With each passing day, Dr. Mann’s Q score becomes stranger and stranger. Mark Steyn (whom Dr. Mann is suing for libel) observes an emergent phenomenon – Mann’s accidental emergence into the public stage in a post facto sort of way.
===========================
Steyn writes:
National Review and I have a court date next month for Big Climate honcho Michael Mann’s defamation suit against us for hooting at his hockey stick. I gather that, in America, the crucial point of law is that it’s very difficult to defame a public figure, as Jerry Falwell and many others have discovered. So I was interested to note this recent verbal tic from Dr. Mann. From the May 8th Daily Press of Newport News, Virginia:
“I’ll often characterize myself as a reluctant and accidental public figure,” he said.
He’s right! I had no idea how often he does characterize himself as a reluctant and accidental public figure. Here he is on May 1st at the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Association:
Mann called himself “a reluctant and accidental public figure in the debate over climate change.”
============================================================
Here’s more context:
The Daily Press reports:
More than a year removed from that controversy and with a book on climate change now under his belt, Mann reflected on the experience in an interview before his speaking engagements.
“I’ll often characterize myself as a reluctant and accidental public figure,” he said. “I found myself at the center of this debate because of the efforts of some to discredit my science, and I had to make a decision. What am I going to do with that?”
You can read the entire Steyn essay here, and note just how many times that phrase is being used by Dr. Mann. Clearly, an emergent phenomenon.
In other news, Junkscience.com is running a series of Dr. Mann’s interviews with the press, to illustrate just what a liar shrinking violet he is about his public persona, trying to manipulate the outcome of his defamation lawsuit by pretending to be something that he is not.
Read the whole series here
UPDATE: Commenter “copner” points out Mann’s Facebook page has already made the decision for Dr. Mann. He can stop backpedaling now:
I would have thought it’s way too late to play the innocent victim in all this. My take on Climategate is that he was the lead conductor, supervising all the out-of-tune instruments.
“…trying to manipulate the outcome of his defamation lawsuit by pretending to be something that he is not.”
Why not, he manipulated the temperature record to make it something it is not. It seems to be the only thing he’s good at.
Mann is a word-class prat, best left in place to wreak the maximum PR damage on his own side.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/climate-alarmism-and-the-prat-principle/
Pointman
It’s going to be fun watching Steyn et al. make mincemeat of Mann’s defamation case. No question he is a public figure of long standing and one did not blushingly accept the title but long and assiduously sought it. Steyn alone has more intelligence in his little finger on a bad day than Mann has exhibited over his whole career. One of Mann’s greatest vulnerabilities, in fact, is his preference for living in a bubble of sycophancy and self-congratulation. He has grown fat and lazy. He has forgotten how to think.
Only real risk is if the judge is a warmist idiot or is put off by Steyn’s flashy intellectual manners.
Mann is being hoisted with his on pertard–a pertard being a “small engine of war used to blow breaches in gates or walls”, of course.
In essence, the meaning is to be injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others.
Mann will rue the day he sued Steyn.
Amusing as Mark Steyn’s comments are, in this at least Mann is being honest: after all, who would not have been reluctant to be exposed in a starring role by Climategate 1, and sequels?
His notoriety bestrides the world.
One would think that a person with the temerity to write a book entitled “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” would have courage. Quite the opposite… Mann is a coward, as evidenced by the fact that he, like Al Gore, will never debate anyone with a contrary view. I guess he thinks that spouting off to his sycophants on Facebook and Twitter constitutes courageous behavior. How pathetic.
I hope Steyn et al. cleans his clock. It’s been a long time coming.
Mr. Mann may have moved from public figure to political figure. If any of his papers, interviews or speeches take a political position, he is toast.
Thanks! I’ll add this to my research collection of interesting quirk characteristics of certain personality types. They yell fire in a theater and then play innocent afterward and blame others.
Email 0091.txt from climategate 2.0
Even in 2007 Mann considered himself a public figure.
Just keep the mike open and the Mann will do much good work to help the public judge his credibility. Along with Glieck, we could not invent these characters, we would need the ethics of a PR firm like Fenton Inc to even start.
Would Mann be trying to “hide’ in plain sight?
Only one comment… ‘His Science’!!???
Junkscience.com points out that Mann first took on the mantle of a public figure in 1998. This is the same year that saw the cessation of warming. Coincidence? I think not. It’s the Mann version of the Gore effect.
