberration.
    4) Documenting temperature changes by way of bias and lemon picking is creation, not finding.
    ***********************************************************************************************************************

    The Industrial Revolution began in Britain around 1760, about a century before the end of the Little Ice Age, in no small part because coal replaced wood as fuel, in the absence of previous forests.

    That’s quite a time lag for its effects to show up. Isn’t the 280 ppm “pre-industrial” concentration of CO2 measured from c. 1850?

    Admittedly, most of the world wasn’t industrialized that early, but copious amounts of fossil fuel were burned in dark, Satanic mills & to heat homes during the century after 1760, enough to make parts of England’s formerly green & pleasant land sootier than the most polluted city in China today.

    Direct measurements of CO2 in 19th century Europe found “industrial” levels of CO2, ie in the 400s ppm of dry air, higher than Mauna Loa readings now (taken downwind from continuously erupting volcanism).

  22. You’ve got to feel sorry for the chap. He’s lost all credibility as a scientist. He’s useless as any kind of respected figure. The only way he has left to make a way in the world is as a clown.

  23. Mrs. Do-as-you-would-be-done-by is a character in “The Water Babies”.
    If he feels the way he says he feels, maybe he should stop being nasty about other people, start being polite and look at the latest data.

  24. A comparative analysis:

    Global warming, regardless of the cause, is beneficial to mankind and would, under normal circumstances, give us a fuller, more beneficial, extended life.

    Yet global warming has been distorted to the point that life has become more difficult and shorter for the majority of earth’s human inhabitants.

    Only evil people–those who profit from their abuse of power–do such a thing.

  25. Open mouth, insert foot, use gold-plated Nobel-brand shoehorn (“participation award” from IPCC) to move the previous foot around as needed…

  26. A bit off the topic of Mann as a public figure, but his description of his “science” reveals something that seems to be generally un-remarked.

    The “science” that brought him fame was NOT actually science. All he did was selectively compile other people’s observations, string them together chronologically, manipulate them with secret computer formulas, draw a graph, and then speculate wildly about the meaning of his graph.

    One of the earliest lessons taught in real science is “Correlation does NOT prove causation.”

    Mann did NOT perform experiments that provided evidence that man-made CO2 causes temperatures to rise. That would be actual science.

    Mann’s “science” would appear to be simple conjecture and manipulation, combined with faulty logic. Or DOES corrleation actually prove causation?

  27. Bob Koss, Mann’s a “climate scientist” not an English professor. He has enough trouble trying to do “climate science” correctly.

  28. I’ve just been hit by a stroke of genius. Now, it’s not my genius, mind you. I’ve been hit by it. It’s from my sister. My older sister.

    So, we’re riding along and she tells me she really loves the “F” word. We all know what that four letter word is. But this is a family site so I can’t use the full word. Now I’m part of her family (reluctantly I must add) but different rules apply so she can use the full word that she expresses love for. Then, ok, ready for this: this approaching 70 year old grandmother immediately proceeds to tell me, virtually in the same breath, that she doesn’t swear.

    This really happened. Recently. Just about as I’m typing this out. She inquires of me what I’m typing. I show her. She repeats herself, “Well, I don’t think saying F… Is swearing.” Incredible.

    Now, I ask you. Has Michael Mann’s spirit departed his body (an act that might be mutually agreeable to both parties) and proceeded to inhabit my sister’s body (an act that is doubtlessly disagreeable to her; oh, and definitely to me). Because that is the only way I can describe the other worldly ludicrous nonsense I’ve just been subjected to.

  29. Mike Haseler says:
    March 27, 2013 at 11:55 am

    You’ve got to feel sorry for the chap. He’s lost all credibility as a scientist. He’s useless as any kind of respected figure. The only way he has left to make a way in the world is as a clown.
    ————————————————————————————————————–

    No I don’t. We’re currently dealing with a very sad (and, I’m afraid, rather shameful) matter concerning our daughter keeping dogs that have savaged an 80 year old’s pet – despite repeated warnings from us that she wasn’t responsible with them.

    She also has an uncanny knack for playing the victim. Her attitude, even after this, is much like Mr Manns and can be summed up in 2 sentences:

    “It wasn’t my fault. Everyone’s out to get me”.

    The difference with Mann is that he’s playing with the wellbeing of millions of people worldwide, not just one old man’s pet terrier in a corner of Wales.

    So no, no sympathy or sorrow for the narcisists of this world!

  30. “in the pay of”
    “witch hunt”
    “reactionary”
    “destructive”

    I love objective science. Is that redundant?

  31. I am not clear if Manns claims of victimhood end in 2005, or if he has updated them to include recent developments

  32. jeff 5778 says:
    March 27, 2013 at 12:18 pm


    I love objective science. Is that redundant?

    Not in Mann’s world. His “science” is devoid of objectivity.

  33. Mr. Mann isn’t even a smart Mann. He didn’t just take his lawsuits out back to shoot them, he shot himself in the foot at the same time. He really does need a job. “Do you want fries with that” or janitorial services come to my mind.

