Steyn on the ‘anti-science’ labeling of Dr. Judith Curry by Dr. Michael Mann

Does he look like he wants to be poked?

Some people say you shouldn’t poke a bear with a stick, for obvious reasons.

I’ll say one thing for Mr. Steyn, he never gives up poking the ‘MannBearPig’, even when being sued. Steyn writes on his web page today:

Which brings us to Michael Mann, the fake Nobel laureate currently suing NATIONAL REVIEW for mocking his global-warming “hockey stick.” Of the recent congressional hearings, Dr. Mann tweeted that it was “#Science” — i.e., the guy who agrees with him — vs. “#AntiScience” — i.e., Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. That’s to say, she is by profession a scientist, but because she has the impertinence to dissent from Dr. Mann’s view she is “#AntiScience.” Mann is the climatological equivalent of those bozo imams on al-Arabiya raging about infidel whores: He can’t refute Dr. Curry, he can only label her.

He explains his aversion to appearing with anyone other than fawning groupies thus: “Getting on a debate stage signals that, while you might disagree, you respect the position of your opponent. #WhyWeDontDebateScienceDeniers.” But the reality is that he’s too insecure and dull-witted to argue. That’s why he’s suing me over a pun (“tree-ring circus”), why he threatened legal action in Minnesota over a song parody, and why he’s in court in Vancouver objecting to a bit of wordplay. “You can’t say that!” is the refrain of those who can’t hold their own. Michael Mann is seeking massive damages from me and this magazine. Nuts to that. But I would be willing to buy him a course in debating technique — because in free societies that’s how you win. I’d also like to buy the wee thin-skinned chap a sense of humor, but I don’t think there’s a course for that.

~You can help Mark defend himself against Dr Mann’s lawsuit by supporting the SteynOnline bookstore and by purchasing our new Steyn gift certificates.

=============================================================

Source: http://www.steynonline.com/6079/yes-we-can-say-that

Readers might want to read what Dr. Curry has to say about all of this in her essay:

JC challenge to MM:  Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being ‘anti-science,’  I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.

He has not responded to my challenge, other than to retweet some rather dubious blog posts.

See: http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/26/mann-versus-steyn/

About these ads

137 thoughts on “Steyn on the ‘anti-science’ labeling of Dr. Judith Curry by Dr. Michael Mann

  1. ““Getting on a debate stage signals that, while you might disagree, you respect the position of your opponent….”

    And, since he doesn’t respect the position of anyone who disagrees with him, he won’t debate anyone.

    Seems like perfect logic to me.

    Using that same logic however, would mean that there isn’t anyone who would agree to debate Mann, would it not?

    Although I do feel that using the phrase “tree-ring circus” to describe Mann’s shenanigans unfairly denigrates circuses everywhere.

    :)

  2. The main source of ridicule of M.E. Mann is M.E. Mann .

    He should sue himself that shut the f. up.

    How someone who plays a main part in party political election broadcasts can claim to be a “reluctant” public figure is laughable.

    Unless the court circuit finds an even more incompetant judge that judge Green who couldn’t even work out which party is which, I’d say he’s in for a rough ride.

  3. ‘How someone who plays a main part in party political election broadcasts can claim to be a “reluctant” public figure is laughable.’

    Yep. I’m reminded of a headline here this weekend: “Corby family pleads for privacy.”

  4. Michael Mann is bitter because a statistician and an economist found ‘errors’ in what some might consider to be ‘Hokey‘ stick work works of fiction.

  5. “Perhaps Dr. Curry should sue the Mannpig for defamation of character.”
    She has actually declined to do just that.
    “Many people have urged me to sue Mann; I can’t be bothered and I don’t have money to throw away on such stuff (The National Review has spent a half million already on this case?). Further, I would like to stand up for Michael Mann’s right to make insulting and defamatory tweets, statements in op-eds, etc. As an American, I am pretty attached to the right to free speech.”
    Read this in full:

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/26/mann-versus-steyn/#more-14467

  6. “Mike’s Nature trick” tm , where he deliberately truncated data that was inconvenient from Briffa’s proxy record should seriously be examined as scientific fraud.

    Getting the Tiljander proxy the wrong way up could be incompetence, if one were inclined to be kind. That such a degree of incompetence from someone who (less than reluctantly) chooses to be a key player for “the cause” should be the source of ridicule seems quite reasonable.

    He is still trying to use his Machiavellian tactics to silence anyone who has the temerity to question his rotund porky person.

    Pulling strings behind the screens and trying to orchestrate the dismissal of journal editors and professional scientists is probably the sort of game where you can just back off if there’s some blow-back.

    He may find giving evidence under oath, with a closed door behind him less appealing.

  7. ““Perhaps Dr. Curry should sue the Mannpig for defamation of character.”
    She has actually declined to do just that.”

    Too bad, but it shows in glowing terms that Dr. Curry is a scientist with integrity where the Mannpig is anything but.

  8. This is worth a listen: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/12/judith_curry_on.html
    “Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and blogger at Climate Etc. talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about climate change. Curry argues that climate change is a “wicked problem” with a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the expected damage as well as the political and technical challenges of dealing with the phenomenon. She emphasizes the complexity of the climate and how much of the basic science remains incomplete. The conversation closes with a discussion of how concerned citizens can improve their understanding of climate change and climate change policy.”

    Smart woman!

  9. Actually as a non-American who believes in freedom of speech, I do not support the right to make defamatory statements. Defamation (the accusation of a crime committed without evidence) is a criminal offence and should remain so, otherwise freedom of speech will be destroyed by deliberate and malicious lies

    As far as Dr Mann goes, this just another piece of evidence to his egotism and arrogance when faced with rational debate. If I were his lawyer, I’d fight tooth and nail to prevent him from taking the stand, because Mann will have nowhere to hide.

  10. John A says:
    February 8, 2014 at 7:15 am
    Actually as a non-American who believes in freedom of speech, I do not support the right to make defamatory statements. Defamation (the accusation of a crime committed without evidence) is a criminal offence and should remain so, otherwise freedom of speech will be destroyed by deliberate and malicious lies

    As far as Dr Mann goes, this just another piece of evidence to his egotism and arrogance when faced with rational debate. If I were his lawyer, I’d fight tooth and nail to prevent him from taking the stand, because Mann will have nowhere to hide.
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    At least in the United States, defamation IS NOT a crime. neither is libel, or slander. sorry.

  11. Anthony have you ever looked at getting some Bit Coin addresses for the various good causes you point to.

    REPLY: No, I consider BitCoin useless – Anthony

  12. John Peter says:
    February 8, 2014 at 6:44 am
    A pity one cannot just send a contribution through PayPal.

    I agree. Use the collective heat of realists to slay the MannQueerThug. NR where do we contribute?

