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.
Eugene WR Gallun says:
October 26, 2012 at 8:07 pm
THE PILTDOWN MANN
———————————————————————————————————————–
LOL!
In the climategate emails, there was one with someone nominating Phil Jones for some honorary membership or something similar, and Phil was guessing at his score on the number of citations, I think. Was it Mann ?
@ur momisugly D Böehm says: ….
I did consider that myself. Phil Plait is a person I have, on the whole, a great deal of respect for but because of his unscientific and unfailing support fro the anthropogenic global warming theory I had to stop following him on twitter.
Prior to that we had some great conversations. He’s a likeable and knowledgeable chap. which always confuses me when these type of people toe the liberal party line on AGW without question.
Personally I would like to know who ‘Tim’ is.
David Ross:
Your list of Nobel Peace Prize recipients leaves out a very important and fully justified Nobel Peace Prize — namely the one that was awarded to Nelson Mandela and South Africa’s president Frederik Willem de Klerk for bringing apartheid to an end.
Reference to the 2007 Nobel Prize has been scrubbed from Mann’s Wiki page…. By Tim Osborn. Scroll down towards the bottom of the page to read his talk comments before he made the edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_E._Mann
The Bear has checked the Mann webpage which claims, vis-a-vis the Nobel Prize, that: `He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize’.
Whether or not one agrees with the merit of that award, this statement seems 100% accurate.
The `certificate’ shown on Mann’s Facebook appears to be from the IPCC, not the Nobel Committee. The Bear sees nothing wrong (per se) with the institution (IPCC) giving recognition to the actual humans responsible (Mann and others) for the `institutional achievement’. In fact, the IPCC would look petty if it did not give due where due was due (so to speak).
OK, so the claim on Mann’s website re being jointly `awarded’ the Nobel Prize was recently changed to `contributed to’. Embarrassing, I guess. But, re the upcoming litigation there is nothing much in this.
Akin to the recent posting here, some climate guy used the word `unlikely’ but was criticized on this blog as if he said `can’t’, the Bear is worried this blog may be making too much out of stray words, here and there. An experienced judge in a defamation trial would have no time for verbal gimmickry such as this.
Let me explain (the Bear is an experienced trial lawyer).
The gist of Mann’s reputation claim is that he is accepted by his peers as an esteemed expert in his field. Like it or not, the overwhelming evidence on that point at trial will be in Mann’s favor.
The fact that, after litigation based on this reputation claim commenced, Mann had to clarify some rubbish wording on his Facebook page or website (re being jointly awarded or contributing to a Nobel Prize) will be of little moment at trial.
In fact, experienced defense counsel may be best advised to leave it alone, lest the defense come across as petty and desperate for real points.
The point is also unlikely to survive until the trial, and is likely to be killed off very quickly.
Unless Mann’s lawyers are a bit slow, their response will be swift, predictable and effective: `As soon as the error was pointed out to our client he immediately corrected it. Mr Mann has apologized for any confusion and, as a scientist, is thankful to those who identified the error. (Insert further angelic/motherhood words of choice).’
Mann’s lawyers will probably set this walk-back out in a letter to the Nobel Prize Committee, the IPCC and defense lawyers, sometime this week. They will also ask the defense to consent to a motion amending Mann’s statement of claim, to correct the trial record. If the defense lawyers refuse their consent to amend Mann’s filing, they will come across as petty time wasters.
If this issue is still raised by the defense at trial, the judge will (very predictably) say: `Why are you wasting my time on this? It was dealt with pre-trial. Move on.’
Many environmentalists display symptoms similar to the so called “Münchhausen Syndrome by Proxy” [A compulsion to regularly diagnose, and even more regularly exaggerate, sickness and death of “Gaia/Mother Earth”?]. And yet it is skeptics who have recently been the subject of some notoriously poor mental ‘research’ as a result of singing from the wrong hymn-sheet. That’s a triple serving of irony, if ever there was one.
I suspect even at the IPCC there might be a few people who would bury their head in a newspaper if they saw Mann getting on the same bus or train. I doubt if many IPCC authors travel long distances much on Greyhound Coaches, but if they did, they might meet a few other people who claim to been awarded a Nobel Prize of some flavour.
At the back of the bus they might also meet someone like Al Gore claiming to have invented the internet.
