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:
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.”
=================================================================
Said the blind manniquin….
Certain “climate” “scientist” have built this intricate edifice of a hypothesis on tree rings, gas, and poorly sited thermometers. Anthony has pointed out the later. Others have pointed out the flaws in the rest. Anthony has provided (without help from Big oil or Big Soros) an open an honest forum for such information to be made available to the rest of us.
In other words, Anthony has helped to show that GAGW is a house built on the sand. And in doing so, he’s shown more “sand” than Mann.
The best will be for any level of this to break out into regular media at all. The spin cannot be controlled as easily. If a general audience hears “fraud,” “lawsuit,” and a few choice details upon which the fraud charge is based, then the public will have this in mind: cherry-picking some data and pretending like other specific, known data does not exist – that will not be perceived well by the public. Thy will wonder: what does Mann have to hide? Espeically when he gathered the data and analyzed it with tax money? – Mann’s dissertation was supported by a fellowship from the Department of Energy, and he has been conducting research with our money on our behalf evar since.
A fishing expedition claim will not go too far; the data in question are known to exist.
Yes, a lawsuit is at the hands of the jury, and could go any way, or corruption could reign. But the actual value is the matter of getting these issues out into public more clearly. Sunlight is the best antiseptic.
The thing is, proving libel can be an expensive exercise for both parties, the longer Mann holds out the higher the costs go up for the other side. If he withdraws he might or might not end up with the defendant’s costs or be proved a vexatious litergent (can’t spell it sorry), if he had any serious doubts about the bad publicity he has received over the years, he could try and close down websites like this and others. The lass who tried to sue the bank she had worked for and two ex employees, one took a paper to task and won, but his former employers footed his legal costs, that they will never get back of course. Maybe this was justice but the two men involved will never be free of the stigma including the effect on their families. Maybe someone should sue Michael Mann instead, big time lawyers and with endless amounts of money, private investigators, etc. See how he likes it, the p#@ur momisugly?ck. Fancy saying Bob Carter is a fraud, I know him, and sat in his seminars, he is definitely not a fraud.
a comment was made with regards to discovery having to be isolated to that having to do with the suit. I think that person has had very little experience with the legal system whether it be US law or UK/Canada. Under discovery the defendants lawyers will ask for all and everything that pertains to any of the claims made. So anything that might have to do with regards “fraudulence” becomes discoverable which will include all emails that Mann is currently trying to protect from requests under the Freedom of Information laws and every last bit of evidence that might have been considered by the Science bodies in their review. This is always at the discretion of the judge but he will invariably decide in a more open view of what is discoverable rather than a closed view as it leaves less chance of questions regarding his decision.
I have been involved directly in a couple of very big corporate lawsuits (the value would make you bleed tears) and the discovery process was very, very deep. All computer records from such and such date to recent, all computer backups, all emails, etc. All email correspondents called as witnesses under oath (I’m sure the rest of the “Team” would relish this happening).
If Mann is trying to protect his emails under the Freedom of Information Act it really suggests to me either he is incredibly naive or is getting very bad legal advice (lawyers love to sue, they make money whether they win or fail) in deciding to sue under this matter. If his university is trying to avoid issues regarding the release of potentially damaging emails then they will likely be taking him to the woodshed over this issue.
I would like to see a legal argument that anything he has done whether it is research papers, emails, blog/twitter comments are not discoverable under the very general claims of this suit against some very general accusations. In the UK and Canada the courts tend to favor less openness whereas in the US the courts are more willing to open everyone’s kimono simply because the judges are political appointments and want to see which way the wind is blowing before they make decisions that could be unpopular.
Gail Combs says:
August 23, 2012 at 7:01 pm
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
Keep an eye on this link, courtesy of Scott Mandia:
http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/campaigns/
bushbunny says:
August 23, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Did he threaten a YouTube joke about hide the decline. Still there?
_______________________
Yes
Elmer and the folks at http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/ were threatened with a lawsuit for the song “Hide the decline” using actual photos of Mann. They redid it with a balloon made to look like Mikey instead that I though was even better. Bootleg copies of the original are still floating around the internet.
“Hide the decline II” http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tIQ70is-RPM
bootleg version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
Will Nitschke says:
August 23, 2012 at 2:48 pm
“Fraud” is very difficult to prove in academia. Steyn should have used the word “incompetent”.
The available emails are sufficient to prove he’s a fraud. It will be fun to watch him to finally have to put the “out of context” emails into context under oath.
