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.
People who make hockey sticks actually provide value to society. People who need’m and want’m have no problem with pay’n for’m with their own money–i.e., hockey players who use’m to defeat their opponents. Compare that the example of MBH98/99/08 where public money is used to fabricate tools for socialists and despots to undermine Americanism.
@Pamela Gray
July 25, 2012 at 8:19 am
——————————
You are underestimating the magazine’s and Steyn’s ability to raise money via a legal defense fund. Steyn, for example, sits in for Rush Limbaugh and is a well-known commenter on television. ( I know this because I am one of his admirers.) How much do you think Rush Limbaugh would be willing to contribute to Steyn’s defense? I’m guessing it would be a lot. And he would be only one of many willing to pay good money to see Mann undergo a rigorous discovery process that would seek to prove that the hockey stick is “fraudulent.”
Furthermore, I think you also underestimate NR’s devotion and loyalty to freedom of speech and their duty to their readers to not cave in and self-censor after receiving threats from intellectual thugs.
Check the link to Steynonline that I posted above. Steyn doesn’t sound like a man about to head for the corner of a dark basement to quiver in fear. I think he will relish this fight.
woodNfish – I don’t think it’s fair to say Mann ‘ordered’ Wahl to delete emails.
I think that what the public evidence supports is that he assisted Jones in requesting Wahl to do it.
Now, deletion of records subject to FOIA could be considered illegal and if that’s the case Mann could be considered a party to a conspiracy, but I’ll leave that determination to others.
“JEM says: July 25, 2012 at 3:17 pm woodNfish – I don’t think it’s fair to say Mann ‘ordered’ Wahl to delete emails.”
I think the truth is always fair:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-mann-ordered-wahl-to-delete-emails.html
http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2011/03/on-hiding-decline-and-rebuilding-trust_11.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/25/climategate-2-0-email-mike-mann-chracterized-as-crazy-over-mwp-and-serious-enemy/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/06/acton-tricks-the-ico/
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
OO OO I get to make a prediction! 🙂
I predict a new washing machine will be needed at the Mann household if Mann goes to court.
Industrial soaps and bleaches will not remove those stains in his panties.
Friends:
Alarmist web sites censor anything which does not support their mantras. And I think this behaviour needs public exposure.
I posted the following two items to the web site of Dan Satterfield at the link provide in the above article. Both items have been stalled in moderation with no public indication that they were received, so I am copying them here to place on record that they were provided.
Richard
****************
Richard S Courtney said on 24 July 2012
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Mr Satterfield:
I am surprised that you write saying:
“THE FACTS
Dr. Mann has been subjected to an overwhelming amount of hate mail and death threats, (most of which are very badly spelled) because he published a paper several years ago, with the image above in it. You may have heard about this image, it’s called the “Hockey Stick”, and let me say right here, that no matter what you may read on the internet, this image has stood the test of dozens of reviews and investigations. Every scientific peer group that has looked at it says it’s good science and if anyone tells you differently, they are giving you political propaganda.”
Dr Mann has made an assertion of libel. It is not relevant to this assertion whether or not he has been harassed as much as me. At issue is whether the possibility that Mr Steyn’s article made a libelous comment concerning the “Hockey Stick”.
The only reference to the “Hockey Stick” in Mr Steyn’s article says;
“Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.”
So, Steyn’s accusation of “fraud” only pertains to the “climate-change “hockey-stick graph”. And, importantly, 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
**************
Richard S Courtney said on 25 July 2012
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Mr Satterfield:
An entire day has passed and you still have failed to release my post from moderation.
My post is a clear, factual and accurate explanation of why Dr Mann’s allegation of libel would be simply defeated in a court (so it can be confidently predicted that his lawyers will advise against him putting his bluster into practice).
I know that facts are inconvenient for climate alarmists, but in this case the cheerleaders for Dr Mann need to be aware that they are encouraging him to commit professional suicide if he invites a court to consider “Mike’s Nature trick” to ‘hide the decline”.
Also, your comments about the lack of peer-reviewed rebuttal of the ‘hockey stick’ are so wrong as to be risible. I suggest that you would benefit from research of the matter instead of citing the discredited propaganda web site which operates under the name of Real Climate.
Richard
Mark Steyn’s New nickname is “SLIM” – cause this is how it will go down.
im Croce Lyrics►You Don’t Mess Around With Jim Lyrics
Songwriters: CROCE, JAMES
Uptown got it’s hustlers
The bowery got it’s bums
42nd Street got Big Jim Walker
He’s a pool-shootin’ son of a gun
Yeah, he big and dumb as a man can come
But he stronger than a country hoss
And when the bad folks all get together at night
You know they all call big Jim “Boss”, just because
And they say
You don’t tug on Superman’s cape
You don’t spit into the wind
You don’t pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don’t mess around with Jim
Well outta south Alabama came a country boy
He say I’m lookin’ for a man named Jim
I am a pool-shootin’ boy
My name Willie McCoy
But down home they call me Slim
Yeah I’m lookin’ for the king of 42nd Street
He drivin’ a drop top Cadillac
Last week he took all my money
And it may sound funny
But I come to get my money back
And everybody say Jack don’t you know
And you don’t tug on Superman’s cape
You don’t spit into the wind
You don’t pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don’t mess around with Jim
Well a hush fell over the pool room
Jimmy come boppin’ in off the street
And when the cuttin’ were done
The only part that wasn’t bloody
Was the soles of the big man’s feet
Yeah he were cut in in bout a hundred places
And he were shot in a couple more
And you better believe
They sung a different kind of story
When big Jim hit the floor now they say
You don’t tug on Superman’s cape
You don’t spit into the wind
You don’t pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don’t mess around with Slim
Yeah, big Jim got his hat
Find out where it’s at
And it’s not hustlin’ people strange to you
Even if you do got a two-piece custom-made pool cue
Yeah you don’t tug on Superman’s cape
You don’t spit into the wind
You don’t pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
And you don’t mess around with Slim
woodNfish says:
July 24, 2012 at 5:29 pm
…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.
________________________________
That is for sure. Go down to the court house and sit though a couple days. It will turn your stomach. These people are well worth reading if you are in the USA: Fully Informed Jury Association
Gail Combs says: July 25, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Thanks for the link Gail.
Jury Nullification; use it as often as possible.
My problem is, he’s gone after NRO, not Steyn. NRO could drop this like a hot potato. Bad on them if they do.
Mark of course could compound the “libel” by repeating it on his own blog. So far, he’s done nothing but report the alleged libel.
What does the little Mann gain? Even if NRO retract, it’s out there.
DaveE.
Mann teaches “The Earth System” in a Penn State course using Gore’s AIT: I really thought this had to be a joke, but it’s real. Of course it’s possible to include written or visual propaganda in an academic course in order to correct and debunk it, and for diversity of views, but somehow it’s hard to imagaine that is what is happening here. Much more likely (given his many public statements) that he actually still regrads AIT as accurate and useful to “the cause.” Does Mann even correct the “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer” for his eager students?? I wonder…. (anyone know any recent Penn State grads or students who could try to find out from fellow students or alums?)….
In the past when I criticized the misrepresentations in AIT to “serious” people they would always say some version of “well sure it’s reckless propaganda, but what do you expect, it’s made by a politician for political purposes.” Now it seems that the great climatologist Michael Mann regards AIT as worthy of filling TWO slots in his course….
Michael Mann uses “An Inconvenient Truth” as academic course material!!
GAIA – THE EARTH SYSTEM (EARTH 002, Section 2; 3 credits)
Course Syllabus for Fall 2009
W Nov 18 MOVIE: An Inconvenient Truth (Part 1)
F Nov 20 MOVIE: An Inconvenient Truth (Part 2)
(h/t xanthippa and betapug)
[I’m cross-posting from my comment at Climate Audit]
I have a slightly different take on the likelihood of an actual lawsuit being filed–i.e., I believe it is more likely than most people of this blog seem to think. There is no love lost between National Review (NR) and George Soros. Some of the comments to this post have pretty much convinced me that Mann’s legal funds are probably coming from Soros. What if Mikey is a sacrificial pawn in the Soros-NR war? Soros gets to lock horns with NR without risking losing face. Spend money sure, but so what. He spends money for leftist causes like Obama funds failing green energy companies. If Soros wins, he hurts NR. If NR wins, the person that gets thrown under the bus is Mikey. What’s clear to me is that if Mikey is a Soros gambit, with his unbounded ego, Mikey won’t be aware he’s been used until he finds himself abandoned by his team mates.
Dr Chan Chu:
At July 25, 2012 at 3:18 am you ask and assert:
Taking your assertion first, I have had a “focus on the science” of climate change for three decades. And I agree it is important. Also, I agree with you that ad hominem should be deplored.
Your question is important and deserves an answer which nobody has provided so I am writing to fill that void.
I the context of its use the label of the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science” is fully justified, and it is not an ad hominem. Importantly, that label is appropriate so it cannot be compared to the untrue “labeling skeptics as holocaust “deniers” “.
The pertinent point is that Steyn wrote:
Climate alarmists often cite that Mann was cleared of wrong-doing by an “investigation” conducted by Penn State University. However, as Steyn says, that “investigation” of Mann’s behaviour was conducted by the same person and in the same manner as the “investigation” by the same university of another of its employees; viz. Jerry Sandusky. And it is now proven that Jerry Sandusky was guilty. In this context, it is very valid to say that “Michael Mann is the Jerry Sandusky of climate science”: Mann and Sandusky were each “exonerated” by the same person and for the same reason, and that “exoneration” is meaningless.
