Mike Mann Calls Out Slime-Vending “conservatives” at National Review

July 22, 2012

In response to the latest in vile and disgusting attacks on climate science and scientists, Paleo-Climate expert Mike Mann today served the once-long-ago-useful-now-ridiculous National Review with the letter demanding a retraction and apology.  The letter can be viewed below, or on Mike’s Facebook page, where you may choose to spread it around.

Part of the offensive piece, which compares Dr. Mann to sexual predator Jerry Sandusky,  is reproduced here.

This recent slime fest marks the latest in the long decline of what once was the brave attempt to build a respectable intellectual underpinning for modern conservatism. William F. Buckley, I’m quite sure, would puke.

The letter crafted by Dr. Mann’s attorney promises to “pursue all appropriate legal remedies”.

Get popcorn.

For anyone still not clear on the multiple exonerations of Dr. Mann and his colleagues of anything remotely resembling wrong doing in the trumped up nothing-burger called “climate gate”, video review is below.

 The first video unwinds the shameful distortion of out of context email texts.

Here an interview with Mann, and review of the disastrous, error and plagiarism ridden”Wegman report”, that is still cited by internet ignoramuses as some kind of authoritative  tome on climate science.

Finally, Mike’s own defense of his work, under oath, before congress.

64 Responses to “Mike Mann Calls Out Slime-Vending “conservatives” at National Review”


  1. […] can see various reactions here, here, here, here and […]

  2. jayhd Says:

    I hope Mann follows through with a suit. Can’t wait to see what comes out in the discovery process. But his lawyers will probably think it over a little more and decide to drop the whole thing and tell Mann to keep quiet. Besides the Climategate emails, Mann’s UVa emails become fair game. And of course, the documents Mann is extremely reticent to turn over to Tim Ball’s lawyers will also come into play. As I said, can’t wait to see what comes up in the discovery.

    • livinginabox Says:

      Nice trolling jayhd.

      • reallypreposterous Says:

        Well, well, well. So its trolling to point out that Michael Mann has refused to release portions of his publicly-funded research… and that in a civil trial such as the suit threatened above all of that and so much more would be part of the discovery activity that precedes such trials?

        That there are no 5th amendment rights to avoid self incrimination (if you can’t read the the law, read up on O.J. Simpson’s good time in the Goldman family’s civil suit against him)? That the questions asked of Michael and his good friends in the group on the stand and in pre-trial depositions aren’t the answer to the prayer of every skeptic?

        If he really thinks that little essay is worse than what he has said about other people… that his constant seeking of celebrity status, that his exposure at length to the public does not raise him to celebrity status and therefore makes him fair game for criticism then he is wasting his money on sycophants, not competent attorneys.

        There are so many questions germane and material to the accusations about the depth of the investigation and his treatment of data in his papers and his practicesthat it wold be like an all you can eat for a Sumo wrestler.

        Please, please, sue the guy.

        • greenman3610 Says:

          please document which portions of research Mann refuses to release.

        • livinginabox Says:

          You managed to make vague and many would say malicious and false accusations against a well-respected and world-class scientist, but strangely you made no specific claims. I can’t help but conclude that if you had any specific accusations that you’d cite the evidence. The fact that you didn’t makes me believe that your comment was nothing but a mud-slinging exercise.

          Your comments show you for what you are.

          • johnosullivan Says:

            Mann’s leaked Climategate emails prove he asked his fellow climatology co-conspirators to help suppress his hidden data – Mann called it his “dirty laundry.”
            Skeptics sought to pursue this matter with Mann, specifically the issue of hidden data from which his r-squared values from the “hockey stick” graph could be calculated. Mann responded by going on record to falsely claim he could withhold such data because it was “proprietary” – i.e. his personal property. This is contradicted by the fact all such data was created during Mann’s employment at the University of Virginia while he was on the public dole (federal research grant) and Uva. rules bar employees from claiming such ownership rights.
            The issue of whether Mann is a mendacious fraud is currently being litigated in the British Supreme Court (Mann-v-Ball) where, despite the case already running for over a year, Mann is still not complying with a discovery demand by Ball for access to all such data.
            Canadian due process laws permit Ball’s legal team to pursue the “truth defense” Mann is thereby compelled to comply with all Ball’s discovery demands – including release of Mann’s “dirty laundry.” (U.S. Fifth Amendment rights are inapplicable in Canada and for plaintiffs in all U.S. civil suits).
            Further prevarication by Mann renders him liable to court sanction under the legal doctrine of spoliation. As such, Ball is one step away from having Mann’s case dismissed with prejudice plus punitive damages.
            The issue is that Ball asserts that Mann’s “dirty laundry” is the smoking gun to prove intentional data fraud. As such access to the hidden data will confirm or disprove Ball’s whimsical jibe that Mann belonged “in the state pen,, not Penn. State.”
            Caspar Amman, a supporter of Mann published his ‘Jesus paper’ in an attempt to discredit criticism of Mann’s work. However, Amman’s paper only served to further validate prior statistical analysis by skeptic, Steve McIntyre. Amman’s paper was an embarrassment to Mann because he was now proved to have falsely claimed McIntyre’s analysis was junk.
            If Mann loses to Ball in the B.C. Supreme Court any adverse ruling will serve as a compelling legal precedent to prosecute Mann (and his co-conspirators) for fraud in other common law jurisdictions (e.g. Virginia, United Kingdom, etc.)