No, you can’t. Just because material is discoverable does not mean it can be disclosed. Once used in evidence, then it may become public. But the act of providing the material for purposes of a discovery request does not relinquish the custodian’s rights in regards to that material. Crowd sourcing the documents would irrevocably taint the documents for purposes of legal proceedings. What you’re suggesting is a very, very bad idea. Not that I have any fear that any associate or partner at Baker Hostetler would ever do such a thing.
another bucket full of money for all the lawers
The Bear appears to be a little narcissistic with his use of the 3rd person but allow the Zoot to interject.
The point here is that Mann has used this claim, despite being on notice, for a number of years. he explicitly allowed his representative to describe him as the recipient of a Nobel peace prize in their complaint. it’s a claim that Man has personally made on much more than his farcebook page.
It is a little late to say he’s addressed it when notified because he’s been told for years about it and all he does is trot out the photo and the “if it’s fake then why are my colleagues (Trenberth) saying the same?” argument
The Zoot believes that this is germane to the case as it speaks to the plaintiff’s integrity.
It’s not the point although it should rightly be a point.
I accept the gist of the rest of the Bear’s comment however ludicrous the Zoot finds his manner of addressing us.
Tim says:
October 26, 2012 at 1:36 pm
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.
Wriggling and writhing? Hahaha! We’re not the ones about to be put under the microscope. The projection is palpable! Astonishing indeed!
Mann gets caught red-handed lying about the Nobel prize but it’s us skeptics who are in the wrong. You truly cannot fathom the mind of the brainwashed environ-mentalist.
Hey Phil .. What do you think about the Muller Analysis of Mann et al hockey stick.. You remeber Muller? the ex-sceptic the person that believes in Global Warming.
TBear:
At October 26, 2012 at 10:17 pm you say
I am not a lawyer and not an American so I write to ask a genuine question.
Your claim seems to make no sense. Mann sued for defamation of his reputation on the basis of statements made by the defendants prior to anything done between when they made the statements and the trail. Importantly, Mann is claiming damage to his reputation prior to his adjusting an ‘error’ which pretended his reputation was other than it was at the time of the articles which he claimed defamed him.
How can the judge rationally claim it has been “dealt with pre-trial” when Mann has not withdrawn the case?
The matter cannot be claimed to be moot because the false assertion of reputation which suffered damage was made to the Court on Mann’s behalf as part of his claim for damages. Any time wasting could only be an attempt on Mann’s behalf to remove from his claim the false assertions supporting his reputation which he claims has been damaged. At very least the matter would affect the magnitude of any damage to his reputation.
I am at a loss to understand your post but know the law is often “an ass” so would welcome an explanation, please.
Richard
PS I add a tip I hope you will find helpful. Using an apparent animal name then mentioning yourself in the third party is not unique to you and it obtains disdain on the blog.
TBear says:
October 26, 2012 at 10:17 pm
I am not a lawyer but have some experience of expert witness and the legal folks over here. i think everything in your post makes perfect sense to me. (though I might not agree with the peer/expert view entirely) I am sure Manns lawyers will seek to correct the record. And I hope the case continues onwards and upwards to discovery.
This (thread) really is just about the guy making a mockery of himself – he has made a mockery of science (and ultimately his peers, if you think about it) and a mockery of the scientific method.
Al us skeptics can hope for is some discovery to finally nail the hockey stick down as false and thence enable it to be expunged/discounted from the climate debate.
regards
Kev
It would be interesting to know just how many of these unauthorised (by the Nobel Committee) certificates were distributed by the IPCC and how far down the organisation a member of staff would have to be to miss out on one – peer reviewed scientist, lead author, author, contributor, student who wrote a piece that appeared in Nature, journalist who wrote article that was cited in one of the reports, bloke who cleaned the toilets?
blackswhitewash.com says:
October 26, 2012 at 11:58 pm
“Mann gets caught red-handed lying about the Nobel prize but it’s us skeptics who are in the wrong. You truly cannot fathom the mind of the brainwashed environ-mentalist.”
Oh, yes, I can:
National Socialist Zeal.
Just one other thing which I haven’t seen mentioned (apologies if I missed it) but, in respect of the IPCC Nobel Peace prize award itself. This has to have been awarded as some kind of Nobellian jumping on the AGW bandwagon(?), or assuaging of government pressure on the Nobel committee (perhaps to justify the taxation situation and provide governments with a ‘reason’?).
