One of the hurdles Michael Mann has to overcome in his lawsuit against NRO/Steyn is the tenet that public figures are expected to have a higher level of tolerance when it comes to ridicule, satire, and defamation. For that reason, because I myself am a public figure in the climate debate, I’d have little success in prosecuting a defamation claim over an article that says I have sex with farm animals (see “corrections” at bottom of linked article).
After Mann’s libel case against the National Review Online and Mark Steyn was filed, he’s recently been whining that he’s a “reluctant public figure“, perhaps to somehow shift the lawsuit in his favor.
Now, thanks to an opinion piece by Mann in the Guardian, he’s pretty much blown his own argument out of the water while managing to make a ridiculous and easily falsifiable claim about typewriter technology in an analogy on “path dependency”.
Here, Mann uses his familiarity with what “the science tells us” to effect change in public and political policy, going even so far as to challenge president Obama:
If the president won’t protect us, who is he protecting?
That challenge pretty much places him in the realm of public debate, and being a “public figure”, even if he claims it was reluctant or involuntary:
A person can become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established…
Source: Aaron Larson: Defamation, Libel and Slander Law. Expertlaw.com, August 2003
Mann often claims he’s been “cleared” of any wrongdoing related to his world famous “hockey stick” in later investigations. So, like “people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established” he may be unable to make any viable defamation argument after his hockey stick became a sensation not only for the initial press, but the questions and ridicule that followed.
As a humorous aside, Mann really doesn’t know what he’s talking about with this analogy in the same Guardian article, bold mine:
A classic example is the “qwerty” keyboard layout. Even though this layout may not be the most efficient, it was the first one, and so it became the standard.
The omniscient Dr. Mann, who often positions himself as an expert in everything, botched this example badly. The QWERTY keyboard was not the first keyboard layout, and it was designed on purpose to be inefficient, to prevent a mechanical jam that frustrated early experienced typists:
The first model constructed by Sholes [4]used a piano-like keyboard with two rows of characters arranged alphabetically as follows:
- 3 5 7 9 N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
2 4 6 8 . A B C D E F G H I J K L M
The construction of the “Type Writer” had two flaws that made the product susceptible to jams. Firstly, characters were mounted on metal arms or typebars, which would clash and jam if neighboring arms were pressed at the same time or in rapid succession.[1] Secondly, its printing point was located beneath the paper carriage, invisible to the operator, a so-called “up-stroke” design. Consequently, jams were especially serious, because the typist could only discover the mishap by raising the carriage to inspect what he had typed. The solution was to place commonly used letter-pairs (like “th” or “st”) so that their typebars were not neighboring, avoiding jams. Contrary to popular belief,[2] the QWERTY layout was not designed to slow the typist down,[3] but rather to speed up typing by preventing jams.
- Rehr, Darryl, Why QWERTY was Invented
- http://www.maltron.com/media/lillian_kditee_001.pdf
- http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/221/was-the-qwerty-keyboard-purposely-designed-to-slow-typists “…at least one study indicates that placing commonly used keys far apart, as with the QWERTY, actually speeds typing, since you frequently alternate hands”
- US 79868, Sholes, C. Latham; Carlos Glidden & Samuel W. Soule, “Improvement in Type-writing Machines”, patent issued July 14, 1868
A few seconds with Google and Wikipedia as I did to verify what I believed I knew, would have helped him avoid this silly blunder, but he comes across almost always so full sure of himself, he probably thought he didn’t need to.
Dr. Mann now can add “failed typewriter expert” to his long list of curriculum vitae claims, along with being a “reluctant public figure” and Nobel Prize Winner.
h/t to Barry Woods for the Guardian link
Of course the Guardian profile for Dr Mann ends with “Follow him @MichaelEMann”.
How can one follow him on Twitter when he apparently blocks anyone who tweets anything against his view of the world, even if it is factual? I wonder if this is more useful evidence in the Steyn trial, Dr Mann seems to have a habit of shutting down discussion on Facebook and Twitter.
Michael Mann a “reluctant public figure”? With his ego?
Yeah, right.
Mann has good reasons for arguing against the use of oil.
He may get the energy he needs from burning Hockey-Sticks in the near future.
Typo:
Should be
“Michael Mann the ‘reluctant public figure’ and ‘tripe writer’”
You’re welcome
Of course the Guardian not fact checking this is unsurprising. In the neoliberal world of science worship Dr. Mann is a priest. He is right on all things noy just matters of faith.
