UPDATE: Uh oh, looks like Mann will have to sue Investors Business Daily too, because they say that: It’s been the greatest fraud of all time, and Michael Mann has been at the heart of it.
UPDATE2: Climate Depot has an interesting editorial here
The bait. Popcorn futures just exploded.
From Michael E. Mann’s Facebook page:
People have been asking for my reaction to the recent response by the National Review. Here is a statement from my lawyer John B. Williams of Cozen O’Connor:
********
The response of the National Review is telling with respect to the issues it did not address. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s research has been extensively reviewed by a number of independent parties, including the National Science Foundation, with never a suggestion of any fraud or research misconduct. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s conclusions have been replicated by no fewer than twelve independent studies. It did not deny the fact that it was aware that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated of any fraudulent conduct. It did not deny the fact that it knew its allegations of fraud were false. Rather, the National Review’s defense seems to be that it did not really mean what it said last month when it accused Dr. Mann of fraud. Beyond this, the response is little more than an invective filled personal attack on Dr. Mann. And further, this attack is coupled with the transparent threat that the National Review intends to undertake burdensome and abusive litigation tactics should Dr. Mann have the temerity to attempt to defend himself in court.
*********
We intend to file a lawsuit.
===========================================
Read it on Dr. Mann’s Facebook page.
Go for it Mike, we all look forward to the enlightenment of discovery!
Tom Nelson: Do NOT miss this: Look who’s representing Michael Mann
He successfully defended R.J. Reynolds in the commercial speech case filed by the Federal Trade Commission challenging the cartoon character, Joe Camel.
I think Steyn just went to COSTCO with the NRO credit card to get the industrial strength size can of whupass he’ll be opening:
Surely the defence simply has to wheel-in a financial auditor and ask him if Mann’s practises would be considered fraud in a business environment, and someone from the FDA to ask if it would be considered fraud if any pharmaceutical company were to treat and present data in the same fashion.
Does anyone doubt what the answers would be?
Imagine holding Mann’sfeet to the fire with repeated questions that cannot be deflected about his infamous “censored” directory and how it changed the whole result of his published work. Ask him directly how that cannot be considered anything except blatent scientific fraud.
Members of the jury, would you buy a used car from this man?
To my mind, if Michael doesn’t take this all the way – if he chickens out at ANY point before a verdict is given in a court of law – he will always be known as a coward and “The Mann who ran away.”
He won’t be allowed to argue in court since the Dem agenda will return to the audacity of faux global warming.
Smokey, do you think that is all of the resolution there was, not much like me to make anything but optimized. It was from a video I think and that was made month’s ago… but… just had to include it in this post, it so fitted the topic! If you ever come across better images, better video somewhere, comment back to this post and I’d be happy to re-do it.
It deserves a place in the infamy of AGW (scoff!). ☺
I have to asking, was Mann born a raving idiot, or did someone hit him in the head with a brick recently?
http://www2.agric.gov.ab.ca/icons/acis/maps/agroclimatic_atlas/growing_season_and_frost_free_days/frost_free_period/onl_s_11_twp_annual_normals_1971_big_map.png
If one yells “Fire! Fire! Fire!” in a theatre, there is likely the possibility of unintentional consequences. The following are some of the unintentional consequences of Manns’ hockey stick and James Hansen’s mega mania.
Mann’s hockey stick was created to create to hide the fact that planet temperature changes cyclically with warming periods (period of 400 years and 1500 years following solar magnetic cycle changes until the there is an abrupt end of the interglacial period) followed by cooling periods during the interglacial periods, until the end of interglacial period.
The general public is not aware that interglacial periods are short (roughly 10,000 years) and that they end abruptly.
Global warming with the majority of the warming occurring at high latitudes increases the productivity of the biosphere (more plants and increased habitat for wild life) and increase the productivity of high latitude agricultural land. Agriculture, in high latitude regions such as Canada or Russia is limited by the number of frost free days.
