Mann's legal case

Already embroiled in a legal tussle with Tim Ball, Michael Mann has now taken it upon himself to threaten the National Review with a libel suit. Much of the Review article was a direct quote of the CEI piece which considered whether Penn State's willingness to cover up the Sandusky child abuse scandal meant that it might also have covered up wrongdoing by Mann. Although the point made by the CEI piece was a serious one, the article's fairly unsubtle linking of Mann with Sandusky has led to inevitable outrage among Mann's supporters. However, in fact the libel threat appears to be based on another part of the Steyn's article entirely.

Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.

If it ever comes to court this would make for an interesting hearing, particularly since much of the case seems to revolve around Mann's exoneration by, among others, Oxburgh and Russell! However, as journalist Dan Fagin observed in response to the news, people sue and threaten to sue for all kinds of reasons, winning in court being just one of them. I personally doubt if this will come to anything.

[In related news, this Twitter exchange between Mann and Ryan Radia of CEI was interesting

RyanRadia .@MichaelEMann Why did you delete my comment on your FB page re: defamation of public figures and the actual malice standard?

@MichaelEMann You are with *CEI*, front group dedicated to dishonest smears & promotion of disinformation. That's why. Take it elsewhere.

RyanRadia .@MichaelEMann By your logic re: CEI, wouldn't I be justified in ignoring anything from Penn State academics because of the Freeh Report?]

Comments

[omnologos]

Mann is mentally disturbed. That much is obvious to anybody who has seen what mental disturbance is.

[Skiphil]

Russell C

Well said, and thanks for the links which I am just beginning to absorb. You are doing valuable work on these topics, please keep at it!

I am never too surprised by the Mann's antics anymore, but it does seem like a high-risk strategy for him to invite more critical scrutiny in this way. Yes, he does get his fans excited, but he risks a lot more exposure of his dubious words and behaviors. Maybe he really is delusional....

[ManicBeancounter]

Bish.
I quite agree that Dr Mann's legal threats will come to nothing. For a case to succeed in court the plaintiff must substantiate their case. Derogatory comments will be struck down. Statements like "climate scientists agree" or "skeptics are funded by big oil" disallowed as hearsay. Claims made in scientific journals compared to contrary claims and real world evidence. The other side will get a chance to present their case, and cross-examine the evidence.
Dr Mann would be a little out of his depth in this environment, and a good lawyer would soon realize it.

[Hilary Ostrov]

IANL, but I wonder if there may be a "fly in the legal ointment", so to speak, notwithstanding all the huffing and puffing found in this initial volley from Mann's lawyer. I have some (layperson's) familiarity with Canadian laws, but Steyn and NRO are both in the US - where, presumably, the suit would be brought 'n fought, and where the rules pertaining to discovery and/or admissibility of evidence may be quite different.

Unless I'm mistaken, Mann was at UVa (not Penn State) when he "created" (according to Gergis!) the hockey-stick. Perhaps if there's a lurking US libel lawyer here, s/he could comment on whether or not a justifiable argument could be made by Mann and/or Penn State (who, to date, have certainly shown no inclination to throw Mann under the proverbial bus) that their "investigation" was limited** only to examination of material sent/received/produced by Mann during the course of his employment at Penn State.

If so, could this be construed as a card currently hidden up Mann's legal sleeve that might prove to be a loophole adverse to Steyn's defense of what appears on the surface to be a reasonable analogy of cover-up on the part of the Penn State administration?

Then again, considering that this initial legal volley appears to contain everything but the kitchen sink, perhaps this makes anything and everything - particularly the exegesis of the hockey-stick - "fair game" from a legal perspective.

** It never ceases to amaze me that all of these so-called "investigations" appear to have succeeded in "limiting" their respective remits and "findings" in order to avoid dealing with all the hot potatoes!

