Site of Mann-Steyn legal showdown catches fire

Mark Steyn writes about this bit of an omen for the upcoming heated legal battle:

Image

In other news, the DC Superior Court building – scene of the forthcoming Mann vs Steyn trial – caught fire today. Fortunately, I have a watertight alibi.

Wasn’t it Oliver Wendell Holmes who said there is no right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded courthouse?

D.C. Superior Court’s main courthouse is closed for the day after a small fire.

A court spokeswoman says the fire broke out in the Moultrie Courthouse on Indiana Avenue northwest on Tuesday morning and the building was evacuated. She says because of smoke in the building and water damage, proceedings set to be held in the building are postponed until Wednesday. Jurors involved in cases being heard in the main courthouse should not report.

Cases being heard in other buildings will proceed as scheduled Tuesday and officials expect to resume full operations in the main courthouse on Wednesday.

Source: http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Superior-Court-Closed-After-Small-Fire-244897501.html

Meanwhile, Michael Mann-wise, Brandon Shollenberger is attempting to catalogue “the most egregious Mann misstatements, incompetent work or deceptions“. Feel free to chip in: it’s a worthwhile project, and fun for all the family.

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

Click the banner to support Steyn in the battle.

About these ads

72 thoughts on “Site of Mann-Steyn legal showdown catches fire

  1. Since global warming causes record breaking cold & snowfall, then surely the fire was caused by DC’s recent brutal winter weather.

  2. Does anyone have a clue why Steyn just doesn’t start a legal defense fund? Is there some kind of tax disincentive with that? Or tax incentive by collecting money through the sale of gift certificates?

    I just assumed he’d start a legal defense fund. I’m sure Rush Limbaugh would give him a buck or two.

  3. USA Today reports that some researchers believe they can predict El Niño much earlier. At the end of the article, there is a curious comment by Michael Mann. It sounds more like a statement from a propagandist than a scientist. First of all, no AGW skeptic (or climate change contrarian as he calls it) believes that climate change has “stopped” since it has been going on for eons.

    Secondly, El Niño is a natural phenomenon and the warming it causes says nothing about the effect of CO2 emitted by humans. So Mann’s statement is a silly statement on all accounts.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/02/10/el-nino-prediction/5368631/

    Quote from USA Today:
    [Researchers also say that an El Niño event may form, with about a 75% likelihood, later this year. This goes along with a prediction made last week by the U.S. Climate Prediction Center.
    “As the article notes, if this does happen, we will likely see a new global temperature record in 2015,” Mann said. “Perhaps that will put to rest once and for all the silly notion, promoted by climate change contrarians, that climate change has ‘stopped’.”
    “It of course has not, but the prevalence of neutral and La Niña conditions in recent years has temporarily masked the ongoing global warming trend.”]

  4. There is the scandal with the emails.

    There is the VA attorney investigation.

    There are the University hearings.

    Seems there would be enough to have a reasonable doubt

  5. “It of course has not, but the prevalence of neutral and La Niña conditions in recent years has temporarily masked the ongoing global warming trend.”
    ==========
    Wait just a minute. What happened to the Climate Science doctrine that El Niño and La Niña were the result, not the cause of temperature change?

    How can the effect be masking the cause? Or has Climate Science now suddenly gone over to the Dark Side and accepts Bob Tisdale has been right all along?

  6. Steyn has a very good piece at his website on Lysenko-Mann.

    “Below, Scaramouche says that I’m Galileo. Robert Tracinski says Mann is Cardinal Bellarmine, but then hits on a better analogy:

    Mann is attempting to install himself as a kind of American Lysenko. Trofim Lysenko was the Soviet scientist who ingratiated himself to Joseph Stalin and got his crackpot theories on genetics installed as official dogma, effectively killing the study of biology in the Soviet Union. Under Lysenko, the state had an established and official scientific doctrine, and you risked persecution if you questioned it. Mann’s libel suit is an attempt to establish that same principle here.

