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.
I bet a close relative gave that to him as a feel good gift and Mann is having amnesia as to it’s origins.
A little Lithium drip should help take the edge off.
Well using Michael Mann’s logic every person in the EU can now print off their own personal Nobel peace prize certificate.
In light of:
i) The Norwegian Nobel Institute’s response and
ii) Michael Mann’s now conflating the latter with “d*niers” and
iii) He and his followers – unbelievably – continuing to parrot the party line on both his facebook page and twitter,
May I be the first to say:
Ahahaahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! *takes breath* …ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Taphonomic says:
October 26, 2012 at 9:41 am
Indeed. Interesting visual. Spinning yarns about hockey stick blades and Nobel awards whilst fingering his steel balls.
Oh … ouch … SKEWERED!
Skewer: “A skewer is a thin metal or wood stick used to hold pieces of food together. They are used while grilling or roasting meats … ”
.
Using Mike’s Nobel Trick I was named Times “Person of the Year” in 2006!
@Glenn Skankey (right at the beginning of these comments!)
“…I don’t feel comfortable criticizing his alleged misuse of principal components analysis or the fact that MacIntyre apparently replicated his model and found that it produces hockeystick predictions from any dataset. They seem to have incredibly aggressive and complex defenses against all that…”
Indeed. I have tried to understand what the issues are. I have followed McIntyre’s ‘de-centred’ arguments, but the difficulty is deciding what sort of manipulations are acceptable if this is a field you have never worked in before.
However, we do have the testimony of Ian Joliffe, who wrote the book (literally) on PCA. Dr Joliffe is not a climate specialist, but he firmly believes in AGW and the consensus, so he is in no way biased against Mann. He is on record in Tamino’s blog as saying that he cannot understand Mann’s mathematical manipulations, as they don’t make sense. (Hey, I like that! MMM!)
In that blog (sorry I haven’t got the reference), he continues by saying that he is sure that other research will back up the truth of AGW. So I think that Joliffe is a scientist from another discipline who has been fed the AGW Koolaid, but is still fundamentally a good scientist, and unwilling to lie or dissemble in the areas of his expertise. His misgivings make me much firmer in my belief that the MMMs we are discussing are in fact phoney…
The certificate in the picture is from the IPCC, not the Nobel Committee. Possibly it’s worth the paper it’s printed on, but probably not.
John Whitman says:
October 26, 2012 at 9:22 am
” . . . now I realize that I am also a Nobel Prize winner too. Yeah, Obama as a US president got the Nobel Prize and since I am US citizen it means I got the Nobel Prize too. : )”
Well, I think that you can only claim a part of Obama’s Nobel prize if you voted for him – so I am, sadly, not a (partial) Nobel recipient like Mike Mann…[heh].
Considering Trenberth’s preoccupation with getting momentos of the IPCC effort, I am led to wonder if he is the Nobel Laureate who prodded the production of the fake momento certificates.
From the opening post up above on this thread:
.
On the one hand, [from] Michael Mann’s own web page:
On the other, the Nobel committee [states]:
“Only persons named explicitly in the citation may claim to share a Nobel Prize.
.
.
PS. I just checked his webpage; it’s still showing as noted above …
.
He is not the only one wrongly claiming to have won the Nobel Peace prize. Check out this article on Steve Running at wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Running.
Out of interest, would a Nobel Prize winner reasonably expect to gain financially from holding that honour? In terms of prospective employment, successful grant bids etc?
If he would then it seems to me that his claim to the Court of being a “Nobel Prize winner” isn’t just dishonest but amounts to fraud in itself. What exactly is the penalty in the US for making fraudulent claims to a Court?
Blackswhitewash says:
October 26, 2012 at 9:19 am
Michael Mann strikes me as a person who has a mental illness.
________________________
Nobel Committee: Okay, because I’ve got something from Boston and NY Mental Examiner that asked about the same thing.
——————-
email inquiry from NY Mental Examiner?
M Courtney says:
October 26, 2012 at 12:17 am
From what Phil says at October 25, 2012 at 9:58 am I assume he thinks that Briffa committed a “fr@ud”.
Like your father you appear to be having difficulty understanding what’s written.
To recap:
1)In MBH98 & 99 a reconstruction was performed based on a multiproxy approach, it did not show a recent ‘decline’ or exhibit ‘divergence’. The plot included the calibrated proxy data and the temperature data used to calibrate, quite properly, no hiding of anything.
