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.
I wish that I would have had this kind of dream last night.
John
Wow, look at that popcorn futures graph – it’s . .it’s a HOCKEY STICK ! ! ! !
That must prove Mann was right after all . . .! 🙂 ( . . better add ‘sarc’ just in case . .!)
Another funny thing about this is that although scientific fraud could possibly be inferred from this,
It is not explicitly stated. A graph can be fraudulent without being the product of fraud, so not sure that charge works.
DaveE.
Last post appears to be in the spam bin. 🙁
Guess it was the F*aud word.
DaveE.
boston12gs says: October 28, 2012 at 9:40 am
“Much of the American legal profession is built around bringing suits that have little prospect of winning (and quite profitably so).”
Sometimes a profit or a win is not even sought. One method used by the Sierra Club is the use nuisance lawsuits as a means of delaying projects or proposals. Once a company has set aside tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure a large project can be funded, anything that delays the project is a cost to the company far more than the cost of the litigation. The goal of what I’ve seen termed as “lawfare” (translated for TBear “The goal of what Mike D has seen termed as ‘lawfare'”) is not the winning of cases for profit, nor the racking up of legal fees as “punishment”, but rather the accumulated costs of delays. Time value of money and NPV are major factors in whether a company pushes for developments or not: the farther away any profit can be pushed, particularly when the up-front costs or required capital must be maintained, the less likely the company will approve the project.
This is an aside from the current issue. Mann takes exception to the references and inferences, and is willing to go to court to make them stop. Ask Oscar Wilde how that can end.
Amazing how many sensitive participants are on this blog. The Bear thought this was a place of rational science types?
Not happy with the Bear’s analysis of why Mann has a good chance of winning this case, the WUWT crew attack the messenger.
Oh well 🙂
Back to the issue of discovery, TimC (October 28, 2012 at 10:10 am) has some valid points. The difficulty, Tim, (without getting all legal and technical) is that none of the categories of documents (emails, raw data, drafts of past papers, etc) that the defense might like to get hold of are mentioned in Mann’s filing.
Therefore, general discovery will produce no such documents and an application will have to be be made for further discovery.
This application for further discovery is likely to be refused; if the documents are not raised in Mann’s filling they are unlikely to be relevant to any issue at trial, with Mann defining the issues in his filing. The idea that such documents may be relevant to the trial is speculative and, as is well known, you cannot use discovery (or a subpoena) to fish for evidence that might help your case.
As the Bear suggested earlier, Mann’s lawyers are clever: they have drafted the filing to make sure neither Mann nor PSU is exposed to a potentially embarrassing discovery order. These guys know what they are doing.
Still, it is a trial and it is possible the defense could manufacture a way of obtaining further discovery.
Tell U what, let’s all wait and see what happens, eh?
As matters stand, in the Bear’s view, Mann is favorite to win.
And an order for discovery that will unearth some suspected smoking gun email, etc, is a fanciful stretch of wishful thinking.
Breaking News, Mike Mann not alone in claiming Nobel Prize (thanks to the evangelical warmist “Lateline” program). 4 years ago and still no correction.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2399646.htm
What I say thrice must be true! Ha Ha HA!
“MARGOT O’NEILL, REPORTER: Meet three of Australia’s, and the world’s, top climate change scientists. Each of them shared in last year’s Nobel Prize for their work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…..”
HAHAHAHAHA
TBear:
At October 28, 2012 at 3:07 pm you say
Thankyou, on the basis of your contributions to this thread and the rebuttals from knowledgeable posters that gives me great confidence that Mann doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.
Richard
I wouldn’t get too excited over the Nobel Prize issue.
Many errors appear in legal plaints and where simple errors in wording are involved it is easy to have the plaint modified to correct the error – at least that has been my experience here in Australia where even a defendant’s name has been altered because of error – the defendant had no say in this.
It will be easy to overlook the claim of award of Nobel Prize as a mistake by a junior filing clerk – at least that is my experience.
It still shows the Mann is an egotist !
My apologies if it has been said already: “All great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” Karl Marx
The incoming administration will cut off funding for climate research and then this great mind will be silenced forever.
re: TBear October 28, 2012 at 3:07 pm says:
The Dan thinks TBear is the one being sensitive. TBear’s opinions are as welcome as anybody else’s and, in fact, offer some insights. The Dan thinks TBear is full of crap, though, even though that’s just the Dan’s opinion. TBear is an attorney and the Dan is just a layman, so maybe the Dan is the one full of crap. However, Mann is the one suing for defamation. His targets in part used Mann’s refusal to turn over emails generated on taxpayer-funded time as evidence that he’s got something to hide. The Dan thinks it’s ridiculous to imagine any judge would refuse to expose those emails to the defendants for their defense.
