Guest essay by John A.
It has been awhile since we’ve heard anything about the progress of the lawsuit, and so given the current toxic witchhunt against climate skeptics, perhaps it’s time to review again. I noticed a couple of posts on Mark Steyn’s blog regarding the suit brought against him by Michael Mann, WUWT’s favorite climate scientist, which I felt should be brought to a wider audience.
First off, no scientific organization has filed amici briefs supporting Mann’s suit against the National Inquirer, the CEI or Mark Steyn:
A few [months] ago, you’ll recall, the ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other notorious right-wing deniers all filed amici briefs opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech. They did this not because they have any great love for me, but because their antipathy to wackjob foreign blowhards is outweighed by their appreciation of the First Amendment – and an understanding of the damage a Mann victory would inflict on it. After noting the upsurge of opposition to Mann, Reuters enquired of Catherine Reilly (one of his vast legal team) whether there would be any amici filing pro-Mann briefs:
I asked Reilly if the professor would have any supporting briefs next month when he responds to the defendants in the D.C. appeals court.
“At this point, we don’t know,” she said.
Ms Reilly was a pleasant sort when I met her in court over a year ago, but she struck me as a formidable opponent. So I naturally assumed that the above was what what the political types call “lowering expectations”. As I wrote:
“I would be surprised if Mann didn’t have any supporting briefs. I was in court when Ms Reilly’s genial co-counsel made his argument for Mann, which was a straightforward appeal to authority: Why, all these eminent acronymic bodies, from the EPA and NSF and NOAA even unto HMG in London, have proved that all criticisms of Mann are false and without merit. So I would certainly expect them to file briefs – and, given that Mann sees this as part of a broader “war on science” by well-funded “deniers”, I would also expect briefs from the various professional bodies: the National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, etc. As pleasant as it is to find my side of the court suddenly so crowded, I’m confident Mann will be able to even up the numbers.”
Well, yesterday was the deadline, and not a single amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann. Not one. So Michael Mann is taking a stand for science. But evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann.
Now that IS surprising, because I would have thought that someone, some interested organization would be supporting Mann. I could think of the IPCC or Al Gore or Penn State University or the University of Virginia or the University of East Anglia’s Climate Science Unit or the AAAS or the WMO or some body or other.
The self-appointed captain of the hockey team is playing solo. As Judith Curry wrote last month:
“The link between ‘defending Michael Mann is defending climate science’ seems to have been broken.”
As yesterday’s deafening silence confirms. If you’re defending Michael Mann, you’re not defending science, or defending climate science, or theories on global warming or anything else. Defending Michael Mann means defending Michael Mann – and it turns out not many people are willing to go there.
Truly the silence is deafening. It’s not a good sign that no organization associated with the research into the perils for future global warming felt any need to support Mann in his Valiant Defense of Science by filing a brief.
Oh brother climate scientists, where art thou?
The second update I noticed was Mann’s repudiation of his own smoothed (and artfully pruned) hockey stick.
Here’s the graphic:
And here’s what Mann has told the court (with emphasis by Steyn):
In their brief, the CEI Defendants suggest that the University of East Anglia’s investigation actually found that the hockey stick graph was “misleading” because it did not identify that certain data was “truncated” and that other proxy and instrumental temperature data had been spliced together… This allegation is yet another example of Defendants’ attempts to obfuscate the evidence in this case. The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him. Rather, the report’s comment was directed at an overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick that was reproduced on the frontispiece of the World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999.41 Dr. Mann did not create this depiction, and the attempt to suggest that this report suggested an effort by Dr. Mann to mislead is disingenuous.
Disingenuous: adjective “not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.”
Except as Steyn points out, that particular depiction was claimed to have been created by Mann and other Hockey Team members because Mann claimed that he did on his online resume:
So who or what to believe? Mann’s own resume or Mann’s deposition to the Court?
It’s a brain-buster for sure.
I’m sure that Mann will be projecting himself to be a lone scientific David bravely fighting the evil Denialist Fossil-Fuel funded Goliath. But unless Mann is seriously packing heat in his slingshot, it looks to me somewhat dicey from this vantage point.
