Oh Mann! Climate baiter Mann claims he is a ‘baitee’

Oh, this is rich. via Junkscience.com, Mann claimed he was “baited” into filing a lawsuit.

Satirical cartoon from Cartoonsbyjosh.com

Michael Mann filed three briefs last week in the ongoing defamation lawsuit. In one he claims:

In view of the defendants’ initial public bravado regarding Dr. Mann, their latest attempt to avoid a trial on this matter rings hollow–and basic principles of equity and fairness should estop them from now seeking an appeal. Defendants baited Dr. Mann to file this lawsuit.

After he asked for a retraction and apology, the defendants told their readers that they would welcome a lawsuit because it would give them the opportunity to take discovery from Dr. Mann and his colleagues.

They boasted they would hire dedicated staff to sift through that discovery and make it publicly available.1 They raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from their readers to pursue this discovery. They proclaimed they would “kick” Dr. Mann’s “legal heinie” in court.

LEGAL_17107968v1_OppositiontoMotionforInterlocutoryCertification Click for the brief.

One only has to look at Dr. Mann’s  Twitter account to see examples of his ‘climate baiting’ in action on a daily basis. #kochmachine #kochtopus #deniers #antiscience, etc.

Dr. Mann is conflating satire at his hockeystick driven web antics with defamation. His claim of “baiting” is nothing more than a psychological projection of his own immature actions and he seems clueless that his own super-sized monolithic ego is the reason that he’s in the position he’s in.

As Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. once quipped:

If Michael Mann did not exist, the skeptics would have to invent him.

72 thoughts on “Oh Mann! Climate baiter Mann claims he is a ‘baitee’

  1. I envision a cartoon of Mr. Mann like this: Mann desperately tries to use two hockey sticks as oars in a row boat to escape the pull of a gigantic waterfall named “historical truth.”

  2. Mikey plays the victim so well, he deserves an Oscar award. Oh wait, he can give it to himself.
    Never mind.

  3. Satiracal actions or not, NRO is getting what they wished for, albeit in what looks like a kangaroo court.

  4. Read the filing. They call the ruling against the dismissal motion ‘well reasoned’ apparently with a straight face.

  5. Although I’m myself representative of the trial lawyers’ prey species (I’m a physician), I’m not by any means conversant with the usages of the litigator’s art. Just how the hell does an allegation that a plaintiff had been “baited” into filing a defamation lawsuit bear upon the conduct thereof?

    Did competent counsel not advise Dr. Mann that in filing this suit against the defendants, all of his work would be subject to discovery in order to explore the legitimate substantive defense that their assertions regarding Dr. Mann had been nothing more than truthful statements about his conduct?

  6. This is an exit strategy so he can back down saying he was forced to, or has the ego landed and his fully jumped the shark and is about to find himself in court ?
    Lets hope the second option as he as show his no ability to deal with but friendly questions , and no judge is going to put up with his BS and lies .

  7. Hmm. The brief lists the “next event” (presumably hearing) as 2013-09-27 but previously Judge Combs Greene announced her retirement in September .

    I wonder who will preside over the next hearing?

  8. The attorneys for Mann sound like children throwing a tantrum.

    “But now, after an impartial court has ruled that their attacks on Dr. Mann crossed the line,
    defendants are running for cover. Faced now with the prospect of financial liability for their
    gleeful tirades, defendants do not want discovery, as it would involve discovery into their own
    conduct. And they certainly do not want to face a jury of their peers. They are hoping to escape
    by cloaking their conduct in an arrogant interpretation of the First Amendment without the
    essential rigor of discovery into their knowing and reckless falsehoods. Plainly aware that such
    discovery will boomerang to their own backsides, the defendants are looking for an escape. But
    it is too late for that, and defendants’ hit and run tactics should not be countenanced. They asked
    for this lawsuit. They got it. ”

    As I understand it they asked the case be dismissed under the SLAPP provisions. The court disagreed. They asked for review of the Courts decision not to dismiss, stating this intermediate review – review of the applicability of the SLAPP statutes, was in the interests of judicial economy – that by reviewing the applicability of SLAPP now, it would save the costs and Court time of discovery etc. This is a reasonable position.

