With each passing day, Dr. Mann’s Q score becomes stranger and stranger. Mark Steyn (whom Dr. Mann is suing for libel) observes an emergent phenomenon – Mann’s accidental emergence into the public stage in a post facto sort of way.
===========================
Steyn writes:
National Review and I have a court date next month for Big Climate honcho Michael Mann’s defamation suit against us for hooting at his hockey stick. I gather that, in America, the crucial point of law is that it’s very difficult to defame a public figure, as Jerry Falwell and many others have discovered. So I was interested to note this recent verbal tic from Dr. Mann. From the May 8th Daily Press of Newport News, Virginia:
“I’ll often characterize myself as a reluctant and accidental public figure,” he said.
He’s right! I had no idea how often he does characterize himself as a reluctant and accidental public figure. Here he is on May 1st at the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Association:
Mann called himself “a reluctant and accidental public figure in the debate over climate change.”
============================================================
Here’s more context:
The Daily Press reports:
More than a year removed from that controversy and with a book on climate change now under his belt, Mann reflected on the experience in an interview before his speaking engagements.
“I’ll often characterize myself as a reluctant and accidental public figure,” he said. “I found myself at the center of this debate because of the efforts of some to discredit my science, and I had to make a decision. What am I going to do with that?”
You can read the entire Steyn essay here, and note just how many times that phrase is being used by Dr. Mann. Clearly, an emergent phenomenon.
In other news, Junkscience.com is running a series of Dr. Mann’s interviews with the press, to illustrate just what a liar shrinking violet he is about his public persona, trying to manipulate the outcome of his defamation lawsuit by pretending to be something that he is not.
Read the whole series here
UPDATE: Commenter “copner” points out Mann’s Facebook page has already made the decision for Dr. Mann. He can stop backpedaling now:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would have thought it’s way too late to play the innocent victim in all this. My take on Climategate is that he was the lead conductor, supervising all the out-of-tune instruments.
“…trying to manipulate the outcome of his defamation lawsuit by pretending to be something that he is not.”
Why not, he manipulated the temperature record to make it something it is not. It seems to be the only thing he’s good at.
Mann is a word-class prat, best left in place to wreak the maximum PR damage on his own side.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/climate-alarmism-and-the-prat-principle/
Pointman
It’s going to be fun watching Steyn et al. make mincemeat of Mann’s defamation case. No question he is a public figure of long standing and one did not blushingly accept the title but long and assiduously sought it. Steyn alone has more intelligence in his little finger on a bad day than Mann has exhibited over his whole career. One of Mann’s greatest vulnerabilities, in fact, is his preference for living in a bubble of sycophancy and self-congratulation. He has grown fat and lazy. He has forgotten how to think.
Only real risk is if the judge is a warmist idiot or is put off by Steyn’s flashy intellectual manners.
Mann is being hoisted with his on pertard–a pertard being a “small engine of war used to blow breaches in gates or walls”, of course.
In essence, the meaning is to be injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others.
Mann will rue the day he sued Steyn.
Amusing as Mark Steyn’s comments are, in this at least Mann is being honest: after all, who would not have been reluctant to be exposed in a starring role by Climategate 1, and sequels?
His notoriety bestrides the world.
One would think that a person with the temerity to write a book entitled “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” would have courage. Quite the opposite… Mann is a coward, as evidenced by the fact that he, like Al Gore, will never debate anyone with a contrary view. I guess he thinks that spouting off to his sycophants on Facebook and Twitter constitutes courageous behavior. How pathetic.
I hope Steyn et al. cleans his clock. It’s been a long time coming.
Mr. Mann may have moved from public figure to political figure. If any of his papers, interviews or speeches take a political position, he is toast.
Thanks! I’ll add this to my research collection of interesting quirk characteristics of certain personality types. They yell fire in a theater and then play innocent afterward and blame others.
Email 0091.txt from climategate 2.0
Even in 2007 Mann considered himself a public figure.
