From politico.com:
Penn State University global warming researcher Michael Mann is lawyering up to counter attacks by conservatives who have referred to him as the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science.”
Mann’s lawyer wrote Friday to National Review Executive Publisher Scott Budd demanding a retraction and apology for a July 15 blog post that compares Penn State’s mishandling of years of child sexual abuse to the university’s investigation of “Climategate.”
The charged reference to Sandusky, the convicted child molester and former assistant coach, originated with a July 13 post on the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s blog, OpenMarket.org. The National Review Online post quoted from a now-deleted line by CEI’s Rand Simberg, who wrote: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
CEI later removed the line and added an editor’s note that said, “Two inappropriate sentences that originally appeared in this post have been removed by the editor.”
Mann’s lawyer, John B. Williams, wrote that National Review had stepped way over the line, adding that “we intend to pursue all appropriate legal remedies.”
It appears we have a little test of the first Amendment here. Does the National Review have the right to publically compare Michael Mann to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky? Should Mann continue his lawsuit and attempt to be awarded damages or is a correction and an apology enough remedy?
Being compared to Jerry Sandusky is like being compared to Hitler or Charles Manson in my book. What is wrong with people? Obviously with what has rained down on Penn State in the past couple of days, Jerry Sandusky must be the most hated man in Pennsylvania. That is one lawsuit I would consider contributing to! Ewww! Sandusky.
Lawyer up, Michael Mann. The National Review stepped way over the line. Its retraction and apology is an admission that the inflammatory statement, given the common campus from which both men worked, was meant to hurt Mann’s reputation personally. Attack his data and not his person.
LOL. That’s funny.
Need a “like” button.
I think that Simberg did step over the line. In context, Penn State treated both Mann and Sandusky the same. They protected a money source. If he wants to sue…its a free country. That’s what lawyers are for. I say…go for it.
You all do realize that National Review is QUOTING someone else from the Competitive Enterprise Institute who made the comparison to Sandusky.
The part written by the NR author says “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point.”
So what exactly are you going to sue National Review for? Reporting what someone else said and disagreeing with it?
Besides, if you know anything about 1st Ammendment law in the US, it is next to impossible to get a liebel verdict after NYT vs. Sullivan. The standard is that the media has to publish information they know to be false at the time of publication and with the expressed malicous intent.
Mr. Mann might not like that National Review is talking about him, but he needs to go to the grocery store and by a 24 pack of his favorate beverage. And least then he’d have a case.
@Cargosquid
That’s true. Nothing stops someone from trying to recover damages by suing. Even if he loses, his opponent will pay as well. (That’s something for gun advocates to consider as well if they decide to shoot an intruder. A civil suit will probably be brought by the intruder’s family and the shooter will find that it was more cost effective to leave the house if possible rather than confront someone. There’s always money to be made or lost in these cases.)
@newcomer
I guess we all just aren’t as smart as you are. I don’t exactly think that the National Review was flattering Mann as a scientist but what do I know.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/tag/rand-simberg/
Given the climate at Penn State, the entire world has turned upside down. I don’t think I would bet any serious money on how that worm might turn or not turn. All bets are off.
There are probably going to be more lawsuits in the wake of statues coming down like Saddam and NCAA near death experiences….in fact, you can probably bet your hockey sticks on it.
We don’t know the outcome because its a new playing field.
@Censored bybvbl
There is always the home court advantage of being alive to be sued. That is how I would look at it.
It would piss me off so badly to be sued for shooting someone coming in MY house as a home intruder.
I keep thinking about the Smith family over in Dale City. How horrible. I have no patience for that sort of thing. If you can’t stand your ground in your own house….ggrrrrrrrr. What if you can’t leave the house? I can’t help it. I would want to kill. Does homeowners cover that?
Meanwhile, back to what Censored said.
Talk about ridiculous hyperbole. The National Review, for repeating that stupidity, may not end up legally culpable, but they sure do look like idiots.
@Censored bybvbl
And there you have the reason for Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws. If there are no charges..ie..its a lawful shoot, no civil penalties can be sued for.
Too many criminals were suing from jail.
@SlowpokeRodriguez
I will install one if you find it and tell me how to do it.
