Michael Mann forced into a “do-over” in Mann -vs- CEI & Steyn

Mann-Steyn-OrderWhat a great Christmas present for Mike. It is back to square one for him with his lawsuit over what he views as libel by Mark Steyn and CEI.

For background, see this WUWT story:

Mann has filed suit against NRO (now the laughing begins)

Since the previous ruling this summer that said the lawsuit could go ahead was nothing less than a bad legal joke:

Mann-Steyn lawsuit judge inverts the defendants actions, botches ruling

…that ruling has now been nullified by a higher appeals court ruling, Mann’s case will now have to start over.

This new ruling seems pretty blunt. They basically accepted the ACLU amicus brief as fact, saying:

ORDERED, sua sponte, that the Clerk shall file the ACLU’s lodged amicus curiae response as its response.

The appeal was granted with no caveats or exceptions, suggesting that the appeals court views the decision by that wacky judge Natalia M. Combs Greene (now retired) this summer as being very badly flawed, much like the hockey stick itself.

FURTHER ORDERED, these dismissals are without prejudice to appellants filing new notices of appeals from orders denying a special motion to dismiss. Signed by Per Curiam

Here is the ruling:

Order_20131223144647 (PDF)

The order is a matter of public record as seen on the DC Courts website:

Mann_DCcourts_record

In related news, popcorn futures continue their unprecedented climb:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Michael E. Mann and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

114 Responses to Michael Mann forced into a “do-over” in Mann -vs- CEI & Steyn

  1. omnologos says:

    Can we avoid a…Green(e) judge this time around?

  2. UK Sceptic says:

    Greene by name, green by persuasion?

  3. dbstealey says:

    Love the Popcorn graph…

  4. Darren Potter says:

    Merry Christmas from the Man to the Mann!

  5. ED, Mr. Jones says:

    I really miss English. I think that Gibberish is just part of the Elitists’ weaponry to keep the Working Stiff consuming his Mushrooms in darkness.

  6. Eric Worrall says:

    HIlarious – maybe he should mann up and drop the libel case, rather than wasting more taxpayer’s money…

  7. A.D. Everard says:

    Dang! I could have made my fortune on popcorn futures, but I got in too late!

  8. I guess my donation to the legal fund did the trick. I urge more people to do the same.

  9. chorach says:

    One more go around? Whole thing should just be thrown out.

  10. Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
    Another go around? Why not just throw the whole thing out.

  11. Love the Popcorn graph…….it seems……familiar……

  12. charles nelson says:

    Well as long as some lawyers got to make some money…I’m happy.
    [snip - let's not go there -mod]

  13. MattN says:

    Well, “without prejudice” indicates to me we’ll be hearing more about this at a later date. Unless Mann finally comes to his senses and just drops it.

  14. Peter Miller says:

    The only way I know of libelling Mann is by describing him as a scientist.

    Is that what this is all about?

  15. Doug UK says:

    @ Peter Miller – Oh yes! – your comment sums it up for me!!

  16. Krebs v Carnot says:

    Dismissed “without prejudice”, huh?

    The contrast with how Mann et al. “treated” their data (prejudiced) could not be more ironic, could it?

  17. commieBob says:

    Usually judges write reasons for their decisions. Does anyone know if those will be forthcoming?

  18. Mr Green Genes says:

    Can I just be grateful that sometimes, even judges do the right and sensible thing.

    Also, since it has just turned Christmas Eve in (very windy and wet) Wiltshire, England, may I please wish everyone here (host, mods (special thanks to you guys for your constant but very relaxed vigilance) and contributors) a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

  19. ttfn says:

    Maybe this next attempt he’ll be an oscar winner

  20. Alan Robertson says:

    The popcorn graph is a great Christmas gift.

  21. Lady in Red says:

    I’m confused. ….an Oscar Weiner….? What is the status of the lawsuit? *I* don’t want it to stop…. *I* want the little twerp to supply some information in disclosure.

    Is this, essentially, over, now? ….Lady in Red

  22. Bruce Cobb says:

    What an idiotic, petty lawsuit. There was no comparison with Sandusky; it was just a rhetorical device.

  23. DrMorbius says:

    Lady in Red:

    If this were a game of Sorry!, Mann would have just got kicked back to Square 1. Essentially, the Appeals Court said that the previous judge had her head up her you-know-what and kicked the case all the way back to, as I said, Square 1.

    It is now up to Mann to decide if he A) Wants to start all over again, from the very beginning, or B) Pack it in and admit defeat and drop the lawsuit.

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy, IMO; Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Mr Hockey Stick…

  24. North of 43 and south of 44 says:

    Lady in Red,

    It isn’t over just sent back to the starting line.

  25. ttfn says:

    @Lady In Red: Anthony Winner, actually. My guess is Mann gets another shot to get past SLAPP. A SLAPP shot if you will.

  26. Lady in Red says:

    Thanks, guys. I suspect the twerp will declare victory and not pursue it. Sad.
    ….Lady in Red

  27. Peter Crawford says:

    Damn, I wanted to see Mann crash and burn. I wanted to see his corpulent little form incandescent and screaming, running like a rat pursued by Japanese soldiers with biological weapons and sticks.

