Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against National Review and Mark Steyn continues. National Review, while having walked back some of the early claims to square one, failed to get the suit dismissed. But Steyn is going on his own path and says he will fight in court for a verdict.
Anyone so inclined can help at: http://steynonline.com
[Note: I’ve removed the direct email address and most of the original comment, as it is creating an overwhelming response.
It seems that that best way to support Steyn’s effort is with a donation, see this:
Some readers have asked about that, Steyn says
As I’ve said, in previous battles I’ve never asked for money, and always responded simply by asking supporters to buy a book or a subscription to Maclean’s or whatever. But the scale of things is different down here: Michael Mann has Big Tobacco lawyer John Williams (before the hockey stick, his previous fictional client was Joe Camel) and at least three other named attorneys working on his case. So, for the moment, we’re asking those who “don’t need a coffee mug” to consider buying one of our new SteynOnline gift certificates either for a friend or for yourself, to be redeemed down the line in the event that we improve our mug designs. I’ve been heartened to see they’re being bought in places where I was barely aware I had readers, including the remoter Indonesian provinces, a couple of Central Asian stans, and dear old Vanuatu (for fellow old-school imperialists, that was pre-1980 the Anglo-French condominium of the New Hebrides). They never expire, so you can put it to one side and redeem it when my new book comes out later this year.
===========================================================
I’d suggest NOT leaving your questions in comments, since that may provide an unfair preparation advantage to the plaintiff. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They are fighting over a pack of lies called global warming. How sickening. So much need in this world – those funds could be better used for helping people in need. These GW apostles of Al Gore are their own worst enemies.
which will support certain statements he made about Dr. Man for which the suit was brought
For clarity and organization, Mr. Steyn should list and itemize the “certain statements” in question.
These should come from NR article and from plaintiffs court documents.
Then the readers can suggest references cross referenced to the statements.
Any legal expert wants to describe what exactly the discovery phase of such a trial will entail?
Anthony, your suggestion that the questions not be detailed here makes sense.
However, that train may have left the station – the extensive discussion currently going on at Lucia’s blog will be pored over by lawyers for both sides.
Steyn should retain McIntyre as an expert – or at least as an advisor. That would be well worth the investment.
Contact McIntyre – 2003, 2005 the Hockey Stick Fraud was destroyed.
Also ask for the entire set of algorithms, data base, models, documentation and assumptions from Piltdown Mann and have IT people go through all of it.
I am not a scientist. (Readers of my comments are probably painfully aware of that.) So, I cannot assist Mark Steyn in the discovery process of this trial. I can, however, assist financially. I just might wear a T-shirt with his smiling face and name on it. I understand they are for sale. Perhaps I’ll have my morning cup of coffee whilst looking at his smiling face on the cup. I’m pretty certain anybody can Google to find a website where such fine items may be acquired.
I am sure Steyn has already done this, but it would be helpful to catalog all of Mann’s mis-statements, lies, and political rants. This would show a pattern of Mann’s penchant to mislead people about his personal status and science. His science is nothing more than political speak.
So Steyn is admitting that he accused Mann of fraud although he did not have evidence to backup his claim.
Yes, I’m echoing the call for McIntyre. Meanwhile, this is an opportunity for us mostly anonymous climate blog skeptics, a kind of Greek Chorus with a lot to say but not much to do, to help Steyn with a lawsuit which could have major public relations repercussions for both sides.
Let’s give til it hurts!
The best way to help Steyn is to convince him to join the appeal that the other defendants have filed, on free speech grounds. That’s where his case is strongest. An appellate court can issue a binding precedent that deters future cases of this kind.
Felix – No, neither Mann nor Steyn has admitted any such thing. But both will be asking discovery from each other.
I’m all for supporting Mark Steyn in the lawsuit that Michael Mann saw fit to embroil him in. National Republic, sorry to say, has grown cold feet and sort of deserted Steyn, probably fearing the overhead of protracted legal proceedings and Mann’s hush-hush funded ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Everything that @Stephen Fisher Rasey wants to know can be found, in detail, on
http://www.steynonline.com/
This courageously unfaltering guy, by the way, does not fancy or encourage cash donations. He wants folks to get a run for their money by buying one of his books or music compilations, which naturally adds a few bucks to his war chest. But they’re worth having and reading, and this British Canadian American certainly knows lots more about music than Lady Gaga, Al Gore and Justin Bieber combined.
Mark Steyn, embroiled in a lawsuit brought by Dr. Mike Mann, is asking for suggestions as to how he can substantiate his case during the discovery phase of the trial. Plainly, Steyn….
…is toast.