As TBear said, let’s wait to see what happens, but the Dan is betting against Mann prevailing.
– The Dan
Man Bearpig says:
October 28, 2012 at 6:23 am
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
His analysis of what Phil Jones did in preparing that graph seems reasonable.
Rosco says on October 28, 2012 at 3:48 pm
The problem is, there is plenty of evidence all over the internet of Mann claiming to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize …
Is it not pathetic for a scientist to claim the Nobel Peace Prize? It is awarded to those who had “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.”
I don’t quite see how the IPPC has done that, but any such activity belongs to politics, it is entirely outside the realm of science for sure.
So, it is quite immaterial if he could vindicate contribution to that prize. If he did, it’s even worse, because that could only be contribution to some political activity, unrelated to his alledged scientific achievments.
It’s anyone’s guess how Dr. Mann contributed to fraternity between nations. Has he drunk beer with some German collegues? Because he never abolished standing armies or held a peace congress for sure.
– – – – – – – – –
Dearest illeistic commenter @ur momisugly WUWT (aka TBear),
You are perhaps claiming not to be an illeist, when all the evidence, which thankfully you have thoughtfully provided by yourself here, accurately identifies you as an illeist. It am sure it appears illogical of you to protest you are not an illeist to any scientific types present.
Since you claim not to be a scientist, are you referring to yourself in your statement ‘The Bear thought this was a place of rational science types’? I imagine scientific types want to know. Also, if you are an experienced trial lawyer, which you claim without any actual evidence, do you expect scientific types to just trust you? If so then your logic seems inconsistent in your above comment.
Also, I think earlier in one of your comments you claim you are an Australian trail lawyer from Sydney. Even if your claim is true, are you claiming your experience in Australian law can be reasonably expected to be significantly consistent with American jurisprudence and application of law? What basis do you have to claim that? It does not seem logical for you to claim expertise in American legal system, please explain you basis of US law knowledge. Also, can you provide proof that you are an Australian trial lawyer, I am sure scientific types want to have that. : )
Given that by your own many comments here you are an illeist, please advise why you choose such a seemly childish cutsey behavior with its implied contempt of and condescending attitude toward al the WUWT commenters. Some of the scientific logical types at WUWT may want to know.
Is being an experience trial lawyer in Sydney Australia consistence with illeist behavior on ‘The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change’? It does not appear consistent to me. It appears unprofessional and childish.
John
The “Popcorn” futures graph … another hockey stick and just as real as the other one.
Well done Anthony!
When I saw the popcorn futures chart I had a sudden urge to GO GREEN. Maybe there is something subliminal in there, but I just put out the tire fire in my yard.
Bob Fernley-Jones says:
October 27, 2012 at 10:20 pm
Phil. @ur momisugly October 26, 10:24 am
I tried to reply to this but it disappeared, third one in two days! I’ll try to respond tomorrow, weather permitting (i.e. Sandy).
the burden of proof in a libel case is upon the plaintiff.
the fraudulent claims in the body of the complaint are perjured testimony.
the jury will understand that the plaintiff is a fraud and has established a history of fraudulent claims.
mann’s established reputation is that of a prat, having received the most votes, worldwide, of any of the contestants on tallbloke’s talkshop.
this is a matter of public record – no discovery is required to prove his reputation is that of King Prat.
it will be incumbent on mann to prove that his reputation as a prat has been defamed.
i wouldn’t be surprized if even his imaginary friends abandon him and, in fugue, has to dissociate himself from his own identity by referring to himself in the third person as a stuffed animal from his infancy.
The cleansing of Mann’s lies off the Penn State Website has started. Followed by Wikipedia. Amazing that both institutions took Mann at his word and didn’t bother to make even the most rudimentary check. Does say much for the integrity of Penn State.
I wonder how long before Mann starts cleansing his lies off his Facebook page?
This will make a pleasant change to his comments cleansing habit.
http://beforeitsnews.com/environment/2012/10/michael-mann-retracts-false-nobel-prize-claims-in-humiliating-climbdown-2452392.html
http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/10670-michael-mann-retracts-false-nobel-prize-claims-in-humiliating-climbdown
correction-
the prat award is a product of pointman, not tallbloke.
sorry for my mistake
– – – – – – –
gnomish,
I like it.
Welcome but beware . . . . “Ennyn Durin aran Moria. Pedo mellon a minno”
John
Looks like google news has banned ANY reference to stories about his Nobel doings
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&gl=au&tbm=nws&q=michael+mann+climate&nfpr=&spell=1
says 111 stories but link gives 0
Would any scientist that embellishes his CV or Bio have any concerns about embellishing a scientific study? So what does that make any of his studies worth?
Let’s see. Not sure how climate works. Not sure how Nobel Prize awards work. So, lie about both.
Yeah, the pattern shows a trend. May even be unprecedented.