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.
Maybe his Nobel Prize was predicted by models, and, despite the facts, he’s sticking with them.
I’m bored by all this Mann-baiting and politix. Can we have more posts on science, especially ENSO, oceans and palaeo stuff (+nuclear, fracking etc.)?
Nobel FrankenPrize
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan
A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception.
I can be easily argued that this “Charlatan Model” fits Michael Mann rather well: he used his famous pine-tree trick to obtain money and fame under false pretenses,, e.g. claiming to be a Nobel Laureate among others.
Slam dunk?
@John Day:
I think this is the nub of the problem. He has based not only his career on charlatanism but his whole ego is based on it. He is now attacked on all sides. The recent Briffa paper is basically an attack from his own side. He can no longer bully people liek Briffa into keeping quiet. It’s all falling apart around him.
What we are seeing is Mann as a cornered animal, lashing out. Fortunately a spurious lawsuit is as dangerous as this particular animal is likely to get.
I imagine that the constant drumbeat from independent journalists and intellects wrt Mann’s lawsuit will be something like this:
The Mann lawsuit against NRO/CEI has a net positive effect for open society. The net positive effect is the spike in highly public exposure of a continuing and deeply troubling second instance of PSU leadership’s problem in performing a trustworthy internal investigation an employee (the second case involves their employee Mann). This second instance of questionable PSU leadership behavior is in addition to the widespread public awareness of the deeply troubling conduct of PSU leadership in the investigation of and handling of the horrific pedophile scandal involving PSU’s employee Sandusky (see Freeh report). In the international public there are serious unresolved questions about the PSU employee M. Mann being involved wrt ‘prima fascia’ Climategate evidence showing a group of scientists intentionally aiding: 1) manipulation or suppression of data; 2) FOI law avoidance; 3) using their public institution positions and/or IPCC positions to block the inclusion of the scientific research of their critics. PSU should do in the Mann instance what they did in the Sandusky instance; have a truly independent investigation done.
PSU has a decision to make. Or perhaps Mann’s lawsuit against NRO/CEI is his emotional reaction against an already existing PSU decision that was not favorable to him?
John
Andrew Weaver skewered at NoFrakkingConsensus…
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/10/26/ipcc-author-becomes-green-party-apparatchik/
New study links popcorn futures to AGW!
Developing story, more to come.
Read this PSU webpage.
http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2012/02/disinformation-social-stability-and-moral-outrage.html
The above link is about the tricks used to put the Heartland Institute in a bad light.
Then review some of the other web-pages that can be accessed by the icons at the top – in the dark blue bar. Just a cursory review will lead you to the logical conclusion that the “ethics” taught at PSU is “The end justifies the means.” With “ethics” like this being taught there, how would anyone even consider they would/could find fault with their two recent public figures.
As a graduate of PS, I was appalled. I no longer respond to any of their requests for donations and have scraped the Nittany Lion decal from the window of my car.
>Am I right to think that in the USA court system, for this case, the burden of proof is low, in effect just the same as ‘balance of probablilities’ we have over here in UK. i.e. one side just needs 51% to the others 49%? If it is a jury ‘vote’ decision, would that be a 7:5 requirement for a 12 man jury?. Or do you have the possibility for a casting vote by the judge if its 6:6?
The standard of proof in a civil trial is preponderance of the evidence (51-49). Each state has its own rules with respect to the size of juries in civil trial. In California, civil juries usually have 12 members and a valid verdict must be by a 9-3 or better (75%) margin. Judges don’t cast tie breaking votes. I don’t know how many jurors are used in Washington D. C. A Manuel on Jury Trial Procedures, 2004 edition, prepared by The Jury Instructions Committee for the 9th Circuit states that for civil trials between 6 and 12 jurors must be used. I hope this case does make it into a courtroom.
M Courtney says:
October 29, 2012 at 4:54 am
What Did I Tell You!? says at October 29, 2012 at 4:13 am
“the case which most closely overlays is Hustler vs Falwell (Larry Flynt vs Reverend Jerry Falwell.”
Sounds believable to a non-expert like myself but I can also see sceptics being linked to immoral pornographers if that argument is used.
Another stick with which to beat the curious away from sceptical websites.
A pyrrhic victory at best.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – –
Said the one to the other, when neither had several milion dollars, their entire life’s reputations, AND the fundamental principles of constitutionally acknowledged speech at stake.
Flynt’s story happens to be simply, that of all the enemies of Mann.
