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:
Just think …
It was Mann’s hockey stick that brought AGW into the public’s mind in AG’s presentation. What would happen If they find out was all a fraud, I believe it would be the end of Mann’s hockey stick and his AGW. So Mann alone may just accomplish what we all have been trying to do all along.
So my bet is he will run.
Looks like Mann may have to sue another newspaper
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_climategate_and_jerry_sandusky_scandals_a_common_thread.html
Phil Clarke says:
August 24, 2012 at 4:29 pm
“Thanks for the entertainment Bart!”
I had a clever riposte, but then realized it’s stupid to be debating something stupid with someone too dense to understand a couple of paragraphs.
Entropic man says:
August 24, 2012 at 5:50 pm
“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.”
By that standard, of course, the Warmist faction has been losing for many years.
Reed Coray says:
August 24, 2012 at 8:42 pm
“The message would still be the same…”
Excellent citation. It is appalling that so many want to obfuscate this simple truth away, knowing full well what they are doing. At long last, have they left no sense of decency?
I commented on his facebook page, I asked him why it wasn’t getting any warmer as his hockey stick graph clearly showed it should be warmer by now.
In response he deleted my question and banned me from posting on his page again.
Scientist my arse, he’s just there to push his broken dogma, no discussion accepted.
Yay! Mike Mann took the bait, intends to file lawsuit against Steyn and NRO
Friday Funny: Hilarious Mann email, IPCC icon ‘pretty cool’
Make your own Michael Mann hockey stick at home
First look: ‘Hit on the head with a hockey stick’ – some selected emails from the recent NOAA FOIA release 2 years later.
Best Michael Mann headline evah
I admire the cold, objective, unemotional way in which WUWT reperts anything to do with Mr. Mann. /sarc
Entropic man,
“I admire the cold, objective, unemotional way in which WUWT reperts anything to do with Mr. Mann. /sarc”
Sure you do, but if the same headlines had been directed at, say, Inhofe, you would be whooping with delight. C’est ne pas?
Vince Causey says:
August 25, 2012 at 4:41 am
Don’t show your stupidity further by trying to appear to write french. YOU FAILED.
Should be n’est pas? ou Ce n’est pas ? The latter is not recognised by most french speakers to mean what I think you think it means.
ENTROPIC MAN is an idiot but don’t encourage him with your silly mistakes.
This really provides Steyn and NRO with a moral quandry. Do they mop up the floor with the like of Mann, or choose not to engage in warfare with a truly unarmed person? Mann doesn’t realize he just opened up Steyn’s and NRO’s cans of whoop ass. What a fool.
Vince Causey says:
August 25, 2012 at 4:41 am
Entropic man,
“I admire the cold, objective, unemotional way in which WUWT reperts anything to do with Mr. Mann. /sarc”
Sure you do, but if the same headlines had been directed at, say, Inhofe, you would be whooping with delight. C’est ne pas?
—————————–
Actually, no.
The ridicule, ad homs, debating trickery and political lobby tactics used by the deniers and the alarmists makes it harder to winnow the scientific wheat from the chaff. I would much prefer a quiet debate about the science between the sceptics and the accepters ( my own way of thinking about those with an interest in the science, rather than a vested interest economic or political interest in the outcome.)
But when in Rome… Having become a regular attender on WUWT I find myself playing by your rules, at least on the political threads.
stephen richards says:
August 25, 2012 at 5:53 am
“Should be n’est pas?”
No. Should be “n’est-ce pas?”
Entropic man says (August 25, 2012 at 3:24 am): “I admire the cold, objective, unemotional way in which WUWT reperts anything to do with Mr. Mann. /sarc”
Well, I admire the objective way WUWT deconstructs Michael Mann’s “scientific” work, and I very much enjoy the humorous way WUWT mocks his buffoonery. Unfortunately for Dr. Mann, of late his buffoonery has far outweighed his “science”, which was pretty sparse to begin with.
REPLY: As Dr. Roger Pielke once wrote, “If Michael Mann didn’t exist, the skeptics would have to invent him!” When he stops bloviating, we’ll stop writing about him. In the meantime, please be as upset as you wish, and thanks for making WUWT your source of Mannian entertainment.- Anthony
This is a very strange claim – especially given the fact that a judge has already granted such discovery to another party in a similar suit.
Actually, if the entire point of the article is claiming that a prosecutor deliberately whitewashed an investigation in order to avoid bringing murder charges, then a judge would ABSOLUTELY allow discovery regarding the whitewashed investigation.