    That they would ask for an intermediate review of the applicability of SLAPP is a justifiable and cost effective legal strategy – answer the interim question first, before proceeding, as an affirmative decision would moot the rest of the expenses and need to proceed.. That Mann’s attorneys would object is equally expected. Mann’s attorney’s seem to be a perfect fit – their pleadings are just as juvenile as Mann’s comments.

  9. Didn’t Mann claim to have suffered actual damage when he filed the suit? Baiting is not actual damage. Is Mann now saying that he lied in the filing of the suit?

  10. Tucci78 says:
    August 19, 2013 at 11:39 am


    Did competent counsel not advise Dr. Mann that in filing this suit against the defendants, all of his work would be subject to discovery in order to explore the legitimate substantive defense that their assertions regarding Dr. Mann had been nothing more than truthful statements about his conduct?

    I suggest your problem is in the use of the word “competent”, Tucci.

    You realize, of course, that “all of his work would be subject to discovery” simply means more work (at, say, $300-500/hr) for his salivating lawyers. That little detail obviously didn’t get discussed initially.

    Like jumping off a sinking boat onto a killer whale, instigators of lawsuits have to watch their opponent and their “legal team” with equal skepticism.

    Are you reading this Mikey? Maybe you should seek a second (or even third) legal opinion about continuing this lawsuit (but realize you may never be told the truth). Because lawyers always win, whereas plaintiffs and defendants seldom win–They always end up poorer, however.

    My personal advice? CONTINUE BY ALL MEANS!!. I want to see all of your emails, “lost” data, recorded subterfuge, nasty conspiracies against honest scientists, etc., etc. along your bloody paper trail through life.

    This should be fun!

  11. Alan Watt, Climate Denialst Level 7 said at August 19, 2013 at 12:08 pm
    I wonder who will preside over the next hearing?

    Same judge most likely. Retiring doesn’t really mean what it does in the private sector. A retired Fed Judge can and, usually does, keep their current cases and typically work on others.

  12. If Michael Mann did not exist, the skeptics would have to invent him.

    Too true.

    Nice to see him getting closer and closer to legal discovery though. Let me guess … out of court settlement with a no public disclosure clause as his next move.

  13. Remember, Mann’s lawyers will not attempt to correct his behavior while there is money available for his defense. I believe it would be unethical to not separate a fool from his money!

  14. Recommended subtitles: “What’s next on the menu“, “Hors d’oeuvre” or:
    .
    . . . . . “To Serve Mann“.
    .
    The full import of the title “The Tethered Goat” took a few minutes to sink in … I wonder if the warmists will at all comprehend the meaning?

    .

  15. Tucci78 says:
    August 19, 2013 at 11:39 am

    Although I’m myself representative of the trial lawyers’ prey species (I’m a physician), I’m not by any means conversant with the usages of the litigator’s art. Just how the hell does an allegation that a plaintiff had been “baited” into filing a defamation lawsuit bear upon the conduct thereof?

    Did competent counsel not advise Dr. Mann that in filing this suit against the defendants, all of his work would be subject to discovery in order to explore the legitimate substantive defense that their assertions regarding Dr. Mann had been nothing more than truthful statements about his conduct?

    ========================================================================
    My Dad had his practice for 50 years. When he was in Med school the curriculum didn’t need to include legal courses. One impact I’ve noticed of Obamacare is the increase in law firms advertising for medical clients. (I’ve nothing against an honest lawyer. My uncles were lawyers. My beef is with the vultures that have a law degree.)
    As fair as Mann goes, who’s baiting him not to drop the suit? Or is this a PR thing to try and paint him as the victim?

  16. I say: Follow the money.

    Because, to me, it looks like Michael Mann only recently was notified that he would have to pay all incoming legal bills by himself, instead of getting them payed by his Alma Mater and, thus, he is trying to cut an expectably very long legal battle as short as possible, in order to save him some serious bucks.

  17. Mann is correct. Just look at the ClimateGate emails. In one of them, he is excited at the prospect of suing David Keene because Keene accused Phil Jones and his coauthor Wang of lying about temperature records in China. It is obvious from reading that that Mann would jump at the chance to sue people.

