Mann has filed suit against NRO (now the laughing begins)

This just in. Here’s a potential bombshell for the Mann:

Mann’s hockey stick disappears – and CRU’s Briffa helps make the MWP live again by pointing out bias in the data

========================================================

Popcorn futures* continue their unprecedented climb:

UPDATE: Sunday 10/28 Mark Steyn writes an uproariously funny but at the same time stinging evisceration of Dr. Mann on his private website titled The fraudulent Nobel Laureate

This part says it all, I’d make it “Quote of the Week”, but then I don’t want to fragment this thread:

When a man sues for damage to his reputation and grossly inflates that reputation in the very court filings, that says something about his credibility.

He also links to this thoughtful essay by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

Mann’s embellishment has placed him in a situation where his claims are being countered by the Nobel organization itself.

*There are no popcorn futures markets, the graph is based on a corn future market graph, just for fun

Read Steyn’s latest here: The fraudulent Nobel Laureate

============================================================

Mark Steyn takes note of the airbrushing going on in Mike’s Nobel Trick:

A week ago, Michael Mann accused us of damaging his reputation – and seems to have made it a self-fulfilling prophecy. A week ago, he was a “Nobel prize recipient”. Now he’s not. Great work, Mike!

Dr. Judith Curry sends some advice in her week in review:

“JC message to Michael Mann: Mark Steyn is [a] formidable opponent. I suspect that this is not going to turn out well for you.”

Read more at JudithCurry.com

————————————————————–

FLASH: 10/26 7:30AM The Nobel committee responds to Mann’s “certificate”, says he can’t claim he won it (the Nobel prize itself).

See below. – ALSO National Review makes phone call to Nobel committee, audio and transcript below.

NOTE: This is a top sticky post for awhile since the interest is high. New stories appear below this one.   UPDATE – legal complaint added, plus a new opinion piece by Chris Horner regarding claims of exoneration has been added – see below the “continue reading” line. UPDATE2: Steyn responds, see below.

UPDATE 3: Steyn responds even further, saying:

“Over the years, I’ve been sued and threatened with suits in various countries around the world but I’ve never before seen a plaintiff make such a transparently false assertion right up front in the biographical resumé.”

Details (and a photo to back up Steyn) below.

UPDATE4: CEI officially responds to the lawsuit, and Steyn mocks Mann even more with a priceless zinger, see below.

In related news, popcorn futures explode go nuclear.

More details to follow.

From Michael Mann’s Facebook page.

Lawsuit filed against The National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute 10/22/12

Today, the case of Dr. Michael E. Mann vs. The National Review and The Competitive Enterprise Institute was filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Dr. Mann, a Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, has instituted this lawsuit against the two organizations, along with two of their authors, based upon their false and defamatory statements accusing him of academic fraud and comparing him to a convicted child molester, Jerry Sandusky. Dr. Mann is being represented by John B. Williams of the law firm of Cozen O’Connor in Washington, D.C. (http://www.cozen.com/attorney_detail.asp?d=1&atid=1406).

Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”

Nevertheless, the defendants assert that global warming is a “hoax,” and have accused Dr. Mann of improperly manipulating the data to reach his conclusions.

In response to these types of accusations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation and seven other organizations have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann’s work, finding any and all allegations of academic fraud to be baseless. Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.

Despite their knowledge of the results of these many investigations, the defendants have nevertheless accused Dr. Mann of academic fraud and have maliciously attacked his personal reputation with the knowingly false comparison to a child molester. The conduct of the defendants is outrageous, and Dr. Mann will be seeking judgment for both compensatory and punitive damages.

Journalists interested in further information regarding the filing of this lawsuit may contact Dr. Mann’s attorney at 202-912-4848, or jbwilliams@cozen.com.

==============================================================

I’m sure Mark Steyn is thrilled with the prospect of now being able to do additional commentary on this side show.  I can’t wait for depositions and discovery.

UPDATES:

Here is the legal complaint: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf

Chris Horner has this opinion piece now which explains his opinion on why Dr. Michael Mann was never fully investigated and thus never exonerated.

Mark Steyn responds with: I’ll have more to say about this when I’ve stopped laughing.

Mark Steyn writes in a further update:

Actually, it’s worse than that. I’ve just read the official indictment or whatever you call it against NR, and he makes the claim that he has been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” in the complaint itself (page 2, paragraph 2).

Over the years, I’ve been sued and threatened with suits in various countries around the world but I’ve never before seen a plaintiff make such a transparently false assertion right up front in the biographical resumé.