Any time the shill media interviews him (like recently in the washington post) if they ask him about the emails (which wapo did) he says, “they were taken out of context” and the journalist(s) just leaves it at that and doesn’t ask for context.
Journalist: Hey Goebbels, What about that whole Holocaust thing?
Goebbels: That was a clerical error.
Journalist: Oh.
Hey, Ms. Gail Combs; Soros is but one willing to foot the bill, according to my sources deeply embedded in the CRU (Climate Revisionist Unit). The skuttlebutt also includes Maurice Strong, Algore, David Rockefeller, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Barack Obama, et al–all current or former founders and/or members of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2461 See also, http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46420
jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 23, 2012 at 4:35 pm
“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.”
Do you doubt that Briffa turned up forty years of data showing declining tree rings? Do you doubt that the authors of the hockey stick were aware of this data? Do you doubt that they chose not to show it? Do you doubt that they substituted temperature measurements for this declining data? Do you doubt that they told no one about the substitution? Do you doubt that the sum of this is knowing falsification with intent to deceive?
Do you think that Mann, Briffa, and friends are really stupid? Do you really think that they were unaware of what they were doing?
Speaking of the “Hide the Decline” video, The video made it on to Fox News where they said the video is absolutely accurate. Fox also said, Mike has been shown to be wrong repeatedly and also shown to be thinskinned…. “He has been exposed as the best science politics can manufacture.” It is a good report on the hockey stick.
Here is a video of the Megyn Kelly Report on Fox News about ‘Hide The Decline’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FwTuEqqh0-g
This aired on TV on April 27, 2010, so why hasn’t Mikey sued the socks off of Fox News?
I think he only goes after the “low hanging fruit” like Elmer and Tim Ball who do not have deep pockets but he really blew it when he went after Mark Steyn. A wolverine comes to mind.
I think he was hoping to raise a stink, get National Review to publicly apologize and thereby scare off any other journalist who might decide not to follow the rest of the herd of
sheep.journalists.jt…what can I say. Cheap comes to mind.
Whatever happens next, things just got a lot more interesting around here.
I. Lou Minotti says:
August 23, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Hey, Ms. Gail Combs; Soros is but one willing to foot the bill,….
_______________________________
Aha yes Maurice Strong’s 1001 Club no doubt. Lift up a rock and you will find a member. Why am I not surprised?
It also answers the question as to why Fox News (the controlled opposition) was not sued. Not a good idea to sue your sponsors now is it?
Thanks for the links BTW.
I see no reason to believe that anything Mann says is worth the trees it’s printed on.
Oh Mann, that is a very disappointing bluff and bluster of a bully who is trying to look brave to his adherents but is shaking in his boots (not to mention buying new pants). As someone else had mentioned, posturing time is over, it’s game on with the ante (official suit filed) or fold. Manny may believe he can still strut and flex, but the longer he does that now is more proof the cock-of-the-walk is a hen and lame at that.
I think you misunderstand the legal system sharpernot. If Manniacal files his suit claiming libel/slander/defamation whatever, that makes Manny a plaintiff and it makes whoever he is suing a defendant. Legal thinking in America is usually that the plaintiff must prove the basis of their suit and the defendent gets to defend. Manny just doesn’t get to point to NRO and Steyn and make claims. He has to prove that they know their claim is not true and not only that, that whatever they said/printed was in spite of that knowledge.
If Manny says, “They called me a fraud”, the judge will look at Manny and say “Are you?”. When Manny says that he is not, the defense will say from everything they’ve seen he is and the only proof Manny is not is in Manniacal’s own files, programs and datasets.
When Manny’s legal team says “independent confirmation”, he’ll have to prove both and provide the evidence to the defense so they can defend themselves.
When Manny’s legal team says “replicated” they will have to prove replication. Did we mention all data and code used to replicate?
Plus, every person who wrote, (confidentially I’m sure), disparaging things about Manniacal, Manny’s efforts or products will be invited to speak, under oath.
Yup, sharperthannought; I’m salivating thinking that “this will be the day the warming died” and I have a “Don McClean” tune running through my head whilst thinking that.
Only it isn’t a sad song this time.
Sad to see all Manny could do was strut for his followers some more. Yup, a hen, no cojones definitely.
“… defended R.J. Reynolds …”
This only goes to prove my contention that Global Warming has become the new aegis for the economic refugees from the Tobacco Institute.
Mark Luedtke says:
August 23, 2012 at 7:53 pm
I’m afraid Mark is right. Remember, Mikey reads WUWT and is sure to be copying and pasting all the juicy tidbits of advice offered here for free regarding his impending jurisprudence and lack of success. After sleeping on it all night, he’ll probably conclude he has way too much to lose through the discovery process and will leave us all disappointed by reversing course.
That and his nefarious ability to deceive is what Mikey is famous for.
(Oh, good evening, Mikey. Scoundrels never recognize their own mirrored image–for you, there may be no reflection at all.)
Maus says:
August 23, 2012 at 7:20 pm
“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.
That’s an admission that Mann intends to obstruct NRO’s requests.
Either because he has something to hide or because he’s an inept scientist and doesn’t catalog his research like a competent scientist would. Take your pick Mike!
Okay, a question (or two… or lots). If Mann is dragging things out with all those he is suing to cost them more money, isn’t that illegal? Probably not, but if Mann then pulls out and he only hung in there to cost them AND does that repeatedly in different cases, won’t the judge(s) frown on Mann’s behaviour? Can they penalize him for it? Can Mann’s targets counter-sue? Is there a point of no return, meaning, once the court orders discovery (or at some point), is it too late to back out? If people can just quit when the going gets too rough for them in court, isn’t that a waste of the court’s time? EVERYONE would be doing it, just to annoy those they don’t like. What am I not understanding?
Some interesting news from the U of Virginia…
http://my.firedoglake.com/moetkacik/2012/08/23/elite-public-university-gives-up-on-climate-science-in-response-to-not-so-elite-public-universitys-campaign-to-smear-its-former-climate-scientist/
Elite Public University Gives Up On Climate Science In Response To Not-So-Elite Public University’s Campaign To Smear Its Former Climate Scientist
jimmi_the_dalek: “Continuing to be wrong after it is pointed out is not fraud, it is narcissistic egotism,”
You are reaching. In Mann’s case it was not about “Continuing to be wrong”. Mann went well beyond being wrong with an ego of denial, Mann acted dishonestly. Mann knew his work was unscientific, yet went forward with Hockey Stick chart and AGW alarm-ism, and he has continued to defend it. Even now, despite a court order, Mann is hiding information – that isn’t being wrong that is being intentionally deceptive.
The legal definition of Fraud – [i]”A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been”[/i] fits what Mann did, and continues to do.
Further, the fact that Mann is physicist and climatologist, thus an expert and professional (cough-cough) is going to work against him in this case. Since Mann can’t simply claim he didn’t know he was wrong, nor claim he didn’t know better than to let his ego get in the way; something a court might let a untrained layperson get away with.
What Mann needs to understand is that once he bites, he will become the bait on the hook used to catch some bigger fish.
Dear Mr Watts
Will you please go on giving us all the possible data ?. I had never read NRO before this, but I intend to subscribe, and to donate all I can afford towards the cost of the lawsuit, and of the specialized journalist dedicated to finding all the relevant facts, ( which NRO intends to hire if necessary ), the moment mr Mann has filed his suit.
I am no scientist, but one does not need a science degree to be able to distinguish lies from the truth, when they are pushed down your throat.
Thank you very much.
María Maestre
To Ally E.
August 23, 2012 at 10:13
“If Mann is dragging things out with all those he is suing to cost them more money, isn’t that illegal?”
Yes and no. It all depends on how he delays. If its by refusing to turn over evidence he will likely have to pay something to the defense. That amount maybe very very low though.
“does that repeatedly in different cases, won’t the judge(s) frown on Mann’s behaviour?”
This highly depends on the judge. Assuming the judge is reasonable fair and the fact Mann is clearly in another lawsuit where he is purposely blocking/withholding evidence the judge will likely do something. What and how much it will cost Mann is based on the judges feeling mostly. If NRO can make Mann and lawyer look like they are purposely jerking the judge around then the judge will be more likely to lay the ban hammer into them.
“Can Mann’s targets counter-sue? Is there a point of no return, meaning, once the court orders discovery (or at some point), is it too late to back out?”
This highly depends on the state and possibly even the county where the suit is filed.
“If people can just quit when the going gets too rough for them in court, isn’t that a waste of the court’s time? EVERYONE would be doing it, just to annoy those they don’t like. What am I not understanding?”
Many many groups bully smaller groups by using just such a tactic. Its sad but it happens.