Readers may recall Dr. Mann’s emotional hullabaloo over an NRO published Mark Steyn editorial here. NRO responded to Dr. Mann’s legal threat today, and the headline is priceless.
NRO’s headline is succinct and to the point, I like it. Here’s the response from NRO editor Rich Lowry:
And this is where you come in. If Mann goes through with it, we’re probably going to call on you to help fund our legal fight and our investigation of Mann through discovery. If it gets that far, we may eventually even want to hire a dedicated reporter to comb through the materials and regularly post stories on Mann.
My advice to poor Michael is to go away and bother someone else. If he doesn’t have the good sense to do that, we look forward to teaching him a thing or two about the law and about how free debate works in a free country.
He’s going to go to great trouble and expense to embark on a losing cause that will expose more of his methods and maneuverings to the world. In short, he risks making an ass of himself. But that hasn’t stopped him before.
Heh, how well can Mike pound sand? Read the whole thing here.
UPDATE: The response from NRO’s attorney to Dr. Mann’s attorney is here (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If Mann does not proceed with his threatened case, then he is admitting that the NRO is right in characterizing his research as a fraud.
If he does proceed with the case, he will crash and burn.
Rock, meet hard place.
Hoisted on your own petard Mann. LOL
Personally, I’m not a fan of the Jerry Sandusky comparison. I think they should withdraw it voluntarily, upon mature consideration of their own historical standards, and not because of legal threat. National Review has a proud 60 year history of fighting hard, but clean, in the area of ideas –that one was a low blow.
But if this becomes a lawsuit, yes I will contribute to NRO’s defense fund.
Mann’s work has been proven time and time again to not be fraudulent.
Also it has been reproduced by others using other lines of evidence.
And your suggested response to him saying that you shouldn’t call it fraudulent, because its not is “If it gets that far, we may eventually even want to hire a dedicated reporter to comb through the materials and regularly post stories on Mann.”?
Brilliant. That will prove your point.
Reply: Posting under multiple identities is forbidden here, but this is so bad it almost looks like an honest mistake. Leaving in place for embarrassment factor. ~ ctm drive by.
Mann’s work has been proven time and time again to not be fraudulent.
Also it has been reproduced by others using other lines of evidence.
And your suggested response to him saying that you shouldn’t call it fraudulent, because its not is ”[i]f it gets that far, we may eventually even want to hire a dedicated reporter to comb through the materials and regularly post stories on Mann”?
That’s your best argument? If you try to protect your rights, we’ll bully you?
Reply: Posting under multiple identities is forbidden here, but this is so bad it almost looks like an honest mistake. Leaving in place for embarrassment factor. ~ ctm drive by.
Ali says:
August 22, 2012 at 12:49 pm
“Get lost.”
Either NRO has evidence of fraud or famous last words I’m afraid.
It really helps to actually read before commenting. Exaggeration is protected and has many court decisions to demonstrate it. In this case it is plain that the author of the NRO article was questioning the quality of Mann’s work, accusing him of illegality. The response from NRO actually quotes some relevant decisions. “Fraud” is not merely a “legal” term and was in use before lawyers became as popular as they are now. No where did the article accuse Mann of criminality.
The NRO lawyers are also telling Mann’s that if Mann persists they will insist on yanking his trowsers down in public. Mann has been fighting tooth and nail not to reveal material that might be problematic – or might simply be fighting because he is pig-headed, dogmatic and childish.
what the ABC in Australia are saying about Mann and this mate Muller sceptic reborn: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/phillips-climate-sceptic-reborn-a-believer/4199130
Are wombat and kiwrob the same troll or is someone writing lines for people to customize with a closing sentence?
Who are these clowns trying to kid?
Worthy of Twain, or Bierce. Well done, Rich Lowry!
/Mr Lynn
kiwirob says:
August 22, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Mann’s work has been proven time and time again to not be fraudulent.
