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.
Phil:
I write this as a courtesy to acknowledge that I read your post at October 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm. Thus you need not post your opinion again.
Richard
CEI has released it’s official statement on the lawsuit: http://cei.org/news-releases/climate-scientist-sues-cei. Also, they’re directly folks to comment, if they wish, on the Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/CompetitiveEnterpriseInstitute/posts/428205930566869
geran says: October 25, 2012 at 11:37 am
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.
——————————————————————————————
geran: If the court can be talked into doing grade school arithmetic, that 97% number is easily proven wrong. There are 31,000 scientists who signed the petition against catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). Reference: http://www.petitionproject.org/ So if 31,000 represent 3%, that must mean that must mean that over 1 million scientists agree that it is a problem. Nobody has ever gotten that many (or even a small fraction) claims from credible researchers.
Second, there have been over a thousand peer reviewed climate science papers similarly saying the CAGW is overblown. Reference: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Finally, science does not operate by consensus, and skepticism is an integral part of the scientific method. If skepticism is not allowed, it’s not science.
Even in the news: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-scientist-sues-for-defamation&WT.mc_id=SA_Facebook
richardscourtney says:
October 25, 2012 at 1:06 pm (Edit)
Steven Mosher:
At October 25, 2012 at 1:02 pm you say
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”
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
#################
Mann has already field tested this line. In his fight to keep his mails secret. His argument was that his collegues had written many things to him, some of those things would hurt other colleagues feelings. So if he wants to withdrawl he has a defense. He is protecting his friends who look worse than he does.
Careful, Mike is liable to blow a gasket and bring another lawsuit over that “fake Nobel laureate” quip.
I’ve seen better writing on any number of soap operas. Either Mann needs them now or if he as them the show should be canceled.
I just realized (and don’t believe anyone else has mentoned) MM’s tweet uses we rather than I. Is that the Royal We or a Freudian slip?
In related news, a couple of hours ago Mark Steyn did his weekly ten minute interview with Hugh Hewitt on Hewitt’s radio show and did not once mention the defamation suit by Michael Mann.
“On the other, the Nobel committee:
Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize.”
——————–
Sorry if this has been posted already but does someone have a link to the citation. It would be a shame if Mann’s name was on it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/12/gorecitation
There is a letter by CEI lawyers (linked above) summarizing the case before the suit was filed. I almost guarantee that Mann did not read it, just as he will not read Climate Audit. If he did, it makes his proceeding with the lawsuit even more irrational. It also does not seem that Mann’s lawyers read it because their complaint reads as if they did not. Why would you file a lawsuit that ignores the clearly stated weak points in your case? Only to throw one’s weight around.
“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.” “
Should have been written something like: He contributed to the efforts that resulted in the 2007 awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change along with Vice President Al Gore for having “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”
As written it is terribly false and misleading, typical Mann-erism.
“Each prize consists of a medal, personal diploma, and a cash award.”
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/
“In no case may a prize amount be divided between more than three persons.”
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/shortfacts.html
“Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. … … … 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.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml
“For the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released in 2007, over 3,500 experts coming from more than 130 countries contributed to the report (+450 Lead Authors, +800 Contributing Authors, and +2,500 expert reviewers providing over 90,000 review comments). ”
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml#
No mention of Mann by name. Hmmm.
Unless the Judge is a true believer, I don’t see how he/she couldn’t at least suspect if not conclude that Mann is a data manipulator (fact twister, spinmeister, truth stretcher, liar, charlatan, fake, fraud, swindler, con, quack (appropriate since he’s a Dr.), etc.) on just that alone.
Good ole Phil, sinking deeper into the quicksand with every twist, grunt and wriggle.
The more he goes into trying to defend the minutae of Mann’s (and Briffa’s) malpractice, the larger looms the words ‘HIDE the decline’ and ‘Mike’s Nature TRICK’.
Why would a ‘S’cientist wish to ‘HIDE’ anything or ‘TRICK’ anyone?
A parallel example is Dr Phil Jones’ Climategate email…’ I HOPE you’re not right about the LACK OF WARMING lasting till 2020′.
Why would Dr Jones lament the ‘lack of warming’….and what exactly is ‘lack of warming’ in the context of ever increasing CO2 levels if not the complete abnegation of ALL alarmist predictions?
But please Phil, keep up the good work because we know that if you’re suffering then all your Warmist chums are suffering too, and that means a lot to the rest of us who have had to put up with twenty years of Warmist Drivel™.
The only “person” named explicitly in the citation is Al Gore.
“So we’re being sued for loss of reputation by a fake Nobel laureate. Hilarious.”
…….. Hahahahahaha…. This is gold. It honestly doesn’t get funnier than that.
Mann is toast. I can’t remember the exact Climategate email, but there’s one where Mann is working on a recommendation for Phil Jones and calculates a publishing factor for Jones. He calculates a high value, discovers that it includes a different value, runs the analysis correctly to get the lower value, then knowingly and willingly uses the higher value in his recommendation. This is proof of his character and will destroy Mann’s credibility on the witness stand.
Sorry, meant to say “discovers that it includes a different Phil Jones”
Of course Mann is a liar.
Climate Alarmists are by self-definition utopianists – (as they believe that there is an ideal global climate and believe it should be static) – and all utopianists are delusional liars who are willing to do just about anything to usher in their version of utopia.
This utopianist urge is why Stalin and Mao and Salafists were all willing to commit genocide; if you believe you can make things perfect, then there’s just about nothing you won’t do to bring that dream into reality.
Lying – and twisting facts to fit your agenda – is certainly a lesser evil than genocide, and climate alarmists lie all the time.
And in a way; they are committing genocide, albeit slowly and surreptitiously: by limiting industrial development of the Third World and by driving the cost of energy and food up, the alarmists are indirectly responsible for persistent poverty in the Third World and the premature death that has resulted.
Dan says: “Mann = Lance Armstrong”
I can’t agree with that, to my best recollection Armstrong never made a comment on whether he had or hadn’t taken any performance enhancing drugs, just that he had never been caught, and the officials really tried to get him directly with a positive test and failed. there is 192 banned substances
The word said today in Rolling Stone Magazine by Barack H Obama, “Bullshitter”, in this whole Michael E Mann fiasco, comes to mind.
In New Zealand the trick is to counter sue which stops them from withdrawing and thus they are fixed into discovery etc.
It most likely is the same in US.
@Bill Treuren
October 25, 2012 at 8:25 pm
—————————————–
I think that the defendants will decide that such a counter-complaint would needlessly complicate things. Why get slogged down trying to prove charges that might be problematic when all you have to prove is that Mann is arguably a fraud perpetrating a hoax? And that you have every right to characterize him as such?
But then, Ianal.
Whatever they do, don’t file to dismiss. Instead the defense lawyer should immediately file for discovery on all those documents that they have been trying so hard to avoid producing for public scrutiny while simultaneously filing a countersuit in California using the anti-SLAPP law. Mann will back down to avoid discovery resulting from his lawsuit, but they might be able to use the countersuit to keep the process open.
And don’t forget to refuse to accept any secrecy agreements for the documents, pointing out that they should already be public under the freedom of information act. Mann will be sweating bullets.
From now on, I suggest we all refer to Mann as “fake Nobel Laureate Micheal Mann”