2)Briffa undertook reconstructions which were solely based on tree data and found that a certain subset of the trees showed a divergence from their local temperatures (those from the northern boreal forests). This divergence was indicated and extensively discussed in Briffa’s papers,he even drew attention to it by using the following title in a letter to Nature: “Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes”.
So he certainly wasn’t trying to hide it, he was trying to explain why those particular trees were no longer a good proxy for the local temperature.
3)Phil Jones in preparing graphics in which he wanted to include his colleague, Briffa’s reconstruction apparently wanted to de-emphasize the divergence shown by Briffa’s data. He chose to do this by plotting the temperature over the decline in Briffa’s data. He referred to this in an email as ‘hiding the decline’ and ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ even though Mann didn’t hide anything in his paper’s.
While that may be good support for Mann it does throw the CRU under a bus.
Phil, you may want to be careful next time you meets any UK climatologists.
Why, they did exactly what I said and have acknowledged that they did.
Even so, that Briffa (who Phil indicates committed a “fr@ud”) refers to “Mike’s Nature trick” at all doesn’t greatly support Mann.
I didn’t ‘indicate’ any such thing. As I said it was Phil. Jones who christened it “Mike’s Nature trick”, that he used Mann’s perfectly legitimate procedure to cover something up doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong in using it for its original purpose.
How Mike enables “fr@ud”in his own work and Briffa’s is less important than that he does.
A point which Phil has conceded.
I certainly made no such concession, see above.
Your father’s repeated assertion that Mann had a ‘divergence problem’ in MBH98 & 99 and plotted Temperature data to ‘hide the decline’ is false which is why I rebutted it, that he declines to withdraw the assertion and is unable to support his assertion, speaks volumes.
{ The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
October 26, 2012 at 7:44 am
“I’m with Andy L, above: “From now on, I suggest we all refer to Mann as “fake Nobel Laureate Micheal Mann” }
While some of you folks may be too young to understand this, I suggest we henceforth refer to Michael Mann as:
Tricky Micky
He’s been trying to slip a micky on us for 15 years.
Not a true mental illness, more of a personality disorder. He’s more or less socially functional. He’s handicapped by excess ego and a serious dose of vanity. The conflation of Nobel “contribution” and “award” reveals that. But nearly all prominent scientists share serious ego to a degree. Without it, they don’t possess enough force of character to get people to pay attention to their ideas. You have to be able to insist. But a really successful scientist can also put up a barrier between ego and critical thought. If they can’t, they become wedded to their original ideas and can’t drop them when something more interesting comes along. Too much ego and you can be found defending the indefensible – like climate models that don’t work.
This comment lasted about 5 minutes on the FB page:
“Probably best not to take credit for the effort of the commons”
That’s lefty speak for “you didn’t build that”.
Mickey Reno says:
October 26, 2012 at 9:03 am
I read with some amusement (and some frustration, too) the back-and-forth between Richard Courtney and Phil. On one point, Phil is correct to say that Mann in his 98 hockey stick paper didn’t use Briffa’s divergent data. But it’s wrong of Phil to then conclude that the divergence problem doesn’t have anything to do with Mann. The term “Mike’s Nature Trick” derives from Mann’s exclusion of a PORTION of Briffa’s proxy record during the entire late 20th century warming period, which PORTION would have shown the divergence problem in Mann’s paper, too.
No it doesn’t it derives from Phil Jones’s preparation of a graphic in which he used the plotting of temperature data to obscure the ‘decline’ at the end of Briffa’s reconstruction.
“Nobel Committee: Okay, because I’ve got something from Boston and NY Mental Examiner that asked about the same thing.” (bold mine)
Too funny! More popcorn, please.
Mann is now saying that many IPCC contributors make the same Nobel claim.
Another failure of peer review.
Lemmings.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. If you lie about one thing, you will lie about everything.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Shhhhhhhhhh………
Frank K. says:
October 26, 2012 at 10:11 am
Well, I think that you can only claim a part of Obama’s Nobel prize if you voted for him – so I am, sadly, not a (partial) Nobel recipient like Mike Mann…[heh].
– – – – – – –
Frank K.,
: ) Good one.
Although I have never voted for anyone named Obama and won’t this November either, I still claim ownership of Obama’s Nobel Prize while he was US president. As a US citizen I paid for his salary and the expenses of his presidential executive office, his prize is mine too.
John,
The Nobel Prize Recipient (of the Mannian Order of Nobel Prize Delusionists)
This twx just in from MM:
“I’m just as surprised as you all are to learn that I’m not really a Nobel Laureate. Maybe that explains why I wasn’t invited to speak at the ceremony and didn’t receive the Nobel cash in the mail.”/s