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.
In the interest of technical accuracy, this statement exists in a filing before the court (paragraph 2 of the introduction wherein it states “…Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.” and again in paragraph 5 of the introduction wherein it states “…the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.” and again in paragraph 17 of the “Statement of Facts” that “In 2007, Dr. Mann shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors…” No depositions have yet been taken.
Frankly, I’m very surprised that each of the counts specifically mentions the hockey stick graph. Since this is central to all counts, it is reasonable to file a motion to compel against plaintiff that “any and all” information used to create that graph be provided to defendants’ counsel. I wonder if counsel could get some suitably qualified experts to examine and testify on that?
Correction. It should be ATI’slawsuit, not CEI’s lawsuit.
John
John Whitman and M Courtney:
Thankyou to each and both of you for addressing my question.
It seems that for different reasons you both think PSU may be ‘hanging Mann out to dry’ because Mann has been a PSU funding asset but is now a possible liability.
Indeed, Matt suggests PSU may have pressured Mann to undertake the case so
(a) if Mann loses he ‘falls under the bus’ so PSU is rid of him
and
(b) if Mann wins then PSU gains protection from “the storm” described by John.
Either result would be a win for PSU.
OK. I can accept that. And it explains the mystery of why Mann has undertaken the case which has such high risk for him.
Thankyou to both of you. I am buying popcorn.
Richard
TinyCO2 says:
October 25, 2012 at 1:18 am
Appears to not want to claim the 2012 Peace Nobbel thingy.
(Aside: funny how NATO, which realy helped preserve peace, didn’t get it, but a bloated bureancracy did).
But all my four grandparents were born in [what was to become] [a part of] the EU.
So, I guess, I’m a sort of co-awardee four times over [plus a couple more for my parents].
And I’d like to mention my cats. Cats soothe, and keep sane, so I can keep paying taxes for, well, windmills and druggies, and bloated bureaucracies and so on. My cats have helped me towards being a co-awardee – so, perhaps, have as great a claim to be a Nobble Prize winner as some recent claims.
Recognition, please, for Bootsie, Bolt, Trinny and Toby!
I’m thinking of the emails where Mann is quick to suggest using a higher figure for cites in Jones’ resume as he nominated him for AGU Fellowship. .I think Mann suggested using a figure of 65 rather than the lower figure Jones mentioned as a possibility ( because he could not at the moment recall the figure).
Either way it shows Mann very eager to testify as if something were true when he did not know if it was or was not true.
And does selecting the highest possible that Phil Jones thinks it might be not indicate Mann’s inclination to inflate to the maximum, everything he touches ?
Yes, and they managed to find one that apparently is very sympathetic… to defendants.
You do realize this is a defamation case, correct? “Expert witnesses” will likely have little to do with this. Mann’s “status and credibility” are actually a liability in this case – he’s a public figure, and in the US, that means it’s about impossible to win a defamation lawsuit.
What? “Rules against discovery”… I don’t even know how to respond to that.
I’m sure they will, but that is not what will determine whether or not discovery occurs. The only way there will not be discovery is if Mann gets cold feet before any countersuits are filed.
As to arguing about his Nobel status: that’s sort of pertinent to the case at hand. He is fraudulently claiming to be a recipient of an award he has not earned… at the beginning of a defamation case in which he claims he was called a fraud. Do you see the problem with that, perhaps a little irony? In a defamation case, character is on trial, and Mann does not have a lot of that to spare. Such a claim is not to his benefit.
Mark
– – – – – –
richardscourtney,
I my case I am arguing that in a sense, it is Mann who is exposing PSU to risk. PSU should get an independent investigation going to protect its interests and not to ‘get at Mann’ for any reason.
John
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”
———————————
This is a very telling comment on the ethics of Climate “Scientists”.
It’s not to hard to imagine a comment like this:
“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 fudged their data to further the Cause.”
If everyone else is doing it, it’s alright, right?
““JC message to Michael Mann: Mark Steyn is [a] formidable opponent. I suspect that this is not going to turn out well for you.”
