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.
Justa Joe says: “… it’s a Nobel “peace” prize nowadays It’s handed out to the leftist cause célèbre du jour.”
Or for what you might potentially do, as in the case of one recipient announced 1,112 days ago.
Richard, I’m sorry you think they are true. We will have to wait & see what the legal profession think.
Vince, that was not the thrust of the majority of the posts. I’m not annoyed, just amazed at all this wriggling around trying to find reasons not to understand the reality of the situation we’ve made serious contributions towards. Amused too. You are all astonishing!
I share the concerns of those here that are concerned about the possible lack of “justice”.
I am not an attorney, but “Supreme Court of District of Columbia” is a red flag.
Also, and I hate to post “second-hand” info (especially on such a great science site), but I have been told that the “97% consensus” poll has already been ruled as evidence in some courts.
Our “justice” systems does not do science (facts) very well, especially where politics are involved.
From Steyn’s comments on NRO:
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.
Priceless!!!!
MtK
Roger Knights – – -asked for chapter and verse where the IPCC have said 10,000 people were involved in the IPCC award and that they cannot claim to be a Nobel recipient.
Here is a link to “Greek University Reform Forum” with an exchange of letters seeking to clarify whether greek scientists reported in the Greek press as having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for working with the IPCC, was accurate. The answer to that question came from the IPCC Secretariat. The answer is clear. Mann cannot claim he was a recipient of anything other than a certificate of appreciation sent by Pachauri.
http://greekuniversityreform.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/nobelistes/
First thing I’d do is contact the Nobel Prize committee here:
http://www.nobelprize.org/contact/
And find out what the hell is going on.
I don’t appreciate the once prestigious Nobel Prize being used these days for political advocacy agendas. The Nobel Prize is now completely discredited and useless.
My scientific findings point to the Human Induced Climate Change Agenda, as a cover for justifying Geo Engineering programs currently going on, for whatever reasons hidden and otherwise.
Further to my comments concerning the Greek University Reform Forum, it’s my belief from the commentary on that site (although the greek alphabet is beyond me!) that the letter reproduced below is that sent by Pachauri to those he wished to back-pat after the IPCC got the Nobel in 2007. So even Pachauri simply refers to what he’s sent as a “memento”. Nice. So Michael Mann has a memento.
Geneva, 7 April 2008
Dear Colleague,
I am very happy to send you a copy of the award certificate for the Nobel Peace Prize which was bestowed on the IPCC in 2007.
I would like you to know that the credit for this prestigious award goes to you and other colleagues who have contributed so admirably to the work of the IPCC.
We are providing a copy of this award only to those who have contributed substantially to the work of the IPCC over the years since the inception of the organization.
I know you would proudly cherish this memento which is richly deserved and earned by you.
With my congratulations & best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
RK Pachauri
Το certificate το παρέθεσε κάποιος παραπάνω. Είναι ένα αντίγραφο του βραβείου και από κάτω γράφει:
Presented to
Christos Zerefos
for contributing to the award of the
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
for 2007
@Tim O'Donovan. You seem to be persistently and wilfully ignoring Context. You cherry-pick phrases from the articles which you then opine are actionable ( and you claim malicious, although I fail to see how you can determine this without questioning )
Context is everything and will form one of the cornerstones of this defence.
Any reasonable individual upon reading those words would not consider them to be a libellous, malicious attack but for exactly what they were, rhetorical hyperbole.
Under US law as a public person, Mann won’t have a leg to stand on, he is open to a certain amount of ridicule and invites it. Due to the odd first amendment rights, Americans, especially those who deal in political satire, are free to behave in this manner.
I still think you are willing the allegations in the complaint to be true then looking for out of context phrases which might suit the allegation. it does not work that way.
I’ll keep saying it. The complaint says man was accused of academic fr@ud and likened to a paedophile and no amount of reading the articles will find those accusations made. Anything else written is either true or hyperbole written to entertain.
