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
Who would do this and for what specifically? Who has standing?
“Ally E. says: July 24, 2012 at 4:31 pm
…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?”
The Virginia attorney general tried to do something, but was unable to convince the court to agree. Everyone posting here who thinks the courts are these wonderful champions of truth and justice is seriously deluded. Our justice system is totally corrupt from the lowest beat officer to the Supreme Court both civil and criminal. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the 9th circuit court.
“Rogelio Diaz says: July 24, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Mann was actually a young scientist…”
Calling Mann and his cohorts “scientists” is an insult to science.
Mann suing NR for defamation reminds me of a murder case a few years ago in my county in Virginia. A man killed his neighbor for “trespassing” (or at least that was the defense he used in court). In actuality, the two had been feuding for years, and the killer used it as an excuse to kill the victim in cold blood (and may have even the killed the victim on the victim’s property and dragged the body across the property line). He got off Scot-free. But then he aded insult to injory by suing the victim’s family to recoup his legal expenses. Chutzpah of the highest order!
I’ve often said that the best advocate AGAINST global warming alarmism is Al Gore. Gore’s mansion that uses 20 times as much electricity as the average home, his private jet, his limos, and all the other contributors to his GINORMOUS carbon footprint, while telling all the rest of us that we have to reduce ours, makes him the ultimate hypocrite. But Mann is now rapidly approaching Gore in the “embarrassment factor” department. At least for those who understand the science and the math, Mann’s “hockey stick” and all his other dubious statistical methods, along with his concealing and cherry-picking of data, is making alarmism look increasingly stupid to neutral observers.
And now he has the umitigated GALL, after avoiding a complete exposure of all his UVa emails by the VA AG, to SUE someone for calling him the FRAUD that he is. One can only hope that 1) Mann is stupid enough to follow through with this suit, 2) NR has the gonads to stand up to it, and 3) the discovery process exposes the emails that UVa fought so hard to conceal. And 4) that they show the trial live on Court TV, but that’s probably too much to hope for.
I ain’t defending the Mann at all. I agree he should not be called a scvientist NOW but he probably was when he started his career. He lost the right now (refer to Clmate audit and Lindzen’s and Singers complete destruction of Hockey stick)
Wood fish you are probably right in insight he should never have been a scientist hahahahah
I, too, hope the lawsuit goes forward, and the more detail it goes into the better! The gold mine of incriminating data it produces will then enable one or several BIG class action suits for fraud. Against not only Mann but UVa, EPA, and all the other organizations which by “exonerating” Mann have only discredited themselves — maybe even Soros and the UN!
Everyone who has been hurt or lost money due to “climate change” related regulation should be eligible to collect punitive damages. Not to mention the families of the thousands who have been needlessly dying in car crashes since the Carter administration because EPA’s mileage regs force them into lighter weight cars.
Google:
“Michael Mann hockey stick fraud” … 140,000 results
“Michael Mann hockey stick discredited” 87,700 results
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy :
Mann refused to cooperate, deleted data from the site, then attacked M&M claiming they used bad/wrong data, then was forced to admit M & M were correct and had pointed out errors, and had to provide the correct data.
It was further shown Mann selectively excluded data that did not support the “hockey stick” and worse, when the bristlecone data was not supportive of their claims in recent years they deleted that section and replaced with the instrumental record – despite Mann’s statements that he would never append instrumental data to another record.
Man was noted in several climategate emails commenting that he was deleting FOIA subject info and data and was actively attempting to interfere with or block the work of M&M,
That’s just a brief from memory recollection – Others here can more accurately fill in the facts, but there is plenty of evidence that Mann was fraudulent in his creation and perpetration, and ongoing support of the hockey stick.
And there is more than enough evidence – even in the Wiki record – to show a reasonable person could conclude Mann’s work was fraudulent.
Last – as a public figure Mann has a far higher standard to prove. The defense need prove nothing – Mann must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a reasonable person would conclude Steyns claim was false … and, here’s the kicker, that Steyn knew it to be false AND intended to cause damage to Mann by making the statement.
No rational reading of the Steyn’s comments can find anything of the sort. And the evidence shows clearly that it is not unreasonable to believe Mann’s hockey stick involved fraud.
And here is MORE than enough evidence in one spot to defend his belief that Mann’s work was fraudulent:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/04/if-you-still-believe-that-climategate.html
Mann’s new handle- a boy named sue.
