Real Nobel Laureate Takes Pity on Fake Nobel Laureate
by Mark Steyn
Question: What do the ACLU, the Reporters Committee for Press Freedom, the American Society of News Editors, the Association of American Publishers, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia (The Village Voice et al), NBC Universal, Bloomberg News, the publishers of USA Today, Time, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, The Detroit Free Press, The Seattle Times, The Arizona Republic and The Bergen County Record have in common?
Answer: They (and many others) all recognize that serial litigant Michael E Mann is a menace to free speech. You can read their intervention in Mann's defamation suit against me here.
In 2012, Mann, the inventor of the global-warming "hockey stick", decided to sue me, National Review, Rand Simberg and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, for calling his stick "fraudulent" and deriding his "exoneration" by the same Penn State administration that covered up for Jerry Sandusky. So here we all are two years later leisurely circling the drain of DC justice. Yesterday was the last day for submission of briefs on the matter to the DC Court of Appeals. (I'm not part of the appeal, as I decided six months ago to take Doctor Fraudpants at his word and give him his day in court, the sooner the better.)
You can read CEI and Rand Simberg's brief here.
You can read National Review's brief here.
You can read additional briefs from the District of Columbia; the Alliance Defending Freedom; the Cato Institute, Goldwater Institute, Reason magazine and David Horowitz's Individual Rights Foundation; The Daily Caller, PJ Media, The New Criterion and various Internet publishers;
I'll come back to all those briefs later in the week. But, while Time, NBC News and The Washington Post recognize the threat that the litigious Dr Mann poses to core liberties, the good news for Mann is that Professor Paul Krugman, the economist and New York Times columnist, has come out on his side. I've had no use for Krugman since his shifty and disingenuous explanation as to why he was on Enron's gravy train, but, unlike Mann, he is a genuine Nobel Laureate as opposed to a fraudulent, self-conferred Nobel Laureate. So I read his analysis of Mann's case against us with some interest - and then I fell around laughing at this section:
Er, no. That's profoundly stupid in a way that only really smart guys can be. This will apparently come as news to Professor Krugman, but - stand well back - courts don't Google. Courts consider something called "evidence" , which has to be "introduced".
There's a difference between Google and evidence. If you Google, for example, Mann's name, you'll find a bazillion sites declaring that he's a Nobel Prize winner. To cite merely the latest, here's Robert Hunziker in today's Counterpunch:
Hmm. Where would Mr Hunziker get that idea? Maybe from Mann's own website, on which he continues to promote himself as a Nobel Laureate ("Nobel Prize-winning scientist Michael Mann talks climate change politics"). Or maybe just from Googling around more generally.
So Google would support the idea that there is such a creature as "Nobel Prize-winning scientist Michael Mann".
Yet, if you ask Geir Lundestad, Director of the Nobel Institute in Oslo, he says:
Mann has falsely represented his academic credentials and passed himself off as a Nobel Laureate on an industrial scale - and, to a degree, by Google standards, it's worked, at least with gullible rubes like Robert Hunziker.
But in a court of law Google hits don't count. When it comes to Mann's fraudulent claim to be a Nobel Prize winner, only Geir Lundestad and a handful of his colleagues count.
That's the problem for Mann. His lies glide smoothly down the slipway and into the great sea of Google, but in court it's a stricter standard. From page six of my own brief:
I'm sure Professor Krugman, being a real "Nobel Prize recipient", knows that Michael Mann and Pia Zadora and the donkey from Shrek aren't. Yet Krugman's trust in Google is undiminished:
Indeed. If you Google around, you would get the impression that "all the charges" against Mann have been "rejected in repeated inquiries" by multiple bodies on both sides of the Atlantic.
And yet, if you actually go to those bodies and consult the actual reports, you'll find that no such thing has occurred. From page seven of my brief:
On the evidence of Google, Professor Krugman may believe that "all the charges have been rejected" against Mann, but he's not in a position to testify to that. Lord Oxburgh is, and he won't. One more quote from my brief:
Or, to put it in Professor Krugman's terms, it's the difference between Google hits and the rules of evidence. Krugman hilariously headlines his column "The Empiricist Strikes Back". But "empirically" Mann is not a Nobel Laureate, nor "empirically" has he been exonerated by the University of East Anglia, NOAA or the British Government. He will not stagger away from the witness stand with his "empiricism" intact.
On the evidence of my somewhat narrow relationship with him, Mann would seem to be a serial liar. He lies glibly and easily for understandable reasons - because he is not a Nobel Laureate who commands the attention of G7 governments but a minor figure whose only contribution to science is a deeply flawed hypothesis that has wound up tainting everyone who signed on to it, most of whom eventually end up back-pedaling away - from the IPCC to fellow scientists such as Keith Briffa.
I'll get to the other briefs on the case later in the week, but in the meantime thank you for your continued support of my pushback against Mann via the Steyn store and our SteynOnline gift certificates. I'm very grateful to readers around the world, from New York and London to Vanuatu and the Falkland Islands. And I hope in turn you're gratified to see from the briefs by the ACLU, Washington Post et al that there are many others out there who understand that Mann's victory would be the worst setback for freedom of speech in half-a-century. Aside from the interminable delay, I like the lie of the land right now. We will fight on, and we will win.
© 2014 Mark Steyn Enterprises (US) Inc. All rights reserved.
Got a comment on a column? Drop a line to Mark's Mailbox.
Mark's Most Wanted
© 2014 Mark Steyn Enterprises (US) Inc. All rights reserved.