  13. An awful lot of people seem to be misunderstanding this suit. Mann doesn’t care if he wins. He doesn’t even care if he has a case. The only thing he cares about is how much the defense effort costs. And whatever that figure is, Mr.Suzuki can most certainly afford it.

  14. When one can not defend ones work you do what M. Mann does.. I find it rather disheartening that he would publicly demean her and then refuse to back up his defamation with any sort of facts..

    Dr. Curry is correct by addressing Mann and demanding open facts to back up his claim. Mann has already exposed his yellow streak as he runs away from real science.

  15. Clarification: Suzuki can most certainly afford the cost of the offensive action (pun fully intended).

  16. John A says:
    February 8, 2014 at 7:15 am

    “If I were his lawyer, I’d fight tooth and nail to prevent him from taking the stand, because Mann will have nowhere to hide.”

    Lots of luck with that. Mann’s the plaintiff. He’s the one that’s asked to be deposed and put on the stand to defend his honor. I suppose his lawyer could argue that because Steyn’s bullying has been so unnerved Mann perhaps the Judge would see fit to allow him to take the stand in another room and tweet his responses to the court.

  17. TomRude says:
    February 8, 2014 at 7:34 am
    The impunity this Mann behaves suggests his handlers are powerful.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    He’s gotten away with so much for so long, he owns it. People tend to reach that conclusion about the time they’re running at full, neck-breaking speed to the end of their tether. At this point, though, he can’t afford to stop. It would be admission and the only thing he’s got going is bluff and bluster. Talk about being in denial.

  18. The Nobel prize is a big deal. Universities should list how many current and past faculty members have the award. Regardless of how Mann represents his “award”, does any one know how many PSU lists? and if it includes Mann?

  19. The lawsuits are not really attended to go to court; they are intended to harass and intimidate critics who often haven’t the financial means to defend themselves in court.

  20. Although mostly known for its football team Penn State is gaining a reputation for sheltering reprobates. Maybe a contest of complete the sentence: I think Michael Mann is a …. So sue me. Along the line ” I am Spartacus”

  21. There is no doubt that Steyn is a funny guy. I just hope he’s a funny guy with a lot of money.

  22. Mann will be remembered for only one thing, for perpetrating one of the greatest hoaxes of all time – the Hockey Stick.

    Mann, for obvious reasons, will not be remembered for being any of the following:

    1. A scientist,
    2. A statistician,
    3. An honourable person.
    4. A nice guy.
    5. Someone to be respected.
    6. A searcher for the truth,
    7. An intellectual giant,
    8. Modest,
    9. A robust debater with those of differing viewpoints.
    10. etc.

  23. John Cronan says:
    February 8, 2014 at 7:41 am
    —————-

    Then again he may also be looking for media attention. Bad press is better than any press at all. Ask Justin Bieber or Janet Jackson (wardrobe malfunction).

    Mann has had a ‘wardrobe malfunction’ of sorts by purchasing clothing from designer, Al Gore.

    I am certain he notices how cold it is now, but is perplexed at why people are still laughing at him.

    Speaking of clothing, Yves Smith at financial blog, Naked Capitalism, is supporting Mann but soon will be losing much of her readership. Her work regarding fraud in the banking sector was great, however, she is supportive of the fraud perpetrated by the AGW opportunists.

  24. “[Mann] can’t refute Dr. Curry, he can only label her.”

    Broaden this tactic to cover the entirety of the IPCC side, and you see it’s been their central defense since the inception of the Gore/Hanson-era of AGW. Gore and his pals perceived a potentially fatal problem in their inability to refute skeptics, so they called them shills of the fossil fuel industry, fringe contrarians, right-wing nuts & such. AGW will ultimately collapse when the greater public sees what a pathetic schoolyard bully tactic that was and still is: “Jeeze, dudes, is that the best you can do?? You can’t disprove the skeptics’ climate assessment, can you?”

  25. Reading Styen’s quotes on Dr. Curry’s blog, I can’t help but feel sympathy. The American civil “justice” system is a racket designed to milk both parties out of as much money as possible. Its purpose is to not seek truth, justice, or establish facts, but the churn out mounds and mounds of paperwork that the hapless clients can be billed for. Most cases never to trial as somebody either runs out of money for lawyers, or one or both sides declare “enough” or somebody decides to just settle before they go bankrupt.

  26. Two days ago financial blog, Zero Hedge, did a piece on the new climate hubs:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-05/us-unveils-climate-hubs-war-against-climate-change

    Here is a doozy left by one of the funniest and most unique commenters of all time, Boris Alatovkrap.

    “In cave in rural France is painting circa 5000 BC, and is tell story. One day is rain much and lightening is loud and scary. Leader of cave community is explain danger of lightening and is predict end of world if citizenry is not work hard for stopping of lightening. Every citizenry of community must bring it portion of berries and meat for sacrificial god and make incantation. Leader of cave community is so very smart, is not help hunt and gather, but is must make strategy and “guide” community for self-preservation technique. One day, citizen is look up and see is still lightening, but is look around and is still alive. Other is still alive. Lightening is come and go, and community is survive. Citizen is make comment at cave meeting and next day is fall in tar pit.

    Leader of cave community is explain danger of tar pit and is predict end of world if citizenry is not work hard for prevention of tar pit…”

  27. In the American system, when you get sued your lawyer immediately tells you to shut up — no public statements, no comments on the suit, nothing. I suspect that this was what Mann expected. His suit would stop critics from talking about him for many years while he and his lawyers used procedural tactics to keep things moving as slowly as possible. What I love about Steyn is that he doesn’t play by the rules. He’s going to do what he did in Canada and be a vocal warrior during the whole process. If his lawyers don’t agree with this approach, then he’ll get new lawyers.

  28. Notice yet another severe threat to the climate; the scary but unexpected one: the evil Resistant Starch!

    http://freetheanimal.com/tag/resistant-starch

    It looks like people have been consuming 4 tablespoons of raw potato starch per day in order to feed the bacteria in the colon, thus causing additional fermentation. And yes, fermentation increases the fartage! Can you imagine the effects of the increase in greenhouse gases that the systematic consumpiton of resistant starch by billions of people could cause?

  29. Penn State interest in all things climate is no doubt heightened by the oil money funding the Rock Ethics Institute located on its campus. Named for Penn State alumnus Doug Rock who made his fortune selling oil field services; the Institute is full on climate change nutty.

    No doubt Doug and his bucks are lurking somewhere around the Mann story.

  30. What do you call someone who:
    claims to be a Nobel Prize winner but isn’t?
    claims to be a reluctant celebrity, but craves attention?
    claims to be a scientist but refuses to debate or release data and methods for replication?