    Mann has recently declared himself to be both a scientist and a political activist. But in attempting to intimidate his critics and suppress free debate on global warming, he is violating the fundamental rules of both science and politics. If it is a sin to doubt, then there is no science. If it is a crime to dissent, then there is no politics.

    Just so.”

    http://www.steynonline.com/6084/timing-is-everything

  7. It would seem that Steve McIntyre is the best in the world at cataloging the many errors and flawed claims by Mann. Mr. McIntyre is brilliant at expressing these issues with extreme clarity and completeness. I would hope that some effort is being made to possibly engage him in this endeavor.

  8. rk says:
    February 11, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    There’s an interesting link in that column, interesting in that it makes fun of Begley and Revkin, but more importantly because it may be the first instance of Steyn’s tree-ring circus pun and also uses the f-word. Turns out Steyn said essentially the same thing back in 2009 on the NRO web site. Makes me think that the only reason Mann is suing this time is because Simberg brought up Penn State’s other notable resident, Sandusky. Here and I thought he was being so noble defending the sanctity of the science. Is there a statute of limitations for libel? I mean, if someone calls you an idiot in 2009 and repeats it 3 years later, can you then decide to take offense? Couldn’t someone take your silence on the matter as tacit agreement?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228696/crus-tree-ring-circus/mark-steyn

  9. Potter Eaton said:
    February 11, 2014 at 5:26 pm
    Does anyone have a clue why Steyn just doesn’t start a legal defense fund? Is there some kind of tax disincentive with that? Or tax incentive by collecting money through the sale of gift certificates?
    ————
    Tax disincentive : if Steyn were to start such a fund, obama would set the IRS on him.

  10. Mann’s statement; “As the article notes, if this does happen, we will likely see a new global temperature record in 2015,” Mann said. “Perhaps that will put to rest once and for all the silly notion, promoted by climate change contrarians, that climate change has ‘stopped’.” may mean that he knows that NOAA/NASA are about to make even greater negative adjustments to historical temperature records.

  11. In the “HarryReadme” file wasn’t there a line of code that produced a hockey stick even if random numbers were entered? (The fudge factor.) Was that Mann’s code or somebody elses?

  12. @Potter Eaton
    “Does anyone have a clue why Steyn just doesn’t start a legal defense fund? Is there some kind of tax disincentive with that? Or tax incentive by collecting money through the sale of gift certificates.”

    I read it this way: there have been so many wretched things said about so many climate realists which were parroted in the media as truths that opening a legal defense fund could cause PR problems. I someone who is demonized in the press were to contribute, Mann’s attorneys would play up that fact, “So-and-so is paying this guy to blah-blah-blah…”

    Having raised money through normal business ventures greatly weakens such specious arguments.

    I like the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st Century moniker. Quite right. It has proven very difficult to get one of these guys into court.

    Re the 2009 comment saying pretty much the same thing, the answer is sort of ‘yes’. If Mann was aware of it and Steyn can prove it, and nothing was done, at a minimum some explanation may be required.

    What McIntyre wrote about the hockey stick chart and its provenance was of course far more damning than anything else said since as it demonstrated conclusively, scientifically, that the chart was created through deliberate subterfuge, how that subterfuge was achieved, what measures Mann took to hide it and, after exposure to the world of science, what measures he took to sustain the original fabricated claims. The suit against Steyn is not ‘out of the blue’ it is a continuation of the latter set of measures taken to sustain the original, disproven claims.

  13. Steyn has a very good piece at his website on Lysenko-Mann.
    … and this quote from it blew me away:

    This has been disastrous for the integrity of science. Dr Mann, who is suing me for calling his hockey stick “fraudulent”, told The New York Times that my fellow Canadians McIntyre and McKitrick’s paper on what was wrong with the stick was “pure scientific fraud” (they didn’t sue, not being insecure dweebs) – and, even more tellingly, advised the Times not to mention the M&M paper at all. We wouldn’t want anything to get in the way of the “consensus”, would we?

    http://www.steynonline.com/6084/timing-is-everything

    Mann was the Team’s mouthpiece because he didn’t understand the words.