  28. John F. Hultquist says:

    Mark Steyn has bigger fools to practice his “pen is mightier than …” against and Michael Mann and others should allow him the time to do so. There is too much suing and other attempts to stifle speech. Mostly insults and related comments should just be allowed to flow by. Get on with work and life.
    It’s not like the climate thing is settled science. Mann might still contribute something! Okay, maybe not.
    ~~~

    I loaded up on popcorn on Oct. 28, 2012. Must have been something going on then but I’ve forgotten. Maybe it was similar to Johnny Carson (1973) and the TP thing.

  29. tqm42a says:

    To MattN,

    Are you a comedian, because I am still laughing at the idea that Mann would come to his senses. Merry Christmas all.

  30. Maelstrom says:

    The hockey stick is an artifact of the output program. There is nothing indicating that in any graph from the calculations themselves.

    The climate model exposing that little tidbit comes from the CRU/Hadley hack…the part that WASN’T emails.

  31. P.Hager says:

    commieBob;
    The reason is…
    “FURTHERED ORDERED that these appeals are hereby dismissed as moot because the trial court granted appellee’s motion to file his lodged amended complaint and and appellants then filed new special motions to dismiss, which remain pending…”

    Appellee= Michael E. Mann
    Appellants= Mark Steyn and CEI et all.

    Sounds like Mann filed an amended complaint which mooted the previous order.
    Are there any lawyers or paralegals that can confirm this is the situation by pulling the court docs?

  32. Richard D says:

    Mark Steyn’s hilarious parody of Michael Mann was constitutional….

    And if the university was capable of covering up child rape it would not be beyond the pale that it would cover up scientific misconduct.

  33. Richard D says:

    Damn, I wanted to see Mann crash and burn.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    After hundreds of thousands of dollars in leagal fees, this is Michael Mann crashing and burning in court after being gloriously roasted by Mark Steyn.

    ‘I don’t bluff’……….Michael Mann’s lawyer says National Review must retract and apologize

    Get Lost My response to Michael Mann. By Rich Lowry http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314680/get-lost-rich-lowry

    Stick It Where the Global Warming Don’t Shine…. by Mark Steyn • Aug 22, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    http://www.steynonline.com/5118/stick-it-where-the-global-warming-dont-shine

  34. John Whitman says:

    Mann cloaks himself in a self-created juvenile myth where he fantasizes being a scientific hero. He is absurd.

    He needs to hire a professional Hollywood script writer for his self-serving mythology instead of his childish attempts at creating his own mythology.

    John

  35. Chris Arfaa says:

    With respect, I don’t think the court of appeals’ order means what you say it means. The ACLU and others won the right to file briefs, but the defendants’ appeals were “dismissed as moot” because the court below had already granted Mann’s request to file an amended complaint, and the defendants’ had already moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The dismissal is without prejudice to the defendants’ right to file new notices of appeal in case the trial court denies their motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

    So, unless I’m missing something, the only substantive effect of this order is that the ACLU and others get to file briefs. The matter is again before the trial court, which is now deciding whether to dismiss Mann’s amended complaint.

    (Obligatory disclaimer: I am a lawyer but I am not YOUR lawyer, so do not rely on my posts for legal guidance.)

  36. Gary Pietila says:

    Wonderful news!

    And a heartfelt Merry Christmas plus a huge Thank You to Anthony and all his helpers, contributors & others who make this website such a great resource for saving mankind from making a colossal, deadly mistake.

    Looking forward to even more great science information in the future. Keep up the great work.

  37. Brad R says:

    I really don’t speak legalese well, but I don’t think this means what you think it means. Looking at the rest of the ruling, I believe “the Clerk shall file the ACLU’s lodged amicus curiae response as its response” means filing it as the ACLU’s response, not as the court’s response. You see identical language with respect to the other amicus responses. Also, Stein and CEI were appealing the decision of the lower court, and their appeals were dismissed, not upheld. Granted, the reason they were dismissed was because they were ruled moot, because (I gather) Mann amended his complaint, and these appeals were in reference to the pre-amended complaint, and Stein and CEI have other motions (to dismiss) in the works against the amended complaint. Basically it sounds like the court is cleaning up the paperwork on this particular dead end. It’s neither good nor bad news.

  38. PeterS says:

    Why can’t it work the other way? There are many people and many reasons to sue Mann. What’s more is it would be for legitimate reasons.

  39. Steyn vindicated! Well…sort of.

  40. Richard D says:

    It’s neither good nor bad news.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    You’re joking, right?

    ORDERED, sua sponte, that the Clerk shall file the ACLU’s lodged amicus curiae response as its response.

  41. Deadman says:

    The attempt by the pusillanimous, pudibundous promoters of awarmist propaganda to pass themselves off as prize-winners persist elsewhere; a recent example can be seen in the latest Alumni News from the University of Tasmania:

    Scientific storyteller is lead IPCC author.
    By Miranda Harman.
    Nathan Bindoff’s framed Nobel Prize sits at the back of his office bookshelves. Among sundry academic books and plaques it’s dusty.

    How humble is the professor to allow such an important document to gather dust! So humble one might wonder how anyone learns of that dusty facsimile.

