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.
http://tinyurl.com/9bq97fw
Friends:
It is now clear that TBear is a troll pretending knowledge and ability he/she/they does not have with a view to disrupting the thread.
At October 26, 2012 at 10:17 pm he/she/they said
At October 27, 2012 at 1:23 am I wrote to him/her/them and started my post saying
At October 27, 2012 at 9:27 pm he/she/they replied to me saying of that question
Say what!?
I ask for information based on expert knowledge which he/she/they claims to have and the/she/they asserts my question is a “comment” that “does [me] no credit whatsoever”. And that assertion is from “an experienced trial lawyer”!?
Also, between the posting of my question and his/her/their/ answer D Böehm, RB, philincalifornia, jeremyp 99, and David Ross each disputed the accuracy of the supposedly legal advice which TBear had provided.
Furthermore, the Zoot and I had each politely pointed out that emulating Rabbet’s behaviour is frowned on in this forum but TBear refuted this and his/her/their refutation to the Zoot showed TBear does not know the definition of “irony” which any Trial Lawyer could be expected to know.
Conclusion:
TBear is a troll pretending knowledge and ability he/she/they does not have with a view to disrupting the thread so is best ignored.
Richard
From Mark Steyn’s facebook page, “Oh, I get it, Mann is the Jerry Sandusky of climate science.”
!!LoL!!
You guys have not spent enough time traveling in foreign climes. As one sees the machinations of other ‘systems’ one also sees the workings of the systems of ‘home’ more clearly.
Judges and courts are part of ‘the establishment’. Mann had become a fairly important little cog in the machinery of the establishment.
The whole system is intended to keep the machinery of the establishment running as usual, for as long as possible.
Its hardly surprising that Mann objects to idealogues attacking him because of his scientific work.
What is surprising is that this site is taking so little interest in hurricane Sandy.
On the plus side, this could be the last nail in the Peace Nobel Prize coffin. They (Norwegians) shouldn´t have mixed science and politics in the first place. The only Nobel prizes that matter are the Swedish ones, anyway.
Please given Mickey M a break I’m sure he’s won the Nobel Prize for literature. My recollection is that it was for science fiction?
richardscourtney says:
October 28, 2012 at 1:12 am
Friends:
It is now clear that TBear is a troll pretending knowledge and ability he/she/they does not have with a view to disrupting the thread.
At October 26, 2012 at 10:17 pm he/she/they said
Let me explain (the Bear is an experienced trial lawyer).
At October 27, 2012 at 1:23 am I wrote to him/her/them and started my post saying
I am not a lawyer and not an American so I write to ask a genuine question.
…
..`How can the judge rationally claim it has been “dealt with pre-trial” when Mann has not withdrawn the case?’
________________________________
The Bear ain’t no troll and is an experienced trial lawyer.
So you want a response to your question: How can the judge rationally claim it has been “dealt with pre-trial” when Mann has not withdrawn the case?
Well here it is:
Your question is a non sequitur: dealing with matters pre-trial (such as tidying up Mann’s filing to remove the Nobel Prize claim) has nothing to do with `withdrawing’ a case. It actually indicates the opposite; namely, that Mann is putting some aspect of his case on a surer footing because he intends to run it and try to win it.
OK?
What you are really objecting to, the Bear guesses, is the suggestion that Mann has a good chance of winning this case. Well, he certainly does. Lets look at some of the reasons for that, shall we?
1. Mann’s attorneys are respected and serious people. If there was no reasonable prospect of success, they would not have filed the case, irrespective of Mann’s wishes. To do so would be professional misconduct.
2. The claims made against Mann are serious; that he has engaged in scientific fraud, in essence. The main problem the defendants will have is justifying that claim.
3. This is where everyone gets excited, thinking the trial judge will give discovery of Mann’s documents to the defendants. Chances are that discovery will not be ordered. Why so? Let’s imagine the application for discovery, shall we?
Defendants say: `Oh, can we have access to Mann’s records, please?’
Judge says: `Why.’
Defendants: `So we can prove what we have alleged against Mann.’
Judge: `So you have made these allegations of serious professional misconduct against Mann with no proof?’
Defendants: `No we have the proof.’
Judge: `Excellent, so there is no need for discovery of Mann’s documents. Let’s get on with the trial.’
If the defendants say: `We have no proof, just suspicions and theories we would like to test against Mann’s documents’.
The Judge will say: `You’re kidding me, right? You cannot ask for discovery to test a theory. Application denied.’
In the Bear’s view, anyone who thinks this trial will be a test of the science behind the hockey stick, through the discovery of Mann’s documents, is likely to be disappointed.
It could happen, it is possible.
But it is quite unlikely.
Don’t you think Mann’s lawyers have already gamed this aspect of the case out?
TBear,
are you by chance a relative of Eli Rabbet, who also insists in referring to himself in the third person?
John Brookes says: October 28, 2012 at 1:30 am
says “…..What is surprising is that this site is taking so little interest in hurricane Sandy…..”
Johnny! Are you really going to hang all your belief and dogma out there on one storm?
THIS is your science? Really?
Incredible thought processes at work right there.
