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
Penn State probably performed better in the Sandusky case. In 1998, Sandusky was reported to both university and local police, AND investigations were done by the local and state child welfare agencies. No prosecution was brought despite police having a confession on tape with the mother of a victim on the phone, and the higherups sent Sandusky into retirement.
The Mark Steyn piece is straight from the gutter. He tries to avoid responsibility by using a quote from Louis Freeh, but Mr Steyn has propagated the story and is just as guilty as Mr Freeh is.
I’m no fan of Dr Mann, but we are much better off sticking to facts than producing slime like that. This is exactly the sort of thing that so disgusts us when produced by the green left.
We can do better.
Slightly off-topic
But I love the idea of the ‘Streisand effect’
(trying to suppress image #### leads to many more viewings)
Maybe we could have some ideas for ‘The Watts Effect’
‘The Mann Effect’
or
‘The Trenberth effect’
Assuming Mann goes through with this, which I believe is (or should be) unlikely, we should all be grateful for his choice of an opponent. I think he will, however, rue the day he stuck a stick in the hornet’s nest known as Mark Steyn. Steyn is also a very able and competent radio talkshow personality as witnessed by the fact that he sits in on occasion for the best in the business, Rush Limbaugh. I’m guessing Limbaugh will contribute generously to his defense fund, should there be a need.
I don’t wish a lawsuit on anybody, but Steyn, as noted above, is practiced in freedom of speech litigation, and there is no one who can defend himself on those grounds more passionately and eloquently.
How can an academic like Dr Michael Mann afford to have what would appear to amount to continual legal representation? This is not the first time that he has said his legal people are dealing with it. Who pays for his lawyers? Himself?
“Every time I look around, it’s in my face”
@thinking scientist: there is a wide array of individuals and groups who would have a strong interest in the outcome of a Mann v. Steyn case– most of the governments in the Western world, in fact, as well as the legion of extremely wealthy and influential individuals who are aligned with them. He won’t lack for financial support. And I’m thinking Steyn won’t either.
If it happens, it will be ideological theatre on a world-wide stage. From what I can see, that is Mann’s goal. His problem is that this time his supporters won’t be able to pick the judge and jury.
I read everything Mark Steyn writes, I read nothing that Michael Mann writes. One deals with facts and opinions and the other with questionable data and fantasy.
Michael J says:
July 21, 2012 at 9:32 am
The Mark Steyn piece is straight from the gutter. He tries to avoid responsibility by using a quote from Louis Freeh, but Mr Steyn has propagated the story and is just as guilty as Mr Freeh is.
Agreed the Freeh comment is a little unsavoury (though I don’t personally believe libelous) but if Steyn is “as guilty” for propagating it then so is Mann himself.
He’s posted if to his open facebook page and allowed people to share it – which several of his supporters and at least one non-supporter have done. Not sure how it would work as a defence for Steyn, seeing as he posted it before Mann allowed “sharing”, but he’s effectively given consent for propagation since.
I believe in US law consent is available as a (rarely used) defence against libel?
‘Hide the Malign’
I see that reading comprehension is lacking in some of the respondents here. Michael Mann is not in any way being compared to Jerry Sandusky. Not by Steyn, and not by Rand Simberg.What is being compared is the institutional reaction of PSU to acts committed by those two individuals working under its umbrella.
Lear Dog says:
That’s because you, along with many others, don’t understand the concept of an analogy. A is to B as C is to D does not compare, equate, or imply, any specific relationship between A/B and C/D. The “analogy” is defined as a comparison of the “is to” portion, i.e., the relationship between A/B is being compared to the relationship between C/D. Indeed, analogy is even stronger when A/B and C/D have absolutely no other connection. That simple minds think the elements of the analogy are themselves being compared is testament to the lack of proper education in society.
Mark
Good question. I’m also curious what sorts of lawyers would even take such an obviously flawed case. In Tim Ball’s case, it was less obvious due to differences in defamation law (between the US and the Canada). In this case, things could turn out even worse than they seem to be in the Tim Ball case. Maybe they’re just happy draining whatever legal fund Mann has access to not caring about the outcome?
Mark
Please God, let him sue.
It appears that Penn State has a serious “ethics” problem. From the president all the way down to the janitors. All that read this should review Donald Browns discussion “Disinformation, Social Stability and Moral Outrage” on the Penn State ethics web site http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/ defending Peter Gleick. This coupled with their defense of Michael Mann designed and implemented as a whitewashing of Mann’s unethical actions further illustrates the sorry state of “ethics” at Penn State. It appears that in all things “ethical” at Penn State their “ethics” follow the civil disobedient motto of “the ends justify the means.” A review of their main “ethics” web site, http://www.rockethics.psu.edu/ reinforces this warped sense of “ethics.” I can no longer proudly show my Penn State decal on my car, and have scraped it off the window.
If Mann goes after Steyn and NRO others will most probably get involved. After-all, Steyn quoted Rand Symberg, who in-turn quotes people like Dr Lindzen in his opinion piece. Dr Mann would have to prove that the Climategate scandals were in fact a big Right Wing conspiracy; otherwise, he has no case. Private law suits are messy, and there is no telling what a judge will allow. I am not a lawyer,but I heard plenty of lawyers opine that much of what would never be admissable in a criminal court is admissable in civil court. And I don’t think Mann wants to re-visit what he considers “closed matters”.
