Michael E. Mann Sues For Defamation Over Comparison To Jerry Sandusky 371
eldavojohn writes "The global warming debate has left much to be desired in the realm of logic and rationale. One particular researcher, Michael E. Mann, has been repeatedly attacked for his now infamous (and peer reviewed/independently verified) hockey stick graph. It has come to the point where he is now suing for defamation over being compared to convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky. Articles hosted by defendants and written by defendant Rand Simberg and defendant Mark Steyn utilize questionable logic for implicating Michael E. Mann alongside Jerry Sandusky with the original piece, concluding, 'Michael Mann, like Joe Paterno, was a rock star in the context of Penn State University, bringing in millions in research funding. The same university president who resigned in the wake of the Sandusky scandal was also the president when Mann was being (whitewashed) investigated. We saw what the university administration was willing to do to cover up heinous crimes, and even let them continue, rather than expose them. Should we suppose, in light of what we now know, they would do any less to hide academic and scientific misconduct, with so much at stake?' Additionally, sentences were stylized to blend the two people together: 'He has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.' One of the defendants admits to removing 'a sentence or two' of questionable wording. Still, as a public figure, Michael E. Mann has an uphill battle to prove defamation in court."
Sounds more like a slam against Penn State admin (Score:2, Insightful)
It sounds like their argument is that the Penn State administration has a tendency to cover-up embarrassing stuff and protect their own. I would think they would have more a case for defamation than this guy (assuming it's not true, of course). Not that I would expect them to bring it, since at this point they're mostly just hiding in a foxhole somewhere praying that CNN goes away soon.
Mann himself should probably just accept that this is a downside to climate research (since it's become hopelessly politicized). On the upside, there's a lot of grant money to be had, though, and the potential to change the world and all that. Trade-offs, you know.
Re:Sounds more like a slam against Penn State admi (Score:2, Insightful)
At the same time, Steyn has flown awfully close at times to libel, and this comes as close to crossing the line as I've seen. Whether it crosses the line or not will be up to a court to decide, unless Steyn backs downs. My opinion is that while it is an obnoxious, immoral piece of trash piece that shows Steyn and Simberg to be dishonorable disreputable shitbags, it's not truly libelous.
Peer review (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who has been on both sides as both an author and reviewer of scientific papers, "peer reviewed" doen't not mean something is automatically correct, simply that it is worthy of publication. It's closer to saying it's plausible, and should be out there for the scientific community to discuss. Correctness is more judged by reproducability over a timescale of decades, but even that is not definative.
Science is a lot more messy that a lot of people would like to believe...
Re:Inflammatory? You bet! Defamation? Not a chance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sounds more like a slam against Penn State admi (Score:5, Insightful)
No, It's a Pretty Specific Target Considering ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like their argument is that the Penn State administration has a tendency to cover-up embarrassing stuff and protect their own.
The Penn State Hershey Medical Center [pennstatehershey.org] brings in over a billion dollars a year in revenue to Penn State. The same university president who resigned in the wake of the Sandusky scandal also presided over said medical center with obvious financial interests that were easily orders of magnitudes higher than the football program. When will we re-investigate all of their malpractice suits? When will we bring their alleged (just now) organ trafficking ring from China to justice? Should we suppose, in light of what we now know, they would do any less to hide treatment and medical misconduct, with so much at stake?
Sure sounds like it (Score:5, Insightful)
It really is a slimy piece of shit move to compare someone to Sandusky because they were at Penn under the same umbrella. This definitely harms his reputation and if you believe it then certainly you will have disagreeable opinions and feelings towards him. He's a scientist who interpreted data in a controversial way that is argued among academics, he certainly didn't rape innocent children in the showers.
Re:Sounds more like a slam against Penn State admi (Score:1, Insightful)
As more and more weather disasters rack up, and as the climate actually does change, it would seem their misinformation would fall on deaf ears. But I think there is also a want on the part of a lot of people to not believe what is going on, what they are doing to their children's future, and even what they are doing to their own futures.