  34. Although the science behind AGW is greatly flawed due to their adherence to an orthodoxy instead of a scientific method, Mann demonstrates you do not need to be intelligent to be a acolyte. Most people are not lawyers, but most people at least know that when you have a case pending, you do not open your mouth to support the opposition. This simple rule seems to be beyond the capacity of Mann to grasp. Either that or his narcissism is bigger than his brain.

  35. Steven Mosher says:
    March 27, 2013 at 11:44 am

    Send this to Dr. Loo.

    Mann is exhibiting conspiratorial ideation.
    ————————————————————————————————————————
    But I too revel in “conspiratorial ideation”. Not only is it fun and entertaining but such practices can occasionally bring forth a good idea or two. The MannOligist not only has fun with it but makes big bucks (books/lectures/grants etc.). Reminds me a bit of Coulter who really knows how to work up the masses for the money. So no incentive to quit there.

  36. All he had to do was show the data. That’s what scientists do. So, he’s a victim now for not doing what scientists do? That just makes him a bad scientist, doesn’t it?

  37. The Tim Ball action is in the British Columbia supreme court. Not subject to US law.

    “More fool me” says Dr, Mann.

  38. With every tweet, interview, column, or blog, he increases his entertainment quotient and his value to skeptics – this is the poster boy for obective climate science? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
    Foot, meet bullet!

  39. Mann has a hearing in the NRO case coming up in early April. I suspect he is planning to withdraw from the case prior to the hearing and is trying to create a narrative as to why he withdrew. He doesn’t want the headline to be “Mann withdraws from lawsuit amid claims that he lied about Nobel Prize”.

  40. Sounds like the blowhard Teddy Roosevelt when speaking after just having been shot in the chest (no damage). In Mann’s mental illusion it probably goes something like this : “Even though I have been ruthlessly attacked by the fossil fuel industry and their hired guns, I will fight the good fight for climate change truth.”
    My hero. A Mann amongst men. Literally.We don’t deserve people like him (and I mean that literally).

  41. Mann: “…my work demonstrating the reality and threat of human-caused climate change.”
    What unscientific nonsese. All that Mann’s work can do is show, if legitamate, what the temperature record shows about warming or cooling. His work does nothing to address the ‘human-caused’ element. Mann is just a bean counter. The rock doc has done no work to demonstrate where the beans have come from.

  42. With his pussillanimous attitude, he has painted a massive big target on himself, front and back.

    Of course he can expect a few bards and arrows !

    The Fool’s FOOL !!!

    (yes, I know the third word has an extra ‘s’ in it, but in his case it belongs there)

  43. “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”
    -Winston Churchill

  44. So, people who want technological and energy progress are reactionaries, and people longing for a mythical pre-industrial past are not.

    Wait, what?

    The whole scam needs museums to lay out the scale and degree of perfidy.

  45. Hurricane Irene? When was that? Are Hurricane Katrina and Rita no longer useful as scare tactics?

  46. So he has received death threats has he? Well no doubt all of these death threats have been passed over to the Police and they are vigorously investigating?
    He’s shown unprecedented warming has, sorry his work had been trashed by men of integrity.

  47. His timing is nothing to do with the Marcott paper?

    The back up paper that was to confirm his delusional hockey stick now lies is in tatters. There are going to be serious repercussions because the faked hockey stick was the only part of the paper that the journalists ran with. Obviously the journalists were tipped off to this part of the story and in there haste or inability to decipher the truth, they ran global with the unprecedented warming bunkum.

    The climate rapid response team must be in near meltdown trying to turn Marcott’s pigs ear into a silk purse. Half of the climate elites and climate legal team must be working on the FAQ by now. The danger with the FAQ, and they know this, is that more lies is going to make a larger hole. The FAQ will be a new definition of creativity when it comes out.

  48. When I was reading the statement I stopped to see the date to determine when he decided that he was a public figure since I knew about the higher burden of proof requirement argument for public figures.

    A weasel like Mann will doubtlessly claim that he was NOT a public figure PRIOR to the so-called defamation, but only became one subsequent to all the publicity generated by the negative attributions by National Review and Steyn and Ball….. which is complete hogwash from a serial liar.

    Ever read Othello?

    Michael Mann is Iago pure and simple.

    I’d sue the little ba$*&^% for malicious lawsuit since he admits he’s a public figure.

  49. The best advice I ever had was:
    Never ever be seduced by your own advertizing.
    I knew I should not have kept that to myself. Sorry Michael.
    Guess you can blame me for all that has happened since. Oops

  50. A blast from the Mannian past:

    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
    first thing tomorrow.
    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
    to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
    1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
    land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
    N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
    for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
    data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers
    Phil

    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
    NR4 7TJ
    UK

    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

  51. Mann needs to be fired because of his repeated flouting of his terms of employment. If he agrees to leave quietly we can perhaps consider the dropping the criminal charges of misuse of public equipment and engaging in political activities on government time. Perhaps.

