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
“They all sound pretty libellous to me”.
I was referring to what was actually written where “academic and scientific misconduct” appeared in the article. That is, after all, what the court will look at. You have then conflated all of the comments into one huff of indignation.
Not sure that’s a basis for us to come over to your point of view. You could try that sentence on your feet in court but sadly I think there would be a deafening silence following it and a judge’s eyebrow would raise about an inch – that often (here in the UK anyway) means youve blown it. But with all respect to you I’m not sure you quite “get it”.
Anyway, all the best and all that.
@roger Knights
Hi Roger,
I posted on 24.10 at 8.27 a.m. now way up from here on this blog post and provided 2 quotes. One was what the Nobel organisation say about this situation, and the second was an email exchange involving the IPCC and its view on the matter.
Incidentally I also emailed the Nobelprize.org team yesterday to ask them what they thought and I’m happy to set out below the correspondence (I have redacted my personal information);
—–Original Message—–
From: comments@nobelprize.org
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:35 PM
To: richard********@**********.co.uk
Subject: [nobelprize.org #153147] Nobel Peace Prize
Dear Richard,
The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2012 is the European Union and not
individual persons connected to or working for EU in any way to describe
him or herself personally as a Nobel Laureate.
Yours sincerely,
Nobelprize.org Team
Vid Ons. Okt. 24 15:22:49 2012, skrev richard********@**********.co.uk:
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I wonder if you would be able to assist me with something that has
> been troubling me for a while regarding the Nobel Peace Prize.
>
> As you will be aware this prize is oftentimes awarded to an
> organisation and recent examples are the IPCC and the EU. Clearly
> such organisations contain sometimes hundreds or even thousands of
> employees, or contributors, etc.
>
> How appropriate do you feel it is for an individual employee of, or
> contributor to, an organisation that receives the Nobel Peace Prize
> to publicly describe him or herself personally as a Nobel Prize
> winner or recipient?
>
> With thanks for your attention and with best wishes,
>
>
> Richard ********
Address removed
Clearly the response only refers to the EU 2012 prize but I think the meaning is clear.
@wws re: Monkton. You are quite correct of course. i used the word ‘unconstitutional’ in an inappropriate manner and I certainly should know better as a Brit. In my defence I was typing in a rush to be somewhere else but at least I hope my meaning was easily understood……
Or so I thought. Just checked his wiki page ( I know, I’m not relying on it to be fact ) where it states that Monkton himself asserts the change to be unconstitutional. So I dug further and it turns out we do have a constitution in the UK.
“The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed”
although we do not have a single constitutional document.
Sorry for going OT mods. I suppose it does have some pertinence as to what people on opposing sides will accept as honesty. And of course, once you are in a conversation it’s rude not to reply even if the topic has strayed.
The judge will not allow discovery because the defendents by definition should have made their remarks based on what they already knew i.e. by definition they cannot rely on information that Mann has kept secret.
Based on my reading of Dr. Mann’s behavior, I believe he would benefit from medical help–both psychiatric and podiatric. Since the Sandusky affair became public, I’m sure somewhere in Happy Valley there exists a medical doctor (and likely a Nobel Peace Prize winning doctor if he treated Dr. Mann during the period Dr. Mann was winning the Nobel Peace Prize) that has experience with over-inflated egos and bullet holes in the foot.
richardscourtney says:
October 25, 2012 at 3:22 am
Thank you for that summary. With all the chicanery which has gone on over the last 20 odd years, it is sometimes difficult to separate the players and incidents.
RB says:
October 25, 2012 at 7:00 am
“A quick question to our friends in the US – Is this a lawsuit that can be SLAPPed?”
From what I have read, and if I understand it correctly, it appears very likely. But, the defendants want to go through with it to obtain discovery, so they probably will not move for it.
Ryan says:
October 25, 2012 at 9:25 am
So, for example, all those people who called Al Capone a gangster before he was convicted of tax fraud should have been prosecuted for libel? (Oh, no, now Michael Mann will sue me for saying he’s a gangster like Al Capone. Just to be perfectly CLEAR Dr. Mann – That is NOT what I am saying. This is an entirely different situation, being used to illustrate a point.)