What has happened with the Mann v Ball suit?
Here is the “reluctant and accidental public figure” at Bloomington on the last leg of his 3 month book promotion tour. 😉
Here is the “reluctant and accidental public figure” who again and again gives reluctant media interviews and public talks promoting fairy tales.
Mark Steyn asks:
The publicity shy Michael Mann once awarded himself a Nobel Prize. Even hung a mock on his office wall. It’s a damned good thing he’s no publicity seeker.
The hockey stick seemed of such solid construction. No one, and certainly not him, would ever think that someone curious about it, and well-versed in statistical analysis could deconstruct it. Just his luck that McIntyre and McKitrick came along and did just that. What are the odds? But that was only the beginning of his troubles. Pretty soon, perpetrating the hoax had to take a back-seat to defending it. Such a sad tale. Cue violins.
“efforts of some to discredit my science”
A clue into the psyche?
Efforts by some to do what all scientists including him are supposed to do as if it’s a bad thing and not my findings, my hypotheses, or my conclusions but “my science”.
I guess the Mannian Scientific Method is something like:
Step 1) Determine the result that best supports the cause.
Step 2) Do whatever it takes to realize the results from some data.
Step 3) Publish results through pal review.
Step 4) Bask in the accolades from pals.
Step 5) Demonize anyone who questions results.
Step 6) Remember to diversify invested ill-gotten gains.
Either that or Mannian Science is Unskeptical (see Jo Nova).
“I am a reluctant and accidental public figure. Oh, by the way, I’m also a Nobel Prize winner too. Is there enough space in your lede for that?” bwahaahaa
Dave says:
May 8, 2013 at 10:24 am
I agree – Mann is definately the cowardly (not debating as described) and bullying (as inferred per climategate emails) type. When I were a lad, we used to take the bullies to one side and teach them some humility! But seriously, my concern with this, is that even if he loses (which seems highly likely IMHO) – will the media lambast him? or laud him for his ‘fight’ against the evel ‘deniers’? When oh when will the media realise that this guy has been misleading us all for decades and try and put him and his cronies OUT OF BUSINESS for good?
“What am I going to do with that?”
I am certain he meant to say ” Watts Up With That”.
FYI — a little legal research for those interested…
U.S. Constitution – First Amendment – Speech – Defamation – Public Figure Exception
[from findlaw.com, Annotation 18: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation18.html as edited and annotated by JM]
Defamation *** “[W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269, 270 (1964). ***
Erroneous statement is protected … . Id. at 271-72, 278-79. ***
… expression on matters of public interest is protected by the First Amendment. Within that area of protection is commentary about the public actions of individuals. The fact that expression contains falsehoods does not deprive it of protection, because otherwise such expression in the public interest would be deterred by monetary judgments and self-censorship imposed for fear of judgments. ***
… the Court created a subcategory of ”public figure,” which included those otherwise private individuals who have attained some prominence, either through their own efforts or because it was thrust upon them, with respect to a matter of public interest, or, in Chief Justice Warren’s words, those persons who are ”intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.” Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 164 (1967). More recently, the Court has curtailed the definition of ”public figure” by … emphasizing the voluntariness of the assumption of a role in public affairs that will make of one a ”public figure.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974).
[Comment: Thus, Plaintiff Mann, who has little chance of winning damages if he is shown to be a “public figure” is desperately trying to portray himself as a private individual by arguing the NOVEL (not, as far as I know, part of U.S. Const. jurisprudence) idea that intent is required to be a “public figure” — per the law, I believe, it is clear, that one is simply a public figure or not; intent of the figure is irrelevant. JM]
… the Court applied the Times standard to private citizens who had simply been involved in events of public interest, usually, though not invariably, not through their own choosing. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29 (1971). [That is, private citizens CAN be deemed “public figures.” JM]
But, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974), the Court set off on a new path of LIMITING RECOVERY FOR DEFAMATION BY PRIVATE PERSONS. Henceforth, persons who are neither public officials nor public figures may recover for the publication of defamatory falsehoods ONLY IF state defamation law establishes a standard higher than strict liability, such as negligence; damages may not be presumed, but must be proved … .
*** public figures … inasmuch as by their own efforts they had brought themselves into the public eye … had at the same time attained an ability to counter defamatory falsehoods published about them. Private individuals are not in the same position and need greater protection. “… so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual.” That is, some degree of fault must be shown. Id. at 347.