John Brookes says: October 28, 2012 at 1:30 am
“….Its hardly surprising that Mann objects to idealogues attacking him because of his scientific work….”
And Geez John, you have that inverted – almost everything Mann has published is based on churning doubtful paleoclimate work through theoretical models….
Definition for idealogues: web definitions:
(idealogue) theorist: someone who theorizes (especially in science or art).
Urederra,
the Norwegians have not mixed science and politics. It is the tabloid scientist who have done that by misleading the public to believe that the IPCC was awarded Nobel Peace Prize for their science. That is incorrect since the peace prized has nothing to do with science and all about politics since the Norwegian committee consist of politicians, not scientists, and therefore can not evaluate eventual science connected to the prize awarded work for promotion of peace. It is rather pathetic that scientist who are unanble to achieve scientific discovery worthy of a true Nobel Prize within Sciences use the unscientic Nobel Peace Prize to disguise themselves as “Nobel Prize winning scientists”. That the media has not called them out on this celebrity-trick is a perfect example of the profound lack of quality in journalism today. This is what keeps tabloid science alive.
Verity Jones says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:53 am
TBear,
are you by chance a relative of Eli Rabbet, who also insists in referring to himself in the third person?
_______________________________
Never heard of Eli Rabbet.
Doesn’t sound like an Australian name
Grrrrrr, from Sydney
@RichardCourtney
when you said ‘How can the judge rationally claim it has been dealt with pre-trial’
I took it to mean that if MM does not change his original submission where he claims a few times to be a recipient of the Nobel, then it could be brought into the trial as an example of his lack of integrity
if I am right then everything you have said makes perfect sense.
But then again, the Optimist is not a trial lawyer
Hey Karl, of course I’m not hanging my hat on one storm. I don’t even care if its AGW related or not, its just that it looks like a very interesting storm, and Anthony is a weatherman, so I thought he’d be more interested.
But no, rather than being interested, he’s just run one story, which basically said, “Nothing going on here. Move along now”.
It just seems interesting to me, like early snow storms, and super heat waves – but I am a bit more autistic than most.
im a big fan of this site but dont u think that hurricane sandy’s path etc could replace this Mann story as a sticky note at the top of ur web page? loyal visiter to wuwt
TBear, a load of BS. bring the trial on and we’ll see.
John Brookes : As usual, apologist for liars.
Jan says:
October 27, 2012 at 7:47 pm
I note, from the bottom of your last link, it says:
“Lenny Bernstein is a retired chemical engineer trying to learn how to write fiction. He spent the last twenty years of his career working on climate change.”
I just wonder if the IPCC gives a good grounding for fiction writing?
Phil says … ”I’ve never seen it, what you posted was Muller’s critique of Phil Jones’s WMO graphic which seems pretty much on point.”
When you say ‘on point’ do you mean that Muller is correct in his analysis
At first Michael Mann claimed to be a Nobel Laureate. Now he doesn’t. Doesn’t that make him a Nobel Prize “denier”?
😐
Pethefin says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:10 am
It is rather pathetic that scientists who are unable to achieve scientific discovery worthy of a true Nobel Prize within Science use the unscientific Nobel Peace Prize to disguise themselves as “Nobel Prize winning scientists”.
————————————————————-
That pretty much sums it up.
John Brookes:
I have waited a long time for you to post something I could agree with and so I write to point out that you have ended my wait in your post at October 28, 2012 at 4:56 am where you write
Richard
TBear says:
October 28, 2012 at 4:08 am
“Grrrrrr, from Sydney”
TBear may well be an experienced trial lawyer in Australia, who knows. Based on my 20+ years as a practicing lawyer in the United States, however, TBear’s comments regarding the anticipated legal process and outcomes of the Mann case are nothing short of total nonsense.
(And his proclivity to refer to himself in the third person and to incorporate animal “sounds” into his posts suggests a not entirely stable persona. Perhaps he is also a Nobel Laureate?)
John Brookes says:
October 28, 2012 at 1:30 am
Its hardly surprising that Mann objects to idealogues attacking him because of his scientific work.
The problem is that what Mann practices is hardly science. No one would be “attacking” him if it were.
Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/michael-mann-retracts-false-nobel-prize-claims-in-humiliating-climbdown/#comment-1412
bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
TBear says: “Defendants: `No we have the proof.’” “`We have no proof, just suspicions and theories …’.”
And if the Defendants’ lawyers don’t go with such simple proof / no proof responses?
(Please pardon the lack of proper Legal-speak.)
Your Honor we are asking for discovery because Mann has knowingly brought false allegations against our clients and Mann’s personal and professional records will demonstrate this to the court. Additionally Mann has in his filing claimed to be of professional standing (a Nobel Prize winner), we know already he has lied to the court about his standing and has attempted to cover up this deception. We believe his records will demonstrate that Mann is not what he claims to be, and he knew the charges against our clients were without merit. Further, professional analysis of Mann’s records will determine if Mann has attempted to cover up other information that would run counter to his claims against our clients. Without access to Mann’s personal and professional records we can not mount a proper defense for our clients and ensure them a fair trial.