Bishop Hill Court-bound
Aug 23, 2012 Climate: Mann Michael Mann's has issued a response to the NRO's "Get Lost" statement the other day:
People have been asking for my reaction to the recent response by the National Review. Here is a statement from my lawyer John B. Williams of Cozen O'Connor:
********
The response of the National Review is telling with respect to the issues it did not address. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s research has been extensively reviewed by a number of independent parties, including the National Science Foundation, with never a suggestion of any fraud or research misconduct. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s conclusions have been replicated by no fewer than twelve independent studies. It did not deny the fact that it was aware that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated of any fraudulent conduct. It did not deny the fact that it knew its allegations of fraud were false. Rather, the National Review’s defense seems to be that it did not really mean what it said last month when it accused Dr. Mann of fraud. Beyond this, the response is little more than an invective filled personal attack on Dr. Mann. And further, this attack is coupled with the transparent threat that the National Review intends to undertake burdensome and abusive litigation tactics should Dr. Mann have the temerity to attempt to defend himself in court.
*********
We intend to file a lawsuit.
Well it should be interesting. Meanwhile, Jonathan Adler, an editor at the National Review and also a lawyer by trade, reckons that Mann's case will not stack up.
Reader Comments (44)
that statement is the kind of stuff you expect from Russell or J Bowers. It means nothing...but underneath you know they are scared they will have to try to earn their money for once.
It looks like a classic played for and got!
Anybody with knowledge of the ego involved surely must have known that "Get Lost" could only result in "We intend to file a lawsuit"
Well that's cheered me up no end, looks like fun times ahead!
Pull up a chair and watch the show.
As a poster pointed out on WUWT. The word fraud has many meanings. I think it would be easily defensible in a court of law to demonstrate that one of more of the meanings is accurate.
fraud
noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
If it goes to court presumably Mann will have to take the stand? Has he ever had any experience of being quizzed in public by someone who is not just a fawning toady lickspittle?
My reading of his monstrous ego and thin skin is that it would not be hard for counsel to wind him up enough for him to make a very very bad impression.
"we intend to file a lawsuit"
Lots of wiggle room there. A lawsuit about what, against whom, when? This won't go anywhere, if only because they won't want to give the opposition a shot at discovery.
"Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated of any fraudulent conduct."
Not by me. Dr. Mann is a criminal who's still on the loose. I'm hoping the relevant legal authority will dispense the appropriate justice to the parties involved.
Andrew
"We intend to file a lawsuit"
I intend to become a millionaire.
As a PSU grad whose Science degree has been diminished by Mr. Mann, I would absolutely love to see the discovery on such a lawsuit. This could root out the rest of the guilty bastards in the Administration left over from the "other scandal". I am all for a reboot of my beloved Institution. Their record of Investigation is an affront to the 100s of thousands of true blue PSU grads.
Err - this is a bit confused: Mann's conclusions have been replicated by "no fewer than twelve independent studies" (!)
The 12 inquiries were generally non-independent or relied on non-independent inquiry material and inquired of Mann about things such as if he had deleted email, or caused others to delete email in response to FOI requests, to which Mann said 'No'.
Subsequent information has shown that Mann forwarded a message asking for email deletion, and that email was indeed deleted.
...I do hope that Mann is explaining details like this to his lawyers.
indeed DT - this suit will not go very far because no lawyer will want to take the risk of defending Mann
Mann's living in cloud cuckoo land. It's time Mann was peer reviewed ... by a group of 12 peers who aren't also up to their armpits in it the scandal.
diogenes : indeed DT - this suit will not go very far because no lawyer will want to take the risk of defending Mann
.
.Depends..can Mann pay in cash. Remember, the lawyer colllects win or lose in these cases.
Its message to the faithful , if it was serious legal piece there be none of that 'exonerated' nonsense
The very language they used tell us they not really looking at a legal route their looking to score PR points before the kick it into the long grass and come up with some half-arsed claim why its not gone ahead.
