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.
Mickey Reno and Phil:
I wrote to Mickey Reno at October 26, 2012 at 10:49 am saying
Phil wrote at October 26, 2012 at 11:22 am …
Quad Erat Demonstrandum
Richard
My money says this a short sale.
Mann has gotten what he needed.
Now he can say he sued the skeptics for their lies.
Now he can drop the lawsuit.
The MSM and Mann’s followers would never do a real investigation so who knows the truth?
Unless someone involved can counter with a good lawsuit, there will be no further fanfare.
He was exonerated originally, skeptics lied, he sued…End of story.
cn
To Phil:
I don’t think you’re really that backward so it appears to me you are choosing to omit the facts.
We didn’t coin the phrase “Mike’s Nature trick” or “Hide the decline”. I believe that might have been Phil Jones in one of the climategate emails. Alarmists say “trick” is just working man’s jargon but they don’t explain what it is that’s declining that they need to hide. Trick’s ok hide’s not.
I’m guessing you haven’t read the climategate emails. That’s where I think you’re missing the rest of the story. One might be surprised what one could learn. I was.
You should do your best to work your way through the “harry_read_me” file.
You might ask as I did, “where’s the real data”?
Between Mike, Kevin, James and Phil one wonders what other tricks they may have used to create their data, remove a journal editor or get themselves an award. I shudder to think of what’s in climategate 3.
The alarmist’s big problem is, if there is a problem with the climate, the consequences of that problem are manageable. Alarmists cannot accept that premise. Worse yet they cannot prove that today’s weather is abnormal for earth.
cn
Yikes, Mann’s Facebook page is truly hilarious. This sad little man must be sitting behind his computer 18 hours a day as a bunch of fawning warmists constantly stroke his hockey stick. I wish he’d get off already.
Nobel Committee: Okay, because I’ve got something from Boston and NY Mental Examiner that asked about the same thing.
Didn’t she say “Enviro-mental Examiner”?
Phil performs a useful service. He makes us check then double check what we say, and that is good and entirely right in a civilised debate.
If Mann and the team had had a similar opposing view then we would not be in the mess we are in, vis climate science, and Mann would not be in the mess HE is in , vis his ‘Nobel award’
so I wonder if Phil can confirm that he has been equally vociferous in attacking some of the warmist nonsense that we have been subjected to recently. Maybe a comment or two attacking Gleik, Gergis and this Nobel award foolishness
or is it a one way street?
[+emphasis]
Forge? Impersonate?
The name Gleick comes to mind.
What are the penalties for submitting false documents to the courts?
Phil. says at October 26, 2012 at 10:24 am “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.”
So you now claim it is Prof Jones who is trying to molest the presentation of the data, not Briffa.
Who will you throw under the bus next?
Thus we see the split is between the US and UK climate hypochondriacs, not just a campaign against Briffa.
Oh and Phil, something that is described as ‘hiding the decline’ and ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ could never possibly indicate that nothing was being hidden by ‘Mike’. Hiding knowledge is not legitimate. He is just another Phil Jones.
Your English comprehension is as weak as your loyalty to British climatologists.
Mikey really Glicked the Nobel reference up.
Pass the popcorn my bag is getting empty!
“email inquiry from NY Mental Examiner?”
Cheese it! It’s the Brain Police!
Personalized No Bell Certificates to all warmistae and skeptics alike available at large discount
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NoBellCert.htm
Oh dearie, dearie me.
Poor Mikey grassed up by his own Nobel Prize Committee!
Misleading people about one’s qualifications and awards seems to be about the most serious offence an academic can commit.
McSteve reminded us of the dodgy cancer researcher who was finally unglued not for fiddling his data to the deteriment of terminally ill patients (about which the academic community was entirely sanguine) but for falsely claiming to have been a Rhodes Scholar some years before
http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/16/forensic-bioinformatics/
That the latter should be seen as a great sin while the former wasn’t even considered a misdemeanour says a lot about the warped system of values in academia.
But maybe this time it will come and bite Mikey in the bum. He has already plenty of enemies in the field and this will be manna from heaven.
And I wonder how many other IPCC AR4 members have been falsely claiming to be Nobel Laureates?
Apparently, Michael Mann has done nothing to correct the misconception that he was “awarded” or “received” or is the “recipient” or “winner” of a Nobel Prize or that he is a Nobel “lauriate” in numerous reports in the media or in interviews he has given.
A sample:
Agence France-Presse, 11/18/2010
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/11/18/10/expect-more-rain-heat-and-hurricanes-say-scientists
[…]
Mann, a Nobel-Prize winning scientist who was cleared of allegations of misconduct this year stemming from a series of leaked emails between scientists about climate change, said he too has learned from his experiences.