Not that it really matters at this point. We are ~12 years to the 2 degree C mark over average global temperature from the last century - and climbing. The 2 degrees C mark is considered kind of a line in the sand. Once we cross that, it will be especially hard to recover.
PBS Frontline is running a very topical show this week: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/ [pbs.org]
Re:Sounds more like a slam against Penn State admi (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems like you never heard about the null hypothesis. Weather disasters rack up no matter what and none of what we have seen is in the least out of line with what has happened in history.
If you ignore history, however, you'll always think things are going to hell in a handbasket ... as people have done all the time in history.
Required viewing for defenders of freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Threatening Discovery of Materials on All Resea (Score:2, Insightful)
You know, I don't think Mann is afraid of discovery at all. As far as I can tell his work has always been honest. The reason he's fought it is that a scientists work should be judged by the science they produce, the published results of their work, not some gotcha quote mining of working papers and communications with peers.
Re:Inflammatory? You bet! Defamation? Not a chance (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason Mann has fought all of that discovery is because he's standing up for other scientists. The discovery is not after anything relevant to anything. What's relevant is his published work.
The null hypothesis when refuted is refuted. (Score:2, Insightful)
And the null hypothesis (there is no warming trend) has been refuted.
Weather disasters are racking up at rates higher than the null hypothesis ("there is no increase in weather disasters") can accept, so that is refuted.
What we have seen IS out of line with what has happened in history. Two 150-year events in the same year worldwide is no proof of a change in the climate. over 30 is.
Re:Threatening Discovery of Materials on All Resea (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason he's fought it is that a scientists work should be judged by the science they produce, the published results of their work, not some gotcha quote mining of working papers and communications with peers.
The reason he fights it is clearer to me. It's the same reason why, if a law enforcement officer showed up at my house and demanded to rifle through all of my blongings looking for anything that might be illegal I would tell him to go pound sand. Not because I'm guilty, not because I hate the police but because he has no right to without a warrant! Furthermore, if 90% of people in our society allowed this and it became expected or, worse yet, legal then you would have effectively forfeited your right to privacy.
Scientists are human beings that work long hours at their jobs. Demanding the publication of everything is a bit dehumanizing and Mann is correct to fight it lest other scientists find themselves under the same expectations after it has been established as the norm. I think it will be acceptable to release it during the discovery phase of a case like this but it should not be given up lightly.
This is a clear attempt to intimidate and repress scientists and researchers.
Re:Another Citation If You Please (Score:0, Insightful)
Muller has been outed as a long-time warmist, his claims otherwise notwithstanding.
His miracle conversion from skeptic to agw believer was just another fraud, like the hockeystick graph.
Re:Threatening Discovery of Materials on All Resea (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same reason why, if a law enforcement officer showed up at my house and demanded to rifle through all of my blongings looking for anything that might be illegal I would tell him to go pound sand. Not because I'm guilty, not because I hate the police but because he has no right to without a warrant!
Dr. Mann and his university accept public funds from the federal government and that subjects him to FOIA requests. And frankly, I see nothing wrong with examining relevant email communications from Dr. Mann on that basis. If he doesn't like it, then he can always refuse federal funding for his research projects.
Re:You don't know what "Hide the Decline" means (Score:4, Insightful)
Anxiously awaiting your rebuttal, especially given the fact that the decline which you claim isn't being talked about has in fact been talked about for over a decade.
Also wondering whether you agree with the fact that I was modded down to -1 for providing evidence contrary to your post.
Re:Sounds more like a slam against Penn State admi (Score:4, Insightful)
Anybody who would say what you just said is worse than Hitler. (It's Slashdot, I have to mention Hitler!)
But seriously? People are inciting to have you killed and you're supposed to say, "Oh well, it's part of the job"? If we let that stand, American science doesn't have much of a future.
