Reposted from National Review Online
Please support us in our fight against Professor Michael Mann.
By Jack Fowler
We’re being sued, and we need your help.
Let me recap: A lawsuit has been formally filed by Professor Michael Mann against National Review and Mark Steyn. You know Mann: The Penn State academic and self-proclaimed (and bogus) Nobel Peace Prize awardee best known, famously and infamously, for the “hockey stick” graph that allegedly proves that recent years were the hottest on record for more than a millennium.
Of course, he is also known for the scandal about embarrassing e-mails, pried out of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
(Anything you want to know about “Climategate” can be found at the great site WattsUpWithThat.com. And if you want to get a load of Mann, visit his Facebook page for kicks and giggles and a look at self-promotion on steroids.)
In July, Mark wrote on the Corner about Penn State, much in the news for its institutional cover-ups, and Professor Mann. It was a Steyn classic, so it must have really smarted, and soon thereafter NR received notification of a pending lawsuit (here’s our response).
Like his claim to be a Nobel laureate, the charges against NR are baseless and very much worth fighting. National Review doesn’t look to get itself sued, but neither does it shy from a fight, especially one like this. Rich Lowry’s response to Mann’s legal threats exactly captures our mood and determination.
As many of you know, National Review is not a non-profit — we are just not profitable. A lawsuit is not something we can fund with money we don’t have. Of course, we’ll do whatever we have to do to find ourselves victorious in court and Professor Mann thoroughly defeated, as he so richly deserves to be. Meanwhile, we have to hire attorneys, which ain’t cheap.
The bills are already mounting.
This is our fight, legally. But with the global-warming extremists going all-out to silence critics, it’s your fight too, morally. When we were sued, we heard from many of you who expressed a desire to help underwrite our legal defense. We deeply appreciated the outpouring of promised help.
Now we really need it.
Please help National Review in its fight to kick Professor Michael Mann’s legal heinie.
Contribute here. Many thanks for your help.
Donated. Money well spent. I held a little back to buy popcorn but am happy to donate again if need be.
“A fool and his money are soon parted the saying goes. The National Review is backed some of the wealthiest individuals in the country. But give them your money if you want.” – Buzzed
Interesting mindset there Buzzed. Basically you want ‘the rich’ to do everything for you including protecting your freedom.
“get a load of Mann”? Will that make my tomatoes and beans grow better?????
/sarc?
Tyos! ARHGG!
“You may be far needing to think about having more donations than you need but we know the Mannequins don’t miss a PR trick.”
Should be: “You may be far from needing to think about having more donations than you need but we know the Mannequins don’t miss a PR trick.”
(I do have an Associates degree. I’m glad it’s not common to put that abbreviation after one’s name.8-)
Although I read WUWT daily, I rarely comment. But I did just send $50 dollars to NRO, Mann needs to be hoisted on his own petard. That self-serving JA is an embarrassment to Science. Mark your piece was a work of art, God Bless you!
God Bless you also Anthony, Merry Christmas, keep up the good fight.
Although it’s been remarked on at length, it’s curious that Mann puts such great store in the claim that he is a Nobel Prize recipient. His claim states:
“It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics. It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.”
Apart from the fact that being a recipient of the Nobel Prize is a lie, Mann and his lawyers have chosen to omit the important point that the prize Mann lied about having received is a peace prize and not a science prize. The false claim to be a recipient of the Nobel Prize forms a very prominent part of the claim document and is clearly intended to significantly enhance the credibility and integrity of Mann.
But Mann has made the false claim of being awarded a Nobel Prize before. He did so in his sworn testimony in response to the Petition brought against him and the University of Virginia by the American Tradition Institute requesting certain emails.
The testimony of Michael Mann was given in a sworn affidavit for the benefit of the court. In it he stated:
“A true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.”
This “true and correct copy” of his CV which formed part of his sworn affidavit stated:
“2007 Co-awarded (with other IPCC authors) the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.”
The Notary Public signed Mann’s affidavit on July 23 2012 with the statement:
“Michael E Mann……personally appeared before me this day and having been by me duly sworn deposes and says that the facts set forth in the above affidavit are true and correct.”
Mann’s CV would have been included in the affidavit to give an outline of his background so as to give his testimony credibility. Claiming to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize would be a very significant enhancement to the credibility of Mann’s testimony in the sworn affidavit.
But as we know Mann was not awarded or co-awarded the Nobel Peace Prize therefore he lied on his CV. By including his CV as part of his affidavit he lied on his affidavit despite having sworn that it was “true and correct”.