  14. Rumour has it that Jim Hansen short circuited the heaters. He’s a smart guy, just not an electrician.

  15. Bill Illis says:
    February 11, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    How did Mann’s “pants” get into the courtroom before the proceedings?

    ====================================================
    He backed in?

  16. Oh, so that’s what happened. I work right across the street and was wondering. But really, legions of cops, fire trucks, and ambulances at that court house isn’t all that uncommon.

  17. Bill Illis says:
    February 11, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    How did Mann’s “pants” get into the courtroom before the proceedings?

    ___________________________________________________________

    Teleportation just ask Scotty.

  18. ttfn says:
    February 11, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    ——————–

    ttfn: That is a great find. Can you imagine if Mann had sued Steyn then, in the heat of the early days of Climategate? He would have been excoriated by public opinion. But that piece shows Steyn’s genius and abiltity to cut through the nonsense and get to the crux of the argument. It was devastating to Mann and the IPCC authors. So Mann held his hatred of Steyn close to his vest and then three years later acted upon it. Steyn is just as specific in his accusation of fraud in that 2009 piece when he says “Confronted by serious questions from Stephen McIntyre, the dogged Ontario retiree whose Climate Audit website exposed the fraud of Dr. Mann’s global-warming “hockey stick” graph), . . .” as he was three years later in the piece quoting Simberg. He essentially repeated himself. Why is it so much more offensive now than it was then?

    No, what the little Mann did was wait until Steyn quoted someone else who made an incendiary analogy between molesting children and molesting data, an analogy that even Steyn found distasteful. He did that so he could tie Steyn and NR in with that kind of intemperate rhetoric.

    Selective outrage and tactical use of the legal process to squelch dissent. That’s what Mann is doing.

    You’ve linked a great article for Steyn to use in his defense because it thoroughly explains Steyn’s obvious antipathy for Mann, which derives from Mann’s corrupt rigging of the peer-reviewed process. That’s why Steyn dislikes Mann– he’s a soviet-style ideological scientist. It’s not only that Mann doesn’t want his scientific output to be challenged, he wants to destroy the professional lives of those who have alternative theories.

    In other words, Steyn’s contempt for Mann is eminently defensible from a scientific and intellectual point of view. As a polemicist, he was doing his job in alerting the public to scientific malfeasance. If he is convicted of defamation for that, we are all in very deep trouble.

  19. Bill Illis says:
    February 11, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    How did Mann’s “pants” get into the courtroom before the proceedings?

    Teleconnection, Remember when “the rain in Spain fell mainly in Maine”?

  20. ummmm

    Steyn also quoted a line by another conservative writer (Rand Simberg) that called Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.” (Simberg and the free market think tank for which he works, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, are also named in the suit.)

    http://www.salon.com/2014/01/30/a_defamation_lawsuit_may_kill_national_review/

    Im sorry, but that kind of hate speech against a private individual is simply slanderous. Willful and illegal. These guys are in REAL trouble. No wonder the National Review the American Enterprise Institute and Mr. Steyn all did everything the could to avoid having to participate in discovery.

    I see a big settlement coming to Michael Mann, I hope he turns them down and continues with the prosecution!

  21. ch quoted Mann saying:
    February 11, 2014 at 5:33 pm

    “As the article notes, if this (El Nino event) does happen, we will likely see a new global temperature record in 2015,” Mann said. “Perhaps that will put to rest once and for all the silly notion, promoted by climate change contrarians, that climate change has ‘stopped’.

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

    LOL! Is Mann really this stupid? Is his understanding of statistics really this bad???

