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.
@Jono1066 says: October 23, 2012 at 2:47 pm
lesson number 3 – Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.
lesson number 2 – your best enemy is the one who is going to help you win the war
///////////////////////////////////
Lesson number 1 – If your enemy is choleric, irritate him. Which is exactly what Steyn did 🙂
(Lao Tzu – The Art Of War)
@D Böehm says: October 23, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Craig Loehle,
Nobel prize stature has declined since Obama won it.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Way before the Messiah. Kissinger started the rot, as Tom Lehrer noted.
At the very least this may raise the profile of Tiljander.
It would be amusing to see the BBC trying to defend that one.
Here’s an idea for a graphic from Josh:
A fist making a thumb-down gesture, with the thumb being an inverted hockey stick.
Fascinating.
I suspect Mann himself had a hand in the drafting of the submission.
It is a direct appeal to and relies entirely on Authority. Implicit is the threat that any Judge refusing to acknowledge defamation is challenging a mountain of ‘scientific’ authority and running counter to common practice, i.e. the general acceptance of the Global Warming Thesis by governments and state science organisations. The irony is that he was an engineer of that consensus.
Mann has set the stakes very high at the outset.
He personifies the truth of all Global Warming Consensus scientists.
An attack on him is an attack on the Consensus.
I think a good Judge could make quite a name for themselves here.
If Mann fails the whole shonky edifice comes tumbling down.
This could be what Mann and his lawyer were counting on when they filed the suit.
“Wow! Maybe NRO’s lawyers will allow us to crowdsource review of the documents from discovery? That would be a fantastic Christmas present.”
Mann will claim discovery is proprietary. He’s made that claim before. With the right judge, he will get a protective order requiring that discovered documents be kept confidential. Don’t expect that any discovered items will ever become public.
“So, to play the devil’s advocate, I’m wondering how might Mann win this case if it goes to trial?”
Step 1 would be to get the climategate files excluded from evidence since it’s hearsay. We don’t know for a fact that each and every element is legit. Someone could have slid some incriminating things into it.
Step 2 would be to ensure that various entities have wiped those old backups over the years since.
Step 3 would be to disqualify any expert from NRO and insist that only scientists that have published Peer Reviewed literature are considered legitimate to voice an opinion.
Step 4 would be to bring in a truckload of their own experts asserting that not only was Mann not engaged in fraud, but he’s a paragon of righteousness and an example to us all.
Discovery phase should be a hoot…
I wish Mosher would bring his “high entropy word” style analysis into play comparing the Sandusky exoneration to the Mann exoneration, both from Penn State — per O’Sullivan
https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/official-probe-shows-climategate-whitewash-link-to-sandusky-child-sex-case/
O’Sullivan says the same author wrote this about Mann
the “level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…”
and [ issued an eerily similar statement to exonerate Sandusky:]
“This level of success on the football field and revenue generated from it, clearly places Coaches Paterno and Sandusky among the most respected professionals in their field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of their profession in operating a football program…”
“Had Coach Paterno or Coach Sandusky’s conduct of their program been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for them to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from peers who may or may not agree with his program … ”
[The above statements prove the status of the football program and its leaders, Paterno and Sandusky, are an EXACT parallel to Michael Mann’s status. ]
If the two suspects were exonerated by the same person and process and the process has been shown in court to be flawed in the case of Sandusky then I think it a fair and honest claim to suggest that Mann’s so-called exoneratation should be considered suspect.
Anthony. I think the excellent opinion piece pointed out by ttfn above and found at
http://bitly.com/XT7zXp
written by Ken [I won’t write his full name, it appears he prefers to blog pseudo-anonymously, perhaps as it might affect his relationship with his employers in his work as a criminal defence lawyer ].
I think this would be well suited to being elevated to a full post here at WUWT as for one I would enjoy the comments discussion to follow. The comments for me are often, no disrespect intended, the most interesting and informative part of articles posted here at WUWT. Can’t beat a bit of discussion.
