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
So,
it looks like the offending phrase may need to be re-reviewed in private star chamber reviews of the crappy original, as would have been directly expected. Any chance for a different result? Likely not, Mann is not Sandusky. Though it doesn’t take much to cross the gap.
For anyone with more energy than me right now (I’m going to bed), there are lots of good pieces of info to be culled from some Climate Audit threads I started reviewing on Mann, Penn State, and some other issues pertaining to Mann’s credibility and character. Perhaps someone with a blog could start crowd sourcing summary info on Mannian science and character in one location. Here are some links:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/10/penn-state-president-fired/
http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/10/what-did-penn-state-know/
http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/04/seminar-on-penn-state-inquiry/
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/13/the-epa-and-upside-down-mann/
http://climateaudit.org/2011/05/23/climategate-documents-confirm-wegmans-hypothesis/
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/25/the-team-defends-paleo-phrenology/
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/28/direct-action-at-harvard/
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/20/hide-the-decline-ii/
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/07/team-responses-to-mm2003/
Mark Steyn can be wickedly funny. I’d pay money to watch him debate Michael Mann.
re the new State Govt in Queensland Australia. wouldn’t it be nice if this is more than political rhetoric?
13 July: Daniel Hurst: Climate ‘propaganda’ on LNP summit hit list
A push to ban “environmental propaganda” from schools and teach “normal science” about climate change is among motions set to be discussed at the Liberal National Party convention beginning today…
For example, the LNP’s Noosa State Electorate Council says the LNP should call on Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek to “require Queensland government schools to remove environmental propaganda material [and] in particular post normal science about ‘climate change’”.
At last year’s conference, LNP president Bruce McIver questioned the role of humans in driving climate change, arguing the climate was always changing and children were being “brainwashed” in the way climate science was taught…
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/climate-propaganda-on-lnp-summit-hit-list-20120712-21ygz.html#ixzz21DyBXibW
You’re right. He just drew attention. But, after reading it I can see how Mann isn’t going to just sit down for this…
Back to the farm animal issue. The “corrections” on The Beast article are sick and disgusting. They’re probably not libelous as they aren’t intended to be taken seriously. But those corrections do not appear on the original Alternet version of the article. Now, the article was co-authored by Roddy and Murphy. It is Murphy who works for The Beast and who reposted the article there. So,it seems plausible that it is Murphy that is responsible for the farm animal cracks rather than Roddy.
On the Steyn piece, comparing Mann to a pedophile is sick and disgusting but not likely libelous. However, claiming Mann committed fraud may well be libelous. It is one thing to say “I do not have solid evidence but it is my gut feeling that Mann committed fraud” and another to say he did commit fraud without presenting any evidence.
The National Review and The Beast should both be held in contempt by the reading public for poor editorial judgement.
This could be fun. Especially if, as part of discovery, the court orders Mann to turn over his UVA emails as well. If he’s smart, he’ll leave this one alone. JRRTolkien: Oft evil will shall evil mar.
mpaul says:
July 20, 2012 at 6:32 pm
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.
==============================================================
Yes, the context is clear that a University that would protect a child molestor for cash and reputation, would certainly protect a CAGW proponent for continuing grants. And, on that broadest level only, Mann and Sandusky can be compared; both mann and Sandusky, PSU employees, protected from proper investigation of suspected crimes. In the case of Sandusky, great harm done to individuals and famlies, in the case of Mann, IMV, great harm done to society and economic prosperity.
I do not think Stein conveyed any more then the above.
Mann is looking for rock star notoriety with this decision to litigate. He’s going after the oldest and most revered conservative opinion magazine and also one of its best and most brilliant writers. 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.
When you go to the original column that Steyn cited, you now see this at the bottom: “Two inappropriate sentences that originally appeared in this post have been removed by the editor.”
I am so reminded of a great Peachy Carnehan line when the SHTF, the facade has fallen away, and the power of the people is withdrawn by those people. Nothing remains but pride which fuels the final vainglory act of artifice.
“The Man Who Would Be King” – Rudyard Kipling
This is wonderful for Mr Mann. I’m pretty sure he has been aching to actually debate this issue in a court of law.. afterall, he KNOWS he is right.
So , congratulations MM, I wish you great success in bringing this to trial.. and remember.. please bring all your data. codes etc with you as proof of your work, grind them nasty skeptics into the dirt. !!
.
.
.
.
.
/s !!
So this is surprising?
Mann gets a rise out of tree rings and goes ballistic over what he “finds”.
Mann gets compared to a problematic figure and goes ballistic over what others “find”.