Judith, please don’t be so helpful. This law suit may be the best thing Mann has done for his own future recovery of reality. Getting rid of all that hubris (the size of two Manhattans) will ultimately be a psychological benefit to him. Actually, no one can likely change the direction he is going in anyway.
Mann is right, in a sense.
we should not concentrate on localised, regional false claims of laureateship(just mike).
It is a much more global problem that we have here( in warming spheres)
so we should concentrate on the more widespread false claims on laureateship
and 15 years is probably not enough to detect a trend of ‘non false laureate claimism’
i think it’s wise to wait to see if he does it again in the next 20 years
Michael Mann says attacks on climate science could weaken next IPCC report. Repeated attacks on climate scientists could lead to the true impacts of global warming being ignored in the next major international assessment scheduled for 2014.
“I see this with individual scientists, I know this is happening because I talk with colleagues – they are afraid to talk to the media, afraid to weigh in on the side of climate change being a problem, because they know they will immediately be the subject of attack from right-leaning websites, subject to a slew of orchestrated, angry and nasty emails and calls to departments calling on them to be fired”.
Bold mine – as opposed to the wrong-leaning websites that Mann supports.
🙂
The PSU investigation states:
“Moreover, Dr. Mann’s work on the Third Assessment Report (2001) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received recognition (along with several hundred other scientists) by being awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize”
p18 – http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf
Maybe just badly worded, seems to say “Dr. Mann’s work” was “awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize”.
This is part of a section that is used to justify clearing him based upon recognition from his peers.
John Whitman:
At October 27, 2012 at 3:02 pm you say
Thankyou for the clarification.
Clearly, I did misunderstand you and I apologise if that resulted in my misrepresenting your view.
I copy your clarification here to draw attention to what you really intended.
Richard
I followed the link to Judith Curry’s blogpost on the Mann suit and note that R. Gates figures prominently in the comments offering succour to Michael Mann as the “Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)”. He has apparently taken a lead from the discredited SkS website. Cloaking yourself in the vetements of the questioners of orthodoxy is a weird response to the real debate that has gotten underway since the field was unblocked in Nov 2009. I guess it’s not so weird given that the warmists have of late admitted the battle is being lost to the sceptics, eventhough they offer up the total hogwash of sceptics hijacking the media and carrying out clever campaigns backed by deep pockets of Big Oil and/or other “right-leaning” (I like the double entendre here that appears to be totally lost on the crumbling clay walls of the consensus scientists) misanthrophes.
Comon you guys, you have killed yourselves with the revealed hanky panky of your grotesquely over funded hegemony over governments, media, education and the scientific journals. Probably you can count on both hands the number of your serious opponents and they are a well educated, erudite, largely unfunded group of freedom fighters who will never be fetted in Stockholm, thanked by governments, starred on TV, honoured in Universities, except as dispicable miscreants. Even when the tower collapses under its own weight, heroes are unlikely to be honoured – history a hundred years from now might figure it out. I’m not talking about the minions of angry thoughtless folks on both sides of the so-called debate that are often desperately alluded to by the consensus to characterize those whom they fear to debate with (I believe we may be grossly outnumbered in the minions area, too, though).
Haven’t read all of the comments but I believe I am a Nobel Prize winner because I live in Europe
More scrubbing needed:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-mann/
richardscourtney says:
OK. I ‘get’ the ‘closing the stable door’ point, but why would PSU do that?
People seem to be assuming that Mann will be the one worried about discovery. I very much doubt that. His dirty washing is already on full view in the Climategate files.
Surely the first thing “discovered” will be all the PSU papers that Mann cites as his “exoneration”. The terms of reference, the evidence brought forward, the questions asked. That is, after all, the key issue in the actual allegations by Steyn – that PSU whitewashed Mann, rather than investigating him. There is no way I can see that they can be omitted from discovery, no matter how biased the judge or court.
My guess is that those papers will be a PR disaster for PSU, when it becomes totally obvious that they didn’t conduct a proper examination of Mann after all.
Once the defendants show that PSU did do another stitch-up whitewash, the whole prosecution will fail. Steyn’s linking of Mann’s investigation to Sandusky’s will be shown to be not only opinion, but true.
