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.
Sending a tough letter and never bringing the case may be merely tacky, or it may be actionable. But when one goes beyond posturing and files papers without an adequate basis and belief, the courts get upset. See Rule 11 and sanctions thereunder. Mann’s attorneys must know this. It will be interesting to see what they’ve got; and, if it gets to discovery, it will be very interesting indeed.
Speaking of Michael Mann’s emails, what’s going on with FOI fight over them?
This is quite a serious piece of litigation. Many commentators here wrongly assume that it is without substance and easily defended against. It isn’t. The offending remark is that the’ Hockey Stick’ graph, produced by Michael Mann, is fraudulent!
One possible defence to this is that the allegation is in fact true! But, if American Law is like English Law (and in this respect I think it is), the onus is on the defence to PROVE that.
Now, we can all have our own opinions on the merits of the Hockey Stick graph, but can you absolutely PROVE that it is wrong? The plaintiff in this case will of course bring forth a host of expert witnesses internationally recognised in the field of climatology. What can you bring forth? Some unqualified bloggers who claim that radiation only turns into light when it hits the atmosphere? On Michael Mann’s side is the amassed might of the UN, the IPCC, Nobel prize winners, various scientific bodies and the overwhelming majority of expert witnesses who work and publish in this discipline.
If you were neutral, like the Judge, who would you believe?
However, say by some miracle that you actually succeed in demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt (NB: you probably need more than that in a libel case) that the Hockey Stick graph is wrong (an immense task) – does that mean it is fraudulent? NO, it does not. To prove that, you have to show that the motives of those producing it were not simply wrong, misguided and incompetent but that they INTENDED to commit fraud by producing it.
So, whatever you own opinions, this is a very serious situation. What do you think will happen?
Richard, I agree that defense would focus on proving that the hockey-stick graph is “fraudulent.”
Websters defines “fraudulent” as, “characterized by, based on, or done by fraud.”
And an acceptable definition of “fraud” is, “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick.”
So, it seems as if the defense would merely need to read the email in which it is admitted that Mann used a “trick” to generate the hockey stick graph by “hiding” the decline.
How easy is that? The email uses the exact word that defines fraud, and states that important information was being hidden which is most certainly “an act of deceiving.”
The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, declaring that the First Amendment defends a person’s right to lie — even if that person is lying about awards and medals won through military service; however, there is a qualifier: Justice Kennedy, speaking for the majority, said that Alvarez’s lies “were but a pathetic attempt to gain respect that eluded him. The statements do not seem to have been made to secure employment or financial benefits or admission to privileges reserved for those who had earned the medal.”
Now then, Mann, who if proven has been financially endowed for lying, may well be the loser in court. His freedom to lie is negated by financial benefit. On the other hand, Steyn, who also is making financial benefit through his writings, will be exonerated because they are truthful by default.
Actually, the defense wouldn’t need to prove that the hockey-stick is wrong. They would merely need to prove that there was an act of deception or or misrepresentation involved. Things that aren’t wrong can still be misleading and deceptive. Just ask credit card companies that have been forced to pay out judgments based on their advertising. The plaintiff isn’t forced to demonstrate that an advertise is wrong (false), they merely need to demonstrate that an advertisement is deceiving or misleading.
Thus, despite the fact that the graph may have footnoted that certain temperature data were hidden, the overall graph was most certainly intended to deceive people about the earth’s temperatures.
MORE than “beyond a reasonable doubt”? Are you serious? What standard is higher than this? This is the standard used for murder convictions.
Civil suits typically require merely “a preponderance of the evidence” – which is a much lower standard.
MikeB, to start, lay the ground work so to speak, there are the Climategate emails of Mann and buddies. Then there is Mann’s reluctance to have his UVa emails released. And the stonewalling on releasing documents to Dr. Tim Ball’s lawyers in his suit against Dr. Ball. Who knows what will come up in discovery. As for the IPCC, their credibility is rapidly eroding. You can bet your bottom dollar that many climate scientists, especially those named in the Climategate emails, will be extremely reluctant to go on the stand or give depositions under oath.
MikeB says:
July 24, 2012 at 11:59 am
—————————————————————————
This is what discovery is for.
Pat Frank says:
July 24, 2012 at 8:53 am
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.
“The plaintiff in this case will of course bring forth a host of expert witnesses internationally recognized in the field of climatology.”
Are you kidding? A handful stand behind the offended, multitudes will be glad to be witness or be a friend of the court. The judge will soon realize where the real consensus may emerge. I can think of 30,000 right off the bat and another 50,000 who get not the CAGW funding. I imagine there is a large party of folks in the science related fields that take offense to science of any kind or nature being bastardized.
If Mann digs himself a hole any deeper, he will discover to some real warming…
Steyn’s post does not seem “nasty” to me, as some above have experienced. Instead it has seemed truthful, a breath of fresh air — also putting one of my first thoughts about Penn State into words. Now that Graham Spanier, pres, is gone, and assuming that Penn State is suffering from the higher education bubble such that loss of football income will damage its finances even further, perhaps it is time to get rid of all its morally-intellectually challenged (and essentially criminal)personnel. They might “request” Mann to resign rather than to risk a real investigation. The new leadership might make clear that both rape of children and scientific fraud have no place at Penn State.
Re MikeB atJuly 24, 2012 at 11:59 am
Statisiticians? One thing this case may demonstrate is you shouldn’t bring a climate scientist to a stats fight.
Apologies for the double post above, That wasn’t intentional. There seems to be quite a delay between submission and appearance on screen with this thread.
[Reply: We try to approve comments promptly. But occasionally all 3 mods are away at the same time. ~dbs, mod.]
If you want to help stop Steyn’s editor at National Review from caving for purely financial reasons. Give them a boost. Visit their website (switch your ad-blocker off). Click on their advertisers. Link to them on your blogs. “Like” them on Facebook, Twitter, Stumbleupon etc.
http://www.nationalreview.com/
MikeB says:
July 24, 2012 at 11:59 am
This is quite a serious piece of litigation. Many commentators here wrongly assume that it is without substance and easily defended against…..
____________________________
The climategate e-mails showed that climatology is not a science but a political boondoggle. Mike Mann and his universities have fought tooth and nail to prevent disclosure of the e-mails. Even in the Tim Ball lawsuit Mann is STILL stonewalling the discovery process. This has gone on for years. We know the hockey stick is bogus and it has been proven to be bogus.
This is from WIKI which we KNOW is bias. The Skeptic Mag even has a page asking people to watch dog wiki!
So even Wiki’s whitewash is rather tattered.
So the real question isn’t about the Hockey Stick it is about what Mann is hiding and what has U of Va shaking in their shoes as well as Penn State. Think Nixon tapes. If there was nothing serious the tapes would have been on public display by now.
It’s interesting to see the Mann-fight going on right now over at Amazon Reviews.
110 ***** five-star reviews, 1 *** three-star, 33 * one-star. Typical fish-tail shape.
Top reviews:
***** Mann Handled: A Decade Ago, Conservatives Attacked a Scientist–And Created a Leader (81 of 93, 9 comments)
***** A good scientist acting with integrity (454 of 550, 45 comments)
***** Long live the hockey stick! (302 of 374, 2 comments)
Top one-star reviews:
103 of 246 people found the following review helpful
* A Tale of Two Hockey Stick War Books (Robert Tamaki , 103 of 246, 42 comments)
* I didn’t throw it out of the window …. but it came close (52 of 137, 38 comments)
* A Book Which Requires Careful Scrutiny (Brandon Shollenberger, 75 of 198, 75 comments)
Robert Tamaki is batting Rob Honeycutt (Skeptical Science) right now it seems.
I’m not sure. I Googled “fraudulent hockey stick” and got 1.2 million hits. Seems everybody and his brother or sister has called the hockey stick a fraud at some point: bloggers, other scientists, politicians. Where does the line get drawn that THIS GUY can’t call it a fraud?