Someone is going to lose heavily in this Climate Loserweight Title Fight. I can’t see it going the distance.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not only is it on his CV.
he is credited in the WMO report, (pg2)
WMO-No. 913
© 2000, World Meteorological Organization
ISBN 92-63-10913-3
Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using
palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long
instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal.
Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more
details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at
http://www.pages.unibe.ch) and the National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov).
(Sources of data: P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa and T.J. Osborn, University of East Anglia, UK; M.E. Mann,
University of Virginia, USA; R.S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts, USA; M.K. Hughes, University of
Arizona, USA; and the Hadley Centre, The Met. Office).
https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/documents/913_en.pdf
Apparently Barry Woods has a comprehension problem: What you have just quoted clearly shows Mann was not the author of the graph.
So Dr. Mann created the data, was happy about one’s appearance on the cover page, but denied creating the graph or that the graph would have been done with his consent?
And Mann thinks the graph is in error, but the error is not his? Interesting.
I too have bad eyesight. Let me know where you live, maybe I can recommend a good ophthalmologist.
Hugh – is the data wrong?
The graphic clearly credits Mann with the data, nothing more.
Mann’s own research publications clearly show the different sets of data used, so the claim that he intended to mislead, based on a graphic he did not produce, when the work he *did* author makes no attempt to mislead, is laughable.
@Craig Thomas
Are you really denying that the hockey stick graph was created by Mann?
W-O-W
Mann needs to be clearer in his CV then.
Mann should have immediately informed the WMO that their graph was wrong.
Not the point. Think harder. There’s a reason Mann’s name is there.
Mann’s name is there for a reason? Maybe because he was in correspondence with Jones about that graph!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/17/evidence-that-dr-michael-mann-misled-a-court/
Redefining the word “clearly.”
I believe Craig is saying if there was no dis-claimer on the graphic itself about the misleading splicing of data then it is not Mann’s fault if the graphic was misleading as the CEI states.
Mann did take credit for the graphic (Mann does like to take credit for things real and imagined) but it is not his fault if his research results were not represented in full. In other words to be accurate the graphic should have been presented with a disclaimer, “This graph has cherry picked data, but is ok because the original research by Michael Mann cherry picked data”.
Craig clearly believes Mann can take credit and then run away from any responsibility for the credit taken.
This leads to not a comprehension problem but a credibility problem.
Craig; when it comes to a Cartesian graph, there is only data, labeling and selection of the axis units to consider. Everything else is simply decoration.
I don’t see where IPCC actually credited ANY individual with the creation of the graph from the data, only the purveyors of the data itself.
Further, Mike Mann cites the cover on his CV. In spite of what he claims in court filings, an uncontested credit in the document combined with its inclusion on his very own curriculum vitae makes it his.
I would use what Muller said about his work on NPR as an absolute defense in the defamation case. A qualified and eminent professional in the field said Mann should ‘lose his license to practice science’, were that option available. You still want to back that horse?
Whatever Barry lacks in reading comprehension you blow away with your lack of basic logic. You are either completely disingenuous or you are way way beyond your reasoning ability.
Love the drawing. 🙂
This is all more proof to back up ‘Mann-Made-Up Global Climate Change’!
Mann oh Mann…
Turn back O Mann, forswear thy foolish ways.
Old now is Earth, and none may count her days,
Yet thou, her child, whose head is crowned with fame,
Still wilt not hear thine inner God proclaim,
“Turn back, O Mann, forswear thy foolish ways.”
Apols: Gustav Holst
“But evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann.”
Since climate science is dominated by political considerations, it is likely they’re disinclined to have their asses publicly handed to them in court.
Evidence that they’re at least cognizant of some portion of reality.
Agreed, and a very good point.
By the way, good to see you around these parts. 🙂
So far as I know, there have been no court cases at all where both sides were able mount serious arguments on the Global Warming evidence. This was a point made prominently by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear” way back in 2004.
As AGW hysteria ramped up in the late 90s, there were lots of lawyers who were eager to do to Big Oil, what they had just done to Big Tobacco. By Crichton’s accounting, as soon as the Alarmist legal teams began to seriously research the issues and consider the opposition that would face, their ardor cooled off to nothing. The “Trial of the Century” still hasn’t happened 10 years after the book’s publication.
My guess is that Mann will never have to face discovery. He, or the smart guys who fund him, will find some face saving way to avoid an open trial.
