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.
@Darren Potter: what she said was Boston Environmental Examiner; it’s a garbled transcript obviously.
@richard. I’ll get Harry working on it straight away. At least if Mann wins the Prat of the Year Award, he’ll have done it without any arguments, which might be a first.
He’s only 156 points behind the leader, so vote your socks off if you want him to win.
Go to http://thepointman.wordpress.com/
and use the voting thingy on the RHS.
Pointman
philincalifornia says: October 27, 2012 at 3:08 am
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.”
philincalifornia: It’s worse than that, it’s a travesty.
I was just thinking…….
Al Gore used Mann’s hockey stick and got a Noble Prize (with money)
UNIPCC displayed Mann’s hockey stick prominently and got a Nobel Prize (with money)
All Mikey’s got for his hockey stick is a lot of grief.
No prize and no money and now he’s getting hammered.
I guess he grabbed thew wrong of his hockey stick.
No wonder Mikey stays mad.
I see why the let Mikey eat it…….He’ll eat anything.
cn
Judith Curry has a view. From her blog in reply to a post I put up:
“Well, at Georgia Tech we had 3 people contribute to the AR4, and thus have some connection to the Nobel Peace Prize. The reaction of the Georgia Tech administration was to give each 1 year free parking on campus (worth several hundred $$) in recognition to their contributions. That is about the right scale of recognition for this; billing yourself as a Nobel Laureate in this context is incomprehensible to me”.
Could there be a greater validation that “the cause” to which his career and reputation depends is noble than to be recognized as contributing to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC to Dr. Mann’s psyche?
I’m sure NY is the right city for a newspaper called the Mental Examiner.
Can someone convince them to set up shop in Hamburg as well? Many interesting cases there as well!
I think this thread has drifted away from the important message. That is why has Mann brought suit, and what is the likely outcome. The plaintiffs have carefully shopped for a sympathetic judge. The US legal system (it’s all about laws, not justice) does not judge cases based on science or mathematics. They find in favor of the most credentialed expert witnesses, and Dr Mann certainly has those from which to draw. So it is likely the judge will find in favor of Mann’s status and credibility.
Then, there is the discovery issue. If the judge rules against discovery, there will be a precedent set to strengthen academics resistance to FOIA requests. I think this is their strategy and the 700 comments on this thread discussing Mann’s Nobel Laureate status are shooting at a red herring. For these reasons, I think it’s critically important that the defendants countersue to require discovery not be barred.
I’m an engineer, not a lawyer, and I hope I am wrong in this. I hope so, because I see this trial as one that determines the future ability of regulatory agencies to fund preordained “science” to further their regulatory goals.
Kev-in-Uk says:
October 27, 2012 at 3:10 am
Perhaps Supra-prat or Transcendent-prat?
DaveE.
Here’s another fake Nobel Laureate: IPCC Lead Author Andrew Weaver.
http://www.thelavinagency.com/speaker-andrew-weaver.html
RB says:
October 26, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Mann has written on his facebook page:
“Its sort of funny how the rabble don’t seem too interested in the fact that many other IPCC co-authors (e.g. University of Montana scientists Steve Running) have found the IPCC’s official commendation to lead authors (“contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize”) translated to having been co-awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize”
——————————————————————————————–
MM obviuosly didn’t have a mother that asked him what all mothers since the beginning of time have asked. If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you do that too? 😉
Mandas and Phil: re Monckton claiming to be a co-NL: I read the link that was put up – the McCain letter – and yes, it does give a quick biog of CM, including the nonsense of the gold pin. But I think you will find that the whole letter was tongue-in-cheek, which, because CM’s humour does not translate to the written word quite as well as he speaks, is an unfortunate ‘oeuvre’ for alarmists.
My take is that, as CM has not included such nonsense in his Wiki entry (feel free to check it) and, AFAIK, has never published such a claim anywhere else (does the noble lord even do Twitter?), NOR, has he used such a claim for self-aggrandisement, he is in a much lower FNL league to MM – as in, non-existent.
Couple of points that haven’t been mentioned AFAICS.
1. It’s not absolutely clear that Mann’s side has chosen the correct district. Some of the factual allegations about the locations of defendants and the legal conclusions about which venue is appropriate appear to possibly be doubtful, and possibly incorrect. In this case the defendants can move for dismissal if the venue is wrong,
2. If the amount is over $75,000 (surely libelling a Nobel laureate is worth that much?) then perhaps the case should be in Federal court, given diversity of locations of the litigants. Defendants could move to get the case transferred.
I’m not a lawyer, but don’t be surprised if venue is the first issue to get fought over. Just because a case is filed in a particular venue, in a particular court, it doesn’t mean it will end up there.
On the subject of disappearing Nobels:
Stephen Schneider:also just lost his Nobel prize (as of 27 Oct 2012)- see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Schneider&diff=520045926&oldid=518310295
Oddly enough, his Nobel prize or lack thereof, was first discussed more than a year ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Schneider
“Not a Nobel Prize Winner
The article says Schneider won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. That is not correct. That year’s prize was shared by Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). See http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/. Individual members of the IPCC are not Nobel laureates, just like individuals who served with UNICEF and the Red Cross. Each Nobel Prize can be awarded to no more than three winners per year, but the IPCC had perhaps hundreds of members and staff.