[Skiphil]

Mann cannot dare to allow serious legal and public attention to his record. He's not that crazy. He's re-writing history with is book and book tour, but he would not dare to have to face legal discovery and cross-examination from a well-prepped attorney. Just remember how ridiculous the Penn State "inquiry" really was, Mann has skated free until now with pal reviews and cushy protections:

Clive Crook in The Atlantic on ludicrous Penn State "inquiry" on Mann (July 14, 2010)

"The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann -- the paleoclimatologist who came up with "the hockey stick" -- would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for "lack of credible evidence", it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT's Richard Lindzen tells the committee, "It's thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I'm wondering what's going on?" The report continues: "The Investigatory Committee did not respond to Dr Lindzen's statement. Instead, [his] attention was directed to the fourth allegation.") Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers -- so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false."

[Skiphil]

[cross post from Climate Audit] I really thought this had to be a joke, but it's real. In the past when I criticized the misrepresentations in AIT to "serious" people they would always say some version of "well sure it's reckless propaganda, but what do you expect, it's made by a politician for political purposes." Now it seems that the great climatologist Michael Mann regards AIT as worthy of filling TWO slots in his course....

Of course it's possible to include written or visual propaganda in an academic course in order to correct and debunk it, and for diversity of views, but somehow it's hard to imagaine that is what is happening here. Does Mann even correct the "Dr. Thompson's Thermometer" for his eager students?? I wonder.... (anyone know any recent Penn State grads who could try to find out from fellow students or alums?)....

Michael Mann uses "An Inconvenient Truth" as academic course material!!

GAIA - THE EARTH SYSTEM (EARTH 002, Section 2; 3 credits)

Course Syllabus for Fall 2009

W Nov 18 MOVIE: An Inconvenient Truth (Part 1)

F Nov 20 MOVIE: An Inconvenient Truth (Part 2)

(h/t xanthippa and betapug)

[Russell C]

@Skiphil above Jul 25 /10:01 PM,

Thanks for the kind words! Now, if only this wasn't just Mann hurling about such defamatory statements having only a degree or three of separation from Ross Gelbspan. As I pointed out in the following three articles "In Case of Heart[land] Attack, Break Glass", "Climate Science and Corruption" (which the Bish himself featured here), and "There is a Cancer Growing on the IPCC and Al Gore", we have the late Stephen Schneider, IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal Van Ypersele, and IPCC AR5 reviewers, respectively, having the same too-close-for-comfort ties to Ross Gelbspan. And to keep those articles reasonably short, I left out a lot of other details.

Regarding Mann's use of Al Gore's movie in his university course syllabus, remember that Ross Gelbspan's infamous "smoking gun" proof of the guilt of skeptic scientists, the "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact" fragment sentence, is spelled out in capital red letters full screen in Gore's movie just before the 1 hour 13min point. But Gore can't even keep his own narrative straight about Gelbspan's role, as I described in my "Pt II: Is Gore's Accusation of Skeptic Climate Scientists Still a Hoax?"

[RayG]

As an FYI, charities in the U.S. have to file annual reports with our Internal Revenue Service. These are public docs that are available on-line so anyone who wants to do a little digging can find out a fair amount of info about donors, etc.

[Skiphil]

Well this looks like a well-balanced panel of Mann fans that can reasonably consider all the issues objectively (that's sarcasm):

AGU Fall Meeting: San Francisco, 3-7 December 2012

Description:
"Climate scientists are playing an increasing role in litigation as expert witnesses in cases related to governmental response to climate change as well as being embroiled in litigation surrounding their own research. The session will look at the role of scientists in litigation involving climate change. It will explore the legal attacks against climate scientists, responses of the scientific community and resources available to scientists. Finally, legal scholars and practitioners will explore ways scientists can engage more effectively with the legal community."

PA009: Litigation Involving Climate Scientists
Sponsor:
Public Affairs (PA)
Conveners:

Joshua Wolfe
Climate Science Legal Defense
jwolfephoto@yahoo.com

Donald Goldberg
Climate Advocates
dmgoldberg@climateadvocates.org

John Abraham
University of St. Thomas
jpabraham@stthomas.edu

Scott A Mandia
Suffolk County Community College
mandias@sunysuffolk.edu

[Rog Tallbloke]

Ah, Supermandia to the rescue.

Lol.

Bring it on Michael, I could do with a laugh at your expense.