https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/267470906700950
Now that Dr. Mann has drawn attention to it, even more people will want to read the National Review article “Football and Hockey” to find out what he’s so upset about. I didn’t even know about this article until Mann tweeted this demand announcement today. This announcement on Twitter Facebook is probably a bad move on Dr. Mann’s part. Here’s why:
From Wikipedia: The Streisand effect is a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt in 2003 to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity.
Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters, to suppress numbers, files and websites. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, often being widely mirrored across the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.
Mike Masnick of Techdirt coined the term after Streisand, citing privacy violations, unsuccessfully sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for US$50 million in an attempt to have an aerial photograph of her mansion removed from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs. Adelman said that he was photographing beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the government sanctioned and commissioned California Coastal Records Project. Before Streisand filed her lawsuit, “Image 3850” had been downloaded from Adelman’s website only six times; two of those downloads were by Streisand’s attorneys. As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased substantially; more than 420,000 people visited the site over the following month.
You’d think after his botched attempt to get this video removed, Dr. Mann would have learned that lesson. For the record, I don’t agree with the article Steyn cites in the National Review, but I think Dr. Mann’s effort to get it removed will backfire on him.
h/t to Tom Nelson
UPDATE:
Letter from Dr. Mann’s lawyers to the National Review in three parts:
http://s14.postimage.org/7yv69pk9t/599812_401767993212742_781065817_n.jpg
http://s8.postimage.org/m9zsep2ol/531607_401768043212737_603000984_n.jpg
http://s13.postimage.org/n2q0sgihz/205403_401768099879398_275428058_n.jpg
Scanned images posted by Dr. Mann to his public FaceBook site. h/t to reader “Typhoon”.
NOTE TO COMMENTERS AND MODERATORS: I’m going to have a low tolerance for any comments that excerpt parts of the article, as well as other sorts of over the top comments – please be on your best behavior or such comments will be snipped/deleted – Anthony
That would be full of *bile*. In political terms, you could be right about Mann having been wronged. In scientific terms, um, it doesn’t look so good. I’m with the NR.
JIm Pettit,
It’s a mystery to me how you arrived at your inference.
“So the WUWT takeaway is that no crime is committed if only a handful of people witness it? That is, had Mann just shut up about it, the calumnious National Review article would have just faded away on its own?”
Looking over the scan of the letter from Mann’s attorney to the publisher of National Review, it appears to me to be a bluff. All the references to “independent investigations” are those of academic review, not a legal investigation. Since Steyn’s primary accusation is that the academic reviews were a whitewash in the first place, I don’t see how bringing them up again is relevant.
I don’t know if the “discoverers” of Piltdown Man ever tried to sue those who proved it a forgery, but the similarity of the cases seems apparent. G. S. Miller’s comment that, “deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together,” sounds pretty “defamatory” to me.
I think there’s been enough information released on the creation of the “hockey stick” regarding the tacking on of the instrument record to the end of the proxy results to make a good leagal case for fraud. In addition, there’s the evidence that even noise generates a hockey stick when Mann’s statistical analysis is applied, to further make the case. The accusation comparing Mann to Sandusky was not even made by Steyn, but was a quote by another writer, and so not even attributable to Steyn.
At the bottom line, if Steyn wasn’t afraid of the Canadian government, he’s not going to be impressed by Mann’s threats.
The interesting thing about the ‘hockey stick’ is that it has become proof that global warming is a hoax and a scare tactic and that the AGW hypothesis is all about politics not science, right?
To say hide the decline refers to temperatures not tree is fatuous. The purpose of the hockey stick studies by Mann was to equate tree rings with temperature. The methods employed were statistically invalid as perform the same method on times series of noise produces a hockey.
But the hockey stick study is bogus on an even deeper level.