Just keep the mike open and the Mann will do much good work to help the public judge his credibility. Along with Glieck, we could not invent these characters, we would need the ethics of a PR firm like Fenton Inc to even start.
Would Mann be trying to “hide’ in plain sight?
Only one comment… ‘His Science’!!???
Junkscience.com points out that Mann first took on the mantle of a public figure in 1998. This is the same year that saw the cessation of warming. Coincidence? I think not. It’s the Mann version of the Gore effect.
What has happened with the Mann v Ball suit?
Here is the “reluctant and accidental public figure” at Bloomington on the last leg of his 3 month book promotion tour. 😉
Here is the “reluctant and accidental public figure” who again and again gives reluctant media interviews and public talks promoting fairy tales.
Mark Steyn asks:
The publicity shy Michael Mann once awarded himself a Nobel Prize. Even hung a mock on his office wall. It’s a damned good thing he’s no publicity seeker.
The hockey stick seemed of such solid construction. No one, and certainly not him, would ever think that someone curious about it, and well-versed in statistical analysis could deconstruct it. Just his luck that McIntyre and McKitrick came along and did just that. What are the odds? But that was only the beginning of his troubles. Pretty soon, perpetrating the hoax had to take a back-seat to defending it. Such a sad tale. Cue violins.
“efforts of some to discredit my science”
A clue into the psyche?
Efforts by some to do what all scientists including him are supposed to do as if it’s a bad thing and not my findings, my hypotheses, or my conclusions but “my science”.
I guess the Mannian Scientific Method is something like:
Step 1) Determine the result that best supports the cause.
Step 2) Do whatever it takes to realize the results from some data.
Step 3) Publish results through pal review.
Step 4) Bask in the accolades from pals.
Step 5) Demonize anyone who questions results.
Step 6) Remember to diversify invested ill-gotten gains.
Either that or Mannian Science is Unskeptical (see Jo Nova).
“I am a reluctant and accidental public figure. Oh, by the way, I’m also a Nobel Prize winner too. Is there enough space in your lede for that?” bwahaahaa
Dave says:
May 8, 2013 at 10:24 am
I agree – Mann is definately the cowardly (not debating as described) and bullying (as inferred per climategate emails) type. When I were a lad, we used to take the bullies to one side and teach them some humility! But seriously, my concern with this, is that even if he loses (which seems highly likely IMHO) – will the media lambast him? or laud him for his ‘fight’ against the evel ‘deniers’? When oh when will the media realise that this guy has been misleading us all for decades and try and put him and his cronies OUT OF BUSINESS for good?
“What am I going to do with that?”
I am certain he meant to say ” Watts Up With That”.
FYI — a little legal research for those interested…
U.S. Constitution – First Amendment – Speech – Defamation – Public Figure Exception
[from findlaw.com, Annotation 18: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation18.html as edited and annotated by JM]
Defamation *** “[W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269, 270 (1964). ***
Erroneous statement is protected … . Id. at 271-72, 278-79. ***
… expression on matters of public interest is protected by the First Amendment. Within that area of protection is commentary about the public actions of individuals. The fact that expression contains falsehoods does not deprive it of protection, because otherwise such expression in the public interest would be deterred by monetary judgments and self-censorship imposed for fear of judgments. ***
… the Court created a subcategory of ”public figure,” which included those otherwise private individuals who have attained some prominence, either through their own efforts or because it was thrust upon them, with respect to a matter of public interest, or, in Chief Justice Warren’s words, those persons who are ”intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.” Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 164 (1967). More recently, the Court has curtailed the definition of ”public figure” by … emphasizing the voluntariness of the assumption of a role in public affairs that will make of one a ”public figure.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974).