Which is a a great shame Mann in a court would be both good news , not for him , and fun as you image how he blow up under some hard questioning which he certainly very gets from 'the Team ' or it seems it his own employers .
I love the accusation of the NRO threatening “abusive litigation tactics” by er, not backing down to litigation tactics ;)
Would have looked more impressive if they'd just issued the last line alone, the preamble is a strange mix of whiny and bumptious verbiage.
Aug 24, 2012 at 12:08 AM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement
What am I saying "...a strange mix of whiny and bumptious verbiage"?
"whiny and bumptious" is the definitive mindset for climate Martyr / Demigod buffoons ;)
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't matter one wit how many times his friends said they agree with his conclusions. As a public figure he has to prove actual malice. He has to prove THEY knew what they printed was wrong but went ahead and printed it anyway. Also he has to turn over all of his papers they ask for during discovery. ALL THEY ASK FOR. And they have the ability to use the absolute defense of truth. Boy, this will be one sweet court case. Unfortunately, he'll probably drag it out for 6 or 9 months then drop it just before some holiday weekend; my guess is either Christmas or New Year's eve.
I am not a lawyer, but while reading the response from Team Mann, 'irrelevant,' 'immaterial,' and 'equivocation' kept running through my head. It sounds as if it were written by Mann, himself. I doubt his attorneys are stupid enough to actually file the suit.
Talk is cheap, Counselor. Whiskey costs money.
I expect no lawsuit will be filed, or even if it'll be, it will be left to languish forever or retracted when bigger news will bury it in importance.
Why, I can almost read already the message that will be sent around saying the Deniers are simply too rich and powerful, so poor little Mann won't be able to pursue them through the courts.
I could be wrong (it has been known to happen!), but my guess is that this frivolous libel suit on Mann's part may well be an indication that sales of his Portrait of the Artist as an Aggrieved Mann are flagging, and his knee-jerk, self-serving OpEds are being rejected - so he had to do something to drum up interest amongst those of the heretofore uninformed, unsuspecting public.
Where does all the money come from for Mann to pursue these cases? Clearly a professor, even one as infamous as Dr. Mann, cannot afford to open multiple court cases at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. So who is providing the money? I think we should be told.
In case you wonder where Mark Steyn's money will come from Mikey, it will come from the many million of people who've watched science being dragged into the gutter in the service of politics.
If I were contemplating suing a journalist for repeating what many others have already said, Mark Steyn wouldn't be my first (or second, or tenth) choice.
I note from the link that Steyn says that he has never paid much attention to Mann as an individual, up till now.
That is something which will no doubt be vigorously and thoroughly corrected in the coming weeks and months.
Whether the 'intention' to sue comes about or not, Mann has pulled the tiger's tail. There will be consequences.
Everything Mann does is about the words. Steve Mc always refers to the pea and thimble when dealing with statements from the Team.
Mann says "We intend to file a lawsuit". Not will. Intend. Lots of wiggle room there. I intend to do the dishes, but something else may come up.
Like I said yesterday, we can only pray that Mann is stupid enough to do this. After fighting so hard (and expensively) to keep his emails secret, he's now going to volunteer them?
Ha.
I wonder if it did come to court whether a judge would limit discovery to the facts at dispute, which is not really the "science" or lack of it but the words used in the original article and their meaning. Whilst judges want to get at the "truth", they also want to reach a conclusion and one method os to prevent any fishing expeditions.
In short I have bought in some popcorn but I may not get to eat it.
It is all theory and bluster until the hammer hits the gavel starting the first session (if US judges have hammers and gavels of course).
Bluff and bluster, aimed it would seem more at Mann's loyal fan base rather than any serious attempt to reply to the very detailed response issued by the National Review's lawyers.
Still, we have interesting times ahead especially if they proceed and Mann's character is such that it will be very difficult for him not to do so! There are very powerful vested interests backing Mann - we have seen the contortions of the so-called 'independent' inquiries so it will be fascinating to see how a lawcourt handles the evidence.
Let us hope that truth and justice prevail and I for one will certainly donate to the NR when necessary to help ensure that happens!