    Professor Bindoff, coordinating lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is keen to point out that the facsimile says he ‘contributed’ to the Nobel Prize, which was awarded jointly to the IPCC and Al Gore in 2007, the Nobel Prize for Peace. “It’s not for Science, but for the policy relevance of the work,” he says. […]
    As well as the Nobel Prize from his IPCC work, Prof. Bindoff counts the continued monitoring of the Mertz Glacier region in Antarctica as a career highlight.

    “Storyteller” seems about right.

  42. wws says:

    It is difficult to translate the legalese, as always, but I found the ACLU amicus brief (finally!) and it made what was being decided here a bit easier to decipher, since the Court adopted the ACLU brief as its own opinion in this matter. (and it was a very well written and well reasoned brief, I must say) Very good news for Stein, but I don’t think anyone in these comments has yet done much of a job of explaining what was actually decided here:

    Taking it from the top: Mann sued Stein because Mann didn’t like his published opinions. Mann filed the kind of lawsuit against Stein that is known as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), a type of suit intended primarily to make a critic shut up.

    Many states and the District of Columbia have passed Anti-SLAPP statutes, on the basis that it should be against public policy to allow a litigious person with deep pockets to chill public speech. These statutes generally allow the defendant in such an action to file an immediate appeal for dismissal, without going to trial. They must simply show that the lawsuit falls under a SLAPP definition, and this is the type of appeal Stein filed.

    Judge Greene dismissed Stein’s appeal, allowing Mann’s lawsuit to go forward, but she botched the ruling in an incredibly incompetent fashion. What the Appeals Court has done here is to throw out Judge Greene’s incomprehensible ruling. There is no prejudice to Appellant, which is Mark Stein, and therefore Stein is now allowed to refile his appeal, asking the Trial Court to immediately dismiss Mann’s lawsuit under the D. C. anti-SLAPP statute.

    So, the legal maneuvering isn’t ended, and we’re not really back at square one, but it still is a major victory for Stein – especially since it required an unbelievable amount of both partisanship and incompetence for Judge Greene to have refused to dismiss the suit immediately.

  43. alexwade says:

    Eric Worrall says:
    December 23, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    HIlarious – maybe he should mann up and drop the libel case, rather than wasting more taxpayer’s money…

    You might as well ask for water not to be wet. That request will be more likely to succeed.

  44. Reed Coray says:

    Michael Mann–the only person alive who believes he is being insulted when people don’t say anything about him.

  45. Bob Greene says:

    Steyn
    omnologos says:
    December 23, 2013 at 3:36 pm
    Can we avoid a…Green(e) judge this time around?
    UK Sceptic says:
    December 23, 2013 at 3:37 pm
    Greene by name, green by persuasion?
    __________________________________________________________________________
    Let’s not paint all Greenes with the same brush. Some of us have enough problems being associated with the green movement. :)

  46. ATheoK says:

    I believe wws says: December 23, 2013 at 5:50 pm, pretty well nailed the meaning of the action. Not quite back to square one.

    Meaning;
    Manniacal doesn’t get to remake his Olympic grand entrance and Nobel glory speeches, again.

    Mark Steyn and NRO can resubmit their appeals courtesy of the ‘without prejudice’ statement.

    The decision is ‘per curiam’ adj. Latin for “by the court,” defining a decision of an appeals court as a whole in which no judge is identified as the specific author or dissenting judge.

  47. Martin C says:

    hhmmm . . Judge Greene retired now . . .and she was ‘near the bottom’ of judges rated in D.C.

    AND, if I recall corrrectly, there are a number of judges in the D.C. area that Obummer wants to appoint . .
    . . . , AHH, YES, and now he can with little resistance because of Reid and the Senate’s recent actions on the ‘nuclear option’ , which now allows ‘simple majority’ for executive appointments AND FEDERAL JUDICIAL nominees , rather than the 60+ . . ..

    I SEE NOW WHY THE SENATE DID THIS. LET”S HOPE WE ALL REMEMBER THIS NEXT NOVEMBER ! ! ! ( . . *!@&#!*! dammorats . . . not that the Repugnants are sometimes better, but the dammorats sinking this low – just beyond belief . . )

    THROW ALL OF THEM OUT ! ! ! I support the ‘Tea Party’ principles more and more . .. !

  48. Richard D says:

    especially since it required an unbelievable amount of both partisanship and incompetence for Judge Greene to have refused to dismiss the suit immediately.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yep, and it was Mann’s high dollar Tobacco Lawyer and cherry picked venue and they got spanked on the law….laughable as Mann’s hokey stick and claim to be a Nobel Recipient.

  49. Paul Westhaver says:

    Dang!

    I was counting on that liar’s lawsuit to force him into discovery.

    That coward P.O.S. likely is counting his blessings that the suit was stopped by a third party and won’t file again.

    Also the popcorn graph was crazy wacky there Anthony. I bet it is a crazy place there at the Watts’ on Christmas morning.

  50. Taphonomic says:

    wws says:

    Quite a good explanation of the finding.