*** [Re: DAMAGES] defamation plaintiffs who do not prove actual malice–that is, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth–will be limited to compensation for actual provable injuries, such as out-of-pocket loss, impairment of reputation and standing, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering. A plaintiff who proves actual malice will be entitled to punitive damages. Id. at 348-50.
*** Public figures, the Court reiterated, are those who … or (2) have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved, and are public figures with respect to comment on those issues. Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 134 (1979) (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974).
*** when a private plaintiff sues a media defendant for publication of information that is a matter of public concern … the BURDEN IS ON THE PLAINTIFF TO PROVE THE FALSITY of the information. Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986).
… the plaintiff must establish falsity in addition to establishing some degree of fault (e.g. negligence). Id. at 780.
Related issues: 1) Constitutional ”actual malice” means that the defamation was published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964) … . Reckless disregard is not simply negligent behavior, but publication with serious doubts as to the truth of what is uttered. St. Amant v. Thompson,390 U.S. 727, 730-33 (1968); Beckley Newspapers Corp. v. Hanks, 389 U.S. 81 (1967) … .
2) A defamation plaintiff under the Times or Gertz standard has the burden of proving by ”clear and convincing” evidence, not merely by the preponderance of evidence standard ordinarily borne in civil cases, that the defendant acted with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 331-32 (1974); Beckley Newspapers Corp. v. Hanks, 389 U.S. 81, 83 (1967) … .
3) Moreover, the Court has held, a Gertz plaintiff has the burden of proving the actual falsity of the defamatory publication. Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986). ***
4) There had been some indications that statements of opinion, unlike assertions of fact, are absolutely protected, See, e.g., Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339 (1974)… . but … The issue is whether, regardless of the context in which a statement is uttered, it is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proven true or false. Thus, if statements of opinion may ”reasonably be interpreted as stating ACTUAL FACTS about an individual,” 497 U.S. 1, 20 (1990), then the truthfulness of the factual assertions may be tested in a defamation action.
[Comment: Thus, if the analogy of Mann to Sandufsky (sp?) is not a fact that can clearly be proven true or false, it will be called mere opinion and NO claim of defamation would stand (and the private v. public figure distinction wouldn’t even come into play). The plaintiff, as stated has the burden of proving that the analogy can be shown to be clearly true or clearly false. JM]
I wouldn’t bet money on that. First, the argument is not between Mann and Steyn – it’s between their counsel. Second, Mann’s legal team was very careful about selection of venue and figuring out how to get the judge they wanted. The judge on this matter has the IQ of a rutabaga is known to be very partisan. I’m not as sanguine about the outcome as you are.
RockyRoad says: May 8, 2013 at 10:17 am
“Mann is being hoisted with his on pertard–a pertard being a “small engine of war used to blow breaches in gates or walls”, of course.”
Rocky, I live near one of the best examples of a mediaeval castle in the UK, and during a trip round its dungeons was shown what looked like a large bird-cage device hanging from the ceiling. We were told that recalcitrant prisoners were hoist in this device and left to starve to death while hanging from the ceiling. The name for this device, we were told, was ‘Petard’ – hence the saying, ‘Hoist in your own Petard’ (the fate of a stroppy jailer, no doubt). Mann should be so lucky…
This may be mincing words, but Mann may legitimately claim to be a reluctant public figure. Mann was always interested in math, computing, physicas, and mathematical models. In grad school he came upon the opportunity to work with Barry Saltzmann, who was already one of the many academics who believed in the manmade global warming hypothesis.
Exploring climate changes with paelo data and modeling was in line with his interests. He, like many other grad students, took one of the regular mettings with a more senior academic, and had his line of research go along with that more senior person. This is perfectly normal and common, and he might have been a fool to not take up the opportunity to model future climate based on using existing paleo data to retro-model past climate.
In the 1990s, global warming was already certainly 20 years old as a common environmental fear. A chance to explore that with data would be inherently attractive.
At this pt in the Mann history, there is no reason to suspect that he pursued the opportunity to Saltzmann for public fame or to be a public environmental figure, like Gore has done or Bill Nye has done.
Somehow, he springboarded from his 1996 dissertation, the hockey stick analyisis, later turned into MBH1998, to be a lead author of the 2001 third IPCC report- 2001 was the publication date, so he got involved in a very rapid manner relative to his level of experience – a recent grad – sure, with a few great pubs, but a recent grad.