    Liar & Pissant are both correct answers, as both are equally applicable in this case.

    Mann has done more damage to the reputation of science and scientists than anyone I can think of. Please help Steyn in his fight against this pissant liar / lying pissant.

  31. Dr. Mann is not as stupid as he appears to be. He’s using this suit as part of his master plan to get himself awarded a Nobel prize. He’s looked around and seen how politicized the awards have become and realized if he can become a big enough victim of climate realists, he will be awarded one for the advancement of the cause, despite his poor science which is so easily refuted by amateurs.

    If people like Mark Steyn keep calling him a “fake Nobel laureate,” that is just going to seal the deal.

  32. Why all the commotion? With the advent of the “Climate Hub”, extreme weather threats to agriculture have been eliminated by executive order…

    “US ‘climate hubs’ to save farms from extreme weather”

    NewScientist

  33. John Peter says:
    February 8, 2014 at 6:44 am
    A pity one cannot just send a contribution through PayPal.

    Here’s a suggestion: Buy a Steyn gift certificate. When it arrives, tear it up. Voi la! You have just made a contribution. (And you get to keep the souvenir hockey stick.)

  34. To steal a quote from one of my favorite Antipodeans, the fabulous Mr. Peter Bowler, Michal E. Mann is, in addition to being a despicable individual who is half lout and all bombast, “an apogenous, bovaristic, coprolalial, dasypygal, excerebrose, facinorous, gnathonic, hircine, ithyphallic, jumentous, kyphotic, labrose, mephitic, napiform, oligophrenial, papuliferous, quisquilian, rebarbative, saponaceous, thersitical, unguinous, ventripotent, wlatsome, xylocephalous, yirning zoophyte” which, roughly translated, is an “impotent, conceited, obscene, hairy-buttocked, brainless, wicked, toadying, goatish, indecent, stable-smelling, hunchbacked, thick-lipped, stinking, turnip-shaped, feeble-minded, pimply, trashy, repellent, smarmy, foul-mouthed, greasy, gluttonous, loathsome, wooden-headed, whining, extremely low form of animal life.”

    Which is probably insulting to turnips and amoebas, everywhere.

    He is, without question, the very prime example of what is meant by ‘Slubberdegullion’ (‘nother fine Bowlerism).

    A word, Mr. Mann: all those eminent scientists who trashed M. Foucault and his pendulum? When he had the temerity to have the correct answer to explain it’s behavior? and then made the cardinal sin of providing the mathematical proof when they could not, after they were grudgingly forced by the facts to admit his theory was correct, yet then tried to claim he was simply “lucky” and not smart?

    No one remembers who they are, Mr. Mann. Not a one. I think it very likely that this will be YOUR fate, Mr. Mann. You are nobody. Just a problem to be dealt with, just intellectual pollution. And when you are gone, we will all forget you.

  35. The only way I could find to help Steyn was to purchase a couple of books at his store. I have often laughed at the way Steyn lampoons the elite and pompous in his columns at IBD, but his books are much better–he ought to charge more for them. They contain his magnificent sense of humor, but they present theses that are well thought through. He presents arguments on demographics and cultural trends that are quite difficult to argue against. His worries may not come to fruition, but no one should assume they will not a priori.

    Steyn obviously understands his opponents in the way no PC person can. He is sassy, irreverent, on point and pretty darned fearless. He may be a pain at times, but no free society can exist without such pain. I really recommend American Alone and Lights Out. Lights Out, in particular, chronicles, throught the McLean’s complaint, the way that free societies hobble themselves through misguided attempts at fairness though idiotic Commissions and Directorates, and invite the enemies of an open society to use these as tools against free speech.

    We can live easily without the Soroses, but not at all without the Steyns.

  36. Mann attacks any who ‘dare to questions his greatness even those on this own side , its that very ego that will bring about his downfall and when he falls we will be surprised to see who lines up to kick him on the way down , such is the ‘quality’ of Mann

  37. You give Mann more share time than he, or his pseudo-science, diserves. He will be always be seen as a rather ridiculous personage…

  38. Just purchased myself a Steyn gift certificate. I hope he gets enough support to stand up against MM’s soros-funded legal team. (Soros is truly a malevolent individual.)

  39. Steyn makes the point that in most nations deriving procedure from English Law, the “loser pays” in civil courts. The US differs. Mann “wins” insofar as the respondents to his complaint divert resources from the debate into a defense against Mann’s charges in court. If Mann wins, he stands to collect “damages.” If Steyn (or Simberg, NRO and/or CEI) wins, Mann pays nothing extra beyond what he paid simply to buy his day in court.

    UNLESS– (IANAL, this from my experience in Texas courts) the winning party in a civil suit is entitled to petition the court to have the losing party pay the actual costs of ADMINISTRATION involved in the suit. Xeroxing fees, postage, cell phone bills, etc. NOT legal fees the winner paid to the lawyer per hour of time, but INCLUDING the intern’s hourly rate for running original papers thru the fax machine or copier.

    I strongly strongly STRONGLY urge Steyn and company to keep track of their costs in the matter. When justice prevails they should then present the bills. (Data and methodology, of course.)

  40. DirkH says:
    February 8, 2014 at 8:04 am

    Jim says:
    February 8, 2014 at 7:52 am
    “Where is Mann getting the funds to pay for his legal counsel?”

    Soros. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/24/fighting-the-mann/#comment-1041764

    Anyone who doesn’t know who George Soros is (other than being billionaire hedge fund manager), there is a fascinating trove of information about him on frontpagemag.com in the area called discover the networks. Here is a link to the entry about George Soros: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977. If you read this, you will have no doubt why I said previously that Soros is a malevolent individual.

  41. Joe Chang says:
    February 8, 2014 at 7:52 am

    The Nobel prize is a big deal. Universities should list how many current and past faculty members have the award. Regardless of how Mann represents his “award”, does any one know how many PSU lists? and if it includes Mann?

    According to the Nobel Prize organization http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/universities.html
    PSU has zero Nobel laureates. btw, this listing includes the Nobel Peace Prize. I suppose that the Nobel work that is Mann will have to sue to have this egregious error corrected. (With apologies to William the Bard of Avon.)

  42. A video for “Michael Mann, the fake Nobel laureate”. Hey Mike, don’t worry about the Nobel Prize. Richard Feynman says it’s overrated.

  43. Mark Steyn should set up a PayPal account. It would make it more likely sending him money from outside the US.
    I dont know If this was mentioned before: The three kinds of scientific fraud, originally from Charles Babbage and still valid. “Trimming, Cooking and Forging”. Maybe the fabrication of some scientific graphs fits in there.