@Cargosquid
If there are 50 stand your ground laws….then they are all probably different. I think those laws are too vague, at least the ones I have seen. If someone is in your home, that is a lot different. The question becomes, were they invited?
I feel much differently about shooting someone in my house vs someone in my yard. I think it has something to do with boundaries.
Censored, funny you should mention that because some pro-gunners in VA don’t think we need Castle Doctrine or ‘Civil Immunity’ because most lawyers in VA won’t take those types of torts.
The odds of a Virginia jury convicting a home owner for defending him/herself from an intruder in their own home are low. If the lawyer is doing the case on a percentage and it’s a longshot (meaning they don’t get paid if they don’t win) they just don’t take the case.
So, justice is served because lawyers are capitalists. 🙂
I’ll tell you flat out if someone came in to your home Censored and you defended your own life and I was on that jury — I may think your a loon 80% of the time — but I’ll still vote to let you go free and ask that the Court appologize for even having you appear.
C’mon. The NR story was funny. Its no different than some yahoo abortionist saying Cooch is a cooch.
@marinm
No, it really isn’t funny. Jerry Sandusky is a convicted disreputable pig pervert child molester.There is no lower scum on earth.
I am afraid I don’t know what a yahoo abortionist is. Do you mean a doctor who provides abortions? I wasn’t aware that an aborton provide said Cooch was a Cooch. I might have said it but I am not an abortion provider. I would be more the type to help with underground railroad if it ever came to that.
Awwww…does the person have to be killing me for me to strike a deadly blow? What if I used a baseball bat instead of a gun as my weapon of choice? What moron is going to sit around and wait to see if the person wants to kill them? If you are in my house, uninvited, it might be batters up, ask questions later. At my age, I should have the right to ask questions later.
@Moon-howler
You still have to prove self defense in all cases. We already have 50 sets of case law and precedent.
You are absolutely right about the boundaries. That man in Texas, that idiot that videotaped his encounter with noisy neighbors, announced that he was “standing his ground,” basically because he listened to the talking points from the gun control groups and the media (but I repeat myself.) and believed that was all he had to do. Um..not so much. He’s serving 40 years for murder.
No matter WHAT the law says, it must still be provable to be self defense.
@marinm
Castle Doctrine or not, some relative – or the victim if he survives – is going to try to sue the homeowner. He’ll probably lose but not before the homeowner has to lawyer up. That’s why if I hear an intruder (I have dog alarms as well as guns), I’m going to grab my phone and head out the door. Even if someone manages to make off with a couple thousand dollars worth of crapola, it will be cheaper than going to court or even preparing for the chance of going to court. (I’m tight with my money. Example – when my car was being totaled by a red light runner, my first thought was “@#%! Now I’ll have to spend time and bucks in a repair shop!” My second reaction was to make sure my arms and legs still worked.)
People sue for all types of reasons over all types of disagreements. They are all costly.
What I’m saying is — lawyers won’t even sue you. There is no money in it. The chance of prevailing in a Virginian court doesn’t justify the effort to file paperwork.
Unless the perp or his family pony up money in advance the homeowner really doesn’t have to fear a civil suit. At least in Virginia. 🙂
@MH, we’ll its funny to me and I don’t think that NR has you in mind with respect to circulation. 🙂
“I am afraid I don’t know what a yahoo abortionist is. Do you mean a doctor who provides abortions? I wasn’t aware that an aborton provide said Cooch was a Cooch.”
You posted a thread about how some nurse at an abortion clinic (where they don’t have the ability as non-hospitals to deal with complications like a tubal) was calling Cooch a cooch. You thought that was funny. So I don’t see why you can’t see the humor in this article.
MH — same for you. If I’m on that jury I’d make sure you we’re found innocent, that the court appologized and that they give you your bat back. Cleaned.
@marinm
You can’t say with certainty that no lawyer will take the case. An intruder may be unarmed. He may attempt to leave. The homeowner may be known to hate people of the intruder’s ethnicity or race. There are a lot of factors which could determine whether a case will go to court.
In Michael Mann’s case what do you think a person should be able to say about him with impunity?
“You can’t say with certainty that no lawyer will take the case. An intruder may be unarmed. He may attempt to leave. The homeowner may be known to hate people of the intruder’s ethnicity or race. There are a lot of factors which could determine whether a case will go to court.”
