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.
Tim says: “Now we’ve established that the statement about the Nobel Peace Prize in Mann’s complaint is factual …”
We have established no such thing. And the following stands against your bogus statement:
“The official Nobel site makes no mention of him …”
No wonder some people still believe the Global Warming Alarmists, when there are people who can not read with comprehension to understand the difference between receiving an award and “for contributing” towards someone receiving an award.
Mike’s “complaints” and attempts at self-puffery have broken the bogosity scale. He should be awarded a prize for that.
I feel this is just politics. The lawsuit will be dropped after the election. The aim of this is to rally people who have sipped the kool aid. Hurricane Sandy will be used as well. Truth is the last thing these people care about. I’ve been watching this circus since 2006 and Truth has always been avoided like it was a combination of poison ivy and hot coals.
Ok Tim,
Let’s look at the complaint (briefly) shall we?
Dr Mann will only win if he shows in relation to any one allegation that there was actual malice – knowledge that the statement is false or reckless disregard of whether it is false or not – from NYT v Sullivan – and with the deliberate aim of damaging Mann’s reputation.
1. Data manipulation
2. Academic and scientific misconduct
3. He was the man behind the fraudulent climate change “hockey stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree ring circus
4. intellectually bogus
5. He “was the posterboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo chamber”
6. He is the Sandursky of climate science because instead of molesting children he molested and tortured data
Lets start with Mr McIntyre, M&M, Wegman, Climategate emails, censored directory, etc. and move on from there.
On a proper reading the academic and scientific misconduct comment is not made about or to Mann. It comes in a sentence discussing what Penn State University’s administration might be prepared to cover up. It follows discussion of two misconduct investigations and their very obvious limitations, and concludes that Penn State might well be prepared to cover up academic and scientific misconduct. Some will say that by implication Mann is being accused of academic and scientific misconduct but this is by no means a given.
Even if it is, bear in mind that the decisions of the quoted investigations do not touch on whether any allegations about Mann are true or not. The decisions are opinions, and opinions that many say were contrived or arrived at on very limited and inept examination. Whether any comments quoted in the complaint, and actually about or directed to Mann and his work or integrity, are true is still entirely open and a matter for the court to decide.
Some bits are just mocking – “ringmaster of the tree ring circus” is not defamatory. The “fraudulent” hockey stick arguably is not about Mann, but says that he was behind it, not that he was a fraud – perhaps that it was fraudulent in the way it was used. Even if it is saying Mann was fraudulent there’s plenty of material to deploy to show that this is arguably true.
The Sandursky remark actually differentiates Mann from Sandursky. The Sandursky reference is as much a barb at Penn State’s appalling record, bringing Mann and Sandursky together as beneficiaries of Penn State’s whitewash. It does not “compare” Mann to Sandursky.
Mann will have considerable difficulty establishing that these types of comments are “false”, i.e. entirely untrue and not open to doubt. Many people think Mann did manipulate data and engage in academic and scientific misconduct and some are very persuasive and knowledgeable on these subjects and they come with impeccable credentials.
True or False are absolute – no grey areas or room for doubt. The burden of proof will weigh very heavily on Mann here. If its arguable that the alleged defamatory statements are true, or not false, Mann loses.
“Corrupt” and “disgraced” are used to describe the climate science echo chamber, not Mann. Climategate emails and other evidence will be deployed persuasively to show that this description (whether of Mann or otherwise) is not false.
And then even if Mann wins there is the issue of his reputation and how it has been damaged. How much material will the defendants bring to bear to show that Mann’s reputation is pretty much in the toilet already? I can think of loads. Mann might find this to be the time he puts his head above the parapet and finds that he is not in fact the great loved and respected internationally renowned scientist he perhaps believes himself to be in his world. He might find the real world holds a different view. He has already helped the defence here, with his Nobel Prize claim, and to get to that all the defendants have to do is open the court file!
[snip . . repeat post . . mod]
[snip . . repeat post . . I can understand the impatience waiting for a post to appear but reposting won’t speed it up . . there are various words like fraud, scam, Hitler, NAZI and several others that will get a post dropped into the spam bin automatically. This is also true of posts containing large numbers of links, bogus email accounts and the like . . the spam bin is checked regularly and any genuine posts are put up while the “baddies” are deleted permanently. There are many esteemed contributors who bring their disappointment over their contribution not being posted up quickly enough in pico-seconds, that also seldom speeds things up because the delay is often due to a high workload and a reduced crew.