But if you are still having trouble understanding it perhaps the NR legal response to the initial threat might help you?
http://www2.nationalreview.com/pdf/2012-08-22_National_Review_Response_Letter.pdf
No court in the world will award damages for “first-degree butthurt”
Really, it’s time for the passwort for ClimateGate 3 to kick Mann where he belongs to… waste bin.
If Mann really started this for his reputation, he’d better start amending his complaint while there’s still something left of it.
Ryan says:
October 25, 2012 at 9:25 am
“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.”
Wow.
Pray tell, what do you imagine the discovery process is for, if not to discover information and evidence that you do NOT already possess?
Sheesh.
Tim
“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science …. he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicised science”
This is a not a statement of fact that can be true or false it is a statement of opinion. “molested and tortured” are not factual descriptions. They are opinions about unspecified actions Mann took with data. “Mann destroyed Data” is factual. It is either true or false. Mann molested data is neither true or false. It expresses a protected opinion about how he treated data.
“Michael Mann …. had been engaged in data manipulation”
Also, a statement of opinion. Take a look at policies about academic fraud. The actions one has to take are quite specific : Faking data. Deleting data etc.
“MM was the man behind the fraudulent climate change ‘hockey-stick’ graph”
This is a statement of fact about the production of the chart and an opinion about the chart.
probably the one statement that might be worrisome. One reason why SKEPTICS should watch their damn language when they use the fraud word.
Lowry stated that his research was “intellectually bogus”
‘bogus’ is an opinion, not a statement of fact.
Mann will have a high hill to climb to establish that these are statements of fact.
Then, he will have to show that they are false. How does he show that he didnt manipulate
data when he clearly flipped Tiljander and they depose Tiljander herself and Kaufman who
corrected Mann’s mistake. Then he will have to show that the defendants knew they where false. Hard to prove a journalist should not regard Wegman. Then they will have to show that
they said this with malice.
Of course that all assumes that the Anti SLAPP card doesnt get played early on to make the whole circus leave town.
The “award” in Mann’s office pictured above is a certificate of appreciation from the IPCC, not the Nobel Committee. Note that in addition to the image of the Nobel Prize, it has the WMO and UNEP logos on it and is signed by R.K Pauchauri, IPCC Chairman, and Renate Christ, IPCC Secretary. This is not a document produced by the Nobel Committee, but is something the IPCC put together to show appreciation to its contributors.
Tim says:
October 25, 2012 at 2:37 am (Edit)
Steven,
The IPCC is a scientific body.
##########################
It is actually a governmental body and a scientific body
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml#.UImYFcWHIRs
Governments join as members.
“The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions. ”
The structure is noted here
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml#.UImYYcWHIRs
The members of the IPCC are governments. There are a few paid employees. There are thousands of volunteers
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.
#########################
You are wrong. the secretariat of the IPCC actually inquired of the Nobel Committe to see if he could claim to be a prize winner. He was informed that the Organization won the prize.
NO MEMBERS or volunteers to an organization can claim to be award winners. The award was made to Gore and the organization. Period. That issue was addressed long ago by the IPCC, the Nobel committee told them they could not have members claiming to be award winners, so the IPCC gave a commeration, not an award, to people.
You are wrong. The point is that Mann has mispresented his own work. Look at paragraph two. He had nothing to do with the documentation of modern warming.
In the end Mann will fight discovery. If he loses he will withdraw. His excuse will be brilliant.
” I am withdrawing because they want mails that will make my colleques look bad”
> ‘bogus’ is an opinion, not a statement of fact.
Actually i believe in the simon singh case, the British judge ruled bogus is not just untrue, but knowingly untrue – i.e. fraud.
That said my non lawyer’s opinion is that Mann’s chances of success in this lawsuit are low, for 2 reasons:-
1. Mann seems to rely on a proximity theory. If you say some phrase he doesn’t like (like “bogus” or “molestation” or “fraud”) in close enough proximity to his name, he considers it defamatory, even if no specific defamatory statement can be identified. I doubt the court would read documents this way.