          • livinginabox Says:

            johnosullivan,
            Your claim:

            ….The issue of whether Mann is a mendacious fraud is currently being litigated in the British Supreme Court (Mann-v-Ball) where, despite the case already running for over a year, Mann is still not complying with a discovery demand by Ball for access to all such data….

            Would seem to be in error, a search of the Supreme Court website for cases past and current including Ball, Mann, or Mann & Ball revealed no results.

            Perhaps you could provide a Case ID or case name? Unless of course your claim was a fiction.

          • andrewfez Says:

            Johnosullivan is confusedly using the word ‘data’ instead of the word ‘code’ in places. The code is Mann’s personal property. It’s just a tool he made to adjudicate the data. The data is online. The methodology is explained in his paper. All you need is the data and the methodology to reproduce the result.

            If you think the methodology is flawed, then just test it with a control set: Just apply it to a data set where each piece is the same exact number (for each different proxy). If you don’t get a ‘flat line’ (or whatever you’re expecting for whatever control you use), then write a paper on the flaws in the methodology. Let other scientists critique it. Iron out any major weaknesses. Then try to publish it. That’s the only way credibly critique a scientist’s work.

            There seems to be a knee jerk mantra happening every time Mann threatens to sue someone: Deniers always come up with, “Can’t wait to do discovery on him”, in hope of swaying third party observers into the realm of false plausibility. But what they’re really saying is, “I have never read or understood any of Mann’s published papers. I don’t understand the methodology, and I can’t write code, but I hold a false believe that he is hiding something because 1) I’m too scientifically incompetent to see that he is not and 2) I’m not honestly motivated by finding what is fact and what is not”.

          • livinginabox Says:

            andrewfez

            All you need is the data and the methodology to reproduce the result.

            Exactly. Running Mann’s code will produce the result already published. The way to check is to generate their own code according to the same methodology. That’s what anyone-else would do.

            Albert Einstein summed-up the approach of these expletive-deleted individuals.

            Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

          • livinginabox Says:

            johnosullivan,
            It appears from reports elsewhere, that you are a person who repeatedly has made unreliable and some might say misleading and fictional claims.
            Should you return, please ensure each and every claim you have already made and any new claims you may make are each supported by reputable and verifiable references.


          • Hilarious. John O’Sullivan is posturing here as a “legal analyst.” The humbug comes to tell us that — based on his more than a decade of experience “successfully litigating in New York and Federal 2nd District courts” — Tim Ball is “one step away from having Mann’s case dismissed with prejudice plus punitive damages.” If you believe that, I have a melting bridge of ice between two glaciers in Antarctica you’ll want to buy.

            It’s finally getting out, in reports on Huffington Post, ScienceBlogs, Desmogblog, and other sites, Mr. O’Sullivan is NOT a lawyer, nor a highly successful litigator, law teacher, or legal analysis. He never earned a law degree. He’s an utter humbug and a fraud.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/affidavits-in-michael-man_b_1711581.html
            http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/07/24/strangest-agw-denialist-story-so-far-this-year/
            http://bubblepoppingpete.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/pervertwolves/comment-page-1/#comment-2
            http://www.desmogblog.com/affidavits-michael-mann-libel-suit-reveal-astonishing-facts-about-tim-ball-associate-john-o-sullivan

            Those reports are based on the information contained in more than 180 pages of documents I provided in an affidavit entered in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the matter of Michael Mann vs. Tim Ball. A court-stamped copy of the transcripts can be viewed and downloaded here http://aaskolnick.com/hold/Skolnick_affidavit_4.19.2012.pdf and here

            Click to access Skolnick_affidavit_5.39.2012.pdf

            Readers should see for themselves how O’Sullivan has wrapped so many global warming deniers around his crooked little finger, telling them the tales they want to hear.

    • livinginabox Says:

      jayhd,
      Precisely what scandal is likely to be uncovered after repeated independent investigations in separate countries failed to find one?