I have never seen an account of how this recently minted doctor jumped to such a prominent role in a high-profile report. I don’t know these circles, but it is very unlikely that the jump happened out of frank ambition. It is almost sure that he was offered a great opportunity, and he took it.
IPCC3 was one leading event kicking off the hockey stick phenomenon. Mann does two things from that point that show his character.
He did not fully address MM2003. He gave distraction by his corrigendum to MBH98.
He assumed a high public profile when identified as the creator of the well-noted IPCC3 Hockey Stick figure.
So, he did not develop a career as a public fame-seeker, but when the opportunity presented itself, he took the opportunity. Reluctantly? Possibly at first. I don’t know how his early media-personality career developed.
Snotrocket says:
May 8, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Rocky Road is right, this by ‘The Dane’ (alas poor Uncle Monty) is all the proof needed.
For ’tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard: and ‘t shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines,
And blow them at the moon: O, ’tis most sweet,
Hamlet Act iii Scene 4 Line 206
A petard is a old French word for a fart.
I’m a reluctant and accidental public figure too…so much so that nobody actually knows (or cares) who I am. 🙂
He also reluctantly accepted the Nobel prize. He is a very humble Mann.
Fairy tale science deserved a fairy tale reply….which is why….
“Hockey Stickery Doc” is posted in Canada Free Press archive….
[@ Snotrocket…that dungeon in Warwick perchance…fitting place for a warmist]
Mann “[h]oist with his own petar’ “(Hamlet III,4, 2612) is more fun when petard’s etymology is known; from Latin – pditum, neuter past participle of pdere, to break wind – and French – peter, to break wind, from pet, a breaking of wind.
In the tiny possibility that someone besides me reads my 5/8/13 @ 1159 post, an amplification re:
“[Comment: Thus, Plaintiff Mann, … is desperately trying to portray himself as a private individual by arguing the NOVEL (not, as far as I know, part of U.S. Const. jurisprudence) idea that intent is required to be a “public figure” … intent of the figure is irrelevant. JM].”
AMPLIFICATION re: “intent:”
That is to say, the PER SE intent-to-be-a-public-figure, as in: “I am saying this thing or doing this thing mainly for the purpose of simply making myself into a public figure.”
I’m pretty sure that Michael E. Mann believes that he’s a public figure: Because he setup (or is involved in running and regularly posts to) a facebook for “Michael E. Mann – Public Figure” as evidenced by this screenshot: http://imgur.com/y2BOyuB
If you are a member of Facebook, type Michael E. Mann in the FB search box, if you too wish to enjoy Michael E. Mann Public Figure’s antics!
Petard \Pe*tard”\, n. [F. p[‘e]tard, fr. p[‘e]ter to break wind,
to crack, to explode, L. pedere, peditum.] (Mil.)
A case containing powder to be exploded, esp. a conical or
cylindrical case of metal filled with powder and attached to
a plank, to be exploded against and break down gates,
barricades, drawbridges, etc. It has been superseded.
[1913 Webster] Petardeer
NOUN (1)
1. an explosive device used to break down a gate or wall;
@thelastdemocrat
The alternate thesis is that suitable bias with some basic qualifications presented the opportunity to take the leap ahead and upward career wise, right? Let’s at least cover the range of possibilities of what really happened. That of course leads back to the selection process and those above making the offer. Is that angle and potential source of bias also not reasonable to consider?
An efficient measure of “Public Figure” is the groupie quotient. How many groupies does Mann draw? OK, not easy to get that data, but if you draw the groupies, then you’re a public figure.
Reluctant! Does not the Good Mann offer himself as a public speaker, retaining the services of an agent, Ms Jodi Solomon, to promote him? His fee is reported to run a high as $10,000. “What a piece of work is Mann, how noble of reason…” with apologies to WS.
Mann the publicity seeking whore claims to be a shy, private figure !
Now that is funny .
What are the odd’s that it never goes to court and Mann drops it ,only to claim martyrdom to his followers ?
Sounds like Mann is getting worried.
15 tweets in the past 24 hrs. Quite a lot for a ‘reluctant’ public figure.
Admitting you are a public figure (accidental or not) is not a good way to prove you aren’t a public figure.
Hoist by ones own petard……to be lifted up (get the giggles) at ones own explosive fundamental orifice (fart).
