UPDATE: uh oh
The National Review decided to offer congratulations to Dr. Mann, they write:
Honoring Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize
To mark Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize, we bought this full-page ad that ran in today’s Penn State student newspaper.
—Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review.
h/t to WUWT reader Frank K
UPDATE: Proof that it actually ran, here
h/t to Brian Lemon
His lawyer should be concerned about the Rule 11 sanctions that may come down on his head for filing a frivolous law suit and false information with the court. Once you take out the Nobel stuff, the suit loses a lot of its punch.
Man, the snipper is out in force today. Did we get it tuned up last week or somenthing?
[snip . . hahaha . . mod, but no , no tune up or somenthing (sic)]
Is there any chance of getting an autographed copy of that page? Now that would be priceless.
The NRO ad places a good deal of pressure on Penn State, too.
Mann was previously the subject of yet another investigation at Penn State where no wrongdoing was found.
The wounded, but loyal Penn State alumni and student body might have something to say about this business… “the cure” involves no half measures.
http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf
Outstanding
Robert Clemenzi said: ”It is time to give the Mann a break. The Chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, sent a letter to the lead authors of this year’s reports remarking, “I have been stunned in a pleasant way with the news of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for the IPCC. This makes each of you a Nobel Laureate …””
Not with you, I’m afraid. Lead authors didn’t receive a prize in person at a Nobel awards ceremony. Before vaunting the “Nobel Laureate” claim in personal CVs and legal pleadings, it was just part of normal scientific method (testing hypotheses for truth or falsity) for them to ask themselves whether they were actually entitled – for example by a quick email to the Norwegian Nobel Institute (address readily available on www).
But that is not Dr Mann’s self-aggrandising way. He chose to assume the hypothesis was true without enquiry; now it is falsified he must bear the associated obloquy.
Priceless. I got a great laugh this morning when I read that. Absolutely hilarious.
This ranks right up there with the symbolic Doolittle raid on Tokyo and the reply to the Germans at Bastogne in the Battle of the Bulge. In both cases the symbolism was important to keep up moral and determination in the fight against seemingly overwhelming oppression and foregone conclusion. The truth will persevere and so will science in the long run but I’m not so sure about the money waste in the backdrop of a declining country economy in the short and medium term. That is the true cost of ignorance, group think, and campus rag sheet excuses for journalism.
In related news it appears that former PSU President Graham Spanier will be charged today with perjury and obstruction of justice.
http://www.philly.com/philly/education/176719851.html
This kind of puts a damper on Mann’s claim that he was exonerated by an internal PSU investigation.
I don’t think his over-inflated ego can take much more of this. Something’s gotta give.
Ready the cattle prods and strait-jacket.
Too rich for words
Richard111 says:
November 1, 2012 at 5:10 am
I looked up the bio of Rigoberta Menchu and am very disapointed that she is compared to MM.
MM has not suffered for his science.
=======================================================
So, suffering is his objective here. He’s been parading about with a styrofoam cross on his back for a while now. Sympathy prevented. (And you don’t get a certificate of participation from the IPCC without getting the distinction between the actual prize and the certificate – even if you’re going to claim to be as dumb as a hockey stick. He knowingly tortured that data to get the result he wanted.)
What Michael Gorbachev is to the USSR – destroyed the USSR.
What the EU is to Europe – is destroying Europe.
Is the message that Mann will destroy Penn state?
And among the lumineries, why did they omit to mention Yassar Arafat? Cherrying picking again?
That characterization is yours (although counterarguments are difficult to find). 2 of 5 committee members are from her party, including the committee leader and former prime minister Thorbjørn Jagland. Jagland was prime minister 1996-1997 after being appointed by and following Gro Harlem Brundtland. He made a complete fool of himself in 1997 when he resigned the government after winning the election. He is known since then as Thorbjørn “36.9” Jagland, because he said he would resign if his party did not get the same number of votes as in the previous election, although no such rule exists. He didn’t get that many votes, but remained the biggest party. Because of his foolish statements, he had to resign. He has not improved since.
The other members come from other parties to the left and right. However, in my opinion it does not matter, these people are like puppets. In Norway, all the parties are committed to CAGW, and apparently also Mrs. Brundtland’s Agenda21. There really is no alternative available.