  52. If it wasn’t for the immense damage he has caused through his intellectual dishonesty, he’d be a laughing matter entirely.

  53. Dear M. Mann -

    We have met the “unprecedented aberration”,

    and it is you.

    Signed,

    One Who Speaks to a Public Figure

  54. I also suffered Mann’s martyrdom, being blown to pieces by Denialist oil-funded jihadis. Fortunately it was only a flesh wound. I will be able to sell my story to the next James Bond filmmakers. I wonder why they won’t let me play the lead. This is clearly a Denialist plot. They are hiding behind paranoid CIA-funded Denialist accusations like Narcissistic Personality Disorder …

  55. The irony of Lew & co. is even more dramatic than I could have possibly hoped.

  56. Josh C,

    {Bang}

    “Hey, I can see the ground through my foot!”

    “OwOwOw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&$^*$%(_$(&%*()%&*(”

    ;-)

  57. That he so thoughtlessly shoots his own case in the head gives you all the insight you need into his actual intellectual capacity and also his bimbo like narcissism.

    What a pathetic little nobody he really is.

  58. Donna Laframboise says: March 27, 2013 at 11:35 am I, too, have written about Michael Mann today. “How We Know the ‘Climate Crisis’ Isn’t Real” …… Those who believe there’s an urgent problem behave accordingly. Mann doesn’t act as if he fears for the future.

    There is a reason for that. Michael Mann is a one-man cottage industry inside the climate change Industrial complex, and his every pronouncement is calculated to further his brand name recognition.

    There is no bad publicity as far as he is concerned, because his business model as a one-man cottage industry depends upon his ability to keep the Michael Mann brand name prominently displayed and distributed within the climate change pronouncement marketplace.

  59. From Alfred Alexander on March 27, 2013 at 1:27 pm:

    Isn’t mann a curse word? As in “Ach Mensch”.

    It would be best if we did not engage in idle speculation based on similar-sounding words in other languages.

    For example, polite discussion here could be blown by wondering if Mann likes guns, and speculating if he has a Mannlicher.

  60. Makes me think he knows exactly what he is doing. He now has a way to ‘gracefully’ withdraw from actions he has started. So his data will remain secret.

  61. Regarding Mann as a curseword: A German would go “Oh Mann!” and then execute the facepalm maneuver. That particular meme however predates its convenient inspiration.

  62. Rd nnaM,

    Call up John F. Kerry, get him to tell you how a known liar makes out in the Democrat Party once you get ‘swiftboated” or “Climategated”?

    Could be you will get to be the head of Sandia Lab and use them to make a CO2 killing bomb.

  63. “…my work aimed at undermining climate change science…”

    He is too modest. His “work” is undermining science. Especially publicly-funded science.

    Less publicity will mean less funding.

  64. Mann is a duplicitous bastard! He can shovel abuse on others but he can’t take it. What a whiner!

  65. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    March 27, 2013 at 2:00 pm
    “From Alfred Alexander on March 27, 2013 at 1:27 pm:
    Isn’t mann a curse word? As in “Ach Mensch”.”
    It would be best if we did not engage in idle speculation based on similar-sounding words in other languages.”

    Ye shalt be freed from speculation for I will tell you. It is used in “Mann!” or more often “Mann-o-Mann!” in German; and is an expression of being flabbergasted; not so much a curse.

  66. Mann needs to prepare for the next 10 years when nothing unusual in the climate happens, or worse, the planet cools. He’ll be lucky to get a job flipping burgers by then. Expect him to continue play the “poor me” card until then.

  67. Unreliable people taint everything and everyone in their vicinity.
    People start to notice.

  68. I cannot believe an institution of “higher” learning can continue to employ a delusional, paranoid, egomaniac with the emotional intelligence of a teen aged girl. I have had two and so speak from experience. In their cases, it was temporary and rectified itself with age. I think it is late for Mikey to grow up.

  69. Perhaps Mann has shot himself in the foot intentionally. He knows he can’t win and now he can still claim nobody beat him. He really want’s no debate. His strategy is, “you can’t lose a fight if you never engage”. That’s why he won’t debate Spencer as well.

    Bullies talk big, but will do anything to avoid a real fight.

  70. After reading more of Mann’s crying above herein.

    Has to be panic pure and simple.

    Reason and common sense not at all.

    Others who have defended he and his fraud

    will not follow him into madness, he is with himself now.

  71. I’m sure his lawyers have informed him of his “Public Figure” standing, and he’s probably putting this out there as a preliminary explanation as to why he is about to drop both his lawsuits.

    Of course WE know that the real reason for dropping the suits is that there is no way he could ever have complied with the Discovery requests.

  72. At least Obama is listening to the alarmist, put-upon, poor Mr Mann:

    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Tuesday announced a nationwide plan to help wildlife adapt to threats from climate change.