In the, unlikely, event that your post is being held up deliberately it is because it has been referred up the chain of command for one reason or another . However in those infrequent instances please rest assured that if there is a serious objection you will be notified on the thread. The tradition, culture if you will, here is to moderate with a light touch and thats that.
I would recommend that everyone makes themselves familiar with the house rules and make every endeavour to comply with them.
Oh, and RB please don’t think I am getting at you. I have just taken this opportunity to explain these few things for the benefit of new and old members of this great weblog. Thanks . . mod]
@Tim O'Donovan. You may have read it but you have not comprehended it. The complaint alleges things which were not said. The article does not accuse anyone of academic fraud nor does it accuse anyone of being or being compared to a child molester. There is some rhetoric hyperbole aimed at a public person. All above board in the US with their first amendment rights.
As for the prize which you so want to get away from? he didn’t win it. The nobel committee says so. He has no right to claim such untruths and this speaks to his integrity which is pertinent when discussing the case.
Whatever else you can say about Dr. Mann, having an underdeveloped ego or too small a sense of self-worth are not issues for him.
Mann is the prime example of “tabloid climatology”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/11/tabloid-climatology-may-be-the-real-reason-for-the-marcel-leroux-william-connolley-wikipedia-dustup/
when a scientist desperately needs to refer to “his”/”her” Nobel Peace Prize that actually was awarded to an organization he/she was part of, you know he/she is in it for the publicity, since any true scientist would not even mention it since the Peace Prize in reality is awarded by Norwegian politicians without any capability to review alleged science in it all. When such a scientist goes even further and illegitimately uses the title “Nobel Laureate” without any reference to the peace dimension of it all, you know this is done in order to mislead the uninformed to believe that the “Prize” had something to do with his/her science. A truly sad day for science.
Tim says:
October 25, 2012 at 2:37 am
Steven,
The IPCC is a scientific body.
Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. This included Mann (I didn’t say the 4th I said one of the four).
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml#.UIkF8IV9mWU
The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Therefore “Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” is correct in my view.
And in my view, your view is incorrect.
Of course, I’ve read the factual information regarding the awarding of the Nobel Prize which raises my view above opinion to a reflection of facts.
Hmm… maybe that is the main difference between CAGW supporters and those who do not support CAGW – the folks who do not support CAGW base their view on factual information while those who support CAGW prefer basing their view on opinion.
I know – it is a travesty that my statement is so incontrovertible. 🙂
A quick question to our friends in the US – Is this a lawsuit that can be SLAPPed?
“Mark Steyn forced the Canadian establishment to change all its whole hate speech legal framework. Mann is nuts taking him and all the worlds pro bono amateur scientists.
Steyn could get a dataset from discovery, crowd source it, and have a detailed analysis in 24 hours.”
Yes, oh, yes, indeed he can.
Heh heh heh
Tim says: ” … we could discuss the actual complaint itself? ie. that the statements made by NR & CEI were false, malicious, defamatory, wilful & caused injury to his reputation.”
We have been, nearly a day before you came along and started blowing CO2.
In fact, when MM made his original lawsuit threat, we were discussing his baseless claims. Including the matter than MM caused himself harm by advertising what he was upset about. Had MM kept his trap shut, few if any would have taken notice.
Thus if there is any harm, it was self-inflicted by MM miss-characterizion and flagging the matter.
very short note on Lord Monckton’s title, and on whether or not the changes to it could be “unconstitutional”. Nothing done by Parliament can be “unconstitutional”, since the UK has no written constitution. That is a uniquely American concept. (and it is found only in those countries which have set up an American inspired judicial system)
You could say that the very reason that we Americans have a Constitution is precisely because the British Empire (which we left) didn’t. Our founders didn’t like that system, because they saw it as giving any government, even one that was elected, absolute power. Not much has really changed.
sorry mod my post appears to have cloned itself a few times.
[not a problem , I merely took your posts as an opportunity to try and spread a little light about what goes on down here in the engine room . . mod]
Tim says:
October 25, 2012 at 4:27 am
I am not an idiot,
—————————————————————–
Considering you keep insisting that Mann statement about the Nobel prize is accurate despite the facts that the rules of both the Nobel Committee and the IPCC catagorically state that it is not, we’ve established that you actually are an idiot. Or atleast someone who has failed reading comprehension 101.
Suppose you go to the bank and ask for a $1 counter check. In error the clerk (named Jeff) gives you a $1 million counter check. You hop on a plane to Brazil and cash the check and live in style free from extradition. Was this a fraudulent check or not?