    Dr. Curry
    Wouldn’t it be fair, if the New York Times gave Dr. Curry room for a reply on Manns OpEd?

    Homeland security’s parole = Manns scientific guidelines: “If you see something, say something”.
    Usual scientific standard: If you see something, THINK, say something.
    If you see something that’s not existing, well…

    Aside of that, I was very rarely reading such a dishonest and whiningly comment.
    The martyrs of science, Mann, Hansen, etc., gave up everything for saving the planet (maybe except their fundings, grants, salaries, positions, popularity,etc.), loosing eh,uh what? Only for the sake of nice little kiddies, the cuddly polar bears and so on. Causes nausea.

  44. So – George Soros and the Womann-named-Sue (and of course Soros is the power behind the House of Kenya that now occupies the White House) are as thick as thieves (not a pun).

    Doesn’t bode well for honest science, if the fat little punk has that kind of money behind him. One assumes that this explains the little shit’s staying power through all his litigation

  45. Reading some of the comments from those who would like to donate {PayPal or through a non-profit option}, I would like to suggest one or more of Mark’s books on American music and the
    Broadway musical.
    The man is brilliant! I assumed, that I had a high level of knowledge on the subject. However, when I purchased “American Songbook” in 2011: I learned Mr. Steyn is both encyclopedic and a gem of a writer.
    When I read the first posting on WUWT, I ordered the “Broadway Double-Bill”.
    If you enjoy Musicals or simply wish to learn more about classic lyrical creation, you will want to read Mark’s brilliant work.

  46. Nobel Prize

    Mann won’t get one.
    Obama recently made big points in climate science with his groundbreaking finding, that climate change exists. He deserves his second Nobel Prize. This time for Physics.

  47. Typo in Dr. Curry’s name here:

    Readers might want to read what Dr. Curtry has to say about all of this in her essay:

  48. Mann’s Hockeystick became important because it was the flagship evidence for AGW in the IPCC AR3.
    And when the current lead author of IPCC Working Group 1 AR5 was asked about the old AR3?
    The message was clear;
    “Mistakes were made”.

  49. As so often, most of the comments regarding the Mannian Nobel PEACE Price have not understood that the most damaging thing about the whole episode is the fact that we are talking about a Prize awarded to the IPCC not for their scientific achievements (for they are few) but for their POLITICAL achievements. The Nobel PEACE Prize is awarded by a committee consisting of Norwegian POLITICIANS, not scientist. Any scientist who promotes himself as a Nobel laureate based on such a Prize while “forgetting” to mention that it is the political Peace Prize he is referring to is doing this for a purpose.

  50. Greg says:
    “Getting the Tiljander proxy the wrong way up could be incompetence, if one were inclined to be kind. That such a degree of incompetence from someone who (less than reluctantly) chooses to be a key player for “the cause” should be the source of ridicule seems quite reasonable.”

    What you say is true. But it goes further. It was pointed out that not only is it the wrong way up but also it is subject to contamination. Continuing to use it under these circumstances is truly bizarre, ascientific, and potentially fraudulent.

  51. John A says:
    February 8, 2014 at 7:15 am

    Actually as a non-American who believes in freedom of speech, I do not support the right to make defamatory statements. Defamation (the accusation of a crime committed without evidence) is a criminal offence and should remain so, otherwise freedom of speech will be destroyed by deliberate and malicious lies

    I don’t know where you live, John A, but generally in this country (USA) it is a civil offense. The spoken ‘defamation’ is called slander. The written ‘defamation’ is called libel. Further, charges of slander and libel rely upon damage to reputation, and whether the remarks were made maliciously or not. The test is different for public and private people.

    Freedom of speech is not contingent upon whether the speech is a lie or not. You’re free to lie in this country as a Florida judge found in the case of a suit against Fox News over a decade ago. The judge ruled that Fox News was not required to tell the truth. Maybe you’re Canadian; broadcasters can go to jail for lying, as a I understand it.

    You can read more about defamation in the US here.

  52. Mann may be in last days. As Raquel told Johnny Carson you only have five years to make your money in this town (Hollywood). The same goes for entertainment in the pseudo??? World of science

    Two things happen in careers based on a popular topic and personal popularity. Lost of bookings and then, personal attacks or stunts to regain public exposure.

    Having worked in media, news and public relations for years, I have seen this over and over. So in detail:

    1. The fake Hockey Stick
    2. The Email Scandal and Exoneration but Virginia Attorney office may still be looking into that
    3. Some type of free agent on the speaking tour
    4. Now law suits and such.

    The problem with law suits is it tends to kill bookings and may be thinking if booking are off, sue for quick cash and popularity. But they settle out of court normally to avoid bad publicity and anything the court may drag out into the open and or obtain a negative judgment and a counter suit or a long appeal process.

    Now, what is left? Two suits and name calling will. UT more bookings, less visibility for people will fear to book less the guy be offended and be sued as well.

    I give Mann about two to three years of visibility left before Global cooling due to the solar minimum freezes out man-made global warming.

  53. Mann is involved in multiple legal actions against his critics. From this I conclude that the problem most likely lies with Mann.

    One lawsuit, that doesn’t tell you much as who is at fault. But when someone is involved in multiple independent suits, the odds are that they are simply the innocent victim drops rapidly.

    I would think that most juries would understand this much more than they would understand the science involved.

  54. I agree with shining the light of day on this issue. 1 person calls Mann a fraud, that person is at risk. Do they have enough money to defend themselves in court?

    The average person does not, so they can be silenced through threats of legal action. Free Speech dies. A fundamental right that has cost millions of our ancestors their lives to obtain and defend over the centuries is lost.

    However, if lots of people independently call Mann a fraud, it is a different issue entirely.

  55. All Mr. Steyn needs to prevail is a full and fair trial. The only hope Dr. Mann has is to rig the trial and suppress evidence and witnesses.

  56. When winter cold,
    We are told,
    Shrinks his mannhood,
    To whence he could,
    He cries aloud,
    In courts cloud,
    To find the heat,
    To cook his meat.
    Butt alas,
    To an ass,
    His tongue burns,
    His end learns.

  57. Steyn has put out a request for ideas for the discovery portion of the trial. While he’s aware of WUWT, he’s not a regular reader; and while many of us are no doubt fans of his, the larger portion of the blog regulars may not be aware of Steyn’s battle — and win — against Canada’s “Human Rights Commission’s hate speech charges against him. Not only did he win, he got the relevant portion of the law struck down and repealed.

    The man is a free speech hero, and given the recent tendency of the AGWer’s to use censorship and lawsuits against skeptics, it’s in our best interest to give him our fullest support — whether you like what he said or not.

