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.
_Jim says:
October 24, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Michael says October 24, 2012 at 6:34 pm
“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!”
Grammar and spelling Nazi’s, what would we do without you.
That infographic was not photoshop. TV stations make them to try to be first to announce the winner.
They were making their graphics and accidentally hit the wrong button displaying the result on TV.
It’s 100% documented. You can make stock market bets on the information contained therein.
I 100% guarantee you will win based an that information.
“Note it says “for contributing to” not awarded to.”
If MM can’t get the basic distinction between “for contributing to” vs. actually being awarded the Nobel Political prize, it is no surprise MM’s Hockey Stick was broken.
“The global warming debate has left much to be desired in the realm of logic and rationale. One particular researcher, Michael E. Mann, has been repeatedly attacked for his now infamous (and peer reviewed/independently verified) hockey stick graph. It has come to the point where he is now suing for defamation over being compared to convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky. Articles hosted by defendants and written by defendant Rand Simberg and defendant Mark Steyn utilize questionable logic for implicating Michael E. Mann alongside Jerry Sandusky with the original piece, concluding, ‘Michael Mann, like Joe Paterno, was a rock star in the context of Penn State University, bringing in millions in research funding. The same university president who resigned in the wake of the Sandusky scandal was also the president when Mann was being (whitewashed) investigated. We saw what the university administration was willing to do to cover up heinous crimes, and even let them continue, rather than expose them. Should we suppose, in light of what we now know, they would do any less to hide academic and scientific misconduct, with so much at stake?’ Additionally, sentences were stylized to blend the two people together: ‘He has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.’ One of the defendants admits to removing ‘a sentence or two’ of questionable wording. Still, as a public figure, Michael E. Mann has an uphill battle to prove defamation in court.”
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/10/24/1951222/michael-e-mann-sues-for-defamation-over-comparison-to-jerry-sandusky
“and he makes the claim that he has been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” in the complaint itself (page 2, paragraph 2).”
“The official Nobel site makes no mention of him; there are no speeches, no citations, no pictures of him with the King of Norway, no namecheck on the 2007 Nobel diploma.”
Given MM will lie about being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, would it not be prudent of a Judge hearing his lawsuit to ask what else Mann has lied about or misled people about?
Strawman argument construction; I did not address that facet of your post but rather the conclusions you drew (Occam’s Razor: someone at the station or down the line in the network were testing their character/graphics generator drop-and-insert gear, but to HEAR you tell it, it was more MK-ULTRA CIA/NSA-sponsored cloak-and-dagger mind-control stuff.)
BTW, If you stop now (posting that is), you won’t look so bad later on (digging that hole deeper, that is) …
.
PS. They were wondering where you went off to over on ZH; most were betting you made-good on your opt-out of society bid but am surprised to see you posting here.
PPS. Have you notice how the polls have begun to ‘right’ themselves … that is, they are rolling-around to being the correct-side up? They (pollsters) still have some sense of their ‘integrity’ … naw, probably not … no doubt you have enough Y2K rations still stock-piled there on the ‘compound’ and no need to interact with the rest of the world (exc. to sow a bit of con-spir-acy theo-ry here and there just for ‘fun’, to see how the ‘sheeple’ can be made to run or stampede out of panic …)
.
I written dozens of books! I can prove it, in the authors’ prefaces I’m thanked for my contributions to proof reading and suggestions for improvement.
Green Sand wrote:
“Que? “a facebook picture appears unequivocal”?”
Yup, Mann posted a picture of his “Nobel Prize”, or at least something he believes is the Nobel Prize. Would it have been too much for you to check first?
Michael E. Mann – Nobel Peace Prize “winner” and, along with others, Time magazine’s 2006 Person of the Year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_%28Time_Person_of_the_Year%29
Mann can reasure himself of who won the prize by checking the official Nobel webpage. Unlike Al Gore, he is not mentioned there. But Mann’s got a fancy docuemnt, personal to him, which not all the “4000” IPCC scientists have received. The thing is that organization don’t do any work, ya know. People working there/for them do the work and if the Nobel committee singles you out to receive an award as a main contributor within a winning organization as a whole, then I think it is fair to state it the way Mann did. Language only makes sense in context. If a guy working at the pits of a Formula 1 team says “he” (i.e. they as a team) one the world championship, than that is true, if you consider all the remainders that naturally have to be attached to this statement. And yes, for practical purposes Mann got the prize, in that the organization needs people to act for it and he is the one, or one of the people to whom the committee have attached the achievement personally by issuing that award document in his name. He hasn’t won it the same way as Gore, because he won it jointly with the IPCC as a whole. Now, whether this is something that needs more precision or elaboration with view to making a possible misrepresentation in a filing is arguable; but it is obviously not quite the same as if you or I started walking around claiming we won the Nobel prize.
