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.
Hey, MM just proved a theory. He really is that stupid.
I would hope that both the NRO and the CEI file counterclaims very quickly. This would then force the case to continue even if Dr. Mann should want to withdraw. With careful thought they could cover all of the discovery needs that should be brought forward in Dr. Mann’s suit.
Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer or a US citizen, but have followed some interesting civil cases in the US, particularly the SCO/Linux situation of a few years back, and make my statement based on what I learned from that.
What if the National Inquirer purposely used inflamitory language to get Mann to file a law suit? Did he take the bait? The best way for him to get off the hook is to work for an out of court settlement. His Probability of his winning a civil jury trial is extremely low. Often the loser is required to pay the other’s attorney fees which can be considerable. The attorneys are nearly always financial winners.
Firms like Cozen O’Conner charge big bucks. After the first round of discovery and a couple of depositions the tab will probably be north of $100,000 and climbing.
Classic example of the Streisand effect
Beware of the “comparing him to a convicted child molester” challenge.
Taking on Mark Steyn and Rich Lowry together?
He has some balls to go with his hockey stick but I fear the Mann will score an own goal and be pucked.
Clearly, none of you has ever served on a DC jury.
Bob Rogers wrote: “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.”
They don’t even have to prove what they said was definitively true. All they have to show is that it is arguably true.
Steyn did not accuse Mann of academic fraud. He said that Mann was the person behind the fraudulent climate change hockey-stick graph. He could have meant that it was being used fraudulently but not conceived in a fraudulent manner. And he has abundant evidence that proves its current use is fraudulent, the flat-lining of temperatures since MBH 98 being most prominent in that regard. The hockey stick is slowly proving itself to be a fraud in the sense that it’s predictive power is now shown to be lacking.
Steyn may believe that Mann actually believed in the truth of his graph when he composed it. I think he’s saying that the fraud occurred after publication with the widespread use of it when evidence was accruing that it was not accurate. It’s clear now that it is fraudulent because it is still being used to frighten people, but that was not clear in the beginning.
MM is a public figure and will have to prove “actual malice” in the defamatory speech. “Actual malice” means that the statement was made by someone who knew it wasn’t true, or didn’t care whether it was true or not. MM has been meticulously debunked by McIntyre, Wegman and others, and reliance upon these sources in speaking ill of the MM should defuse any claim of willful malice. The comparison to Sandusky, while hyperbolic, was made in the context of opinion, namely that PSU was completely incapable of policing the misconduct of its faculty. MM was not even the subject matter of this speech, PSU was, and the argument by analogy is almost certainly protected speech.
It’s all falling apart so quickly that I cannot see any chance at all of this getting to court.
DocMartyn says:
October 23, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Steyn could get a dataset from discovery, crowd source it, and have a detailed analysis in 24 hours.
=============================================================
More like about 4 hours !!
MM is suing STYNE for an INDIRECT QUOTE that he used from someone else. HELP ME HELP ME HELP ME…I’m giddy. Can you IMAGINE what “Judge Judy” would do with this one?
This should be good. I can hardly wait.
@gofer says: October 23, 2012 at 9:39 am
Under what category of lawsuit is getting your “feelings” hurt?
—————————————————————————–
Section 5 in the UK.
Mann posted this on his Facebook page a couple of hours ago:
“A few followup comments regarding the NRO/CEI lawsuit.
1. There is a larger context for this latest development, namely the onslaught of dishonest and libelous attacks that climate scientists have endured for years by dishonest front groups seeking to discredit the case for concern over climate change. Its why I wrote my book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” (www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick
-Climate-Wars/dp/023115254X/
) about my experiences as a public figure in the climate change debate, and its why I filed this suit.
2. Now would be a great time to help out w/ the larger battle by assisting climate scientists in their efforts to fight back against the attacks. Please consider contributing to the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF):
climatesciencedefensefund.org”
(Note- I refuse to post direct links to facebook, You can navigate to his FB page via his homepage:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/index.php )
Maybe Mann’s lawyers should watch Steyn’s testimony at the BC Human Rights Commission. Between Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant the human rights commissions were shown to be the rent seeking shams that they are and resulted in the Canadian Government changing the act to take away the HRC’s fangs. Mark Steyn is smart enough to know exactly how far he can go. MM doesn’t stand a chance.
@Dave says: October 23, 2012 at 12:40 pm
… while simultaneously enjoying watching his case against Tim Ball play out in Canada.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
What’s the state of play with this? It must be a year old, yes? Was not Mann refusing to turn various papers over to the court? That, I think, was the last I heard on the matter of The Mekon v Prof. Ball
Anyone know the status of the Dr. Ball suit? Has Mann responded to the discovery there? And does Mann realize all the people whose emails were released in Climategate 1 and 2 are subject to be called if there is a trial? Some of those emails were not exactly complimentary about Mann’s science and methodology. My bet is the suit will be dropped, but hopefully NRO and Steyn can get some discovery requests in first.
Jay Davis
Max Hugoson says:
October 23, 2012 at 1:46 pm
MM is suing STYNE for an INDIRECT QUOTE that he used from someone else. HELP ME HELP ME HELP ME…I’m giddy. Can you IMAGINE what “Judge Judy” would do with this one?
————————————————————————————————————————————
This is exactly what happened at the BCHRC.
See The BLT Penn State Climate Scientist Sues National Review for Libel and
the Michael Mann Complaint at the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division. Case 0008263-12
I’ve been a regular spectator to US legal proceedings at Groklaw over the last few years. Consequently I am very cynical when it comes to US courts.
To amuse everyone, the judge will issue a series of bizarre rulings. Which evidence can be mentioned will be debated expensively at great length. Thousands of pages of legal scholarship will be written and then mostly ignored. The jury of ignorant people will rule on the basis of blind prejudice (or by rolling a dice). Nothing is then decided. Someone will appeal. While everyone pretends that all of this matters, the process is so protracted and expensive that it seldom runs all the way to conclusion. It really is nothing more than thinly disguised combat by wallet. The litigants spend money on expensive lawyers until somebody surrenders or goes bankrupt.
It would be a mistake to expect this to resolve anything about Mannian “science”.
Unfortunately Mann will drop this suit immediately after the first discovery motion is filed.
Re CSLDF statements (posted by JFD at 11:17 am). Are there any lawyers here who can explain and comment on the CSLDF statements regarding Mann’s emails and civil discovery? It sounds like the strategy of Mann’s lawyers is to get the emails exempted from civil discovery by placing them under the protection of a special “scholarly research” exemption that applies to FOI requests in Virginia.
Considering that civil discovery is not a Freedom of Information request, can this work? And what is ATI? Following are the relevant quotes from CSLDF :
2.Defeat ATI’s attempt to obtain Dr. Mann’s email correspondence through the civil discovery process, which essentially is an “end-run” around the scholarly research exemption under the Virginia FOIA law.
3.Prepare for summary judgment on the issue of the exempt status of his email correspondence under the Virginia FOIA law.
Can anyone here explain this?
“Mann is going to win this one if the existing evidence is not compelling proof of fraud.”
– – – –
1. One of the main issues that this brings into controversy is the sufficiency of Penn State’s investigation into Mann’s conduct. This will logically entail a comparison of what the school said it found, with Mann’s actual conduct. This alone justifies discovery into any and all accusations of wrongdoing/negligence/fraud on Mann’s part that Penn supposedly investigated.
In other words, Mann is asking a court to find that these people have wrongly and intentionally – with malice – tried to spread lies about him and his work, and there is no way “his work” can be protected from scrutiny, especially when he makes it a legal issue himself.
2. People shouldn’t talk about anyone being found “guilty” of anything in this civil lawsuit. “Guilty” is a criminal-law concept.
3. Fees – generally, in an American court, in a civil lawsuit, everyone pays their own fees, no matter who wins or loses, unless there is a specific statute calling for fees to be paid by a losing party (usually subject-related, such as “employment discrimination”, etc). Typically, a firm such as C-O’C takes on such a case contemplating that its client will be awarded a large sum to compensate for the damage done to him, and C-O’C would then, through its contract with Mann, take (again, typically) 1/3 of that amount as its fee.
In this case, C-O’C might have taken it on as a loss-leader, knowing it will not likely earn a big fee, but thinking it will bring in lots of other, more profitable, business. Or, the partner in charge of the case might simply be a committed CAGW adherent. Or an insensate drunk.