  18. Rhonda, if Mann was paying his own fees, he would have given up long ago.

    Discovery should ascertain who actually is paying his fees; the answer might be amusing.

    • At 1:37 PM on 19 August, Peter Miller had speculated:

      …if Mann was paying his own fees, he would have given up long ago.

      Discovery should ascertain who actually is paying his fees; the answer might be amusing.

      Is such information legitimately discoverable?

      Were that the case, it wouldn’t surprise me none to learn that it’s coming by way of Perkins Coie from the accounts of Obama For America.

  19. “The full import of the title “The Tethered Goat” took a few minutes to sink in … I wonder if the warmists will at all comprehend the meaning?”
    ….
    Giles Goat Boy? Bill Grogan’s Goat?
    Climate FUNding….a Moveable Feast….

    Finding out who’s paying for this ….. sore a$$ perhaps
    (aka Soros) or maybe the Goreacle….
    There’s money to be had, be it good or be it bad
    ….
    probable would not be so much push back from the Mannekin’s part
    if there were not something to hide/protect/whatever….

    Oh science, where are you now?

  20. Tucci78 says: @ August 19, 2013 at 11:39 am
    ….Did competent counsel not advise Dr. Mann that in filing this suit against the defendants, all of his work would be subject to discovery in order to explore the legitimate substantive defense that their assertions regarding Dr. Mann had been nothing more than truthful statements about his conduct?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It is worse than that. Mann sued Dr. Ball Apr 8, 2011 He went though all sorts of gyrations to escape Discovery in THAT SUIT. There is now way in hades the guy is ignorant of the process at this point. He just likes to intimidate people with his free lawyers. In other words Mikey is a bully.

  21. hunter says:
    August 19, 2013 at 11:27 am
    Read the filing. They call the ruling against the dismissal motion ‘well reasoned’ apparently with a straight face.

    The judge made two very dubious factual conclusions in her SLAPP ruling 1) that Mann had be investigated 8 time and been exonerated – actually only two times and 2) that subsequent studies have proven Mann’s work to be “accurate”.

    A second point is that while the the DC court has a strong anti-slapp provision, the judge ruled in Mann’s favor which is unlikely to get reversed on appeal. Therefore the case goes to a jury in made up of peers from DC. While the general US population has approximately half question the validity of AGW, virtually everyone in DC embraces the concept.

    Quoting from memory
    “Mann is the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, instead of molesting children, he molested data. ”

    The NSF report which supposedly exonerated him stated that Mann selectively chose which data sets to include and selectively chose the statistical methods employed.

  22. In order to bait, lecture, harass-with-words a person, you have to be in contact with that person. So somehow he has been forced to read, listen to or otherwise be part of a conversation in which these things were done. Since no one has been sitting in his office talking at him, or standing outside his windows with a bullhorn, I can’t see any “baiting” or other verbal or written action that he has compelled upon him.

    Mann may not like the statements made about him and his work, and may feel some of them are defamatory, but any baiting or any such action is only in his mind.

    He is whining to the school principal that kids are making fun of him.

  23. In other words, “It wasn’t my fault! He made me do it!”

    Yeah, right. That’s not an adult’s argument, that shows all the reasoning of a three year-old. And Michael Mann claims to be a scientist?

  24. Facts? We ain’t got no facts! I don’t have to show you no stinking facts!!

    It does seem to fit. ;-))

  25. So, true. Mann is too good to be true for anyone seeking (rightful or not) to discredit climate warming. After all, he is just another guy publishing bad science. And most of these, by far, return to the shadows once they collect the allegorical check. He just couldn’t resist the lure of the candelabra and, well, here he still is, begging for attention.

  26. It seems everyone is missing the point – it was the defendants that asked for the dismissal, not Mann. When I see comments like

    He is whining to the school principal that kids are making fun of him.

    or

    He can drop the suit anytime he wants.

    it is obvious that many people are not reading the brief.

    Actually, he is making fun of them for baiting him and now trying to run away.

    They asked for this lawsuit. They got it.