Mr. Steyn has of course countersued Mr. Mann… so the bald one is on the hook for damages if he walks…
@BL: almost a gurantee that if Mann’s suit is dismissed, so will be Steyn’s. Unfortunately, the cist of defending litigation is not considered “damages” in the US, at least, not after courts have already ruled the initial claims have plausible merit. Steyn would no longer have anything to sue for.
Mark
Mann isn’t the one on trial, and science isn’t advanced in courts of law.
Steyn’s issue isn’t one of science, it’s one of telling porkies for ideological purposes.
Yes, a fictional novel by somebody who was not a scientist is your best try at citing support for your view on a scientific issue?
I see Craig – your argument is Mann was unaware of the misuse of his data, on the cover of the WMO status report?
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
Craig: If “fictional novels” aren’t to your liking, have you considered the other kind?
And more generally, if Mann believes his data were misrepresented on the cover of the report, why did he wait until deposition time to object?
Has anyone got any record of his disowning that graphic representation of his work before he arrived in court?
Steyn said Mann’ science was fraudulent. There is a difference. Concerning Mann, he said that he as the Jerry Sandusky of Climate Science.
First Craig redefined the word “clearly,” now he’s redefining the word “scientist.” If he can’t afford a good dictionary there are several freely available on the net.
Craig is at least half right on this; science is not advanced in court but Mann is on trial.
To prove his case, Mann has to prove his behavior is in good order since Steyn has many examples of Mann’s behavior in politicizing science and in the public arena as being a few toilet loads short of exemplar. And even though science is not advanced in court, how it is used in the public arena can be on trial.
Make no question about it, Mann’s behavior and his use and mis-use of science is very much on trial. How a loser such as Mann still gets funding to proceed with frivolous trials like this is another one of those unexplained mysteries of the world.
Craig, you made two responses and both of them missed my point by a mile.
“science isn’t advanced in courts of law.” True enough, but that was not my point. My point is that when it comes down to facing well prepared opponents on an equal footing, the alarmists have been sensationally shy. They just won’t do it. The Big Tobacco issue from the nineties suggests just how eager they would actually be if they thought they could win.
“A fictional novel by somebody who was not a scientist is your best try at citing support for your view on a scientific issue”. Classic misdirection. I was merely giving Crichton credit for making an interesting point that is not contested by you. To wit, despite expectations, there have been no court trials mounted against Big Oil. Is that true, or not? There is no appeal to authority there.
BTW,
Michael Crichton was a Harvard trained MD.
Rajendra K. Pachauri is a railway engineer.
The current EPA head is Gina McCarthy who has a degree in something called Social Anthropology, whatever that is.
Who is the scientist here?
Maybe Obama and his EPA will weigh in heavily with the “science of climate models”.
Nah. The head of the USEPA doesn’t know what the models say.
I can imagine the POTUS coming up with something along the lines of;
“We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some graphs. We did some things that were contrary to our values”.
… but we did them for the right reasons …
Relying on rigged opinion polls taken of people paid to support the party line is one thing. Relying on an independent court system that allows testimony and fair debate from both sides is quite another.
this is George Forman vs a ballet dancer … (with a broken ankle) …
“Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.”
That was Muhammad Ali. Forman was more like, “Stomp like a dinosaur, hit like a sledge hammer.”
Tyson probably could have taken either of them in his prime and off his meds
Foreman, not Forman. I saw him in the Houston airport a couple decades ago. His fists were as big as Mann’s head.
Tyson worked through power yes, but fear also.. When he got hit he reacted very badly. Neither Ali or Foreman would have been afraid of Mike T. IMV
Muhammad Ali, “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.”
Since we are talking about Dr Mann, shouldn’t it be “Sting like a gadfly, float like a turd”?
I shook hand with Joe Frazier, I felt like a 10 year old shaking hands with an adult, my hand just disappeared in his.
Foreman, he’s the guy selling those grills, right? I heard he used to be a boxer. But he became a chef so he’d always have something cooking incase Tyson comes over for a bite. ^¿^
I am struck that it takes this much effort, expense, etc. to prove one measly weaselley graph in the entire world of climate psyience wrong, in a court of law, in the public space. A sad undertaking that should have never been necessary, but it speaks to the woeful culture of our times and not in a good way.
The “Hockeystick” was the proof of our sins.
Any criticism of the Hockeystick was proof that you were a scientifically illiterate redneck.
Mann was recorded by Scientific American in 2005 as stating that….
“For instance, skeptics often cite the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period as pieces of evidence not reflected in the hockey stick, yet these extremes are examples of regional, not global, phenomena. “From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there’s no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever,” Mann says. ”
Presumably Mann’s comments apply to papers like…………………………………..http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~blinsley/Dr._B._K_Linsley/Indonesia_&_Pacific_Intermediate_Water_files/Rosenthal.Linsley.Oppo%202013%20Pac.Ocean.Heat.pdf
Not “all criticism”, just uninformed criticism.
People doing the science have all found the hockeystick to be correct, by successfully replicating it using a variety of methods and data?:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig5-7.jpg
Some people’s fixation on the hockey stick is a little bit interesting…
Craig Thomas. Quite. I think it’s called “The Serengeti Strategy”.
Craig Thomas,
I have to assume that you have found how to explain away the upside down splicing in of the Tiljander series and the use of the only tree in another series to make the Hockey Stick work..
Mann’s Hockey Stick is a piece of fraudulent pseudo scientific fabrication that would not stand up to first pass venture capital due diligence scrutiny..
In the end serial liars are always caught out because they forget which lie they told to whom and when. Mann is a textbook case of this and your defense of him tells us more about you than you might realize.
Mann is toxic and the absence of amicus briefs in his support speaks volumes. He and Patchauri are two faces of the same coin..
Bait and switch, Thomas. The graph that everyone has had problems with were the ones that flatened out the hill at year 1000 and pretended that the Earth was at a static temperature.
Also, you are committing the same set of sins: spliciing a thermometer record onto proxy records. Proxies almost universally smooth out peaks, so of course you are going to have less extreme readings.
It takes this much time and expense just to rule on the anti-slap motion. DC justice.
“People doing the science have all found the hockeystick to be correct …”.
======================
That’s not a hockey stick, this is a hockeystick:
“All Mann are liars.”
Mann’s Hockeystick was the weapon used to beat the political agenda into a “panic now” mode.
Panic doesn’t last forever.
To use an American sports analogy. The Fear-mongers are now on Defence.
So the injured Offensive player isn’t the priority.
I am starting to feel almost sorry for Mann, as it seems clear he hasn’t a friend in the world or any scientific colleagues prepared to associate with him.
His used-to-be friends and colleagues seem to have come to realise that association with such a toxic, vindictive, individual is highly undesirable.
Tarred with ‘Association by Hockey Stick’, what a condemnation for any thinking individual!
Who gives a puck?
I wonder what Dr Richard Betts would say.
(Sorry, missed the “thinking individual!” bit. I wonder no more.)
Dame Julia does the thinking. Dr Betts does the bending over.
Mann under bus. Oh, dear …
Who in his right mind did ever believe that prepostuous curve?
I was going to give a list of all those who had been using using Mann’s curve, but then I remembered that you had specificied “in his right mind”.
Considering it has been replicated by numerous other researchers, I’m left wondering what your point is:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig5-7.jpg
Craig Thomas, None of those curves rise higher at the end than they did in the Medieval Warm Period.
They do not show unprecedented warming.
They are not ridiculous and they do not replicate Mann’s ridiculous curve.
Craig Thomas, do you know what a hockey stick looks like? The graph posted by you twice is NOT a hockey stick like shape. That is the point.
I rather enjoy when signature “Craig Thomas” ventures outside his usual comfort zones. It’s too bad though, that he never really tries to argue any pertinent point.
The meme ‘has been verified independently by many others’ is so ‘last decade’ and never had any traction at that time either.
I think he is a perfect example of the qualifier: “Who in his right mind ..”