So, the appropriate response is to say “Michael Mann is the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” whenever it is claimed that Mann was cleared of wrong-doing by Penn State University.
The response is not an ad hominem. It is merely a factual statement in rebuttal of a false claim.
Richard
Posted at Discover Magazine after previous post never saw the light of day:
“What Mann’s hockey stick shows is a present much warmer than the MWP. So if Mann’s defenders wish to mount a good defense they should start by raising sheep and cows in Greenland, and finish by growing grain and grapes in Vinland, wherever they think it may have been. If that’s too much, they might want to start with competitive commercial English wine.
Anything less is all words and numbers–all meaningless if it flies in the face of known history as the stick surely does. –AGF”
As displayed at
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/07/23/deniers-disgust-and-defamation/
at 2255CUT:
293. Thomas Lee Elifritz Says:
July 26th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph
That sounds pretty damning to me. He claims that hockey stick graph was fraudulent, and that Michael Mann is the man behind this alleged scientific fraud. He is calling Michael Mann a scientific fraud, since the graph and paper was demonstrably a scientific effort by way of Michael Mann’s work.
Many reviews have determined that Michael Mann’s efforts in this area were demonstrably honest.
It’s pretty much an open and shut case of widely published defamation. A quick retraction and apology would suffice to clear this matter up. They are giving him plenty of leeway in this matter.
294. agfosterjr Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 26th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
What Mann’s hockey stick shows is a present much warmer than the MWP. So if Mann’s defenders wish to mount a good defense they should start by raising sheep and cows in Greenland, and finish by growing grain and grapes in Vinland, wherever they think it may have been. If that’s too much, they might want to start with competitive commercial English wine.
Anything less is all words and numbers–all meaningless if it flies in the face of known history as the stick surely does. –AGF
Leave a Reply
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
2256CUT, –AGF
Little sensitive to criticism, dude?
Mark Steyn is gently tapping his finger at the dominoes.
Penn State has an endemic cover-up system. Wobble.
Penn State has endemic problems handling it’s rock stars. Wiggle.
Penn State covers for its sugar daddies.
Behind is a second domino, a harsh mann shrieks that he’s been wronged. Red herring.
This mann has got a lot of explaining to do. He’s got a lot of science to answer for. But he will never do it, because he lives in the land of sycophantism; quite cozy, in a school that covers for it’s big money machines.
That is, until a Mark Steyn starts poking his finger into mann’s world. Thanks Mark.
Steyn pokes his finger, the dominoes wiggle. Mann comes out like a protective animal; no facts, just threats.
Scientists fight with facts and observation. Mann fights with money and financial threat. I’ll sue!
Protect the cash, Michael! Lots and lots and lots and lots of cool, cool cash for warm warm sticky well-selected proofs.
If he’s stupid enough to play Steyn, I know exactly where my money is going.
Heartland’s Unabomber billboard revealed them as fringe idiots who couldn’t be taken seriously. They lost staff, their Washington office and millions in funding when they dropped the mask. With this post WUWT drops the mask once more. Mainstream common sense recognises fringe fanaticism and hits the ‘ignore’ button. And that leaves you singing to an ever-shrinking glee club.
mildaykerr says:
July 26, 2012 at 9:52 pm
I’m not going to defend the Heartland billboard because it was wrong headed. Having said that, was it so much different from Joe Romm comparing Sceptics to Anders Behring Breivik or was that OK because it was the right side?
What about the 10:10 No Pressure video was that OK?
Of course there’s always Peter Gleik phishing Heartland and trying to pass off a document which it turns out is a forgery as a genuine Heartland document.
I’m assuming you had reading comprehension problems when it comes to recognising that this post is just reporting news that Dr. Mann drew to everyones attention.
DaveE.
Oh well, my last comment seems to have found the spam bin.
DaveE.
mildaykerr:
Your post at July 26, 2012 at 9:52 pm is similar to the papers of Mann et al on dendrothermology: i.e. it only contains falsehoods and nonsense.
Heartland’s controversial billboard (which I think was a mistake) revealed that they are willing to respond to criticism by correction of error: they withdrew the billboard in hours.
They lost no staff and gained net funding.
WUWT has no “mask”: it posts items from all ‘sides’ including the silly post from you which I am answering. Climate alarmist web sites censor as policy (see e.g. my above post in this thread at July 25, 2012 at 4:17 pm)
There is no such thing as “mainstream common sense”. Real common sense ignores fanatics who proclaim “The End Of The World Is Nigh”.
I do not know which “glee club” you claim is “shrinking”. Personally. I do not have time to join any “glee club” because I am too busy working with the growing army of people who are opposing the lunatic proposals of green activists and climate alarmists.
Richard