    There has been 17.5 years of no warming trend, so a little temperature blip from a single El Nino even will hardly be sufficient to significantly change a 19-year (after next El Nino ends) flat/falling trends, especially after it will be followed by a La Nina event, which will more or less negate any short-term blip from the El Nino…

    There has already been two El Nino events (2003 and 2010) this century, which have not caused the temperature trend to rise…. A third one won’t change anything.

    When the next El Nino/La Nina cycle ends around the end of 2017, there will have been 21.5 years of flat/falling temperature trends. By that time, the discrepancy between climate model projections and observations should be so great (well over 2 standard deviations), there is no way CAGW can survive the Scientific Method….

    Yes, there are a few ifs, involved, but by the start of 2018, there will be falling sunspot activity, the PDO will be 10 years into its 30-yr cool cycle, the AMO will be close to starting its 30-yr cool cycle, the next solar cycle may be the lowest since 1715 and roughly 40% of ALL CO2 emissions since 1750 will have been emitted over just the last 21 years with no warming trend to show for it….

    Hey, what happened to the positive feedback loop CO2 was supposed to cause?? Oh, my…

    Hand waving and bogus dog-ate-my-homework excuses to explain away the lack of warming trend will be untenable by 2018…

    This puppy is toast.

  22. as soon as i saw the headline, i knew only Readfearn could have written this “thing”:

    12 Feb: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: The ‘pause’ in global warming is not even a thing
    All signs point to an acceleration of human-caused climate change. So why all this talk of a pause?
    The idea that global warming has “paused” or is currently chillaxing in a comfy chair with the words “hiatus” written on it has been getting a good run in the media of late…
    But here’s the thing.
    There never was a “pause” in global warming or climate change. For practical purposes, the so-called “pause” in global warming is not even a thing.
    The study in question was led by Professor Matt England at the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre…
    England told me:

    “Global warming has not stopped. People should understand that the planet is a closed system. As we increase our emissions of greenhouse gases, the fundamental thermal dynamics tells us we have added heat into the system. Once it’s trapped, it can go to a myriad of places – land surface, oceans, ice shelves, ice sheets, glaciers for example.”

    Media outlets across the world have extensively covered England’s paper…
    Andrew Bolt, News Corporation Australia’s in-house climate science mangler, could not hide his excitement that Professor England apparently now “admits” that global warming has stopped.
    Yet when it’s all put into context, ***practically all the signs show the impacts of human-caused climate change are trending dramatically in the wrong direction – just as they have been for several decades…
    Not so much a “pause” as a “fast forward”
    While some thought climate change was on “pause” the reality is that the world’s big fat fingers have been stuck on the fast-forward button.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/feb/12/global-warming-fake-pause-hiatus-climate-change

  23. @ jai mitchell
    February 11, 2014 at 8:20 pm

    —————————————

    Your understanding of the law in this case is on par with my understanding of nuclear physics. I was an English major in college.

  24. “But they have failed [Mann]! It’s the same people [Mann] who, again and again, have brought us to the brink of destruction [Mann]! Who’ve polluted our air [Mann], who’ve poisoned our water [Mann]! Now these scientists [Mann] have had their chance. Are these the kind of people [Mann] that you want talking to your God for you?”

    From “Contact”.

  25. iai mitchell says February 11, 2014 at 8:20 pm

    These guys are in REAL trouble. No wonder the National Review the American Enterprise Institute and Mr. Steyn all did everything the could to …

    Can I ask – are you deluded? Or possibly lacking in an exposure to, or an education in, any kind of rational thinking (methods or processes) resulting in this repeated exhibition of stupidity?

    Or are you ‘paid’, maybe? By the post or maybe ‘by the word’, throwing veritable dribble up onto these pages?

    Which is it iai?

    .

  26. There is a problem with the characterization of this trial as “the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st Century.” Scopes lost.