What if a reporter then referred to the clerk as “Jeff of the Fraudulent Counter Check fame”. Has the reporter defamed Jeff?
How is the current situation any different? The IPCC made fraudulent use of the hockey stick, by displaying it on the cover of their report, knowing full well that it had not been independently validated and was contradicted by a large body of existing evidence, including the previous IPCC report.
The IPCC’s action were the equivalent of proclaiming cold fusion to be a fact, on the basis of a single paper, without cold fusion ever having been replicated. Then, on the basis of the IPCC report, governments around the world started building cold fusion generators at the taxpayer expense, with large sums siphoned off to pay the politicians and scientists involved. Would this constitute fraud?
Pethefin, to further your comments
It is like the economists and the media claiming that somebody is a Nobel Laureate for being awarded the “Nobel Prize in Economics”.
There is no such prize. Only something made up by the Bank of Sweden to give economists the an air of respectability and gravitas of principled endeavour.
Really this nobel prize claim is beyond belief. The fact that he has used that very picture as “proof” of his claim on facebook and that his followers have lapped it up makes me utterly despair. Just check out some of the sychophantic comments:
“Thanks, Mike: the twit-o-sphere is all aglow with the light of their tiny intellects, attempting to smear your Nobel involvement. +10!”
“There are a hell of a lot of D*nialists in the Usenet newsgroup alt.global-warming who insist Dr. Mann did not receive or even share a Nobel Prize. I always point them to the Nobel Prize Committee’s web site, but oddly enough D*nialists refuse to go there and look…..”
I mean seriously – WTF?
RB said “On a proper reading the academic and scientific misconduct comment is not made about or to Mann.”
oh yes it is;
“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science …. he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicised science”
“Michael Mann …. had been engaged in data manipulation”
“MM was the man behind the fraudulent climate change ‘hockey-stick’ graph”
Lowry stated that his research was “intellectually bogus”
They all sound pretty libelous to me. But then again I follow the real science whereas most of you on here…….
Let’s nail this once and for all.
The “Official Web Site of the Nobel Prize” is at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/nomination/
Look for “Nomination and Selection of Nobel Laureates” under the “Nobel Prizes” menu, then “Nomination and Selection of Peace Laureates”. To be awarded the Peace prize the candidate (which can be a person, institution or association) must be nominated, short listed, chosen by the Nobel Committee and, at the awards ceremony, the laureate receives the Nobel Medal, Diploma and a confirming document.
Due process matters, in science as well as in courts of law. Dr Mann was not nominated, short listed or chosen by the Nobel Committee. He has not actually received a Nobel Medal. Whatever one might think of the Committee’s occasionally bizarre choices, persons such as Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Desmond Tutu, Lech Walesa, Martin Luther King, the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa are Peace Prize laureates: I don’t think Dr Mann can really aspire to the same immortal standing as each of them.
The IPCC (not the Nobel Committee) presented Dr Mann with a certificate “for contributing to the award of Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”. That’s all: a “thanks for your help” certificate, just like 2000-odd others sent to IPCC coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, bureau members and staff of the technical units and the secretariat (I suspect that even Dr Mann might object to such luminaries as the Secretariat’s “Office Assistants, Travel and Meetings” representing that they each had received the peace prize). And IPCC members are all governments not individuals, so there is no sub-attribution that way.
Dr Mann did not receive or share the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
It would be helpful if you could cite chapter and verse and/or provide a link to those statements–or even just an exact quote. That would settle the matter for good.
If in fact the Nobel people and the IPCC have made those statements, it would demonstrate clearly that Mann is a “stretcher” and egotist. (Monckton also claims that he is a Nobelist, on the basis of being a reviewer. He even has had some trinket made up on that basis. When he was challenged about that on Australian TV he said that it was as a joke. There’s the difference between him & Mann. He doesn’t take himself so seriously.)
If you ever need to be sick just look at Mann’s Facebook page and read the comments.
Oh, can we just let them have the Nobel Peace Prize thing? It’s not that important.
And as person in the EU I can claim the same, and more currently too.
Do you think it will look good on my CV?
For a comparative reference on academic dishonesty and what happens when unbiased scrutiny is applied.. take a look at Michael A. Bellesiles and his faked and false data for Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. He finally had the Bancroft prize revoked and is now working at a Jr College last I read, for which some Jr College is sorely lacking in judgment.