Re:You don't know what "Hide the Decline" means (Score:5, Insightful)
It is against the moderation rules to mod somebody down even if they REALLY ARE wrong.
Bullshit. The negative moderation options exist for a reason. Use them where appropriate. When someone makes an empirical claim that clearly and absurdly wrong, especially one which remediable with a couple minutes of research, this is a troll by definition.
Re:Sounds more like a slam against Penn State admi (Score:4, Insightful)
the null hypothesis has been refuted in this issue. IT's in all the expert scientific journals.
What we have seen is out of line with the overall history trend. That, along with mountains of other data clearly indicate AGW is really. External sources have been eliminated. The current shape of the earths orbit* doesn't account for the change. So, it' internal.
Yes, looking at one set of data, say 2 years' in and of itself doesn't mean the planet is warming, nor would it mean it's not warming. To isolate one piece of data, then use that one tiny pieces in an argument ignoring the rest of the relevant data it really fucking shitty.
*it goes between phases of round to more oval; which causes 'ages' This is a quick laymans explanation, you can find the data online.
Re:Peer review (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is a lot more messy that a lot of people would like to believe...
Sure, but peer review is better then the blogosphere. And one side of the debate has 10,000s of pages of peer reviewed literature, and the other has the blogosphere.
Re:Threatening Discovery of Materials on All Resea (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the same reason why, if a law enforcement officer showed up at my house and demanded to rifle through all of my blongings looking for anything that might be illegal I would tell him to go pound sand. Not because I'm guilty, not because I hate the police but because he has no right to without a warrant!
Dr. Mann and his university accept public funds from the federal government and that subjects him to FOIA requests. And frankly, I see nothing wrong with examining relevant email communications from Dr. Mann on that basis. If he doesn't like it, then he can always refuse federal funding for his research projects.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
- reportedly said by Cardinal Richelieu
There's good reason to want to keep your communications private, personal relationships you don't want cross examined in public, small mistakes that could be mischaracterized, or things you can't even imagine. Just consider writing an email that you know will be seen only by 1 person you trust, or writing an email that will probably be seen by a thousand people who are out to get you. Don't you think that's going to harm your work?
Re:Threatening Discovery of Materials on All Resea (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you serious? You want e-mails when most projects in medicine and physics that are federally funded don't even release their raw data?! Why aren't you clamoring for the DNA and raw collider data that has been built with your taxpaying dollars? Or should they just refuse federal funding as well?
Maybe this is off-topic, but I (and many others) believe that publicly funded research should be freely available to the public.
Re:You don't know what "Hide the Decline" means (Score:4, Insightful)
If the tree rings are showing falsely low temperatures after 1960
Well, well, well, we have another armchair scientist demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect [wikipedia.org]. The decline in tree ring proxies has been extensively discussed in literature. The hockey stick doesn't rely on tree rings, and uses multiple proxies, and they all converge.
Did you know that?? All that stuff about "hide the decline" is just nonsense! Who would have thunk it!
Hockeystick graphs are usually crap (Score:4, Insightful)
So when someone calls bullshit on anyone waving a hockey stick graph and saying the sky is falling; give me money. I support anyone who calls Bullshit on them.
Re:Sounds more like a slam against Penn State admi (Score:2, Insightful)
Attacking the science does not work for trolls, at the end of the day you are just plain wrong. However the attacks strengthen the science and swell the ranks of your opposition. In the late 90's when I started posting about this stuff on slashdot, I was consistently attacked and down modded, most of my attackers have now realized (as I did about 15yrs ago) that they were being lied to for political reasons and have quietly swapped to the rational side. I'm certainly no climate scientists but I have been following the subject since reading a book about it in 1980, being a young 20yo geek at the time it took me at least 10yrs before I realized some people were being paid to be dumb.
