Mann-made climate change turns up the heat on Steyn
Michael Mann, the professor who created the climate-change “hockey stick”, announced over the weekend his intention to sue National Review over Mark’s Corner post “Football and Hockey“.
You can see the letter from Professor Mann’s lawyer here.
You can see various reactions here, here, here, here and here.
UPDATE: Rand Simberg responds here, as do Discover Magazine, David Appell, Instapundit, the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion, the Lesbian Conservative, the Pundette, and the excitable lads at Daily Kos. Kathy Shaidle is looking forward to it.
=====================================
Rand Simberg says what we all know here at WUWT:
But does he really want to litigate the hockey stick in a court of law? Does he in fact want to dig into any of his unscientific behavior in a venue in which he will be under oath, and he won’t have sympathetic colleagues covering for him? Does he really want those emails to be read aloud in court? And has he talked to the University of Virginia? Even if they continue to fight the FOIA, how will they fight a subpoena for the missing emails in a civil lawsuit?
If this goes forward, discovery will be very interesting, and very entertaining. I suspect that Peter Sinclair will end up choking on his popcorn.
As predicted, now the Streisand effect is kicking in. I think the message being sent from Steyn and Simberg to Mann is: bring it.
Andrew Montford points out this hilarious Twitter exchange:
[In related news, this Twitter exchange between Mann and Ryan Radia of CEI was interesting
RyanRadia .@MichaelEMann Why did you delete my comment on your FB page re: defamation of public figures and the actual malice standard?
@MichaelEMann You are with *CEI*, front group dedicated to dishonest smears & promotion of disinformation. That’s why. Take it elsewhere.
RyanRadia .@MichaelEMann By your logic re: CEI, wouldn’t I be justified in ignoring anything from Penn State academics because of the Freeh Report?]
Bazinga! It looks like Dr. Mann is already in over his head when it comes to logical arguments. I predict he’ll back down from this and start stonewalling much like he has reportedly already done related to his lawsuit with Tim Ball, which was asking for certain documents in discovery that Mann doesn’t want to give up. It seems Dr. Mann just doesn’t want those UVa emails to come to light.
Dr. Scott Mandia, aka “Supermandia”, leader of Mann’s legal offense defense fund, may have to wade into this morass and rescue Dr. Mann from himself.
From Scott Mandia’s blog he captions this photo: The Caped Climate Crusader: Battling the evil forces of global warming deniers. “Faster than global T rise, more powerful than a stranded polar bear, able to leap over rising seas in a single bound.”
If he can leap over rising seas, why the hip waders? Must be for wading through something deep, but what could it be?
Best advice I’ve seen so far: Don’t tug on Superman’s cape
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don’t see where in the article it says Michael Mann was fraudulent, only that the Hockey stick is fraudulent. The fact that the stick was put together in a way that made it seem continuous data from tree rings showed a rise in temperatures not present in the tree ring data, I can certainly imagine how someone would think the stick itself is deceitful, in the sense of causing people to arrive at the conclusion the data showed continuous temperature rises. In fact, a lot of people did. Is any of this in dispute?
Suppressing free speech is not for amateurs, Mann should take note and either take some learning annex classes on how to do it or stfu.
I wonder, is it possible that the fossil fuel industry is paying for Mann’s high priced lawyers? Somebody has to since an academic would not likely possess the resources needed to hire such vermin.
There is a connection between the issues. Mark Steyn is correct in pointing it out.
Michael Mann has used flimsy science to actively promote a political viewpoint. He won’t release the paper trail of his discussions with Hadley CRU wherein he conspired to hide climate cooling.
Penn State is aiding and abetting the fraud through their legal maneuvers motivated, no doubt, by
1) need for self protection
2) perverse need to continue the propaganda
Sandusky and Paterno et al were culpable in the concealment of the rape of little boys.
Penn State attorneys, ( therefore Penn State) were documented in their awareness of the rape of little boys and acted:
1) to protect themselves
2) not to protect the lives of little boys and to falsely promote Penn State as a paragon of institutional virtue with Paterno as the logo, despite his involvement.
Could the connection be any less glaring?
Penn State acted immorally in both cases. This is how that institution responds to its DOCUMENTED involvement in criminal activity. In one case it is the rape of boys. In the other it is science FRAUD.
Michael Mann is not a child rapist and Mark Steyn never said he was. Michael Mann participated in a deliberate concealment of climate trends and with Phil Jones at CRU orchestrated a coverup. Now Mann is hiding behind the slimmed veil that an institution used to protect the worst kind of criminals.
Are their any people at Penn State with an ounce character?
Evil prevails because good men fail to act.
If Mann sues National Review, I look forward to discovery.
“Live by the hockey stick, die by the hockey stick” is a new saying derived from an old Biblical parable and roughly translated it means, You can expect to become a victim of whatever means you use to get what you want (Richard A. Spears)
Just caught the note identifying at least one of the backers of Mann’s legal activities: The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, a project of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, “PEER”. Begs the question, how many members of public employee unions are dependent upon climate alarmism? Another form of “entitlements”? Sigh.
His lawyer’s letter contains several references to investigations not germane to his hockey stick. Ignore those. However, there are some references that demonstrate investigations occurred and no fraudulant practices were discovered specific to Mann. Our opinion of those investigations not withstanding.
It would be the responsibility of the prosecution to prove libel. Based on the evidence so far presented in investigations, regardless of our opinion of those investigations, I think Mann has a case. The only defense would be to reasonably prove that those investigations were incorrect in some way or that sloppy science is akin to fraud. That would mean a very protracted case. Especially if the offending article could have just as easily used words like “sloppy science reporting” instead of “fraud”.
I think the magazine will comply.
I think if Mann’s lawyers see his Climategate I and II emails and the emails by his colleagues mentioning him, the lawyers would advise him to drop it and shut up.
Don’t tug on Superman’s cape … HAH! Let’s go Michael Mann, let’s go! Your despicable science fraud was white washed by Penn and the NSA so you, evidently, think that you are “bullet proof”. Methinks that now you are about to find out what it means to be a hockey puck.
This can only have one scientific and logical conclusion if he pushes it… and it will be very very bad for mann.
Mann in court reminds me of the story of Lee de Forest being unable to tell the court exactly how is famous Audion worked. Edwin Armstrong new how it worked, refined it, created the regenerative curcuit which led to, among other things, FM radio. Yet, somehow, the Supreme Court sided with de Forest in the patent lawsuit. The thing to remember is a court of law isn’t necessarily the best place to determine scientfic truths.
To Anthony and all WUWTers
This is a heads up to Steyn.
Michael Mann’s litigation is almost certainly funded by George Soros.
I was going to write this up and submit it to WUWT. I still will because it is part of a much bigger picture.
Here are the salient points.
The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was set up on September 12, 2011, by Scott Mandia. Money and support quickly came from the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
Louis Clark sits on the Board of Directors of PEER. He is the founder and Executive Director, since 1978, of the Government Accountability Project (GAP).
GAP is funded by, among others, Soros’ Open Society Institute. The Soros Foundation 2006 report let slip that they had specifically funded GAP for James “Hansen’s defense by providing legal and media advice” when he accused the Bush administration of censoring him.
Lance E. Lindblom, who sits on the board of GAP, was formerly Executive Vice President at Soros Foundation’s Open Society Institute/Open Society Fund.
John Cavanagh, who sits on the Advisory Board of GAP is the long-time Director of the Institute for Policy Studies, of which GAP is an offshoot.
It gets much more interesting but I’ll stop there and provide some substantiating links and excerpts:
Climate Science Legal Defense Fund
About Us
http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/about-us/
On September 12, 2011, Scott Mandia posted a “Dear Colleagues” letter on his blog. It started, “Climate researchers are in need of immediate legal assistance to prevent their private correspondence from being exposed to Chris Horner and the American Tradition Institute who are using Freedom of Information (FOI) to harass researchers.” The outpouring of support was overwhelming. In less than 24 hours, Scott received $10,000 in small donations from scientists, students, and other concerned individuals. This went a long way toward helping solve immediate legal needs. Legal bills for scientists continued to mount, so it became apparent that a permanent organization was needed.