  58. I think “Mike’s nature trick” has been mentioned here in the comments and I would like to set the record straight.

    What Michael Mann’s nature trick really is it’s the ability to reproduce without having the organ with which it is normally necessary to do so. Now, the fact of the matter stands is that he himself is just a big version of that organ while at the same time not having that organ.

    Now, I realize the foregoing is an ad hominen attack, but does anybody else have an explanation for his behavior?

  59. ferdberple says: However, if lots of people independently call Mann a fraud, it is a different issue entirely.
    Would Mann then be forced into a reverse class action against the whole world?

  60. @JoeJitsu –
    Yes, and here in the Demokratic Peeple’s Republik of Kalifornia (DPRK – same initials as the state’s sister republic to the west of Japan) we have “climate action plans” which require counties to spend money on things other than where the money is needed – without offering any proof of benefits for the costs incurred.

    California (or New York, either) can no more legislate climate than King Canute could legislate the schedule of the tides.

    And what a tragedy it is that all those institutions named in the NewScience clip have fallen prey to the most insane superstition of all time. I’d love to see what this McNulty character has to say after we have a few more winters like this one. But actually it isn’t hard to fathom how so many academics can be so delusional. Their isolation in the ivory tower makes for quite the disconnect from reality. I saw this myself all too many times during my three years as a history prof, back in the early 70s.

  61. On the last go round on this subject, I missed this statement by the judge:

    Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations.

    Right there you have evidence of a prejudicial judge. Where does Steyn say that Mann conducted fraudulent research? What Steyn said was, “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.”

    Where does he say he manipulated data? Or purposefully distorted the scientific truth? While these things will probably be proven true in a trial, I don’t see how the judge can interpret Steyn’s statement to mean all of those things, and I have a feeling that if the trial goes against Steyn that it will be reversed because of judicial error. The judge is making allegations of fact that are quite possibly not factual.

    As I said before, it’s one thing to say something was conceived through fraud, and another to say it is being used fraudulently. There is evidence that Mann committed fraud, or at best manipulated data, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that Steyn is accusing him of that. There is abundant evidence that the hockey stick graph is scientifically wrong and the longer temperatures stay flat, the more persuasive the argument that it is wrong becomes. If the evidence is mounting and people are continuing to use the graph to prove the argument, then the graph is being used fraudulently, or at least that is an assertion that is open to scientific and philosophical debate.

  62. Perhaps a better picture on the lead post should be a pig or opossum. Mann is no bear although Steyn probably has the balls to poke one.

  63. hunter says:
    February 8, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    DC is probably just about the worst venue in the USA for Steyn. A jury there is liable to find against him despite all the evidence.

  64. M Simon says:
    February 8, 2014 at 7:44 am

    Did Mann trade the end of the tree rings for the temperatures of record? Rough trade that.

    Yes, probably.
    And, (with apologies to Roger Waters), Mann almost certainly also traded

    1) His heroes for ghosts.
    2) Hot ashes for trees.
    3) Hot air for a cool breeze.
    4) Cold comfort for climate-change.

    And then exchanged
    5) A walk on part in the war, for
    6) a lead role in a cage.

  65. Science by Twitter.

    The reason Dr Mann won’t go on stage with any skeptics is the same reason I wouldn’t step into the ring with George Foreman.

  66. Surely the defence strategy here is to arrive in court with your basic local-variety (and preferably hired locally) solicitor, explain what you said and why, then leave the jury to work out why the poor climate scientist has million-dollar representation while your Big Oil funding only runs to Lionel Hutz

    Costs only get out of hand if you try to play the same game as they are,

  67. JohnWho says:
    February 8, 2014 at 6:27 am
    ““Getting on a debate stage signals that, while you might disagree, you respect the position of your opponent….”

    And, since he doesn’t respect the position of anyone who disagrees with him, he won’t debate anyone.

    Seems like perfect logic to me.

    Using that same logic however, would mean that there isn’t anyone who would agree to debate Mann, would it not?

    Although I do feel that using the phrase “tree-ring circus” to describe Mann’s shenanigans unfairly denigrates circuses everywhere.

    :)

    To the extent the both circuses and Mann are sources of entertainment for the general public, I must respectfully disagree!

  68. A little twitter conversation from Andrew Neil:

    Cambridge physics professor and Polar specialist says Arctic ice free September 2015. Make a note and we’ll check in 10 months.

    make that 20 months.

  69. Mann Oh Mann.
    He is an absolute gift to those of us who require some sanity and discipline from the persons impersonating climate scientists.
    All that is required to discredit those who use the Mann to promote their cause,is let him speak.

  70. Is it possible that Mr.Mann failed to realise that Mr. Steyn could just maybe have a slight Irish accent and as a consequence misunderstood his comment re “tree-ring circus”… example follows….

    An Irishman wants a job, but the foreman won’t hire him until he passes a little math test.
    Here is your first question, the foreman said. “Without using numbers, represent the number 9.”
    “Without numbers?” The Irishman says? “Dat is easy.” And proceeds to draw three trees.
    “What’s this?” the boss asks.
    “Have you ain’t got no brain? Tree and tree plus tree makes 9″ says the Irishman.
    “Fair enough,” says the boss. “Here’s your second question. Use the same rules, but this time the number is 99.”
    The Irishman stares into space for a while, then picks up the picture that he has just drawn and makes a smudge on each tree… “Ere you go.”
    The boss scratches his head and says, “How on earth do you get that to represent 99?”
    “Each of da trees is dirty now. So, it’s dirty tree, and dirty tree, plus dirty tree. Dat makes 99.”
    The boss is getting worried that he’s going to actually have to hire this Irishman, so he says, “All right, last question. Same rules again, but represent the number 100.”
    The Irishman stares into space some more, then he picks up the picture again and makes a little mark at the base of each tree and says, “Ere you go. One hundred.”
    The boss looks at the attempt. “You must be nuts if you think that represents a hundred!”
    The Irishman leans forward and points to the marks at the base of each tree and whispers, “A little dog come along and poop by each tree.
    So now you got dirty tree and a turd, dirty tree and a turd, and dirty tree and a turd, which makes ONE HUNDRED!”

  71. So a Man who gets his treasured data from the same place Cartman stored his treasure, will not mass debate in public.

    When pressed by team Blank, we imagined a Man to say “Mass debation is immoral, unhealthy, and a sin. Each sinful act is a Steyn on Gaia’s soul. Anyone who promotes mass debation, or holds any kind of debate from other than the pure eco-missionary position, will be converted to eco friendly bio oil substitute and be used to lubricate the windmills (since burning in hell is no longer an option).

