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:
Ron says:
August 23, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Who will be paying Mann’s legal fees? They will be substantial. The taxpayer?
_____________________________
The skuttlebutt is George Soros
Chris Riley says (August 23, 2012 at 5:58 pm): “This may turn out to be an important case, along the lines of the Scopes trial. We must thank Penn State for providing the monkey.”
Careful. That’s exactly the kind of statement that will earn you a strongly worded empty threat from Libelmann. 🙂
jt says:
“Anthony is certainly an expert in being blinded by ideology. The sad part is some people actually think Anthony is an expert on climate science.”
•
Anthony Watts has forgotten more climate science than “jt” will ever learn. Anthony is a published, peer reviewed author in the climate science field. What is “jt”? Another commentator with a personal opinion?
There was a post on Volokh.com referring to Mann possibly filing suit. It was mentioned that there could be a successful prohibition of some discovery, specifically due to provoking in order to search via discovery; basically to prevent abuse, like fishing. That makes sense; but I do not believe it would happen with consequences of Mann’s ‘work’.
Just something to keep in mind; the judiciary is not apolitical, nor does it always make, what one believes to be, the right decisions. I would much prefer Congress to subpoena because this has been a public issue, with respect to policy and influence, and funding; I believe this is in their sphere.
Bill Sticker says:
August 23, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Damn. I’ve just gone on a low carbohydrate diet to shed a few extra pounds and popcorn isn’t allowed. Looks like I’ll have to stock up on pemmican pieces while watching this lot unfold.
___________________________
Try walnuts in the shell. You will get much pleasure from smashing them.
Stacy McCain sez: Michael Mann: The Kerry Gauthier of Climate Science!
http://theothermccain.com/2012/08/23/lowry-to-climate-change-zealot-put-your-hockey-stick-where-the-sun-dont-shine/#disqus_thread
Which is, I guess, a step up from Coach Sandusky.
Darren Potter says ;”Since Mann has continued to defend his Hockey Stick chart after numerous problems have been pointed out to Mann with his Hockey Stick chart, I would go with Mann has committed Fraud.”
Being wrong is not fraud, it is incompetence, and every scientist has been wrong about something.
Continuing to be wrong after it is pointed out is not fraud, it is narcissistic egotism, and virtually everyone will have attempted at some stage to defend some incorrect decision they made, at least for a short time.
Claiming grant money on the basis is incorrect results may be fraud, provided that it can be established that Mann knew they were wrong at the time, but that will be much more difficult than people think – basically you are going to have to find contemporary correspondence which says “I know this is a crock but pay me anyway”. Even Mann cannot be that stupid (?)
“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.”
Translated to English: National Review intends to go to court if Dr. Mann files suit. Therefore my client will not sue.
Big ol’ nothingburger this one is.
Craig Loehle says:
August 23, 2012 at 6:08 pm
“Mike’s trick” is fraudulent. With clear intent to deceive.
Michael Mann
Again, as I said before, this whole thing could blow up in your face. You are dealing with people that are sharper than you.
Another variation, which better IMO matches the facts here, is that he is an incompetent fraud — deliberately fraudulent, but very bad at it.
Davie says: “We ALL know that this lawsuit will NEVER happen , Mann has far too much to hide and if he’s forced to reveal his “research” and his “methodology” it will just backfire on him harder and nastier than standing behind a souped up pick up truck in a muddy field !!!”
There’s more at stake. If Mann’s lawsuit results in close examination of the PSU whitewash and others, the perpetrators of those “investigations” could be made to look ridiculous, or worse.
It looks like Mann is consciously engaging in a kind of scorched earth tactic in defense of his work. Does he think the reputation of the scientific community can be destroyed in defense of himself? I think this is giving his former “team”‘ members some uneasiness.
John
@ur momisugly I. Lou Minotti
Sure, feel free to use
Gunga Din says:
August 23, 2012 at 6:09 pm
” … Isn’t one of the logical fallacies leveled Fred Singer of SEPP is that he once received money from or did or said something in defense of “Big Tobacco”? …”
Mann, Gore, Oreskes et. al claim Singer said smoking isn’t harmful – something he never said – and that skeptic climate scientists operate in a manner that parallels the way ‘expert shills’ lied to the public on behalf of the tobacco industry.
But the ‘parallel’ falls apart any time anybody puts it under hard scrutiny. I suggested just that to National Review’s Rich Lowry yesterday ( https://twitter.com/questionAGW/status/238469953005699072 ) using a reference to a couple of my prior WUWT comments about the person Mann, Gore, Oreskes et. al rely on for the source of their accusation…. but who knows if Lowry saw it.
Did he threaten a YouTube joke about hide the decline. Still there?
Perhaps some of the posters here (as well as Professor Mann) should carefully read the National Review letter and do a little research on U.S. libel law.
IANAL. However, I can read.
The National review lawyer made a few key assertions:
1. Mann is a public figure.
2. Showing libel of a public figure requires clear and convincing evidence.
3. That evidence must show, at a minimum, that Nation Review believed that there was a good chance that their statements were wrong.
Regarding these points:
1. Mann has published books on the topic. I think I heard him on NPR’s Diane Reem show one day. Hard for Mann to show otherwise.
2. Clear and convincing means “a good bit more than 50%.” This isn’t close to “tie goes to the runner.” This is more like “any modestly close call goes to the runner (defendant).”
3. There’s a whole bunch of arguably credible criticism of Mann’s hockey stick theory. Look at the Wikipedia article. If NR say that they believed that there was a very good chance, better than 50%, that the critics were more credible that Mann, then it seems to me that it would be hard to argue that item 3 above is likely to be true—let alone that there is something like a 75% chance that it is true.
Now maybe there is an email in the National Review files that has a sentence like, “Well, of course Mann is right, but we won’t get this week’s check from Big Oil unless we run the item.” If there’s something like that, and it’s not clearly a joke, then Mann might read. But, if there are a bunch of emails saying, “Here’s the evidence on one side; here’s the evidence on the other; it sure looks like Mann’s a fraud.” then showing that it is highly likely that National Review knew that their claims were false (“reckless disregard”) seems very difficult.
So, my advice to anyone interested in understanding this issue is to read Bruce Brown’s (National Review’s lawyer) letter carefully and research the various references he cites.
Billy
Ally: “If he refuses to hand over documents asked for in court, isn’t that implication of guilt?”
Heh… many do wish this would be a criminal case against Mann. Then, IIRC, that would be more contempt of court on top of the other charges, except, this being a civil suit filed by Mann, it seems it would just call for immediate dismissal of the suit with him covering all of the defendant’s costs, time, losses and distress. I could be wrong, it’s been many years since those basic law courses.
jt says:
Anthony is certainly an expert in being blinded by ideology.
The sad part is some people actually think Anthony is an expert on climate science.
===
And when Random Walks and Red Noise perform better than the Team’s models, what does being an expert Climate Scientist really mean?
I am Spartacus! Selling the Brooklyn bridge was a good punch line in contemporary culture as I chatted people up here on the Upper West Side, becoming an adult. But Mann sold the Space Station. His viral influence pulled funding out of medical research. Worse still, by far, he single handedly enabled busybody party poopers to destroy scientific education and academic promotional policy to terrorize hundreds of Nobel quality kids into steering clear of scientific careers. They’re going Galt, tuning in, turning on, and dropping out. Die, carbon footprint grandma, die. No new antibiotics for you? Gosh, I’m so very sorry, but those cost as much as Facebook, just to apply for safety testing. You expected the Jetsons but got the Flynstones instead? Sorry but I’d like to listen but all my friends are being sued by a tobacco lawyer funded by tobacco farmer Al Gore & Co., U.S.A., so uh, go fish.
I don’t know about defamation or libel laws in the US. But here you have to prove you have suffered financial loss by the actions and publicity announced in the media. Problem one has to prove the publicity or comments are completely untrue and beware if you take on the media, or banks. One lass here in Australia lost her job and then sued for sexual harassment, defamation, etc., fed the media all these claims prior to judgment and whoa for after 5 years she lost and was found to have lied and her mother too, and charged with nearly 6 million in costs. Appealed of course, and was asked to provide 200,000 dollars as security first. He can’t prove his research is valid, but the affects on the world out way what he feels he has suffered and he and others must prove they had no ulterior motives other than poorly researched science.He must have a pro bono lawyer.
Come on. We all have dreams about this, but it will never happen. Mann is a fr***. He’s a narcissist. But he’s not stupid. And if he behaves stupidly, his lawyer won’t be stupid. This is just another step in the great global warming fr***. The bad guys couldn’t afford to back off. But they will back off before they are forced to deliver discovery. By then, they will have perfected their argument for why they “were forced” do so for the good of the [people, scientific community, lobsters, or something].
If you’re having too much fun tonight over this, get over it. It’s just another phase of the charade.
Now the Mann has declared publicly that he will sue, any back down can be taken as an admission by Mann that the Hockey Stick is indeed fraud.
They intend to file a lawsuit. And I intend to buy a Ferrari and take Christina Hendricks as a second wife.
Paolo says:
August 23, 2012 at 6:52 pm
It seems to me the suing party has the ability to withraw the lawsuit any time they want. In that case, I just don’t see how anyone expects a lot of dirty laundry to be exposed from any of this….
____________________________
Actually if they sue and drag someone around forever as Mann is doing to Tim Ball, then quit. They may find they CAN NOT since they have caused damaged to the person they sued.
One commenter who seems to have a knowledge of law said:
“File a declaratory action immediately and get this discovery going in federal court…..”
With luck he is correct.
Give it up Michael because anyone with any brains or money left in the game is bailing out and cutting their losses with Big Climate’s looney tunes-
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/origin-s-geodynamics-write?&utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=95244&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=commentary