I will assume for a moment that the study is correct and global temperatures were stable for 1000 years until they began to rise shortly before CO2 concentrations began to rise significantly. And since then they have risen together for 80 years or so. But what makes the last 1000 years of stability the perfect climate set point? Even Mann, Phil Jones and Al Gore will agree that the climate has been getting colder and hotter for millions of years. Under much of the polar ice whose predicted melting so terrifies them there is evidence of trees and plants. The hockey stick graph is important to many people as an religious icon that underscores a very biblical theme. We were pure and without sin and then by burning fossil fuels we fell from grace! The people who hold this belief will scorn creationists, but the hockey stick is exactly as valid as creationism.
Still, it’s more about politics than religeon. The Left was not opposed to George Bush because their religeon drove them. Nor is the Left opposed to capitalism on religeous grounds any more than Sandusky was opposed to decency on religeous grounds.
theduke says: @ur momisugly July 20, 2012 at 9:26 pm
…This is the beginning of a huge public relations thrust by the AGW left of which Mann is a most prominent member. I’m wondering where his funding is coming from. I’m sure he didn’t make that much on his pathetic book. There are probably some high profile financiers in the background. This is going to be an expensive trial and it sure looks like a loser to me….
_______________________________
Real Science blog => Fenton Communications => George Soros, graduate of the London School of Economics => Fabian Society if I recall correctly.
Also do not forget Royal Dutch Shell Oil and BP funding of CRU. There is very big money behind CAGW
Skiphil says:
I stand corrected.
I still believe that the essence of what I wrote is correct, but I did misattribute the quote. Rand Simberg wrote the offensive piece and Mark Steyn propagated it further. Louis Freeh was not involved.
As has been pointed out, the comparison is between the university blind eye treatments for it’s top producing stars.
More on Penn State “ethics” from ABC news.
The NCAA had been awaiting the school’s response to four key questions pertaining to the sex abuse scandal, including issues involving institutional control and ethics. … Will anounce “unprecedented” penalties against both the Penn State University football team and the school. (from ABC news)
Perhaps Don Brown will be put in charge of theis “ethics” overhaul? I hope not.
No longer proud graduate of Penn State.
Re the letter from Mann’s attorney: no mention of malice, which will need to be proved in this case since Mann is a controversial figure. They contend that Steyn knew the charges of fraud were untrue, which is obviously not the case.
Also, they assume that Steyn was referring to academic fraud when he used the term “fraudulent.” I think the definition of “fraudulent” can be more general than that and to prove Steyn was being specific to academic fraud could be difficult. One might say, for example, that Mann is guilty of political fraud for encouraging the IPCC to unquestioningly accept his study as definitive when it clearly was not. In other words, the paper as conceived may not have been fraudulent in it’s creation, i.e. Mann and his co-authors may have believed it was scientifically valid, but once it’s obvious errors were understood, it was fraudulent to defend it and insist on its use as a factual basis for policy makers in nations around the world.
This is an action designed to thrust Mann and his lawyer into the spotlight as well as the issue of AGW and the scientific process that supposedly confirms the consensus view. The letter, dated July 20th, also demands that the offending blog post be removed. That has not happened, so I’m assuming NR is not going to be bullied into bowing to self-appointed censors with thin skin.
@Michael J says:
July 22, 2012 at 8:31 am
———————————–
Skiphil did not write: …. Louis Freeh did not write the passage quoted by Mark Steyn, that was the writer Rand Simberg.
This is becoming a habit with you.
Micheal Mann is a very busy guy on his FB page. He’s been deleting comments like crazy and I managed to get banned from posting there. Gee, what an Honor!
Thanks for the h/t. However, I think that the preamble
http://postimage.org/%5D%5Bimg%5D
should be removed from the 3 links if they are to work.
[NOTE- it always helps if you submit them correctly in the first place, your image tags had to be removed too. Just submit the links as they appear in your browser address bar, don’t add code. WP will auto-link for you ~mod]
Correction, the duke, those are indeed my words….
lurker passing through, laughing says:
July 20, 2012 at 11:46 pm
Consensus promoters like Mann are a laugh a minute.