And I’ve got the photo of Dr. Mann’s award (shown from his office window) to back up what Steyn says here.

Note it says “for contributing to” not awarded to.

Be careful, don’t choke on your popcorn while laughing.

UPDATE4: 

CEI has released it’s official statement on the lawsuit on their website here: http://cei.org/news-releases/climate-scientist-sues-cei

The say:

One of our attorneys, Bruce D. Brown of Baker Hostetler, expertly laid out the legal arguments against Mann’s defamation claim. In short, Dr. Mann is a public figure, and under libel law he would need to meet an exceedingly high standard to prevail. Given the support that Simberg’s criticisms rest on, that standard simply can’t be met. As for Simberg’s Sandusky metaphor, it was purely that—a metaphor.

They are also inviting readers to comment  on the CEI Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/CompetitiveEnterpriseInstitute/posts/428205930566869

Meanwhile, Mark Steyn whips out an example of his rapier wit over Mann’s “Nobel Prize” claims (see photo above) writing:

On the one hand, Michael Mann’s own web page:

He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.

On the other, the Nobel committee:

Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize.

So we’re being sued for loss of reputation by a fake Nobel laureate. Hilarious.

=============================================================

FLASH The Nobel committee responds to Mann’s “certificate” From Tom Richard at Climate Change Dispatch and at The Examiner

I contacted the The Norwegian Nobel Institute to find out if Mann was indeed a Nobel Laureate, winner, etc…

…snip…

Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, or The Norwegian Nobel Institute emailed me back with the following:

1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.

3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.

(NOTE: on point 3, another example here (PDF) suggests that the IPCC added that text, not Mann – Anthony)

Lundestad goes on to say that, “Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not.”

Full story at Climate Change Dispatch and at The Examiner

=================================================================

ALSO: From NRO’s “The Corner” a call to the Nobel committee by Charles C. W. Cooke:

TRANSCRIPT

Cooke: Hello there, do you speak English?

Nobel Committee: Yes, can I help you?

Cooke: I’m a writer. I’m wondering if I could ask you about previous winners of the Nobel Peace Prize?

Nobel Committee: Oh, could you speak a little bit louder. It’s difficult for me to hear.

Cooke: Sorry. I’m trying to look for some information about previous winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Nobel Committee: Which one?

Cooke: I was wondering, has Dr. Michael Mann ever won the Nobel Peace Prize?

Nobel Committee: No, no. He has never won the Nobel prize.

Cooke: He’s never won it?

Nobel Committee: No.

Cooke: Oh, it says on his-

Nobel Committee: The organization won it. It’s not a personal prize to people belonging to an organization.

Cooke: Okay. So if I were to write that he’d won it, that would be incorrect?

Nobel Committee: That is incorrect, yes. Is it you that sent me an email today? I got an e-mail from our Stockholm office regarding Michael Mann.

Cooke: Oh. No, I didn’t send you an e-mail.

Nobel Committee: Oh. So what’s your name?

Cooke: My name is Charles Cooke.

Nobel Committee: And you work for?

Cooke: I write for National Review.

Nobel Committee: Okay, because I’ve got something from Boston and NY Mental Examiner that asked about the same thing.

Cooke: Oh, okay. Well maybe this is a big question. Okay, but he hasn’t won it. That is the answer.

Nobel Committee: No, he has not won it at all.

Cooke: Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much.

Nobel Committee: Thank you. You’re welcome. Bye bye.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
bikermailman

I wonder if the good Dr. Mann judge shopped before filing. I can’t imagine him wanting discovery to be allowed, or is he so arrogant that he hasn’t thought of this?

DBD

Oh my!

D. J. Hawkins

“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad…”

gofer

Under what category of lawsuit is getting your “feelings” hurt?

elftone

He’s very good at starting fights, is our Micky…

Stanley K.

They are becoming increasingly desperate Anthony. Keep up the good work. We are winning the war. No mention of climate change at any of the presidential debate, and nothing more than a passing mention for the entire campaign. Climate change is no longer on the radar of rational, educated people.

As I wrote on Twitter, I fully expect Mann to stand up in court one day and shout “La Science, c’est Moi!”, just like the Sun King Louis 14th said of France.
Only thing, this time it’s a King of Darkness.

This is quite a statement (from Mann’s facebook page): Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.

cui bono

“….along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize…”.
Laugh? I almost emitted CO2.

