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
Sorry Anthony, I have to agree with J. Philip Peterson (July 20, 2012 at 4:52 pm). Mann and friends have done great harm to humanity with their questionable “science”, costing hundreds of billions of dollars and causing much suffering. They deserve all the skewering they get. I only wish I was as good as Elmer, Mark Steyn and Eugene WR Gallun.
Jay Davis
Mann doesn’t like the fact that some people may believe that Steyn is comparing Mann to a pedophile, even though this is not what Steyn is doing. However, Mann calls people who disagree with his unique manner of conducting science, deniers.
“Bob Johnston says: The elite at Penn State have proven themselves to be an untrustworthy lot…”
Certainly the president and A.D were bad. But note that the Freeh Report was hired by Penn State itself. I recommend reading it. One curious thing was there seemingly was no push to retirement due to the 1998 allegations (which the State did not pursue). Joe Paterno was otherwise unhappy with Sandusky because Sandusky spent to much time on Second Mile. For one, there is a letter from Joe telling Sandusky to dedicate his life to the team and his own family if he wanted a chance to become head coach. I, and everyone else I think, first thought the 1999 retirement was some kind of way to handle the 1998 sex accusations against Sandusky. Freeh Report looked at that and said “no evidence” of that.
…and the snarky remarks authored by the esteemed professor in the climate emails towards those who would challenge his work were not “defamatory?” Methinks the pot doth protest to the kettle just a bit too much!
Hockey long enough….ya’ll get a puck in the kisser….[just sayin]….
LMAO….. Mann has retained council to halt the internets! Sorry sis, the very same thing which brought you fame and fortune is the very same thing which will bring you down.
BillD says:
Scientists have held off on libel suits and generally do not want to spend their time in court. However, this post goes so far that I expect that it will be settled out of court rather quickly in Mann’s favor. Truely a disgusting analogy.
How about the analogy that Mann is happy to use between people who do not agree with him and Holocaust deniers? He deliberately entered this political fight, fought nasty himself, and then doesn’t like it when others turn it back on him. Sauce for the goose, methinks.
Has anyone noticed that while Karoly and his ilk cry about being legally intimidated, the only actual law-suits appear to be from Mann?
I have followed Mark Steyn’s writing for years on the internet. He is brilliant and often very funny:
http://www.steynonline.com/
I usually catch Mark’s articles at the Orange County Register online:
http://www.ocregister.com/common/archives/?catID=18845
I think its wrong, on many levels, to compare Mann to Sandusky. But I do think its reasonable to compare PSU’s investigation of Sandusky to their investigation of Mann. In both cases they were dealing with a powerful; university celebrity who brought large amounts of cash to the university. In both cases they conducted cursory and inadequate investigations under the direction of University President Graham Spanier. In both cases, the university seemed primarily concerned with clearing the reputation of the university and seemed willing to turn a blind eye to any suggestion of wrong-doing.
Given these facts, I think its reasonable to call for PSU to re-open the Mann investigation.
Is it a ‘fact’ that Mann was cleared of malpractice by the same person who cleared Jerry Sandusky and then was forced to resign? If it is a ‘fact’ then people will inveitably draw their own conclusions.
And forget the ‘Streisand effect’…I were Mann I’d be more worried about the ‘Wilde Effect’ namely…committing the awesome folly of initiating legal proceedings when you have much that you want to hide. (see Oscar Wilde Vs The Marquess of Queensbury.)
Let’s hope he follows through on his ‘threat’.
Politics/ media relations are best left to pro’s.
Amatuer hour is over.
It is serious now.
Discovery could be very interesting in this case.
All of this speaks to Penn State’s organizational standards, which certainly appear to be quite low.
Dittos to that prior comment about discovery at 6:05. Did not see it before I made my comment.
BillD says:
July 20, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Scientists have held off on libel suits and generally do not want to spend their time in court. However, this post goes so far that I expect that it will be settled out of court rather quickly in Mann’s favor. Truely a disgusting analogy.
______________________________________________
I doubt this will be settled in court, or out of court for that matter. I don’t think Mann wants his scientific abilities to be placed on public display (like his hokey schtick). Furthermore, I doubt that he wants to subject the college, which whitewashed his investigation, to be subjected to reopening and scrutiny. Given their failures in the Sanduski control, manipulation, and hiding of facts, the folks in control have wasted any credibility they had in Mann’s investigation as well.