With Scott Mandia and Joshua Wolfe as co-managers, and with the fiscal sponsorship of the non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was founded. This group will serve as the non-profit incubator as we build our own organization.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
http://www.peer.org/about/index.php
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is a national alliance of local state and federal resource professionals. PEER’s environmental work is solely directed by the needs of its members. As a consequence, we have the distinct honor of serving resource professionals who daily cast profiles in courage in cubicles across the country.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
About Us: Board of Directors
http://www.peer.org/about/board.php
Louis Clark is the founder and Executive Director, since 1978, of the Government Accountability Project. G.A.P. is a public interest law firm that specializes in whistleblower protection and environmental advocacy. A lawyer and Methodist minister, Mr. Clark was active in the civil rights movement and worked for prison reform before founding G.A.P.
The Government Accountability Project
http://www.whistleblower.org/about
The Government Accountability Project’s mission is to promote corporate and government accountability by protecting whistleblowers, advancing occupational free speech, and empowering citizen activists.
GAP is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization with an operating budget of around $2.5 million. Gifts to GAP are tax-deductible. The vast majority of our funds come from over 10,000 individual donors and foundations such as the Carnegie Foundation, CS Fund, Ford Foundation, the Open Society Institute and Rockefeller Family Fund. Additional support comes from legal fees, settlement awards, and services provided.
Founded in 1977, GAP is the nation’s leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization. Located in Washington, DC …
Despite it’s noble-sounding claims to “promote … government accountability” here is GAP’s stance on Climategate.
GAP’s Environmental program
http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/environment
Rebuffing politically driven attacks on climate science and the climate science community in support of honest public engagement with its role in public policy. In response to the Climategate controversy over stolen e-mails and other attacks, CSW published original statements from key scientists, providing an important venue for the scientific community to intervene in opposition to a destructive and trumped up attack on its integrity. CSW has also been engaged in commentary on the role of political manipulation of climate science in shaping public opinion, and has called upon leaders in the administration to affirm their support for the climate science community and its role in informing domestic and international climate policy.
The Government Accountability Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Project
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is a leading United States whistleblower protection organization.[citation needed] Through litigating of whistleblower cases, publicizing concerns and developing legal reforms, GAP’s mission is to protect the public interest by promoting government and corporate accountability. Founded in 1975 as part of the Institute for Policy Studies…
Board
http://www.whistleblower.org/about/board-of-directors
Lance E. Lindblom
Lance E. Lindblom was appointed President and CEO of the Nathan Cummings Foundation beginning in December 2000. Before he joined the staff of NCF, Mr. Lindblom served as a Program Officer at the Ford Foundation, focusing on democratic accountability, economic and social policy, and globalization. Prior to that position, Mr. Lindblom was the Executive Vice President at Soros Foundation’s Open Society Institute/Open Society Fund. For 13 years, he worked at J. Roderick MacArthur Foundation, first serving as Executive Director from 1980-1984 and then as President and CEO from 1984 to 1994.
Advisory Board
http://www.whistleblower.org/about/gap-advisory-committee
John Cavanagh
Soros Foundations Network Report 2006
http://web.archive.org/web/20081025093938/http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf
About This Report
The Open Society Institute and the Soros foundations network spent $417,585,000 in 2006 on improving policy and helping people to live in open, democratic societies.
[…]
Scientist Protests NASA’s Censorship Attempts
James E. Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, protested attempts to silence him after officials at NASA ordered him to refer press inquiries to the public affairs office and required the presence of a public affairs representative at any interview.
The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization and OSI grantee, came to Hansen’s defense by providing legal and media advice.
The campaign on Hansen’s behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy.
[…]
Strategic Opportunities Fund 12,824,000
[…]
Total U.S. Programs $74,092,000
note: The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina ($1,652,841); media policy ($1,060,000); and politicization of science ($720,000).
Don’t know why everyone always focuses on Mann’s UVA emails, when they discuss possible fraud. There’s a prima facie case in Mann’s ‘Back to 1400 CENSORED’ directory. The information there factually shows he knew the MBH98/99 construction failed statistical verification, and yet he published anyway. Any prosecutor who put Steve McIntyre in the stand to testify about the contents and meaning of that directory would get an immediate conviction of fraud from any fair judge or jury.
Mann is just pretending…. there is absolutely no chance that he will allow this to go to court, because he know if it does, then he will found to be a fraud and con-artist by a court of law. Steyn’s words were not very nice – but once a court gets to see Mann’s actions, there is no way any court will find Steyn guilty of anything other than telling the truth in a nasty way.
Mann versus Steyn. Talk about an uneven fight. Mann brings an inflated ego and a smirk to the fight, Steyn brings an AK47. I’d buy more popcorn, but the stores are sold out.
“The Defense wishes to call Steve McIntyre to the witness stand” 🙂
All of the sources Mann’s lawyer lists as exonerating him are questionable. In some cases, they were little more than rubber stamps that didn’t look at a shred of evidence; in others, their purview was so limited they were just about rubber stamps. If this ever did get to court, it would be good to see a team of lawyers tear into the house of cards Mann is citing as support.
That said, and while I do think Mann is a liar, likely a fraud, and probably plain wrong, Steyn’s column veered into stupid land. To connect Mann and Sandusky was a dubious move. I don’t know how public a figure Mann is, but much could hinge on that. I suspect NR has exposed itself to some financial risk here. My bet is they settle out of court, if Mann continues to pester them.
Nobody is comparing Mann with Sandusky. What they are saying is this: Any institution that has the moral turpitude to cover up Sandusky’s crimes won’t even have to think twice to cover up what Mann is doing.
I can’t believe the letter actually cites the Penn State investigation “clearing Mann” as evidence that there wasn’t any fraud. That’s the whole point (you [self-snip]), Penn State has demonstrated its lack of ability to conduct an investigation.
I apologize. I think I short changed Dr. Mann. He also brings a tweeter and a handful of bristle cone pine cones to the fight.
For heavens sake. If you believe in CAGW and pine (pun intended) for immediate action, can’t you see that Dr. Mann has served his purpose and is now a liability to your efforts. You can bet that the powers-that-be at Penn State are breaking open the champagne bottles as Dr. Mann brings more attention to the Sandusky affair. In the words of Keith Olbermann, someone tell this bozo to shut the f**k up.
Michael Mann is cc-ed on a crucial email here so I hope this is not too OT (it is about the flawed Gergis et al 2012 paper and emails that have been revealed via FOI):
FOI is needed to try to confirm the truth or falsity of the Gergis/Karoly claim that they discovered the flawed methodology in their recent Journal of Climate paper independently of Jean S. and Climate Audit.
It’s a parallel kind of case to Michael Mann, who was in fact cc-ed (with his Real Climate pals Gavin and Eric) on the main Gergis email announcing to a whole list of data providers and collaborators that the paper would have to be re-worked and re-submitted.
IS there any evidence of the truth of Gergis/Karoly claiming that the co-authors discovered the problem independently of Climate Audit?? Many find this claim extremely implausible… on the SAME DAY that Jean S. announced the problem on Climate Audit? Really? If Gergis/Karoly are telling the truth, almost certainly there would be some email trail of “oh my, look what I just noticed” on and around June 5. For there are the 5 co-authors Gergis, Neukom, Karoly, Gallant, and Phipps. Even though they are all at U. Melbourne I believe, it is most unlikely that they were all in a room or talking on the phone together at the moment the problem was noticed. Is there any email corroboration or not?
Gergis et al scramble to save flawed paper
He really has given up even the pretense of being a scientist, hasn’t he?
p.s. [of course if Gergis et al were savvy climate scientologists they might have created such a false email trail that day, pretending to the independent discovery of a problem even if they really relied upon the Climate Audit discussion, i.e., well knowing of FOI and how embarrassing it would be to be shown to rely upon Climate Audit to correct their science…. but that would require some cunning and conspiratorial foresight that might be beyond them….]
Oh, c’mon guys, let us be kind to our dear Michael and reflect upon what he has provided us with. For one thing, it is a curse for many of us to be plagued by feelings of inferiority. And yet, Michael, unwittingly, has provided those of low self-esteem with an avenue towards non-illusionary feelings of superiority when compared to himself. For instance I’ve felt insignificant all my life and yet here is an individual (Michael Mann) of prominence and fame that I can feel genuinely superior to. Pretty cool.
And it’s undeniable that the Mann has provided us with oodles of comic relief. Moreover he’s given us a snapshot into the human condition: How, as a species, we alone managed to emerge from the caves, and after having done so, managed to belch out legislation (with significant thanks to our current wise and all knowing potus) to return us back into them. Mr. Mann has shown us. Learn it well.
I guess I’m just naive, but:
RE the Dan Satterfield comment at AGU: Jaw-droppingly stupefying that people are still defending the hockey stick! What will it take?