Your rule, Ryan, would protect bad people from criticism. Is that what you want? In any case, it is not how things work in this country. The remedy for public persons who believe they have been unfairly maligned is to present their case to the court of public opinion through all the avenues which public persons, by definition, have at their disposal.
richardscourtney says:
October 25, 2012 at 3:22 am
I have stopped pulling Phil’s chain. This post is much more important. It explains the truth of “hide the decline”.
Actually it doesn’t you still have it wrong.
No you are confusing MBH98 with Briffa et al. 98.
And you are still doing so.
Now, at this point Phil’s series of posts leave no ‘wriggle room’. There is no possibility of his rationally claiming he said or intended other than he has written about ‘hide the decline’.
I now write to demonstrate that
Mann DID ‘hide the decline’in his 1998 paper which provided the ‘hockey stick’ graph. The paper was published in Nature and was co-authored with Bradley & Hughes. Indeed, that use of ‘hide the decline’ is why the ‘Team’ called ‘hide the decline’ “Mike’s Nature trick”.
No he did not, there is no decline to be hidden there, I note that you didn’t do as requested and give the actual figure from that paper which you believe ‘hides the decline’. As stated before ‘hide the decline’ refers to the recent drop in northern boreal forest tree growth as specifically discussed in papers by Briffa et al., this is where the ‘divergence problem’ originates.
The matter is fully investigated by Steve McIntyre on his blog and – importantly – so is a later extension of ‘hide the decline’ which can be read at
http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/
WUWT drew attention to – and discussed – the extension to hide the decline in an article by Anthony Watts titled
“hide the decline” – worse than we thought.
I strongly commend reading that WUWT summation which is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/hide-the-decline-worse-than-we-thought/
It quotes from Steve McIntyre’s explanation saying
Mann et al did not merely delete data after 1960, they deleted data from 1940 on, You can see the last point of the Briffa reconstruction (located at ~1940) peeking from behind the spaghetti in the graphic below:
Nice ‘bait and switch’, carefully edited to make it appear that you’re actually referring to the MBH98 paper that you claim has the ‘hide the decline’ in it. McIntyre is not discussing MBH98 as you claim above, it is from Briffa’s reconstruction as I’ve told you before, as clearly pointed out in the opening lines of the WUWT thread you linked to:
“Despite relatively little centennial variability, Briffa’s reconstruction had a noticeable decline in the late 20th century, despite warmer temperatures. In these early articles [e.g. Briffa 1998], the decline was not hidden.”
Thank you for confirming my point.
Yes, Briffa also used “Mike’s Nature trick”. But it was MICHAEL MANN’s Nature trick which is the fr@ud in the ‘hockey stick’ graph.
What is referred to as “Mike’s Nature trick” is plotting the data used to calibrate the proxies on the same graph as the calibrated proxies, clearly indicated as such, there is no ‘hidden decline’. This is not fr@ud, in fact it’s a desirable practice and the paper would probably have been criticized if that had not been done.
The judge will not allow discovery because the defendents by definition should have made their remarks based on what they already knew i.e. by definition they cannot rely on information that Mann has kept secret.
You’re mistaken. In the USA, truth is a defense to libel, so information that shows the statements were true is admissible (and thus discoverable). The plaintiff has to prove that the statements were false and that the defendant made them with knowledge or reckless disregard of their falsity.
this will be a modern day ‘miracle on 34th street’
RB,
The whole point of the action by Mann is that he was libelled by defamatory comments, the essence of which I listed. All investigations (& there were lots) into allegations of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data by Mann came to the same conclusions – no basis (page 8 of his complaint).
All the other bluster is just a side issue. I can see your point about the Nobel issue, but likewise I can see a case for the honour to be shared by those who put in the work.
This is what the complaint is focussing on;
“…. he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicised science”
“… been engaged in data manipulation”
“… fraudulent climate change ‘hockey-stick’ graph”
research was “intellectually bogus”
These statements are all incorrect, vicious & potentially damaging. I can entirely understand why he is taking action.
Mann, of course, is a prat but there’s something deeply sad about his compulsion to represent himself as having been awarded a Nobel prize. I know it’s a deeply devalued award nowadays, but what I find even sadder, is the blind compulsion of his followers to insist he actually won one. How could one sacrifice so much of ones dignity to protect such an obviously vain and venial person?
Looking at both Mann and his followers, I know we’re going to win in the end.