    Developed along with state and tribal authorities, the strategy seeks to preserve species as global warming alters their historical habitat and, in many cases, forces them to migrate across state and tribal borders.

    Over the next five years, the plan establishes priorities for what will likely be a decadeslong effort. One key proposal is to create wildlife “corridors” that would let animals and plants move to new habitats. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Daniel M. Ashe said such routes could be made through easements and could total “much more than 1 million acres.” The plan does not provide an estimate of the cost.

    The effects of climate change are already apparent, the plan notes. Oyster larvae are struggling off the Northwest coast. In the Atlantic, fish are migrating north and into deeper waters. Geese and ducks do not fly as far south. In the West, bark beetles destroy pines because winters are not cold enough to kill infestations.

    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/26/187017/us-releases-plan-to-help-wildlife.html#emlnl=Weekly_Environment_Update#storylink=cpy

  73. Nice title. Did anyone else notice the Darwinian reference? Guess his case just evolved and spontaneously combusted. I loved it!

  74. “Attacks on my work aimed at undermining climate change science have turned me into a public figure.”

    Here’s a man who expects other scientists, the public and the world’s governing bodies to listen and act (at huge expense) upon his weighty pronouncements, yet when he’s trying to defend his corner (a much simpler task) he cannot place a comma where it’s needed so as to make his meaning clear. Perhaps I’m being simplistic, but in his present circumstances he should be a little more careful when he makes such assertions.

    Yet more evidence of slack approach to his task in hand?

  75. The issue has never been whether he’s a “public figure” – of course he is; this article makes no difference there.

    The issue is whether he can try to prove “actual malice” — and beat the anti-SLAPP standards — with his “Backdoor Sedition Act” argument. (“The government says I’m innocent; if you publicly don’t believe them, you get sued.”)

    REPLY: actually it does make a difference. His defense could have argued that he doesn’t meet certain tests for a public figure, for example, citing a random poll of people who might be queried about his name, few if any of the general public might know it.

    But now, with his headline self admission of actually being, they can’t even begin to argue that he might not be. He’s labeled himself, and there’s no legal solvent to get that label off – Anthony

  76. Somewhere there is a room full of lawyers putting face to palm and across town another room full of lawyers popping a cork.

  77. @dfbaskwilll – I think he would do better cleaning bus station toilets and the porta-potties set out for homeless people. Somebody has to save the planet, right?

    @merovign – The term “reactionary” does pretty accurately define today’s leftists. They call themselves “liberal,” but they are the exact opposite of liberal in the classic sense. True liberals strove to expand freedoms (Civil Rights Act, 1964) and help people keep as much as possible of the fruits of their labor (Kennedy tax cut, 1961). Insofar as the likes of Mann and the other AGW fanatics hanker for a return to the bad old days of socialist tyranny and kleptocracy, and insofar as they cling to inhumane ideas long since discredited, they fit the dictionary definition of “reactionary,” in the political sense, perfectly. Their involuntary, knee-jerk reaction to anything or anyone they disagree with also pretty neatly fits the word, in its original meaning.

    Mann had better watch his step accusing skeptics and congressmen of being in the pay of the big energy companies, lest he be sued for libel or slander himself. If he were to accuse me personally of that, I would lose no time coming after him and his deep pockets. As far as that goes, even if the big oil and coal companies are funding efforts to stop the AGW madness, my hat is off to them – they’re doing much more than protecting their business, they’re doing a huge public service, especially for the poor people who will be hurt the most by Agenda 21 and the other counterhuman undertakings of the green cabal.

  78. I hate to tell him, but the fossil fuel industry doesn’t care one whit, as businesses, whether or not government tries to lower fossil fuel use or replace them. The businesses of this industry are the best at energy technology, and if new viable forms of energy are developed, they’ll be the ones to do it. They’ve tried everything academia is doing now in fuel development, 40 years or more ago, going into much more depth and a more rigorous study than any I came across in my role as a Bioprocessing expert at a university. They know govt is spinning its wheels. Whatever new rules come along, people will need fossil fuels and petrochemical products, and they make money by being the very best and most energy efficient sources of those products–whatever taxes are thrown in the way. The reason they hate climate alarmism, like the rest of us, is that it’s based on nothing and it will potentially hurt the world economy and subject free people to more government rule.

  79. “…with the emotional intelligence of a teen aged girl.”

    That actually describes quite a few engineer types (I work in engineering.) Just saying. (Yes, I do have teenage girls for reference.)

    As defensive as the statements is, and silly, I think what it doesn’t say reflects his real point.

    It doesn’t say he is a non-public figure who shouldn’t receive these types of ‘attacks.’ He is stating quite plainly that he is. So I would think the reasoning behind this write is to accept the fact that he is not going to win the lawsuit with Dr. Tim Ball and Mark Steyn.

    In it re-enforces ‘standard talking points’ and asserts a ‘victim’ stance to protect his position when he losses, in addition to making the case subliminally that he lost because of big oil.