Styen and Symberg’s point is simple: The same college president who covered up the crimes of Sandusky for a decade also found Mann free of any academic fraud while at Penn St. One can argue that that NRO’s point is absurd if not irresponsible. But, to sue over whether Steyn and NRO defamed Mann will probably cause more problems for Mann than he wants. He certainly doesn’t want to re-hash things like the Hockey Stick, his PCAs, etc… All Steyn and NRO have to do is convince the court that Mann’s past actions were not only questionable but also controversial. They certainly do not have to prove Mann’s HS was right/wrong – only controversial. Mann could also be forced to come clean about his comments in every single Climategate email he sent, not to mention other correspondence he has had in his career. East Coast law firms have plenty of resources at their disposal. Just ask any celeb who has sued over defamation.
I’m sure Mann’s lawyers will give him good counsel, and if he truly believes that NRO defamed him and wants his pound of flesh by all means he should sue. But he should be warned, Steyn and NRO are represented by very shrewd lawyers (most media outlets are).
Michael J says:
July 21, 2012 at 9:32 am
“The Mark Steyn piece is straight from the gutter. He tries to avoid responsibility by . . . .”
“Responsibility” for what, pray tell?
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.
Contrived Statistics + Confirmation Bias = F——— Science
michael J sez:
“The Mark Steyn piece is straight from the gutter. He tries to avoid responsibility by using a quote from Louis Freeh, but Mr Steyn has propagated the story and is just as guilty as Mr Freeh is.”
h/t to Michael J
You heard it here first: Former FBI Director Louis Freeh revealed as the guilty party.
“Former FBI director Louis Freeh’s 267-page report detailing the institutional responsibility of Penn State and its senior administrators criticized the university for the continued climate of sexual predation that was allowed to fester…”
Read more: Richard Meehan: Freeh report will be crucial to civil suits – Norwich, CT – The Bulletin
Yes, and so am I, which is why I decided not to sue that little twerp in Buffalo and Joe Romm’s pet, Mike Roddy, for libel, for saying I have sex with farm animals. Scroll down to the “corrections” at the end. – Anthony
——————————
Public figure or not that’s a clear case of liable IMO. I’m guessing you didn’t send him the “correction” that you make sweet consensual love to farm animals. He says “brought to our attention by Mr. Watts.” If you said that to him or on your blog then your case IMO would be weak. The big questions are – Is it worth the money & time you will have to spend in court? If you win will the guy have the money to pay you? I’m guessing you can find a lawyer to take the case on getting a percentage of the damages you receive.
“Discovery could be very interesting in this case.”
That was my point stated above. And who knows who will be required to give deposition.
Have read a bit from Mark Steyn when he fills in for Rush Limbaugh. He’s a very intelligent man, and seems like he would be a warrior in a debate.
I kind of hope Mann keeps up the “pressure”. Steyn would tear Mann a new A.
In my opinion, Mann is like the kid on the schoolground saying “My daddy is bigger then your daddy”, whenever another kid says something he doesn’t like. And we all know how that ususally ends.
UzUrBrain says:
July 21, 2012 at 11:24 am
It appears that Penn State has a serious “ethics” problem. From the president all the way down to the janitors. All that read this should review Donald Browns discussion “Disinformation, Social Stability and Moral Outrage” on the Penn State ethics web site http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/ defending Peter Gleick…
http://www.lies.com/wp/2012/03/14/the-imaginary-trial-of-peter-gleick-%E2%80%93-part-4-prosecution-witness-donna-laframboise/
It’s a bluff. Mann would perish in open court. A jury sees the hockey stick with and without the instrumental data “hiding the decline.” Then they get climategate e-mails talking about “Mike’s nature trick…to hide the decline.” Then they see expert witnesses presenting Monte Carlo tests of Mann’s code – which he refused for so long to provide to McIntyre and others. Then they hear about UVa providing e-mails for Wegner, Michaels and others in response to FOIA requests, but going to court to avoid revealing Mann’s e-mails. And what does UVa do when the defense subpoenas those e-mails?
It’s more than the Streisand Effect; Steyn and NRO should respond by repeating their claims that Mann’s work is fraudulent and that UVa is protecting him, and openly challenge Mann and/or UVa to sue. Too bad it didn’t come before the 4th of July; the fireworks would be spectacular!
I particularly enjoyed this post on Michael E. Mann’s (public figure, please note) Facebook page:
Funny how the professional climate change denial machine (e.g. Anthony Watts and his ilk, presumably in coordination w/ the other usual suspects) has somewhat predictably unleashed their attack dogs over the latest developments w/ National Review. Somebody appears to be worried…
Transference, anybody? The phraseology alone tells you a great deal more about the mind than the threat of legal action. “It’s a conspiracy, I tell you! They’re all out to get me!”.
Or is it more like this:
As we used to say in Boston, after one of one Mr. Ramirez’s ‘unfathomable’ utterings or actions: “Thats just Manny (Man-Child) Being Manny”.