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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
* …it’s curious that Mann puts such great store in the claim that he is a Nobel Prize recipient.”
Why? The man has an ego the size of Manhattan.
Done! I wish I could afford more.
I agree with several previous posts above, counter-sue the wood core temperature and history molesting bugger. Counter sue for triple damages as his backers can afford huge payouts. Maybe they’ll consider backing some real science next time. Otherwise this suit will be tossed after Mann fails to respond to discovery, like Mann’s previous suits.
Hey! Check out the ENSO meter at Top Dead Center neutral!
Well, I guess the overly warm East Coast can look forward to real winter soon as the jet stream adjusts to neutral conditions. That bald pated guy at NOAA that keeps predicting record El Nino and SSTs needs to buy another fortune cookie. Preferably one that he reads before chomping down the cookie whole and swilling it down wth prune juice.
TBear says:
December 10, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Of course, the alternative is to issue an apology and settle the case.
Just saying …
——————
I agree but I don’t think you’d ever get Mann to admit he’s wrong, but maybe.
cn
In the Climategate emails, Mann happily admits to falsifying his own publishing record (adding in that of another person with the same last name) to gain admittance to a particular scientific organization. This lie alone should forever discredit him in academic circles as well as in any courtroom.
Done. Fiat Lux
The a good clincher of his fraudiness is that he continued to promote himself as a Nobel Laureate even after the Nobel Institute responded and he changed his website.
The Al Jazzeera interview and page stated it 3 times, once when introducing Mann, and Mann accepted it without correction.
DGH says:
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?
So that’s why they all act like they have “Top Cover”… (Well, that, and the full “faith and credit” of Soros… and a president or to ‘in the bag’ and…)
well worth $50.00
Dennis Nikols says:
December 10, 2012 at 2:50 pm
For people like Mann this has little or nothing to do with accuracy or truth; it has everything to do with Public Relations and ego
And probably that he doesn’t have to pay !!
Done.
Gunga Din; Love the Nobel LARIAT – hanged with his own petard, perhaps?
Donated. If there were ever a time for us to put our money where our mouth is….it is now.
So pay up and look happy!
Sadly, anyone looking for a swift duking it out in Court is probably in for a big disappointment. The pace at which these matters proceed appears to be glacial, even if you take the glacial rate suggested in AR4.
Generous support is absolutely required here, if only not to discourage any further attempts to vigorously question Dr. Manns results.
Done! Sorry it’s not much but hopefully every little helps in stopping this massive fraud!
Done.
Thanks. Small donation made.
How do you like Noble Lieriate?
Jack Savage says: “If there were ever a time for us to put our money where our mouth is….it is now. So pay up and look happy!”
You comment brings up an important point.
Either Donate some now or be prepared to repeatedly Pay a lot more later.
Enabling NRO to have the funds to open Mann up in court like a can of worms, could deal Global Climate SCAM and the Alarmists a death blow. On the other hand, if Mann succeeds with his frivolous lawsuit, it will bolster and rally the GW Alarmists. Which will lead to more AGW funding at our expense. With worst case – U.N. driven Cap-n-Trade, where we pay at the pump and electric meter.
Done. Dunno what $50 is in £s tho’.
Done. Paying for my own popcorn so to speak. Mann is using the courts to intimidate someone for calling attention to his Tree Ring Circus. There’s a reason he can’t stand an opinion that the hockey stick is a fraudulent result of tortured data. That opinion only stings because Mann knows it to be correct.
Mann will drop suit before he responds to discovery, but maybe we can cover costs and find out who’s backing Mann from a countersuit. Failing that, I suppose NRO could use their recovery of legal costs to hire Greenpeace to go through Mann’s garbage at night. I don’t care what they do with the money, they earned it by taking on the climate machine.
I donated for the cause.
I think the case depends on how the judge adjudicating the case sets the discovery parameters…
If the judge gives Mark a wide latitude on discovery, enabling access to virtually all of Mann’s (behind the myth) data regarding his broken Hockey Stick, MANN will drop the charges under the guise of harassment and proprietary information BS….
It’s going to be fun having a little skin in this game!
Anyone who thinks that Mann is paying any significant amount toward this ridiculous lawsuit is deluding themselves. He may be paying for the airline flights to visit his lawyer. Nothing more, I’m sure. He may not even be paying for those. The suit is a sure loser. And others will be left with the bills when it’s over.
This is nothing more than a harassment lawsuit designed to make NR spend money on lawyers. Their is no evidence that Steyn accused Mann of academic fraud. He could easily say that he feels that Mann’s hockey stick paper has been used fraudulently and not that Mann committed academic fraud. It’s a perfectly reasonable defense if Steyn and NR choose to use it. Without that, the suit becomes just another freedom of expression argument that complainants almost always lose. Mann is a public figure and Steyn is a journalist who believes what he wrote is true. It’s really that simple.
The political left has ways of destroying those who tell the truth. What happen to the American Spectator after they published the Paula Jones story on Clinton is well-known. Clinton’s people tried to bankrupt them.
I would hope that NR demands that their legal fees are paid in any settlement or verdict that may be forthcoming. Mann’s suit is a clear abuse of the legal system and I hope a judge makes sure he pays the bills for it. Of course, the real people who will pay for it are the Green Peacers who contribute to Climate Science Legal Defense Fund through Protecting Employees Who Protect Our Environment (PEER). Nothing but dupes.
Ontario, Canada
Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP)
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/09/lawsuits-expensive-and-can-backfire–litigator-beware
oldseadog says:
December 11, 2012 at 1:51 am
Done.
Gunga Din; Love the Nobel LARIAT – hanged with his own petard, perhaps?
=======================================================================
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of “give a Mann enough rope…”
(Not that I wish any physical harm on him but I do want his part of the CAGW deception to be exposed.)
(PS In no way whatsoever would I want him to be “exposed”!!)
Roger Knights says:
December 11, 2012 at 6:34 am
oldseadog says:
December 11, 2012 at 1:51 am
Gunga Din; Love the Nobel LARIAT
How do you like Noble Lieriate?
======================================================
I like it. i doubt The Mann would.
Sent NRO a Benjamin with the message: Get the bastard! ☺
“more soylent green! says:
December 10, 2012 at 12:41 pm
One thing I can say for Mann, he doesn’t have a problem with too little ego. Is he over-compensating for something?”
Well, bullying is said to be a self-esteem problem.
Not that I think Mark Steyn doesn’t get carried away sometimes, and was careless in quoting from the original article, but IMO he deserves support for his efforts fighting back against “hate speech” allegations in Canada.
The sensible thing for NRO to do would have been to state that they do not consider Mann to be a sexual abuser, but that their article pointed to coverup by Penn State officials and to Mann’s unethical behaviour as revealed by the emails leaked from the CRU. Recall that the author/publisher of the original article using the sexual abuser analogy – which Steyn quoted from – altered the article after complaints. Their alteration puts NRO in a bad position, the plaintiffs can say “The original author/publisher did the right thing, why doesn’t NRO?”