Ken can be reached at ken [at] popehat [dot] com if you would like to see about permission for this to be reproduced, after all, he is a lawyer /sarc but i think i really meant /wink
JFD says:
October 23, 2012 at 11:17 am
Mann is indeed seeking funds for his lawsuit from the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund . Here is the pitch on their website:
—————–
Somehow this seems backwards. Mann is not the defendant, Mark Styne is. Shouldn’t Mark be given access to the CSLDF since he is the one needing money to defend climate science and Mann is only defending Mann? It seems the good doctor wants to:
“1.Fend-off ATI’s demand to take Dr. Mann’s deposition
2.Defeat ATI’s attempt to obtain Dr. Mann’s email correspondence through the civil discovery process
3.Prepare for summary judgment on the issue of the exempt status of his email correspondence under the Virginia FOIA law”
How does this “defend climate science”?
Maybe Mark should request funds from CSLDF.
cn
No matter how bad life beats you up, stay in the ring and fight, never give up, fight for your dreams; Every champion was once a contender, Every success was once a dream. You have to start somewhere to get somewhere. Big dreams start with small steps. Keep fighting until you win.
Get more inspiring thoughts from my blog http://iamose.wordpress.com/
O/T – Sorry to sound like a grumpy old Mann (d’ya see what I did there?), but what is it with this recent trend of people posting links to mostly irrelevant YouTube clips? If it bears directly on the subject of the post, fine… otherwise, it’s a bandwidth hog, particularly on larger threads, plus WordPress now embeds a preview image from YouTube, which screws around with the page loading.
People,
I think you should reconsider the discovery process as being an easy process in this lawsuit because it appears that Dr. Mann and his lawyers have planned ahead on this lawsuit by getting a biased Judge to preside over the case.
Here is this sobering article from John O’Sullivan who thinks this might turn out to be a difficult trial:
Michael Mann Gets “Most Biased” Judge for Key US Global Warming Trial
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/michael-mann-gets-most-biased-judge-for-key-us-global-warming-trial/
„Coram iudice et in alto mari sumus in manu Dei.“
If you accuse someone of academic fraud, compare them to a convicted child molester and they file suit against you, then the proof is going to be on you to prove you are right. What would Mann have to prove to satisfy the court? Would the court make Mann prove it wasn’t academic fraud or why it wasn’t right to compare him to a convicted child molester? I think Mann would only have to prove he wants to continue the lawsuit by showing up in court and the decision of the Judge is obvious.
Who is his employer? Employers don’t like workers in court involved with litigation. Both from a reputation standpoint and a time wasting standpoint. In terms of damages, he can claim certain companies intended to give him grants and they dried up. He can’t get Corporations to testify what they would and would not have done. Since he sues, it is up to him to prove his science under oath is spot on and their claims besmirch him with bad science claims. The most I see is a nuisance settlement. The worst case scenario is his firm bails and he is out a lot of hourly fees. This is not a classic contingency fee case.
Gary Lance says:
October 24, 2012 at 6:37 am “If you accuse someone of academic fraud, compare them to a convicted child molester and they file suit against you, then the proof is going to be on you to prove you are right.”
But he wasn’t compared to a convicted child molester; he was accused of molesting statistics. The defence he has used has been that he has been cleared by an investigation performed by his universiyy. Who, it must be admitted, also exonerated a convicted child molester.
Mann is accused of “molesting” scientific data. There is a public evidence to make that claim reasonable. The US Congress had two reports that agreed with Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick; Mann can’t win a libel case on something that is at best a matter of opinion.
No-one has suggested Mann has molested children until he (and now you) muddled the two issues up.
Indeed, the post being sued says he has not molested children. I quote,
“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
(VIDEO APPROX 3 MINS) 25 Oct: Fox Business: Stuart Varney Interview
Goreham: Climatism Headed for a Fall
Steve Goreham, Executive Director at the Climate Science Coalition of America, argues that evidence shows the earth’s temperature isn’t rising…
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/varney-co/index.html#/v/1921579271001/goreham-climatism-headed-for-a-fall/?playlist_id=87060
@Gary Young Lance.
Yes, that’s quite true I expect, but first I would expect that Mann has to prove that he personally was accused of academic fraud in the articles ( a clue, he wasn’t) also that he personally was compared to a convicted child molester ( a clue, he wasn’t).
You don’t have to prove anything if A: What you say is factual and or B: The accusations against you are false.