Thomas, for a more comprehensive look at what the proxies do actually say i suggest-
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
there are far more studies that show the MWP was warmer than the current period-
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/qualitative.php
there are over 20 studies there that find the MWP cooler or near todays temps, but there are close to 90 that say the MWP was warmer, and in some cases, MUCH warmer. believe what you want, but the sks line of everyone else says the hockey stick it true too is utter garbage. they know, we know it, mann knows it, it seems we still have to see people regurgitating sks propaganda.
the sks trick is to redefine what the hockey stick is. they take it from the ipcc third assessment report –
and rehash it with some proxies from the same crappy data sets and cherry picked proxies. what is most annoying about the propaganda shots is the attempt to pin the intrumental data onto these proxies and then fudge the point of connection. first they should never present these two vastly different data sets as comparable, and second they should be clear about the problems with the tree rings. eg they cool in recent decades, not warm. in fact the story surround the hide the decline is an interesting one that should be read and understood before anyone makes comment on mann and co.-
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
if you understand that story and its implications, ie the context, then you would dump mann too.
Craig, you really don’t understand what you are defending, do you? Michael Mann’s famous graph looks nothing like that. Your graph clearly shows the medievial warm period and the little ice age. Some of the proxies even show the Dark age cold period too. Just eyeballing it, that looks reasonable (although you should know that proxies have a near-univeral smoothing, which eliminates peaks, so splicing temperature records onto proxies is extremely bad form).
The graph that we are complaining about was the one popularized in the IPCC 2001 report that denied the existence of these well known climate phenomena. To compare, here is the temperature record from the IPCC’s first report versus the third.
http://divi.gxrg.org/android/ipcc-hockey-stick-graph-i14.jpg
Craig, if you’re going to splice data from different sources then at least make sure they all have similar averaging. The late period temperatures need to done with at least 100yr averaging to match the other proxies. Plus, none of these graphs show much below the 0.0 line, whereas the Hockey Stick barely shows anything above 0.0. It’s practically flat at -.2 where your graphs show variations from +.4 to -.5 and even the grafted on recent temp measurements don’t go as high. Your graphs simply don’t tell the same story.
The descent of Mann… 😉
The art of war … Mann will be sacrificed to keep the war effort in train.
I always giggle when Mann, with his book ‘Me, the hockey stick warrior – dispatches from my own trench’ tries to picture/see himself as a soldier in that great war for a nobler cause, nobler than those fighting it on the ground.
Because there is really nothing noble at all about either the (C)AGW- so called -science, the corrupt politics and politicians, all those other agendas and NGO:s troughing for subsidies, cash and special regulations, or all those lazy churnolists looking for some alarm to rehash .. while hoping to pull this off some more years or another decade.
One reason for the ridicule is that these ‘warriors’ all are real cowards, who evade essentially every confrontation with their (quite willing) oppononets. Sneaky backstabbing, and maligning through the media is what they’d do. But standing their ground on a level field, hardly anybody even dares to think of.
Ther is nothing ‘warrior’ over Mann or any of the others! At best they can be called professional ‘worriers’ …
Minor correction: AFAIK Mann is not suing the National Enquirer, but he is suing National Review.
The most degrading thing for a scientist to sustain in life; is when colleagues take pity on you for losing your credibility as a person of science. Perhaps the next phase of this circus.
mann o mann o meter pop corn sales are up !
Mann’s deposition to the Court, you mean the comedy script his lawyers where mad enough to enter ?
Its not yet time for Mann to be checking out the axle types on the local bus, can you can hear the start of the swing that will lead to the throw that will find him under the bus .
The very best part will be seeing who lines up to kick him on the way down , has it will be by no means the case that it only be AGW sceptics. Has Mann has but much time and effort into rubbing up lots on his own side through his galaxy sized ego. Could not happen soon enough nor to a ‘nicer’ person .
Michael Mann is symptomatic of general problem in the Church Carbontology – which is a constant parade of losers appearing in The Movement, yet an inability to cut said Movement losers loose.
Examples abound. Peter Gleick has been removed from exposure to the lay public after all his lying and forging, but is still anointed and talks to other priests. Al Gore sold his progressive TV station to an Arab oil sheikdom, with zero Carbontology criticism much less ostracism. What does it take to get defrocked? John Beale is one, but only after the most bizarre fraud and criminal conviction that miraculously left entire EPA culturally and politically intact. If Pachuari was under criminal investigation for anything less PC than sexually harassing his third-world employees, he’d still have a ‘job.’
Such baggage, like CO2, builds up to suffocating levels over time.
But what can Carbontologists do? To repudiate one priest means cutting one thread of Carbontology’s patchwork and co-dependent liturgy. And Mann is a Carbontology A-lister with his contribution of hockey sticks and tree rings; he’s both a Carbon Saint and Martyr.