As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, it’s about plausibly deniable accusations :)
A lot of the posters here don't appear to have read the comments attached to the Jonathan Adler piece. If you take these into account, it's not quite as clear cut.
Ian,
Lets say Mann goes to court...do you really think thats what he would want if going to court meant him having to turn over his data so that the opposition can defend themselves from his libel suit?
As we are already seeing in his action against Ball, when it comes to handing over his data he suddenly becomes very, VERY shy.
Regards
Mailman
I wonder if Mann's lawyers will be working on a no win no fee basis? My main concern is that US ethanol mandates will lead to a shortage of pop-corn.
Ian
Most of the comments to the Adler piece that state it is not clear-cut are either not by lawyers or by fans of Mann - such as bigcitylib. The lawyers tend to suggest that Mann would find it difficult to win his case, which is what you expect given the US laws on freedom of speech.
When I think of the possibility of Mann in court I can't get out of my head the image of Spencer Tracy in 'Inherit the Wind'. I just so want him to be the lawyer - and Mann to be Harrison Brady.
(See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_DQUAuNUvw )
And for added ambience, the court case even has the 'global warming' atmosphere that Hansen rigged in his Senate performance!
I wonder who is paying Mann's lawyer'sl expenses? Must be astronomical.
H.O.
This will be a better day thanks to "Portrait of the Artist as an Aggrieved Mann" Thank you.
Let us re-Joyce.
I wouldn't pay too much attention to BigCityLib. He's a hyperactive cheerleader for anything CAGW.
Wait until the complaint. It's all posturing and PR and, perhaps, misdirection. Whatever one may think of Mann, he's not what you'd call not able to learn from his mistakes. The case he started in Canada is at the point where he may have a default judgement and sanctions imposed due to withholding documents.
As long as the lawyers are crafting and Mann is intending, it's all just fodder for the media. For the chill effect, if no other purpose. However, those that make millions and billions on climate stuff do need to defend their money stream and, for the conspiracy theorists, it could be Mann was picked to kick the can down the road to keep the spigot on. It's an attractive conspiracy theory. Mann, based on recent FOIA releases, seems to have the personality to be the lead guy to beat off the savages.
I wonder how his intention to sue stacks up with his previous intention to delete emails, and to forward a similar request to various other climate scientists...
After all, both had been made similarly plain.
Snotrocket, Thanks for the link to 'Inherit the Wind', I'd forgotten it. (used to love Spencer Tracy).
Very apposite, particularly the bit about about taking us back to the 1600's!!
I love the smell of cordite.
In this case made even more fragrant by the possibility that Mann is about to shoot himself in the foot.
Go Mann, GO!
Manns legal fees will be negligible because he will choose to defend himself. Don't forget, he picked up climate science in no time, so training himself to be a top lawyer will be a doddle
"that statement is the kind of stuff you expect from Russell or J Bowers. It means nothing...but underneath you know they are scared they will have to try to earn their money for once."
Diogenes, as I recall, National Review paid me $250 for my last piece.
Does that make me a co-defendant?
Do I get to file amicus curiae?
Johanna wrote:
"Mark Steyn wouldn't be my first (or second, or tenth) choice."
No kidding!
I'm sure Mark Steyn is delighted to be singled out though.
If he's helping to stir the pot; I'll be sending cash if they ask.
On Jonathan Adler’s Volokh Conspiracy article referenced above, John Mashey has now added one of his rambling comments, full of the usual references to deepclimate, desmog, ect. It mostly made me giggle though I did find one part offensive, where he says “Andrew Montford either could not do competent scholarship or he falsified, or both”. In this, he appears to be referring to the Bish’s career prior to writing his book. Maybe I’ve misread it, so I’ve asked him to provide his evidence.
I love the accusation of the NRO threatening “abusive litigation tactics” by er, not backing down to litigation tactics ;)
....
Aug 24, 2012 at 12:08 AM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement
Threatening discovery!
Rumour has Soros covering Mann's legal bills.