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.
Pointman:
I read your post at October 23, 2012 at 10:21 am and its excellent and amusing link
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/climate-alarmism-and-the-prat-principle/
which explains the nature of a prat.
Yes, Mann is a prat. It is said that on the day when the last of The Few passed away we are diverted to consider a lawsuit from a prat who is not worthy to walk on the same planet as they inhabited.
Richard
Sandusky lawsuit coming… inaccurately campared to Mann.
I’m one of those non-scientists who tries to follow this issue here, and elsewhere in the media. However, I find myself at a loss when actually trying to critique say Mann’s work. 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.
However, a trial is a different thing. It’s governed by the rules of evidence and arguments must have some logical and/or factual bases to be presented. Much like the Dover trial for creationists, when pressed to actually prove their case, with a judge who actually did his job (and was a conservative christian – but kept his personal views out of it), the result was that they have no case at all. I wonder, in a court setting, will the critiques of Mann stand up to evidence? Most people don’t really understand how courts work, but they can be the best place to actually find facts. I think if this effort is undertaken properly, it could be a great moment for those of us who want to base govt policies on sensible, evidence based assessments of the risks we face.
Plus there is a national network funded by NSF that goes by the name Centers for Learning and Teaching that was designed to be Ground Zero in the math and science wars. Which also relates directly to AGW as well as diversifying the STEM workforce no matter what has to be changed.
Penn State is a partner in the MAC-MTL, the Mid-Atlantic Center for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, that was first established in 2000.
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win.”
Gandhi???
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0603/Political-misquotes-The-10-most-famous-things-never-actually-said/First-they-ignore-you.-Then-they-laugh-at-you.-Then-they-attack-you.-Then-you-win.-Mohandas-Gandhi
http://books.google.gm/books?id=QrcpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA53&dq=%22First+they+ignore+you%22&redir_esc=y
He just does not know when to quit! I guess he is going to find out that the climate does not revolve around him.
———-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.———–
Anyone with some sort of journalist credentials should certain take up the offer. His bill will grow with each request.
National Review, et al. doesn’t need a “good judge.” Assuming this is filed in U.S federal court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow, actually require, wide-ranging
discovery practice in the pretrial period. The judge is only involved if someone objects to certain discovery requests (they are called requests but are really demands). The statements of Mann on Facebook today and previous statements will be subject to FRCP’s discovery rules which are decidedly liberal. In addition, deadlines apply.
I agree with Rich Lowry: bring it on.
Even if it is brought in state court, most of the states’ discovery rules are based on the FRCP.
Thus will be really a fun circus.
Juan Slayton says: “Not sure I follow you here. Litigation is not free.”
It is for Mann. See:
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/823/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=7935
http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/about-us/
Mann is indeed seeking funds for his lawsuit from the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund . Here is the pitch on their website:
The Blog
Support Mike Mann’s Legal Defense
The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund continues to receive donations and offers of help from various stakeholders. We are actively working with several organizations in order to make CSLDF a one-stop resource for scientists looking for legal resources and we are currently pursuing several educational and legal initiatives which will be made public in the future.
In the short-term, CSLDF would greatly appreciate your financial support to help Dr. Michael Mann. Funds are needed to:
1.Fend-off ATI’s demand to take Dr. Mann’s deposition, which is a blatant attempt to harass and intimidate him for exercising his constitutional rights by petitioning to intervene in the case.
2.Defeat ATI’s attempt to obtain Dr. Mann’s email correspondence through the civil discovery process, which essentially is an “end-run” around the scholarly research exemption under the Virginia FOIA law.
3.Prepare for summary judgment on the issue of the exempt status of his email correspondence under the Virginia FOIA law.
Donations can be sent to CSLDF online or by sending a check made out to PEER, with Climate Science LDF on the memo line to:
Climate Science Legal Defense Fund
c/o PEER 2000 P Street, NW #240
Washington, D.C. 20036
Another Scopes Monkey Trial?
As a fellow partial Nobel peace prize recipient (as a citizen of the EU) I cannot wait for the discovery to begin.
Oh GOOD!
Bring on discovery!
Remember, Mann is potentially accelerating his self-destruction on two fronts: he claims harm from folks saying his science is no good, thus invites hard scrutiny of his science; and he claims he is as clean as the wind-driven snow while asserting skeptic scientists are crooks, thus he invites hard scrutiny of the accusation he tosses out. I don’t know beans about AGW science, but I do know the accusation he relies on has more problems than you can shake a hockey stick at.
Here is the supposedly actionable post:
Football and Hockey
By Mark Steyn
July 15, 2012 6:22 P.M.
Comments
147
“In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal:
‘I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.’
Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.”
In my view, the intent of the column is to show that Penn State is involved in cover ups and does not hold its “star names” accountable, and that Penn State held an inadequate investigation of Michael Mann.
(Michael Mann brings grants to the institution, doesn’t he?)
Glenn,
I think you meant Dayton (TN)?
“Steyn’s going to need $ to defend the case.”
Anthony, set up a tip jar. I’ll gladly donate!
“…and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.:
What replications might those be? Did someone run the same models?
I read it here that noise input into those models generates a hockey stick.
Was the replicated as well?
Glenn says:
@Ryan Spear, on one level it would be a standard libel/slander action – Mann has been accused of immoral or illegal acts. On a different level, it’s more severe: a person who is known or believed to have falsified data will have a harder time getting funding (in a rational world, anyway.)
The sad part is, he is probably most angry not at the accusation that he is has acted immorally or illegally, but at the implication that he was incompetent at it.
Well, anything to keep him out of the lab … I think this should be encouraged.
This could have been me 🙁
Can’t figure how how to donate to Mark’s cause via the NRO website. Anybody have a link?
Mann = Lance Armstrong
It was stated on Mann’s “Facebook Page” that ….
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.”
However the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will makes it clear that only a single person may qualify for the award, and sets out clear stipulations as to who ought to receive the so called “Peace Prize”,
as it has now been dubbed by various organisations.
From the original last will and testament of Alfred Nobel :
“and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
How Nobel’s statement can be contorted to include the definition quoted by Mann is frankly inexplicable, and how the Nobel Prize committee could decide that to make awards to multiple recipients, was compliant with the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will is baffling and bewildering.
“This is quite a statement (from Mann’s facebook page): Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.”
Does that include feeding noise into his “analysis” and getting the same curve? Or was that someone else’s “work”?