This Mann-made global warming lawsuit could backfire on the Penn State alarmist
Guest post by Paul Driessen
Lewis Carroll died too soon. Just imagine the fun he’d have with the cliquish clan of climate catastrophe researchers who seek to control science, debate and public policy on global warming and energy – and then get outraged when someone challenges their findings, methodologies or integrity.
On October 1, Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and “hockey stick” fame published an angry riposte in Colorado’s obscure Vail Daily Voices (circulation 15,000), expressing his umbrage over an article that had appeared in the free coffee shop newspaper a day earlier.
“An individual named Martin Hertzberg did a grave disservice to your readers by making false and defamatory statements about me and my climate scientist colleagues in his recent commentary in your paper,” Mann began. (Hertzberg is a research scientist and former US Navy meteorologist.) The thin-skinned Penn State scientist then ranted:
“These are just lies, regurgitation of dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science.” [emphasis added]
Meanwhile, NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen, recipient of huge monetary awards for strident climate disaster claims, wants oil and coal company CEOs prosecuted for “crimes against humanity.”
So Mann and Hansen are honest scientists, trying to do their jobs. But Hertzberg and anyone else who questions the “imminent manmade climate change catastrophe” thesis are dishonest crooks, liars, Holocaust deniers, hired guns for fossil fuel interests, criminals threatening all humanity.
Hertzberg’s views were defamatory, but Mann’s and Hansen’s accusations are mild, rational and truthful.
(Readers can find Mann’s letters and lively discussions about them and Hansen on Dr. Anthony Watts’ WattsUpWithThat.com climate change website. Hertzberg’s letter appeared, mysteriously disappeared, then reappeared in the Vail Voices online archives as the controversy raged and ebbed.)
The bizarre saga gets even stranger when viewed alongside Dr. Mann’s kneejerk lawsuit against Dr. Tim Ball, a Canadian scientist, historical climatologist and retired professor who has frequently voiced his skepticism about claims that hydrocarbon use and carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of climate change and present an imminent risk of widespread planetary cataclysms. Dr. Ball has analyzed Canadian and global climate history, and does not regard computer models as much more than virtual reality scenarios that should never be the basis for real-world public policy.
Dr. Ball had poked fun at Dr. Mann, playing word games that suggest the computer guy should not be at Penn State, but in a similarly named state institution. Unfortunately, Mann is not easily amused, as Dr. Ball should have known from the PSU professor’s testy reaction to the “Hide the decline” animation and other spoofs that various AGW “deniers” posted online.
Mann insisted that Dr. Ball’s little joke was libelous and took him to court. Mann’s legal principal seems to be that libel is fine only when he and Hansen practice the craft, albeit with far less good humor than others display. More importantly, Dr. Ball does not live or work in the United States.
US libel cases are governed by the First Amendment, “public figure” rules and other safeguards that ensure open, robust debate, and make it difficult and expensive to sue people over slights, affronts, insults, disagreements and jokes.
Canada, unfortunately, has more limited free speech protections. So Dr. Mike sued Dr. Tim in Canada, assuming victory would be rapid and sweet. Surprise! Dr. Ball decided to slug it out.
In Canada, the principal defenses against libel claims are that the alleged defamation constitutes “fair comment” or was in fact “the truth.” Ball chose the latter defense.
Doing so means the penalty for losing could be higher than under “fair comment” rules. But arguing that his statement was based on truth allows Dr. Ball to seek “discovery” of evidence that Dr. Mann’s actions reflect a use of public funds to alter or falsify scientific data, present highly speculative results as solid facts, or otherwise engage in something that a reasonable person would conclude constitutes dishonest activity or criminal culpability, undertaken moreover through the use of taxpayer funds.
Proving that will not be easy, especially since Mann has steadfastly refused to provide such potential evidence to anyone, including Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. That evidence might include Climategate emails; computer codes and data used, misused or used selectively to generate global warming spikes in historical graphs; and questionable research or proposals used to secure additional government grants, misinform citizens or lawmakers, or promote costly or harmful public policies.
The US government alone spent an estimated $79 billion on climate, renewable energy and related research between 1989 and 2009 – and many billions more since then. Obviously, there is a lot at stake for scientists, universities, government agencies and other institutions engaged in trying to demonstrate a link between human greenhouse gas emissions and climate, weather, agricultural, sea level and other “disasters.” The reputations and credibility of researchers and their institutions are likewise at stake.
Keeping people alarmed, insisting that numerous disasters will soon result from carbon dioxide emissions and a few degrees of planetary warming – and silencing anyone who questions climate chaos claims – are essential if this money train is to be kept on the tracks.
