Steyn discovers the 'essence of Mann': Eau de weasel

Well, we knew it would happen, it was just a matter of when. Dr. Michael Mann is trying to weasel out of discovery in the Mann-Steyn Steamroller case.

Steyn reports on the latest: ==========================================================

You can read the whole thing here. But the takeaway is that, apparently, it’s all my fault:

On January 30, 2014, Plaintiff renewed his discovery requests against National Review. National Review responded by e-mail on February 7, reminding Plaintiff’s counsel that this Court had already ruled that discovery should be stayed until its Anti-SLAPP motion could be finally resolved in the Court of Appeals. In response, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that while he did not agree with National Review’s position, he would not press the issue of discovery for the time being. A few weeks later, however, on March 6, Plaintiff’s counsel called National Review’s counsel to renew his discovery requests yet again. Plaintiff’s counsel explained that he felt obliged to renew discovery because National Review’s co-defendant, Mark Steyn, had decided not to pursue an appeal, and had instead indicated his desire to proceed with discovery against Plaintiff. Thus, according to Plaintiff’s counsel, it would be impracticable to proceed with discovery between himself and Steyn without the involvement of the other co-Defendants.

Putting aside the bizarre posture of National Review, now standing athwart the DC court calendar yelling “Stop!”, we should not overlook the real significance of this document. Ever since this wretched case began a year-and-a-half ago, those who know Dr Mann have been saying that he would obstruct discovery, as he’s currently doing in court in Vancouver and Virginia. Today’s filing marks the first confirmation that such is the case.

What is so “impracticable” about proceeding with discovery between me and him? There are four defendants, so Mann has served four separate requests for discovery. I’ve returned mine; National Review, CEI and Rand Simberg are sitting on theirs. The four defendants will in turn submit, collectively, four requests for discovery upon Dr Mann. Why is responding to mine ahead of NR’s any more “impracticable” than me responding to his ahead of NR’s response? What’s so difficult about that? Where, indeed, is there even a smidgeonette of “impracticability”?

There are four defendants and one plaintiff. Of the five of us, I seem to be the only one anxious to exercise his right to a speedy trial. Furthermore, NR’s pleadings make a basic error:

If National Review’s appeal succeeds, then the claims against Steyn will almost certainly need to be dismissed as well, thus vitiating the need for any discovery at all.

Not so. I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial. He claimed to want his day in court, and I took him at his word and have determined to give him it.

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

More here: http://www.steynonline.com/6184/oh-wont-you-stay-ay-ay-just-a-little-bit-longer

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

108 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
wws
March 20, 2014 1:01 pm

I’ve lost a lot of respect for NR, owing to their gutlessness in fighting this case.

milodonharlani
March 20, 2014 1:03 pm

Didn’t Mann just recently spew about how much he welcomed the discovery process?

Ashby Manson
March 20, 2014 1:06 pm

He’s spent years in court dodging discovery. That’s not going to change. I say: aggressively pursue discovery!

deadrock
March 20, 2014 1:07 pm

Time to Mann-up Michael !!!!! Mark has shown you his……..time for you to show yours!

pokerguy
March 20, 2014 1:07 pm

“Not so. I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial. He claimed to want his day in court, and I took him at his word and have determined to give him it.”
Mark Steyn is the closest thing I’ve had to a hero since i was a kid..
We’ve been waiting for you Mr. Steyn and the community of proud skeptics will I have no doubt, support you generously all the way to the finish line.
Nail that sniveling coward to the wall. (figuratively speaking of course).

Carlyle
March 20, 2014 1:31 pm

Fantastic. Mann has an article in Scientific American at present. ‘Why Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036 ‘ I have been a sceptical commenter at SCIAM for years & have copped heaps of abuse from others for holding sceptical views on many of their articles. SCIAM put their terms for comments at the end of the article re abuse etc. I pointed out the numerous cases of abuse by AGW users that followed & asked if the rules only applied to sceptics. My account was cancelled. I have been banned. They have to protect the Mann.

March 20, 2014 1:34 pm

The ball may be in Mann’s court but we know who really has them!
Sic ’em!

March 20, 2014 1:36 pm

“He claimed to want his day in court, and I took him at his word and have determined to give him it.”
Well, there was your first error: Taking Mann at his word.

P. Berkin
March 20, 2014 2:01 pm

Anthony, how about putting a counter on the home page showing the lapsed number of days until Michael Mann yields to the discovery request?
(Please excuse my poor grasp of legal terminology, I’m sure that someone else can come up with a better name for the counter.)

DesertYote
March 20, 2014 2:02 pm

Itachi no saigoppe!

Bryan A
March 20, 2014 2:07 pm

john miller
March 20, 2014 2:11 pm

2036.
Hahahahahaahahahahahaha

David L.
March 20, 2014 2:12 pm

pokerguy on March 20, 2014 at 1:07 pm
..,”Mark Steyn is the closest thing I’ve had to a hero since i was a kid..”.,,
He really is, isn’t he!

March 20, 2014 2:13 pm

P. Berkin says:
March 20, 2014 at 2:01 pm
Anthony, how about putting a counter on the home page showing the lapsed number of days until Michael Mann yields to the discovery request?
(Please excuse my poor grasp of legal terminology, I’m sure that someone else can come up with a better name for the counter.)

==============================================================
The Mann-up-ometer?

Nick Stokes
March 20, 2014 2:14 pm

According to the court site, on March 19, they received
“National Review’s Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Appeal Filed. Submitted 03/19/2014 17:58. ajm”. Steyn has it here. It seems plaintiff is opposing this.