Common everyday experience for some.
Nice work, Copner (@ 1:46PM)!
GREAT post of Mann’s Facebook page, An –th–y. LOL.
Didn’t Mann make himself a public figure by co-founding RC and then moderating and commenting there (as Mike)? Wasn’t its purpose to communicate to the public?
At the same time as Mann Hayhoe (*) plays the victim card as well; and Gleick did a few days ago as well when replying to Anthony. They are all trained by the same organisation I suspect; probably Fenton Communications.
(*) http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/lol-a-clear-admission-of-climate-anti-science-from-hayhoe/
Perhaps in this topsey-turvey world in which we live, the lawsuit and the Unhappiness of Mann is just posturing for profit: no such thing as bad publicity.
If Mann drops the lawsuit, I hope there is some financial penalty for all the grief ….
Unless both sides find this controversy to have been profitable ….
No longer do I think I know what is going on. Thanks Al, Jim, Mike, Phil, David and Bill-Joe.
Not public?
What Mann writes in the Climategate e-mails and the failure of investigations to find and see this is really amazing!
It’s not only the Team climate scientist but also the System?
Changing the system from within to make the World better?
?
Was Manfred Mann singing about little Michael? You know, Blinded by the light…
Some very touching and naive faith in the US court system is being expressed here. Obviously most of you have never had anything to do with US courts.
Janice Moore says:
May 8, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Actually, I read both with delight! (Ok, I’m probably a bit odd…)(Mann, if he read it, probably not so much delight). You might do him a favor, as Donald Trump to Jodi Arias, and Tweet him to make a deal…! On the evidence, he’d be silly not to take your advice!
“I’ll tell thee Watt, McIntyre: a college of wit-crackers cannot flout me out of my hubris. Dost thou think I care for facts or accurate diagrams? No. If a Mann will be beaten with brains, ‘a shall wear nothing handsome about him. In brief, since I do propose a hockeystick, I will think nothing to any purpose that the world can say against it; and therefore never flout at me for what I have said against cooling; for Mann is a giddy thing, and this is my conclusion.”
—Much ado about hockeysticks
(I was tempted to play with Dogberry in Act III Scene V, but I think I’ve committed enough sacrilege for one night. “…but truly, for my own part, if i were as odious as Al Gore, I could find it in my heart to bestow all my hockeysticks of your worship.”)
“Why, Mann, he doth bestride the narrow world (of Warmist Climate “science”) like a colossus, and we petty men walk under his huge hockeysticks, and peep about to find ourselves dishonorable evidence of cooling. Men at some time are masters of other’s fates (as when they collude to exclude scientific papers from publication): the fault, dear Skeptics, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. “Warmists” and “Deniers”, what should be in that “Warmists”? Why should Warmists be sounded more than Skeptics?
Write them together: yours is as fair a theory. Sound them: it doth become the mouth as well. Weigh them: it is as heavy. Conjure with ’em; Skeptic will start a spirit as soon as ‘Warmist’. Now, in the names of all the Climate Computer Models at once, upon what meat doth this our Warmist feed, that he is grown so great (and goatee’d)? Age, thou art sham’d! Science, thou has lost the breed of noble scientists! When went there by an age, since the first IPCC Summary for Policymakers, but it was fam’d with more than with one Mann? When could they say, till now, that talk’d of Climate, that her computer models and hockeystick diagrams encompass’d but one Mann?
Now is it skepticalscience.com indeed, and room enough, when there is in it but one only Mann.
O! you and I have heard our colleagues say there was a Warmist once who would have brook’d th’ eternal devil to keep his hockeystick in the public eye as accidentally as a king.”
–Deepest apologies to The Bard for defacing Much Ado and Julius Caesar, but it was in a good cause…
Bravo! Bravo! O MIghty P at Dolan. Encore! WELL DONE! Personally, I think the Bard was smiling as he peered over your shoulder while you wrote that. Didn’t you hear him chuckle? You thought it was the rustling of the wind in the trees… .
Thanks very much for letting me know that SOMEONE read (and with pleasure, even!) my attempt above.
“Here come de judge”. And that is the problem, facts aside, a judge with a bias or lack of understanding can make judgements none of us can understand from a “factual” basis. It’s often a roll of the dice when you get into court.
Another statement that is absolutely baffling.