    Maybe not intentionally at all. Infact, most likely not. When we (for example, the you or I) pen a ‘whoa is me’ point like this, it rarely is with a large plan, but a defensive concession that we were not right, but still right, and still want to end up winning in our hearts and those we are writing to.

    If he felt he was winning, he was truly right, his comments would reflect not a victim, but that of a victor, like the “If you are running into Flack you are on the right path” type of commentary.

    Would be interesting to wonder what he thinks about all of this. Alas, we can only guess. Good thing for forums, eh? :)

  80. I see this as another step on his path to extricate himself from his ill advised lawsuits while saving face. First he can say he needs to drop the suits to save the other innocents whose work may be dragged in the mud with him through discovery, and now he can say that since he is a public figure it will be too hard to win so there will be no shame in dropping the suits.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/michael-mann-gets-slapped/

    He is setting himself up as a martyr for the cause, having to bear the slings and arrows of his opponents but unable to defend himself for the good of the community and the cruel tort laws stacked against him.

  81. Dr. Michael Mann is not a climate scientist. Neither is Dr. James Hansen (as Warmists like to point out about some sceptics). James Hansen is an astronomer.

  82. Oh, I forgot, Dr. Michael Mann is a physicist, mathematician, and geologist but NOT a climate scientist (as Warmists like to point out about some sceptical scientists). So there. ;-)

  83. There are two strategies afoot here ginned up by his legal team. One mentioned above is that he will bow out of the fight before he has to allow any discovery of the precious secrets his records. The other strategy is to use the cloak of a victim of the giants of big oil to get the main stream press behind him in the war of words. This is the number one ploy in the liberal playbook to affect public opinion. This is only a backup plan if the trial goes forward and if juries are involved in the law suits. Of course, in the meantime, he will be a hero to those who religiously believe in AGW and/or who want to share in the glut of carbon taxes on the average taxpaying person.

  84. Professor Phil Jones is a climatologist who avoids FOIA and deletes emails and data……….because you might try to find something wrong with it. And finds sceptics deaths good news really.

  85. This reminds me of the plaintif bleatings of Prosper-René Blondlot (N-rays) and Wilhelm Reich (Orgone) when their precious theories were rejected.Oh, how they suffered for their science.

    Lusenko must have had similar feelings. From Wikipedia:

    In 1962 three of the most prominent Soviet physicists, Yakov Borisovich Zel’dovich, Vitaly Ginzburg, and Pyotr Kapitsa, presented a case against Lysenko, proclaiming his work as false science. They also denounced Lysenko’s application of political power to silence opposition and eliminate his opponents within the scientific community …

    The Soviet press was soon filled with anti-Lysenkoite articles and appeals for the restoration of scientific methods to all fields of biology and agricultural science. In 1965 Lysenko was removed from his post as director of the Institute of Genetics at the Academy of Sciences and restricted to an experimental farm in Moscow’s Lenin Hills (the Institute itself was soon dissolved). After Khrushchev’s dismissal in 1964, the president of the Academy of Sciences declared that Lysenko’s immunity to criticism had officially ended.

    Read the whole thing and consider a donation to Wikipedia.

  86. Dr. Mann writes

    Opinion: Life as a Target

    Attacks on my …

    … hockey stick.

    My opinion of his opinion: tripe

  87. I would consider some who belong the propagation AGW are guilty of treason because they are bringing nations down.

  88. To show that people are in error in they say, you have to first demonstrate that the contrary view is the only truth possible. Dr Mann has started cases based on the belief that his work is unassailable. Tim Ball’s and Mark Steyn’s lawyers will find rich pickings in Montford’s “Hockey Stick Illusion” that shows that Mann’s work is far from unassailable. In fact the conclusions are based on a compound of weak foundations. Stripping any one of them away either severely weakens or collapses the whole structure.

  89. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri is a not a climate scientist but a railway engineer who heads the world’s top climate change body, the IPCC. He has been heavily into the oil business and extraction.

    Al Gore is not a climate scientist but a theologian and failed presidential candidate and successful hypocrite and brazen liar of the highest order.

  90. I can’t see Mann going away any more than Paul Ehrlich has. Ehrlich’s “career” has been nothing but one failed prediction after another for nigh on 40+ years now. If constant, repeated failure can’t rid us of him, why should Mann be any different?

  91. John Cook of Skeptical Science says he is not a climate scientist.

    PS I am not a climate scientist. I will shut up when these other non-climate scientists shut up. ;-)

  92. Kent Clizbe says:
    March 27, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    At least Obama is listening to the alarmist, put-upon, poor Mr Mann:….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is nothing new. It is just a regurgitation of Clinton’s UN Biodiversity Treaty and Wildlands Project that gives the United Nations about 1/2 of the USA as a wild life preserve and locks up Americans in small enclaves. SEE MAP (Humans get to live in the small green areas)

    This is a close-up of the corridor system in the South West MAP that gives a pretty good idea of the ratio of land set aside for humans vs the elites wilderness playground (You really didn’t think THEY aren’t going to use it did you?)

    This is a list of the various bills that have been introduced over the years link

    The taking of property has already started L.A. County’s Private Property War

    The plans for our slave’s quarters “micro-unit” mini-apartment are already being tried out in New York City. photo of people in life size foot print of apartment

    It is the complete takeover of the USA by stealth and is called Agenda 21. See Liberal democrat and California bureaucrat Rosa Koire’s speech on Agenda 21. If a liberal activist and a bureaucrat to boot thinks it is evil we should ALL be against it. (I found everything in her speech to be true) If you can’t watch the video read this THE POST SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Cornell’s Food Shed: …Based on population distribution data, we then estimate the “foodshed” needed to feed a whole population center…. Finding information like that on Cornell University’s website makes Obama’s Science Czar’s plans seem very close to fruition. Just add energy restriction, no jobs and a carbon tax and home ownership becomes impossible.

    Obama’s “Science Czar” Advocates De-Developing the US to World of Zero Growth
    In their 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote:

    “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-devolopment means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.”

    “The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

  93. JamesS says (March 27, 2013 at 3:43 pm): “I can’t see Mann going away any more than Paul Ehrlich has.”

    Exactly. In government-funded “science”, political correctness is more important than scientific correctness.

    Actually, that’s probably true of government-funded anything, right?

  94. actually it does make a difference. His defense could have argued that he doesn’t meet certain tests for a public figure…

    No, not in this case it doesn’t. His complaint practically gives that game away with the notorious “Nobel Prize” comment — remember, you can be a limited purpose public figure without being a household name. In this case, the “limited purpose” would be the CAGW controversy, but that’s the very area this whole defamation thing is about. The analysis would be different if Steyn were attacking Mann’s family life, for example.

    Do you think, before this article, the author of The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars and a co-founder of RealClimate could say he hasn’t “thrust himself to the forefront of a particular controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved”? Of course he couldn’t, not with a straight face. “Public figure” status has never been a real issue in this case. This article doesn’t change that.

  95. @jimbo -

    So Phil Jones is applauding when a skeptic dies?

    Our Judge-Jury-and-Executioner-in-Chief just ordered the killing of an American citizen without benefit of his right to a trial, to confront witness against him, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, in a situation where that individual was not at the moment shooting at police or otherwise trying to kill someone. In any such circumstance, with a suspect that is not at that moment menacing life and limb, even if the person doing the killing is a peace officer this is first-degree murder.

    Yes, the murder victim in this case is alleged to have committed heinous crimes, and certainly has done so, since terrorism is a heinous crime – but even a citizen accused of the most heinous crimes still has rights under the Constitution and the law.

    With some of his AGW alarmist buddies now calling skeptics “terrorists,” that puts Obully’s actions in a new light for the skeptic community. Are we next on his hit list?

  96. Attacks on my work aimed at undermining climate change science have turned me into a public figure.’

    This media whore is kidding no one , his pimped his ‘work’ long and hard to any unquestioning press he could get his hands on, and had the rest of ‘the Team’ help him in this . Has with so many ways , even when he is being a PR slut he can’t stop lying .

    Still , I wonder if this is the first step to him claiming he ‘had to ‘ drop the court cases becasue an ‘unfair’ legal system could not give such ‘public figuers ‘ justice ?

  97. I guess he could find a new career as a Pantomime Dame -
    Shades of Frankie Howerd: “Infamy! Infamy! They’ve all got it in for me”

  98. From F. Ross on March 27, 2013 at 3:30 pm:

    Dr. Mann writes
    (…)
    My opinion of his opinion: tripe

    My opinion is your opinion of his opinion is insulting of tripe. Likely also of haggis, and hot dogs.

    Really, his opinion is so much lower in value than something I’d consider eating, if it was in a form I could feed my animals I’d expect to be arrested for animal cruelty for the attempt.

    Although going by the reports, much like the rennet in tripe, Prof Mann’s attitude to those even slightly critical also seems able to curdle fresh milk.

  99. Jimbo says:
    March 27, 2013 at 3:37 pm
    …………….”Al Gore is not a climate scientist but a theologian and failed presidential candidate and successful hypocrite and brazen liar of the highest order.”
    ————————————————
    I went back to the most trusted source on the web – Wikipedia – *sarc* to re-check Gore’s credentials…he also happens to be a failed theology AND failed law school student. He appears to have started several academic endeavors and completed none.

    It’s amazing how much notoriety and money he has accumulated based solely on his father’s success that placed him right in the middle of the most powerful “old-boys” club – Washington politics. With his formal education, had Al Gore been the offspring of some middle-class Tennessee family, he’d be lucky to be parking cars at the Grand Old Opry.

  100. in the eyes of the real scientific community – did Mann ever have any legal standing?? just sayin……

  101. A Mann whose only claim to fame is a broken hockey stick? No wonder he’s beside himself with post-normal dysfunction.

