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 think we skeptics should post whatever info we have that will help Steyn’s case.
I would have thought that in pursuing a lawsuit one should not open oneself up to the accusation of exaggeration. The following statement might be so construed:-
I wonder if the people funding the “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund” realize their identities will be subject to discovery?
Wow! Maybe NRO’s lawyers will allow us to crowdsource review of the documents from discovery? That would be a fantastic Christmas present.
Mann-made global warming to be decided by lawyers. The lawyers are so clueless that they haven’t the foggiest idea of what’s going to hit them.
Perhaps we should have pitty on them and give them advance warning? Everybody send an email to Mt Williams telling him: you are going to lose that case.
Although he doesn’t need it, Mark Steyn will indeed have a motherload of material to mine in the future.
As I recall, Mann has filed another libel lawsuit which is currently going nowhere because he’s dragging his heels responding to discovery demands. I suspect this one, too, will drag on until it’s dismissed for his nonresponse in discovery. Anybody have a handy link to the other lawsuit?
“Discovery, HO-OOOOO!…”
Mike Dini: try this:
https://www.nationalreview.com/donate
You can write a comment to the editors to request this be applied to their defense in the Mann lawsuit.
” LongCat says:
October 23, 2012 at 9:59 am
I can’t believe an otherwise reputable firm like Cozen O’Connor would file this suit. Mann is going to lose rather badly on First Amendment grounds after being dragged through the mud in discovery. This should be fun.”
———————————————————–
Of course they would take the case. Cozen O’Connor gets paid by the hour. And probably very handsomely. Nothing requires that your client be in the right if they want to file a lawsuit. Just that they have money and a willingness to throw it at an attorney.
I think the judge is going to tell the defendant to defend himself with facts at hand at the time of the alleged offense and disallow a witch hunt for evidence to support his claim. There will be no discovery and none needed because what is needed for the defense is presumably already known.
Mann is going to win this one if the existing evidence is not compelling proof of fraud.
Fyi, I’m a second Glenn – now known here as GlennD. I’m the “non-scientist” who commented above.
@ur momisugly An Opinion says: October 23, 2012 at 10:54 am
Given the recent recipients, I would say it is not even a prize any longer. Arafat? Carter? Obama? The EU?
The DC filing is not just “judge shopping”, in the most liberal court system of the country….it is also “jury shopping” for the largest pool of federally funded “peers” to judge the limits of free speech. Any dillusions of Mann made warming are removed in “The Hockey Stick of Illusion” by A W Montford. Ask Tricky Dick….stating loudly….”I am NOT a crook”….does not remove criminal behavior. Ask Slick Willy….stating loudly….”I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman”….does not remove DNA evidence. Ask Dirty Sandusky….stating loudly….”All those little boys are lying”….won’t keep you out of the grey bar hotel. Little Mikey has awakened the fearless FOI-STEYN ! ! !
Keep him under pressure keep him in the spot light , Mann’s ego will do the rest for us .
Mark Steyn forced the Canadian establishment to change all its whole hate speech legal framework. Mann is nuts taking him and all the worlds pro bono amateur scientists.
Steyn could get a dataset from discovery, crowd source it, and have a detailed analysis in 24 hours.
If I’m not mistaken, finding a person guilty of libel against a public figure is far more difficult to accomplish than it would be against a private person. Mann has done nothing other than promote himself for years and due to his large number of followers on Twitter and Facebook, he is now a public figure. I for one am going to enjoy watching this play out… while simultaneously enjoying watching his case against Tim Ball play out in Canada. I hope the warmists keep squandering their money on unwinnable causes.
I think I’m going to buy a case of floss in anticipation of a massive rise in my popcorn consumption… I’m sure that over the coming months I’ll get lots of those pesky kernals caught between my teeth.
I fell a limerick series coming on 🙂
The Mann with the Nobel surprise
Has his fingers in too many pies
He’s now set up to fall
In his case v Tim Ball
When discovery brings out the lies
dp says:
October 23, 2012 at 12:13 pm
—————————————————–
With this post you prove how little you know about law, libel and accusations of fraud. If you think a judge is going to prevent NR and Steyn from vigorously defending themselves, you are delusional.
If I compared him to Lance Armstrong would he sue me? Even Lance couldn’t keep it up forever.
dp:
This suggests that you must already have adequate support “in hand” if you allege fraud. You can’t go looking for the support afterward in order to shore up an allegation for which you lacked sufficient basis. dp, is this the gist of it?
If this then is the situation wrt to defense from this suit, do the readers here believe that there is sufficient support for the allegation of fraud already at hand?
In the USA, the truth is an absolute defense against libel, so if the defendants can prove that what they say is true, then there is no case. Mann says he will seek compensatory damages. To be successful he will need to show how he has been financially harmed as a result of the published material that is found to be false.
It does not seem that half of what the FB page says would be actionable. The defendants are accused of claiming that global warming is a hoax. That’s just an expression of opinion. The part that would be is claiming that he “improperly manipulated the data.” To me, “improper” implies a value judgement. So the case, if it goes to trial, would, if the FB page is accurate, revolve around what manipulations are proper, and what are improper.
He’s probably looking for a settlement anyway.
“and every replication of Mann’s work”
yep, ya gets a hockey stick every time, no matter what data you use.
He blocked me over a month ago for merely stating “gee….I can’t wait for discovery”. Guess I hurt his feelings. Do I get a lawsuit filed against me too???? COWARD…….. HOAXSTER…..DISCOVERY……DISCOVERY…….DISCOVERY……..DISCOVERY…….DISCOVERY…………
Dear Dr. Mann,
Regarding your stated position that discovery does not apply to you, we refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram…
☺