(Oddly the proximity theory also works in Mann’s favor too: Mann = IPCC author, IPCC = Nobel *peace* prize winning organization, therefore Mann is a Nobel ___ prize winner (note: the absence of “peace” as well as claiming the prize)).
2. My limited experience of US libel law, is that it’s almost impossible for even a semi-public figure to win on much more direct specific defamatory claims. But that is another story…
Steven Mosher:
At October 25, 2012 at 1:02 pm you say
I had not thought of that. Yes, of course you are right. Thankyou.
I write this both to provide my thanks and to draw attention to your important point.
Richard
> In the end Mann will fight discovery. If he loses he will withdraw.
He may not have that option.
An aggressive defendant could oppose dismissal, and/or continue pursue counterclaims (such as a declaratory judgement that they didn’t defame Mann, or other counterclaims).
I have looked at this several times now and still can’t see how one could misconstrue the content to suggest that the topic of the comparison was M Mann. It was the university brass that was the subject of the sentence. The comparison was between the cover-up of sexual offences and the whitewashing given during the ‘investigation’ of M Mann’s activities. No comparison was made between Mann and the molestor as is obvious by the text. There is no doubt that there was a cover-up in the sex abuse case. There is also no doubt in the mind of a dispassionate observer that the investigation of M Mann’s work lacked any vigour. The comparison advanced the notion that both were cover-ups. Mann is not personally linked to the offender at all. The lawsuit is baseless.
Copner – US Libel law is a lot different from UK Libel law. So it matters not what an English judge has ruled.
He may not have that option. An aggressive defendant could oppose dismissal, and/or continue pursue counterclaims (such as a declaratory judgement that they didn’t defame Mann, or other counterclaims).
A foolish move – the last thing Steyn, NRO, and CEI should want is to get the case to a DC jury. (Or for that matter any jury that’s been through US public schools and follows US media…) The judge may tell them the issue is whether the defendants blamed the plaintiff; but the jury may decide the issue is whether they want to redistribute wealth from dirty, evil conservatives to noble, heroic Greens. Anything that gets rid of the case is better for the defendants. Hubris leads to nemesis – that can apply on both sides here.
err defamed the plaintiff…
richardscourtney says:
October 25, 2012 at 10:36 am
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.
I have and they support my position that there was no decline in MBH98 contrary to your assertion.
It was “Mike’s Nature trick”
Which was the co-plotting of the calibration data along with the proxies exactly as I said and did not lead to any ‘hiding of a decline’.
and NOT “Briffa’s Nature trick” although Briffa also used it.
Jones plotted Briffa’s data and the temperature data which covered up the decline in proxy data, and coined the phrase “Mike’s nature trick” and “hide the decline”!
No more argument. You are wrong. The links show beyond any doubt that you are wrong.
Admit it or go away.
Indeed there should be no more argument, the links you provided prove that you are wrong, it’s about time you admitted that you are wrong or go away.
As McIntyre said: “I recently re-visited an article in Science (Briffa and Osborn 1999), that, together with Jones et al 1999 (Rev Geophys), were the first bites of the poison apple of hide-the-decline. I observed that key conclusions in Briffa and Osborn 1999 depended on the rhetorical effect of deleting the decline from their spaghetti graph.”
None of this pertained to the MBH98 paper contrary to your assertion: “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”.
@Steven Mosher
October 25, 2012 at 12:48 pm
————————
Good post, Mosh. Every statement of Steyn and Simberg is arguably true, and there is no reason to assume that they knowingly believed them to be false. They are, as you say, “opinions.” They are based on various bits of circumstantial evidence, e.g. the Climategate emails. Anyone who says these statements are defamatory, doesn’t understand the law or the true nature of freedom of expression.
We have to respect the right of so-called opinion-makers to express their opinions, no matter how crudely.
The photo of Mann’s certificate would be even better if this occurred in January and there was a foot of snow in the background.