The Daily Onion could do no better.
As someone pointed out above, possibly the best term for what Mann produces is “Mannure”.
___________________
You are defaming manure, it at least is quite useful as a major component of compost. (but I like the connection any way)
J. Philip Peterson says:
July 20, 2012 at 11:55 pm
….. You removed some important posts.
[Well since we have no idea what the missing post might have been, nor where it is now or where it might have been moved in the in the past, I’d recommend re-writing it rather than asking numerous times. It is not in spam nor deleted items. Robt]
____________________
Some of my posts disappeared too but it seems our internet connection is dropping a significant number of packets and that is the problem according to my husband. Will not be fixed for a couple more days.
the duke,
Yes, it stands out, that Mann’s lawyers are willing to immediately alter words/meanings, adding “academic”, straight out of the blue. They are attempting to make it out as not an opinion, by giving it the additional word. It now has connotation of having being a non-subjective remark, thrusting it into objective status , hence requiring measurable evidences.
That’s their untruthful and weak attempt right out of the gate.
Fred says:
July 21, 2012 at 4:49 am
“Just remember, while your pursuing this one, they’re out spending their time doing things like passing carbon taxes.”
Who in the U.S. is talking carbon taxes? Not Obama and not anyone else of substance.
_____________________________________
From the point of view of the consumer/wage earner the EPA shutting down all Coal fired Electric plants with no hope of replacement is a major “Tax” it will cause your electric bill to go from ~ $100/month to perhaps ~$1000/month. On top of that every single US business will have to pass on that tenfold increase to consumers. Thus the likelihood of businesses moving to China, Mexico, Brazil, India or just closing become very great. Essentially Obama and the US EPA just wiped out the USA as an economically viable country. Meanwhile we ship our coal and technology to China whether we want to or not.
SEE:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/28/new-epa-rule-will-block-all-new-coal-electric-generation/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/28/the-epa-wrecking-ball/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/31/the-epas-mercurial-madness/
Pull down the Mann statue in the minds of the biased media.
@Gail Combs says:
July 22, 2012 at 8:20 am
———————————-
Of course you mean RealClimate and not “Real Science,” but point taken. They will not be wanting for money, but I don’t think NR or Steyn will be either.
NR hasn’t taken the offending blog post down, which means they are saying, in effect, “Your move, Dr. Mann.”
@Skiphil says:
July 22, 2012 at 9:24 am
———————————
Noted. My mistake.
Jim Pettit says:
July 22, 2012 at 4:59 am
NR’s editors decided to publish a hatchet job they knew to be libelous. That’s illegal, and that’s actionable.
How is it libelous? What is untrue about Steyn’s article?
I think Dr. Mann deserves more than just a retraction and an apology; I think he deserves monetary damages–and I hope he wins.
I think you’re in for a disappointment. If it goes to court, Mikey’s going to get the damage he deserves, but it sure won’t be monetary…
thisisnotgoodtogo says:
July 22, 2012 at 9:39 am: “It now has connotation of having being a non-subjective remark, thrusting it into objective status , hence requiring measurable evidences.”
——————————————
Exactly. I’m no expert on defamation law, but this appears to be very weak tea. There will be a paucity of “measurable evidences” in Mann’s legal arguments. I’m thinking they are looking at it as a fund-raising tool for all manner of AGW nonsense. They can easily raise copious amounts of money for a defense fund. These types of cases have the potential to take on a life of their own. Mann appears to be welcoming that. Since his reputation as a scientist is tarnished in most respectable establishments, he might as well use his modest notoriety (or infamy depending on how you look at it) to become an A-list celebrity with all the benefits that begets.
I like Mark Steyns writing, he speaks his mind and sometimes gets himself into trouble. He is a great defender of free speech, especially in Canada where free speech is not as free as it is in the USA. But I think he overdid it with this short article in the National Review. We’ll see how this progresses.