‘reluctant’ You mean Mann has said ‘no to participating in public events and some poor sucker had to convince Manniacal to be public? Odd, I don’t remember any examples of Manny baby’s reluctance start public brouhahas in the climategate stuff.
The only place I can think that the Mann prat is reluctant is when he is asked to debate a qualified expert in public. Of course his reluctance is more a duck and cover evasion.
‘accidental’ is a real puzzler, just how did the climate debate accidentally run him over? Somehow his accidental reference is akin to things like ‘accidentally pregnant’, ‘accidental suicide’, ‘accidentally drunk’ or when egoMann ‘accidentally used Tiljander upside down’ and then ignored calls for him to retract and correct.
Sure, regressed Mann can make all of the public announcements he wants about how reluctant and accidental he is. Trouble is, not only has oxymoron Mann been loudly hogging the spotlight every chance he got; but he has been referred to as the ‘Prima donna’ of climate faithologists for a decade. A ‘nom de climate’ that I don’t believe he ever tried to discourage.
Of course, there is always the chance that Lewpy will help fecal Mann prove via pseudo psychology that Mann reluctantly and accidentally sued Steyn and NRO for libel; not to forget suing several others previously.
The IPCC made Michael Mann a public figure when they promoted his hockey stick at all their press conferences as the icon of global warming – proof positive the world was going to end because of CO2. Mann was basically a recent grad when the IPCC turned him into a climate science rock star. Success that comes too early in life can go to one’s head.
especially when it’s undeserved success.
In Europe Mann’s PR machine is also busily at work. Major newspapers have recently feautured him as the innocent victim of an “oil industry / Koch Bros.) campaign, spearheaded by Marc Morano and industry-funded skeptic blogs.
Using the same old tactic: When it warms, it’s CO2. But when it cools, it’s some unknown natural factors.
When he’s praised, he’s a public figure. But when he’s harshly criticised, he’s suddenly just a private individual being unfairly attacked.
He wants to eat his cake and have it too.
Private person Mann has the PR machinery running in Europe as well, prominently featured in various news magazines and dailies – all claiming he is the innocent victim of a big industry funded campaign led by CFact, Heritage, Climate Depot and skeptic blogs.
“Manniacal” — A Theo K — LOL (loved the witty post at 2214)
And, good points, Rob Cram, Paper Tiger, and P. Gosselin —
Thus, per Gertz v. Welch, the Mann Child is a “public figure,” having “… attained an ability to counter defamatory falsehoods published about [him].. .”
How many twitter “followers” does he have? Do they follow him because they are all personal friends interested to know what he is doing in his personal life, or are they following him because of his reputation and standard bearer (and Nobel prize winner) for the theory of global warming? Why does he twitter to all these followers if he reluctant to be a public figure? Or does he want to be their leader?
Janice Moore says:
May 8, 2013 at 9:45 pm
7;->
My ‘umble thanks, Milady. Someone else inspired me by quoting from Hamlet…and Shakespeare is such a rich source for THE Quote (and I am a devotee of The Bard)… I’ve long been an admirer of Mark Steyn’s wit and sagacity; of Mann’s grit and tenacity, well, not so much. If he spent as much effort to be faithful to the Scientific Method of enquiry as he does defending every personal utterance of “His” science—I din’t even know a guy COULD own a science! Dozzat mean we owe him royalties for using it? And are they for sale, somewhere? (I can just see it now, a few years hence, when even Mann’s admirers and supporters are forced to admit he’s wrong… “Used science for Sale. Slightly dented, comes complete with hockeystick. Very useful for hiding warming…”) Anyway, did he spend as much effort on actual science as he does on self-promotion and basking in the adulation of his coterie of sycophants we might well all be hailing him as the next Issac Newton…ok, probably not, Mann being Mann—I’m just trying to be fair…
Instead, I think he’ll be a MUCH bigger footnote in history of what NOT to do than even the folks that discovered “Cold Fusion”.
