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.
One of the things that Mann is forgetting is that a lawsuit like this does not distract Mark Steyn from his “real job”, costing him money so he would choose to retract his statement. The suit can *become* his job should Mann choose to press forward with it. He can make as much or more writing about the lawsuit as he can about practically anything else – it’s not like he’ll have to take unpaid time off to deal with it.
[snip let’s leave that now deleted comment alone ~mod]
This willl be a comedy gold mine. Obviously Mr. Mann has no clue who Steyn is and what he can do. This is a made for tv epic serial for anyone willing to invest in the rights. My alma mater will make him back down, as they won’t be able to sustain another hit like this. I’m stocking up on popcorn just in case.
Curiously enough, “fraud”, beyond the legal definition, which seems to deceit or trickery to induce someone to part with something of value, is defined in the common usage – lawyers like to see themselves as special – as “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting: Trick. ” in the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition. I do believe that the hockey stick was in fact referred a “trick” – in fact, as “Mike’s Nature trick” in the CRUgate emails was it not?
“Best advice I’ve seen so far: Don’t tug on Superman’s cape”
Actually, I think it is the next line, “Don’t piss in the wind.” Here’s hoping the wind blows right in Mann’s face!
It appears that Professor Mann might just have “jumped the shark”. It could be a very interesting and enlightening “ride”.
Fortunately, the water will be somewhat warmer than it might otherwise have been. (sarc off)
I don’t know what age Mann is, but he should have looked across the pond for the “BBC effect”: when the BBC banned its disc-jockeys from playing a song in the late 60s/70s, it shot to Number One! (eg Je T’Aime)
Mann continues his slide from just funny to ludicrous. I think he has actually convinced himself his research is sound, that good science means truncating data sets that don’t support his preferred outcome and won’t increase the hysteria necessary to keep him famous and the R&D money flowing.
His will be a very sad legacy when time reveals the full scope of his work and activities.
On the other hand, science ethics classes have a gilt edge case study ready made for future scientists learning their craft.
“That is why Anthony approached the topic gingerly in the first post on this subject and why he will, I assume, continue to do so. I think we all need to be aware of that when we post here.”
What’s he going to do? Sue a couple of thousand anonymous commenters? Absurd. In Anthony’s case, and others like him, I don’t doubt they’ll continue to speak the truth without fear.
It has been a long time since I listened to the fascinating tales of “Chicken Mann”. He was a radio rage back in the 70s. I always imagined his costume was identical to the above. GK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenman_%28radio_series%29
I posted this on Dan Satterfield’s ‘Wild Wild Science Journal’ blog…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
You say “Anyone can challenge Mann’s findings”, but when Mann himself is so vigorously trying to keep his findings and results secret (ref. Canadian case against Dr Tim Ball), how can you possibly say that?
You also say “To put it in plain words- the [hockey stick] graph is correct, get over it.”, when far better qualified statisticians than Mann have said it’s junk and even the IPCC have how dropped it, so how can you possibly say that?
We’ll see whether it gets deleted or not. Probably will as they can’t face such simple arguments that have no logical defence.
…..ah…prob explains why Nick Stokes et al can’t bring themselves to admit Manns work is garbage…scared he may get a letter in the post from Mikey! Heh!
Scott Mandia’s photo is just so appropriate. A faked hockey stick and hip waders for the pile they are shoveling. It just needs this in the back ground http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/CSP/CSP990/kiwi-nz-nzl_~k9991383.jpg
“Interesting that they’re not objecting to the Sandusky comparison.”
I don’t think that they could as a libel. It isn’t sufficiently tightly drawn to argue that it allows a reader to draw a direct inference, Steyn in any event disagrees with the parallel. That’s why it’s put down as the mint sauce of “Emotional Distress” to the lamb chop of alleged professional misconduct.
Still the most probable outcome is a fizzle out, If a US suit is filed it’s likely to die in the pre-trial stage when the presiding judge asks Mann’s attorney if he missed class on the day that first amendments rights and the Sullivan decision were taught. If it gets further than that in either a US or other court, the defences will be Truth and Fair Comment. During the discovery phase of this the proceedings are likely to be dropped, at least 7 of the 9 “Inquiries” cited by Mann’s Attorney are not going to want their work picked over under enforceable rules of evidence against civil standards of proof.
“Every influential, high-profile person who comments on Mann and his work will have to be cautious to a greater or lesser degree.”
