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 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!!!!
@What Did I Tell You? Then what is this http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1331453&l=d4fb812df9&id=221222081267335
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.
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
Mann’s facebook picture appears unequivocal. He didn’t win it, the IPCC did, and he was acknowleged as a contributor.
Que? “a facebook picture appears unequivocal”?
Whoa, people, reality?
Reed Coray says:
“With the sentencing of Sandusky, things appeared to be settling down.”
Not really.
Aside from this Mann-made fiasco, Penn State is being sued by Mike McQueary claiming defamation and unfair termination regarding Penn State’s treatment of him in the Sandusky case and Penn State is being sued by Sandusky “Victim 1” alleging negligence, fraudulent concealment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. Additionally, some of the other Sandusky victims have indicated that they may also sue.
Very interestingly – in the case the Judge dismissed – where she attacked the 8 members who were challenging the grossly improper actions of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority leadership … this paragraph appears to sum up the current status 3 years later:
This is from this site:
http://mrmokelly.com/tag/alpha-kappa-alpha/
By all appearances this determined group of AKA members, with support from this small investigative reporter have managed to move this now seemingly true and serious case from dismissal by an incompetent and biased judge to mainstream attention, dismissal of the leader who apparently squandered millions, and FBI and IRS involvement.
I guess the moral is – we need to stick to our guns and continue fighting the battle for public awareness of the failings of the alleged climate experts … and continue to push to expose the malfeasance and bad practices by them.
The parallels to the AKA case are not identical, but the battle is all to similar. A concerted and continued effort can have positive and direct consequences as this situation shows – but not without a lengthy process and much effort along the way.
I think there is too much misplaced faith in our judicial system here. With the exception of patent attorneys, most of those in the legal profession seem to have little aptitude for math and science and most lawyers that I have met are the first to admit it. Consequently, legal cases involving technical issues can have have bizarre outcomes, even on appeal. Some judges also seem to ignore the very things they demand of jurors, like not letting anything other than facts that are presented during a trial influence their decisions. Unfortunately, like the general public, most judges are only familiar with one side of the AGW debate and are likely to accept AGW as a truism and give little credence to the testimony of a skeptic which they don’t understand.
Additionally, one should never underestimate the ability of skilled law firms in winning cases that have no merit. I suspect they will try to bombard the judge with so many irrelevant facts she will be become totally confused. Hopefully, truth and reason will ultimately prevail but there is no guarantee. This seems like a modern version of the Salem witch trials.
page488 says:
October 24, 2012 at 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.
—————————————————-
The rules of engagement are very well established.
1. Is the potential client breathing (or were they recently breathing)?
2. Do they have any money, do they work for a company that has access to money, are they from a rich family or is there a possibility that we can stick someone who was recently standing next to them with the bill – someone who has an ability to pay?
By this suit MM will be proven to be a SCOAMF.
“@What Did I Tell You? Then what is this http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1331453&l=d4fb812df9&id=221222081267335”
Exactly. That’s a “thank-you card” from the IPCC, not a Nobel Peace Prize.
Considering that Mann’s efforts would have been impossible without many millions of US taxpayer dollars, of whom I am one, I would have appreciated a similar sign of “contribution”, although greeting-card sized would have been fine.
Don Allen says (October 24, 2012 at 4:43 pm): “By this suit MM will be proven to be a SCOAMF.”
I had to look that one up, and it took me to yet another of those “Hitler rants” videos that I, with my warped sense of humor, find hilarious:
The Fallwell case against Hustler magazine seems to me to have established the principle that the more outrageous the insult, the less legal recourse a public figure has under defamation law. It’s almost like the inverse of the skeptical principle that “extreme claims require extreme evidence.”
Hypothetically, were one to claim that Dr Mann had evaded taxes or spent grant money on Las Vegas vacations, those — ordinary, plausible — claims might be actionable. The casual reader has no reason to suppose that a climate scientist is any more immune to such temptations than dentists or plumbers.
Were one to hypothetically suggest that Dr Mann had molested little boys in the Penn State showers, THAT claim is so extreme and implausible that the casual reader would assume anyone asserting it was crazy, lying, or joking. Or so Larry Flynt argued regarding his similar claims about TV preacher Jerry Falwell.