I think we all understand that it’s very difficult for someone to put a great deal of effort into research, and then put their reputation at risk to publish a theory (because even among skeptics who profess to follow the Scientific Method, we know there are the immature who will ridicule others who make mistakes—honest or otherwise), and after all that personal investment, have to admit, “I was wrong” (possibly to even louder catcalls). But no one I respect has (or ever will) ridiculed someone who failed in an attempt to discover something new. Moreover, I think ALL decent people respect someone who, having followed a dead end, says, “Back to the drawing board,” sharpens his pencil, and goes back to work (“If at first, you don’t succeed…”). I would expect Michael Mann (or anyone) to defend against the first few reviews—anyone so lacking confidence in their own conviction wouldn’t be researching. And assuming I got caught in the wrong as he was—and I have been caught in the wrong, more than once, so I can speak from experience—I would admit to my sins, atone as well as I’m able, and try to move on from it. No more or less than I expected from the sailors that worked for me for 20 years. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong—get over it and move on. Anything else is an exercise in stupidity, futility or both. But there again, the Bard had this to say, “Oh, what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive!” Is that why Mann is so tenacious about “His” science? I suspect so.
What the heck—no one, even an idiot-man(n)que, is completely useless: he can always serve as a bad example… Oh, but I started a quote earlier. It’s actually W.C. Fields, and Mann should probably have followed it: “If at first, you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No sense being a damn’ fool about it!”
Nice essay, Captain Pat Dolan! Enjoyed it.
WC Fields: “If at first, you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No sense being a damn’ fool about it!”
Mann: I — don’t — NEED to try again! The science is SETTLED. We all voted on it.
Thomas Edison: Do you know how many times I had to try again, pee wee?
Mann: What -EVER. That was then, this is now. The way to get ahead in science NOW, THOMAS, is to create MODELS. Bet you couldn’t even make one decent climate model. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haaa.
Edison: No, probably not. I made things that actually worked.
Mann: Ooooh, you are SO FUNNY, Tom. What MATTERS is how well one’s work translates into $$$$$. And I am making a TON. Ha, ha, haaaw.
Solomon: “Like the crackling of thorns under the pot, so is the laughter of fools.” [Ecc. 7:6]
Mann: Get that religious CRAP out of here, Sol. Who reads you? How many twitting buddies do YOU have? LOL
Capt. Dolan: In all my years on the sea, I never once gave up on any sailor who wanted to try. Mann, no one is COMPLETELY useless. Spend a week with me, Michael. I’ll make you a new Mann, one with integrity, one who can walk into any symposium with his head high.
Mann: LOL, Dolan. Who are you? I am FAMOUS (er, but not intentionally so)! What kind of a fool would I be to give up all the free publicity and MOOOONNNNEEEEEEY I’m making off my schtick?
Dolan: An honest one.
Solomon: Your heart’s in the right place Dolan, but, “Though you grind a fool in a mortar, … you will not remove his folly from him;” [Prov. 27:22] for, “A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.” [Prov. 18:2].
WCF: Hey! What’s with only giving me ONE line in this play!?
Narrator: And now, ladies and gentlemen, here’s W. C. Fields with the last word on Mann:
WCF: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.” =|(;o\)#|–{
Janice Moore, brilliant comments.
Just brilliant! If I have any expertise to help the anti greenie movement it is in understanding the political arena. You, obviously have great knowledge in the legal realm. May we both prosper.
Oh, Mr. Stendera, you say that to ALL the girls. #[;)]
Glad to see you posting — I noticed you were gone for awhile (Richard Courtney, too — hope all is well). I hope that you and your lovely lady are enjoying May.
Thanks, so much, for your kind comment. It is just gratifying to hear that someone READ what I wrote. That someone I respect liked it is TERRIFIC.
Will his next book be titled ‘Mein Widerstrebender Und Versehentlicher Kampf’ ?
Zefal,
I have NO idea. Ich shprechen keine Deutsch. Does it mean: My Little Strawbender and True Hen Light Struggle? Something, apparently, about difficulty with a bend in a line on a graph and the illumination provided by fowl?
I’m sorry that I am unable to understand your joke. I hope someone who does speak Deutsche reads your post.
“Kampf” brings a certain nasty Austrian to mind, so, I’m CERTAIN your joke fits Mann with all his egomania.
@ Janice Moore May 10, 2013 at 10:29 pm
Think of the title. It means “My reluctant and accidental fight”. Pretty good Zefal!
Thanks, Phil Jourdan. LOL. I couldn’t “think” of the title because I had no idea what it meant, except for “my” and “and” in German and “kampf,” — I didn’t even know what the full title of that nasty little Austrian’s book was! THANK YOU for helping me out. Heh, heh, didn’t even get “2 out of 3”! — just 3 out of 5!
NOW, I agree. Nice one, Zefal, amazingly on point. I won’t speculate here as to why that might be…..