You are right. I can’t say with impunity that some lawyer won’t spend a crazy amount of his own money for the small chance of bankrupting a homeowner OR that some organization would pay the lawyer fee for the family in a way to punish the homeowner. You are right. Of course they still have to overcome a Virginian jury convicting an intruder over a homeowner.. But if it makes you feel any better you are right. Someone with deep pockets ‘could’ force a case.
“In Michael Mann’s case what do you think a person should be able to say about him with impunity?”
Anything permitted by the First Amendment of the United States.
Never mind. I can see that “somebody deserves to be sued” is the standard here. By that standard, sure. Let’s sue everybody for anything we don’t like. Who cares if it’ll bite us in the ass later when we do something somebody doesn’t like. As the old saying goes: “You don’t need a reason to sue somebody. You just need a lawyer.” Who needs 200 years of laws and legal precedent to establish if your speech is protected or not. Just roll the dice and see what the jury de jour thinks. Popular ideas get lots of protection. Unpopular ones, not so much.
If you think advocating suing a reporter for something they quoted and then wrote an op-ed piece on is a good idea, you really, really need to read something about the 1st Ammendment. (I’d recommend a good book, but I’m not sure if that “as smart as you” line was sarcastic or not. And besides, since when is being smart a bad thing anyway? Where I come from, that’s a good thing.)
Mr. Mann doesn’t like what NR wrote. You don’t like it either. Fine, say that. Even better, rebutt the false claims and destroy the NR guys credibility. But you are supporting (maybe even financially!) to a textbook definition of a frivolous lawsuit. That’s far dumber than anything NR wrote about Mr. Mann.
@Censored bybvbl
You are right. There is no such thing as a cheap sue.
Sanity, you seemed to come here with a burr under your saddle for some reason. The one thing I can say about this blog is you won’t find everyone on the same sheet of music. Not even close.
It was I, being sarcastic, in response to your tone. I am not sure who you are talking to. Those questions are like “story starters.” They are there to promote discussion.
What is far dumber is to come to a blog and start insulting the owner and her guests. We might all fight like thieves amongst ourselves but we are also “blog family” and people here can tell you that if an outsider comes in here and tries to stir up stuff, i will defend family members to the hilt.
I feel you probably have a great deal to add to the discussion, however, play nice or play elsewhere.
Let’s take stand your ground to the gun thread folks. This thread is where we can all fight the 1A and climate change….fight each other I meant.
@A Little Sanity Please
But a frivolous lawsuit would hurt Mann more than NR…so..its a win win situation 🙂
@Cargosquid
Well, personally a lawsuit would be golden, right? Because NR can then force him to defend his science and climategate in court.
So, I say BRING IT! 🙂
@marinm
And who do you think would prevail? I think Mann could easily defend his science in court since it is the science of many people.
@Moon-howler
Awesome. I’m all for it! I think Mr. Mann will do great on the witness stand defending his science under penalty of perjury.
Pre-Galileo science was also the science of many people. Consensus does not equal accuracy.
Maybe “a little sanity” didn’t take their feel good pill today,they are awfuly testy and agressive in tone for a newcome 😉
Watch out Moon, our blog “scientists” are comin’ out in full force! If anyone knows the complexity of climatology, its Marinm and Cargo!
Yup! I am warned.
Cargo, is right about one thing. Consensus doesn’t equal accuracy. So tell all your denier buds to go back under their rock and wait until the NBC/NASA hoax passes on by…..
Cargo, when scientist after scientist comes up with similar findings, we have to give it more than a nod. Science is always being refined. We know far more about the atom than say we did in 1945. It doesn’t mean we were wrong in 1945….it means we were very primative and had much more to learn. In fact, we are lucky we didn’t blow ourselves to kingdom come.
We do give it more than a nod. We demand that, before implementing governmental policies, that they prove their theories. NOTHING that they’ve predicted has come tru…..well, that’s not true…..they present contradictory predictions, so something might come true.
We do not treat man-made global warming theories any differently than we do any OTHER theory. We demand reproducible results, clear empirical evidence, open sharing of data.
So far…..their models have not been right. But they make money at it. Penn State got MILLIONS in grant money through Mann. Millions. As do others.
