This just in. Here’s a potential bombshell for the Mann:
========================================================
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.
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.
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.”
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?
@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.
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
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.
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?
It’s instructive to note what NR editor Rich Lowry had to say about the threatened lawsuit back in July:
Concerning the Nobel prize, all the people who checked out Mann and found nothing, I have but two words: Lance Armstrong.
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.
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. .
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.
Mann’s announcement came a day late for my birthday, but nevertheless, What a Birthday Present!!!
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.
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!
Mark Steyn says in his post ‘Mann Bites Denialist!’ at his blog,
– – – – – –
Unfortunately for Mann, his lawsuit against NRO has ‘let slip the dogs of
warindependent 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
Phil says Mann’s Hokey Stick chart is legit.
No, Phil, it isn’t.
…ummm, by digging a hole?
“The Jerry Sandusky of climate science” is way over the top. CEI retracted it, but then Steyn went ahead of recirculated it. Not good.
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!
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.
“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.
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
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 …
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 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.
.