NRO’s entire article was about Penn State’s poor “investigation” techniques a la Jerry Sandusky. This requires a judge to allow discovery in regards to the methodology/thoroughness of the investigation itself – which means that a judge would allow discovery in-line with an investigation of academic fraud.
Now, this would be different if someone was found not-guilty after an actual murder trial. A judge would rule the murder issue res judicata. But Michael Mann was hardly found not guilty in a court of law. That leaves him completely exposed to discovery.
Again, your claims are strange.
If the NRO article were claiming that some claims about reiki healing were fraudulent, then a judge would hardly be impressed with the fact that other reiki healers supported the claims.
Just a side note: “Whoop Ass” is the energy drink line produced by Jones Soda Co.
I keep a couple cans in my fridge in case I need to open one up on somebody.
RE: mpaul, August 24, 2012 at 8:18 am, says:
A number of points are made there, all good, including suppression of R2 calculations (indicating Mann’s results weren’t as good as represented). While that could indicate “fraud” or other willful deception, it could also indicate error resulting from ignorance, etc. Recall, a number of credible authorities in suitable fields deemed Mann’s work reasonable.
Thus, proving “fraud” will be very difficult–a much higher burden than merely proving his findings are incorrect, which is a very different thing.
RE Dialin, Aug 24, 9:01 am
“…it is Mann who has the burden to prove that NR[O] made a provably false statement with actual malice…”
Wrong.
Mann claims libel or slander and only has to prove so. NRO’s best defense is to prove it published a truth, namely that Mann committed “fraud” — truth is an absolute defense against accusation of libel/slander…but it is unclear if NRO can accomplish this.
Proving Mann’s work was incorrect is not a defense as one can be honest, incorrect, and not commit “fraud.”
Mann can easily argue his work as “wrong” or “incorrect’ or “flawed” or whatever and cite the fact that numerous credible experts agreed with its veracity. Having that caliber of experts making the same mistake indicates it was just a mistake.
Also, the fact that sufficient information WAS provided to enable others to independently duplicate his work strongly supports the arguement that Mann did not endeavor to hide his technique, which practically, was impossible.
I predict that what will likely happen is that Mann prevails, which will undermine any thinking by those duped by his work/reputation — ultimately a negative overall effect.
The LESSON HERE illustrated by NRO is the stupidity of making character & ad hominem attacks–which is what the assertion of “fraud” is–which takes the debate off the science/math/etc. And personal attacks & name-calling only serve to more or less instantly induce those on a given side of a debate to more vigorously defend their existing position, often in defiance of any new factual information that may arise.
Had NRO substituted a word or words saying the work was “incorrect” or “proven wrong” or “shown to be statistically invalid” the debate would stay where it needs to be. On the analysis, not the analyst.
Whatever else, NRO’s approach on this was reckless and much less productive than it could have been.
Thanks for the link–that fleshes out the story.
Ken,
I am not sure it is worth my time debating you as you seem ignorant of basic libel legal concepts and unwilling to learn. Mann is a public figure or, at a minimum, a limited use public figure. I am sure you accept this premise as uncontroversial. As a result, Mann has to prove that NR made a provably false statement with actual malice. This is settled law. Please do some reading before responding.
Elizabeth on 24 Aug at 10.57 – My goodness who would go to Penn Uni, eh? Thanks for the link.
dailn at 27 Aug. fraud or mistake? Different. To me promoting a scientifically based concept knowingly false is fraud. If he made an incorrect assessment then he could correct it or agree with his peers that his hypothesis was conjecture, or re do it? Just to stand and defend a faulty hypothesis seems to admit he believes it to be true in the face of others disagreement. And he don’t like ’em telling him so. Just like if you were paid XXX amount of dollars or pounds to do a report for a government or whatever, and it turns out to be incorrect, wouldn’t your employers expect you to correct it or give back their money?
This debacle with Mann is all about money? How much was he paid to write the tree ring theory?
If it is shoddily done or he was corrupting the data to suit the hypothesis. Either way it was worth the money he was paid, and now he has to justify it, by claiming libel and defamation. But – by now people are remembering and looking and agreeing, he made a dreadful mistake.
@dialn says: August 27, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Mann has to prove not only that it is proveably false, but that NRO also knew it was proveably false. The last part is the killer. You can make statements about public figures, but proving what was in the mind of the statement maker is much tougher. The libel laws in the US are very hard to prove because of the principle of Freedom of Speech. While other countries pay lip service to that freedom, in reality, only America has enshrined it in law and it is inviolate.
If Mann had sued in another country like England, he would have a better case. But since no other country has jurisdiction, his goose is cooked.