    I fear that is what we are going to see here, as well. Legal decisions in the US are determined more by who has the deeper pockets and the backing of the state, and less by who is actually in the right.

  27. jai mitchell says:
    February 11, 2014 at 8:20 pm

    ” … Im sorry, but that kind of hate speech against a private individual is simply slanderous. Willful and illegal. …”
    —-l
    Do you think the term “denier” would qualify as hate speech?

    After the whole affair has run its course, I predict that most of the (thinking) world will conclude that it was Mann after all, in the library, with the hocky stick.

  28. I’m not at all surprised. Obama can never give up power, so sooner or later he had to stage a “Reichstag fire”.

  29. Paul Pierett says: “There is the scandal with the emails.”

    \When it comes to demonstrating INTENT to defraud, these appear to be the easiest evidence for ordinary jurors to understand without expert knowledge of statistics.

    BTW, just what is a “jury of peers” in a case like this?

  30. I would never try to predict (project?) the outcome of a trial in which the most esoteric of legal nuance can drive the ultimate outcome. While I suspect that there was some untoward science involved in the creation of the hockey stick, amongst other possible transgressions, Steyn may (emphasis on ‘may’) have left himself exposed in stating – or even re-stating – an absolute (in my opinion). That said, I wish him the best and hope that any needed evidence to exonerate him is forthcoming.

  31. tancred says:
    February 11, 2014 at 10:09 pm
    “BTW, just what is a “jury of peers” in a case like this?

    Having read many of Mark Steyn’s articles, he has no peers. Case dismissed!

  32. Having read several of the examples at the Shollenberger link, and assuming those examples can be verified, I feel better for Steyn’s chances at prevailing. A great link. Reminded me of several claims made against Mann over the years. Cheers to Shollenberger for his undertaking.

  33. jai mitchell says:
    February 11, 2014 at 8:20 pm

    “Steyn also quoted a line by another conservative writer (Rand Simberg) that called Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.” (Simberg and the free market think tank for which he works, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, are also named in the suit.)

    http://www.salon.com/2014/01/30/a_defamation_lawsuit_may_kill_national_review/

    Im sorry, but that kind of hate speech against a private individual is simply slanderous. Willful and illegal.”

    ———————————————-

    Ummmmm….

    No, actually under US Supreme Court’s ruling in the Brandenburg v Ohio case, even HATE speech is protected under the 1st Amendment….

    Hilarious satire, which Steyn excels, is certainly MORE than protected under the 1st Amendment right to free speech and doubly protected under the freedom of the press, which is also a separate provision of the 1st Amendment…

    About the only types of speech that aren’t protected under the 1st Amendment are: child pornography, speech advocating the VIOLENT overthrow of the US government, verbal threats of bodily harm, sexual harassment and malicious, intentional and knowingly false statements about a non-public figure that has caused substantive damages….

    Mann doesn’t have a case…

  34. while u discuss mann/steyn, please note this:

    12 Feb: Bloomberg: Mark Drajem: Capturing Carbon May Add 80% to Electric Costs: Official
    Capturing carbon from coal-burning power plants would increase the cost of electricity at those facilities by as much as 80 percent, more than utilities would get by selling the carbon, an Energy Department official said.
    Julio Friedmann, the deputy assistant secretary of the Energy Department, told a congressional hearing today that his office is working to develop joint carbon-capture projects with utilities. As the technology advances, costs to install the equipment can be cut in half, he said.
    “We cannot attract private investment in the first plant, absent government support,” Friedmann told a panel of the House Energy and Commerce committee. “We need second-generation large pilot projects” to bring down costs, he said…
    “We still don’t have a replicable model,” Louisiana Republican Representative Steve Scalise said. “Consumers are concerned about whether or not that’s going to increase their electricity rates.”
    Friedmann said the first carbon-capture plants will increase the cost of building and operating a plant by 70 percent to 80 percent for wholesale electricity rates. Those plants can recoup about half the cost by selling the carbon dioxide…
    The Energy Department provided $270 million to Southern Co. (SO) for its carbon-capture plant in Kemper County, Mississippi. Southern will sell the carbon dioxide it captures to oil drillers, who use it to boost production in old oil fields…
    “Kemper has a special place in our hearts,” Friedmann said. The company has plans for future plants that would use similar technology, he said.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-11/capturing-carbon-may-add-80-to-electric-costs-official.html