Assassinating the character of individual scientists is also the hallmark of AGW trolls and FF shills, it's basically all you guys have left as an argument. Your noise is just making more people aware of that fact, the last thing you want is an informed electorate and yet your once respected front men are being openly mocked. So go ahead and troll, spew your unoriginal lies all over the place, they are easily refutable by an 8yo and as such will encourage rational people to turn their back on you. So thanks to all the trolls "teaching the controversy" most people now know how to easily debunk the controversy, and a lot of those people are about to get angry, just like they did when they caught your mob lying for the tobacco industry.
Re:You don't know what "Hide the Decline" means (Score:3, Insightful)
The high latitude argument is frivolous.
The data fails to track what they hope it tracks, so they go on a fishing expedition seeking for some sort of discriminator so they can further throw out 'inconvenient' data.
Firstly, the discriminator has little explanatory power.
Secondly, the _retained_ southern tree ring data is polluted with a species that is _sensitive_ to fertilization. They retained data that has other signal influences, instead of removing it.
Instead of eliminating the unwanted signal as all the hand waving implies, they explicitly rely on it to get the shape they need.
But at least it creates the shape they wanted.
Fact is tree are dubious thermometers, and that the 'climate team' continue try to polish this turd speaks volumes about the quality of their professional output.
Re:Sounds more like a slam against Penn State admi (Score:5, Insightful)
That complaint is a good summary of this dispute. For Mann to win a libel case, he has to show that they wrote things that were false and defamatory, and (since he's a public figure) that they published it with knowledge that it was false or with disregard of whether it was false. It's libelous to accuse somebody of "fraud" or "deception." It's libelous to accuse someone of practicing his profession incompetently. Libel law protects opinions, as opposed to fact, but I think they've crossed the line. I think a jury could decide that they've met that test.
This isn't William Buckley's National Review. I'm familiar with right-wing crackpots from reading the Wall Street Journal comments pages. One of their problems is that they don't particularly concern themselves with facts. They don't even seem to understand what a fact is, or what the difference is between a fact and an opinon. They think that if somebody disagrees with them, he's a "liar." You see people calling Obama a "socialist," a "Kenyan," etc. These are words without meaning. It's like football hooligans screaming insults at Manchester United. Chris Mooney has written about this in his books and articles starting with "The Republican War on Science." I've often reflected on how much of it was actually libelous, if anybody bothered to sue. Now somebody did bother to sue.
Rand Simberg, as quoted starting in paragraph 26 of the complaint, said that Mann was "behaving in a most unscientific manner", "engaging in data manipulation", is hiding "academic and scientific misconduct." In paragraph 28, he called Mann's hockey-stick curve "deceptions" "in the service of politicized science." Steyn called Mann "the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph."
In paragraph 31, the complaint says that "their allegations of misconduct and data manipulation were false and were clearly made with the knowledge that they were false." If they can convince the jury of that, they've won the case.
In paragraph 32, the complaint says that Rich Lowry, the editor of NRO, said that Mann's research was "intellectually bogus."
In paragraph 35, the complaint says that the statements "are defamatory per se and tend to injure Dr. Mann in his profession because they falsely impute to Dr. Mann academic corruption, fraud, and deceit as well as the commission of a criminal offense, in a manner injurous tot he reputation and esteem of Dr. Mann professionally, locally, nationally, and globally."
The delicious irony is that in a libel suit, both sides have to disclose huge amounts of documents relating to the case in discovery. Mann's emails were already exposed. Now Simberg and Steyn's correspondence will probably be exposed. If they were taking money from the energy industry, that will be exposed. They'll get the same treatment Mann did.
Re:Probably not a good move. (Score:0, Insightful)
No matter what, the climate WILL change. It will always change....
Which, as you well know, is true but entirely irrelevant; the issue is if AGW will cause much more rapid changes than would happen without AGW; and that adapting to very rapid changes is likely to be be much more painful for humanity than adapting to much slower 'natural' changes.