Dr. Mann is likely aided by Penn State lawyers, largely paid for with climate research taxpayer dollars the university wants to safeguard, by preventing criticism or scientific disclosure and transparency.
A judge and jury will decide the Mann vs. Ball case, after carefully weighing all the evidence on whether Dr. Ball’s allegations and insinuations were factual, accurate and truthful.
Dr. Mann’s research was conducted primarily with public money. It is being presented as valid, peer-reviewed science. It is also being used to champion and justify major policy recommendations at state, national and international levels. And those recommendations call for carbon taxes and other penalties for using hydrocarbon energy; the replacement of affordable, dependable fossil fuel energy with expensive, unreliable wind and solar facilities; a roll-back of living standards in rich developed nations; and limited or minimal energy and economic development in poor countries.
Therefore, as I have argued previously, the public has a right to demand that Mann & Comrades show their work, not merely their answers and policy demands. Thus far, serious questions about Mann’s research remain unanswered. The public also has a right to require that Mann, Penn State & Company provide their source material, not just their results – along with anything else that may be relevant to gauging the validity, accuracy and honesty of the work and its conclusions and policy recommendations.
We the People have a further right, duty and obligation to protect free speech, robust debate, the integrity of the scientific method, our personal freedoms, and our access to the reliable, affordable energy that makes our jobs and living standards possible.
Support science, energy and freedom – donate to Dr. Tim Ball’s legal defense fund. Just click here or go to http://DrTimBall.com/
__________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
============================================================
UPDATE: It seems there is some skullduggery afoot with FOIA law revisions. From ProPublica:
A proposed rule to the Freedom of Information Act would allow federal agencies to tell people requesting certain law-enforcement or national security documents that records don’t exist – even when they do.
Under current FOIA practice, the government may withhold information and issue what’s known as a Glomar denial that says it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records.
The new proposal – part of a lengthy rule revision by the Department of Justice – would direct government agencies to “respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist.”
…
So in the case of climate records, we have imperious leader saying it is a matter of national security:
Obama says climate change a matter of national security
and the military brass agree:
Generals, admirals say climate change a matter of national security
Ergo, the data and records you requested don’t exist. Sorry.
It is the manifestation of everything CRU’s Dr. Phil Jones stands for in his famous quote:
We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
November 2012 can’t come fast enough.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I sent Tim a small donation. Worthy cause.
Apologies for the OT but I thought you might want to know about this right away:
Justice Dept. proposes lying, hiding existence of records under new FOIA rule
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/24/justice-dept-proposes-lying-hiding-existence-of-records-under-new-foia-rule/
“A proposed revision to Freedom of Information Act rules would allow federal agencies to lie to citizens and reporters seeking certain records, telling them the records don’t exist.
The Justice Department has proposed the change as part of a large revision of FOIA rules for federal agencies. Specifically, the rule would direct government agencies who are denying a request under an established FOIA exemption to “respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist,” rather than citing the relevant exemption.”
Even the most rabid leftist should be able to understand that whatever Mann gets away with, a lot of government people with who knows what purposes in mind will be able to get away with as well. Tricky Dick would’ve been proud.
Donation made. Good luck
Dr. Watts? … Well, maybe they should give you a PhD for your excellent research work you did on the surface station project. This was a much more robust research that what those bozos are publishing between buddy-review.
Be careful what you wish for mann! I look forward to the can of worms being opened by Mann’s ego.
2 examples of Mann suing for libel is cited and one example of Hansen saying CEOs should be tried for crimes is cited. These are conflated and used to suggest Mann is a hypocrite i.e.
“Mann’s legal principal seems to be that libel is fine only when he and Hansen practice the craft”
Where did Mann libel anyone? I don’t see any example or claim of this at all.
The claim with regard to Hansen is he committed libel with his “crimes against humanity” statement. The full quote can be found here
“CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
It’s pretty clear he carefully worded it specifically to avoid accusations of libel. You can disagree with it, say it’s a bad idea or whatever but libel it isn’t.
Carol’s warning about legal lying, if true, is about as in-your-face-and try-to-do–something-about-it as it can get. Sounds like the kind of thing the OWS people should be protesting. As for Tim Ball, count me as another Canadian willing to help his cause.
