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.
Craig Loehle,
Nobel prize stature has declined since Obama won it.
Mann is clearly a serial litigator – has anyone followed what happened to his previous attempts?
“Superior Court of the District of Columbia”
Perhaps the local courts were underwater as he claimed and will have to prove in the discovery phase?
PoOC, Thanks for “fact molester” a really useful phrase.
Mann must have been inspired by the ridiculous verdict in Italy. http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-italian-earthquake-warning-verdict.html
If their legal system could come up with such a result, perhaps ours will “exonerate” him.
The case against NRO is supremely weak, and could end up with having to pay damages the other way for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. Essentially he is suing because they blogged what someone else said about Mann.
cui bono says:
October 23, 2012 at 9:49 am
“Laugh? I almost emitted CO2.”
More likely CH4.
Seriously, perhaps MM is looking for a legal fund to be set up on his behalf. I am sure the team and other supporters would be more than happy to donate some other people’s money to help in his time of need. But then, who will account for the funds when all is said and done.
I think this sounds too good to be true. I don’t trust the legal system. Mann will come off as an innocent scientist just doing his job.
I think Mann has been chosen to be the ‘Fall Guy’ in the echelon of vested Interests,Used, abused, and then discarded.
I hope he keeps all his correspondence and after being ‘Slain’ releases it as ‘Manngate’.
Pointman says: “Yes, Mann is a world-class prat but unfortunately, he and his ilk have managed to do damage to the industrial infrastracture of many countries, ”
So when MMs loses his case against NRO, does that provide “We the People” and “we taxpayers” with standing before the court system and the needed evidence to go after “he and his ilk” for the damage they have wrought on us?
Now if we Americans only had a Department of Justice with an Attorney General who would prosecute people for the fraudulent use of Government Funding vs. finding ways for them to skirt justice…
This is now a front page item on Fox news web site.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/23/climate-scientist-michael-mann-sues-over-comparison-to-child-molester/
Larry
This could make for an interesting interaction of the Daubert Standard with climate scientists against statisticians.
Dr. Mann is a public figure. That raises the bar for libel/slander substatially. He has to prove malice. Unless he gets a very friendly judge, the case will be thrown out. He, also, will have to cough up emails and documents that he has been hiding despite FOA requests (UVA and PSU). The discovery process will kill him unless he has destroyed the docs.
[Calling people “global warming deniers” is sure to get your comment snipped. — mod.]
“”He has to prove malice. Unless he gets a very friendly judge, the case will be thrown out.”
– – – –
“Malice” could probably be satisfied if he can make the judge believe that the defendants were actively trying to undermine his reputation so that they could call CAGW into question, somehow to their ultimate profit or gain.
The judge is a loon. All bets are off.
I just read his complaint–he’s going to get gutted and filleted with all the doors he opened for discovery
bobby b says: October 23, 2012 at 2:36 pm
What’s the situation on challenging a judge in the US? This one doesn’t look to be a ‘balanced’ option.
The Mann-iac should read up on Oscar Wilde and self-destructive libel suits….
Mann’s ego can’t fit inside the courtroom and he does not have any of Wilde’s sense of humor, so the flame-out will be even more spectacular and complete.
DickF,
Parties always get discovery, but a judge may have some leeway in determining what’s “in bounds” vs “out of bounds”. For example, material that is irrelevant or needlessly cumulative can be excluded from discovery.
Mann is living a self-created myth about him-self. His self-created myth is as incompetent looking as his paleoclimatology. : )
He had his 15 min of fame with AR3 and AR4 hockey sticks hiding decline and manipulating to eliminate evidence of historical warming, now we are into his multi-decadal scale period of infamy.
At the advice of my doctor I switched from popcorn to carrot and celery sticks with lofat ranch dip.
John
bobby b says:
October 23, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Sorry, forgot to add the comments to my last entry:
http://mokellyreport.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/sterling-reviews-of-judge-natalia-combs-green/
Those comments about the judge are a real eye opener.
Michael Mann already has several lawsuits on the go and has failed to follow through on any of them. How can we have any confidence that this new lawsuit will not also be moribund?
“Now if we Americans only had a Department of Justice with an Attorney General who would prosecute people for the fraudulent use of Government Funding vs. finding ways for them to skirt justice…”
The beautiful thing is that we do!
We have out-sourced fraud investigations.
All we need is a whistleblower.
It’s only a matter of time before someone comes forth to tell the truth about Mann (they did for Sandusky).
Whistleblower Rewards Program
The federal government has established vigorous programs to identify and prosecute fraudulent grant applications and administration. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) administers the False Claims Act. It allows rewards for those who come forward with details of grant fraud to share in the recovery of federal funds. This reward can be as much as 30% of the total amount reclaimed. The program is almost completely reliant on insiders to report their knowledge of the fraud in their institutions.
Attorney Literally “Wrote the Book” on Fraud Recovery Lawsuits
Joel Hesch, Esq., of Hesch and Associates, literally wrote the book on how to report federal fraud. He has an extensive background in representing whistleblowers in all types of federal funding fraud cases, including Educational/Research Grant Fraud. According to Mr Hesch: “Many institutions receive grants, whether for research or educational purposes. When they lie to get the grant or keep the grant or if they use the funds for purposes outside the grant, they are liable under the DOJ program. There have been many grant cases brought by whistleblowers.”
http://howtoreportfraud.com/examples-of-federal-fraud/grant-fraud
I’m sorry, just how do you go “down” from bottom?
Discovery comes before the trial so it is safe to say this will never be adjudicated unless there is a counterclaim which is not dropped. Mann likely thinks he can hide behind the FOIA exemption but that will not apply here. No matter how the original judge rules all of the stuff Mann wants to hide would be forced out upon appeal.
Counterclaims will be coming and they will be constructed so as to allow access to everything our heart’s desire. Judges are loathe to interfere with discovery and only really issue rulings when one side or the other is slow responding or wishes to claim certain information is not relevant. There is a high degree of latitude as to what is considered relevant which is why discovery is often referred to as a fishing expedition.
Ultimately, Mann will have to argue that the fact that he was cleared by the same people who cleared Sandusky should have been enough to insulate him from any further doubt. That is a losing proposition from the start. In his tiny little mind I am sure he thinks he will discover some nefarious plot funded by the oil companies etc… But all he will really discover is how sharp Stein’s tongue and pen are, and how ridiculous he can be made to look when he cannot bully other people.
This is going to be hilarious.