Re-Openeing this wound is going to force a wide open, in-the-light exposure of his investigation if he chooses to push this…
Heh. Mann hires lawyer firm that represented RJ Reynolds in the Joe Camel case…
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/226430658027872256
Info on Cozen O’Conner…
http://www.cozen.com/attorney_detail.asp?d=1&atid=1406
H/T Tom Nelson
Re: Comments on libel and proving it.
Nonetheless we owe it to the eminent scientist and scholar to support him in all ways possible to determinae the true facts. I just posted my support on his page and shared it on mine. And asked all 14 of my FB friends to encourage him to take them all to court.
Dr. Mann appears to be a person who forgets that his very irritable behavior and arrogance of his words and deeds brings out strong criticism. He is in a libel lawsuit with Dr. Ball and appears to be losing that because he is very reluctant to provide certain documents as requested in court among other things.
Maybe he needs to cool down and take a vacation instead.
Anthony,
Forgetting the Streisand effect, I don’t think an analogy like [snip -let’s leave that phrase out please-A] is libel, even if the analogy isn’t perfect. I don’t know if this is the kind of quote out of the article you are talking about and you are certainly free to have your standards for your site, but I don’t get the touchiness on this. One could say they think it impolite or, on par with calling skeptics Deniers and I think you fall into that polite discussion camp, but libel and incivility are two different things.
You don’t really say what you don’t agree with in the either the National Review piece or the underlying one at openmarket.org. Are you just saying you don’t agree with the tone or rhetoric or are you saying you think they got something wrong? Of course Mann doesn’t say what he thinks is libelous about either Steyn’s piece or the underlying piece.
I would think the attacks on Penn State’s investigation might have a few more legs, not because it was a good investigation, but because it has at least the institutional trappings. But I think a public university is probably the quintessential example of a public figure and whether the motives guessed at our correct, it certainly seems that speculation of the sort engaged is reasonable in light of the Sandusky scandal. I can’t see where they have been libeled.
My only criticisms of the underlying article are that I think the link to “shown to have been behaving in a most unscientific manner” is pretty weak, or maybe incomplete is what I mean to say (and sock puppetry at that).
But generally I can’t find what there is in the articles to take issue with vs. much else written on the subject.
Brian
I forgot to include this about his libel suit with Dr. Ball:
This is a selected excerpt,
“But while arguments over PSU’s hidden “Climategate” emails will rage anew in the U.S., across the Canadian border in the Supreme Court of British Columbia Mann is close to losing another
legal battle on this issue. Mann is yet again stonewalling a court over showing his hidden “dirty laundry” of dodgy data.
But such incessant secrecy won’t save Mann. Judge Freeh’s damning report may persuade his Canadian counterpart that Mann’s libel suit against Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball is likely vexatious and premised on a cover up. Freeh’s findings will thus make it harder for Mann to dodge a Canadian Supreme Court requirement to hand over all his disputed “dirty laundry”. If Mann won’t comply he faces punitive legal sanctions.”
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/official-probe-shows-climategate-whitewash-link-to-sandusky-child-sex-case/
If Mann had any guts or native intelligence, he’d have complained to his friends over a cocktail or two, then forgotten about it and moved on. After all, it’s not science, is it? So why does he keep sticking his oar in like this, I wonder? Does he really have to take things so damned personally? He needs to grow up and grow a set.
To quote the late, great Frank Zappa:
In a petulant frenzy!
(A petulant frenzy, this is a petulant frenzy.
I’m petulant, and I’m having a frenzy)
This bit is interesting.
“I have retained counsel to pursue my legal rights.”
Mann has talked a good game over the years, but there’s one thing that has become overwhelmingly obvious. He never puts himself in a situation where he has to put himself under oath in a court of law.
So, I’m taking bets. If Mark Steyn tells Michael Mann to go pound sand, my wager is that’s the last we’ll ever hear of Mikey on this one. As for Steyn? He’s combative as hell and would love the chance for a dustup with someone he despises. He certainly didn’t hesitate to take on the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the Ontario Human Rights Commission over similar issues on freedom of speech.
And as for Penn State U, that’s another bet I’ll make. Regardless of how this goes, Penn State will stay as far from it as they can. If their review processes truly are corrupt the last thing they want is a defence forcing disclosure in a court of law.
“The wicked flee where no man pursueth.”
Does this mean that PSU will be tearing down the Michael Mann statue that stands at the entrance to to the Nittany Lions Ice Hockey Arena?
The fall from grace is well under way. Dr Mann could participate as the control group in a controlled trial of the following intervention couched by the null hypothesis: Parachute deployment does not prevent one from hitting the ground.
Steyn is one of those guys who buys ink by the barrel, Mann should walk away from this one.