Sounds to me like the captain of the Hockey Team is practicing his “Slapp” shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
Wrong, they’re opposite. The onus is on the plaintiff in the US. (Why do you think Britain is a magnet for libel suits?)
The lawyers letter is typical “climate science” speak. The allegations have been fully investigated and Mann has been cleared. But in a Court of Law, you have to listen to the counter arguments. The counter arguments would be that the investigations “exonerating” Mann and others were flawed. Furthermore, in science, a defense lawyer could argue that Mann’s statistical methods fell far short of acceptable statistical standards. The “fraud” bit could be defended by possibly showing Mann made gain from ignoring – indeed endeavoring to suppress through unfounded “denialist” accusations – criticisms.
Furthermore, claims that “scientists agree” would be shot down as hearsay.
The lawyers might give a shot across the bows, but if they have an understanding of Mann’s work, they should strongly advise against letting this anywhere near court.
It is not unusual in the animal kingdom that when a creature is surprised and frightened that their first instinct is to puff up and act menacing…
That said, that letter they sent to Steyn has to be the lousiest threat of legal action letter I’ve ever read. A well written threat of legal action letter should bring an “oh shi_” moment when first read. Mann’s threat to Steyn sure doesn’t invoke fear, to anyone; let alone ruffle a veteran of major legal threats and suits.
I hope Mann goes through and files this threat of suit. None of the so-called investigations cited in his threat letter were ‘thorough investigations’ as he claims. I’d sure like to see Mann convince anyone truly qualified to sit on the stand and defend, under oath, how thorough the investigations were. Especially with cross examination following the prosecution’s friendly examination. The same goes for his famous hockey stick that has been ‘repeatedly verified’ by independent sources. Anyone sitting on the stand in support of the stick’s validitiy will endure the same examination and eventual cross examinatio. These under oath interviews will only occur after full discovery on how Mann gets his sticks. Which of course, means that Mann will have to demonstrate that independent researchers not only can but have replicated his stick research, and that Mann can replicate the sticks with exactly the same original code and data. Plus he will have to demonstrate full merit for both his code and data with all particulars (like meta-data and math).
Nah! This animal has hissed and arched his back. There may be a little more hissing and bluster, but after sizing up the opponent and what will really be needed in a fight, he’ll slink (or maybe bolt) away. After all, it’s far far better to claim sham investigations cleared him than to possibly undergo a truly serious data and code revealing investigation. I’m reasonably sure that after slinking away, his ever faithful enraptured public will claim another win and insist that he weathered another investigation (snicker).
Forgive my ignorance (I’ve not been all that long in this arena), there is something I am surely missing. I don’t care if Mann takes anyone to court (I agree with those who think he’ll balk at the last minute, he doesn’t want anything out there). What I want to know is, why hasn’t anyone taken Mann to court? We have the evidence, we have the claim, why isn’t anyone actually pressing charges? Or is it in the pipeline and still pending, or something? What does it take?
Too delicious… Michael Mann vs my favourite defender of free speech, being discussed in my favourite forum.
If all critics of ‘politically correct’ consensus had Mark Steyn’s steel balls and formidable ability to logically ridicule PC positions, the PC and Warmista crowd would be cowering in dark corners. Instead they smarm their tawdry world view through ad hominem attacks on those with a regard for truth and a sense of justice and proportion.
Unleash the Steynamite, Mann!
Mann was actually a young scientist starting his career at the height of the AGW scare 1998 temps remember London 36C in summer? (i even believed it). He got caught up in the scam and was encouraged by his peers. He’ll just disappear when we all realize it was a huge mistake
BTWGgoogle aint showing ANY negative Mann stories on this. Those 20 filters people are working hard. Shoul make this sticky post its pretty big no?
I’m not sure what he meant by the English to American law comparison, but if a defense attempts to assert a “truth” defense, then the burden of proving true or substantially true is on the defense.