  35. Larry Hamlin, I haven’t talked to Steve McIntyre about this project, but I’ve long followed his work. He’s responsible for me even following Michael Mann’s work (I became intrigued when I stumbled upon his pre-Climate Audit website). Without his efforts, I’d never be able to do a project like this. That said, while I hope to have him review/comment on the posts I write, I don’t expect him to get extensively involved.

    Gunga Din, definitely not. That file had nothing to do with Michael Mann’s work, and while his methodology definitely mines for hockey sticks, there’s no single line responsible for it. And it’s not because of any “fudge factor” (that’s a separate issue all together).

    Fabi, not only can those examples be verified, I’ve already begun writing a series of posts which demonstrate them (including references for verification of what I say). I wrote the first post in the series shortly after the one linked to in this blog post. You can find it here.

    That post was up less than 24 hours after the introductory post. I can’t guarantee the rest will go up that quickly. My goal is to have a new post in the series up every two to three days.

  36. Potter Eaton said at: February 11, 2014 at 5:26 pm
    “Does anyone have a clue why Steyn just doesn’t start a legal defense fund? Is there some kind of tax disincentive with that? Or tax incentive by collecting money through the sale of gift certificates?”

    Mark Steyn has written that he does not like the very idea of such a fund. He would rather just fight for his right to write what he wants, especially since American libel law provides a steep standard for public figures, like Michael Mann, to prove actual malice. Parody is completely protected. I’d bet my last dollar that he wins. In Canada they tried the same type of witch hunt against Steyn, and he not only won, the case caused the Canadian law against inconvenient writing to be repealed. If we can’t lampoon and parody a public figure (and self described political acticist) like Mann, then the first amendment is not worth the parchment it was written on.

  37. That Guardian reference above also contains this little gem:

    “Here’s a chart from Australia’s CSIRO science agency showing sea level rise in recent decades. The drop you can see around 2011 was actually down to water being temporarily stored on the Australian land mass following the major flooding and rainfall event that year.”

    Doing a back of the envelop calculation tells us that the whole of Australia was covered by 20cm of water on average. I know they have had localized flooding down under, but I must have missed something in the news.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50834/abstract

  38. Reply to Ed Zuiderwijk,surely they will soon have to take into account the displacement of all of the ships that sail the oceans if they are being that silly.

  39. Ed Zuiderwijk says: February 12, 2014 at 1:58 am
    “Doing a back of the envelop calculation tells us that the whole of Australia was covered by 20cm of water on average.”

    Wrong envelope. They are talking about recharge to the aquifers, which had been depleted. The artesian basin is enormous. Basically, 20cm more of water seeped into the soil than emerged.

  40. pat says:
    February 11, 2014 at 8:45 pm
    as soon as i saw the headline, i knew only Readfearn could have written this “thing”:

    12 Feb: Guardian

  41. “Im sorry, but that kind of hate speech against a private individual is simply slanderous. Willful and illegal.”
    Sandusky should be insulted to have been compared to Mann.

  42. @ Michael Gersh
    February 12, 2014 at 12:43 am

    ————————–

    While I agree completely with the sentiment, I don’t see the connection between Steyn defending himself vigorously and his refusal to resort to a legal defense fund. There are probably tens of thousands of people who would love to fight with him and will contribute to assure he gets the very best lawyer(s) to help him prevail in such a case.

