Quote of the week: Steyn ups the ante on the Mann lawsuit

When lampooning his targets, Christopher Hitchens was very fond of employing the term “Chaucerian fraud” and I don’t believe he was ever sued for it. One particular character in The Canterbury Tales who cries out for comparison with a number contemporary fraudsters is the Pardoner, who is in the business of obtaining Divine forgiveness for sinners – at a price. If he were alive today, he would no doubt be selling carbon offsets.
Here’s an excerpt from the WIkipedia entry on The Pardoner’s Tale
The prologue takes the form of a literary confession in the same manner as The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.[4] However, rather than an apology for his vices, the Pardoner boasts of his duping of his victims, for whom he has nothing but contempt.[4] He says that his “theme”—biblical text for a sermon—is Radix malorum est cupiditas (“Greed is the root of [all] evils” 1 Timothy 6.10).[1] He explains that his false credentials consist of official letters from high-ranking church officials and a superficial use of a few Latin words;[5] then he will produce some “relics”, and claim that among them is a bone which has miraculous powers when dipped into a well and a mitten for which:
He that his hand wol putte in this mitayn,
He shal have multipliyng of his greyn, (lines 373–374)
But he will warn that any person that “hath doon synne horrible” will not be able to benefit from these relics.[6] The Pardoner says to the pilgrims that by these tricks he has acquired a considerable sum of money. He goes on to relate how he stands like a clergy at the pulpit, and preaches against avarice but to gain the congregation’s money; he doesn’t care for the correction of sin or for their souls.[7] Against anyone that offends either him or other pardoners, he will “stynge hym with my tonge smerte”. Although he is guilty of avarice himself, he reiterates that his theme is always Radix malorum … and that he can nonetheless preach so that others turn away from the vice and repent—though his “principal entente” is for personal gain. The Pardoner explains that he then offers many anecdotes to the “lewed [ignorant, unlearned] people”.[8] He scorns the thought of living in poverty while he preaches; he desires “moneie, wolle [wool], chese, and whete”[9] and doesn’t care whether it were from the poorest widow in the village, even should her children starve for famine. Yet, he concludes to the pilgrims, though he may be a “ful vicious man”, he can tell a moral tale and proceeds.

@ Richard “does not giving up raw data and computer codes count as intent to deceive.”
Good question. Ordinarily I would say no, but in matters of science, showing your data is part of the process. It would be especially worth noting if Mann’s papers were published in journals that require having data available as a matter of editorial policy. In that case, the violation of standing policy would be clear evidence that Mann was attempting to circumvent best practices.

to call Mann a fr**d was reckless, since that word can mean many things, some of which are libelous unless proven true.

Wrong way round – Mann has to prove be was libelled, and since as you say the word can mean many things, Mann has to prove that none of the other possible meanings was being deployed.

Dr Strangemann or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Carbon Dioxide. Any thoughts on a suitable cast?

Tim Groves says: When lampooning his targets, Christopher Hitchens was very fond of employing the term “Chaucerian fraud”
The Caunterbury Tales starts with a weather forecast which I am hoping may prove correct…
Whan that Aprille with his shoures sote
The droughte or Marche hath perced to the rote,
A bit of Marchly droughte would not go amiss. At the end of his tale the Pardoner slips momentarily out of character and tries to gather himself by selling his wares to the pilgrims. Their host is quick to squash him…
Thou woldest make me kisse thyn old breech
And swere it were the relik of a seint.
A Steyn moment? Actually odd because it sounds as if their host has given up all thoughts of heaven, even though they are in that brief period when your sins counted for the duration of your visit to purgatory rather than a one way ticket to damnation we have today.

Don’t you think Mann’s scientific reputation has already been disposed of by the ‘scientific ‘self-correction’ process, if fellow scientists giggling behind his back is a reasonable definition of ‘scientific self-correction’?
My guess is: giggle.
John

“I so hope Steyn wins, but to call Mann a fraud was reckless, since that word can mean many things, some of which are libelous unless proven true.”
But that’s irrelevant. If only one of those meanings can be proven to either be non-libelous, (whether by being true or non-damaging) provided that the person who uses a word can plausibly claim he used that meaning, it isn’t libel.
The fact that a word has more than one meaning does not provide license to insist that someone “really meant” something other than what they actually meant to convey by using it, despite how fashionable such “reinterpretation” has become in some quarters. Certain officially recognized victim groups have made an industry out of sussing out “wolf whistle” meanings and decoding super-secret racist/sexist/homophobic language. It’s downright amazing how quickly these people can find such meaning in what others say.

If I say to Michael Mann, I think you are a fraud, Sir, because you will not show me the data and compute code, from which you are making proclamations where decisions are being made about possibly affecting my bank balance.
What is the situation? If I am specific surely if he took me to court he would have to offer up the info.
Ah in the old days a good duel at dawn would take care of this one way or another.

“To claim a tree ring is a thermometer is fraudulent.”
To claim some tree rings are thermometers. but others nearby aren’t, is even more fraudulent.

I’m bad!! I just contributed $100 American to Mr. Steyn. Buy a gift certificate and never redeem it.

I read through the first dozen or so comments, then couldn’t stand any more. Mark Steyn is a g.d. hero, a guy with the brains, courage, and style to finally nail that loony coward Michael Mann for good and all. This has the potential to be orders of magnitude more damaging than the recent “ship of fools” fiasco, perhaps even approaching or exceeding“climate-gate” in the damage it might do to the warmist agenda..
That hockey stick graph galvanized the world around the issue of global warming. At the time I was a wavering warmist, and it temporarily convinced me that CAGW was imminent. I’m sure it did many others. And it was a fraud! It’s almost unbelievable. Perhaps ultimately even more damaging to the cause, is that all those establishment climate scientists who damn well know by now it was a fraud, are by their silence revealing their utter lack of integrity.
Any skeptics who can afford to send money to Steyn who have not yet done so, should be ashamed.

The problem is that Steyn has decided to be his own lawyer. He could very well be right on the merits, but lose because he doesn’t understand the law, because he will get outfoxed on a technicality that will sink his case. And then we will all be losers, because Michael Mann will have won, and won a case that had Steyn had a real lawyer, he would not have won.

Example of why you have to fight fire with fire.
As I opened my lap top today…lead head line bar on yahoo and at&t….
“Unknown gases indanger the Ozone layer”….!!!
If you allow them to control the message they take your rights away day after day after day.
We let a traitor off the hook allowed this fraud with fake awards and citations in a combat zone get away with lies about American Fighting men. What we got was Sec. of State John F. Kerry.
If you do not fight fire with fire,, we all get burned.

It is more than plausible that NRO/CEI could prevail in their anti-Slapp appeals. They will surely argue, first, that Judge Weisberg’s ruling characterizing their respective alleged libels as statements of fact and not expressions of opinion is judicially unsustainable. They should win on that point. Case dismissed.
That appeal decision will, in all likelihood, be rendered long before Steyn’s trial case would ever appear on the DC Court’s calendar.
An NRO/CEI appeal victory would have enormous negative consequence to Mann’s case against Steyn. In fact, Mann would likely have to approach Steyn, hat in hand, for an out-of-court settlement of their opposing claims. That prospect is a delicious one indeed.

Steyn did NOT call Mann a fraud. He called Mann’s hockey-stick graph “fraudulent”. (Not a fraud, but fraudulent.) Very, very different things, folks.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn

It has been mentioned once on this thread, but but only once, so I’ll mention it again, Steyn doesn’t have to prove a thing. Mann has to prove by preponderance of the evidence that Steyn libeled him, and that is very hard to do, because Mann is a public figure. This bears repeating, because the opposite has been stated several times on this thread.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/10/quote-of-the-week-steyn-ups-the-ante-on-the-mann-lawsuit/#comment-1586932
I don’t know, Jim Bo. There are political undercurrents to this lawsuit. I’ve speculated that the D. C. judges might have it in for Steyn and those who launch personal attacks against “consensus” climate scientists. Unlike Combs Greene, Weisberg is apparently a competent judge, but he does have a history of liberal connections and rulings. Those of us who post on skeptic websites are perhaps a little deluded as to what is going on in other areas of the culture where “all they know is what they read in the papers,” so to speak.
Certainly, McIntyre’s work would lead one to think that the case should be dismissed. But again, in the current atmosphere in Washington, it wouldn’t surprise me to see motions to dismiss be denied and the trial proceed.

“I side with Ken White and much of legal view expressed on his site. I suspect Mann will find this gets very ugly very fast and even if you saw it to a conclusion, if Steyn really is prepared to go down in flames in an uncompromising war you gain nothing.”
@LdB,
You final sentence is a bit disturbing in that your phrase “gain nothing” stands against an eroding Right to Free Speech. Steyn is no ametuer pundit. He has been involved with the media in one shape or another for 30 years, and has practiced his trade across 4 different countries and 2 continents. The courts ruling concerning dismissal on Anti-Slapp grounds should keep editors awake at night. Steyn has decided since that ruling to counter-sue; thus, forcing Mann et als to turn over a decades worth of professional correspondence (including the notorious Climategate emails), as well as every single scrap of paper supporting Mann’s scientific publications (something that FOI requests have failed to do). In civil suits all is fair game. Mann stands not only to further have his blotted reputation sullied. But more importantly, he will take down a good number of co-conspirators (The Team) with him. Before this is over, Dr Michael Mann will be standing alone with no friend to fall back on. The Team is quietly disbanding and moving on. They after all have mortgages to pay, and retirement accounts to grow.
For some perverse reason Americans take perverse pride in our unjust legal system. Charles Dickens masterpiece, Bleak House, pales in comparison to what the modern day legal system in America has become. Steyn recently noted how in the US judges have taken on the air of nobility. One is not allowed to speak ill of our judges not matter how poorly they perform. The idea of an impartial judge long ago left the court rooms. If one is a pundit one must tread lightly for fear of offending the one man or woman who someday may have your life in their hands. Everyone knows the game is rigged to allow the maximum amount of billable hours. Judges being lawyers, in the end make sure his fellow lawyers get their cut. We are the only nation in the free world that allows its legal system to be turned into a contorted maze of legal abstractions for the sole purpose of collecting the last red cent.
Mann and his lawyers of course understand all of this. Their goal is to destroy Free Speech through endless, and horribly expensive litigation.

Not standing up bold is how we got to this point.
Fight fire with fire.
Time and Tide await for Mann.
Out to the open arms of the deep blue sea of truth for him.

Steyn in his latest post on this:

I don’t believe I’ve commented directly on the oft-retailed line by m’learned friends around the tort end of the blogosphere that “Mark Steyn has a fool for a client”. That’s an old English joke, of course. Circa 18th century, I believe, when English life was very lightly lawyered. Whether it applies a quarter-millennium on in a sclerotic dungheap of a system that, as my old boss Conrad Black likes to point out, employs as many lawyers as the rest of the planet combined, who between them invoice ten per cent of GDP. If the lawyerization of American life needs to snort up its nose the entire GDP of Australia every year, then you’re doing it wrong.

Steyn’s description of the US courts, is Kleptocracy.
Full blown government by thieves, for thieves.
Just like our canadian Just-Us system.
After all, wasn’t it our Supreme Court that just ruled truth is no defence if you “Commit a Hate Crime”.
Translation, no law but what we say it is.And you dumb voters,taxpayers, ain’t “we”.

Steven Mosher says,

In reality the intent behind these refusals is much more mundane. For example, Jones did want to share his code because it was a mess.

Occam’s razor likes this. I know plenty of people who’ve sat on their code for this reason. I blush to admit that there have been occasions I have done the same thing, albeit in a different field.