Even if the accusations were upheld the plaintiff has to show that any reasonable person reading the words would construe them as the plaintiff suggests they were intended and that there was malice and intention to be injurious to the plaintiff’s reputation. Given that Mann is most definitely a public person ( he states this himself, always one not to miss an opportunity of self-aggrandisement, just look at the Nobel prize claim) the bar is raised so much higher in Libel cases to prove malice.
It’s a shame for Mikey that he could not have brought this case in London UK. You can wipe the floor with libel cases if your pockets are deep enough.
Only the judge chosen for this case concerns me as it seems anything could happen. I see this going to appeal already.
I do hope that there is a move to show this not only to be frivolous but also a vexatious litigation given Mann’s history in this area.
Isn’t it refreshing that, for the most part, “global warming” is very low on the issues list for the upcoming election. That Romney can say “I like coal”, in a debate and still perhaps win the election is, to me, a sign that the warmist pushers are losing thier propoganda war. The clown Michael Mann can file all the lawsuits he want, as long as it’s with his own money, most of us will continue to ignore him.
Friends:
The egregious Gary Lance says at October 24, 2012 at 6:37 am
Steyn did not compare Mann to a convicted child molester. The implication that Steyn did is either a demonstration that Gary Lance did not read what Steyn wrote or – more likely in light of his record – Gary Lance failed in his reading comprehension.
And Steyn did not accuse Mann of fra*d. Steyn wrote “the fra*dulent hockey stick graph”. And the graph is fra*dulent.
The ‘hockey stick’ graph of NH temperature with time did not agree with recent measurements of temperature. The graph diverged from the surface temperature record for the period after 1960. This is known as “the divergence problem”.
The ‘hockey stick’ graph showed NH temperature falling (i.e. “the decline”) after 1960 when the surface measurements showed NH temperature rising. And this was the most important finding of the work because it showed the method did NOT indicate NH temperature. The method cannot be used as a reliable indicator of unknown past NH temperature when it gives ‘wrong’ indications of known recent NH temperatures and temperature trend.
This finding was an inconvenient truth for Mann, Bradley & Hughes. And they decided to not report it in their 1998 and 1999 papers which presented the ‘hockey stick’ graph. Instead, they plotted the surface temperature data as a thick line over the part of the ‘hockey stick’ graph for after 1960. Thus, they were able to “hide the decline” by using “Mike’s Nature trick” to cover it with the surface temperature data.
And they knew this was not proper because they mentioned “the divergence problem” as a minor point in another paper published in a different journal. Hence, they could claim that they had published a report of it. But, of course, any paper they provided which included the ‘hockey stick’ should have included mention the divergence problem and should not have hidden it. Indeed, as I have explained, the divergence problem was the most important finding of the work.
An interesting comparison of the ‘hockey stick’ graph can be made with the Piltdown Man which is the most famous scientific fraud in history. In each of these cases
1.
parts were selected from two different items.
2.
the selected parts were presented together.
3.
with clear intent to mislead the scientific community.
Richard
It is difficult to see how NRO could settle out of court without making themselves litigation targets for every public figure they’ve criticized over the last two decades.
Mann and his lawyers wouldn’t have filed their suit if they hadn’t had a well thought-out litigation strategy in mind for winning the suit, should NRO choose not to settle out of court. The kind of strategy kcrucible has outlined is a likely possibility.
To Axel:
Your statement about the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will is interesting. In part, you wrote:
“From the original last will and testament of Alfred Nobel :
How Nobel’s statement can be contorted to include the definition quoted by Mann is frankly inexplicable, and how the Nobel Prize committee could decide that to make awards to multiple recipients, was compliant with the terms of Alfred Nobel’s will is baffling and bewildering.”
However, the Nobel Peace prize has been awarded to more than one individual from the very beginning. The 1901 award was to 2 individuals. The first mention I find of an organization is 1910,
the “Permanent International Peace Bureau”. At least in the past the committee which decides on the award was honest enough that for some years there was no award given. Alas, in these days, honesty has departed and we have such farcical awards as to the IPCC & Al Gore; Barack Obama, who has committed more unmanned drone bombings than the U.S. President who was reviled as a war criminal, George W. Bush; and to the entire EU.
I think the lesson is that one should not expect sense, or adherence to the letter of Nobel’s will.