A deliberate lie of such magnitude on an exhibit that is included as part of a sworn affidavit is particularly significant because it goes to the heart of Mann’s integrity. Whether or not Mann should be accused of perjury in this instance would be for a district attorney to assess. But whatever the legal ramifications, such a blatant lie is a clear attempt to deceive others into believing something which is untrue.
http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Part-1-2012-07-24-Mann-Affidavit.pdf
http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Part-2-2012-07-24-Mann-Affidavit-2.pdf
http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Part-1-2012-07-24-Exhibit-1-to-Mann-Affidavit.pdf
Gary says:
December 10, 2012 at 1:07 pm
While I can sympathize, NRO picked this particular fight and Steyn went over the top with the Sandusky reference. I’ve decided to make my donations to innocents who are harmed by things other than their own actions — like prisoner’s kids whose parents can’t buy them gifts and Haitian orphans. I hope you can understand.
=================================
[snip. — mod.]
NRO backing vs. Mann’s backing – I suspect the latter is well-funded by the Soros empire. any questions?
Gary says:
December 10, 2012 at 1:07 pm
=================================
[snip. — mod.]
Thats why I didn’t reply to Gary.
Of course, the alternative is to issue an apology and settle the case.
Just saying …
Don’t think Mann is man enough to issue an apology unless required by the courts.
/sarc
Donation made, looking forward to the updates.
Kevin
Garrett says: Not feeling so confident now, are we?
———————————
LOL. As if Mann has a chance in hell of winning the case. Read Steyn on the case and see if you think he lacks confidence. If Mann takes this all the way to the courtroom, which is doubtful in my opinion, he will be destroyed. His lawyers proved they are none to bright with the Nobel Prize recipient blunder. This is going to be a cakewalk for Steyn and National Review.
Done: Bring on discovery, popcorn ready.
Meanwhile remember to post words of praise and support on the infallible Manns site.
The mann is still one of truths best allies.
The National Review is backed some of the wealthiest individuals in the country. But give them your money if you want.
And Mann is paying for this out of his own pocket?
Made my contribution earlier. Just hoping they call Steve McIntyre and Professor Wegman to the stand.
Just how can Mann defend his work? And if Mann can’t defend his work, how can Penn State say they weren’t covering up his poor skill sets? Sounds like a cover up to me.
Did it myself. I have limited means but have been an NR subscriber for over 20 years. I hope they can point how the environmental lobby uses a publicist to write heart-rending copy to little old ladies for money, files lawsuits and litigates the lawsuits themselves while paying themselves handsomely in a first-class racket. Does the term RICO mean anything or are gangsters cut from better cloth than these environmentalists? KQ
I would think Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” has in it everything needed to prove fraud by Mann. (And I wonder if the fact that he didn’t sue Montford could be painted as an admission of something.)
Mooloo says: And Mann is paying for this out of his own pocket?
More likely out of our pockets. As in funded by Taxpayers.
Done. Some of the detractors seem unaware that the issue isn’t one of a small scrappy publisher annoying a university professor. The issue is much larger – confronting in a small but important way the corruption and politicization of science and scholarship in the West, the moral degradation of our institiutions and its leaders and the erosion of democracy and freedom by autocrats and compliant citizenry
Kev-in-Uk says:
December 10, 2012 at 2:58 pm
“I don’t want to see good money thrown away for a dumb, pointless defence.”
Kevin you apparently aren’t aquainted with Mark Steyn. He single-handedly took on the human rights tribunal in Canada before which he was brought by outraged muslim lawyers who objected to an article of his in which he quoted a Norwegian Imam as seeking a world caliphate. He won and the case resulted in rewriting parts of Canada’s freedom of speech statutes which already were comparatively gooid.. The money won’t be thrown away like it is in your woeful UK with its self-immolating alternative energy craziness. I hope you aren’t okay about that, and bank rolling Africa and Turkey’s windmills, too. Some brave souls have to do something.
I can’t tell you how happy I am you guys are taking it to that fraud. I’ve been hoping something like this would eventually happen…that the ego-driven Mann, full of red-faced rage would sue someone who could fight back effectively. I’ts my pleasure to donate 250 bucks tomorrow in the a.m. Just hope Mann doesn’t decide to walk away (which frankly any sane man would do)..
Good Luck – done
Richard T. Fowler says:
“I would like to suggest that at some point, perhaps soon, a picket of Michael Mann’s department by those who have contributed to the NRO legal defense may be in order.”
Great idea Richard. The problem would be determining which department best fits Mann’s area of expertise — Performing Arts, Political Science, or Department of Myth and Silences?
As an aside – I wonder if NRO/Steyn will call former AGU ethics chief Peter H. Gleick as an expert witness on the current state climate ethics for the defense?
Mann’s legal fees are paid for – in part or in full – by a non-profit vehicle, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund through Protecting Employees Who Protect Our Environment (PEER). Why wouldn’t you avail yourself of a similar vehicle to fund your defense?
😀 Thanks … I hope we can see this happen.