DickF

“I wonder if the good Dr. Mann judge shopped before filing. I can’t imagine him wanting discovery to be allowed, or is he so arrogant that he hasn’t thought of this.”
I’m not an attorney, but my understanding of the U.S. legal system (gained through long, bloody experience) is that both parties are entitled to conduct discovery proceedings before a case goes to trial. I don’t think that any judge can waive that.

cedarhill

One can always withdraw a lawsuit. There’s penalties but if you’re out to splash around the pool for a bit before the lifequards show up, it’s not a bad tactic.

Pat Frank

The defense merely needs to depose Steve McIntyre and, following that, to examine the contents of Michael Mann’s ‘Back to 1400 CENSORED’ directory. The judge would find grounds to issue a summary dismissal of Mann’s case.

Wow,
so close to the anniversary of Climategate. talk about tempting fate and daring the man with the key to unlock more secrets

RHS

I’m going to need my own green house to grow pop corn during winter, I fully expect a shortage otherwise.

astateofdenmark

“In response to these types of accusations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation and seven other organizations have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann’s work, finding any and all allegations of academic fraud to be baseless.”
I’m sure said organisations are thrilled at the prospect of giving evidence under oath regarding the conduct of said investigations….
Wonder of Jones, Bradley et al will be called as witnesses. Could get bloody this.
But why should Mann care, not like he’s paying for it.

LongCat

I can’t believe an otherwise reputable firm like Cozen O’Connor would file this suit. Mann is going to lose rather badly on First Amendment grounds after being dragged through the mud in discovery. This should be fun.

Sam the First

” Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented. ”
What planet do they live on? it have I missed something… Has there been any serious attempt at replication? Is such an attempt even possible? And have the gang not tried to shut down every such attempt?

pat

I think Mr Mann must now produce the raw data.

Sean Houlihane

lol. Deleted and blocked from commenting on his FB page now.

Physics Major

And his attorney has been paid by Big Oil and Big Tobacco. Wow..

kim

CoC has deep fingers.
============

The immense side-benefit is that this action will shine a bright light on the failure of peer [pal] review in this dark little corner of “science”.
Mann and The Team have skated along far too easily by avoiding/ignoring truly independent review and replication.
Science is a bitch when she bites the bad boys.

Mark Wagner

or is he so arrogant that he hasn’t thought of this
Oh, he’s thought of it, and likely thinks he’s bulletproof.
I see it. Every. Day. People who believe their own bullshit are dangerous. Fortunately, mostly to themselves. Mods may edit as they see fit.

jorgekafkazar

LongCat says: “I can’t believe an otherwise reputable firm like Cozen O’Connor would file this suit. Mann is going to lose rather badly on First Amendment grounds after being dragged through the mud in discovery. This should be fun.”
From the Free Dictionary: coz·en (kzn) v. coz·ened, coz·en·ing, coz·ens v.tr.
1. To mislead by means of a petty trick or fraud; deceive.
2. To persuade or induce to do something by cajoling or wheedling.
3. To obtain by deceit or persuasion.
v.intr.
To act deceitfully.
[Perhaps from Middle English cosin, fraud, trickery.]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cozen

Ryan

I have no idea what his damage model could be. He’s not suffered any financial harm from these statements.

It’s probably not a view shared by many people on the climate realist side, but I consider such people to be real assets in our struggle. The number of ordinary people they can totally alienate with their wild claims is extraordinary, not to mention the rather guilty pleasure I take in watching their own supporter’s sharp intake of breath, every time one of them gets anywhere near a public podium. You can nearly read their thoughts – “Oh God, what are they going to say now.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/climate-alarmism-and-the-prat-principle/
I think of them as liabilities best left in place, to wreak the damage, which both their egos and personalities will inevitably compel them to do.
Pointman

RockyRoad

So Mann is incompetent in more than one field….

One of the primary things that will come out is the NSF sweetheart deals with colleges and universities relating to the colleges of ed and promoting the behavioral sciences division over the natural sciences. I personally have a hard copy of a January 2009 NSF conference in DC where the arrogant PI is bragging about how hard it is to raise money for a biology lab but if a biologist or chemist will opine of how to best teach science and push inquiry instead of lecturing, they can get $500,000 easily.
Add on to that the Math and Science Partnerships to these universities with their colleges of ed and engineering to same effect. Tens of millions not to teach science and math properly. And saying so.
And then having NSF the co-manager of the Belmont Challenge and openly saying you are using the social sciences and control over education to change beliefs about climate change whatever the temps and Mann thinks this can be a defense? Instead it will end up exposing the cozy Corporatist relationship that has been going on among govt politicians and bureaucrats, higher ed, and Big Business over Climate Change.
And Steyn’s skewering humor to boot with so many bad facts.