I’m a long time commenter here, and friend to the cause of better science. (goback to the days of SurfaceStations.org and helped get pics of a local station) I’m sorry, but this isn’t science… It’s law. Science typically does not translate well in a legal setting, and there is nothing out there that would be compelling enough to support Steyn’s assertion of fraud, especially since most of the climate science community will back Mann. Remember, the scientific evidence against OJ was pretty damning, but we see what happened in that case. And try taking a “psychic” to court. Armed with even the best science that CLEARLY show psychics are frauds, it’s rare to get a conviction.
This case is, what, a year old now or more…. If Steyn doesn’t have material to build a good case by now, he’s done.
PS. Is he defending himself???? If so, that’s another fork in this sad turkey of a case.
Lots of good discussion on this very topic here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/the-meaning-of-r2-in-pictures-mann-v-steynsimbergceinro/
Mike, “there is nothing out there that would be compelling enough to support Steyn’s assertion of fraud”
Yes, there is.
Mike — It’s Mann who brought the case. Steyn doesn’t have to prove Mann is a fraud; Mann has to prove Steyn didn’t believe he is. The evidence hasn’t even come in yet; the fights so far have been over motions to dismiss. There has been no discovery so far, so neither side has yet had the chance to get evidence from the other side (which is what discovery is – I’m sure both sides have been diligently gathering publicly available evidence, which is a different story).
Mike Alexander
February 4, 2014 at 8:49 am
says:
‘…I’m sorry, but this isn’t science… It’s law.’
You’re quite right. But, then again, climate science was never science either. Do I remember another Canadian saying, “Never mind if the science is all phony…”? Climate science has always been all about a return to that wonderful, glorious time between the fall of the Roman Republic and the ‘Shot heard ’round the world.’ A time when the peasants, the serfs, knew their proper place in the scheme of things. A time when they unquestioningly bowed to authority. You’re right, let’s let Steyn rot.
@Mike Alexander:
You might be right by a frog’s hair. Agreed. But please consider the obvious fraud of Mann’s hockey stick, the “Hide the decline” exchange of emails, his usurpation of the Nobel Prize given to the IPCC (a scam in its own right), the vested interests Mann is fighting for in spite of science having produced quite different results, his pathetic claim of being a private person, not a public talking face, thus immune from reproof, even if it’s substantiated …
Once Dr. Mann appears in court, which he has been shirking all the way, matters might very well take a different turn, don’cha think? Depends on the guys behind the bench, of course.
Police will tell you that anything you say can and will be used against you. I suggest capturing and recording every blog post, every twitter post, every facebook post, everything where Michael Mann goes on a rant and use it against him in trial. Ask “why is okay for Dr. Mann to call Judith Curry ‘anti-scientific’ without proof or to call Anthony Watts a ‘denier’ which is an attempt to connect a person with a holocaust denier but it is not okay for someone to call Dr. Mann a fraud? Why is free speech selective?”
The discovery phase is the most lengthy part of a lawsuit. The parties send each other written lists of questions, called interrogatories, and demands for the production of documents in each others’ possession that may be relevant to the facts of the case. The parties also examine witnesses, or potential witnesses, under oath. These examinations are called depositions. The discovery phase may take many months. Once discovery closes, one or both parties will again attempt to finish the case without trial by filing a motion for summary judgment. The judge may grant summary judgment, or grant partial summary judgment on some points, in which case the remaining issues are tried, or deny summary judgment and proceed to trial. That’s a year or two away at this point.
If possible, Mark should request all Mann’s emails related to the Climategate releases, along with all his emails from his UVa and Penn State days. After all, Mann is objecting to the UVa emails release, and has repeatedly maintained the Climategate emails were taken out of context.
Mike — It’s Mann who brought the case. Steyn doesn’t have to prove Mann is a fraud; Mann has to prove Steyn didn’t believe he is.
If that were the case, then Steyn wouldn’t need to troll the blogosphere for suggestions as to how he can substantiate his case. I’m no fan of Mann, but the case rests on Steyn being able to show that (A) he was giving an opinion and no more than an opinion, or (B) that he has plenty of substantiated evidence to show that Mann is a fraud. Steyn has already whiffed at option (A) and now (B) is in play. Steyn now has to show that he has valid reasons for calling Mann a fraud. And I’m sorry, but a few blog-post from Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts or anyone else is not going to be able to convince anyone that Mann committed fraud,especially since the scientific community says he didn’t.
And remember, if Mann was accused by Steyn of simply being wrong, there would be no case here. Steyn is in hot water because he used the term “fraud” on multiple occasions. Because he used that specific term, which implies that Mann ‘knew” he was being deceptive, Steyn has to show that he has ample proof that backs the claim.
Note…. I’m no fan of this entire episode. I think this lawsuit is dumb, and wished the court had thrown it out… Thought they should have. But they didn’t.
I agree, Mann can be hung by his own words.
grs says:
February 4, 2014 at 9:22 am
” … That’s a year or two away at this point.”
—-l
I wonder how the CAGW hypothesis will be doing in two years time?