At least Mann’s consitent.
Consistently wrong.
The NRO article was slightly noticed at Fark.com
I see only one potentially defamatory statement in Steyn’s piece: “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.”
That’s pretty weak tea. Mann’s pissing into the wind.
Philip Bradley wrote:
“I understand Anthony doesn’t want the legal hassle”
I think it’s more an issue of decorum. If Mann had had not tweeted about it we would not be discussing it, even if Anthony or a WUWT reader had noticed the article.
Folks, you have this all wrong. Dr Mann has already explained that the only person who can understand his emails is himself. By extension, the only person who can understand his tweets….
The mind simply boggles. As I have noted elsewhere the author of a creative writing exercise that should have been entitled “Portrait of the Artist as an Aggrieved Mann: A novel” is proving himself to be the David [I see you, I sue you] Irving of climate science.
As Steve McIntyre recently asked regarding the mandate of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLD):
Seems to me that Mann has made Steyn an eligible recipient of funding from CSLD. Unless, of course, the CSLD fund-founders – in tried ‘n true climatalogical tradition – have redefined “defense/defend/defendants”
Boom. We got him. Now *we* are the one-too-many mosquitoes on a camping trip gone bad. Zzzzzt!
The clean-up operation of this war against anti-science forces continues, post Climategate, the utterly novel episode that allowed the mass media to finally have *fun* with the story of principled old school seniors harking back to classical and disciplined science, Feynman style.
Popcorn is passé. Reach for the beef jerky, boys.
At some point in human affairs, the gloves come off and debate oddly transforms into war, and war is about winning. Once it’s war, brother must really fight brother, going right back to the Bhagavad Gita, which in our era glosses over this family feud.
Occupy Wall Street is liberal losers vs. science/engineering kids.
Global Warming is elite early retirees vs. soft science majors.
Due to Bucky Fuller based “more with less” socioeconomic factors that few these days talk about in a foo foo era of Facebook wannabee bubble venture capital, we are all sitting pretty, bored out of our skulls, longing for a Spy Vs. Spy mystery adventure engage us.
But all that medical breakthrough bannerism amounts merely to an extra 3-8 years of very old age drooling.
Welcome to the future.
Breaking Bad is no substitute for the Beat generation and its dreams of Better Living Through Chemistry.
But nobody says anything about it.
We need better drugs.
-=NikFromNYC=-
Aaack … sorry mods .. could you pls correct my (or WP’s) mess-up of the closure of my last link.
Thanks,
Hilary
still awake here…. and I just found an “interesting” (scary) sidelight from the Freeh Report which recalls an outrageous forum at the Durban fiasco last Nov. 2011. The guy who was discussed here on WUWT because he advocates making climate skepticism a “crime against humanity” — Prof. Donald Brown — could be right in the spotlight of one of the Freeh Report’s recommended reforms.
The Freeh Report tells Penn State they should introduce ethics training modules for “all areas of the university” — to be developed and conducted, apparently, under the guidance of the Rock Ethics Center….. where the Director is Prof. Donald Brown!! So now one of the more propagandistic of the CAGW advocates is to be involved with training all of the Penn Staters in his brand of ethics??
[my emphasis below]
“1.2 Appoint a University Ethics Officer to provide advice and counsel to the President and the Board of Trustees on ethics issues and adherence to Penn State Principles; develop and provide, in conjunction with the Rock Ethics Center, leadership and ethics training modules for all areas of the University; and coordinate ethics initiatives with the University’s Chief Compliance Officer.”
Freeh Report
Donald Brown of Penn State’s Rock Ethics Center
“One, an ethical analysis of the climate change disinformation campaign. We will examine whether this is a new kind of crime against humanity?”
“Second, we will look at the piratical significance for negotiations in Durban if climate change is understood to create human rights violations.”
@ur momisugly DN
July 20, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Googled “The Shagged Sheep”…thoroughly enjoyed.
don’t get all excited guys. Dr Mann is bluffing if you ask me.
My god it’s like he was just born stupid. What on earth motivated him to make a big deal about this?
I love how everyone calls Mike “Mr.”. I’m amazed he hasn’t thrown a hissy fit over that, as well! Call me “Dr.” or I’ll….[snip]
J. Philip Peterson says:
July 20, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Sorry but what Dr.Michael Mann has done to help make energy more expensive in the world (let alone the United States) is much worse for the children of the world [snip – please lets not go there – Anthony]. The magnitude of what will happen to all children of the world because of expensive, or no energy, results in the killing of many people (including children).
Someone agreed with me on this post, but it was removed. WUWT??