Mark C

So the same guy who composed the soundtracks for the Star Wars movies files lame-a** lawsuits in his off hours? That’s a broad range of skills. /sarc

Shevva

Do lawyers get paid if they win or lose? cause he could really do with independent advice from someone that doesn’t have millions of pounds of financial bias involved.

Bloke down the pub

”….he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”…”
Well that’s sort of correct. Since his efforts came to light, more and more people have discovered the truth about global warming and now believe that our CO₂ emissions have bugger all to do with it.

JoshuaJ

@Steven Mosher
Hey you’re right – it is close to the Climategate anniversary! Maybe this will be a new holiday tradition for their religion. Kind of like Good Friday self-flagellation! XD

Roger

He’s a fool. At best he’ll nominally win after a lot of damaging evidence against him (I’d like to see Wegman take the stand 🙂 ). At worst this will be dismissed and the publicity will further erode belief in AGW.
This isn’t about Mann and some journalists. The hockey stick itself is on trial. Should be fun…

The Old Crusader

“…NSF sweetheart deals …”
A very good point. People endlessly quote the “military-industrial complex” phrase from Eisenhower’s farewell address – and rightly so. Not nearly enough attention has been focused on his warning about the corruptions inherent in government funded science.

Juan Slayton

astateofdenmark: But why should Mann care, not like he’s paying for it.
Not sure I follow you here. Litigation is not free. And Steyn’s going to need $ to defend the case.

Sean Peake

Looks like we will get to see those emails after all

MarkW

I didn’t think he was stupid enough to actually go through with it.

I still find myself surprised at myself for continuing to be surprised at the chutzpah of this man.
I wonder if Mr Mann will be paying for his no doubt expensive legal team out of his own pocket or will he just ask to dip into the ‘climate legal defense fund’ which appears to me as though it could have been set up just for him.
I’m also surprised at the lawyers for even touching this. If I recall the hoo ha at the time Mann may have said on a number of occasions that he was accused of “academic fraud” however anyone with an average grasp of the English language could read that it was the hockey stick graph which was accused of being fraudulent for being a false representation of the past temperature record with no mention of academia.
it will be interesting to see this dragged through a court and I hope that the defenders, whom I suspect were expecting and quite prepared for this make the most of the opportunity to expose in court the actuality of all of these inquiries and replications that are alleged to have taken place because I’m sure they can be found wanting.
This case I believe, does not have a leg to stand on but if it can get far enough then it can put a final stake in the reputation of Mann, a reputation that’s not particularly well thought-of on both sides of the climate debate. Apart from of course, the usual few suspects whose academic reputations are also inexorably bound to similar shoddy science or voodoo.

Ken Harvey

Sadly, he will withdraw. The man is a manipulator, not an imbecile.

jeanparisot

Aren’t some lake sediments still upside-down?

adam

The legal system is far from perfect esp with regards to litigation.
So, to play the devil’s advocate, I’m wondering how might Mann win this case if it goes to trial?
Would it be a trial by jury?

more soylent green!

I read a review today in the Wall Street Journal of a book about Velikovsky and Lysenkoism and how hard scientists worked to debunk that nonsense and educate the public. I immediately thought of Michael Mann when reading that review, but the difference is now it’s the scientific mainstream defending the junk science.
In the old Soviet Union, science was often co-opted and subverted to match the goals of the state. The USSR may be gone, but it still lives on today!

Doug Huffman

I would have a problem with the double entendre of an attorney firm called ‘cozen.’ The law is an ass that lawyers ride to work.

jeff 5778

national Review and CEI will defend Steyn. It the publisher’s problem.

Glenn

@Ryan, on one level it would be a standard libel/slander action – Mann has been accused of immoral or illegal acts. On a different level, it’s more severe: a person who is known or believed to have falsified data will have a harder time getting funding (in a rational world, anyway.)

Matt in Houston

This is awesome. Idiot Mann et al must be daft. The only thing I can figure is that Mann et al must have a favorable judge. The fool and his money shall soon be parted, hopefully in a grand fashion.

Raymond Watts
An Opinion

The Nobel Peace Prize is not an award for a scientific achievement, and therefore is irelevant.

The defence calls Mr S McIntyre and just maybe Mr FOI….