I don’t know Canadian law, but if discovery in Canada is anything like it is in the U.S., then this case will never go to trial. Given the way he is fighting the UVa request, Mann will not give Dr. Ball anything. And if Mann does not produce requested documents that Ball’s attorney deems necessary to Ball’s defense, then the case goes no where. Mann cannot afford to give up incriminating documents, otherwise he might have the same problem Oscar Wilde did when he sued the Marquess of Queensberry for libel.
Right here…
Falsely accusing us of lying and regurgitating “dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science” is libelous…
I don’t know if Anthony would want a PhD, at least honorary anyway….given the list of those he could stand shoulder to shoulder with..
George Forman, Mike Tyson, Kermit the Frog, Al Gore, Tim Allen, Bob Barker, Stephen Colbert, Bill Cosby, Jon Bon Jovi, Dolly Parton, and Yoko Ono. …. to name a few granted honorary degrees…
One premise though for a legitimate PhD is honesty in the field or discipline. That one, Mikey fails in.
We should be reminded of an Hendrik Schön when thinking of Michael Mann…..
So Mann, an American citizen, sued Dr Ball (who, I’m assuming is a Canadian citizen) in a Canadian court.
Can Mann use American lawyers in a Canadian court?
And if any of those documents were denied or protected under American FOIA, can the Canadian courts compel release?
I have a feeling that Mann, when he sees what he has to release, will find a way to back out of the suit. There’s NO WAY that the scientists want this data out, in ANY court.
He’ll come out with some long involved excuse, saying that he’s willing to “take the hit” so that the important work being done by the abused climate science community won’t be comprimised.
Or some such BS…
Sharperoo, is your memory so short you already forgot this quote from Mann that you just read?
“These are just lies, regurgitation of dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science.”
Jay, you are generally correct about Canadian discovery. I recently went through a civil suit for wrongful dismissal, and the defendant (employer) did everything they could to keep it out of court, as doing so would require them to open all their books.
sharperoo:
“Where did Mann libel anyone?” Well, Mann apparently says about Hertzberg: “These are just lies, regurgitation of dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science.” Gee, sounds like he is making a claim, in writing, that is intending to give Hertzberg a negative image.
And Ball’s tongue-in-cheek, clever word play is libel?
The whole thing, of course, is silly. Let’s let them slug it out, instead of getting the courts involved. Mann is acting like an insolent baby who thinks others are taking his toys away.
I think the case is attached to that of Andrew Weaver whom is also suing Dr. Ball.
http://www.desmogblog.com/weaver-sues-tim-ball-libel
It’s Court Science.
“November 2012 can’t come fast enough.”
Good luck with that, Anthony!! I believe the EPA bureaucrats are not elected officials.
And did you mention that the National Security bugaboo has been invoked? All that means is that the topic already off-limits for the stupid unwashed masses – please stand aside and let the expert technocrats handle this.
[NOTE: Your e-mail address does not register as a valid e-mail address. Please note WUWT policy and correct the situation. -REP]
@David Middleton and R Taylor
“Falsely accusing us of lying and regurgitating “dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science” is libelous…”
“Sharperoo, is your memory so short you already forgot this quote from Mann that you just read?”
Are you guys [SNIP: policy -REP] ? He has accused Hertzberg of telling lies about him, he further claims those lies come from the industry funded yadda yadda. Hertzberg could make a case that he’s being defamed by being accused of telling lies but then you’re making refutation of libel the same as libel.
[NOTE: Sharper, the quote in this context is a violation of policy. -REP]
Modest donation sent from a senior citizen.
They should be careful making fun of the CAGW industrial complex. After all, Alexander Solzhenitsyn was hauled off to the Gulag for making fun of Stalin’s moustache. No doubt Mr. Mann and his enablers would love to have that kind of power. /sarc
Isn’t the book-pimping Dr. Andrew Weaver also involved in a suit or two?
@Eric Anderson
“And Ball’s tongue-in-cheek, clever word play is libel?”
Presumably a judge will decide that. Odds are you’d find word play a little less clever if it was a public statement claiming you were a criminal that should be in jail.
Hansen’s screed is also libelous…
Hansen’s accusation of fossil fuel industry executives as intentionally and willfully spreading lies about global warming is a malicious lie. It’s not just libel; it is libel with malice aforethought .
His qualification of his call for “high crimes against humanity and nature” trials as his opinion, does nothing to mitigate his lies about fossil fuel company executives. Hansen’s accusations are textbook libel…
Can anyone provide the chemical mechanism by which CO2 is purported to increase the temperature of the atmosphere? I mean, we know how CHO + O2 yields CO2 + energy. The equations describing how CO2 raises the air temperature should be readily available, yes?