So..hey. They may be right. Let them prove it and then prove that their solutions to a perceived problem are a) workable b)cost effective. Of course they have to convince people that its a problem first. As we’ve said, its been warmer before, with great benefit to mankind.
It is THEY that tells people to shut up and trust them because of consensus. The problem is….its not really a consensus. There’s enough doubt about any number of things.
@Elena
Thanks Elena. Its good to be appreciated.
@Cargo
The arrogance!
That really isn’t how science works. There are still folks out there pushing Noah’s ark as a fact. Are they part of the “we” club?
No one has to prove jack to WE. I am sorry. I find that offensive. You and your group of nay sayers aren’t the final arbitrators of what stands as stawndard science in this country. [Expletive], some of you all still are in denial over evolution. Many…not some. I saw a book at the Grand Canyon book store stating that the Grand Canyon was 6,000 years old and that it was caused of the great flood.
People will always deny parts of science. Fortunately, we move forward in spite of them.
Love the global warming debates!
I don’t really think anyone on this blog is qualified to debate the science which is all that really counts. So we can all just hiss at each other.
I know it is hotter on Halloween than it used to be. How about that?
Mann’s work is basically a timeline of temperature constructed from tree ring data that seems to indicate an acceleration of the increase in global temperature (the rapid increase at the end of his timeline is the blade of the famous hockey stick). The problem is that his analysis misses key climate anomalies that are known to exist such as the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.
The bigger problem was that there were additional tree ring datasets that were “screened” out of his analysis because, (he says) they did not show the proper response to temperature. Other researchers claim this screening process amounts to cherry picking.
In fact, a new paper published this month seems to bear that out. The paper uses archeological sea shells as a proxy for sea surface temperature for a temperature timeline that indicates that the medieval warm period was indeed warmer than the current climate by 1 degree Celsius. This contradicts Mann’s results.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212003926
@Moon-howler
The arrogance? You mean, demanding proof before we implement recommendations that can bankrupt industries and set back the economic out put of this country, if not the world? That arrogance?
Why do you have trouble with the word, “we?” WE as in those demanding proof. We as in those skeptical of Mann’s conclusions and those of his comrades in arms. WE as in those that have looked at the arguments and found it …. unconvincing.
And yes, I do feel qualified to follow and argue the science, at least, to tell if one side is making sense. And I feel qualified to use my eyes and see that stated predictions are not being fulfilled. Anyone with a basic grounding in science can follow the arguments. They aren’t hard.
The scientific method is how science works. And that method demands reproducible results. Or empirical results to show evidence of theory. I’m still waiting for the increased number of hurricanes, the ending of snow in England, the droughts caused by AGW, the rain/floods caused by AGW, the increased snow, etc.
Why do you find it so hard to be skeptical of these people? I mean, by your own words, you aren’t following the science, so why is one right and one wrong? In all other cases, you’re pretty good at following the money trail. Well, there’s billions to be made in AGW.
Note….no where did I say that the Earth may not be warming. It may. I’m just saying that we can’t say that this science is “settled” just because of consensus. That’s not how science works. All it takes to disprove a theory is ONE item that doesn’t fit. And there’s alot that doesn’t fit in the current theories.
Here’s your WE: Go tell all your denier buds
What pronoun would you like me to use instead when you are using the plural?
You don’t speak for yourself. The gun people are we. The teaparty people are we. The economy people are we. I can’t believe there are that many We’s.
Um.. for some reason my #26 is in moderation. No links. What’s up?
36. sorry. No reading glasses on.
Looks like the ipcc discusses Mann’s hypothesis. I guess they aren’t the evil empire after all?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html
@Elena
Actually, they are. That’s one of the reports that supports Mann. And was then shown to have problems.
It was they that started the whole thing going with falsified data, falsified attribution to fake and/or unwilling scientists. Scientists shown as agreeing with the report later stated that they never signed it and some stated that the report was changed after they signed it.
I love this line: “The weight of current multi-proxy evidence, therefore, suggests greater 20th-century warmth, in comparison with temperature levels of the previous 400 years, than was shown in the TAR.”
400 years….that’s a lot. Its also smack dab in the middle of the Little Ice Age, between 1550 and 1850.
Mann’s reports was used to build this report. OF COURSE its going to support his premise.