    For those interested, the ACLU amicus curiae brief is at:
    http://global.nationalreview.com/pdf/Mann-ACLU-amicus.pdf

    Several other groups also filed amicus curiae briefs knocking the original ruling regarding the way that SLAPP laws were not followed. These include the reporters committee for freedom of the press:
    http://journalists.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2013-11-18-mann-v-national-review.pdf
    and The District of Columbia:
    http://global.nationalreview.com/pdf/Mann_Motion-to-File-Amicus-11-22-13.pdf

    Additionally, while Judge Greene retired as a Superior Court judge she is still a judge and screwing things up in other courtrooms as a senior judge:
    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/12/dc-judge-reproached-for-inappropriate-comments-.html

  51. Potter Eaton says:

    wws has explained it correctly. What they are arguing about is whether Mann’s suit is essentially a suit to shut Steyn and others up and make them pay legal fees when they are simply exercising their constitutional right to express what are clearly political opinions on issues of the day, albeit mockingly phrased. The suit still has to pass the smell test of whether it’s legitimate and not simply an attempt to use the legal system to attack and punish a political enemy. All the argument so far has been to determine whether the suit is even legal.

    When a judge makes a stupid mistake like that, she ought to forfeit her pay for the time she put into the case.

    I can’t imagine a real judge is going to let this go to trial.

  52. OssQss says:

    Perhaps we now have some light as to why the AGU conference sponsored legal advice this year …..

    Think about it!!

    That wasn’t an accident folks.

  53. Janice Moore says:

    @ wws — a valiant effort (and very close) for one whose main area of study is not law.

    To clarify: “…trial court granted appellee’s motion to file his lodged amended complaint and docketed the amended complaint and appellants then filed new special mounts motions to dismiss, which remain pending.”

    The appeal was essentially held not ripe, i.e., the appeals courts held that it did not have jurisdiction and it would be better for the new trial judge (Weisberg who replaced Judge Combs-Greene last summer) to rule on the Defendants’ (Steyn, et. al.) newest (or “special”) Motion to Dismiss (this is not an “appeal”) the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

    The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was denied by Combs-Greene last summer in an opinion using ludicrous reasoning, i.e., irrational on its face (yes, I read it). She then denied their Motion to Reconsider that ludicrously reasoned Dismissal (even when her blatant errors were carefully and thoroughly pointed out to her).

    Unless Judge Weisberg is either a pro-AGW camp political tool OR dumb as a post OR psychotic (he is almost certainly not either of the second two options, and, from what I’ve read, he is a fair-minded man of integrity). Thus, unless Weisberg succumbs to threats (and hopefully there will be none) of serious harm to himself or those he cares about, Steyn and NRO are bound to win (yes, Mann’s case is that bad). That is, Judge Weisberg is highly likely to grant their pending Motion to Dismiss at which point: GAME OVER (at trial court level — next step = possible appeal by loser Mann).

    I sure hope they get fees and costs, too (not likely — pretty difficult to prove a Complaint was “frivolous” or done solely to harass; this is in the law to encourage legitimate plaintiffs where the risk of not only losing their case but of also owing fees and costs to the defendant would prevent their seeking a remedy for a legitimate wrong done by the defendant). The harassment value alone of this lawsuit is despicable, though. Nothing can fully compensate Steyn et. al. for that. Steyn has the best attorneys that the United States has to offer, i.e., they are superb. Barring a crooked judge, in the end, they will win. Merry Christmas!

  54. Janice Moore says:

    Please forgive my calling a “Denial” a “Dismissal” and for my grammatical errors above. You know what they are. I’m not going to bother with corrections. So, sue me. #(:))

  55. Craig Moore says:

    You failed to mention that the popcorn is Jolly Time.

  56. James (Aus.) says:

    Michael Mann, Nobel Laureate..Not, would be a psychiatrist’s dream come true. That miserable visage so desperate to be given some sort of respectability can’t even see the mess he continues to pursue. My god, the guy even awards himself a prize he can only dream about.

    While I don’t want Mark Steyn’s time and money chewed up by the oaf, it would be satisfying to see Mann put back in his box of disgraced ‘scientific’ irrelevance.

  57. scot says:

    Peter Miller says:
    December 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm
    The only way I know of libelling Mann is by describing him as a scientist.
    =========
    No, no, no. That would be libeling scientists.

  58. Janice Moore says:

    Aye, Scot, me lad, ye’re rrrrright.

    Hm. How could one libel Mann?

  59. @njsnowfan says:

    I could just imagine the childish hissy fit he threw when he got the news.
    Just a few of hash tags Mamm attached to tweets in the past few days

    #Koch
    #climate
    #ClimateChange
    #Action
    #HSCW
    #IronyLostOnSome
    #IKidYouNot
    #StrangerThanFiction
    #ClimateChange #Impacts
    #DonorsTrust
    #KochBrothers
    #CongressionalDeniers
    #Murdoch
    #climatechange
    #denier
    I hope this has no interaction with college kids..
    Maybe he will sue me for posting what he tweeted

  60. tmitsss says:

    Looks like Defendants filed motions to dismiss. Arguments on those motions were argued June 19. Then Plaintiff filed a motion to Amend his complaint. July 10 the Judge granted the motion to amend the complaint. Then on July 19 the Judge denied the Defendant’s motion to Dismiss. I think the Court of Appeals has now said the amendment of the complaint mooted the motions to dismiss the original complaint and therefore mooted the July 19 Order. The July 19 order was unfavorable to Steyn. Meanwhile the original judge has retired. So the points will be reargued before the new judge.

  61. Jarryd Beck says:

    Thanks to those who provided plain English explanations. I got lost in all the Latin, and not quite knowing all the details so far.