    “In light of this I can now reveal my campaign to eradicate mass debation. The process is thus: take the world crop of corn and smash apart with our hockey sticks. Extract the sugars and all other nutritional value to make bio-fuels. Scientifically roll, dry, and cook the remaining solid matter to make cereal flakes of a level of deliciousness appropriate to the disgusting anti-science deniers. It is then up to all us scienceologists to jam 97% more of these flakes of corn than is possible into our ears so that we cannot hear anything other than our perfectly holey ideas. That should discourage any kind of debate. Anybody who disagrees with this, or thinks this is a stupid idea, smells.”

    Sometimes I worry. About myself. Delete as appropriate.

  72. can’t see the MSM giving Steyn much support…

    7 Feb: New Scientist: Aviva Hope Rutkin: US ‘climate hubs’ to save farms from extreme weather
    “USDA’s climate hubs are part of our broad commitment to developing the next generation of climate solutions,” said agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack in a statement on Wednesday.
    “The nation is recognising that climate change is real,” says Lindsay Rustad, co-leader of the north-eastern hub. “This isn’t just this week or this month. This is redirecting a significant portion of USDA resources to address the problem.”…

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25023-us-climate-hubs-to-save-farms-from-extreme-weather.html

    7 Feb: UK Telegraph: Neil Tweedie: Somerset flooding: Lord Smith fights to turn back a rising tide of blame
    Environment Agency chief Lord Smith insists he has no reason to apologise as he finally pays a visit to the Levels
    As for David Cameron, wasn’t it his government, asked Lord Smith, who had left the Environment Agency with just £400,000 to dredge the relevant waterways? This, said the EA chairman, represented a totally inadequate sum for the task, a deficiency that was only now being remedied by an emergency injection of £130 million from Whitehall.
    He neglected to mention, however, that he had promised dredging work on the rivers after the 2012 floods — a so-called “once in a century” event…
    ***The people who inhabit the low-lying villages and hamlets of mid-Somerset have been warning for years about the authorities’ failure to dredge rivers and maintain drainage ditches.
    They also blame English Nature for encouraging farmers to maintain their land in a permanently waterlogged state so as to encourage lapwings and other wetland birds. A disaster waiting to happen that has now, well, happened…
    Faced with a lot of angry Tory voters in central Somerset, Mr Cameron addressed the dredging issue head-on, admitting that it had been a mistake to stop work on the Parrett and Tone and promising to reinstate it in future.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10625673/Somerset-flooding-Lord-Smith-fights-to-turn-back-a-rising-tide-of-blame.html

    even the Tele exaggerates in the headline:

    8 Feb: UK Telegraph: Tim Ross: Climate change is to blame, says Met Office scientist
    Flooding like that in Somerset may become more frequent
    Dame Julia Slingo, the Met Office’s chief scientist, said while there was not yet “definitive” proof, “all the evidence” supported the theory that climate change had played a role.
    She warned that the country should prepare for similar events in future.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10626736/Climate-change-is-to-blame-says-Met-Office-scientist.html

  73. doubt if Big Business with help fund Steyn’s defense given HP, Walmart & GE are busy finding work for “WELL-TRAINED environmentalists”. much, much more at the link:

    8 Feb: Bloomberg: Andrea Vittorio: Big Companies Step Up Efforts to Trim Environmental Risks in Supply Chains
    China accounted for about 40 percent of GE’s supplier assessments in 2012 and 56 percent of “findings,” which occur when auditors note issues at a facility, such as a missing permit.
    But the auditing program wasn’t generating long-term improvement in most suppliers, Condon said. So in 2011, GE added a requirement for suppliers to move from a “find-it-and-fix-it mode to more of a management-system mode,” she said.
    Using a new key performance indicators (KPI) tool introduced in 2012, GE now compiles a scorecard for suppliers on how well they’re managing issues related to the environment, health, safety, labor rights, security and human rights.
    ***For example, Condon said one of the key indicators is whether a facility has a well-trained environmental specialist. The supplier could receive a score from zero to five, depending on the environmental expert’s level of training…
    GE doesn’t have enough data yet to show how well the KPI tool is working, but it has seen that suppliers who score better on their management systems tend to have fewer audit findings and less severe findings, which means GE can audit them less often, Condon said.
    To help suppliers build these EHS management systems, GE has partnered with local and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) on training and education programs…
    GE was one of several founding partners of the Environment, Health and Safety Academy launched in 2009 in China’s Guangdong Province, which is known as the “factory to the world.” …
    The academy works with local universities and other organizations to provide training in essential skills for EHS management, including labor practices, and in sustainability leadership, through courses on greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency, water resources and related topics.
    GE, Pfizer, Honeywell, Wal-Mart and other multinational companies have provided training materials for the academy, which teaches a combination of local regulatory requirements and international best practices…
    Hundreds of global companies have sent their EHS managers and suppliers to be trained in ISC’s program in China…

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-07/big-companies-step-up-efforts-to-trim-environmental-risks-in-supply-chains.html

  74. Folks, farther up in this thread it was asked who was (likely) funding (wo)mann (named Sue).
    Sore@$$, er, Soros was mentioned. True. There are others.

    There is an ENORMOUS amount of money at stake here, and even a little skimming off the top as the locusts are wont to do will be quite a lot….we need to make EVERYONE aware of the magnitude of what’s going on here…as it’s OUR MONEY that is being redistributed…

    There are folks involved here who sold out their own people(s) in WWII….they’ll sell us out too, and not bat an eye….
    Steyn is just a stone in the road, as it were….silence him, silence opposition…silence truth… BUT, truth will out….no matter how much money is involved…

  75. “pat says:
    February 8, 2014 at 5:22 pm
    doubt if Big Business with help fund Steyn’s defense given HP, Walmart & GE are busy finding work for “WELL-TRAINED environmentalists”. much, much more at the link:”

    Ironic, considering that China is one of, if not the biggest polluter(s) in the world, not to mention
    one of the largest users of questionable materials (Phtalates,melamine, etc.).

    Have to laugh, HP used to be a leader in packaging, environmental responsibility, design, etc.,
    now they’re just a follower (hey, I’ve reviewed PSP’s, etc., so I know…).

    Big business will go where the money is, that’s why they’re big….as I said before, the truth will out…but it’s up to US to do it…

  76. “Piltdown” Mann, like his namesake, cobbled together authentic pieces to make a constructed fraud. No wonder he sought to the end to stall examination of those pieces.

  77. It is vital that we chip in to support Mark Steyn, so that the SLAPP-happy warmists know that we will support any defendant in these cases, whether they can afford to defend themselves or not, and whether or nor the defendant is eloquent and persuasive, like Steyn,

  78. Policycritic: Freedom of speech is not contingent upon whether the speech is a lie or not. You’re free to lie in this country as a Florida judge found in the case of a suit against Fox News over a decade ago. The judge ruled that Fox News was not required to tell the truth. Maybe you’re Canadian; broadcasters can go to jail for lying, as a I understand it.