    ;)

  102. Given the comments of Amy Ridenour at 11:43, I realized — more definitively than before, — that Mann is a pathological liar/exaggerator.

  103. @kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    March 27, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    You are right, my apologies to tripe!

    Actually I should have compared his opinion to an organ a bit further down the alimentary canal [ like the end of it]

  104. “Attacks on my work aimed at undermining climate change science have turned me into a public figure.”

    Actually his, and the Team’s, failure to be open and transparent about their work is what turned him (them) into a public figure.

  105. Steven Mosher says: March 27, 2013 at 11:44 am

    Send this to Dr. Loo.
    Mann is exhibiting conspiratorial ideation.

    Ha ha! Mosher said it best.
    That one made me chuckle!

  106. Mr. Mann,
    You state to have evidence of a federal offense, i.e. “by congressman in the pay of the fossil fuel industry”; A congressman in the pay of anyone, who then creates law based on that pay is, by definition, accepting a bribe, which is a felony. Failure to report a felony is a felony. So please Mr. McCarthy, err sorry Mr. Mann name the congressman(s) who are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. Either put up or shut up.
    You either have names or you don’t. I realize insulting congressman is a national pastime in the USA, but it is rather uncouth to at once complain of being the victim of smears and smear others.

  107. ironargonaut,

    Surely you are not that naive. Numerous Congressmen, many of them Democrats, accept money from fossil fuel interests.

    I will do the research — if you will admit in advance that by providing the names, that Lord Monckton is not ‘smearing’ them, but simply stating facts. So either put up, as you say, or shut up.

  108. “I’ve been subjected to congressional investigations by congressman in the pay of the fossil fuel industry…”

    Is that not defamatory, i.e. an accusation of corruption?

  109. “In a graph featured in our manuscript, the last century sticks out like the blade of an upturned hockey stick.”

    Sure it does…if you leave out data, and use his formulae…you can put in the IQs of everyone associated with Climategate, and end up with a hockey stick – except the blade will point DOWN.

  110. Phyrric. His legal crap is still a pain in the arse to everybody.

    I wont be happy with his news appearances until the one that says hes lost his job. A “public figure” can find their circumstances change very rapidly. Look up Gerard Ratner.

  111. …lets wait to see (eventually) NASA sue him for mis-allocation of resources, unprofessional conduct, unethical conduct, bringing his employer into disrepute and any number of other things they’ll need to adduce to distance themselves from their having given that scumbag his soap-box all these years.

  112. Peter Miller says:
    March 27, 2013 at 12:32 pm
    But the real question is:

    Why was this rubbish published in The Scientist?
    ————————————————————————————————————————-
    Because most science reporters and even scientists outside of meteorology/climatology view the whole CAGW debate as ‘scientists vs. the great unwashed horde.’ They don’t get into the nitty gritty of reading the papers involved or understanding the reasons to doubt CAGW theory, they only look from the outside and feel they have to defend the elite, educated scientist from attack by the yahoos and rubes. That’s why we often see references to the cigarette/cancer dust up or Darwinist vs. creationist dispute come up regarding the CAGW debate. It is a trope they’ve learned in the past and hold dear, rather than looking at the details and trying to understand what’s really going on.
    BTW, Genghis Khan was not a right winger. He didn’t advocate limited government nor free markets. Instead he brutally imposed his will on conquered people. In this he had much in common with such left wingers as Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, and Uncle Joe Stalin. In the future, when we want to emphasize a person is moderately to the right, can we say that so-and-so is to the left of, say, Milton Friedman?

  113. “put oil firm chiefs on trial”

    What a great idea. They would knock the legs out from under the CAGW industry in the process of successfully defending themselves.

  114. It would be interesting to have an analysis of Dr. Mann by a psychologist. Delusions of grandeur, a self importance that correlates with his incompetence, blaming phantoms and conspiracies for all his problems. At this point, he will do and say anything he feels is necessary to defend his work, which by now even he knows is full of mistakes and confirmation bias. If I was concerned about him, I would worry that he is nearing an emotional breakdown.

  115. What sympathy can Mann receive?

    Mann volunteered to provide research on temperature reconstructions for the past millennia; his research task informed by the IPCC’s bias toward any story that shows the 20th century as alarmingly unprecedented.

    The IPCC since has backed away from the publically exposed inneptness of Mann’s subservient research.

    No path to sympathy there.

    John

  116. Downdraft says: March 28, 2013 at 7:16 am
    It would be interesting to have an analysis of Dr. Mann by a psychologist. Delusions of grandeur, a self importance that correlates with his incompetence, blaming phantoms and conspiracies for all his problems. At this point, he will do and say anything he feels is necessary to defend his work, which by now even he knows is full of mistakes and confirmation bias. If I was concerned about him, I would worry that he is nearing an emotional breakdown.

    That is total nonsense.

    Michael Mann is simply a well-paid huckster for the paleoclimate studies market segment within the climate change industrial complex.

    His behavior is perfectly rational given that there is no such thing as a truth in advertising law within the climate change marketplace.