  62. Janice Moore says:
    December 23, 2013 at 7:32 pm
    Aye, Scot, me lad, ye’re rrrrright.

    Hm. How could one libel Mann?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    By calling Mann a “man”?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    “Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.”

  63. coronagold says:

    I’ve seen chipmunks with narrower full cheeks. It’s okay Mann. Joey Lawrence also had hideously oversized cheekbones but he turned out OK.

  64. coronagold says:

    Thank you WUWT for posting my post. I knew you’d get a kick out of that. :)

  65. TalentKeyHole Mole says:

    Mann first failure was his Ph.D. thesis, whom none of his professorial committee would sign.

    Mann’s solution was to forge the signatures!

    The committee members when shown the forged signatures laughed! One said, anonymously, It’s so wrong that any human being can see the truth.”

    Thus Mann “earned his ‘Ph.D.’ perhaps some would say posthumously!”

    I laugh pre-humously on Mann.

  66. wakeupmaggy says:

    I donated a few days ago.For once I made a difference!

  67. SAMURAI says:

    This ruling gives Mann an excellent opportunity to stop this silliness and save face by blaming the judicial system for his decision.

    I’m sure Penn State U officials will discretely suggest he drop the case as it’s awful PR for the university.

    Dropping the case is the most logical decision, but who ever said Mann was logical?

  68. Janice Moore says:

    @ Chris Arfaa — sorry not to have acknowledged your fine post (saying what I essentially repeated, later!). I only skimmed what you wrote and didn’t realize you’d covered the issue so nicely. Well done! (at least, having admitted that, you can rest assured that I can never say that I reasonably relied on your advice to my detriment, heh, heh)

    ********************************
    And, Merry Christmas,, to you, too, Mr. Green Genes, tqm42A, and Wayne Delbeke (hope there’s some skiing in your near future)!

    *****************************

    @ Bob Greene — Not to worry. No prejudice against Greene people, here.
    With my last name… as if. Oooooooo, I can’t STAND that man; why couldn’t his last name have been Oswald, or something. Yeah, I could change my last name to Sweetie (or whatever), but then, some jerk named Sweetie (or whatever) would go and do something despicable and… well, there you go.

  69. _Jim says:

    TalentKeyHole Mole says December 23, 2013 at 8:35 pm

    Mann first failure was his Ph.D. thesis, whom none of his professorial committee would sign.

    ???

    The following is excerpted from: “The ascent of Mann” at Bishop Hill
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/5/14/the-ascent-of-mann.html

    Mann’s resume shows:

    “1998 Ph.D. Yale University, Department of Geology & Geophysics (defended 1996)”

    What does “defended 1996″ mean and why a 2 year delay?

    May 14, 2010 at 10:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

    An answer:

    Mann was pretty busy after defending his thesis in 1996, and this often happens in practice that because of other pressing matters the final grant can be some years down the road. Most universities have a cut-off time, though: if the corrections are not done within, say, two years the whole PhD lapses, and I’ve known this happen with a friend who started work, got married, started a family etc etc, and then ran out of time to finish the corrections, so the whole PhD lapsed.

    I can’t see that Mann’s PhD was rushed though. His first degree was in 1989, so from 1989 to 1998 he was doing a Masters, two MPhils and a PhD. That’s no fast track!

    Remember, after 1996 he was busy concocting his hockey stick and presenting it, for example

    Mann, M.E., Multi-Proxy based reconstructions of large-scale surface temperature patterns during the past several centuries, AGU Spring meeting, Baltimore MD, May 1997.

    ‘The Cross-Validation of Proxy Climate Data and the Instrumental Record’, Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington, Seattle, Jun 23-25, 1997.

    Co-convener/organizer, theme session “Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction…”, Annual Fall meeting, American Geophysical Union, 1997.

    Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K, Northern Hemisphere Temperature During the Past Half-Millenium: Implications for External Forcing and Natural Variability of the Climate, AGU Fall meeting, San Francisco, CA, December, 1997.

    Of course, he was being funded for all this, quite apart from his academic salary:

    1996-1999 Patterns of Organized Climatic Variability: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Globally
    Distributed Climate Proxy Records and Long-term Model Integrations, NSF-Earth
    Systems History [Principal Investigator: R.S. Bradley (U. Mass); Co-Investigators: M.E.
    Mann, M.K. Hughes] $270,000

    1996-1998 Investigation of Patterns of Organized Large-Scale Climatic Variability During the Last Millennium, DOE, Alexander Hollaender Postdoctoral Fellowship [M.E. Mann] $78,000

    A tidy little earner that was.

    His meteoric rise in the IPCC process, however, is unseemly, especially when the final printed Mann, Bradley and Hughes paper that came out in 1998 was so evidently corrupt and a travesty of science. To think he taught courses in ‘Data Analysis and Climate Change’ at the universities of Massachusetts and Virginia, and ‘Statistical Climatology’ at University of Virginia after cooking the books in his papers is pretty creepy.

    May 14, 2010 at 11:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterScientistForTruth

  70. Mike McMillan says:

    Darn. I was looking forward to discovery at the U of Virginia.