I love that post. I’ve been a religious skeptic for a long time and have argued religion with plenty of true believers. Climate “science” is full of true believers.
The contemporary university is the modern church with its own dogma.
The only reason their faith gets such a pass is because they omit the word “God” from their commandments.
It’s especially infuriating that we’re all made to tithe to these churches through taxes. It’s just like old Europe.
Too bad that the term “Scientology” is already taken, because it’s a perfect fit for Climastrologists and others who follow a Lefty, elitist view that they are “on the side of Science” just because the Believe in The Cause.
Well said! The problem is that mentioning “mann” and “movement” together brings to mind the “movement” that produces such a turd as “mann”. hint… begins with “b” and ends with “owel”
Cheers!
Joe
Well, I do feel – a little – sorry for this Mann-ish victim of a self-coordinated(?) hit and run.
He apparently assumed that all who verbally patted his back, in good times, would support him in slightly rougher seas.
If the prevailing wind changes – guess what – – a significant difference in support.
Guess what . . . . . . . .
Auto
It’s less Mann on trial here than American justice.
Mann’s not on trial at all – Mark Steyn is.
You should really do a bit more research before making more statements concerning the court case. Hint search for information concerning someone being counter-sued by Steyn.
Have you never heard of Oscar Wilde?
actually they both are….you should read a bit more.
as I just said above, I always enjoy ‘Craig Thomas’ attempts
😉
January 17, 2004
The IPCC (and CSIRO) relied heavily on the Mann paper in coming to their global warming conclusions.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/16/1073878029212.html
Yes, if Mann goes down as a fraud, the knock on effects will be hilarious. Some hasty rewriting of history may be required.
Worse: try Mass v EPA…the damage that ruling is inflicting on an ongoing basis is beyond the pale. SCOTUS was lied to and yet the damage being inflicted continues.
Steyn says it’s 3 years now. Mann has yet to respond to Steyn’s discovery requests and has everyone locked up in motions and appeals. Mann has no intention of seeing the trial through and Steyn himself realizes that “the process is [his] punishment.” Mann cannot afford to submit to document requests and then questioning by Steyn He may be forced to fold, but only after a few more years and a few more millions lost by Steyn. In the meantime, Mann is not paying for his lawsuit and if CEI or National Review settle for peanuts, Mann will try to claim victory and walk away.
Mann must not be allowed to fold except in a way that fully upholds Steyn’s “tree ring circus” post. In other words, Mann must be publicly shown being forced to fold or lose at trial. Only Steyn has counter claimed and in position to do either.
This is an extreme sacrifice on Seyn’s part. He has little or nothing to gain and can’t back out. Not only skeptics, but scientists at large owe him a great deal of support and gratitude.
Steyn has filed a counter-suit. So even if Mann withdraws his original action, Steyn’s lawsuit can continue. Assuming of course that Steyn has money to pay his attorneys. You can help by buying something from his site here .
Alan, isn’t it true that apart from the counter-suit for $5m that he has an action claiming that Mann is trying to use the protracted process as a punishment method? There can be consequences from that independent of the countersuit.
Having waited and delayed for SO long, Mann can hardly say he was moving as speedily as possible. It is way too late for that. He has played it about as badly as possible from claiming he was a Nobel Prize winner to being unable to find support against Steyn in the climate science community.
Crispin:
I do not recall the exact grounds for Steyn’s counter-suit (and I have not read the filing in any case), but i believe you are correct. Steyn’s counter-suit claims Mann’s original suit was intended to suppress criticism rather than recover for a genuine injury.
I can’t comment on the prospects for Steyn’s action; I just wanted to point out that Mann can’t simply wait until the day before trial on his original suit and then withdraw it and walk away.
My model projections tell me that lawyers will make money an an unprecedented rate.
Thanks Denialist. I am going to love my new T-shirt!
I donated a $100 to Steyn’s legal fund. Everyone, if they can should do the same or whatever you can afford. Just go to his site.
Don’t forget all the AGU membership dues laundered over the “Climate Scientist Defense Fund”, that AGU gets a Double-Tax right-off from Uncle Sam and funneled to Mann’s bank account by cash transfer, in pesos.
Ha ha
I’m pretty sure it’s National Review, not National Inquirer.