    He is merely doing whatever he needs to do to maintain his brand position inside his market segment; and so far, his promotional strategy is working quite successfully.

    Michael Mann is a canny businessman and product marketeer serving a set of well-defined, well-heeled customers inside a growing industry.

    That’s all there is to him, nothing more, nothing less.

  117. Donna Laframboise says:
    March 27, 2013 at 11:35 am
    I, too, have written about Michael Mann today. “How We Know the ‘Climate Crisis’ Isn’t Real”

    Those who believe there’s an urgent problem behave accordingly. Mann doesn’t act as if he fears for the future.
    ———————————————
    Donna I couldn’t agree more.
    Dr. Mann won’t debate but he’ll lecture for money.
    It’s not CAGW it’s $AGW.
    The problem I see is this. He doesn’t say “This is what I think happened, what say you?” “Let’s talk about it.” He says “This is what happened and to hell with you!”
    The other thing I would like to know is how these people live.
    I know they jet set all over at our expense, but do they walk the walk otherwise?
    Like Al Gore with multiple large homes and SUV limos.
    This is how I know Al Gore doesn’t believe his $AGW story line.
    Anthony’s reasons may differ but how do their actions compare to his?
    btw
    Love the ebook.
    cn

  118. How many of these traits of NPD do you see in Dr. Mann?

    1) Grandiosity.
    2) Arrogant & domineering.
    3) Preoccupation with success & power.
    4) Lack of empathy.
    5) Belief of being unique.
    6) Sense of entitlement.
    7) Requires excessive admiration.
    8) Exploitative.
    9) Envious of others.

    DaveE.

  119. I am always very skeptical of psychological or psychiatric evaluation of without first-hand observation or interviews, but IMHO this man is delusional, has paranoid tendencies and suffers from megalomania.

    And his science is junk, too.

  120. Actually, Mike Mann sued in Canada where his case against Tim Ball is on stronger ground. Mr Ball chose to use truth as a defense, so he can’t claim satire.

  121. For me, the Canada case puts Mann on weaker ground, not stronger…because ‘the truth as defense’ demands solid evidence from Mann to refute Ball’s alleged defamation…rather than merely revolve around a more fuzzier legal discussion relating to satire, public figure, malice, etc.

    Mann’s apparent and continuing reticence/reluctance to respond to discovery requests for such ‘hockey stick’ evidence suggests to me that this case will be dismissed. My hope is that Ball will counter-sue for damages when this frivolous lawsuit is dismissed.

    Moreover, Mann’s reliance upon affidavits by individuals such as a minor-league, disgraced former journalist (Andrew Skolnick), relating to legal counsel peripherally connected to this case (John O’Sullivan), suggests to me that Mann is really grasping at straws.

    Ironically, Skolnick’s credentials are just as disingeneous as Mann’s (cf: Nobel prize winner)…currently working as a ‘pet photographer’, the egomaniac Skolnick has even claimed to have been ‘nominated’ for a Pulitzer Prize. Not by the Pulitzer Prize Committee of course, but such minor details don’t appear to be important for either Skolnick or Mann.

    Let’s hope the legal process exposes these hypocritical egomaniacs.

  122. His sorry story only points out the profound extent of his delusions and underlying pathology. He proves what an odd Mann he is and how unworthy of serious debate he remains. One can only wonder what twisted educational system could produce such a deficient product.

  123. Repeating what I’ve said previously here on WUWT, he is Michael Mann, LLC, pursuing his business interests as a Limited Liability Copiest.

    He is a one-man cottage industry inside the climate change industrial complex, and his every pronouncement is calculated to further his brand name recognition.

    There is no bad publicity as far as he is concerned, because his business model as a one-man cottage industry depends upon his ability to keep the Michael Mann brand name prominently displayed and distributed within the climate change pronouncement marketplace.

    Michael Mann is simply a well-paid huckster for the paleoclimate studies market segment within the climate change industrial complex.

    His behavior is perfectly rational given that there is no such thing as a truth-in-advertising law within the climate change marketplace.

    He is merely doing whatever he needs to do to maintain his brand position inside his market segment; and so far, his promotional strategy is working quite successfully.

    Michael Mann is a canny businessman and product marketeer serving a set of well-defined, well-funded customers inside a growing industry.

    That’s all there is to him, nothing more, nothing less.

  124. The NSF report says it all – page 3 – Analysis and conclusions

    “Much of the current debate focuses on the viability of the statistical procedures he employed,the statistics used to confirm the accuracy of the results, and the degree to which one specific set of data impacts the statistical results. These concerns are all appropriate for scientific debate and to assist the research community in directing future research efforts to improve understanding in this field of research. Such scientific debate is ongoing but does not, in itself, constitute evidence of research misconduct.”

    In summary, The NSF acknowledges what Mann was accused of – ie selecting certain data sets, omitting other data sets and overweighting data sets. The NSF then states that is not scientific fraud.

Comments are closed.