  71. Grumpy Old Man says:

    I’m with you Mr. Beck. I understood more from the comments than the original post. Having said that, I do deeply appreciate this blog which has given me a real education although I have to say that some of the finer points must have gone by me – my science education ended when I left high school. I can only appeal, Anthony, for it to be kept in mind that some of your readers are none too smart at science and know even less about the US judicial system so a little more explanation from time to time might be in order. Of course, this may upset or disturb your more erudite commentators but please don’t leave the more challenged behind. I wish you, your family and all your team a very merry Christmas and look forward to more enlightenment in 2014. Thank you.

  72. hunter says:

    Mr. Mann and his gang now see that while cherry picking data can work with pal review and secrecy can work in science, cherry picking judges just got them an incompetent unprofessional who wrecked their little stunt.

  73. Juan Slayton says:

    Janice Moore: With my last name… as if. Oooooooo, I can’t STAND that man;

    I dunno, Janice. I thought Clement was a pretty good poet. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

    : > )

  74. Janice Moore says:

    @ Juan Slayton — lol….

    and, dash it all, you have a Happy Christmas, too. Good night.

    #(;))

  75. dp says:

    Mann has an uncanny ability to look like a serial idiot. I like that about him. He’s the git that keeps on giving.

  76. Aphan says:

    Peter Crawford…I’m laughing so hard I’m weeping~! You might have just made my entire Christmas! :) And a VERY Merry to Anthony and everyone else!

  77. A small but precious Christmas gift.
    In a society where almost every plain honest word is gagged or persecuted (unless it is utterly inane or perfectly fits the party line), Mann’s failure to deceive again is a rare breath of fresh air.

    I will shake Mark Steyn’s hand if I’d meet him — despite our tastes in music being quite incompatible. Alas, this world is not perfectly tailored for me.

    Even my favorite writer, Jack Vance, didn’t like dogs and listened to early Frisco jazz. I can’t imagine living without dogs, while jazz reminds me of rooms full of smoke and drunk good-for-nothings wasting their money and minds on empty talk without any consequence. Jazz is music for tin ears.

  78. John Law says:

    I think you graph does not work; where is the medieval popcorn period?

  79. mickgreenhough says:

    Please forward by twitter the report on Mann vs CEI &Steyn to  @Dr Clifford C. Hodge ‏

    thank you Mick G

  80. Peter Miller says:

    Out of mild interest, I decided to take a look at what Wikipedia thinks of Micheal Mann and came to the conclusion he either must have written the entry himself, or it was done by some sycophant. Warning: You may find some of the adulation to be nauseous.

    “Michael E. Mann (born 1965) is an American physicist and climatologist,[3] currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who has made significant contributions to the understanding of climate change over the last two thousand years. He has introduced techniques to find patterns in past climate change, and to isolate climate signals from noisy data. He has had an outstanding publication record, including very influential papers, and has pointed out publicly the implications of dangerous climate change, in the face of political and personal attacks.[4]

    Mann is well known as lead author of a paper produced in 1999 which introduced new statistical techniques for hemispherical climate reconstructions and produced what was dubbed the “hockey stick graph” because of its shape. He was one of 8 lead authors of the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report published in 2001, and the graph was highlighted in several parts of the report. The IPCC acknowledged that his work, along with that of many others who contributed substantially to the reports including lead authors and review editors, contributed to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC, jointly with Al Gore.”

  81. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    dp says at 10:50 pm in regards to Mann

    he’s the git that keeps on giving

    hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Eugene WR Gallun

  82. stargazer says:

    Mann can’t let this thing go. If he does he will essentially admit to the world he doesn’t have a hockey stick to lean on. He does seem to be about as successful in the court room as in the laboratory. All very convoluted. Wait… is that what the ‘C’ in CAGW stands for? Convoluted Anthropogenic Global Warming.? Or maybe ‘Contrived?’

  83. knr says:

    Lets hope Mann gets his day in court soon , for can anyone see it go any other way but bad for him ?
    Frankly I expect a back-down with Mann selling himself as ‘victim ‘ of some oil funded conspiracy. But one day his massive ego will overcome his limited common sense and that will be a good day.

  84. M Simon says:

    I thought this would be inappropriate:

  85. Ivor Ward (aka Disko Troop) says:

    I wonder if James Cameron has the movie rights? “Terminator 4. The End of Mann” “Into the Abyss 2″ “Mannbo,” “True Lies 2″ ?

  86. Ah Clem says:

    Perhaps the most important information lacking in this discussion is the size of Dr. Mann’s legal bill and his progress toward full payment of the same. That would be interesting.

  87. Snotrocket says:

    John Law asks, ref the popcord chart: “where is the medieval popcorn period?”
    Well, I believe it got lost in a maize of stats….the same as happened to the Little Rice Age.

    Happy Christmas Anthony and the Mods!!

  88. Snotrocket says:

    popcord = popcorn D’oh!

  89. Gail Combs says:

    Grumpy Old Man says: @ December 23, 2013 at 10:23 pm

    ….. I do deeply appreciate this blog which has given me a real education although I have to say that some of the finer points must have gone by me – my science education ended when I left high school. I can only appeal, Anthony, for it to be kept in mind that some of your readers are none too smart at science and know even less about the US judicial system so a little more explanation from time to time might be in order….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    One of the great things about this blog is normally all you have to do is ask and your questions will be answered. Doing a search on a term also helps although you may sometimes get the wrong info.