As I said, the warmists are arguing for AGW and are trying to rehabilitate the discredited “hockey stick.” because that’s all they have.
As for the IPCC report, its the basis for much of the discussion. That report is 5 years old. That’s the height of Mann’s influence.
I know it’s from a unliked site, but its the link, not the source.
The IPCC recently admitted that its previous reports are flawed.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/16/by-its-actions-the-ipcc-admits-its-past-reports-were-unreliable/
I’d excerpt, but its too long and detail would be missed.
Notice, again, I did not say that the earth is not warming. Just that there really is no consensus between scientists and that the AGW side is politicized.
Thanks for the link to it. You do realize that the IPCC wants to use AGW as a means to a)get more money. B) get more money and power c) get more money and power and reduce the status of the US. But mostly, the IPCC/UN wants more money and the power to tax. And it needs a global crisis for that power.
@Moon-howler
You seem to talk to a plurality. You stated “my buds”, so I replied in the plurality.
I know the general views of those whose opinions match mine. This isn’t only MY opinion. These are the opinions of many others. I am part of that WE. And so I speak for myself and I am reporting the general consensus of the views of those that agree with me.
Why can’t you believe that there are that many “We’s” You’ve got your own. In fact you seem to have just joined one. The “WE” of gun control. You’ve joined with Goddard. Two agreeing opinions would make a “we”. Or, I’m sure that your views agree with the general consensus of most pro-choice.
I use WE to show that its not JUST me that supports the positions that I espouse. If its only myself….. I state that. When writing about opinions that are commonly shared, should I be force to write, for example, “the TEA party supports, as do I….. if we (you and I) are discussing a TEA Party subject?
I’m not using a royal we. If I do, I’ll let you know. It will be capitalized and Italicized. I use it only in the home when speaking to the appropriate people.
@Cargosquid
We is annoying to me because you use it like some sort of sitting tribunal–it doesn’t matter if you are talking about the gun boys, the flat earthers, or the economy. it just hits me as arrogant and like the rest of us should bow down to it.
I have never said WE, I dont think, to mean the pro choice community. I mght say WE meaning women.
You always think I agree with people hook, line and sinker. I don’t necessarily. but someone like Goddard makes some valid points. iI certainly don’t really even consider myself a gun control person.
I don’t hang on every word out of Mann’s mouth but I certainly don’t see him as an arch villan or an enemy. Plus, there are thousands of other people in the scientific community who are coming up with similar conclusions. I do not dismiss them. Some of the things will prove to be right, others are incorrect conclusions. However, too many people are seeing the same trends for it to be nonsense.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/climate-change-effects-global-warming_n_1662046.html
You are right…I do talk to a plurality…guilty. I usually mean you, Marin, Slow, and sometimes Kelly.
What? I’m tickled pink at the idea that Mr. Mann (is it Dr. or Mr.?) would willingly come into a courthouse to defend his work under threat of perjury.
Tickled.
Gleeful.
Man up Mr. Mann!! Lets bring this one home!!
@Moon-howler
I finally got around to reading the article on Huffington post that you linked. What a bunch of hype.
One can tell that the article is designed to alarm people, because it discusses negative effects without discussing potential benefits. Even if one completely buys into climate predictions (which are not supported since the water vapor feedback has not materialized), it is not at all obvious that warmer temperatures would not provide some benefits to society.
Here is an example. Nightime minimum temperatures are predicted to increase in a globally warmed climate, which means that winter temperature minimums on average will not be as cold. This could potentially lead to fewer deaths due to exposure, less need to heat houses and buildings, and perhaps longer growing seasons.
Global warming is also predicted to reduce the equator-to-pole temperature gradient (i.e poles warm more than the tropics), which implies weaker weather patterns and fewer/weaker frontal passages associated with winter storms. This could result in less severe weather and perhaps fewer tornados and therefore less property damage.
The discussion of rising sea level has also become more complicated as recent studies indicate that melting ice sheets in Greenland have more to do with strong winds than high temperatures. If the temperature gradient decreases as predicted, it could result in weaker winds at high latitudes, and thus growth rather than melting of the ice sheets. Current climate models do not handle these complications very well.
People should be skeptical of articles/research that are so clearly designed to produce alarm.
kelly, I really think we need to look at the big picture and overall patterns. Obviously something different is up.