Saturday, March 01, 2014

Media Rants: The Not So Invisible Mann

February 8, 2024 update: It took eleven years (!), but Dr. Michael Mann today won a $1million verdict in a defamation trial against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn. According to Diane Bernard and Adam Lowenstein, "The trial has proven to be about much more than defamation — the entire field and validity of climate science has been on trial."


From the March 2013 edition of The SCENE

Media Rants by Tony Palmeri

The Not So Invisible Mann

Dr. Michael E. Mann, Director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center, is best known for the iconic “hockey stick” temperature graph. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and environmentalists worldwide use the graph to create a sense of urgency around warming. For their efforts, Mann and other climate scientists in 2007 jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize. 


Mann neither denies nor minimizes the impact natural forces have on climate change, but his research provides compelling evidence for the claim that human activities (e.g. increased use of fossil fuels and deforestation) play a major role in raising global temperature. That simple yet consequential thesis (it forces us to reconsider and challenge deeply embedded industrial and energy policies and entrenched interests profiting from them) has made Mann into one of the most vilified scientists in global history. A coalition of right wing think tanks and media outlets, pundits, and politicians, many funded by fossil fuel interests, attempt to discredit IPCC endorsed science and scientists by any means necessary.

In 2009 hackers obtained more than a thousand emails from scientists associated with the Climate Research Unit of the UK’s University of East Anglia. For global warming deniers, the emails were a “smoking gun” proving that warming theories were a “hoax.” Responding to this “Climategate,” 25 leading US scientists sent an open letter to Congress: “We would like to set the record straight. The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming.”

Climate change “skeptics” aiming for the jugular vein thrive on the fact that most scientists are not equipped for the hardball battle that is contemporary political debate. The vicious and personal nature of the attacks led Dr. Mann to write The HockeyStick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (2012). Chapter 15 is titled “Fighting Back.” Mann writes: “. . . climate change contrarians continue to launch hand grenades, the denial machine persists in churning out disinformation, and the attacks against climate scientists-myself included-continue. Yet something is different now. The forces of climate change denial have, I believe, awakened a ‘sleeping bear.’ My fellow scientists will be fighting back, and I look forward to joining them in this battle.” 

As if trying to test Mann’s resolve, Rand Simberg of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) along with Mark Steyn and Rich Lowry of National Review provoked a defamation suit. The right wing blogosphere defends these comments as intellectually rigorous contributions to the climate debate:

Simberg: “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.” Further, he accuses Mann of “scientific misconduct” and calls him the “posterboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo chamber.”

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

Lowry: Called Mann’s work “intellectually bogus.”

Dr. Mann is considered to be a public figure, even though most outside the pundit universe, if they even recognize the name, might know “Michael Mann” as the director of “The Insider” and “Public Enemies.”  Given his public figure status, to prevail in a defamation lawsuit Dr. Mann has to show “actual malice” on the part of the defendants. The New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) standard defines actual malice as making a false statement about another “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

The actual malice bar is high, which is why public figure defamation suits are rare. Yet two DC Superior Court judges found that Mann’s suit should go to trial.  Last July Judge Natalia CombsGreene wrote: “There is sufficient evidence presented that is indicative of ‘actual malice.’ The CEI Defendants have consistently accused Plaintiff of fraud and inaccurate theories, despite Plaintiff’s work having been investigated several times and found to be proper. The CEI Defendants’ persistence despite the EPA and other investigative bodies’ conclusion that Plaintiff’s work is accurate (or that there is no evidence of data manipulation) is equal to a blatant disregard for the falsity of their statements. Thus, given the evidence presented the Court finds that Plaintiff could prove ‘actual malice.’”

The case could conceivably be settled out of court, but a trial would accomplish what mainstream media have been unwilling or unable to: demonstrate for all to see that Dr. Mann’s research follows accepted scientific methods, makes reasoned claims supported by evidence, and is endorsed by overwhelming majorities of independent climate scientists.

National Review (NR) was founded by the late William F. Buckley. In his prime Buckley would have invited someone like Mann to participate in a public debate. His NR heirs unfortunately prefer cheap shots, “gotcha’” reporting, and general denigration of those who disagree. Sadly, those tactics sometimes succeed in making targets disappear from the public sphere. Who needs the grief?

Finally a target is fighting back. Instead of being run into hiding, Dr. Michael has become the Not So Invisible Mann.



12 comments:

bobby v said...

i'm sure steve mcintyre would love to debate

Unknown said...

You actually wrote that Michael Mann received the Nobel Peace Prize?

Brad Keyes said...

For their efforts, Mann and other climate scientists in 2007 jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Golly—is the rest of the piece going to be as careful with the facts as this howler?

Dr. Mann’s research follows accepted scientific methods

That would be a yes then.

The CEI Defendants have consistently accused Plaintiff of fraud and inaccurate theories, despite Plaintiff’s work having been investigated several times and found to be proper.

Umm, that's not how scie——nah, you wouldn't understand. Forget I said anything.

Gordon said...

Mann and other climate scientists in 2007 jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Why read past that lie?

rspung said...

mann never received the nobel prize. he falsely claimed he received the prize in his court filing for the lawsuit and was forced to retract.

kanspaugh said...

Bobby V. Dr. Mann would be degrading himself debating McIntyre. For Mann to merely to appear on the same stage with a snake-oil salesman like that would give the latter a dignity and importance he does not merit. As the old saying goes, Eagles do not fall to flies. (And God knows what McIntyre is shopping certainly draws enough flies . . .).