Nope. Here’s what Wikipedia says about Libel Tourism:
And here’s what it says under Defamation.
From Wikipedia: “Under United States law, civil discovery is wide-ranging and can involve any material which is “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.”” and “Electronic discovery or “e-discovery” refers to discovery of information stored in electronic format (often referred to as Electronically Stored Information, or ESI).”
Subpoena every email Mann ever sent.
Subpoena every email of everyone Mann corresponded with (especially those involved with the IPCC!).
Subpoena every line of computer code used in every paper he ever published.
Subpoena every data set he ever worked with, including those used in papers he co-authored.
It’s Christmas in July!
Michael Mann publicly disseminated the threat letter from his attorney to Steyn. In it he publicly attacks Steyn and accuses him of libel. Should he FAIL to take Steyn to Court this action could be construed as libel in itself. Especially sicne Mann himself purposely disseminated it.
I would hope in the event Mann runs away as we all expect – that Steyn initiate action against Mann.
I would gladly contribute to that action.
Maybe we can have a national concerted effort … a we think “Michael Mann is a fraud” day … give him plenty of defendants to go after 😉
Uh, not really. The court decided (correctly, apparently) that the state did not have the authority to bring that sort of action (I believe it was civil) against UVA, i.e., Cuccinelli simply chose the wrong legal avenue to pursue. Should evidence of actual fraud appear, however…
Because most of the people that Mann has slimed are above such petty retorts. Class is always obvious in the actions of those that have it.
Mark
Forget tugging on Mark Steyn’s cape, they’re tugging on 2000+ years of legal precedent. Tell one lie and all the others become questionable. A US court of law is supposed to consider invoking that principle as libelous? The judge is going to have trouble keeping a straight face. I expect the suit to be dismissed with prejudice. The tricky part for Steyn is going to be getting to discovery before the suit is dismissed.
Michael Mann has encountered an intellect in Mark Steyn that he is beyond his pay grade. A law suit against him? It would seem so appropriate for Michael Mann to do just so. Time has a way of telling all things.
I can only wonder will Michael Mann be bright enough to get out of this before it all blows up in his face?
One can certainly extrapolate how this action could affect other actions. The threat to the endangerment finding is real.
They are figuring that out right about now and slimming up Brothers!
Regarding one of the links commenting on the Mann made lawsuit threat,
an AGU sponsored blog [!]
Climate Expert Dr. Michael Mann Plans Libel Suit Against The National Review
by Dan Satterfield
http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2012/07/22/slandering-someone-because-of-their-scientific-findings-can-be-very-costly/
I tried to post the following questions in the comments section:
However apparently my questions above can be simply be dismissed as “crazy stuff”.
Hmmmm.
Thanks for answering why Mann has not been taken to court, WoodNfish, and my hat off to the attorney general who tried it. Like most con artists and thieves, however, all those locked into this massive scientific fraud will be repeat offenders. I’m still trusting he – and the rest – will have his day in court. History will fry him, even if global warming doesn’t. 🙂
Steyn has followed a similar course of action in the past to great effect, ultimately leading to the repeal of Section 13 of the HRB in Canada.
If Steyn loses, he will make it up in publicity and book sales. If Mann loses, climate science will never recover, and Steyn is forever known as the person that exposes the fraud. Make no mistake, if Mann proceeds with a suit and loses, climate science is done. Finished.
Think about it. If Mann loses people will take it to mean that climate science is a fraud. If Steyn loses it will change nothing,
People here seem to be making the error that if something is demonstrably scientifically false that the courts will see it the same way. One just has to look at the issue of breast implant litigation to determine that the courts dismissed scientific studies that breast implants don’t cause autoimmune diseases.
What counts in law is not whether one is scientifically correct but whether one can convince a judge and jury that this is the case. Lawyers, in my experience, are one of the most innumerate groups of people in existence and I haven’t seen debunking of Mann’s hockey stick presented in a way which a lawyer or judge could understand. I once looked at a simple mathematical problem that was needed in a court case and gave the lawyer the answer after solving it in my head. It turns out the same problem had gone to an accounting firm for a solution. I suggested that they could dispense with this expense as I’d solved the problem; the reply was “are you an accountant”. The inference, of course, was that only a properly licensed chartered accountant could be relied upon to properly deal with this trivial problem.