The general public is not aware that a temperature drop of couple of degrees Celsius will result in the end of agriculture in most of Canada. An increase in temperature of a couple of degrees Celsius in high latitude regions will enable areas of Canada to grow a second crop per growing season as currently is the norm for Southern regions of the US. As most are aware the amount of precipitation increases as the planet warms and decreases as the planet cools. During the glacial period (there have been 22 glacial periods. The glacial periods are now 100,000 years in duration and the interglacial periods are roughly 10,000 years in duration. We are at the end of the Holocene interglacial period. During the last glacial period Canada and the North US states were covered by a 2 mile thick ice sheet. During the Wisconsin glacial period roughly 1/3 of the Amazon rainforest was converted to savanna due to reduction in precipitation. The biosphere contracts when the planet gets colder and expands when the planet warms.
http://www2.agric.gov.ab.ca/icons/acis/maps/agroclimatic_atlas/growing_season_and_frost_free_days/frost_free_period/onl_s_11_twp_annual_normals_1971_big_map.png
One of the consequences of Mann’s hockey stick is that 40% of the US corn crop is now converted to ethanol. (i.e. The US government is subsidizing and mandating the conversion of corn to ethanol which is equivalent to an increase in taxes. The EU is advocating the same policy with the result that virgin rainforest is now being cut down to convert palm oil to diesel with a net loss of the most bio diverse regions of the planet.) Few people are aware that if one includes the total energy inputs to convert corn to ethanol that there is roughly a 5% increase in carbon dioxide emission as opposed to using “fossil fuel”. Conversion of corn to ethanol does not significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It does however significantly reduce the amount of food available for human construction. As people in the third world cannot compete in purchase of food with the EU and the US, roughly 300 million people in the third world are now suffering malnutrition due to converting food to bio fuel.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402
Biofuels ‘crime against humanity’
Massive production of biofuels is “a crime against humanity” because of its impact on global food prices, a UN official has told German radio. “Producing biofuels today is a crime against humanity,” UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told Bayerischer Runfunk radio. Many observers have warned that using arable land to produce crops for biofuels has reduced surfaces available to grow food. Mr Ziegler called on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to change its policies on agricultural subsidies and to stop supporting only programs aimed at debt reduction. He says agriculture should also be subsidised in regions where it ensures the survival of local populations. Meanwhile, in response to a call by the IMF and World Bank over the weekend to a food crisis that is stoking violence and political instability, German Foreign Minister Peer Steinbrueck gave his tacit backing.
EPA’s RFS accounting shows corn ethanol today is worse than gasoline
http://plevin.berkeley.edu/docs/Plevin-Comments-on-final-RFS2-v7.pdf
http://www.senseandsustainability.net/2012/01/26/scrapping-corn-ethanol-subsidies-for-a-smarter-biofuels-policy/
From its first appearance in 1978 to this past December 31st, the policy provided over $20 billion in subsidies to American ethanol producers, costing the U.S. taxpayer almost $6 billion in 2011 alone. Enacted in the spirit of “energy independence,” ethanol subsidies became a redoubt for the agricultural lobby and a lighting rod for criticism from environmentalists and sustainability advocates
To add to the environmental cost of U.S. corn ethanol is the potential of its expanded production to raise global food prices, potentially increasing the likelihood of social unrest and instability worldwide. Some 40 percent of the American corn crop is now distilled into fuel, and The Economist has estimated that if that amount of corn were used as food instead, global food supplies of corn would grow by 14 percent. Both the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization have noted the positive link between U.S. corn ethanol production and rising corn prices. Because of America’s position as the leading corn producer and the status of Chicago-traded corn prices as a benchmark for global ones, the U.S. can have an outsize impact on worldwide food prices. Indeed, corn prices have more than tripled in the last ten years, in no small part due to the ethanol boom.
Soon we will see if Mann is a man or a mouse.
Bart want to defend the IBD as he believes that the they were “not talking about the original “hockey stick”
Really, Bart?
The graph created by professor Mann and his colleagues carefully selected and manipulated tree-ring data to supposedly prove that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts — in a pattern resembling a hockey stick — in the 20th century due to man-made greenhouse gases. Mann et al. performed the neat trick of making the Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850) statistically disappear.