      Tim Ball is a serial deceiver whose specialty is resume stretching. Tim Ball has had bad experiences as a result of making false claims and accusations.
      http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2006/09/playing-tim-ball-click-here-to-play.html
      http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents
      or google Tim Ball resume stretching

      Why do you think that repeated studies of palaeoclimate reconstructions using different source data come up with similar results to MBH? [Occam’s razor applies]
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

      Why was the cornerstone of the deniers, the Wegman Report never peer-reviewed when a p/r National Research Council study could have been produced? Why was it comprised of heavily plagiarised text littered with falsifications? And bogus statistics, tuned to produce hockeysticks from any data?
      Perhaps because the bought politicians wanted the ‘right’ answer.
      If it had been peer-reviewed, it would have been rejected and should never seen the light of day as published.

      Plagiarism? Conspiracies? Felonies? – Behind the Wegman Report and Decades of Related Anti-Science Attacks – John R. Mashey

      Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report – A Façade for the Climate Anti-Science PR Campaign by John R. Mashey – easy to google

      http://deepclimate.org/2010/10/25/the-wegman-report-sees-red-noise/

      The answer is of course, that the enemies of Michael Mann and of science have a great deal to fear. Mann and science have nothing to fear. Except that of course the Enemies of science employ a great many liars and will endeavour to construct deceptions and big lies out of the merest trifles.

      Then there’s this little gem: Ed Wegman Promised Data to Rep. Henry Waxman Six Years Ago – Where Is It?
      http://www.desmogblog.com/ed-wegman-promised-data-rep-henry-waxman-six-years-ago-where-it

      The only thing that you said is true, there will be interesting discoveries. But I very much doubt the deniers will come-up smiling.

      O what a web we weave when first we practice to deceive…

    • skeptictmac57 Says:

      The tired old meme of the deniers of “It’s all unraveling now!!!”, since ‘climate gate’, is so tiresome. It’s their version of ‘Waiting For Godot’.
      (Pssst…he’s not coming).

  3. mbrysonb Says:

    Nice to see a bit of fight from the science side– Mann has clearly been a leader in taking this on, a regrettable burden on him and his work, but essential to effective push-back against denier myths. Without clear and agressive resistance, the myths find root in receptive and often influential minds (Canada’s Rex Murphy and Margaret Wente- prominent churnalists and commentators are good examples).


  4. […] more on this I recommend reading the excellent Climate Crocks site, as well as the American Geophysical Union blog. [NOTE: Mann has also written about these […]


  5. […] You can see various reactions here, here, here, here and here. […]


  6. […] can see various reactions here, here, here, here and […]

  7. Alvin Stone Says:

    I would like to see this followed through simply because it would put a stop to the sceptics trying to impugn scientists and at the same time would put them a position where they may have to defend their beliefs with bogus science.
    It could be the monkey case for climate science.


  8. […] baseball” conflicts between denialists and, well, sane people, but in this case, given Mike Mann’s recent call-out of the latest lunacy, I think it’s germane to get an update on a related situation that’s been simmering […]

  9. Cathy Henry Says:

    People continue to claim that Dr. Mann hides his data. It is posted on the Internet. Here is what he told Congressman Barton in 2005:

    “My research is all based on data sets regarding the Earth’s climate that are freely and widely available to all researchers. Whether I make available my computer programs is irrelevant to whether our results can be reproduced…

    My computer program is a piece of private, intellectual property, as the National Science Foundation and its lawyers recognize. It is a bedrock principle of American law that the government may not take private property “without [a] public use,” and “without just compensation.””—Dr. Michael Mann’s letter to Congressman Joe Barton (7-15-05)

    Click to access Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf

    Some of those links noted in the 2005 letter to Barton may have changed, but the data is still posted on the Internet.

    • skeptictmac57 Says:

      In addition to that Mann,in an interview on Andrew Revkin’s NY Times blog,
      had this to say about the computer code:

      “…But in the end, we even put our computer program out there in the public domain, recognizing that maybe it was going down a slippery slope, because what were they going to demand next? We knew there was nothing wrong with it at all, we put it out there, and what we predicted was exactly what we saw. We didn’t see any discussion, nobody ever even downloaded, as far as I can tell, the code or try to run it, because they didn’t care about the code, they were just looking for something that they could say, ‘oh look, scientists won’t provide this’, and then once you provide it—’oh well they won’t provide this’, and then once you provide that, ‘oh well they won’t provide that.’”


  10. […] Dr. Mann has an excellent book out about his modern-day walk through the trials of Galileo, and I highly recommend it. Oh, and Dr. Mann posted a note on his Facebook page that he has indeed hired a very good attorney and plans to sue the National Review for what they wrote. After reading the insulting article in the Nat. Review, I suspect he will win in a big way. (Update July 24- the letter written by Dr. Mann’s attorney demanding an apology and retraction is available here.) […]


Leave a Reply to reallypreposterous Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: