Steyn countersues Mann for 10 millon dollars

Mark Steyn has decided to countersue Michael Mann for $10 million.

The legal document reads like a drama. See below.

FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

130. Plaintiff [Mann] has engaged in a pattern of abusive litigation designed to chill freedom of speech and to stifle legitimate criticism of Plaintiff’s work. He is currently suing Dr Tim Ball in British Columbia over a hoary bit of word play (“should be in the state pen, not Penn State”) applied to innumerable Pennsylvanians over the years. Having initiated the suit, Dr Mann then stalled the discovery process, so that the BC suit is now entering its third year – Mann’s object being to use the process as a punishment, rather than any eventual trial and conviction. See Mann vs Ball et al, British Columbia VLC-S-S-111913 (2011) (exhibit attached).

131.At the other end of the spectrum, Plaintiff and his Counsel have issued demands that have no basis in law, as they well know – including the preposterous assertion, in response to a parody video by “Minnesotans for Global Warming”, that “Professor Mann’s likeness” is protected from parody and satire…There is a smell to the hockey stick that, in Lady Macbeth’s words, “all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten” – nor all the investigations. And so Dr  Mann has determined to sue it into respectability.

132. At the same time, Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its respectability – by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field. See Cuccinelli vs Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia…

133. As with his previous legal threats and actions, Plaintiff has brought this lawsuit for the purpose of wrongfully interfering with critics’ statutorily protected right of advocacy on an issue of great public interest and constitutionally protected free-speech rights.

134.Plaintiff’s lawsuit was designed to have and has had the effect of inhibiting legitimate debate on the issues and public policy surrounding the theories expounded by Plaintiff and others and of restricting the free flow of ideas concerning the merits of those theories…

135. It is already having the desired effect. This very week, on February 19th, enraged by a Pennsylvania weatherman’s Tweet, Plaintiff instructed his acolytes through his Facebook and Twitter pages to call the CBS affiliate and demand to know whether this was “acceptable behavior”. Several went further and made threats to “add him to the lawsuit”, and similar. In the event that Mann succeeds in delaying discovery as he has in British Columbia, there will be three years for him and his enforcers to bully weathermen, parodists, fellow scientists and many others by threatening to “add them to the lawsuit”.

136. More particularly, Plaintiff’s lawsuit, with the intent to silence Plaintiff’s critics, has targeted Defendant Steyn, who has written articles critical of Plaintiff and his theories.

137. Such improper chilling of free, robust and uninhibited public debate over climate change taints and skews the democratic process and distorts the resulting governmental public policy response to alleged global warming.

138. Plaintiff’s lawsuit has damaged Defendant Steyn by interfering with his right to express opinions on controversial matters and causing him to expend time, money and effort in having to respond to this lawsuit.

139.The claims in Plaintiff’s lawsuit arise from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on an issue of publicinterest and Plaintiff’s lawsuit therefore violates the Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Act (Anti-SLAPP Act) …

140. As a result of Plaintiff’s campaign to silence those who disagree with him on a highly controversial issue of great public importance, wrongful action and violation of the Anti-SLAPP Act, Steyn has been damaged and is entitled to damages, including but not limited to his costs and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and will incur in the future in defending this action, all in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million, plus punitive damages in the amount of $5 million.

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM

142. Plaintiff’s wrongful interference with Defendant Steyn’s constitutionally protected rights of free speech and public expression and his engagement and use of the courts as an instrument of the government to carry out that wrongful interference violates the First Amendment and constitutes a constitutional tort for which Defendant Steyn is entitled to be compensated.

143. As a consequence of Plaintiff’s wrongful act, Defendant Steyn has been damaged and is entitled to damages, including but not limited to his costs and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and will incur in the future in defending this action, all in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million, plus punitive damages in the amount of $5 million.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Mark Steyn demands judgment as follows:

a. Dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in its entirety;

b. On his First Counterclaim, awarding him compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial,  but in any event, not less than $5 million and punitive damages in the amount of $5 million, plus his costs and expenses including reasonable attorneys’ fees;

c. On his Second Counterclaim, awarding him compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million and punitive damages in the amount of $5 million, plus his costs and expenses including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

d. Granting such other and further relief as to the Court seems just.

See the legal document here:

http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6109.pdf

Related: ‘I’m Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State, Ask Me Almost Anything!’

To contribute to Steyn’s legal fund, see http://www.steynonline.com/6048/give-the-gift-of-steyn

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

189 Responses to Steyn countersues Mann for 10 millon dollars

  1. Ron says:

    Very stupid but successful lawsuit by Mann and an excellent response by Steyn. I hope the court tosses out the Mann suit.

  2. profitup10 says:

    How about we close down all Government GRANT SCIENCE . . here is how and then we will have no more EAU/Mann fabrication of data sets and then computer modeling programs that no one can peer review as the based raw data and the math for the data sets have not been released? Take away the money and power from Washington all the Grant research will be gone.

    http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/article-v—group-overview-and-proposal.html

    http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-28th-amendment.html

  3. check out paragraphs #25, #103, #111, too.

  4. Steven Strittmatter says:

    Looks like $10 million times 2 plus legal fees!

  5. William McClenney says:

    I am not on Reddit, and will not be after they joined the purge list for non-believers in AGW.

    Over a year ago at a talk Mann gave at UCLA I attempted to ask Mann a question:

    “When do you think the Holocene will end?” Redditers feel free to pose the question.

  6. pouncer says:

    This pins Mann into the ring. Without the counter-suit, Mann has the option to withdraw at any time, for any stated reason, with no hope for Steyn, Simberg, or others to recoup even satisfaction of having fought long and hard. But now Mann is obligated to stay until BOTH he and Steyn agree to settle, or a judge throws one or another complaint out, or a jury decides.

  7. Larry Hamlin says:

    The climate alarmist community could have chosen to illiminate the flawed Mann hockey stick from further debate by acknowledging it is a product derived from improper use of statistical analysis. Instead this community chose to circle the wagons and try and arrogantly bluff it’s way out of this problem to try and protect what had become a symbol, although a grossly flawed one, of climate alarm propaganda. Now this decision to circle the wagons is going to allow the most intensive debate about this flawed product to be brought fully into the limelight with the result very likely to be a significant further undermining of climate alarmists credibility and competence. So be it.

  8. wws says:

    Somewhere, Vince Lombardi is smiling. “The best Defense is a strong Offense!!!”

  9. Dave says:

    Little Mikey Mann claims to be a “climate warrior”, but that’s only true when he’s on offense. When on defense, such as when asked a difficult question, he typically runs away (most likely to curl up into the fetal position somewhere). The “Mann” is incapable of debate unless it’s one-sided. So I for one am delighted to see Mark Steyn going on offense. Now we’ll see just how brave little Mikey is…

    Go get em’ Mark!

  10. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    The entire document is worth a read.

    Para. 111 is my personal favourite. It says

    Denies the allegations in Paragraph One-Hundred-And-Eleven of the Amended Complaint, and feels Plaintiff is going round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, like the circles that you find in the tree-rings of your mind.

    Richard

  11. Jon Jewett says:

    I figured it’s about time I stood up. Just sent a Grant to help get that $10 Mil. (By the way is that US$ or C$????) THAT would be quite a return on my investment: $50 for $10 Mil!!!

    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  12. Sweet Old Bob says:

    YAY! FINALLY! Go Steyn!

  13. See also:
    Climate Audit: MyIntyre: Feb. 17, 2014 Mann and the Oxburgh Panel

    In today’s post, I’ll look closely at the Oxburgh panel, one of the investigations cited in Mann’s pleadings. However, contrary to the claims in Mann’s litigation, not only did the Oxburgh panel not exonerate Mann, at their press conference, Oxburgh panelist David Hand, then President of the Royal Statistical Society, made very disparaging and critical comments about Mann’s work, describing it as based on “inappropriate” statistics that led to “exaggerated” results.

    Climate Audit, McIntyre, Feb 21Mann and the Muir Russell Inquiry #1

    … the Muir Russell inquiry did not “offer any opinion on Mann, who was not a part of CRU, but merely a collaborator with some of its scientists”. …

    I also plan a second post on an important topic arising from Muir Russell’s finding that the omission of data in certain graphs resulted in them being “misleading” and discuss whether these findings demonstrate the elements of “falsification”, as defined in standard academic codes of conduct.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/17/one-of-the-mann-steyn-lawsuit-claims-hits-a-rock/

  14. serving as scientific advisor to and appearing in a climate-change TV series starring climate experts Matt Damon and Jessica Alba, and is therefore a public figure.

    Hilarious.

  15. Jack Langdon says:

    Three Cheers! Fling funds folks, this is going to cost money – but it will be worth every dime to stop destroying our grandchildren’s economic future.

  16. MarkW says:

    Paul Homewood says:
    February 21, 2014 at 11:51 am
    —-
    Wouldn’t that open up Mann for a countersuit to at a minimum, recover legal fees.

  17. Lake says:

    William McClenney, Reddit comes off like a hive-mind, but it’s not. There’s an active ‘subreddit’ for climate change skeptics as well: http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/. It did indeed bother me that /r/Science tried to blacklist any climate skeptic pieces, but there was also a huge backlash, and that moderator got in trouble.

  18. clipe says:

    [Mann vs Ball 02May2012]

    $6.
    $10 for documents

    https://eservice.ag.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do

    Last Name, First Name
    Middle Name Role of Party
    On File Counsel Name
    Counsel Phone
    BALL, Timothy Defendant
    SCHERR, M.R.
    DOE, John Defendant
    MANN, Michael Plaintiff
    McConchie, Roger D.
    THE FRONTIER CENTRE FOR PUBLIC POLICY INC. Defendant
    ZIMMER, K.

    Hearing Date: 02May2012

    Hearing Time: 9:45 AM
    Hearing Location: Vancouver Law Courts
    List Type for the Hearing: Supreme Court Chambers List

    # Document
    Description Reason Result
    7 Notice of Application Chambers Application The end or conclusion of planned appearances

    9 Notice of Application Chambers Application Adjourned Generally

    Consent Order

    Order Granted as per Notice of Application #7 [10:18:45 AM]

  19. profitup10 says:

    Message to Mr. Mann:

  20. profitup10 says:

    left off quote:

    Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    William Shakespeare

  21. Richard G says:

    “137. Such improper chilling of free, robust and uninhibited public debate over climate change…”

    Delightful to see the word “robust” finally used in a way that brings a smile, not a grimace. Go get him Mark.

  22. vigilantfish says:

    I wish there was some other way to give Steyn money. I’ve already purchased everything he has on offer in the past and don’t need more stuff – nor do I know anyone who would want it (sadly). Until he comes to his sense and opens the way for direct donations, all I can do is cheer from the sidelines. Steyn is the man!

  23. John Tillman says:

    World Wildlife Fund should sue for ten bucks for each of the ten million birds & bats Greenmail has extorted out of taxpayers, so $100 million.

    Oh, but, wait, WWF (not World Wrestling Federation, now WWE for Entertainment) is on the CACA gravy train, too, despite cost of climate craziness to the endangered wildlife the gang purports to support.

  24. Paragraphs #114 through #127 are 14 Affirmative Defenses.
    They are a quick three page read.

  25. Jack Langdon says:

    vigilantfish says:
    February 21, 2014 at 12:19 pm
    I wish there was some other way to give Steyn money. I’ve already purchased everything he has on offer in the past and don’t need more stuff – nor do I know anyone who would want it (sadly).

    Just buy a gift certificate and don’t use it. That works for me.

  26. Tom J says:

    It’s sort of funny, actually. Some time ago activists and world saviors discovered the lawsuit as a potent weapon to use to further an agenda that they could not achieve legislatively. But, like so many things that started out with good (or perceived good) intentions, it took little time for the charlatans and opportunists to seize it. And, with their campaign contribution tip jars held out, progressive politicians found it advantageous to patronage both the naively earnest and the fraudsters. Thus, in Cook County Illinois we have obstetricians paying $300,000 (three hundred thousand dollars) a year in malpractice insurance and not even a glimmer of tort reform in sight.

    It’d be truly fitting if Steyn’s counter suit prevails. Who knows, maybe our climate science crowd might have to discover the expensive security of malpractice insurance. It would be truly fitting (and probably warranted) wouldn’t it? And, it would bring tears to my eyes to witness those very same insurance companies touting (to their policy premium benefits) catastrophic climate change now engaging in a tap dance around providing malpractice insurance for mistaken, costly public policy prescriptions from their benefactors, the climate scientists.

    Payback’s a bitch, isn’t it?

  27. pokerguy says:

    “I wish there was some other way to give Steyn money. I’ve already purchased everything he has on offer in the past and don’t need more stuff”

    Buy a Steyn gift certificate! I just bought one for 200 bucks and gave it to myself. Of course I’m never going to use it for anything. Best 200 bucks I ever spent.

  28. pokerguy says:

    My first reaction is pure joy. Finally! Someone with the guts to fight this bully.

    I’m assuming from this that Steyn has gotten himself an attorney? I hope so.

  29. Peter Miller says:

    As such a “Distinguished” meteorologist, the dodgy doctor relied too much on that famous Met Office quote a few years ago that “we are not very good at short term forecasts of a few weeks, but we are very good at long term forecasts of 50-100 years”.

    You are not supposed to question such ridiculous scientific statements, as you are told you can trust the ‘climate scientists’ who make them. The Hockey Stick was not supposed to ever be questioned, although it was such obvious nonsense to all but the most feeblest of minds.

    Mann has survived by not making his original data and its interpretation available, which is the reason why his case against Tim Ball in Canada has apparently now hut the buffers.

    There are supposed to be protections against vexatious litigants. They should now be enacted against the dodgy doctor.

  30. jrwakefield says:

    Oh, someone’s gotta make a movie about this, a climate version of the Scopes Trial (except we win). Get out the popcorn!

  31. aaron says:

    He’s not suing him for $10million, he’s suing him for $10 several times.

  32. cooler head says:

    Earlier this week on twitter, a local TV reporter in Pennsylvania tweeted out something about Mann’s frauds (vis-a-vis a Mann buddy being named new President of PSU). Mann and his shills on twitter respnded by threatening to sue the reporter and his TV station (WHP “CBS21″), until the reporter retracted his tweet. This should be added to the list of Mann’s abusive pattern & practice.

  33. Robert_G says:

    What a delightful surprise and delicious read! The way the complaints are written has all the “marks” of Steyn’s hand.

  34. Rob Ricket says:

    Pokerguy,
    How do we know you’re not bluffing?

  35. Nigel S says:

    profitup10 says: February 21, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    Yes, some more of my favourite bit from ‘The Scottish Play’

    Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
    Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
    To the last syllable of recorded time;
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
    The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
    Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more. It is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
    Signifying nothing.

    Macbeth Act v Scene 5 lines 17-28)

  36. Julian in Wales says:

    I am so glad I am not involved in this! Good luck Steyn

  37. Fabi says:

    After reading the counter-suit, it’s clear to me that Steyn has replied pro se.

  38. J Martin says:

    There could come a point when the cost to Penn University’s bank balance and reputation is seen as too great and they ask Mann to find employment elsewhere. I doubt that the US courts are suffiiently neutral or free from political interference or influence, and so I fear that they (the US judges) will find a way to see to it that Mann survives or even wins.

  39. hunter says:

    If Mr. Steyn does not get serious legal counsel soon, he is gion gto give this Mann on a platter.

  40. Political Junkie says:

    Steve McIntyre continues his ongoing serial skewering of Mann at Climate Audit with his normal commando-like precision and efficiency – “Mann and the Muir Russell Inquiry #1.” He points out that Mann’s Reply Memorandum contains a fabricated quote to support Mann’s claim that the inquiry “exonerated” him – very funny.

    “Had Mann’s Reply Memorandum provided the actual quotation, it would have confirmed National Review’s and CEI’s claim that the Muir Russell had confined its findings to “CRU scientists”, but not in the quotation as altered by Mann and/or his lawyers.”

    Note to Mike Mann: Pi**ing Steve M off is not a good game plan and is likely to result in great pain!

  41. Neil says:

    This may be the right moment to ask that one of our US lawyer friends enrich the understanding of those of us who live on the other side of one or more ponds, and
    don’t understand the second silliest (and, long ago, the second best) legal system in the world.

    Who is “John Doe?” Is “Richard Roe” his half brother, and if so, how did the plaintiff in “Roe v. Wade” suffer a sex change? Does “John Doe” have an address in Canada?

    I think there’s a good case for someone with the relevant knowledge to write a WUWT post comparing the world’s legal systems. Pointing out the strengths, and making fun of the deficiencies, of each.

  42. eyesonu says:

    Dave says:
    February 21, 2014 at 11:46 am

    Little Mikey Mann claims to be a “climate warrior”, but that’s only true when he’s on offense. When on defense, such as when asked a difficult question, he typically runs away (most likely to curl up into the fetal position somewhere). The “Mann” is incapable of debate unless it’s one-sided. So I for one am delighted to see Mark Steyn going on offense. Now we’ll see just how brave little Mikey is…

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

    That fetal position is much like an opossum does for defense. Mann is more like an opossum than a bear? Curl up and hope for some outside help? Stay inside his little protected cage? We’ll see.

  43. Mumble McGuirk says:

    Mark Steyn was scheduled to appear in Miami last week, but had to cancel, no doubt due to the demands of fighting Mann’s lawsuit. I so wanted to attend the talk, but now I cannot due to Mann’s actions. Can I sue, too?

  44. TonyG says:

    following comments – ignore

  45. Ox AO says:

    here is some of the video’s mentioned in the law suite:

  46. vigilantfish says:

    @ Jack Langdon – Thanks for the advice. Gift certificates it is! I guess that will leave me with a souvenir of my involvement, too.

  47. milodonharlani says:

    The place-holding names John Doe, Richard Roe & Jane Doe or Roe for unknown plaintiffs originated in England, but fell out of use there in the 19th century, but are still used in the US & Canada. The Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade was Norma McCorvey. Wade was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, former FBI agent, WWII in the Pacific naval officer & previous prosecutor of Lee Harvey Oswald’s murderer Jack Ruby.

  48. ATheoK says:

    Now CEI and Simburg should also countersue. Manniacal could be facing $60 million in judgment costs and damages before covering lawyer and court costs.

    Yum! That was an excellent bowl of popcorn! I can’t wait to pop another soon.

  49. Mkelley says:

    If Hollywood made a movie about this, Mann would be the hero.

  50. Arno Arrak says:

    This is all litigation, no science. I would like to bring up this scientific question: What determines the width of a tree ring? I was told many years ago that it was determined by variation of rainfall from year to year, but now I see it being used as a proxy for temperature. Can you really believe that tree rings will be thicker in a very warm and droughty year than in a cold, rainy year? That is something that could be settled by observation of tree rings in stands with known climate history.

  51. MattS says:

    Neil says:
    February 21, 2014 at 1:29 pm

    This may be the right moment to ask that one of our US lawyer friends enrich the understanding of those of us who live on the other side of one or more ponds, and
    don’t understand the second silliest (and, long ago, the second best) legal system in the world.

    Who is “John Doe?” Is “Richard Roe” his half brother, and if so, how did the plaintiff in “Roe v. Wade” suffer a sex change? Does “John Doe” have an address in Canada?

    I think there’s a good case for someone with the relevant knowledge to write a WUWT post comparing the world’s legal systems. Pointing out the strengths, and making fun of the deficiencies, of each.

    =============================================================================
    No particular need to ask a lawyer.

    “John Doe” and the female version “Jane Doe” are standard names used to refer to unidentified persons.

    These terms are not specific to legal setting.

    They are used in hospitals in reference to unconscious patients brought in without ID.

    In police / medical examiner settings they are used to refer to unidentified bodies/victims.

    From what I have read, John/Jane Doe defendants are most common in copy right suits alleging a copyrighted work was illegally posted on the internet. The suits are initiated against Doe defendants in order to get court ordered subpenas to force an ISP to divulge the real identity of the person behind a particular IP address.

    Not sure why the Mann suit would include a Doe defendant.

  52. Kevin Kilty says:

    Steyn did a nice job here as his own attorney–deny knowledge or malicious intent about practically everything and make the plaintiff prove it, but get a few digs and good point in where possible. #111 is probably a first in any legal response–I doubt any court has experienced such a thing.

  53. ossqss says:

    The suit has merit. Just look at the publicly available information and history and there is a definitive and undeniable pattern. I don’t think the said defendant has any idea of his current liability yet, but will very soon once counsel explains his now unavoidable positiin of weakness. I predict a fast settlement that will address both fronts of this litigious situation.

  54. Pittzer says:

    That is one jury I would love to be on. Not that I wouldn’t be fair and impartial…;-)

  55. Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
    Way to go Steyn!

  56. Gunga Din says:

    All I can say is, Thank you.
    It’ll take some work but it’s about time somebody made him put his (their?) money where his mouth is!

  57. Gunga Din says:

    PS What will Mann do when his backers realize GAGW and the Hockey Stick are a broken lever and switch to something else to promote “the cause”?

  58. Jimbo says:

    Fight fire with fire. Let him worry for a change.

  59. pottereaton says:

    Pokerguy at 12:55 says: “I’m assuming from this that Steyn has gotten himself an attorney? I hope so.”

    Just a guess, but it looks like Steyn might have had a lawyer prepare the outline of the response and the counterclaims and then Steyn applied the color and pizzazz.

    There will not be many boring moments in this trial with Steyn on the loose.

  60. David L. Hagen says:

    Free Speech for Mann but not for Thee

    The main issue in the suit is Mann’s appeal to authority in the first place. He cites the various government investigations as reasons why, as the DC Superior Court put it, “to question [Mann's] intellect and reasoning is tantamount to a [libelous] accusation of fraud.” Mann’s goal is to make it a legally punishable offense to question a scientist’s honesty or even his thinking method. . . .
    Mann, it turns out, routinely criticizes his own opponents in the harshest terms. And not just journalists like Steyn. Take Judith Curry, the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at the Georgia Institute of Technology. As Curry wrote on her blog:
    “You would think that someone who is so sensitive about people criticizing or defaming himself, that he would be very careful about defaming and insulting others. Sometimes it seems like Mann spends half his day suing people for defaming him, and then the other half of his day defaming others on Twitter. . . .”
    Indeed, Mann’s recent New York Times op-ed begins with a blanket defamation of anyone who has ever questioned his global warming orthodoxy, people he describes as a “a fringe minority” which “clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science,” promoting a “virulent strain of anti-science.”

    So basically, Mann wants a legal guarantee that he can dish it out, but he doesn’t have to take it. . . .
    Curry admits, “I have at least as good a case against Michael Mann for defamation as he has against Steyn.” . . .
    Whether she can be prevailed upon or not, Professor Curry’s case highlights the importance of this battle and the need to make sure that free speech is not just for members of the global warming establishment, but also for the rest of us.

  61. pottereaton says:

    ossqss says:
    February 21, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    The suit has merit. Just look at the publicly available information and history and there is a definitive and undeniable pattern. I don’t think the said defendant has any idea of his current liability yet, but will very soon once counsel explains his now unavoidable positiin of weakness.

    —————————————-
    I don’t think you understand what is going on in this case. Mann will soon be wishing the judge had invoked the anti-SLAPP statute. This case is about freedom of expression and the misuse of the courts to suppress information and opinion.

    That said, there are indications that the judge is prejudicial to the plaintiff in this case and that the decision might go to Mann in the first round. But if that does happen, it’s highly unlikely the verdict will survive an appeal. This is a case about constitutional freedoms. Judges take those freedoms very seriously.

  62. philincalifornia says:

    This is good. I haven’t had time to read it all, but if Steyn has standing to also countersue the fr*uds who exonerated Mann, then their insurance policy underwriters might be willing to settle, after some token sabre-rattling, as we all know here this is going. In any event, he’s going to be able to effect discovery on them, and get them in depositions to explain why they think (conspired) that the clownish hockey stick resembles the earth’s temperature record in any way.

  63. philincalifornia says:

    …. where this is going

  64. Please support Steyn – with money! I am not a rich man, but I shall make a donation a bit above the current status of my wallet.

  65. clipe says:

    “Mann’s latedt submission to the court includes a doctored quote. Blimey!”

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/

  66. Jim Bo says:

    According to Steve McIntyre, the report of Tim Ball’s judicial vindication in Canada is, alas, not accurate…

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/comments-on-mann-continued/#comment-124923

    REPLY: Yep, once again “Principia-Scientific International”, and specifically John O’Sullivan, is full of crap. I must have had 25 links today from PSI telling me “Ball has defeated Mann, and Mann is near bankruptcy” all comments of which I deleted because I knew just like Steve did that it was nothing but hype. – Anthony

  67. faboutlaws says:

    I think that April 1st, also known in the US as April Fool’s Day, should be an “everybody blog about Michael Mann” day. A couple of years ago it was done to Brett Kimberlin to great effect. Kimberlin and Mann, now, there’s two birds of a feather, especially with their proclivities to use the legal system to punish their critics.

  68. doondoggle9945 says:

    Rather than a gift certificate, how about setting up a paypal account for contributions?

  69. Tom Anderson says:

    Are parties in this action represented by counsel? It’s one way to cut through the irrelevancies.

  70. jbird says:

    @pouncer
    “But now Mann is obligated to stay until BOTH he and Steyn agree to settle…..” I doubt that Mann has the stomach for this. He will agree to drop his suit in exchange for Steyn dropping his. Whatever settlement is reached beyond that will be undisclosed. Much ado about nothing.

  71. William McClenney says:

    Lake says:
    February 21, 2014 at 12:04 pm

    Thanks Lake, I hadn’t kept up with that story. Maybe I will have to check Reddit out now.

  72. Ian W says:

    doondoggle9945 says:
    February 21, 2014 at 3:26 pm
    Rather than a gift certificate, how about setting up a paypal account for contributions?

    It may be that some ‘friendly’ tax man may take the view that such donations are income. Purchase of a gift certificate and not redeeming it, for tax purposes is a ‘liability’ that balances the income.

  73. Mike Busby says:

    faboutlaws Your suggestion is a good one. How about everyone makes an online claim about Michael Mann being a (whatever takes your fancy) and inserts quotes from his emails to prove it. His lawyers will go into melt down trying to sue several thousand individuals from every country that reads WUWT or Twitter. So for 28 hours the tweets start in NZ, the Australia etc and spread like wild fire across the internet. Lol suing me in Australia would be a tad difficult, not impossible just difficult.

  74. Orson says:

    What is the “Anti-SLAPP Act?” Which fuels Steyn’s counterclaim? My googling leads me to believe it is a 2010 District of Columbia Act, conveniently enough, also where Steyn is being sued by Mann:

    “The D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act of 2010 applies to suits based on written or oral statements regarding (1) an issue being considered by a governmental body; (2) governmental or official proceedings; or (3) issues of public interest made in a public forum. It also applies to suits concerning any expressive conduct involving petitioning the government or communicating with the public regarding issues of public interest.”
    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-district-columbia

    Thus, the Act is being put to good use by Steyn. Yeah, anti-Hockey Stick Team! Go Anti-Team, GO!

  75. Nick Stokes says:

    clipe says: February 21, 2014 at 3:17 pm
    “Mann’s latedt submission to the court includes a doctored quote. Blimey!”

    Blimey indeed. Read further, and you’ll find the horrifying truth. Back in July 2013, Mann’s lawyers misquoted
    “their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”
    as
    “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”

  76. NikFromNYC says:

    Boom.

  77. john says:

    Good. I will add that ‘certain’ authorities have been advised of other issues somewhat related.

  78. philincalifornia says:

    Mkelley says:
    February 21, 2014 at 2:01 pm
    If Hollywood made a movie about this, Mann would be the hero.
    —————————

    It would take a lot of make-up, but Sean Penn would be available, I’m sure.

  79. PJF says:

    “…all comments of which I deleted because I knew just like Steve did that it was nothing but hype. – Anthony”

    I had a feeling something like that happened when my comment didn’t post. Please be assured I commented and linked in innocence, following a link from Bishop Hill’s comments section. Hope I’m not in the dog house.

  80. Fabi says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    February 21, 2014 at 4:15 pm
    —–

    Those are not the two quotes in question. You’re being terribly disingenuous. Go back to CA and actually read the final two quotes highlighted in blue. Those are the two quotes in reference. You created the ones in your comment and are now passing propaganda.

    Fabi

  81. mpaul says:

    Nick, Nick, Nick. Tricky Nicky. No, no no.

    Full quote in the inquiry report:

    “The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted… On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.”

    Quote in Mann’s reply memorandum:

    Three months later, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report, prepared under the oversight of Sir Muir Russell. The report examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.

    Mann’s lawyers changed the meaning entirely. The MR report clearly limits this phrase to the CRU Scientists.

  82. Shano says:

    Years ago the GB Packers sold stock in their team which amounted to a certificate you could hang in your den. Wouldn’t it be nice to buy a piece of the $10 million lawsuit of M Mann. I suggest this for Mr Steyn for his supporters to have hanging in their den.

  83. clipe says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    February 21, 2014 at 4:15 pm

    “Blimey indeed” Read further Nick.

    But watch carefully here. The exact phrase within quotation marks doesn’t actually occur in the Muir Russell report: I noticed this because of the American spelling “rigor” rather than the English spelling “rigour” which would have resulted from a cut-and-paste. The actual quotation from the Muir Russell report (shown below) clearly limits its findings to CRU scientists,as National Review and CEI had asserted and contradicting both Mann’s complaint and blustery reply

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/

  84. Nick Stokes says:

    “Mann’s lawyers changed the meaning entirely.”
    The “doctored quote” does not change the meaning. The variation is inconsequential and has no such effect.

    But the surrounding text does not change the meaning either. It does not claim anything about Mann. Here is a little more of your truncated quote for context.

    ‘The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit”. Three months later, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report, prepared under the oversight of Sir Muir Russell. The report examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.”‘

    It’s in a section headed “University of East Anglia”. They make it quite clear the report is about CRU.

  85. Ron Cram says:

    mpaul,
    Nice find!

  86. agimarc says:

    Now I know where the comment went. Sorry about that, Anthony. Was afraid it was too good to be true. Cheers -

  87. Eliza says:

    This is the FIRST serious move to end all this AGW BS. This should be done with ALL the persons, organizations, Universities promoting this #### including IPCC, NOAA, NATURE (Published Hockey stick), GISS, Hansen, Gore all of them should be sued or begin to be sued for sums due to damages caused by their actions worldwide. Wake up world. LOL

  88. davidmhoffer says:

    Nick Stokes;
    But the surrounding text does not change the meaning either. It does not claim anything about Mann.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    For once we agree, the quote says nothing about Mann. My understanding being that Mann claims it says something about Mann.

  89. Gina says:

    A legal fund would lessen damages Mann is liable for. The online store is a separate business, so what he majes there is independent.

  90. Bill H says:

    Correct me if I am wrong, but there are TWO counter claims, not just one. So the amount of damages and loss is twice the amount.

    Thus 5 Million cost of loose + 5 Million in punitive damages is just count ONE.

    Counter claim #2 also requests a 5 Million cost of loose + 5 Million in punitive damages.

    Total Loss 10 million + 10 Million in punitive damages = 20 million…

    Then we heap on legal/attorney fees.. Ya know, this just might be a big enough number to get their attention..

  91. Bill H says:

    loss… I hate my auto correct some days….

  92. mpaul says:

    Ron, thx, but I only wish to have found it. Its SMc who found it. Check out his post on CA.

  93. Nick Stokes says:

    davidmhoffer says: February 21, 2014 at 5:24 pm
    “For once we agree, the quote says nothing about Mann. My understanding being that Mann claims it says something about Mann.”

    Good to have agreement. Mann does not change the meaning of the Muir Russell quote.

    He does claim that the report contributes to the exoneration of Mann. And indeed, while he is not mentioned by name, it does say good things about the hockey stick, and specifically the version in Fig 6.10 of the IPCC AR4.

  94. High Treason says:

    Mann will refuse to pay, maintaining his innocence till beyond the bitter end(like all habitual liars), so he will land in jail. His cell can then rightly be referred to as his” Mann Cave”, complete with his most famous sporting trophy, his hockey stick.

  95. bushbunny says:

    This is great news, now Mann can’t pussy foot around and stomp and holler like a spoiled child.
    He must have some financial backers and I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr Gore is involved. Go Mark and we are all in someway, you are acting for us too. Well done, and well done Anthony for you determined efforts to promote not only free speech but also science. Now michael Just count your pennies and if this suit is successful then watch more come to bully you back!

  96. Rick Spung says:

    “Mann does not change the meaning of the Muir Russell quote.”

    of course he does. he uses it to support his contention that he was exonerated by them, when we all know they weren’t talking about him. how could you be so stupid?

  97. davidmhoffer says:

    Nick Stokes;
    He does claim that the report contributes to the exoneration of Mann. And indeed, while he is not mentioned by name, it does say good things about the hockey stick, and specifically the version in Fig 6.10 of the IPCC AR4.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Nice try Nick.

  98. Gary Pearse says:

    High Treason says:
    February 21, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    “Mann will refuse to pay, maintaining his innocence till beyond the bitter end(like all habitual liars), so he will land in jail. His cell can then rightly be referred to as his” Mann Cave”,

    Oh he may worry about running into his Penn State colleague, Sandy.

  99. bnc lavelin says:

    Steyn’s obviously on fire. Is there no conservative lawyer working pro bono to take pity on him and douse the flames?

  100. Make sure Mark Levin has a copy of this. He will be good and dandy putting in a few jabs at Mann via his talk show. My guess is Mann will not jump the Mark Levin shark in the court house.

  101. John A. Fleming says:

    Yes he did doctor it to change the meaning. It is all of a piece. The Muir Russell quote is clear. It is only, only talking about UEA scientists. Mann’s claim is that all, all reports exonerated him. So he or his barristers subtly rewrote the Muir-Russell sentence to make it appear to all but the most careful readers (cue SMc), that Muir Russell exonerates the community of climate scientists, buth UEA and collaborators.

    Lawyering is as rigorous with words, as scientists ought to be with their maths. There is no doubt. That Muir Russell sentence was re-written, because as originally written, it did not support Mann’s claim. In fact, it contravened the claim, since Mann claims that “all” investigations exonerated him. The rewrite was deliberate, and malign.

    Language might be more flexible in ordinary everyday communication. But in Court, we present the written word as it actually is and was to the jury, real evidence, real facts, not one of the litigants shaded rewrites.

    Many time in Court, the jury’s decision is sealed by one statement of testimony or evidence Thus, we do not rewrite the witness’ spoken or written testimony. The Muir Russell statements, as they are written, are testimonial. A rewrite is a non-factual opinion, and has no merit.

    All of a piece? Make an extreme claim, and then play fast and loose with the facts and analysis, modify and obscure as necessary, and vigorously challenge all who disagree or question. It’s ancient wisdom: “Methinks he doth protest too much…”

  102. Chad Wozniak says:

    A breath of fresh air
    GO MARK STEYN, and tell the Womann-Named-Sue to stick it up HER ass.

  103. “Out dam spot,, out I say.l….”

    Blood guilt, dark red stains of blood, guilt abides, growing, chewing, glowering, near now, ever close, the breath faint but sure, comes.

  104. Thanks, Mark Steyn. You are in the right position, I hope the courts see it that way.

  105. Nick Stokes says:

    John A. Fleming says: February 21, 2014 at 6:23 pm
    “Yes he did doctor it to change the meaning.”

    How would substituting the exact quote change the meaning? Especially if you look at in the fuller context, not truncated (doctored?) as at CA, which, as I quoted at February 21, 2014 at 4:57 pm, makes it quite clear that they are talking about scientists at CRU.

    “Many time in Court, the jury’s decision is sealed by one statement of testimony or evidence”
    I don’t believe either the attorney’s motion in opposition or the Muir report are testimony or evidence.

  106. Ox AO says:

    This thread shows we have very little faith in our justice system

  107. Venter says:

    When Steve McIntyre says something and Nick Stokes responds to it, one thing will be 100% certain. Steve’s utterances will be 100% true, accurate and correct in wording and context. Nick Stokes’ statements will be weasel worded, deliberately designed to obfuscate, untruthful, misleading lies.

  108. ch says:

    Give Mann some credit. Mann is producing a chilling effect in a desperate attempt to slow down global warming.

  109. Alex says:

    The fact that Stokes is still yammering is proof of your statement, Venter. Blah blah blah. “White is black, up is down!” Squawk.

    Sadly, I’ve seen all too many published “peer-reviewed” science papers misrepresenting previous research in order to support a bogus but cherished belief. The rot infects the both the judicial and scientific realms — anywhere it’s tolerated.

    The bright light of truth, like that being shone by Steyn and WUWT, mean there are fewer dark (ignorant) corners for such creeps.
    Troll away, fool. It’s a hilarious monkey dance for the rest of us.
    Alex Avery

  110. tteclod says:

    Some insurance is cost-prohibitive.

  111. lee says:

    I like the phrase “Mann suit”- it conjures in the mind a photoshop job by those SKS guys.

  112. Gail Combs says:

    vigilantfish says:
    February 21, 2014 at 12:19 pm

    I wish there was some other way to give Steyn money. I’ve already purchased everything he has on offer in the past and don’t need more stuff….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So buy more and send it to Mikey, or Obama, or John Kerry or Al Gore or your Congress/Parliamentary Critter.

  113. Ossqss says:

    pottereaton says:
    February 21, 2014 at 2:48 pm
    ossqss says:
    February 21, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    The suit has merit. Just look at the publicly available information and history and there is a definitive and undeniable pattern. I don’t think the said defendant has any idea of his current liability yet, but will very soon once counsel explains his now unavoidable positiin of weakness.

    —————————————-
    I don’t think you understand what is going on in this case. Mann will soon be wishing the judge had invoked the anti-SLAPP statute. This case is about freedom of expression and the misuse of the courts to suppress information and opinion.

    That said, there are indications that the judge is prejudicial to the plaintiff in this case and that the decision might go to Mann in the first round. But if that does happen, it’s highly unlikely the verdict will survive an appeal. This is a case about constitutional freedoms. Judges take those freedoms very seriously.

    //////////////////////

    Well, I stand by my previous take. Unless the formal complaint brings other facets, it should not change.

    This could be fairly more significant than anticipated.

    We have a picture over time of behavior, that consumed over a short period of time (jury), will take on a different appearance.

    Just sayin, watch the Mann in timelaspe, like a flower blooming, and you see a pattern of behavior that is not obvious in realtime.

    There may even be thorns!

  114. HAS says:

    Nick Stokes February 21, 2014 at 7:01 pm
    So you agree that “scientists” in that quote refers only to the scientists at CRU, and not Mann.

    How then does this have any relevance to the point that Mann is making namely that the defendants “deliberately ignored evidence that their accusations of fraud, misconduct, or data manipulation were false”?

    I would have to say that reading the paras as written by Mann or his lawyers they purport to be citing “compelling (and admissible) evidence .. already before this Court unequivocally demonstrating that Defendants knew that no fraud existed”, not a jolly aside about how good the CRU scientists were. Had the magic “CRU” been included alongside the “scientists” in Mann’s stuff we would of course have been clear it was just a jolly little aside.

    You as a seasoned observer of such matters were not put off your stride, but these judges, they aren’t necessarily as on to it as you.

  115. Don says:

    Mann’s so vain…
    he prob’ly thinks that quote is about him.

  116. Alan Robertson says:

    Ox AO says:
    February 21, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    This thread shows we have very little faith in our justice system
    _______________________
    State the obvious, why don’tcha.

  117. davidmhoffer says:

    Nick Stokes;
    I don’t believe either the attorney’s motion in opposition or the Muir report are testimony or evidence.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    LOL. When an attorney puts something in a claim, what do you think it is OTHER than evidence? Are you deliberately obtuse or terminally naive?

    For what it is worth, having been in a few more court room scrapes than I’d like, let me make an observation. When you go into court misquoting something someone else said, you’re in deep kaka right there. Merryl Linch for example told a court they had no emails older than a certain date. It turned out there was a closet full of backup tapes from the time period in question. Bam. Default judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $1.1 Billion. The judge didn’t even bother to have the emails restored to see what they actually said.

    Mann has stepped in it big time here, and all your attempts to characterize the facts as something they are not are getting rather silly. But entertaining. Thanks for the laugh.

  118. North of 43 and south of 44 says:

    Tom Anderson says:
    February 21, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    Are parties in this action represented by counsel? It’s one way to cut through the irrelevancies.
    __________________________________________________________________________

    I hate to be the bringer of bad news but adding counsel doesn’t always cut through the irrelevancies. You need to read a few civil suits to see just how long and over what and for why things get all screwed up even with and sometimes because of counsel.

  119. Millon? Bummer typo. :-(

  120. Lord Jim says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    February 21, 2014 at 8:16 pm

    Nick Stokes;
    I don’t believe either the attorney’s motion in opposition or the Muir report are testimony or evidence.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Technically Stokes is correct, because (iirc) the pleadings state the material facts on which a party will rely, but not the evidence (documentary, testimonial, circumstantial, etc) by which those facts are to be proved.

  121. Nick Stokes says:

    HAS says: February 21, 2014 at 7:40 pm
    “Had the magic “CRU” been included alongside the “scientists” in Mann’s stuff we would of course have been clear it was just a jolly little aside.”

    It was. I think you’re looking at the wrong bit. Try pp 19/20.

  122. davidmhoffer says:

    Lord Jim;
    Technically Stokes is correct, because (iirc) the pleadings state the material facts on which a party will rely, but not the evidence
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    LOL. Misrepresenting the material facts is evidence upon which the court may well act. You can twist and turn the technicalities and definitions, but bottom line they told the court something that isn’t true. The court will take that into consideration regardless if what you “technically” refer to it as.

  123. HAS says:

    Nick Stokes February 21, 2014 at 8:49 pm

    “I think you’re looking at the wrong bit. Try pp 19/20.”

    P54 repeats the quote now showing it’s intended context as part of the argumentation. Difficult to see any reason for the omission of “CRU” but to leave the impression it was evidence about Mann that had been ignored by the Defendants.

  124. High Treason says:

    I can see if Mann loses the case or looks like losing, he will mysteriously commit suicide-probably by being pushed out a window like the 8 bankers who all mysteriously fell out of windows. Then the Left will flap their wings and bring out the crocodile tears. They will call Tim Ball and Mark Steyn evil for making him commit suicide. It will leave an excuse to not pay out damages and not hand over the emails. The Left will then just assume everything Mann said about climate is true to create some foundations to the castle of lies that is the IPCC “case” for cAGW.

  125. Paul Westhaver says:

    Here is a 10,000,000 dollar Mann Suit:

    http://egguson.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/fat-suit.jpg

  126. Eric Gisin says:

    A much more important case against Green law-fare has been ignored by climate skeptics: Chevron vs Donziger.

    Donziger won a $18 billion judgment in Ecuador against Chevron. There was obvious fraud, so Chevron filed a RICO suit against Donziger in US court. Trial closed in Dec, awaiting judgment.

    Chevron has a web site presenting their case: http://www.theamazonpost.com/the-fraudulent-case-against-chevron-in-ecuador

  127. pottereaton says:

    Lord Jim: “Technically Stokes is correct, because (iirc) the pleadings state the material facts on which a party will rely, but not the evidence (documentary, testimonial, circumstantial, etc) by which those facts are to be proved.”

    In response to an assertion by NR that the Muir Russell report did not exonerate Mann or “offer any opinion on Mann,” Mann’s legal team in its response took a quote out of context to deliberately mislead the judge into believing the quote supported the exoneration of Mann by the Muir Russell enquiry. It did not. The quote referred to CRU scientists, of which Mann is not a part., In attempting to persuade the judge to not dismiss the suit, judicial misconduct was committed by an officer of the court.

  128. Robert_G says:

    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11
    Nota bene: Mann’s attorney(s) sign and personally certifiy to the court that he/she has personally inquired into the representations to the court and that the factual contentions have evidentiary support. Also, under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, attorneys have a Duty of Candor

    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure › TITLE III. PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS › Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
    Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

    (a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.

    (b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

    (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

    (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

    (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

    (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

    Also, under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, attorneys have a Duty of Candor to the court:

    Advocate
    Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

    (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

    (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

  129. pottereaton says:

    Correction: judicial misconduct was not committed, legal misconduct was committed by Mann’s lawyers.

  130. Nick Stokes says:

    HAS says: February 21, 2014 at 9:12 pm
    “P54 repeats the quote now showing it’s intended context as part of the argumentation.”

    The later quote also shows, even more clearly, that the quote refers to CRU scientists. Mann’s lawyers say say:
    “The University of East Anglia assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit”. Three months later, the University of East Anglia examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.”

    And they refer to the earlier statement.

  131. philincalifornia says:

    Has anyone besides me noticed that resident Climate Parasite #1’s argument that anthropogenic CO2 causes catastrophic something or other has been reduced to this blather ?

  132. pottereaton says:

    Steven Strittmatter says:
    February 21, 2014 at 11:32 am

    Looks like $10 million times 2 plus legal fees!
    ——————————-

    Yes, the headline should be corrected to read, “Steyn Countersues Mann for 20 Million Dollars.”

  133. The real global warming disaster” has a chapter on the “hockey stick”
    A must read. Exposes mann completely

  134. lenny says:

    With the Climate gate AR4 EMAILS ALONE, PLUS LORD MONCKTONS DISCOVERY OF A OVER TURNED GRAPH , MANN IS TOAST . WE SHOULD BE SUING ALL THESE FRAUDS TO GET OUR LOOT BACK , NO RAIN TO FILL DAMS SO YOU HAVE TO BUILD DESAL PLANTS SHOULD BE NUMBER 1 ON THE LIST EASILY PROVEN BY THEIR OWN WORDS TOO .. He should be able to force Mann to release the data too . Make no mistake ,they will be shuddering in their boots .

  135. Dudley Horscroft says:

    “8. The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted… On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.”

    From the Climate Action blog referred to in “Mann’s latedt [sic] submission to the court includes a doctored quote. Blimey! http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/
    6:50 AM – 22 Feb 2014″

    As an amateur lawyer (trained by reading many Perry Mason novels – note carefully that the Review finds the CRU scientists’ “rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.” Unless there is further text commenting on the CRU scientists’ “openness”, this is a very diplomatic way of saying that their ‘openness’ is extremely doubtful. One is led to the belief that they were not at all ‘open’ during the review process.

  136. Dudley Horscroft says:

    My last should have, instead of ” novels – note “, ” novels) note “. Picky, yes I know, but better to correct when I spot my error.

  137. Nick Stokes says:

    pottereaton says: February 21, 2014 at 9:22 pm
    “Mann’s legal team in its response took a quote out of context to deliberately mislead the judge”

    It did not mislead the judge. The meaning was perfectly clear to her:
    “The investigators concluded that the “’rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,”” (p 2)

  138. HAS says:

    Nick Stokes February 21, 2014 at 9:41 pm
    “The later quote also shows, even more clearly, that the quote refers to CRU scientists.”

    It doesn’t.

    It says the Defendants ignored evidence that Mann hadn’t committed fraud, and here’s our list of that evidence. First up UEA saying we had a look and our guys were fine, we looked later and the scientists were fine. The only implication to be drawn (and no doubt the intended implication) is that Mann was one of the latter scientists .

    But had the quote been complete it would be obvious that Mann wasn’t being cleared of fraud and this bit of evidence was irrelevant to the matter at hand.

  139. Liontooth says:

    So Jones, whose honesty and rigor was not in doubt, was being misleading?

    “rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,”(p 2)
    (rest of sentence)
    but that Jones’ email referencing Plaintiff’s “‘Nature trick’ was “‘misleading’.”
    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mann_v_Natl_Review_Order_7-19-13.pdf

  140. ferdberple says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    February 21, 2014 at 4:57 pm
    It’s in a section headed “University of East Anglia”. They make it quite clear the report is about CRU.
    ======
    nope. There are two reports, and the rewording makes it appear that the findings of one report apply to the other. abuse of the facts.

  141. ferdberple says:

    HAS says:
    February 21, 2014 at 10:27 pm
    But had the quote been complete it would be obvious that Mann wasn’t being cleared of fraud and this bit of evidence was irrelevant to the matter at hand.
    ====================
    hard to see how this rewording was not carefully crafted to create a false impression. perhaps it is no coincidence that liar and lawyer sound the same.

  142. Liontooth says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    “It did not mislead the judge. The meaning was perfectly clear to her:”

    You’re wrong. I didn’t realize at first you had linked to HER decision to not dismiss the case. She did conclude from what Mann side had submitted that the UAE investigation did ‘clear’ Mann as SHE cited it in denying motion to dismiss.

    She stated that Plaintiff’s (Steyn’s) suit is based primarily on:
    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mann_v_Natl_Review_Order_7-19-13.pdf
    (2) Defendant Steyn’s statement in the National Review Online that Plaintiff “was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus;”

    She cited in HER decision to dismiss:
    – In 2009 approximately one thousand emails…
    (Describing Climategate emails)
    – One particular email, written by Phil Jones (A CRU scientist) stated:
    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards)[and] from 1961 for keith’s to hide the decline.”
    – As a result of these emails coming to light, the University of East Anglia began an investigation in the “honesty, rigor, and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted”
    – “The investigators concluded that the “’rigor and honesty of the CRU scientists was not in doubt,”but that Jones’ email referencing Plaintiff’s “‘Nature trick’ was “‘misleading’.”

    There would be ZERO reason for her to cite the UAE investigation if it had nothing to do with Mann She believes that the ‘Nature trick’ of ‘Mike’ isn’t a ‘trick’ that hides the decline as Jones says in the email and that the INVESTIGATION concludes that Jones was being ‘misleading’ in describing it as a ‘trick’,

  143. Nick Stokes says:

    HAS says: February 21, 2014 at 10:27 pm
    “Nick Stokes February 21, 2014 at 9:41 pm
    “The later quote also shows, even more clearly, that the quote refers to CRU scientists.”
    It doesn’t.”

    Then why did the judge in summarising understand it to explicitly apply to CRU scientists?

  144. Nick Stokes says:

    Liontooth says: February 21, 2014 at 11:58 pm
    “There would be ZERO reason for her to cite the UAE investigation if it had nothing to do with Mann”

    There’s one very good reason for her to cite it. It’s hammered by the defence, repeatedly. They don’t think it has nothing to do with Mann.

    You’re confusing things. The allegedly ‘doctored’ quote was virtually identical to the original, but was claimed here to misleadingly suggest that the panel was saying that all scientists had their rigor and honesty upheld. But she understood perfectly from the pleading that that statement from the panel referred to CRU scientists.

    However, there is a barrage of accusations from the defence about Mann being implicated in the CRU emails. The CRU inquiry went into those emails and found nothing to stigmatize Mann. So it’s relevant.

  145. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    I write to ask a genuine question. I am not a lawyer and not an American so I have zero understanding of the US law and US legal system.

    In the UK the ‘sides’ in a legal case going to trial each provide a bundle of documents to the judge who assesses those documents before the trial. Any difficulties and/or clarifications are requested by the judge as part of his/her preparations for the trial. Importantly, the bundles contain the evidence which the trial will assess, and the judge needs to agree any additional evidence if it is to presented in the trial. The judge will demand explanation if there are errors of fact in the bundles and – on the basis of the explanations – will permit corrections before the trial or will insist that the errors be put to the trial because the errors are material to the case.

    Is this similar to the US legal system and if not in what way(s) does it differ?

    I ask my question for two reasons. Firstly, the Mann vs Steyn case has importance beyond the US so I would like to understand the issues of the case. And, secondly, there does seem to be a clear error in the information provided by Mann (from his lawyers) in that a misquotation was provided and the reason, purpose and nature of the misquotation would seem to be pertinent to the case: if the misquotation is not pertinent then there would seem to be no reason to have not provided the correct (and full) quotation except incompetence by Mann’s lawyers.

    With thanks in anticipation to anybody who can provide an answer to my question with explanation of the answer

    Richard

  146. HAS says:

    Nick Stokes
    February 22, 2014 at 12:02 am
    “Then why did the judge in summarising understand it to explicitly apply to CRU scientists?”

    “it” in the judge’s summary applies to the Jones email, not to malice. All she indicates is that when looking at the emails the review found “trick” misleading.

    She didn’t find on malice. Who knows what she thought or what interpretation or what weight she put on the CRU statements in this regard.

    February 22, 2014 at 12:39 am
    “nothing to stigmatize Mann” or “nothing to stigmatize CRU scientists”? Keep your story straight.

  147. Nick Stokes says:

    HAS says: February 22, 2014 at 1:20 am
    ‘“nothing to stigmatize Mann” or “nothing to stigmatize CRU scientists”? Keep your story straight.

    Nothing to stigmatize Mann. I’ll say it again. There was a barrage of defence accusations. based on negative implications the emails were said to carry, that affected Mann. The Muir Russell inquiry said they did not carry those implications. That’s relevant to the exoneration of Mann.

  148. Julian in Wales says:

    ” lenny says:
    February 21, 2014 at 10:02 pm

    With the Climate gate AR4 EMAILS ALONE, PLUS LORD MONCKTONS DISCOVERY OF A OVER TURNED GRAPH , MANN IS TOAST . WE SHOULD BE SUING ALL THESE FRAUDS TO GET OUR LOOT BACK , NO RAIN TO FILL DAMS SO YOU HAVE TO BUILD DESAL PLANTS SHOULD BE NUMBER 1 ON THE LIST EASILY PROVEN BY THEIR OWN WORDS TOO .. He should be able to force Mann to release the data too . Make no mistake ,they will be shuddering in their boots .”

    I seem to remember reading on WUWT that Mann used the upside down graph in a later paper again, after it had been already been exposed previously. If he did that then his actions were obviously not a mistake but an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the Scientific establishment. Am I wrong?

  149. High Treason says:

    The Left always expect the benefit of the doubt- politicians will claim they were going by the consensus, Flannery will keep up the lie. Obama will just shoot people. Gore will still call for “deniers” to be executed. Pity the actual “deniers” are the warmists who will not admit that there has been no warming for 17 years and the models are way off the mark, meaning the CO2 theory is debunked. Mann will NEVER admit he has made stuff up, even if the evidence is absolutely clear. Anyway, I would expect, like the 8 bankers, Mann to mysteriously fall out of a window or have multiple nail gun holes in his head as “suicide.” Believe it or not, it is in our interests for Mann to live a bit longer.How ironic, we “deniers” may need to guard Mann from being assassinated.

  150. MikeB says:

    There’s a nice comment on Steve McIntyre’s site from ‘Foxgoose’, in respect to Mann claiming that the CRU enquiries exonerated him as well.

    He just extrapolated his exoneration data, homogenised it a bit and spliced his name on the end

  151. teapartydoc says:

    Mann has painted himself into a corner at this point. Depending on just how much financial support he has behind him, he might be well advised to settle, and end every suit he is now engaged in. If one judge deems his case frivolous, he will be paying damages to all parties in all suits, eventually. Litigation-wise, he is the one who tried to draw first blood, and he is currently attacking from a privileged position at a radical leftist academic institution that, in addition to protecting him, is now in the thankless position of having to fear it will now be dragged in by parties seeking recompense after the smoke starts to settle from the current battle. He has gone a bridge too far; Steyn smelled the overreach, and has now only struck his first blow. Mann’s lawyers should be advising settlement now because, if they don’t, he may be coming after them for the money to be paid out if his crony capitalist big-business backers start to tremble just a bit, or lose interest. If it’s Soros, he won’t settle now, but will end up trying to settle out of court with a gag order.

  152. OLD DATA says:

    vigilantfish says:
    February 21, 2014 at 12:19 pm
    I wish there was some other way to give Steyn money. I’ve already purchased everything he has on offer in the past and don’t need more stuff – nor do I know anyone who would want it (sadly). Until he comes to his sense and opens the way for direct donations, all I can do is cheer from the sidelines. Steyn is the man!

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Begin a scholarship fund for our best and brightest young conservatives to study engineering or medicine and then teach others.

  153. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    Eric Gisin says:
    February 21, 2014 at 9:18 pm

    A much more important case against Green law-fare has been ignored by climate skeptics: Chevron vs Donziger.

    Agreed. The Chevron vs. Donziger suit hits directly at corrupt lawyers, which is a more fundamental problem than one narcissistic climastrologist. This was reported in WUWT December 2011. I commented with a distillation of the 161 page complaint here and here .

    I haven’t followed the case since. It would indeed be good news if Chevron were awarded a significant judgement. It would be better news if Donziger and henchmen received significant prison sentances.

  154. Grant A. Brown says:

    1. This lawsuit is about whether it can be fairly said that Mann did something “fraudulent,” or “molested and tortured data” in a scientifically discreditable sense. Everything else is a diversion.
    2. A pleading is not evidence; it is merely a claim about what the party hopes to establish. Clearly judges are lenient when it comes to interpreting the codes relating to a lawyer’s duty to verify the basis of a claim, since most claims fail and lawyers are rarely (never, in my experience) punished for filing even very frivolous claims.
    3. If Jones “replicated Mike’s Nature trick,” and Muir Russell gave an opinion that exonerated Jones of any “fraud” in that endeavour, then Muir Russell also indirectly gave an opinion exonerating Mike, to the extent that they used the same methods. This supports Mann’s defense, to the extent that Muir Russell’s opinion is reliable.
    4. A counterclaim has the same status as a claim. The Plaintiff by Counterclaim (Steyn) has the same onus of proof as any Plaintiff, and the Defendant by Counterclaim (Mann) has the same defenses as any Defendant. If Steyn truly believes this is a “pure” free-speech case, then he would have no grounds for a counterclaim; he would have to acknowledge that Mann has the same free-speech defense to the counterclaim as Steyn claims for himself in his defense to the original Claim. So Steyn’s counterclaim must logically be understood as a pleading “in the alternative”: Mann’s claim should be dismissed on First-Amendment and Anti-SLAPP grounds, or in the alternative, if these defenses are not available to Steyn then they are also not available to Mann.
    5. A plaintiff may claim any amount of damages he wishes; if successful, a court will still only approve an amount that has been proven as damages. (Does Steyn honestly believe he has suffered $20 million in damages from Mann’s lawsuit? If not, then is he guilty of filing false pleadings, with all of the supposed consequences thereof? See #2 above…) The amount of the damages claimed by Steyn are only relevant when it comes to calculating “costs” (penalties for the losing side) at the end of the trial – on the theory that if you stand to lose $20 million you will pay more for legal assistance, and therefore are entitled to a higher schedule of costs.
    6. Steyn’s counterclaim, however entertaining it might be, might not be wise legal strategy. If he fails to prove the defamation claimed, or if he fails to prove damages, he could be liable for costs on the Counterclaim. Those costs could well negate any costs he would otherwise have won by being successful in the original action by Mann.
    7. Buying gift certificates to support Steyn’s lawsuit might have the consequence of making it impossible for Steyn to prove any damages on his counterclaim. That is, if his “business” actually improves consequent to the lawsuit, he will be hard pressed to establish that he suffered any specific damages.

  155. Caleb says:

    I think it might be helpful if we stop referring to meddling with temperature records as “adjustments.” Tell it like it is. Rather than “adjustments” it should be called “falsifying public documents.”

    It is high time these fellows felt some fear for their fraud and forgery.

  156. Mark T says:

    @teapartydoc: please so not use the term “crony capitalist.” A capitalist has nothing to do with cronies in the government and as such, the two words are at odds with each other. The correct term is a single word: fascist. This is just another example of the left corrupting standard terminology in an attemp to paint their target as something to be feared. Do not cave to their whim.

    davidmhofer: Nick is neither naive nor obtuse. He is quite simply an intentionally dishonest broker. As long as people feed the troll, he will continue to peddle his lies. There is a reason even Steve Mc now refers to him with an openly insulting name.

    Mark

  157. Ron Cram says:

    Grant, thank you for a thoughtful comment. While I like Steyn and dislike Mann, I also am not sure this is good legal strategy. While I’m not an attorney, I have been involved in a case that was education. If the anti-SLAPP law in DC is truly based on the one in California, I don’t think Steyn has a strong case. It is my understanding that you cannot sue someone just because they sued you – and that seems to be the basis of Steyn’s counterclaim. If you can prove the original suit was without merit, then you might recover attorney’s fees but you that’s about it.

    I think Steyn’s best legal strategy is to go into court and show the Mann did splice the temperature record onto a proxy record even though he claimed he didn’t. You can bring your own expert witnesses, like Steve M, to show Mann has been dishonest and that these reviews have been prime examples of circling the wagons. Mike’s Nature Trick is still a trick even if a review panel gives it a thumbs up. And the upside down Tiljander series is important. You simply cannot turn a series upside down and then claim the orientation is not material.

    If Michael Mann really wants to put climate science on trial, then Steyn should put it on trial. It won’t stand up in court.

  158. John C says:

    For those that think Mann would be wise to thro in the towel, remember what the far left represent. Arrogance is their Creed. They never admit they are or were in error. They double down and go all in. Then the media and our leftist government defend and reward them with powerful appointments and positions in some institution or another. Mann is solidifying his future.
    Steyn is very brave to do what he is and I wish for success.
    John

  159. Fitzc says:

    I think Steyn has simply decided to embrace the absurdity of this Kafka style trial. In the US legal system you can make the most frivolous claims and courts will not throw them out but force defendants to defend themselves at ruinous cost. OK,so two can play that game.

    It is not Steyn’s nature to play defense all the time.

  160. Norm Woods says:

    Mr. Stey has so won this. For years I have sat by – I”m a scientist, I work in the scientific fields, I’m just not a research scientist, which means what I do, actually works – I can predict what will happen when X then Y then Z happens so Im a real one –

    and watched every amateur online,

    1/2 trick pony make claim Mann and the entire coterie of Academicians are worthy of my respect.

    They are my employees is what they are. Don’t you folks ever for get it.

    Mann is a public figure from about the third time he took money to talk to groups about climate.

    You know that Reddit thing he just did?

    That makes him a public figure still.

    You can stop being a public figure, for instance – and this is just for instance I’m not relating to something historic –

    if a man was active in the development of the nuclear weapon… and he wrote the president letters and he went around talking to journalistic literature in periodicals and whatnot – you know this is a big deal when something like it is going on –

    but then the war’s over and years, and years go by. The guys still works in nuclear power but never not ever contacts a paper about anything, in fact turning down interviews: such a man is not a public figure related to nuclear power any more if there’s some suit.

    However that ignorant clown Mann who I have no more regard for, than I have for anybody who ever preached his work,

    is a public figure – and not just one, he’s one who has proven time and again over 20 years he prefers actiivism and is a full-on political activist.

    People could be throwing eggs on his doorstep for years and he won’t be able to deny he’s a public figure because the written word’s expected to have a certain lifespan,

    After a while, as long as he gets away from it which he of course won’t, he could gain status as private citizen again.

    Michael Mann is in a very, very bad predicament.
    He has in fact lost the lawsuit to Dr Ball because once he stalls out on discovery through a couple of Balls requests the suit be dropped, he’s got no recourse.

    He can’t no matter what, complete the discovery process, in ANY lawsuit. In ANY.

    He’s so hung and he always was, it’s not even funny how much he has everyone bluffed, and it’s alll bluff. ALL.

    Go read the words around Sullivan vs New York times.
    Go read the words around Hustler vs Jerry Falwell.

    The days of Michael Mann’s pushing and shoving people around,

    and by extension his wacko climate theory friends pushing us all around – us all is all of us whose lives they smugly decided they were going to derail –

    are past their highest tide,

    and now, as he, and all his bosom buddies and first-name-basis wannabes in media,

    are going to watch the real world of real science, bury them and all they ever had to say in an ocean of truth that will put Mann

    and everyone who ever even believed in his wacko scientific theories,

    in the Piltdown department of science.

  161. Norm Woods says:

    Ps my science has to do with other things than heat and the atmosphere but personally I see another trick those people use – pretense because they are in the government and have some friends in the blogging business they are a scientist and I’m not, and you’re not.

    Everybody on earth who has ”of Science” behind their name is a scientist.

    The people who preach CO2 sensitivity ”science”

    are just people who claimed to be scientists,

    who we all have found out can’t pour pee out of a boot, with the directions how to do it, written on the heel,

    and a note on the top, explaining where those directions, are.

    That’s my take on the whole bunch.

    Thanks.
    Norman R Woods

  162. All we need to stop this frivolous lawsuit nonsense is “loser pays,” but the trial lawyers will never allow it because they get paid no matter who wins or loses.

  163. ren says:

    Jetstream forecast on February 25.
    http://oi58.tinypic.com/6egig8.jpg

  164. bushbunny says:

    ren it looks like a face smiling or snarling. LOL. Mann must be financially backed by someone or some organization. But these law suits and threats of, appear to be a delaying tactic for worse to come. He’s getting publicity for sure, sob sob, but a rather negative expose. I wonder if he is employed by any organization like clean energy. I suspect his credibility might be a factor and future employment a bit ???
    In a case here a young woman who accused two men of sexual assault and harrasment etc., claimed she couldn’t get a job now, but the judge said it was of her own making as the men were innocent of any offense, that was all in her head to reap revenge on those who would not give her a rise when she was under the employers gaze for underachievement and not doing her job properly. Got over 6 million costs. Then went on for two more appeals? Her complaint was the judge didn’t like her? She failed to accept the amount of evidence and witness statements that proved she was a liar and so was her mother.

  165. bushbunny says:

    Is Mark wealthy? Because all of a sudden Mann has struck out on someone who can sustain a lengthy and expensive court case. If Mann withdraws and apologizes would his backers be silenced and hand over $10,000,000? Or make an offer? If I were him that is what I would do unless he wants more negative publicity. It appears he’s worried but his lawyers must be quaking too.

  166. bushbunny says:

    Like the woman whom I mentioned before, you don’t take on a bank and publish lies as they have so many resources at their command, inquiry agents, lawyers who probe and probe into one’s background and the family’s. It was very naive to think that someone like Mark would sit back and not strike back professionally. Mud stick Michael didn’t you know?

  167. eyesonu says:

    On an earlier post (a few weeks ago) here @ WUWT with regards to Mann a picture was included possibly with a caption about poking a bear with a stick. At the time my thoughts were that it may have been meant that that Mann was a bear. I thought an opossum would have been more appropriate for the post.

    Anthony may have been implying that Mann should not poke a bear with a stick. That seems very appropriate now.

  168. bushbunny says:

    Yes, eyesonu, you might recall after the pearl harbor attack, the Japanese commander remarked, “we have now woken a sleeping giant’ – so be it.

  169. Siberian_Husky says:

    [trimmed. Mod]

  170. Liontooth says:

    Nick Stokes
    ” …but was claimed here to misleadingly suggest that the panel was saying that all scientists had their rigor and honesty upheld. But she understood perfectly from the pleading that that statement from the panel referred to CRU scientists.