BTW, what is the status of climate alarmist lawsuits against Tim Ball and the National post? I need a program to even figure out who is suing Tim Ball which month. (Donations for Ball solicited at http://drtimball.com/donate/.)
As Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver are apparently using the same lawyer, and Ball may be using the same law firm for all his defenses, perhaps they’ll all get economy of scale and time. The article Is Dr. Michael Mann Canuckophobic? at http://blog.xanthippas.com/2012/07/25/is-dr-michael-mann-canuckophobic/?wref=tp suggests George Soros and some activist organizations are funding Mann’s lawsuits. (I dunno why so many lawsuits against people in Canada – many people in the US have spoken very strongly against Mann.
Given that a scummy cartoonist who depicted a premier of BC picking wings off of flies was acquitted years ago, Ball should be homefree. But it depends on the particular judge or jury I suppose, societal trends do influence some judges and many jurists.
BTW, in the comments to Simberg’s article one “Gabriel Hanna” accuses Climate Audit of altering Mann’s 1998 paper in Nature.
Trying to summarize the lawsuit scene:
TIM BALL:
Andrew Weaver sued Ball in early 2011 over something published on the Canada Free Press website, here’s something on that: http://www.desmogblog.com/canadafreepress-apology-weaver (the web site caved).
Michael Mann sued Ball for statements in an interview of him published on the Frontier Centre for Public Policy website, which publishes on climate, agriculture, tribal matters, and rights for the prairie provinces of Canada. That’s the “State Pen, not Penn State” remark. An Andrew A. Skolnick has made two affidavits to the court regarding qualifications of someone named John O’Sullivan who apparently co-authored a book with Ball and does some legal work though he may not be a full lawyer. Skolnick appears to have investigated O’Sullivan’s educational qualifications and licensing, and Internet activities of he and other names he believes O’Sullivan uses. (Skolnick’s affidavits are to help the plaintiff.) The “John Doe” in this lawsuit is somehow connected to FCPP, judging by Mann’s claim, so probably is not O’Sullivan – but I don’t understand how O’Sullivan is so relevance to this lawsuit that Skolnick made affidavits.
Ball sued a Dan Johnson and others over Johnson’s response to an article Ball had published in the Calgary Herald in 2006.
(Ball says Johnson attacked his credentials rather than try to address the issues raised by Balls’ article. There seems to be much confusion over Ball’s credentials, if you believe desmogblog claims but give Ball the benefit of doubt you’ll think that Ball or editors have been sloppy in describing them. Ball was probably studying climate before Weaver knew the word, starting with researching HBC post weather records, back then it was a specialty in “Geography”, which alarmists like to claim is not climatology. (Not the only subject in which they’ve tried to narrow definitions to claim they are the only experts. Weaver tried that in a letter to the JanFeb2010 issue issue of the professional engineer’s magazine Innovation (www.apeg.bc.ca, “consensus” is a regular attempt. Neo-Marxists, post-modernists and their ilk do like to think that words define reality, they reject concepts.)
NATIONAL POST:
Weaver sued the National Post and some of its columnists, in April 2010, the concept of poisoning the Internet was thrown about in that case.
The suit names Financial Post Editor Terence Corcoran, columnist Peter Foster, reporter Kevin Libin and National Post publisher Gordon Fisher, as well as several still-unidentified editors and copy editors. It seeks general, aggravated damages, special and exemplary damages and legal costs in relation to articles by Foster on December 9, 2009 (“Weaver’s Web”), Corcoran on December 10, 2009 (“Weaver’s Web II”) and January 27, 2010 (“Climate Agency going up in flames”), and Libin on February 2, 2010 (“So much for pure science”).
The NP is probably no stranger to lawsuits. Terrance Corcoran and Peter Foster seem to do their research before writing something, and have much better thinking ability than other NP/FP writers (who aren’t bad by MSM standards, just not of the calibre of those two). I don’t know of the other defendants, sounds like Weaver named many NP staff including copy editors (probably as John Does). Corcoran dug extensively into the leaked CRU emails.
I doubt either Ball or the NP used the language of Mark Steyn, though they were blunt, but laws may differ between the two countries.
(Jeremy Poynton says Mann had two lawsuits in progress already, before the NRO and any related lawsuits, but they are stalled due Mann’s refusal to produce documents. Seems to me people should support the defence in those two to ensure the first to proceed gets rebuffed, noting that Mann against Ball seems to be the same subject as the fraud part of Mann against Steyn.)
Keith Sketchley,
Here is a follow-up to the attack on Dr. Tim Ball’s credentials:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover020707.htm