E.M.Smith says:
November 1, 2012 at 12:27 am
“Don’t know why an Arab news outlet is so committed to the US going “green” and all, but who knows. ”
When the US administration kills coal, that’s perfect for Qatar (funders of Al Jazeera and lately Hamas).
“They also ‘lean very left’ which seems odd for a culture dominated by religion and political strong men… Oh Well. ”
A weak US president is right up their street.
Coach Springer says:
November 1, 2012 at 7:47 am
“He knowingly tortured that data to get the result he wanted.”
There is no evidence for the assumption that Mann knew what he was doing.
Let’s see, at Penn State we saw a corrupt administration unable to properly investigate, while in the UK police would hesitate to seek helpful information from the public because such a request could have interfered with govt messaging about climate at Copenhagen…..
Then there are various farcical climate related “inquiries” in both UK and USA which are careful not to even investigate many relevant issues…… and now we have this dramatic news affecting Michael Mann’s own university and state:
BREAKING: Penn State University’s former President to be charged with perjury and obstruction of justice!!
The issue for understanding CRU/UEA, Mann, climate science, and so called “inquiries” is not the cover-ups of the Sandusky case per se but what can be understood about the leadership and administration of relevant universities and departments in recent years (not to mention other scientific and professional bodies, etc.). If ex-Pres. Spanier of Penn State would behave this way over the Sandusky case, how can anyone be confident he (and similar colleagues) were better in relation to inquiries pertaining to climate science, Michael Mann and Phil Jones, CRU and UEA, etc.
Does anyone have a copy of that email? Mann’s Lawyers have a bit of a problem on their hands. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (DC’s Superior Court’s rule 11 is identical to the Federal Rule 11) sates:
So on the surface it would seem that Cozen O’Connor failed to undertake reasonable inquiry prior to filing (what would seem to be) a false claim with the court (I find it impossible to believe that Cozen would knowingly file a false claim with the court). If Mann had received an email from the Nobel Committee advising him that he is not a Nobel Prize winner and failed to tell his lawyers this — well then I suspect his lawyers have just learned a object lesson about the nature of their client.
If, on the other hand, Mann believed he was a Nobel Prize winner and there’s no record of anyone telling him otherwise, then the failure lies solely with Cozen’s lack of due diligence.
.
DirkH says:
November 1, 2012 at 8:43 am
Coach Springer says:
November 1, 2012 at 7:47 am
“He knowingly tortured that data to get the result he wanted.”
There is no evidence for the assumption that Mann knew what he was doing.
=====================================================================
😎
Will PSU Prof Michael Mann now threaten to sue the PSU student newspaper for publishing a NRO ad that mocks Mann’s Nobel Prize delusions?
Hint to Scott Mandia, your buddy Mikey may need some more of your legal slush fund money. Scott, you know the fund you manage which appears to exist for the purpose of defending the Climategate cadre of researchers with questionably ethical standards; whose research is disturbingly all funded by the public; who appear to have helped to intentionally bias / manipulate (see CG released info) the AR3 and the AR4.
Scott, shouldn’t you change the name of your legal defense fund to something like ‘legal offense
and defense’ fund? : )
John
Does anyone know when Jerry Sandusky will be filing HIS suit against the NRO for comparing him to Michael Mann?
Gunga Din says:
October 31, 2012 at 5:55 pm
[snip – over the top, and not funny -mod]
=========================================================
OK.
How about Josh doing a cartoon of Mann’s ego, reputation and/or integrity bound by his own Nobel Lariat?
I’ve given some thought to why Penn State’s newspaper printed NRO’s ad. I came up with three possibilities.
(1) The editor didn’t read the fine print at the bottom of the ad.
(2) The newspaper decided that academic freedom trumps vested interest and printed the ad while holding its collective nose.
(3) Taking a lesson from the Penn State leadership, the newspaper decided that money trumps principle and the revenue from a full-page ad was just too much to forego.
What say you?
hro001 says:
November 1, 2012 at 12:11 am
“And now I can’t get a certain tune out of my head! ”
From the minute I read this last night, I couldn’t get this word out of my head – Stickittothemanneosis
@BobL: Great one