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:
Sadly ironic that a lawyer who defended “Joe Camel”, a cartoon character
designed to attract youngsters to a life of smoking and a death of cancer
is now representing Michael Mann (a– as opposed to Camel?), who
intends to mortgage our children’s (and their children’s) future, based
on questionable results based on even more questionable “models”.
Goodness, what would Einstein, Newton, Planck, Galileo, and all
the other great scientists say about “models”?
The only reliable model is a model railroad (usually 🙂 ).
Steyn has responded
Stick It Where the Global Warming Don’t Shine
by Mark Steyn • Aug 22, 2012 at 6:48 pm
http://www.steynonline.com/5118/stick-it-where-the-global-warming-dont-shine
[…]
Before everyone gets too smug, just remember ol’ whiney-pants seems coated with teflon. But it should be entertaining nonetheless, as it unfolds in the court of facebook likes.
I am really hoping this guy teams up with Big Al G. and sues NRO. I will be there to support the NRO if/when that happens. It will be fun to watch.
Who will be paying Mann’s legal fees? They will be substantial. The taxpayer?
This could be the modern day equivalent of the Scopes Monkey Trial! Mann is the “Tar Baby” of climate-gate, and the ‘Team’ and their IPCC co-conspirators are all glued to him through co-authorship and emails. If done properly, discovery could put the work/conspiracy between Jones, Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Steig, Ammann, Bradley, Connolley, Briffa, Osborne, Wahl, Esper, Overpeck, etc., etc., etc…. all on trial.
God, I hope Mann goes through with this, but like so many others, I doubt the case will ever see the inside of a court room. I would hope (and suggest) that if Mann blusters and bluffs his way up to the trial but then backs down, another round of climate-gate emails gets released. Regardless, if Mann backs down after today’s announcement, we need to never live let him it down.
This is more complicated than some of you think. It is not sufficient to prove that Mann’s work is wrong. That can probably be done. Scientific papers are proved wrong all the time. Fraud is a different matter. For that you have to prove that the results were knowingly falsified, and that is a very different matter. So getting a bunch of people in to attack the accuracy of hockey sticks will not do.
The statement from NRO’s lawyers says
“The statement identifying Dr. Mann as “the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus,” is both substantially true and classic rhetorical hyperbole that is protected under the First Amendment”
Stating that it is “rhetorical hyperbole” will not work – indeed that gives Mann an out – he can now claim that they have admitted exaggerating and withdraw on those grounds.
All this gloating about the demise of Dr Mann is both unseemly and probably premature. Why not wait for the case to have its day in court? If Mann wins, then egg on faces seems apposite. I don’t like the warmists as they are both supercilious and dismissive but gloating from sceptics is also less than ideal
Have we been invaded by a bunch of warmists all called variants of John? Certainly seems like it.
I wonder how many people here have actually read the NRO attorney’s letter and realize that their defense is along the lines of “hey, listen, NRO never called Mann fraudulent in the dictionary sense of the word. It was meant as rhetorical hyperbole. We would never have suggested that Mann was a criminal. Can we just move on and agree to disagree?”
In other words, the NRO haven’t the guts to back up their original claim that Mann was behind fraudulent research.
I think a lot of posters/would be trolls are hung up on the whole “specific documents and justify the reason for wanting them.”
To put simply this is correct… however specific documents in this case any insanely broad.
Anything that relates to the hockey stick is on the table and that is close to 4 years of documents probably more depending on how much the judge will let fish. It the judge is in a fishing mood it could be over 8 years of docs.
The biggests problem Mann has is the first thing if NRO lawyers are smart is that they will contacts the other groups seeking Mann docs such as Tim Ball, ATI and the Virgina DA. They will get a list of docs these people are searching for a submit them in the current suit.
NROs lawyer should also point to the Tim Ball case and state upfront to the judge that Mann and lawyer will purposely delay and refuse to produce documents and he is clearly doing so in this other case. This will show a pattern of frivolous lawsuits among a host of other things depending on the state the case is being tried in.
