Scientist Michael Mann, whose work on climate change led to contentious litigation over access to his emails, filed a libel lawsuit yesterday against National Review, accusing the conservative publication of defaming him by accusing him of academic fraud.
In the complaint (PDF) filed in District of Columbia Superior Court, Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, claimed that a July 15 article not only falsely accused him of misconduct, but crossed a line by comparing him to Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State football assistant coach convicted of child molestation. He also sued the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that ran a piece about Mann on its staff blog, OpenMarket.org.
Mann was one of the researchers behind the now-famous "hockey stick" graph showing a jump in global temperature at the end of the last millennium. He was a professor at the University of Virginia from 1999 to 2005, and became the subject of litigation when the Virginia attorney general's office launched an investigation into his use of government grant money. Mann and his supporters charged that the investigation was part of a politically motivated effort to discredit climate change science.
The National Review article at issue by writer Mark Steyn, entitled "Football and Hockey," called Mann "the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph." After emails surfaced that raised concerns about data manipulation by climate change scientists, including Mann, Steyn questioned the reliability of a Penn State investigation that cleared Mann of wrongdoing. He noted that the Mann investigation and a university inquiry into Sandusky's behavior both took place under former President Graham Spanier. "And, as with Sandusky and [former football coach Joe] Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing," Steyn wrote.
Steyn referenced a July 13 article by Rand Simberg on the Competitive Enterprise Institute's blog that speculated that 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." A current version of the article no longer includes the line as quoted in Steyn's piece. Steyn and Simberg are named as defendants in Mann's lawsuit.
"If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up?" Steyn wrote. "Whether or not he's 'the Jerry Sandusky of climate change', he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his 'investigation' by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke."
In a July 23 letter to National Review, Mann's lawyer, John Williams of Cozen O'Connor, asked that the piece be removed. In an August 22 article, National Review editor Rich Lowry wrote that they would welcome a lawsuit as a way to further investigate Mann through discovery. The Competitive Enterprise Institute also rejected Mann's request for a retraction.
In the complaint, Mann cited several reports, including a 2011 report by the inspector general of the National Science Foundation, finding no evidence of misconduct by Mann. He accused National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute of publishing false information with "actual malice and wrongful and willful intent to injure Dr. Mann."
Mann and Williams could not be reached today for comment, but Mann posted a statement about the lawsuit on his Facebook page: "Despite their knowledge of the results of these many investigations, the defendants have nevertheless accused Dr. Mann of academic fraud and have maliciously attacked his personal reputation with the knowingly false comparison to a child molester."
Lead counsel for National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, David Rivkin Jr. of Baker Hostetler, said today that, "This lawsuit is without merit and we are confident we will prevail.” Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said today that Mann’s lawsuit “is an unfounded attempt to squelch open debate over global warming issues.” He added that Mann is a public figure, so “this sort of debate comes with the territory.”
The case is before Judge Natalia Combs Greene. An initial scheduling conference is scheduled for January 25.
Doesn't he know there's no such thing as bad press ;)
Posted by: Read More | December 12, 2012 at 09:47 PM
Silly Mike Mann. He and the University of Virginia spent all that time and energy trying to keep his emails and other communications secret from Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli. But now National Review and CEI can demand all of it in discovery. Unless he wises up and withdraws it, Mann's lawsuit will become the little Toto that pulls back the curtain to expose the Wizard of Hockey Stick for what he truly is.
Posted by: Darren McKinney | November 06, 2012 at 05:15 PM
These kinds of lawsuits are impossible to win. Mann needs to prove that what the national review said were not based on what the facts were at the time, and that what they specifically said harmed him in a way that was independent from the Climate gate controversy.
Posted by: Mining Recruitment | November 05, 2012 at 09:59 PM
I guess the best things to do when dealing with him, is asking for evidence, because mostly has none at all.
Posted by: erickson | October 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM
I wish the discovery process could be televised...that would be some kind of entertaining. This guy is an idiot if he thinks they will settle. The resulting litigation will pay for itself with story after story and then a made for TV movie. Michael Mann, you may be a scientist but you are surely ignorant of the law!
Posted by: Paul | October 24, 2012 at 10:20 AM
It seems Mr. Mann will finally receive the thorough pelvic examination that the public richly deserves.
As a practical matter, the case will likely be removed to Federal District Court.
Posted by: Miner49er | October 24, 2012 at 09:44 AM
It will be good to see NR and CEI get their asses handed to them in a court of law.
Posted by: Abraham3 | October 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM
They said he molested DATA, not children.
Posted by: Calvin Dodge | October 23, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Lance Armstrong passed all of those drug tests too. And used legal intimidation along the way as well.
Posted by: geek49203 | October 23, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Go To the Mo Kelly Report and read about the apparent incompetence of Judge Natalia Combs Greene.
I think Michael Mann shopped around for the most incompetent judge he could find. If she is as bad as her reviewers say, then Michael Mann has a chance.
With a reasonable judge, he would never file this suit.
Posted by: John C | October 23, 2012 at 09:20 PM
Shouldn't "Scientist Michael Mann" actually be written "["Scientist"] Michael Mann?" For the sake of accuracy? Or even better "[humorless (because he's a fraud) "Scientist"] Michael Mann?"
Posted by: Slaw | October 23, 2012 at 08:13 PM
Is there an applicable antiSLAPP law or motion to dismiss? First Am (opinion) applies.
Posted by: Jim | October 23, 2012 at 08:08 PM
Sandusky should sue. Mann is in fact the John Wayne Gacy of Climate Science. That data was molested, tortured, and is buried in Mann's crawlspace.
Posted by: gretl | October 23, 2012 at 07:49 PM
Perhaps Professor Mann might want to venture over to the Literature Department and get a small lecture on the stories of Joel Chandler Harris. He might then understand that a law suit can be a Briar Patch and a discovery process can be a Tar Baby.
Posted by: Uncle Bill | October 23, 2012 at 06:34 PM
Michael E. Mann sues National Review, Competitive Enterprise Institute - What will be the result?
http://www.knewthenews.com/Market/25404/
Posted by: kruijs | October 23, 2012 at 05:16 PM