    Given the degree to which Policycritic and the writer that Policycritic linked to misrepresent the case, it’s probably fortunate for them people aren’t required by law to tell the truth.

    The case is New World Communication of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre. The court held that the plaintiff, Akre, shouldn’t have been allowed to sue the defendant under the state’s whistleblower statute. The statue applied only if the employee reported a violation of an “adopted rule,” and the court held the violation of FCC policy that Akre alleged the defendant had violated was not an adopted rule.

    It’s true, as the linked to site claims, that “the court did not dispute the heart of Akre’s claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.” It’s equally true that the court didn’t agree with Akre’s claim. The court had no need to decide the question either way, so it didn’t. The article claims “the attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.” Some form of that may well have been part of Fox’s argument, but as anyone who knows anything about the law realizes, that doesn’t mean they admitted lying or distorting news reports. They likely argued both that what they reported was true and undistorted, and that even if it weren’t, they still couldn’t be sued because of it. That sort of “arguing in the alternative” may seem slightly odd in normal life, but it’s commonplace in legal arguments. In fact, according to a Wikipedia article, Reason magazine “noted that Akre’s argument in the trial was that Akre and Wilson believed news distortion occurred, but that they did not have to prove this was the case.”

    Both Akre and her husband, also a reporter, sued on a number of claims. Her husband lost on all his claims, and Akre won only on the later-overturned whistleblower claim.

  79. Louis says: @ February 8, 2014 at 9:39 am
    Here’s a suggestion: Buy a Steyn gift certificate. When it arrives, tear it up….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Oh, NO, don’t tear them up.

    There is so much fun you could have with those gift certificates. Get a bunch of friends to buy them and send them to:
    1. Local newspaper editor
    2. Local college environmental or poli sci department
    3. local library
    4. Mikey M.

    I vote for # 4

  80. Thanks, MJW; policycritic laid her little egg and is off in headless pursuit of another bit of falling sky.
    ===========

  81. What beats me is how Mann gets any work done given that he appears to spend all of every day abusing people who disagree with him. How do his employers run with this?

  82. Moderator: You missed “Readers might want to read what Dr. Curtry has to say about all of this in her essay”

    First noted at:

    M Simon says:
    February 8, 2014 at 7:37 am

    “Dr. Curtry” ???????????

    [Most errors, once pointed out, can be corrected. Thank you for the observation. Mod]

  83. Re Steyn’s absence of a Paypal link – that is very likely due to how Mark runs his business ventures as a writer, personality and publisher. A Paypal donation is problematic from an income reporting perspective, as he currently can expense out much of his costs due to the nature of his business enterprise. He is not a registered charity.
    I would NOT suggest using the gift certificate, or mailing it to anybody. The less cost attached to it is best for Mark – they are cheap to produce, are an expensable liability, but something he must honour if they are presented.
    Better, buy his books and enjoy them. Pick up a couple of gift certificates at the same time as your “donation”. Use them for bookmarks….:)

  84. Durn, didn’t close the italics tag properly after the first use of the word “donation”, if mods wish to fix.

  85. Soros seems an Alpha predator to me; a genius, neither left nor right. Nevertheless, his pack of paid leftie mouthpieces ‘worry the prey’ efficiently, which is the United States economy. We are not privy to his investments, but looking at the history, his game seems to be betting against economic foundations. Pure speculation, but might he be massively short on, say, coal equities and/or positioned to take advantage of a weakening U.S. dollar? Throwing it out there. These NGO’s do a marvelous job of sowing seeds of doubt in the citizenry and planting real obstacles in the road to a healthy economy. Why?

  86. Propaganda should never be exposed to doubt. That is why Mann and the others will never subject themselves to debate. With debate brings doubt. With doubt discussion. With discussion comes examination. With examination destruction of propaganda.

  87. Mr. Steyn is being sued for claiming that Doctor Mann manipulated his data. Not that he made a bad pun about tree rings. Being dragged into court for detaining Dr. Mann’s work will put him in the uncomfortable position of having to actually prove that his accusations have some merit and are not meely cheap slander.

    In this blog, Mr. Steyn stated “Which brings us to Michael Mann, the fake Nobel laureate”. It would seem that he cannot stop himself from committing liable as he tries to belittle his targets.
    ”The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other “scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports”, with a personalized certificate “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC,” celebrating the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore.[50][51] [52][53] (source-Wikipedia)

    I notice the legal team provided by National Review founded by the late William F. Buckley has withdrawn from the case because of Mr. Steyn’s unsupportable comments about the presiding judge. Mr. Steyn is having some trouble recruiting and financing his own legal team, at the moment.

    I did a quick check on Dr. Judith Curry and she has not done any research on long term climate change. Her comments relate to “rushing to judgment” and are not based on any research she has done on the subject, regardless of her field of specialty. Call me when someone collects actual data that contradicts Dr. Mann’s studies.

  88. Under Wikipedia, Vexatious Litigant, one of the labeled Vexatious Litigants is the Church of Scientology.

    Perhaps Steyn could get the “Church of Climate Change” (previously known as the “Church of Global Warming”) declared as a Vexatious Litigant. It is definetly a Religion to them and to deny is to be labeled a Heretic.

  89. Re Mr. Jan says:
    February 9, 2014 at 7:27 am

    ————————

    Nonsense. He doesn’t have to prove Mann manipulated his data. All he has to prove that he believes Mann manipulated his data and didn’t maliciously make up that fact, which should be easy to do, since there are thousands of people out there, many of them climate scientists, who believe the same thing and have been expressing that belief on websites, in books and periodicals and in pretty much every form of media communication.

    Mann claimed himself to be a Nobel prize winner in his complaint, which was later amended to remove that false claim. Here is Steyn on that:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332396/nobel-warming-mark-steyn

    You write: “I notice the legal team provided by National Review . . . has withdrawn from the case.” Correction: Steyn fired his legal team. And for good reason. He wants to go to trial and not engage in endless appeals which only end up enriching lawyers.

    You write: ” Call me when someone collects actual data that contradicts Dr. Mann’s studies.”

    What’s your number? I want to give you the link to Steve McIntyre’s website. He proved that the hockey stick graph is a product of statistical techniques that don’t pass muster. So it might be true that Mann didn’t “torture and molest the data,”–although I believe he did– but certainly he tortured and molested prescribed statistical methods.

    When Steyn calls the hockey stick “fraudulent,” it is not necessarily an accusation that Mann committed academic fraud, although it appears that Mann did do that, a subject which will obviously be explored in depth at the trial. It could mean that he believes Mann used data that was incorrect and didn’t know it. And that the constant and repetitive use of the hockey stick to sell the flawed theory of AGW as buttresesed by the hockey stick graph is fraudulent.

