Michael Mann forced into a "do-over" in Mann -vs- CEI & Steyn

@ur momisugly wws — a valiant effort (and very close) for one whose main area of study is not law.
To clarify: “…trial court granted appellee’s motion to file his lodged amended complaint and docketed the amended complaint and appellants then filed new special mounts motions to dismiss, which remain pending.”
The appeal was essentially held not ripe, i.e., the appeals courts held that it did not have jurisdiction and it would be better for the new trial judge (Weisberg who replaced Judge Combs-Greene last summer) to rule on the Defendants’ (Steyn, et. al.) newest (or “special”) Motion to Dismiss (this is not an “appeal”) the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was denied by Combs-Greene last summer in an opinion using ludicrous reasoning, i.e., irrational on its face (yes, I read it). She then denied their Motion to Reconsider that ludicrously reasoned Dismissal (even when her blatant errors were carefully and thoroughly pointed out to her).
Unless Judge Weisberg is either a pro-AGW camp political tool OR dumb as a post OR psychotic (he is almost certainly not either of the second two options, and, from what I’ve read, he is a fair-minded man of integrity). Thus, unless Weisberg succumbs to threats (and hopefully there will be none) of serious harm to himself or those he cares about, Steyn and NRO are bound to win (yes, Mann’s case is that bad). That is, Judge Weisberg is highly likely to grant their pending Motion to Dismiss at which point: GAME OVER (at trial court level — next step = possible appeal by loser Mann).
I sure hope they get fees and costs, too (not likely — pretty difficult to prove a Complaint was “frivolous” or done solely to harass; this is in the law to encourage legitimate plaintiffs where the risk of not only losing their case but of also owing fees and costs to the defendant would prevent their seeking a remedy for a legitimate wrong done by the defendant). The harassment value alone of this lawsuit is despicable, though. Nothing can fully compensate Steyn et. al. for that. Steyn has the best attorneys that the United States has to offer, i.e., they are superb. Barring a crooked judge, in the end, they will win. Merry Christmas!

You failed to mention that the popcorn is Jolly Time.

This ruling gives Mann an excellent opportunity to stop this silliness and save face by blaming the judicial system for his decision.
I’m sure Penn State U officials will discretely suggest he drop the case as it’s awful PR for the university.
Dropping the case is the most logical decision, but who ever said Mann was logical?

TalentKeyHole Mole says December 23, 2013 at 8:35 pm
Mann first failure was his Ph.D. thesis, whom none of his professorial committee would sign.
…

???
The following is excerpted from: “The ascent of Mann” at Bishop Hill
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/5/14/the-ascent-of-mann.html

Mann’s resume shows:
“1998 Ph.D. Yale University, Department of Geology & Geophysics (defended 1996)”
What does “defended 1996” mean and why a 2 year delay?
May 14, 2010 at 10:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

An answer:

Mann was pretty busy after defending his thesis in 1996, and this often happens in practice that because of other pressing matters the final grant can be some years down the road. Most universities have a cut-off time, though: if the corrections are not done within, say, two years the whole PhD lapses, and I’ve known this happen with a friend who started work, got married, started a family etc etc, and then ran out of time to finish the corrections, so the whole PhD lapsed.
I can’t see that Mann’s PhD was rushed though. His first degree was in 1989, so from 1989 to 1998 he was doing a Masters, two MPhils and a PhD. That’s no fast track!
Remember, after 1996 he was busy concocting his hockey stick and presenting it, for example
Mann, M.E., Multi-Proxy based reconstructions of large-scale surface temperature patterns during the past several centuries, AGU Spring meeting, Baltimore MD, May 1997.
‘The Cross-Validation of Proxy Climate Data and the Instrumental Record’, Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington, Seattle, Jun 23-25, 1997.
Co-convener/organizer, theme session “Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction…”, Annual Fall meeting, American Geophysical Union, 1997.
Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K, Northern Hemisphere Temperature During the Past Half-Millenium: Implications for External Forcing and Natural Variability of the Climate, AGU Fall meeting, San Francisco, CA, December, 1997.
Of course, he was being funded for all this, quite apart from his academic salary:
1996-1999 Patterns of Organized Climatic Variability: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Globally
Distributed Climate Proxy Records and Long-term Model Integrations, NSF-Earth
Systems History [Principal Investigator: R.S. Bradley (U. Mass); Co-Investigators: M.E.
Mann, M.K. Hughes] $270,000
1996-1998 Investigation of Patterns of Organized Large-Scale Climatic Variability During the Last Millennium, DOE, Alexander Hollaender Postdoctoral Fellowship [M.E. Mann] $78,000
A tidy little earner that was.
His meteoric rise in the IPCC process, however, is unseemly, especially when the final printed Mann, Bradley and Hughes paper that came out in 1998 was so evidently corrupt and a travesty of science. To think he taught courses in ‘Data Analysis and Climate Change’ at the universities of Massachusetts and Virginia, and ‘Statistical Climatology’ at University of Virginia after cooking the books in his papers is pretty creepy.
May 14, 2010 at 11:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterScientistForTruth