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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
zoot cadillac,
That legal blog is a GREAT resource.
This will be an interesting case.
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’?
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 😉
If you replace “young boys” with “credibility of his field of research”, the example holds.
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.
– – – – – – –
Reed Coray,
Indeed. : )
Very well said.
Thanks.
John
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.
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.
Maybe this would be a good time for the next installment of Climategate emails to appear from the ether.
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 :
The similarities in the two woefully inept investigations are striking.
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.*
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).”
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.
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.
This could turn into another Alger Hiss trial, complete with a perjury trial after the civil action concludes….
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
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 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
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.
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?
Just perfect for Michael Mann…
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
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.”?