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
Don Brown – now there is yet another fraud – and one of the worst kind. He use the shroud of writing about ethics to promote that it is acceptable to ignore ethics when it comes to climate.
In addition to his illogical and ridiculous defense of Gleick – whose behavior cannot be deemed ethical by even the widest stretch of the imagination – here is another grand example:
“Why Ethics Requires Acknowledging Links Between Tornadoes and Climate Change Despite Scientific Uncertainty.”
http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2011/05/why-ethics-requires-acknowledging-links-between-tornadoes-and-climate-change-despite-scientific-unce.html
Never mind there is no scientific proof – just a mere inconvenience – he absurdly claims ethics REQUIRES – the reporting of a link that does not exists.
Awww whats a matter Mikey,not been getting any publicity lately…… didums
As any good lawyer will tell you, “put up or shut up”…….
….popcorn come and get yor popcorn…. show time
Not too many weeks ago Michael Mann and Donald Brown joined forces in a forum aimed at tarring “skeptics” as enemies of humanity:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/15861/Penn-State-Climate-Ethics-Prof-Donald-Brown-says-skeptics-are-guilty-of-a-new-crime-against-humanity-for-delaying-action-on-global-warming–It-is-really-evil-stuff-It-is-nasty
Although I doubt that the NRO piece was actually intended to lure Mann into a legal attack, if Mr. Steyn has read any comment threads like this one, the idea would certainly have occurred to him by now.
I suppose it’s even possible that, just as members of the fraternity have managed to produce the spectacles of Climategate and Fakegate, Dr. Mann may yet enthrall us with Litigate.
Well, one can always dream …
@keithkloor is charging defamation against Anthony on Twitter.
theduke says:
Responsibility for repeating Louis Freeh’s offensive rhetoric.
By all means criticise Dr Mann’s “science” or his ethics. But Mr Freeh’s accusation is simple ad-hominum slime.
I repeat: we can do better.
This may sound a bit strained as I don’t list exactly what I object to. I’m honouring Anthony’s request not to “excerpt parts of the article”, however a quick read of Mr Steyn’s piece should make the context obvious.
Now it appears that Dr. Mann is on the road to self destruction with his absurd announced intention of a new defamation lawsuit against Mark Steyn and National Review:
Breaking: Climate Scientist Michael Mann Lawyers Up after Penn State Child Sex Link
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/breaking-climate-scientist-michael-mann-lawyers-up-after-penn-state-child-sex-link/
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
“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…”- M.Mann
Not in the least!
READ THE COMMENTS – SweetPea…most hope you do end-up in court. ‘)
Michael Mann and Donald Brown doing the “crimes against humanity” schtick against all “skeptics” is pure defamation on a vast scale, just as with the “deniers” label…. trying to delegitimize all dissenters as supportive of “crimes against humanity.”
“@keithkloor is charging defamation against Anthony on Twitter.”
No, he isn’t.
[snip – over the top]
I see that Don Brown has left Penn State and is now at Widener University School of Law, with his same warped ethics. He has a blog, Ethics and Climate – http://blogs.law.widener.edu/climate/ espousing why it is alright to use civil disobedience to reduce CO2.
@Michael J
Setting aside the merits of the issues for a moment, you are confused about who is the author of what you object to…. Louis Freeh did not write the passage quoted by Mark Steyn, that was the writer Rand Simberg. The reference to Louis Freeh is about the independent investigative report on the Sandusky case, which severely criticizes Penn State’s former administrators and Paterno for a cover-up there. But it is others who have made the comparison of administrative cover-ups, not Freeh.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/21/the-questions-that-were-never-asked/
How quick he is to retain a lawyer. If only he had retained a statistician with that same gusto.
“[snip – over the top]”
True, though. A shame you don’t call out these smears for being waaaayyyyyy OTT.
Michael Jankowski says:
July 21, 2012 at 5:29 pm
How quick he is to retain a lawyer. If only he had retained a statistician with that same gusto.”
0——————-
+10
That rattling sound you hear is michael mann’s baby rattle trying to imitate the rattle of a snake in order to intimidate NRO. It looked like it would work too after he ran it through his algorithm. Someone put his pacifier back in and wind back up the baby mobile.
@ur momisugly Michael J re
July 21, 2012 at 4:07 pm
You’ve completely misread the column. Freeh didn’t say what you are saying he said. Maybe he should sue you for defamation.
Mann’s lawyers letter to the NR
http://postimage.org/%5D%5Bimg%5Dhttp://s14.postimage.org/7yv69pk9t/599812_401767993212742_781065817_n.jpg
http://postimage.org/%5D%5Bimg%5Dhttp://s8.postimage.org/m9zsep2ol/531607_401768043212737_603000984_n.jpg
http://postimage.org/%5D%5Bimg%5Dhttp://s13.postimage.org/n2q0sgihz/205403_401768099879398_275428058_n.jpg
Scanned images posted by Mann to his public FB site.
With the ‘hockey stick’ Mann achieved the opposite of the Snowflake Effect.
h/t Typhoon, here are clickable links to the 3 pages of the letter of Mann’s attorney to National Review:
Mann’s attorney’s letter p.1
attorney letter p.2
attorney letter p.3
His attempt to suppress this is just Manna from heaven for sceptics….
(Pun intended)
“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”
LOL. I guess people can’t help themselves getting fired up when they see the bald-faced liar Mann in the media, using legal threats and intimidation which by now is par for the course.
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?
Er, no.
The NR isn’t some small, one-off blog full of vile; it’s a (once) respected, widely read magazine. But that’s almost beside the point; NR’s editors decided to publish a hatchet job they knew to be libelous. That’s illegal, and that’s actionable. I think Dr. Mann deserves more than just a retraction and an apology; I think he deserves monetary damages–and I hope he wins.