    Basically, if they wanted to see his papers in discovery, then why are they trying to stop this before they have seen anything?

    I think the cartoon also has this backwards — or am I the one who is confused?

  27. This is all very amusing and we always root for justice to be served but regardless of these sort of antics, as well as the propaganda, rhetoric and misleading to, at times completely false statements about weather, climate, CO2, plants and creatures on this planet………….you can hide/or try to disguise the mounting, powerful empirical evidence from the legit science world for only so long.

    Biased scientists, politicians and alarmists can give it their best shot but in the end, both sides/everyone will be overwhelmed by the forces controlling/effecting our climate..

    The sun isn’t going anywhere and will outlast all of us X 1 billion. Same with the oceans and atmosphere………..including how we do and don’t effect them.
    Theories, guesses and speculation only count until those massive entities speak to us long enough through the language of measurable empirical data.

    Just so sad to see so much damage happening before the science really is settled.
    Clearly, if one side is right, then the other side has done horrendous damage.

    Again, the unbiased judges will be telling us who is right over the next decade. Measure, interpret and listen!

  28. Gail Combs says:It is worse than that. Mann sued Dr. Ball Apr 8, 2011 He went though all sorts of gyrations to escape Discovery in THAT SUIT. There is now way in hades the guy is ignorant of the process at this point. He just likes to intimidate people with his free lawyers. In other words Mikey is a bully.

    I Had a twitter chat with mr.mann and asked him about Dr.Ball and he told me it is still held up in discovery ,I’m sure Dr.Ball is not dragging his feet.

    Lorne50

  29. Robert Clemenzi says:
    August 19, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    ====================================================================
    No. He’s still trying to play the victim. “It’s not my fault I’m such an A-ho…”
    He’s no longer a respected part of the “consensus” even among the “consensus”. His antics are now part of the “smoke and mirrors” department.
    One or two open and honest debates would show just what kind of climate “expert” he is. Heck, he even even does the “duck and cover” maneuver in the Q&A part of his presentations!

  30. I think this is probably procedural, but also I think the claim of baiting to gain legal discovery over his work is designed to help him avoid discovery later

  31. Robert Clemenzi says:
    August 19, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    “Basically, if they wanted to see his papers in discovery, then why are they trying to stop this before they have seen anything?”

    The lawyers are in charge now. They are making the decisions. What is going on now is procedural.

  32. Murray Grainger says:
    August 19, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    Tying the ‘baitee’ theme with the facial hair, shouldn’t the title of the cartoon be “The Tethered Goatee”?

    No, because Mann’s facial hair is correctly called a Van Dyke. A Goatee doesn’t include a mustache. Amazing how many people get that wrong. “The Tethered Van Dyke” would incorrectly conjure visions of a comedic actor from the 60s and later. ;)

  33. Robert Clemenzi says:
    August 19, 2013 at 5:39 pm
    “It seems everyone is missing the point – it was the defendants that asked for the dismissal, not Mann.”

    I agree. Everybody comments on the whining but the whining by Mann is not issue at hand in this brief.

  34. Yes Robert Clemenzi, I saw that from the start….many didn’t
    Get lawsuit dismissed casting doubt on Mann’s work and making him look like an hysterical child. That didn’t work, dismissal denied..
    Next will be proceed to trial and discovery.
    So Mann is crowing now and is either bluffing or truly has nothing to hide. We shall see.

  35. I did not know that Columbia Law School had a Center for Climate Change Law. But it should be expected. There are lawyers expecting to specialize in compliance to the legions of expected “climate change prevention and mitigation” laws and regulations, and in righteous litigation against those who recklessly endanger others by daring to release carbon dioxide and methane.

    I doubt lawyers will be suing others for breathing and farting, as that shall eventually be covered by the personal climate impact fee (advance warning, fatties pay more). Although they may be arguing about the final emissions tax as burial at sea would cause the least climate damage.

    On CLS’ CCCL’s Climate Law Blog, a summer intern posted this readable report of the ruling.