Taphonomic
March 20, 2014 2:19 pm

P. Berkin says:
“Anthony, how about putting a counter on the home page showing the lapsed number of days until Michael Mann yields to the discovery request?
(Please excuse my poor grasp of legal terminology, I’m sure that someone else can come up with a better name for the counter.)”
I suggest “DiscoveryEvadery counter” But two may be needed, one for Steyn and one for Tim Ball.

Bart
March 20, 2014 2:19 pm

P. Berkin says:
March 20, 2014 at 2:01 pm
“…I’m sure that someone else can come up with a better name for the counter.”
The lapse rate? Or, maybe combine the days lapsed since Mann has fought discovery in any of his numerous legal proceedings, so that it takes off like a well known item of sporting equipment as the new cases pile up 😉

March 20, 2014 2:23 pm

Scientific American is carrying Mann’s water. In the comments below that article, name-calling against skeptics is the norm. It is condoned and encouraged. But if a skeptic simply points out some scientific facts, SciAm deletes the comment.
I posted the following comment, verbatim. I quicky received an email from the SciAm “Webmaster” telling me that I had engaged in “name-calling”, and that I am permanently banned from ever commenting there again.
Here is what I wrote, with no changes:

The following are a few scientific facts, and comments regarding scientific evidence [please note that scientific “evidence” has a specific meaning. ‘Evidence’ means raw data, and verifiable empirical {real world} observations. Peer reviewed papers, IPCC reports, and computer climate models are not scientific evidence. Rather, they are assertions.] :
Global warming STOPPED, 17+ years ago. [We cannot call it a “pause”, unless it resumes.] No computer climate model was able to predict that event. They were ALL wrong.
Further, it is a scientific fact that the climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. That means that the climate parameters being observed now [temperatures, extreme weather events, etc.], have ALL been exceeded in the past — when CO2 [“carbon”] was lower.
Current global temperatures have been exceeded in the past by a large degree. Therefore, nothing currently being observed is either unusual, or unprecedented. The fact is that we are currently living in a “Goldilocks” climate: not too hot, not too cold, but just right. There is no evidence that global temperatures are rising, as was incessantly predicted for many years — until it didn’t happen. Global warming has stopped. That is a fact that even NASA/GISS acknowledges.
Next, to put the “carbon” scare into perspective: CO2 has increased from about 3 parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000 — over a century and a half.
The recent rise in global temperatures, beginning around 1980 and ending around 1997, was only temporarily coincidental with the continuing, steady rise in CO2 — and the only verifiable correlation shows that ∆CO2 is CAUSED by ∆T; not vice-versa. Effect cannot precede cause, therefore CO2 is not the cause of any measurable global warming.
CO2 is a very tiny trace gas, currently just 0.000397 of the atmosphere, but it is essential to all life on earth. At current and projected concentrations, more CO2 is better. There is no scientific evidence proving that CO2 is anything but a completely harmless trace gas, which is very beneficial to the biosphere.
CO2 has been up to 20X higher in the past, when life on earth flourished. The current rise is of no concern. Certainly some of the rise is due to human activity. However, if CO2 was the cause of any measurable global warming, then the recent large percentage rise would have forced temperatures up sharply. But as we know, global T stopped rising many years ago.
Finally, the unspoken agenda is to pass a huge new carbon tax. That is the motive behind the “carbon” scare. As if hard-bitten taxpayers are not paying enough already.

Was I calling names? Anyone reading the other comments there can see their repeated and vicious use of the pejoratives “denialist”, “deniers”, etc. I even wrote to SciAm, asking them to delete those comments for incessant name-calling, which is against their written policy.
No dice. I am banned. They are not. The pro-Mann crowd gets to insult. They are pulling out all the stops to support Michael Mann, no?

Theo Goodwin
March 20, 2014 2:23 pm

David L. says:
March 20, 2014 at 2:12 pm
“pokerguy on March 20, 2014 at 1:07 pm
..,”Mark Steyn is the closest thing I’ve had to a hero since i was a kid..”.,,
He really is, isn’t he!”
As I read the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, Steyn shows us what the Framers had in mind when they created the documents.

Peter Whale
March 20, 2014 2:26 pm

Mannifest. Date comes to mind

March 20, 2014 2:29 pm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/20/steyn-discovers-the-essence-of-mann-eau-de-weasel/#comment-1595132
=========================================================
This comment is still in moderation. I can’t figure out why.

littlepeaks
March 20, 2014 2:32 pm

Isn’t it amazing how slowly court cases proceed?

bones
March 20, 2014 2:34 pm

Gutless or not, it makes sense for NR to wait and see if it prevails under Anti-SLAPP. That would end their involvement without further cost. If that cuts the ground out from under Mann’s case, It would leave da Mann with a huge problem of what to do about Steyn’s countersuit.

March 20, 2014 2:37 pm

Many libertarian-minded observers have been critical of the quality of arguments and positions put forth by NR, and they are not known for being staunch defenders of liberty.
There are many theories regarding NR, and quite a few involve the Koch connection. I for one am not surprised at all that they are not defending Steyn and his freedom of speech more vigorously. If they were not co-defendants, I suspect they would be more than happy to let him twist in the wind without a word in his defense.
Murray Rothbard tells the tale of how it all began. Well worth a read.
http://mises.org/daily/2759

John Whitman
March 20, 2014 2:37 pm

Mann yells that Steyn is defaming his science work, you know, the science work which is the stuff Mann is unwilling to show in court (discovery).
Mann is simple minded, he just can’t or won’t ‘get it’.
Maybe Scott Mandia of the so-called ‘Climate Science Legal Defense Fund’ can take him into a corner somewhere and draw crayon pictures to help Mann ‘get it’.
John

1 2 3 5