Similarly radio shock-jock Howard Stein can get away with saying all kinds of outrageous things just because his audience expects him to attempt outrageous humor. Mark Steyn, also a radio personality, seems to be setting up a similar defense — “Hey, I’m kidding. Can’t a public figure take a joke?”
It’ll be interesting to watch.
richardscourtney says:
October 24, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Phil:
re your most recent rant at October 24, 2012 at 3:15 pm.
That was not a rant.
I merely pointed out the facts and you went ballistic.
You didn’t point out the facts, you were wrong!
You think that’s ballistic?
My response to each of your rants is to say “Bring it on in Court”.
Which is totally illogical since you want to accuse Mann of doing something that Briffa did!
Your response to my repeatedly saying that is to rant on and on and on and …about how I MUST be wrong.
No I tell you that you are wrong because you are on the facts. You however are apparently unable to rebut any of the statements I have made and just resort to rhetoric and bluster. You’ve been busting Gary about answering your questions, how about you do likewise and answer the one I asked of you. You made a very specific statement about the MBH papers: “Instead, they plotted the surface temperature data as a thick line over the part of the ‘hockey stick’ graph for after 1960”, identify that figure. I asked you before and you dodged it.
This:
This took 30seconds to find, do some research says:
October 24, 2012 at 3:25 pm
@What Did I Tell You? Then what is this http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1331453&l=d4fb812df9&id=221222081267335
Is the PROOF MANN and OTHERS have been CLAIMING to have WON.
The density of the typical moonbat isn’t incredible as long as you’re not afraid of Darwin’s Dog staying well fed.
Gary Hladik says:
October 24, 2012 at 5:06 pm
=========
great vid. starts slow and ends fantastic. worth a 2nd look.
EPIC FAIL! Presidential Race Results Mistakenly Leaked On CBS? Obama Romney 2012
Now their throwing up false MSM poles on Drudge and TV to make sheeple think they are going to vote for the perceived winner in the poles, Romney. The powers that be always prepare in advance and know who the real winner will be with their internal poles the general Public doesn’t see. Stock Market insider trade info.
The CBS leak 2012 election results Declares Obama Winner is near 100% correct. True voter intentions don’t change virtually at all 2 weeks before the election unless a meteor hits the planet. Third party candidates will get 17% of the total vote.
@M Courtney: If that is the passage that generated the lawsuit then I really don’t see how Mann is going to win this. He has everything to lose and nothing to gain from this.
It actually says “presented to” and not “contributed to”
Pouncer says: \\. . . Mark Steyn, also a radio personality, seems to be setting up a similar defense — “Hey, I’m kidding. Can’t a public figure take a joke?” //
I can’t speak for him, but I think he has a firm belief that the Hockey stick graph–and, most importantly the way it has been used–is fraudulent. He could argue either way: it was fraudulent at its conception and then demand all kinds of documents in discovery; or he can say the graph has been used fraudulently, particularly in the past ten years, to the detriment of good climatological science. Both veiwpoints can easily be demonstrated to be informed and arguably true opinions.
I don’t think he will try and take the easy way out in this. His lawyers may counsel him to do that, he is afterall the foremost and most effective political satirist working in journalism today and hyperbole is among his most lethal weaponry, but he’s not one to suffer fools gladly.
What’s apparent is that he can argue against the charges in a variety of ways and win on each one. As Rich Lowry noted, I think they will look at this not as a nuisance, but as an opportunity.
Ouch! In so many ways …. firstly, it’s “THEY ARE throwing” or “THEY’RE throwing” (not “their throwing”) and it is “MSM POLLS” not ‘MSM poles’.
I think the plethora of con-spir-acy theor-ies spun by ______________ (fill in the blank as required e.g. Alex Jones, ZH, etc) may have taken finally taken their toll regarding higher-level brain-functioning Michael!
.
It’s like sitting back and being able to watch a train wreck, knowing no one is going to be harmed. Good thing I stocked up on the popcorn before the futures went up.
Steyn’s response at NRO, in which he claims that he too is a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331497/nobel-mann-takes-revolting-peasants-mark-steyn
This is going to be good.
Let’s extract and examine all that appears on the lower half of that placard Mann has on exhibit as it appears in the image way above at the top of this thread::
.
. INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
.
. . . PRESENTED TO MICHAEL E. MANN
.
. .FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THE AWARD OF THE
.
. . . . . . NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
.
. . . . . FOR 2007 TO THE IPCC
.
.