Court’s are also the most credentialist organizations in existence where, the greater the number of credentials a witness possesses, the greater the weight given to their evidence. I found out about this in the medical legal area where I’ve been told multiple times by lawyers that I’ve gone beyond what a GP should be writing about in medical legal reports. My throwing down all of the research papers in front of the lawyer backing up my statements doesn’t influence them one bit; they want the patient seen by a specialist who has more credentials than I do. It makes no difference if the specialist with the better credentials hasn’t read a scientific journal in the past decade – what does matter is how many letters one has after ones name.
Courts are also incapable of conceiving that people with the appropriate credentials would conspire to suppress the truth. Courts recognize cargo cult science if the credentials of the incompetent scientists are verified.
Science, when properly done, doesn’t care the least whether the originator of an important discovery has a PhD or was a janitor with a mathematical hobby. Mann’s hockeystick has been blown out of the water and the whole theory of CAGW has been disproved. However, Mann can point to his IPCC connections, the “prestigious” centers with which he works and the importance the government attaches to his findings (such a wonderful excuse to raise taxes under the pretense of combating CAGW). These are factors which courts will rate very highly. The fact that Mann is totally wrong is not rated highly by the court because the people who are opposing him don’t have the correct credentials.
The only thing one could hope for in this case is that an appropriately credentialed statistician who is able to simplify concepts into language a lawyer would understand is called as a witness for Steyn and NRO. Mann knows he’s lost the battle in the scientific community and what he’s attempting to do is preserve his reputation and the courts are the only way he can do that.
In general, you are correct, but defamation law is not quite the same as other civil or criminal law. While true that the best bet for a defendant is a suit in the US (and this one is not in the US), there is still more latitude and a general unwillingness to punish people simply for expressing their opinions. Also, regardless of how many letters one has after his name, once one lie is uncovered in a court of law, everything else will be tainted. That’s why discovery is so important.
Mark
Boris Gimbarzevsky:
At July 24, 2012 at 10:34 pm you say;
True, but that problem does not arise in this case where the issue is whether or not the ‘hockey stick’ is fraudulent. Matters of science are peripheral to consideration of fraud.
As I said in my above post at July 24, 2012 at 11:29 am,
In other words, the court only needs to see the evidence of “hide the decline” to know there is no doubt that the ‘hockey stick’ is a deliberately misleading construct: i.e. the ‘hockey stick’ is fraudulent.
Of course, the defence may wish to use the court as a forum to publicise all the other nefarious problems of the ‘hockey stick’, but that does not change the important fact that ‘hide the decline’ is simple to demonstrate.
Richard
I highly doubt Mann vs Steyn will ever happen.
As someone pointed out upthread, the more likely target will be National Review, a hollow shell of its former self, not even vaguely recognizable as the courageous institution begun by the late, great Bill Buckley. The current pantie-wearing child-in-charge Rich Lowry probably has more Gore Vidal books on his shelf than those by William F. The smart money would be on him caving in faster than a liberal being waterboarded.
On the other hand, Mann going after Mark Steyn would be like debating H. L. Mencken. He loses on all fronts, humor, wit, the facts, not to mention Steyn buys ink by the proverbial barrel. And if that isn’t enough, he has semi-regular access to the biggest platform in talk radio. There is a word for bringing a butterknife to a gunfight … suicide.
But just on the off chance that Mann really is as dumb as he looks, I would like to echo the many previous comments and urge him, no, beg him to do it anyway. This might finally bring some closure to the AGW scam once and for all. And besides, it will be really funny and satisfying seeing Mann walking around with his hockey stick rammed up his butt.
“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”
This is a libel suit, against a New York based publisher brought by a Public Figure. If a US suit is bought the defendant only has to prove that on the balance of probalility they did not act with “Actual Malice”. They don’t have to disprove the Hockey Stick, or prove actual fraudulent intent by its authors, they just have to show that they had a reasonable foundation for their *opinion* that it is fraudulent.
Now consider objectively the following :
Splicing instrument to proxy data to conceal the fact that the proxies used do not validate against the best and latest instrument data.
Using a procedure that produces an expected result even from noise.
Employing and not correcting upside down,contaminated data
A Peer Reviewed Statistics paper that concludes that the conclusion stated
can’t be drawn from the data used. When attempting to rebut said paper making making simple mathematical errors.
What’s your opinion?