    I also think that this particular judge may have it in for the defendants, based on his wording in denying the motion to apply the antiSLAPP statute. In that opinion he said. among other things prejudicial against the defendants, ” Viewing the
    allegations of the amended complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff . . . ” which to me shows judicial bias from the start. Does he have to view every spurious complaint in that light? I think he had a duty to view the allegations in the light most favorable to the First Amendment. He essentially ignored the anti-SLAPP statute and gutted its intent. If there ever was an anti-SLAPP case, this was it.

    I do however believe that even if Judge Weisberg turns this into a soviet-style show trial and encourages a judgment against the defendants, that it will be reversed. I’ve looked at a lot of the cases mentioned in the complaint and the responses and If Mann wins this in the end, our First Amendment rights are nullified. It’s that simple. The Appeals Courts will most likely set aside any judgement against Steyn et al.

    Here’s the judge’s ruling:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2014/01/MannvNR-1-22.pdf

  43. Potter Eaton says:
    February 11, 2014 at 8:04 pm

    “Can you imagine if Mann had sued Steyn then, in the heat of the early days of Climategate?”

    Indeed. I imagine the Merry Mitchells of the world would have had a difficult time keeping a straight face coming in here armed with nothing more than a Salon clip and righteous indignation because “Steyn also quoted a line by Mann where he threatened to blacklist a science publication for not going along with the consensus.” Doesn’t quite have the same ring, although I have no doubt that the Merry Mitchells of the world would have made the attempt. Their thug Mann has labelled real scientists #AntiScience, cheered on other scientists as they had editors removed, threatened to blacklist journals who dared to stray from their consensus, accused McIntyre of scientific fraud, engaged the power of the state to silence his critics, etc. – and the Merry Mitchells of the world are all okay with that.

    Steyn writes, “I don’t care for all this beyond-the-pale stuff, because the pale is already way too shrunk. And, aside from anything else, once you get into the habit of banning and proscribing, your critical thinking goes all to hell. Many of us have seen one or two of those ill-advised shows on al-Arabiya or al-Jazeera in which some fire-breathing imam invites on a despised, Westernized, apostate woman in order to crush her like a bug, only to have her run rings round him. The Syrian émigré Wafa Sultan famously did it to Faisal al-Qassem and Ibrahim al-Khouli. It’s hardly surprising that a culture that puts so much of life beyond discussion renders its inmates literally speechless — to the point where, faced with, say, a school teddy bear innocently named Mohammed, the default opening gambit at the local debating society is to shriek “Allahu Akbar!” and start killing.”

    He then goes on to say that we’re not there yet, but I wonder. A woman who makes a foolish off-the-cuff tweet before embarking on a trip to South Africa is jobless upon her arrival. A comedian tweets a joke about transsexuals and is forced to write some self-serving pathetic apology to quiet the twitter gestapo (for some reason rednecks don’t enjoy that protection). And here we have descending on our favorite blog where free discussion is graciously encouraged by the host the Merry Mitchells of the world brandishing Salon clips, prayers for Steyn’s destruction and not a single example of “critical thinking.”

  44. @jai mitchell –
    Not hate speech, just the truth expressed through a forceful metaphor. And ultimately, the Womann-named-Sue is going to leave behind a particularly foul stench, right up there with Sandusky’s, at State Penn. The analogy is correct and deserved.

  45. I can’t wait for this trial. I am hoping it will be a benchmark for behaviour in what has become the cesspool of climate change debate. I personally think Styn has gone too far and will pay for it. Given his lawyer s have dumped him you could assume they think so too. Some people are clever with words, others are offensive. Steyn falls into category two. Like I say I can’t wait.

  46. Simon wrote: ” Given his lawyer s have dumped him . . .”

    From Steyn’s interview with Mother Jones:

    BLAKE: What led to the parting of ways between you and Steptoe & Johnson?

    STEYN: My decision to fire them.

    BLAKE: I understand that Steptoe plans to withdraw as the National Review’s counsel as well. Do you know why?