Just as he fraudulently does little to correct the common misconception that his hockey stick is about “global” (rather than Northern hemisphere only) warming. Just as he fraudulently downplayed the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Just as he fraudulently chose a timeline that omits other warmer episodes of the Holocene, to support the alarmist narrative that present warmth is “unprecedented”. And just as he fraudulently did little to inform people that the blade of his stick ends in an (exceptional) El-Nino.
[And, incidentally, just as Ross Gelbspan (early promoter of the climate-skeptic-tobacco-lobby-tactics meme) does little to dispell the notion that he is a Pullitzer Prize winner]
Failure to correct common (and damaging) misconceptions when you have ample opportunity to do so is almost as fraudulent as propagating those misconceptions yourself. Anyone who does so is a fraud.
———————————
One publication that really ought to know better does something similar with one of Mann’s cronies.
———————————
Mann now writes on his Facebook page
Mann’s justification for his claim is now a nascent ‘consensus’ opinion among IPCC co-authors. So those folks at the Nobel Committee with a different point of view must be “deniers”, “contrarians”, funded by Exxon and employing the tactics of the tobacco lobby. [/sarc]
———————————
Mann asks:
No, but I would like to see a map indicating the locations of the trees and other proxies used to create Mann’s hockey stick. I would like to know exactly how many trees were sampled at each location and the weight given to them in deriving the result. I would like to see separate graphs for each proxy before they are weighted and combined. I would like to see a graph overlayed onto Mann’s hockey stick showing the number of trees (and other proxy samples) used to derive the temperature for each year. Is that too much to ask?
I would like to see Mann’s stick extended to the present and back to the beginning of the Holocene (with whatever proxies can be found). I would like to see data from the Southern hemisphere (collected if necessary and) incorporated to make the graph “global”. Considering the billions being spent and that will be spent, based on the presmise that Mann’s stick props up, is that too much to ask?
Michael?
http://uptill1.com/2010/07/02/thats-some-diploma/
Wow, a certificate from the IPCC.
That has to be worth something..????? …………… Doesn’t it ???
Its probably more than 80gsm paper, so the logical purpose is out ……unless you are a masichist. 😉
Visit Michael’s homepage to see if he responds:
http://www.certificatecreator.com/
The Peace Prize was given primarily to Gore for his film and activism. In his film he used fake footage, talked of 100 foot sea level rise which only James Hansen agrees with, and pulled a number of other whoppers. The link between this film and “peace” is a complete mystery. Presumably someone thought climate change would cause wars? The hat tip to IPCC was secondary. If I was the recipient of a second-hand “recognition” from Pachauri related to a propagand piece by Gore with dubious connections to vague ideas about peace and still viewed myself as a serious scientist, I would simply put it away and never mention it. To believe that the public is impressed that a scientist got a peace prize (as one of 2000 contributors) smacks of delusion.
I thought the Nobel Peace Prize couldn’t be devalued more. I was wrong.
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.”
===============================================================
The Nobel Peace Prize comes with a cash award. I guess he knows now that the check didn’t get lost in the mail.
The Nobel Peace Prize is a slur on the good name of all noble peas!
DaveE.
Mann’s current Curriculum Vitae has this entry:
2007 Co-awarded (with other IPCC report authors) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv.php
However, there is an older copy with different wording:
2007 Co-awarded (along with several hundred other scientists) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for
involvement in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (lead author of chapter 2 of the
Third Assessment Report, 2001)
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Mann_Vitae.pdf
Why would he edit his Nobel entry?
1. To make it less “wordy”?
2. To inflate his own self importance?
I’m trying to think of more reasons…
Following Update 4:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Hahahahahahaha…cough cough, splutter, gasp…. HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahah! Oh my g….. Hahahahahahahahahah! What an absolute pri..HAHAHAHAHahahahahahahaha!
” Rob Dawg says:
October 26, 2012 at 12:16 pm
What are the penalties for submitting false documents to the courts?”
As sworn testimony, it could be perjury. I am not sure if statements made in the complaint are considered sworn testimony. I think that response to admissions is considered sworn. I know other responses (interrogatories) are usually not considered sworn testimony.
David
As a measurement of alarmist funding, hubris and claimed awards, the hockey stick is reasonably accurate.
Look at you all! Just look at you all….. Astonishing amount of bullshit, gossip, self-congratulation, sheer nastiness, wriggling & writhing. No wonder you aren’t taken seriously.