    I like this bit at the end, bold added:

    In addition, the Defendants’ argument that “their statements are not actionable because they raise questions rather than make factual assertions” was dismissed as the Court noted that some of the accusations relied on interpretations of facts (from the e-mails that were released in 2009). When statements about Mann being a “fraud” and “fraudulent” were placed in context, the statements “must be viewed as more than honest commentary- particularly when investigations have found otherwise,” explained the court. Therefore, the court placed heavy importance on the fact that all prior investigations had cleared Mann’s scientific research as trustworthy. The court even mentioned that because CEI itself was one of the instigators of the investigations of Mann’s work, CEI knew it was a fact that Mann’s research and ultimate conclusions “were sound and not based on misleading information.”

    Upside-down proxies, numerous math errors, improper weightings of proxies, the “flat handle, unprecedented blade” hockey stick now discredited and not used by the IPCC…

    So even if you disagree with the result of an investigation, even if later evidence surfaces, it will be ruled against you that you “knew it was a fact” that everything really was honest and true?

  36. Baited into baiting? You got PC, DC, and perhaps the stupidest judge in the Western Hemisphere. Appeal? Hah.

    There will be discovery. It just hasn’t been discovered how yet.
    ================

  37. I predict discovery will be a colossal disappointment. Anything Mann releases will have been vetted by a half-dozen lawyers, nothing controversial will make it out.

    Is that fair? No. Is that consonant with rule of law and equal protection? No. Welcome to 2013. This isn’t a republic anymore — we aren’t represented, we’re ruled. Even laws the Obama admin itself passed are being ignored when inexpedient.

    The mistake here is thinking statists will play by your rules, or any rules. They will not. Rules only exist to benefit them and punish you; if they don’t have that effect then the rules do not apply.

    I’m not criticizing. You didn’t have any good choices. But by entering that courtroom you’re on Leviathan’s turf now, boys. God help you.

  38. My guess is that there are some very nervous university governors out there. Discovery could mean disaster for more than the hockey player.

  39. Can somebody write a brief history / summary of this law suit? Who is suing who and what it is all about.

  40. Ken Harvey says: @ August 20, 2013 at 8:58 am

    My guess is that there are some very nervous university governors out there. Discovery could mean disaster for more than the hockey player.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You did not follow the Zimmerman trial. The Judge can rule information like the person’s criminal record is not germane.

    A friend with a foster kid went to court to prevent the kid’s father unsupervised access to the kid. The Court ruled the fact the father had been convicted of battering a sibling so bad the kid had brain damage as not germane/admissible evidence in court. The Father got unsupervised access. (Yeah it was the People’s Republic of Taxachusetts)

  41. Chris Schoneveld says:

    Robert Clemenzi says:
    August 19, 2013 at 5:39 pm
    “It seems everyone is missing the point – it was the defendants that asked for the dismissal, not Mann.”

    I agree. Everybody comments on the whining but the whining by Mann is not issue at hand in this brief.

    Mann is, in this brief, essentially admitting that he is not in control of his own actions and is subject to being “baited” into taking actions such as filing a lawsuit.

    The rest is procedural legalese – the text in bold is the focus of most folk’s discussion.

  42. My conjecture is that Mann is burning at an alarming rate through the alleged Scott Mandia managed legal fund supposedly sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Is the Union of Concerned Scientists now really concerned primarily that their money is being totally wasted by Mann?

    John

    – – – – – –

    Some other thoughts on Mann in general:

    ‘Damaged Goods’ is what the CIA would say of duplicitous agents.

    ‘Debunked Goods’, well past any useful alarmist ‘Sell-By’ date, is what the IPCC finally seems to consider the value of Mann’s embrassingly inept efforts at Hockey Sticks.

    ‘Scandalous PSU Goods’ is the image Mann has created for himself in publicizing, through litigation, the PSU investigation committee’s crude coverup of his unprofessional activities in climategate.

    ‘No Good’ is what the scientific community has achieved in not adequately self-correcting in public for the current public awareness of Mann’s unprofessional research.

    John

  43. Murray Grainger says:
    August 20, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    Jeff Alberts says:
    August 19, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    I stand corrected; thanks for the education. WUWT is always teaching us stuff.

    Hey, always glad to help! Hope I didn’t sound too aggressive, that’s why I added the smiley.

Comments are closed.