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.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
937 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bikermailman
October 23, 2012 9:36 am

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
October 23, 2012 9:36 am

Oh my!

D. J. Hawkins
October 23, 2012 9:37 am

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

gofer
October 23, 2012 9:39 am

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

elftone
October 23, 2012 9:39 am

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

Stanley K.
October 23, 2012 9:39 am

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.

October 23, 2012 9:40 am

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.

October 23, 2012 9:42 am

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
October 23, 2012 9:49 am

“….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
October 23, 2012 9:51 am

“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
October 23, 2012 9:51 am

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
October 23, 2012 9:52 am

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.

October 23, 2012 9:56 am

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

RHS
October 23, 2012 9:57 am

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

astateofdenmark
October 23, 2012 9:59 am

“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
October 23, 2012 9:59 am

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
October 23, 2012 9:59 am

” 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
October 23, 2012 10:00 am

I think Mr Mann must now produce the raw data.

Sean Houlihane
October 23, 2012 10:00 am

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

Physics Major
October 23, 2012 10:01 am

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

kim
October 23, 2012 10:02 am

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

October 23, 2012 10:04 am

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
October 23, 2012 10:05 am

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
October 23, 2012 10:17 am

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
October 23, 2012 10:17 am

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

October 23, 2012 10:21 am

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
October 23, 2012 10:21 am

So Mann is incompetent in more than one field….

October 23, 2012 10:23 am

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
October 23, 2012 10:23 am

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
October 23, 2012 10:24 am

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
October 23, 2012 10:25 am

”….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
October 23, 2012 10:30 am

@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
October 23, 2012 10:32 am

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
October 23, 2012 10:37 am

“…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
October 23, 2012 10:37 am

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
October 23, 2012 10:38 am

Looks like we will get to see those emails after all

MarkW
October 23, 2012 10:40 am

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

October 23, 2012 10:40 am

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
October 23, 2012 10:40 am

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

Jean Parisot
October 23, 2012 10:41 am

Aren’t some lake sediments still upside-down?

adam
October 23, 2012 10:43 am
October 23, 2012 10:44 am

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!
October 23, 2012 10:44 am

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
October 23, 2012 10:44 am

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
October 23, 2012 10:46 am

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

Glenn
October 23, 2012 10:47 am

@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
October 23, 2012 10:49 am

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
October 23, 2012 10:50 am
An Opinion
October 23, 2012 10:54 am

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

October 23, 2012 10:55 am

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

richardscourtney
October 23, 2012 10:56 am

Pointman:
I read your post at October 23, 2012 at 10:21 am and its excellent and amusing link
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/climate-alarmism-and-the-prat-principle/
which explains the nature of a prat.
Yes, Mann is a prat. It is said that on the day when the last of The Few passed away we are diverted to consider a lawsuit from a prat who is not worthy to walk on the same planet as they inhabited.
Richard

KevinM
October 23, 2012 10:56 am

Sandusky lawsuit coming… inaccurately campared to Mann.

October 23, 2012 10:57 am

I’m one of those non-scientists who tries to follow this issue here, and elsewhere in the media. However, I find myself at a loss when actually trying to critique say Mann’s work. I don’t feel comfortable criticizing his alleged misuse of principal components analysis or the fact that MacIntyre apparently replicated his model and found that it produces hockeystick predictions from any dataset. They seem to have incredibly aggressive and complex defenses against all that.
However, a trial is a different thing. It’s governed by the rules of evidence and arguments must have some logical and/or factual bases to be presented. Much like the Dover trial for creationists, when pressed to actually prove their case, with a judge who actually did his job (and was a conservative christian – but kept his personal views out of it), the result was that they have no case at all. I wonder, in a court setting, will the critiques of Mann stand up to evidence? Most people don’t really understand how courts work, but they can be the best place to actually find facts. I think if this effort is undertaken properly, it could be a great moment for those of us who want to base govt policies on sensible, evidence based assessments of the risks we face.

October 23, 2012 11:03 am

Plus there is a national network funded by NSF that goes by the name Centers for Learning and Teaching that was designed to be Ground Zero in the math and science wars. Which also relates directly to AGW as well as diversifying the STEM workforce no matter what has to be changed.
Penn State is a partner in the MAC-MTL, the Mid-Atlantic Center for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, that was first established in 2000.

philjourdan
October 23, 2012 11:06 am

He just does not know when to quit! I guess he is going to find out that the climate does not revolve around him.

Doug
October 23, 2012 11:10 am

———-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.———–
Anyone with some sort of journalist credentials should certain take up the offer. His bill will grow with each request.

JimRJBob
October 23, 2012 11:13 am

National Review, et al. doesn’t need a “good judge.” Assuming this is filed in U.S federal court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow, actually require, wide-ranging
discovery practice in the pretrial period. The judge is only involved if someone objects to certain discovery requests (they are called requests but are really demands). The statements of Mann on Facebook today and previous statements will be subject to FRCP’s discovery rules which are decidedly liberal. In addition, deadlines apply.
I agree with Rich Lowry: bring it on.
Even if it is brought in state court, most of the states’ discovery rules are based on the FRCP.
Thus will be really a fun circus.

astateofdenmark
October 23, 2012 11:15 am

Juan Slayton says: “Not sure I follow you here. Litigation is not free.”
It is for Mann. See:
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/823/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=7935
http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/about-us/

JFD
October 23, 2012 11:17 am

Mann is indeed seeking funds for his lawsuit from the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund . Here is the pitch on their website:
The Blog
Support Mike Mann’s Legal Defense
The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund continues to receive donations and offers of help from various stakeholders. We are actively working with several organizations in order to make CSLDF a one-stop resource for scientists looking for legal resources and we are currently pursuing several educational and legal initiatives which will be made public in the future.
In the short-term, CSLDF would greatly appreciate your financial support to help Dr. Michael Mann. Funds are needed to:
1.Fend-off ATI’s demand to take Dr. Mann’s deposition, which is a blatant attempt to harass and intimidate him for exercising his constitutional rights by petitioning to intervene in the case.
2.Defeat ATI’s attempt to obtain Dr. Mann’s email correspondence through the civil discovery process, which essentially is an “end-run” around the scholarly research exemption under the Virginia FOIA law.
3.Prepare for summary judgment on the issue of the exempt status of his email correspondence under the Virginia FOIA law.
Donations can be sent to CSLDF online or by sending a check made out to PEER, with Climate Science LDF on the memo line to:
Climate Science Legal Defense Fund
c/o PEER 2000 P Street, NW #240
Washington, D.C. 20036

October 23, 2012 11:20 am

Another Scopes Monkey Trial?

Kaboom
October 23, 2012 11:21 am

As a fellow partial Nobel peace prize recipient (as a citizen of the EU) I cannot wait for the discovery to begin.

Ferd
October 23, 2012 11:24 am

Oh GOOD!
Bring on discovery!

October 23, 2012 11:27 am

Remember, Mann is potentially accelerating his self-destruction on two fronts: he claims harm from folks saying his science is no good, thus invites hard scrutiny of his science; and he claims he is as clean as the wind-driven snow while asserting skeptic scientists are crooks, thus he invites hard scrutiny of the accusation he tosses out. I don’t know beans about AGW science, but I do know the accusation he relies on has more problems than you can shake a hockey stick at.

Zeke
October 23, 2012 11:28 am

Here is the supposedly actionable post:
Football and Hockey
By Mark Steyn
July 15, 2012 6:22 P.M.
Comments
147
“In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal:
‘I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.’
Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.”
In my view, the intent of the column is to show that Penn State is involved in cover ups and does not hold its “star names” accountable, and that Penn State held an inadequate investigation of Michael Mann.
(Michael Mann brings grants to the institution, doesn’t he?)

JimRJBob
October 23, 2012 11:28 am

Glenn,
I think you meant Dayton (TN)?

Louis Hooffstetter
October 23, 2012 11:32 am

“Steyn’s going to need $ to defend the case.”
Anthony, set up a tip jar. I’ll gladly donate!

October 23, 2012 11:34 am

“…and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.:
What replications might those be? Did someone run the same models?
I read it here that noise input into those models generates a hockey stick.
Was the replicated as well?

JJ
October 23, 2012 11:36 am

Glenn says:
@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.)

The sad part is, he is probably most angry not at the accusation that he is has acted immorally or illegally, but at the implication that he was incompetent at it.

rw
October 23, 2012 11:38 am

Well, anything to keep him out of the lab … I think this should be encouraged.

October 23, 2012 11:40 am

This could have been me 🙁

October 23, 2012 11:45 am

Can’t figure how how to donate to Mark’s cause via the NRO website. Anybody have a link?

Dan
October 23, 2012 11:47 am

Mann = Lance Armstrong

October 23, 2012 11:54 am

It was stated on Mann’s “Facebook Page” that ….
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.”
However the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will makes it clear that only a single person may qualify for the award, and sets out clear stipulations as to who ought to receive the so called “Peace Prize”,
as it has now been dubbed by various organisations.
From the original last will and testament of Alfred Nobel :
“and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
How Nobel’s statement can be contorted to include the definition quoted by Mann is frankly inexplicable, and how the Nobel Prize committee could decide that to make awards to multiple recipients, was compliant with the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will is baffling and bewildering.

Rob Crawford
October 23, 2012 11:56 am

“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.”
Does that include feeding noise into his “analysis” and getting the same curve? Or was that someone else’s “work”?

Cosmic Ray
October 23, 2012 11:57 am

I think we skeptics should post whatever info we have that will help Steyn’s case.

manicbeancounter
October 23, 2012 12:00 pm

I would have thought that in pursuing a lawsuit one should not open oneself up to the accusation of exaggeration. The following statement might be so construed:-

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.”

Rob Crawford
October 23, 2012 12:01 pm

I wonder if the people funding the “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund” realize their identities will be subject to discovery?

Michael F
October 23, 2012 12:02 pm

Wow! Maybe NRO’s lawyers will allow us to crowdsource review of the documents from discovery? That would be a fantastic Christmas present.

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 23, 2012 12:03 pm

Mann-made global warming to be decided by lawyers. The lawyers are so clueless that they haven’t the foggiest idea of what’s going to hit them.
Perhaps we should have pitty on them and give them advance warning? Everybody send an email to Mt Williams telling him: you are going to lose that case.

theduke
October 23, 2012 12:03 pm

Although he doesn’t need it, Mark Steyn will indeed have a motherload of material to mine in the future.

Gary Hladik
October 23, 2012 12:05 pm

As I recall, Mann has filed another libel lawsuit which is currently going nowhere because he’s dragging his heels responding to discovery demands. I suspect this one, too, will drag on until it’s dismissed for his nonresponse in discovery. Anybody have a handy link to the other lawsuit?

mojo
October 23, 2012 12:05 pm

“Discovery, HO-OOOOO!…”

theduke
October 23, 2012 12:07 pm

Mike Dini: try this:
https://www.nationalreview.com/donate
You can write a comment to the editors to request this be applied to their defense in the Mann lawsuit.

LamontT
October 23, 2012 12:10 pm

” LongCat says:
October 23, 2012 at 9:59 am
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.”
———————————————————–
Of course they would take the case. Cozen O’Connor gets paid by the hour. And probably very handsomely. Nothing requires that your client be in the right if they want to file a lawsuit. Just that they have money and a willingness to throw it at an attorney.

dp
October 23, 2012 12:13 pm

I think the judge is going to tell the defendant to defend himself with facts at hand at the time of the alleged offense and disallow a witch hunt for evidence to support his claim. There will be no discovery and none needed because what is needed for the defense is presumably already known.
Mann is going to win this one if the existing evidence is not compelling proof of fraud.

October 23, 2012 12:16 pm

Fyi, I’m a second Glenn – now known here as GlennD. I’m the “non-scientist” who commented above.

philjourdan
October 23, 2012 12:20 pm

@ An Opinion says: October 23, 2012 at 10:54 am
Given the recent recipients, I would say it is not even a prize any longer. Arafat? Carter? Obama? The EU?

October 23, 2012 12:20 pm

The DC filing is not just “judge shopping”, in the most liberal court system of the country….it is also “jury shopping” for the largest pool of federally funded “peers” to judge the limits of free speech. Any dillusions of Mann made warming are removed in “The Hockey Stick of Illusion” by A W Montford. Ask Tricky Dick….stating loudly….”I am NOT a crook”….does not remove criminal behavior. Ask Slick Willy….stating loudly….”I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman”….does not remove DNA evidence. Ask Dirty Sandusky….stating loudly….”All those little boys are lying”….won’t keep you out of the grey bar hotel. Little Mikey has awakened the fearless FOI-STEYN ! ! !

KnR
October 23, 2012 12:22 pm

Keep him under pressure keep him in the spot light , Mann’s ego will do the rest for us .

DocMartyn
October 23, 2012 12:37 pm

Mark Steyn forced the Canadian establishment to change all its whole hate speech legal framework. Mann is nuts taking him and all the worlds pro bono amateur scientists.
Steyn could get a dataset from discovery, crowd source it, and have a detailed analysis in 24 hours.

Dave
October 23, 2012 12:40 pm

If I’m not mistaken, finding a person guilty of libel against a public figure is far more difficult to accomplish than it would be against a private person. Mann has done nothing other than promote himself for years and due to his large number of followers on Twitter and Facebook, he is now a public figure. I for one am going to enjoy watching this play out… while simultaneously enjoying watching his case against Tim Ball play out in Canada. I hope the warmists keep squandering their money on unwinnable causes.
I think I’m going to buy a case of floss in anticipation of a massive rise in my popcorn consumption… I’m sure that over the coming months I’ll get lots of those pesky kernals caught between my teeth.

tallbloke
October 23, 2012 12:42 pm

I fell a limerick series coming on 🙂
The Mann with the Nobel surprise
Has his fingers in too many pies
He’s now set up to fall
In his case v Tim Ball
When discovery brings out the lies

theduke
October 23, 2012 12:44 pm

dp says:
October 23, 2012 at 12:13 pm
—————————————————–
With this post you prove how little you know about law, libel and accusations of fraud. If you think a judge is going to prevent NR and Steyn from vigorously defending themselves, you are delusional.

Toto
October 23, 2012 12:48 pm

If I compared him to Lance Armstrong would he sue me? Even Lance couldn’t keep it up forever.

j ferguson
October 23, 2012 12:49 pm

dp:

“I think the judge is going to tell the defendant to defend himself with facts at hand at the time of the alleged offense and disallow a witch hunt for evidence to support his claim. There will be no discovery and none needed because what is needed for the defense is presumably already known.”

This suggests that you must already have adequate support “in hand” if you allege fraud. You can’t go looking for the support afterward in order to shore up an allegation for which you lacked sufficient basis. dp, is this the gist of it?
If this then is the situation wrt to defense from this suit, do the readers here believe that there is sufficient support for the allegation of fraud already at hand?

Bob Rogers
October 23, 2012 12:51 pm

In the USA, the truth is an absolute defense against libel, so if the defendants can prove that what they say is true, then there is no case. Mann says he will seek compensatory damages. To be successful he will need to show how he has been financially harmed as a result of the published material that is found to be false.
It does not seem that half of what the FB page says would be actionable. The defendants are accused of claiming that global warming is a hoax. That’s just an expression of opinion. The part that would be is claiming that he “improperly manipulated the data.” To me, “improper” implies a value judgement. So the case, if it goes to trial, would, if the FB page is accurate, revolve around what manipulations are proper, and what are improper.
He’s probably looking for a settlement anyway.

AndyG55
October 23, 2012 1:04 pm

“and every replication of Mann’s work”
yep, ya gets a hockey stick every time, no matter what data you use.

Steve
October 23, 2012 1:10 pm

He blocked me over a month ago for merely stating “gee….I can’t wait for discovery”. Guess I hurt his feelings. Do I get a lawsuit filed against me too???? COWARD…….. HOAXSTER…..DISCOVERY……DISCOVERY…….DISCOVERY……..DISCOVERY…….DISCOVERY…………

D Böehm
October 23, 2012 1:11 pm

Dear Dr. Mann,
Regarding your stated position that discovery does not apply to you, we refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram…

Kevin Schurig
October 23, 2012 1:15 pm

Hey, MM just proved a theory. He really is that stupid.

Richard of NZ
October 23, 2012 1:17 pm

I would hope that both the NRO and the CEI file counterclaims very quickly. This would then force the case to continue even if Dr. Mann should want to withdraw. With careful thought they could cover all of the discovery needs that should be brought forward in Dr. Mann’s suit.
Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer or a US citizen, but have followed some interesting civil cases in the US, particularly the SCO/Linux situation of a few years back, and make my statement based on what I learned from that.

October 23, 2012 1:19 pm

What if the National Inquirer purposely used inflamitory language to get Mann to file a law suit? Did he take the bait? The best way for him to get off the hook is to work for an out of court settlement. His Probability of his winning a civil jury trial is extremely low. Often the loser is required to pay the other’s attorney fees which can be considerable. The attorneys are nearly always financial winners.

Physics Major
October 23, 2012 1:20 pm

Firms like Cozen O’Conner charge big bucks. After the first round of discovery and a couple of depositions the tab will probably be north of $100,000 and climbing.

Berényi Péter
October 23, 2012 1:25 pm

Classic example of the Streisand effect

Graham from OZ
October 23, 2012 1:25 pm

Beware of the “comparing him to a convicted child molester” challenge.

Mike Smith
October 23, 2012 1:27 pm

Taking on Mark Steyn and Rich Lowry together?
He has some balls to go with his hockey stick but I fear the Mann will score an own goal and be pucked.

j ferguson
October 23, 2012 1:31 pm

Clearly, none of you has ever served on a DC jury.

theduke
October 23, 2012 1:35 pm

Bob Rogers wrote: “In the USA, the truth is an absolute defense against libel, so if the defendants can prove that what they say is true, then there is no case.”
They don’t even have to prove what they said was definitively true. All they have to show is that it is arguably true.
Steyn did not accuse Mann of academic fraud. He said that Mann was the person behind the fraudulent climate change hockey-stick graph. He could have meant that it was being used fraudulently but not conceived in a fraudulent manner. And he has abundant evidence that proves its current use is fraudulent, the flat-lining of temperatures since MBH 98 being most prominent in that regard. The hockey stick is slowly proving itself to be a fraud in the sense that it’s predictive power is now shown to be lacking.
Steyn may believe that Mann actually believed in the truth of his graph when he composed it. I think he’s saying that the fraud occurred after publication with the widespread use of it when evidence was accruing that it was not accurate. It’s clear now that it is fraudulent because it is still being used to frighten people, but that was not clear in the beginning.

October 23, 2012 1:38 pm

MM is a public figure and will have to prove “actual malice” in the defamatory speech. “Actual malice” means that the statement was made by someone who knew it wasn’t true, or didn’t care whether it was true or not. MM has been meticulously debunked by McIntyre, Wegman and others, and reliance upon these sources in speaking ill of the MM should defuse any claim of willful malice. The comparison to Sandusky, while hyperbolic, was made in the context of opinion, namely that PSU was completely incapable of policing the misconduct of its faculty. MM was not even the subject matter of this speech, PSU was, and the argument by analogy is almost certainly protected speech.

October 23, 2012 1:41 pm

It’s all falling apart so quickly that I cannot see any chance at all of this getting to court.

October 23, 2012 1:41 pm

DocMartyn says:
October 23, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Steyn could get a dataset from discovery, crowd source it, and have a detailed analysis in 24 hours.
=============================================================
More like about 4 hours !!

October 23, 2012 1:46 pm

MM is suing STYNE for an INDIRECT QUOTE that he used from someone else. HELP ME HELP ME HELP ME…I’m giddy. Can you IMAGINE what “Judge Judy” would do with this one?

Matthew R Marler
October 23, 2012 1:47 pm

This should be good. I can hardly wait.

October 23, 2012 1:47 pm

@gofer says: October 23, 2012 at 9:39 am
Under what category of lawsuit is getting your “feelings” hurt?
—————————————————————————–
Section 5 in the UK.

Duke C.
October 23, 2012 1:48 pm

Mann posted this on his Facebook page a couple of hours ago:
“A few followup comments regarding the NRO/CEI lawsuit.
1. There is a larger context for this latest development, namely the onslaught of dishonest and libelous attacks that climate scientists have endured for years by dishonest front groups seeking to discredit the case for concern over climate change. Its why I wrote my book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” (www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick
-Climate-Wars/dp/023115254X/
) about my experiences as a public figure in the climate change debate, and its why I filed this suit.
2. Now would be a great time to help out w/ the larger battle by assisting climate scientists in their efforts to fight back against the attacks. Please consider contributing to the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF):
climatesciencedefensefund.org”

(Note- I refuse to post direct links to facebook, You can navigate to his FB page via his homepage:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/index.php )

WTF
October 23, 2012 1:53 pm

Maybe Mann’s lawyers should watch Steyn’s testimony at the BC Human Rights Commission. Between Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant the human rights commissions were shown to be the rent seeking shams that they are and resulted in the Canadian Government changing the act to take away the HRC’s fangs. Mark Steyn is smart enough to know exactly how far he can go. MM doesn’t stand a chance.

October 23, 2012 1:54 pm

@Dave says: October 23, 2012 at 12:40 pm
… while simultaneously enjoying watching his case against Tim Ball play out in Canada.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
What’s the state of play with this? It must be a year old, yes? Was not Mann refusing to turn various papers over to the court? That, I think, was the last I heard on the matter of The Mekon v Prof. Ball

jayhd
October 23, 2012 1:54 pm

Anyone know the status of the Dr. Ball suit? Has Mann responded to the discovery there? And does Mann realize all the people whose emails were released in Climategate 1 and 2 are subject to be called if there is a trial? Some of those emails were not exactly complimentary about Mann’s science and methodology. My bet is the suit will be dropped, but hopefully NRO and Steyn can get some discovery requests in first.
Jay Davis

WTF
October 23, 2012 1:56 pm

Max Hugoson says:
October 23, 2012 at 1:46 pm
MM is suing STYNE for an INDIRECT QUOTE that he used from someone else. HELP ME HELP ME HELP ME…I’m giddy. Can you IMAGINE what “Judge Judy” would do with this one?
————————————————————————————————————————————
This is exactly what happened at the BCHRC.

David L. Hagen
October 23, 2012 1:59 pm

See The BLT Penn State Climate Scientist Sues National Review for Libel and
the Michael Mann Complaint at the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division. Case 0008263-12

Ian H
October 23, 2012 2:06 pm

I’ve been a regular spectator to US legal proceedings at Groklaw over the last few years. Consequently I am very cynical when it comes to US courts.
To amuse everyone, the judge will issue a series of bizarre rulings. Which evidence can be mentioned will be debated expensively at great length. Thousands of pages of legal scholarship will be written and then mostly ignored. The jury of ignorant people will rule on the basis of blind prejudice (or by rolling a dice). Nothing is then decided. Someone will appeal. While everyone pretends that all of this matters, the process is so protracted and expensive that it seldom runs all the way to conclusion. It really is nothing more than thinly disguised combat by wallet. The litigants spend money on expensive lawyers until somebody surrenders or goes bankrupt.
It would be a mistake to expect this to resolve anything about Mannian “science”.

RickW
October 23, 2012 2:06 pm

Unfortunately Mann will drop this suit immediately after the first discovery motion is filed.

Brenda
October 23, 2012 2:16 pm

Re CSLDF statements (posted by JFD at 11:17 am). Are there any lawyers here who can explain and comment on the CSLDF statements regarding Mann’s emails and civil discovery? It sounds like the strategy of Mann’s lawyers is to get the emails exempted from civil discovery by placing them under the protection of a special “scholarly research” exemption that applies to FOI requests in Virginia.
Considering that civil discovery is not a Freedom of Information request, can this work? And what is ATI? Following are the relevant quotes from CSLDF :
2.Defeat ATI’s attempt to obtain Dr. Mann’s email correspondence through the civil discovery process, which essentially is an “end-run” around the scholarly research exemption under the Virginia FOIA law.
3.Prepare for summary judgment on the issue of the exempt status of his email correspondence under the Virginia FOIA law.
Can anyone here explain this?

bobby b
October 23, 2012 2:18 pm

“Mann is going to win this one if the existing evidence is not compelling proof of fraud.”
– – – –
1. One of the main issues that this brings into controversy is the sufficiency of Penn State’s investigation into Mann’s conduct. This will logically entail a comparison of what the school said it found, with Mann’s actual conduct. This alone justifies discovery into any and all accusations of wrongdoing/negligence/fraud on Mann’s part that Penn supposedly investigated.
In other words, Mann is asking a court to find that these people have wrongly and intentionally – with malice – tried to spread lies about him and his work, and there is no way “his work” can be protected from scrutiny, especially when he makes it a legal issue himself.
2. People shouldn’t talk about anyone being found “guilty” of anything in this civil lawsuit. “Guilty” is a criminal-law concept.
3. Fees – generally, in an American court, in a civil lawsuit, everyone pays their own fees, no matter who wins or loses, unless there is a specific statute calling for fees to be paid by a losing party (usually subject-related, such as “employment discrimination”, etc). Typically, a firm such as C-O’C takes on such a case contemplating that its client will be awarded a large sum to compensate for the damage done to him, and C-O’C would then, through its contract with Mann, take (again, typically) 1/3 of that amount as its fee.
In this case, C-O’C might have taken it on as a loss-leader, knowing it will not likely earn a big fee, but thinking it will bring in lots of other, more profitable, business. Or, the partner in charge of the case might simply be a committed CAGW adherent. Or an insensate drunk.

theduke
October 23, 2012 2:23 pm

Max Hugoson says:
October 23, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Actually, Max, I think he’s suing Steyn for the quote about the “fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph.” Which is silly and may be dismissed if the right judge gets the case.
The comparison of Mann to Sandusky was Simberg’s creation. Both he and Steyn were actually more interested in attacking Penn State than Mann.

Kforestcat
October 23, 2012 2:23 pm

Regarding Mann’s “Facebook Page” statement:
“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.”
“He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize”? Not true according to the list of prizes winners at the Noble Peace Prize web site for 2007. See here: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/#
While it is true that VP Al Gore was named as an individual and it is also true that “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” is named as an organization. Dr. Mann certainly was not named as a prize winner. Indeed I can’t find his name listed anywhere site. Even a search of his name came up empty. It is presumptuous for Mann to promote himself as a “Noble Prize Winner” on the basis of mere association with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In my personal view this tendency towards arrogant self aggrandizement, at the expense of the whole-truth, is consistent with that of a deeply troubled sociopath. Mann has ruined his own reputation and has no one to blame but himself.
Regards,
Kforestcat

bobby b
October 23, 2012 2:25 pm

Sadly, Mann has found the perfect judge for someone in his position:
http://www.therobingroom.com/dc/JudgeDetail.aspx?ID=3789
(As you review the detailed ratings charts, keep in mind that a “1” generally means “awful.”)

Vince Causey
October 23, 2012 2:27 pm

Ian H,
“It really is nothing more than thinly disguised combat by wallet. The litigants spend money on expensive lawyers until somebody surrenders or goes bankrupt.”
A good analogy would be a game of no limit poker, where your “pot” is all your worldly assets.

October 23, 2012 2:35 pm

LOL – I got booted from his page for saying Joe Biden has a three letter word for him: discovery.

bobby b
October 23, 2012 2:36 pm

Lordy.
Read the comments about the assigned judge. This is truly going to be world-class entertainment.
BUT – if she keeps the case, it also means that rational discussions about how the case will likely be structured, about what the law is on any given aspect of the case, and about any empirically-informed musings on how it will turn out, will have no connection to what really happens.
It will simply be a lottery.

bobby b
October 23, 2012 2:37 pm
Jimmy Haigh
October 23, 2012 2:38 pm

I’m sure I’ve seen it pointed out before but I love the irony of the fact that the “hockey stick” is in actual fact an “ice hockey stick”.

michael hart
October 23, 2012 2:39 pm

Showdown.

October 23, 2012 2:43 pm

Regarding the replications of his work. These were done by other team members and either relied upon Mann’s flawed statistical analysis, his flawed proxies, or both. There was a long thread on this over a year ago either here or at CA. In recent years lots of proxy reconstructions that show no hockey stick have been published.

Pat G
October 23, 2012 2:45 pm

I would think that some of Mann’s colleagues/co-authors wouldn’t be too happy about having to defend Mann’s work under oath.

Joe Guerk
October 23, 2012 2:46 pm

Cozen O’Connor is almost as good as Dewy Cheatham and Howe

October 23, 2012 2:46 pm

Three thoughts:
1 – I wonder how Tim Ball is going with his “Penn state”/”state pen” case against Mann.
2 – If information obtained during discovery is confidential until raised in court. if so it might mean that a lot that’s learned but not used in court will remain out of public view.
3 – Can Mann seek to constrain the case so that it deals only with specific issues and not, for example, with Climategate matters?

October 23, 2012 2:46 pm

Ian H wrote:

October 23, 2012 at 2:06 pm
I’ve been a regular spectator to US legal proceedings at Groklaw over the last few years. Consequently I am very cynical when it comes to US courts.
To amuse everyone, the judge will issue a series of bizarre rulings. Which evidence can be mentioned will be debated expensively at great length. Thousands of pages of legal scholarship will be written and then mostly ignored. The jury of ignorant people will rule on the basis of blind prejudice (or by rolling a dice). Nothing is then decided. Someone will appeal. While everyone pretends that all of this matters, the process is so protracted and expensive that it seldom runs all the way to conclusion. It really is nothing more than thinly disguised combat by wallet. The litigants spend money on expensive lawyers until somebody surrenders or goes bankrupt.
It would be a mistake to expect this to resolve anything about Mannian “science”.

Thanks for [indirectly] answering my question.
The optimism being expressed here suggests that few posters have been involved in litigation.

jono1066
October 23, 2012 2:47 pm

lesson number 3
Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.
lesson number 2
your best enemy is the one who is going to help you win the war

Craig Loehle
October 23, 2012 2:48 pm

“Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.”
This is insane. My own work showed that there are issues with tree ring reconstructions:
Loehle, C. 2009. A Mathematical Analysis of the Divergence Problem in Dendroclimatology. Climatic Change 94:233-245. Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on Non-Treering Proxy Data. Energy & Environment 18:1049-1058. Loehle, C. and Hu McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on Non-Treering Proxy Data. Energy & Environment 19:93-100.
Mann and friends made sure contrary work did not get published. Soon & Baliunas for example published showing the MWP existed and the editor for the journal got fired and they tried to get them fired as well. In his book, only papers confirming his work exist and he never admits any mistake that McIntyre uncovered.
And what are these “seven other” investigations?
By the way, Stein did not compare Mann to a child molester, he made the point that if Penn State was willing to cover up Sandusky why should we expect them to do a diligent investigation of Mann? And that is not at all what Mann says he said. His characterization of what Stein said is itself libelous.

GuarionexSandoval
October 23, 2012 2:55 pm

Live by the suit. Die by the suit. He will be destroyed in depositions. All the stuff he and the others were trying to hide by not complying with FOIA requests will have to come out in discovery. Get ready for the hockey stick, Michael.

Craig Loehle
October 23, 2012 3:04 pm

According to Mann, a study is only science if it comes to the same conclusion as his own work, so by definition all subsequent work has “replicated” his results, since if it did not it does not exist. Thus multiple reconstructions that come to different conclusions were left out of IPCC reports, and in Mann’s book he claims that “NO studies” show a warmer MWP, when I have personally a whole file drawer full of papers indicating a warm MWP.
And are we to assume he will claim that the WMO cover graphic with the Mann-designed “hide the decline” trick is not likely to cause a reasonable person to cry fraud? Really?

mfo
October 23, 2012 3:06 pm

“ABSTRACT: In the routine practice of scientific research, there are many types of misrepresentation and bias which could be considered dubious. However, only a few narrowly defined behaviours are singled out and castigated as scientific fraud. A narrow definition of scientific fraud is convenient to the groups in society — scientific elites, and powerful government and corporate interests — that have the dominant influence on priorities in science……
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/92prom.html
“Abstract: A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%)…..
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028
“The authors of the study said this could be due to the increased scrutiny placed on the research in these journals and the greater uncertainty associated with the most cutting-edge research. “Alternatively, the disproportionately high payoffs to scientists for publication in prestigious venues can be an incentive to perform work with excessive haste or to engage in unethical practices,” they wrote in PNAS.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/01/tenfold-increase-science-paper-retracted-fraud
“QUESTION 1: What are the main problems with the existing system for publishing scientific research?
“Michael Eisen: Everything.
The question should be: “What isn’t a problem with the existing system of scientific publishing?” Every major aspect of the traditional journal system scientists use to communicate with each other was developed for a world in which information was disseminated in printed journals. And every single major aspect of this system—the format of papers, the structure of peer review, the subscription-based business model, and even the very existence of journals—has been rendered obsolete by the rise of the Internet.
“Because of our continued unwillingness as a community to face up to the challenge of reforming scientific communication, we are left with a system that is slow, capricious, and intrusive; produces papers in an archaic format that limits the conveyance of data and ideas; costs an obscene amount of money; and provides access to a small fraction of the people who are interested in and could benefit from the most up-to-date scientific discoveries.”
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32378/title/Whither-Science-Publishing-/

ttfn
October 23, 2012 3:07 pm

How will they correlate Mann’s reputation to the NRO blog post? Will Mann get up on the stand with an upside-down hockey stick graph of his reputation?

Craig Loehle
October 23, 2012 3:16 pm

Mann will likely claim that he is immune from discovery because of academic freedom.
Since I was an official reviewer for 2 IPCC reports, I also am a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and I put that on the shelf next to a prize I got in a Cracker Jack box.

Kev-in-Uk
October 23, 2012 3:19 pm

Craig Loehle says:
October 23, 2012 at 2:48 pm
”By the way, Stein did not compare Mann to a child molester, he made the point that if Penn State was willing to cover up Sandusky why should we expect them to do a diligent investigation of Mann? And that is not at all what Mann says he said. His characterization of what Stein said is itself libelous.”
that was how I read it too – but I presume Americans are more sensitive to such statements!

October 23, 2012 3:22 pm

So, there’s no connection here between Michael Mann and Jimmy Savile and no one fiddled with anyone else’s ‘principal components’, right?
But somehow I still don’t think al beeb will report on it.

October 23, 2012 3:22 pm

richardscourtney:
A sense of humour is the one weapon we have, which they neither possess nor can handle.
Yes, Mann is a world-class prat but unfortunately, he and his ilk have managed to do damage to the industrial infrastracture of many countries, well beyond anything the Few prevented the Luftwaffe doing.
Pointman

October 23, 2012 3:23 pm

What a sophomoric announcement from crybaby Mann. Nice start with a trite and breathless strawman-filled trope. I’m guessing the writer flunked college English. Can’t Soros afford a writer, Mike?
Mark Steyn is easily one of the best writers in the world. But he’s been hidden in plain sight by the boring, failing, bankrupt government-media complex. Imagine what would happen to CNN if they just added one traditionalist, like Steyn, to argue the other side?
We must understand this: Mann has no leg to stand on, except for that 85% of the media will be giving him free propaganda. He’s going on that… that’s why this is happening.
Mann is a fact molester and he’s been getting away with it for years. Time for some red-faced pious and self-destruction.

D Böehm
October 23, 2012 3:23 pm

Craig Loehle,
Nobel prize stature has declined since Obama won it.

Peter Miller
October 23, 2012 3:23 pm

Mann is clearly a serial litigator – has anyone followed what happened to his previous attempts?

Rob Dawg
October 23, 2012 3:25 pm

“Superior Court of the District of Columbia”
Perhaps the local courts were underwater as he claimed and will have to prove in the discovery phase?

j ferguson
October 23, 2012 3:29 pm

PoOC, Thanks for “fact molester” a really useful phrase.

October 23, 2012 3:33 pm

Mann must have been inspired by the ridiculous verdict in Italy. http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-italian-earthquake-warning-verdict.html
If their legal system could come up with such a result, perhaps ours will “exonerate” him.

MikeN
October 23, 2012 3:52 pm

The case against NRO is supremely weak, and could end up with having to pay damages the other way for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. Essentially he is suing because they blogged what someone else said about Mann.

Tom in Florida
October 23, 2012 3:55 pm

cui bono says:
October 23, 2012 at 9:49 am
“Laugh? I almost emitted CO2.”
More likely CH4.
Seriously, perhaps MM is looking for a legal fund to be set up on his behalf. I am sure the team and other supporters would be more than happy to donate some other people’s money to help in his time of need. But then, who will account for the funds when all is said and done.

David L
October 23, 2012 4:03 pm

I think this sounds too good to be true. I don’t trust the legal system. Mann will come off as an innocent scientist just doing his job.

D.I.
October 23, 2012 4:18 pm

I think Mann has been chosen to be the ‘Fall Guy’ in the echelon of vested Interests,Used, abused, and then discarded.
I hope he keeps all his correspondence and after being ‘Slain’ releases it as ‘Manngate’.

Darren Potter
October 23, 2012 4:18 pm

Pointman says: “Yes, Mann is a world-class prat but unfortunately, he and his ilk have managed to do damage to the industrial infrastracture of many countries, ”
So when MMs loses his case against NRO, does that provide “We the People” and “we taxpayers” with standing before the court system and the needed evidence to go after “he and his ilk” for the damage they have wrought on us?
Now if we Americans only had a Department of Justice with an Attorney General who would prosecute people for the fraudulent use of Government Funding vs. finding ways for them to skirt justice…

Larry Ledwick (hotrod)
October 23, 2012 4:33 pm
Taphonomic
October 23, 2012 4:50 pm

This could make for an interesting interaction of the Daubert Standard with climate scientists against statisticians.

Corky Boyd
October 23, 2012 4:51 pm

Dr. Mann is a public figure. That raises the bar for libel/slander substatially. He has to prove malice. Unless he gets a very friendly judge, the case will be thrown out. He, also, will have to cough up emails and documents that he has been hiding despite FOA requests (UVA and PSU). The discovery process will kill him unless he has destroyed the docs.

Mike Roddy
October 23, 2012 4:58 pm

[Calling people “global warming deniers” is sure to get your comment snipped. — mod.]

bobby b
October 23, 2012 5:14 pm

“”He has to prove malice. Unless he gets a very friendly judge, the case will be thrown out.”
– – – –
“Malice” could probably be satisfied if he can make the judge believe that the defendants were actively trying to undermine his reputation so that they could call CAGW into question, somehow to their ultimate profit or gain.
The judge is a loon. All bets are off.

Sean Peake
October 23, 2012 5:24 pm

I just read his complaint–he’s going to get gutted and filleted with all the doors he opened for discovery

ColdOldMan
October 23, 2012 5:29 pm

bobby b says: October 23, 2012 at 2:36 pm
What’s the situation on challenging a judge in the US? This one doesn’t look to be a ‘balanced’ option.

Skiphil
October 23, 2012 5:32 pm

The Mann-iac should read up on Oscar Wilde and self-destructive libel suits….
Mann’s ego can’t fit inside the courtroom and he does not have any of Wilde’s sense of humor, so the flame-out will be even more spectacular and complete.

EM
October 23, 2012 5:36 pm

DickF,
Parties always get discovery, but a judge may have some leeway in determining what’s “in bounds” vs “out of bounds”. For example, material that is irrelevant or needlessly cumulative can be excluded from discovery.

October 23, 2012 5:48 pm

Mann is living a self-created myth about him-self. His self-created myth is as incompetent looking as his paleoclimatology. : )
He had his 15 min of fame with AR3 and AR4 hockey sticks hiding decline and manipulating to eliminate evidence of historical warming, now we are into his multi-decadal scale period of infamy.
At the advice of my doctor I switched from popcorn to carrot and celery sticks with lofat ranch dip.
John

October 23, 2012 5:49 pm

bobby b says:
October 23, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Sorry, forgot to add the comments to my last entry:
http://mokellyreport.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/sterling-reviews-of-judge-natalia-combs-green/

Those comments about the judge are a real eye opener.

Ted Swart
October 23, 2012 5:50 pm

Michael Mann already has several lawsuits on the go and has failed to follow through on any of them. How can we have any confidence that this new lawsuit will not also be moribund?

October 23, 2012 5:52 pm

“Now if we Americans only had a Department of Justice with an Attorney General who would prosecute people for the fraudulent use of Government Funding vs. finding ways for them to skirt justice…”
The beautiful thing is that we do!
We have out-sourced fraud investigations.
All we need is a whistleblower.
It’s only a matter of time before someone comes forth to tell the truth about Mann (they did for Sandusky).
Whistleblower Rewards Program
The federal government has established vigorous programs to identify and prosecute fraudulent grant applications and administration. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) administers the False Claims Act. It allows rewards for those who come forward with details of grant fraud to share in the recovery of federal funds. This reward can be as much as 30% of the total amount reclaimed. The program is almost completely reliant on insiders to report their knowledge of the fraud in their institutions.
Attorney Literally “Wrote the Book” on Fraud Recovery Lawsuits
Joel Hesch, Esq., of Hesch and Associates, literally wrote the book on how to report federal fraud. He has an extensive background in representing whistleblowers in all types of federal funding fraud cases, including Educational/Research Grant Fraud. According to Mr Hesch: “Many institutions receive grants, whether for research or educational purposes. When they lie to get the grant or keep the grant or if they use the funds for purposes outside the grant, they are liable under the DOJ program. There have been many grant cases brought by whistleblowers.”
http://howtoreportfraud.com/examples-of-federal-fraud/grant-fraud

D. J. Hawkins
October 23, 2012 6:00 pm

D Böehm says:
October 23, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Craig Loehle,
Nobel prize stature has declined since Obama won it.

I’m sorry, just how do you go “down” from bottom?

TSR
October 23, 2012 6:04 pm

Discovery comes before the trial so it is safe to say this will never be adjudicated unless there is a counterclaim which is not dropped. Mann likely thinks he can hide behind the FOIA exemption but that will not apply here. No matter how the original judge rules all of the stuff Mann wants to hide would be forced out upon appeal.
Counterclaims will be coming and they will be constructed so as to allow access to everything our heart’s desire. Judges are loathe to interfere with discovery and only really issue rulings when one side or the other is slow responding or wishes to claim certain information is not relevant. There is a high degree of latitude as to what is considered relevant which is why discovery is often referred to as a fishing expedition.
Ultimately, Mann will have to argue that the fact that he was cleared by the same people who cleared Sandusky should have been enough to insulate him from any further doubt. That is a losing proposition from the start. In his tiny little mind I am sure he thinks he will discover some nefarious plot funded by the oil companies etc… But all he will really discover is how sharp Stein’s tongue and pen are, and how ridiculous he can be made to look when he cannot bully other people.
This is going to be hilarious.

Paul Westhaver
October 23, 2012 6:06 pm

As I said:
Paul Westhaver says:
July 24, 2012 at 8:20 am
I look forward to discovery.
Penn State is creepy. Sandusky was found guilty. The University administration knew stuff.
not looking good….

WTF
October 23, 2012 6:07 pm

Ted Swart says:
October 23, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Michael Mann already has several lawsuits on the go and has failed to follow through on any of them. How can we have any confidence that this new lawsuit will not also be moribund?
————————————————————————————————–
He may be funded and using the stratagy of ‘Maximum Disruption’ that those in the Human Rights Industry use. They use Government or sympathetic foundations / individuals (read useful idiots) funds to harrass opponents or percieved opponents into submission. Granted using the courts for this rather than sudo courts (HRCs) to do this is risky but they don’t really see a down side since they are soooooo convinced in the infalibility of their argument and ultimately themselves.

TomRude
October 23, 2012 6:28 pm

Since the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the European Union, all its citizens should also share in the award… We are all Nobel Peace prize winners!!!!!

mfo
October 23, 2012 6:36 pm

“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.”
*****************************
The definition of Research Misconduct by the National Science Foundation:
” (a) Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in
proposing or performing research funded by NSF, reviewing research proposals submitted to NSF, or in reporting research results funded by NSF.
(1) Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
(2) Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record…….etc”
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/resmisreg.pdf
What is scientific fraud?
“Science is self-correcting, in the sense that a falsehood, injected into the body of scientific knowledge will eventually be discovered and rejected, but that does not protect us against fraud, because injecting falsehoods into the body of science is never the purpose of those who perpetuate fraud.
“Fraud means serious misconduct with intent to deceive. Intent to deceive is the very antithesis of ethical behavior in science. When you read a scientific paper, you are free to agree or disagree with its conclusions, but you must always be confident that you can trust its account of the procedures that were used and the results produced by those procedures………Real fraud occurs only if the procedures needed to replicate the results of the work or the results themselves are in some way knowingly misrepresented.
“This view of scientific fraud differs from civil fraud as described in tort law in that in civil fraud there must be a plaintiff, who brings the case to court, and who must be able to prove that the misrepresentation was believed and led to actual damages. By contrast, if a scientist makes a serious misrepresentation in a scientific presentation, knowing that it’s false, or recklessly disregarding whether it is false, then virtually all scientists would agree, scientific fraud has been committed.
“It is unnecessary to prove that anyone in particular believed the statement or was damaged by believing it. In fact, it makes no difference at all whether the conclusions reached by the scientist are correct or not. In this stern view of scientific fraud, all that matters is whether procedures and results are reported honestly or not.”
Conduct and Misconduct in Science by Dr David Goodstein
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/conduct_art.html
Dr. David L. Goodstein, Ph.D., Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Caltech, where he has been on the faculty for more than 35 years, also wrote:
“Among the incidents of scientific fraud that I have looked at, three motives, or risk factors, have been present. In all the cases, the perpetrators (1) were under career pressure, (2) knew, or thought they knew, what the result would be if they went to all the trouble of doing the work properly, and (3) were in a field in which individual experiments are not expected to be precisely reproducible. Simple monetary gain is seldom, if ever, a factor in scientific fraud.”
“I believe we scientists are guilty of promoting, or at least tolerating, a false popular image of ourselves. I like to call it the Myth of the Noble Scientist.
“Scientists are not disinterested truth seekers; they are more like players in an intense, winner-take-all competition for scientific prestige and the resources that follow from that prestige…. ”
http://www.aaup.org/aaup/pubsres/academe/2002/jf/feat/good.htm
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/

bobby b
October 23, 2012 6:53 pm

“What’s the situation on challenging a judge in the US? This one doesn’t look to be a ‘balanced’ option.”
You can challenge (and prevail) if you can show that the judge has reason to be biased against you specifically, or in favor of your opponent specifically. Just being known as “pro-defendant” or “pro-government” won’t generally get you anywhere.
You can challenge based on “she’s a complete loon for whom the law means nothing”, but there’s no specific bias alleged in such a statement, so you’ll achieve nothing, plus you’ll then be in front of that judge you’ve just called a loon. No fun.
(This is for civil cases. Just FYI, in criminal cases, you usually get one no-questions-asked strike of a judge if you do it within a short time after the judge is assigned to your case.)
– – –
“We have out-sourced fraud investigations. All we need is a whistleblower.”
And an Attorney General interested in pursuing the people you’re suing for fraud. You need the AG’s office to decide to join in with your lawsuit for whistleblower status to apply. Holder’s DOJ is not going to sign on to your lawsuit against the AGW clique.

bobby b
October 23, 2012 7:16 pm

“To be successful he will need to show how he has been financially harmed as a result of the published material that is found to be false. “
There is a relaxed standard that applies to defamation claims that allege that the defendant has caused damage to your professional reputation and standing through publication of untruths involving sexual misconduct. Generally, you’re correct; a plaintiff would have to prove something like “I lost this contract because of his claims that I was comparable to a child molester, and I would have made $XX from that contract, so he has damaged me in the amount of $XX”. But where you claim the loss of professional reputation by being likened to a child molester, your proof of a loss amount can be much more relaxed.
At least in my state, (MN), there is a statutory claim for “defamation per se”, which goes like this:
“Some statements are so defamatory that they are considered defamation per se; and the plaintiff does not have to prove that the statements harmed his reputation. The classic examples of defamation per se are allegations of serious sexual misconduct; allegations of serious criminal misbehavior; or allegations that a person is afflicted with a loathsome disease. The historical examples of loathsome diseases are leprosy and venereal diseases.”
It’s all just subjective as heck, which means it’s one of those cases that can live and die by getting the right, or the wrong, judge. C-O’C took this case knowing that it’s sort of a crapshoot for a defendant – a few unfavorable rulings by the judge can result in a rather huge damages award, and so C-O’C might just be betting that NRO et al wil pony up some money to settle, just as a basic form of risk management.
If NRO et al has an insurer which might have to cover a defamation award – and they undoubtedly do – then the chances of such a settlement are fairly high. Insurers will almost always pay out some money to avoid the possibility of a verdict/award that approaches policy limits, especially since the insurer will usually also be paying NRO’s attorney’s fees for their defense. A quick payout of $100k that avoids the possibility of a $million-dollar award plus maybe $250k-$500k in defense fees looks attractive to insurance adjusters, who are risk-averse in the extreme.
And generally, if the insurer decides to settle, the insured defendants have to go along with it, or lose their coverage.

KPeters
October 23, 2012 7:19 pm

I’m not so optimistic. The judge should refuse to rule on climate science arguments. Mann might not have to disclose anything. And since he has not been convicted of fraud. Case closed. Unfortunately.

daveburton
October 23, 2012 7:39 pm

bobby b wrote, “Sadly, Mann has found the perfect judge for someone in his position:
http://www.therobingroom.com/dc/JudgeDetail.aspx?ID=3789
(As you review the detailed ratings charts, keep in mind that a ‘1’ generally means ‘awful.’)”

Judge Natalia M. Combs-Greene is a Clinton appointee, of course.
Perhaps NRO et al should call Mann’s fellow warmist, Richard Muller, to testify:

bobby b
October 23, 2012 7:42 pm

Just a quick thought:
Cozen & O’C might have been smarter about this than I was originally thinking.
The allegations about Mann being likened to child molester Sandusky, combined with the fact that the caliber of judges available in Wash DC isn’t the highest, and then considered in the knowledge that the specific judge assigned to the case is the poster child for “isn’t the highest”, means that there is a chance that an essentially irrational misdirection could give Mann a big win.
The “comparison to a child molester” portion of Mann’s complaint doesn’t actually make any claim or even innuendo that the defendants have implied that Mann is like a child molester. What they’ve said is that the school ran a perfectly insufficient investigation of serious allegations that an employee was molesting kids, and so it’s no great stretch to think that its “investigation” of Mann was likewise lacking in vigor.
But with a state court judge in DC of the caliber of Judge Combs-Greene, chances are she’ll never actually read the wording of the complaint herself – she may simply pick up on “they said you were like that evil old boy-diddling coach?!”, and that could well define her entire understanding of the case, which could lead to a lowered burden of proof for Mann, and the possibility that the judge would be happy severely punishing the defendants for saying such horrid things. (Believe me – rational analysis of claims and defenses only has utility if the judge is also rational.)
All of which makes a settlement even more attractive than usual to an insurer.

OssQss
October 23, 2012 7:49 pm

The path of court based discovery has begun.
Reminds me of something 🙂

ttfn
October 23, 2012 7:54 pm

steynonline.com has link to popehat where some guy named Ken discusses the suit. He sounds like a lawyer and doesn’t give Mann much of a chance. Steyn’s also made a short comment. Sounds like he’s gonna be enjoying himself.

Darren Potter
October 23, 2012 8:00 pm

This is what Rand Simberg wrote: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science”.
This is from MM’s lawyer’s complaint: “Dr. Mann’s personal reputation with the knowing false comparison to a child molester.”
The complaint alleges something Rand did not do, and did not know. First, Rand did not say or imply Mann was child molester. In fact Rand specifically said “instead of molesting children”. Then there is the “knowing false” non-sense by MM’s lawyer. Really? Do they have proof that Rand Simberg knew Mann’s Hockey Stick was unquestioned fact? No, instead they have evidence that Mann’s Hockey Stick was inaccurate, was hype, and was bad science.
Similar, MM and his lawyer does not have a case against NRO, because Mark Steyn only questioningly relayed Simberg’s commentary: “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers …”.
As for MM’s lawyer’s complaint about hockey stick fraud – Somebody needs to educate MM’s lawyer as to the fact Mann’s Hockey Stick graph has been determined to be bogus, wrong, flawed (aka broken). Since Mann knows that his Hockey Stick has been shown to be broken; Mann has committed academic fraud by trying to maintain the illusion his Hockey Stick graph is accurate and factual.
Case dismissed.

D Böehm
October 23, 2012 8:04 pm

Unfortunately, politics and human nature being what they are in 2012 America, I suspect that this scofflaw judge has already been shopped in advance, and gotten to. She clearly has no judicial ethics. The defense had better conduct its affairs primarily with appeals in mind.
Otherwise, Popeye and Bluto could get sandbagged by the hairy one:

Darren Potter
October 23, 2012 8:15 pm

Kent Clizbe says: “The beautiful thing is that we do! We have out-sourced fraud investigations.
All we need is a whistleblower.”
In the past yes, and possibly in the future, but not currently.
Google: whistle-blowers prosecuting spies
🙁

TimC
October 23, 2012 8:35 pm

“In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the IPCC, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize”.
Bzzzt – untrue, and we’ve heard this several times before. Mann has never received the Peace prize; he just received a certificate commemorating his involvement with IPCC which (with Al Gore) received the 2007 Prize.
See the certificate at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/18/dr-mann-goes-to-disneyland/
In science – and in court – factual evidence has a nasty habit of getting in the way.

Robert of Ottawa
October 23, 2012 9:07 pm

A judge recently decided in favor of the New Zealand weather organization based upon an appeal to authority, so don’t hold you breath.

lurker passing through, laughing
October 23, 2012 9:17 pm

Mann is going to be surprised at how this turns out.

October 23, 2012 9:23 pm

Since Mark Steyn wrote:

Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.

Could this be considered ‘defamation per se’, which bobby b describes as follows?

At least in my state, (MN), there is a statutory claim for “defamation per se”, which goes like this:
“Some statements are so defamatory that they are considered defamation per se; and the plaintiff does not have to prove that the statements harmed his reputation. The classic examples of defamation per se are allegations of serious sexual misconduct; allegations of serious criminal misbehavior; or allegations that a person is afflicted with a loathsome disease. The historical examples of loathsome diseases are leprosy and venereal diseases.”

I don’t see how, as Steyn’s quote is clearly a humorous metaphor, not an accusation or allegation of child molestation at all. Irrespective of the scientific facts, it is hard to see any rational judge taking the statement as anything more than opinion and hyperbole, which is protected speech (especially as involves a public figure), not defamation or libel.
/Mr Lynn

Skiphil
October 23, 2012 9:29 pm

Dear Michael Mann, guess what bozo, “You can’t handle the truth!!”
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM&w=420&h=315%5D

Robbo
October 23, 2012 10:32 pm

“@ D Böehm says:
October 23, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Craig Loehle,
Nobel prize stature has declined since Obama won it.”
You can win a race, or a boxing match, but the prize is awarded. . The correct term gives it some perspective, why did they award it to them ?

October 23, 2012 11:27 pm

@ pinroot says: 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.
And @ 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?

Finally “hswiseman” brings up the Wegman report–if you read it, it pretty much debunks the hockey stick. So what plnet ishe living on? Mann, I mean.
Funny, Philip H. Goerling says:I got booted from his page for saying Joe Biden has a three letter word for him: discovery.
Now, according to Mann, he’s a “Noble Prize Winner” and I’m a member of a “dishonest front group? ” Is that us at WUWT? A “front” for reality?

October 23, 2012 11:32 pm

As the election cycle boosts his mainstream conservative traffic, Instapundit has put out a call for legal defense funding for this case:
“THE DISCOVERY PROCESS SHOULD BE INTERESTING: Climate researcher Michael Mann sues his critics.
I don’t know what Rand has planned in the way of a legal defense fund, but you could always hit his tipjar. I did. (Bumped).
Posted at 1:00 am by Glenn Reynolds”

Bart
October 24, 2012 12:00 am

Day By Day says:
October 23, 2012 at 11:27 pm
“…and I’m a member of a “dishonest front group?”
Perhaps you should sue. Perhaps, we all should. Wouldn’t it be fun if hundreds, or even thousands, of skeptics maligned by his statement suddenly filed libel suits against him?

Richard Blaine
October 24, 2012 12:27 am

Now that free speech has been disallowed, have the authors considered going into hiding, à la Salman Rushdie?

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
October 24, 2012 12:52 am

Michael Mann is increasingly revealing himself to be the David Irving of “climate science”. For both Irving (a faux historian) and Mann,(a faux scientist), self-aggrandizement will trump accuracy every single time. This is evident in the second paragraph of his statement of claim:

Along with other researchers, [Mann] was one of the first to document the steady rise [….] As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. [emphasis added -hro]

Apart from the fact that neither Mann nor his “colleagues” were “awarded the Nobel Peace prize”, he obviously has as much empirical evidence that it was “this research” that led to the IPCC being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as he does that human generated CO2 is the primary cause of whatever warming might (or might not) be occurring.
Several times throughout this particular exercise in creative writing – which was presumably patched together by his lawyers on Mann’s instructions – there is mention of allegations of “academic fraud”.
Don’t know about you, but I’d sure like to know where such “allegations” were made and/or “investigated”.
But perhaps sales of his latest self-serving opus are flagging – again, As I’ve noted previously, Mann’s entry into the annals of “revisionist scholarship” might be more aptly entitled Portrait of the Artist as an Aggrieved Mann: A novel. Just as in 1985, the German publisher had “appended to the title page of [Irving’s Dresden] book the description, ‘a novel'” [Richard J. Evans. Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial; (2001, Basic Books) p. 184]

October 24, 2012 1:24 am

@jono1066 says: October 23, 2012 at 2:47 pm
lesson number 3 – Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.
lesson number 2 – your best enemy is the one who is going to help you win the war
///////////////////////////////////
Lesson number 1 – If your enemy is choleric, irritate him. Which is exactly what Steyn did 🙂
(Lao Tzu – The Art Of War)

October 24, 2012 1:44 am

@D Böehm says: October 23, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Craig Loehle,
Nobel prize stature has declined since Obama won it.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Way before the Messiah. Kissinger started the rot, as Tom Lehrer noted.

M Courtney
October 24, 2012 1:59 am

At the very least this may raise the profile of Tiljander.
It would be amusing to see the BBC trying to defend that one.

October 24, 2012 2:15 am

ttfn says:
October 23, 2012 at 3:07 pm
How will they correlate Mann’s reputation to the NRO blog post? Will Mann get up on the stand with an upside-down hockey stick graph of his reputation?

Here’s an idea for a graphic from Josh:
A fist making a thumb-down gesture, with the thumb being an inverted hockey stick.

October 24, 2012 2:17 am

Fascinating.
I suspect Mann himself had a hand in the drafting of the submission.
It is a direct appeal to and relies entirely on Authority. Implicit is the threat that any Judge refusing to acknowledge defamation is challenging a mountain of ‘scientific’ authority and running counter to common practice, i.e. the general acceptance of the Global Warming Thesis by governments and state science organisations. The irony is that he was an engineer of that consensus.
Mann has set the stakes very high at the outset.
He personifies the truth of all Global Warming Consensus scientists.
An attack on him is an attack on the Consensus.
I think a good Judge could make quite a name for themselves here.
If Mann fails the whole shonky edifice comes tumbling down.

October 24, 2012 2:45 am

If NRO et al has an insurer which might have to cover a defamation award – and they undoubtedly do – then the chances of such a settlement are fairly high. Insurers will almost always pay out some money to avoid the possibility of a verdict/award that approaches policy limits, especially since the insurer will usually also be paying NRO’s attorney’s fees for their defense. A quick payout of $100k that avoids the possibility of a $million-dollar award plus maybe $250k-$500k in defense fees looks attractive to insurance adjusters, who are risk-averse in the extreme.
And generally, if the insurer decides to settle, the insured defendants have to go along with it, or lose their coverage.

This could be what Mann and his lawyer were counting on when they filed the suit.

Breaker
October 24, 2012 3:40 am

“Wow! Maybe NRO’s lawyers will allow us to crowdsource review of the documents from discovery? That would be a fantastic Christmas present.”
Mann will claim discovery is proprietary. He’s made that claim before. With the right judge, he will get a protective order requiring that discovered documents be kept confidential. Don’t expect that any discovered items will ever become public.

kcrucible
October 24, 2012 3:54 am

“So, to play the devil’s advocate, I’m wondering how might Mann win this case if it goes to trial?”
Step 1 would be to get the climategate files excluded from evidence since it’s hearsay. We don’t know for a fact that each and every element is legit. Someone could have slid some incriminating things into it.
Step 2 would be to ensure that various entities have wiped those old backups over the years since.
Step 3 would be to disqualify any expert from NRO and insist that only scientists that have published Peer Reviewed literature are considered legitimate to voice an opinion.
Step 4 would be to bring in a truckload of their own experts asserting that not only was Mann not engaged in fraud, but he’s a paragon of righteousness and an example to us all.

MattN
October 24, 2012 3:55 am

Discovery phase should be a hoot…

Pouncer
October 24, 2012 3:59 am

I wish Mosher would bring his “high entropy word” style analysis into play comparing the Sandusky exoneration to the Mann exoneration, both from Penn State — per O’Sullivan
https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/official-probe-shows-climategate-whitewash-link-to-sandusky-child-sex-case/
O’Sullivan says the same author wrote this about Mann
the “level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…”
and [ issued an eerily similar statement to exonerate Sandusky:]
“This level of success on the football field and revenue generated from it, clearly places Coaches Paterno and Sandusky among the most respected professionals in their field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of their profession in operating a football program…”
“Had Coach Paterno or Coach Sandusky’s conduct of their program been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for them to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from peers who may or may not agree with his program … ”
[The above statements prove the status of the football program and its leaders, Paterno and Sandusky, are an EXACT parallel to Michael Mann’s status. ]
If the two suspects were exonerated by the same person and process and the process has been shown in court to be flawed in the case of Sandusky then I think it a fair and honest claim to suggest that Mann’s so-called exoneratation should be considered suspect.

October 24, 2012 4:31 am

Anthony. I think the excellent opinion piece pointed out by ttfn above and found at
http://bitly.com/XT7zXp
written by Ken [I won’t write his full name, it appears he prefers to blog pseudo-anonymously, perhaps as it might affect his relationship with his employers in his work as a criminal defence lawyer ].
I think this would be well suited to being elevated to a full post here at WUWT as for one I would enjoy the comments discussion to follow. The comments for me are often, no disrespect intended, the most interesting and informative part of articles posted here at WUWT. Can’t beat a bit of discussion.
Ken can be reached at ken [at] popehat [dot] com if you would like to see about permission for this to be reproduced, after all, he is a lawyer /sarc but i think i really meant /wink

Chuck Nolan
October 24, 2012 4:54 am

JFD says:
October 23, 2012 at 11:17 am
Mann is indeed seeking funds for his lawsuit from the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund . Here is the pitch on their website:
—————–
Somehow this seems backwards. Mann is not the defendant, Mark Styne is. Shouldn’t Mark be given access to the CSLDF since he is the one needing money to defend climate science and Mann is only defending Mann? It seems the good doctor wants to:
“1.Fend-off ATI’s demand to take Dr. Mann’s deposition
2.Defeat ATI’s attempt to obtain Dr. Mann’s email correspondence through the civil discovery process
3.Prepare for summary judgment on the issue of the exempt status of his email correspondence under the Virginia FOIA law”
How does this “defend climate science”?
Maybe Mark should request funds from CSLDF.
cn

October 24, 2012 4:58 am

No matter how bad life beats you up, stay in the ring and fight, never give up, fight for your dreams; Every champion was once a contender, Every success was once a dream. You have to start somewhere to get somewhere. Big dreams start with small steps. Keep fighting until you win.
Get more inspiring thoughts from my blog http://iamose.wordpress.com/

elftone
October 24, 2012 5:31 am

O/T – Sorry to sound like a grumpy old Mann (d’ya see what I did there?), but what is it with this recent trend of people posting links to mostly irrelevant YouTube clips? If it bears directly on the subject of the post, fine… otherwise, it’s a bandwidth hog, particularly on larger threads, plus WordPress now embeds a preview image from YouTube, which screws around with the page loading.

October 24, 2012 6:08 am

People,
I think you should reconsider the discovery process as being an easy process in this lawsuit because it appears that Dr. Mann and his lawyers have planned ahead on this lawsuit by getting a biased Judge to preside over the case.
Here is this sobering article from John O’Sullivan who thinks this might turn out to be a difficult trial:
Michael Mann Gets “Most Biased” Judge for Key US Global Warming Trial
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/michael-mann-gets-most-biased-judge-for-key-us-global-warming-trial/

M.Adeno
October 24, 2012 6:13 am

„Coram iudice et in alto mari sumus in manu Dei.“

October 24, 2012 6:37 am

If you accuse someone of academic fraud, compare them to a convicted child molester and they file suit against you, then the proof is going to be on you to prove you are right. What would Mann have to prove to satisfy the court? Would the court make Mann prove it wasn’t academic fraud or why it wasn’t right to compare him to a convicted child molester? I think Mann would only have to prove he wants to continue the lawsuit by showing up in court and the decision of the Judge is obvious.

Henry chance
October 24, 2012 7:30 am

Who is his employer? Employers don’t like workers in court involved with litigation. Both from a reputation standpoint and a time wasting standpoint. In terms of damages, he can claim certain companies intended to give him grants and they dried up. He can’t get Corporations to testify what they would and would not have done. Since he sues, it is up to him to prove his science under oath is spot on and their claims besmirch him with bad science claims. The most I see is a nuisance settlement. The worst case scenario is his firm bails and he is out a lot of hourly fees. This is not a classic contingency fee case.

M Courtney
October 24, 2012 7:34 am

Gary Lance says:
October 24, 2012 at 6:37 am “If you accuse someone of academic fraud, compare them to a convicted child molester and they file suit against you, then the proof is going to be on you to prove you are right.”
But he wasn’t compared to a convicted child molester; he was accused of molesting statistics. The defence he has used has been that he has been cleared by an investigation performed by his universiyy. Who, it must be admitted, also exonerated a convicted child molester.
Mann is accused of “molesting” scientific data. There is a public evidence to make that claim reasonable. The US Congress had two reports that agreed with Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick; Mann can’t win a libel case on something that is at best a matter of opinion.
No-one has suggested Mann has molested children until he (and now you) muddled the two issues up.
Indeed, the post being sued says he has not molested children. I quote,
“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”

pat
October 24, 2012 7:37 am

(VIDEO APPROX 3 MINS) 25 Oct: Fox Business: Stuart Varney Interview
Goreham: Climatism Headed for a Fall
Steve Goreham, Executive Director at the Climate Science Coalition of America, argues that evidence shows the earth’s temperature isn’t rising…
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/varney-co/index.html#/v/1921579271001/goreham-climatism-headed-for-a-fall/?playlist_id=87060

October 24, 2012 7:38 am

@Gary Lance.
Yes, that’s quite true I expect, but first I would expect that Mann has to prove that he personally was accused of academic fraud in the articles ( a clue, he wasn’t) also that he personally was compared to a convicted child molester ( a clue, he wasn’t).
You don’t have to prove anything if A: What you say is factual and or B: The accusations against you are false.
Even if the accusations were upheld the plaintiff has to show that any reasonable person reading the words would construe them as the plaintiff suggests they were intended and that there was malice and intention to be injurious to the plaintiff’s reputation. Given that Mann is most definitely a public person ( he states this himself, always one not to miss an opportunity of self-aggrandisement, just look at the Nobel prize claim) the bar is raised so much higher in Libel cases to prove malice.
It’s a shame for Mikey that he could not have brought this case in London UK. You can wipe the floor with libel cases if your pockets are deep enough.
Only the judge chosen for this case concerns me as it seems anything could happen. I see this going to appeal already.
I do hope that there is a move to show this not only to be frivolous but also a vexatious litigation given Mann’s history in this area.

justsomeguy
October 24, 2012 7:45 am

Isn’t it refreshing that, for the most part, “global warming” is very low on the issues list for the upcoming election. That Romney can say “I like coal”, in a debate and still perhaps win the election is, to me, a sign that the warmist pushers are losing thier propoganda war. The clown Michael Mann can file all the lawsuits he want, as long as it’s with his own money, most of us will continue to ignore him.

richardscourtney
October 24, 2012 7:47 am

Friends:
The egregious Gary Lance says at October 24, 2012 at 6:37 am

If you accuse someone of academic fraud, compare them to a convicted child molester and they file suit against you, then the proof is going to be on you to prove you are right. What would Mann have to prove to satisfy the court? Would the court make Mann prove it wasn’t academic fraud or why it wasn’t right to compare him to a convicted child molester? I think Mann would only have to prove he wants to continue the lawsuit by showing up in court and the decision of the Judge is obvious.

Steyn did not compare Mann to a convicted child molester. The implication that Steyn did is either a demonstration that Gary Lance did not read what Steyn wrote or – more likely in light of his record – Gary Lance failed in his reading comprehension.
And Steyn did not accuse Mann of fra*d. Steyn wrote “the fra*dulent hockey stick graph”. And the graph is fra*dulent.
The ‘hockey stick’ graph of NH temperature with time did not agree with recent measurements of temperature. The graph diverged from the surface temperature record for the period after 1960. This is known as “the divergence problem”.
The ‘hockey stick’ graph showed NH temperature falling (i.e. “the decline”) after 1960 when the surface measurements showed NH temperature rising. And this was the most important finding of the work because it showed the method did NOT indicate NH temperature. The method cannot be used as a reliable indicator of unknown past NH temperature when it gives ‘wrong’ indications of known recent NH temperatures and temperature trend.
This finding was an inconvenient truth for Mann, Bradley & Hughes. And they decided to not report it in their 1998 and 1999 papers which presented the ‘hockey stick’ graph. Instead, they plotted the surface temperature data as a thick line over the part of the ‘hockey stick’ graph for after 1960. Thus, they were able to “hide the decline” by using “Mike’s Nature trick” to cover it with the surface temperature data.
And they knew this was not proper because they mentioned “the divergence problem” as a minor point in another paper published in a different journal. Hence, they could claim that they had published a report of it. But, of course, any paper they provided which included the ‘hockey stick’ should have included mention the divergence problem and should not have hidden it. Indeed, as I have explained, the divergence problem was the most important finding of the work.
An interesting comparison of the ‘hockey stick’ graph can be made with the Piltdown Man which is the most famous scientific fraud in history. In each of these cases
1.
parts were selected from two different items.
2.
the selected parts were presented together.
3.
with clear intent to mislead the scientific community.
Richard

Beta Blocker
October 24, 2012 7:53 am

kcrucible says: “So, to play the devil’s advocate, I’m wondering how might Mann win this case if it goes to trial?” ……Step 1 would be to get the climategate files excluded …… Step 2 would be to ensure that various entities have wiped those old backups ….. Step 3 would be to disqualify any expert from NRO ……. Step 4 would be to bring in a truckload of their own experts …….

It is difficult to see how NRO could settle out of court without making themselves litigation targets for every public figure they’ve criticized over the last two decades.
Mann and his lawyers wouldn’t have filed their suit if they hadn’t had a well thought-out litigation strategy in mind for winning the suit, should NRO choose not to settle out of court. The kind of strategy kcrucible has outlined is a likely possibility.

Chris R.
October 24, 2012 7:53 am

To Axel:
Your statement about the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will is interesting. In part, you wrote:
“From the original last will and testament of Alfred Nobel :

“and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

How Nobel’s statement can be contorted to include the definition quoted by Mann is frankly inexplicable, and how the Nobel Prize committee could decide that to make awards to multiple recipients, was compliant with the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will is baffling and bewildering.”
However, the Nobel Peace prize has been awarded to more than one individual from the very beginning. The 1901 award was to 2 individuals. The first mention I find of an organization is 1910,
the “Permanent International Peace Bureau”. At least in the past the committee which decides on the award was honest enough that for some years there was no award given. Alas, in these days, honesty has departed and we have such farcical awards as to the IPCC & Al Gore; Barack Obama, who has committed more unmanned drone bombings than the U.S. President who was reviled as a war criminal, George W. Bush; and to the entire EU.
I think the lesson is that one should not expect sense, or adherence to the letter of Nobel’s will.

theduke
October 24, 2012 8:21 am

Mark Steyn has commented briefly at Steynonline, that he will have more to say “when I’ve stopped laughing.”
I want to personally thank Michael Mann for selecting perhaps the most vigorous, eloquent, talented, and humorous defender of freedom expression in the Western World as his target in this action.

October 24, 2012 8:27 am

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-district-columbia
Activities protected by the D.C. Anti SLAPP Statute
To challenge a lawsuit under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, you must show that it is based on your act or acts “in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest.”
The Act defines an “issue of public interest” as “an issue related to health or safety; environmental, economic, or community well being; the District government; a public figure; or a good, product or service in the market place.”

RB
October 24, 2012 8:27 am

Hi all,
Let’s be absolutely clear about the Nobel Prize issue. Mann daily repeats a dishonest claim on his website that he shared the Nobel Prize. He did not.
I noted that Mann’s lawyers describe him in para. 5 of the complaint as a Nobel Prize recipient. For those who don’t recall this is the 2007 joint award to the IPCC and Al Gore. This issue has been addressed before and any claim that Mann is a Nobel Prize recipient or shared such a prize is false.
Note also that Mann claims on his own website to have shared the Nobel Peace Prize and makes the same claim in the sleeve of his recent book.
Here’s what the Nobel organisation has to say about it:
“An award of the Nobel Prize to an organization does not under any circumstances permit an employee or other agent of that organization to claim to share a Nobel Prize. Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize”.
I repeat, Mann states, falsely, on his website that he shared the Nobel Prize. This statement is dishonest.
And here is the IPCC in an email to an official connected with the National Observatory in Athens who was repeating that two of its scientists had “shared” the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize:
“Dear Mr Lazaridis,
Again, let me clarify that the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. and to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the organization. Consequently, the following information is not correct: “Christos Zerefos, president of the National Observatory in Athens, and his colleague, Professor Alcibiades Bais of Thessaloniki University, are the first two Greeks to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, even if they share it with dozens of other scientists.”
The sentence should read “Christos Zerefos, president of the National Observatory in Athens, and his colleague, Professor Alcibiades Bais of Thessaloniki University, have received a certificate commemorating their involvement with the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with former Vice President Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.”
About 2000 personalized copies of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize together with a letter of Dr R.K. Pachauri have been sent worldwide to Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Review Editors, Bureau members, staff of Technical Support Units and of the Secretariat, who have contributed substantially to the work of the IPCC of the last 20 years.
However, the above mentioned figure does not reflect all contributors to the IPCC process. We can estimate that approximately 10’000 scientist and officials have contributed to the work of the IPCC over the last two decades. The only figures we can share with you are related to the publication of the 4th Assessment Report:
2500+ Scientific Expert Reviewers
800+ Contributing Authors and 450+ Lead Authors
130+ Countries
6 years work
1 Report
Best regards,
Francesca Foppiano
IPCC Secretariat
http://www.ipcc.ch”
So that’s pretty clear then. Mann got a certificate of involvement as one of up to 10000 contributors.
And isn’t it of interest that Mann’s lawyers whose entire case is centered around the reputation of their client repeat the same falsehood that their client repeats every day his website is up? – namely that he “shared” or “received” a Nobel Peace Prize. Good luck putting that in your pleadings and taking it before the judge whilst whining about your client’s “reputation”.
Let’s face it, claiming dishonestly that you are a Nobel Prize recipient or that you shared in a Nobel Prize when you didn’t has got to be one of the biggest whoppers anyone could tell anyone. And his lawyers go to law about damage to his reputation?

October 24, 2012 8:33 am

@Beta Blocker. i don’t see any form of settlement being offered in this case. One of the quirks of it being held in DC -and i’m no expert here, not even an American – is the defendant can counter with an anti- SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion and most likely make it go away. Not that they will wish to make it go away unless it looks very sticky for them.
Depends who the lawyers are acting for, the defendants or their insurers. Even with a bias judge and jury there is always room for appeal if the case is strong enough.

October 24, 2012 8:38 am

Dan Snyder’s Dropped ‘City Paper’ Lawsuit Leaves Anti-SLAPP Law Untested
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/16/dan-snyder-city-paper-slapp-aclu_n_966257.html

theduke
October 24, 2012 8:39 am

Roger Knights says:
October 24, 2012 at 2:45 am
Re NRO and insurance: I do not think NRO will rely on insurance coverage to pay for this, nor do I think they will have to. This is one of those bonanzas for attorneys where money will be coming in from all over the place. When you look at the stakes involved, what’s a couple of million in legal fees? I mean really.

pat
October 24, 2012 8:48 am

perhaps i’m being too simple but, surely, all the defense needs to present is:
1. the latest UK Met Office data which david rose has been writing about, set alongside the hockey stick, with the quote directly from the UK Met Office that there has been no significant warming for 16 years, the climategate email quotes by the Team in response to BBC Paul Hudson’s “whatever happened to global warming” article of october 9, 2009, steve mcintyre’s debunking of the hockey stick and andrew montford’s book, “the hockey stick illusion”. done. michael mann’s hockey stick is patently fraudulent and CAGW is a hoax.
2. given there’s been no significant warming for 16 years, which was not shown in Mann’s hockey stick, nor predicted by the Team, and given the response of the Team in 2009 to Hudson’s article mentioned above, both in the Climategate emails and in the MSM, and given Steve McIntyre’s debunking of the hockey stick, then Penn State, which has not seen fit to call on Mann to please explain how he got it so wrong, nor apologised on behalf of the university to the public for Mann’s discredited hockey stick, has covered up the scandal for a period of years, just as they covered up for Sandusky.
what else is necessary?

theduke
October 24, 2012 9:00 am

It’s instructive to note what NR editor Rich Lowry had to say about the threatened lawsuit back in July:

Usually, you don’t welcome a nuisance lawsuit, because it’s a nuisance. It consumes time. It costs money. But this is a different matter in light of one word: discovery.
If Mann sues us, the materials we will need to mount a full defense will be extremely wide-ranging. So if he files a complaint, we will be doing more than fighting a nuisance lawsuit; we will be embarking on a journalistic project of great interest to us and our readers.
And this is where you come in. If Mann goes through with it, we’re probably going to call on you to help fund our legal fight and our investigation of Mann through discovery. If it gets that far, we may eventually even want to hire a dedicated reporter to comb through the materials and regularly post stories on Mann.

Alice Cheshire
October 24, 2012 9:06 am

Concerning the Nobel prize, all the people who checked out Mann and found nothing, I have but two words: Lance Armstrong.

October 24, 2012 9:09 am

richardscourtney says:
October 24, 2012 at 7:47 am
I wasn’t there reading it and I don’t know, but I have common sense.
Scientist don’t sue if they have a case, because they don’t want to waste their time. It’s more common to no sue when a scientist has a case and just overlook it.
It will be settled out of court for a some of money and you’ll still claim total innocence on their behalf. I hope Mann doesn’t settle out of court.

Clark
October 24, 2012 9:12 am

As a resident of the DC area, I look forward to following this case closely.
But from a legal standpoint, I think Mann has a very high bar to cross to prove his point.
The first question is whether he is a public figure. If he is judged to be a public figure, the burden of proof is much higher for libel. I think there is no question that he will be judged a public figure. For Mann to win, having a write print nasty things will not not be enough. Also, a bad use of an analogy that hurt his feelings will not be enough. He will need to prove that the writer knew what he was writing was false.
Also, when writing about a public figure, you can write what you believe to be true. But if it it later turns out to be wrong, you can not then be sued for libel for the first statement. Well you can be sued, but you should not lose.
Due to the SLAPP suit statute on the books in DC, I expect this lawsuit to have a very short life. The only problem may be that the statute that has not been tested. The closest it has come is when Redskins Owner Dan Snyder dropped lawsuit before a decision was reached to throw it out.(Dan Snyder vs. The City Paper)
If it is thrown out due to the SLAPP provisions, Mann will never be deposed. If that occurs, I will be bummed as I was really looking forward to reading Mann’s deposition. .

theduke
October 24, 2012 9:41 am

The chances of this not going to trial are slim in my view. The only way it will not go to trial is if Mann withdraws it. That’s not likely, although I think he will be badly beaten in a trial. And that he will waste the money of a lot of his friends in the various regions of the Green Movement.
Highly Visible/Big Controversy trials take on a life of their own. Everybody–judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, juries– loves the limelight and both sides in the complaint are standing on deeply held beliefs and bedrock principles.
There will very likely be a trial.

Luther Wu
October 24, 2012 9:56 am

Mann’s announcement came a day late for my birthday, but nevertheless, What a Birthday Present!!!

GaryM
October 24, 2012 10:00 am

The choice of the Superior Court in DC was not just based on the likelihood of getting a politicized judge to try to limit discovery. Mann has demanded a jury trial, and there is no state bluer than the District of Columbia. If the case survives summary judgment, that would not bode well for the defendants, regardless of the facts. Filing in the D.C. local court has the added advantage of making removal to federal court unavailable, since two of the defendants are D.C. residents. In short, tactically it was an inspired choice.
On the issue of the insurer forcing a settlement on the defendants, that’s not likely. Insurers don’t sell insurance to just one media outlet. An insurer who refused to defend an insured against a false allegation of libel would not remain in that business very long.
On the burden of proof, Mann will have to prove actual malice on the part of the defendants, ie. that they knew or should have known that their statements were false. It is just not true that a prima facie case is easy to make in a libel claim filed by a public figure.
The key to the case will be the extent to which Mann can convince the judge to limit discovery. If he loses a motion to limit the scope, or for a protective order, that might be the stage at which the case is dismissed. I don’t see any counterclaim available to the defendants that would prevent it.

Phil.
October 24, 2012 10:01 am

richardscourtney says:
October 24, 2012 at 7:47 am
And Steyn did not accuse Mann of fra*d. Steyn wrote “the fra*dulent hockey stick graph”. And the graph is fra*dulent.

No it isn’t, so much misinformation in a few paragraphs!
The ‘hockey stick’ graph of NH temperature with time did not agree with recent measurements of temperature. The graph diverged from the surface temperature record for the period after 1960.
Not true, the proxies used in the MBH98 ‘Hockey stick’ paper were calibrated with the temperature record from 1902-1980, there was not the divergence you speak of.
This is known as “the divergence problem”.
No it isn’t, the ‘divergence problem’ refers to a problem with a subset of trees used as proxies, namely those in the northern boreal forests and is discussed in a paper by Briffa et al. in 1998
The ‘hockey stick’ graph showed NH temperature falling (i.e. “the decline”) after 1960 when the surface measurements showed NH temperature rising. And this was the most important finding of the work because it showed the method did NOT indicate NH temperature. The method cannot be used as a reliable indicator of unknown past NH temperature when it gives ‘wrong’ indications of known recent NH temperatures and temperature trend.
No you are confusing MBH98 with Briffa et al. 98.
This finding was an inconvenient truth for Mann, Bradley & Hughes. And they decided to not report it in their 1998 and 1999 papers which presented the ‘hockey stick’ graph. Instead, they plotted the surface temperature data as a thick line over the part of the ‘hockey stick’ graph for after 1960. Thus, they were able to “hide the decline” by using “Mike’s Nature trick” to cover it with the surface temperature data.
Again you are confusing the papers, it wasn’t part of their findings. ‘Hide the decline’ specifically refers to Briffa’s paper, since there were no common authors on the two papers your continued use of ‘they’ is misleading.
And they knew this was not proper because they mentioned “the divergence problem” as a minor point in another paper published in a different journal. Hence, they could claim that they had published a report of it. But, of course, any paper they provided which included the ‘hockey stick’ should have included mention the divergence problem and should not have hidden it. Indeed, as I have explained, the divergence problem was the most important finding of the work.
And as I have explained you are wrong and are confusing different papers by different authors.
1.
parts were selected from two different items.

The proxy data was plotted alongside the temperature data used to calibrate it, and clearly indicated as such in the paper and the figure legend.
2.
the selected parts were presented together.

As above, why not do so.
3.
with clear intent to mislead the scientific community.

Hardly the procedure and sources of the data were clearly stated, no reason for anyone to be confused!

October 24, 2012 10:09 am

Mark Steyn says in his post ‘Mann Bites Denialist!’ at his blog,

“Global warm-monger Dr Michael Mann has decided to proceed with his suit against me and National Review plus Rand Simberg and the Competitive Enterprise Institute for the crime of mocking his hockey stick.”

– – – – – –
Unfortunately for Mann, his lawsuit against NRO has ‘let slip the dogs of war independent journalism.
NOTE: Let me guess Mann’s instructions to his legal team. I guess he tells them something like (my words), “How dare anyone question me. I am one of the greatest scientists in the battle to save our planet against a multitude of corporate and right wing conspiracies. As my legal team, I command you to go set a legal precedent in this trial that no one can ever in the future question my publically funded science or my IPCC backed messianic policy claims.”
John

D Böehm
October 24, 2012 10:17 am

Phil says Mann’s Hokey Stick chart is legit.
No, Phil, it isn’t.

F. Ross
October 24, 2012 10:31 am

D. J. Hawkins says:
October 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
D Böehm says:
October 23, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Craig Loehle,
Nobel prize stature has declined since Obama won it.
I’m sorry, just how do you go “down” from bottom?

…ummm, by digging a hole?

October 24, 2012 10:59 am

“The Jerry Sandusky of climate science” is way over the top. CEI retracted it, but then Steyn went ahead of recirculated it. Not good.

Man Bearpig
October 24, 2012 10:59 am

This is really odd, why would anyone want to file a case where the term peodophile can be used in close proximity to your name and there is a 50/50 chance of losing the case!

David in Ardmore
October 24, 2012 11:00 am

The only way this could get better is for ManBearPig to join Mann.
The flaws in Mann’s arguments are so varied, and so omissive of all of Earth’s dynamics, this will be sooooooooo much fun 🙂
I can hardly wait.

Rob Crawford
October 24, 2012 11:13 am

“To challenge a lawsuit under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, you must show that it is based on your act or acts “in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest.””
Oh, I wondered if there was a SLAPP law that could apply.
If it is applicable, Mann is going to find himself in serious trouble.

richardscourtney
October 24, 2012 11:18 am

Phil.:
Your post at October 24, 2012 at 10:01 am disputes my short explanation of the divergence problem and the misrepresentation of it by Mann, Bradley & Hughes.
Your dispute is plain wrong in its assertions.
The value of the case put by Mann is that Steyn and the NRO will have a chance to get Mann to explain the facts I stated when he is on oath in a Court of Law. After that it will not be possible for the likes of you to misrepresent the scandal of the divergence problem as you have in your post.
Quibble as you always do. But what you say here cannot overcome the fact that Mann will be called to account for this scandal in Court. And I rejoice at that.
Richard

October 24, 2012 11:19 am

Nobel prize stature has declined since Obama won it.
I’m sorry, just how do you go “down” from bottom?
…ummm, by digging a hole?
______________________________________________________
A very deep hole after the EU Nobel. It must be embarrassing to even get one now that they are so clearly politically tarnished …

October 24, 2012 11:35 am

Chris R. says October 24, 2012 at 7:53 am
[to:] ]Axel [et al]
Your statement about the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will is interesting. In part, you wrote:
“From the original last will and testament of Alfred Nobel :
“and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
How Nobel’s statement can be contorted to include the definition quoted by Mann is frankly inexplicable, and how the Nobel Prize committee could decide that to make awards to multiple recipients, was compliant with the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will is baffling and bewildering.”
However, the Nobel Peace prize has been awarded to more than …

Are you folks conflating the “Peace Prize” with the specific Nobel Prizes awarded in certain subject areas (like economics)?
I believe you all are; please READ UP on this subject before continuing.

(1) The Nobel Prize (awarded in Stockholm, Sweden) is a set of annual international awards bestowed in a number of categories by Scandinavian committees in recognition of cultural and/or scientific advances. The Nobel Prize is widely regarded as the most prestigious award available in the fields of literature, medicine, physics, chemistry, peace, and economics.
(2)The Peace Prize is awarded in Oslo, Norway.

(1) The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awards the Nobel Prize in Physics, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences; the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet awards the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine; the Swedish Academy grants the Nobel Prize in Literature.
(2) Nobel’s instructions named a Norwegian Nobel Committee to award the Peace Prize, the members of whom were appointed shortly after the will was approved in April 1897. Norway’s Nobel Committee was responsible for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize.
.

Reed Coray
October 24, 2012 11:36 am

I bet champagne bottles are being opened all over the Penn State campus. Imagine you’re a member of the Penn State leadership. You’ve crawled through the swamp that was Jerry Sandusky and Penn State’s attempts to cover up immoral behavior, barely escaped with your life, and emerged on dry but shaky ground if not healthy, at least alive. With the sentencing of Sandusky, things appeared to be settling down. Then one of your favorite sons (well, favorite in that he brings in money) decides to file a lawsuit against among others two formidable foes (the NRO and Mark Steyn) that will rekindle the two most destructive fires: (1) the argument that Penn State just might engage in a coverup to protect its financial interests, and (2) keeping Jerry Sandusky’s name prominent in the news. The former because Dr. Mann claims that he was exonerated by multiple investigations, one of which was internal to Penn State. The latter because the names Michael Mann and Jerry Sandusky are linked in the legal complaint. You’ve got to be thinking: “Can’t someone just make this issue go away?” You can envision every university/college proudly proclaiming: “We AREN’T Penn State!” Yeah, the champagne bottles (and bourbon, scotch, rum, gin, vodka, …) are being opened all over Penn State’s campus–not with the goal of celebration, but rather with the goal of drowning out the misery.

Taphonomic
October 24, 2012 11:42 am

bobby b wrote;
“Sadly, Mann has found the perfect judge for someone in his position:
http://www.therobingroom.com/dc/JudgeDetail.aspx?ID=3789
(As you review the detailed ratings charts, keep in mind that a ’1′ generally means ‘awful.’)”
I’m not sure that those reviews or comments are all that bad.
There are several that appear to have been submitted by the same person. Many of them state that she is biased against plaintiffs and Mann is the plaintiff in this case. Also, when someone is happy with something, they don’t file a complaint.

October 24, 2012 11:59 am

So he’s going to take on both. He must have backing of someone powerful in Washington. If he doesn’t, and is doing this on his own he will be buried. So, he can’t be that dumb to go it alone.
The fix in a predetermined courtroom must already be in.

Man Bearpig
October 24, 2012 12:04 pm

Wayne Delbeke says:
October 24, 2012 at 11:19 am
Nobel prize stature has declined since Obama won it.
I’m sorry, just how do you go “down” from bottom?
…ummm, by digging a hole?
______________________________________________________
A very deep hole after the EU Nobel. It must be embarrassing to even get one now that they are so clearly politically tarnished …
—————————————————-
I think the EU only won it because they really need the money.

lurker, passing through laughing
October 24, 2012 12:13 pm

zoot cadillac,
That legal blog is a GREAT resource.
This will be an interesting case.

Dyspeptic Curmudgeon
October 24, 2012 12:28 pm

Three steps are probably required to cut down any existing strategy which Mann & Co, may think will be the course of progress of this lawsuit.
1) COUNTERCLAIMS. The bleg for money at the CSLDF (pointed to by Mann iirc , but I can’t find it atm) is itself libelous of the defendants: it accuses them of ‘libelous statements’ as part of a conspiracy. A Counterclaim precludes him from dropping the suit at his whim, (Note that he cannot do that will the Ball lawsuit, without some very large costs consequences…In Canada, the phrase ‘words have consequences’ can have extra meaning when the words are written on piece of paper titled ‘Statement of Claim’.)..
2) MOVE THE LAWSUIT. The face of the Claim makes it obvious that federal diversity jurisdiction allows/requires that the action be removed to FEDERAL court. Mann is a resident of Pennsylvania. None of the defendants reside there. In fact, the defendants reside in 3 (possibly 4) different jurisdictions. So much for judge shopping in DC, or for that matter, the purported advantages of a DC jury.
3) EXTEND THE DISCOVERY. Mann has already shot himself in the foot regarding discovery. The State of Virginia has been stonewalled by UV, partially on the same grounds as he is resisting the ATI disclosure lawsuit: that the records sought are exempt. But that does not apply in this circumstance. The footgun is that UV has argued, in part, that the emails being sought *belong* to Mann and not the University. So UV can refuse disclosure under FOIA. BUT therefore *he* cannot deny disclosure on the grounds that he does not ‘own’ them. Even if they are on someone else’s computer, if he is entltled or allowed to access them, then they are discoverable ESI. And since copies have already been forwarded to him (if I remember the history correctly), none of the other ‘non-proportional difficulty’ excuses apply.
Did I hear someone say ‘Fresh popcorn’?

Steve from Rockwood
October 24, 2012 12:43 pm

I would suggest a poll. Something like…
Regarding the Dr. Mann versus National Review lawsuit.
Do you think Mann will win?
Do you think the National Review will win?
Do you think Mann will drop the lawsuit?
Will there be an out-of-court settlement?
Do you think Mark Steyn will write so much hilarity that Mann’s head will explode?
I’m not too good with polls but I do enjoy answering them 😉

Jeremy
October 24, 2012 12:47 pm

Hu McCulloch says:
October 24, 2012 at 10:59 am
“The Jerry Sandusky of climate science” is way over the top. CEI retracted it, but then Steyn went ahead of recirculated it. Not good.

If you replace “young boys” with “credibility of his field of research”, the example holds.

Michael
October 24, 2012 12:58 pm

Mann will probably lose unless the system is corrupt which means he will probably win unless another connection to more nefarious activities are made so he loses. This is the legal angle against him that should be perused, assuming the system is corrupt, of which there is plenty evidence of. TV business news is did a bias praise of MM today. (FOX Business)
Definition of MOLEST (Mirriam-Webster)
1: to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect
2: to make annoying sexual advances to; especially : to force physical and usually sexual contact on.
A case for Disturbing evidence, with injurious effect can certainly be made.

October 24, 2012 1:00 pm

Reed Coray says:
October 24, 2012 at 11:36 am

– – – – – – –
Reed Coray,
Indeed. : )
Very well said.
Thanks.
John

Gary Pearse
October 24, 2012 1:05 pm

Fun but anguishing because with this sort of thing we have to wait too long. The law is of course an ass but with its front and back hooves hobbled. Maybe the proceedings can be shown live on PBS. We can buy our pop corn on the futures market.

D Böehm
October 24, 2012 1:19 pm

With $Billions in federal grants handed out every year to ‘study climate change’, there will be enormous behind-the-scenes pressure to keep the gravy train on track. It is clear that Mann’s attorneys judge shopped. So don’t assume that this will be litigated based on Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
This particular judge doesn’t seem to have much in the way of ethics, and there is no doubt that Mann’s people are trying to get to her. Like they say, money doesn’t talk — it screams.
They got to Chief Justice John Roberts on Obamacare. This judge should be a piece of cake.

Billy Ruff'n
October 24, 2012 1:20 pm

Maybe this would be a good time for the next installment of Climategate emails to appear from the ether.

theduke
October 24, 2012 1:30 pm

Hu McCulloch says:
October 24, 2012 at 10:59 am
“The Jerry Sandusky of climate science” is way over the top. CEI retracted it, but then Steyn went ahead of recirculated it. Not good.
——————————————————————————-
Hu: while I agree it’s way over the top, I think it’s fair to say that Steyn repeated it with caveats and that the comparison goes much deeper and is actually as much an attack on Penn State as anything else. From John O’Sullivan’s blog :

Such critics point to Spanier’s statements about both men as proof of the (corruptible) self-serving money motive at PSU. Spanier first declared that Mann’s:
“level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…”
Then Spanier issued an eerily similar statement to exonerate Sandusky:
“This level of success on the football field and revenue generated from it, clearly places Coaches Paterno and Sandusky among the most respected professionals in their field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of their profession in operating a football program…”
“Had Coach Paterno or Coach Sandusky’s conduct of their program been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for them to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from peers who may or may not agree with his program … ”
The above statements prove the status of the football program and its leaders, Paterno and Sandusky, are an EXACT parallel to Michael Mann’s status. Both brought massive funding to PSU. Both enjoyed the adoration of the press. Both worked outside the system of checks and balances. Both were “investigated” by PSU staff. Both were cleared by PSU of wrongdoing. From plain reading of Freeh’s report we see there is NO reason to believe that the same corrupt administration that empowered Paterno and Sandusky’s crimes would act any differently in Mann’s case.

The similarities in the two woefully inept investigations are striking.

October 24, 2012 1:32 pm

I’m a lawyer in the US (Massachusetts).
Mann has self-identified as a public figure, and given his vigorously high public profile in climate science he would likely qualify as such even without the self-identification. For a public figure to win any kind of defamation suit in the US is all but impossible. Mann will have to prove actual malice. Showing that others have disagreed, mocked, and been snide is not going to be sufficient, especially when considered in the broader context of all the genuine science that contests Mann’s claims (not to mention 16 years without global warming–how’s that hockey stick looking now?).
To show malice Mann will need to find the kind of evidence of a personally-destructive conspiracy as was revealed by the Climategate emails illustrating the efforts of the Mann’s peers to manipulate peer reviewed publications to block opposing scientific research. People who behave in such a diabolic and suppressive manner always project their own behavior onto the “other side”, but I expect they’ll have trouble finding the evidence they need.
In the unlikely event that Mann manages to overcome that very considerable burden, he will then need to show actual damages causally related to the alleged defamation. I expect this will be difficult as well.
Furthermore, in the US legal discovery is typically a very broad, far-ranging, and intensive activity. There is very, very little that can be held back from discovery–the primary goal of the court is to arrive at the truth, and this is best served by greater, not lesser, exposure. Given Mann’s past desperate efforts to prevent the disclosure of massive quantities of his data, work product, and communications, I expect the outcome will be eye opening, indeed. It’s difficult to imagine a more contrary method of concealing such information than the filing of a defamation suit in the US.
*Popcorn.*

Phil.
October 24, 2012 1:53 pm

richardscourtney says:
October 24, 2012 at 11:18 am
Phil.:
Your post at October 24, 2012 at 10:01 am disputes my short explanation of the divergence problem and the misrepresentation of it by Mann, Bradley & Hughes.
Your dispute is plain wrong in its assertions.

No it isn’t richard, as usual you are full of it, it would do any harm for you to admit your errors once in a while! It’s clear that you have confused the MBH and Briffa papers, both published in 1998.
From Arrigo et al., “On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes”
“A number of recent tree-ring studies have addressed the ‘divergence problem’ in northern forests. It is defined herein as the tendency for tree growth at some previously temperature-limited northern sites to demonstrate a weakening in mean temperature response in recent decades, with the divergence being expressed as a loss in climate sensitivity and/or a divergence in trend (Jacoby and D’Arrigo, 1995; Briffa et al., 1998a,b; Vaganov et al., 1999; Barber et al., 2000; Briffa, 2000; Jacoby et al., 2000; Wilson and Luckman, 2003; Briffa et al., 2004; D’Arrigo et al., 2004a; Wilmking et al., 2004, 2005; Driscoll et al., 2005; Büntgen et al., 2006a).”

Terry
October 24, 2012 1:58 pm

Wow. This moron (Mann) has put everything on the table in that lawsuit. Everything he states in his filing can be challenged directly during the proceedings. Proof positive that he is either not very bright or dangerously unstable or just plain crazy desperate. I cannot possibly see him letting this actually go before a judge. I hope he is really that stupid and that this gets fast tracked into court. I’m gobsmacked that he would even go there.

msher
October 24, 2012 2:12 pm

I am a lawyer (but who has done business, not law, for years).
I hope I am right in my impression when Mann first threatened suit: the publications/institutions involved wanted a lawsuit. That would mean they are well prepared and well funded. The fact that Mark Steyn, especially, was involved, suggests this to me. Hate speech litigation in Canada was a nightmare for Steyn. I don’t think he would put himself again in the line of fire unless there was a strategy and financing in place. If the institutions/publications/individuals expected litigation, they knnow they too are subject to discovery and think they are OK.
Of course if donor or subscription lists are released, the individuals on the list will be harrassed mercilessly by the left.
The standard for defamation by media types in defamation of public figures: If the statement is rhetorical hyperbole – i.e., not capable of being proved true or false, it’s protected. If the statement is a statement of fact: the person claiming defamation has to prove the press acted with actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.
There is a grey area where it could be argued something is an opinion, but is capable of being proved true or false. Depending on what court the suit is in, I think the standard of proof can vary according to state. A few might make media prove the truth of what they said, others would go with the defamed person having to prove actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard, and others something in between. (Malokitch v. Lorain, to me a very confusing case which muddies the waters before opinion and fact.)
Re calling someone the Sandusky…..of abusing data: I believe the “Sandusky” part is rhetorical hyperbole as long as you have made it clear you aren’t implying child molestation.
But I haven’t actively practiced law for a number of years. I’ll be curious to see what the currently practicing lawyers say. Also, I haven’t read the complaint and perhaps Mann thought of something besides defamation.

John Watts
October 24, 2012 2:13 pm

This could turn into another Alger Hiss trial, complete with a perjury trial after the civil action concludes….

richardscourtney
October 24, 2012 2:16 pm

Phil:
I am replying to your untrue diatribe at October 24, 2012 at 1:53 pm so you know I am not ignoring it.
I knew your untrue rant is was inevitable and so I addressed it in my post you are supposedly answering when I wrote to you

Quibble as you always do. But what you say here cannot overcome the fact that Mann will be called to account for this scandal in Court. And I rejoice at that.

If you are right then there is no reason for you to care about the issue. But we both know I am right and that is why you are frothing about it.
And your comment is as convincing as Gary Lance writing at October 24, 2012 at 9:09 am

I have common sense.

I think you should both read the link provided by Pointman at October 23, 2012 at 10:21 am and its excellent and amusing link at
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/climate-alarmism-and-the-prat-principle/
which explains the nature of a prat.
Richard

Phil.
October 24, 2012 2:19 pm

D Böehm says:
October 24, 2012 at 10:17 am
Phil says Mann’s Hokey Stick chart is legit.

What I said was that richard’s critique was wrong/mistaken, it is! He thinks that Briffa’s reconstruction, which did have ‘divergence’ problems, was Mann’s.
According to richard: “The value of the case put by Mann is that Steyn and the NRO will have a chance to get Mann to explain the facts I stated when he is on oath in a Court of Law. After that it will not be possible for the likes of you to misrepresent the scandal of the divergence problem as you have in your post.” I imagine that they will not be so incompetent as to attribute Briffa’s work to Mann, if they do they deserve to lose.

October 24, 2012 2:29 pm

Damn… got my hopes up.
From the title I assumed that he was going after the National Reconnaissance Office. You know.. that entity that didn’t exist until an inadvertent mention in a Senate committee report.
Unlikely? Well, this is Michael Mann we are talking about. Would you put it past him?

JabbaTheCat
October 24, 2012 2:29 pm

Just perfect for Michael Mann…

What Did I Tell You!?
October 24, 2012 2:31 pm

RB says:
October 24, 2012 at 8:27 am
“…Hi all,
Let’s be absolutely clear about the Nobel Prize issue. Mann daily repeats a dishonest claim on his website that he shared the Nobel Prize. He did not.
I noted that Mann’s lawyers describe him in para. 5 of the complaint as a Nobel Prize recipient. For those who don’t recall this is the 2007 joint award to the IPCC and Al Gore. This issue has been addressed before and any claim that Mann is a Nobel Prize recipient or shared such a prize is false.
Note also that Mann claims on his own website to have shared the Nobel Peace Prize and makes the same claim in the sleeve of his recent book.
Here’s what the Nobel organisation has to say about it:
“An award of the Nobel Prize to an organization does not under any circumstances permit an employee or other agent of that organization to claim to share a Nobel Prize. Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize”…
Pure Ownage, GOOD GOING, RB

Phil.
October 24, 2012 3:15 pm

richardscourtney says:
October 24, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Phil:
I am replying to your untrue diatribe at October 24, 2012 at 1:53 pm so you know I am not ignoring it.
I knew your untrue rant is was inevitable and so I addressed it in my post you are supposedly answering when I wrote to you
Quibble as you always do. But what you say here cannot overcome the fact that Mann will be called to account for this scandal in Court. And I rejoice at that.
If you are right then there is no reason for you to care about the issue. But we both know I am right and that is why you are frothing about it.

You are the one who’s ‘frothing’ about being caught out with your misinformation yet again.
You come on here with your misleading and incorrect statements, when called on it as usual you make no attempt to address the points.
I’ve read the MBH98 paper which figure shows this: “Instead, they plotted the surface temperature data as a thick line over the part of the ‘hockey stick’ graph for after 1960.”?

page488
October 24, 2012 3:21 pm

I am amazed by the naivete of some of the posters here with respect to law firms and what cases they will accept.
MM is a high profile client. No matter what the outcome of the trial, if it comes to that, the law firm will make a profit. Make no mistake about it. I doubt that the firm is even charging him anything at the outset, despite the pleas for money from MM’s faithful coterie of loons. The lawyers know they will make up the money later.. IN SPADES!!!!!!
They’ll make their money back through the national exposure from this case. Other high profile clients, who actually do have money to burn, will line up to hire them (it doesn’t even matter if they win – after all, if they get on TV – from the perspective of a law firm, getting on TV is a win-win no matter what the outcome of the case).
None of this means, of course, that MM will come out a winner, whatever the outcome. But his law firm will!!!!

This took 30seconds to find, do some research
October 24, 2012 3:25 pm
A. Scott
October 24, 2012 3:31 pm

Interesting reading regarding the judge and a prior high profile case – she misstated the law, improperly dismissed with prejudice …
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081903871.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020301687.html
http://mokellyreport.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/barbara-mckinzie-back-to-typing-emails-in-wake-of-courtroom-victory/
Dismissal Order:
http://www.friendsoftheweepingivy.com/pdf/Court%20Order%20to%20Dismiss.pdf
And the Appeals Courts findings throwing out the Judges dismissal …
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/10-cv-220_mtd.pdf
The website of the Plaintiffs – the members of the sorority who brought action against the leadership over the misappropriation of well over $2 million by the leadership …
http://www.friendsoftheweepingivy.com
The Appeals Court noted a number of instances where the Judge misrepresented the case law, in one egregious case the Judge noted violation of “laws” as a standard when in fact the case law included “by-laws” which were directly relevant.
All of the above, regarding the competency and actions of this Judge, and here proposed bias in support of Mann, might very well be misdirected however. Below is a comment, closer to an attack, the Judge directed against the Plaintiffs in her dismissal order. This commentary almost exactly fits Mann’s agenda and charade with the filing of this suit.
It will be extremely interesting to see if she applies the same level of criticism to Mann’s case:
This case is largely about several disgruntled AKA members disillusioned with what they see as an increasingly opaque, authoritarian, and self-serving leadership in their organization. Based on the voluminous record, questions may exist as to the propriety of the Directorate’s actions. The question remains, however, whether such behavior warrants judicial intervention—particularly given the fact Plaintiffs appear to have attempted to circumvent the requirements of a shareholder derivative suit. The Complaint is largely bald, containing hyperbolic allegations riddled with buzz words, e.g., “intentionally,” “maliciously,” “grossly abused,” “knowingly,” and “fraudulently,” however, it provides very few specific allegations. Plaintiffs have overwhelmed the record with seemingly unnecessary and frivolous exhibits, arguments, counts, and facts detailing the sorority’s 101 year history. The Defendants point out thatPlaintiffs have started a website to raise money for the suit and use it to post the pleadings as they are filed. Along those lines, many of Plaintiff’s arguments read as political speeches intended for an other audience than this Court.

richardscourtney
October 24, 2012 3:44 pm

Phil:
re your most recent rant at October 24, 2012 at 3:15 pm.
Yes, you keep saying that. And Tiljander was the right way up, too. I know all the delusions of ‘hokey schtick’ believers.
I will repeat to ensure others understand.
I merely pointed out the facts and you went ballistic. But
(a) If I were wrong then so what?
and
(b) If you are wrong then Mann is buggered.
My response to each of your rants is to say “Bring it on in Court”.
Your response to my repeatedly saying that is to rant on and on and on and …about how I MUST be wrong.
Readers can deduce from that what they will.
Richard