Mann, from a bully pulpit of government funds magnet and catastrophe alarmism peddler
Falwell from a bully pulpit of his own television network, catastrophe alarmism peddler
Mann goes at it for YEARS invoking the most EVIL of accusations,
Falwell goes at it for YEARS invoking the most EVIL of accusations,
Finally Mann is spoken back to and furiously goes to trial under pretense of hurt feelings, loss of income, yada yada
Finally Falwell is spoken back to and furiously goes to trial under pretense of hurt feelings, loss of income, yada yada
Mann claims malice
Falwell claimed malice
Mann assumed public office and pursued doggedly the interests of a group dedicated to wiping out another group’s lifestyle,
Falwell assumed public office and pursued doggedly the interests of a group dedicated to wiping out another group’s lifestyle,
On,
and
ON,
and
ON
the two stories go.
They can mount multiple defenses. And they can say so. There’s no such thing as only being innocent one way. Innocent is innocent.
Just because some pornographer made use of the principles of sound government one time doesn’t mean anything except those who see justice get done are angry whether it’s pornographers or statistical molesters.
They’re innocent there’s less than no doubt about it, they could simply say “Your honor see Hustler vs Falwell, can we adjourn now?
It’s already over except for the part about Mann being countersued and unable to get out.
The reason Larry Flynt didn’t countersue is he had been shot and his girlfriend had overdosed and died and he was all tuckered out.
The people in this lawsuit don’t have that problem
What Did I Tell You!? says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:06 pm
And, lol, the part about it being Roger Pielke’s quote, is wrong. Sorry everyone I’m blogging while pursuing other stuff; namely talking with my wife
You talk to your wife ??
Man, there is a lot of irrational and illogical commentary on this blog.
Does this same level of debate infect your discussions about climate science? If so, what a waste of time …
At best Mann has a model of a Nobel Prize.
stephen richards says:
October 29, 2012 at 2:21 pm
What Did I Tell You!? says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:06 pm
And, lol, the part about it being Roger Pielke’s quote, is wrong. Sorry everyone I’m blogging while pursuing other stuff; namely talking with my wife
“You talk to your wife ??”
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Not like, “I’m the boss of her,” or nothin’.
I have an approved free speech zone in my house. If she approves I’m free to speak.
If not –
well –
then
not.
.
TBear says:
October 29, 2012 at 2:26 pm
“Man, there is a lot of irrational and illogical commentary on this blog.
Does this same level of debate infect your discussions about climate science? If so, what a waste of time …”
You’re a hick who believed there was no way mankind can check to see if spectra of infrared light have been growing in the atmosphere.
TBear says:
October 29, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Man, there is a lot of irrational and illogical commentary on this blog.
Does this same level of debate infect your discussions about climate science? If so, what a waste of time …
——-
Yes, the irrationality seemed increased quite markedly when you started making up discovery rules and ranting about a bizarre “not raised in the filing” standard. Lurk a bit more, and you’ll find the quality of the comments increases substantially.
Advice to M. Mann: “Try not to become a man of success. Rather become a man of value.”
Your favourite search engine will assist, I’m sure.
And, that we need magic math that makes hockey sticks when fed calibration data
to let us look into magical tree rings and see past that “heat, wind/not wind, water/canopy, water/roots, growing room/canopy growing room/roots *15 SEPARATE ELEMENTS in PROPORTION*, whether elements are chelated/water soluble form, parasites/canopy, parasites/roots,
thing
to the point we can believe people who say we should dismantle society because there’s a catastrophe,
but no, we can’t see their work, because they might need the intellectual rights to it sometime later, down the road.
You who believe in these things shall shortly see the day when you see “Bigfoot” and “Area51” on the same pages you check for “climate ‘progress.”
the soapy shower of illeism from tickle-bear only adds to the enjoyment.
what do we like? schadenfreude! when do we like it? now!
ROFL (w/permission from my wife)
What Did I Tell You!? says:
October 29, 2012 at 3:10 pm
“You who believe in these things shall shortly see the day when you see “Bigfoot” and “Area51″ on the same pages you check for “climate ‘progress.”
That’s right, you ALREADY DO.
“Here boy, !”
“What’s that?”
“That’s Darwin’s Dog.”
“Gu-gE-guGETTHAT THING AWaAY from ME!!!!”
Mentioning Darwin’s Dog to a liberal is like mentioning sunlight to a vampire.
http://search.psu.edu/?q=michael+mann+nobel
Anyway back to burning that pile of tires in my yard.
The problem with trolls masquerading as being sensible, is they finally give themselves away, because they simply have to. As the scorpion said, it’s their nature …
Pointman