Pointman
Phil says:
“What is referred to as ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ is plotting the data used to calibrate the proxies on the same graph as the calibrated proxies, clearly indicated as such, there is no ‘hidden decline’. This is not fr@ud…”
You must be confusing this site with one of your alarmist blogs. Readers of WUWT know exactly what Mann tried to do, and yes, it was ‘fr@ud’. (IMHO, of course).
Even if Mann was awarded one, which he hasn’t been, it’s a Nobel “peace” prize nowadays It’s handed out to the leftist cause célèbre du jour. It’s meaningless from a scientific standpoint.
Now I’m glad I took down my youTube video when Mann threatened a lawsuit against me. I think it emboldened him into thinking that all he has to do is threaten a lawsuit and people comply. I didn’t have the time, energy or resources to take him on (remember my world headquarters is an RV). So now when he threatened NRO with a lawsuit and they didn’t back down, he is forced to follow through, because capitulating would be admitting guilt.
Phil.:
re your post at October 25, 2012 at 9:58 am.
Your post shows that I was mistaken in thinking I had removed your “wriggle room”. You still adhere to your patently wrong assertion.
READ THE LINKS I PROVIDED.
It was “Mike’s Nature trick” and NOT “Briffa’s Nature trick” although Briffa also used it.
No more argument. You are wrong. The links show beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
Admit it or go away.
Richard
Tim:
Your post at October 25, 2012 at 10:11 am states your misunderstanding. It says:
Those statements are each demonstrably true. And your failure to understand that is your misunderstanding.
It is also why Steyn is expressing such glee at the legal case.
Richard
IF !!!! as some above seem to think, this could be a ego builder for MM and not go to trial, NDO and CEI need to file counterclaims as soon as possible, so as when MM crawls back under his rock he finds a hard place.
When he withdraws his suit, if will join the Nobel as another win !
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.”
Where have you been the last 2 days? That’s pretty much all that has been discussed on this thread.
Oh wait – you are annoyed because most posters disagree with your viewpoint. Shame.
Regarding the picture of the price;
I think it is a “Thank you card” from the IPCC to Mann, for contributing to the IPCC’s price.
With a copy of the original price in the upper part. In norwegian.
However, he must have known about other data, indicating that his was the outlier here, and he must have known that it was dishonest to splice the data without outright saying so in a commentary field on the plot. “Mike’s Nature trick.”
So, maybe he is proud they got away with it?
Interesting times ahead. Will there be a Climategate 3.0 before Doha?
391 comments!! Oh well, I’ll add this to the pile: Whom the gods would destroy, they first award the Nobel Peace Prize. Or award acknowledgement of contribution to the award. More or less.
“Ivan Gorchev, sailor on the freight ship ‘Rangoon’, was not yet twenty-one when he won the Nobel Prize in physics.”
The 14-Carat Roadster by P. Howard (Rejtő Jenő)
“To win a scientific award at such a romantically young age is unprecedented, though some people might consider the means by which it was achieved a flaw. For Ivan Gorchev won the Nobel Prize in physics in a card game, called macao, from a Professor Bertinus, on whom the honour had been bestowed in Stockholm by the King of Sweden a few days earlier. But those who are always finding fault don’t like to face facts, and the fact of the matter is that Ivan Gorchev did win the Nobel Prize at the age of twenty-one.”
Remember, those who are always finding fault don’t like to face facts.
Heard some people talking about donating to help out Steyn and NRO. Don’t know about those guys, but the other two defendants, CEI and Rand Simberg, could also use help, and you can donate to them here: http://cei.org/support
If you want to support CEI and Simberg in this case, you can certainly make a donation to CEI’s support page right now: http://cei.org/support. Dunno about Steyn and NRO, though.
Question for Phil.
If you worked for the IPCC and had been presented with such a certificate by Pachuri, would you claim to have been awarded a Noble prize ? or would you claim to have contributed
Tim says: “They all sound pretty libelous to me.”
That is because you do not know what the bar is for Libel. Had you read some of the comments already posted here (and previously) you would know the bar is very high, and a stretch for MM even with him jumping atop a stepladder.
A couple of previous commenters have a likely scenario for this case: If you have an Ego willing to pay enough money, you can find a lawyer willing to take your case; regardless of the chances of winning.