——————–
Please tell me you forgot the /sarc tag. His work has been proven to be wrong time and time again. His claims are not reproducible and he refuses to provide any data. The investigations he had to “endure” were as simple as ” Mr. Mann do you think you did anything wrong? No sir my work is perfect because I said so.” No real investigation by an impartial party was ever undertaken.
Please read Climate Gate 1,and 2 emails. Hell don’t listen to the Skeptics do your own research and don’t be a sheep. The truth shall set you free.
@Jeremy Poynton says:
August 22, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Thank you so much for sharing. I have not laughed so hard in a long time.
Geo, they did.
“Wombat says:
August 22, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Mann’s work has been proven time and time again to not be fraudulent.”
If anyone has to have their work investigated so often then I rather think something is amiss. Don’t you?
@kiwirob says:
August 22, 2012 at 8:38 pm
aka “wombat”, which is Aussie, not Kiwi. Says it all right there.
Thanks, Rob.
By the way, the “bullying” was only an incidental to the extremely sound legal position adopted by National Review’s attorney. The “bullying” was simply a legally tenable argument that should this go public, we will make sure this goes public. Are you, Rob, gonna contribute to Mann’s legal fund? Muahahahaha!
Wombat and Kiwirob:
I assume your posts are intended to mislead ‘lurkers’ who are not familiar with the facts. You each assert that the ‘hockey stick’ graphs of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH) are not “fraudulent”.
Therefore, I write to dispel any doubts about the fact of the fraud which your posts may have created.
The ‘hockey stick’ fraud has identical nature to the ‘Piltdown Man’ which is the most infamous scientific fraud in history.
It is necessary to know what MBH did in order to understand the ‘hockey stick’ fraud.
MBH obtained data on thicknesses of tree rings. They used that data to generate a graph of temperature of half the Earth (i.e. the northern hemisphere; NH) over centuries.
But their method did not work. Measurements showed the temperature rose rapidly after 1960 but their graph indicated the temperature falling rapidly after 1960. This fall in temperature indicated by their graph is known as ‘the decline’, and the difference between their graph and measurements is known as ‘the divergence problem’.
The divergence problem indicates that their graph does not indicate temperature of the northern hemisphere. Importantly, if the divergence problem exists after 1960 then it probably existed at other times for when measurements do not exist.
Undaunted, MBH published their graph in the journal Nature and pretended their method worked. The ‘climategate’ emails reveal that this deliberate pretense was achieved by using “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”.
MBH did not publish the data plotted by the graph but did publish the graph. Importantly, they plotted the measured data as a thick line over the top of the portion of their graph for after 1960. Thus, the portion of their graph after 1960 was obscured by the plot of measured data. Thus, “Mike’s Nature trick” gave the impression that their method showed rising temperature after 1960 because “the decline” was hidden by the plot of measured data.
The result was the ‘hockey stick’ graph: it showed temperature flat for centuries (the ‘handle’ of the stick) with a recent up-turn in temperature (the ‘blade’ of the stick).
This misrepresentation of their findings was a risk. Clearly, a scientific paper should correctly report its findings. In this case ‘the divergence problem’ was the major finding of the work by MBH, but the papers published by MBH in Nature in1998 and 1999 presented the ‘hockey stick’ and did not mention ‘the decline’. Clearly, there was a possibility that this misrepresentation would soon be observed so Mann provided ‘damage limitation’ by mentioning ‘the decline’ as a minor point in another paper. Thus, if ‘the divergence problem’ were revealed then MBH could respond with a claim that they had reported it elsewhere.
Fortunately for MBH, “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline” was not exposed until ‘climategate’. Before then the ‘hockey stick’ was used as the poster around which the message of the IPCC AR3 Report was built.
“Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline” is one of the greatest scientific frauds in history. Indeed, its nature is identical to that of the ‘Piltdown Man’ which is the most infamous scientific fraud in history.
The ‘hockey stick’ and the ‘Piltdown Man’ are frauds where in each case
1. parts of two different items were selected,
2. the not-selected parts were not shown,
3. the selected parts were stitched together to form a constructed item, and
4. the constructed item was presented as being scientific evidence
5. with deliberate intent to mislead the scientific community.
I assume – and hope – NRO’s lawyers are aware of this.
Richard
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
“What did Jerry Sandusky say when he got out of prison? “Mann, it feels great to be out of there, I feel like a kid again.””
You are a very bad man….True irony is when Sandusky sues NRO for being compared to Mann..
/sarc
I live for the day Michael “Piltdown” Mann is put under oath by a prepared lawyer.
I am ready to contribute to preparing that lawyer.
Sorry Mr Mann, you can’t sue someone for valid criticism, even if it does say Mann is a douche.
Darn, now why would they warn him?? They should have taunted him a little and fed him some more rope….
Well Mr Michael Mann, if your snake oil graph isn’t fraudulent, give up science, it means your a poor scientist but get to advertising, that’s where your talents lay.
Baker and Hostetler (NRO’s attorneys) is big, well resourced, and does not take prisoners. I think Dr. Mann has bitten off more than he can chew.
Can someone better versed in the law tell me if Dr. Ball can use the NRO article as evidence if Mann does not sue NRO? I know the NRO article does not imply criminal fraud on the part of Mann, but his reluctance to allow any examination of his work should be a red flag that can be used as a defense against a suit by him.
Some commenters at the article are now suggesting that NRO file a suit requesting declatory relief. Based on Mann’s threat of action and NROs journalistic intent for continued criticism of Mann along the same lines as “master of the tree-ring circus,” it can be requested and would remove Mann’s ability to just drop it. At that point, he would be forced to cave or come up with the documents – eventually.
This would cost money and years – something Mann’s lawyers (and NRO) have already thought of. The strong response by NRO is not giving anything away legally. These public letters are for the public’s consumption. I’m in favor of everybody forcing the issue now, if only to run Mann out of money or find out who his sugar daddy is while getting him to cave and stop his jihad on everyone who questions him. Apparently, the FOI requests – even put into the form of a subpoena – will never be met although the information is available and we will have to take that for what it implies about the content.
BTW, I am free to think Mann is a fraud and say so. I just can’t publish a statment that he has been convicted of, or plead guilty to fraud or misrepresentation nor can I claim that he lost a lawsuit filed on those grounds until those things finally come to pass.
Also BTW, if I were Tim Ball and found myself the object of Dr. Mike’s unwanted attention and forced to spend a lot of time and possibly all of my money and distraction from my profession for honestly crticizing the guy, I could certainly see how it would feel like a humiliating and life-altering violation by someone looking to get their undeserved personal satisfaction in serial and near psychopathic disreagrd for others, notwithstanding dissimilarities to his Penn State colleagues like Sandusky. (Full disclaimer: Unlike the case of Harry Reid, I have not yet heard from anyone that Michael Mann is a pederast. And Harry Reid for sure isn’t about to sue anyone for that.)
The statement “he risks making an ass of himself” is technically incorrect. He risks *revealing* himself to be an ass. He already is what he has made himself to be – a true ‘self-made Mann’.
In the 1930’s James Hopwood Jeans, in his book The Mysterious Universe reasoned that God created the universe and was a pure mathemetician. Bertrand Russell, in his book, the scientific outlook challenged this hypothesis by stating that if He were a creator, science proves that something cannot be created from nothing, thus He is subject to th esecond law of thermodynamics and other laws of physics. If He were a metaphysical deity He would not be able to create anything, since science proves that something cannot be created from nothing.
Jeans did not take Russell to court.
Neither did the church take Darwin to court for stating that man evolves from apes, which was a difficult concept from the church since if Jesus dies to save man, he dies to save apes and their predecessors too.
Galileo on the other hand was taken to an inquisition and was forced to recant on pain of punishment for stating that the earth was not the centre of the universe which everything revolved around and in fact the earth revolves around the sun.
So much for the role of tribunals in matters of scientific debate, though i doubt that any court would prejudice in favour of a popular fiction thesedays