Do we know that Mr. Steyn has not sought out and is currently receiving legal advice? I seriously doubt he is forging ahead without some sort of hired legal expertise, whether he chooses to have them represent him in court or not.

Steven Mosher says:
March 10, 2014 at 8:21 am
“In reality the intent behind these refusals is much more mundane. For example, Jones did want to share his code because it was a mess.”
So, that makes it OK? The only time you have to share your work is when it’s good? Doesn’t that kind of undercut the whole purpose?

Steven Mosher
March 10, 2014 at 8:21
says:
‘In reality the intent behind these refusals is much more mundane. For example, Jones did want to share his code because it was a mess.’
Perhaps. But, in the case of Warwick Hughes that was never his stated reason. Instead, Phil Jones commented to Hughes that he had 20+ years invested in his research and he wasn’t going to hand it over to Hughes so that he could try to prove him wrong. Hans von Storch exhibited amazement at Jones’ attitude. And I don’t think messy codes was the reason Mann never handed them over to McIntyre.

pottereaton says: March 10, 2014 at 8:08 am

Certainly, McIntyre’s work would lead one to think that the case should be dismissed.

McIntyre’s rebuttals of Mann’s purported “exonerations” should be more than adequate grounds to establish a legitimate rationale for Steyn’s alleged libelous assertion. I just don’t think their introduction will ever be required after oral arguments as to resolution of the opinion vs. fact issue. We’ll see.
P.S. I like your use of a link to the post to which you are responding. I am henceforth stealing it (I saw no copyright) and trying my own variant 😉

“For example, Jones did want to share his code because it was a mess.”
Perhaps, but then there’s this: “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

“does not giving up raw data and computer codes count as intent to deceive”
can someone help me with my grammar it can be read both ways,
sort of like ” look a head in the river” Vs ” look ahead in the river”
or “I can’t leave her behind alone” Vs ” I can’t leave her behind, alone”

Canman says: March 10, 2014 at 11:25 am

When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change.

My God…that is an astonishing statement. Were I NR/CEI’s lawyers, Mr. Appell would be subpoena’d to repeat, under oath, Mann’s statement in their anti-Slapp appeal. It speaks directly to the purpose of criminalizing free speech, precisely what anti-Slapp is designed to thwart.
An absolutely amazing and most germane revelation courtesy of Mr. Appell that it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change.

Sixty-five years since 1984 and astonishingly, thought police and political correctness are growing in popularity. Worse even the US is leaning toward Ingsoc.

@philjourdan
*If* it can be shown that those who investigated or reviewed Mann’s work did not exercise proper due diligence in their review, and it can be shown that Mann ‘funnied-up’ his data and code, then those who investigated, in my opinion, enabled Mann. Not only to continue with his work, but to eventually file this lawsuit.
I am talking about a lawsuit against the reviewing entities apart from this Mann v. Steyn or Steyn v. Mann suit If it can be shown that Mann’s conclusions (the Hockey Stick) cannot be supported by the data and analysis used by Mann, then Steyn has been materially and substantially harmed by a baseless lawsuit. To me, that is an actionable offense. .An offense that could have been prevented by a more thorough review.
To my knowledge, ‘we’ have yet to see the data and the code. Have Mann defend his techniques and work in an open scientific forum. All I have seen is that he has defended his conclusions without allowing a detailed examination of anything supporting those conclusions. Same for those entities that reviewed his work.
If it comes down to a less than thorough review, somebody will have to admit to a less than competent review or something more sinister. Calling a scientist or Director of this, or a Department Chair of that, incompetent is like calling a soldier a coward. Or the Pope a pedophile. Reactions will be emotional and explosive. And that is when the whole AGW-thing explodes. Imagine a circular firing squad with Mann at the center and the reviewing entities as the squad.
Taking down Mann would be like kicking one leg off of a six-legged table. It is a start but will not end the whole CAGW myth based on the CO2 mantra that is now as political as ‘scientific.’ Knock down a few more of the the ‘scientific legs’ and all you have to worry about is the political legs that are left.