    “However, there is a barrage of accusations from the defence about Mann being implicated in the CRU emails. The CRU inquiry went into those emails and found nothing to stigmatize Mann. So it’s relevant.”

    No, the CRU inquiry didn’t look for or even try to find anything regarding Mann one way or another, it only looked at Jones’ and the rest of CRU scientists conduct. The Judge claimed that this investigation found ”that Jones’ email referencing Plaintiff’s “‘Nature trick’ was “‘misleading’. That ONLY relates to Jones’ conduct and says nothing regarding Mann.

    Grant A. Brown:
    “3. If Jones “replicated Mike’s Nature trick,” and Muir Russell gave an opinion that exonerated Jones of any “fraud” in that endeavour, then Muir Russell also indirectly gave an opinion exonerating Mike, to the extent that they used the same methods. ”

    The Judges decision included a statement that was cobbled together (not a direct quote) from the inquiry: ”that Jones’ email referencing Plaintiff’s “‘Nature trick’ was “‘misleading’
    So, what exactly was misleading? That Jones had used this ‘trick’ and to label it a trick is misleading, or that Jones hadn’t used the ‘trick’ and his email gave a misleading impression he had used it?

  171. richardscourtney says:

    Liontooth:

    I write to comment on your post at February 22, 2014 at 11:52 pm.

    I make no comment on the legal issues which you discuss. I write to explain ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ because you mention it as being important to the legal dispute.

    The 1998 paper by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH98) introduced ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ which was subsequently also used by others.

    MBH98 can be read and seen here.
    The so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph is its Figure 5b.

    In that paper Figure 5b is monochrome although other Figures in the paper are in colour. Importantly, the error limits of the deduced proxy data and the indication of the thermometer data are both indicated by broken lines which are indistinguishable in Figure 5b.

    The error limits of the deduced proxy data and the indication of the thermometer data are both “clearly labelled” in the Figure 5b, but so what?
    The divergence of the proxy data is hidden by splicing the thermometer data on the end with a line which is indistinguishable from the line indicating limits of the proxy data.

    This splicing of selected parts of two items is “Mike’s Nature trick” and it is exactly the same malpractice as the Piltdown Man misrepresentation: i.e. parts of two different items were spliced to provide a misleading indication and then presented as a scientific indication.

    Richard

  172. Michael Scott says:

    While I, like most of WUWT readers, applaude Mr. Steyn’s attempt to strike back, I hope the counterclaim has not triggered a “duty to defend” on the part of one of Mann’s insurance carriers. If so, all that was accomplished is to let Mann and/or the defense fund off the hook for a substantial portion of his legal bill.

  173. Woodshedder says:

    Popehat has weighed in on Steyn’s countersuit. It is well-worth a read. Before you dismiss his writing simply by the title of the piece, Popehat agrees with Steyn but disagrees with his countersuit.
    http://www.popehat.com/2014/02/23/mark-steyn-has-a-fool-for-a-client/

  174. bushbunny says:

    Failure to produce his research (as with Tim Ball’s court case) so Tim’s comments be they trivial anyway, remains an unproven complaint. Mann is behaving like a guilty person in my opinion, much like a corrupt MP who lied to ICAC and then threatened to sue anyone who produced evidence or hearsay that proved his guilt. I only have Hollywood to go by, but didn’t the crooks in Chicago bribe their way out of conviction and if that looked like it was about to come undone, they destroyed their accusers. Here we are dealing with an important scientific research that had a profound influence on the way people react to AGW. Instead of sitting there, spitting out the dummy, why doesn’t he admit straight away, that data has changed over the last 10 years.

    You remember the Australian doctor McBride who got the Nobel prize for discovering the affect of Thomilomide on unborn children. Since then of course huge lawsuits have resulted from people who were tragically born deformed. He tried to replicate research to point to another product, and was found by his peers that he had manipulated the data to prove his theory. A research assistant dobbed him in when he saw that the data he produced was corrupted. His practice has diminished, and he blamed pharmaceutical companies for his demise but he was found guilty of medical fraud nevertheless. At least he admitted he had corrupted the data, but behind his excuse was he cared for the welfare of unborn babies.

  175. philincalifornia says:

    Michael Scott says:
    February 23, 2014 at 1:01 pm
    While I, like most of WUWT readers, applaude Mr. Steyn’s attempt to strike back, I hope the counterclaim has not triggered a “duty to defend” on the part of one of Mann’s insurance carriers. If so, all that was accomplished is to let Mann and/or the defense fund off the hook for a substantial portion of his legal bill.
    ————————————————

    Or. looked at another way, another entity that is liable for a large judgement, while also seeing what a farce Mann’s case is. In other words, a candidate to pressure Mann to settle.

  176. Ron Cram says:

    Woodshedder, thank you for posting the comments by popehat. He makes the same point I attempted to make earlier but he said it much better. Steyn appears to be suing because he is being sued. This doesn’t work. At least it would not work under California’s Anti-SLAPP law and I doubt the DC law is much different. If Steyn wins the case, he could sue for malicious litigation but he has to win first. I wish Steyn all the best.

  177. Nick Stokes says:
    February 21, 2014 at 9:41 pm

    HAS says: February 21, 2014 at 9:12 pm

    “The University of East Anglia assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit”. Three months later, the University of East Anglia examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.”

    Neither of these sentences quoted can in any way be seen as exoneration. The first sentence suggests that there may have been scientific malpractice, albeit not deliberate (sloppy work), the second sentence would appear to confirm the first finding (i.e. not deliberate scientific malpractice).

  178. Lee Bowskee says:

    Why shouldn’t Steyn, or anyone else, be required to prove what they say about someone else is true?

    Seems reasonable. If you’re going to talk crap about someone be prepared to back it up.

    So what’s this Free Speech, I don’t have to prove what I said was true, B.S.?

    Prove Mann is a fraud and the case is over.

  179. dbstealey says:

    Lee Bowskee says:

    “Why shouldn’t Steyn, or anyone else, be required to prove what they say about someone else is true?”

    Actually, I think objective truth is not the standard. I think the standard is whether the writer believed at the time he wrote it that what he said was true.

    That makes it much more difficult for Mann to prevail. Of course, given the current politicization of today’s courts, it is entirely possible that this judge has already made up his mind, in which case Steyn has already lost. So let us trust that this is an ethical judge — a leap of faith, to be sure. ☹

  180. Lee Bowskee says:

    Simply saying “it’s what I believed” won’t get Steyn out of this lawsuit. If it did all kinds of kooks would be accusing people of all kinds of heinous crimes with no evidence and the people accused would have no recourse.

    What Mann’s side has to prove that when Steyn accused him of fraud he either did so knowing it wasn’t true, or did so with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not. Dr. Mann has been investigated by 9 or 10 independent scientific organizations and has been cleared of conducting fraudulant research by all of them. Steyn knows this. If he didn’t know it before he posted his accusation he does now. When Mann’s lawers sent Steyn and NR a letter demanding a retraction they included a list of these investagations the their results. Right now at this moment Steyn’s post is still on NR’s site so they’re still accusing him of fraud and they’re doing so with reckless disregard of whether its true or not.

  181. Ron Cram says:

    The fact Mann was cleared by these review boards will enter into evidence but these boards are clearly impeachable. They have motive to clear Mann because he generates grants. And complete disregard for the truth on the part of the review boards can be demonstrated in many cases. The boards never even contacted Steve McIntyre nor did they do any real investigation into the accusations against Mann.

  182. Lee Bowskee says:

    Clearly impeachable? Yes, certainly anything is possible.

    Easily impeachable? Not so much. If it was easy someone would have done it already. I think you’ll find that the bar for impeaching the scientific credibility of these organizations will be much higher in a court of law that it is on an internet blog.

    One of the organizations that investigated and cleared Dr Mann is the National Science Foundation, as far as I know they do not benefit financially from Dr Mann’s research grants so that motive argument doesn’t hold water.

    If Steyn wants to call Steve McIntyre as an expert witness he will be welcome to do so and I hope he does.

  183. Ron Cram says:

    The National Science Foundation is a government entity which is also clearly impeachable. The reason is the political motive. By pushing a crisis, the government gains more power over people.

    “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – Rahm Emanuel quote.

    The CAGW “crisis” is a manufactured crisis allowing the government to raise taxes, regulate business and make more people dependent on government handouts.

  184. Rick Spung says:

    the nas never cleared mann.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/there-he-goes-again-mann-claims-his.html

    so far, it has been documented that mann lied about three of the investigations that “exonerated” him- nas, oxburgh and muir russell. more will be coming. it is doubtful that mann will be able to prove ANY investigation “exonerated” him. that’s why steyn filed the countersuit. there will be a second anti-slap motion and hearing once discovery is complete. and this one will be mann’s undoing, because the defendants will show the judge mann lied to him about as many as NINE DIFFERENT investigations “exonerating” him.

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/

  185. Lee Bowskee says:

    The NAS is the National Academy of Sciences. – I didn’t claim they cleared Dr Mann, I don’t think they have conducted a formal investigation, but there is no doubt that they do support the science behind climate change.
    https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

    The NSF is the National Science Foundataion which said….
    “There is no specific evidence that the Subject [Dr. Mann] falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct.”

  186. bushbunny says:

    Let’s wait and see eh? If his work is sloppy and incorrect then his protests seem somewhat hollow. Did he deliberately manipulate data, that is quite easy to prove, he has to produce his research papers it is simple as that. How did he come to his conclusions, if there is no basis for his final conclusions and he knew it, that is fraud not just lousy research. Then we have those telling emails that prove that he knew that the planet was cooling and he hid that data. I just hope Steyn has the correct data and knows more than he is admitting about the science. Good luck Mark, we all wish you well.

  187. empty pockets says:

    Brilliant! You go, Mark! Drag Mann and his lies into the light of day.

Comments are closed.