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 says:
October 26, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Gunga,
my point exactly, no science, no fact on here, just gossip and pathetic insults
No Facts? Let’s see…there’s a reference to Mike’s CV and the photo of Mikes certificate claiming the Nobel Prize…and links to verification that the Nobel Committee has not awarded Mike the Nobel Prize. I wouldn’t say that’s gossip…those are actual facts…something the climotologist crowd has difficulty in generating for themselves as pertaining to their “science”.
And if Mann is so inclined to make up “facts” for his CV, what other facts might he be inclined to make up.
Here’s another fact: I work in Big Pharma and I’ve known people fired for falsifying their resumes/CV’s. One guy claimed he only had a BS degree and 5 years later they found out he actually had a PhD….guess what…FIRED! There is no tolerance in Pharma for dishonesty when you’ve got the FDA and other agencies breathing down your neck constantly. Academia could benefit from a little oversight.
Well, here’s an interesting tidbit…
Early this afternoon, I grabbed a screenshot of Mann’s CV located on his homepage:
http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/4181/manncv.png
Just paid a visit to the originating URL:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv.php
Have we caught Mann back-peddling?
Mods- Perhaps this is worthy of an updaie…?
mandas says:
October 26, 2012 at 5:44 pm
I seem to recall that Chis Monckton also claimed to be a Nobel Laureate for his contribution to the IPCC in 2007.
Anyone want to criticise him as well, or are your criticisms restricted only to those people you don’t like?
Hypocrites!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I saw him speak in Sacramento earlier this year, and yes he did say something like that …. as a joke.
Let the re-writes begin!
Reference this post on WUWT earlier today (Fri, the 26th) the wording on Michael Mann’s Biographical Sketch on the meteo.psu.edu website has been changed –
from:
. . He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.
to:
. . He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
The re-write vis-a-vis false Nobel Laureate claiming looks to have commenced en masse.
.
Sleepalot
What Mann’s lawyers submit to the court for Mann by way of pleadings is his and taken as being from him. All admissions, denials and statements within are taken as being from Mann.
Despite Mann now sating that he and others have “found” it to be the case that the certificate of involvement from the IPCC has been “translated” into a statement of winning the prize, (as if this is something that has somehow happened without their involvement), and quite aside from the written legal complaint, he says it explixitly on his website and did so in his latest book, and has it seems allowed it to be written of him many times where he could have corrected the error.
Mandas,
Monckton is actualy discussed briefly earlier in the thread. But he hasn’t just issued defamation proceedings in which he specifically states that he shared or was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, when such is not true.
As a false claim from an academic (for whom his CV, publication record. citations, and list of related awards etc. are the basis of status and earning power) it is a matter of serious concern that this false claim has been made continually for years.
As a false claim in legal proceedings which is made as a means to establish the esteem of the plaintiff and with a financial purpose – the higher or more distinguished the reputation the higher the damages – this is a source of difficulty now for Mann.
But you are right this claim should be criticised wherever it is made (Trenberth, etc.). Oddly the only people I have found who engage in asserting this obvious falsehood are warmist activist scientists.
Pouncer says:
October 26, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Hi Mandas,
If Monckton did claim to be a 2007 Peace Prize winner — which I don’t recall, and if you would, please, provide citations — I suspect it was with much the same tone and with the same intent that Steyn claims to be a 2012 winner (as citizen of the EU). Not claiming an honor but emphasizing the dilution.
But I could be wrong, which is why I’d be interested for the citation and opportunity to see the quote in full context.
It appears to be a open letter to John McCain, hardly the occasion for levity I would have thought? He even wears a gold Nobel prize pin apparently.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/Letter_to_McCain.pdf
Excerpt: “His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 – the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise – earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA.”
My corporate lawyer used to say “when you point finger a finder at someone, remember there are three pointing back at YOU.”. And the other one was: “If you sue, remember that the countersuit is usually an order of magnitude larger.”
Phil. says: “To recap:”
You can recap, and recap, and recap all you want trying to defend the Faux Nobel Laurette. However, the FNL cherry picked the data to plot with his Hockey Stick graph. Had FNL plotted (honestly) years prior to 1,000 and the most recent years, there would have been no Hockey Stick.
But all that is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is experts have demonstrated to FNL (and others) that FNL’s Hockey Stick is broken and his work has flaws. Despite that, FNL has continued to standby his work and Hockey Stick. That makes FML less than honest (to put it as politely as possible).
_Jim says:
October 26, 2012 at 6:41 pm
RT says October 26, 2012 at 5:53 pm
from:
. . He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.
to:
. . He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
The re-write vis-a-vis false Nobel Laureate claiming looks to have commenced en masse.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Too late to change the court filing though, ha ha.
mandas
You can pull your silly head out of your silly butt any time now.
“A quick question to our friends in the US – Is this a lawsuit that can be SLAPPed?”
Meaning?
###############
yes strangely Mann selected a venue that has SLAAP. Never been tested. could all be thrown out on day one if the defendents SLAPP Mann.