  90. Hugh K says:

    @Janice Moore says:
    December 23, 2013 at 7:14 pm
    “Please forgive my calling a “Denial” a “Dismissal”….

    On the contrary, We can only applaud your aversion to any variation of the word denier…

    re; the courts ruling – and I was so looking forward to Stein calling Peter Gleick as an expert on the current state of climate ethics.

    Dash away all alarmists and to all a good night!

  91. Richard D says:

    This case is about freedom of speech – the first amendment.

    Skeptics here at WUWT and over at CA have done an admirable job in refuting Mann on the science. His Hockey Stick is dead, dead, dead.

    On the other hand what’s at stake in winning is preventing Mann and his ilk from silencing skeptics through expensive litigation, or coercion by threats of litigation.

    NRO, CEI and Mark Steyn are better prepared and inclined to deal with this sort of bullying than the independent bloggers we skeptics frequent. So NRO is doing all of us a service and fighting our fight, too.

    They could use our financial support.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365372/help-us-kick-some-jack-fowler

  92. Coach Springer says:

    If Mann’s got the funding (dark money), he’ll re-file. It’s about the intimidation, not the decision. And he can do that without ever complying with discovery if they ever get that far. As noted recently by Steyn and other staff supporters at NRO, his side (the free speech issues against the Commissars of Canada) always win in court, but lose the culture and intimidation battle anyway. It isn’t over and the truth is still being stifled, (see Prof Brulle).

  93. John says:

    Judges can begin to get Alheimer’s, just like the rest of us. I’m certainly not saying that this is what happened in this case, I’m not a lawyer or familiar with the workings of the court inhabited by Judge Greene and colleagues.

    But I wonder if the oh-so-clear failings of Judge Greene might have in some way accelerated her retirement as a full time judge? The worst thing to happen for a judge, and for a judicial system, is to have a judge be a poster child for arbitrary and capricous decisions.

  94. stargeezer says:

    “This new ruling seems pretty blunt. They basically accepted the ACLU amicus brief as fact,”

    You have no idea what you’re talking about.

  95. Breakdown says:

    There’s a bigger issue. Someone or something with deep pockets finances Mann’s baseless suit. Steyn has to raise $ to defend himself. Mann loses, but Steyn has accrued an obligation to repay financial supporters, which could impoverish someone without his generous fans. Mann and co. walk away.

    Why doesn’t Steyn get to sue Mann and his lawyers for the entire cost of the defense, plus damages resulting from unfounded charges? As long as this gangster-style protection racket continues, all the laws and government on the books are meaningless.

    Keep your head down and don’t offend the rich guy or he will destroy you. Death by lawyer.

  96. johnbuk says:

    I’m confused, is the increase in popcorn causing CO2 to rise or the other way round? Will we be buried under ever-rising levels of popcorn before the decade is out or will we have to buy popcorn credits to save the world – Lew, Cookie, where are you when Gaia needs you?
    A very happy Christmas to Anthony and all those helping to make WUWT No 1 and to all you fellow deniers, thanks for all your comments which have helped me understand the issues.

  97. Rick Spung says:

    Does anyone have a link to Mann’s amended filing? I wonder what’s changed in his complaint.

  98. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

    Chris Arfaa,

    I am no lawyer (one son is), but I see two things of substance in the ruling: 1) the court accepts the logic of the ACLU brief; to wit, a refusal of the lower court to grant an anti-SLAPP dismissal can always be immediately appealed, rather than appealed after the libel case has been adjudicated on merit, otherwise the anti-SLAPP legislation may well fail to protect people from SLAPPs, and 2) the court dismisses the specific appeal of Styen et al, based on merit, as moot because a lower court has received a revised Mann complaint, and is already considering, but has not ruled on, the defendants’ (Steyn et al) second anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss…. so the appeals court has no reason to rule on the first anti-SLAPP appeal.

    This ruling seems to me not unexpected; no court would likely rule on the merits of a case if that case is moot, and no court would likely make a ruling which effectively defeats the intent of a law, unless that law is considered by the court to be unconstitutional.

    The appeals court has affirmed (by accepting the ACLU brief as its own ruling), that Steyn et al can immediately appeal any future ruling against an anti-SLAP motion, including the pending motion at the lower court for dismissal. Since the lower court understands that any dismissal of the existing anti-SLAPP motion will almost certainly be immediately reviewed based exclusively on ‘pre-discovery merits’, this may help to focus the lower courts attention. A disturbing, and I think unintended, consequence is that the court of appeals seems to have opened an avenue to make SLAPP’s more effect, at least in some cases, in spite of the affirmed right for immediate appeal: just keep revising the complaint before an appeal is heard, and no appeal on merit of an anti-SLAPP dismissal will ever be heard. If the plaintiff happens to get a friendly judge, then the defendants can be forced to defend themselves forever. This is very, very unwise, I think.

    Fortunately for Steyn et al, the nutty lower court judge has retired.

  99. Chad Wozniak says:

    Once there was a Womann named Sue . . .

  100. jorgekafkazar says:

    Alexander Feht says: “Jazz is music for tin ears.”

    The father of a friend of mine always referred to it as, “Dummergedudele.”