‘I disagree! Let it hit the fan. Your statement is a reflection of being suppressed by the bully. This nation never would have made history with a run and hide mentality.
Mann has been insulated from real courts. He is living in a bubble.’
Agreed. what’s he going to do, sue 10,000 anonymous commenters? Anthony I’m certain will continue to speak the truth fearlessly. Were he ever sued, I’m sure he’d get all the financial support he needs to mount a vigorous, and devastating defense.
Comments on your blog open to anybody? Reason I ask, mine don’t seem to be coming through …
.
Mann is huffing and puffing at a brick house. He wants to sell his book and needs publicity. He would be taking a huge risk going to court because he will not only be subject to discovery but others associated with him and the science in question will be flooded with subpoenas. He will drag others into the dispute whether they like it or not including Penn State, UVA and other scientists.
Mann may also be counter-sued on the basis that accusing another of defamation where there is no defamation is itself defamation. There are also the thousands of emails held by FOIA, as yet unpublished. What might they reveal when FOIA chooses to release more of them outside the time limit for proceedings and therefore entirely legally?
If Mann was to take this matter to court he must also be aware that the court could find against him allowing for the possibility of legal action directed against him and the academic institutions he has worked for. And how can comparing the way investigations are conducted, which was the essence of the articles, be the same as comparing the subject matter of those investigations, which was clearly not what was done?
Mann seems to be under pressure and lashing out instead of rising above it. Any court case would revolve around the evidence for CAGW. Perhaps a court where all witnesses are under oath is the best place to examine the hockey stick. If Mann isn’t careful this dispute could ruin him.
Michael Mann’s litigation is almost certainly funded by George Soros.
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 “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 (e.g. ties between the Institute for Policy Studies and David Fenton) 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).
Good luck to National Review in defending themselves against Michael Mann and the global warming establishment. Stick it to the Mann!
Mann doesn’t have much going for him anymore except to keep implying that a court might uphold him on libel cases he does not bring. Maybe Climategate 3.0 or efforts to unearth the UVA communications will eventually put a stop to this dance of distraction and intimdation from stating plainly what the specifics support.
I think a good court fight will do everyone a lot of good. Let’s hope they go forward with it.
The analogy in the article was not between the conduct of Mann and the conduct of Sandusky, it was between the investigation of Mann by PennState and the investigation of Sandusky et al by Penn State. In both cases the exonerating reports noted that the persons investigated brought PennState a healthy income.
Ummm … of course, there were a few more steps in there than that; and FM (and the frequencies he used ultimately) do not lend themselves well to the use of ‘regeneration’ techniques and FM demodulation* which as you point out Armstrong also pioneered …
.
*At least not to the point of gaining any of the benefits of FM e.g. the ‘quieting’ effect or the use of limiter stages which remove amplitude noise effects (that normally affect AM receivers). ‘Slope detection’ techniques used on super-regen receivers to demodulate FM are still susceptible to AM variations as there is no limiter stage preceding the FM detector (e.g. the discriminator stage) but it still requires a high enough Q circuit to get amplitude variations to show up for the FM swing such that slope detection will work (slope detection is essentially an FM to AM conversion technique with actual detection then taking place on the derived AM ‘signal’).
.
I just like his whiny Facebook page. Like me! What does he expect but a parade of sickly sycophants and a full-time job deleting the deluge of dastardly deniers? Yewwwww!
I can’t see any way this will ever make it to court. It’s just a “Lawyer Letter” trying to scare people. If the people at Penn State have learned anything they will force Mann to drop this. Do they really need another thorough independent coverup investigation?
Anyone who’s ever listened to Mark Steyn knows he’s a smart guy and a master of language. He knows exactly what he’s saying and any implications that go along with it.
Pamela Gray:
I respectfully write to disagree with the comment in your post at July 24, 2012 at 8:28 am which says:
The only reference to “fraud” in Steyn’s article says;
So the accusation of “fraud” only pertains to the climate-change “hockey-stick” graph and that graph is (actually, those two graphs are) “fraudulent” in exactly the same way that the infamous Piltdown Man is “fraudulent. The “hockey-stick” and Piltdown Man were each constructed by selecting parts of two different items, discarding the non-selected parts of the items, and stitching the selected parts together to create a misleading construct with deliberate intent to mislead.
The Piltdown Man is the most famous scientific fraud in history. And the “hockey-stick” is an identical scientific fraud.
So, there is no doubt, and there can be no doubt, that the phrase “the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph” is true. A true statement is not a libel.
Richard