    Mann is a government operative in this and is using the apparatus of the state to crush first amendment rights. You appear to be in favor of that. Why?

    Your statements about Judith Curry are not actionable, but Mann did make an actionable defamatory statement when he described her Congressional testimony as “anti-science.” Would you support her lawsuit against Mann if she chose to file one?

  90. Mr. Jan says:
    February 9, 2014 at 7:27 am

    “Being dragged into court for detaining Dr. Mann’s work will put him in the uncomfortable position of having to actually prove that his accusations have some merit and are not meely cheap slander. “

    Nope. Mann has to prove they have no merit, and further, that Steyn knew they had no merit.

    ” Call me when someone collects actual data that contradicts Dr. Mann’s studies.”

    Sorry, not our job. We can’t spare the rolodex entry for every minor crank who ignores all the studies already available.

  91. Judge Weisberg’s opinion was pathetic. Instead of “Viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, . . . ” he should have viewed the facts in the light most favorable to the First Amendment rights of the defendants. Here is a case, virtually indistinguishable in points of law from the Mann/Steyn case, in which the courts determined that the D.C. Anti-SLAPP statute did apply to a defamation case:

    ww.rcfp.org/sites/default/files/docs/20130627_130516_boley_opinion.pdf

    The only substantive difference that I can see between the two cases is that the defendants were liberal journalists in this case and not aggressive conservatives as is the case with NR and CEI, Steyn and Simberg.

    I sense that Weisberg is going to run a trial that will be prejudicial to the defendants and that Steyn et al could be found guilty of defamation with malice aforethought. But I predict that that verdict will be quickly overturned on appeal. There is simply no case law that I can find that would support a finding of defamation in this case. Mann is a public figure and has every means at his disposal to respond vigorously to to the accusations and adverse characterizations of him. He’s written books, runs a website, appears regularly on media and has columns published in the New York Times. The idea that he is not a public figure who can’t defend himself and his scientific findings is ludicrous.

  92. Potter Eaton says:
    February 9, 2014 at 9:49 am

    ” It could mean that he believes Mann used data that was incorrect and didn’t know it.”

    Perhaps it was unconscious self-delusion – he just knew the answer beforehand, so presenting only data supporting that answer is, in his mind, merely dispensing with the chaff. Such activity can fairly be characterized externally as cheating.

    fraud·u·lent [fraw-juh-luhnt]
    adjective
    2. given to or using fraud, as a person; cheating; dishonest.

  93. ” Bart says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    February 9, 2014 at 10:07 am “

    Mod – if you feel my comment at February 9, 2014 at 10:07 am is a little too edgy to allow, I fully understand. It is sad that Mann’s effort at suppressing speech could have such an effect, but I understand that this site must also be careful in what it allows to be published. Too bad you don’t really have sacks of Big Oil money lying around to engage in protracted lawsuits, as apparently some people do from some source or another.

  94. How could Mann not have known about this? He was the one who hid contrary data in his “censored” ftp file.

    You can see the result if he had used the data: there would have been no scary “hockey stick” warming in his chart.

    Can’t have that, not if you’re the great Michael Mann, boy wonder.

  95. Here’s an interesting 12 minute debate between attorneys Roger Simmons and Ken Starr in 1994 on the Moldea v New York Times case in which the appeals court actually reversed itself ten weeks after issuing a decision:

    Simmons seems to be in shock over the reversal.

    This case was over a book review in the Times that attacked Moldea’s book on organized crime influence in the NFL. Starr makes the interesting point that book reviews and punditry are given extra leeway in the opinions that they publish, which is relevant to the Mann/Steyn case.

  96. Mr. Jan says:
    February 9, 2014 at 7:27 am

    “Mr. Steyn is being sued for claiming that Doctor Mann manipulated his data.”

    Really? Is that what Steyn said? Since you can write, I’m assuming you can also read. The following is the entirety or what Steyn wrote. Feel free to point out where he said “Doctor Mann manipulated his data.”

    [Mr Watts, feel free to delete this post if you like. It’s just that I’m sick of trolls with reading disabilities putting words in Mr Steyn’s mouth]

    Steyn’s The Corner minus the Simberg quote:

    In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal:

    [snip simberg quote]

    Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.

    If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? 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.

  97. “NoMiddleAgeWarmingOnMySchtick says:
    February 9, 2014 at 7:42 am
    Under Wikipedia, Vexatious Litigant, one of the labeled Vexatious Litigants is the Church of Scientology.

    Perhaps Steyn could get the “Church of Climate Change” (previously known as the “Church of Global Warming”) declared as a Vexatious Litigant. It is definetly a Religion to them and to deny is to be labeled a Heretic.”

    Actually would be interesting to see the $cieno Church go after Mann for some reason (ring of fire patented as the reason for global warming, volcanos from way back when caused cooling, etc., etc.). Kobrin and Moxon versus the Marlboro Mann…they’d be tied up in court for a billion years at least…meanwhile the rest of us could get on with life and prepare for the cooling, and try to get energy prices down before it hits….

  98. Seems like there is a danger in this Mann v. Steyn suit. Are scientists going to get an elevated status in the courts? I really don’t think we want that. Scientific debates can be some of the most vituperative debates that there are. Seems like there is a risk that judges are setting themselves up to settle the science. In the end will it be? Mann is a paid scientist but Steyn earns money by writing therefore Mann is right and Steyn is wrong. Frankly I think Mann should just admit that as a researcher utilizing public funds he qualifies a “public figure” which would make it more difficult for him to sue. Shouldn’t people be able to call out when they feel a scientist is wasting money by using dubious methodologies, ie hiding the decline. It was Mann’s colleagues that described him as “hiding the decline” perhaps he should be suing them.

  99. AGW “scientists” could find 2 100 dollar bills on the sidewalk one minute apart, then would spend the next 5 days writing a paper claiming they’ll be millionaires the day after its published …

  100. HankHenry says:

    Frankly I think Mann should just admit that as a researcher utilizing public funds he qualifies a “public figure” which would make it more difficult for him to sue.

    There’s no reasonable question that Mann is a public figure, but not because, he’s researcher utilizing public funds, which isn’t enough, and shouldn’t be enough. He’s a public figure because he’s an editor of the IPCC report, operates a website devoted to climate change, writes books about climate change, writes editorials for widely-circulated newspapers about climate change and the environment, and uses social media to publicly disparage skeptics of the “consensus” view of climate change.

  101. Question
    So who is this guy Mann?
    He sounds like a real Ahole
    : )

    [Reply: do a search using keyword ‘Mann’. Make up your own mind. ~ mod.]

Comments are closed.