Climate Expert Dr. Michael Mann Plans Libel Suit Against The National Review

[Viking12]

This week the National Review published an insulting and (very likely) libelous article about climate change expert Dr. Micheal Mann of Penn State University I suspect that a formal apology and a retraction are on the way. if not, Michael Mann will have a very good case against them. The writer of that article deserves to defend his words in court and I suspect he will.

THE FACTS

Dr. Mann has been subjected to an overwhelming amount of hate mail and death threats, (most of which are very badly spelled) because he published a paper several years ago, with the image above in it. You may have heard about this image, it’s called the “Hockey Stick”, and let me say right here, that no matter what you may read on the internet, this image has stood the test of dozens of reviews and investigations. Every scientific peer group that has looked at it says it’s good science and if anyone tells you differently, they are giving you political propaganda.

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2012/07/22/slandering-someone-because-of-their-scientific-findings-can-be-very-costly/

[FBaggins]

1. Good luck with that.

Seriously. I wish him luck, but the author's assumption that Mann has a good libel case is off-base.

A public figure winning a libel suit (in the US) against the press is incredibly hard to accomplish. The author seems to assume that the simple fact that Mann is arguably correct is sufficient to win the day. Unfortunately, it isn't.

[Jim Lane]

3. I agree, little chance of success.

Even aside from the "public figure" standard that you mention, there's the doctrine that expressions of opinion aren't defamatory. The National Review piece -- available here -- is mostly opinion. It's not very well-formed opinion. It's essentially McCarthyism: Mann is at Penn State, some AGW deniers leveled charges at him, in response the university did an investigation and saw no problems, but this is the same university that didn't see the Sandusky problems, therefore the investigation was worthless.

Sandusky has zero relevance to the right wing's politically motivated attack on climate science. It wouldn't be sensible for anyone to draw conclusions about global warming because of what went on in the football team's locker rooms. Nevertheless, National Review has judged, probably correctly, that quite a few of their readers will be happy to do so, as long as the conclusions reinforce their biases.

[Texas-Limerick]

5. Football and Hockey...and Football

This Supreme Court ruling set the precedent for a public figure winning a defamation suit and collecting damages. It very closely parallels the Mann v National Review case.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Publishing_Co._v._Butts

The National Review will be forgotten history, alongside The Saturday Evening Post.

[FBaggins]

6. Sorry... that's wrong.

The NR may become forgotten history for bad positions or poor quality, but not for this suit.

It very closely parallels the Mann v National Review case.

It most certainly does not. The court was clear that the specific reason why that case was different was because although Butts/Walker were public figures, the standard was different from public officials because criticism of them could not be associated with criticism of public policy. Like their position or not, NR is clearly engaged in an ongoing assault on public policy regarding environmental protection.

It isn't sufficient for Mann to demonstrate that his positions were correct, nor even that NR had reason to know that they were correct. He would have to show that they did know their statements were false and made them intentionally with malicious intent.

That may very well be the case, but proving it in court would be just short of impossible.

[Texas-Limerick]

9. Reckless disregard

He would not have to prove NR knew the statements to be false, but only that they had a reckless disregard for the truth.

Mann is not a public official. He does not make policy, although his work may influence it.

But no more so than NR's own influence on public policy, which appears to be quite powerful, as we have yet to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

[FBaggins]

10. Sorry. Wrong again.

He would not have to prove NR knew the statements to be false, but only that they had a reckless disregard for the truth.

It's a legal term, not one that you get to interpret as you prefer (or even as the words seem to mean).

"Reckless disregard" and "actual malice" are required elements for Mann to prove... and require that NR know that the statment is false.

Mann is not a public official. He does not make policy,

It doesn't matter. The fact that the debate revolves around a matter of public policy grants much stronger 1A protection to the author of a hit piece.

But no more so than NR's own influence on public policy, which appears to be quite powerful, as we have yet to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Lol... I wouldn't go so far as to credit NR for that.

Regardless, their being outspoken in trying to influence public policy in that area make it virtually impossible for them to accuse someone else of libel too.

[Texas-Limerick]

12. Fraud is a crime

That the debate revolves around public policy is immaterial.

NR has accused Mann of fraud (a crime) and it matters not which side of the AGW debate either is on.

Unless NR has evidence of fraud, they lose.

[FBaggins]

14. You can't just make these things up as you go along.

That simply isn't the legal standard. We might like it to be... but it isn't.

Editorials accuse public figures of crimes all the time... it doesn't change the legal standard for libel.

[Texas-Limerick]

19. Logical order

I'm definitely not an attorney, but don't assume that because my arguments are not following some presumed correct order, that I make them up as I go.

We could be arguing this, or the George Zimmerman case, but like that one, we won't know the answers until they are actually in court.

And if the broccoli argument can go from right wing radio to the Supreme Court, any argument I make, might also.

[FBaggins]

21. Do you recognize what the alternative is?

The standards you've been putting forward are simply not the extablished legal standard. If it wasn't unintentional ignorance of the facts, there's really only one other option.

I thought I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

On edit - I'll retract that a bit. It's also possible that someone else has made up the standards or lied about them and you simply believed the person and repeated the claim. If so, you haven't referenced the source.

are not following some presumed correct order,

It has nothing to do with the form of your argument. They are factually inaccurate statements that aren't open to debate. It is simply untrue to say that if I accuse you of a crime (asuming you're a public official say), I have to be able to back that up with evidence or you automatically win a libel case.

More than one person has accused the Romney of committing a felony in the whole Bain thingy of recent weeks. He isn't a public official (and hopefully never will be again)... but I assure you that nobody stands any danger of having to pay him for libel even if every one of those accusations is proven false.

In Canada they could be... but this is the US.

[Texas-Limerick]

23. What is good form here?

This is my first real discussion here, though not for lack of trying to initiate one.

Tell me, is it considered good form to call one's opponent "ignorant of the facts" or suggest that his talking points have been fed to him?

If so, should that be done once I've committed an uneditible error, or should I do it preemptively?

My opinions are my own. There might be a few errors here or there, but they are insignificant to the Mann v NR case.

It is not your call whether Mann has standing to sue for libel. But the presumption that he will undergo discovery indicates that he can, and if he can, he can win.

[XemaSab]

24. Accusing other posters of being paid shills, ignorant of the facts, and/or liars

is a time-honored tradition here in E/E.

[Nederland]

2. Mann would be an idiot to sue

Suing the National Review would allow the lawyers on the opposing legal team unfettered access to all of Mann's emails and documents. Given that Mann has already strongly resisted FOIA requests that would do exactly that, it is hard to imagine why he would want it to happen now.

[Texas-Limerick]

4. Not!

Because the FOIA request is just another harassment ploy by the denier movement. Giving in to it, and once again proving his innocence, will stop nothing.
On the other hand, a lawsuit and judgement would stop the evil doers.

[Nederland]

7. If you think FOIA requests are harassment...

...they are nothing compared to what lawyers can ask for and get when you are involved in a lawsuit. Compared to FOIA requests, which can be denied for a variety of reasons, disclosure laws grant virtually unfettered access to everything and anything that might have the slightest relevance to the case.

[Texas-Limerick]

8. Removing the target from his back

You make the assumption that Mann has something to hide. I make the assumption that Mann views the FOIA requests as only a part of an unending series harassment tactics.

Going forward with the suit, as personnaly inconvenient as it might be for Mann, is the only way to end that ongoing harassment.

[FBaggins]

11. I'm not sure that you see what Nederland is saying.

It isn't that Mann necessarily has something to hide. (Though I suppose he could have perfectly acceptable emails/records that he would nevertheless not want to waste time explaining to laymen - or that could be easily spun in a negative way)

I read Nederland's response to accept your statement as accurate. The FOIA aren't going after something that needs to be hidden, they're an annoyance that Mann would rather not waste time on. Assuming that's true, opening himself up for discovery requests is a far larger "annoyance". If he's willing to deal wth a perception of hiding something by dodging a FOIA request, he certainly wouldn't go hunting for a process that is so much larger.

No... the much more likely reading of this is that he's using the legal leter to raise the exposure of his rebuttal and to bully his oponent into releasing a non-apology apology. He might very well get one, but he's almost certainly not serious about taking it to court... because he can't hope to win.

[Texas-Limerick]

13. Think about it

Both you guys have missed the point. He thinks NR is bulletproof because of the public policy issue. They are not.

It is cut and dry, NR either has evidence of fraud or they fold.

Mann knows if such evidence exists. If it does, he folds.

As for your theory that this is a mere annoyance to Mann, even if that's all it was, it is not now.

NR has upped the ante, attacking Mann as severely as anyone could in print

He will go to the trouble to defend himself, as would you or I, if so accused.

[FBaggins]

15. You obviously live in the wrong country.

The potential lawsuit would take place in the US, not Canada. You're still mired in the inaccurate assumption that all a plaintiff has to do is prove that a statement was incorrect. You've now added to that the (again, incorrect) claim that if the false claim is that the plaintiff committed a crime, that the defendant must actually prove the crime in order to prevail.

None of that is the case. None of it is close. I not sure how I can make this any clearer.

And while we're at it... saying that someone is the man behind a fraudulent graph is not "accusing him of a crime" (nor even the "academic fraud" that Mann's lawyer claims.

[Texas-Limerick]

16. Fraud accusation

Mark Steyn doubled down on his accusation, even after being notified of Mann's legal action.

Says Steyn:

"The CJR's Brainard, like the Big Oil lawyer, bandies the term "academic fraud" as if it's a concept distinct from non-academic fraud. Fraud-wise, my post used no qualifying adjective:

Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change "hockey-stick" graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus."

http://www.steynonline.com/5085/i-dont-bluff

He should know exactly what accusation was made.

[FBaggins]

17. Yet no accusation of a crime

Not (as pointed out before) that it would make one iota of difference.

even after being notified of Mann's legal action.

That's because he knows that unless there's an internal NR email from him saying "I know this is BS, but I'm going to do it anyway because I just hate that guy!"... he's in no danger.

[Texas-Limerick]

18. The definition of "is"

Without any other qualification, the accusation of "Fraud" is an accusation of a crime.

Also, please explain how the Saturday Evening Post managed to lose that case.

[FBaggins]

20. Nope.

Without any other qualification, the accusation of "Fraud" is an accusation of a crime.

Not even close. Not all frauds are crimes. Once again your statement is simply wrong... and once again it's entirely irrelevant to the legal standard of libel.

Also, please explain how the Saturday Evening Post managed to lose that case.

Already done - but I'll try again.

What they changed (or perhaps clarified is the better word) is who that higher standard applied to. The shift had been from "public official" to "public official or public figure"... they pulled that back slightly to public figure and involves issues "in which the public has a justified and important interest"

The court determined that the higher standard for libel didn't not apply because the person they defamed, though arguably a public figure, wasn't the type of public figure that the higher standard was intended to apply to. The first amendment protects speech related to public policy far more than it protects your ability to call someone names. Saying that someone rigged a sporting event simply isn't the same thing as accusing someone of lying to influence public policy. One is a debate that arguably serves the public interest (not the merits of the opposing positions, the debate itself), the other isn't.

They did nothing to change their already-existing standard that free speech rights "must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period". The global warming debate most definitely falls within that standard.

[Texas-Limerick]

22. Libel of a public figure

Any fraud that is intententional, is a crime. An unintentional fraud is not a crime, but may be dealt with civilly. An unintentional fraud can convert to a crime once the offender realizes he has committed fraud, but continues with it anyway.

But clearly, Stuyn is referring to a criminal fraud. How can you continue to think otherwise? (well, I know how, because you now have an emotional investment in being right...been there )

And if you read Stuyn, NR, and other right wing publications, Mann is not just being hammered for his influence on public policy, but for the financial rewards that have come to him. Does the term "grant whore" mean anything to you?

And if Mann is accused of enjoying the rewards of his academic successes, that would seem to be where NR has strayed from their "influence on public policy" concerns.

You left out the part about the Saturday Evening Post not having credible evidence of wrongdoing as being a significant reason for losing. They lost at trial. The Supreme Court did not try the case. They merely upheld the verdict. Don't you see that as significant?

You called Mann an idiot for bringing the action.

Is that not really the point you really wanted to make?

[Nederland]

25. If that were true Mann wouldn't have fought the FOIA requests

If Mann actually wanted to "end the harassment" by getting everything out and over with, he would have done so when presented with a FOIA request several years ago. He did not. He chose to fight the FOIA request, and won. Why you believe that he is now in favor of doing something that he was demonstrably opposed to in the past is a mystery.

I am not assuming that Mann has something to hide, I'm assuming that the opposition will do exactly what they did with the Climategate documents: twist words and take quotes out of context to make something out of nothing. Mann knows that even with nothing to hide, no good can come of him releasing all of his emails and research documents.

[Texas-Limerick]

26. A Mann's gotta do what a Mann's gotta do

He has turned the other cheek, and he has ignored them, but they keep coming. They would have done that even if he had given in to the FOIA request.

But this is different. They've reached a new low in their attack.

In an earlier time, the appropriate response would be a challenge to a duel, but the lawsuit will have to provide his satisfaction, and the right's comeuppance.