    STEYN: Yes. But I am not at liberty to say, alas.

    BLAKE: How do you plan to proceed now that you’re not working with Steptoe? Have you hired another attorney? Or do you plan to represent yourself?

    STEYN: Well, my check from the Koch brothers seems to have been lost in the mail or intercepted by the NSA to pay for their Christmas party, so for the moment I am representing myself. If you know your 1970s disaster movies, it’s like Airport ’75: the stewardess is flying the plane.

    BLAKE: I notice that you haven’t done any new posts for the National Review since Dec. 24, whereas normally you’re quite prolific. Are you still writing for NRO?

    STEYN: Yes, I’ve noticed that, too. But I am in the current print edition, gently calling for a little bit more of a spirited free speech campaign on this. That’s how I won and got the relevant law changed up in Canada.

    So you see, you’ve told a falsehood there, kind of like Mann claiming to be a Nobel Prize recipient in his complaint.

  47. Thanks to the internet, Steyn is going to win in the court of public opinion.
    The Mann needs no parody.
    As for the legal wrangling, I suspect a win in court for Mann & Funder’s, will turn to a loss.
    When you lose track of your lies it is really difficult to demonstrate damage.

  48. “Wasn’t it Oliver Wendell Holmes who said there is no right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded courthouse?”

    I don’t know. Why do you ask?

  49. RoHa asks, “Why do you ask?”

    I’m tempted to ask, “Why do you ask?,” but I’ll ask this instead: Did you read the link?

  50. ……..(Simberg and the free market think tank for which he works, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, are also named in the suit.)………….Im sorry, but that kind of hate speech against a private individual is simply slanderous. Willful and illegal……………..
    ________________________________

    First of all, you have made a willing misstatement of the facts in your own post. I have known Mr. Simberg for over 20 years. He is an aerospace engineer in southern California, as he has stated multiple times and even a cursory search for any information related to him would reveal this fact.

    Second of all, the analogy is apt in that the actions of the management at Penn State University to not investigate one of their own has parallels with their actions in many areas of their administration.

  51. @jai mitchell –
    Unless CAGW is a religion, protection against hate speech does not apply here.
    Uh-oh.

  52. goldminor says:
    February 11, 2014 at 10:34 pm

    ” What would possibly cause ‘Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer 8′ to disappear about 20 times over the last several years …”
    —-l
    Possibly Micro$oft.

    I believe you when you say that you do not believe you are wrong in this matter. I urge you to do the test I recommended for your own peace of mind, preferably using someone else’s machine. If you can demonstrate that warmists find you important enough to hack and are doing so by rolling back your Microsoft security updates, you will have performed a major service for seceptics everywhere :)

    If you are in the mood for experimenting, try Firefox.

  53. Mr Steyn seemingly doesn’t need/want financial support from abroad. No PayPal, no Visa = no money from me. Sorry.

  54. Odds on Mann believing the fire was an assassination attempt? He should write spy novels, we all know he’s got a flair for dramatic fiction.

  55. Brandon Shollenberger says:
    February 11, 2014 at 11:31 pm

    Gunga Din says:
    February 11, 2014 at 6:38 pm

    In the “HarryReadme” file wasn’t there a line of code that produced a hockey stick even if random numbers were entered? (The fudge factor.) Was that Mann’s code or somebody elses?

    Gunga Din, definitely not. That file had nothing to do with Michael Mann’s work, and while his methodology definitely mines for hockey sticks, there’s no single line responsible for it. And it’s not because of any “fudge factor” (that’s a separate issue all together).

    =======================================================================
    Thank you.
    Sometimes names or things are substituted for something related to them or that represents something that has a relationship to them. “Coal trains of death” for Hansen and CAGW or “The Hockey Stick” for deceptive or shoddy climate “science”. (I think the figure of speech is called Metonymy.)
    But I don’t want to have the actual facts mixed up.

Comments are closed.