[Comment: Thus, Plaintiff Mann, who has little chance of winning damages if he is shown to be a “public figure” is desperately trying to portray himself as a private individual by arguing the NOVEL (not, as far as I know, part of U.S. Const. jurisprudence) idea that intent is required to be a “public figure” — per the law, I believe, it is clear, that one is simply a public figure or not; intent of the figure is irrelevant. JM]
… the Court applied the Times standard to private citizens who had simply been involved in events of public interest, usually, though not invariably, not through their own choosing. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29 (1971). [That is, private citizens CAN be deemed “public figures.” JM]
But, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974), the Court set off on a new path of LIMITING RECOVERY FOR DEFAMATION BY PRIVATE PERSONS. Henceforth, persons who are neither public officials nor public figures may recover for the publication of defamatory falsehoods ONLY IF state defamation law establishes a standard higher than strict liability, such as negligence; damages may not be presumed, but must be proved … .
*** public figures … inasmuch as by their own efforts they had brought themselves into the public eye … had at the same time attained an ability to counter defamatory falsehoods published about them. Private individuals are not in the same position and need greater protection. “… so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual.” That is, some degree of fault must be shown. Id. at 347.
*** [Re: DAMAGES] defamation plaintiffs who do not prove actual malice–that is, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth–will be limited to compensation for actual provable injuries, such as out-of-pocket loss, impairment of reputation and standing, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering. A plaintiff who proves actual malice will be entitled to punitive damages. Id. at 348-50.
*** Public figures, the Court reiterated, are those who … or (2) have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved, and are public figures with respect to comment on those issues. Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 134 (1979) (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974).
*** when a private plaintiff sues a media defendant for publication of information that is a matter of public concern … the BURDEN IS ON THE PLAINTIFF TO PROVE THE FALSITY of the information. Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986).
… the plaintiff must establish falsity in addition to establishing some degree of fault (e.g. negligence). Id. at 780.
Related issues: 1) Constitutional ”actual malice” means that the defamation was published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964) … . Reckless disregard is not simply negligent behavior, but publication with serious doubts as to the truth of what is uttered. St. Amant v. Thompson,390 U.S. 727, 730-33 (1968); Beckley Newspapers Corp. v. Hanks, 389 U.S. 81 (1967) … .
2) A defamation plaintiff under the Times or Gertz standard has the burden of proving by ”clear and convincing” evidence, not merely by the preponderance of evidence standard ordinarily borne in civil cases, that the defendant acted with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 331-32 (1974); Beckley Newspapers Corp. v. Hanks, 389 U.S. 81, 83 (1967) … .
3) Moreover, the Court has held, a Gertz plaintiff has the burden of proving the actual falsity of the defamatory publication. Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986). ***
4) There had been some indications that statements of opinion, unlike assertions of fact, are absolutely protected, See, e.g., Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339 (1974)… . but … The issue is whether, regardless of the context in which a statement is uttered, it is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proven true or false. Thus, if statements of opinion may ”reasonably be interpreted as stating ACTUAL FACTS about an individual,” 497 U.S. 1, 20 (1990), then the truthfulness of the factual assertions may be tested in a defamation action.
[Comment: Thus, if the analogy of Mann to Sandufsky (sp?) is not a fact that can clearly be proven true or false, it will be called mere opinion and NO claim of defamation would stand (and the private v. public figure distinction wouldn’t even come into play). The plaintiff, as stated has the burden of proving that the analogy can be shown to be clearly true or clearly false. JM]
I wouldn’t bet money on that. First, the argument is not between Mann and Steyn – it’s between their counsel. Second, Mann’s legal team was very careful about selection of venue and figuring out how to get the judge they wanted. The judge on this matter has the IQ of a rutabaga is known to be very partisan. I’m not as sanguine about the outcome as you are.
RockyRoad says: May 8, 2013 at 10:17 am
“Mann is being hoisted with his on pertard–a pertard being a “small engine of war used to blow breaches in gates or walls”, of course.”
Rocky, I live near one of the best examples of a mediaeval castle in the UK, and during a trip round its dungeons was shown what looked like a large bird-cage device hanging from the ceiling. We were told that recalcitrant prisoners were hoist in this device and left to starve to death while hanging from the ceiling. The name for this device, we were told, was ‘Petard’ – hence the saying, ‘Hoist in your own Petard’ (the fate of a stroppy jailer, no doubt). Mann should be so lucky…