The only way out for PSU would be to immediately get on with a full investigation.
“…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…”
Nobody I am aware of has pasted text to the issue diploma. That would be a bizarre and incorrect thing to do.
PSU needs to distance the institution from Mann and quickly!
PSU knows the process and the steps to be taken.
Time is important. Do it now. No delay.
Mann, go away or Steyn shall taunt you a second time.
Never mind—he just did.
According to Wikipedia (which lies), a principle purpose of pre-trial discovery is to encourage the parties to settle out of court.
Michael, he didn’t paste the text. Apparently, the IPCC produced the memento and it appears to be accompanied by the following letter:
http://www.esalifdiop.org/documents/NobelPrizeCertificate2.pdf
http://pi.library.yorku.ca/dspace/bitstream/handle/10315/9613/RLJ00018.pdf?sequence=1
Though, this is interesting:
http://www.thegreatsmokiesreview.org/2012/reflections/on-winning-the-nobel-prize/
The Zoot says:
`I accept the gist of the rest of the Bear’s comment however ludicrous the Zoot finds his manner of addressing us.’
So the Zoot has no sense of irony?
Richard says:
`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.’
Richard, take painkiller, have a little lie down and it will all be OK.
OK? Grrrrr …..
Richard also says:
`How can the judge rationally claim it has been “dealt with pre-trial” when Mann has not withdrawn the case?’
Richard, if this comment reflects your understanding of trial procedure (in which case you know zero about the topic) why are you commenting on trial matters, at all? The Bear suggests that purporting to express an opinion on matters about which you are entirely ignorant does you no credit, whatsoever.
BTW: there is (at least) a 50-50 chance that Mann will win this litigation. The cheer squad at WUWT really need to calm down. Whatever U may think of Mann’s `science’ (the Bear is unimpressed by it; he seems to be more activist than scientist) it is inherently risky to claim the guy is a fraudster in public. In a sense, by making these claims, commentators such as M. Steyn leave Mann with no choice, but to sue. The Bear’s tip is that (unfortunately) Mann will succeed in his claim. Yes folks, U heard it here first.
De Boehm says:
In court, the rejoinder is: “Your honor, this goes to Dr Mann’s credibility.”
Sure, but as any experienced trial lawyer will confirm, the party who raises credibility as an issue in any trial does so at their peril. Credibility is a last resort, when U have little else to offer in your defense. It is rarely raised, other than in U.S. TV/movie legal dramas to create a false sense of excitement and hold an audience for advertisers.
RB says:
`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.’
Yeah, right. How many cross examinations have you actually conducted, RB? This idealized version may come true once in a blue moon, or so.
Mr Watts: Great website, but your audience is getting a little bit ahead of themselves on this issue.
The Bear softly growls …
From NRO: Mike’s Nobel Trick – “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!”
Seems Mikey is attempting to scrub his records clean. Good luck with that Mikey…
(Pass the popcorn, please.)
Phil. @ur momisugly October 26, 10:24 am
You wrote:
I’ve Googled and found the letter to Nature that you cited, but have a few issues to start with;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html
1) I think that you are being disingenuous because from my recollection most of the trees used in MBH 98/99 were befitting of inclusion in the description; hundreds of sites at high northern latitudes. (not a certain subset)
2) Briffa et al do not identify any sites that do not exhibit the problem or explain why not to include them and the following quote appears to contradict what you were trying to imply:
3) Of interest is the date of the article; submitted 14 May 1997! Are you suggesting that Mann et al were unaware of the divergence problem when they submitted MBH98/99 to Nature/AGL? Or, that the IPCC and Mann as a lead author were unaware of it in their 3AR report of 2001 with its unprecedented clarioning of the hocky-stick six times just in the report?
4) I strongly recall that Nature published an article by Bradley in 1997 or 1998 trying to explain-away the divergence problem. The recollection is strong because I was amazed at how naïve it was and that he seemed to be shooting himself, his colleagues, and mainstream dendros in the foot. Can’t find it at the moment but maybe it was by Hughes and/or in a different journal, or maybe Nature has become embarrassed and removed it from their website.