I will delay in removing this information for a few days to see if anyone offers a persuasive counterargument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.106.224 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)”
With respect to the Sandusky child molestation scandal, when the grand jury indictment of Sandusky became public it became apparent that PSU was wise to quickly appoint a tough independent investigator like Louis Freeh to perform a no holds barred and totally independent investigation. The Freech Report that was the result of the independent investigation was scathingly critical of PSU’s role in the mishandling the whole process of Sandusky child molesting scandal from the very first hints of Sandusky being a molester. Result, no whitewash.
With respect to the seemingly disturbing evolvement of Mann in the apparent unethical (and questionably illegal) Climategate activities , PSU was not wise in its failure to immediately appoint someone like Freeh to do a tough critical independent investigation when the public became quickly aware of how incompetent the PSU internal and non-independent investigation of Mann was.
It is not too late for PSU. They should make an appointment of someone of Freeh’s caliber to immediately start a hardnosed and critically independent investigation of Mann’s activities based on the Climategate releases. Perhaps if we get a new US Attorney General starting next year then a new PSU / Mann investigation could be at least imaginable.
John
Kev-in-Uk says:
October 27, 2012 at 3:10 am
Uber-prat?
John Whitman:
At October 27, 2012 at 11:35 am you say
OK. I ‘get’ the ‘closing the stable door’ point, but why would PSU do that?
At this stage the investigation could not help Mann or PSU but may harm both.
Richard
Imagine you’re John B. Williams of the law firm of Cozen O’Connor and you represent Dr. Michael Mann in his character defamation lawsuit against NR, CEI, Mark Steyn, and Rand Simberg. You realize the reputation/character of your client is of the utmost importance to your case. Almost immediately after filing your complaint, you find out your client has misrepresented his credentials. “Not a good start” would be an understatement. My advice to Mr. Williams is: “The next time you “back a horse” in a character defamation lawsuit, make sure at least one end of your “horse” is a head.
D Böehm says:
October 26, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Phil.,
A direct question: are you Phil Plait from the Bad Astronomy blog?
No, I’ve never heard of that blog, why do you ask?
From RB – “Dr Mann has written on his facebook page: Its sort of funny how the rabble don’t seem too interested in the fact that many other IPCC co-authors …. have found the IPCC’s official commendation to lead authors (“contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize”) translated to having been co-awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize”
So what: if you get pulled over for speeding it’s always tempting to try the “look how fast everyone else is going” approach – but that isn’t an excuse; you’re the one that has been pulled, it’s only your own speed that matters.
It’s really a question of personal honour, integrity and understanding the difference between truth and falsehood (fairly important for a scientist one would have thought, also for anyone bringing a defamation action as plaintiff and needing to show good reputation).
Dr Mann can quite properly say that the IPCC (an inter-government organisation) personally commended him for his contributions as lead author which (with work from other co-authors) led to the IPCC receiving the 2007 Peace Prize. However, saying that “in 2007 along with [others] he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” is false: he did not receive or share the prize.
richardscourtney says:
October 27, 2012 at 11:46 am
OK. I ‘get’ the ‘closing the stable door’ point, but why would PSU do that?
At this stage the investigation could not help Mann or PSU but may harm both.
Richard
– – – – – – – – –
Richard,
My answer.
To this day PSU remains very much front and center in very critical public eyes wrt the storm of revelations from the Climategate. The storm increases. I think they must be increasingly uncomfortable. N’est ce pas?
An abbreviated list of my evidence of the storm increasing: a) the extremely high visibility Mann’s current lawsuit against NRO and CEI that has PSU prominently figured; b) Andrew Montford’s new book ‘Hiding the Decline’ with a not small focus on PSU; c) PSU must be monitoring the possibility of CEI’s FOIa ligitation against UVA to go to Va Supreme Court/ US Surpreme court; d) after the current US election the likely US gov’t funding shifts away from prima fascia Climategater scientists; e) across the board in the increasingly influential skeptical blogs the volume of indignation focused on PSU and Mann is increasing.
PSU is one of several topics in the headlight of Andrew Montford’s new book ‘Hiding the Decline’. In his concluding section of the book we have this rather scathing statement,
NOTE: I would like to know more about PSU’s plans and strategies on the future of their climate science funding. In particular I have been wondering, is PSU now quietly shopping Mann around?
John
Man Bearpig says:
October 27, 2012 at 1:17 am
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.
I’ve never seen it, what you posted was Muller’s critique of Phil Jones’s WMO graphic which seems pretty much on point.
richardscourtney says: at October 27, 2012 at 11:46 am
“OK. I ‘get’ the ‘closing the stable door’ point, but why would PSU do that?
At this stage the investigation could not help Mann or PSU but may harm both.”
Perhaps, but there is still the question of why Mann is doing this at all. Maybe (just maybe) it’s the desire of PSU that he puts up or shuts up.
If he is as good as he says he is then this should be a slamdunk, easy win.
If he isn’t they need to lance the boil. Especially with a potential new administration in the USA.
Red Coray says:
“My advice to Mr. Williams is: “The next time you “back a horse” in a character defamation lawsuit, make sure at least one end of your “horse” is a head.”
Priceless 🙂
Reed Coray says: “My advice to Mr. Williams is: “The next time you “back a horse” in a character defamation lawsuit, make sure at least one end of your “horse” is a head.”
Why? Is it not the other end which carries the wallet, credit cards, and check book…
Great thing about being a Lawyer: regardless of horse end you bet on; your getting richer!
Being what MM has cost tax payers; I hope Williams takes The Climatologist Formerly Known as Nobel Laureate MM – for every dime he has (or will make).
😉