This will let NRO lawyer argue and hopefully win a motion stating that if Mann and lawyer don’t turn on documents quickly that they will be held in contempt. If Mann fails to produce documents the case can quickly go badly for Mann. If Mann does produce the docs then these docs can be sent to the other parties who will help review them.
jimmi-the-dalek: Well said, but. The tone here and the evidence does suggest that NRO will have no problem proving that Mann’s results were a fraud, and that he knows it already (unless he pulled the covers over his head years ago which seem unlikely). The source will be Climategate emails. Collusion to falsify results is in fact, and in law, fraud. No wonder Mann’s many hard-earned enemies want to see him get some justice of the kind he does not want.
I wonder what happens to the $s contributed to Dr. Mann’s legal fund should they not get spent on this? How much is he spending on his other legal battle(s?) and has the legal fund covered those costs already?
Also Mann and his attorneys seem about to put the NSF (National Science Foundation) among other science institutions who indiscriminately splashed the whitewash about over Mann’s refuted ‘work’ [of design] into the crosshairs and all in one broad stoke. This should be *very* interesting to see where the up-to-now hidden evidence and various relationships lead if they ever carry through with their threat of action.
What even happened to his lawsuit against Dr. Ball? Last I heard was that Mann was refusing to give the judge some information.
Most likely nothing meaningful will come of the court action. But this could accomplish something truly meaningful: UVa could decide that Mann is an unnecessary liability, constantly causing or initiating lawsuits that involve the university. His prestige value may finally be outbalanced by his dollar cost. After that, he will be pretty much unhirable.
Good post Alan Watt @ur momisugly 3:59 PM, and to add to that, I would suspect, if the trial proceeds, that the judge/jury will be weighing, to the detriment of Mann, the definition/intent of the word fraud as used by the NRO.
Mann limerick 1
Thinking his climate-Fu great
Mann snapped at the hook and its bait
Will he be caught
As the line whips up taut?
To find out we’ll all just have to wait
🙂
I follow this man on the Internet. What I find facinating is that this man on radio interviews where ha talks about his book never ever seems to realize that the only working defence is to challenge his critics with working arguments, which he never does.
He only talks about that he has been attacked by anti-science people, by a huge oil funded campaign, by a smear campaign. Of course he never talks about that he himself spend much of his time smearing others because of their viewpoints.
Personally I think this man is a narcissistic psychopath with a huge ego.
Will I by sued now?
I love all these comments about a fishing expedition. Mann’s activities and why hyperbole amounts to libel with a public figure where malice is the relevant standard are what starts the scope of the inquiry. Now his atty says NSF should be the defense. Previously it was the university review when they could have lost lucrative NSF multimillion dollar grants that was the basis for saying no fraud.
This purported lawsuit will simply open the door to showing just how much federal grant money has been used to try to undermine the noetic system of the US. It is very deliberate. I know what I have and I just follow troubling figures on public databases.
Remember it is Mann saying go fish. OK, let’s bring in the pros that know this game.
Hmmm …. the ex-president of Penn State is now fighting the independent study Freeh did that said that Sandusky’s actions were ignored basically for the good of the school. The same president was one of the ones that cleared Mann after ClimateGate. Possible connection or coincidence?
Dr. Mann, did you knowingly use upside down data to support your hockey stick?
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/27/yet-another-upside-down-mann-out/
I wonder if Pamela Jones of Groklaw would be interested in covering this court case. Her blog work on the Caldera (aka SCO after they bought the naming rights) vs the Linux world (mainly IBM) was superb.
http://www.groklaw.net/
Entropic man: “This is political lobbying, not scientific debate. Shame on you, Mr Watts.”
Really, AGW is scientific debate? News to all of us who have been following and involved in AGW.
The claim of AGW (man-made CO2 definitively affecting global temperatures) was a ruse to hide a political agenda that involved redistribution of wealth, power, and control by guilt, brain washing, threats, mandates, fees, fines, and taxes. With Gore type individuals, Green Peace groups, IPCC, GW climatologists, U.N. (NGO, Civil Society Reflection Group, RP2, …) all benefiting from the AGW ruse, at the expense of countries like U.S. and its taxpayers.
If he refuses to hand over documents asked for in court, isn’t that implication of guilt?