← JC’s expert report JC’s ethics complaint against Michael Mann Posted on February 8, 2024 by curryja | 19 Comments by Judith Curry
BREAKING. The verdict is in – GUILTY.
JC’s ethics complaint against Michael Mann
Posted on February 8, 2024 by curryja | 19 Comments
by Judith Curry
BREAKING. The verdict is in – GUILTY.
Mann’s lawyer introduced into evidence an old ethics complaint against Michael Mann that I had addressed to the Penn State administration.
I didn’t expect such a quick verdict, I had this post queued up for tomorrow. More on the trial and verdict tomorrow, but this constitutes what I suspect was my main contribution to the trial.
If you’ve been following the trial, a key part of my testimony related to a Huffington Post op-ed and Mann’s statement about me:
“On the other hand, serial climate disinformer Judith Curry, in a commentary for the same outlet five days later, announced, “Consensus distorts the climate picture.”
Here are my prepared remarks on this, you can also listen to the re-enactment at steynonline.
Prior to this article, Mann had said a lot of very bad things about me. But this is the one that destroyed my academic career. I first spotted this article on Georgia Tech’s daily news feed, that highlights all the mentions of Georgia Tech in the media. A link to Mann’s huffington post article appeared near the top of the news feed, including the serial climate disinformer quote. For the first time in my life, I had the sensation of my heart falling to the floor. This news feed is emailed to all Georgia tech students, faculty members, administrators, alumni and donors. At the time I was under consideration for an appointment in the higher administration at Georgia Tech, I was one of three finalists for the position. Well this was definitely game over for that appointment.
That day, as I was trying to evaluate the fallout from this, I googled my name. The first page of the google search was filled with Judith Curry climate denier, judith curry science misinformer, Judith Curry climate heretic and so on. My first reaction was that this is really bad for Georgia tech’s brand. My second thought was that all this also made me unhirable at any other university. My third thought was that Michael mann’s destruction of my reputation and academic career was now complete. This is what real damage to someone’s career looks like.
During my cross-examination, Mann’s lawyer introduced a document into evidence, a draft of an ethics complaint to the Penn State Research Integrity Officer. Apparently, this doc appeared in an email I sent to Steve McIntyre. I was seeking his input and advice on this. In the end I didn’t send this to Penn State; after all, the damage to my career was already done and I wasn’t clear where this would lead or whether it would have any effect.
Here is the text of my complaint, pdf is here [mann ethics 2]
Date: 16 October 2013
Candice Yekel,
Research Integrity Officer (RIO),
Assistant Vice President for Research, and Director,
Office for Research Protections
cay3@psu.edu or (814) 865-1775
Dear Dr Yekel,
This memorandum documents the basis for a complaint that I am lodging against Dr. Michael E. Mann, an employee of your University, under Penn State Policies RA-10, AD47 and HR64.
For context, I am Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and President of Climate Forecast Applications Network LLC. My c.v. can be found at http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/files/currycv.pdf. My Georgia Tech website can be found at
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu,
and the website for my company is
http://www.cfanclimate.com
.
I am being damaged personally and professionally by Michael Mann by his ongoing defamation of me, in particular malicious and incorrect statements about me, that are being made on Twitter, on Mann’s Facebook page, an op-ed published in the Guardian and Huffington Post. These defamatory statements include the following.
On September 11, Mann made a series of defamatory statements, first accusing me of “deceiving” readers.
Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann11 Sep#JudithCurry once again deceives on #ArcticSeaIce decline: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323864604579067243988516908.html …. Contrast her statement w/ truth: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=64 …
Then Mann accused me of “spewing denialist nonsense”:
Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann11 Sep
Does #JudithCurry believe the #climatechange denialist nonsense she is spewing? Or is she intentionally trolling? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323864604579067243988516908.html …
Then of falling for a hoax:
Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann11 Sep
So did #climatechange denier #JudithCurry actually fall for the “Lakos” (“SOKAL” spelled backwards) hoax? http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/17/pause-waving-the-italian-flag/#comment-256680 …
On Sep 22, Mann promised readers that a forthcoming op ed would impugn my integrity:
Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann22 Sep
@cousincat Will be writing about this [Curry op ed in The Australian] in a few days. If anyone thought #JudithCurry has any credibility/integrity, this should dispell…
On Sep 27, Mann published an op ed in the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/climate-change-report_b_3999277.html and Guardian, which contained the following defamatory text:
On the other hand, serial climate disinformer Judith Curry (Georgia Tech), in a commentary for the same outlet five days later, announced, “Consensus distorts the climate picture.”
Mann announced his defamatory article in his Twitter feed as follows:
Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann 27 Sep
“The IPCC, Climate Change and Bad Faith Attacks on Science” @HuffPostLive@HuffingtonPost #IPCC #AR5 http://fb.me/1oWNhjEt4
Mann’s defamatory article was included in the daily news feed from Georgia Tech that is emailed daily to all Georgia Tech personnel including faculty, staff, and students. The timing of this particular article could not have been worse, as I was under active consideration for two positions (an internal position at Georgia Tech and Dean of a College at another University).
These do not constitute an exhaustive list of Mann’s defamatory statements, only the most recent.
Apart from the widespread dissemination of Mann’s op-ed through the mainstream media, Mann has more than 12,000 followers on twitter, a large portion of whom are climate scientists (who may be involved in evaluating my papers for publication and my proposals for funding, and nominations of me for external recognition by professional societies); and also bloggers and journalists (who may be influenced by this in whether they interview me and how they report about me).
This defamation is affecting my academic reputation and my ability to conduct business. I note that I am far from the only person being attacked and libeled by Dr. Mann.
Penn State Policy AD47 (General Standards of Professional Ethics) states that professors have obligations as members of the “community of scholars” and are required to “respect and defend” free inquiry by other members of the community and to show “due respect” for the opinions of others:
IV.As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. They respect and defend the free inquiry of their associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas they show due respect for the opinions of others.
The policy also states that researchers are required to be “open-minded when evaluating the work of others” even if that may “contradict their own findings”:
III…. As open-minded researchers, when evaluating the work of others, they must recognize the responsibility to allow publication of theories or experiments that may contradict their own findings, as only by free inquiry and dissemination of all facts will the fruits of the labor of the whole community be allowed to mature.
Policy HR64 says (my bold) that faculty members have “special obligations” as persons of learning and as educators and are obliged to “exercise appropriate restraint” and “to show respect for the opinions of others”
Faculty members are citizens, members of learned professions, and representatives of this University. When the faculty member speaks or writes as a citizen, the faculty member shall be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but the special position in the community held by the faculty member imposes special obligations. As a person of learning and an educator, the faculty member is expected to remember that the public may judge the profession and institution by his/her utterances. Hence, the faculty member agrees at all times to be accurate, to exercise appropriate restraint, to show respect for the opinions of others, and to make every effort to indicate that he/she is not an institutional spokesperson.”
Policy RA-10 clearly asserts the importance of high ethical standards and cites Policy AD47 as a statement of general standards of professional ethics:
Public trust in the integrity and ethical behavior of scholars is essential if research and other scholarly activities are to play their proper role in the University and in society. The maintenance of high ethical standards is a central and critical responsibility of faculty and administrators of academic institutions. Policy AD47 sets forth statements of general standards of professional ethics within the academic community.
It is my belief that Dr Mann’s statements and actions are gross violations of Penn State policies RA10, AD47 and HR64. I therefore request that you initiate an investigation pursuant to Policy RA10.
Thank you for your consideration
Judith Curry, Chair and Professor
Well heck, Mann was just getting started on me in 2013, but this is the time period of particular relevance to the trial.
Ironically, this was admitted into evidence while Mann’s lawyer was cross-examining me. He thought he could score a point with the statement about concerns about my grant funding. A good example of the circular firing squad strategy of Mann’s prosecution.
Mann’s behavior towards other scientists clearly violates the codes of conduct for universities and professional societies for which he is a member. Not only does he get away with this, but he also receives climate communication awards from these same professional societies for taking down those evil climate deniers (which also happens to include Fellows of these same professional societies).
Seems sort of Trumpian to me, whereby Mann appears to be made of teflon and none of these really bad, well-justified accusations stick, and his accolytes keep applauding.
Who's guilty, JC or MM? I'm sorry but I'm not familiar enough with the case to understand who's on trial.