The graph relied on data from trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. Here too the data were carefully selected. Data from just 12 trees from the 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set were used.
IBD are talking about 2 completely different graphs, according to Bart.
Except they’re not. They got their ‘facts’ completely wrong. Thanks for the entertainment Bart!
21st century Piltdown, unraveling at last.
I hope.
Sean says:
August 24, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Soon we will see if Mann is a man or a mouse.
*
Or even a man or a mouth. 🙂
I’m interested to se what happens when disclosure makes Steyn’s e-mails public.
Personally I think Mann should be sitting back grinning. In my Debating Society days I often knew we had won when our opponents started badmouthing us, rather than debating the motion, It showed that they had run out of valid arguments and the judges knew it.
“NRO played this, and has continued to play this, rather ignorantly.”
You really believe that? Really?
Entropic,
In your debating society days, didn’t they explain what a red herring fallacy is? Why did you bring up Mark Steyn, when Mann is the issue? Points deducted.
And I note that Mann never ‘grins’. He is perpetually disgruntled and unhappy.
“I’m interested to se what happens when disclosure makes Steyn’s e-mails public.”
Why? Because you prefer to intimidate people into silence than debate them on the merits of the case? Minor clue — very, very little of Steyn’s correspondence will be subject to discovery, because very, very little of what he does bears on the case.
“The ‘burdensome and abusive litigation tactics’ are part of American law and is a basic right of Steyn and NRO to argue their case in court – and by golly they will do that.. Does this man think he is above the law now ?”
It is rather interesting to hear the prospective PLAINTIFF complaining about “burdensome and abusive litigation tactics”, isn’t it?
This and your other attacks regarding ethanol are the usual falsehoods. From the EPA:
“The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) establishes new renewable fuel categories and eligibility requirements. EISA sets the first U.S. mandatory lifecycle GHG reduction thresholds for renewable fuel categories, as compared to those of average petroleum fuels used in 2005.
Lifecycle GHG emissions are the aggregate quantity of GHGs related to the full fuel cycle, including all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution, from feedstock generation and extraction through distribution and delivery and use of the finished fuel. The lifecycle GHG emissions of the renewable fuel are compared to the lifecycle GHG emissions for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005.
EISA established specific greenhouse gas emission thresholds for each of four types of renewable fuels, requiring a percentage improvement compared to a baseline of the gasoline and diesel. EISA required a 20% reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions for any renewable fuel produced at new facilities (those constructed after enactment), a 50% reduction in order to be classified as biomass-based diesel or advanced biofuel, and a 60% reduction in order to be classified as cellulosic biofuel. ”
http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420f09024.htm
The Stats based on final rule:
http://ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/a05aec0d7576eb4606_fjm6ivcli.pdf
This statement by the poster above is simple fraud:
“EPA’s RFS accounting shows corn ethanol today is worse than gasoline”
The EPA rule requires that, in order to be calleda RENEWABLE fuel, their total GHG emissions be at least 20% less than those of gasoline by full phase in of the rules in 2022. This requirement takes in to account, and INCLUDES a large penalty, for alleged indirect land use changes as well as the direct difference in GHG’s.
He did not cite EPA accounting – he cited a US Berkely (imagine that) report that did NOT use the EPA rules, but rather what they thought they should be. And yet it STILL found that with the exception of coal fired renewable energy processes, by the EPA’s full implementation requirement in 2022 virtually every plant type and process delivered mean GHG REDUCTIONS – AFTER taking out indirect land use changes – of 17% to 48%.
These are the type lies routinely propagated by those attacking ethanol. Even his own link did not support his claim.
Using the FINAL EPA RF92 rule (using a 30 year period and no discount rate) the RFA showed modern corn ethanol generated a 21% overall reduction, and a total actual 56% reduction in GHG’s before indirect land use changes were deducted.
Using the EPA’s originally proposed standard of 100 years and a 2% discount rate modern corn ethanol reduces GHG 33% overall, and 56% before indirect land use changes.
They further note cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass reduces GHG 110% using biochemical processes and 72% for thermochemical process … and from corn stover reduces GHG’s 130% (bio) and 93% (thermo) – easily exceeding EPA’s 60% reduction vs gasoline.
I am not a lawyer, but I think a number of people here don’t understand US law. The first amendment offers a lot protection to journalists. It is very hard to prove libel against a public figure , Mann has worked very hard to become a public figure. Mark Stein was stating his opinion, not a fact, therefore it will be very unlikely that Mann will win, however the defendants are entitled to mount a defense and in order to do that they have a right to see Mann’s papers.
If I was Mann I’d be having a nervous breakdown? As a scholar I wonder what his employability rating is right now?
From D. J. Hawkins on August 24, 2012 at 3:43 pm:
A brick? No. But there was an incident where he was retrieving a large tree slice for a photo-op from a high shelf… 😉
http://cei.org/news-releases/penn-state-climate-scientist-michael-mann-demands-apology-cei
RE: Update 2
That is a damning compendium of blunt analyses of the M. Mann chicanery.
Thanks! I’ll use it to good effect.
MtK
In attempting to establish the “non-fraudulent” nature of the Hockey Stick, I can’t believe Dr. Mann’s legal team will argue that the phrase “trick to hide the decline” is a positive not a negative because “trick” in this context means a “clever mathematical artifice”. As Dr. Muller points out in the video (Matt says: August 24, 2012 at 8:21 am), the word “trick” is irrelevant. The important part of the phrase is “hide the decline”. For example, suppose Phil Jones or Dr. Mann had said: “To hide the deline, we used a mathematical artifice that would make Newton and Gauss proud.” The message would still be the same: We attempted to hide, suppress, obfuscate, blur, etc. the fact that the data we used to create the Hockey Stick took a sudden downturn, which, if shown, would at a minimum have cast doubt on our whole study. The “cleverness” of the procedure is irrelevant. If anything, however, the more clever the procedure, the harder it is to defend.
Then as Austin points out (Austin says: August 23, 2012 at 11:59 pm), “What Mann needs to understand is that once he bites, he will become the bait on the hook used to catch some bigger fish.” I just bet () Penn State is looking forward to another outside investigation into its penchant to “cover up” incidents that might embarrass the university; and (2) the AGW “team” members (including Al Gore) are chomping at the bit to testify under oath regarding their dealings with and opinions of Dr. Mann and his Hocky Stick. (/sarc)
Your Update 2 – wow!
Curious news item, possibly related. Is UVa trying to appear non-political, or avoid unneeded expenses (could they be having a funding shortage for some reason?), or both?
UVA Declines Obama Campaign Request
Actually, apparently UVa was willing to go ahead, but not far enough for the campaign.
The DNC officially crowned “the future Emperor” with him flanked by giant (fake) Roman columns. Does the campaign now think “the Emperor” requires large columns for a mere speech, that they want to appear “academic enough”?
Comparison views: Ampitheatre, Harrison-Small Library, John Paul Jones Arena.
(Insert comment about Freudian references, possible Jungian archetypes, their appearance in architecture, and Joe Biden’s promise that Obama has a big stick.)
To Anthony,
SUGGESTION: Perhaps later on you might consider a series of crowd-sourced threads where the commenters are requested to submit comments containing collections of links and details concerning Mann’s various deceptions.
There are some excellent outlines upthread with lots of references so I was thinking that if you launched some threads with focused purpose, moderating out the off-topic comments, the threads would serve as ad hoc friend-of-the-court briefs that Steyn and NRO could use in their research. It would help counter the free help that Mann will no doubt receive from Soros, UN agencies, and all the various taxpayer funded pseudo-scientists that have a vested interested in this AGW hoax.
This thread has some good stuff but is very long already, and since the main topic is about the possible lawsuit there are many comments that fall outside of the narrow scope of crowd-source research. Commenters could simply refine the comments here and resubmit them to a targeted thread later.
What do you think?