Paptimus said...

endorsed by overwhelming majorities of independent climate scientists

Many proponents of anthropogenic climate change like to say claim that there is consensus and that that the science is settled. That some scientists, such as Dr. Mann, Bill Nye and others, even make these claims is sufficient evidence that the science isn't settled. This may come as a surprise to you Tony because you aren't a scientist, but consensus means absolutely nothing to the scientific community. While I may not be a climatologist or meteorologist of any stripe I do have some experience with data proxies and statistical analysis and I find it interesting and even suspect that the IPCC's stats algorithms produce the same hockey stick graph almost irrespective of the input data. The CRC and other entities lack the intellectual confidence to release much if any of the data behind their findings without a subpeona and the hacked emails from EAU suggest filtering of nonconforming data. If glass-jawed ideologues like Mann want to convince the world that human activity is having the most significant impact on the shifting climate (and indeed that the climate is experience anything more than a fluctuation) they should start treating their research with the same scrutiny that real scientists do instead of hiding behind the skirts of the media and the courts like mewling children.

Brad Keyes said...

Kanspaugh:

"Dr. Mann would be degrading himself debating McIntyre."

Riiight.

Of course if McIntyre were no threat to Mann's science (contrary to the opinion of Mann's own colleagues, who acknowledge McIntyre's point in their "private" emails, and to that of Mann himself, who admitted to the WSJ that McIntyre was right, etc. etc.) then there would be no better way to prove this than by manning up—as it were—and debating him.

One doesn't exactly need to be Sigmund Freud to know why Mann has spent years running away from precisely this opportunity.

kanspaugh said...

Brad Keyes. "Mann admitted to the WSJ that McIntyre was right." Could you please provide a link showing me where Michael Mann ever admitted to the Wall Street Journal (of all venues) that Steve McIntyre (of all people) was right about anything? I'm willing to bet my life against a cup of coffie that this is pure b.s.

Brad Keyes said...

kanspaugh,

I have no idea what a "cup of coffie" is but you're probably lucky I don't take bets, even sure ones.

The article is here:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB110834031507653590

Notwithstanding your preconceptions about the WSJ, this article was written by Antonio Regalado—who was an impeccably orthodox "warmist" last time I checked.

I have emphasised the money quote for your convenience and ease of comprehension:

"The problem, says Mr. McIntyre, is that Dr. Mann's mathematical technique in drawing the graph is prone to generating hockey-stick shapes even when applied to random data. Therefore, he argues, it proves nothing.

Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency, says he now agrees that Dr. Mann's statistical method "preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data." Dr. Zwiers, chief of the Canadian agency's Center for Climate Modeling and Analysis, says he hasn't had time to study Dr. Mann's rebuttals in detail and can't say who is right.

Dr. Mann, while agreeing that his mathematical method tends to find hockey-stick shapes, says this doesn't mean its results in this case are wrong. Indeed, Dr. Mann says he can create the same shape from the climate data using completely different math techniques."

I take mine white with sugar, thanks.

kanspaugh said...

Keyes. I could not get to the article because it is behind a paywall and I'm not going to enrich Uncle Rupert further by paying to read it. But even from what you've quoted here it's clear your initial post was misleading as hell. You said that Mann admits that McIntyre was "right." About what? Everything? As for Mann's method producing hockey-stick-like graphs, what exactly does that prove? That the twenty or other research teams who have independently reproduced Mann's results have are also using methods that will inevitably find what they want to find? Finally, I was touched by your depth of belief in the word of Francis Zwiers, a Candadian statistician who works for "a government agency." But wait a minute? Aren't all the world governments in on the Great Conspiracy to defraud the public about global warming? Aren't they all on the Dark Side? So why credit what this government lackey is saying here? Oh yes, because what he says is useful to you. So I think I'll hang on to my life. You needn't supply the cup of coffie, as I've given up caffeine lately anyway.

Brad Keyes said...

kanspaugh:

"Keyes."

My name is Brad, not "Keyes." I understand that you're upset but that's no reason to jettison basic civility.

"I could not get to the article because it is behind a paywall"

That's a shame because it's full of such bombshells. (Apparently I can read it for free because I'm outside the US.) Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg could beat the defamation rap just by quoting Regalado's revelations about Mann's *cough* scientific conduct in this piece alone.

"and I'm not going to enrich Uncle Rupert further by paying to read it."

I don't blame you.

"But even from what you've quoted here it's clear your initial post was misleading as hell."

No it wasn't.

"You said that Mann admits that McIntyre was "right." About what?"

About his methods being biased towards producing hockey sticks.

"Everything?"

Yes! About every single thing he's ever said, insinuated or suspected!!!

No, of course not. Don't be a child.

"As for Mann's method producing hockey-stick-like graphs, what exactly does that prove?"

That McIntyre was right.

"That the twenty or other research teams who have independently reproduced Mann's results have are also using methods that will inevitably find what they want to find?"

This is a separate question. Red herrings don't interest me any more than wild geese, thanks.

"But wait a minute? Aren't all the world governments in on the Great Conspiracy to defraud the public about global warming?"

Straw man.

"Aren't they all on the Dark Side?"

Childish straw man.

"So why credit what this government lackey is saying here?"

I quoted Zwiers. I didn't "credit" him. I quoted him. For completeness and context. Feel free to ignore what Zwiers said if you like—it's entirely superfluous to Mann's own concession.

"You needn't supply the cup of coffie, as I've given up caffeine lately anyway."

No, the reason I needn't supply the cup of "coffie" is that I was right and you were wrong.