  101. EPUnum says:

    Lest you miss the most delicious aspect of this court ruling, the rationale behind Mann’s “Amended Complaint”, from a recent Steyn post over at “The Corner”…

    “1. Dr Michael Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, filed a fraudulent complaint falsely representing his client as a Nobel Laureate, and accusing us of the hitherto unknown crime of defaming a Nobel Laureate.

    2.After Charles C W Cooke and others exposed Dr Mann’s serial misrepresentation of himself as a Nobel Prize winner, Mann’s counsel decided to file an amended complaint with the Nobel falsehood removed.”

    Now, you do the math.

  102. Rand Simberg says:

    Alexander Feht says: “Jazz is music for tin ears.”

    Off topic, but speaking as one, jazz is the music of musicians.

  103. _Jim says:

    Hot off the presses this afternoon (the 24th), Mark Steyn’s own update on this issue:

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    Mumbo-Jumbo for Beginners
    By Mark Steyn, December 24, 2013 5:35 PM

    A propos the big campaign here to fight off Michael Mann’s assault on free speech, several readers have asked me directly and also inquired in comments on NR’s fundraising post below what the appeals court judges’ ruling actually means in English. I agree that it’s helpful, when one is soliciting donations for a legal campaign, to provide an update on how the battle’s going, so I don’t know why one of NR’s editorial staff could not have posted the court order with an accompanying explanation. But what it means is this:

    1. Dr Michael Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, filed a fraudulent complaint falsely representing his client as a Nobel Laureate, and accusing us of the hitherto unknown crime of defaming a Nobel Laureate.

    2. After Charles C W Cooke and others exposed Dr Mann’s serial misrepresentation of himself as a Nobel Prize winner, Mann’s counsel decided to file an amended complaint with the Nobel falsehood removed.

    3. Among her many staggering incompetences, DC Superior Court judge Natalia Combs-Greene then denied NR’s motion to dismiss the fraudulent complaint while simultaneously permitting Mann’s lawyers to file an amended complaint.

    4. The appellate judges have now tossed out anything relating to Mann’s original fraudulent complaint, including Judge Combs-Greene’s unbelievably careless ruling in which the obtuse jurist managed to confuse the defendants, and her subsequent ruling in which she chose to double-down on her own stupidity. Anything with Combs-Greene’s name on it has now been flushed down the toilet of history.

    5. So everyone is starting afresh with a new judge, a new complaint from the plaintiff, and new motions to dismiss from the defendants. That’s the good news.

    6. The bad news is that Mann’s misrepresentation of himself as a Nobel Laureate and Combs-Greene’s inept management of her case means that all parties have racked up significant six-figure sums just to get back to square one. In a real courthouse – in London, Toronto, Dublin, Singapore, Sydney – Dr Mann would be on the hook for what he has cost all the parties through his fraudulent complaint. But, this being quite the most insane “justice system” I have ever found myself in, instead the costs of the plaintiff’s vanity, his lawyer’s laziness and the judge’s incompetence must apparently be borne by everyone.

    Readers will recall that I often say about free-speech cases and similar thought-crime suits that “the process is the punishment” – not any eventual verdict. The above bollocks on stilts (as they say in Britain) is a textbook example.

    And, on that cheery note, Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    !! Merry Christmas everyone, and to everyone a good night. !!

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    [Reply: A hotlink to the article would be helpful — mod.]

    .

  104. _Jim says:

    _Jim says December 24, 2013 at 7:22 pm

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    [Reply: A hotlink to the article would be helpful — m o d.]

    – – – – – –

    Ha ha .. was thinking I should have done just that *after* I pressed the Post button!

  105. _Jim says:

    Rick Spung says December 24, 2013 at 11:07 am

    Does anyone have a link to Mann’s amended filing? I wonder what’s changed in his complaint.

    This is the original ‘complaint':
    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf

    I tried looking through this collection of documents, but, cannot find an “amended filing” by Mann et al per se:
    http://cei.org/publication-types/108

    .

  106. Patrick says:

    “_Jim says:

    December 24, 2013 at 9:14 pm”

    As we say in Aus, *MATE*, I don’t know where you get the time to do it but you sure do post some really useful/informative links.

  107. Mickey Reno says:

    Headline: ‘Sticking it to the Mann’

    ;-D

  108. Brian H says:

    charles the moderator says:
    December 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    I guess my donation to the legal fund did the trick. I urge more people to do the same.

    Done a while ago. My pension doesn’t allow for many donations, but this one definitely floats above the crowd of appeals for my pittances.

  109. Jimbo says:

    Peter Miller says:
    December 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    The only way I know of libelling Mann is by describing him as a scientist.

    Michael Mann is a scientist.

    Michael Mann is also:
    A Climastrologist
    A woodpecker
    A bristle cone head
    An angry flea
    A has-been looking for another 15 minutes of infamy
    A researcher of rain not temperature.

  110. Roguewave says:

    Steyn called Piltdown a “Twerp” today when he guest hosted on Rush. Will that occasion another paragraph in the refiled complaint? Of course truth is still a defense.

  111. Jim Sweet says:

    Get aboard the Mann-Steyn Steamroller….

  112. MattS says:

    The article above leaves out the most important part of the decision. This is not quite the victory for Steyn as the article implies. The appeal was dismissed as moot.

Comments are closed.