To the editors of the Guardian Dr. Mann must be correct on the history of the typewriter just as a celebrate priest must be correct on not just matters of faith but issues concerning marriage as well.
Bill Illis says:
February 1, 2014 at 3:25 pm
Bil, I suppose Mann’s suit might be bankrolled by SuperMandia’s climate science legal defense fund. I am puzzled (NOT!) as to why the SuperMandia fund was not stepping in to aid climate scientist Tim Ball with his legal troubles.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/peers-rush-in-climate-science-legal-defense-fund/
Went to the guardian site and was amazed by how stupid the comments were. Very sad. Also intimidated because if I said anything to point out their errors I am sure I would be berated.
He operates a facebook page, describing himself on that page’s description as:
Public Figure
Michael E. Mann, Climate Scientist; Distinguished Professor, Penn State University; Author of “Dire Predictions” & “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars”
…I wasn’t previously aware that he created that page, and frequently posted to it, against his will.
It seems clear to me that there are two main reasons why the alarmists are losing the debate about supposed “AGW”. The first is that obviously the science is against them, and it all looks like pretty much a busted flush now. The second is that (mods, please feel free to snip anything that I am about to say unwittingly contravenes policy here) they seem to be such unpleasant people. There’s Mann saying that Curry is anti-science, and his attack dog Nuccitelli who has his weekly angry column in the Guardian. I mean, I wouldn’t buy an insurance policy from Mr Nasty, so why would I buy a public or political policy from him either?
It is my understanding that there was an additional 5000 deaths above what would normally be expected and it is this number that is considered due to fuel poverty.
Jimbo, you are absolutely right – the objectives of the CAGW crowd have nothing to do with CO2 or climate – they are to destroy the American economy, and with it civilization as we know it. CO2 and climate are only the devices they use to get uninformed people to let them do their dirty work.
Willard Gibbs says:
February 1, 2014 at 7:02 pm
“Looking forward to Mann bankrupting National Review et al.!”
Comon’ Will, it’s okay for lefties to read righties stuff. You probably have been corrupted already through your schooling as much as is possible already.
==================================================================
Put it upside-down and he might be able to read it. 😎
While I understand pro bono legal work being tax exempt I do not get how legal funds being used to sue other people being tax exempt.
that strikes me as a taxable gifts. I coukd be wrong though. But I fail how to see hiw yiy can take others mobey to sue people and it not be considered taxable.
Eugene; love the poem!
Gunga Din 7:06pm
We poets get so little attention that even one funny comment brings with it the sweet smell of success.
Eugene WR Gallun
andrewmharding 10:24pm
Well, its an oldie but a goodie. Thank you for the kind comment. I knew opening an internet account with PAY-FOR-PRAISE would get me some compliments. i would recommend the service to any poet.
Eugene WR Gallun
I would say that anyone who lays claim to having a Nobel Peace prize (rightly or wrongly) is a bona fide public figure, and not a reluctant one.
If you ever wish to insult a liberal, caring, slightly warm and fuzzy ,reader of The Independent , just accuse him of being a reader of the Guardian. In Britain the journal is renowned for its wishy washy ,left of centre ,lovey dovey , Quintin and Tarkwin ,champagne socialist , hand wringing communist manifesto dressed in pink ribbons. It is dire !!
One point regarding the models which failed to predict the pause in the warming.
Meteorologists have known about 30-40 year pacific and atlantic oscillations for more than 400 years and which has been documented in the climate science dating back to the mwp.
Yet none of the climate models took into account this well known climate cycle.
How smart are these climate scientists?
Joe Feb 3 at 6:34 am “How smart are these climate scientists”? Richard Lindzen thinks “not very”.
Michael Mann’s legal bills are being covered by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.
http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/
As to who actually finances that operation, I have no idea. I would guess Tom Steyer if anybody. And on their blog they brag about cooperation with an outfit called ‘PEER;’ which basically is a shell for AFSCME.
It’s also worth noting the irony that something called the ‘Climate Science Legal Defense Fund’ is financing a libel suit brought by a plaintiff over a muckraker’s personal slander via allusions to Jerry Sandusky. No science. No climate. No defense. The constant Newspeak-ish dissonance in eco-prog land is truly striking on so many levels.
Strong. Honest.
Sorry, won’t work. Mann only cares what (other) public figures calumniously say about him. You’re just not (yet) a sufficiently prominent ‘opinion leader’ to attract his vindictive attention.