There is nothing in the 2007 report to suggest that the IPCC or any of its contributors have done anything CONSTRUCTIVE with respect to the world, either economically, peace wise, or even environmentally. The IPCC report and the SPM report is one massive alarmist propaganda piece, intended solely to promote the organisation itself and build up its importance.
Personally, if and when all the CAGW/AGW hype is finally over, I would like to award an Anti-Nobel prize to ‘climate science’ and the IPCC – the effort and funds wasted on this whole issue of fraudulantly trying to demonstrate some pathetically small human influence on a massive semi chaotic natural climate system is a disgrace. Moreover, the self promoting attitude of their own importance and that of their self generated psuedoscience, ‘above and beyond’ all the worlds’ other REAL problems, really gets my goat!
TBear says:
“OK, so the claim on Mann’s website re being jointly `awarded’ the Nobel Prize was recently changed to `contributed to’. Embarrassing, I guess. But, re the upcoming litigation there is nothing much in this.”
In court, the rejoinder is: “Your honor, this goes to Dr Mann’s credibility.”
richardscourtney says:
October 26, 2012 at 8:37 am
Richard, if you’re as old as I am and liked music back in the 70s, you may remember that the New Musical Express once published an interview with Freddie Mercury. (For younger viewers, he was the front man with a rocking teenage combo known as Queen.) Above the article and a picture of said Mr Mercury wearing one of his slashed-to-the-waist cat-suit efforts, was the immortal headline which read “Is this man a prat?”
Unfortunately for the fake Nobel Laureate Michael Mann (h/t Andy L above), every time I hear about him, I’m irresistibly drawn to a minor mental adjustment of that headline.
Mr Green Genes, Nobel prize winner (well, if he’s claiming it, I, being in the EU, will do the same).
TBear,
“He removed it as soon as it came to his attention” is just not good enough. You underestimate in my view that this is not “rubbish wording” but more proof of Mann’s lack of integrity. He says it has been “found” that the certificate has been “translated” into a claim to have received the prize. Weasle words putting it as close to arms length from him as he can. (Although its on the sleeve of his new book – he must have been surprised to see it there). And he still hasn’t come within a mile of saying “oops we were lead to believe that was ok. I now realise it wasn’t and will sort it out.” At the same time records on the net about him are being changed without announcement – the Team way.
I hope you wont take offense at me putting it like this but if you think this is a non-point in a defamation case, which if pursued will make the defence look petty and point scoring, you’re probably not much of a trial lawyer. I would personally very much enjoy cross examining him about it. As a trial lawyer you know that you prep your cross exam on the basis that you are on a journey the witness cannot change because you know all the answers beforehand and the impression you will create whatever way the witness answers. It would be elementary to take Mann to a very bad place for his claim
Mr Green Genes:
re your post addressed to me at October 27, 2012 at 1:59 am.
Yes, I think Freddie Mercury was a prat. But he differed from Michael Mann in that he was a talented prat.
Richard
PS For the convenience of non-Brits who do not understand this conversation, I again repeat the link Pointman provided to his accurate, amusing and excellent explanation of a prat.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/climate-alarmism-and-the-prat-principle/
The smell of rubber hitting the road, eh?
“Michael, I’m your attorney. I’m on your side. You really do have to stop telling people you were awarded a Nobel Prize now.”
Richard – think about it in terms of the specific claims, not some generic reputation issue. The issue of whether or not he was awarded a Nobel Prize is not part of the case. What TBear is saying is that this can be amended. In the real world though, a sequela from this is that the judge will certainly wonder how an individual could be unclear as to whether he had a Nobel Prize or not. Most people on the planet know if they have a Nobel Prize or if they don’t have one.
Picture Kevin Trenberth sitting at his desk, scratching his head and saying to himself “So this means I don’t have a Nobel Prize either? That can’t be right.”
Now that’s funny.
Glad I hadn’t just taken a swallow, again.
cn
richardscourtney says:
October 27, 2012 at 2:34 am
Richard, since you have repeated the choice term ‘prat’ – which incidentally, I do agree with to a point – but it is not ‘permanent’ enough for Mann , and is far too common. By that I mean that we have all been prats at some time or other – if anyone hasn’t ever been a prat, then they surely have not lived! The drunken prat singing, the prattish comments during dinner conversation, etc, etc – these are really ‘normal’ and thus using the same term for Mann is simply not strong enough in my opinion – and moreover, when one realises that we have indeed all been prats at some time or other – the thought of being lumped in with the same category as Mann is somewhat offensive, don’t you think?