Venues [usually States] that have a SLAPP law allow defendants to recover costs from plaintiffs if a suit is deemed frivolous or harrassing. [IANAL]
Will Kevin Trenberth say the mistake in translation is excused because they were all juniors in Nobel receiving at the time
“
Amazing what Steyn can accomplish between breakfast and caring for a sick kid. 2000 Wiki edits. Wait till he has more time after the election. Mann, I really feel for you. I’m sure you’ll do better on the witness stand.
I found the following rather amusing:
richardscourtney says:
October 26, 2012 at 10:49 am
Mickey Reno:
Your post at October 26, 2012 at 9:03 am is clear, good and accurate. I accepted your correcting my statements but Phil has objected to your having corrected his.
Mickey’s correction of Richard was as follows:
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.
So Richard accepts the correction when Mickey makes it but when I originally made the correction he denied it, blustered and in his own words ‘goaded’ me!
Priceless! XD
Mann is shown to be a fraud! Even altering an ‘image’ with his name … oh yeh! the [snip] did do that himself and now he is CAUGHT RED HANDED and all the world knows it.
Love the Chat:
“Nobel Committee: Okay, because I’ve got something from Boston and NY Mental Examiner that asked about the same thing.”
A call from the NY Mental Examiner! PRICELESS! THIS ROCKS! Sick the NY Mental Examiner on Hansen and Gavin for crying out loud! And put them all in the same mental asylum, on a small island, far far away. [snip]
LOL 8D
Phil.,
A direct question: are you Phil Plait from the Bad Astronomy blog?
I think the Nobel Committee representative accidentally summed up the inevitable outcome of this legal trantrum:
Nobel Committee: Thank you. You’re welcome. Bye bye.
M Courtney says:
October 26, 2012 at 12:39 pm
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?
Indeed I consistently stated that it was Phil Jones who did that with Briffa’s data for a WMO document. I’m afraid that Prof Jones threw himself under that particular bus as you put it. Here is a quotation from an interview he gave:
Q – Let’s talk about the e-mails now: In the e-mails you refer to a “trick” which your critics say suggests you conspired to trick the public? You also mentioned “hiding the decline” (in temperatures). Why did you say these things?
This remark has nothing to do with any “decline” in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years.
The phrase ‘hide the decline’ was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.
This “divergence” is well known in the tree-ring literature and “trick” did not refer to any intention to deceive – but rather “a convenient way of achieving something”, in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.
I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time – an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report.</em.
Quod erat demonstrandum
Phil. says:
October 26, 2012 at 7:25 pm
+++++++++++++++++++
As someone further up the thread said, Phil., you can give up now.
From your simple physics, spectroscopic proof of anthropogenic global warming 3 years ago (or so?) to this ??
You’re not just past your sell-by date …… you’re lucky the internet doesn’t have scratch and sniff by now.
Give it up dude.
Please answer my 7:37 pm question, Phil.
THE PILTDOWN MANN
The jawbone of a modern monkey attached to the skull of a medieval human. And the name a byword for scientific fraud.
Eugene WR Gallun
Phil,
I’d appreciate it if you’d curtail your attempts to hijack this thread.
The topic of discussion is Michael Mann and Mark Steyn.
Thank you.
Phil. says:
October 26, 2012 at 7:42 pm
I consistently stated that it was Phil Jones who did that with Briffa’s data for a WMO document. I’m afraid that Prof Jones threw himself under that particular bus as you put it.
—-
Who cares? You’re splitting hairs about who is the most corrupt. They’re all corrupt — in their own unique corrupt way — that’s why they consistently dodge FOIA requests.
It sickens me that taxpayer funded “Scientists” have a “Cause” — a propaganda agenda. Doesn’t bother you Phil? Do you pay taxes? What do you do for a living?
lighten up folks…
24 Oct: PR Web: Population Control and Fresh Water Resources Should Be Top Global Priorities Says Former NASA Climatologist
Economic Growth, and Human Survival Depend on Water and Population Control. Special Report by DeWayne Cecil, PhD, on Sharon Kleyne Hour Radio Talk Show
That was the conclusion of DeWayne Cecil, PhD, in an interview on the Sharon Kleyne Hour Power of Water radio show, October 15, 2012. Dr. Cecil was a researcher for NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and currently works for the National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina…
According to Dr. Cecil, Earth’s climate has definitely evolved in the last 50 years but if you examine the record of glacial ice cores, lake sediments and ancient tree rings, weather pattern are naturally cyclical. How much of the current global drying and warming is human caused, and whether it is cyclical or permanent, remains be determined.
“The study of weather and climate is not just about whether to wear a coat,” says Dr. Cecil. “It’s about our survival as a species.” According to Dr. Cecil, Earth can only sustain a half-billion people in a “Western” consumption oriented lifestyle whereas Earth’s population recently passed seven billion. According to Dr. Cecil, there are only enough resources on Earth to sustain about a half-billion people in the current “Western” lifestyle…
Sharon asked about the difference between “climate” and “weather.” According to Dr. Cecil, “climate” is “weather” averaged out over a long period. In other words, “climate is what you expect and weather is what you get.”
“We can predict weather fairly accurately to about ten days in advance,” says Dr. Cecil, “but our ability predict weather over two to 20 years is less accurate…
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/10/prweb10050733.htm
DeWayne Cecil
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dewayne-cecil/36/346/5a1