How many articles are you going to write on this non-event? What should disturb you more is that you get the peace prize award for not doing anything AT ALL these days, e.g. Obama.
So it would seem that when it comes to depicting “proxies” and “principal component analysis” of Nobel Peace Prize awards, Mann’s comprehension is as profoundly challenged as it appears to be whenever he attempts to engage in statistical analysis.
Bristlecone pine or brittle-tone whine … It’s all the same to him, evidently: Whatever he claims must be true, simply Because! Mann! Says! So!
Mann makes Ronald McDonald look normal.
I have a question I hope somebody could answer. I would appreciate it.
I recall a picture of Mann posing next to some tree log cuts posted here at WUWT and elsewhere. Did he actually used these log cuts to produce the hockey stick or did he just compiled (cherry-picked) tree ring data from other scientists?
I believe he did not actually measure any ring width himself to produce said hockey stick graph, but he poses as he actually did. I also recall reading that the original authors of the bristlecone paper warned agains extracting weather data from their data. Not to mention the upside down Tijlander lake. It does not surprise me that he uses the Nobel peace prize to back up his science.
My understanding is that the certificate of involvment you show above was not issued by the Nobel organisatioon but by the IPCC at Pachy’s instruction.
and yet another Steyn note
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331592/when-nobel-fantasists-attack-mark-steyn
You really should change the wording of your article. The para 2 pg 2 reference reads; ” As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.” whereas you (via Steyn) say “he makes the claim that he has been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” in the complaint itself (page 2, paragraph 2).” This is clearly not accurate. How do you expect to be taken seriously?
Phil. says:
October 24, 2012 at 10:01 am
“Hardly the procedure and sources of the data were clearly stated, no reason for anyone to be confused!”
Then, what’s he been trying so hard to hide, Phil? And, don’t tell us it’s nothing important. If it isn’t important, why not release it?
Thanks to theduke, I am now completely gobsmacked by new knowledge. Thanks, Mark Steyn!
I learned that I am Time Magazine’s Person of the Year, 2006! I guess I stopped paying attention at some point before they awarded it. I missed the dinner and everything. Oh well. I think I might well be the Person of the Year for 2011, too, although my own protests are not considered “politically correct” by people who worry about what is “politically correct”.
And YES, I have as much claim to this year’s Nobel Peace Prize as Mann has to the 2007 one! So I can start pointing that out for added credibility when dealing with my less knowledgeable acquaintances (read: leftists). See, my ancestors were from England, Germany, Scotland, and Russia, 3 of which are members of the EU. Ergo… I can claim it! WooHoo! (also, I’ve given blood, so technically am associated with the Red Cross, and when I worked at the nuclear facility I was associated with the IAEA)
Mann claims he was awarded the Nobel Peace Price in 2007. That’s news to the organisation;
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/
Don’t see Mann here.
On his own facebook page Mann writes about his ‘contribution’ !
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1331453&l=d4fb812df9&id=221222081267335
Michael E. Mann
Since some have asked about my contribution w/ other IPCC lead authors to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize…
And that award looks like it is issued by the IPCC itself, not by the Nobel committee. He should be asked to produce his award from the Nobel committee.
The Prize was given to Al Gore and the IPCC. Mann is listed as a Lead Author of one of the four core documents from the IPCC – ‘The Scientific Basis’ here http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/ – Lead Authors
J.R. Christy, R.A. Clarke, G.V. Gruza, J. Jouzel, M.E. Mann, J. Oerlemans, M.J. Salinger, S.-W. Wang
Therefore the statement “Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” is correct.
See http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/
The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”
If I may…
Mark Steyn just got the WUWT boost, where as previously he only had clear channel radio out of Chicago, on occasion (among other things).
He now moves into the big leagues, this should be good 🙂
It might bring a whole new facet of comments to WUWT ??, results to be seen.
Ok, I get it. So if my country is given an award, I can claim that I, myself, was given the award.
crosspatch says:
October 25, 2012 at 12:44 am
“Ok, I get it. So if my country is given an award, I can claim that I, myself, was given the award.”
No, but you can claim that you and everyone else in the country were awarded the award of the award.
I like the idea that FOI , fine fellow that he is, might also work for the IPCC. He (she) will also have contributed to the Nobel prize
at least one of them will have deserved it